Treat from the debate between Hitchens and Wilson

[forrestschaeffer]

To say that faith in reason is the same as faith in the bible is ridiculous. I can't believe he even made that statement.

[nynevergoingback]

Conclusion: NEVER buy Douglas Wilson's logic textbook.

[MRGV7373]

How can dispute what has been witnessed by millions of people? Davine information is not with held to Hitchens. He just does not want to take the history of Jesus and believe it. God and Jesus defy logic. The power of God defies human understanding. How and why God does what He does is beyond human understanding. That is why faith is the only way to find God. Not blind faith. Real faith see what has happened in the world and can only decide that God is the origin. Hitch has no faith...

[HarrynJessie]

@MRGV7373 Then how can one claim to know the mind of God, and use him as a basis for morality if, by definition, "the power of God defies human understanding"? Furthermore, if there is no evidence to support belief then it is, by definition, blind faith. If you "see what has happened in the world and can only decide that God is the origin", then you're using evidence to support a belief and, hence, the belief is not faith-based. Therefore, the question is: what is your evidence?

[MRGV7373]

@HarrynJessie One can know the mind of God by listening, study and reading what I would say is God's word in the bible, and prayer. The Power and Mind of God can also be seen but never fully understood since the human mind has limits.

[HarrynJessie]

@MRGV7373 so the power of God defies human understanding and, yet, it is possible to understand God, at least to some limited extent, by studying the Bible, via prayer etc. It seems to me that this is a logically irreconcilable statement. Nonetheless, if you admit that God can be "never fully understood" then how can any religious person ever claim to know right from wrong and, further, ask or demand others to subscribe to God's will too?

[MRGV7373]

@HarrynJessie The power of the universe is not fully understood by any human but we can see it exist, estimate it size, know the obits of our planets. We can know a lot about something but not fully understand something. Humans do it all the time. So we can not fully understand God, but we can know right and wrong, truth and lies. Humans have some very clear understanding of God and what God wants for us. But humans have very little full understanding of God in total. Small amounts is all.

[MRGV7373]

Hitchens thinks that we would be automatons if we knew God in any detail or personal way. That is just pure bull. I have been married to a wonderful person who who loves me and knows me well. So by being loved and know by my lover, has made me more full of love, independent, caring and kind. Less fearful, more happy... So being know is quite positive and is total beneficial. So if God loves us and knows us fully, should result in a dynamic, powerful, purpose life. Not an automaton.

[PirateMonkeyFilmz]

faith in reason? reason isn't a thing that exists.

[ilikezappa]

God turns to Jesus ,"We had better shut this guy up ,he is asking too many smart questions........."

[Setzer]

"You have faith in reason, I have faith in the bible."

O_o seriously? Why would anyone give their opponent that concession in a debate? It's like if you were playing a game of poker, and you gave your cards to the other player and shouted "Jenga!"

[DarkEmergence]

"You have faith in reason"

*facepalm*

There has to be Christians who can see through that.

[mcfahk]

Since when is evidence countable?

[lightandbeautiful]

Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.

A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.

Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.

[vilgessuola]

@lightandbeautiful Why does your channel provide no means of responding?

[LondonIrishRover]

'Logic is man made'

Owned.

[GluttonForSex]

Wilson = unintentional comedy at its finest. :-)

[shade421]

Hitch is THE MAN!!!!



[TruthJockey]

I appreciate Pastor Douglas Wilson's ability to stand there and defend The Bible, which let's face it, is indefensible. When you hear D'Souza or most other theists argue, they don't sound anything like the fundamentalists here in Tennessee, trust me on that. He obviously comes off looking like a loon BUT that's to be expected by anyone that'll defend a text that's pro-slavery, pro-genocide & pro-child sacrifice. He's read what Jephthah, Lott & Abe did to their kids & is still willing 2 duel CH

[facepalmization]

Ever noticed how religious people can not provide any kind of documentation of a single historic "fact" in their book apart from bible quotes?

