Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson - Debate - Part 2

[newfagscanttrif0rce]

I honestly don't know what Hitchens see's in Wilson who believes yahweh is 'loving'. Sure, he is loving, but you have to overlook the supposed fact that dead people are currently being tortured in hellfire and knowing never ending pain because they lived virtous lives but didn't belive the bible to be anything more than the work of superstitious primitive men. Sure Wilson, some loving father.

[MrSalamander7]

1:25 It may be hard to grasp, or imagine, but it makes sense mathematically and scientifically.

Side note: 1:40 = Epic Fail on Wilson's part

[iamtinmanyesiam]

Im not watching this, its crap. Get a tripod, get a decent mic. Fuck you.

[martiangrundy]

@iamtinmanyesiam

Your not having a wank over it are you???

Then if it bugs you so much, don't watch it, just listen to it. dead easy M8. :-)

[iamtinmanyesiam]

I was having a bad day, and I have standards.

[martiangrundy]

Yeh M8. No sweat.

We all have 'em.

Well we all have bad day's, I'm not too sure about the standards though, with some folk ;-)

[jackbox1971]

On what day did god make the tripod and what sin did you commit to miss out on his bounty?

[Pontusky]

thanks for the upload, i only wish you had a tripod.

[littlewarriorjd]

"religion turns good people into monsters"

It has been said that war is inhumane. I say, war defines humanity. If people were good, we would not have wars.

People are not good.

True, everyone has a religion. The religions of secularism, naturalism, socialism, marxism (if we're stacking up bodies) have caused monstrocities in human history.

The "religion" of Christianity humbles people to recognize themselves for what they are, and accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ to transform them

[tielec01]

Spoken like someone who truly hasn't ever done any research on his beliefs.

Your infantile argument has been thouroughly refuted multiple times. Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, does that mean moustaches make us evil ?

Secularists may kill, but not as a result of secularism, no part of secularism advocates killing. Christianity does advocate killing.

And not everyone has a religion, some people choose to live their life with beliefs informed by evidence.

[regelemihai]

Christianity advocates killing? You're gonna make such an asinine remark and still have the hubris to claim what has or what has not been refuted? Your "refutation" comes verbatim from Dawkins, and it's a redundant one aimed to absolve atheists(who have a FAR FAR greater wrap sheet of crimes and murder) of their multiple crime sagainst humanity.

Be less arrogant.

[tielec01]

What's a wrap sheet ?

[regelemihai]

When I type fast I tend to make horrendeous grammatical errors.

*Rap sheet.

My point still stands :)

[tielec01]

My refutation comes straight from Darwin ? How so ?

It is fruitless to tally up all the bad things that have been done by theists and atheists and compare them, what we can compare is the pathways that religions open to violence. There is no logical causal pathway from atheism to violence. Conversely sacred scriptures often call for violence against various groups.

The suicide bombing community is strictly religious, and not just muslim either.

[regelemihai]

Dawkins, not Darwin.

If there is no direct causal relation between violence and atheism(which I agree), it's equally as false to attribute inflamatory statements to Christianity which simply do not belong to the religion.

[tielec01]

I take it you are a christian since you only reference christianity. Your sacred text specifically advocates killing, slavery, and infanticide. Someone else has provided a cursory list of the verses (see above).

My post was originally a response to littlewariorjd who accused secularism of killing people, and stated that christianity humbles people. People who are secular may have killed, but I contend that they did not do it in the name of secularity, the same cannot be said of christianity.

[regelemihai]

Where did Jesus advocate infantacide and killing?

As for your second point I'm more than willing to agree with you or any other secularist for that matter. The doctrine itself has no correlation with the actions of the adherents. What galls me, though, is that you turn a blind eye when the same case is made in favor of Christianity. "In the name of" is a meaningless phrase so long as the doctrine itself does not advocate those actions.

[tielec01]

You can't bootstrap your argument to a valid argument and expect to be carried along with no-one raising an eyebrow.

In Ireland christians have and ARE STILL blowing themselves up SPECIFICALLY because of religious differences. You agree that this is not happening with secularism.

Regarding your rhetorical question - I am glad that you are at least a christian who has no problem with homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Likewise, you have obviously given away ALL your possessions.

[regelemihai]

Why? Jesus never condemned homosexuality. The fcat that many right wingers resort to homophobia while trying to justify it via their religion has no reflections on what Jesus preached.

Second, your claim about the IRA--again-- says nothing about the religion itself. Jesus never advocated violence, or any coersive method.

Now, I agree that secularism does not endorse violence in and of itself, but the fact of the matter is that secularists have a far greater track record of killings.

