Sign in with Facebook
Loading...
Hitchens Vs Blair. Christopher Hitchens, Tony Blair
On 26 November 2010, intellectual juggernaut and staunch atheist Christopher Hitchens went head-to-head with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of the western world's most openly devout political leaders, on the highly charged topic of religion. Few world leaders have had a greater hand in shaping current events than Blair; few writers have been more outspoken a...more
Mass Market Paperback, 82 pages
Published
2011
by Black Swan Books, Limited
Friend Reviews
To see what your friends thought of this book,
please sign up.
This book is not yet featured on Listopia.
Add this book to your favorite list »
Community Reviews
(showing
1-30
of
343)
Ah, epic debate. Here is the full video.
But Stephen Fry & Hitchens vs the Catholics is actually my favorite.
Hitchens, A.C. Grayling, & Dawkins is my second favorite, easily. Teaming those three giants against any combination of religious fundies could have only one ending. Sweet, sweet annihilation.
But Stephen Fry & Hitchens vs the Catholics is actually my favorite.
Hitchens, A.C. Grayling, & Dawkins is my second favorite, easily. Teaming those three giants against any combination of religious fundies could have only one ending. Sweet, sweet annihilation.
Hitchens won, no surprises there.
Blair argues that faith inspires people to do good.
He forgets to mention that religion more often, and to a worse degree, inspires people to do bad.
In any case, faith is the acceptance of a proposition with no evidence.
This is simply dangerous, foolish, and a bad idea.
Nothing so unsafe as religious faith can be a force for good.
Blair mentions charitable and good acts by religious peoples.
He claims these acts are inspired by religious faith.
I say these acts were t...more
Blair argues that faith inspires people to do good.
He forgets to mention that religion more often, and to a worse degree, inspires people to do bad.
In any case, faith is the acceptance of a proposition with no evidence.
This is simply dangerous, foolish, and a bad idea.
Nothing so unsafe as religious faith can be a force for good.
Blair mentions charitable and good acts by religious peoples.
He claims these acts are inspired by religious faith.
I say these acts were t...more
4 likes · like · see review
As if there were even a chance that Hitchens could lose.
Because the debate itself is so short, neither side presents any seriously new argument. Hitchens claims that religion can corrupt otherwise good individuals, and that good deeds do not need the threat of a tyrannical god to justify their goodness, and that any serious adherence to a religious faith (as distinct from the adherence to a set of secular humanist values and semi-regular church attendance that Blair seems to consider religion) i...more
Because the debate itself is so short, neither side presents any seriously new argument. Hitchens claims that religion can corrupt otherwise good individuals, and that good deeds do not need the threat of a tyrannical god to justify their goodness, and that any serious adherence to a religious faith (as distinct from the adherence to a set of secular humanist values and semi-regular church attendance that Blair seems to consider religion) i...more
I watched this debate on YouTube a while after it happened last winter and was, as usual, impressed with Hitchens' eloquence, delivery of arguments and quickness to respond to questions and challenges on the spot. Blair's contributions are less impressive in both style and content, with his constant and annoying insistence that the faults of religion are somehow not intrinsic to it or logical consequences of it (something with which I do not agree) as well as the obvious point that religion does...more
3 likes · like · see review
I actually did not read this book since I watched the video of the debate and have it on my iPhone. It's a good debate and one has to be impressed by Hitchens' great wit and unbending resolve in the face of a deadly illness. It's certainly not the best Hitchens debate, which I blame Blair for, but well worth the read (or view). I say I blame Blair simply because, while he is charismatic and likable, his position is pretty weak and offers no heat to the debate. I'm also perplexed as to why he wou...more
Given the parameters of the debate, "religion is a force for good", its fairly easy for Blair to score his win. All he had to do is give examples where religion does act as a force for good and that he does. So on the surface, Blair wins his point quite easily BUT when evaluating the debate with greater complexity its quite clear Hitchen's is correct -- the claim to exclusive truth makes religion a poisonous force in the world. Secondly, Blair needs to prove that good works done by people are so...more
Subtitled "Be it resolved that religion is a force for good in the world." Interesting debate but nothing spectacular. I was hoping to be enlightened. Nope. They both conceded that religion, good or bad, is here to stay and we'll just have to live with it one way or another. That doesn't speak at all to the central question of whether religion, be it here or gone, is basically a good thing. Both participants were eloquent, respectful and never stooped to personal attacks. If I had to choose side...more
The Munk Debate on religion pits the late, great Christopher Hitchens, Intellectual Extraordinaire, versus former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in a “No God is Better Than Yo’ God” verbal throw down. At the center is the proposition – ‘Be it resolved religion is a force for good in the world’ with the polite Billy Elliot of politics in the ‘for’, and the acerbic contrarian most decidedly in the ‘against’. What makes this work so intriguing is that it not only contains the transcript of an onstage...more
Another little book (I'm away for the weekend, and only have space for little ones) that's worth more than it weighs. The questions are important, and the opinions are impressive. I side with Hitchens, but loved hearing the debate; both men are/were smart and capable. More people should ask themselves these sorts of things, and if they don't, they should ask themselves why not. Very stimulating reading.
It was so exciting I couldn't put it down. As soon as I picked it up I had to finish. Hitchens made interesting points. But I thought Blair went around Hitchens' criticisms not addressing his points on faith requires believing in a supernatural being. Perhaps it was Blair's background in political debate which the moderator brought up in the beginning. I did come into this book with a bias.
In this lopsided engagement Hitchens is as deft, knowledgeable, and incisive as ever. Blair—unfortunately for the quality of the debate—makes the same tired point about religion's potential to inspire good as well as evil in every response. Munk could have chosen a better advocate of the case for religion, though perhaps none as famous.
I thought it was really interesting because I've heard many atheist arguments against religion throughout my schooling, but there were a few I hadn't heard in this book. Especially the argument that the way to eradicate poverty is to educate women and give them access to birth control.
Thought provoking. Hitchens makes his point clearly and almost faultlessly. While Blair does make the occasional point that may have some merit he ultimately speaks in loose terms around his conviction admitting there are a large degree of flaws in Religion.
Hitchens, an avowed Atheist, is a far better debater than Tony Blair - at least in matters of religion. Nevertheless, it's a very interesting read, and I feel like Mr. Blair did a stand-up job defending something that shouldn't need defending.
Beautifully argued, taking slices off Blair like an Olympic fencer practicing on a mannequin. Sadly never quite went for the jugular as suspect his mortality imbued a greater sense of humility than if had been a few years prior.
Jun 15, 2012
the review man
rated it
3 of 5 stars
·
review of another edition
Shelves:
religion-or-lack-thereof
Neither Hitchens' nor Blair's arguments are terribly persuasive here. Hitchens argues that religion is not a force for good in the world because of the bad things religion has been responsible for (think Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, etc.). I can't even remember the details of Blair's counterargument, but I recall it being weak.
I'm not sure I understand why Hitchens takes this stance; after all, couldn't the same argument be made against atheism—or for that matter any ideology?
It's a shame, rea...more
I'm not sure I understand why Hitchens takes this stance; after all, couldn't the same argument be made against atheism—or for that matter any ideology?
It's a shame, rea...more
2 likes · like · see review
This book loses a star because hitchens failed to point out to blair the difference between "because of religion" and "in spite of religion" it regains half a star for his genius opening statement about how religion causes intelligent people to say stupid things (ergo everything blair will say tonight)
Jan 06, 2013
Jude Bloom
rated it
4 of 5 stars
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
everyone
Shelves:
owned
Don't let the title fool you. It's not. It's one of the worst things ever. Hitchens decimates the affable Tony Blair explaining how and why.
A quick read. Not particularly meaty but some interesting points were made on both sides of this debate.
Well, I watched it anyway. It was embarrassing for Blair. Hitch's performance was as usual formidable.
Perhaps mankind's most crucial debate, between two of the world's most skillful debaters.
An entertaining video to be sure, but one can better appreciate the eloquence of the speakers in this transcript. Plus it comes with footnotes, supplying details I always crave from debates.
Everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Very, very brief, but engaging nonetheless.
An interesting book. It is the verbatim moderated debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair as to whether or not religion is a force for good in the world. Hitchens is very good, Blair's argument does little more than state that there are some people in the world that do good things in the name of religion. Only 75 pages, so quick read, I found it a bit anticlimactic.
Blair makes this exceedingly easy for his opponent. His brand of 'religion' has no hope against an intelligent Atheist like Hitchens. It takes a man like Doug Wilson (one totally unashamed of the full content of the Word of God and aware of the universality of presuppositions)to slay the Goliath of the new militant church of Atheism. Unlike Wilson, Blair never comes close to exposing how Hitchens stands on a Christian foundation crying loudly, 'There is no God, and I hate him!'
Poor.
Poor.
A friend saw the debate and enjoyed it; I bet hearing the debaters would be more interesting than reading their comments, though there is some good material here.
Excellent. Short. Christopher Hitchens is completely awesome and the world is a lesser place without him. I salute him!
Interesting debate but better seen and heard than read.
There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
Be the first to start one »
"Christopher Eric Hitchens (April 13, 1949 – December 15, 2011) was an English-born American author, journalist and literary critic. He was a contributor to Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Slate, Free Inquiry and a variety of other media outlets. Hitchens was also a political observer, whose best-selling books — the most famous being god Is Not Great — made him a staple of ta...more
More about Christopher Hitchens...
Share This Book
No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »
03 nov. 18:04