Prove the exodus - "biblequote"

Prove jesus' existence - "biblequote"

Prove any minute detail in your book - "biblequote"

Fuck sake, they even got the lineages of the ruling classes wrong.

A book plagiarized from the babylonians and even the sumerians which preceded the alleged events in the bible by millennia. The entire bible is ripped off.

[imperator332]

Wilson, "the new Kent Hovind".

Why? Is he a tax-evading asshat as well?

Or maybe it's "the new Ted Haggard", and he'll end up snorting crack off the ass of a gay hooker.

[uptheproverbialcreek]

@imperator332 Why not both? He snorts crack off the ass of a gay hooker he paid using unreported income!!!

[Moonteeth62]

At least Wilson puts his prejudice right out front. It doesn't do anything for his stance, but at least you KNOW you are talking to a wall right from the get go.

[CntrBrdr]

You'll notice it time and time again: al sharpton, douglas wilson, etc. They will retort to a claim or argument by CH with the typical schoolboy-nana-nana-boo-boo mimicry. "You're a man of one book". "well, YOU'RE a man of one thought". "No, ATHEISM poisons everything".

[ritchloui]

There is something perverse about the whole metaphysical moral framework. Firstly, all its moral dichotomies require destructive, absolutist negation fantasies. These fantasies must be believable enough to make them appear real. The initiates must regard them as factual and to be able to apply them correctly. What is the likely impact and consequence of such a worldview? Exactly who or what constitutes immoral, profane or unholy? How have they been depicted and what might this mean?

[AceTurbo1]

wow.... people that believe in God are really super dumb.... no evidence = no argument.... just a belief without fact............ Wilson you are a non thinking retard

[foucachon]

@AceTurbo1 Belief in evidence is based upon presupposition. You have a rationalistic faith that is just as "faith based" as Christians....except Christians base it in the Bible, whereas you base it in an ever-changing, evolving philosophy.

[Treniths]

@foucachon Rationalistic faith? He didn't say anything close that suggest that. Basing what you know and don't know on real evidence is not an "ever-changing, evolving philosophy".

The only reason Wilson won the debate in your eyes is because he said what you wanted to hear. When you're willing to sacrifice reality in favor of faith, there's really no limit to what you're able to accept and deny despite evidence to the contrary.

[danrenewed]

I don't think I missed it. I think you're missing mine. But in case I am missing his point please tell me what you think it is.

[danrenewed]

Right , Christopher, you got it exactly. Your brain is not big enough to understand it.

No man's mind is big enough. That is why man has to experience God through faith.

God is experienced, not understood ever fully. "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13:12

[yellowocean01]

you're missing Hitchen's point. Play back the video 100 times and pay attention to what he's saying.

[IXianGriffin]

@danrenewed that is a convenient comment...'no one can understand'... and the only source you and many others only quote is of those who were published in a your religious text. Where as science as stated above is an ever correcting process to try and understand the world around us, not merely just saying i can not understand so i will just take this or that explanation on faith and stop trying to understand.

[danrenewed]

@IXianGriffin Why not spend more time trying to understand God? You will also find it to be a process characterized by ongoing correction and new understanding. Atheists give up too easily when it comes to God, but will beat their brains out on theories that in the end give them empty answers, as evidenced in Hitchens' comments. Having said that, I still find the pursuits of science extremely interesting, and do not wish to offend scientists for pursuing something they enjoy.

[UrukEngineer]

Wilson is an arse

[setmedic]

Douglas believes that children are born with cancer because someone ate an apple a few thousand years ago. FAIL

[LouisPlume]

HITCHENS WINS...

[foucachon]

@LouisPlume NOT!!! Watch the full movie "Collision" between these two guys. Wilson is clearly the winner. Hitchens pretty much admits it to the camera at the end of the video.

[breaneainn]

I have faith in reason, but no reason to have faith.

