6.54 - 7.01 is why you shouldn't trust a too devoted Christian. He said; murder is ok if God ok's it. Ask said person if that is the halmark of a moral person. Or even a halmark for a humble person also, that he can stand above others to kill. The fact that he also later admits to be "happy to say it" should make any moral human being on this planet revolt in dislike.
7.29 - 7.32. True. But it doesn't matter. All that matters is what we think. We don't need the universe approval for that!
well this is the fundamental thing where I think you can actually say that religion IS bad, that almost everyone seems to agree that moral values and rules does NOT come from compassion or empathy, but from orders from above (human or divine). that IS a very dangerous notion, just waiting to be abused. theists should be forced to acknowledge that in these debates
I'm pleased to say that Doug Wilson does not speak for me. He is mediocre. However, if I were an atheist, I'd be equally pleased to say that C Hitchens doesn't speak for me either. Painfully mediocre apologetics on both sides.
@bayreuth79 well happily "atheists" arent a group of people that needs representation. its not a system of beliefs or a cultural group. you should, arguably, be concerned why there is no real consensus of the nature of god within christianity though. well its up to you but Im just saying.
@frilansspion Christopher Hitchens in his book "God is not great" writes that "atheism is a belief that is not a belief"; as a matter of fact it is a belief that there is no such a being as God. It seems that you have likewise bought into this nonsense.
@bayreuth79 bought into "this nonsense" of atheism you mean? or do you mean hanging on to its definition as a rejection of a belief as opposed to a system of the same? I think its an important point to maintain, one that seems to cause a lot of confusion and assumptions. didnt mean it as an attack on what you said, just a footnote
@frilansspion I wouldn't describe atheism as nonsense; it isn't. I am not an atheist myself but I respect serious atheism (that excludes Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc) such as Feuerbach's and Nietzsche's atheism. What I would describe as nonsense is this latest "new atheist" rhetoric about atheism not being a belief but a simple absence of belief; this is obviously not the case. Such an absence would be agnosticism, not atheism (by definition).
@bayreuth79 hi again and thanks for being civil. how is that "obviously not the case"? look at the word "a-theism" - "not theism". how is that not a simple negation? what else does it say? it doesnt say anything about morals or what worldview the person does have. you only want it to be so you can be on equal terms and have a defined group of enemies. nietzsche didnt get to define atheism. are you thinking about it in his terms only? can you explain more what you read into the word?
@frilansspion If you are correct then I can see no difference between atheism (as defined by you) and agnosticism. What would the difference be for you?
It seems to me that atheists claim that there is no God and they usually do so on the basis of argument (Voltaire to Dawkins), so it is clearly more than the simple absence of belief. If it were then that would be agnosticism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so it follows that you cannot logically claim he doesn't exist
@bayreuth79 to me agnosticism means to say it cannot be known if there is a god - basically its in the middle of atheism and theism (or anything else you can be indecisive about - alien life etc). more or less 50/50. cambridge dict. seems to agree. if you lean closer towards the 0% likeliness of god I think you can call yourself an atheist, although few would say theyre gnostic (100% sure) atheists. just because you cant disprove it doesnt mean theres good reason to believe in _everything_.
@frilansspion Sure; this was just my point. You claimed that atheism just meant that there is no evidence for theism, so an absence of theism. However, if it is a simple absence of evidence then it is agnosticism ("cannot be known if there is a god") since an absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence. In other words, on your definition of atheism, you cannot KNOW that God doesn't exist or is highly unlikely based simply on an assertion of lack of evidence.
no my point was that its not a question of 100% certainty one way or the other, but rather if you lean one way you might as well call yourself that which you lean toward. you dont have to be 100% sure that god exists to be a christian, and to bring up the old example of unicorns, you wouldnt say you think its 50/50 that they do exist, just because you cant prove they dont.
@frilansspion If you think there is no evidence for God (which, I would argue, there is) this would be insufficient warrant for claiming that God does not exist. There might be no evidence for x but x might nevertheless exist if believing in x doesn't involve a violation of the principle of non-contradiction and if there is no defeater for x. Therefore, if you think that atheism simply involves an absence of theism, then you cannot LOGICALLY say that God doesn't exist. He might.
@bayreuth79 yeah but you can make an assessment. things like god and his message is claimed to be unchanging and absolute but has changed through history. contradictions in the bible, similarities to other religions, lack of consensus within the churches. lack of miracles when historical records got better. its not unreasonable to from innumerable "details" like that say that "this is probably just another religion". even a deist may say that. you can only make your best guess.
The specific point of the exchange was made by Hitchens when he said, "Fill in the blank." Germany was a Christian country, the homeland of Bach. Instead of filling in the blank with "exterminating the Amalakites," let's fill it in with events of more recent times: "exterminating the Jews." If god told Hitler to do it, Wilson would be fine with it, "happy" even.
Wilson seems like a likable enough guy until about 6:53-7:01. "I believe that it was ok to kill amalekites. Right? Because it was not ok to not do it, because God told them to kill the amalekites." Wh-what? What a blatantly evil thing to say! I can't believe Hitchens more or less lets that slide. How is it that we live in a world where someone can say something like that and not cause an uproar, even with a crowd of a composition such as this one?
@andreasdrg I completely agree with you on that. I lost ALL respect for him at that exact point myself. In fact, I'm so disgusted by it that I don't want to listen to him any more.
I find it painful to watch Wilson as the cogs churn in his head. The instinct to find pseudo-rational ways to counter the actually rational is strong in this one.
Wilson is insane if he thinks that "the universe doesn't care" could ever be used to justify slaughtering other humans. Is he really so vacuous, so callous as to believe that humans are, in and of themselves, incapable of empathy? That it requires an outside force, i.e. a god, to make us care about others? All social animals have evolved to have "codes of conduct" that foster group cohesion, without which individuals would be less likely to flourish, to survive to pass on their genetic material.
Funny how all these people defend Amalekites yet they don't even know If they were worth it. What if by killing the Amalekites God saved the world from being slaughtered by the Amalekites. Do you know how the Amalekites lived? Yet in all your lack of knowledge you point the finger at God instead.
"Who is this that speaks with words with out knowledge?"
@shawndimery I agree-- Pastor Douglas Wilson does have a playful sense of humor, and I appreciate it right up to the point when he not only condones the annihilation of the Amalekites (Ex. 17:8-13 NIV), but remarks that he is happy to say it.
Haa ! If Douglas Wilson would know something about black holes, he would know that a black hole can only be described by 3 physical properties......mass, angular momentum, electric charge ! i mean....THATS 3 !!!!! ;-)
Wilson is a living example of religious brain-washing. He's an intelligent, articulate man who is made to sound ridiculous and petty thanks to childish, unbelievable, archaic ideas on which he is basing his argument. Painful to hear an otherwise intelligent person sounding so confused and disreputable.
@KeyserrrSoze No I haven't but I know that string theory has discovered that Earth is astonishingly intricately fine-tuned for the existence of life, and each new discovery further decreases the likelihood that this emerged from nothing, particularly because science, since Einstein, teaches that anything that comes into existence must have a cause (a cause must come before an effect). It is almost impossible for time, space, matter and intelligent life to just come from a giant chemical soup
I often hear that life must be created, look at our earth, it's in the right distance from the sun etc, etc. That's just starting from the wrong end of things. Life's here because the planet happen to be in the right place. It seem to me that ppl have a real problem to distinguish what we have created by our selfs for our own needs and how the universe works. We are not "special" in any way other than we are good at thinking abstract thoughts. The question is... Who Made Who?
I have an observation for the believers (myself being an atheist:) If god created man in his own image and man is capable of doing good and evil than that imlpies that god and the devil are the same entity.
Notice Hitchens response at about 7:40. What if I was an amalekite? Exactly! Within his worldview it is nothing but subjective. There is no objective reason to say stealing is wrong. Theft is nothing but evolved apes (humans) acting like their ancestors.
Hitchens never does answer Dr. Wilson's question regarding why should mankind abolish slavery. All he does is deflect it back towards religion which isn't a response. Hitchens doesn't seem to get that without God there are no moral questions. Just competing systems of morality. Why is it in the animal world a cheetah kills an animal, a lion comes along and steals it, and it is ok. But when human;s do that it is stealing. Why? In atheism there is no response to the why it is stealing.
It's not that it's OK, it just is a fact of our reality, period. Unlike humans, the cheetah may not have a concept / definition of "stealing", nevertheless it perceives and suffers the consequences of a more powerful force exerting its will. Same thing happens to us, we simply have the attribute of language to assign a particular "value" (morality) to the concept of the action we call "stealing".
@coolal19 And another point. If you believe we were not created, then you have just admitted you believe life to be purposeless.
Because atheists are required to believe that everything (matter, time, space, intelligent life) came from nothing with no cause, and is all destined to become nothing. In which case, there is absolutely no purpose to life, and any "meaning" to life you invent in your head is just a subjective illusion.
@relarerfhjk Wrong! Atheist are NOT required to "believe" that everything came from nothing. This is simply where are scientific observations & theories are at this time. Simple minded people like you just conclude: "god did it" & that's where you're content to leave it even though labeling it god explains NOTHING.
@coolal19 Atheists are required to believe this, since they reject the notion of a creator, which is why their beliefs are so ridiculous, (it is scientifically highly improbable that the complex fine-tuning required for time, space, matter and intelligent life to exist, could simply have emerged from nothing, even less probable since science teaches something cannot come into being without a "cause").
Atheists therefore believe life is purposeless, since we came from nothing with no cause.
@relarerfhjk continued: But lets cut to the chase, your little discourse here about objective & subjective values is just theistic mental masterbation because in the end, you want to claim that talking snakes, virgin births & rising from the dead are a real part of our existence. Time to let go of the bronze age myths and start living in the 21st century. Good luck...
@coolal19 this is so funny, you cant deal with the arguments at all. If, as atheists believe, humans were not created for anything, and are destined to become nothing, then life is objectively purposeless. Thats the cold reality of atheism.Deal with it.
Objective morality cant exist unless morality has a source OUTSIDE HUMANS. get it?
