Wilson, though I disagree with him, is obviously a reasonably intelligent man. But, this is what faith does. His backups arguments for what he believe is always the text promoted by the people that agree with him. If you're argument is "the bible says it happened", you lose.
This debate reminds me of a boxing match, with each of the 12 episodes a boxing round, and each round ending up with a winner, a loser or as a draw. This round, Hitchens lost, and lost badly.
Just to get the trolls of my back, I'm not saying he lost the whole debate, ok.
@frilansspion You obviously didn’t understand the point. Both induction and deduction are simply empty structures which, in themselves, do not and cannot, make any comment on the contents used to fill them. All men have three heads, Socrates is a man, thus Socrates has three heads is VALID, and the syllogism can make no comment on the truth or not the conclusion. That is what is meant by ‘just another kind of faith’ - ultimate ULTIMATE contents are based on faith.
@Matthysable I dont think I asked for an explanation of what he meant. I asked whether you thought it was so good an argument (or indeed an argument at all)?.
@frilansspion Read my first answer again, Actually, read it twice - you obviously still don't understand. As for my rudeness, you haven't said thank you for the illumination I freely and graciously offered you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
@Matthysable Ill spell it out for you: it doesnt make any comment on _which_ belief is best motivated. this kind of technical wankery is what you engage in when you are losing. the pot wants the kettle to stop wanking please, I dont care about your color, its 2011 hello
@Matthysable haha you are mental. Ive heard both donkey and horse and it doesnt change the meaning. as long as you have "faith" that youre never wrong, thats all you need, eh? and no, Im swedish. and I also think were done now. Im sorry for replying to your comment to start this off. it was a mistake, but sometimes you actually run into sensible people even here on youtube and you can learn about others perspectives. not in this case obviously. have a nice day
@frilansspion Well, at least I've got you off my back! Thank God!
But, I want to be nice to you, so, as parting gift, I suggest to mosey over to a site called ""Phrases, sayings and idioms at The Phrase Finder" and type in "lead a horse to water". Sorry, but apart from the famous photo on the web, there simply is no other donkey (apart from you, of course!),
@frilansspion Oh yea, and while you're at "Phrases, sayings and idioms at The Phrase Finder", why don't you type in "lead a donkey to water" as well, and see what you get?
Ha ha ha!!!
Sorry, but I have to sigh off now, I'm laughing so much I can hardly see straight!
@frilansspion Btw. why take it out on me? Take it out on your teachers who obviously filled up your head with PC hot air instead of teaching you what they were (supposedly) paid to do, i.e. make you literate.
Anyway, I’m, not going to waste my time on you anymore. Have the last word it you like, but, as for me, I’m outa here!. As I said, “You can lead a donkey to understanding .....”
Hitchens got Wilson early in this conversation if he believed that Mohammed flew to the heavens.
That was the point were Wilsons argument got very weak. He stated that he believed in the christian miracles because there were wittnesses.
As if Islam doesn't claim to have eye wittnesses for Mohammeds departure.
Then he went on claiming that Jesus' wittnesses were more reliable... which is a ridiculous thing to say since you neither know the christian nor the islamic wittnesses in person.
Hitchens hit the nail on the head. Any holy book has been conceived, written, edited, printed, distributed and interpeted by the hand of man not an omnipotent being.
And should one belive in an omnipotent creator, who are you as mere flesh and blood to pretend to know it's will and/or desire for all humanity. Surly an omnipotent creator's will and desire would be incomprehendable and inconceivable to mere mortals. To say otherwise proves the point.
I wish Wilson did a better job explaining the issue with Hitchens' epistemological approach with miracles. Despite books like "The Selfish Gene" trying to explain it, the human existence itself is astronomically improbable to be just about impossible rising through chance. Hitchens seems to refuse to want to explain the world because it can't be proven how we formed so improbably. Reason is comforting in that it limits us to what can be proven, but ultimately it cannot answer everything.
@jif99- You have misunderstood what real faith is. Faith is essentially and practically a synonym for trust. Both faith and trust, particularly in the Biblical sense, are evidence based, and thus logical. Every time God laid forth a command He qualified His right to do so by reminding the recipients and objects of that command of His trustworthiness; " I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who brought you out of Egypt." i.e. You can trust me based on what I have already done. So faith
"We [atheists] don't assert as true what we have just been asked to prove. I think that's a methodological difference worth observing in an institution of higher education." Hitchens at his best.
Wilson also ultimately relies on his own faculties (to read and understand the Bible and the world around him), therefore he places his faith in reason AND the Bible, and the entirety of the field of apologetics is still trying to address the inevitable conflict. He's a profoundly dishonest and unpleasant man, and I don't understand how Hitchens has tolerated him enough to co-write a book.
Hitchens is a very intelligent man but he keeps getting pinned by every question put to him and somehow he dodges them with out answering them head on.
