i think douglas wilson is a closet athiest. i doubt anyone could say those types of things without feeling like a complete dumbass. yet, he needs to stick with the lie because he's built his livelyhood around it. either that or he really is that dumb, which i hope its impossible to be so well educated, yet naive on a completely ridiculous level
Wilson are talking about divine moral truth.. I think people should do some digging of hes and hes followers views on slavery, the subjection of women, and the need to execute homosexuals, non-believers, disobedient children, etc
I must say if I was going to rate this debate, Hitchens and Wilson, I would say Hitchens won. That's sad because his argument is not the more compelling of the two. Hitchens was more aggressive and given much more talk time. Did Wilson not have anything to say? There were plenty of other arguments to put forth to counter Hitchens' assumptions. I was mostly disappointed in the debate but for Hitchen's brilliance of presentation not information. I love a lively debate but this was not one.
As solid of a conclusion by Hitch as you will ever hear.
One of his most underrated qualities was his ability to be patient with theists, and to engage in these debates because certainly I wouldn't be able to go back and forth with a theist in the way that he does, and with so much poise. Many people have benefited (and will continue to benefit) from watching these debates and engagements.
@Scofield0085 We've lost one of the greatest debaters and thinkers of our time. There is no one to replace him him with. He's one of those people who doesn't come along very often.
Nothing flies more in the face of a consistent worldview (reality) than having faith in an improbable, unprovable supreme being. That is what Hitchens is trying to illuminate. Theists would be best off to just admit "it makes no sense whatsoever and flies in the face of science and reason, but I still believe there is a god, I need to believe in god". Then at least we could all move on to loftier conversations about meaning of life, creation of the universe, etc.
Hitchens so adores the fight, the inquiry, the struggle in the prevous clip and then asks how God is not loving then. Hithens thinks that the earth is going to explode, that's assuming humans can not master their world.
That's the key difference between the extinct animals and us. We're the only 'species' that is able to either destory the planet or is capable of advancing society and maybe to the point we can evade this ultimate doom Hitchens points out. It's the same idea as global warmin
I love how the moron on the right is employed somewhere to teach logic and can willingly base the direction of his life on a damn assumption. There is no basis for logic in assumption, especially not of your conclusion. The man should have been fired on the spot.
With so many cheeks in that audience you can hardly blame them for thinking they were safe, yet Hitch manages to slap each and every one of them with his closing remarks.
how long will it take religion to evaporate? my guess is at least 2-300 years minimum. When will people of faith see the actual light of truth. Maybe they all do need a saviour after all to help those blinded by their faith to see. and those deafed by man made ancient scripture/s to hear.
Btw I wonder how Christians would feel to know that they might be sharing "heaven" with ancestors of homosapiens, possibly hominids, and finding out that these creatures sharing their heaven won't ever be able to acknowledge the existence of the heavenly dictator. You see what I did there? n__n
@Casshyr The man who proposed the big bang theory, Georges Lemaitre was a catholic. That is a horrible argument, people of all religions have contributed massively to science.
@94ruski Statistically speaking, atheists dominate the Nobel Prize winners. Sure you can name me a few examples of scientists who are also theists, but in the end, you can't deny the fact that most scientists, especially the ones widely acknowledged in their fields, are atheists/agnostics. Or even then, they are most likely deists or very liberal Christians + other faiths (i.e. they don't let their religion get in the way of science, unlike creationists)
@writersblock26 I understand, but devout or not, they were theists. My point is, that the belief in God does not inhibit scientific thinking as long as the individual has an open mind. I was just calling out Casshyr on his idiotic argument.
@94ruski Yes, it is a rather weak argument, but when you claim that "people of all religions have contributed massively to science," you may want to be careful about what you are saying, or are, in fact, not saying. As Christopher Hitchens points out, we have essentially no way of telling whether the majority of scientists in history were actually devout or were simply conforming to the religious zeitgeist.
Hitchens' final statement was especially compelling, and it was easily understandable to the average layperson. He painted a very stark and horrifying picture of early humanity, and I find it impossible to come up with a good enough argument as to why an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being would not intervene. The same could be said for today, as countless people die of hunger, thirst and disease in poor countries. I was raised on the bible but find it impossible to believe now.
Christopher Hitchens almost romanticeses the idea of a non meaningful existence, while at the same time brandishing the idea of immortality and undying faithfullness the root of all human suffering.
@freef49 did you watch the same video I did? I would hope yoy wouldn't base your life off of 1 book. And to call this guy any thing other than delusional would be an understatement. I don't question his sincerity, but from someone who doesn't believe that nonsense, its hard to understand.
this debate only drives home the realization i've come to. in talking to christians i know, and by listening to this wilson guy, there is no reasoning with these folks. They will argue absolute scientific facts. The brainwashing is amazing. I've given up trying to figure them out...This religious indoctornation is powerful!
This arguement that acceptance of reason requires equal faith to religion is nonsense. Reason demonstrates its reliability by concuring with natural laws and objective experiences,and is consistant. Religion neither concurs with natural laws or reality nor are the beliefs of groups or individuals consistant. One is justified by objective and testable experience and one is utterly unporovable and subjective to the point of solipsism.
Note how flustered Hitchens gets when wilson presses him on faith in reason. Hitchens knows this is where his argument falls apart and when pressed to this point he always gets very frantic and starts hissing like a cat. He has to deny that its faith in reason or else religion has ground to stand on too. It is the same point that caused the old atheism to hit a brick wall...hes a paper tiger
Why grant the exception? Why look at the way the world works, the way it has ALWAYS worked, second to second -- predictably, according to physical laws -- and say "yes, but on this matter of select ancient writings, we should throw all that away"? Hitchens isn't flustered because he's forced to react to an irrefutable flaw in his argument, he's flustered in the same way he would be if Douglas poured his water down his pants and started making love to the microphone.
@urgk No thats not it at all. Hitchens knows that reason is not infallible just as much as he doesnt think scripture is infallible. During the age of philosophy his predecessors ran into the problem that they couldnt prove that reason is anymore reliable than anything else. As much as we would like to think it isnt...reason is subjective and relative. Science proofed this with its many paradigm shifts. If such reason and logic is changable who knows what we will believe in 100yrs.
If a person is willing to join Mr. Wilson in his journey into silliness and pretend that reason itself, not a particular outcome, but the potential of the process, is questionable, that person has removed himself from the debate. Wilson has been bested intellectually, so he's conjuring up absurdities. If it were a wrestling match, Wilson would be defending against Hitchens' double-leg takedown by running electricity through a fish.
@urgk Thats bc these guys are wrestling on Hitchens terms and are afraid of their own faith bc Hitchens thinks its silly. Regardless of who thinks its silly we have encountered God and believe in him without or without reasonable rational logic. Thats why us Christians are so committed to it bc it has changed our lives...something atheism/antitheism can not do. Reason can only go so far especially when you only live for 70 yrs or less.
Of course, you can believe in God without using reason. That's the definition of "faith." The over-arching problem with that, as I said earlier is that you're making an exception in the way the world works and the way humans function within it for just one of the ancient mythologies. Neither Christopher Hitchens nor any reasonable atheist would find that useful. And, like I said, when that's your game, you're no longer participating in the debate.
@urgk 1.Well you see we are particitpating in the debate bc hes the one that is writing books against us and telling people to hate us. Now he doesn't want a God who offends him but feels it is completely okay for him to offend and mistreat other people. Thats a hypocrite. 2. Hes the one who sent his agent out to line up these debates...we didn't go pursuiing him. 3. I can line up millions of people who have dramatically transformed by there Christian faith. Can you do the same for atheists
I think you miss my point. Which is this - debate relies on logical progression, or "reason" to move forward. When one of the participants says "well, logic doesn't apply to my argument," he has withdrawn from the debate and might as well be tap-dancing or playing the accordion. The reasons he entered the debate are not really relevant.
@urgk Once again...his terms...not everyone elses. He is challenging why people believe. They explain why...but on his terms it is not good enough. If it doesn't fit his terms thats his choice...but to attack people bc they choose to believe seems a bit tyrannical doesn't it? Yet he complains about a tyrannical god. Hes a hypocrite. Im sorry you guys dont believe...i am, its sad. But to mistreat those who do is wrong. He takes advantage of people whose faith teaches them not to mistreat
No, not his terms...the way the world works. What religionists ask for, yet again, is an exception to be granted in support of ancient myths. To say that the regular world works through observation and a logical understanding of that observation, but that God or doctrine is somehow immune, is the height of arrogance. What Hitchens has repeatedly said is that if that arrogance is only applied inward, he has no problem with it. When it's pointed at the rest of us, it becomes a problem.
@boboe511 Of coarse not, The vadican doesn't call the press when they have a scandal, nor the mob, any crime syndicate. They would rather people(sheep) just take thier word in faith that we are not doing anything wrong, besides brainwashing, were not water boarding. I read that some of the accredited colleges are going to start listing religion under psycology, yespsycology not history or education.could go under criminal law too.
@boboe511 Theres a MILLION DOLLARS for you encountering god, all you have to do is prove it???MR. RANDI and others have offered this for 50 or so years,any any supernatural powers,speakings, One of his earliest reported experiences is that of seeing an evangelist using the "one-ahead" routine to convince churchgoers of his divine powers.like encountering god.LIER.... CALL HIM, LOOK HIM UP,NOBODY HAS EVER GOT ANY MONEY???THATS ALL THEY WANT, maybe try eaning it.