There is strong evidence for the Ressurection and birth of Jesus, read how all the major modern Greek/Roman-era historians accept the validity of the gospels
@xMadxNessx Thats like saying "the purpose of sleeping is to get some sleep". The question is...why bother? If our species came from nothing, with no cause, is going nowhere and is not here for anything, and is destined to become nothing, then reproduction is an empty, meaningless, aimless process with no purposeful outcome.
And even if there is eternal life than what is the purpose of that? Why can't we spend our short time on this beautiful planet trying to get most of it. Why is it that religious people believe that God did not need creator and universe does. There are things that we can't explain yet and some that we probably won't be able to explain ever but that does prove God in any way. Sorry if my english isn't perfect(I'm not English)
@xMadxNessx Your English is good, but your arguments are weak. God does not require a creator if He is infinite.The Earth and human life is finite, and requires a cause.The "purpose" of eternal life is to live in harmony with God, which is the condition in which we can find perfect happiness.When you consider the complex conditions needed for time, matter, space and intelligent life to exist, a creator is a more likely explanation than the atheist idea it all came from nothing!
@coolal19 You have missed the point by a mile. The point is not that we invented the word "stealing" to describe the act, rather that there is no reason stealing (or anything else) is objectively wrong, for the atheist. No act is morally better or worse than another, for the atheist, its entirely subjective, just like there can be no objective meaning to life (outside the inventions of our minds) if we were not created FOR anything and we are destined to become nothing.
@relarerfhjk Obviously, like most theists, you suffer from the delusion that morality is something which is created by your paritcular god. The reason we define the action "stealing" is because it is a behavior that generally results in negative consequences within our human social groups. It has nothing to do with an invisible sky daddy. Also, "we" were not created by a god or to to fufill some god's purpose. It very childish to think in those terms.
@coolal19Like most atheists, you havent grasped the implications of your beliefs yet. If morality does not come from God,(as you believe) then it is just a subjective illusion, since, for morality to be objective and absolute, it has to have a source outside ourselves If stealing is only wrong, because it is bad for social cohesion,then even murder is not objectively "wrong", its just bad for social cohesion, and,what is considered immoral today, could become moral tomorrow.
The comment at 2:05 by the pastor tells me he knows nothing about how physicists come up with ideas. He marginalizes it as the equivalent of drawing images and words on blackboards and believing it's real (like his religion). When Hitchens said "that could be done" in response to the Pastor's idiotically flippant question "would you sketch that for me on a blackboard please" he was talking about MATHEMATICS, not the equivalent of drawing a fucking "triangle and a circle" as the Trinity.
@trtnec What Wilson was trying to say is that just because we do not understand the Trinity or completely comprehend it, doesn't mean that it is untrue. God is the only source of Truth, and only God can fully understand everything, because he is infinite. We are finite beings and therefore we cannot fully understand everything.
@trtnec "He marginalizes it as the equivalent of drawing images and words on blackboards and believing it's real (like his religion"
No you've missed the point. He wasnt saying they cant work out the theory, what he was saying is there is no way they would be able to draw a visual representation of falling into a black hole where the past is before the future, it cant even be imagined, but that doesnt mean black holes dont exist
The fact that the guy had to live inside the fish for those 3 days was, that people dont evolve, and were made in gods image, so god couldnt just grow gills for this guy, or, when we know science is wrong, god couldnt give him oxygen tanks. So of course the logical conclusion of god would be to put him in a fish, which god created for this situation, so that he could be saved. Duuh. Evolution is stupider than anything else, heehaawww.
It's outright frightening to hear someone say that it's good to kill a group of people because an unknowable god told them to and unbearably naive to suggest that one shouldn't care because the universe doesn't care. I can't point to exactly where morality comes from but without it we'd still be stoning our children to please our imaginary father.
@BrainInSkull it comes from the brain, and in it some of us have the ability to imagine what it would feel like to be the other person. And with this imagination, we can perhaps save a few unfortunate individuals running into some bad luck. And with this we can gain good fellowship. And with this comes trust, and comes success as a group. And with this comes domination of other soloing creatures. With this comes increased social skills. With this comes more possibility to rule. I think :I
@Kan2209 Well put but I believe you are describing empathy and compassion. Morality is the ethical code that's derived from it. That's where the puzzle is.
@Brain I was just discussing on this. When you name something you see, it wont change the thing which you name. People tend to name complex wholes of many different parts. Morality is a code based on empathy, compassion and common sense, to me, if I'm wrong please tell me as Ive been looking to discuss this further. So, moral codes dont exist, it's a word for "laws" which usefully better human society, and when the betterment is unkown, we trust in nature rather than kill disabled people f. ex.
@Kan2209 There is an argument for logical ethics. Check out stefbot on youtube. He's presented something he calls UPB. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it as it's a tricky read and misunderstood by many but fundamentally it's pretty sound. He seems to base it on the fact that we are all the same species so if we're going to call something human morality it has to apply to all people at all times and places. He's pretty anti-religious but genuine in his quest. IMHO
@BrainInSkull I doubt he means it's all dogmatic, and that everyone has these sound morals, as we all know, murderers with no remorse exist. It makes sense to say, that something which works is known to others no matter how far they are, as we are the same species. A sword is a good example. It works to not kill everyone all the time, or to kill random people, it's what the "common sense" part was in my post. But it's all very relative, for some it's ok to sacrifice their young, culturally.
@Kan2209 I see your point but he doesn't approach it that way. It's a logical approach to ethics. Gravity will win whether we challenge it or not but indeed people can live their lives without reason. One can make a logical statement that many might not understand and some throw out completely.
@BrainInSkull Hmmm, I thought my take was a logical take on ethics and morals. Can you ellaborate a bit for me please? I'd really like a refreshing gust of ideas as I'm seriously getting bored at irrationality :)
@4cellar2door0 Belief and knowing aren't necessarily the same. "We can't know the mind of god" is a common fall back answer from the religious indoctrinated.
Nobody said belief and knowing were the same thing. Not even a fool would say such a thing.
YOU drew that invisible connection.
Also, you didn't say the unknowable mind of God, you said an unknowable God.
These are entirely different concepts.
The fact that you believe the inability to explain something which by nature cannot be naturally explained is a "fall back" just shows that you lack logical coherence.
@4cellar2door0 "If the God is unknowable, He is therefore not a theistic God. Theism is the belief in a personal God."
Perhaps my logic is faulty. I understood the bible to supposedly be the written words from the mind of god. If there's another way to claim to know him than I am ignorant of this.
If something cannot yet be explained then we hold out for an explanation as science has done for years. There was a time when the ability to explain germs seemed impossible.
@BrainInSkull "If something cannot yet be explained then we hold out for an explanation as science has done for years. "
This is the logical fallacy of future human omnipotence through advancement or technology.
It is a hugely detrimental fallacy, and flies in the face of science when one observes what one is truly saying when they say "science will explain it one day".
THAT is faith ;)
In my next comment I will address the issue of God's 'knowability'.
@4cellar2door0 The logic is in the method of finding the answers. Science may never explain everything but anything that can be and has been explained is done so with the scientific method. To simply put the god stamp on it is closing the case before it's solved. Any argument one has for god can easily be transferred to Zeus or any number of the man made deities. There are people with personal experiences of ghosts, Ufo's and Elvis.
"Everything that CAN BE...explained IS DONE SO with the SCIENTIFIC method".
That is a presupposition that God doesn't exist. If indeed He does, that would not be explicable through the scientific method. Therefore the argument is false.
"To simply put the God stamp on it..."
Define "it" please.
"any argument one has for [G]od can easily be transferred to Zeus or any number..."
You cannot be serious. If so, your ignorance is bewildering.
@4cellar2door0 And with that you have won:) I would have to completely forsake my integrity and only pretend to believe so I can only say that god chose you to hear him and not me and being an all knowing god he knew this from the beginning so he can't really be surprised or disappointed can he.
There is indeed another way that many claim to know Him, and even though you say you are ignorant, I doubt very much that you are.
Have you never HEARD of the argument from personal experience?
I'm not asking if you agree it has happened, or even if it has that a science-based endeavor should accept personal testimony as scientifically sound, but have you never heard of it?
Secondly, Jesus Christ on Earth proves the God of the Bible (presupposing existence) is knowable.
@BrainInSkull ...Wilson is honest, got to give him that...but damn, what a sicko. And they talk about morality...I am speechless. Makes more sense to me that such killings happen because, in fact, the universe does not care and thus, no god...VERY IRONIC!
Truly. And at 8:15 regarding the debate whether the commandment to kill the Amalekites is applicable to killing Palestinian Arabs: "...and if they answered in the affirmative, you don't mind." And he flashes a smug smile as if to say "gotcha"... oh my god that had me fuming! I craved for that to be smashed, but Hitchens let it go.
@BrainInSkull Awwww. Are you staying up all night crying your eyes out for the Amalkites? You're such a caring person. Meanwhile people like you endorse the killing of innocent babies by the millions every single year. Where are your crocodile tears for them? Or, do you only cry as an excuse to spew hatred towards God?
@YesYou123333 If he killed a million babies every year, we have more resources for ourselves. I don't see what the problem here is. Although the world could support more, who wants more? Society is turning into a blight, and we don't need more young generations hijacked and captivated by the social networking sites and phones.
Islam now is the greatest menace for rationalism, science, democracy, life and love. they crawled all over the western society like termites and gnaw at the foundation of civilization. i hope they are in decline and if there was a god for real they he would wipe them out in an instant because would know that science holds the truth and not the religion.
i liked the turning water into wine. it takes water, soil, vine and sun to turn water into wine. the "miracle" life. that thrills me, but I have not learned from bible or quoran. the extraordinary process thrills me once understood from bio chemistry / physics
then god is the cosmos and in the end the understanding of the universe is still the way. the blind and bigotic belief in the stories of the religion didn't take us here where we are today, but the people who thought critically and challanged religion even when that was payed with their own lives. they pieced the universe together and we are thankful to them. without them we would have never had the chance to understand what stars are and see the planets that orbit around the sun.
I sometimes get the feeling that Hitchens is only ever half-listening to his opponents because he often passes up the opportunity to really dig into people who say very stupid things. Hitchens is brilliant but he sometimes misses out the easier option in debates
@mikeyo1234 Yes muslims now are the greatest menace for rationalism, science, democracy, life and love. they crawled all over the western society like termites and gnaw at the foundation of civilization. i hope they are in decline and if there was a god for real they he would wipe them out in an instant because he know that science holds the truth and not the religion.
