THIS is how a debate is done!

[dagon]

• Tweet

....both sides represented with an intelligent audience allowed the opportunity to ask pointed questions.  i won't spoil how it turns out but please, if anyone is going to comment , watch the WHOLE thing in subsequent links (included):

Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry versus The Catholics, 1 of 5

Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry versus The Catholics, 2 of 5

Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry versus The Catholics, 3 of 5

Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry versus The Catholics, 4 of 5

Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry versus The Catholics, 5 of 5

peace

[Velleity]

Thanks Dagon. I like Fry's dig at the "moral relativism" thing. I'll hold off comment until more people weigh in.

[JC]

Wow! Just absolutely wow. You cannot say that the Catholic Church made a good argument for or defended itself very well. And you cannot say that they did not have the proper opportunity either. The debate was very fairly moderated and the audience well behaved. Everyone on the panel had their fair shot.

 When Anne Widdecombe-who was like an ancient school marm and entirely out of touch- talks of 3,000 jews being rescued and stashed safely in the popes own palace(or wherever)...what about the 6,000,000 stashed in furnaces? The "state of our knowledge at the time" excuse was just that-an excuse. Along with the usual hope and salvation bullshit....rinse and repeat.

 I thought Hitchen's fear and love comment was brilliant. I felt like after all the atrocities and misdeeds about the church were mentioned, and not really challenged effectively at all, for the church to play the morality card, and also make the remark about ignorance was extremely arrogant. And of the money, lets never forget about the money because the church never does. I thought for the Archbishop to try the masterful dodge of saying the other side was "asking the wrong question' was bullshit. Just answer the fricking question that was asked. It's not up to the Arch Bishop to decide what the question is-just answer it.

 The one audience member who stated he hoped that the church would "reflect upon" the evening and debate/dialogue-if the church is the "one truth" it wouldn't need to reflect on anything-right?

I thought the Catholics made a very incredible weak sauce for their arguments, and many excuses, very little in way of truth or solutions and the audience after having a fair shot at being turned went even further against 'the one truth".

Decision: The Catholic Church is not a force of good in the world. Hitchens and Fry completely decimated the Arch Bishop and Widdecombe-hands down. Anyone who sees it different is on crack cocaine. Excellent debate. Well run and completely fair, I thought.

[SpaceCadet]

A wonderful debate!  The arch bishop actually swayed me a little initially with his beginning comments.  But in the end, it showed that the vast majority of intelligent people are able to see the Catholic Church for what it is, once the facts are laid out clearly.

[johnhp]

Great debate.

[Mornac]

....both sides represented with an intelligent audience allowed the opportunity to ask pointed questions.

--Indeed, the BBC has always had a better grasp of productive use of the media in many areas. The mainstream media in America could take a few lessons from this and maybe our pavlovian populace could actually learn how to think about issues rather than simply swallow the pre-chewed crap that’s fed to them

[Velleity]

--Indeed, the BBC has always had a better grasp of productive use of the media in many areas. The mainstream media in America could take a few lessons from this and maybe our pavlovian populace could actually learn how to think about issues rather than simply swallow the pre-chewed crap that’s fed to them

PBS does a good job too. Maybe the capitalist for profit model isn't always the best one?

Maybe you should put a little thought into how a private school system might work without having to compete with public schools.

[johnhp]

LOL.  Vell come on, this guy completely ignores the cover up of sexual abuse and its real causes.  Do you really think he is interested in reasoned debate?

[Velleity]

LOL.  Vell come on, this guy completely ignores the cover up of sexual abuse and its real causes.  Do you really think he is interested in reasoned debate?

I still like Mornac.

[Velleity]

I think Mornac is a true believer, thinking he has somehow been made the benefactor of revealed truth. IM has some of this in him too.

I don't agree that either is any such thing. They're both ordinary people caught up in their own mishugash, I think. But I like both of them.

No one has to agree with me and I certainly don't fancy myself to be the the benefactor of any revealed truth.

[johnhp]

I think Mornac is a true believer, thinking he has somehow been made the benefactor of revealed truth. IM has some of this in him too.

I don't agree that either is any such thing. They're both ordinary people caught up in their own mishugash, I think. But I like both of them.

No one has to agree with me and I certainly don't fancy myself to be the the benefactor of any revealed truth.

i disagree about Mornac's particular problem.  i think it is more about self control with truth as an afterthought.  Regardless, i do not think he can be excused for his position on priestly sexual abuse.

[IM2]

No vel, we all are revealed the truth. I am no more the benefactor of any revealed truth than you are. I simply state events based upon occurrences happening right now that were predicted and written in the bible long before the events came to pass.

I'd be a fool to claim what you said about me. I mean you claim to have some revelation of truth also vel. You use science as basis for your revelations. For example, the singularity.

[dagon]

No vel, we all are revealed the truth. I am no more the benefactor of any revealed truth than you are. I simply state events based upon occurrences happening right now that were predicted and written in the bible long before the events came to pass.

I'd be a fool to claim what you said about me. I mean you claim to have some revelation of truth also vel. You use science as basis for your revelations. For example, the singularity.

i don't mean to get into this too heavily but i'm still not clear on what you're talking about im.  " I simply state events based upon occurrences happening right now that were predicted and written in the bible long before the events came to pass."

which bible?  as i'm sure you know,  end-time events are not predicted in all iterations of the bible nor during all eras.  some might even say they were "inserted"....by men...

which events?  what is happening now that couldn't have been predicted by any one in any time who doesn't put a definite date on anything.  "there will wars and rumours of wars",  there's gonna be floods and earthquakes and stuff,  people are going to get sick at some point (plague).  every millenium has seen these prophecies come true.  if you're talking about something different, please explain.

so i ask again, which version of the bible are you referring to?  i'm not trying to be a smartass and you seem to be a genuinely intelligent guy so forgive me if i need a bit of clarification.  i am confused.

peace

[IM2]

No problem Dagon.

I am stating from what I have read in the King James, NIV, and other versions of the Bible.

which events?  what is happening now that couldn't have been predicted by any one in any time who doesn't put a definite date on anything.  "there will wars and rumours of wars",  there's gonna be floods and earthquakes and stuff,  people are going to get sick at some point (plague).  every millenium has seen these prophecies come true.  if you're talking about something different, please explain.

Actually every millenium has not seen such predictions come true. There is a reason why dates and times have not been given for Gods return. I don't want to argue about the existence of God with you, because I know there is a god. I have seen enough evidence to believe it. You on the other hand have not, or what you have seen you don't accept as evidence of any type of God. Not being critical of you because we all will see things differently.

Now dagon, the prediction was for an increase in the number of certain types of weather. Also there is no time  in mans history that we actually had the real capacity to destroy ourselves.

Except now.  And the books says that there will be a battle that occurs somewhere near Jerusalem whereby if not for gods intervention man would destroy himself.

[dagon]

No problem Dagon.

I am stating from what I have read in the King James, NIV, and other versions of the Bible.

Actually every millenium has not seen such predictions come true. There is a reason why dates and times have not been given for Gods return. I don't want to argue about the existence of God with you, because I know there is a god. I have seen enough evidence to believe it. You on the other hand have not, or what you have seen you don't accept as evidence of any type of God. Not being critical of you because we all will see things differently.

Now dagon, the prediction was for an increase in the number of certain types of weather. Also there is no time  in mans history that we actually had the real capacity to destroy ourselves.

Except now.  And the books says that there will be a battle that occurs somewhere near Jerusalem whereby if not for gods intervention man would destroy himself.

fair enough IM,  thanks for the response; although i really wish that you hadn't said the king james bible.  i'm sure john can weigh in WAY more authoritatively and eloquently than i can so i'll leave it at that.

thanks again for the response.

peace