@urgk Given how little we really know in the scheme of things I don't find humans conclusions very impressive. We don't know as much as we think we know. Hitchens is merely recycling old material from the enlightenment period. Naive people are just so excited about it bc they think its NEW bc its the first time they really have heard it. As a philosophy student...its all quite boring...entertaining but like listening to the same lecture from a professor youve heard a million times.
I'd like to see one example (outside of religion as descried by the religious) where the process of scientific reasoning -- evidence collected and analyzed for testable results -- fails to work toward a solution. That is, where does reason fail as a process? I don't mean "where has it yet to reach an acceptable theory?", but where has the process failed?
@urgk 4. we actually believe in the scientific process but don't believe it is the ONLY means to find truth...thats naive. We also don't have a problem thinking that there is a God who got the ball rolling. Who/what started it all? Is it reasonable that it started ex nihilo? Does that make sense? Can you point to anything in science starts from nothing? I have less faith in a man who is an alcoholic dying of cancer who has a chip on his shoulder than I do people who have been transformed
"we actually believe in the scientific process but don't believe it is the ONLY means to find truth...thats naive."
What an odd thing to say. It seems very...Deepak Chopra. I mean, to declare that evidence gathering and an application of logic to create testable laws doesn't work just seems ludicrous. Again, it seems like an attempt to claim special knowledge and to step outside the debate. The scientific method is really the *only* means we have to verify a given claim.
@urgk I would not attack an atheist and treat them disrespectfully bc of what they believe. To make statements that people of faith should be ridiculed and hated is wrong. What is the difference between that and what he complains religion does? It is all faith anyhow. He has faith in reason we have faith in God. He has faith in his interpretation of reality and so do we. Once again, science has great paradigm shifts. To me it is not as certain as he is making it sound.
Firstly, what you would or wouldn't do is no indication of the scope of Mr. Hitchens' problem with religionists. Good for you for being a considerate individual. We need more of those.
Secondly, what Hitchens ascribes to is the opposite of faith. It's intellectually lazy to suggest otherwise. Faith by definition is belief outside of reason. Hitchens' belief, that Christianity is as much a myth as the other religions in which Christians do not believe, is supported by the evidence..
@urgk Now you say that intelligent people can succumb to flaws. Hitchens says reason and logic are man-made. Now why would I place certainty in something man-made by humans who are so greatly flawed. Sorry, but I will not base my eternity on that nor my understanding of reality. Science is merely discovering what God has made. Look behind the curtain friend. Science is leading many scientists to God bc there are no other explanations. Like ex nihilo
Yet, you put absolute faith in some idea created and nurtured by humans in the same manner as every other religion in which you do not believe. You do not believe in Zeus and believe that he arose from human frailty. You do not believe in Mayan sacrifice and, I would think, believe it to be human storytelling gone wrong. You do not believe in Mithra or Shiva or Odin or Xenu or The Great Spirit or The Rainbow Serpent, and can dismiss them as pre-scientific myth. Why not your own myth?
Again, you want an exception to exist only for God. God is the one thing immune to reason. That, to me, sounds like exactly what I'd want you to believe if I wanted you to, say, give me a tenth of your income, vote the way I want you to, dedicate your life to the building of temples, go to bed with the people I let you in the way I want you to do it, etc. It's just a means for a handful of people to declare they have special knowledge and insist that the rest of us do what they say.
@boboe511 YES ,RIGHT,what a hypocrite, read in your bible, man was made in his image, not the physical part. or is that the way you took it .WRONG,do some research dude, studies show that athiest are more educated on religion than you religous f,tards..AND THE FOG WAS LIFTED. Do you still believe in santa, no,because an intalectual(someone that knows more than you) told you there was no such thing.IM telling you now, NO GOD, NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE.
@urgk by faith. Lets ask Sam Harris how well one is able to bode without faith...it is a need within us. Thats reality. A reality that humans have been responding to for millenia. Lastly, I would think that if God was so silly he surely would have gone away by now. After all he was supposed to have died in the 60's but somehow stuck around.
@urgk Last to Last...I know many very intelligent people who used to be atheists who now believe in this silliness bc they encountered God. They cant all be idiots can they?
I guess it is possible that they're all idiots. Or that they're perfectly smart people who share a common physiology, a common humanity and who've succumbed to the same, very human flaws.
I'm sure if we took a few minutes, we could come up with multiple lists of things that a lot of smart people have believed through willful ignorance, a lack of evidence or outside manipulation. The notion that a thing must be true because X number of people believe it, is a logical fallacy.
@boboe511 Old material ,look at your beliefs, what a hypocrite ( a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings ).no idiot prob fits better.And the enlightenment period is from educating, alot due to the internet, knowledge is flowing faster than a,well you know, ive been waiting 30 years and its finally happening,religions are beiing seen for what they are.fakes.prediction;50 years religions will be on compounds such as, WACO's or JIM JONES cults.
Great debate, I thought Hitchens tore it up. Clearly the pastor and I had different instructors at the University of Idaho because I learned about the problems with philosophical relativism as a freshman. This whole debate reminded me of one of my first lectures on ethics when we were confronted with the funeral test. As a confirmed agnostic, I find myself asking, "How, exactly, do I want my funeral conducted and what do I want people to say about my beliefs?"
This debate caught my eye while I was surfing the web because as a native of Moscow, Idaho I recognized Mr. Wilson's name (I remember when the two story downtown building that houses his college was the phone company my dad worked for and I would play on the old wood playground equipment in Friendship Square). Watched the whole thing and loved it. My question for Mr. Wison is why can't things that are undesigned be beautiful? I just don't understand that argument.
Christian theologians spend all their time trying to come up with arguments to prove the mythology in which they believe. They are very good at designing some arguments and not so good at others. Hitchens comes along and flattens all of them with ease. Not even fair. Fairy tale-believing lambs to the slaughter of reason by evidence and logic.
@playingdablues No one is trying to PROVE God exists. To prove that God exists with the very equations and laws of science that we believe he created is unreasonable.
What thiests ask are for atheists to be consistent in their worldview. If indeed everything came about through randomnes or by universal laws of physics, then thing like beauty, morality, or humanism, or rights are as real as two collidng particles or as much value as you stepping on a nest of insects.
@achzdck Furthermore, Atheism (in it self) is not a system of morality. It is simple a rejection of religion and theology. Any number of moral beliefs can be picked up there, but for people like Hitchens and myself, the debate does not end at Atheism. We advocate secular-humanism as a moral system.
@achzdck Nazi Germany was not an atheistic regime. The vast majority of the SS were confessing Catholics, and the majority of the German high-command were Christians. Certainly the prison guards at Auschwitz and Dachau were Christians. Also, the Nazis had the phrase "God With Us" pinned to their uniforms. People like Hitchens and myself always criticize Islam, but we know the Bible better because most of the religious people we meet are Christians.
@koreindian1 I think you summed up the nazi position on God/Christianity...God with us...right they thought they recruited God to THEIR cause. Note it wasnt "Us with God." This is when religion is evil when humans think they can tell God what to do and who he is.
After this discussion I’ve strange feeling. Although it’s kept in rather polite atmosphere I cannot notice that Hitchens put between lines a clear signal. By blasphemer lies he created a image of dark God and a pessimistic vision of Christianity. This just makes me angry. It’s atheism that brings pessimism, depression and purposeless life. Read Camus, Sartre, Kolakowski and many others. They knew that if there is no God, you already lost, and they were all atheists.
@achzdck A Christian demanding facts! Blimey. How about the crusades? we'll start there and I'll name a slaughter of significance every decade until the present day...or have I got the wrong end of the stick, you're an Atheist undercover trying to make Christians look stupid?
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Believe if you want to hua? Also, Muslim is no better. Worse in fact, partially Because of the reason you gave, partially because once you are indoctrinated the wage for Apostasy is death.
Sounds like it's gang rules in religion. Oh sorry I didn't mean to make a gang sound as bad as an occult, I mean religion.
@thesamsin i will watch it, but that's still no answer to why you think he lost this "debate" when he so obviously won it. yes, hitchens ended with a scathing attack on christianity and theism, but he did it rightfully. neither you or wilson came up with any counter arguments, and while wilson dodged, dipped, duck and dove in the clip, your kinda do to by referring to a whole other clip. i suggest you and wilson address hitchens' points instead of just ignoring and then get 'offended' as you do.
@SebiSthlm I'm not offended. The problem is, Wilson cant dodge points that Hitchens never made. Hitchens never makes arguments or points, only attacks. If I said what you believed is stupid, that is not an argument only an attack. I wasn't commenting on this debate in particular, only a pattern I see in Hitchens. In fact I think Wilson was sub par. This wasn't much of a debate. However if you want to see offended find the part in this debate where Hitchens scolds the crowd for laughing......yeah
@thesamsin hitchens makes two very clear points that wilson doesn't address: 1. there is no proof and therefore no rational reason to believe a god exist - if you resort to the obvious circular argument that "i believe the bible is true bc the bible says it's true", then either you're stupid or not interested in a discussion. 2. even if there was a god, there are no reason to worship him since he's only sometimes benevolent, most often absent and more often than benevolent downright evil.
@SebiSthlm Easy, 1. There is plenty of proof, (see the Lane craig debate I mentioned for 5 rational reasons) Its just it is easy for atheists to claim that theistic evidence is not up to their standards. (without seriously examining it I might add) 2. Just because we don't seem to understand God does not mean he doesn't exist. Because you see him to be evil, does not make him evil. To Iraq we are the most evil nation on earth, that doesn't make it true.
