I really feel Hitchens is joking from beyond the grave at 1.50 when watching this. although I'm not supposed to believe that. just a feeling, that's all...lol.
Unbelievable, only with religion can a perfectly grown up educated person talk about fairy tales as if they were true. Mr. Hitchens takes this one and any other religious crackpot without the need of notes.
The reverend said that some people need to be treated harshly, referring to the amelekites.. so children ought to be killed and preteen girls ought to be raped because god said so.. And he is putting that on the same level as incarerating manson for his multiple murders.
If you want a good person to do/say something wicked,,,,it takes religion
@JacyJ1 The ten commandments themselves are largely 'restrictive rules' as well. This would make them better. The bad thing about restrictive ones is they tend to be more vague than 'proactive' ones.
9:37 is priceless. Hitchens makes himself a bit uncomfortable with the truth he was stumbling upon, then reverts to non-reason and just makes a non-sequiter atheist conclusion. "its self evident" is a faith-based statement,, not a reason based statement
9:37 is priceless. Hitchens makes himself a bit uncomfortable with the truth he was stumbling upon, then reverts to non-reason and just makes a non-sequiter atheist conclusion. "its self evident" is a faith-based statement,, not a reason based statement
@buitrami Hmm. So if a grave is ever discovered in the Middle East with a skeleton in it that could be proved (and accepted by all religious authorities) to be the non-resurrected body of Jesus, you would immediately start raping and killing? Good to know - I'll be sure to avoid people like you...
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Like all Sripture, this was written to the reasonable mind. Do unto others, on a normal day-to-day basis, what you would have them do unto you. This was given in the context of summarizing the 10 Commandments - the Law. If we had to make mention of every exception every time we "summarized" a philosophy then not much else would get done. Of course there are exceptions.
Hitchens exults law established by a society over transcendent moral law. I think the Jews in Nazi Germany would take issue with him. To be an atheist one must embrace moral relativism. And to embrace moral relativism is to embrace nihilism.
@JWGames What a pointless example of Godwin's law. Surely the laws established by a democratic society (as I believe you are insinuating Mr. Hitchens is in advocacy of), in combination with the courts of the judicial system establish moral relativism as can best be made feasible across a large body of people?
is god willing to prevent even but not able? then he is not omnipotent. is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent. is he both willing and able? then whence cometh evil. is he neither willing nor able? then why call him god?
@steflondon88 Isn't god all knowing? Wouldn't he then already know who will believe and who won't before they die? If so why create creatures that he knows are doomed to hell? It's a sadistic game.
@BrainInSkull yes, God is all knowing. God has his elect, and he knows exactly who will be in glory with Him. God did not create creatures to be doomed to hell. God originally created man good, and as long as man continued to be dependent on God and trust in him in all things, he was good. But as soon as man fell and threw dependence on God out of the window, he was cursed. But Christ, as our mediator, takes our sins on His shoulders and pays for them through his death on the cross.
@andrewweis What are you talking about, after looking at the clips of the audience one your wrong, Asian would than be they were born in Asia, of which you could not know passed just at looking at it. And you do grasp, the US is not just Caucasian people right? Even if they are not US born which would make them AMERICAN you tool. Many do come to the US for education, but wow.. Wow, what do you honestly have against people from asia or would be Asian America do even care?
@ASexyChef How can you blame a guy for hating Asians? They can't drive for shit, and they're all like "Me sucky-sucky love you long time".. And they always type the word "your" when the correct usage is "you're".. Hm. You must have some Chink blood in you I bet.
@mikeyo1234 Hello Mikey. I didn't start out here as a troll. My first comment was "Why are most of the students Asian?". Some retard/repressed virgin/jackoff went on a paragraph long rant about what a racist bigot I am. His reaction was so manic that I thought he was a troll himself... Thus, my reply.
This 'debate' seems to sum up perfectly what happens when you put up an Oxford grad against your average Idaho idiot. Only religion could possibly have these men on the same stage. You have to watch in awe as one reasons and the stubles over his own words and preaching the same old arguments over and over.....
In all seriousness, I watch and listen stupefied, humbled, and full of awe and praise when Christopher responds. His is truly a beautiful mind. Mr. Wilson serves as a lovely foil, and perfect catalyst, to urge the impeccable extemporaneous dialectically driven responses by Sir Christopher.
@komododr Whatever you want to call it. He seems to understand very little of the way those who believe it actually see it, which to me would be key to demonstrate if he were especially sincere in his effort to persuade reasonable people away from it's dangers. The man is an absolute master of obfuscation.
Hitchens whole point is to try to discredit Christianity, not to espouse his view that there is no God. I don't think he even believes there is no God. Many of his arguments pre-suppose the existence of morals and absolutes, which can only come from a designer & creator. A system with rules (nature) must have a rule-writer. Hitchens continues to argue for Christianity.
@snowbladin Hunh> Why can morals only come from 'a designer & creator'? Yours is a circular argument. Even if you believe that, you must accept that - then you must accept that forms of morality in other civilisations predated christian morality and so therefore must have come from a creator (your belief) and therefore a creator other than the christian one. Which would suggest your belief in christianity is a false one, no?
What I dont understand is that there are alot more non believers commenting on/about these types of debates yet there are many more believers in the world than us. Where do the believers all hide when they're made to look like fools?? Silence is golden.
love how he pats hitchens on the shoulder and hitch just ignores him, wilson tried a cheap way of acting like they both agree on a point where its obvious they dont
I think it's interesting that Wilson says Jesus was not predicting the end of the world but rather just the destruction of Jerusalem even though Matthew 24:3 says "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
@gamlastanarn I think that Hitchens, despite his projected outward appearance, is a believer in the innate goodness of mankind. He does believe that he should be leaving the world a better place (particularly for his daughters).
I think he would say, "it is my duty to myself and my fellow man to help rid mankind of these harmful fictions and the oppressions inherent in religion." That's why he does these talks (and to sell books).
There is a purity in native American religion........they are animists........spiritual people that believe all life eminates from a "great white father" that gives life to all animals, trees and living things.........point is, overwhelmed by white settlers claiming to be Christians set to annahilate a peaceful people is a prime example of Bible toting religious people who preach peace, then call upon the extreme right to cpnquer defenseless people in the spirit they must destroy paganism...
@warwickshire008 Although Europeans certainly did and continue to do great harm to native Americans, it is the diseases that came with Europeans that did/and continue to do, the most harm to their populations & their culture.
God Almighty, the creator of all things (if he exists) gave us diseases out of His love(?) for us.
I think theology is just another branch of philosophy. A part of philosophical thought evolved into empirical science and and theology sort of devolved into trying to figure out the unknown by thinking they know what they're talking about.
Totally irrelavant in my view. People must either accept that if god manifests himself in the natural world then it's a job for science and if he doesn't manifest himself in this universe then how is it going to be the philosophy of human minds evolved in and adapted to the natural world that's going to understand him? Theologist are just trying to understand the answerables in a way, but that does not mean they actually mean anything universally.
He said in the previous video that Jesus was quoting Isiah. Regardless, the stars falling to the earth? The nearest star to the earth is our sun. One star, any star, would easily destroy the entire planet. If you make the claim--as many do--that the prophecy is allegorical or metaphorical then you are left with the burden to provide guidelines on how to distinguish allegorical, metaphorical, and the literal. And with that we'd be fortunate to find any two groups of xtians to agree!
pardon me . i just pressed post comment by accident. the fact is these believers think reincarnation is possible. now anyone with any common sense and understanding of basic science, potential distortion of the mind and subliminal messaging must understand that their beliefs have no real foundation.
Wilson's quip that there was a "fall", while witty, is pointless. Because under his view, if we are made in the image of "god", then even if we "fell" we are STILL the image of "god". It gets him nowhere!
@dbes02 And you can make that statement based on.... your theological training? You're presuming to know Wilson's view, even though you obviously have no religious training.
@dbes02 Well, in many theological schools, theology has become indistinguishable from graduate programs in Anthropology, Gender Studies, Religion, and Sociology. In other words, theology is less and less about the study of God, and more and more about the role of religion in society. I'm not sure that argues well for the future of theology as it is currently practiced, but it does seem to have morphed into something than can't be as easily reduced to the "study of make-believe," as you put it.
@dbes02 one of the main things theologians study is the world around us, and human life. they then look for the best possible answer to explain how such things were created and are sustained. you don't have the authority to re-define theology. your definition is wrong- that's why it's not in any dictionary or textbook.