[vau0807]

Bros' & Sis', please be aware of the "Reasonable Faith" debate tactic brought to us courtesy of "Doctor" William Lane Craig and his book entitled "Reasonable Faith". Creationists have lost the biological, genetic, and paleontological arguments, so like rats fleeing a thresher they are looking for dark holes to hide in such as quantum physics, where open questions remain. "Reasonable faith" covers their retreat by relabeling "science" as "faith" in order to confuse the two and buy extra time.

[byteresistor]

@vau0807 No one takes Lame Craig seriously. He makes arguments in favor of a deistic god, even though he's a christian. He's a snake.

[vau0807]

@byteresistor Every young-earth creationist and neurotic Christian looks to this guy for affirmation. I called him "the new Kent Hovind" in the comments section of another video, and it's clear that Craig eagerly embraces that wreath. At least Hovind was friendly, humble, and connected with his audience. Craig is a condescending debater who manages an occasional, accidental flash of wit. That Wittenberg granted Craig a Ph.D. doesn't speak well of the luminaries in their Philosophy department.

[philosophizer149]

@vau0807 brothers and sisters? Lol are atheists forming their own family now? Reasonable Faith is not a retreat, its an advance, the arguments Craig presents do not rely on quantum physics but on contemporary cosmology, rather more often than not it is the atheist response that relies on quantum physics. Don't believe me read the book.

[TysicJC]

@philosophizer149 If you think that Dr. Graig's arguments are based on anything but unproven false premises, you are a fool indeed.

[philosophizer149]

@TysicJC ok then give me an example of an unproven false premise.

[HarrynJessie]

@philosophizer149 that the universe began to exist, for example.

[HarrynJessie]

@philosophizer149 or that, for a further example, without God there is no basis for morality.

[vau0807]

@philosophizer149 Your retort fell flat; leave wit to the witty, 'kay? As for the "atheist response", it relies on neither made-up bullshit masked as "cosmology" nor on quantum physics. In fact, the atheist response can be summed up as follows: demonstrate that your god exists, or we don't have anything to discuss.

[philosophizer149]

@vau0807 Craig has presented arguments for Gods existence, therefore the atheists response cannot be simply "show me evidence or shut up" you need to give a response to the arguments and not just fling accusations of Christians retreating to cosmology.

[vau0807]

@philosophizer149 Then, please, share the argument that proves the existence of the god of abraham. Put up, or shut up.

[philosophizer149]

@vau0807 well there isn't one single argument that proves that the Christian God exists, rather there are dozens of arguments that establish a cumulative case for the existence of the Christian God. Take for example the argument from contingency; watch?v=hsEvxew8YOs&feature=re­lated

[vau0807]

@philosophizer149 Nice try, but you're still mistaken. I'm familiar with Craig's cosmological arguments, and they commit one elementary, amateurish fallacy: they merely assert that there is one thing that does not require a creator, and that thing is the creator itself. That argument merely defines god into existence; it is not sound. And, I figured this out on my own. For more articular refutations, check out ironchariots and search for "Cosmological Arguments'.

[DandAinTac]

"Faith in Reason"-the religious do this all the time. They try to say all belief is the same. Actually there are two types of belief. "Faith"--whereby you just "believe." This type is immutable if you are devout. Logic and evidence must be tailored to conform to the belief. The second is conditional belief. You take things based on reason, not in in disregard of it. This type of belief is the opposite of the first, and is subject to modification at any time based on logic and evidence.

[drfoxcourt]

"The worst kind of patronizing tyrannical authority is the one that says it's controlling you for your own good."

About the best statement I have ever heard from a stream of well reasoned thoughts and statements from Mr Hitchens.

[chansetwo]

To compare reason, based in evidence with someones baseless faith is a false analogy in the extreme. It's like comparing faith in the ability of a magic carpet to get you to New York to the belief in the ability of a Boeing 747 to do it. One assertion is based in faith and the other in reason against evidence.

[SOAS007]

tis in the bible so it must be true.... Where were Joseph and Mary and jesus sisters at the crucifiction? Who took the shorthand notes of the sermon on the hill, how come none of the books of the NT are autographed and dated.? HOw come Paul, who never met jesus, gets named as the author of a dozen books in the NT,( yet most believe only half of them are written by him). No wonder it was a capital offence to own this book in your own language, Its so fake.!

