Al is definately a better politician than a reverend.  I'm a bit disappointed that Hitchens didn't keep the conversation on the scriptures, which is what his book is all about.  Al dodged the bullets by concentrating on the literal meaning of the title alone.  It maybe should have be titled "Your God Is Not Great".  Mr. Sharpton may have been more willing to defend his personal interpretation of the divine in that case.  Ayaan couldn't even get it out of him, and understandably so.  I do believe Christians are ashamed of their faith in the scriptures, as much as they would deny that charge.  Mr. Sharpton's strongest arguement, I feel, was that wickedness couldn't exist with out a divine goodness.  He is simply, on faith, assuming divine origin.  He mistakenly removes these concepts, good and evil, from the human mind unfortunately.  Goodness and wickedness do infact exist, often side by side in every mind capable.  The yin yang is just a better metaphor than the external concepts like sin.  Other than that, I love listening to Hitchens.  I especially loved his observation that religions seem to teach that humans are the greatest idea ever and that the universe is here for us, while completely degrading our very natures.  That's really why religion is insane.

Sharpton's "god" was removed from human representatives, scriptures... what was left but the word itself? Hitchens should have called him on that incohrent bullshit.

Did the Rev seem at least a little bit disrespectful to anyone else? He made quite a bit of ad homine attacks on Hitchens actually.

Can anyone tell me why anyone, including Al Sharpton, still thinks Al Sharpton is relevent? Hitchens may as well have debated Ronald McDonald.

Thanks.  Good stuff!  Al held his own, and defined the debate perfectly.  He went straight for the teleological jugular.  Hitchens attacks literalism and fundamentalism.  Fine.  Bully for him.  But Sharpton is an...ahem..liberal.  A progressive.  He brings a whole different set of tools to the debate, which don't revolve around the reactionary defense of a crude, primitivistic absolutism.  He's a harder target.

This isn't like going after washed up child actors and street charlatans.  Perhaps that's why the RRS are so reluctant to engage with Christian progressives.  It's harder.

Sharpton didn't press Hitchens nearly as hard as he could have, mostly because Hitchens studiously avoided Sharpton's redefining of the debate.  This was wise...best to keep the focus on the book you're pitching.

  Progressives are harder to debate because the essence of a progressive faith is considerably less offensive to a rational mind.  If you're open to scientific insights, tolerant of others, and approach faith with a critical eye, you're a much harder target.  Fundamentalism is *easy* to assail.  With progressives, you've got to rely on ad hominem attacks and a reduction of faith to emotionalism and subjectivism.  That can work, but it's also refutable using the same tools of radical doubt that should define atheism.

 Have RRS folks ever attempted that kind of debate, to your knowledge?  I've looked for stuff on the podcasts, but can't find anything.

Actually, finding a meaningful teleology (a necessary prerequisite for a normative moral framework) in the absence of the absolute is harder than you think.  You can attempt it, but anyone willing to apply a little radical Cartesian doubt to your effort can mangle you nicely.  Hitchens didn't go there, not really.  That's not his schtick.