The collision movie has been cut and fixed to make it seem like the "debate" was not won by either party. However if you view each debate they in the movie in it's entirety, then i think you would see that Hitchens wins... Again :)
Precisly. Sense and reason must be accepted on faith. Or would you like to try to prove them? What would you use? Sense and reason? Circular arguments are not logical. The irony is that you claim not to make such a priori assumptions. But then isn't that an assumption. Remember for logic to work there are certain things we must suppose are true-for the sake of argument. Wilson's suppsosition is that the very act of creation is a general revelation. Try this without swearing?
Thanks for showing you intelligence. Now we know for sure that you are convicted of you own sins and you need to repent. If you think that there is no God then why do you fight so hard to prove that there is none. Oh by the way do not don't influence me with your humanistic doctrine. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice. So if I were you I would be the wise man and listen to advice.
Douglas Wilson actually makes you appreciate William Lane Craig. Wilson just blunders sophisticated sounding nonsense and defeats himself (like you said). He might be as bad as Dinesh D'Souza, I mean "Distort D'Newza" !!!
This is why I don't watch Hitchens' debates anymore. He's always letting his opponents get away with the most inane shit and I'm always just left yelling at my computer screen. Fucks me right off.
Douglas Wilson isn't a presuppositionalist. If you knew the man's teachings, then you would know Wilson is a Van Tilian. Van Til claimed the classical arguments for God's existence were valid. Furthermore, Wilson has your position that one learns through the senses. In fact, Wilson's has a view that all Scripture is metaphorical, which is as self-contradicting as your own position. Oh, did you know Wilson is an open racist? That kind of flies against his claim to Calvinism.
At least Hitchens doesn't pretend to be a Calvinist. Wilson is a theonomist. He would like to see the government arrest and execute those who do not agree with him. True Calvinist political thought, like that of Samuel Adams, teaches freedom of religion, speech, press, and so on. Wilson also defends Confederate slavery, while Calvin showed that slavery was limited to the judicial laws of Israel. Wilson's crazy.
Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa (The Missionary Position), was excellent. However, today's atheists do not realize that as the nation becomes less Calvinistic, it becomes increasingly tyrannical. As the nation becomes more atheistic and Catholic, it loses more and more civil liberties. The atheist and Catholic revolutions have always produced tyranny, while the Calvinist revolutions have produced a constitutional democratic republic with protection of civil liberties for the people.
I especially liked the part where you accounted for specific countries for either your fatalistic view, or the 'atheist revolutions' you keep trotting out.
"one can claim that truth probably exists and still maintain that you cannot likely know it with certainty. relativism on the other hand says that there is no fixed truth to know. something completely different."
Revelation = Truth and Certitude
Probability and Induction = Ignorance and Skepticism
so then, if I say the flying spaghetti monster has given me the revelation that global warming is caused by the decline in pirates, then I would have "knowledge" of that "truth" because it came to me through revelation? surely you see the total farce in claim that there is revelation giving god, and that we only know though revelation and then claim this is all self validating by labeling them "axioms".
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
so if i were say "well everything I say i right, you just don have the magical fairy powder that lets you understand how I am correct" would you actually believe me or would you say that's just some bullshit I made up to justify what i am saying without having to use things like logic, evidence and good reason?
I cant believe you fall for such transparent bullshit.. Paul said so. so what!? you take the word of one man as the word of god because of historical happenstance.
We are by nature born sinners due to "original sin", you must be regenerated (born again/born of God) to enable you to repent of sin and truly trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, you are totally at God's mercy. Cry out to Him today to grant you repentance and faith in His Son.
Can you define "proof" without begging the question and suggesting that which you can observe.
I understand that you haven't yet seen, or touched, or smelled God; but please understand--unless you are still so obtuse after being schooled by me and Monty--that God cannot be sensed.
It's like the atheist who told me he didn't believe in God like he believes in a person who could show up at his door and say "hi".
There is nothing prior to the axiom, if there were, the axiom would not be the axiom. However, as I said, you can be asked to defend your axiom.
I have already pointed out numerous problems with the senses, such as them contradicting one another. What do you do when your sight contradicts your sense of touch? Which is right? How do you know which is right based on sense alone? Can you escape the sensations of your mind and discover truth, or are you a prisoner of solipsism?
no matter how hard you rail against empiricism it simple does not save Wilson's point of view from self defeat and circularity. why do you keep shifting the topic?
"you confuse the claim we probably cannot know truth with certainty (empiricism) with the claim there is no absolute truth (relativism.) the two are not the same.'
You'll have to demonstrate that, chump. Remember, Kant has already pointed out that ALL empiricism ends in absolute skepticism. Relativism is a necessary corollary of empiricism. The person who concludes that knowledge comes through the senses must also conclude that truth and morality are relative to each man.
are you so god damn stupid that you cannot see the difference between not being about to know the truth with certainty and claim that there is no certain truth?
"are you so stupid you cannot see the difference between not being about to know the truth with certainty and claim that there is no certain truth?"
Well, if you didn't write like Forrest Gump spoke, then you might be literate enough to be understood. However, if you're referring to your previous mistakes concerning empiricism, then you have already been answered. Let me know if I can recommend a nice introduction to philosophy (or even an introduction to English grammar).
one can claim that truth probably exists and still maintain that you cannot likely know it with certainty. relativism on the other hand says that there is no fixed truth to know. something completely different.
no mater how much you think you know about the history of philosophy, you reasoning skills are clearly lacking, which renders all your fancy edcu-mah-kation worthless.
All worldviews must start somewhere. Christianity starts with propositional revelation. You start--I presume, unless you make clear otherwise--with empiricism.
I have already stated a very basic and fundamental problem with sense perception. I can't ask you to prove your axiom (empiricism), but I can ask you to defend it.
even if I started from rationalism, it wouldn't even matter.
if that's the claim you are going to make then absolutely no worldview is any more valid then any other because they are all "correct" based on their own starting presuppositions, and so Wilson can simply shove all of his beliefs back up his ass. that"s why i say it i self defeating.
"so are you saying you don't have to read your bible then in order to receive revelation? "
That's exactly what I'm saying. And if you think differently then you need to explain how sensations become perceptions, and perceptions become ideas, and ideas become abstractions, and so on...
One thing is clear: tooltime doesn't even know where he stands philosophically, because he hasn't even studied basic epistemology, as my video points out.
Tooltime is so ignorant he doesn't even realize he's begging the question when he pretends leaning the contents of a book depends upon the senses. Hey tool, you haven't read the history of philosophy, but let me inform you that no one has EVER demonstrated that people learn through their senses--no one has even defined sensation!
first, I already dealt with you in the comment section o the video you made, but apparently you didn't approve those comments.
second, why are you wasting your time accusing people of holding belief they don't in fact hold and then attacking the belief they don't hold and claiming victory?
third, attacking empiricism does not make the claim that all knowledge comes from revelation any more circular. not to mention no one has ever defined "revelation" either.
I took your remarks down to save you some shame, but if you insist, then go post them again.
The first one mistakenly said:
"tabula rasa is not a necessary belief all empiricists hold."
Wrong, as I pointed out in the video, you don't know what empiricism is. All empiricists hold to tabula rasa. It was Kant who introduced constructivism, or should we call it eclecticism? Either way, you're way off, chump.
that would be strict empiricism, which you simply presume most atheists are so that you can straw-man them.
I explained to you that I was only an empiricist in the sense that "most of what we can know about the world is empirical" and yet you continue to attack me as if I was a strict empiricist, while at the same time claim a don't even know about a view you claim i hold.
You're not espousing empiricism, but a form of Kant's constructivism. As I said, you don't know what you're talking about.
