David Rockefeller’s lickspittle Christ’ Hitchens supports the Wilsonian model of “diplomacy” which includes, but is not limited to, expeditionary forces, permanent outposts (bases) and exporting/fomenting revolution by sabotaging local elections to depose popularly-elected leaders.
Wilson's comment about Mark's verse regarding "this generation shall not pass until..." is simply wrong.
In Mark, Jesus says that in the near future, a cosmic being called "The son of man" will come pass judgement on earth. This will be a physical "kingdom of god". Mark is the earliest gospel, and in it, Jesus is an apocalypticist.
Look up Mark 13:24-30. Look up what Mark has Jesus saying to the priest on trial: "YOU will see the son of man". He says to the priest that HE will see the event.
I doubt that people two thousand years ago could tell the difference between a coma and death. It wasn't all that many generations ago that people who were buried and merely presumed dead could ring a bell to let the grave digger know a mistake had been made if they regained consciousness before suffocating from the lack of air in their coffin.
@DwiteTheSpriteKnight I did not know that it was a custom for a death knell to be left in the coffin in case the individual presumed to be dead regained consciousness...interesting.
Any attempt to prove the bible is true using the bible is using "circular reasoning." The bible is nothing more than hearsay in writing. Even though we know that many of the places described in the bible exist, we cannot prove that any the "miracles" described in it actually happened. Its like believing that that since New York exists, Spiderman must have "lived", "cast out" Supervillains, "rested for 3 days", and "swung from the web on the "third day".
at 7:57 Wilson says "Lazarus was a resuscitation. Lazarus died again. Jesus was raised from the dead, never to die again."
Hats off to Wilson. He managed to get that whole thing with a straight face. I'd say coming back from the dead was a pretty big deal all by itself. Who cares if one of them died again?
Why is religion the only thing we humans take on board with absolutley no evidence or reason? Would anyone leave their very small child with a stranger without first getting to know them, or at least having them recommended by someone they trust? No. Reason, because we need evidence to make a decision on anything important. Facial contact, verbal or non-verbal communication, recommendation of friends peers, family. Yet with something as big as religion, no care is taken! Astonishing.
@sids500 I do not believe anyone makes ANY decision without reason. Whether the reasoning is faulty that's a different matter. To say the religious people do no reason, is a statement of poor Anti-religious bias on your part. Its a childish statement.
@TrueTaike Not at all. It is obvious from my use of the word reason that I am talking about informed judgements on serious issues, not "what is the reason for doing the washing-up at 6pm?" reason. My last sentence is clear enough, I state that not enough care is taken on this big issue. For a babysitter, enormous care would be taken, yet on a total lifestyle, people merely accept religion and don't question it. All I am saying is that if more people did question it (reason), more would doubt it.
@TrueTaike That's true, they have be4en tackling them for more than 2000yrs. There were other very similar religions before christianity, from which the bible is derived. The arrogance of the religious shines through in your comments though. "your still wrong"! You cannot know that. That's the point of atheism, we do not profess tro "know" everything, whereas religion claims to, and without any foundation! The reason we have been disagreeing for millenia is that religion simply poses no truths.
@sids500 So you just agreed with me, great i'm glad you were finally able to admit that reason isn't far from religion. lol Blw no body is claiming to know everything... lol seriously do you always rant like this? I won't even begin to explain "foundations" to you.. "relgion simply poses no truth" Truth...your an atheist what you need truth for...you going to be dirt anyways... why you need truth?
@TrueTaike It's pure blind faith based on nothing, but representing the believers needs and their requirement for solace and comfort in a crowd, as well as assuaging their fear of death. The books cannot be used as evidence even, let alone as the true story, as they are merely copied from older books. As for big issues, lets ask you about one. Why are there so many religions, as well as atheists? Does that mean god has cocked things up? and why are children born with terminal illness? Some god?
@sids500 "It's pure blind faith..." blah blah blah...I've hear the rant before... "why are there so many religions.." My question is ...are are there so ..f e w.. atheist?? "why are children born with terminal illness?" ...why not? Islams God is mean... why not? And there's no inconsistency with there being a Jewish God.....and pain in the world.... Whats the problem?
@TrueTaike You again, and as always with religious people, answer my quesion merely with more questions. You do my work for me, I need say no more. Thank you. Bye.
@sids500 my questions were made to help you think.. I don't expect answers for everything.. I gotta ask, why can't I ask questions? you expect me to answer all your questions...and have you do no such thing for me? Questions are a great way in understanding.. Without questions..there would be no reason for answers. I answered pretty much all your questions, are you really going to do nothing for me?
Totally one-sided. Wilson admits his beliefs are all on "faith" with no evidence, and Hitchens says, that's not good enough. There is no point in this any more. It's clear that religion is nonsense, but religious people cannot admit it on here for fear of being embarrassed they followed it for so long, and admitting their lives are so empty as to need it. If everything progressed like this, nothing would ever be decided or discovered, as someone could always just say it's wrong.
I find it hilarious that his justification for believing the miracles of the Bible is built upon his belief in the Resurrection which he justifies with prophecy and the accounts in the Bible giving it validation. Talk about circular reasoning. As usual theists ultimately must rely on the unevidenced suppositions of thier own Holy Book to justify thier beleifs.
@shortfuse, Wilson is saying there r preconditions to make evidence reliable & meaningful & the athirst worldview cannot account for those thngs, so instead of showing evidence he is pointing to the fact that he can not use them & stay consistent with his worldview
As much as I'd like to side blindly with Mr. Hitchens, I see in Dr. Wilson a very measured and careful debater.
Christian fate, like all faiths, is always a cruelly difficult proposition to defend. Kudos to Dr. Wilson for the effort.
It's so refreshing to see someone debate Mr. Hitchens in a civil and calm manner instead of continually appealing to the audience emotions to prove their point like so many others do when confronted by Christopher.
@LtColVenom Regardless of how well you defend Christianity or any other religion, they are still false. It was more funny then refreshing to see him stutter and mumble his way through lies, but it was refreshing to see him shun the traditional methods of Christian debating.
There is no shortage of civil disagreement and it can get on your nerves, but some civil disagreement is necessary to civilization. So, I agree with you again.
@LtColVenom So people like English apologist Clives Lewis had a neurological disorder? I grant that he may have partitioned his mind so that he could hold two incompatible beliefs at the same time, but partitioning one's mind (which we all do to a certain extent) is hardly the same as having a neurological disorder. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins suggested that, at the most, only memes (and not neurological misfirings) are responsible for people maintaining religious ideas.
Well, I don't know Mr. Lewis personnally but if he presents as irrefutable truth some tall tales from the bronze age; and believes it, he should have a head-check.
No, seriously, I'm no neurological specialist. I'm just taking quotes from Maher's Religoulus movie because they seem to apply. You may very well be right about mind's partitions.
The result is pretty much the same.
Faith people hold for truth stories that can't be proven and demonize those that don't agree.
As much as I'd like to side blindly with Mr. Hitchens, I see in Dr. Wilson a very measured and careful debater.
Christian fate, like all faiths, is always a cruelly difficult proposition to defend. Kudos to Dr. Wilson for the effort.
It's so refreshing to see someone debate Mr. Hitchens in a civil and calm manner instead of continually appealing to the audience emotions to prove their point.
Can this really be called a debate? One guy is admitting, I believe all this in spite of no evidence at all. Another guy is saying, you cant do that, it doesnt prove anything. The debate shouldve ended there.
Thanks buddy. After reading "well thought-out and researched" comment of yours, I thought I would reply with "well thought-out and researched" of my own.
From what I read in your comments I believe you are as gullible as they come.
I see you removed your comments for good reason. At some point, I hope, you must have realized chasing "unproven faith and blind belief" is laughable. It is smart to keep open mind instead of dutifully falling behind the goat in front of you. I know you have questions regarding religion that is why you watched this debate. I also know you couldn't but marvel at Hitchens superior ability to drive the point home but you insist on denying it.
@Aliof I removed my comments for a good reason indeed, noted the reason, and left an invitation for fools like you to send a message to my inbox to continue debate.
If you could read you could have avoided yourself embarrassment.
"I also know you couldn't but marvel "
Couldn't but marvel? Please, learn to put words together, and not omit critical ones.
"unproven faith" -- a ridiculous notion. If it was proven it wouldn't be faith. How dumb are you?
You keep missing the boat buddy. "If it was proven it wouldn't be faith", it is unproven silly, that is why gullible like you run around chasing their tail thinking Jesus was pure b/c his mother was virgin, and you call me dumb.