[tielec01]

Ok we stand at an impasse here, Jesus was nice, but large tracts of the NT are not. The OT is barbaric. Interpretation and rationalisation are fantastic things.

But let's examine your claim that secularists have a far greater track record of killing.

Where do you get your statistics for this from ?

You have already said that there is no causal pathway between secularism and violence - why bring it up ? Presumably you yourself don't even believe secularism had anything to do with it...

[regelemihai]

"Large tracts" is misstating it a bit. The only alleged passages that deviate somewhat from Jesus are Paul's epistles, and he was not a desciple of jesus. But nontheless, he never invokes violence upon non believers or anything that can be interprted as such.

I got it from Solyenitzin, many history books,and even from the Guiness Book of WR, whose data is a matter of public knowledge.

I do bring it up because religion is often times accused as being the apotheosis of human decadence and...

[regelemihai]

...savagery,when the facts point to the other direction.

I am willing to concede that violence committed by atheist is a direct consequence of secularism,but then again this is what I've been stressing out with regard to Christianity as well:if the doctrine itself does not promote murder and oppression,it's just as faulty to pin the blame on the religion instead of on the believers who are, inevitably, fallible human beings.

That's all my beef with it. Apply the same standard to both parties

[regelemihai]

My bad, I meant: I'm willing to concede..committed by atheists is NOT a direct...

Freudian slip maybe? :P

Kidding...

[Cougar139tweak]

Lets state something a bit deeper- Evil people do evil things and look for a reason- be it religious or political. Good people do evil things when told to do them when forced to (at cost of death) . "Because I said so" never works, unless you are a dictator, you must have a reason to do "evil deeds" unless you are a lunitic. Whereas doing good needs no reason but religion takes that one for themselves- why else would we be good, shows a failure of imagination, just watch battle at kruger.

[Doormatters]

@regelemihai

"...in favor of Christianity. "In the name of" is a meaningless phrase so long as the doctrine itself does not advocate those actions."

without secularism, the actions performed by secularists would still be there. without religion, the actions made by the religious would not be there.

also, the catholic church is a prime example of a religion endorsing violent acts (the crusades)

[regelemihai]

The primary scope of the crusades was not to invoke violence and masscares. Pope Urban the II made it very clear. Their intention was to reestablish Jerusalem as a Christian city after years of muslmis oppression. However, even if the pope did encourage violence, it would still be contrary to what the NT teaches.

If without secularism the actions of seculars would not change, then what are we arguing?

[supaglue]

Christians advocate killing? Presumably a Christian espouses the passages in Numbers 21:35, Joshua 6:21 to 27, Samuel 15:3; Jeremiah 16:4; Kings 19:35; Samuel 25:15; Samuel 13:17. I could go on. Are none of these in the name of a Christian god? Or is the Old Testament conveniently disregarded?

[regelemihai]

Indeed he is. When I talk about Christianity I usually refer to the NT, not the OT as that would be irrelevant.

So, as long as we're arguing about convenience, I think you find yourself in a comfy position when you cite the OT when arguing about what Christianity invokes and what it doesn't.

[tielec01]

So the OT is not a part of the christian religion ?

Or does it just need to be very carefully rationalised and dismissed ?

Regardless of what you think is the right or wrong interpretation of your sacred texts other people have killed because of it's commandments. They continue to do so. The combination of irrational faith and violent commandments is a potent brew.

[divineson05]

yeah almost lol

[kendrawhisp]

this is it. So disgusting. This is exactly why i find religion sickening. anything that commands mass murder is viscious. Life is meaningless, but people still feel, and still hurt, and i'd still hurt to cause another being pain. it may not matter to the universe, but it matters to me. Can't they see how religion turns good people into monsters.

[RedlineMMA]

Hitchens owns!!!

[Intellisecular]

Red, you're probably aware of the Scottish Philospher who in answer to your challenge refuted it by kicking a stone on the ground. I wouldn't attempt to argue you out of a position you were never argued into. You simply need to believe it. I can point to reality. You point to the non-existent. Searle's argument is anything but shallow and he's NOT a materialistic monist. It's obvious to all that know that you haven't read him.

[RedBeetle]

Having read several books of Searle on the Philosophy of Mind, I'd say you haven't read him, or he has radically changed his position to a form of dualism recently. I doubt he is now an idealist. But, I 'm sure you'll provide a quote to prove you're not lying.

Can't wait to see it.

[RedBeetle]

Douglas Wilson is not a Christian. He is a proponent of the heresy of Federal Vision, which teaches that man is justified by faith and works. This is Roman Catholic soteriology.

