I'm beyond excitement, this is going to be an absolutely superb debate. I, like Christopher, harbour a deep amount of respect for Tony Blair. But I don't have much time for Blair's views on religion, but in saying that, Tony does seem much more rational about religion than the hyperbole surrounding the issue would suggest.

Either way, two of my most admired orators facing off should be something to remember.

I'd really like to see Hitch debate Vox Day — whose "The Irrational Atheist" (download link: http://irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html) is one of the most astonishing dissections of the Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris triumvirate I've read. When Hitchens debates philosophers (e.g. the Craig/Hitchens debate), he tends to get a spanking; Blair's a rhetorician, so it's even money.

@ Danielle — "nobody can be rational about religion". Ah, you poor, wee, poorly read fool. Wander off to your local library and pick up a copy of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and have a read. It's only 800 pages, so an intellectual giant like you will get through it in an hour or so, eh? Then come back here and post a two sentence rebuttal — shouldn't be hard, it's all "irrational".

Anybody who claims religion is "irrational" is a foolish child. To say it's wrong is fine — that's a valid argument. But irrational? Please, grow up.

Nathaniel:
Blair, rational about religion?
This debate is a non starter.The atheist Hitchen will use his reason to argue, the religious Blair will use... his faith, which has no "reasonable" basis, by definition. No one can be rational about religion, it is a contradiction in terms, and there is, I'm afraid very little debate to be had between some one who does not believe there is a sky god and some one who does.

I don't see Tony Blair as a defender of orthodox Christianity. Instead he seems to have an airy-fairy belief in "faith" and a disturbing preoccupation with making money.

Keep going Hitch, looking forward
to the debate with the
Clinton-Bush-Lap-Dog

Yuka, that was random.

It also appears that nobody has actually read what the title of the debate is.

It's "Is religion a force for peace or conflict in the modern world?", not "Does God exist?"

Also, people need to start actually listening to what Tony Blair actually says, rather than deciding what he says before he actually says it.

The elephant in the room will be Blair telling lies to go to war against Iraq when there were no Al Qaeda in Saddam's Iraq, but his "Christian conscience is clear" about the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis.

Why is he even being asked to debate this question? It's like asking a arsonist if burning down buildings is a peaceful or destructive act.

Nathaniel:
Point taken about the subject of the debate. But I can still predict what Blair's take is going to be on that one. I've heard it all before. It is human beings who create the conflicts, not religion..choice between good and evil...religion being used as an excuse...bla bla..
my take is that of course, religion is a cause of conflict in the world in the sense that it creates yet another way for people to identify themselves as "different", that is in addition to race , culture or social class. The added nature of that difference is that every religion claims to be the "true religion" and any one not practising is therefore an infidel, an heretic or an enemy. Intolerance is inherent to religious beliefs, therefore it follows that religion is a sure way to divide people and make them hate each other.Northern Ireland is a good example of that. Without religion to make those Irish people hate each other so much, the historical conflict would have died down long ago as no one would have remembered if their family was native from Ireland or had come from England or Scotland and were therefore from the clan of the oppressors.They would have just been Irish people. History, painful bloody history is often kept alive by the preservation of religious identity.
Without religion there would have been none of the more recent conflicts in Northern Ireland.
"Imagine there's no religion..."

Hopefully this will be something more of a match than the when Christopher Hitchens debates with Anne Widdecombe on a similar topic. That was simply embarrassing.

Hopefully Hitchens will point out the Blair family's use of 'BioElectric Shields' otherwise known as new-age-mumbo-jumbo, which contradicts Blair's apparent Christian faith. You can have faith in anything - doesn't mean it's right or that it's real.

Is Tony getting paid for this and, will he follow the Rt Hon Anne Widdecombe into Strictly?
Anne should bow out, now, with dignity. She's made her point: That elderly plumb women are entitled to dance just like the rest of us. However, Strictly is a competetive game and only the very best can go onto win.

Personally I'm delighted that no Christians or Muslims made any headway in the Labour leadership election.

This contrasts to David Cameron who is, unfortunately, a Christian.

Even the treacherous Clegg is an atheist. So finally Christianity and the naive idiots that promote it are losing a grip on national politics - for 2 out of 3 main party leaders to be clearcut atheists is long overdue.

Today I heard Peter and Christopher Hitchens interviewed on National Public Radio in the USA, regarding the subject of atheism. Citing the human conscience as being evidence of the existence of "God," Peter said that it could only have come from a higher power. Here is why he is mistaken: The human conscience is a form of instinct, which has developed phylogenetically over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Like other phylogenetic behaviors, such as hunting or mating patterns (which do not have to be learned), we also have certain phylogenetic moral behavior. Though based in fallacy, even religious belief is phylogenetic. As primitive Man's intellect progressed he developed the ability to contemplate the eventuality of his own death, which set up a psychological conflict with his basic survival instinct not to die. In resolution of the psychological discomfort caused by the dilemma, Man created the "afterlife" scenario - along with gods (usually fashioned in Man's likeness with similar human behavioral flaws) and spirits as explanations for natural phenomenon Man was unable to understand. Though we have progressed beyond many primitive ignorances, religious belief still resides in our psyche as a phylogenetic behavior pattern.

Obie R. Silverwood

So how disappointed will you lot be when the atheist leaves the stage bereft of clothing and arguments?

March 2002
43 Humanist Philosophers signed and sent a letter to Mr.Blair deploring the teaching of Creationism in schools saying it was nothing but myths. When the truth is the Father is in a Cell and the Son has been released. So what legal requirements can they make to stop us from speaking the Facts can speak for itself, All of Egypt(Kemet)Gods Great Eye is open.