Please forgive my mistakes in writing in English, this is your language I am trying to learn it and use it to make you feel stupid. I think I am done educating you. You are suffering from the unproven faith and blind belief disorder.
You don'e need to know "what light is" jack, you have Jesus to guide you to "eternal" life.
Did you go to your bible study today? Darwin is my Jesus, his writings are my bible. I rather his fairy tales than what religion, any religion has to say about supernatural, coming messiah, walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrection..........Take a brake from yourself. Some people are born gullible and insist on staying that way.
@4cellar2door0 Lets define both since I doubt you know what evolution is.
Evolution is the alteration of genetic information, over time. We have selectively bred dogs to create new species specialized for certain environments or situations.
Gravity is the force objects with mass apply to all objects. Lift anything and then drop it. Moron.
@4cellar2door0 ... are you serious? Have you not seen video clips of astronaughts floating about in space due to the lack of gravity? We know that the moon has less gravity than Earth because of its relative size. . Scientists can even offer detailed explanations about how gravity works and make accurate calculations which can be easily measured about the movement of objects through space under the influence of gravity.
@4cellar2door0 You are joking? No, you're not. Gravity has proven laws. Try weightless tanks. Evolution is completely accepted and proven. The argument has now switched to whether it is compatible with religion or not, rather than whether it is fact. Have you ever read any science books, or attended school? Are you aware of your surroundings at all?
@4cellar2door0 Certainly it is widely accepted. Science has the huge, and very important advantage over religion in that it can change it's mind when new discoveries come along to improve the understanding we have of the world. In that way it is much more humble than the arrogant religions which claim to "know". They are stuck with old scripture, which cannot change. God caused illness until germ theory. God punished with storms until meteorology. God created everything until basic cosmology.
@4cellar2door0 I had others hide and delete comments and invite me to "private" messaging instead. Shows they have something to hide, or a case that cannot and will not stand up to any scrutiny. Reminds me also of those catholic priests this pope so loves and protects, and the things they did in private all over the world! Creepy.
@4cellar2door0 Maybe we'll end this here, as you show yourself unwilling to even attempt debate, and just resort to abuse. wonder why? Not even a hint at answering any questions posed. Hmm. Let the others on here decide.
is it a debate realy,how could be one talk reason debating anther guy quoting nonsense sentences from some books written hundered years ago.I think chris hitchens lowering his level of debate by such type.This might be ?? of help for ingnorant peoples who believe in fairy tails
They way Hitchens responds to Wilson's statement about Rome around 8:32 almost made me fall out of my chair it was so funny. I couldn't believe that Wilson was actually trying to quote the bible to combat Hitchens. That's great TV!
Wilson uses the analogy of counterfeit bills as other religions with Christianity being the true bill. the virgin birth myth predates Christianity. how could a counterfeit bill come before the true bill?
I bet they purposely chose an idiot christian debater so that the christian audience would see from the outside just how silly their religion is when defended lolzerzzzz!!
Haha. The donkey could have been ararnged. But normal bandaged up people walking the streets like Dawn of the dead zombies? Nah, had to be real. That he cannot pass.
i believe that Wilson is too intelligent to really believe in the bible. i think he believes just because he wants to to thake this path and he likes it as a form of intellectual fusion between mind and "heart" and he will not betray his principles, but if one talks like him, somwhere deep in his mind there must be a question mark which he does not admit (yet).
@Democrit1to9Freud It's particularly sad when people like Wilson, well spoken and thoughtful, cling to an unarguable claim. I think the real difficulty for such people is that they may have to face the reality that they've been lied to their whole lives.
@Brahmsfourth Sort of derpessing to tihnk god created th eroman empire with its conquests and murders just to go in and punish the israelites? Or was it a 2 birds, 1 stone, no reference to any cup videos intended, situation to punish the gauls for some of their arbitrary faults as well, with the best solution being the creation of the roman empire?
Wilson was pathetic, I honestly expected more from him. "I believe because it's evident to me from historical documents that miracles happened". What an argument from a guy, who supposedly teaches logic!
And to think: in the beginning of this entire so called 'debate' (there was no debate, Wilson didn't have any points), Wilson promised to show how it is that Hitchens not believing, by itself was yet another proof of god.
Respectfully, you might consider the writings of Simon Greenleaf. He was one of the Founders of the Harvard School of Law, and wrote a treatise on the Rules of Evidence that was and is the foundational piece of our legal system and still used today. He was an atheist who set out to disprove the NT accounts of the resurrection, and found instead enough evidence to become a Christian. He wrote that applying the Rules of Evidence, the NT Gospel accounts would qualify as eyewitness testimony.
Wilson offers that Christian miracles occurred when other religion's miracles did not occur. He says because of ALLEGED testimony -2nd and 3rd person accounts from christians...As if other religions do not have similar accounts from THEIR devout followers that testify just as vigorously on the behalf of THAT religion's miracles.
Why is it that the xtian must come up with really elaborate theories to explain the prophecies? Should I have a degree in theology to understand what the bible means? And who has the authority to make the "right" interpretation?
Christianity is not the redemptive force and or redemtive religion but it is Jesus Christ. It is the secularists that gave us the term Christian. Jesus Christ alone said "it is finished". We are still bickering centuries later. You ought to be dead to sin, to the things of the flesh, Hitchens will never understand the HOLY BIBLE because he is not born of the Spirit (Born Again in the Spirit).
You may not understand it either because you rely on what has SURVIVED for 2-3 thousand years of editing and organization and also being translated from ancient hebrew. The first canon of the new testament was a collection of writings and oral tradition put to text. Scripture did not have to be authored by an apostle it just had to be deemed by mortals in charge to have come from an apostle. Can we not see the inherent fallacy of this as an accurate recording of jesus' teaching?
I'm completely on Christopher Hitchens side and I don't think Douglas has any good arguments, but I must say that Douglas Wilson is the least annoying religious zealot i've ever seen debated.
Yep, that's right folks - metaphors in the Old Testament were predictions about New Testament history. This is no different from the game John Hogue plays with Nostradamus: the quatrain "Fire approaches the great new city" is twisted in hindsight to mean that Nostradamus predicted 9/11. Likewise, Wilson twists Revelations in hindsight to "prove" that John "predicted" the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. Any words written by anyone can be twisted in hindsight to mean anything you want.
When asked to further illustrate his reason for believing his miracles over others i.e. "i believe them b/c i believe them." He says: I believe in jesus resurrection which is the basis 4 all other miracles. Its silly then to no believe the other miracles.
All he did was say his original statement in a longer fashion. So he has no factual basis. All he has is faith. Which is belief for no reason.
Recently, a bunch of kids with a baloon with a figure of a black witch and a small battery operated remote control device to navigate the device attached to the balloon flew over a Mexican remote village....a police man sees it, and next thing on the news of that town, a few dozen people terrified report that their town saw an evil flying witch! The policeman even enhanced his witness that he saw the red eyes and claws of the witch......
Hitchens: "Jesus quotes Isaiah that the Messiah will ride a donkey into Jerusalem, then gets a donkey"....Wilson:" ok, I will give you the donkey"......Hitchens is brilliant, Wilson's argument can't dent the argument that 2,000+ years ago, a lot of people of that day would believe anything.
@tracihuber lol are you serious? roflmao really??? thanks for lowering the level of argument by deciding to point out that hitchens said the word god. i dont know if you noticed but he says that word a lot, that doesn't mean he believes in god anymore than he believes himself to be the easter bunny. i will pray to logic and reason for you
Great! I welcome all prayers! Thank you for thinking of me. Tell me what the logic and reason is for calling out to God when you don't believe in Him.
Can we please take the word debate out of the title of these videos. As eloquent as Douglas Wilson was, he certainly wasn't debating. Debating requires reasonably well-thought out points to defend against or attack the opposition; all he brought along were dogmatic views and appeals to emotion. Hitchen's points in this (Part 8) video were (I hope) thought-provoking to Wilson, the audience, and all Christian viewers on YouTube. If they weren't, then such Christians are voluntarily ignorant.
The problem with your statement is you believe it was possible Wilson COULD have debated based on fact. That is not possible. I submit people can be made to feel better through faith, but they can never defend their position on fact. You also assume that a person who sees life through the lens of religion and faith can be made to see reason and truth. Until they stop seeing life that way, they cannot see truth, because they filter all eventualities through an imaginary being.