@Democrit1to9Freud Agreed. Sadly Islam is on the rise which is why we need to fight against it, but with words and not the sword. I'd recommend the book called 'Why I'm Not a Muslim' - it will give you ammo against them.
ahahahh THATS funny. a guy who wants us to believe in a white bearded old man in the clouds ruling the world, cant believe in a black hole on a blackboard? hilarious
@plasterosu I don't know if there are any scientific research on this, but one truth we might be able to find in the universe is, that christians give bad arguments.
I've always found it amusing that the people who are the most against Big Brother in human civilization and the ones who are always the most rampantly against the power of government intruding on your lives are also the one's who are the most religious. It's an apparent hypocrisy that is obviously hidden to them.
You loathe an overreaching all seeing government, but serve and protect an overreaching all seeing deity that can not only read your mind, but tell you what to like and dislike.
@CaseRed0605 There is no hypocrisy.God doesnt tell us what to like, He creates us for a purpose but leaves us free to choose or reject morality.. Without belief in a divine authority above ourselves,the highest arbiter of right and wrong in the world is the state, as the state is more powerful than individuals, and without Christianity the power of the state will always grow.
Christians oppose over-weening state power because they believe God gave us freedom in order to choose good over evil
But the entire basis of the religion is based off of an over-weening power. For example, if I don't attend church then I'm a sinner. If I read a book by Alistair Crowley, then I'm a sinner engaging in immorality. No sex before marriage. Gays are sinners who will face damnation.
How is this not the definition of an authoritarian telling you want you can and cannot do? This in your mind is "freedom in order to choose good over evil"? No. Seems to me the choice is all ready made.
@CaseRed0605 No an over-weening state takes away our free choice God merely provides us with right and wrong, he doesnt take aay our freedom to choose between them. In order to choose good over evil, we first have to know what is good and what is evil. Christianity provides us with a source of good and evil whereas atheism provides no objective good and evil outside of subjective human beliefs which can be changed to suit us.
@relarerfhjk : The progress in our civilized societies has been reached solely through secular and scientific understanding, study and logical scrutiny of our past mistakes, NOT through the teaching of the Church - or worse, the Koran. True, being an atheist does imply neither being good nor evil. It's just a logical position of skepticism towards the supernatural. But morals never came from religion or the Bible. They were simply borrowed from common sense, and philosophy....
@bersa888 Hlarious nonsense. The success in our society is entirely the product of Christianity, even Nietzche admitted Western values all come from Christianity and make no sense without it. The Christian West advanced scientifically faster than the non-Christian East precisely because Christianity taught that the Universe was purposeful and thus comprehensible to Man. Atheism gives no reason to believe any one thing is good or another evil
@relarerfhjk : I don't really know how to start replying to such a asnwer... there are too many imprecisions and mistakes to even bother. Enjoy your Christian-inspired existence, man... (and read a book or two on real history and philosophy).
@relarerfhjk Almost every meaningful advancement of Western civilisation - scientific, cultural, ethical - was achieved in the teeth of vocal (indeed violent) opposition from religious authorities. The West is successful despite its Christian origins, not because of them. Any honest student of history knows that. As for atheism being unable to inform any sense of right or wrong, you're right. Of couse, atheism makes no such claim for itself. It lacks the arrogance of Christianity.
@aynm Christianity created the first free schools,and inspired the finest Western architecture and the greatest art and literature from Da Vinci to Shakespeare! Christian ideas (that we are all "created equal") lie at the root of Europe's history of democracy, and individual rights, the Christian West advanced scientifically faster than any non-Christian civilisation because of the Christian idea that the Universe is designed, ordered and purposeful, and thus comprehensible to reason!
@relarerfhjk Wrong. We were only created equal if we were the same skin color. Non whites sure had a problem with "peace loving Christian" throughout history didn't they? Come to think of it, they still do. And it's easy to advance quickly when Christians destroy everybody else's religious texts and so on. There is very little left of Native American religion because of both the destruction of their texts and the near genocide. You obviously have selective memory.
@thelordmemnoch Absolute nonsense. We didn't advance quicker by destroying rivals, on the contrary we advanced quicker than rival civilizations, such as Islamic civilization in the East, and China. God does not say we were created equal if the same skin colour, he says we were ALL created equal, because we are all His children.
@relarerfhjk So I am just imagining that racism was endorsed by the bible right? The use of slaves is VERY clear to be condoned in the bible for a number of offenses. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in a society of equal individuals, nobody "owns" anybody. And yes, destroying civilizations works. And finally, Christians didn't progress faster than the Chinese. While the Christians were wandering in the desert, stupid and illiterate, the Chinese could already read and write. Religious myopia?
@thelordmemnoch You are "imagining" it,and you are talking ridiculous nonsense. Jesus does not say, anywhere, that it is right to own another, and it is for that reason that it was great Christians such as William Wilberforce who were the world's first slavery abolitionists . Christian civlization (the West) advanced far faster than Islamic civilization in the East, or China. Individual rights, freedom, democracy and equality all emerged from the Christian West,
@relarerfhjk Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) This isn't the OT, it's the NT. I know, as usual, you guys will ignore the OT unless you need passages to hate homosexuals or to cite the Ten Commandments. How about Jesus? Did he ever say anything about slaves? Oh yes he did, but since you want to dishonest about it, I can play the same game. Did Jesus EVER say that it was wrong? No.
@thelordmemnoch If a theistic apologist is a tender, juicy steak, you just slathered so much BBPwn sauce all over it that I doubt anyone here could taste the meat. Congratulations sir.
It's also very funny how atheists are good at citing Biblical passage, whereas theists will never cite peer reviewed journals.
@DirectInjected Thank you, thank you. I am sure you know in a recent poll Atheists and Agnostics were the top on the list of religious knowledge. Most atheist were religious to begin with and with more knowledge we became atheist. Very few educated people all of a sudden went from atheist to theist. And Antony Flew is a deist just in case some retarded Creationists comes along trying to use a respected scientist and former atheist as proof that there is a god.
@relarerfhjk And save me the, "it was a different culture back then," or ,"slaves were treated nicer than they were in modern times," because your excuse making frankly makes me sick. And news flash, buddy. The Chinese invented paper, gunpowder and the compass, the things Christians used to spread their filth. Get a history book. I'd love to see you guys going door to door with stone tablets. I would PAY to see that.
@relarerfhjk That is a big insult to the human kind, to say that humans are not capable of rationally deriving something as basic as good and evil.According to you All 4 billion non Christians today,are barbaric uncivilised people.What about people before Christianity, how did they survive while killing and eating each other.Christianity only provided people the tool for the inquisition and burning of witches.If you do want to follow a religion there are much better ones out there.
@rao76 I dont say humans cannot "rationally discover" good and evil. I say, if God does not exist, morality has no source outside of humans, which means humans can change it whenever they wish to suit themselves. Christianity ended the barbaric practise of eugenics (the killing of unwanted babies) in Greece and Rome, by introducing the idea innoent life is sacred.
@relarerfhjk Well, morality is a survival trait like a set of laws that we developed to survive in a social group, tribe, civilisation. Do this in this tribe and you will be punished, do that and you will be accepted. My morals come from my upbringing, not from god. Shimps are social creatures and they punish individuals in their own group if they compromise the grups safety, steal etc. I REFUSE to have the resposibility of my actions taken away or judged by others than my fellow humans
@secularnevrosis Thats not true, there is such a thing as objective moral values in our world, which indicates the existence of God, as Voltaire noted.
Shrimps don't have "moral values" they just have mechanical rules dictated by biological needs, if you reduce moral values to the level of shrimps, then murder is not objectively "wrong", just bad for social cohesion within the present species,and everything that is immoral now,could become moral tomorow. Thats not even humanism, its "speciesism"
@relarerfhjk Sorry...I meant Chimpanzee,(spelling..my bad) not the little fellow in the sea. I hope you don't argue with me because you thought I meant shellfish? As I see it our morals comes from our abillity to feel empathy combined with civilisation. Empathy ,how to know what others think and feel is by far our most valuable resource as a social animal and perhaps is the cause we didn't just have big brains, but also quite effective ones too.I just dont think any "gods" provide our morals.
Debates always suck cause they go off on these mass tangents that lose the core of the debte and all the talking points, its times to bring something new to the table
I find it thoroughly amusing to read such strong pejorative language directed towards Wilson in the commenting, while seeing Hitchens himself exhibit a clear demonstrable appreciation and respect for the man. This disintegration is portentous.
I watched about three debates and stopped here: 8:11.
These is rather a pointless debate because either side is not debating a topic but rather tangentially expressing feeling, scripture, science art, objective and subjective ideas in entirely different directions. Wilson lets Hitchens go. Was it OK to kill the Amalekites? No mention of what they were: Saddam Hussein types.
Point being this: NT mandate: Attack sin with all your might until wiped out. Sin is a brutal enemy. Focus s/b on Jesus.
I like how he says "Just because a group is in formation, dosn't mean they know where they are going" I dont really know if from his position in faith and religion... He should have said that. doesnt it sound like hes talking about say.... blind faith?
objective, philosophical and scientific truths. What seems odd to me is that someone of your faith claims to hold The Truth of the universe, which is continually being uncovered and discovered, and will continue to.
Your Savior apparently said himself that you will be mocked for your beliefs because they will seem absurd. There is no "soul" that has been discovered. So, I was, of course, mocking you. We are sum of atoms, as well as all matter in the universe. Atoms are acting in a random fashion, whether you choose to accept that or not is up to you. We can come close to discovering objective truths, such as the theory of gravity; however, as an unbeliever I seek to discover truths - esoteric, subjective,
@MRoane41 "we are a sum of atoms" If you believe that, there is no basis for morality, and there is no objective beauty,truth or goodness, nor any standard by which they can be judged. If you believe that then life is purposeless,like the Universe itself. and there is no point doing good for others, if it causes you harm, since conscience itself is just a chemical reaction, so there is no such thing as right and wrong.