Gary Demar is supporting Wilson in this venture, and James White is now associating with Gary Demar (taking pleasure cruise/seminars as advertised on his Alpha and Omega website).

Don't be fooled by cheap imitations.

Read John Calvin.

[SpearSiix]

Ummm, Don't be fooled by a dumbass like RedBeetle.

Religion is simply false. Your esoteric understanding of such stupidity only compounds your complete lack of modern reason and intellect.

[RedBeetle]

You can't even define the term 'reason' without presupposing the nonempirical law of non-contradiction, which only demonstrates that your own empirical starting point is self-referentially absurd. Can you say "Irrational Atheism?"

[Intellisecular]

Hmmm. Red, you ought to read more. The Attributes of your ficitious God are self contradictory. Read, Atheism: The Case Against God. A mind-independent reality is the only way to discover the law of non-contradiction. Read: The Construction of Social Reality by John Searle.

[RedBeetle]

Thanks for the advice.

John Searle's empirical eptistemology fails to escape solipsism. His philosophy of mind is simply shallow materialistic monism. Searle is incapable of answering George Berkeley's basic epistemic challenge: to demonstrate the sensible universe actually does exist independently from the mind. Searl, like almost all empirical thinkers, simply assume the physical universe exists independently--none have ever proven it.

I'm sure you can prove this with your erudition!

[Gozillacia]

Orwell said - any truth. which is true, can be stated in simple terms - ergo, you lie.

[richter75]

He knows that, we know that.

[tielec01]

You sure know alot of words RedBeetle, but here is one you should find the definition of: Parsimony.

A good argument that no-one can decipher is a bad argument. Your use of highly technical words where simple words will do marks you clearly as pretentious.

As for non-contradiction, the idea that proving it 'begs the question' has been shown to be debateable at the very least by Priest or Sylvan. You present this argument as if it is black and white, in a manner that no-one can understand. FAIL

[PrexicKehdaki]

For those who are asking why Hitchens wastes his time with these arguments and people, I think it's because of the audience. Not everyone that watches these is as crazy as the people he debates.. and all they really need to know is that there is another side worth considering

[shamshir2000]

If it's ok for Wilson that Amalekites were killed, it is ok for Al-Qaeda to kill whom they want to kill. This man is an idiot.

[BMWmotorrad14]

I think Hitchens debates these brainwashed victims of dogma for his own entertainment. These arguments are getting boring. Maybe he should start debating Hindus. Maybe then, Christians would see a real perspective of what it's like to be an atheist.

[sorunas]

Why is Hitchens wasting his time with these arguments?

[odessaboy]

Wilson's ignorance of physics is astonishing. I have a feeling Hitchens' knowledge of physics is a bit lacking as well; otherwise he would have called him out on it.

[pp0u50f3]

here is douglas' proposition:

A) quantum mechanics is strange

B) the trinity is strange

Quantum mechanics exhist so therfore the trinity exhists.

absolutely rediculous, quantum mechanics is extremely plausable because its pedictive accuracy is equivilant to predicting the width of america to an accuracy of on human hair width.

goodnight

[JETZcorp]

Someone's been paying attention to Dawkins. Nice.

[pp0u50f3]

either that or I am Dawkins :-)

[WMass100]

Dawkins would never misspell so flagrantly!

[TrippingTheTube]

Pretty stupid debate. The athiest squirmed whole time.

[Lavabug]

So this Wilson fellow is perfectly fine with the genocide of the Amalekites.

This person better not dare try to convince anyone that religion makes people ethical.

[southernsem]

Point to make is that only God has the right to take life, whether that be through his chosen nation Israel or whether he does it directly. I must say I rather liked this exchange. Im a forgiven follower of Jesus, but I love the cordiality and respect of these two men as they spoke here and think through issues. what an encouragement.

[bcmalloy]

wheres the rest of the debate?

[ConcernedEngineer]

Hitchens and Wilson were totally talking past each other.

Wilson is a presuppositionalist. He was trying to get Hitchens to give an account for the moral code that he really believes in. He was essentially saying, "How do you know that any morality exists, and on what do you base this idea?" Hitchens replied saying, "The God of the Bible is immoral!"

Surely, Hitchens is smarter than this. But Hitchens never answers Wilson's question.

[WintersSokaro]

Hitchens says he is anti-theist and claims the Christian God is immoral. It's a rather clever answer.

[CommaPatient]

I agree with the first guy, he seems to avoid answering questions on morality that could have him explaining morality through having a Darwinianian source.

[WintersSokaro]

I would just think it so obvious to others what Christopher meant by his argument... oh well.

[bcmalloy]

Holy trinity - quantum theory WTF is guy doing debating hitchens

[Victoruto]

From all the contradicting quotes, one might conclude that Einstein held different beliefs about God throughout his life.

[apocalypseap]

It is absolutely certain for the later part of his life, he thought the bible was, "a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." He died believing this.

[Victoruto]

That may very well be, but I don't see the importance of it. Why should we base our beliefs off of a mathematician's.

[apocalypseap]

No non-theist bases their beliefs simply off Einstein's say. It's the theists that so adamantly try to use Einstein's quotes and pretend he's a theist to try to support their irrationality. We simply showed that Einstein is not a theist.

[Victoruto]

I think it is only fair to accuse both theists and non-theists of using Einstein as an argument for or against the existence of God.

However, to say that Einstein is not a theist assumes that deism is not theism. But to my mind, deism belongs in a theistic category. While this god may not be interested in human affairs, there is nonetheless, still a god.

[apocalypseap]

Einstein was actually a pantheist. Not the same as a deist. It's more complicated.

[Victoruto]

I know what pantheism is, but I find it hard to believe that Einstein was one. Pantheism rules out all mathematical, logical, and moral distinctions. Considering his mathematical contributions, it would follow that he either lived inconsistently with his professed metaphysical presuppositions, or did not know what pantheism truly entails. I realize he was not a philosopher, however, I'm sure if he was a pantheist, he would have an adequate knowledge of his own worldview.

[seggie83]

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." -- Albert Einstein

[thewayofgrowingpains]

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

-- Albert Einstein

[TrippingTheTube]

WQell, Einstein must have been God then seeing as he knew everything. LOL

[apocalypseap]

Albert Einstein was a pantheist - not a theist. You're retarded if you still think he's a theist at this point.

[Spalg]

it was spinoza's god, where you use the universe as a metaphor for god. In the sense that the universe is omnipotent, since anything that can be done has to be done by it. It reveals its secrets to us, it is beautiful, etc. It's taking a deistic position and saying god is the universe a la spinoza. What I'm saying here is that still could be called atheism, not that he'd like it called that. You are definitely right he wasn't at all a theist.

[apocalypseap]

Well, i guess technically it could be called a form of atheism.

I hate it when these theists try to quote Einstein and pretend he's a theist when he's made his position very clear. They use their own ignorance KNOWINGLY to warp their perception of the truth - which sounds paradoxical, I know - but that's what I've observed.

[Spalg]

You're not wrong, and your anger isn't misguided, I agree.

[drongovids]

"I don't believe in God." -- Albert Einstein

[townsendjean]

The man clearly does not understand the notion of space-time (& curved space) in quantum mechanics, and worse than that he doesn't appreciate his lack of understanding. It hardly gives one any feeling of confidence that there's anything to this holy trinity nonsense he presumes to know.

[danmoore5000]

A good father, like a good brother, doesn't try to watch everything you do, nor do they get to automatically. It would be considered highly abusive for a father to allow absolutely no privacy for his children.

[irishmauddib]

1:23 there is a difference between science not making sense because it is complicated and the trinity not making sense because there is no evidence what so ever to suggest its true.

[gefan3]

There is also the small matter of what would happen to Wilson if he went in to a science classroom and tried to offer a circle within a triangle as a mathematical proof of anything.

[irishmauddib]

Wouldnt mind being a fly on that wall when he tries it.

[KiwiDawk]

Couldn't someone provide a tripod for the camera !?

[gefan3]

Wilson aquits himself better than most (which is not saying much) but all his words other than those on the Amalakite question are redundant.

There, for all to see, and displayed with cheery honesty is the reality of the theisitic mind.

This is what threatens us all and with it there can be no compromise.

[hammerheads15]

Way to go Doug Wilson! He totally blasts Hitchens out of the water!!! Extremely impressive.

[hammerheads15]

Way to go Doug Wilson! His arguments totally blast Hitchens out of the water!!! Very impressive.

[hammerheads15]

Way to go Doug Wilson! His arguments totally blast Hitchens out of the water!!! Excellent arguments.

[Redfingers]

Silverback....you are not really serious when you say "why do you imply that HIV, deadly bacteria, and floods are bad things?"

[KenneththePeasant]

only 8 minutes, but great on both sides.

[lollygager3664]

"It's a mystery."

Did anyone else find this guy's ridicule of physics comtemptible?

[starguts]

He would not be worthy to kiss the feet of the minds that have developed the knowledge that he so contemptuously mocks.

Though it is an all to common sight these days.

[Voltajavi]

definitely

[ConcernedEngineer]

He didn't ridicule physics. He marveled at physics, and he marvels at the God who established the laws of physics.

[lollygager3664]

Yes he did. Rewatch it.

[Stipoon]

"What if I was the Amalekite"

Nailed it.

[eruagnostic]

I hope Wilson is aware that the trinity was invented by and voted upon by a group of priests in 325.

It's not quite the same with quantum physics and cosmology... it's something called "science"

[amm1000]

If you are going to pontificate about Church history, at least learn some first. The trinity was spoken of long before Nicea and appears, for example in the writings of Tertullian a century earlier. The debate at Nicea was not over Jesus being divine, but of the nature of the relationship beteen Jesus and the Father.

[amm1000]

(continued)

Arius taught Jesus was divine but not of the same essence as the Father. He had been censured by his bishop Alexander for false teaching. All but two bishops at the council voted to uphold the censure and condemn Arius' teachings, so it was hardly a disputed point.

[eruagnostic]

Yes .. a vote on whether Jesus and God are one. That makes it Soooo much more convincing.

[amm1000]

You apparently don't have much of a grasp of logic to go along with your deficiencies in history. The question of the truth or falsity of the doctrine of the trinity is separate from the question of the history of the trinity. You stated the doctrine was invented at Nicea. You were wrong. It wasn't even voted on at Nicea. And that has nothing to do with whether it is true or if you find it convincing.

[eruagnostic]

Listen smart ass... you are totally missing the point in your desperate attempts split words.

The whole concept of "trinity" is clearly a human invention and the fact that the council of Nicaea sat down to decide how to handle the divinity of the "son" in relation to the "father", underlines that. ... and Yes! there was a vote.

[greycloud24]

god also made HIV for our own enjoyment. or did satan make HIV and god made the stars? i forget who made what, the bible totally forgot to mention HIV. but it does say that god made all the creatures living on the earth and i assume this includes E coli. along with all the deadly bacteria. he did this right before he made adam because he made satan in such a way as to perform a scapegoat action later for him to give him a good excuse to flood the world. its all part of god's divine plan.

[silverback5169]

Why do you imply that HIV, deadly bacteria, and floods are bad things?

[craigdavid00]

i believe greycloud24 is talking from a theistic standpoint. a god that allows all of these horrible things to occur when he controls all of it. they are bad from the standpoint of our species since it wipes us out in a world where an all-controlling god/s exists's.

[Stipoon]

Ha! The entire universe is god made art just for our viewing pleasure. I did not know.

[Onetimerule]

Christopher(the bearer of christ)hitchens is ranting as usual. Freethinking will always outgun "new" atheist and religious dogmatism.

[Melvin6566842]

It's not true that "the universe" doesn't have an opinion on genocide: every decent moral person has a problem with the slaughter of innocent people build in the hardware of our brain (one feels nausea and anger) and the moral humanist "software" of high culture developed to keep our sophisticated society from relapsing into barbarism.

One surely has to be a faith-robot to say things like "nobody cares about genocide" and rationalize it as part of a "divine plan".

[Viruw]

What is your specific claim to their innocence?

[ConcernedEngineer]

"The universe" has an opinion? Interesting. Is "the universe" a person? Is "the universe" a god? To say that "the universe" or "matter" or "energy" cares about anything is really bizarre. I agree that every decent moral person has a problem with the slaughter of innocent people. But what Wilson is saying is that if there is no God, then we don't bear God's image, and if that were true, then there is no morality - only physics.

[CommaPatient]

So what human beings, humankind being moral, seeing something as immoral doesn't count as the universe having a conscience. So you need it to be a universe with a god sized conscience for anything to be moral?

Of course the concept of morality can exist without god. It did before him, it does without him, and it does when its not him.

[ConcernedEngineer]

Wilson didn't say that "nobody cares about genocide." He is a presuppositionalist, and he was trying to get atheists to account for their moral code. This moral humanist software that you speak of is nonsense. Science has nothing authoritative to say about morality. Morality is a subset of philosophy and theology. Software is software. Software can not be moral or immoral any more than a rock an be moral or immoral. Software is only a bunch of 1's and 0's. Whence comes "morality"?

[CommaPatient]

All your saying is that you believe you have a perfect source which produces your true pure morality...

The history of barbarism in your bibles shows that your talking out of your ass, as you'll even justify acts not relevant to this time or place in a way that shows your possibly capable of acting them out yourselves through holding a delusional belief.

That's got to be immoral!

[mongobobo]

Post-Traumatic stress disorder. It is real and millions suffer from it around the world.