But, if you want to switch to a constructivist position, I'll take the win. It makes no difference, for no one can compare the phenomena with the noumena. You are left with a correspondence theory of truth that can't be confirmed, but David Hume and George Berkely pointed that out before Kant picked up his pen. You must assume quite a lot with your view.
look, dickhead, I don't give a shit what label you want to give me just so that you can try to impress me with your undergrad philosophy knowledge.
you are attacking straw-men to begin with which make you the jackass. abandoning the strict empiricism you claim atheist have still does not give you proof of god.
Why not just retract your prior claims, then identify yourself to be a Kantian? Wouldn't that be easier than getting smacked around by people who know the difference between those who claim to be empirical and those who claim to be empiricists? You can't win, because you already committed intellectual suicide. But, if you want, I guess you can continue to type things like: "I iS atHeIst, I sMarT buT yOu dum."
the irony here is that you claim that redneck atheists are dogmatic empiricists and yet you want me to say I am not an empiricist your definition and still call me a red-neck atheist. ok...
empiricists are still not relativists and they still can accept a priori knowledge, all be it they do not believe such knowledge to be totally independent of sense experience.
spare me the philosophy lesson because I am no impressed no matter how much you try and act like you "pnwed me".
Your mindless equivocation on the term 'empiricist' is a result of your misology. Kant can be said to be empirical, but he was no empiricist. Maybe you didn't pay attention to my videos, for I never claim all redneck atheists are empiricists, but I do claim they are EMPIRICAL. Are your listening skills as sharp as your grammar skills?
Regardless, mindlessly claiming empiricists are not relativists is not a demonstration of that claim. Both claims are self-contradictory and false.
I did explain that to you, be rather then show me to be wrong you just claim I am like a jerk-off.
yo claim that empiricists cannot and do not believe in any sort of a priori or rational knowledge. that is false. you have managed to derail he whole conversation into an attack on something you claim I not anyway.
honestly, WTF is even your point anymore? that I am not an empiricist? or that I am? or that a view which you simply assume I hold to is self defeating? IDK
Regardless of what you want to call your eclectic epistemology, it isn't consistent, so it fails the negative test of truth. You have a misological position, and so it is also a mythological position.
However, my position is not only consistent, but it explains all the important questions in philosophy.
Calvinism is the superior intellectual position. Notice, I haven't changed my views in this entire exchange.
It is true your views have remained self-contradicting throughout this entire exchange. There is no doubt about that. In that sense, your position has not changed. Would you please list your presuppositions?
you have shown no such thing, but you seem to think that maybe if you say it enough times you can get me to believe it or something. IDK
you are simply trying to divert the conversation. if you what to go the presuppositionalist route, then any world view can be "validated" by a set of presuppositions and so your claim to the unique "truth" of Calvinism becomes utterly worthless.
again, if you make the knowledge claim that we only have knowledge through revelation, then you need revelation to validate the claim that all knowledge is revelation, which is circular.
One of the things I used to like about you in earlier times on YouTube, was the fact that you could say your "thing" without using foul and filthy language.
You don't understand Christian epistemology. Revelation is not received through the senses. It is revealed directly to the mind. (Matt. 16:17; John 1:9)
Everyone has their presuppositions, including you, and yours is empiricism. Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke tried to defend it and failed. Perhaps you would like to try.
By the way, Doug Wilson--though right if he made that statement--is NOT a Christian.
what the hell makes you presume to know where exactly i stand philosophically?
"Revelation is not received through the senses. It is revealed directly to the mind."
so are you saying you don't have to read your bible then in order to receive revelation?
or maybe by revelation you mean an individual's personal interpretation of scripture, in which case I have to laugh because "revelation" and subjective opinion are effectively one and the same in the mind of some who thinks they are correct.
ad hominem, bro, ad hominem.....find something other than the man to argue with chief, ok, bro....I know you can....let's say it together, bro...I will not use ad hominem, ok, bro...thanks chief.
I tend to not like Hitchens much because for whatever reason, in a live debate he is either too drunk to realize when an apologist is saying some deeply stupid shit or he seems to be in a rush to get to the next hinge pin in the debate.
You're wasting your breath. Anyone who believes in religion probably isn't going to change because of anything you say. Just smile and wave and keep walking.
before you get all mad and say how stupid something is, you should first ask yourself "is what the guy saying stupid, or is my understanding of what he is saying stupid?" I think you'd save yourself a lot of stress that way. if wilson is saying what you say he's saying, then yes he would be dumb, but i don't think he's making the point that you think he's making.
dude your right this is why I hate religion I mean god doesn't exist I believe we already proved it at some point we just gotta remember what was it that happened that god never existed?
You are a very bright young man. Cut your hair and shave your beard and get a shirt wit a collar and stop listening to metal and you might have an audience.
WTF baresolid? Fuck you, you elitist asshole. With your dogmatic views on culture and society, you yourself are just as bad as the douchebag tooltime is talking about.
About Wilson - I know him well enough to say that he is NOT a hypocritical freak. He is an honest person. But he is a wrong honest person. But it is out of his honesty that he has been under constant fire from his fellow believers, especially from the Reformed camp. He is also a man of a noble character. I think Hitchens recognizes that. And when we christicize Christians we must be ready to treat them as usual people - some are hypocrites, some are mistaken sincerely.
Don't be upset with this. There are some ways believers get away with with Chris Hitchens - especially demagogues like Craig Lane. Presuppositionalism is a dirty trick - that is true. But it is because this trick needs some knowledge of logic and philosophy it is hard for an average person to uncover. An easy view in which I usually explain this is: It is wrong for a persona to say "I just believe what I want and you have to disprove that". It is wrong to presuppose things of high abstraction.
I do not believe the word "revalation" was used throughout the whole film. Anyway, you perceive Wilson's argument to be a Cartesian circle which leads me to believe you did not quite understand what he was saying. If that were the case Hitchens would have easily refuted it.
I'll go back and watch the film to see if I missed something, perhaps you should do the same, that way we might better understand each other.
No the argument of Wilson was ethical mostly. "How do you know what is good and evil?" Hitchens answered that in his book "God is not great", but chooses to not respond in debates. But the error of pers. thinking as developed by Shaeffer and then Van Til is that it takes God as an axiom. Which can not be done. They have to say god is self-evident, and this is where they really start to be flat baloney. But it can't be an axiom for all reaons in the world.
Wilson never claimed that a person who has not read the Bible is destitute of reason. Infact, all that was said on that front was that appealing to reason to reasonably refute the Bible is begging the question just as appealing to the Bible to justify the Bible is begging the question.
Wilson claims in his morality argument that Christopher has no basis on which to substantiate his morality and therefore should not write so adamantly.
And when debating with demagogue Lane Hitchens almost entirely dismissed his ugly games of mind. Atkins interacted more in his debate with Lane. But the issue is this: You can get the issue of God and reason so up into abstracts and speculate, when at the same time in plain facts it contradicts the facts and moral. Hitchens did right to not spend his time joining speculations. He has facts.
It's weird. I see Hitches do that a lot. He rarely ever jumps on people when they make no sense at all. Like the debate with Al Sharpton. The nonsense Sharpton was spewing was asking to be preyed upon, but Hitchens didn't even nudge to attack it.
I know what you're talking about, I was watching Hitchens debate with some smarmy rabbi and I found myself enraged at his restraint in smashing him to bits.
I've watched through Collision a couple times now, though I've been a bit busy lately and I wanted to just quickly ask if anyone can tell me about what part of the movie does Wilson make this statement Tooltime is referring to?
Oh, also I think I've gathered that the editor of the movie surely must have taken out some of Hitchens' better responses. I am guessing he just may have been slightly biased. Def a few instances where Hitch should/would have responded better.