You're right. It's sad actually. I wish theists would stop being predisposed to religious fervor. I know theists who make great arguments when it has nothing to do with religion/superstitious beliefs. However, religion makes them sensitive in debate and they usually just quote certain lines from religious text that they enjoy (ignoring the rest) or they just spew hate at atheism. The insecurity in theism shows; as a former Orthodox Christian, I can honestly say that I know how they feel.
@pwismyname I agree but Hitchens was debating him. I was let down too, most of the peoples Hitchens "debates" actually do participate in the debate and not just stonewall him
@ChimeraWarrior73 Not that eye witness accounts would matter. Only a deluded gullible tool would accept eye witness accounts as "evidence" for exceedingly improbable occurrances that go against everything we know from science.
@ChimeraWarrior73 mmm how about Matthew and John who wrote a gospel each. Luke and Mark got their evidence from eyewitnesses. This is not Christian dogmatism both Christian and non Christian biblical scholars and historians acknowledge that the NT stands up as a historically reliable document.
@Haszler:Historically reliable? You’re joking, right? Present us with any extra-biblical evidence of a Roman census in Judea requiring that all citizens return to their place of birth around BCE 96 – 0 CE. There is no way anyone can know who wrote those ¨gospels¨ because there isn’t an original copy to be found anywhere.
Some copy of a copy… ad infinitum… that claims that eyewitnesses claim they beheld miracles does not constitute evidence. It’s invented fabulousness which served as a foundation for a new religion which branched from Judaism.
1) On what basis did you assume that whatever forces and dynamics gave rise to the universe and its evolution are conscious and human-like, with motives, desires and aims? All contradicting the claimed omnipotence and omniscience.
2) How do you make the massive leap from deism or pantheism, to the highly specific claims of Christianity?
@byteresistor ...Except, of course, when it comes to the theory of multiple universes to explain the undeniable improbability of the 128 or more factors that determine our ability to survive in the universe.
In that case (and in many others), scientists gladly take the positive case with zero evidence.
Multiverse theories are hypotheses and as of yet outside the domain of confirmation by experimentation. When we don't know something, we admit it and not project the problem onto an external unknowable factor (God) on the basis of ancient myth.
If it is outside the realm of experimentation, then it is not a scientific theory.
You forget: the multiverse theory is the only logical way that a universe can be "fine-tuned" to our existence without admitting the likelihood of an Intelligent Designer. So your options are A) to accept an unprovable God, or B) come up with other improbable and unprovable theories to explain His absence. Which scientists have gladly done.
Multiverse theory is as of yet outside of scientific knowledge. It is in mathematical speculation mode.
Our brains are not much larger than chimps' and I suspect the limits of our knowledge are more than we'd like to believe. We can't ascertain what forces may or may not exist, science works with what we have. However, you make a huge leap and attribute what we do not presently know to the work of a conscious, anthropomorphic deity. You also claim to know its specific nature and aims.
Mathematical speculation is no more scientific than theological speculation.
We don't have to know anything about God's nature in order to discern that the universe has a Designer. Science can only lead us to see that a Designer exists—faith fills in the blanks as to what He is and what He wants.
Design is the manipulation of reality in the mind in order to execute an actual manipulation to satisfy aims. It is a function of limited creatures and not an omnipotent omniscient force. Such force is beyond characterization as the Hindu concept of Brahman lucidly illustrates.
Filling the blanks in this arbitrary manner begs my second question again, why Christianity and not Islam or Judaism or Hinduism?
In order to say that design is only a function of limited creatures, you have to exclude that which cannot be disproved. And are you really trying to use Hinduism to disprove intelligent design? That boggles my mind.
The evidence has not led me to believe in Hinduism or Judaism or Islam.
1) That which cannot be disproved could be anything. You cannot disprove the existence of unicorns, goblins, or genies, but that does not grant them legitimacy as explanations for phenomena.
2) My reference to Hinduism (I'm atheist) was the idea of human inability to ever comprehend an infinite god (Brahman). If the god you are postulating is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal it would be outside the limits of time and space posed by nature and requiring design. In a way, design is overcoming.
Design points to a designer. That is the sole conclusion that science, observation of the physical world, can bring us to. Faith attributes a name to the Designer, be it Jehovah or flying unicorns. But as far as I know, no scientist is claiming the existence of the latter.
Yes, God is outside the limits of time and space, as well as full human comprehension. Christians have known this for millennia. I don't see what point you were making there.
You have to FIRST prove God before you can prove HIS nature. You are commiting terrible logical fallacies in your posts. It is not necessary that the universe had a designer. I believe you accept that the universe is infinite in size, can it not also be infinite in time? That is to say, it had no temporal beginning. The universe has always been. As such, it wouldn't need a designer.
I wasn't trying to prove His nature. I said very straightforwardly that God's nature is known by faith, not science.
The universe isn't infinite in size. Not even secular scientists believe that. It is expanding, but not infinitely. Neither is it infinite in time. Everyone knows that the universe had a beginning, be it creation or a "big bang."
"I said very straightforwardly that God's nature is known by faith, not science."
And you are wrong. Here's why:
Faith: belief in the absence of evidence or belief without knowledge
If I KNOW the existence of God OR God's nature, there is no need for faith. IF I REQUIRE faith, then I cannot possibly have knowledge of the existence of God OR God's nature.
As for the rest of your post, you plan on defending any of those claims?
If you insist on changing the definition of faith to suit your needs, I'll ask you this: how much of what you know have you actually seen with your own eyes and concluded with your own reason? If you are like every other person on the planet, the answer is "a very small fraction." Most of what we know is taken on good authority; we trust the source. So you must either admit that you know nothing about evolution, or you must admit that much of what you know is really known by faith.
Then what is faith? Believeing something doesn't make it true. I have done a great deal of first-hand analysis and reasoning in my journey for knowledge and truth. Of course I distinguish between credible and incredible sources. The more extroardinary a claim is, the more proof and justification I require in order to believe it. The Bible requires ENORMOUS evidence to support the claims it makes. There is not a shred. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The way I see it, YOU are the one who is defining faith in a way that serves your wishes. Anything it has to be so that you can believe the Bible. Not ALL belief is faith. Only beliefs with no proof or justification are considered faith.
I agree: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But you have not personally examined all of the evidence (or quite possibly, any of the evidence) for evolution in person. If you haven't seen it for yourself, to accept that such extraordinary evidence exists is an act of faith. Neither believing something nor fully knowing something makes it true. The truth is never affected by our perception of it.
Evolution by natural selection has been objectively proven time and time again by scientist, almost ALL of whom deny the existence of a god, and believed by MANY theologians. And yes, I have had some first-hand experience studying and conduction evolutionary science. Curiously, not ONE has any evidence, experiments, or justification for supernatural or Biblical theology. NONE
I didn't claim that Biblical theology was provable. What I suggested was that you believe and know many things that you have not examined for yourself.
It doesn't matter even if every single scientist there ever was denied the existence of God. The non-existence of something can't be proved, as you know. And neither is scientific fact subject to a vote. Everyone used to believe that an atom could not be divided, but that didn't make it true. Shared consensus proves nothing—only evidence does.
In that case, science, which is based on evidence, can prove things..which it has. The Bible, NOT based on evidence, and NOT proveable as you admit, cannot be shown to be true. So why argue for it?
I did not claim that faith was my defense. I defend the Bible because of my faith.
The Bible does have supporting evidence. But like every other piece of recorded history, the archaeological evidence can only support it. It cannot prove it entirely. That's why I'm not insisting that you believe the Bible based on evidence. It can only be believed on faith.
Those statements can only be considered a contradiction if "evidence" is synonymous with "proof." This isn't necessarily true. It takes an overwhelming amount of irrefutable evidence to qualify as "proof." So even though there is historical evidence to support the Bible, it can't be proved that all of the events occurred exactly as they were described. That is why faith is necessary.
Wrong. It is contradictory because if it can ONLY be believed by faith, there can be NO evidence on which to base the belief. You might be retarded.
Archaeology and historical records both disprove that any of Exodus occured. I could refer you to some peer-reviewed publications from the journal of archaeology if you'd like. Of course, you won't be allowed back into your church.
What kind of an argument was that? Changing the definition of faith to suit your needs and then calling me retarded isn't an argument. There is no definition of faith that excludes any possibility of evidence.
You act like I'm supposed to be afraid of the evidence that you haven't cited. Show me.
"Changing the definition of faith to suit your needs and then calling me retarded isn't an argument"
Then define faith, like I asked several posts ago, dumbass.
