Well, Craig has debated Hitchens, as well as Richard Carrier. You could find the Hitchens debate on Youtube, but I'm not sure you still can as the person who uploaded it had their account suspended or something.
How was the debate with Richard Carrier. He debated alongside Dan Barker with Hassanain Rajabali and Michael Corey. Have a search on Youtube. Actually, I posted those debates on here if you have not seen them already. The topic was called, "Does God Not Exist?"
Anyway, Hitchens got his ass handed to him, and I say that as someone who likes him. He just doesn't deal with the issues, he simply tries to dance around them.
The thing is, all those arguments (ontological, teleological and cosmological) have been refuted many times since David Hume and Immanuel Kant. I know that Hitchens is a philosophy graduate and should have been well aware of the refutations and could have dealt them out.
And no, quite the opposite. Craig or his people contacted Dawkins and asked him to debate Craig while he was in the UK, and Dawkins simply replied with some crap about not debating someone who isn't at least a bishop. Which is funny because he debated John Lennox, who is a mathematician, not a cleric, several times.
This would have been a great opportunity for Dawkins to have debated someone who really is credible. WCG isn't like a southern baptist minister who can be knocked over with the slightest breath. It's this guys job to prove the existence of God.
And yes. Hitchens book is an argument against the stupidity that's often caused or exacerbated by religion.
But it's interesting. It may be that Hitchens simply doesn't care about disproving the existence of a god per se. I noticed that in the Turek debate he said, correctly, that none of the arguments Turek gave could prove theism, and more specifically Christian theism, to be true.
Hitchens is, after all, an 'antitheist,' not an atheist as such. I doubt he'd care if Deism turned out to be true, and so as long as theists only offer arguments that support the existence of a god, rather than a theistic god, it may simply be that he doesn't care about refuting them.
Yep, those arguments at a push can only show a rather indifferent deist god. The irony of all these arguments is that they can be placed under the belief system of any religion with a godhead, but what does that prove?
It could be possible that Hitch let's out a quiet sigh of bewilderment when these arguments are presented and doesn't want to exert the effort.
Topic: Christopher Hitchens in Conversation: The Only Subject is Love