The reason the "atheism is faith" card is played over and over and over again is because they wish to make it (or at least make it SEEM) as if it is a matter of comparative faiths.
Yes, they wish to drag us "down to their level." Their level is THEIR home court and the game there is played by THEIR rules.
And they're very good at THAT game, where your evidence and reason don't mean jack shit.
Not only that, but Douglas Wilson is actually a total right-wing nutjob. He's affiliated with the "neo-Confederates" who say that the antebellum American South was the first instantiation of the kingdom of God and that it was also the "most harmonious multi-ethnic society in history." If you don't believe me look it up.
If you ask me, people like Hitchens are giving him more legitimacy than he deserves by sharing a panel with him.
I think Hitchens is playing games with Wilson, in that, Wilson's arguments never stood a chance to begin with and Hitchens, I think, is subtly making an example of him with these touring interviews and such. The various news interviews were quite amusing and drew some people's awareness to the atheist side of the discussion that perhaps may not have occurred otherwise. I think he slipped in enough subtle mockery of Wilson's absurd perspectives to discourage some fence-sitters from religion.
I think that Tooltime is misunderstanding Wilson's point, mainly that he doesn't believe in unaided human reason, but that reason itself is a divine revelation from God to man, which is a Reformed concept.
He's using reason to attempt to prove God's existence, but I agree that it doesn't work.
"You can't understand the bible if you don't accept Jesus as Lord. Here, I will tell you what it means. What? You feel that my interpretation is arbitrary and supports only *MY* worldview and opinions? How dare you! These are the revealed word of our Lord and Saviour!"
I refused to watch that documentary as soon as I heard him say "I believe the fact of gods existence is self evident" /facepalm
NO ITS FUCKING NOT!!!
Hitchens is just an arsehole. Ive seen him debate and all he does is call god a prick alot of the time. He never just picks people up on basic bullshit and lets them get away with too much stuff. This is okay for a layperson but he practically does this professionally so I hold him to a higher standard.
And if it's your innate moral sense, which differs from everyone else's, even between christians of the same denomination, how is that any different from opinion?
It completely falls apart, and we're left right back where we started.
I need to be one of the 4 horsemen, debating people like that, because I can do a pretty good job (if you'll excuse my humility) of answering them on questions of morality as well as TAG and reliability of scripture or any other claim, etc.
The worse problem is how the hell can you distinguish between a true revelation and a false one? Two people think they talked to god, one says to spread the faith, another says to kill a bunch of peope, who is right and how can you know? If it's by consistency with the Bible, first, the murderer is more consistent, and second, how the hell do you know the Bible was true revelation? Is it simply a matter of whichever one has the most backers?
Collision was actually a very poorly put together video. If you have seen some of the raw debates, Hitchens pwns Wilson on all of those points. I really didn't like Collision, it seemed to want to be too artsy, and didn't focus on the content of the arguments.
Both Douglas Wilson and "Together for Peace" (Jack the dog torturer) are in the religion business; this is part of their marketing program. The brand of religion they are selling is a down market product intended for ignorant people who are impressed with shiny things.
The "can't know anything except through revelation" argument suffers another flaw that even those who accept the possibility for supernatural revelation have to deal with. Take for example, Christians who believe that Christ and Satan are both supernatural beings. Christians believe God "revealed" truth to prophets such as Moses. But they also believe Satan revealed lies to Eve in the Garden. QED, supernatural revelation isn't a reliable way to "know" what is true.
I share your frustrations with Hitchens lettin Wilson off lightly - in fact he does it with nearly everyone he debates. I think it has more to do with the fact that Hitchens loves the argument itself so much he doesn't want to go all out in case he was too effective.
This was kind of belied with his final statements in Collision and in the four horsemen video
The "can't know anything except through revelation" argument suffers another flaw that even those who accept the possibility for supernatural revelation have to deal with. Take for example, Christians who believe that Christ and Satan are both supernatural beings. Christians believe God "revealed" truth to prophets such as Moses. But they also believe Satan "revealed" lies to Eve in the Garden. QED, "revelations" do not have to be true.
i feel your pain tooltime, its very frustrating to accept the fact that we are living in a world where there is so much technology and so much knowledge abailable to everyone and yet there are still people that believes in magic, gods, demons, withces and all that stupid and supersticious crap.
I feel discussion is a waste of time with the majority of believers anyway.( at least the discussion of the necessity of their faith and all that nonsense)
I actually may believe wilson when he says every belief system has a basis in faith (or assumptions). In mathematics one must first assume a set of axioms to be true. Isn't the same true in all things? I may believe in some proposition after it has been demonstrated to me, but don't my desires and personality also effect my judgement in regards to the proposition? I have to have faith that I am looking at the evidence objectively and that my reasoning is valid and not subject to my desires.
The only thing I know for certain without any faith, is that I am in a constant state of ignorance. Please correct me if there's something I am missing.
You can believe something based on evidence(not faith) and still not claim absolute certainty. There isn't a dichotomy between faith and certainty, there's also belief based on evidence with varying degrees of certainty.
I believe you're trying to say that a set of Axioms has to be tested to make sure it is consistent? If so I accept your point. But how do we know the axioms are true? (Yes I realize most of the time we don't care) By assuming they are true is this not faith?
TheHeather1985 - There's a distinct difference between believing something to be true and making an assumption, you can hypothesise whatever you want but it still needs researching prior to acceptance. There's also varying levels of accuracy dependant on what evidence is available.
This of course depends on the type of Axiom and where it's being applied.
I don't quite see. I know that empirical evidence and inductive reasoning is not faith, though to a mathematics student it often seems so. But what about something like the axiom of choice. Whether you accept it or not you get a consistent interpretation of mathematics, but not equivalent. So when we accept the axiom of choice and distinguish cardinality of natural numbers and reals, it seems there is a hint of faith, because we took choice functions for granted.
Sorry, I thought you had a math background. If the definition seems incoherent skip it. The choice axiom states that you can construct a function from a set of subsets of a set 'N' into the set 'N' such that the function chooses an element of the subset and maps the subset to the chosen element. The point being that this is far from self evident, and there is no empirical basis for it, but it is taken for granted. I think maybe we all have an axiom of choice somewhere in our philosophy.
TheHeather1985 - Just making sure because some silly buggers like using a variety of homonyms, acronyms, synonyms and all the other nym's you can think of.
The problem is AC is it's a 19th century toy and the basic principle of it works 'dependant' on the verity and usages.
It seems like your videos have been going down the rambling road for a while, i certainly miss some of the earlier ones where someones argument was obliterated or something. However it was indeed funny to listen to your ramble, and yes there was some value, near the beginning though i think.
Wilson and Hitchens are buddies touring with their road show. The debate circuit is a debate circus with Wilson as the stooge or fall-guy. It's a way to make a living, I suppose.
If atheism was considered to be a religion then should theism be a religion as well? I'm pretty sure that most christians who make the claim that atheism is religion consider christianity as their only religion instead theism and christianity.
I didn't see why Hitchens didn't give any type of "evolutionary" account for morality. I know it's been said by at least a few mainstream atheists that our morals tend to come from what most benefits a society, and that society's without certain morals couldn't be sustained, and thefor only the ones with these morals would live on.
I've never really thought of how self-defeating their senses argument is. Thanks for pointing it out.
that stems from logic - if a society would allow murder to go unpunished it definitely wouldn't be a benefit to the society or allow it to grow and could in fact destroy it - through upbringing and tradition it becomes morality...
Hitchens is a journalist. He's not a scientist he's just a journalist. I think people pay him more attention and give him greater credit than he deserves.
He's intelligent but not more than any average college educated person who doesn't live with their head up their ass. But he's also a biased jerk who has poor argument skills.
I don't dislike him but meh... Not surprised he let things slide.
I hear you. I like Hitch, but he's kind of hit and miss with me. Sometimes I watch him and I'm impressed, other times I feel like he's just being a bully, and interrupting people constantly.
Well you've called him an 'average college educated person who doesn't live with their head up their ass. But he's also a biased jerk who has poor argument skills.'
I don't think you really like him.
I wish most people came out of college could write so fluently about Thomas Paine's Rights Of Man, call out folks like Kissinger as war criminal before nearly anybody else with a shred of credibility, emphasize the importance of the restoration of the Parthenon.
Argue FOR a controversial war on a humanitarian basis (Iraq, not necessarily saying he's right), write convincing books on Palestinian rights, Jefferson and the founding fathers tendency towards agnosticism, Atheism and be one of the best public speakers I've ever seen talk about such subjects INCLUDING an insightful debate with A.C Grayling on World War 2. All this while being able to comprehend a little bit of science it seems in his busy schedule.
Hitchens just isnt that good at debating, he seems to me to be more focused on making blunt attacks on religion rather than carefully analysing the claims the way that you do. I think that really the best atheist debators are to be found as regular people on youtube, like TheoreticalBS, you, smpunditz, etc. People like Dawkins and Hitchens tend to be a little too broad in their approach.
I think Wilson is a little mental. After all, he said that God's command to exterminate the Amalekites was morally ok. Anyone who says that genocide is good, without even blinking, should go see a shrink.
Aw man, I know. I could see that your head was about to explode and I thought, if Peter's head explodes I would have no one to help me keep my head from exploding. Then we'd all be fucked.
It is true that we always have to work with assumptions, but the purpose of logic and science is to find explanations which require as little assumption as possible.
Wilson proposes the biggest assumption of all, and one which has been proven to be unreliable. He assumes that ancient rumors and voices in the heads of lunatics are accurate.
Now, if you make Wilson's assumption about that, he actually does have some interesting things to say. Wilson should be writing fantasy novels.
Pissed much? Yea, me to!
TeaDbluJay 6 months ago
The collision movie has been cut and fixed to make it seem like the "debate" was not won by either party. However if you view each debate they in the movie in it's entirety, then i think you would see that Hitchens wins... Again :)
Godfred78 6 months ago
Wow, I made it to the end. Yup, you are correct, you just don't get it.
jiagap 8 months ago
Kill the emotion in your speech your cursing and whining is unbecoming.
listenthinkspeak 9 months ago
Hitchens did not miss anything... you did!
gateway2japan 10 months ago
Precisly. Sense and reason must be accepted on faith. Or would you like to try to prove them? What would you use? Sense and reason? Circular arguments are not logical. The irony is that you claim not to make such a priori assumptions. But then isn't that an assumption. Remember for logic to work there are certain things we must suppose are true-for the sake of argument. Wilson's suppsosition is that the very act of creation is a general revelation. Try this without swearing?
MrBoudreaux1976 11 months ago
His whole video summed up in his statement at 5:06
1tmoch 11 months ago
Thanks for showing you intelligence. Now we know for sure that you are convicted of you own sins and you need to repent. If you think that there is no God then why do you fight so hard to prove that there is none. Oh by the way do not don't influence me with your humanistic doctrine. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice. So if I were you I would be the wise man and listen to advice.
RestoredByFaith777 1 year ago
Douglas Wilson actually makes you appreciate William Lane Craig. Wilson just blunders sophisticated sounding nonsense and defeats himself (like you said). He might be as bad as Dinesh D'Souza, I mean "Distort D'Newza" !!!
alifeofreason 1 year ago
pretty boring video tbh
smutyhouse 1 year ago
This is why I don't watch Hitchens' debates anymore. He's always letting his opponents get away with the most inane shit and I'm always just left yelling at my computer screen. Fucks me right off.
sam51092 1 year ago
Tool,
Yes, we know you claim constructivism is empiricism.
Now, what is your epistemology?
RedBeetle 2 years ago 2
i'm unsubscribing sorry m8 but my english is not good enuf to folow you
azolox 2 years ago
Tool,
Douglas Wilson isn't a presuppositionalist. If you knew the man's teachings, then you would know Wilson is a Van Tilian. Van Til claimed the classical arguments for God's existence were valid. Furthermore, Wilson has your position that one learns through the senses. In fact, Wilson's has a view that all Scripture is metaphorical, which is as self-contradicting as your own position. Oh, did you know Wilson is an open racist? That kind of flies against his claim to Calvinism.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
well then all I can say is that the documentary did a REALLY bad job of showing Wilson's views.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
I agree; the documentary was a joke.
Hitchens and Wilson are both pitiful.
At least Hitchens doesn't pretend to be a Calvinist. Wilson is a theonomist. He would like to see the government arrest and execute those who do not agree with him. True Calvinist political thought, like that of Samuel Adams, teaches freedom of religion, speech, press, and so on. Wilson also defends Confederate slavery, while Calvin showed that slavery was limited to the judicial laws of Israel. Wilson's crazy.
RedBeetle 2 years ago 2
Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa (The Missionary Position), was excellent. However, today's atheists do not realize that as the nation becomes less Calvinistic, it becomes increasingly tyrannical. As the nation becomes more atheistic and Catholic, it loses more and more civil liberties. The atheist and Catholic revolutions have always produced tyranny, while the Calvinist revolutions have produced a constitutional democratic republic with protection of civil liberties for the people.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
you ave never heard the phrase "past performance is no guarantee of future results" have you?
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Nice vague, sweeping comments.
I especially liked the part where you accounted for specific countries for either your fatalistic view, or the 'atheist revolutions' you keep trotting out.
ScepticalAgnostic 2 years ago
Nothing vague about it, simple history, but that seems to be beyond most here.
Have you seen ToolTime?
A few simple questions and POOF he's gone.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
You're right. In my ignorance, I lack knowledge of basic history.
Please enlighten me, oh great one. Tell me of these Calvinist utopia or these 'atheistic revolutions'.
ScepticalAgnostic 2 years ago
Utopic ideology is a Roman Catholic / Atheist notion. Read Thomas More or Karl Marx.
RedBeetle 2 years ago 2
Please don't dodge the question on semantic grounds; you know full well what I meant by 'utopia'.
Tell me of these Calvanist democracies or the atheist scumholes.
ScepticalAgnostic 2 years ago
You spelled 'Calvinist' wrong.
Second, if you want to make sure you are understood in the comment section of a youtube page, then please define your terms.
RedBeetle 2 years ago 3
It's 'incorrectly', not 'wrong'.
Hey, look, I can point out irrelevant mistakes in order to avoid answering the question too.
ScepticalAgnostic 2 years ago
Good eye.
I retract.
I should have said:
"You mispelled 'Calvinist.'
Thanks.
RedBeetle 2 years ago 2
I have not gone anywhere other then to sleep and woke up again like a normal person. sorry if you got lonely.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
@RedBeetle oh really? ask southern blacks whether their civil liberties mattered to Calvinists.
brendos444 6 months ago
@tooltime9901
"one can claim that truth probably exists and still maintain that you cannot likely know it with certainty. relativism on the other hand says that there is no fixed truth to know. something completely different."
Revelation = Truth and Certitude
Probability and Induction = Ignorance and Skepticism
Got Knowledge?
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
so then, if I say the flying spaghetti monster has given me the revelation that global warming is caused by the decline in pirates, then I would have "knowledge" of that "truth" because it came to me through revelation? surely you see the total farce in claim that there is revelation giving god, and that we only know though revelation and then claim this is all self validating by labeling them "axioms".
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Have you not read this from 1 Corinthians 2:14?
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
qptqpt 2 years ago
so if i were say "well everything I say i right, you just don have the magical fairy powder that lets you understand how I am correct" would you actually believe me or would you say that's just some bullshit I made up to justify what i am saying without having to use things like logic, evidence and good reason?
I cant believe you fall for such transparent bullshit.. Paul said so. so what!? you take the word of one man as the word of god because of historical happenstance.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
We are by nature born sinners due to "original sin", you must be regenerated (born again/born of God) to enable you to repent of sin and truly trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, you are totally at God's mercy. Cry out to Him today to grant you repentance and faith in His Son.
qptqpt 2 years ago
@tooltime9901
You are still confusing "circularity" with axiomatic reasoning.
Please learn the distinction.
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
again, then any world view is free to adopt self validating axiom and therefor ll worldviews are equally "valid".
tooltime9901 2 years ago
@tooltime9901
"....does not give you proof of god."
Can you define "proof" without begging the question and suggesting that which you can observe.
I understand that you haven't yet seen, or touched, or smelled God; but please understand--unless you are still so obtuse after being schooled by me and Monty--that God cannot be sensed.
It's like the atheist who told me he didn't believe in God like he believes in a person who could show up at his door and say "hi".
LOL!
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
any way you can muster. what do you actually say is your proof for / good reason for believing in god?
tooltime9901 2 years ago
@tooltime9901
There is nothing prior to the axiom, if there were, the axiom would not be the axiom. However, as I said, you can be asked to defend your axiom.
I have already pointed out numerous problems with the senses, such as them contradicting one another. What do you do when your sight contradicts your sense of touch? Which is right? How do you know which is right based on sense alone? Can you escape the sensations of your mind and discover truth, or are you a prisoner of solipsism?
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
no matter how hard you rail against empiricism it simple does not save Wilson's point of view from self defeat and circularity. why do you keep shifting the topic?
tooltime9901 2 years ago
tooltime wrote:
"you confuse the claim we probably cannot know truth with certainty (empiricism) with the claim there is no absolute truth (relativism.) the two are not the same.'
You'll have to demonstrate that, chump. Remember, Kant has already pointed out that ALL empiricism ends in absolute skepticism. Relativism is a necessary corollary of empiricism. The person who concludes that knowledge comes through the senses must also conclude that truth and morality are relative to each man.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
are you so god damn stupid that you cannot see the difference between not being about to know the truth with certainty and claim that there is no certain truth?
tooltime9901 2 years ago
tooltime wrote:
"are you so stupid you cannot see the difference between not being about to know the truth with certainty and claim that there is no certain truth?"
Well, if you didn't write like Forrest Gump spoke, then you might be literate enough to be understood. However, if you're referring to your previous mistakes concerning empiricism, then you have already been answered. Let me know if I can recommend a nice introduction to philosophy (or even an introduction to English grammar).
RedBeetle 2 years ago
you are quite the smug pick.
one can claim that truth probably exists and still maintain that you cannot likely know it with certainty. relativism on the other hand says that there is no fixed truth to know. something completely different.
no mater how much you think you know about the history of philosophy, you reasoning skills are clearly lacking, which renders all your fancy edcu-mah-kation worthless.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
@tooltime9901
All worldviews must start somewhere. Christianity starts with propositional revelation. You start--I presume, unless you make clear otherwise--with empiricism.
I have already stated a very basic and fundamental problem with sense perception. I can't ask you to prove your axiom (empiricism), but I can ask you to defend it.
Again, good luck.
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
even if I started from rationalism, it wouldn't even matter.
if that's the claim you are going to make then absolutely no worldview is any more valid then any other because they are all "correct" based on their own starting presuppositions, and so Wilson can simply shove all of his beliefs back up his ass. that"s why i say it i self defeating.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Peter said,
"so are you saying you don't have to read your bible then in order to receive revelation? "
That's exactly what I'm saying. And if you think differently then you need to explain how sensations become perceptions, and perceptions become ideas, and ideas become abstractions, and so on...
Good luck.
--TCC
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
One thing is clear: tooltime doesn't even know where he stands philosophically, because he hasn't even studied basic epistemology, as my video points out.
Tooltime is so ignorant he doesn't even realize he's begging the question when he pretends leaning the contents of a book depends upon the senses. Hey tool, you haven't read the history of philosophy, but let me inform you that no one has EVER demonstrated that people learn through their senses--no one has even defined sensation!
RedBeetle 2 years ago 2
Oooops, Monty.......
Afrikitty 2 years ago
Liz, you are correct. I made a spelling mistake. The sentence should read:
"Tooltime is so ignorant he doesn't even realize he's begging the question when he pretends LEARNING the contents of a book depends upon the senses."
RedBeetle 2 years ago 2
first, I already dealt with you in the comment section o the video you made, but apparently you didn't approve those comments.
second, why are you wasting your time accusing people of holding belief they don't in fact hold and then attacking the belief they don't hold and claiming victory?
third, attacking empiricism does not make the claim that all knowledge comes from revelation any more circular. not to mention no one has ever defined "revelation" either.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
I took your remarks down to save you some shame, but if you insist, then go post them again.
The first one mistakenly said:
"tabula rasa is not a necessary belief all empiricists hold."
Wrong, as I pointed out in the video, you don't know what empiricism is. All empiricists hold to tabula rasa. It was Kant who introduced constructivism, or should we call it eclecticism? Either way, you're way off, chump.
You want to keep going?
I got your other posts, and they're just as bad.
RedBeetle 2 years ago 2
that would be strict empiricism, which you simply presume most atheists are so that you can straw-man them.
I explained to you that I was only an empiricist in the sense that "most of what we can know about the world is empirical" and yet you continue to attack me as if I was a strict empiricist, while at the same time claim a don't even know about a view you claim i hold.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
tooltime,
You're not espousing empiricism, but a form of Kant's constructivism. As I said, you don't know what you're talking about.
But, if you want to switch to a constructivist position, I'll take the win. It makes no difference, for no one can compare the phenomena with the noumena. You are left with a correspondence theory of truth that can't be confirmed, but David Hume and George Berkely pointed that out before Kant picked up his pen. You must assume quite a lot with your view.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
look, dickhead, I don't give a shit what label you want to give me just so that you can try to impress me with your undergrad philosophy knowledge.
you are attacking straw-men to begin with which make you the jackass. abandoning the strict empiricism you claim atheist have still does not give you proof of god.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Tool,
Why not just retract your prior claims, then identify yourself to be a Kantian? Wouldn't that be easier than getting smacked around by people who know the difference between those who claim to be empirical and those who claim to be empiricists? You can't win, because you already committed intellectual suicide. But, if you want, I guess you can continue to type things like: "I iS atHeIst, I sMarT buT yOu dum."
You're truly a redneck atheist.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
the irony here is that you claim that redneck atheists are dogmatic empiricists and yet you want me to say I am not an empiricist your definition and still call me a red-neck atheist. ok...
empiricists are still not relativists and they still can accept a priori knowledge, all be it they do not believe such knowledge to be totally independent of sense experience.
spare me the philosophy lesson because I am no impressed no matter how much you try and act like you "pnwed me".
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Tool,
Your mindless equivocation on the term 'empiricist' is a result of your misology. Kant can be said to be empirical, but he was no empiricist. Maybe you didn't pay attention to my videos, for I never claim all redneck atheists are empiricists, but I do claim they are EMPIRICAL. Are your listening skills as sharp as your grammar skills?
Regardless, mindlessly claiming empiricists are not relativists is not a demonstration of that claim. Both claims are self-contradictory and false.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
I did explain that to you, be rather then show me to be wrong you just claim I am like a jerk-off.
yo claim that empiricists cannot and do not believe in any sort of a priori or rational knowledge. that is false. you have managed to derail he whole conversation into an attack on something you claim I not anyway.
honestly, WTF is even your point anymore? that I am not an empiricist? or that I am? or that a view which you simply assume I hold to is self defeating? IDK
tooltime9901 2 years ago
It doesn't matter to me.