Read William Dever's "Commentary: On Myths and Methods"
Read Israel Finkelstein's "On Archaeological Methods and Historical Considerations" OR "Deformation of the Israeli State: A Rejoinder on Methodology" OR "Ethnicity and Origin of the Highlands of Canaan"
I do not feel obligated to carry on a discussion with someone who cannot avoid personally insulting his opponent. Grow up.
If you asked "What is faith?" in a rhetorical sense, then you should not have expected me to answer it. If you asked in a literal sense, even after providing your own definition, then I suggest using a dictionary, where you will find all accepted meanings of the word.
There you have it: not based on proof (as opposed to "not based on evidence").
As you probably know, dictionaries define the meaning of words. The Bible is composed of words. Those words outline theological doctrines. If the doctrines are to be understood, one must first understand the vocabulary.
How does supplying a definition of "proof" show that faith cannot be based on "evidence?" I think you defined the wrong term there, buddy.
Wow. I keep finding myself repeating this: I did not, nor have I ever, claimed that anything can prove the validity of the Bible. That's the reason we got into the definition of "faith" in the first place, remember?
You claimed the Bible has evidence, dipshit. Are you taking it back now? If faith is not belief in the absence of evidence, what the FUCK is it (for the 3rd time)? You offered the dictionary. And it shows that it's the same thing I said. You need an IQ test, double quick!
You also claimed that archaeological findings support the Bible. Show me where exactly.
@jonathanpaulmayer I think you don't know how to read or reason correctly. Go back read the definition. It says explicitely that faith is not based on proof. Surely faith cannot be based on proof, otherwise by its definition it wouldn't be faith. And of course you can supply the word evidence to proof. Proof by its definition is at least an evidence. Plz don't make me write that definition also and explain it...
I deny that there is any proof OR evidence for the claims of the Bible. The burden is on you to show that there is. You haven't done a thing to defend your claims.
Faith is belief in the absence of proof. Example: a fuzzy video of Bigfoot is evidence, but not proof. Therefore, to believe in Bigfoot would still require faith.
The biblical city of Jericho, the Hittite empire, and the Assyrian King Sargon are just a few examples of places or persons who were considered fictional until archaeologists discovered the city of Jericho itself, the Hittite capitol city, and Sargon's palace. And there are dozens more. But all of these are evidences, not proofs.
I want to specify the term because apparently I don't define them correctly. You give me the definitions of these two terms (evidence and proof) as you believe them to be, and we can discuss
@jonathanpaulmayer Are you serious, you honestly attack the evolution theory. I mean we currently witness evolution among many species, the creationist theory is the most stupid and uncoherent theory I have ever seen
I thought that Wilson had a very reasonable argument until he used the words 'i believe' 6 times to affirm why he was right.
jackiechano1 6 days ago
"I'll give you the donkey....The donkey could've been arranged................."
He just trashed the bible and so did everyone in the audience, afterward.
SLAPSTICK2011 1 month ago
He's not an atheist anymore
RHOISON 1 month ago
@RHOISON He's not anything anymore. He's dead.
TonyRush 1 week ago
Was a great thinker... One of the few left that are outspoken... he will be missed..
Nigomsa 1 month ago
David Rockefeller’s lickspittle Christ’ Hitchens supports the Wilsonian model of “diplomacy” which includes, but is not limited to, expeditionary forces, permanent outposts (bases) and exporting/fomenting revolution by sabotaging local elections to depose popularly-elected leaders.
procommenter 2 months ago
Parthenogenesis results in female offspring...........so Jesus was a girl!!!
la2111 3 months ago 6
Wilson just seems so.... desperate...
Tetrahedragon2 4 months ago 2
Arranged donkey? Lol! What the hell is he on about...
Iskander0027 5 months ago
Wilson's comment about Mark's verse regarding "this generation shall not pass until..." is simply wrong.
In Mark, Jesus says that in the near future, a cosmic being called "The son of man" will come pass judgement on earth. This will be a physical "kingdom of god". Mark is the earliest gospel, and in it, Jesus is an apocalypticist.
Look up Mark 13:24-30. Look up what Mark has Jesus saying to the priest on trial: "YOU will see the son of man". He says to the priest that HE will see the event.
AR333 5 months ago
I doubt that people two thousand years ago could tell the difference between a coma and death. It wasn't all that many generations ago that people who were buried and merely presumed dead could ring a bell to let the grave digger know a mistake had been made if they regained consciousness before suffocating from the lack of air in their coffin.
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
writersblock26 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DwiteTheSpriteKnight I did not know that it was a custom for a death knell to be left in the coffin in case the individual presumed to be dead regained consciousness...interesting.
writersblock26 4 months ago
9:26 I'll give you the donkey lol
kragoon 6 months ago
Any attempt to prove the bible is true using the bible is using "circular reasoning." The bible is nothing more than hearsay in writing. Even though we know that many of the places described in the bible exist, we cannot prove that any the "miracles" described in it actually happened. Its like believing that that since New York exists, Spiderman must have "lived", "cast out" Supervillains, "rested for 3 days", and "swung from the web on the "third day".
Its ridiculous!
kragoon 6 months ago
at 7:57 Wilson says "Lazarus was a resuscitation. Lazarus died again. Jesus was raised from the dead, never to die again."
Hats off to Wilson. He managed to get that whole thing with a straight face. I'd say coming back from the dead was a pretty big deal all by itself. Who cares if one of them died again?
fusedchromosome 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Ill give u the donkey. Priceless!!
VellianoRosso 8 months ago
Why is religion the only thing we humans take on board with absolutley no evidence or reason? Would anyone leave their very small child with a stranger without first getting to know them, or at least having them recommended by someone they trust? No. Reason, because we need evidence to make a decision on anything important. Facial contact, verbal or non-verbal communication, recommendation of friends peers, family. Yet with something as big as religion, no care is taken! Astonishing.
sids500 8 months ago
@sids500 I do not believe anyone makes ANY decision without reason. Whether the reasoning is faulty that's a different matter. To say the religious people do no reason, is a statement of poor Anti-religious bias on your part. Its a childish statement.
TrueTaike 7 months ago
@TrueTaike Not at all. It is obvious from my use of the word reason that I am talking about informed judgements on serious issues, not "what is the reason for doing the washing-up at 6pm?" reason. My last sentence is clear enough, I state that not enough care is taken on this big issue. For a babysitter, enormous care would be taken, yet on a total lifestyle, people merely accept religion and don't question it. All I am saying is that if more people did question it (reason), more would doubt it.
sids500 7 months ago
@sids500
I got what you said, and your still wrong.
Which big issues??, I assure you that every issue you bring up theologians, apologist, and scholars have been tackling them for two millenniums.
TrueTaike 7 months ago
@TrueTaike That's true, they have be4en tackling them for more than 2000yrs. There were other very similar religions before christianity, from which the bible is derived. The arrogance of the religious shines through in your comments though. "your still wrong"! You cannot know that. That's the point of atheism, we do not profess tro "know" everything, whereas religion claims to, and without any foundation! The reason we have been disagreeing for millenia is that religion simply poses no truths.
sids500 7 months ago
@sids500 So you just agreed with me, great i'm glad you were finally able to admit that reason isn't far from religion. lol Blw no body is claiming to know everything... lol seriously do you always rant like this? I won't even begin to explain "foundations" to you.. "relgion simply poses no truth" Truth...your an atheist what you need truth for...you going to be dirt anyways... why you need truth?
TrueTaike 7 months ago
@TrueTaike It's pure blind faith based on nothing, but representing the believers needs and their requirement for solace and comfort in a crowd, as well as assuaging their fear of death. The books cannot be used as evidence even, let alone as the true story, as they are merely copied from older books. As for big issues, lets ask you about one. Why are there so many religions, as well as atheists? Does that mean god has cocked things up? and why are children born with terminal illness? Some god?
sids500 7 months ago
@sids500 "It's pure blind faith..." blah blah blah...I've hear the rant before... "why are there so many religions.." My question is ...are are there so ..f e w.. atheist?? "why are children born with terminal illness?" ...why not? Islams God is mean... why not? And there's no inconsistency with there being a Jewish God.....and pain in the world.... Whats the problem?