@relarerfhjk -- why do you need a religious basis for morality. I mean -- do you really need the bible to tell not to kill your neighbour, or rape, or steal? That is kind of disturbing. And what of the multitude of civilisations that existed before Christianity arose circa 0 AD? They had morality -- so where did it come from -- they certainly didn't believe in christian ethics. And before mentioning the old testament - ya may want to reread that before mentioning morals.
@jif99 We dont need the Bible to tell us its wrong to rape or kill,try learning the arguments.
The point about religious morality is that it maintains that life and the Universe have a purpose and that there is such a thing as objective truth, beauty and an absolute right and wrong, that are not subjective to individual human experience, because they come from a divine source.
Atheism maintains the Universe is undesigned chaos, and life is purposeless, so morality is meaningless and pointless
@relarerfhjk You can't pick and choose according to whatever suits your argument. The bible either teaches us ALL morality or it doesn't. If you accept that we "don't need the bible to tell us its wrong etc" then you accept that these principles are not god given and derived from some internalised innate reasoning/rationale -- not from a creator or designer. Evolution offers reasons for this and shows it exists outside our species.
Atheism 'teaches' nothing of what you describe.....
@jif99 No I'm not picking and choosing, you just missed the point by a mile. A sense of right and wrong is innate because God's law runs through the Universe, or you can choose to believe morality is nothing more than the feelings we inherit from animals, which isnt really "right" and "wrong" its just a DNA-inherited chemical reaction, and objectively defining "right and wrong" makes as much sense as saying one chemical reaction is more "right" than another meaningless chemical reaction.
@jif99 If you want the evidence science is producing for religion, read Oxford Uni Professor John Lennox "The Undertaker:Has Science Buried God?" or read the excellent or celebrated former atheist philospher Anthony Flew's critique of Richard Dawkins "There Is A God"
@relarerfhjk Your comments re atheism betray a profound misunderstanding of its general prnciples. I would suggest most atheists do not feel there is no 'meaning to life' or that it is pointless -- just that we do not need some constructed magical sky wizard to give us meaning -- we can derive meaning ourselves.
You give your life meaning by creating a made up person (god) to give it to you. I decide what is meaningful for myself. We both create our own meanings but attribute it differently
@jif99 No, sir you simply havent faced the implications of atheism.There cant be "meaning" to life if you simply create your own meaning, because then it isnt an objective purpose for humanity, its just a personal illusion. Atheists believe the world is undesigned and purposeless, that it came from nothing and is going nowhere. Therefore, in such a reality, there can be no such thing as objective "truth" or "beauty" or purpose to life, or inherent worth to humans, or absolute "right" or "wrong"
@relarerfhjk Like I said -- we both create our own meaning. You construct a magical god to give you meaning -- but it is still a created one. Atheists forego the step of creating a fake deity to give them meaning and recognise we give it to ourselves.
The closest we can get to objective truth is via the scientific method. "God's truth" is by definition subjective. And beauty is entirely subjective. Meaning is subjective as well -- as evidenced by the multiple different bible interpretations
You cannot assert God is created by us,as you cannot assert He does not exist.You can only say that you believe He doesnt exist.,Which also means you believe the Universe is purposeless,and nothing is objectively "better" than anything else,as its all just a pointless chemical reaction.
We cant get close to truth with "scientific method" if truth doesnt exist, because its all just meaningless chaos. If meaning is subjective, then it isnt real.
@relarerfhjk Please ... I have refrained from making any insults re your tenuous argument -- and I certainly won't be condescended to by someone who accepts two thousand yr old tribal mythology as holding some sort relevance in the modern world. Christians can surely "assert" anything they want re objectivity -- but you are making a circular argument in assuming your god is actually real and using that to prove your statements have any merit. ....
@jif99 It wasnt "mythology" the evidence for Jesus and his works is undeniable, both from the extraordinary effect Christianity had on Western civilisation and Jesus's followers, and from the archaeological and historical data, which is why Richard Dawkins now accepts it is certain Jesus lived, when challenged with the historical facts. You clearly dont have a clue what your talking about.
Its not a circular argument, the point is that only if we believe God is real,can objective truth exist.
@relarerfhjk typically for a 'believer', you confuse knowledge and belief. Of course I cannot prove God doesn't exist, any more than you can disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, or Russell's teapot. You can't even prove I am not God (or I, you, for that matter). But many of these things can be dismissed as absurdities - things asserted without evidence can similarly be dismissed without evidence. Lastly, your reliance on the controversial DEIST , Flew, is odd.
@jif99 But there's no similarity between belief in God and something as ridiculous as a spaghetti monster. I have to conclude you are embarassingly ignorant of the facts.
Theres a great deal of evidence for God,as Richard Dawkins acknowledged,in his debate with Christian scientist Professor John Lennox, when Dawkins said "a serious case can be made for a theistic God". If you had read John Lennox "Has Science Buried God" you would see the historical evidence for Jesus and the evidence for God.
@relarerfhjk ... if you hear a particular song, or read a particular book and it makes an emotional connection with you -- perhaps inspiring, motivating or alternatively affecting you in a negative way -- then you give that thing subjective meaning. Someone else may find that song or book to be quite ordinary and derive no meaning from it whatsoever. So you would argue that thing has meaning -- or no meaning? You derive meaning from a 2000yr old God created by semi-literate tribesmen. I don't.
@jif99 The difference is Christians can assert some things are objectively better than others,as we can assert some things are true and others false. Atheists cannot assert that anything is true,beautiful,good or bad,because such terms are meaningless in an undesigned chaos of matter.
A song or book leave the realm of the purely subjective,when we decide whether they represent great art or no.But for atheists art, like right and wrong, is all relative and nothing is better than anything else
@MRoane41 "Your Savior apparently said himself that you will be mocked for your beliefs because they will seem absurd"
that is word-for-word the same tired old line Hitchens reels out at every TV appearance on religion.
As Christian philosophers Anthony Flew and William Lane Craig observed, Christopher Hitchens book is not intellectually sophisticated, it is atheism for a pop-culture audience. Lots of clever turns of phrase and angry, bitter rhetoric but no depth or insight
@relarerfhjk So just because some fairy tale believer thinks Hitchens is not an intellectual, you believe it? Craig's entire gig seems to simply be intellectual dishonesty. He babbles on endlessly and uses big words but he has no command of logic. Just what one would expect from someone trying to defend a myth.
@MrTruthAddict Fariy-tale believers with no command of logic? Some of the greatest scientists in the world today, and in history, have been Christians you fool.
I believe Hitchens has no intellectual depth because,whenever he debates deep thinkers like Craig and John Lennox he is always unable to answer any of their profound questions about the purpose of life and conscience etc Similarly, Oxford University scientist John Lennox,by all accounts,annihilated Richard Dawkins in their first debate.
6.54 - 7.01 is why you shouldn't trust a too devoted Christian. He said; murder is ok if God ok's it. Ask said person if that is the halmark of a moral person. Or even a halmark for a humble person also, that he can stand above others to kill. The fact that he also later admits to be "happy to say it" should make any moral human being on this planet revolt in dislike.
7.29 - 7.32. True. But it doesn't matter. All that matters is what we think. We don't need the universe approval for that!
ProdigyBigBoss89 1 week ago
;"I know you get a bang out of this" at 7:20. Gotta love these two guys!
squid4104 4 weeks ago
Am I the only one saying "what??" at around 4:10? I mean, really, Hitchens had just addressed this...
SuperAhmed1337 1 month ago
well this is the fundamental thing where I think you can actually say that religion IS bad, that almost everyone seems to agree that moral values and rules does NOT come from compassion or empathy, but from orders from above (human or divine). that IS a very dangerous notion, just waiting to be abused. theists should be forced to acknowledge that in these debates
frilansspion 1 month ago
I'm pleased to say that Doug Wilson does not speak for me. He is mediocre. However, if I were an atheist, I'd be equally pleased to say that C Hitchens doesn't speak for me either. Painfully mediocre apologetics on both sides.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 well happily "atheists" arent a group of people that needs representation. its not a system of beliefs or a cultural group. you should, arguably, be concerned why there is no real consensus of the nature of god within christianity though. well its up to you but Im just saying.
frilansspion 1 month ago
@frilansspion Christopher Hitchens in his book "God is not great" writes that "atheism is a belief that is not a belief"; as a matter of fact it is a belief that there is no such a being as God. It seems that you have likewise bought into this nonsense.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 bought into "this nonsense" of atheism you mean? or do you mean hanging on to its definition as a rejection of a belief as opposed to a system of the same? I think its an important point to maintain, one that seems to cause a lot of confusion and assumptions. didnt mean it as an attack on what you said, just a footnote
frilansspion 1 month ago
@frilansspion I wouldn't describe atheism as nonsense; it isn't. I am not an atheist myself but I respect serious atheism (that excludes Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc) such as Feuerbach's and Nietzsche's atheism. What I would describe as nonsense is this latest "new atheist" rhetoric about atheism not being a belief but a simple absence of belief; this is obviously not the case. Such an absence would be agnosticism, not atheism (by definition).
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 hi again and thanks for being civil. how is that "obviously not the case"? look at the word "a-theism" - "not theism". how is that not a simple negation? what else does it say? it doesnt say anything about morals or what worldview the person does have. you only want it to be so you can be on equal terms and have a defined group of enemies. nietzsche didnt get to define atheism. are you thinking about it in his terms only? can you explain more what you read into the word?
frilansspion 1 month ago
@frilansspion If you are correct then I can see no difference between atheism (as defined by you) and agnosticism. What would the difference be for you?
