I recently watched a DEBATE between renowned 'atheist' Christopher Hitchens and (the rather 'chosen' looking) Christian 'apologist' William Lane Craig. The debate took place at the Biola College, an evangelical Christian university, near Los Angeles California.
Although this Craig fellow used the same old 'creationist' trick of posing a series of unanswerable questions about the cosmos and declaring that this is a good reason to believe in the Jewish Bible and its super-spook, Yahweh, he certainly showed Hitchens to be, yet again, well out of his depth intellectually.
For one thing is certain, Hitchens is no scientist and can hardly be regarded as an academic. As one commentator correctly remarked, he is just a loudmouthed journalist. He is a man who, when the chips are down, relies purely on his rhetorical skills. It is yet another example where this rather piggish looking alcoholic is whipped by his opponent. So much for the 'unchallenged intellect'.
For at least this Craig fellow appeared to have an idea what he was talking about, although so proficient was he with his - rather questionable and irritating - verbiage that one couldn't help but get the impression that it was indeed well rehearsed. He so eloquently argued for a religious belief system that is quite clearly primitive and has no place in a world that is *supposedly* striving towards progress.
However, one got the impression that this entire debate was utterly pointless, as to believe in the worldview of either one or the other - with the ideology propounded by both speakers - would certainly not be conducive towards the progress of humanity. We would still be on the road to genetic degradation and oblivion. Both world views - Christianity and Marxist-humanism - are 'chosen' to the core. In fact, both speakers in this debate practically are 'chosen': Hitchens a proud mischling and Craig having the 'chosen' tribe written all over his face.