[MumblingMickey]

@crazyboyxx in the creationist arena...they are full swing into rewriting the friggin dictionary.. theorys are now just 'general ideas'... natural selection is in fact 'fitnaess' and a 'religion' no longer requires supernatural explanations... evolution...yo a creationist is impossible... yet barminology (which is evolution speeded up a million times) is NOT impossible!

eventually they will end up speaking total nonsense... ohh wait... sorry... I was confusing creationists with mammals!

[TheronSax]

This argument of Wilson reminds me of Bill Clinton's infamous remark "what the definition of is, is". Speaking nonsense in the guise of argument is not argument ,it is opening your mouth to let noise escape.

[mathproof]

The lady asked about a benign, loving god. Hitchens made that case that it is a vacuous statement. That scenario isn't believeable even to Christians; otherwise, they would inquire as to the horrible suffering in the world.

[arulien]

Wilson is an ass. Whenever he giggles I want to punch him in the face. Ignorant people laughing at intelligence is really hard to listen to.

[foucachon]

@arulien oh, that's intelligent. 

[arulien]

@foucachon Thanks buddy!

[indoctus41]

Hitchens referred to Buddhists. Since he hasn't taken the time to research his subject, he doesn't realize that you can be Buddhist and NOT believe in a Supreme Being.

Then again, Hitchens is in love with his own words and arguments and his label as intellectual, so something as trivial as research is just not his thing.

[ivanmikhailov]

And when did he say that buddhists believed in a god? He didn't. Maybe you should take the time to listen to what he's saying. What many buddhists strive for is a certain state of consciousness--that's what hitchens is describing.  Not god.

[indoctus41]

ivanmikhailov:

My post has been removed so I can't reply.

Suffice to say that Hitchens' lack of research on the topics he speaks disqualifies him as a legitimate source of information and ideas.

[MumblingMickey]

@indoctus41 it disqualifies him as a source of ideas... wow... since he's a bestselling author...a philosopher and has an excellent grasp of language (since he's an editor too) ...I'd just love to know why he is not the right source for ideas...when someone with no knowledge at all of Gods or Goblins (everyone) is a proper source of hitchens ideas?

Should we get someone else to tell us what hitchens thinks?

[indoctus41]

@MumblingMickey :

Anne Coulter is a best selling author as well.

Hitchens is articulate, but if he is such a lofty thinker, why does he support US invasions around the world in the name of liberty and justice, and call anyone who disagrees with him a "termite".

That's hardly a sign of a deep thinker.

[MumblingMickey]

@indoctus41

I'm certainly not a fan of his stance on war... how anyone with any sense at all could support 'preemptive' war is beyond me.

War is wrong as a philosophy... for those who initiate and take part in the war are not those who DIE in that war... its real easy to say a leader is 'bad' and somehow ally that to the wholesale slaughter of the people who live under that leaders rule!

However even an atheist can be a total fucker! Religion doesn't have a monopoly on death!

[indoctus41]

@MumblingMickey :

That's right. Besides being a violation of International Law, what are the distinguishing features between a pre-emptive strike and an unprovoked invasion? Hitchens is incapable of seeing the similarities but he can't openly define the differences. It would destroy his argument even to attempt it.

[Phage0070]

@indoctus41

"what are the distinguishing features between a pre-emptive strike and an unprovoked invasion?"

Provocation.

[indoctus41]

@Phage0070 :

"Provocation", which can be real or imagined. I can interpret that my neighbor gave me the finger when perhaps he was just testing wind direction. That should allow me, according to our inebriated intellectual, to blow his head off.

[Phage0070]

@indoctus41

You asked for the difference, there it is. Your neighbor giving you the finger isn't *adequate* provocation, but a neighbor pointing a rifle probably is. Or claiming to have a rifle pointed at you, when they have before and show every sign of being able to again.