It seems to me that atheists claim that there is no God and they usually do so on the basis of argument (Voltaire to Dawkins), so it is clearly more than the simple absence of belief. If it were then that would be agnosticism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so it follows that you cannot logically claim he doesn't exist
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 to me agnosticism means to say it cannot be known if there is a god - basically its in the middle of atheism and theism (or anything else you can be indecisive about - alien life etc). more or less 50/50. cambridge dict. seems to agree. if you lean closer towards the 0% likeliness of god I think you can call yourself an atheist, although few would say theyre gnostic (100% sure) atheists. just because you cant disprove it doesnt mean theres good reason to believe in _everything_.
frilansspion 1 month ago
@frilansspion Sure; this was just my point. You claimed that atheism just meant that there is no evidence for theism, so an absence of theism. However, if it is a simple absence of evidence then it is agnosticism ("cannot be known if there is a god") since an absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence. In other words, on your definition of atheism, you cannot KNOW that God doesn't exist or is highly unlikely based simply on an assertion of lack of evidence.
bayreuth79 4 weeks ago
@bayreuth79 hey happy new year mate!
no my point was that its not a question of 100% certainty one way or the other, but rather if you lean one way you might as well call yourself that which you lean toward. you dont have to be 100% sure that god exists to be a christian, and to bring up the old example of unicorns, you wouldnt say you think its 50/50 that they do exist, just because you cant prove they dont.
frilansspion 3 weeks ago
@frilansspion If you think there is no evidence for God (which, I would argue, there is) this would be insufficient warrant for claiming that God does not exist. There might be no evidence for x but x might nevertheless exist if believing in x doesn't involve a violation of the principle of non-contradiction and if there is no defeater for x. Therefore, if you think that atheism simply involves an absence of theism, then you cannot LOGICALLY say that God doesn't exist. He might.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 yeah but you can make an assessment. things like god and his message is claimed to be unchanging and absolute but has changed through history. contradictions in the bible, similarities to other religions, lack of consensus within the churches. lack of miracles when historical records got better. its not unreasonable to from innumerable "details" like that say that "this is probably just another religion". even a deist may say that. you can only make your best guess.
frilansspion 1 month ago
The specific point of the exchange was made by Hitchens when he said, "Fill in the blank." Germany was a Christian country, the homeland of Bach. Instead of filling in the blank with "exterminating the Amalakites," let's fill it in with events of more recent times: "exterminating the Jews." If god told Hitler to do it, Wilson would be fine with it, "happy" even.
I'm going to go throw up now.
Learnerwp 1 month ago
So beauty can only come from intention? riiiiight....
happyhappy85 2 months ago
@happyhappy85 beauty comes from beauty
rdickinsondickinson 2 months ago
@rdickinsondickinson exactly my point, where this Douglas Wilson guy gets his ideas from doesn't make any sense to me.
happyhappy85 2 months ago
Wilson seems like a likable enough guy until about 6:53-7:01. "I believe that it was ok to kill amalekites. Right? Because it was not ok to not do it, because God told them to kill the amalekites." Wh-what? What a blatantly evil thing to say! I can't believe Hitchens more or less lets that slide. How is it that we live in a world where someone can say something like that and not cause an uproar, even with a crowd of a composition such as this one?
andreasdrg 4 months ago
@andreasdrg I completely agree with you on that. I lost ALL respect for him at that exact point myself. In fact, I'm so disgusted by it that I don't want to listen to him any more.
Learnerwp 1 month ago
HAHAHAHA at 2:53 it looks like christopher says "aesthetic"
wrasleforjesus 4 months ago
I find it painful to watch Wilson as the cogs churn in his head. The instinct to find pseudo-rational ways to counter the actually rational is strong in this one.
Jornev 4 months ago
Thank you for posting this, WestminsterOnline.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Wilson is insane if he thinks that "the universe doesn't care" could ever be used to justify slaughtering other humans. Is he really so vacuous, so callous as to believe that humans are, in and of themselves, incapable of empathy? That it requires an outside force, i.e. a god, to make us care about others? All social animals have evolved to have "codes of conduct" that foster group cohesion, without which individuals would be less likely to flourish, to survive to pass on their genetic material.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
Funny how all these people defend Amalekites yet they don't even know If they were worth it. What if by killing the Amalekites God saved the world from being slaughtered by the Amalekites. Do you know how the Amalekites lived? Yet in all your lack of knowledge you point the finger at God instead.
"Who is this that speaks with words with out knowledge?"
MRKetter81 7 months ago
@MRKetter81 What if by killing Hitler, God saved the Jews from being slaughtered.
uralldiseasedXD 6 months ago
@MRKetter81 agreed, they look upon these people as Canadians. It's pretty sickening.
niggaids 5 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
Where's part 4?
ResiusOnline 9 months ago
Wilson got owned in this debate, but I really like the guy. Funny as hell
shawndimery 9 months ago
Comment removed
writersblock26 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@shawndimery I agree-- Pastor Douglas Wilson does have a playful sense of humor, and I appreciate it right up to the point when he not only condones the annihilation of the Amalekites (Ex. 17:8-13 NIV), but remarks that he is happy to say it.
writersblock26 5 months ago
Haa ! If Douglas Wilson would know something about black holes, he would know that a black hole can only be described by 3 physical properties......mass, angular momentum, electric charge ! i mean....THATS 3 !!!!! ;-)
DerMacDuff 10 months ago
haha. 2:10-2:30 Hitchens doesn't even bother to argue with WIlson's absurdity.
mrlandby 10 months ago 19
"You get a bang out of saying it." Haaaaa, lol!!!!
Kristophirst 10 months ago
...so... for Wilson there are small and big miracles by God... what does a medium-size one looks like? ;-)
bersa888 10 months ago
Wilson is a living example of religious brain-washing. He's an intelligent, articulate man who is made to sound ridiculous and petty thanks to childish, unbelievable, archaic ideas on which he is basing his argument. Painful to hear an otherwise intelligent person sounding so confused and disreputable.
playingdablues 10 months ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@morningstomper123 faggot fat boy
putademuerde1 11 months ago
theists should stop making the same arguments over and over again especially when they're bad arguments
xodn3300 11 months ago
@KeyserrrSoze No I haven't but I know that string theory has discovered that Earth is astonishingly intricately fine-tuned for the existence of life, and each new discovery further decreases the likelihood that this emerged from nothing, particularly because science, since Einstein, teaches that anything that comes into existence must have a cause (a cause must come before an effect). It is almost impossible for time, space, matter and intelligent life to just come from a giant chemical soup
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
I often hear that life must be created, look at our earth, it's in the right distance from the sun etc, etc. That's just starting from the wrong end of things. Life's here because the planet happen to be in the right place. It seem to me that ppl have a real problem to distinguish what we have created by our selfs for our own needs and how the universe works. We are not "special" in any way other than we are good at thinking abstract thoughts. The question is... Who Made Who?
secularnevrosis 11 months ago
I disagree with Hitchens, but he definately makes a convincing case that Wilson is sort of struggling to grasp.
christiano241525 11 months ago
Douglas Wilson is just ridiculous. Boring and dumb.
bilbosilbo 1 year ago
@bilbosilbo Even though he clearly annihilates Hitchens here
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
I have an observation for the believers (myself being an atheist:) If god created man in his own image and man is capable of doing good and evil than that imlpies that god and the devil are the same entity.
Jerrez 1 year ago
Notice Hitchens response at about 7:40. What if I was an amalekite? Exactly! Within his worldview it is nothing but subjective. There is no objective reason to say stealing is wrong. Theft is nothing but evolved apes (humans) acting like their ancestors.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
Hitchens never does answer Dr. Wilson's question regarding why should mankind abolish slavery. All he does is deflect it back towards religion which isn't a response. Hitchens doesn't seem to get that without God there are no moral questions. Just competing systems of morality. Why is it in the animal world a cheetah kills an animal, a lion comes along and steals it, and it is ok. But when human;s do that it is stealing. Why? In atheism there is no response to the why it is stealing.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
It's not that it's OK, it just is a fact of our reality, period. Unlike humans, the cheetah may not have a concept / definition of "stealing", nevertheless it perceives and suffers the consequences of a more powerful force exerting its will. Same thing happens to us, we simply have the attribute of language to assign a particular "value" (morality) to the concept of the action we call "stealing".
coolal19 11 months ago
To further complicate this illusion, theists maintain that this "value" comes from some undectable thing called "god".
coolal19 11 months ago
@coolal19 And another point. If you believe we were not created, then you have just admitted you believe life to be purposeless.
Because atheists are required to believe that everything (matter, time, space, intelligent life) came from nothing with no cause, and is all destined to become nothing. In which case, there is absolutely no purpose to life, and any "meaning" to life you invent in your head is just a subjective illusion.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Wrong! Atheist are NOT required to "believe" that everything came from nothing. This is simply where are scientific observations & theories are at this time. Simple minded people like you just conclude: "god did it" & that's where you're content to leave it even though labeling it god explains NOTHING.
coolal19 11 months ago
@coolal19 Atheists are required to believe this, since they reject the notion of a creator, which is why their beliefs are so ridiculous, (it is scientifically highly improbable that the complex fine-tuning required for time, space, matter and intelligent life to exist, could simply have emerged from nothing, even less probable since science teaches something cannot come into being without a "cause").
Atheists therefore believe life is purposeless, since we came from nothing with no cause.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk continued: But lets cut to the chase, your little discourse here about objective & subjective values is just theistic mental masterbation because in the end, you want to claim that talking snakes, virgin births & rising from the dead are a real part of our existence. Time to let go of the bronze age myths and start living in the 21st century. Good luck...
coolal19 11 months ago
@coolal19 this is so funny, you cant deal with the arguments at all. If, as atheists believe, humans were not created for anything, and are destined to become nothing, then life is objectively purposeless. Thats the cold reality of atheism.Deal with it.
Objective morality cant exist unless morality has a source OUTSIDE HUMANS. get it?
There is strong evidence for the Ressurection and birth of Jesus, read how all the major modern Greek/Roman-era historians accept the validity of the gospels
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk
Life isn't purposeless.We have the same purpose as any other animal which is to reproduce and make sure that our species survives.
xMadxNessx 11 months ago
@xMadxNessx Thats like saying "the purpose of sleeping is to get some sleep". The question is...why bother? If our species came from nothing, with no cause, is going nowhere and is not here for anything, and is destined to become nothing, then reproduction is an empty, meaningless, aimless process with no purposeful outcome.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk
And even if there is eternal life than what is the purpose of that? Why can't we spend our short time on this beautiful planet trying to get most of it. Why is it that religious people believe that God did not need creator and universe does. There are things that we can't explain yet and some that we probably won't be able to explain ever but that does prove God in any way. Sorry if my english isn't perfect(I'm not English)
xMadxNessx 11 months ago
@xMadxNessx
Where I wrote "but that does prove God in any way", I meant to write that "it does not prove God in any way". Sorry :)
xMadxNessx 11 months ago
@xMadxNessx Your English is good, but your arguments are weak. God does not require a creator if He is infinite.The Earth and human life is finite, and requires a cause.The "purpose" of eternal life is to live in harmony with God, which is the condition in which we can find perfect happiness.When you consider the complex conditions needed for time, matter, space and intelligent life to exist, a creator is a more likely explanation than the atheist idea it all came from nothing!
