Some of the theist v atheist debates I've seen usually involve a theist entirely on the defense, and an atheist entirely on the offense. If that's the way the debate is set up, there's no way for the theist to come out looking good. It's along the lines of a creationist v darwinist debate, except the entire conversation is pointing out flaws and lack of evidence/discovery with regards to evolution, and critiques of creationism never come up.

I just watched the video of his debate with Christopher Hitchens, held a week ago at Georgetown University, and I can fairly say that Hitchens mopped the floor with McGrath.
Questions for the theists at Telic Thoughts: Do you agree with my assessment of McGrath's skills? If so, who would you rather see representing the theistic position in these debates?

I clicked on your link and saw the debate was almost two hours long. Needless to say, I'd have to save it for a very rainy day. But I did see the first few seconds, where the moderator lays out the debate: Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World

I also see that activist PZ Myers summarized the debate. Of course, we can't expect him to be objective, but if it did indeed go like this…..

The debate between Hitchens and McGrath is well worth listening to. Hitchens is cogent and sharp; he makes exactly the same points about the fundamental immorality of religion that he made at the FFRF convention, but in less time, and with fewer distracting digressions. He's on fire. Of course, he also doesn't get sucked into anti-Islamic fervor, but addresses the deplorable universal qualities of religion.

McGrath is simply awful. This is his argument in summary:

I was an atheist once, but I got better
Being religious has health benefits
It's the fringe fanatics that give religion a bad name
Here, I have some tedious praise for Jesus that you've all heard before

It's dreadful laid out like that, but it's worse hearing him plummily drone on about it all. Even worse, Hitchens specifically asked him to state his beliefs "” does he truly believe that a human sacrifice two thousand years ago relieves him of certain moral responsibilities? "” and he doesn't touch that one. All he had to offer was murky blathering.

Hitchens asked some clearly worded questions about the meaning of the central events of Christianity, and McGrath didn't answer any of them.

…then it sounds like Hitchens didn't stay on-topic. So what's the poison?

Information, thought recorded on matter, always exists for the sake of something else, some goal or end.-E. Peterson

I wish McGrath had directly challenged Hitchens more, instead of defending himself. Maybe someone like Peter Kreeft would be a better choice for this kind of thing; though I doubt Hitch would care (or dare) to face him.

I just watched the video of his debate with Christopher Hitchens, held a week ago at Georgetown University, and I can fairly say that Hitchens mopped the floor with McGrath.

Questions for the theists at Telic Thoughts: Do you agree with my assessment of McGrath's skills? If so, who would you rather see representing the theistic position in these debates?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...

Standing upright is not the result of hominids moving to the savanna after all. It seems that our ancestors were bipedal before they ever left the trees.

[Incidentally, there is another signal used by an elite few. Right hand two fingers, left hand five fingers means "I shelled out 25 bucks, did you?"]

Love you, Mike! :smile:(wink, wink, secret signal)

that is my blog about the famous pharaohs of ancient egypt , here you can read about ancient egyptians and the most famous pharaohs and there deeds like the pyramids, temples, tombs and more

http://famouspharaohs.blogspot...

also you can find info about the races which invaded ancient Egypt like Hyksos and persians …..

http://www.gatesofegypt.blogsp...