I've tried to jazz up the conflict a bit and take apart each argument and analyze them. Aside from the shameful attempt at publicizing my blog, is there anything to be learned from comparing the two arguments? Specifically, are certain arguments so old as to be useless in the discussion about God's existence (the presence of evil, religious people do bad things, I believe just because, etc).
Hitchens and many atheists seem to feel mankind as a species has evolved to the point that we need to give up silly superstitious beliefs and walk with full vision into our future. Relgious folk such as Gerson seem to feel that such talk is hardly new, is hardly more evolved, and lacks substance. Has the argument evolved? Granted, simple superstitions such as Gods causing eclipses and thunder storms have long since passed for most humans, but many educated and intelligent people believe in something outside their own cosmos. Is the evolution of God into more obscure parts of our science a sign that God is almost dead? Or are we beginning to realize that the concept of God is simply a concept of anything outside our understanding — something that will always remain outside our reach? It's the weekend, and it's time for some Epistemology Smackdown for Nerds. I've got twenty bucks on Hitch!"