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@coolal19 You have missed the point by a mile. The point is not that we invented the word "stealing" to describe the act, rather that there is no reason stealing (or anything else) is objectively wrong, for the atheist. No act is morally better or worse than another, for the atheist, its entirely subjective, just like there can be no objective meaning to life (outside the inventions of our minds) if we were not created FOR anything and we are destined to become nothing.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Obviously, like most theists, you suffer from the delusion that morality is something which is created by your paritcular god. The reason we define the action "stealing" is because it is a behavior that generally results in negative consequences within our human social groups. It has nothing to do with an invisible sky daddy. Also, "we" were not created by a god or to to fufill some god's purpose. It very childish to think in those terms.
coolal19 11 months ago
@coolal19Like most atheists, you havent grasped the implications of your beliefs yet. If morality does not come from God,(as you believe) then it is just a subjective illusion, since, for morality to be objective and absolute, it has to have a source outside ourselves If stealing is only wrong, because it is bad for social cohesion,then even murder is not objectively "wrong", its just bad for social cohesion, and,what is considered immoral today, could become moral tomorrow.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
Thought crimes?, no Religious suspects then!
morbidisity 1 year ago
Wilson is downright disgusting in this segment; mass murder, slavery, rape -- all not very funny.
hoink23 1 year ago
The comment at 2:05 by the pastor tells me he knows nothing about how physicists come up with ideas. He marginalizes it as the equivalent of drawing images and words on blackboards and believing it's real (like his religion). When Hitchens said "that could be done" in response to the Pastor's idiotically flippant question "would you sketch that for me on a blackboard please" he was talking about MATHEMATICS, not the equivalent of drawing a fucking "triangle and a circle" as the Trinity.
trtnec 1 year ago
@trtnec What Wilson was trying to say is that just because we do not understand the Trinity or completely comprehend it, doesn't mean that it is untrue. God is the only source of Truth, and only God can fully understand everything, because he is infinite. We are finite beings and therefore we cannot fully understand everything.
owengroen101 1 year ago
@trtnec "He marginalizes it as the equivalent of drawing images and words on blackboards and believing it's real (like his religion"
No you've missed the point. He wasnt saying they cant work out the theory, what he was saying is there is no way they would be able to draw a visual representation of falling into a black hole where the past is before the future, it cant even be imagined, but that doesnt mean black holes dont exist
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
1. We are stupid compared to god, so what do we know.
2. If evolution or physics dont make sense to me, they must be false (on the basis that I have the possibility to understand everything?)
3. You are stupider than me, because you say your not sure or don't know, and admit if yuore wrong, and I know I know.
4. We don't know anything or everything, god knows everything.
5. If something seems impossible to me, it can't have happened.
6. Miracles happen all around us all the time.
Kan2209 1 year ago
Let me try christian logic:
The fact that the guy had to live inside the fish for those 3 days was, that people dont evolve, and were made in gods image, so god couldnt just grow gills for this guy, or, when we know science is wrong, god couldnt give him oxygen tanks. So of course the logical conclusion of god would be to put him in a fish, which god created for this situation, so that he could be saved. Duuh. Evolution is stupider than anything else, heehaawww.
Mommy do I success?
Kan2209 1 year ago
It's outright frightening to hear someone say that it's good to kill a group of people because an unknowable god told them to and unbearably naive to suggest that one shouldn't care because the universe doesn't care. I can't point to exactly where morality comes from but without it we'd still be stoning our children to please our imaginary father.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago 27
@BrainInSkull it comes from the brain, and in it some of us have the ability to imagine what it would feel like to be the other person. And with this imagination, we can perhaps save a few unfortunate individuals running into some bad luck. And with this we can gain good fellowship. And with this comes trust, and comes success as a group. And with this comes domination of other soloing creatures. With this comes increased social skills. With this comes more possibility to rule. I think :I
Kan2209 1 year ago
@Kan2209 Well put but I believe you are describing empathy and compassion. Morality is the ethical code that's derived from it. That's where the puzzle is.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@Brain I was just discussing on this. When you name something you see, it wont change the thing which you name. People tend to name complex wholes of many different parts. Morality is a code based on empathy, compassion and common sense, to me, if I'm wrong please tell me as Ive been looking to discuss this further. So, moral codes dont exist, it's a word for "laws" which usefully better human society, and when the betterment is unkown, we trust in nature rather than kill disabled people f. ex.
Kan2209 1 year ago
@Kan2209 There is an argument for logical ethics. Check out stefbot on youtube. He's presented something he calls UPB. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it as it's a tricky read and misunderstood by many but fundamentally it's pretty sound. He seems to base it on the fact that we are all the same species so if we're going to call something human morality it has to apply to all people at all times and places. He's pretty anti-religious but genuine in his quest. IMHO
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull I doubt he means it's all dogmatic, and that everyone has these sound morals, as we all know, murderers with no remorse exist. It makes sense to say, that something which works is known to others no matter how far they are, as we are the same species. A sword is a good example. It works to not kill everyone all the time, or to kill random people, it's what the "common sense" part was in my post. But it's all very relative, for some it's ok to sacrifice their young, culturally.
Kan2209 1 year ago
@Kan2209 I see your point but he doesn't approach it that way. It's a logical approach to ethics. Gravity will win whether we challenge it or not but indeed people can live their lives without reason. One can make a logical statement that many might not understand and some throw out completely.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull Hmmm, I thought my take was a logical take on ethics and morals. Can you ellaborate a bit for me please? I'd really like a refreshing gust of ideas as I'm seriously getting bored at irrationality :)
Kan2209 1 year ago
@Kan2209 I didn't mean to imply that your view wasn't logical only that a dogmatic wasn't. Here's a vid that tries to explain.
watch?v=tsS8vpLaVS4
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull Ok, I'll check it out. I still think it's what I was at least attempting to say myself, but I'll watch and see.
Thanks.
Kan2209 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull You make the presupposition that the God is unknowable.
If the God is unknowable, He is therefore not a theistic God.
Theism is the belief in a personal God.
Typical atheist logical fallacy.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Belief and knowing aren't necessarily the same. "We can't know the mind of god" is a common fall back answer from the religious indoctrinated.
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull
Nobody said belief and knowing were the same thing. Not even a fool would say such a thing.
YOU drew that invisible connection.
Also, you didn't say the unknowable mind of God, you said an unknowable God.
These are entirely different concepts.
The fact that you believe the inability to explain something which by nature cannot be naturally explained is a "fall back" just shows that you lack logical coherence.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 "If the God is unknowable, He is therefore not a theistic God. Theism is the belief in a personal God."
Perhaps my logic is faulty. I understood the bible to supposedly be the written words from the mind of god. If there's another way to claim to know him than I am ignorant of this.
If something cannot yet be explained then we hold out for an explanation as science has done for years. There was a time when the ability to explain germs seemed impossible.
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull "If something cannot yet be explained then we hold out for an explanation as science has done for years. "
This is the logical fallacy of future human omnipotence through advancement or technology.
It is a hugely detrimental fallacy, and flies in the face of science when one observes what one is truly saying when they say "science will explain it one day".
THAT is faith ;)
In my next comment I will address the issue of God's 'knowability'.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 The logic is in the method of finding the answers. Science may never explain everything but anything that can be and has been explained is done so with the scientific method. To simply put the god stamp on it is closing the case before it's solved. Any argument one has for god can easily be transferred to Zeus or any number of the man made deities. There are people with personal experiences of ghosts, Ufo's and Elvis.
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull
Here's where you're wrong.
"Everything that CAN BE...explained IS DONE SO with the SCIENTIFIC method".
That is a presupposition that God doesn't exist. If indeed He does, that would not be explicable through the scientific method. Therefore the argument is false.
"To simply put the God stamp on it..."
Define "it" please.
"any argument one has for [G]od can easily be transferred to Zeus or any number..."
You cannot be serious. If so, your ignorance is bewildering.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 And with that you have won:) I would have to completely forsake my integrity and only pretend to believe so I can only say that god chose you to hear him and not me and being an all knowing god he knew this from the beginning so he can't really be surprised or disappointed can he.
BrainInSkull 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull
There is indeed another way that many claim to know Him, and even though you say you are ignorant, I doubt very much that you are.
Have you never HEARD of the argument from personal experience?
I'm not asking if you agree it has happened, or even if it has that a science-based endeavor should accept personal testimony as scientifically sound, but have you never heard of it?
Secondly, Jesus Christ on Earth proves the God of the Bible (presupposing existence) is knowable.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@BrainInSkull ...Wilson is honest, got to give him that...but damn, what a sicko. And they talk about morality...I am speechless. Makes more sense to me that such killings happen because, in fact, the universe does not care and thus, no god...VERY IRONIC!
nathanmarto 9 months ago
@BrainInSkull
Truly. And at 8:15 regarding the debate whether the commandment to kill the Amalekites is applicable to killing Palestinian Arabs: "...and if they answered in the affirmative, you don't mind." And he flashes a smug smile as if to say "gotcha"... oh my god that had me fuming! I craved for that to be smashed, but Hitchens let it go.
inkblot777 7 months ago
@BrainInSkull Awwww. Are you staying up all night crying your eyes out for the Amalkites? You're such a caring person. Meanwhile people like you endorse the killing of innocent babies by the millions every single year. Where are your crocodile tears for them? Or, do you only cry as an excuse to spew hatred towards God?