Yes, it can be imagined. People can, and often do make errors. But if we were to rule out entire types of behaviors because we can make mistakes in that area, we wouldn't ever do anything.

[indoctus41]

@Phage0070 :

I didn't refuse your "difference", but simply moved the argument forward.

So who decides what is adequate provocation? Let's put it in perspective. GWB used the gassing of the Kurds to demonstrate Sadaam's danger to the world. The gassing occurred in 1988, 3 years BEFORE the US and Sadaam had their falling out.

Hitler claimed that the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia were maltreated, again more provocation.

Provocation appears a rather convenient device wouldn't you say?

[Phage0070]

@indoctus41

International diplomacy is a very delicate matter, and thus often quite slow. The US often deals peacefully with quite nasty regimes simply to maintain peace. When forced to action it is rarely a single action or event responsible; rather it is a long history culminating in the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. The tardiness of citing these reasons for action in no way reduces their significance.

What exactly do you think GWB personally gained from all this?

[indoctus41]

@Phage0070 :

The invasion of Iraq was anything but tardy. The UN didn't buy the insipid evidence presented by Powell. Nevertheless the US steamrolled forward. If they had listened, they could have concentrated their efforts in Afghanistan with full UN support.

I didn't see anything delicate in the approach of the Bush Admin ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists"), nor did I see any evidence that the US was dealing "peacefully" with a nasty regime "simply to maintain peace."

[breaneainn]

@Phage0070 Charging into battle shouting "victim". Getting your revenge in first. Attack is the best defence. Premptive strike.

[Phage0070]

@breaneainn

So I am guessing you are a "hawk"? :P

[breaneainn]

@Phage0070 ..no, I'm not "for" that sort of thing, I just think if one country wants to attack or invade another they should just say "we're not happy about all this so we're coming over there to blow some stuff up." All that double-speak sounds a bit wussy. You're going to destroy stuff and kill people, but you're worried you might offend some people with how you talk? bit dumb.

[WastedTourist]

Wilson is just embarrassing. Not are his arguments so pathetic that a child could so how weak they are, he also likes to indulge himself by saying nonsensical, incoherent and meaningless speeches.

[mathproof]

I was amazed to find that Wilson had written a logic book; yet, he doesn't understand that you don't get to assume what your trying to prove.

[Kurtlane]

The second part of this video is excellent.

Hitchens: "Logic is an attempt by humans to make sense"

I'd rather say that reason is attempting by humans to make sense.

And here Hitchens is so right, and Wilson's attempts to equate science to a particular religion are wrong, even demagogic.

Because of all the things a human being is capable of, search for truth, sense and meaning is one of the best.

(cont.)

[Kurtlane]

So when I look in a book and see contradictions in it, or between it and reality, I try to resolve them. But if I come to understanding that they are irresolvable, I put the book away. No matter what that book is.

This is how I came to reject the Torah, and everything based on it (Tanah, Bible, Koran)

However, what's left after rejecting that? What is left is God. Alone and indefinable. Beyond all theories, ideologies, doctrines religions, even existence and nonexistence.

(cont.)

[Kurtlane]

My conclusion, anyway. I'm not forcing it on anyone.

[SeanNaNaNa]

...just inundating youtube with it.

[Kurtlane]

If you don't like it, don't read it.

It's a free youtube.

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane

"However, what's left after rejecting that? What is left is God."

So even though you rejected all the books describing God...and claiming his existence... you are still left wondering what this God is like... after rejecting all the books which purport to explain the phenomena...

I done the same as a kid with several ideas... but to be honest... after I rejected them... I didn't just reject the explanation I rejected the entire thing, since I realised as you did...it was contrived

[Kurtlane]

"you are still left wondering what this God is like"

No, I'm not wondering. There is no "like" or "unlike" here. How can something that both exists and nonexists be "like" or "unlike" anything?

What turns me off in atheism is that categorical "No." Just as the categorial "Yes." turns me off in theism. Both seem so... unenlightened and dogmatic.

