Christopher Hitchens on ABC Australia Q & A

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7


5 comments on “Christopher Hitchens on ABC Australia Q & A

  1. A fine discussion. Unfortunately, Mr. Hitchens, who was obviously the central figure in the show, was not allowed to cut to the chase and address the bottom line: the tragic, horrific silliness of fundmentalist religious belief. The others were allowed to steer the conversation around and around and around this central point.

  2. But as he always says, he trusts the judgement of the audience to see that for themselves. We have a program very similar to this in the UK called Question Time. He appeared on it alongside his Christian apologist of a simpering brother and Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens. It was what Christopher didn’t have to say that made him all the more entertaining. He’s very good at allowing the listener to make his point for him because he’s very good at cutting through the bullshit to tell you what religious people really do think about homosexuality, feminism, liberation theology and human rights.

  3. Pingback: Hitchens on Australia’s Q&A | The Good Atheist

  4. Mr Dawkins said:
    “The New Testament – you believe, if you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn’t think of a better way to forgive humanity’s sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

    “But the extreme is in the New Testament. I simply told you what is New Testament doctrine. That is St Paul’s view, which is accepted by Christianity. That’s why Christ came to earth, in order to atone for humanity’s sins. If it’s extreme, it’s not me that’s being extreme, it’s the new testament that’s being extreme.”

    “But I just stated it. I didn’t ridicule it. I simply stated it.”

    Unfortunately Mr Dawkins proposed ‘statement’ of the Christian position was entirely inadequate. If there was a capable Christian theologian there, Dawkins bluff would have been easily called.

    Douglas, in what way is Biblical Christianity ‘silly’? Not to mention tragic and horrific.

  5. Isaac, which Mr. Dawkins do you mean? Richard Dawkins isn’t in this video and there is no Dawkins in this discussion thread. Was that just a mistake? Do you mean Mr. Hitchens?

    On your question to Douglas, I’d be tempted to ask, which parts of the bible aren’t tragic and silly, but you’d only assume I either haven’t read it or that I am incapable of understanding it. Nothing could be further from the truth. So, I ask you, how is the slaughtering of the innocents not tragic? Or the repeated requests of Jesus, at the last supper, for him to tell the apostles where he is going, which are met by a refusal to disclose, only moments before Jesus asking them in return why none of them ask where he is going. How is that not silly? How is that not a blatant and easily spotted example of what happens when you revise a text so many times, over such a long period of time, how mistakes, deliberate and accidental, can slip into a tome you nevertheless maintain to be the infallible and unaltered word of god?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s