YesYou123333 6 months ago
@YesYou123333 How can someone cry for the people who he believes didn't really exist?
uralldiseasedXD 6 months ago in playlist Hitchens Debates
@YesYou123333 If he killed a million babies every year, we have more resources for ourselves. I don't see what the problem here is. Although the world could support more, who wants more? Society is turning into a blight, and we don't need more young generations hijacked and captivated by the social networking sites and phones.
shady9321 5 months ago
Islam now is the greatest menace for rationalism, science, democracy, life and love. they crawled all over the western society like termites and gnaw at the foundation of civilization. i hope they are in decline and if there was a god for real they he would wipe them out in an instant because would know that science holds the truth and not the religion.
Democrit1to9Freud 1 year ago
i liked the turning water into wine. it takes water, soil, vine and sun to turn water into wine. the "miracle" life. that thrills me, but I have not learned from bible or quoran. the extraordinary process thrills me once understood from bio chemistry / physics
Democrit1to9Freud 1 year ago
then god is the cosmos and in the end the understanding of the universe is still the way. the blind and bigotic belief in the stories of the religion didn't take us here where we are today, but the people who thought critically and challanged religion even when that was payed with their own lives. they pieced the universe together and we are thankful to them. without them we would have never had the chance to understand what stars are and see the planets that orbit around the sun.
Democrit1to9Freud 1 year ago
what a useless string of arguments...he's got nothin!
8technical 1 year ago
I sometimes get the feeling that Hitchens is only ever half-listening to his opponents because he often passes up the opportunity to really dig into people who say very stupid things. Hitchens is brilliant but he sometimes misses out the easier option in debates
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
I'm so pleased that Church attendance is in decline... these fools are losing... now we just need to start educating Muslims.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 Yes muslims now are the greatest menace for rationalism, science, democracy, life and love. they crawled all over the western society like termites and gnaw at the foundation of civilization. i hope they are in decline and if there was a god for real they he would wipe them out in an instant because he know that science holds the truth and not the religion.
Democrit1to9Freud 1 year ago
@Democrit1to9Freud Agreed. Sadly Islam is on the rise which is why we need to fight against it, but with words and not the sword. I'd recommend the book called 'Why I'm Not a Muslim' - it will give you ammo against them.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
This guy's argument is that if we can't understand a theory then it's not true... that's a huge ego trip.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
ahahahh THATS funny. a guy who wants us to believe in a white bearded old man in the clouds ruling the world, cant believe in a black hole on a blackboard? hilarious
trannyniggr 1 year ago
@trannyniggr A black hole has obviously sucked out the part of his brain dealing with rational thought.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
Wilson throws out some aweful arguements
plasterosu 1 year ago 22
@plasterosu I don't know if there are any scientific research on this, but one truth we might be able to find in the universe is, that christians give bad arguments.
Kan2209 1 year ago
@plasterosu He started pretty good, but in the end he's supporting a false truth.
starcrafter13terran 1 year ago
@plasterosu Yeah! But at least he can spell!
squid4104 11 months ago
@squid4104
awful hard to believe i was drunk lol
plasterosu 11 months ago
@plasterosu Forgiven! Actually "aweful " could mean "full of awe" and with Wilson being a God intoxicated man the word you invented may be perfect!
squid4104 11 months ago
@squid4104 Wanker. How's that for spuling?>
morningstomper123 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@squid4104 morningstomper123 = faggot fat boy
putademuerde1 11 months ago
There is a man sitting who would kill his own son if God told him to.
JacksInn 1 year ago
How the Jew do you spell the peoples that God said to slay?
(I don't want to embarrass myself by trying :P)
ChrisZimny 1 year ago
@ChrisZimny G-O-O-G-L-E
Fenixx117 1 year ago
I've always found it amusing that the people who are the most against Big Brother in human civilization and the ones who are always the most rampantly against the power of government intruding on your lives are also the one's who are the most religious. It's an apparent hypocrisy that is obviously hidden to them.
You loathe an overreaching all seeing government, but serve and protect an overreaching all seeing deity that can not only read your mind, but tell you what to like and dislike.
Odd.
CaseRed0605 1 year ago
@CaseRed0605 There is no hypocrisy.God doesnt tell us what to like, He creates us for a purpose but leaves us free to choose or reject morality.. Without belief in a divine authority above ourselves,the highest arbiter of right and wrong in the world is the state, as the state is more powerful than individuals, and without Christianity the power of the state will always grow.
Christians oppose over-weening state power because they believe God gave us freedom in order to choose good over evil
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk
But the entire basis of the religion is based off of an over-weening power. For example, if I don't attend church then I'm a sinner. If I read a book by Alistair Crowley, then I'm a sinner engaging in immorality. No sex before marriage. Gays are sinners who will face damnation.
How is this not the definition of an authoritarian telling you want you can and cannot do? This in your mind is "freedom in order to choose good over evil"? No. Seems to me the choice is all ready made.
CaseRed0605 1 year ago
@CaseRed0605 No an over-weening state takes away our free choice God merely provides us with right and wrong, he doesnt take aay our freedom to choose between them. In order to choose good over evil, we first have to know what is good and what is evil. Christianity provides us with a source of good and evil whereas atheism provides no objective good and evil outside of subjective human beliefs which can be changed to suit us.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk : The progress in our civilized societies has been reached solely through secular and scientific understanding, study and logical scrutiny of our past mistakes, NOT through the teaching of the Church - or worse, the Koran. True, being an atheist does imply neither being good nor evil. It's just a logical position of skepticism towards the supernatural. But morals never came from religion or the Bible. They were simply borrowed from common sense, and philosophy....
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 Hlarious nonsense. The success in our society is entirely the product of Christianity, even Nietzche admitted Western values all come from Christianity and make no sense without it. The Christian West advanced scientifically faster than the non-Christian East precisely because Christianity taught that the Universe was purposeful and thus comprehensible to Man. Atheism gives no reason to believe any one thing is good or another evil
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk : I don't really know how to start replying to such a asnwer... there are too many imprecisions and mistakes to even bother. Enjoy your Christian-inspired existence, man... (and read a book or two on real history and philosophy).
bersa888 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk Almost every meaningful advancement of Western civilisation - scientific, cultural, ethical - was achieved in the teeth of vocal (indeed violent) opposition from religious authorities. The West is successful despite its Christian origins, not because of them. Any honest student of history knows that. As for atheism being unable to inform any sense of right or wrong, you're right. Of couse, atheism makes no such claim for itself. It lacks the arrogance of Christianity.
aynm 1 year ago
@aynm Christianity created the first free schools,and inspired the finest Western architecture and the greatest art and literature from Da Vinci to Shakespeare! Christian ideas (that we are all "created equal") lie at the root of Europe's history of democracy, and individual rights, the Christian West advanced scientifically faster than any non-Christian civilisation because of the Christian idea that the Universe is designed, ordered and purposeful, and thus comprehensible to reason!
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Wrong. We were only created equal if we were the same skin color. Non whites sure had a problem with "peace loving Christian" throughout history didn't they? Come to think of it, they still do. And it's easy to advance quickly when Christians destroy everybody else's religious texts and so on. There is very little left of Native American religion because of both the destruction of their texts and the near genocide. You obviously have selective memory.
thelordmemnoch 11 months ago
@thelordmemnoch Absolute nonsense. We didn't advance quicker by destroying rivals, on the contrary we advanced quicker than rival civilizations, such as Islamic civilization in the East, and China. God does not say we were created equal if the same skin colour, he says we were ALL created equal, because we are all His children.
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk So I am just imagining that racism was endorsed by the bible right? The use of slaves is VERY clear to be condoned in the bible for a number of offenses. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in a society of equal individuals, nobody "owns" anybody. And yes, destroying civilizations works. And finally, Christians didn't progress faster than the Chinese. While the Christians were wandering in the desert, stupid and illiterate, the Chinese could already read and write. Religious myopia?
thelordmemnoch 11 months ago
@thelordmemnoch You are "imagining" it,and you are talking ridiculous nonsense. Jesus does not say, anywhere, that it is right to own another, and it is for that reason that it was great Christians such as William Wilberforce who were the world's first slavery abolitionists . Christian civlization (the West) advanced far faster than Islamic civilization in the East, or China. Individual rights, freedom, democracy and equality all emerged from the Christian West,
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) This isn't the OT, it's the NT. I know, as usual, you guys will ignore the OT unless you need passages to hate homosexuals or to cite the Ten Commandments. How about Jesus? Did he ever say anything about slaves? Oh yes he did, but since you want to dishonest about it, I can play the same game. Did Jesus EVER say that it was wrong? No.
thelordmemnoch 10 months ago
@thelordmemnoch If a theistic apologist is a tender, juicy steak, you just slathered so much BBPwn sauce all over it that I doubt anyone here could taste the meat. Congratulations sir.
It's also very funny how atheists are good at citing Biblical passage, whereas theists will never cite peer reviewed journals.
DirectInjected 10 months ago
@DirectInjected Thank you, thank you. I am sure you know in a recent poll Atheists and Agnostics were the top on the list of religious knowledge. Most atheist were religious to begin with and with more knowledge we became atheist. Very few educated people all of a sudden went from atheist to theist. And Antony Flew is a deist just in case some retarded Creationists comes along trying to use a respected scientist and former atheist as proof that there is a god.
thelordmemnoch 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk And save me the, "it was a different culture back then," or ,"slaves were treated nicer than they were in modern times," because your excuse making frankly makes me sick. And news flash, buddy. The Chinese invented paper, gunpowder and the compass, the things Christians used to spread their filth. Get a history book. I'd love to see you guys going door to door with stone tablets. I would PAY to see that.
thelordmemnoch 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk That is a big insult to the human kind, to say that humans are not capable of rationally deriving something as basic as good and evil.According to you All 4 billion non Christians today,are barbaric uncivilised people.What about people before Christianity, how did they survive while killing and eating each other.Christianity only provided people the tool for the inquisition and burning of witches.If you do want to follow a religion there are much better ones out there.
rao76 1 year ago
@rao76 I dont say humans cannot "rationally discover" good and evil. I say, if God does not exist, morality has no source outside of humans, which means humans can change it whenever they wish to suit themselves. Christianity ended the barbaric practise of eugenics (the killing of unwanted babies) in Greece and Rome, by introducing the idea innoent life is sacred.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk Well, morality is a survival trait like a set of laws that we developed to survive in a social group, tribe, civilisation. Do this in this tribe and you will be punished, do that and you will be accepted. My morals come from my upbringing, not from god. Shimps are social creatures and they punish individuals in their own group if they compromise the grups safety, steal etc. I REFUSE to have the resposibility of my actions taken away or judged by others than my fellow humans
secularnevrosis 11 months ago
@secularnevrosis Thats not true, there is such a thing as objective moral values in our world, which indicates the existence of God, as Voltaire noted.