TrueTaike 7 months ago
@TrueTaike You again, and as always with religious people, answer my quesion merely with more questions. You do my work for me, I need say no more. Thank you. Bye.
sids500 7 months ago
@sids500 my questions were made to help you think.. I don't expect answers for everything.. I gotta ask, why can't I ask questions? you expect me to answer all your questions...and have you do no such thing for me? Questions are a great way in understanding.. Without questions..there would be no reason for answers. I answered pretty much all your questions, are you really going to do nothing for me?
TrueTaike 7 months ago
Totally one-sided. Wilson admits his beliefs are all on "faith" with no evidence, and Hitchens says, that's not good enough. There is no point in this any more. It's clear that religion is nonsense, but religious people cannot admit it on here for fear of being embarrassed they followed it for so long, and admitting their lives are so empty as to need it. If everything progressed like this, nothing would ever be decided or discovered, as someone could always just say it's wrong.
sids500 8 months ago
dont you think that if someone can fool you once they will do it time and time again until you dont belive anymore?
edgeforlife100 9 months ago
I find it hilarious that his justification for believing the miracles of the Bible is built upon his belief in the Resurrection which he justifies with prophecy and the accounts in the Bible giving it validation. Talk about circular reasoning. As usual theists ultimately must rely on the unevidenced suppositions of thier own Holy Book to justify thier beleifs.
bcarr424 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice job on the video looks good. When you have time come visit my channel!
pheromoneaction 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice job on the video looks good. When you have time come visit my channel!
TheHcgdietplan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice job on the video looks good. When you have time come visit my channel!
chocolatediet11 9 months ago
fat chick alert
jakepinoywolrd85 9 months ago
circular arguments are a sin
suave04 9 months ago
@shortfuse, Wilson is saying there r preconditions to make evidence reliable & meaningful & the athirst worldview cannot account for those thngs, so instead of showing evidence he is pointing to the fact that he can not use them & stay consistent with his worldview
plato7770 10 months ago
As much as I'd like to side blindly with Mr. Hitchens, I see in Dr. Wilson a very measured and careful debater.
Christian fate, like all faiths, is always a cruelly difficult proposition to defend. Kudos to Dr. Wilson for the effort.
It's so refreshing to see someone debate Mr. Hitchens in a civil and calm manner instead of continually appealing to the audience emotions to prove their point like so many others do when confronted by Christopher.
LtColVenom 10 months ago
@LtColVenom Regardless of how well you defend Christianity or any other religion, they are still false. It was more funny then refreshing to see him stutter and mumble his way through lies, but it was refreshing to see him shun the traditional methods of Christian debating.
TiteProducts 9 months ago
@TiteProducts
Indeed. Religions are fraud attempts on people that have a neurological disorder. You got that right.
Still, I enjoyed Dr. Wilson participation as much as I could barely tolerate D'Sousa or Boteach.
He is as calm and "open" as these other idiots are annoying and full of s*it.
Civil disagreement is rare enough that I feel we should show appreciation for it, regardless of our stance on the question itself.
LtColVenom 9 months ago
@LtColVenom Thank you.
I agree with you there.
There is no shortage of civil disagreement and it can get on your nerves, but some civil disagreement is necessary to civilization. So, I agree with you again.
TiteProducts 9 months ago
@LtColVenom So people like English apologist Clives Lewis had a neurological disorder? I grant that he may have partitioned his mind so that he could hold two incompatible beliefs at the same time, but partitioning one's mind (which we all do to a certain extent) is hardly the same as having a neurological disorder. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins suggested that, at the most, only memes (and not neurological misfirings) are responsible for people maintaining religious ideas.
writersblock26 9 months ago
@writersblock26
Well, I don't know Mr. Lewis personnally but if he presents as irrefutable truth some tall tales from the bronze age; and believes it, he should have a head-check.
No, seriously, I'm no neurological specialist. I'm just taking quotes from Maher's Religoulus movie because they seem to apply. You may very well be right about mind's partitions.
The result is pretty much the same.
Faith people hold for truth stories that can't be proven and demonize those that don't agree.
LtColVenom 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As much as I'd like to side blindly with Mr. Hitchens, I see in Dr. Wilson a very measured and careful debater.
Christian fate, like all faiths, is always a cruelly difficult proposition to defend. Kudos to Dr. Wilson for the effort.
It's so refreshing to see someone debate Mr. Hitchens in a civil and calm manner instead of continually appealing to the audience emotions to prove their point.
LtColVenom 10 months ago
Comment removed
LtColVenom 10 months ago
Can this really be called a debate? One guy is admitting, I believe all this in spite of no evidence at all. Another guy is saying, you cant do that, it doesnt prove anything. The debate shouldve ended there.
shortfuse41 10 months ago
You uneducated atheists seem to have taken an interest in debating me.
Please, feel free to send a message to my inbox.
500 character limits and comment-section wars are hardly conducive to debate.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
Hitchens gold. Wilson destroyed....
And Jerusalem is still being destroyed.
groovegears 10 months ago
Hitchens gold. Wilson destroyed.
groovegears 10 months ago
Comment removed
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0
The boat sailed long time ago buddy, while you were trying to pull your pants up.
Aliof 10 months ago
Comment removed
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0
Thanks buddy. After reading "well thought-out and researched" comment of yours, I thought I would reply with "well thought-out and researched" of my own.
From what I read in your comments I believe you are as gullible as they come.
Aliof 10 months ago
Comment removed
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0
I see you removed your comments for good reason. At some point, I hope, you must have realized chasing "unproven faith and blind belief" is laughable. It is smart to keep open mind instead of dutifully falling behind the goat in front of you. I know you have questions regarding religion that is why you watched this debate. I also know you couldn't but marvel at Hitchens superior ability to drive the point home but you insist on denying it.
Aliof 10 months ago
@Aliof I removed my comments for a good reason indeed, noted the reason, and left an invitation for fools like you to send a message to my inbox to continue debate.
If you could read you could have avoided yourself embarrassment.
"I also know you couldn't but marvel "
Couldn't but marvel? Please, learn to put words together, and not omit critical ones.
"unproven faith" -- a ridiculous notion. If it was proven it wouldn't be faith. How dumb are you?
"blind belief" --- Wrong.
Next?
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0
You keep missing the boat buddy. "If it was proven it wouldn't be faith", it is unproven silly, that is why gullible like you run around chasing their tail thinking Jesus was pure b/c his mother was virgin, and you call me dumb.
Please forgive my mistakes in writing in English, this is your language I am trying to learn it and use it to make you feel stupid. I think I am done educating you. You are suffering from the unproven faith and blind belief disorder.
Aliof 10 months ago
@Aliof You keep missing the boat buddy.
Evolution is unproven.
Gravity is unproven.
We don't even know what LIGHT is.
Photons? Waves? Particles?
Dark Matter is unproven
And you run around chasing Darwin's tail thinking he was right for no empirically substantiated reason, and you call me dumb.
"I am trying to use it to make you feel stupid".
Unfortunately for you, that's not going to work.
I'm not the one believing in fairy tales, you are.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0
You don'e need to know "what light is" jack, you have Jesus to guide you to "eternal" life.
Did you go to your bible study today? Darwin is my Jesus, his writings are my bible. I rather his fairy tales than what religion, any religion has to say about supernatural, coming messiah, walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrection..........Take a brake from yourself. Some people are born gullible and insist on staying that way.
Aliof 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Evolution happens - fact.
Gravity happens - fact.
How all these happen - theories.
The only one who missed the boat was you, my good friend.
pythor2 10 months ago
@pythor2
Clicking your red heels and wishing real hard for your fairy tale to come true wont make it so.
Evolution happens - fact? Prove it.
Gravity happens - fact? Define gravity and prove it.
I'll be waiting (probably forever, since you can't prove what isn't true).
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Lets define both since I doubt you know what evolution is.
Evolution is the alteration of genetic information, over time. We have selectively bred dogs to create new species specialized for certain environments or situations.
Gravity is the force objects with mass apply to all objects. Lift anything and then drop it. Moron.
TiteProducts 9 months ago
@4cellar2door0 ... are you serious? Have you not seen video clips of astronaughts floating about in space due to the lack of gravity? We know that the moon has less gravity than Earth because of its relative size. . Scientists can even offer detailed explanations about how gravity works and make accurate calculations which can be easily measured about the movement of objects through space under the influence of gravity.
piddleton 9 months ago
@4cellar2door0 You are joking? No, you're not. Gravity has proven laws. Try weightless tanks. Evolution is completely accepted and proven. The argument has now switched to whether it is compatible with religion or not, rather than whether it is fact. Have you ever read any science books, or attended school? Are you aware of your surroundings at all?
sids500 8 months ago
@sids500 "Evolution is completely accepted and proven."
That is so false.
It is neither completely accepted, nor proven at ALL.
You FAIL.
4cellar2door0 8 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Certainly it is widely accepted. Science has the huge, and very important advantage over religion in that it can change it's mind when new discoveries come along to improve the understanding we have of the world. In that way it is much more humble than the arrogant religions which claim to "know". They are stuck with old scripture, which cannot change. God caused illness until germ theory. God punished with storms until meteorology. God created everything until basic cosmology.
sids500 8 months ago
@4cellar2door0 I had others hide and delete comments and invite me to "private" messaging instead. Shows they have something to hide, or a case that cannot and will not stand up to any scrutiny. Reminds me also of those catholic priests this pope so loves and protects, and the things they did in private all over the world! Creepy.
sids500 8 months ago
@sids500 Or it could be that this is not a public debate but a private argument, of which the proper forum is not a public comment board.
Or, yeah, it could be what you said. You're probably a genius, and you probably know everyone's motivations. Wow you're so bad ass... teach me?
4cellar2door0 8 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Maybe we'll end this here, as you show yourself unwilling to even attempt debate, and just resort to abuse. wonder why? Not even a hint at answering any questions posed. Hmm. Let the others on here decide.
sids500 8 months ago
here is where hitchens won by knock out.
SebiSthlm 11 months ago
'ill give you the donkey'
aaaand all credibility is out of the window... if jesus knew that he had to fulfill one prophecy, then he knew he had to fulfill all of them
behemuth 11 months ago
is it a debate realy,how could be one talk reason debating anther guy quoting nonsense sentences from some books written hundered years ago.I think chris hitchens lowering his level of debate by such type.This might be ?? of help for ingnorant peoples who believe in fairy tails
bassiouniyt1 1 year ago 2
"I'll give the donkey, that may have been aranged" So much for a reliable document :(
DaGavinX 1 year ago
They way Hitchens responds to Wilson's statement about Rome around 8:32 almost made me fall out of my chair it was so funny. I couldn't believe that Wilson was actually trying to quote the bible to combat Hitchens. That's great TV!
schmuck924 1 year ago 11
the prophcys we're already written....so esay for this jesus to know what they expect from the old testement...so it is easy to fullfill them...
chucka59 1 year ago
Wilson uses the analogy of counterfeit bills as other religions with Christianity being the true bill. the virgin birth myth predates Christianity. how could a counterfeit bill come before the true bill?
foxhanson 1 year ago
I bet they purposely chose an idiot christian debater so that the christian audience would see from the outside just how silly their religion is when defended lolzerzzzz!!
SlayingMinion 1 year ago
Haha. The donkey could have been ararnged. But normal bandaged up people walking the streets like Dawn of the dead zombies? Nah, had to be real. That he cannot pass.
Domzdream 1 year ago
Epistemology question.
I believe everything else, because I believe this one thing.
Is that what he said?
Kan2209 1 year ago
i believe that Wilson is too intelligent to really believe in the bible. i think he believes just because he wants to to thake this path and he likes it as a form of intellectual fusion between mind and "heart" and he will not betray his principles, but if one talks like him, somwhere deep in his mind there must be a question mark which he does not admit (yet).
Democrit1to9Freud 1 year ago
@Democrit1to9Freud It's particularly sad when people like Wilson, well spoken and thoughtful, cling to an unarguable claim. I think the real difficulty for such people is that they may have to face the reality that they've been lied to their whole lives.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
Wilson is an intelligent, articulate and affable man, but deluded about that Bible stuff. Hitchens is, as usual, rational and illuminating.
Brahmsfourth 1 year ago 17
@Brahmsfourth Sort of derpessing to tihnk god created th eroman empire with its conquests and murders just to go in and punish the israelites? Or was it a 2 birds, 1 stone, no reference to any cup videos intended, situation to punish the gauls for some of their arbitrary faults as well, with the best solution being the creation of the roman empire?
Kan2209 1 year ago
TAXI! - get me out of here, yes. but, on the other hand, who ever expected religious nuts to follow logig or reasoning..
trannyniggr 1 year ago
"i'll give you the donkey!" :-)
scudder91 1 year ago
So he switched from "I believe in miracles because they happened" to "I believe in miracles because its written in the scriptures"
ancoreal 1 year ago 2
Wilson was pathetic, I honestly expected more from him. "I believe because it's evident to me from historical documents that miracles happened". What an argument from a guy, who supposedly teaches logic!
And to think: in the beginning of this entire so called 'debate' (there was no debate, Wilson didn't have any points), Wilson promised to show how it is that Hitchens not believing, by itself was yet another proof of god.
romanmir01 1 year ago
"OH GOD" 8:33 " Hang on a second this is really important" lofl
komododr 1 year ago
Respectfully, you might consider the writings of Simon Greenleaf. He was one of the Founders of the Harvard School of Law, and wrote a treatise on the Rules of Evidence that was and is the foundational piece of our legal system and still used today. He was an atheist who set out to disprove the NT accounts of the resurrection, and found instead enough evidence to become a Christian. He wrote that applying the Rules of Evidence, the NT Gospel accounts would qualify as eyewitness testimony.
toyotaguyjeff 1 year ago
Wilson offers that Christian miracles occurred when other religion's miracles did not occur. He says because of ALLEGED testimony -2nd and 3rd person accounts from christians...As if other religions do not have similar accounts from THEIR devout followers that testify just as vigorously on the behalf of THAT religion's miracles.
crush3r63 1 year ago
Why is it that the xtian must come up with really elaborate theories to explain the prophecies? Should I have a degree in theology to understand what the bible means? And who has the authority to make the "right" interpretation?
mountainmanbear 1 year ago 2
Christianity is not the redemptive force and or redemtive religion but it is Jesus Christ. It is the secularists that gave us the term Christian. Jesus Christ alone said "it is finished". We are still bickering centuries later. You ought to be dead to sin, to the things of the flesh, Hitchens will never understand the HOLY BIBLE because he is not born of the Spirit (Born Again in the Spirit).
psalm91forgee 1 year ago
@psalm91forgee
You may not understand it either because you rely on what has SURVIVED for 2-3 thousand years of editing and organization and also being translated from ancient hebrew. The first canon of the new testament was a collection of writings and oral tradition put to text. Scripture did not have to be authored by an apostle it just had to be deemed by mortals in charge to have come from an apostle. Can we not see the inherent fallacy of this as an accurate recording of jesus' teaching?
crush3r63 1 year ago
5:56 lol
asdashopperrr 1 year ago
I'm completely on Christopher Hitchens side and I don't think Douglas has any good arguments, but I must say that Douglas Wilson is the least annoying religious zealot i've ever seen debated.
SwuaveWEB 1 year ago 2
Yep, that's right folks - metaphors in the Old Testament were predictions about New Testament history. This is no different from the game John Hogue plays with Nostradamus: the quatrain "Fire approaches the great new city" is twisted in hindsight to mean that Nostradamus predicted 9/11. Likewise, Wilson twists Revelations in hindsight to "prove" that John "predicted" the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. Any words written by anyone can be twisted in hindsight to mean anything you want.
vau0807 1 year ago 6
@vau0807 Agreed. Here is an example:
Monkeys fling poop.
Monkeys are brown, stereotypical Arabs are brown, flinging poop is an analogy for hijack planes.
TiteProducts 9 months ago
religious people r mentally disordered. its not an insult. its my observation and opinion.
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAtheistworld
Sure!
Atheists are mentally disordered which is the reason why you think religious people are mentaly disordered.
It's not an insult. It's my observation and opinion.
KPECTOHOCETC 1 year ago
I'm sorry Mr. Wilson but because you believe these miracles to be true without any evidence you are; as Prof Dawkins would put it; delusional.
WallyJ40 1 year ago 2
Its funny really. Get this about Wilson:
When asked to further illustrate his reason for believing his miracles over others i.e. "i believe them b/c i believe them." He says: I believe in jesus resurrection which is the basis 4 all other miracles. Its silly then to no believe the other miracles.
All he did was say his original statement in a longer fashion. So he has no factual basis. All he has is faith. Which is belief for no reason.
xenorun 1 year ago 3
Recently, a bunch of kids with a baloon with a figure of a black witch and a small battery operated remote control device to navigate the device attached to the balloon flew over a Mexican remote village....a police man sees it, and next thing on the news of that town, a few dozen people terrified report that their town saw an evil flying witch! The policeman even enhanced his witness that he saw the red eyes and claws of the witch......
warwickshire008 1 year ago
Hitchens: "Jesus quotes Isaiah that the Messiah will ride a donkey into Jerusalem, then gets a donkey"....Wilson:" ok, I will give you the donkey"......Hitchens is brilliant, Wilson's argument can't dent the argument that 2,000+ years ago, a lot of people of that day would believe anything.
warwickshire008 1 year ago
Wilson is really sad, I said this was going to be an intelligent debate
2CSST2 1 year ago
No one could kill like God. He was an expert at killing. Thats why he said, Thou shalt not kill. He wanted the pleasure all to himself.
buddybleau 1 year ago
KKRAATOOOOOS!!!!
JonathanWKnight 1 year ago
When the last stone from the last church falls on the head of the last clergy, only then, we may find peace.
buddybleau 1 year ago
Good men do good things, bad men do bad things. But only with religion can you get good men to do bad things.
buddybleau 1 year ago
8:33 Mr. Hitchens calls out to Who when failing at patience with Mr. Wilson? I will pray for this man.
tracihuber 1 year ago
@tracihuber lol are you serious? roflmao really??? thanks for lowering the level of argument by deciding to point out that hitchens said the word god. i dont know if you noticed but he says that word a lot, that doesn't mean he believes in god anymore than he believes himself to be the easter bunny. i will pray to logic and reason for you
TheLydianRocks 1 year ago
Great! I welcome all prayers! Thank you for thinking of me. Tell me what the logic and reason is for calling out to God when you don't believe in Him.
tracihuber 1 year ago
@tracihuber
Saying "god" is an exclamative figure of speach not a proclamation. Go study english if you want to know the difference.
Sylosis333 1 year ago
@Sylosis333 Thank You!!!
Ive made that point numerous times and at least 1/2 the time, it falls on deaf ears.
sakar181 1 year ago
is it just me or are all the asian students sitting near each other? watch the speakers at the mic...
a word you wont find in the Bible: FOSSIL
pele6922 1 year ago
Can we please take the word debate out of the title of these videos. As eloquent as Douglas Wilson was, he certainly wasn't debating. Debating requires reasonably well-thought out points to defend against or attack the opposition; all he brought along were dogmatic views and appeals to emotion. Hitchen's points in this (Part 8) video were (I hope) thought-provoking to Wilson, the audience, and all Christian viewers on YouTube. If they weren't, then such Christians are voluntarily ignorant.
pwismyname 2 years ago 81
The problem with your statement is you believe it was possible Wilson COULD have debated based on fact. That is not possible. I submit people can be made to feel better through faith, but they can never defend their position on fact. You also assume that a person who sees life through the lens of religion and faith can be made to see reason and truth. Until they stop seeing life that way, they cannot see truth, because they filter all eventualities through an imaginary being.
Joe41272 2 years ago 3
You're right. It's sad actually. I wish theists would stop being predisposed to religious fervor. I know theists who make great arguments when it has nothing to do with religion/superstitious beliefs. However, religion makes them sensitive in debate and they usually just quote certain lines from religious text that they enjoy (ignoring the rest) or they just spew hate at atheism. The insecurity in theism shows; as a former Orthodox Christian, I can honestly say that I know how they feel.
pwismyname 2 years ago
@pwismyname I agree but Hitchens was debating him. I was let down too, most of the peoples Hitchens "debates" actually do participate in the debate and not just stonewall him
holypsychopath 1 year ago
There are no eye witness accounts of all the so-called miracles in the N.T. The Bible cannot be used as evidence to prove itself. This is really sad.
ChimeraWarrior73 2 years ago 63
@ChimeraWarrior73 Quite the contrary, historically and archeologically proved. Go back in history before you nulify solid facts.
psalm91forgee 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Not that eye witness accounts would matter. Only a deluded gullible tool would accept eye witness accounts as "evidence" for exceedingly improbable occurrances that go against everything we know from science.
latuman 1 year ago 2
@ChimeraWarrior73 mmm how about Matthew and John who wrote a gospel each. Luke and Mark got their evidence from eyewitnesses. This is not Christian dogmatism both Christian and non Christian biblical scholars and historians acknowledge that the NT stands up as a historically reliable document.
Haszler 1 year ago
@Haszler:Historically reliable? You’re joking, right? Present us with any extra-biblical evidence of a Roman census in Judea requiring that all citizens return to their place of birth around BCE 96 – 0 CE. There is no way anyone can know who wrote those ¨gospels¨ because there isn’t an original copy to be found anywhere.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago 2
Some copy of a copy… ad infinitum… that claims that eyewitnesses claim they beheld miracles does not constitute evidence. It’s invented fabulousness which served as a foundation for a new religion which branched from Judaism.
ChimeraWarrior73 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73
.................there is a word called faith.
jet375 10 months ago
Wilson's verbose statement, told us absolutely nothing.
R3APER24 2 years ago
"I'll give you the donkey, the donkey could have been arranged"-Wilson
Cannot even offer to elaborate further on religion and its cheese cloth ways
studman165 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer
My question to you is twofold,
1) On what basis did you assume that whatever forces and dynamics gave rise to the universe and its evolution are conscious and human-like, with motives, desires and aims? All contradicting the claimed omnipotence and omniscience.
2) How do you make the massive leap from deism or pantheism, to the highly specific claims of Christianity?
bkishar 2 years ago
...Negative is always the default position until we can prove a positive claim.
byteresistor 2 years ago
@byteresistor ...Except, of course, when it comes to the theory of multiple universes to explain the undeniable improbability of the 128 or more factors that determine our ability to survive in the universe.
In that case (and in many others), scientists gladly take the positive case with zero evidence.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
Multiverse theories are hypotheses and as of yet outside the domain of confirmation by experimentation. When we don't know something, we admit it and not project the problem onto an external unknowable factor (God) on the basis of ancient myth.
bkishar 2 years ago
If it is outside the realm of experimentation, then it is not a scientific theory.
You forget: the multiverse theory is the only logical way that a universe can be "fine-tuned" to our existence without admitting the likelihood of an Intelligent Designer. So your options are A) to accept an unprovable God, or B) come up with other improbable and unprovable theories to explain His absence. Which scientists have gladly done.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
Multiverse theory is as of yet outside of scientific knowledge. It is in mathematical speculation mode.
Our brains are not much larger than chimps' and I suspect the limits of our knowledge are more than we'd like to believe. We can't ascertain what forces may or may not exist, science works with what we have. However, you make a huge leap and attribute what we do not presently know to the work of a conscious, anthropomorphic deity. You also claim to know its specific nature and aims.
bkishar 2 years ago
Mathematical speculation is no more scientific than theological speculation.
We don't have to know anything about God's nature in order to discern that the universe has a Designer. Science can only lead us to see that a Designer exists—faith fills in the blanks as to what He is and what He wants.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
Though mathematical speculation may be similar in use of logic to theological speculation, the axioms are different.
bkishar 2 years ago
Design is the manipulation of reality in the mind in order to execute an actual manipulation to satisfy aims. It is a function of limited creatures and not an omnipotent omniscient force. Such force is beyond characterization as the Hindu concept of Brahman lucidly illustrates.
Filling the blanks in this arbitrary manner begs my second question again, why Christianity and not Islam or Judaism or Hinduism?
bkishar 2 years ago
In order to say that design is only a function of limited creatures, you have to exclude that which cannot be disproved. And are you really trying to use Hinduism to disprove intelligent design? That boggles my mind.
The evidence has not led me to believe in Hinduism or Judaism or Islam.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
1) That which cannot be disproved could be anything. You cannot disprove the existence of unicorns, goblins, or genies, but that does not grant them legitimacy as explanations for phenomena.
2) My reference to Hinduism (I'm atheist) was the idea of human inability to ever comprehend an infinite god (Brahman). If the god you are postulating is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal it would be outside the limits of time and space posed by nature and requiring design. In a way, design is overcoming.
bkishar 2 years ago
Design points to a designer. That is the sole conclusion that science, observation of the physical world, can bring us to. Faith attributes a name to the Designer, be it Jehovah or flying unicorns. But as far as I know, no scientist is claiming the existence of the latter.
Yes, God is outside the limits of time and space, as well as full human comprehension. Christians have known this for millennia. I don't see what point you were making there.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathan
You have to FIRST prove God before you can prove HIS nature. You are commiting terrible logical fallacies in your posts. It is not necessary that the universe had a designer. I believe you accept that the universe is infinite in size, can it not also be infinite in time? That is to say, it had no temporal beginning. The universe has always been. As such, it wouldn't need a designer.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
I wasn't trying to prove His nature. I said very straightforwardly that God's nature is known by faith, not science.