@thesamsin by 'the plenty of proof' that's not up to 'atheist's standards' you mean that there are no objectively measurable proof. why would theists have lower standards on proof than atheists? if you read what i wrote, i didn't write that god is evil. and i don't think god is evil since he doesn't exist. but if he's omnipotent and still allows rapes, murders and genocide, wouldn't you say he's evil? and don't bring up the devil, bc he wouldve been made my god just as he would be less powerful.
@SebiSthlm the difference is that with Atheism, there is no hope for Justice. The people that get away with it just get away with it. In fact they are simply following the idea of natural selection. The rich get richer.
@thesamsin btw, after watching lane graig's opening argument in the debate against hitchens, he has already lost by asserting that it is the atheists who have the burden of proof that god doesn't exist. it's like ricky gervais says: it's up to the one who says he can fly to prove it. that person can't go up to people and say to them that they have to prove that he can't fly.
@SebiSthlm Hes not saying the burden of proof is on Hitchens to prove that God does not exist. He is saying that Hitchens has to take down those proofs in order to maintain his position. BIG difference.
@thesamsin well, he makes a big number of that atheism can't be proved. as for his 'proofs' the last two are laughable and only weakens his argumentation (which is why hitchens doesnt even address them). the fine-tuning and rejection of evolution arguments are simply arguments of ignorance: 'i dont know how stuff works so god must have done it'. as is the cosmological argument which boils down to an intelligent being with the exact same characteristics as he says nothing could be created out of.
@SebiSthlm Oh and I think your break down of Craigs arguments are both a cop out and a fallacy. You over simplify his argument and then attack the over simplification that you came up with, not his actual arguments. Oh, and I have never heard someone even touch the resurrection argument. not once.
@thesamsin there are not enough room to not shorten down his arguments in a yt comment. the fact that no serious scientist takes his 'scientific' arguments seriously says it all. you still havent explained why it is that everythng needs to have a creator except the creator himself. why do you make an exception for god? and the resurrection argument cant be taken seriously. if i see an open grave with the body missing, how is that proof that the body must have been resurrected?
@SebiSthlm But your summation of his argument was in no way what he said. And you attacked the "summation" of his argument that you created.... which is a fallacy.
Well, either God is eternal or the universe is eternal, yet science tells us that there is a beginning point of space and time. So for that to be true, there has to be an unmoved mover. And this unmoved mover cannot be a part of the matter that it creates. So it is perfectly logical to say that God is the unmoved mover.
@SebiSthlm No, he did not create evil, yes he created the possibility of evil in giving human beings free choice. But he is not responsible for their sin(evil). Satan was created as an Angel first who, having free choice, rebelled against God. God did not create him as an evil being, satan is responsible for his own evil actions(sin). And diseases are the result of our sinful fallen world. Before sin entered the world, there were no diseases.
@thesamsin - Why do Adam and Eve's free choice and sin affect and confront all mankind (6,902,500,000 humans) to this very day? Doesn't this considerably diminish the meaning of "FREE" choice?
There are babies dying every day due to diseases and infections. Babies don't have the mental capacity to make free rational choices for themselves. So what happens when they die?
@sgunsgun2 Because it is a matter of genetics. (I know there is no physical "sin-gene") but if two sinful things get together and procreate, they are to have another sinful being, and so on and so forth. Thus humanity is effected by the fall. and yes it does diminish free choice in a sense. Now we can simply freely choose how we are going to sin. We cannot fix our selves, I would hope you would agree that no one is perfect.
@thesamsin I think that completely negates the concept of free choice. It's absurd to tell a child that he/she is punished and cursed with original sin for something he/she did not take part of, and this is all because Adam and Eve were deceived by a hebrew-talking snake. This is flat-out nonsense.
No one is perfect because homo sapiens are not fully evolved primates. I'm surprised to see you mentioning genetics - which the study proves that our original ancestors were not.. Adam and Eve.
@sgunsgun2 I never said I advocate for free choice. In fact I dont believe in free will, and neither do 90% of scientists and philosophers. And your claim that it is nonsense is only your own subjective interpretation of your experiences........ funny how that works huh?
Not true, genetics has narrowed it down to about 4 clans (which is congruent with the biblical account.)
@thesamsin C'mon, let's not get cocky. How is it subjective, when it's "objectively" obvious that snakes can't talk in Hebrew? We even had a point of agreeement when you said "it does diminish free choice in a sense".
Regarding genetics, can you give me the link(s) to those findings? Don't worry if they are by creationists.
@sgunsgun2 You have to understand the allegory of Genesis. It is obviously not just regular snake. It is clearly Satan in the form of a serpent. So no, snakes can't speak Hebrew, but a fallen angel can and it can also take the form of a serpent. No, they aren't from creationists lol. Richard Dawkins (yes you read that right) said that all humans can trace their DNA back to a single woman. I don't find this contradictory in any way to the bible
@thesamsin Where in the bible does it say it's an allegory? How do u distinguish the allegorical from the categorical?
The genetic evidence suggests that the most recent patriarch of all humanity is much more recent than the most recent matriarch, suggesting that 'Adam' and 'Eve' were not alive at the same time. While 'Eve' is believed to have lived more than 140,000 years ago, 'Adam' appears to have lived less than 110,000 years ago (Wiki: Pleistocene human population bottleneck in Africa).
@sgunsgun2 Thats easy, it depends on the style of writing. If you read the entire Bible literally you are an idiot. Obviously, God is not a literal rock. You read it according to the way it is written and It is pretty obvious that the serpent is Satan.
And with the bottle necking, I believe in micro evolution. I do believe in a literal adam and a literal eve, and I believe that humanity has always been distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom.
@thesamsin Furthermore, since "population bottleneck" is an evolutionary process, I want to know if you think that the theory of evolution by natural selection is compatible with the bible.
@sgunsgun2 Now with babies. Paul says that man is without excuse. The earth and the stars and the sky all declare the glory of God. So we are responsible because we actively deny God in spite of the fact that we are surrounded by His glory.
But babies, are not able to perceive the world in that way. So it is safe to say that they are not without excuse. So I believe that babies, upon death, go to heaven. This is achieved in someway by the crucifixion of Jesus.
@thesamsin But this is only your own subjective interpretation of the bible. There are no passages which specifically mention the eventual terminus of deceased babies. This leads to people like Thomas Aquinas coming up wish-thinking assumptions like the Limbo - a place where unbaptized babies are eternally confined. And by reading the bible, it's hard to miss the part where god actually mandated infanticide. No chapter or passage even mentions the posthumous whereabouts of THOSE babies.
@sgunsgun2 I think that Thomas Aquinas was a sub par theologian and interpreted the bible rather poorly. It is all about varying degrees of good and bad interpretation. And the same is true today in terms of bills and amendments and contracts and laws. I think my interpretations is one that follows completely logically from the text. In comparison with Aquinas who just made crap up.
@thesamsin How can it follow logically from the text, if there are no chapters or passages to begin with, that deals anything about where deceased babies go after death? You're picking bits and pieces from the bible - out of context, too - to prove your point.
And you haven't commented on the part where god orders infanticide in Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Leviticus etc. Can you tell me how you interpret that?
@sgunsgun2 Because men are held responsible for what they know. Babies don't know anything so they cant be held responsible in the way that an adult can. Completely logical. And it is not out of context, and looking to the idea of responsibility is not picking bits and pieces when examining the departed babies. Its an issue directly related to the topic. not out of context at all.
And infanticide? talk about out of context lol. You seem to be picking bits of the bible you are uncomfortable with
@thesamsin Well, I think it's not directly related to the topic but I appreciate your answer anyway :D Let's elbow aside babies for the sake of argument. What happens to adults - according to the bible - living in places where the "good news" have not yet penetrated? Are they vouchsafed an instant ticket to heaven also?
@sgunsgun2 For the record, I don't condone the elbowing of babies lol. But, I don't believe that anyone is without opportunity to know Jesus. I have heard of people coming to Christ through dreams and visions. So I think that the people in Africa and island nations do indeed have the opportunity to know God so they are also responsible. Which is why I am dedicating myself to go to non-christian nations so that they can know God. That is why Jesus told us to go to all nations.
@sgunsgun2 To humor you, I will comment on infanticide in the bible. God commands it to sustain the purity of and ensure the survival of the chosen people of Israel. In other words he was protecting the lineage of Jesus so that humanity as a whole would not have to suffer eternity in Hell. This is not immoral at all either because not only does he hold all life in his hands and can do with it as he wills but you would do the same thing, u would probably choose the path where the least people die
@thesamsin It had nothing to do with jesus lol. The Judeo-Christian god was pissed off because the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Midianites, Amalekites etc were worshipping other gods (Pretty commonplace today, too).
[Numbers 31:17-18] "17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man".
@sgunsgun2 No, he wasn't pissed lol, it was all about the line of David (the same line that Jesus came from) That is why they had to annihilate cities, because they knew that if they didn't those people would want revenge. It happens all the time still, just look at Afghanistan. They were avoiding imminent revenge.
@thesamsin Well it says on the bible (Exodus, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Samuel 1 etc) that the genocide, infanticide and slavery were mandated due to different reasons than the one you've mentioned, but thank you anyway for answering my questions.
@thesamsin If that was the ultimate goal, I wonder why it's not mentioned in the chapters. Little odd to leave out the most important part, don't you think?
@sgunsgun2 Well, not really. I mean the authors of those books were simply writing historical accounts of what happened. God commanded something and they did it. Then the scribes wrote about the stuff that happened. Most of these are those books that we do take literal since the authors were writing historical accounts and would have left out most of the deeper allegorical meaning.