(cont.)

[Kurtlane]

"The atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the believer caught up in his own false image of God." - Martin Buber

But this refers only to a humble atheist.

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane humble before who?

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane

I did... I have no humility obviously... since it is impossible given the nature of the posit for an atheist to be humble before god... by the definitions of humble, Atheist and god?

To back that up.. I capitalized Atheist and lower cased god! Since I really am an atheist... and I have evidence for that... but none for god!

[Kurtlane]

MumblingMickey, anyone can see that some people are just filled with love. Towards what? Who knows. They are just filled with it.

And some people are just filled with hatred... towards everything.

And some are filled with humility. One can see it without asking whether they are atheist, agnostic or whatever. It doesn't matter, anyway.

(cont.)

[Kurtlane]

I hope you are not saying that atheists are incapable of humility. This is plainly false, and also self-demeaning.

Humility is one of those metaphysical things. Isn't it?

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane I wasn't saying that atheists are incapable of humility... I think I'd be aware of that if it were true...

I was in fact pointing out that humility is a response. Atheists cannot be humble in relation to the properties of a God!

Humility is an emotive response! its far from metaphysical.

I can however feel humble in response to the vastness of the universe and my place in it... these are emotive responses.. awe, reverence, humility etc. But certainly not to the concept of God!

[Kurtlane]

MumblingMickey, "I can however feel humble in response to the vastness of the universe and my place in it.."

There you go. Right on!

However, calling it "emotive response" doesn't explain anything. It's just a name, isn't it?

God is not a concept.

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane

Emotive response to stimuli do not explain things? I think most psychologists would disagree with you when examining people who for example crash planes into buildings... or plan such to begin with!

God... is a concept... In the absence of a real God... the concept would be created... and guess what?

A 'real' God would be self evident... and beyond the idea that you just THINK it might be true. It would be evidentially present in front of you with no room for debating the matter!

[Kurtlane]

Sorry, but psychology has a long way to go before it becomes anything resembling real science. Right now it's mostly mumbo-jumbo.

God is neither a concept nor the kind of mundane reality you demand.

Concepts can be defined. God is beyond definition.

Something else.

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane

So you don't see any point in looking at WHY a belief can have someone to run into a crowded restaurant and blow themselves and everyone else to pieces, for no obvious reason? Hmmm...

Again... any idea capable of being described by anyone... or any thing... is a concept! From the word 'conceive' .. a construct... Cars are a concept... bacon sandwiches are a concept... God.... is a concept! All can be conceived... all are therefor conceptual!

[MumblingMickey]

@MumblingMickey

An idea incapable of being conceived... does not exist to start with... it doesn't have a word... there is no opposite of concept! Dead people perhaps come up with the opposite of concepts... ie. no concept!

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane

and lastly... 'reality' is certainly not mundane...

It strikes me that whereas you realise that there is absolutely no evidence of a God... and its obvious the one in the holy books simply cannot be real... you still WANT there to be a God... or at the very least supernatural world...

thats a very lovely thought... a nice concept... its a pity theres no evidence of it!

I'm not being sarcastic there either... a benevolent God (not the monster in the bible) would be super...

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane

I know... I say exactly the same thing to people who say that monsters unde the bed do or don't exist... or to people who insist that a banana rules the universe and thos that insist no such herbivorous deity exists... what are you talking about?

Only things with 'one single' piece of proof are in the running for 'MIGHT' be true... everything else is bullshit!

[Kurtlane]

MumblingMickey, sorry, but you have missed the point.

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane

Your point is that you keep your option open to 'everything'

Even my banana god?

Although I just made it up there is still no proof of its non existence!

So if you write a list of things that you think 'could' be true thats a lot of stuff. Especially if there is no requirement for evidence to any of those things!

if you apply the logic that there should be some least evidence to that 'might' then the list of possible things is a lot shorter!

[Kurtlane]

MumblingMickey, you have missed the point.