Empiricism and constructivism are both absurd.
Regardless of what you want to call your eclectic epistemology, it isn't consistent, so it fails the negative test of truth. You have a misological position, and so it is also a mythological position.
However, my position is not only consistent, but it explains all the important questions in philosophy.
Calvinism is the superior intellectual position. Notice, I haven't changed my views in this entire exchange.
RedBeetle 2 years ago 3
and what is your view exactly? and why should I believe it? god says so because god says so because god says so? something like that?
I have not changed my views either.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Tool,
It is true your views have remained self-contradicting throughout this entire exchange. There is no doubt about that. In that sense, your position has not changed. Would you please list your presuppositions?
RedBeetle 2 years ago 2
you have shown no such thing, but you seem to think that maybe if you say it enough times you can get me to believe it or something. IDK
you are simply trying to divert the conversation. if you what to go the presuppositionalist route, then any world view can be "validated" by a set of presuppositions and so your claim to the unique "truth" of Calvinism becomes utterly worthless.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Comment removed
RedBeetle 2 years ago
Tool,
Sorry, I meant to say that since you claim to be a "strict empiricist," then what exactly are you presupposing to be true.
Thanks.
RedBeetle 2 years ago 3
wait, when did I was a strict empiricist?
tooltime9901 2 years ago
again, if you make the knowledge claim that we only have knowledge through revelation, then you need revelation to validate the claim that all knowledge is revelation, which is circular.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Peter,
One of the things I used to like about you in earlier times on YouTube, was the fact that you could say your "thing" without using foul and filthy language.
What happened?
Afrikitty 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Liz,
You should wipe the drool from your chin when sucking up to Peter.
Paul
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
Paul,
From the filth that comes out of your writings on YouTube, you're the one that does the sucking.
Jesus said that what is in the heart of man, comes out of his mouth. You portray that perfectly "brother"!
Afrikitty 2 years ago 3
@Afrikitty
"From the filth that comes out of your writings on YouTube, you're the one that does the sucking."
Really Liz? That's slander. Perhaps you could give a citation where "filth has come out my mouth". I could certainly offer one concerning you.
Do you remember the Decalogue? Do you recall the 9th commandment? Please stop spreading lies about me.
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
Peter,
You don't understand Christian epistemology. Revelation is not received through the senses. It is revealed directly to the mind. (Matt. 16:17; John 1:9)
Everyone has their presuppositions, including you, and yours is empiricism. Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke tried to defend it and failed. Perhaps you would like to try.
By the way, Doug Wilson--though right if he made that statement--is NOT a Christian.
--TCC
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
what the hell makes you presume to know where exactly i stand philosophically?
"Revelation is not received through the senses. It is revealed directly to the mind."
so are you saying you don't have to read your bible then in order to receive revelation?
or maybe by revelation you mean an individual's personal interpretation of scripture, in which case I have to laugh because "revelation" and subjective opinion are effectively one and the same in the mind of some who thinks they are correct.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
What is your argument? Saying something is self-defeating and bullshit says nothing about validity of Wilson's argument.
servant1983 2 years ago
ad hominem, bro, ad hominem.....find something other than the man to argue with chief, ok, bro....I know you can....let's say it together, bro...I will not use ad hominem, ok, bro...thanks chief.
TubeCritic007 2 years ago
Reasoning has nothing to do with faith.
abbasmith123 2 years ago
I tend to not like Hitchens much because for whatever reason, in a live debate he is either too drunk to realize when an apologist is saying some deeply stupid shit or he seems to be in a rush to get to the next hinge pin in the debate.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
You're wasting your breath. Anyone who believes in religion probably isn't going to change because of anything you say. Just smile and wave and keep walking.
bokesnmokes 2 years ago
before you get all mad and say how stupid something is, you should first ask yourself "is what the guy saying stupid, or is my understanding of what he is saying stupid?" I think you'd save yourself a lot of stress that way. if wilson is saying what you say he's saying, then yes he would be dumb, but i don't think he's making the point that you think he's making.
chiefwigie 2 years ago
dude your right this is why I hate religion I mean god doesn't exist I believe we already proved it at some point we just gotta remember what was it that happened that god never existed?
OverInfMagicSpellGod 2 years ago
You are a very bright young man. Cut your hair and shave your beard and get a shirt wit a collar and stop listening to metal and you might have an audience.
baresolid 2 years ago
WTF baresolid? Fuck you, you elitist asshole. With your dogmatic views on culture and society, you yourself are just as bad as the douchebag tooltime is talking about.
mparker18311 2 years ago
your a dick baresolid
GrandTristan 2 years ago
Everybody watch Hitchens and Fry take on catholics... brilliant destruction
guyit 2 years ago
what are your thoughts on the recent debate with dinesh,boteach vs
hitchens,harris,dennett
dinesh is slipperier than ever
10sodot 2 years ago
Haha, it's so true. You can only really know if someone tells you! Magic magic magic!
MassSubstitution 2 years ago
About Wilson - I know him well enough to say that he is NOT a hypocritical freak. He is an honest person. But he is a wrong honest person. But it is out of his honesty that he has been under constant fire from his fellow believers, especially from the Reformed camp. He is also a man of a noble character. I think Hitchens recognizes that. And when we christicize Christians we must be ready to treat them as usual people - some are hypocrites, some are mistaken sincerely.
alexeirayu 2 years ago
Don't be upset with this. There are some ways believers get away with with Chris Hitchens - especially demagogues like Craig Lane. Presuppositionalism is a dirty trick - that is true. But it is because this trick needs some knowledge of logic and philosophy it is hard for an average person to uncover. An easy view in which I usually explain this is: It is wrong for a persona to say "I just believe what I want and you have to disprove that". It is wrong to presuppose things of high abstraction.
alexeirayu 2 years ago
I do not believe the word "revalation" was used throughout the whole film. Anyway, you perceive Wilson's argument to be a Cartesian circle which leads me to believe you did not quite understand what he was saying. If that were the case Hitchens would have easily refuted it.
I'll go back and watch the film to see if I missed something, perhaps you should do the same, that way we might better understand each other.
XxJeffSimmonsxX 2 years ago
No the argument of Wilson was ethical mostly. "How do you know what is good and evil?" Hitchens answered that in his book "God is not great", but chooses to not respond in debates. But the error of pers. thinking as developed by Shaeffer and then Van Til is that it takes God as an axiom. Which can not be done. They have to say god is self-evident, and this is where they really start to be flat baloney. But it can't be an axiom for all reaons in the world.
alexeirayu 2 years ago
Wilson never claimed that a person who has not read the Bible is destitute of reason. Infact, all that was said on that front was that appealing to reason to reasonably refute the Bible is begging the question just as appealing to the Bible to justify the Bible is begging the question.
Wilson claims in his morality argument that Christopher has no basis on which to substantiate his morality and therefore should not write so adamantly.
You really have no reason to be indignant.
XxJeffSimmonsxX 2 years ago
wilson said that he thinks we can know nothing except though revelation, and that is what i addressed.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
i was under the impression that Hitch didnt know how to respond to Wilsons faith in reason argument
thebarefootrunner 2 years ago
And when debating with demagogue Lane Hitchens almost entirely dismissed his ugly games of mind. Atkins interacted more in his debate with Lane. But the issue is this: You can get the issue of God and reason so up into abstracts and speculate, when at the same time in plain facts it contradicts the facts and moral. Hitchens did right to not spend his time joining speculations. He has facts.
alexeirayu 2 years ago
Well put Wilson is clearly full of shit, 2000 + years of religion have proven that the claims made by them are simply untrue.
bcmalloy 2 years ago
It's weird. I see Hitches do that a lot. He rarely ever jumps on people when they make no sense at all. Like the debate with Al Sharpton. The nonsense Sharpton was spewing was asking to be preyed upon, but Hitchens didn't even nudge to attack it.
overthar 2 years ago
I know what you're talking about, I was watching Hitchens debate with some smarmy rabbi and I found myself enraged at his restraint in smashing him to bits.
hal970fx 2 years ago
I've watched through Collision a couple times now, though I've been a bit busy lately and I wanted to just quickly ask if anyone can tell me about what part of the movie does Wilson make this statement Tooltime is referring to?
Oh, also I think I've gathered that the editor of the movie surely must have taken out some of Hitchens' better responses. I am guessing he just may have been slightly biased. Def a few instances where Hitch should/would have responded better.
Just an observation.
IanBillings00 2 years ago
Wow, Hitchens got creamed that badly to invoke this much passion in you. Maybe you should debate Wilson.
kaleowao 2 years ago
Awesome video. You sound a little like me in this one. Don't be offended.
agnosticman77 2 years ago
Good point.
classicchinadoll 2 years ago
i listen to you while i play wow... but you're pretty, too
dragonkiss131 2 years ago
wilson is a pompous ass, consoling himself with bronze age fables...
kmardes 2 years ago 3
Ok so, what do you really think of this guy?
NEWSTOGOD 2 years ago
The reason the "atheism is faith" card is played over and over and over again is because they wish to make it (or at least make it SEEM) as if it is a matter of comparative faiths.
Yes, they wish to drag us "down to their level." Their level is THEIR home court and the game there is played by THEIR rules.
And they're very good at THAT game, where your evidence and reason don't mean jack shit.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
What is behind that tarp!?
Paulwhoisvegan 2 years ago
Not only that, but Douglas Wilson is actually a total right-wing nutjob. He's affiliated with the "neo-Confederates" who say that the antebellum American South was the first instantiation of the kingdom of God and that it was also the "most harmonious multi-ethnic society in history." If you don't believe me look it up.
If you ask me, people like Hitchens are giving him more legitimacy than he deserves by sharing a panel with him.
RayBobb 2 years ago
I think Hitchens is playing games with Wilson, in that, Wilson's arguments never stood a chance to begin with and Hitchens, I think, is subtly making an example of him with these touring interviews and such. The various news interviews were quite amusing and drew some people's awareness to the atheist side of the discussion that perhaps may not have occurred otherwise. I think he slipped in enough subtle mockery of Wilson's absurd perspectives to discourage some fence-sitters from religion.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
I think that Tooltime is misunderstanding Wilson's point, mainly that he doesn't believe in unaided human reason, but that reason itself is a divine revelation from God to man, which is a Reformed concept.
He's using reason to attempt to prove God's existence, but I agree that it doesn't work.
DonusAmbrose 2 years ago
I think this issue arises due to Doug Wilson's presuppositional apologetics...perhaps he should be an evidentialist...?
DonusAmbrose 2 years ago
I agree. It's sometimes frustrating to see our (?) (atheism's) spokespeople let the apologists get away with bullshit without calling them on it.
NonStampCollector 2 years ago
I think that because Hitchens is friends with Wilson, it makes him go soft on the guy.
puellanivis 2 years ago
"You can't understand the bible if you don't accept Jesus as Lord. Here, I will tell you what it means. What? You feel that my interpretation is arbitrary and supports only *MY* worldview and opinions? How dare you! These are the revealed word of our Lord and Saviour!"
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
I refused to watch that documentary as soon as I heard him say "I believe the fact of gods existence is self evident" /facepalm
NO ITS FUCKING NOT!!!
Hitchens is just an arsehole. Ive seen him debate and all he does is call god a prick alot of the time. He never just picks people up on basic bullshit and lets them get away with too much stuff. This is okay for a layperson but he practically does this professionally so I hold him to a higher standard.
SamNoble89 2 years ago
lol one of your best vids in my opinion, keep it up. Its cool that you've always got room for humour!
FretNinja 2 years ago
And if it's your innate moral sense, which differs from everyone else's, even between christians of the same denomination, how is that any different from opinion?
It completely falls apart, and we're left right back where we started.
I need to be one of the 4 horsemen, debating people like that, because I can do a pretty good job (if you'll excuse my humility) of answering them on questions of morality as well as TAG and reliability of scripture or any other claim, etc.
GBart 2 years ago
And so can you tooltime. Much better than me on a lot of points.
GBart 2 years ago
The worse problem is how the hell can you distinguish between a true revelation and a false one? Two people think they talked to god, one says to spread the faith, another says to kill a bunch of peope, who is right and how can you know? If it's by consistency with the Bible, first, the murderer is more consistent, and second, how the hell do you know the Bible was true revelation? Is it simply a matter of whichever one has the most backers?
GBart 2 years ago
yes it is a matter of who has the most backers
its so more people can gang up on and persecute those who dont beleive the same as them
blackstonewielder19 2 years ago
Collision was actually a very poorly put together video. If you have seen some of the raw debates, Hitchens pwns Wilson on all of those points. I really didn't like Collision, it seemed to want to be too artsy, and didn't focus on the content of the arguments.
IdleGod 2 years ago
Both Douglas Wilson and "Together for Peace" (Jack the dog torturer) are in the religion business; this is part of their marketing program. The brand of religion they are selling is a down market product intended for ignorant people who are impressed with shiny things.
happyjesus123 2 years ago 6
blow jobs
BarelySimplistic 2 years ago 2
The "can't know anything except through revelation" argument suffers another flaw that even those who accept the possibility for supernatural revelation have to deal with. Take for example, Christians who believe that Christ and Satan are both supernatural beings. Christians believe God "revealed" truth to prophets such as Moses. But they also believe Satan revealed lies to Eve in the Garden. QED, supernatural revelation isn't a reliable way to "know" what is true.
Geodge 2 years ago
I share your frustrations with Hitchens lettin Wilson off lightly - in fact he does it with nearly everyone he debates. I think it has more to do with the fact that Hitchens loves the argument itself so much he doesn't want to go all out in case he was too effective.
This was kind of belied with his final statements in Collision and in the four horsemen video
anwyll 2 years ago
The "can't know anything except through revelation" argument suffers another flaw that even those who accept the possibility for supernatural revelation have to deal with. Take for example, Christians who believe that Christ and Satan are both supernatural beings. Christians believe God "revealed" truth to prophets such as Moses. But they also believe Satan "revealed" lies to Eve in the Garden. QED, "revelations" do not have to be true.
Geodge 2 years ago
You can only know things through revelation? Man I love pseudo-intellectuals. They make me feel a lot smarter than I really am.
zbambam5 2 years ago 2
Sorry Tooltime, but nothing in this video is revelation, so it must be discounted. Thankfully god revealed to me that this was the case.
Poe.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
This may be a stupid question, and excuse my ignorance, but have you read the Satanic Bible?
It's very interesting.
CityUndead 2 years ago
Imagine a newborn baby opening it's eyes for the first time. That is irl example of primacy of existence.
Signofthedollar 2 years ago
i feel your pain tooltime, its very frustrating to accept the fact that we are living in a world where there is so much technology and so much knowledge abailable to everyone and yet there are still people that believes in magic, gods, demons, withces and all that stupid and supersticious crap.
Kortosis 2 years ago 3
Wow, your really sound frustrated.
Can't blame you.
Whenever I encountered arguments of the "everything is believe" kind it irritated me a great deal.
Merely because this means the automatic rejection of any dissenting opinion on a technicality, rendering everything arbitrary and subjective.