@DonJay777 Well they don't study well at all -- if they stuck in an infantile attachment to fairy tales.That is the way it's defined. THEOLOGY: The study of the nature of god and inquiry into religious questions. Gods and religious belief are make believe, in the same bin as fairies and goblins and Valhalla and the Australian Aboriginal Dreatime.
I'm ambivalent towards Christopher Hitchens. He's eminently smart and gifted enough to communicate his ideas engagingly in books and speaking engagements. But he is also quite consciously a methodological sophist. He knowingly misapplies, misconstrues, and mis-contextualizes. Of course I owe it to whomever is reading this to provide examples. But that is a bit more of a task than it might appear, because Hitchens is particularly good at 'water-proofing' his sophistry.
@dbes02 -- So you agree with Hitchens's staunch support for the invasion of Iraq? And how about his pro-life middle ground position on abortion. He believes in the idea of an "unborn child" and although he opposes the overturning of Roe v Wade, he accepts that a fetus in theory has human rights. And do you also agree with his hawkish hard-line position on the west's prosecution of the war on radical Islam?
There is no simple black/white position on abortion, hence it is possible to support a number of positions. A line needs to be drawn somewhere - between the rights of the mother and the rights of the developing fetus. Same way we draw lines on the right of animals. I support early-term abortion.
A line also has to be drawn between internal rights of nations and broader rights of people. eg, killing people over cartoons is a crime.
Psychologically, faith is just a coping mechanism for people who cannot deal with the fact that they will die, and quite probably cease to exist. Furthermore, it is a coping mechanism for dealing with unexplanable natural phenomenon. In the other words, faith is an act of doubt; doubting God's existence, but still making choices based on the assumption that he does. Atheists doubt God exists, and make choices on the assumption that he doesn't because there is no evidence.
It's interesting to hear Hitchens say this: "I'm very glad that there's no reason to believe that there is a supernatural guidance and authority, because if there was one, it would be able to convict me of thought crime and it would be an unanswerable, unchallengeable, totalitarian dictatorship. So to me it's a huge pleasure to realize the evidence for this is non-existent." Sure sounds to me like someone who is afraid of accountability and simply wants no consequence for thier actions.
If you're accountable to God are you not still accountable to those whom you cause a grievance? Why must one be accountable to God to be accountable to others? I don't take responsibility for my actions because I'm afraid of being punished by a higher power - I do it because it's reasonable to do so.
If history has proved anything it is that accountability to a higher power, that cannot physically enforce its power, is not accountability at all.
Technically you're only accountable to those to whom you cause a grievance if you've criminally wronged them. Any other accountability is based on your sense of "moral rightness." I think it comes down to what you believe about your faith. I think most Christians believe ultimately that accountability, and law, is God-given, and therefore the final accountability IS with God. Furthermore, Christians believe that God can, and will (at Judgement), enforce His "power".
"Moral rightness" is only decisions which advocate life, i.e. survival, and prosperity (not just material, i.e. opportunities for learning), for others where applicable, but primarily for one's self. The beauty is that where necessary killing or theft becomes permissible, such as self-defence, or the need to steal because you are too poor to afford food. But such acts without good cause endanger both your own life and that of others. What would religion have you do?
He wants it and we have it. It's called law. A godly authority is redundant. Law is one third of democracy in theory and practice. Did you grow up blind to this authority?
For the slow kids, what he is saying is that Magical Sky Hitler is NOT the kind of being under whose thumb you'd wish to live. Are you really so fucking dense that you can't see this? Is it so hard to think that anyone who would equate thought crime with actual, measurable harm is an immoral prick? You really don't get this?
The blief that God is a "hitler: is put in your mind by a spirit you aren't aware of.
It is an accusation that has taken place since the war in heaven when lucifer was thrown out with a 3rd of the angles - whom he deceived in exactly the same way. He also told this "3rd" that God was unfair. That God was a dictator. Funny, this same lie is being accepted by you.
You really need to take a closer look at Christianity. It is clear you have bad info,
It just sounds to me like someone who's probably read 1984, hence the 'thought crime' reference, and thinks it would be awful to live in a society like that. That's how he sees god: like big brother.
God doesn't need to know what we think. He can see what we think by how we act. He knows what we think when we invite Him in to our being through Salvation in His Son.
God won't force us to "behave".
God created us in His image. He simply offfers to restore us to this once perfect state (And then some) if we wish to - Revelation the last chapter says : The Spirit and The Bride say "Come".
Its an invitation. You either want the character of God - eternally, or you don't.
Hitchens says that he, along with everyone else, is here as a result of random mutation and natural selection, whereas wilson says he is the created in god's image. Hitchens has proof and wilson has faith. Is this a reasonable basis for a debate?
I'm sorry that you have not heard a good explanation for evolution, but that's your fault. Read Richard Dawkins' new book, the Greatest show onEarth. I did, and it is written in a way that even people unschooled in biology can understand.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I didn't say I haven't heard dozens of people, including Dawkins, try to explain their "belief" in evolution. What I am saying, is that there is no reasonable explanation FOR evolution. In other words - it cannot be supported by anything more than faith.
Richard Dawkins himself has stated his doubts about evolutiuon - albeit unwittingly.
Your assertion that Dawkins unwittingly expressed doubts on the validity of theToE, is inaccuate at best, and a stupid lie at worst. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
To lexscripta1 - Evolution cannot be supported by anything more that faith?
Have you heard of fossils, DNA sequencing and carbon dating? There is a huge scientific body of evidence to support evolution. You are just stubbornly ignorant.
Of course not. 'Hitchens has proof and Wilson has faith' - read 'Hitchens has proof and Wilson has belief'. If I said to you 'I believe' or 'I have faith' that 'it will rain tomorrow' and you said 'It is very likely, almost certain, that it it won't because we're in Saudi Arabia and it hardly ever rains here', is there a debate? Why is a religious debate any different? It's not. Religion regards the certainty of uncertainty as certain...
Exactly, and yet they say 'I have faith'. To proclaim faith is to proclaim uncertainty, by definition of the word. To put it more simply, to say 'I have faith that god exists' is truth-conditionally the same as saying 'I don't know if God exists, but I believe he does'. By way of example: I have faith in my chances of waking up tomorrow. I don't know 100%, but there is a pretty good chance of it happening.
The minute I hear some one say something about their faith, I tune out. They are making a statement of superiority, of which they have no right. I recently saw a video that had gay scientists discovering the christian gene. There were interviews of parents lamenting about the fact that their children were christians by saying it's not their fault. If it can't be explained genetically, then maybe psychologically
You can look it up in any dictionary - Faith is a form of belief, and belief is essentially the same as faith, but with emotional implications. That's all. Belief implies uncertainty in the fact of whatever you believe in, otherwise you would not exercise belief - you would just know.
Dude, why would I ask a man for the definition of Faith? That's utterly ridculous. I am not a secular humanist - my answers are not the sum total of what man is capable of understanding. That would be endless self deception - as is clearly seen by the state of the world today.
You need to break out of the weak humanistic philosophies and taste reality.
It isn't the Christian that has limited vision. Its the non-believer.
This isn't philosophy I'm arguing about here, it's the fact of the meaning of the words you use everyday - for any denial of such meaning would render you a raving idiot. This isn't philosophy, it is, in fact, the realest we can possibly get without sharing the same brain - communication. Deny the logical faculty of language and you might as well cluck like a chicken for your words would be worth as much.
It is for this same reason that I don't have faith in God becase in the case of God, we don't have any evidence or experience on which to base our faith, as we do in waking up tomorrow.
Christians believe that God exists. The evidence is overwhelming in this regard.
The faith you speak of is what Christians must excersize in order to be saved. The belief part is a given, Faith is the trust and confidence that God can do and will do what he says. Faith is about salvation, having a much bigger role than simple belief. We believe because the evidence points to the existence of a God based on the evidence. The real argument therefore, is interpretation of the evidence.
Because thinking without criticism is needed before any decision can be made. Criticism imposed on thinking would cause thinking to vanish. If you assume who you are is what goes on in your head (which you are) then being convicted of thought crime would be like punishing a mentally retarded person for being mentally retarded.
The thought crime that God imposes is not just criticism of thinking, it's mental decisions. Like choosing to hate people, or choosing to lust after someone who isn't your spouse.
That would defeat the purpose of making and decision. If you are only permitted to have a certain set of opinions. Also, we have a natural ability for morality, there is a part in the brain to handle most moral decisions(don't kill people, don't steal shit) thus we can say that we would be incapable of thought crime. Psychopaths don't have that particular function and so, in a way, when we put psychopaths in jail we do seek to have justice for thought crime. Not for lust however, we need it.