Also try reading Isaiah 53, its an entire chapter dedicated to prophesy about Jesus (400 years before his birth)
@sgunsgun2 Well, that is a Genesis story. Genesis is a book that is deeply allegorical. How much is Allegory and how much is historical? Its hard to tell. So the answer to that question is much more complicated than the question itself. I do believe that it did happen yes, but I don't know whether or not, when it says the flood waters covered the world, it meant the known world or the whole planet.
@thesamsin 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Does this sound anything allegorical to you? If it does, what is this an allegory of?
@sgunsgun2 The pairs of creatures represent the totality of the species, the ark represents Gods preservation of life. The waters, an allegory of baptism, death to sin and life brought by the grace of God. This is paralleled in the story of Moses, Pharoah charged for all babies to be drowned in the river, but Moses was put in a basket 2 float above the waters that represent judgment/death. The basket is a parallel of the ark, it represents Gods preservation. Don't mistake the tree 4 the forrest
@thesamsin Ok I now get the allegory thanks to your explanations, but you did say that you believe the Noah's ark story to have happened in history. Which means, all the pairs of animal species (which represent the "totality of the species") were brought into the ark by Noah. This raises another question: According to the bible, could there have been dinosaurs inside the ark? And, what about the animals that were not discovered at that time?
@thesamsin But if the ark contained not only the animals we have on the planet currently, but also pairs of the 99% of all the other species that have gone extinct, there would not be an ark of any sort that would be large enough. Also, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago during the KT extinction (according to stratigraphical and paleontological data), whilst all modern apes arrived on the planet long afterwards. Mutual existence is completely impossible.
@thesamsin Furthermore, as Richard Dawkins pointed out, that if there was such an arc, that would mean that when it landed all animals exited from the same point. If that is the case, then why have animals distributed themselves the way they have? Why, for instance, have all marsupials went to Australia, or why did polar bears choose the North Pole and penguins the South?
@SebiSthlm right, my bad I didn't see the first comment. And no, He is not evil, because He doesn't will that to happen, He only ordains it to happen. He commands us to not rape murder. The fact that we still do is because we are going against His will of command. The shift there is that because he punishes those crimes, they are then paid for. He doesn't see evil in the world and say, "ok I'm gunna let it slide." He sees it and punishes the crimes making certain that they are paid for.
@thesamsin but hasnt he created the evil? or who created that? why did he create satan? he cant foresee everything, cant he? and what about diseases? why did he create those?
@SebiSthlm The resurrection is absolutely a logical argument. In order for the jews, or romans, or pagans, (all of which were trying to squelch the christian movement, thats why the killed Jesus) could have just supplied the body of Jesus to show that he wasn't resurrected and that their God was dead. But they couldn't do that because Jesus' body was resurrected. Also there 500 eyewitnesses walking around who saw Jesus after he was resurrected. And eyewitness testimony does pretty well in court
@thesamsin you cant be taken seriously. where are these 500 eyewitnesses? all accounts about jesus' life and resurrection is written 20 years after he's supposed to have lived. that's 20 yrs of illiterate middle-eastern bronze age people telling stories to one another. just look at the stories about elvis' death. and that's 30 yrs ago in modern times. and i can bet i could find 500 eyewitnesses that have seen ufos.
@SebiSthlm not true, the book of James was written a mere 6 years later. And as far historical accounts go, that is nothing short of historical proof. The oldest documents discussing Julious Caesar are 400 years removed...... all of a sudden those 20 years don't seem like so much do they? let alone the actual number.... a mere 6 years. And eyewitness testimony of UFO's are almost never congruent with one another. But the witnesses of Jesus were ALL congruent.
@achzdck "INTELLIGENCE is the ability to adapt -not reading books or worshipping Chris H."
I believe I should modify that to say, "Intelligence is the ability to adapt - not reading *only one book" or worshipping *God.*"
There, I fixed it. There is absolutely nothing 'adaptive' about the Bible.
"Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval." - 2 Timothy 3:16, GWT
@achzdck Don't be facetious with me. You *know* I'm not talking about 'love your neighbor as yourself.' I'm talking about the verses mandated by God in the Old Testament. I don't care about before/after Jesus. It still means that God had full control, and decided still to endorse slavery, the murder of non-believers, homosexuals, unwed lovers, people working on the 7th day, rape, sexism, genocide, and all forms of totalitarian tyranny. Telling people to love after that doesn't do it for me.
@achzdck Why bother with the subject? Because religious imbeciles throughout the ages have KILLED 100s of millions.... not even close to what communists have done (which is in itself still horrible and unjust).
That's why... remember some planes flying into buildings? Well, they didn't do it for sport!!!!
@achzdck The point of 'not leaving it alone,' is that when a very large group of people considers that a book which, at any point in history, ever thought it was a good idea to affect the very real lives of very real people based on something which is arguably not real, that book is a force for malevolence in this world. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
@achzdck "...but the christians dont kill to advance their God. Maybe democracy /american way / but not Yeshua . Yeshua of the book would never allow killings in his name"
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." - 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
There is a plethora of verses like this, if you are interested.
@themediocrenontheist "but the christians dont kill to advance their God" Sure they do kill. Read the bible the 10 commandments in the original form, it doesn't say thou shalt not kill. It replaces kill with "Murder". Murder is a type of killing. Doesn't mean you can't kill though. It, by using the word murder, actually allows killing. Honor killing, justified killing, etc. it DOES allow killing, and encourages it throughout the old testament. New Testament likes to punish the dead in hell
From 4.30 onwards says it all ....There is no argument to that , say what you will it is fact , if there is a god why only intervene 2000 years ago ?????????? Hitchens FTW
Bravo Hitchens, you are the closest thing to a prophet our world has. I hope for the sake of the Western World that you recover from your cancer and return (not from the dead, most of us realize that’s not possible) to debate these savages. To you I raise a glass, cheers.
The sad part of this debate is that Chris might die soon from his cancer and I will not watching a brilliant man telling his point of view. His mind is great and full of priceless information. You are officially my hero Mr. Hitchens, I am happy to have listened to what you have to say.
@achzdck NVM don't respond please. I've read some of your other comments and well, you don't really know what you're talking about. Take an look at some history and learn the REAL reasons as to why the greatest mass murderers in human history did what they did. You'll find that it has a lot less to do with what they didn't believe(a god (except in Hitler's case)) and more to do with what they DID believe (agrarian collectivism or antisemitism).
i think douglas wilson is a closet athiest. i doubt anyone could say those types of things without feeling like a complete dumbass. yet, he needs to stick with the lie because he's built his livelyhood around it. either that or he really is that dumb, which i hope its impossible to be so well educated, yet naive on a completely ridiculous level
redxpen 2 days ago
Douglas Wilson should Read Billy Meier.
natdrip 3 weeks ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens Douglas Wilson Debate
Wilson are talking about divine moral truth.. I think people should do some digging of hes and hes followers views on slavery, the subjection of women, and the need to execute homosexuals, non-believers, disobedient children, etc
icchiism 1 month ago
Hitch-slapped !
yosupmyhomies 1 month ago
the closing hitchslap was poignant and the final nail in the coffin for Douglas Wilson's weak argument.
nickosharp 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I must say if I was going to rate this debate, Hitchens and Wilson, I would say Hitchens won. That's sad because his argument is not the more compelling of the two. Hitchens was more aggressive and given much more talk time. Did Wilson not have anything to say? There were plenty of other arguments to put forth to counter Hitchens' assumptions. I was mostly disappointed in the debate but for Hitchen's brilliance of presentation not information. I love a lively debate but this was not one.
hmsdavid 1 month ago
Comment removed
hmsdavid 1 month ago
We can talk to our pillows, but not milk?
BeckettKnox 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson
As solid of a conclusion by Hitch as you will ever hear.
One of his most underrated qualities was his ability to be patient with theists, and to engage in these debates because certainly I wouldn't be able to go back and forth with a theist in the way that he does, and with so much poise. Many people have benefited (and will continue to benefit) from watching these debates and engagements.
Scofield0085 2 months ago
@Scofield0085 We've lost one of the greatest debaters and thinkers of our time. There is no one to replace him him with. He's one of those people who doesn't come along very often.
McLarenF1God 6 days ago
Hitch is right.
pacifiedfools 3 months ago
Why would he be missed? He's still here retard...
Taichungsid 3 months ago
Cheers Christopher! You are missed.
PlntPeace 3 months ago
Theists must stop tying to pass faith in god off as anything more than wishful thinking.
playingdablues 3 months ago
Nothing flies more in the face of a consistent worldview (reality) than having faith in an improbable, unprovable supreme being. That is what Hitchens is trying to illuminate. Theists would be best off to just admit "it makes no sense whatsoever and flies in the face of science and reason, but I still believe there is a god, I need to believe in god". Then at least we could all move on to loftier conversations about meaning of life, creation of the universe, etc.
playingdablues 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens so adores the fight, the inquiry, the struggle in the prevous clip and then asks how God is not loving then. Hithens thinks that the earth is going to explode, that's assuming humans can not master their world.
That's the key difference between the extinct animals and us. We're the only 'species' that is able to either destory the planet or is capable of advancing society and maybe to the point we can evade this ultimate doom Hitchens points out. It's the same idea as global warmin
drjamiemoon 3 months ago
I love how the moron on the right is employed somewhere to teach logic and can willingly base the direction of his life on a damn assumption. There is no basis for logic in assumption, especially not of your conclusion. The man should have been fired on the spot.
tugger 4 months ago
With so many cheeks in that audience you can hardly blame them for thinking they were safe, yet Hitch manages to slap each and every one of them with his closing remarks.
IxHAuNTeDxl 5 months ago 7
Hitchen's house is cleeeeeeeean. Wasn't even fair.... never is.
Tetrahedragon2 5 months ago
These last two or three parts were pure joy to watch.
Jornev 5 months ago
how long will it take religion to evaporate? my guess is at least 2-300 years minimum. When will people of faith see the actual light of truth. Maybe they all do need a saviour after all to help those blinded by their faith to see. and those deafed by man made ancient scripture/s to hear.
Hitchens.. You are truly an inspiration
MrBoggles 6 months ago
"All the same, thanks for having me" - Blammo!
Hang in there Hitch.
wwww2001 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Btw I wonder how Christians would feel to know that they might be sharing "heaven" with ancestors of homosapiens, possibly hominids, and finding out that these creatures sharing their heaven won't ever be able to acknowledge the existence of the heavenly dictator. You see what I did there? n__n
overether 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He uses the same climactic argument in every conclusion to a debate, and its always masterful.
overether 6 months ago
Pretty much all the Nobel Prize winners are atheists, so right away, what does that tell you about religion and its contributions to society?
Casshyr 6 months ago
@Casshyr The man who proposed the big bang theory, Georges Lemaitre was a catholic. That is a horrible argument, people of all religions have contributed massively to science.
94ruski 6 months ago
@94ruski Statistically speaking, atheists dominate the Nobel Prize winners. Sure you can name me a few examples of scientists who are also theists, but in the end, you can't deny the fact that most scientists, especially the ones widely acknowledged in their fields, are atheists/agnostics. Or even then, they are most likely deists or very liberal Christians + other faiths (i.e. they don't let their religion get in the way of science, unlike creationists)
Casshyr 6 months ago
Comment removed
writersblock26 6 months ago
@writersblock26 I understand, but devout or not, they were theists. My point is, that the belief in God does not inhibit scientific thinking as long as the individual has an open mind. I was just calling out Casshyr on his idiotic argument.
94ruski 6 months ago
@94ruski Yes, it is a rather weak argument, but when you claim that "people of all religions have contributed massively to science," you may want to be careful about what you are saying, or are, in fact, not saying. As Christopher Hitchens points out, we have essentially no way of telling whether the majority of scientists in history were actually devout or were simply conforming to the religious zeitgeist.
writersblock26 6 months ago
LOL Wilson basically said "what makes logic so great? Why is it the real of reality?"
Jackass
pokeshmon 7 months ago
Hitchens' final statement was especially compelling, and it was easily understandable to the average layperson. He painted a very stark and horrifying picture of early humanity, and I find it impossible to come up with a good enough argument as to why an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being would not intervene. The same could be said for today, as countless people die of hunger, thirst and disease in poor countries. I was raised on the bible but find it impossible to believe now.
mimmar3891 7 months ago
Christopher Hitchens almost romanticeses the idea of a non meaningful existence, while at the same time brandishing the idea of immortality and undying faithfullness the root of all human suffering.
dalhar20 7 months ago
@freef49 did you watch the same video I did? I would hope yoy wouldn't base your life off of 1 book. And to call this guy any thing other than delusional would be an understatement. I don't question his sincerity, but from someone who doesn't believe that nonsense, its hard to understand.
AGRANT716 8 months ago
@AGRANT716 my apologies i miss read your comment :S
freef49 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
this debate only drives home the realization i've come to. in talking to christians i know, and by listening to this wilson guy, there is no reasoning with these folks. They will argue absolute scientific facts. The brainwashing is amazing. I've given up trying to figure them out...This religious indoctornation is powerful!
AGRANT716 8 months ago
@AGRANT716 Are you serious? I don't base my life on one book and your calling me close minded and by definition "indoctrinated"?
freef49 8 months ago
wow
TheScrubDown 9 months ago
@urgk
defending his double-leg takedown by running electricity through a fish... LMFAO. Seriously almost started crying that was so funny.
RexFoulk 9 months ago
Hitchens' closing argument is an absolute masterpiece. Wow...
RexFoulk 9 months ago 3
This arguement that acceptance of reason requires equal faith to religion is nonsense. Reason demonstrates its reliability by concuring with natural laws and objective experiences,and is consistant. Religion neither concurs with natural laws or reality nor are the beliefs of groups or individuals consistant. One is justified by objective and testable experience and one is utterly unporovable and subjective to the point of solipsism.
bcarr424 10 months ago 5
Note how flustered Hitchens gets when wilson presses him on faith in reason. Hitchens knows this is where his argument falls apart and when pressed to this point he always gets very frantic and starts hissing like a cat. He has to deny that its faith in reason or else religion has ground to stand on too. It is the same point that caused the old atheism to hit a brick wall...hes a paper tiger
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
Why grant the exception? Why look at the way the world works, the way it has ALWAYS worked, second to second -- predictably, according to physical laws -- and say "yes, but on this matter of select ancient writings, we should throw all that away"? Hitchens isn't flustered because he's forced to react to an irrefutable flaw in his argument, he's flustered in the same way he would be if Douglas poured his water down his pants and started making love to the microphone.
urgk 10 months ago
@urgk No thats not it at all. Hitchens knows that reason is not infallible just as much as he doesnt think scripture is infallible. During the age of philosophy his predecessors ran into the problem that they couldnt prove that reason is anymore reliable than anything else. As much as we would like to think it isnt...reason is subjective and relative. Science proofed this with its many paradigm shifts. If such reason and logic is changable who knows what we will believe in 100yrs.
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
If a person is willing to join Mr. Wilson in his journey into silliness and pretend that reason itself, not a particular outcome, but the potential of the process, is questionable, that person has removed himself from the debate. Wilson has been bested intellectually, so he's conjuring up absurdities. If it were a wrestling match, Wilson would be defending against Hitchens' double-leg takedown by running electricity through a fish.
urgk 10 months ago
@urgk Thats bc these guys are wrestling on Hitchens terms and are afraid of their own faith bc Hitchens thinks its silly. Regardless of who thinks its silly we have encountered God and believe in him without or without reasonable rational logic. Thats why us Christians are so committed to it bc it has changed our lives...something atheism/antitheism can not do. Reason can only go so far especially when you only live for 70 yrs or less.
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
Of course, you can believe in God without using reason. That's the definition of "faith." The over-arching problem with that, as I said earlier is that you're making an exception in the way the world works and the way humans function within it for just one of the ancient mythologies. Neither Christopher Hitchens nor any reasonable atheist would find that useful. And, like I said, when that's your game, you're no longer participating in the debate.
urgk 10 months ago
@urgk 1.Well you see we are particitpating in the debate bc hes the one that is writing books against us and telling people to hate us. Now he doesn't want a God who offends him but feels it is completely okay for him to offend and mistreat other people. Thats a hypocrite. 2. Hes the one who sent his agent out to line up these debates...we didn't go pursuiing him. 3. I can line up millions of people who have dramatically transformed by there Christian faith. Can you do the same for atheists
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
I think you miss my point. Which is this - debate relies on logical progression, or "reason" to move forward. When one of the participants says "well, logic doesn't apply to my argument," he has withdrawn from the debate and might as well be tap-dancing or playing the accordion. The reasons he entered the debate are not really relevant.
urgk 10 months ago
@urgk Once again...his terms...not everyone elses. He is challenging why people believe. They explain why...but on his terms it is not good enough. If it doesn't fit his terms thats his choice...but to attack people bc they choose to believe seems a bit tyrannical doesn't it? Yet he complains about a tyrannical god. Hes a hypocrite. Im sorry you guys dont believe...i am, its sad. But to mistreat those who do is wrong. He takes advantage of people whose faith teaches them not to mistreat
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
No, not his terms...the way the world works. What religionists ask for, yet again, is an exception to be granted in support of ancient myths. To say that the regular world works through observation and a logical understanding of that observation, but that God or doctrine is somehow immune, is the height of arrogance. What Hitchens has repeatedly said is that if that arrogance is only applied inward, he has no problem with it. When it's pointed at the rest of us, it becomes a problem.
urgk 10 months ago 2
@boboe511 Of coarse not, The vadican doesn't call the press when they have a scandal, nor the mob, any crime syndicate. They would rather people(sheep) just take thier word in faith that we are not doing anything wrong, besides brainwashing, were not water boarding. I read that some of the accredited colleges are going to start listing religion under psycology, yespsycology not history or education.could go under criminal law too.
darttoyou1 8 months ago
@boboe511 Theres a MILLION DOLLARS for you encountering god, all you have to do is prove it???MR. RANDI and others have offered this for 50 or so years,any any supernatural powers,speakings, One of his earliest reported experiences is that of seeing an evangelist using the "one-ahead" routine to convince churchgoers of his divine powers.like encountering god.LIER.... CALL HIM, LOOK HIM UP,NOBODY HAS EVER GOT ANY MONEY???THATS ALL THEY WANT, maybe try eaning it.
darttoyou1 8 months ago
@urgk Given how little we really know in the scheme of things I don't find humans conclusions very impressive. We don't know as much as we think we know. Hitchens is merely recycling old material from the enlightenment period. Naive people are just so excited about it bc they think its NEW bc its the first time they really have heard it. As a philosophy student...its all quite boring...entertaining but like listening to the same lecture from a professor youve heard a million times.
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
I'd like to see one example (outside of religion as descried by the religious) where the process of scientific reasoning -- evidence collected and analyzed for testable results -- fails to work toward a solution. That is, where does reason fail as a process? I don't mean "where has it yet to reach an acceptable theory?", but where has the process failed?
urgk 10 months ago
@urgk 4. we actually believe in the scientific process but don't believe it is the ONLY means to find truth...thats naive. We also don't have a problem thinking that there is a God who got the ball rolling. Who/what started it all? Is it reasonable that it started ex nihilo? Does that make sense? Can you point to anything in science starts from nothing? I have less faith in a man who is an alcoholic dying of cancer who has a chip on his shoulder than I do people who have been transformed
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
"we actually believe in the scientific process but don't believe it is the ONLY means to find truth...thats naive."
What an odd thing to say. It seems very...Deepak Chopra. I mean, to declare that evidence gathering and an application of logic to create testable laws doesn't work just seems ludicrous. Again, it seems like an attempt to claim special knowledge and to step outside the debate. The scientific method is really the *only* means we have to verify a given claim.
urgk 10 months ago
@urgk I would not attack an atheist and treat them disrespectfully bc of what they believe. To make statements that people of faith should be ridiculed and hated is wrong. What is the difference between that and what he complains religion does? It is all faith anyhow. He has faith in reason we have faith in God. He has faith in his interpretation of reality and so do we. Once again, science has great paradigm shifts. To me it is not as certain as he is making it sound.
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
Firstly, what you would or wouldn't do is no indication of the scope of Mr. Hitchens' problem with religionists. Good for you for being a considerate individual. We need more of those.
Secondly, what Hitchens ascribes to is the opposite of faith. It's intellectually lazy to suggest otherwise. Faith by definition is belief outside of reason. Hitchens' belief, that Christianity is as much a myth as the other religions in which Christians do not believe, is supported by the evidence..
urgk 10 months ago 3
@urgk Now you say that intelligent people can succumb to flaws. Hitchens says reason and logic are man-made. Now why would I place certainty in something man-made by humans who are so greatly flawed. Sorry, but I will not base my eternity on that nor my understanding of reality. Science is merely discovering what God has made. Look behind the curtain friend. Science is leading many scientists to God bc there are no other explanations. Like ex nihilo
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
Yet, you put absolute faith in some idea created and nurtured by humans in the same manner as every other religion in which you do not believe. You do not believe in Zeus and believe that he arose from human frailty. You do not believe in Mayan sacrifice and, I would think, believe it to be human storytelling gone wrong. You do not believe in Mithra or Shiva or Odin or Xenu or The Great Spirit or The Rainbow Serpent, and can dismiss them as pre-scientific myth. Why not your own myth?
urgk 10 months ago 3
@boboe511
Again, you want an exception to exist only for God. God is the one thing immune to reason. That, to me, sounds like exactly what I'd want you to believe if I wanted you to, say, give me a tenth of your income, vote the way I want you to, dedicate your life to the building of temples, go to bed with the people I let you in the way I want you to do it, etc. It's just a means for a handful of people to declare they have special knowledge and insist that the rest of us do what they say.
urgk 10 months ago 2
@boboe511 YES ,RIGHT,what a hypocrite, read in your bible, man was made in his image, not the physical part. or is that the way you took it .WRONG,do some research dude, studies show that athiest are more educated on religion than you religous f,tards..AND THE FOG WAS LIFTED. Do you still believe in santa, no,because an intalectual(someone that knows more than you) told you there was no such thing.IM telling you now, NO GOD, NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE.
darttoyou1 8 months ago
@urgk by faith. Lets ask Sam Harris how well one is able to bode without faith...it is a need within us. Thats reality. A reality that humans have been responding to for millenia. Lastly, I would think that if God was so silly he surely would have gone away by now. After all he was supposed to have died in the 60's but somehow stuck around.
boboe511 10 months ago
@urgk Last to Last...I know many very intelligent people who used to be atheists who now believe in this silliness bc they encountered God. They cant all be idiots can they?
boboe511 10 months ago
@boboe511
I guess it is possible that they're all idiots. Or that they're perfectly smart people who share a common physiology, a common humanity and who've succumbed to the same, very human flaws.
I'm sure if we took a few minutes, we could come up with multiple lists of things that a lot of smart people have believed through willful ignorance, a lack of evidence or outside manipulation. The notion that a thing must be true because X number of people believe it, is a logical fallacy.
urgk 10 months ago
@boboe511 Old material ,look at your beliefs, what a hypocrite ( a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings ).no idiot prob fits better.And the enlightenment period is from educating, alot due to the internet, knowledge is flowing faster than a,well you know, ive been waiting 30 years and its finally happening,religions are beiing seen for what they are.fakes.prediction;50 years religions will be on compounds such as, WACO's or JIM JONES cults.
darttoyou1 8 months ago
Great debate, I thought Hitchens tore it up. Clearly the pastor and I had different instructors at the University of Idaho because I learned about the problems with philosophical relativism as a freshman. This whole debate reminded me of one of my first lectures on ethics when we were confronted with the funeral test. As a confirmed agnostic, I find myself asking, "How, exactly, do I want my funeral conducted and what do I want people to say about my beliefs?"
Capdan58 10 months ago
This debate caught my eye while I was surfing the web because as a native of Moscow, Idaho I recognized Mr. Wilson's name (I remember when the two story downtown building that houses his college was the phone company my dad worked for and I would play on the old wood playground equipment in Friendship Square). Watched the whole thing and loved it. My question for Mr. Wison is why can't things that are undesigned be beautiful? I just don't understand that argument.
Capdan58 10 months ago
Hitchens absolutely demolished Christianity at the end, but saying what it really is.
SSBB12347 10 months ago
Thanks for posting these. But could they please be numbered???
lexaling 11 months ago
Christian theologians spend all their time trying to come up with arguments to prove the mythology in which they believe. They are very good at designing some arguments and not so good at others. Hitchens comes along and flattens all of them with ease. Not even fair. Fairy tale-believing lambs to the slaughter of reason by evidence and logic.
playingdablues 11 months ago 25
@playingdablues No one is trying to PROVE God exists. To prove that God exists with the very equations and laws of science that we believe he created is unreasonable.
What thiests ask are for atheists to be consistent in their worldview. If indeed everything came about through randomnes or by universal laws of physics, then thing like beauty, morality, or humanism, or rights are as real as two collidng particles or as much value as you stepping on a nest of insects.
drjamiemoon 3 months ago
@drjamiemoon yeah, beauty and morality are as real as particles. whats your point?
frilansspion 1 month ago
Comment removed
drjamiemoon 3 months ago
"BOOM SMASH ANNIHILATE KA-POW...all the same, thanks for having me."
itchynights 11 months ago 40
@achzdck Furthermore, Atheism (in it self) is not a system of morality. It is simple a rejection of religion and theology. Any number of moral beliefs can be picked up there, but for people like Hitchens and myself, the debate does not end at Atheism. We advocate secular-humanism as a moral system.
koreindian1 11 months ago 3
@achzdck Nazi Germany was not an atheistic regime. The vast majority of the SS were confessing Catholics, and the majority of the German high-command were Christians. Certainly the prison guards at Auschwitz and Dachau were Christians. Also, the Nazis had the phrase "God With Us" pinned to their uniforms. People like Hitchens and myself always criticize Islam, but we know the Bible better because most of the religious people we meet are Christians.
koreindian1 11 months ago 2
@koreindian1 I think you summed up the nazi position on God/Christianity...God with us...right they thought they recruited God to THEIR cause. Note it wasnt "Us with God." This is when religion is evil when humans think they can tell God what to do and who he is.
boboe511 10 months ago
Brilliont is an understatement to describe Christopher Hitchens and his ability to articulate so masterfully what is logically sound.
Aliof 11 months ago 3
All the same, thanks for having me.
-Brilliant
simpsonmark 11 months ago
The combined efforts of Dawkins and Hitchens have rendered me unafraid to die. Thankis guys.
MusicStudyMan 1 year ago
No one can touch the Hitch!!
hznfrst 1 year ago
in this clip: christians getting royally pwned.
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
After this discussion I’ve strange feeling. Although it’s kept in rather polite atmosphere I cannot notice that Hitchens put between lines a clear signal. By blasphemer lies he created a image of dark God and a pessimistic vision of Christianity. This just makes me angry. It’s atheism that brings pessimism, depression and purposeless life. Read Camus, Sartre, Kolakowski and many others. They knew that if there is no God, you already lost, and they were all atheists.
rafalodys 1 year ago
@achzdck A Christian demanding facts! Blimey. How about the crusades? we'll start there and I'll name a slaughter of significance every decade until the present day...or have I got the wrong end of the stick, you're an Atheist undercover trying to make Christians look stupid?
liamingsreeves1 1 year ago
@achzdck (cough-cough) Ahem- Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Believe if you want to hua? Also, Muslim is no better. Worse in fact, partially Because of the reason you gave, partially because once you are indoctrinated the wage for Apostasy is death.
Sounds like it's gang rules in religion. Oh sorry I didn't mean to make a gang sound as bad as an occult, I mean religion.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@achzdck two words: the crusades
deekomendez 1 year ago
@achzdck "Christians dont kill to further their beliefs"
Catholic priests preach the sinfulness of condom use in Africa, where the population is being decimated by aids. Care to retract that statement?
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
"Oh crap I've pretty much lost this debate, time to get angry and insult / misrepresent my opponent and call it an argument."- Hitchens
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin Riveting narrative, brother.
YOUGOTLOLLED 1 year ago
@thesamsin which videos have you been watching?
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm Watch his debate with William Lane Craig. He dodge, dip, duck, dive, and dodges every argument he cant refute.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin i will watch it, but that's still no answer to why you think he lost this "debate" when he so obviously won it. yes, hitchens ended with a scathing attack on christianity and theism, but he did it rightfully. neither you or wilson came up with any counter arguments, and while wilson dodged, dipped, duck and dove in the clip, your kinda do to by referring to a whole other clip. i suggest you and wilson address hitchens' points instead of just ignoring and then get 'offended' as you do.
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm I'm not offended. The problem is, Wilson cant dodge points that Hitchens never made. Hitchens never makes arguments or points, only attacks. If I said what you believed is stupid, that is not an argument only an attack. I wasn't commenting on this debate in particular, only a pattern I see in Hitchens. In fact I think Wilson was sub par. This wasn't much of a debate. However if you want to see offended find the part in this debate where Hitchens scolds the crowd for laughing......yeah
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin hitchens makes two very clear points that wilson doesn't address: 1. there is no proof and therefore no rational reason to believe a god exist - if you resort to the obvious circular argument that "i believe the bible is true bc the bible says it's true", then either you're stupid or not interested in a discussion. 2. even if there was a god, there are no reason to worship him since he's only sometimes benevolent, most often absent and more often than benevolent downright evil.
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm Easy, 1. There is plenty of proof, (see the Lane craig debate I mentioned for 5 rational reasons) Its just it is easy for atheists to claim that theistic evidence is not up to their standards. (without seriously examining it I might add) 2. Just because we don't seem to understand God does not mean he doesn't exist. Because you see him to be evil, does not make him evil. To Iraq we are the most evil nation on earth, that doesn't make it true.
No dodging here bro.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin by 'the plenty of proof' that's not up to 'atheist's standards' you mean that there are no objectively measurable proof. why would theists have lower standards on proof than atheists? if you read what i wrote, i didn't write that god is evil. and i don't think god is evil since he doesn't exist. but if he's omnipotent and still allows rapes, murders and genocide, wouldn't you say he's evil? and don't bring up the devil, bc he wouldve been made my god just as he would be less powerful.
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm the difference is that with Atheism, there is no hope for Justice. The people that get away with it just get away with it. In fact they are simply following the idea of natural selection. The rich get richer.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin btw, after watching lane graig's opening argument in the debate against hitchens, he has already lost by asserting that it is the atheists who have the burden of proof that god doesn't exist. it's like ricky gervais says: it's up to the one who says he can fly to prove it. that person can't go up to people and say to them that they have to prove that he can't fly.
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm Hes not saying the burden of proof is on Hitchens to prove that God does not exist. He is saying that Hitchens has to take down those proofs in order to maintain his position. BIG difference.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin well, he makes a big number of that atheism can't be proved. as for his 'proofs' the last two are laughable and only weakens his argumentation (which is why hitchens doesnt even address them). the fine-tuning and rejection of evolution arguments are simply arguments of ignorance: 'i dont know how stuff works so god must have done it'. as is the cosmological argument which boils down to an intelligent being with the exact same characteristics as he says nothing could be created out of.
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm Oh and I think your break down of Craigs arguments are both a cop out and a fallacy. You over simplify his argument and then attack the over simplification that you came up with, not his actual arguments. Oh, and I have never heard someone even touch the resurrection argument. not once.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin there are not enough room to not shorten down his arguments in a yt comment. the fact that no serious scientist takes his 'scientific' arguments seriously says it all. you still havent explained why it is that everythng needs to have a creator except the creator himself. why do you make an exception for god? and the resurrection argument cant be taken seriously. if i see an open grave with the body missing, how is that proof that the body must have been resurrected?
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm But your summation of his argument was in no way what he said. And you attacked the "summation" of his argument that you created.... which is a fallacy.
Well, either God is eternal or the universe is eternal, yet science tells us that there is a beginning point of space and time. So for that to be true, there has to be an unmoved mover. And this unmoved mover cannot be a part of the matter that it creates. So it is perfectly logical to say that God is the unmoved mover.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin plus, you didnt address my other comment: if he's omnipotent and still allows rapes, murders and genocide, wouldn't you say he's evil?
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm No, he did not create evil, yes he created the possibility of evil in giving human beings free choice. But he is not responsible for their sin(evil). Satan was created as an Angel first who, having free choice, rebelled against God. God did not create him as an evil being, satan is responsible for his own evil actions(sin). And diseases are the result of our sinful fallen world. Before sin entered the world, there were no diseases.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin - Why do Adam and Eve's free choice and sin affect and confront all mankind (6,902,500,000 humans) to this very day? Doesn't this considerably diminish the meaning of "FREE" choice?
There are babies dying every day due to diseases and infections. Babies don't have the mental capacity to make free rational choices for themselves. So what happens when they die?
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 Because it is a matter of genetics. (I know there is no physical "sin-gene") but if two sinful things get together and procreate, they are to have another sinful being, and so on and so forth. Thus humanity is effected by the fall. and yes it does diminish free choice in a sense. Now we can simply freely choose how we are going to sin. We cannot fix our selves, I would hope you would agree that no one is perfect.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin I think that completely negates the concept of free choice. It's absurd to tell a child that he/she is punished and cursed with original sin for something he/she did not take part of, and this is all because Adam and Eve were deceived by a hebrew-talking snake. This is flat-out nonsense.
No one is perfect because homo sapiens are not fully evolved primates. I'm surprised to see you mentioning genetics - which the study proves that our original ancestors were not.. Adam and Eve.
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 I never said I advocate for free choice. In fact I dont believe in free will, and neither do 90% of scientists and philosophers. And your claim that it is nonsense is only your own subjective interpretation of your experiences........ funny how that works huh?
Not true, genetics has narrowed it down to about 4 clans (which is congruent with the biblical account.)
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin C'mon, let's not get cocky. How is it subjective, when it's "objectively" obvious that snakes can't talk in Hebrew? We even had a point of agreeement when you said "it does diminish free choice in a sense".
Regarding genetics, can you give me the link(s) to those findings? Don't worry if they are by creationists.
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 You have to understand the allegory of Genesis. It is obviously not just regular snake. It is clearly Satan in the form of a serpent. So no, snakes can't speak Hebrew, but a fallen angel can and it can also take the form of a serpent. No, they aren't from creationists lol. Richard Dawkins (yes you read that right) said that all humans can trace their DNA back to a single woman. I don't find this contradictory in any way to the bible
Just Wikipedia "population bottleneck"
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin Where in the bible does it say it's an allegory? How do u distinguish the allegorical from the categorical?
The genetic evidence suggests that the most recent patriarch of all humanity is much more recent than the most recent matriarch, suggesting that 'Adam' and 'Eve' were not alive at the same time. While 'Eve' is believed to have lived more than 140,000 years ago, 'Adam' appears to have lived less than 110,000 years ago (Wiki: Pleistocene human population bottleneck in Africa).
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 Thats easy, it depends on the style of writing. If you read the entire Bible literally you are an idiot. Obviously, God is not a literal rock. You read it according to the way it is written and It is pretty obvious that the serpent is Satan.
And with the bottle necking, I believe in micro evolution. I do believe in a literal adam and a literal eve, and I believe that humanity has always been distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin Furthermore, since "population bottleneck" is an evolutionary process, I want to know if you think that the theory of evolution by natural selection is compatible with the bible.
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 Now with babies. Paul says that man is without excuse. The earth and the stars and the sky all declare the glory of God. So we are responsible because we actively deny God in spite of the fact that we are surrounded by His glory.
But babies, are not able to perceive the world in that way. So it is safe to say that they are not without excuse. So I believe that babies, upon death, go to heaven. This is achieved in someway by the crucifixion of Jesus.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin But this is only your own subjective interpretation of the bible. There are no passages which specifically mention the eventual terminus of deceased babies. This leads to people like Thomas Aquinas coming up wish-thinking assumptions like the Limbo - a place where unbaptized babies are eternally confined. And by reading the bible, it's hard to miss the part where god actually mandated infanticide. No chapter or passage even mentions the posthumous whereabouts of THOSE babies.
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 I think that Thomas Aquinas was a sub par theologian and interpreted the bible rather poorly. It is all about varying degrees of good and bad interpretation. And the same is true today in terms of bills and amendments and contracts and laws. I think my interpretations is one that follows completely logically from the text. In comparison with Aquinas who just made crap up.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin How can it follow logically from the text, if there are no chapters or passages to begin with, that deals anything about where deceased babies go after death? You're picking bits and pieces from the bible - out of context, too - to prove your point.
And you haven't commented on the part where god orders infanticide in Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Leviticus etc. Can you tell me how you interpret that?
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 Because men are held responsible for what they know. Babies don't know anything so they cant be held responsible in the way that an adult can. Completely logical. And it is not out of context, and looking to the idea of responsibility is not picking bits and pieces when examining the departed babies. Its an issue directly related to the topic. not out of context at all.
And infanticide? talk about out of context lol. You seem to be picking bits of the bible you are uncomfortable with
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin Well, I think it's not directly related to the topic but I appreciate your answer anyway :D Let's elbow aside babies for the sake of argument. What happens to adults - according to the bible - living in places where the "good news" have not yet penetrated? Are they vouchsafed an instant ticket to heaven also?
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 For the record, I don't condone the elbowing of babies lol. But, I don't believe that anyone is without opportunity to know Jesus. I have heard of people coming to Christ through dreams and visions. So I think that the people in Africa and island nations do indeed have the opportunity to know God so they are also responsible. Which is why I am dedicating myself to go to non-christian nations so that they can know God. That is why Jesus told us to go to all nations.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 To humor you, I will comment on infanticide in the bible. God commands it to sustain the purity of and ensure the survival of the chosen people of Israel. In other words he was protecting the lineage of Jesus so that humanity as a whole would not have to suffer eternity in Hell. This is not immoral at all either because not only does he hold all life in his hands and can do with it as he wills but you would do the same thing, u would probably choose the path where the least people die
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin It had nothing to do with jesus lol. The Judeo-Christian god was pissed off because the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Midianites, Amalekites etc were worshipping other gods (Pretty commonplace today, too).
[Numbers 31:17-18] "17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man".
Isn't it obvious.. that it's MEN-made?
sgunsgun2 1 year ago
@sgunsgun2 No, he wasn't pissed lol, it was all about the line of David (the same line that Jesus came from) That is why they had to annihilate cities, because they knew that if they didn't those people would want revenge. It happens all the time still, just look at Afghanistan. They were avoiding imminent revenge.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin Well it says on the bible (Exodus, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Samuel 1 etc) that the genocide, infanticide and slavery were mandated due to different reasons than the one you've mentioned, but thank you anyway for answering my questions.
sgunsgun2 11 months ago
@sgunsgun2 Well yeah, there are more specific reasons but the ultimate goal was to prepare the way for Salvation to come.
thesamsin 11 months ago
@thesamsin If that was the ultimate goal, I wonder why it's not mentioned in the chapters. Little odd to leave out the most important part, don't you think?
sgunsgun2 11 months ago
@sgunsgun2 Well, not really. I mean the authors of those books were simply writing historical accounts of what happened. God commanded something and they did it. Then the scribes wrote about the stuff that happened. Most of these are those books that we do take literal since the authors were writing historical accounts and would have left out most of the deeper allegorical meaning.
Also try reading Isaiah 53, its an entire chapter dedicated to prophesy about Jesus (400 years before his birth)
thesamsin 11 months ago
@thesamsin Yes I'm aware of what Isaiah prophesizes. Do you take the Noah's Ark story literally also?
sgunsgun2 11 months ago
@sgunsgun2 Well, that is a Genesis story. Genesis is a book that is deeply allegorical. How much is Allegory and how much is historical? Its hard to tell. So the answer to that question is much more complicated than the question itself. I do believe that it did happen yes, but I don't know whether or not, when it says the flood waters covered the world, it meant the known world or the whole planet.
thesamsin 11 months ago
@thesamsin 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Does this sound anything allegorical to you? If it does, what is this an allegory of?
sgunsgun2 11 months ago
@sgunsgun2 The pairs of creatures represent the totality of the species, the ark represents Gods preservation of life. The waters, an allegory of baptism, death to sin and life brought by the grace of God. This is paralleled in the story of Moses, Pharoah charged for all babies to be drowned in the river, but Moses was put in a basket 2 float above the waters that represent judgment/death. The basket is a parallel of the ark, it represents Gods preservation. Don't mistake the tree 4 the forrest
thesamsin 11 months ago
@thesamsin Ok I now get the allegory thanks to your explanations, but you did say that you believe the Noah's ark story to have happened in history. Which means, all the pairs of animal species (which represent the "totality of the species") were brought into the ark by Noah. This raises another question: According to the bible, could there have been dinosaurs inside the ark? And, what about the animals that were not discovered at that time?
sgunsgun2 11 months ago
@sgunsgun2 I suppose there could have been dinosaurs on the Ark. And yes, it would have included undiscovered species.
thesamsin 11 months ago
@thesamsin :s okay, thanks.
sgunsgun2 11 months ago
@thesamsin But if the ark contained not only the animals we have on the planet currently, but also pairs of the 99% of all the other species that have gone extinct, there would not be an ark of any sort that would be large enough. Also, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago during the KT extinction (according to stratigraphical and paleontological data), whilst all modern apes arrived on the planet long afterwards. Mutual existence is completely impossible.
koreindian1 11 months ago
@thesamsin Furthermore, as Richard Dawkins pointed out, that if there was such an arc, that would mean that when it landed all animals exited from the same point. If that is the case, then why have animals distributed themselves the way they have? Why, for instance, have all marsupials went to Australia, or why did polar bears choose the North Pole and penguins the South?
koreindian1 11 months ago
@SebiSthlm right, my bad I didn't see the first comment. And no, He is not evil, because He doesn't will that to happen, He only ordains it to happen. He commands us to not rape murder. The fact that we still do is because we are going against His will of command. The shift there is that because he punishes those crimes, they are then paid for. He doesn't see evil in the world and say, "ok I'm gunna let it slide." He sees it and punishes the crimes making certain that they are paid for.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin but hasnt he created the evil? or who created that? why did he create satan? he cant foresee everything, cant he? and what about diseases? why did he create those?
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm The resurrection is absolutely a logical argument. In order for the jews, or romans, or pagans, (all of which were trying to squelch the christian movement, thats why the killed Jesus) could have just supplied the body of Jesus to show that he wasn't resurrected and that their God was dead. But they couldn't do that because Jesus' body was resurrected. Also there 500 eyewitnesses walking around who saw Jesus after he was resurrected. And eyewitness testimony does pretty well in court
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin you cant be taken seriously. where are these 500 eyewitnesses? all accounts about jesus' life and resurrection is written 20 years after he's supposed to have lived. that's 20 yrs of illiterate middle-eastern bronze age people telling stories to one another. just look at the stories about elvis' death. and that's 30 yrs ago in modern times. and i can bet i could find 500 eyewitnesses that have seen ufos.
SebiSthlm 1 year ago
@SebiSthlm not true, the book of James was written a mere 6 years later. And as far historical accounts go, that is nothing short of historical proof. The oldest documents discussing Julious Caesar are 400 years removed...... all of a sudden those 20 years don't seem like so much do they? let alone the actual number.... a mere 6 years. And eyewitness testimony of UFO's are almost never congruent with one another. But the witnesses of Jesus were ALL congruent.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@achzdck "INTELLIGENCE is the ability to adapt -not reading books or worshipping Chris H."
I believe I should modify that to say, "Intelligence is the ability to adapt - not reading *only one book" or worshipping *God.*"
There, I fixed it. There is absolutely nothing 'adaptive' about the Bible.
"Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval." - 2 Timothy 3:16, GWT
themediocrenontheist 1 year ago
@achzdck Don't be facetious with me. You *know* I'm not talking about 'love your neighbor as yourself.' I'm talking about the verses mandated by God in the Old Testament. I don't care about before/after Jesus. It still means that God had full control, and decided still to endorse slavery, the murder of non-believers, homosexuals, unwed lovers, people working on the 7th day, rape, sexism, genocide, and all forms of totalitarian tyranny. Telling people to love after that doesn't do it for me.
themediocrenontheist 1 year ago
@achzdck Why bother with the subject? Because religious imbeciles throughout the ages have KILLED 100s of millions.... not even close to what communists have done (which is in itself still horrible and unjust).
That's why... remember some planes flying into buildings? Well, they didn't do it for sport!!!!
augustmoon0004 1 year ago
Why is it that MOST extremely intelligent people who have EVER lived on this planet don't believe in a God? Because we're INTELLIGENT people!!!!
augustmoon0004 1 year ago
I've watched just tons of Hitchens debates. Most epic finish.
4ks4ft8 1 year ago
@achzdck The point of 'not leaving it alone,' is that when a very large group of people considers that a book which, at any point in history, ever thought it was a good idea to affect the very real lives of very real people based on something which is arguably not real, that book is a force for malevolence in this world. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
themediocrenontheist 1 year ago
@achzdck "...but the christians dont kill to advance their God. Maybe democracy /american way / but not Yeshua . Yeshua of the book would never allow killings in his name"
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." - 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
There is a plethora of verses like this, if you are interested.
themediocrenontheist 1 year ago
@themediocrenontheist "but the christians dont kill to advance their God" Sure they do kill. Read the bible the 10 commandments in the original form, it doesn't say thou shalt not kill. It replaces kill with "Murder". Murder is a type of killing. Doesn't mean you can't kill though. It, by using the word murder, actually allows killing. Honor killing, justified killing, etc. it DOES allow killing, and encourages it throughout the old testament. New Testament likes to punish the dead in hell
tharklark 1 year ago
From 4.30 onwards says it all ....There is no argument to that , say what you will it is fact , if there is a god why only intervene 2000 years ago ?????????? Hitchens FTW
iliketoparty46 1 year ago
Hitchen's victory.
j53iliff2 1 year ago
Bravo Hitchens, you are the closest thing to a prophet our world has. I hope for the sake of the Western World that you recover from your cancer and return (not from the dead, most of us realize that’s not possible) to debate these savages. To you I raise a glass, cheers.
Leprechaun1984 1 year ago
"The universe will provide" - Eligh
buitrami 1 year ago
The sad part of this debate is that Chris might die soon from his cancer and I will not watching a brilliant man telling his point of view. His mind is great and full of priceless information. You are officially my hero Mr. Hitchens, I am happy to have listened to what you have to say.
dsmrider 1 year ago
Have yet to see a debate where Hitchens doesnt own the entire argument by the end
iamadamsusername 1 year ago
@achzdck Thanks. And to you too.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@achzdck NVM don't respond please. I've read some of your other comments and well, you don't really know what you're talking about. Take an look at some history and learn the REAL reasons as to why the greatest mass murderers in human history did what they did. You'll find that it has a lot less to do with what they didn't believe(a god (except in Hitler's case)) and more to do with what they DID believe (agrarian collectivism or antisemitism).
Walabinx 1 year ago