The universe isn't infinite in size. Not even secular scientists believe that. It is expanding, but not infinitely. Neither is it infinite in time. Everyone knows that the universe had a beginning, be it creation or a "big bang."
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
"I said very straightforwardly that God's nature is known by faith, not science."
And you are wrong. Here's why:
Faith: belief in the absence of evidence or belief without knowledge
If I KNOW the existence of God OR God's nature, there is no need for faith. IF I REQUIRE faith, then I cannot possibly have knowledge of the existence of God OR God's nature.
As for the rest of your post, you plan on defending any of those claims?
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
If you insist on changing the definition of faith to suit your needs, I'll ask you this: how much of what you know have you actually seen with your own eyes and concluded with your own reason? If you are like every other person on the planet, the answer is "a very small fraction." Most of what we know is taken on good authority; we trust the source. So you must either admit that you know nothing about evolution, or you must admit that much of what you know is really known by faith.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
Then what is faith? Believeing something doesn't make it true. I have done a great deal of first-hand analysis and reasoning in my journey for knowledge and truth. Of course I distinguish between credible and incredible sources. The more extroardinary a claim is, the more proof and justification I require in order to believe it. The Bible requires ENORMOUS evidence to support the claims it makes. There is not a shred. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
The way I see it, YOU are the one who is defining faith in a way that serves your wishes. Anything it has to be so that you can believe the Bible. Not ALL belief is faith. Only beliefs with no proof or justification are considered faith.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
I agree: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But you have not personally examined all of the evidence (or quite possibly, any of the evidence) for evolution in person. If you haven't seen it for yourself, to accept that such extraordinary evidence exists is an act of faith. Neither believing something nor fully knowing something makes it true. The truth is never affected by our perception of it.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
Evolution by natural selection has been objectively proven time and time again by scientist, almost ALL of whom deny the existence of a god, and believed by MANY theologians. And yes, I have had some first-hand experience studying and conduction evolutionary science. Curiously, not ONE has any evidence, experiments, or justification for supernatural or Biblical theology. NONE
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
I didn't claim that Biblical theology was provable. What I suggested was that you believe and know many things that you have not examined for yourself.
It doesn't matter even if every single scientist there ever was denied the existence of God. The non-existence of something can't be proved, as you know. And neither is scientific fact subject to a vote. Everyone used to believe that an atom could not be divided, but that didn't make it true. Shared consensus proves nothing—only evidence does.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
"The non-existence of something can't be proved, as you know."
Then I have no reason to believe the Bible over ANYTHING that is claimed to exist in the absence of evidence.
"Shared consensus proves nothing—only evidence does."
In that case, science, which is based on evidence, can prove things..which it has. The Bible, NOT based on evidence, and NOT proveable as you admit, cannot be shown to be true. So why argue for it?
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
I defend the Bible on faith. I attack the theory evolution on evidence. I do not attack true science.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
Your faith is not a defense. It is your's alone, thus you cannot defend it in a public argument. So, let's see what we've found:
1. The Bible has no evidence
2. The Bible cannot be proven
3. God's existence cannot be proven
4. God's nature cannot be known
5. Faith is not an argument
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
I did not claim that faith was my defense. I defend the Bible because of my faith.
The Bible does have supporting evidence. But like every other piece of recorded history, the archaeological evidence can only support it. It cannot prove it entirely. That's why I'm not insisting that you believe the Bible based on evidence. It can only be believed on faith.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The Bible does have supporting evidence."
"It can only be believed on faith."
Uh, bud, these two claims entail a contradiction. Which is true?
"But like every other piece of recorded history, the archaeological evidence can only support it."
Actually, archaeology can and has disproved parts of the Bible, for example Exodus.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
Those statements can only be considered a contradiction if "evidence" is synonymous with "proof." This isn't necessarily true. It takes an overwhelming amount of irrefutable evidence to qualify as "proof." So even though there is historical evidence to support the Bible, it can't be proved that all of the events occurred exactly as they were described. That is why faith is necessary.
How has archaeology "disproved" Exodus?
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathan
Wrong. It is contradictory because if it can ONLY be believed by faith, there can be NO evidence on which to base the belief. You might be retarded.
Archaeology and historical records both disprove that any of Exodus occured. I could refer you to some peer-reviewed publications from the journal of archaeology if you'd like. Of course, you won't be allowed back into your church.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
What kind of an argument was that? Changing the definition of faith to suit your needs and then calling me retarded isn't an argument. There is no definition of faith that excludes any possibility of evidence.
You act like I'm supposed to be afraid of the evidence that you haven't cited. Show me.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
"What kind of an argument was that?"
a reductio ad absurdum
"Changing the definition of faith to suit your needs and then calling me retarded isn't an argument"
Then define faith, like I asked several posts ago, dumbass.
Read William Dever's "Commentary: On Myths and Methods"
Read Israel Finkelstein's "On Archaeological Methods and Historical Considerations" OR "Deformation of the Israeli State: A Rejoinder on Methodology" OR "Ethnicity and Origin of the Highlands of Canaan"
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
I do not feel obligated to carry on a discussion with someone who cannot avoid personally insulting his opponent. Grow up.
If you asked "What is faith?" in a rhetorical sense, then you should not have expected me to answer it. If you asked in a literal sense, even after providing your own definition, then I suggest using a dictionary, where you will find all accepted meanings of the word.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathan
I don't see why you would be obligated at all. If you are so certain of your position, why should my insults deter you?
The dictionary? You take the dictionary as the source of truth in this case rather than the Bible? O ye of little faith. Hmmm....
Faith: belief that is not based on proof. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
There you have it: not based on proof (as opposed to "not based on evidence").
As you probably know, dictionaries define the meaning of words. The Bible is composed of words. Those words outline theological doctrines. If the doctrines are to be understood, one must first understand the vocabulary.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaul
"not based on proof (as opposed to "not based on evidence")."
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a claim as true
There you have it: neither based on evidence or proof.
"As you probably know, dictionaries define the meaning of words"
But they do not always do so correctly. As you probably don't know, the meaning of words change.
Tell me this, does a claim written in an ancient text, correctly interpreted, in any way prove the validity of the claim?
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
How does supplying a definition of "proof" show that faith cannot be based on "evidence?" I think you defined the wrong term there, buddy.
Wow. I keep finding myself repeating this: I did not, nor have I ever, claimed that anything can prove the validity of the Bible. That's the reason we got into the definition of "faith" in the first place, remember?
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer
You claimed the Bible has evidence, dipshit. Are you taking it back now? If faith is not belief in the absence of evidence, what the FUCK is it (for the 3rd time)? You offered the dictionary. And it shows that it's the same thing I said. You need an IQ test, double quick!
You also claimed that archaeological findings support the Bible. Show me where exactly.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer I think you don't know how to read or reason correctly. Go back read the definition. It says explicitely that faith is not based on proof. Surely faith cannot be based on proof, otherwise by its definition it wouldn't be faith. And of course you can supply the word evidence to proof. Proof by its definition is at least an evidence. Plz don't make me write that definition also and explain it...
2CSST2 1 year ago
@jonathanpaulmayer
I deny that there is any proof OR evidence for the claims of the Bible. The burden is on you to show that there is. You haven't done a thing to defend your claims.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
Faith is belief in the absence of proof. Example: a fuzzy video of Bigfoot is evidence, but not proof. Therefore, to believe in Bigfoot would still require faith.
The biblical city of Jericho, the Hittite empire, and the Assyrian King Sargon are just a few examples of places or persons who were considered fictional until archaeologists discovered the city of Jericho itself, the Hittite capitol city, and Sargon's palace. And there are dozens more. But all of these are evidences, not proofs.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathan
"Faith is belief in the absence of proof"
Finally. It only took a month. So now, tell me what both evidence and proof are.
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
If this conversation is going to continue the trend of you asking me what various words mean, I have nothing further to say.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaul
I want to specify the term because apparently I don't define them correctly. You give me the definitions of these two terms (evidence and proof) as you believe them to be, and we can discuss
MrAtheism33 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer Are you serious, you honestly attack the evolution theory. I mean we currently witness evolution among many species, the creationist theory is the most stupid and uncoherent theory I have ever seen
2CSST2 1 year ago