Hitchens' stuff is very standard. I don't see this being troublesome to Christians, or any other religious person, unless they are especially vulnerable to talented writing rather than good objections. In the end, even if religion does poison everything, that really doesn't imply anything about whether the propositions of any religion are true or false. You can't make an argument valid just by stating it in a more appealing way. Of course, nonreligious people, predisposed to a militant hatred and opposition of religion, will emotionally feed off of his book and, I would assume, be inspired by it.
Then again, this book is a production of the unholy trinity of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchins. It shouldn't be too surprising that all three books are little more than militant atheist propaganda. I'd prefer to see Christian philosophers of Craig's ability debate atheists of greater ability than Dawkins, Dennett or Hitchens, and in the area of religion, pretty much every atheist is of greater ability except, perhaps, in the area of being talented writers. Fortunately, Craig does debate the more gifted atheists.