Shrimps don't have "moral values" they just have mechanical rules dictated by biological needs, if you reduce moral values to the level of shrimps, then murder is not objectively "wrong", just bad for social cohesion within the present species,and everything that is immoral now,could become moral tomorow. Thats not even humanism, its "speciesism"
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Sorry...I meant Chimpanzee,(spelling..my bad) not the little fellow in the sea. I hope you don't argue with me because you thought I meant shellfish? As I see it our morals comes from our abillity to feel empathy combined with civilisation. Empathy ,how to know what others think and feel is by far our most valuable resource as a social animal and perhaps is the cause we didn't just have big brains, but also quite effective ones too.I just dont think any "gods" provide our morals.
secularnevrosis 11 months ago
Debates always suck cause they go off on these mass tangents that lose the core of the debte and all the talking points, its times to bring something new to the table
0Thadius0 1 year ago
I find it thoroughly amusing to read such strong pejorative language directed towards Wilson in the commenting, while seeing Hitchens himself exhibit a clear demonstrable appreciation and respect for the man. This disintegration is portentous.
endunamis 1 year ago
4.45 im sorry, but wilson defo says 'fuck crime' . lol!
stitcha123 1 year ago
Did he just say that if a Mormon is told to kill someone by the head of his church he will? That is absurd!
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
I watched about three debates and stopped here: 8:11.
These is rather a pointless debate because either side is not debating a topic but rather tangentially expressing feeling, scripture, science art, objective and subjective ideas in entirely different directions. Wilson lets Hitchens go. Was it OK to kill the Amalekites? No mention of what they were: Saddam Hussein types.
Point being this: NT mandate: Attack sin with all your might until wiped out. Sin is a brutal enemy. Focus s/b on Jesus.
jfko6 1 year ago
i feel like the christian man is almost hurting his own debate
lulumousie 1 year ago
I like how he says "Just because a group is in formation, dosn't mean they know where they are going" I dont really know if from his position in faith and religion... He should have said that. doesnt it sound like hes talking about say.... blind faith?
Skeptic183 1 year ago
objective, philosophical and scientific truths. What seems odd to me is that someone of your faith claims to hold The Truth of the universe, which is continually being uncovered and discovered, and will continue to.
MRoane41 1 year ago 6
Your Savior apparently said himself that you will be mocked for your beliefs because they will seem absurd. There is no "soul" that has been discovered. So, I was, of course, mocking you. We are sum of atoms, as well as all matter in the universe. Atoms are acting in a random fashion, whether you choose to accept that or not is up to you. We can come close to discovering objective truths, such as the theory of gravity; however, as an unbeliever I seek to discover truths - esoteric, subjective,
MRoane41 1 year ago
@MRoane41 "we are a sum of atoms" If you believe that, there is no basis for morality, and there is no objective beauty,truth or goodness, nor any standard by which they can be judged. If you believe that then life is purposeless,like the Universe itself. and there is no point doing good for others, if it causes you harm, since conscience itself is just a chemical reaction, so there is no such thing as right and wrong.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk -- why do you need a religious basis for morality. I mean -- do you really need the bible to tell not to kill your neighbour, or rape, or steal? That is kind of disturbing. And what of the multitude of civilisations that existed before Christianity arose circa 0 AD? They had morality -- so where did it come from -- they certainly didn't believe in christian ethics. And before mentioning the old testament - ya may want to reread that before mentioning morals.
jif99 1 year ago
@jif99 We dont need the Bible to tell us its wrong to rape or kill,try learning the arguments.
The point about religious morality is that it maintains that life and the Universe have a purpose and that there is such a thing as objective truth, beauty and an absolute right and wrong, that are not subjective to individual human experience, because they come from a divine source.
Atheism maintains the Universe is undesigned chaos, and life is purposeless, so morality is meaningless and pointless
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk You can't pick and choose according to whatever suits your argument. The bible either teaches us ALL morality or it doesn't. If you accept that we "don't need the bible to tell us its wrong etc" then you accept that these principles are not god given and derived from some internalised innate reasoning/rationale -- not from a creator or designer. Evolution offers reasons for this and shows it exists outside our species.
Atheism 'teaches' nothing of what you describe.....
jif99 1 year ago
@jif99 No I'm not picking and choosing, you just missed the point by a mile. A sense of right and wrong is innate because God's law runs through the Universe, or you can choose to believe morality is nothing more than the feelings we inherit from animals, which isnt really "right" and "wrong" its just a DNA-inherited chemical reaction, and objectively defining "right and wrong" makes as much sense as saying one chemical reaction is more "right" than another meaningless chemical reaction.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@jif99 If you want the evidence science is producing for religion, read Oxford Uni Professor John Lennox "The Undertaker:Has Science Buried God?" or read the excellent or celebrated former atheist philospher Anthony Flew's critique of Richard Dawkins "There Is A God"
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk Your comments re atheism betray a profound misunderstanding of its general prnciples. I would suggest most atheists do not feel there is no 'meaning to life' or that it is pointless -- just that we do not need some constructed magical sky wizard to give us meaning -- we can derive meaning ourselves.
You give your life meaning by creating a made up person (god) to give it to you. I decide what is meaningful for myself. We both create our own meanings but attribute it differently
jif99 1 year ago
@jif99 No, sir you simply havent faced the implications of atheism.There cant be "meaning" to life if you simply create your own meaning, because then it isnt an objective purpose for humanity, its just a personal illusion. Atheists believe the world is undesigned and purposeless, that it came from nothing and is going nowhere. Therefore, in such a reality, there can be no such thing as objective "truth" or "beauty" or purpose to life, or inherent worth to humans, or absolute "right" or "wrong"
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk Like I said -- we both create our own meaning. You construct a magical god to give you meaning -- but it is still a created one. Atheists forego the step of creating a fake deity to give them meaning and recognise we give it to ourselves.
The closest we can get to objective truth is via the scientific method. "God's truth" is by definition subjective. And beauty is entirely subjective. Meaning is subjective as well -- as evidenced by the multiple different bible interpretations
jif99 1 year ago
@jif99 You dont seem able to grasp the argument.
You cannot assert God is created by us,as you cannot assert He does not exist.You can only say that you believe He doesnt exist.,Which also means you believe the Universe is purposeless,and nothing is objectively "better" than anything else,as its all just a pointless chemical reaction.
We cant get close to truth with "scientific method" if truth doesnt exist, because its all just meaningless chaos. If meaning is subjective, then it isnt real.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk Please ... I have refrained from making any insults re your tenuous argument -- and I certainly won't be condescended to by someone who accepts two thousand yr old tribal mythology as holding some sort relevance in the modern world. Christians can surely "assert" anything they want re objectivity -- but you are making a circular argument in assuming your god is actually real and using that to prove your statements have any merit. ....
jif99 1 year ago
@jif99 It wasnt "mythology" the evidence for Jesus and his works is undeniable, both from the extraordinary effect Christianity had on Western civilisation and Jesus's followers, and from the archaeological and historical data, which is why Richard Dawkins now accepts it is certain Jesus lived, when challenged with the historical facts. You clearly dont have a clue what your talking about.
Its not a circular argument, the point is that only if we believe God is real,can objective truth exist.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk typically for a 'believer', you confuse knowledge and belief. Of course I cannot prove God doesn't exist, any more than you can disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, or Russell's teapot. You can't even prove I am not God (or I, you, for that matter). But many of these things can be dismissed as absurdities - things asserted without evidence can similarly be dismissed without evidence. Lastly, your reliance on the controversial DEIST , Flew, is odd.
jif99 1 year ago
@jif99 But there's no similarity between belief in God and something as ridiculous as a spaghetti monster. I have to conclude you are embarassingly ignorant of the facts.
Theres a great deal of evidence for God,as Richard Dawkins acknowledged,in his debate with Christian scientist Professor John Lennox, when Dawkins said "a serious case can be made for a theistic God". If you had read John Lennox "Has Science Buried God" you would see the historical evidence for Jesus and the evidence for God.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk ... if you hear a particular song, or read a particular book and it makes an emotional connection with you -- perhaps inspiring, motivating or alternatively affecting you in a negative way -- then you give that thing subjective meaning. Someone else may find that song or book to be quite ordinary and derive no meaning from it whatsoever. So you would argue that thing has meaning -- or no meaning? You derive meaning from a 2000yr old God created by semi-literate tribesmen. I don't.
jif99 1 year ago
@jif99 The difference is Christians can assert some things are objectively better than others,as we can assert some things are true and others false. Atheists cannot assert that anything is true,beautiful,good or bad,because such terms are meaningless in an undesigned chaos of matter.
A song or book leave the realm of the purely subjective,when we decide whether they represent great art or no.But for atheists art, like right and wrong, is all relative and nothing is better than anything else
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@MRoane41 "Your Savior apparently said himself that you will be mocked for your beliefs because they will seem absurd"
that is word-for-word the same tired old line Hitchens reels out at every TV appearance on religion.
As Christian philosophers Anthony Flew and William Lane Craig observed, Christopher Hitchens book is not intellectually sophisticated, it is atheism for a pop-culture audience. Lots of clever turns of phrase and angry, bitter rhetoric but no depth or insight
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk So just because some fairy tale believer thinks Hitchens is not an intellectual, you believe it? Craig's entire gig seems to simply be intellectual dishonesty. He babbles on endlessly and uses big words but he has no command of logic. Just what one would expect from someone trying to defend a myth.
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
@MrTruthAddict Fariy-tale believers with no command of logic? Some of the greatest scientists in the world today, and in history, have been Christians you fool.
I believe Hitchens has no intellectual depth because,whenever he debates deep thinkers like Craig and John Lennox he is always unable to answer any of their profound questions about the purpose of life and conscience etc Similarly, Oxford University scientist John Lennox,by all accounts,annihilated Richard Dawkins in their first debate.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago