Collision (The Movie) - Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson 2-9

[Josh04731]

I feel like the makers of this documentary spent more time focusing on being evocative rather than focusing on the subject matter of the film. There isn't a good balance and its annoying lol.

[MakeshiftEstablished]

6:03 ...wants to take a bite out of Hitchens...

[ThePhantom135]

When people say "I get my morality from the Bible," where exactly? From the Sermon on the Mount which condemns thought crime, from Deutoronomy which orders the stoning of disobedient children, from Ephesians which orders the silence of women in churches, or from Levititcus which condemns the consumption of shellfish? There isn't really a set single morality from the Bible. It's a mixture of rough drafts of morality from schizophrenic, nomadic goat herders in Bronze Age Palestine.

[324wilson]

Does anyone know the name of the guitar tune that starts when Christopher is talking at 0:06?

[generalfoxe]

Argument

[generalfoxe]

Raskoinoikov456 I think it was a good

[raskolnikov456]

"whats he doing when he turns to reason? he's flipping open his Bible" - the most rediculously stupid line i've heard in the religion vs secular debate thus far

[metalshredhead1]

@raskolnikov456 I found that argument quite compelling. I'm curious as to why you would consider that ridiculously stupid.

[chriss0008]

@metalshredhead1 Because reason comes from logic and demonstrable ideas while faith is accepting without challenging. Faith is not acceptable in a debate because you need to reasoned with your opponent to prove your point. If Wilson has only faith to prove his point, he won't win over Hitchens, and there's no way for Hitchens to win either. Everyone needs to understand that these debates can't be won. Atheist will say Chris nailed it, Theist will affirm Douglas was right.

Not judgin, just sayin.

[littlegreengiant95]

Its funny how two extremely smart guys can disagree so much

[MrAudacious21]

I love how Mr. Hitchen's commits the fallacies of begging the question and appealing to emotion. If everything Mr. Hitchens is saying concerning Christianity is true, then it follows he shan't be bothered with the immoral implications of it. Why? This is because his concepts of morality is derived, directly or indirectly for it doesn't really matter, from the institution in which he claims to be immoral. There are no methods rationally or empirically to prove or disprove the existence of God.

[JPBuysjr]

@MrAudacious21 Wait, wait. Hitchens says 'God is watching you and wants you to love and fear him or die and go to eternal punishment, and he watches your thoughts.' Wilson says 'by what ethical standards do you call God immoral.' Who is making the appeal to emotion! And Wilson said in the first part why everyone ultimately is circularly reasoning.

[MrAudacious21]

@JPBuysjr Of course that is Hitchen's ill-conceived interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God.. In which results in fallacious emotional appeal. Using such is simply bad reasoning and lacks any attempt to achieve the objectivity these contemporary atheists claim. Their arguments are in no way equal or superior to the great minds that preceded them. Ultimately, it seems as if their goals are not to provide justified arguments, but to unreasonably persuade the masses.

[freedomnaruda]

anyone got any idea of the song @ 3:40

[nyscholartist]

I agree with much of Hitchens has to say here about Christianity. However, I don't think that it's mentally incoherent to love and fear someone or something at the same time. For example, one can love one's government in spite of its flaws, feel gratitude for what it offers to its citizens, take pride in what Congress or Parliament does, etc. and yet fear the government's penalties for things like speeding on a highway or littering a park.

[liamjlhill]

@nyscholartist

Ah but there's a difference.

'What it offers' is likely to be a service, possibly economic, and the punishments with which it can punish you are social authority over you.

God only does the latter.

[nyscholartist]

@liamjlhill Yes, it's true that God offers no economic service in the way that a government does. But he promises heavenly rewards to his faithful worshippers. That beats a monthly social security check or a tax break.

[liamjlhill]

@nyscholartist

True, but you've evidence for the social security check. Relying on politicians' promises for a tax break, of course, is a separate matter, but even Mitt Romney is more reliable than the Bible / God.

[nyscholartist]

@liamjlhill Yeah. The evidence for his existence question is related but distinct. I was just saying that if God does exist, it wouldn't exactly be sadomasochistic to love and fear him at the same time. Anyway, my own understanding of God is derived from the writings of Kant and, fortunately, has little to do with that psychotic character Yahweh/Allah!

[liamjlhill]

@nyscholartist

Yes, the Kantian version is a little different.

I think there is something sadistic in the idea of compulsory love, especially if that love is not easily forthcoming. I cannot know for sure the extent to which the reception of this injunction is masochistic, but I think it could be.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

Obscurantist/plagiarist/histor­ical revisionist Christopher (bearer of Christ) Hitchens supports the eugenic policies of the modern-day West: carbon taxes (which will double the price of grain); abortion (infanticide/genocide); endless warfare (as Orwell had warned us of in "1984"); confiscatory taxation; Zero Population Growth; "atheism"/Darwinism (the denigration of personhood/self-sovereignty) & internationalism (planetary gov't). If anyone is then surely: he's deserving of deportation.

[Muskety45]

a person who lives their life by reason is decidedly not flipping open "his/her" bible for the following reasons; his/her answers are not fixed and dogmatic, but the product of inquiry and analysis of data. If that data changes, he/she will study it and form a new hypothesis in an effort to better understand reality. Gravity can be proven. Faith requires blind acceptance. His argument about "begging the question" is ill founded.

[itgfx]

the ending of this is epic.

[itgfx]

wow. they are going to make allot of money out of this. lol On a serious note study the engine of life.

[mygeneration01]

Okay, the so called pastor is talking about reason two minutes in, he is using the fallacy of equivocation that most religious people use: reason in the philosophical sense, or the first way he uses it, is completely different from reasons, or the second thing. Its actually not even fair for anyone to debate Hitchens, the man is my own personal savior through his wit, irony and fantastic debates and writings.

[ZachRose88]

Love Hitch but I have a tiny disagreement here when he says it's something we "can't actually do" to love someon else as much as ourselves. I believe humans are capable of true objective selflessness where they would value the life of another as much as themselves.

[Scarzrman888]

3:41 "... you have to stand somewhere in order to get anywhere." Yet if it were left to the theologians, and supreme authority was surrendered to them over our lives and our minds, we wouldn't stand anywhere, we'd kneel. We need to shake the old, tired shackles of medieval mindset and climb above this irrational fallacy of god.

[PAULOcbi]

@Scarzrman888 yes, the emancipation of the human conciousness from this dogmatic state of ignorance and error is upon us,with the help of Christopher,its evolution ,it cant be stopped ,religion will die soon and we will laugh at the primitive way we used to represent ourselves with mono-theism the same way we laugh at how we represented ourselves thru Paganism.

[PAULOcbi]

@writersblock26 no,not in our lifetime,I mean geez! the Enlightenment Age was 300 yrs. ago and it went over evryones head. Im thinking in another 800-1000yrs.

[writersblock26]

@PAULOcbi Humanity will die out soon-- at least on an evolutionary scale-- so by that measure, religion will die out soon, too . However, what concerns me is not whether religion will die out "soon," but whether it will be domesticated by the time some of the fanatical regimes that have nuclear weapons, such as the DPRK, decide to use them on other nations, like its neighbor to the south (Republic of Korea). You seem to assume that religion will die out in our lifetime, but I am not so sure.

[platnuim86]

@4:40 hitch is on fire his rant had no flaws in it . a Hitchslap to bible

[sebastienturner2]

I am a long time admirer of Hitch. In his debates against the religous he usually knocks the opponent(s) out of the ring . However, Douglas Wilson is the first religious person that I have seen in any debate who even begins to have the measure and is a worthy and fair opponent. Even though he's still wrong.

[uniteordie1]

Calling reason a circular argument was one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Hitchens destroys this guy.

[ThePancakeRepairman]

anyone know what song is played at around 4:45?

[gasb911]

@ThePancakeRepairman Finaly got the song :D Wilderness Crew - Perfect Match

[UtopiaMinor666]

hitchens has, by far, the best sense of humour.

[JesusGodHolySpirit3]

How can you not look around you and not see God in it?

[LambdaQuarks]

@JesusGodHolySpirit3

I look around me all the time and still see no god in it, on it, or anywhere near it.

[AnonyMOUSE1177]

@JesusGodHolySpirit3 easily

[pmadsea077]

@JesusGodHolySpirit3 Which god?

[ZacksEnder]

"when they turn to give me a reason, what are they doing? opening their bible"

Yes. A wholly dynamic bible, that never claims to be infallible, and is subject to change and evolution. Thats a hell of a lot better than your bible.

[bigredphenom]

truth is not a substantive object that needs to be "stopped". it is a process of elimination that acts out on things that are false. for instance, if i were in an endless field of strawberries and i am going about eliminating the bad ones, and at one point you say to me "well you have to stop at some point"- why should I? What about all the bad strawberries that have yet to be eliminated? What about all the false claims that have yet to be eliminated.

[neuromatiker]

Better yet. clone the heck out Hitchens. I would say the world need about a million Hitchens.

[lasthoughts]

@neuromatiker 1 million people will die from cancer like he did. If he's so smart why did he drink and smoke? what a retard

[cperez1000]

@lasthoughts,

here is the attention you want:

"you are just an attention whore"

[Nanatsaya77]

@lasthoughts because he knew all his life that he would die,so he did what he enjoyed.

you never know what you gonna die from.

[neuromatiker]

@lasthoughts Because it was his life, and he liked doing that stuff, he never apologized for it, and quite brave took the consekvense of it. If you want to live a 100% safe life, you probably won't live at all. It is a matter of living with the choices we make.

[bigredphenom]

Oh cmon Doug, you are BOTH using reason, its just you use an unchanging document while Atheists use a base of reason that has endured much trial and error, and most of all ADMISSION toward error unlike an unchanging document that refuses to admit wrong.

[Pantera4LifeXTX]

@bigredphenom Excellent analogy.

[qtutoringhelps]

2:09 - When he asks "Why do you want to base everything on reason?" and then says to provide a REASON to the question "why" is tantamount to appealing to a bible is nonsense. What other possible standard of reference could one appeal to when asked "Why?" Reason is by the nature of the question the only source of information. What does he expect a non-rational answer to the question why? He shouldn't even ask "Why?" he should just say "I'll take that on faith, as I take everything else."

[Zed1967]

Douglas Wilson is just strengthening my belief that Christians are a bunch of cunts. Well done him.

[gamper33]

Christopher just wrecked the shit out of that New York College classroom.

[ThisClownis2in1]

@8:45 Wilson claims that Hitch has to "borrow ethical standards from the Christian faith". I call bullshit. Show me that those ethical standards originate in Christianity, and then I'll take Wilson seriously.

Oh yeah, how can Wilson claim that Christianity is objectively true while simultaneously claiming that everything is a faith position?

[ThisClownis2in1]

@ThisClownis2in1 Additionally, the fact that people pick and choose which biblical teachings to follow and which to disregard shows that morality does not stem from the bible or Christianity.

[krissto71]

Christopher Hitchens, yes sir! There are still some reasonable men out there!

[HenriT85]

Hitchens is a fucking genius!

[dan11009]

did the women give him a free chanel jakcet???

[pkrkid42]

I'm sorry but the phrase "Your humble servant the car-jacker" had me in stitches. What wit and skill of prose.

[reo345678]

Evolution fails to account for two major scientific problems. First that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It cannot answer how their was a big bang. I takes more faith to believe that something exploded out of of nothing than it does to believe that there is a supernatural God that created everything. Secondly, it has been proven that spontaneous generation does not exist. Rags don't turn into rats and leaves don't turn into frogs. How can life have come from no life other than from God?

[itchynights]

if someone asks you why you want to base your world view on reason RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.

[recount09]

A rude thing to say when he called christianity non sense scape goating wish ful thinking the car thing was not disrespectful but good points

[backwoodsninja]

Is the camera man on crack?

[bigredphenom]

"By what standard is it wrong"- well, by the Christian one; the standard that tells you to feed the hungry and greet another with a holy kiss. Im glad Hitchens borrows from Christianity in order to defeat it; helps to expose it as the contradictory, inconsistent mess that it and every other religion is.

[bigredphenom]

I am a theist simply for the fact that THERE IS A GOD, and his name is Christopher Hitchens

[denn118]

Could someone please tell me name of the song at 3:58 just cant seem to find it anywhere! thx in advance

[gasb911]

@denn118 got the song :D Wilderness Crew - Perfect Match

[dgb751]

I live here in CA near the Crystal Cathedral, they owe so much money to their staff, several are bankrupt, noteably the animal trainers they use for the christmas shows, meanwhile 8 family members have multi million dollar homes. What a fraudulent group they are.

[sl1mm]

I think I rest my case. Thanks for reading and being polite.

[dac8555]

It seems that the best that Douglas (who seems like a very nice man) can do is to try to attack the style in which Hitchens makes his argumets and somehow try to say that fact and reason is just as fallable os faith. In fact, The definition of faith is an absence of fact and reason. This is bizarre. Who says :"well just becuse it is reasonable, logical and factual doesnt make it true". yes. Acutally, fact reason and logic DOES make something true.

[sl1mm]

@dac8555 wait. why can't reason and "fact" is just as fallible as faith? ( considering your own definition of faith)

and what source authorizes you from saying fact, reason, and logic does make something "true"?

what is "true" to you? and don't reduce the whole meaning of TRUTH into fact,reason, and logic. Because some "fact" are actually illogical. Which means, your logic cannot comprehend something that is far beyond reason.

[dac8555]

@sl1mm- That is a very telling statement. I think it says a lot really. You TRULY don't understand the difference between what is real and wht isn't, or at least what has been proven to be real, or factual, or even probable. i am beginning to wonder if "faith" really is a mental disorder where you cant distinguish reality from stories.

[sl1mm]

@dac8555 There's a riddle that you may want to scrutinize: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" You may also re-learn about your understanding of face, evidence, etc.

Don't just wonder around that limited understanding you have right now, and keep failing at the same point.

[dac8555]

@sl1mm- Now, you are trying to imply that I am somehow flawed as to detract from the fact that your views make no sense at all and are known to be historically false. You may want to learn a bit aboout the actual origins of religon and the history of it before you go too much further.

[sl1mm]

@dac8555 well. that's the standpoint of yours, and by saying the word "the fact" doesn't mean that is true. That is what you believe & claims of my views, and you just saying it all. Talking about history, you have to believe what you learn about histories are true, and you can't have evidence of it by your own. In fact, a lot of histories of mankind are purposely misled, even by the government. Eg. China Tienanmen square tragedy, Japanese war crime over china, indonesia's G30S, etc.

[dac8555]

@sl1mm- again. you don't understand the definition of "fact". I use the term quite literally. not my interpretation of facts, but actual facts. Fact: Over 20 religions used virgin births to describe miracles. Fact: christmas trees came from a pegan winter solstace tradition. Fact: the bible said that many people lived hundreds of years, but there has never been a historical recod of anyone living more than 120..you know FACTS.

[sl1mm]

@dac8555 20 over religions that claims of such virgin births really doesn't change the truth and the message in the bible, the main point is the crucifixion and redemption of Jesus Christ, those miracles is just the signs of inclusion. Some says that Christmas originated from old German fellow, other say that it was from Martin Luther, your source says that it was from pagan. Guiness BoRcrds says a person as old as 122 years had lived. But none of this are important. As these are trivial stuffs

[dac8555]

@sl1mm so give me ONE reason to believe that what you say is true. If I can find dozens of falsehoods, contradictions and errors just in genesis, why should I believe that any of it is true? Do you have any idea how many THOUSANDS of people were crucified 2000-3000 years ago? Why are there no historical records of any of jesus's miracles or any miralces at all for that matter). If your book were true and real, it would be clear, teling and without errors. this is not the case.

[753hill]

@dac8555 Perhaps you could provide some evidence to those claims you have made? Where are YOUR proofs?

[dac8555]

@753hill-The burden of proof is not on me, sir. I have not made any claims that super powerful invisible beings exist. There is nothing for me to prove. The burden of proof is on those who claim the existence, not those whoa sk for evidence.

[753hill]

@dac8555 YOU are claiming a substantial number of things without giving us a shred of proof as well. We are not talking about God's existence, but surely you have to give proof for all your statements you have much such as 'dozens of falsehoods' and 'that is not the case'. Just fire some actual evidence onto me and I'll respond.

[dac8555]

@753hill- there are dozens if not HUNDREDS of falsehoolds in all religous books, yes. Lets start with a very simple one. The age of Noah. 950 years old. You think that is real?

[753hill]

@dac8555 Well through biblical exegesis scholars concluded that the years meant by the writer was not the equivalent of our year. You also cannot possibly treat biblical literature as hard and wooden science textbooks, people who say that can jolly well claim that when Christ said he was the door, he meant that he was made out of wood.

[dac8555]

@753hill-I have a better explination: It was all made up. It is just a bunch of fictional stories.

[753hill]

@dac8555 Congratulations, for once more that is an unfounded assumption of yours.

[spokendeity]

@dac8555 Read Levi-Strauss... shared mythologies don't prove them wrong, but give them more strength.

[dac8555]

@spokendeity -yes, it gives more strength that they orgininated in the same place, ancient egypt. This is not a he-said, she-said thing. This is known to be historical fact.

[deemon8]

is this the best the christian community has to offer?

[sl1mm]

@deemon8 is that the best anti-theist the world has to offer?

[megamus3]

christopher hitchens lives in an alien world to me whwere there is no superintendant power,of course he does he lives in the real world with real history,not a world of superstition and myths.

[nickleus1977]

boy! hitchens sure nailed him at the end =) quite a silly argument by wilson to propose that all non-christians are immoral, lawless animals...

[matt27leo]

Thank you very much for posting this movie. I enjoyed it.  I really appreciate it. thanks.

[LeLimeLine]

Did the Bourne Identity guys film this? So much camera shaky.

[gacktxrawr]

@LeLimeLine seriously.

[Matt140989]

@LeLimeLine Bourne Supremacy is the worst for that 'technique'

[LeLimeLine]

Hitchens is a God damn superhero. Build a fucking statue of this man!

[Bacbi]

@LeLimeLine I think the man is great, but plz don't build a religion around the man :P lol

[highlanderdurp]

@LeLimeLine hope his kemo works

[TheLydianPattern]

@LeLimeLine now now, dont get carried away or you too my friend shall get the Hitch slap! lolz but yeah, a statue would be nice. right in front of the pope's window lolz

[noshabibis]

@LeLimeLine please lower case the G on god. K THANKS!

[noshabibis]

Douglas Wilson spews out so much jargon and tries to find ways to make his reasons sound true.

Christopher Hitchens says it how it is and doesnt sugar coats anything.

[idkuri]

@noshabibis :

Agreed. Too many big words not enough making his own point.

[pawndominance1]

@idkuri He hardly used any big words--and if he did, you dont have to be an Oxford grad to understand, nor do you feel your being talked down to as well. He talks with intent and with a point to be made and made all his points very clearly it seems to me. I dont know how you came to that conclusion.

[VampirePostalService]

@noshabibis Very well put. There is very little coherence to the rebuttals that he is giving. This whole idea of having a standard to draw from is an interesting concept. The problem is, he is not taking it anywhere and he is not really advancing his point with his use of it(Wilson, of course).

[Herc2770]

@LeLimeLine

They did, its called a Dildo.

[janover73]

1:36 If I challenge the bible and you reply based on it, is a circular non-argument. But if you challenge my reason, and I give you a reasoned argument, I am using my ability to think, not a document that may or may not be divine.

If you suppress reason, saying it is a circular self-proving argument, you are making reason into a thing, which it is not. Or else if the bible is divine, everything you can read from it could be wrong, since your reason is fallible. God said it, you misread it.

[janover73]

Reason is not proof nor certainty. It is just the one way I can relate to my surroundings and go beyond what my instinct tells me. So no, sorry, making a reasoned argument on why I base my belief system in reason, is not a circular self-proving deal.

[chyrd]

@janover73 reason is generally based on evidence and experience... therefore reason is perfectly reasonable, as long as it is backed up with empirical evidence.

[Aidenkai1976]

@janover73

/CLAP

/Bow

[betlamed]

@janover73 Another way to put it is that it is a homonym game, just as most of theology is. "Base everything on" means entirely different things when applied to reason or to the bible.

[TheArsenalfc101]

@janover73 Well a christian would not denounce reason, you must read history and see that Aquinas had an intellectual love affair with it. Same with most of the deists of the enlightenment. They would say God created reason, created revelation, and these two notions of understanding truth will form an epistemology. Most atheists will concede that ultimately all arguments are somewhat circular (not necessarily vicious circles), but that won't necessarily diminish truth....

[sl1mm]

@janover73 Christian supposed to be rational, not rationalist. And they put the bible as their foundation, and start to understand the bible using their rationale. You, on the other hand, put some faith on science/rational statement, as your foundation, and start to built from there, using your reason.

Also, the divine bible/Truth from God leads and sanctify human rationale, which is fallible into the Truth. So, it's a progressive sanctification of human fallible rationale by the bible.

[johnmartin756]

@janover73 Good point janover, however, douglas wilson would argue that he can base his arguments on the bible AND reason since god gave him both. The only way you can beat the faith argument is arguing that reason should be the sole basis for every belief ie. you can not draw on "faith" until you have proved through reason alone that faith in the bible is justified. It seems to me that wilson evades this argument by saying that ultimately his faith comes from being brought up as a christian.

[ChristiansandCulture]

@janover73 Wilson's appeal here is to the standard used being circular, not the definitions of the things used circularly. And of course reason is not a thing, but an action, but this action is a defined as reason because it is a judgement, or critical thinking process which is more than thinking, and so appealing to your judgement is the same as the Christian using the judgement of God whether it is written or not. The issue is not to whether something is divine, but if it is true.

[GeorgesBarras]

@janover73 Yep, he spouts pure sophistry.

[PAULOcbi]

@GeorgesBarras very good,Philo Judaeus called the early church fathers the " sophists of literalness",

[AChildsEnigma]

@janover73 Why is *your* "reasoned argument" and "ability to think" superior to "a document that may or may not be divine"? Why, furthermore, is *your* "reasoned argument" and "ability to think" superior to any claim of truth that might challenge said "reasoned argument"'? Your "reasoned argument" phrase is merely a euphemism for the word "opinion". What if your "ability to think" and someone else's "ability to think" yield contradictory answers to the same question? So much for that.

[bertiethetoupee4]

@AChildsEnigma Janover is not saying that HIS reasoned argument is superior, just that reason is the only way to discover truth. For claims to be known to be true they must be verifiable. If two contradictory answers to a question emerge through reasoning then at least one argument must be fallacious. Also, Wilson is trying to discredit reason by using reason. If reason proves reason an unsound way of discovering truth then the reason employed in coming to that conclusion is also unsound.

[AChildsEnigma]

@bertiethetoupee4 You say, "Janover is not saying that HIS reasoned argument is superior, just that reason is the only way to discover truth."

Janover says, "But if you challenge [my] reason, and I give you a reasoned argument, [I] am using [my] ability to think, not a document that may or may not be divine."

This aside, you say, "For claims to be known to be true they must be verifiable." Verifiable by reason? Is reason the sole licensed verifying authority? (I do not ask these rhetorically)

[AChildsEnigma]

@bertiethetoupee4 Furthermore, you write, "If reason proves reason an unsound way of discovering truth then the reason employed in coming to that conclusion is also unsound."

You speak rightly. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Tell me then, why reason? Does reason have an authority by which it is licensed to yield truth? Or are you saying that [the idea that reason is the means to truth] is itself a self-evident truth? (Again, I do not ask these rhetorically).

[hymnofashes]

He is appealing to a universal standard. I suppose he won't convince psychopaths...

You had to accept the Bible at some point. People have emotions and moral feelings long before they get their hands on a bible. Chris can say "I just am this way." But you need to explain what built the bridge between you and the bible.