You are using logic where it doesn't apply.

Also, hasn't it become a pattern: "when in doubt, run to the spaghetti monster" (or banana god)?

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane

What banana god... there isn't one...

In this universe we can ONLY evaluate ideas, materialistic effect and observation logically...

Are you suggesting it should be evaluated illogically?

Should we based critical decisions of illogical arguments?

I suggest you would disagree... so if we are NOT to carry out actions on this world based on illogical arguments... then I am happy!

But unfortunatrly that is what is happening more often than not!

[Kurtlane]

I am suggesting that there is a strange split between physical (empirical) and metaphysical. It is a strange split, but it exists and it is my obligation to recognize it.

Here is what my genetics teacher, Professor Wilson, has taught me:

(cont.)

[Kurtlane]

He took a pencil and held it with his tip pointing up.

"There is a hypothesis that there are angels dancing on the tip of this pencil. Now, how does one define an angel? Angels are creatures that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched, or detected with any instrument.

If this is so, science is powerless here. Science is all about empirical things."

(cont.)

[Kurtlane]

Notice that he didn't say "Therefore angels don't exist." He said "Therefore science is powerless here." He knew the limitations of science.

Science is a search for empirical truth. But one can also search for non-empirical truth.

In the metaphysical world, one is two is three is many, and is zero as well. Simple logic doesn't work here. (I am not so sure it works everywhere in sciences either.) But reasoning does.

(cont.)

[Kurtlane]

The metaphysical world is the place of legends, metaphors and parables. It is the world of fingers pointing to the moon and of the way which if it can be told is not the true way.

The sleep of reason produces monsters, no question about it. But reason is not everything. Here are two simple examples: why do people listen to music? Why do people dance? The answers to these simple questions lie outside reason.

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane People listen to music that's true... music is not just a random noise... music is sound with repeated patterns... humans LIKE patterns... That is why they 'like' music!

People also reflect those perceived patterns... so when they dance they turn those patterns into movement... nobody does a slow waltz to def leapord!

I think you'll find that human psychology...is ion fact an area where 'reason' is applied all the time!

[Kurtlane]

Correction: I had said, "In the metaphysical world, one is two is three is many, and is zero as well."

And also, one is not two, is not three, is not many, and is not zero.

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name" - Lao Tsu

[Kurtlane]

I don't like the jab at Buddhism at 1:56. It's really a jab at an ignorant myth about Buddhism. It merely displays Hitchens's ignorance about Buddhism.

[Kurtlane]

Wilson makes an excellent point at 2:15, when he says, "Almost 'Thank God.'"

Because Hitchens had just answered his own question.

And because when atheiosts say 'thank goodness" and theists say "thank God," they are absolutely the same. So what in the world are they arguing about?

It's silly, really, if one just thinks about it.

[MumblingMickey]

@Kurtlane 'Thank God' is a term... a common term... I'm sure hitchens says it all the time....

All I can say... is thank God there is no God!

[WisdomVendor]

amazing how politicians and the religious can talk so much without actually saying anything.

[MrSalamander7]

"You have faith in reason."

Someone needs to get fucking slapped.

[IXianGriffin]

@MrSalamander7 Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that is not based on proof.[1][2] The word faith can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. Does this clear it up for you so you can again put your hands back in your pockets and not "fucking slap someone"

[MrSalamander7]

@IXianGriffin Nothing needed to be cleared up. I wasn't confused, and no, someone still needs a fucking slap.

[flumberg]

@MrSalamander7 Slap the man who said it... 

[flumberg]

@MrSalamander7 fuck it... LET'S ALL SLAP THE MAN WHO SAID IT

[MrSalamander7]

@flumberg Sounds like a plan.

[MrSalamander7]

I approve of the jab at Buddhism at 1:56.

[rudenoodle]

The first questioner was pretty!

[TaxicabTube]

why do religious people qoute loving God word only to convince you good ness of God? in the bible it is written as God takes revenge, God as jealous, God as who send plague to punish > My question where did God differ from the imaginary opposite Satan/ devil/ or Lucifer when he do all this bad things?