"That would" not "defeat the purpose of making a decision" any more than a normal law and punishment. You are punished for murder. May I whine about that defeating the purpose of my decisions?
A part of the brain to handle moral decisions? Then why do we need laws? Do you respond to that moral "intuition"? What if mine says don't lust, but doesn't say don't kill?
Or maybe religion takes morals from man, and man being imperfect from the beginning, it would make sense considering your so called God's law has serious flaws in its so called "morality".
I would argue that morality must separate itself from religion because religion would corrupt morality. Instead of doing good because it is human and the right thing to do, people do good because they are scared of hell?? That's not real morality, that's a false morality.
Prove it is not. Take away the only logical reason for morality, i.e. God commands it and he punishes those who transgress the moral law, and what do you have? Preference, i.e. relativism. Why should I follow a law if it is not based on a higher moral law? Because society says so? That doesn't stop people from breaking moral and ethical codes. It might prevent most, but if society is thoroughly corrupted, no amount of laws can save it.
Believing in a God doesn't stop people from commiting crimes. If you don't want to follow a law just because its not backed by God, well let's hope you never drop religion until you can follow the law otherwise.
This is the ultimate fear of those who fear secularism, they believe relativism takes place and everything evil is acceptable. Wrong. You do good because it makes logical and reasonable sense. It can't be because a "god or gods" said so. Then people don't know why its good.
My faith is what allows me to follow God's law, though I am not perfect. The Christian doctrine is called Sanctification. I commit sins even if I am not aware, but I confess my sins, and God forgives me. Secularism in the extreme forms of the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany produced all manner of evils, and we practise things like abortion, cursing, slander, sexual immorality, etc., and we are just as bad as Hitler or Stalin. To be moral, atheists have to be inconsistent, they borrow morals from God.
Your comment doesn't follow from what I said. I am responsible to God for every action of mine, I can never abandon my responsibility, I will answer and be held accountable for each and every action before God, but I'm justified by Christ's merit, not my own. Admitting my sins before God, and asking his pardon do not make me more or less responsible, but I recognise I am a sinner and ask God to cleanse me of my unrighteousness.
You believe you can be "cleansed of your unrighteousness" by simply asking your imaginary friend to forgive you your wrongdoing. How is that not an abandonment of responsibility? You do not have to live with the consequences of your actions. You do not have to actively make an effort to make amends for what you have caused in order to make things right. Oh, no. You just confess your sins and your imaginary friend forgives you. And you call that morality. I call that a cop-out.
No, not a cop out, a statement of fact. I can ask God's forgiveness when I err, because I have sinned against him alone, and I can approach him because of Christ. I don't have to do 10 hail marys, or pray a rosary, or do good works to get back into God's good graces, I'm already there. God forgives me b/c of Christ's righteousness. I see you really don't care what I think, and I'm not bothered by your unbelief, however if you have questions ask any of us Reformed Christians, and we'll oblige.
You must have standard of what constitutes "fact" utterly detached from that of conventional language. I could have sworn the word "fact" was reserved for information known or proven to be true.
Yet, I do care what you think. Though I must say, I have seen no indication of that being reciprocated. Our altercation started out with you making the rather dubious claim that my morality is hinged upon inconsistency. That's plain nonsense. Especially in lieu of your abandonment of responsibility.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, you're definition of fact is correct, and I know what I believe to be a fact. I know the Bible to be true, I know God exists, and I follow what the Bible tells me on this and many other subjects. The morality of Atheists is inconsistent, b/c it comes from God, yet they deny that he exists. I explained how I am responsible to God and how Christ fits into it all, but unless you believe God exists, or grant that he might and that the Bible is his word, then no argument of mine can sway you.
Whether the Bible is, in fact, true is neither here nor there. You have yet again misplaced the "knowledge" and "proof" requirements. Regardless of the truth of your beliefs they can neither be known nor proven to be true and therefore fall short of "fact."
As for atheistic morality being inconsistent because it's from God, that's just begging the question. You have yet to show this to be the case. Furthermore, it's irrelevant since even if it is, consistent godless morality is still possible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A fact is true. The truth of my beliefs are shared, known by others, yet are not 'true' in that you disagree with them. We have the witness of scripture, it's history, logical consistency, and archaeological evidence and the martyrs who died for it's truth, yet it's not 'true'. Morality is a complete body of law, which includes obedience to God, if you deny God, youre not truly moral, you are inconsistent. God as a first cause ensures his own existence, he is the foundation of logic, outside it.
You seem to suffer under the misapprehension that 'fact' means 'consensus.' Even if beliefs are true and your in-group happens to agree, they are not PROVEN to be true. You BELIEVE they are true, you do not KNOW them to be. It's weird because a few comments up, you actually agreed that my definition of 'fact' was correct.
As to morality, it just means principles of right/wrong followed by a group of people. Just because I do not follow YOUR principles, that does not make me inconsistent.
A good point regarding consensus; AGW is an example of that. I believe and know my beliefs to be true, they are facts to me known by the Holy Spirit, on what authority and knowledge do you refute me? If a society you were a part of required that you sacrifice human beings to please the 'Gods', on what basis would you say they are wrong? It's what is socially permissible. My principles are the most consistent, they come from God, and I can say that human sacrifice is wrong, for all societies.
For something to constitute knowledge, it has to be not only a true belief but also justified. Personal revelation cannot be justified to anyone who hasn't shared the experience. Your faith is belief, not knowledge, not fact. Unless, of course, you can justify or prove it.
As to human sacrifice, do you believe Abraham would have done the right thing, if he hadn't been stopped by the angel? On what basis would you deem sacrifice wrong if God commanded it? Seems pretty inconsistent to me.
One way I justify my faith is through the change that has occurred in my life because of being a believer. Another is through the necessary existence of objective moral truth.
God never intended for Abraham to go through with that sacrifice, he was testing him. Having Abraham actually sacrifice Isaac would have gone against God's nature, frequently through scripture he condemns the practice. I deem such sacrifice wrong precisely because God condemns it. He is the ultimate authority.
To reiterate, personal revelation can't be justified to someone who hasn't shared the experience. Your personal anecdotes constitute neither fact nor knowledge.
Furthermore, there's no problem with having godless objective morality. You seem to think Divine Command Theory is the only alternative meta-ethical position to nihilism. You should read up on meta-ethics.
Do you recognise that there's a difference between consistency and truth value? Because you seem to have the two entirely confused.
'personal revelation can't...experience'; agreed. I have knowledge of myself and my experiences, it is true for me at least, if not others. Morality is then one way to prove God, since I assert the necessity of God's existence for objective truth to exist.
I'll look up meta-ethics, but the only logically consistent position I see is DCT, nihilism being the only other option, either objectivity exists, or it doesn't. Consistency, no contradictions; truth value, a proposition's relation to truth.
Since this comment was made I have come to repudiate the idea that God creates Logic, Logic is the structure of God's mind, he is not by nature irrational, and I have since then also rejected all theistic proofs.
@lycanthropy2010 There is no meaningful distinction between so-called macro and micro evolution. It's platitudinous nonsense made up by scientifically illiterate creationists. You would know this if you had any understanding of the subject whatsoever.
Seriously, mate. At least do some basic (and I do mean BASIC) reading on evolution before pretending to know what you're talking about.
@SketchSepahi based on what? is godless morality possible? You are born, you grow up, where does your conscious come from. How do you decipher good from bad?
@steflondon88 Honestly, if your superstitious beliefs are all that's stopping you from doing bad things, I sincerely hope you never lose faith. As for me I actually care about other people. I don't need the threat of punishment or the promise of reward to make me do what is right. I do what is right because I believe I and other people are better off for it. So yes, godless morality is very much possible. In fact, I would say it's the only morality that's truly moral. It has no alternate agenda.
@SketchSepahi Obviously I care for other people, obviously i have a heart and soul. But i believe that they were given to me by God. What gave us morality is my question. Do you honestly believe that something comes from nothing, that just like Wilson said, How do you expect to get Order from Chaos. Sludge turned into beautiful creation? I find THAT hard to believe. that atoms were colliding always, that they were always there with nobody to put them there. no that is not what i believe.
@steflondon88 Faith is an absence of evidence. Why not have faith in any one of the other numerous faith based myths that are available in every culture?
@kusalaviro I have Faith yes, But I also have a relationship with God, the only God whom I call Father, Friend, Counseller, Saviour, He is awesome. I have faith through the Holy Spirit. Faith is the very evidence for things not seen. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
@steflondon88 'Faith is the very evidence for things not seen. ' - WOW, what a statement! Not being able to see something is the evidence that it exists... That is very creative my friend, I'll give you that much. I guess we can apply that to every myth that ever has been. Fairies, big foot, unicorns... etc...
@steflondon88 Faith in a belief basically means 'a belief with zero evidence'. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
You have no relationship with God, you just attribute certain emotions and feelings to a fictitious figurehead. Why don't you believe in Zeus and Thor?
@mikeyo1234 Because I believe in the God in the bible. I believe in Jesus, who said I am the Truth the Way and the Life, no one comes to the father but by me. Zeus is myth, there is no actual Proof. There are eye witness accounts in the bible that all back each other up. The whole bible was written over different years, there are many scrolls that show it is fact, it is history. I have felt God change me and help me, and you know what? I do have a relationship with God. Don't presume to tell me
(continued) - that my faith is false, because I know it;s not. You can question it all you want. It's mine. The heavens declare the glory of God. You cant get something from nothing.
@steflondon88 You said "Zeus is a myth, there is no actual proof", however that's the same for the Christian God. Eye witness accounts lol... the bible was ripped off from paganism. In almost every religion their is a virgin birth and a resurrection... they are all ripped off from each other.
You don't have a relationship with God as he doesn't exist. You are just tapping in to your unconscious mind and deluding yourself it's God.
@mikeyo1234 Where in the world did you hear the Bible is ripped from Paganism. As God has created the world and the universe, and In the beginning was God. i hardly see how it was a copy of anything. Please explain your version of the how the first cell came to be? Why do you have a conscience, where do you get your morals from?You can't answer that without a creator. What religion has the CROSS. where the son of God died for the sins of man. And was risen on the 3rd day at the right hand of God
@steflondon88 If you do some study and research you will also learnt the truth about religions ripping each other off. This can be learned from many sources, it is better for you to investigate this yourself and make up your own mind.
Conscience and morals are behaviours required for survival, these behaviours evolved in order to help propagate the species. No creator is required.
Question for you: Who created the creator? What real evidence have you got for God existing?
@mikeyo1234 To say that Christianity is ripped off, or that the Bible is ripped off is way off base. If you put that into play I could say that Darwinism is copied from Ovid's stories called "Metamorphasis", because he talked about animals changing shapes and becoming different. You could apply this to many things. Bottom line, the bible has come true. The bible is God breathed and his way of speaking to His children. The creator is God, the Trinity, there is no other. That's my final word.
@steflondon88 Why don't you actually do some study. The facts are there if you dare research them. The problem is you don't want to because it would disprove the validity of your religion.
Also the comparison of Darwinism versus 'Metamorphasis' is not valid. There may be some creative crossover but the fact is that evolution has been proven whereas there is zero evidence for the existence of your God.
@mikeyo1234 Evolution has not been proven you do your own research. there are 10,000 Latin Manuscripts of the Bible, and 5,700 Greek manuscripts. Have you even read the whole bible, let a lone a part of it? These manuscripts all back each other up, the only variations are letters, or word changes that have the same meaning. The Bible is the holy truth from God. You dont even have proof. Why i even bothered replying I dont know,
@steflondon88 Evolution has been proven. God does not exist. Christianity rips of Paganism and other religions. Get an education and come back to me then. Good luck :)
Please prove how you know that the bible is the truth from God. Thanks.
A recent study showed that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than theists... so be careful telling an atheist they don't know something about religion.
It is generally Christians who cherry pick the bible and who have not read the whole thing. Have you read the parts regarding slavery, genocide and the part that says children should be killed for swearing at their parents? I thought not.
@steflondon88 The original is a copy of other religions. The virgin birth has existed in a lot of previous religions. Christmas is of Pagan origin. God can't bless anything as he doesn't exist. Best wishes.
I really feel Hitchens is joking from beyond the grave at 1.50 when watching this. although I'm not supposed to believe that. just a feeling, that's all...lol.
StrummingSparrow 1 month ago
Unbelievable, only with religion can a perfectly grown up educated person talk about fairy tales as if they were true. Mr. Hitchens takes this one and any other religious crackpot without the need of notes.
Gyurza 4 months ago
I can give a donkey. I'll make one in a minute...
fiesta181 5 months ago
The reverend said that some people need to be treated harshly, referring to the amelekites.. so children ought to be killed and preteen girls ought to be raped because god said so.. And he is putting that on the same level as incarerating manson for his multiple murders.
If you want a good person to do/say something wicked,,,,it takes religion
petelovesrat 5 months ago 5
the golden rule is "Do NOT do upon others what you would NOT have them do upon you" . It is a restrictive rule, rather than a proactive one
JacyJ1 7 months ago
@JacyJ1 The ten commandments themselves are largely 'restrictive rules' as well. This would make them better. The bad thing about restrictive ones is they tend to be more vague than 'proactive' ones.
pythor2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9:37 is priceless. Hitchens makes himself a bit uncomfortable with the truth he was stumbling upon, then reverts to non-reason and just makes a non-sequiter atheist conclusion. "its self evident" is a faith-based statement,, not a reason based statement
derrickbeining 9 months ago
9:37 is priceless. Hitchens makes himself a bit uncomfortable with the truth he was stumbling upon, then reverts to non-reason and just makes a non-sequiter atheist conclusion. "its self evident" is a faith-based statement,, not a reason based statement
derrickbeining 9 months ago
Why do I feel calm and happy when I read the Bible?
ExNihiloJimmy 10 months ago
@ExNihiloJimmy you're getting high.
JesusConvictScorpion 6 months ago
@ExNihiloJimmy Just try therapy.
Jornev 4 months ago
Wilson at least seems like a good sport
simpsonmark 11 months ago
Thoroughly enjoying this. Wilson is quite enjoyable for a theist, I must say.
morningstomper123 11 months ago
From a Christian, my respect for Hitchens has skyrocketed upward.
Youlube32 11 months ago 2
Without God, there can be no moral objective value...
buitrami 1 year ago
@buitrami >Without God, there can be no moral objective value...
>With God, there can be no moral objective value...
>Interpreting interpretations
AmericanAtheist1038 1 year ago
@buitrami Hmm. So if a grave is ever discovered in the Middle East with a skeleton in it that could be proved (and accepted by all religious authorities) to be the non-resurrected body of Jesus, you would immediately start raping and killing? Good to know - I'll be sure to avoid people like you...
exp9r 9 months ago
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Like all Sripture, this was written to the reasonable mind. Do unto others, on a normal day-to-day basis, what you would have them do unto you. This was given in the context of summarizing the 10 Commandments - the Law. If we had to make mention of every exception every time we "summarized" a philosophy then not much else would get done. Of course there are exceptions.
RPM11111 1 year ago
God is the first cause of everything.
Transformers217 1 year ago
@Transformers217
I guess he's just a robot in disguise.
coolal19 11 months ago
@coolal19 Lol!
Transformers217 11 months ago
Hitchens exults law established by a society over transcendent moral law. I think the Jews in Nazi Germany would take issue with him. To be an atheist one must embrace moral relativism. And to embrace moral relativism is to embrace nihilism.
JWGames 1 year ago
@JWGames What a pointless example of Godwin's law. Surely the laws established by a democratic society (as I believe you are insinuating Mr. Hitchens is in advocacy of), in combination with the courts of the judicial system establish moral relativism as can best be made feasible across a large body of people?
Xanias00 1 year ago
@JWGames But there are atheists who believe in moral absolutes. I think Hitchens does believe in absolutes.
Transformers217 1 year ago
if i were evil, i would want to be treated harshly, to be separated and kept from harming others
cruiscinlan 1 year ago
How can you be this stupid, is the only question I would ask this Wilson character.
Kan2209 1 year ago
is god willing to prevent even but not able? then he is not omnipotent. is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent. is he both willing and able? then whence cometh evil. is he neither willing nor able? then why call him god?
epicurus.
Democrit1to9Freud 1 year ago 3
and another thing, Hitchens brother is a Christian.
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 Isn't god all knowing? Wouldn't he then already know who will believe and who won't before they die? If so why create creatures that he knows are doomed to hell? It's a sadistic game.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull yes, God is all knowing. God has his elect, and he knows exactly who will be in glory with Him. God did not create creatures to be doomed to hell. God originally created man good, and as long as man continued to be dependent on God and trust in him in all things, he was good. But as soon as man fell and threw dependence on God out of the window, he was cursed. But Christ, as our mediator, takes our sins on His shoulders and pays for them through his death on the cross.
owengroen101 1 year ago
I am not going to argue with youtube trolls anymore, there isnt any point. your not face to face, your gonna argue till the cows come home. good bye.
steflondon88 1 year ago
Why are most of the students Asian?
andrewweis 1 year ago
@andrewweis What are you talking about, after looking at the clips of the audience one your wrong, Asian would than be they were born in Asia, of which you could not know passed just at looking at it. And you do grasp, the US is not just Caucasian people right? Even if they are not US born which would make them AMERICAN you tool. Many do come to the US for education, but wow.. Wow, what do you honestly have against people from asia or would be Asian America do even care?
ASexyChef 1 year ago
@ASexyChef How can you blame a guy for hating Asians? They can't drive for shit, and they're all like "Me sucky-sucky love you long time".. And they always type the word "your" when the correct usage is "you're".. Hm. You must have some Chink blood in you I bet.
andrewweis 1 year ago
@andrewweis Wow, wow, your an idiot.
ASexyChef 1 year ago
@andrewweis troll
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 Hello Mikey. I didn't start out here as a troll. My first comment was "Why are most of the students Asian?". Some retard/repressed virgin/jackoff went on a paragraph long rant about what a racist bigot I am. His reaction was so manic that I thought he was a troll himself... Thus, my reply.
andrewweis 1 year ago
@andrewweis Fair enough! I guess your comment was misinterpreted, as can happen. Here's to non-trolls everywhere :)
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
Hitchens is very weak on Christian Theology. < still he knows MUCH more than Wilson- so, what we make out of that? Hm?
trannyniggr 1 year ago
This 'debate' seems to sum up perfectly what happens when you put up an Oxford grad against your average Idaho idiot. Only religion could possibly have these men on the same stage. You have to watch in awe as one reasons and the stubles over his own words and preaching the same old arguments over and over.....
eawilson08 1 year ago
In all seriousness, I watch and listen stupefied, humbled, and full of awe and praise when Christopher responds. His is truly a beautiful mind. Mr. Wilson serves as a lovely foil, and perfect catalyst, to urge the impeccable extemporaneous dialectically driven responses by Sir Christopher.
bertinotti 1 year ago 2
@komododr Whatever you want to call it. He seems to understand very little of the way those who believe it actually see it, which to me would be key to demonstrate if he were especially sincere in his effort to persuade reasonable people away from it's dangers. The man is an absolute master of obfuscation.
endunamis 1 year ago
Hitchens is very weak on Christian Theology.
endunamis 1 year ago
@endunamis You mean Christian Delusion.
komododr 1 year ago 2
Hitchens whole point is to try to discredit Christianity, not to espouse his view that there is no God. I don't think he even believes there is no God. Many of his arguments pre-suppose the existence of morals and absolutes, which can only come from a designer & creator. A system with rules (nature) must have a rule-writer. Hitchens continues to argue for Christianity.
snowbladin 1 year ago
@snowbladin Hunh> Why can morals only come from 'a designer & creator'? Yours is a circular argument. Even if you believe that, you must accept that - then you must accept that forms of morality in other civilisations predated christian morality and so therefore must have come from a creator (your belief) and therefore a creator other than the christian one. Which would suggest your belief in christianity is a false one, no?
jif99 1 year ago 2
5:20 "Like O my god Im at a debate."
YahIDontKnow 1 year ago
Grant me the ass! :) great book title.
Blackerer 1 year ago
Hitchens is just like, "I'm not even gonna bother. This guy's proving my point for me."
valkyrie034 1 year ago
What I dont understand is that there are alot more non believers commenting on/about these types of debates yet there are many more believers in the world than us. Where do the believers all hide when they're made to look like fools?? Silence is golden.
wackydan74 1 year ago
that young lady at 7.20 ,i would say really needs a good sleep ,haha:)
kevrs2 1 year ago
@kevrs2 and at 8:00 :)
LowleyUK 1 year ago
love how he pats hitchens on the shoulder and hitch just ignores him, wilson tried a cheap way of acting like they both agree on a point where its obvious they dont
TheLydianRocks 1 year ago
@TheLydianRocks Yes, I would have had to argue against him on that point, but clearly Hitchens found it too obvious to bother.
Crazytalk589 1 year ago
I think it's interesting that Wilson says Jesus was not predicting the end of the world but rather just the destruction of Jerusalem even though Matthew 24:3 says "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
richchappell 1 year ago
power pat 5.40.
toeblarone 1 year ago
teenagers were on persciption drugs it has nothing to do with belief or the golden rule.
wachnathan 1 year ago
@gamlastanarn I think that Hitchens, despite his projected outward appearance, is a believer in the innate goodness of mankind. He does believe that he should be leaving the world a better place (particularly for his daughters).
I think he would say, "it is my duty to myself and my fellow man to help rid mankind of these harmful fictions and the oppressions inherent in religion." That's why he does these talks (and to sell books).
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
There is a purity in native American religion........they are animists........spiritual people that believe all life eminates from a "great white father" that gives life to all animals, trees and living things.........point is, overwhelmed by white settlers claiming to be Christians set to annahilate a peaceful people is a prime example of Bible toting religious people who preach peace, then call upon the extreme right to cpnquer defenseless people in the spirit they must destroy paganism...
warwickshire008 1 year ago
@warwickshire008 Although Europeans certainly did and continue to do great harm to native Americans, it is the diseases that came with Europeans that did/and continue to do, the most harm to their populations & their culture.
God Almighty, the creator of all things (if he exists) gave us diseases out of His love(?) for us.
Anyway, Good point. Religion poisons everything.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
I think theology is just another branch of philosophy. A part of philosophical thought evolved into empirical science and and theology sort of devolved into trying to figure out the unknown by thinking they know what they're talking about.
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago
Totally irrelavant in my view. People must either accept that if god manifests himself in the natural world then it's a job for science and if he doesn't manifest himself in this universe then how is it going to be the philosophy of human minds evolved in and adapted to the natural world that's going to understand him? Theologist are just trying to understand the answerables in a way, but that does not mean they actually mean anything universally.
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago
He said in the previous video that Jesus was quoting Isiah. Regardless, the stars falling to the earth? The nearest star to the earth is our sun. One star, any star, would easily destroy the entire planet. If you make the claim--as many do--that the prophecy is allegorical or metaphorical then you are left with the burden to provide guidelines on how to distinguish allegorical, metaphorical, and the literal. And with that we'd be fortunate to find any two groups of xtians to agree!
ChimeraWarrior73 2 years ago 4
pardon me . i just pressed post comment by accident. the fact is these believers think reincarnation is possible. now anyone with any common sense and understanding of basic science, potential distortion of the mind and subliminal messaging must understand that their beliefs have no real foundation.
edgartaljaardet 2 years ago 3
Wilson's quip that there was a "fall", while witty, is pointless. Because under his view, if we are made in the image of "god", then even if we "fell" we are STILL the image of "god". It gets him nowhere!
dbes02 2 years ago
@dbes02 And you can make that statement based on.... your theological training? You're presuming to know Wilson's view, even though you obviously have no religious training.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
No, just reason and logic.
And theology is the study of make-believe.
dbes02 2 years ago 31
@dbes02 Well, in many theological schools, theology has become indistinguishable from graduate programs in Anthropology, Gender Studies, Religion, and Sociology. In other words, theology is less and less about the study of God, and more and more about the role of religion in society. I'm not sure that argues well for the future of theology as it is currently practiced, but it does seem to have morphed into something than can't be as easily reduced to the "study of make-believe," as you put it.
writersblock26 9 months ago
@dbes02 one of the main things theologians study is the world around us, and human life. they then look for the best possible answer to explain how such things were created and are sustained. you don't have the authority to re-define theology. your definition is wrong- that's why it's not in any dictionary or textbook.
DonJay777 3 months ago
Comment removed
SuckMyBalls1999 3 months ago
@DonJay777 Well they don't study well at all -- if they stuck in an infantile attachment to fairy tales.That is the way it's defined. THEOLOGY: The study of the nature of god and inquiry into religious questions. Gods and religious belief are make believe, in the same bin as fairies and goblins and Valhalla and the Australian Aboriginal Dreatime.
dbes02 3 months ago
I make the statement based on... evidence. Religious belief has always been an argument from ignorance.
I don't need religious training to recognise nonsense.
dbes02 2 years ago
@dbes02 thats the story of religious argument. it gets them nowhere. because their main point is that reencarnation apparent
edgartaljaardet 2 years ago
I'm ambivalent towards Christopher Hitchens. He's eminently smart and gifted enough to communicate his ideas engagingly in books and speaking engagements. But he is also quite consciously a methodological sophist. He knowingly misapplies, misconstrues, and mis-contextualizes. Of course I owe it to whomever is reading this to provide examples. But that is a bit more of a task than it might appear, because Hitchens is particularly good at 'water-proofing' his sophistry.
fromthesestones 2 years ago
You are right about the need for examples...
vilgessuola 2 years ago
Yes, Hitchens is eminently smart and his ideas are engaging, and he is consciously very rational - so yes, it would be a task.
Theologians, on the other hand, are very good at sophistry and irrationality. And seeing that theology is all about make-believe, they need to be.
dbes02 2 years ago 26
@dbes02 -- So you agree with Hitchens's staunch support for the invasion of Iraq? And how about his pro-life middle ground position on abortion. He believes in the idea of an "unborn child" and although he opposes the overturning of Roe v Wade, he accepts that a fetus in theory has human rights. And do you also agree with his hawkish hard-line position on the west's prosecution of the war on radical Islam?
fromthesestones 2 years ago
@fromthesestones, are you referring to issues in this video?
There is no simple black/white position on abortion, hence it is possible to support a number of positions. A line needs to be drawn somewhere - between the rights of the mother and the rights of the developing fetus. Same way we draw lines on the right of animals. I support early-term abortion.
A line also has to be drawn between internal rights of nations and broader rights of people. eg, killing people over cartoons is a crime.
dbes02 2 years ago
There is no God.
We're just small creatures looking for meaning to our life at all cost, lost in the infinite cosmos.
WKaliberr 2 years ago 40
@WKaliberr RAmen
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
Psychologically, faith is just a coping mechanism for people who cannot deal with the fact that they will die, and quite probably cease to exist. Furthermore, it is a coping mechanism for dealing with unexplanable natural phenomenon. In the other words, faith is an act of doubt; doubting God's existence, but still making choices based on the assumption that he does. Atheists doubt God exists, and make choices on the assumption that he doesn't because there is no evidence.
ynthrepic 2 years ago 4
It's interesting to hear Hitchens say this: "I'm very glad that there's no reason to believe that there is a supernatural guidance and authority, because if there was one, it would be able to convict me of thought crime and it would be an unanswerable, unchallengeable, totalitarian dictatorship. So to me it's a huge pleasure to realize the evidence for this is non-existent." Sure sounds to me like someone who is afraid of accountability and simply wants no consequence for thier actions.
LogicalCritic 2 years ago
No he's saying he doesn't want a dictator in the sky overseeing us and convicting us of thought crime.
Hitchens has never stated or implied that there should be no rules or punishments for evil behavior.
CHF2 2 years ago 4
If you're accountable to God are you not still accountable to those whom you cause a grievance? Why must one be accountable to God to be accountable to others? I don't take responsibility for my actions because I'm afraid of being punished by a higher power - I do it because it's reasonable to do so.
If history has proved anything it is that accountability to a higher power, that cannot physically enforce its power, is not accountability at all.
ynthrepic 2 years ago 4
Technically you're only accountable to those to whom you cause a grievance if you've criminally wronged them. Any other accountability is based on your sense of "moral rightness." I think it comes down to what you believe about your faith. I think most Christians believe ultimately that accountability, and law, is God-given, and therefore the final accountability IS with God. Furthermore, Christians believe that God can, and will (at Judgement), enforce His "power".
LogicalCritic 2 years ago
"Moral rightness" is only decisions which advocate life, i.e. survival, and prosperity (not just material, i.e. opportunities for learning), for others where applicable, but primarily for one's self. The beauty is that where necessary killing or theft becomes permissible, such as self-defence, or the need to steal because you are too poor to afford food. But such acts without good cause endanger both your own life and that of others. What would religion have you do?
ynthrepic 2 years ago
He wants it and we have it. It's called law. A godly authority is redundant. Law is one third of democracy in theory and practice. Did you grow up blind to this authority?
brickan2 2 years ago
No. You're wrong. You're fractally wrong. Appallingly wrong.
For the slow kids, what he is saying is that Magical Sky Hitler is NOT the kind of being under whose thumb you'd wish to live. Are you really so fucking dense that you can't see this? Is it so hard to think that anyone who would equate thought crime with actual, measurable harm is an immoral prick? You really don't get this?
the2ndsaint 2 years ago
The blief that God is a "hitler: is put in your mind by a spirit you aren't aware of.
It is an accusation that has taken place since the war in heaven when lucifer was thrown out with a 3rd of the angles - whom he deceived in exactly the same way. He also told this "3rd" that God was unfair. That God was a dictator. Funny, this same lie is being accepted by you.
You really need to take a closer look at Christianity. It is clear you have bad info,
lexscripta1 2 years ago
It just sounds to me like someone who's probably read 1984, hence the 'thought crime' reference, and thinks it would be awful to live in a society like that. That's how he sees god: like big brother.
LightGrenades1 2 years ago
God doesn't need to know what we think. He can see what we think by how we act. He knows what we think when we invite Him in to our being through Salvation in His Son.
God won't force us to "behave".
God created us in His image. He simply offfers to restore us to this once perfect state (And then some) if we wish to - Revelation the last chapter says : The Spirit and The Bride say "Come".
Its an invitation. You either want the character of God - eternally, or you don't.
lexscripta1 2 years ago
So God has a tailbone, too? Heh.
Idiot.
the2ndsaint 2 years ago
Hitchens says that he, along with everyone else, is here as a result of random mutation and natural selection, whereas wilson says he is the created in god's image. Hitchens has proof and wilson has faith. Is this a reasonable basis for a debate?
toelesshoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Hitchens has proof and wilson has faith. Is this a reasonable basis for a debate? "
You mean Hitchens THINKS he has proof.
I have never heard reasonable explanation for evolution.
lexscripta1 2 years ago
I'm sorry that you have not heard a good explanation for evolution, but that's your fault. Read Richard Dawkins' new book, the Greatest show onEarth. I did, and it is written in a way that even people unschooled in biology can understand.
toelesshoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I didn't say I haven't heard dozens of people, including Dawkins, try to explain their "belief" in evolution. What I am saying, is that there is no reasonable explanation FOR evolution. In other words - it cannot be supported by anything more than faith.
Richard Dawkins himself has stated his doubts about evolutiuon - albeit unwittingly.
lexscripta1 2 years ago
Your assertion that Dawkins unwittingly expressed doubts on the validity of theToE, is inaccuate at best, and a stupid lie at worst. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
toelesshoe 2 years ago
To lexscripta1 - Evolution cannot be supported by anything more that faith?
Have you heard of fossils, DNA sequencing and carbon dating? There is a huge scientific body of evidence to support evolution. You are just stubbornly ignorant.
stewart0312 2 years ago
"t there is no reasonable explanation FOR evolution"
What, natural selection and genetic drift aren't enough for you?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
Of course not. 'Hitchens has proof and Wilson has faith' - read 'Hitchens has proof and Wilson has belief'. If I said to you 'I believe' or 'I have faith' that 'it will rain tomorrow' and you said 'It is very likely, almost certain, that it it won't because we're in Saudi Arabia and it hardly ever rains here', is there a debate? Why is a religious debate any different? It's not. Religion regards the certainty of uncertainty as certain...
ynthrepic 2 years ago
That is not the way religions see things, if I understand you correctly. Dogma is a certainty. No room for interpretation.
toelesshoe 2 years ago
Exactly, and yet they say 'I have faith'. To proclaim faith is to proclaim uncertainty, by definition of the word. To put it more simply, to say 'I have faith that god exists' is truth-conditionally the same as saying 'I don't know if God exists, but I believe he does'. By way of example: I have faith in my chances of waking up tomorrow. I don't know 100%, but there is a pretty good chance of it happening.
ynthrepic 2 years ago
The minute I hear some one say something about their faith, I tune out. They are making a statement of superiority, of which they have no right. I recently saw a video that had gay scientists discovering the christian gene. There were interviews of parents lamenting about the fact that their children were christians by saying it's not their fault. If it can't be explained genetically, then maybe psychologically
toelesshoe 2 years ago
"To proclaim faith is to proclaim uncertainty, by definition of the word. "
And here you just claimed an understanding of something you have absolutely no understanding of. It is an improper definition of faith.
lexscripta1 2 years ago
You can look it up in any dictionary - Faith is a form of belief, and belief is essentially the same as faith, but with emotional implications. That's all. Belief implies uncertainty in the fact of whatever you believe in, otherwise you would not exercise belief - you would just know.
ynthrepic 2 years ago
"You can look it up in any dictionary" ....
Dude, why would I ask a man for the definition of Faith? That's utterly ridculous. I am not a secular humanist - my answers are not the sum total of what man is capable of understanding. That would be endless self deception - as is clearly seen by the state of the world today.
You need to break out of the weak humanistic philosophies and taste reality.
It isn't the Christian that has limited vision. Its the non-believer.
lexscripta1 2 years ago
This isn't philosophy I'm arguing about here, it's the fact of the meaning of the words you use everyday - for any denial of such meaning would render you a raving idiot. This isn't philosophy, it is, in fact, the realest we can possibly get without sharing the same brain - communication. Deny the logical faculty of language and you might as well cluck like a chicken for your words would be worth as much.
ynthrepic 2 years ago 3
"it's the fact of the meaning of the words you use everyday..."
The dictionary is not the place to look for the definition of Christian faith. That definition can only be set from the Bible.
The dictionary gets you in the ballpark for definitions, (If it can be given that much credit). The most meaningful definition
is only in the context of the origin of the term, in this case. - the Bible.
If you look in the wrong place for an answer, You may miss the most important meaning of all.
lexscripta1 2 years ago
It is for this same reason that I don't have faith in God becase in the case of God, we don't have any evidence or experience on which to base our faith, as we do in waking up tomorrow.
ynthrepic 2 years ago
Christians believe that God exists. The evidence is overwhelming in this regard.
The faith you speak of is what Christians must excersize in order to be saved. The belief part is a given, Faith is the trust and confidence that God can do and will do what he says. Faith is about salvation, having a much bigger role than simple belief. We believe because the evidence points to the existence of a God based on the evidence. The real argument therefore, is interpretation of the evidence.
lexscripta1 2 years ago
And what 'evidence' is this? The fact that christians believe in God is not evidence that he exists.
ynthrepic 2 years ago 4
Romans 1.
Jimbo3783 2 years ago
Why is it a pleasure to not be convicted of thought crime? Why not seek justice in all realms including thought.
therealdrag0 2 years ago
Because thinking without criticism is needed before any decision can be made. Criticism imposed on thinking would cause thinking to vanish. If you assume who you are is what goes on in your head (which you are) then being convicted of thought crime would be like punishing a mentally retarded person for being mentally retarded.
zynot91210 2 years ago
The thought crime that God imposes is not just criticism of thinking, it's mental decisions. Like choosing to hate people, or choosing to lust after someone who isn't your spouse.
therealdrag0 2 years ago
That would defeat the purpose of making and decision. If you are only permitted to have a certain set of opinions. Also, we have a natural ability for morality, there is a part in the brain to handle most moral decisions(don't kill people, don't steal shit) thus we can say that we would be incapable of thought crime. Psychopaths don't have that particular function and so, in a way, when we put psychopaths in jail we do seek to have justice for thought crime. Not for lust however, we need it.
zynot91210 2 years ago
"That would" not "defeat the purpose of making a decision" any more than a normal law and punishment. You are punished for murder. May I whine about that defeating the purpose of my decisions?
A part of the brain to handle moral decisions? Then why do we need laws? Do you respond to that moral "intuition"? What if mine says don't lust, but doesn't say don't kill?
therealdrag0 2 years ago
Comment removed
weestro7 2 years ago
Comment removed
weestro7 2 years ago
8:37 haha wow, i wanted to go get soda from downstairs but wow. haha i think this pagan wants to fuck up on the cross.:)
that would be sweet.
pervertedmind 2 years ago
"Like the Amalechites." Don't pat yourself or Hitchens on the back with that cynicism fatboy! What about the Amalechite baby's and women asshole!
thinlizzybone 2 years ago
"borrow morals from God"
Or maybe religion takes morals from man, and man being imperfect from the beginning, it would make sense considering your so called God's law has serious flaws in its so called "morality".
I would argue that morality must separate itself from religion because religion would corrupt morality. Instead of doing good because it is human and the right thing to do, people do good because they are scared of hell?? That's not real morality, that's a false morality.
MRY6 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
espunde 2 years ago
Religion preys on the most darkest fears of man, and declares itself mans ruler.
Never let fear govern your morality, or else you lose your true human sense of what is moral and the real reasons on why it is moral.
MRY6 2 years ago 2
Grow up.
jcnednasluvchile 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did I strike a nerve?
espunde 2 years ago
relativism is not the logical conclusion of Atheism.
Victorprossartcom 2 years ago
Prove it is not. Take away the only logical reason for morality, i.e. God commands it and he punishes those who transgress the moral law, and what do you have? Preference, i.e. relativism. Why should I follow a law if it is not based on a higher moral law? Because society says so? That doesn't stop people from breaking moral and ethical codes. It might prevent most, but if society is thoroughly corrupted, no amount of laws can save it.
espunde 2 years ago
Believing in a God doesn't stop people from commiting crimes. If you don't want to follow a law just because its not backed by God, well let's hope you never drop religion until you can follow the law otherwise.
This is the ultimate fear of those who fear secularism, they believe relativism takes place and everything evil is acceptable. Wrong. You do good because it makes logical and reasonable sense. It can't be because a "god or gods" said so. Then people don't know why its good.
MRY6 2 years ago
My faith is what allows me to follow God's law, though I am not perfect. The Christian doctrine is called Sanctification. I commit sins even if I am not aware, but I confess my sins, and God forgives me. Secularism in the extreme forms of the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany produced all manner of evils, and we practise things like abortion, cursing, slander, sexual immorality, etc., and we are just as bad as Hitler or Stalin. To be moral, atheists have to be inconsistent, they borrow morals from God.
espunde 2 years ago
"I commit sins even if I am not aware, but I confess my sins, and God forgives me."
Only a religious person could call the abandonment of responsibility morality.
SketchSepahi 2 years ago
Your comment doesn't follow from what I said. I am responsible to God for every action of mine, I can never abandon my responsibility, I will answer and be held accountable for each and every action before God, but I'm justified by Christ's merit, not my own. Admitting my sins before God, and asking his pardon do not make me more or less responsible, but I recognise I am a sinner and ask God to cleanse me of my unrighteousness.
espunde 2 years ago
You believe you can be "cleansed of your unrighteousness" by simply asking your imaginary friend to forgive you your wrongdoing. How is that not an abandonment of responsibility? You do not have to live with the consequences of your actions. You do not have to actively make an effort to make amends for what you have caused in order to make things right. Oh, no. You just confess your sins and your imaginary friend forgives you. And you call that morality. I call that a cop-out.
SketchSepahi 2 years ago 2
No, not a cop out, a statement of fact. I can ask God's forgiveness when I err, because I have sinned against him alone, and I can approach him because of Christ. I don't have to do 10 hail marys, or pray a rosary, or do good works to get back into God's good graces, I'm already there. God forgives me b/c of Christ's righteousness. I see you really don't care what I think, and I'm not bothered by your unbelief, however if you have questions ask any of us Reformed Christians, and we'll oblige.
espunde 2 years ago
You must have standard of what constitutes "fact" utterly detached from that of conventional language. I could have sworn the word "fact" was reserved for information known or proven to be true.
Yet, I do care what you think. Though I must say, I have seen no indication of that being reciprocated. Our altercation started out with you making the rather dubious claim that my morality is hinged upon inconsistency. That's plain nonsense. Especially in lieu of your abandonment of responsibility.
SketchSepahi 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, you're definition of fact is correct, and I know what I believe to be a fact. I know the Bible to be true, I know God exists, and I follow what the Bible tells me on this and many other subjects. The morality of Atheists is inconsistent, b/c it comes from God, yet they deny that he exists. I explained how I am responsible to God and how Christ fits into it all, but unless you believe God exists, or grant that he might and that the Bible is his word, then no argument of mine can sway you.
espunde 2 years ago
Whether the Bible is, in fact, true is neither here nor there. You have yet again misplaced the "knowledge" and "proof" requirements. Regardless of the truth of your beliefs they can neither be known nor proven to be true and therefore fall short of "fact."
As for atheistic morality being inconsistent because it's from God, that's just begging the question. You have yet to show this to be the case. Furthermore, it's irrelevant since even if it is, consistent godless morality is still possible.
SketchSepahi 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A fact is true. The truth of my beliefs are shared, known by others, yet are not 'true' in that you disagree with them. We have the witness of scripture, it's history, logical consistency, and archaeological evidence and the martyrs who died for it's truth, yet it's not 'true'. Morality is a complete body of law, which includes obedience to God, if you deny God, youre not truly moral, you are inconsistent. God as a first cause ensures his own existence, he is the foundation of logic, outside it.
espunde 2 years ago
You seem to suffer under the misapprehension that 'fact' means 'consensus.' Even if beliefs are true and your in-group happens to agree, they are not PROVEN to be true. You BELIEVE they are true, you do not KNOW them to be. It's weird because a few comments up, you actually agreed that my definition of 'fact' was correct.
