[localfox1000]

loved this debate!
Hitchens, despite being unwell ,was hitchslapping Tony time and time again.

Tony blair had ONE argument which he repeated most of the night- [Ok so religion has been a part of bad things, but it can also be source of good]- I' paraphrasing.

The debate can be found on Youtube, if anyone is interested.

[yawn]

(Original post by localfox1000)
loved this debate!
Hitchens, despite being unwell ,was hitchslapping Tony time and time again.

Tony blair had ONE argument which he repeated most of the night- [Ok so religion has been a part of bad things, but it can also be source of good]- I' paraphrasing.

The debate can be found on Youtube, if anyone is interested.

The reason why Tony Blair had to labour this point is because Hitchens ALWAYS uses the same argument, employing emotive and sensationalist language which most human beings are very susceptible too....including yourself, apparently.

[localfox1000]

(Original post by yawn)
The reason why Tony Blair had to labour this point is because Hitchens ALWAYS uses the same argument, employing emotive and sensationalist language which most human beings are very susceptible too....including yourself, apparently.

How was it just ONE argument?
Hitchens gave different reasons why religion is a source of bad in the world.

And look,putting beside his emotional and sensational language, he was making good rational arguments which Blair, couldn't counter with enough reason.

Also I think its very hard for a religious intellectual to win a rational argument with an athiest intellectual because the basis of religion is faith without evidence.
Do you agree?

[yawn]

(Original post by localfox1000)
How was it just ONE argument?
Hitchens gave different reasons why religion is a source of bad in the world.

And look,putting beside his emotional and sensational language, he was making good rational arguments which Blair, couldn't counter with enough reason.

Also I think its very hard for a religious intellectual to win a rational argument with an athiest intellectual because the basis of religion is faith without evidence.
Do you agree?

How long has the 'problem of evil' being a problem? At least since the times of Epicurus.

When you have human nature which is susceptible to evil, you will have human beings with the potential for evil, irregardless of religion.

Why do you think Hitchens labours the point...precisely because no one can 'win' the debate which is why he descends to emotive language as a means of persuading his audience. It's a tired stance that has been overplayed ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Does God Exist is another argument that cannot be won by either side of the debate. Have a look at some of the threads that have debated it on TSR. And inicidentally, faith without evidence is something that is shared in common with those who believe in God and those who place their belief in science. Neither have the assurety of definitive proof.