[MumblingMickey]

@TaxicabTube He doesn't... Lucifer... is in fact 'venus' the morning star fallen.

Beelzebub is a God from another religion... vilified...

In order for the Judeo Christian or Abrahamic God to be 'greater' it must be more powerful... so if satan kills one person... God must kill hundreds or thousands... otherwise Satan looks more powerful!

And thats what goes on in the bible... Its basically the tribal leaders saying 'their God' is so powerful... it can kill many more of the 'other' people.

[sam51092]

Wilson knows he's bawling in the corner if he has to resort to epistemological weaseling like this to save himself.

At the end of the day, our own reason can be the only starting point. Try to argue against this, and you refute yourself by trying to use reason to argue against reason.

We don't 'believe' in reason, we USE reason. What is 'reasonable' is defined by what can be tested against the real world and be found to work. The same cannot be said of the Bible. That's the difference.

[BillKiernan]

"Wilson knows he's bawling in the corner if he has to resort to epistemological weaseling like this to save himself." yep, was just thinking the same thing. He grabs at anything he can find, desperate for anything that vaugely resembles a logical inconsistancy, even when it's not there. "You said we shouldn't follow the Bible because it's man made" um, no, Hitchens never says that, he is simply stating the bible is man-made, not divine.

[consciousmess]

Well said.

[thermos26]

wilson is so stupid it is hilarious. or it would be if it weren't so sad.

[thelordmemnoch]

This guy is a fucking moron. I can't even believe that he had the balls to show his face after half of the things he said.

[ijustwannawatchshite]

I agree. That godboy Wilson looked like a proper dipshit.

[buzzardbeatniks]

Faith minded people have so much trouble understanding that science and logic aren't beliefs - they're processes set up to discover truths. Processes that are by nature self critical and self correcting. It seems like such a simple thing to understand.

[mongobobo]

this isn't a debate.

[SelfImmolator]

Wilson tries to use reason to show that while Hitchens relies on reason, Wilson relies instead on the Bible.

I think perhaps Hitchens gave Wilson too much respect to even contemplate that he was making such a stupid and hypocritical point.

I'd be tempted just to use Wilson's term. Okay, let's say I have "faith" in reason: hold-on, so do you! We're back to square one, equation balanced, nothing changed.

...But you also have this extra "faith" in the bible, and I do not. Justify it.

[cinenutz]

Nice post!

[crapcrap86]

I feel sorry for Hitchens having to be on the same stage as this moron Wilson

[GregoryHRoth]

Wilson is attempting to use cheap christian linguistic tricks... Not a very good way to argue

[billhicks8]

Wilson cracks me up. I don't know why he is even considered a reasonable debating opponent for Christopher Hitchens. He just mumbles about misunderstanding 'concepts' and 'layers' that only he sees in issues, and when he has to elaborate on them he doesn't even seem to fully understand them himself. So he sits there rambling and stuttering like some spaced out evangelical wizard about sweet fuck all and then Hitchens has to file through all the crap he's just said to find any coherent argument.

[sarahnewt]

Wilson looks like a little boy who has just been caught lying.....

[8080256256]

I think Hitchens is wrong in his first argument.

It wouldn't have to be a boring, pointless warm bath. A loving omnipotent God could have surely created us (and our minds) in a way which would not require suffering to make things "interesting."

The prevailing theological explanation for evil seems to be that we need it to enjoy the good. But why is that so? This order of things is surely the responsibility of the creator, if there is one. It essentially says, that he created us as masochists...

[8080256256]

[cont] ... or more specifically voyeuristic masochists, because the vicarious experience of suffering is often considered sufficient to produce the desired effect, and then inflicted pain upon us to make us "happy."

Now that's what I call an evil, sadistic, capricious, malevolent concept.

[BorgHub]

Hitchens owned him. as usual.

[kmardes]

wilson's arguments were cheap..