As to morality, it just means principles of right/wrong followed by a group of people. Just because I do not follow YOUR principles, that does not make me inconsistent.
SketchSepahi 2 years ago 2
A good point regarding consensus; AGW is an example of that. I believe and know my beliefs to be true, they are facts to me known by the Holy Spirit, on what authority and knowledge do you refute me? If a society you were a part of required that you sacrifice human beings to please the 'Gods', on what basis would you say they are wrong? It's what is socially permissible. My principles are the most consistent, they come from God, and I can say that human sacrifice is wrong, for all societies.
espunde 2 years ago
For something to constitute knowledge, it has to be not only a true belief but also justified. Personal revelation cannot be justified to anyone who hasn't shared the experience. Your faith is belief, not knowledge, not fact. Unless, of course, you can justify or prove it.
As to human sacrifice, do you believe Abraham would have done the right thing, if he hadn't been stopped by the angel? On what basis would you deem sacrifice wrong if God commanded it? Seems pretty inconsistent to me.
SketchSepahi 2 years ago 3
One way I justify my faith is through the change that has occurred in my life because of being a believer. Another is through the necessary existence of objective moral truth.
God never intended for Abraham to go through with that sacrifice, he was testing him. Having Abraham actually sacrifice Isaac would have gone against God's nature, frequently through scripture he condemns the practice. I deem such sacrifice wrong precisely because God condemns it. He is the ultimate authority.
espunde 2 years ago
To reiterate, personal revelation can't be justified to someone who hasn't shared the experience. Your personal anecdotes constitute neither fact nor knowledge.
Furthermore, there's no problem with having godless objective morality. You seem to think Divine Command Theory is the only alternative meta-ethical position to nihilism. You should read up on meta-ethics.
Do you recognise that there's a difference between consistency and truth value? Because you seem to have the two entirely confused.
SketchSepahi 2 years ago 2
'personal revelation can't...experience'; agreed. I have knowledge of myself and my experiences, it is true for me at least, if not others. Morality is then one way to prove God, since I assert the necessity of God's existence for objective truth to exist.
I'll look up meta-ethics, but the only logically consistent position I see is DCT, nihilism being the only other option, either objectivity exists, or it doesn't. Consistency, no contradictions; truth value, a proposition's relation to truth.
espunde 2 years ago
@espunde
Since this comment was made I have come to repudiate the idea that God creates Logic, Logic is the structure of God's mind, he is not by nature irrational, and I have since then also rejected all theistic proofs.
espunde 1 year ago
@SketchSepahi Yeah exactly! Just like the fossil record and its lack of intermediates don't prove macro evolution.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 There is no meaningful distinction between so-called macro and micro evolution. It's platitudinous nonsense made up by scientifically illiterate creationists. You would know this if you had any understanding of the subject whatsoever.
Seriously, mate. At least do some basic (and I do mean BASIC) reading on evolution before pretending to know what you're talking about.
SketchSepahi 1 year ago 2
@SketchSepahi based on what? is godless morality possible? You are born, you grow up, where does your conscious come from. How do you decipher good from bad?
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 Honestly, if your superstitious beliefs are all that's stopping you from doing bad things, I sincerely hope you never lose faith. As for me I actually care about other people. I don't need the threat of punishment or the promise of reward to make me do what is right. I do what is right because I believe I and other people are better off for it. So yes, godless morality is very much possible. In fact, I would say it's the only morality that's truly moral. It has no alternate agenda.
SketchSepahi 1 year ago
@SketchSepahi Obviously I care for other people, obviously i have a heart and soul. But i believe that they were given to me by God. What gave us morality is my question. Do you honestly believe that something comes from nothing, that just like Wilson said, How do you expect to get Order from Chaos. Sludge turned into beautiful creation? I find THAT hard to believe. that atoms were colliding always, that they were always there with nobody to put them there. no that is not what i believe.
steflondon88 1 year ago
I believe we are created in the image and design of God. and without that, we wouldnt even be breathing. You call is superstition, i call it Faith
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 Faith is an absence of evidence. Why not have faith in any one of the other numerous faith based myths that are available in every culture?
kusalaviro 1 year ago
@kusalaviro I have Faith yes, But I also have a relationship with God, the only God whom I call Father, Friend, Counseller, Saviour, He is awesome. I have faith through the Holy Spirit. Faith is the very evidence for things not seen. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
steflondon88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steflondon88 'Faith is the very evidence for things not seen. ' - WOW, what a statement! Not being able to see something is the evidence that it exists... That is very creative my friend, I'll give you that much. I guess we can apply that to every myth that ever has been. Fairies, big foot, unicorns... etc...
kusalaviro 1 year ago
@steflondon88 Faith in a belief basically means 'a belief with zero evidence'. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
You have no relationship with God, you just attribute certain emotions and feelings to a fictitious figurehead. Why don't you believe in Zeus and Thor?
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 Because I believe in the God in the bible. I believe in Jesus, who said I am the Truth the Way and the Life, no one comes to the father but by me. Zeus is myth, there is no actual Proof. There are eye witness accounts in the bible that all back each other up. The whole bible was written over different years, there are many scrolls that show it is fact, it is history. I have felt God change me and help me, and you know what? I do have a relationship with God. Don't presume to tell me
steflondon88 1 year ago
(continued) - that my faith is false, because I know it;s not. You can question it all you want. It's mine. The heavens declare the glory of God. You cant get something from nothing.
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 You said "Zeus is a myth, there is no actual proof", however that's the same for the Christian God. Eye witness accounts lol... the bible was ripped off from paganism. In almost every religion their is a virgin birth and a resurrection... they are all ripped off from each other.
You don't have a relationship with God as he doesn't exist. You are just tapping in to your unconscious mind and deluding yourself it's God.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 Where in the world did you hear the Bible is ripped from Paganism. As God has created the world and the universe, and In the beginning was God. i hardly see how it was a copy of anything. Please explain your version of the how the first cell came to be? Why do you have a conscience, where do you get your morals from?You can't answer that without a creator. What religion has the CROSS. where the son of God died for the sins of man. And was risen on the 3rd day at the right hand of God
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 If you do some study and research you will also learnt the truth about religions ripping each other off. This can be learned from many sources, it is better for you to investigate this yourself and make up your own mind.
Conscience and morals are behaviours required for survival, these behaviours evolved in order to help propagate the species. No creator is required.
Question for you: Who created the creator? What real evidence have you got for God existing?
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 To say that Christianity is ripped off, or that the Bible is ripped off is way off base. If you put that into play I could say that Darwinism is copied from Ovid's stories called "Metamorphasis", because he talked about animals changing shapes and becoming different. You could apply this to many things. Bottom line, the bible has come true. The bible is God breathed and his way of speaking to His children. The creator is God, the Trinity, there is no other. That's my final word.
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 Why don't you actually do some study. The facts are there if you dare research them. The problem is you don't want to because it would disprove the validity of your religion.
Also the comparison of Darwinism versus 'Metamorphasis' is not valid. There may be some creative crossover but the fact is that evolution has been proven whereas there is zero evidence for the existence of your God.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 Evolution has not been proven you do your own research. there are 10,000 Latin Manuscripts of the Bible, and 5,700 Greek manuscripts. Have you even read the whole bible, let a lone a part of it? These manuscripts all back each other up, the only variations are letters, or word changes that have the same meaning. The Bible is the holy truth from God. You dont even have proof. Why i even bothered replying I dont know,
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 Evolution has been proven. God does not exist. Christianity rips of Paganism and other religions. Get an education and come back to me then. Good luck :)
Please prove how you know that the bible is the truth from God. Thanks.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
A recent study showed that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than theists... so be careful telling an atheist they don't know something about religion.
It is generally Christians who cherry pick the bible and who have not read the whole thing. Have you read the parts regarding slavery, genocide and the part that says children should be killed for swearing at their parents? I thought not.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 ---The original can't be a copy. Goodbye and God Bless.
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 You probably also support Palin and watch Fox news :).
rao76 1 year ago
@rao76 .Actually I supported Obama and I watch the BBC news...
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 The original is a copy of other religions. The virgin birth has existed in a lot of previous religions. Christmas is of Pagan origin. God can't bless anything as he doesn't exist. Best wishes.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@kusalaviro Well said. I've just made the same point to this guy. Sadly I see that he didn't reply to you... or maybe I missed the reply.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago