Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
Got thru Blair's bland arguments unmoved until he asserted that Eistein believed in a supreme being, cherry picking an Einstien quote that seems to support it.There are two possabilities here:A: He knows better but lied, tossing it among unchallengable closing remarks.B: Reveals a lever of inattion or denial of facts at best, stupidity at worst.Either way, it's unnverving that people with these attributes can govern "advanced" countries (outside of the US).
<p><span><span>Got thru Blair's bland arguments unmoved until he asserted that Einstein believed in a supreme being, cherry picking an Einstein quote that seems to support it. </span></span><span><span>There are two possibilities here: </span><span>A: He knows better but lied, tossing it among unchallengeable closing remarks. </span><span>B: Reveals a lever of inattion or denial of facts at best, stupidity at worst. </span><span>Either way, it's unnerving that people with these attributes can govern "advanced" countries (outside of the US).</span></span><span></span></p>
Was this really supposed to be a challenge for The Hitch?
You'll see Blair has already put his version of the event up on his website..http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/newsroom/entry/tony-blair-speaks-up-for-people-of-faith/..minus the result!
Hours well spent, thanks for putting it up!
Blair seemed tired (under the weather and a bit hoarse?) and on unfamiliar ground against the practiced Hitchens. Hitchens just has too many arrows in his quiver, too many rebuttles ready, for Blair to be able to contend.That said and keeping in mind that Hitch decimated Blair, it was refreshing to hear Blair just speak from experience rather than hashing out the canned, silly arguments put forth by most religious zealots. Blair ceaded a lot of ground.
I agree that Blair gave ground (as Hitchens noted partway through) so much so that I began to wonder about his experience of religion. It began to take on the appearance of something akin to a comfort blanket which he was seeking to manipulate, as a politician, to suit his own convictions. At every point he avoided an appeal to scripture (knowing that it would be defeated many times over?) - this makes me wonder ... what is left of religion once the scripture is superceded? I think it becomes a company with a re-writable constitution.
....it was refreshing to hear Blair just speak from experience....I dunno. I was hoping for a debate.
<span>....it was refreshing to hear Blair just speak from experience..? I dunno. I was hoping for a debate.</span>
Clearly this topic isn't Blair's specialty. Nevertheless, since he seemed to put forth weaker propositions than most of Hitchens' usual opponents, it seemed to me that he was better able to defend them. Blair did cede a lot of ground, but what ground he attempted to hold, I feel like he held it a lot better than the usual suspects that Hitchens debates.
I long for a debate that discusses the psychological impact of religion on its followers and the psychology of those who when exposed to religious ideas feel compelled to acts of extreme devotion, sacrifice or adherence.
As Hitch pointed out, the kind of religion that Blair would argue for is reduced to: no miracles, no scripture, no dogma, ....What's left but folklore, theatre, ritual, and a sing-along?
I'm gonna watch it again. Maybe I missed something. I recall no real position staked out, let alone defended.
where can i find the results of the debate?
I read that the final count was roughly 2-1 in favor of Hitchens, but the blurb didn't include any other statistics.
Mr. Blair debated the issue using his political skills and thinking of religion as politics. Once a candidate loses elections, he/she comes back to talk about unity to serve the entire country. No religion can stand as unique if it does not claim absolute truth. It is illogical to make such a claim, therefore, no religion should be exclusive. Once it loses its exclussivity, then it loses its essence. Only a refined humanism does have the power to bring about salvation to the human race. The three monotheistic religions claim to have the formula to be with god or know this god. Humanisim is God since it embraces entire human race. Following any religion in this manner - heaven and hell and salvation via the cross or works or saints- disables the function of the mind. Faith is to surrender a right we have aquired as a result of hard work - science and research. If you can love all people and do not condemn people who differ with you in matters of the belief in the supernatural, then you have a good religion - called true humanism. Blair is a corrupt politician who brought disaster to his people and entire human family. Blair is a liar. If that is a reflection of his faith, I think he is a follower of the wrong path.
Just another necessary step in the excruciatingly slow process of evolution. Greek Gods had their role... Governments are slowly superceeding religion. Eventually humanitarian code will be all that is required....Sadly I won't be around to see it, but if we don't kill the planet first, I have 'faith' that it will eventually happen.