Discussion becomes a waste of time then.
Weltenweber 2 years ago
@Weltenweber
I feel discussion is a waste of time with the majority of believers anyway.( at least the discussion of the necessity of their faith and all that nonsense)
zbambam5 2 years ago
Presuppositionalism...if only I'd known that word when I was playing scrabble last week.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago 3
I actually may believe wilson when he says every belief system has a basis in faith (or assumptions). In mathematics one must first assume a set of axioms to be true. Isn't the same true in all things? I may believe in some proposition after it has been demonstrated to me, but don't my desires and personality also effect my judgement in regards to the proposition? I have to have faith that I am looking at the evidence objectively and that my reasoning is valid and not subject to my desires.
TheHeather1985 2 years ago
The only thing I know for certain without any faith, is that I am in a constant state of ignorance. Please correct me if there's something I am missing.
TheHeather1985 2 years ago
without faith u are free and able to reason. You are missing reason
thegreatestbak 2 years ago
You can believe something based on evidence(not faith) and still not claim absolute certainty. There isn't a dichotomy between faith and certainty, there's also belief based on evidence with varying degrees of certainty.
Dem212 2 years ago
An Albert Camus tattoo. I can't be certain on this, but I have faith.
billhicks8 2 years ago
TheHeather1985 - Axioms are used as a starting point and there are varying types of axioms. They don't just make postulations and leave it at that.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
I believe you're trying to say that a set of Axioms has to be tested to make sure it is consistent? If so I accept your point. But how do we know the axioms are true? (Yes I realize most of the time we don't care) By assuming they are true is this not faith?
TheHeather1985 2 years ago
TheHeather1985 - There's a distinct difference between believing something to be true and making an assumption, you can hypothesise whatever you want but it still needs researching prior to acceptance. There's also varying levels of accuracy dependant on what evidence is available.
This of course depends on the type of Axiom and where it's being applied.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
I don't quite see. I know that empirical evidence and inductive reasoning is not faith, though to a mathematics student it often seems so. But what about something like the axiom of choice. Whether you accept it or not you get a consistent interpretation of mathematics, but not equivalent. So when we accept the axiom of choice and distinguish cardinality of natural numbers and reals, it seems there is a hint of faith, because we took choice functions for granted.
TheHeather1985 2 years ago
TheHeather1985 - Define the term Axiom of choice.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
Sorry, I thought you had a math background. If the definition seems incoherent skip it. The choice axiom states that you can construct a function from a set of subsets of a set 'N' into the set 'N' such that the function chooses an element of the subset and maps the subset to the chosen element. The point being that this is far from self evident, and there is no empirical basis for it, but it is taken for granted. I think maybe we all have an axiom of choice somewhere in our philosophy.
TheHeather1985 2 years ago
TheHeather1985 - Just making sure because some silly buggers like using a variety of homonyms, acronyms, synonyms and all the other nym's you can think of.
The problem is AC is it's a 19th century toy and the basic principle of it works 'dependant' on the verity and usages.
Or Bertrand Russell is full of shit.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
I like how I can ask an honest open question and get a thumbs down, it was probably some trogladyte who couldn't read past the first line.
Anyway, Dem212, that was a good answer and changed my perspective on the topic.
TheHeather1985 2 years ago
I think this argument is sound, but would be far more effective naked - I often do it in shopping centers around 3.30 when the schools kick out
MoreSciFiThanScience 2 years ago
It seems like your videos have been going down the rambling road for a while, i certainly miss some of the earlier ones where someones argument was obliterated or something. However it was indeed funny to listen to your ramble, and yes there was some value, near the beginning though i think.
Riphel 2 years ago
Damn! What is behind that tarp?!!!
Paulwhoisvegan 2 years ago
Wilson and Hitchens are buddies touring with their road show. The debate circuit is a debate circus with Wilson as the stooge or fall-guy. It's a way to make a living, I suppose.
newalbion 2 years ago
it is really frustrating to go upstream against the theists barrage of misconstrued arguments... totally mindblowing stuff....
Paxmax 2 years ago
If atheism was considered to be a religion then should theism be a religion as well? I'm pretty sure that most christians who make the claim that atheism is religion consider christianity as their only religion instead theism and christianity.
jt263 2 years ago
It all sounded to be of value to me.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago 2
collision sucked. you're better off just watching hitchen's clips on youtube.
wubbadubdub 2 years ago
I didn't see why Hitchens didn't give any type of "evolutionary" account for morality. I know it's been said by at least a few mainstream atheists that our morals tend to come from what most benefits a society, and that society's without certain morals couldn't be sustained, and thefor only the ones with these morals would live on.
I've never really thought of how self-defeating their senses argument is. Thanks for pointing it out.
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
that stems from logic - if a society would allow murder to go unpunished it definitely wouldn't be a benefit to the society or allow it to grow and could in fact destroy it - through upbringing and tradition it becomes morality...
symelian 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is behind that tarp?!!
Paulwhoisvegan 2 years ago
well,honestly though,how the fuck do ya take any religious person seriously.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
Hitchens is a journalist. He's not a scientist he's just a journalist. I think people pay him more attention and give him greater credit than he deserves.
He's intelligent but not more than any average college educated person who doesn't live with their head up their ass. But he's also a biased jerk who has poor argument skills.
I don't dislike him but meh... Not surprised he let things slide.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
@Otokogoroshi
I hear you. I like Hitch, but he's kind of hit and miss with me. Sometimes I watch him and I'm impressed, other times I feel like he's just being a bully, and interrupting people constantly.
SamTay04 2 years ago
Well you've called him an 'average college educated person who doesn't live with their head up their ass. But he's also a biased jerk who has poor argument skills.'
I don't think you really like him.
I wish most people came out of college could write so fluently about Thomas Paine's Rights Of Man, call out folks like Kissinger as war criminal before nearly anybody else with a shred of credibility, emphasize the importance of the restoration of the Parthenon.
billhicks8 2 years ago
Argue FOR a controversial war on a humanitarian basis (Iraq, not necessarily saying he's right), write convincing books on Palestinian rights, Jefferson and the founding fathers tendency towards agnosticism, Atheism and be one of the best public speakers I've ever seen talk about such subjects INCLUDING an insightful debate with A.C Grayling on World War 2. All this while being able to comprehend a little bit of science it seems in his busy schedule.
Corrections: 'DOES live with head up ass'
billhicks8 2 years ago
Hitchens just isnt that good at debating, he seems to me to be more focused on making blunt attacks on religion rather than carefully analysing the claims the way that you do. I think that really the best atheist debators are to be found as regular people on youtube, like TheoreticalBS, you, smpunditz, etc. People like Dawkins and Hitchens tend to be a little too broad in their approach.
Staunts 2 years ago
I think Wilson is a little mental. After all, he said that God's command to exterminate the Amalekites was morally ok. Anyone who says that genocide is good, without even blinking, should go see a shrink.
gigi4123 2 years ago
Aw man, I know. I could see that your head was about to explode and I thought, if Peter's head explodes I would have no one to help me keep my head from exploding. Then we'd all be fucked.
ghostofdayinperson 2 years ago
Good rant, by the way. You pretty much covered it all.
Don't discount it as "rambling". Your structure and tone display exactly the kind of reaction someone should have in response to this insanity. :)
dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj 2 years ago
It is true that we always have to work with assumptions, but the purpose of logic and science is to find explanations which require as little assumption as possible.
Wilson proposes the biggest assumption of all, and one which has been proven to be unreliable. He assumes that ancient rumors and voices in the heads of lunatics are accurate.
Now, if you make Wilson's assumption about that, he actually does have some interesting things to say. Wilson should be writing fantasy novels.
dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj 2 years ago