@VicVinegar If you read their book, which is very small, you'll notice Hitchens keeps failing to answer the question of 'where do innate morals come from'. However, we obviously have opposing views and neither you nor I are going to be convinced of the other's view by a mere youtube debate :)
@VicVinegar Well it is true I haven't read their book (I did see the movie) but I'm not quite sure he dodges the morality question. I think he says that morality is more or less innate in us and that the how's and why's are mostly unknowable at this point (1st Turek debate particularly). I'd agree it's maybe not the most satisfying answer in the world, but I do think it's better than claiming with absolute certainty on the basis on no supporting evidence that the Christian God is responsible.
Seriously, is this guy joking? He believes in Christ because he was resurrected, he believes in the resurrection because its' in the Bible, and he believes in the Bible because he believes in Christ. How can a grown-up spout this bilge in public with a straight face?
Wow! What a moment when one man's argument is admittedly complete faith, and the other is rational, logic, and reason based. As Hitchens says, that cant have escaped you can it? In front of a crowd at an institute of higher learning. Its an important point is it not?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitchens getting stumped over and over again...I love it. But again, he does have a clever way of getting out of his embarrassment...Hitchens is way too prideful to admit fault or admit when he's wrong. He has a clever way of going around the issue and eventually discussing a different subject.
@buitrami Haha... not quite! The swing and miss was on your part! Hitchens is at his finest here. Wilson practically couldn't breathe his arguments were so refuted.
I say that Logic isnt man-made at all. It is understoon by man, but man didnt make it at all. Logic supports itself, on its own.
If there is no one or no biological entity to witness two boulders standing next to each other, regardless, it's still two boulders. The concept of the boulders, even the representation of the amount of them can change, but the essence is still the same IE two boulders.
Most of Wilson's life is conducted under reason. Why doesn't he stop eating? Why doesn't he set his leg of fire? Why doesn't he use his hair to speak? He by default has to use reason to function in life including this debate so why suddenly throw it out because of an old book?
I think there becomes a point where someone has justified their BS beliefs to such an extent that there truly is no way back. That's why scientists are so great, they are willing to drop a theory or refine it if evidence is found to the contrary.
Your English is broken at best, but that does not refute your stance. To say one is not an expert in a field of study, does not prove the opposing opinion, end of story. I don't even have to continue, but I will add that a lack of knowledge in an opposition does not prove the arguement against said opposition.
You cannot just base your faith on the fact that miracles occurred because the bible said so. Who is to say what's true in the book, if anything. Its written hundreds of years ago by an array of people, and not only contains thousands of examples of ancient superstition and lawless murder and rape and pillage, rules that cannot and should not be followed by a decent society, and copies fables from hundreds of years before and from other religions, not least the "virgin" birth.
Wilson confuses trust and faith -- which are similar in there differences to the concept of knowledge and belief. Trust is evidence based -- you have a position and it is reasonable to hold that position based on prior learning and future confirmations of the veracity of that position. Faith is an emotional deduction based on lack of material evidence and not resting on any kind of logic.
@jif99 that is the definition of blind faith you have there. and that isn't the case with Douglas's. And when you are saying about knowledge and belief, actually those two are not totally separated, instead they are interconnected in a way to that of diagram Venn. Be rational, but not rationalist.
@jif99 "Wilson confuses trust and faith .." but faith is trust...BY DEFINITION... your definition of faith is a false Modern Atheist definition that no Theologian would agree with.
Dear god (no pun intended), do religious people not see the ohhh soooo obvious problem with this mans argument? " I believe in miracles because of the resurrection of god". Where did he get that tid-bit of "information".. that damn book.. where are the rest of the "miracles" he discusses.. that damn book.. FIGURE IT OUT!
Just because Wilson has "faith" in a book doesn't mean that book is right. Period. End of conversation. Nothing to argue. It's right "for him." It's very pea-brained and narcissistic of Wilson to assume that he needs to sit up there and impress his faith on other people as "truth". Chris Hitchens is there for the opposite reason, not to impress his views, but to aid in discrediting Wilson's - which is something that arguably has needed to be done for thousands of years.
Wilson makes it so easy with his 'it's true because I believe it' arguments. Hitch hardly has to exert himself that much to destroy Wilson's position.
Evasion?.. so in your opinion, Hitchens being presents a question on physics, and himself not being a physicist, is evading by starting a response with " I'm not a physicist"... Which, Oh by the way, he's not...
@winnter211 Well many religious people, see themselves as an expert on everything because one book to them trumps all others. So I know about everything because I have the truth. So if you say well I am not actual an expert on physics, well than he loses because the bible tells you all you ever need to know about everything by their standards.
@eNRGy27 Correct me if I'm wrong but if the theist said that then it would just stop there. But the theist does not stop right their, they go on to say that the bible is reason and that their morals are greater than ours, that we will burn in hell and so forth.. That's where the conflict I believe starts.
@eNRGy27 wait. in that case, you have reason as your "bible". And you might mix some other science hypothesis / logical assumption / etc into your foundation, together with your own "bible". Don't you find this.. well.. not that much different in method, as you building your reason on your "bible". It's absurd if you think that in this way, you are in a higher position and thus able to see things in a bird eye view
@eNRGy27 Wilson's point is that it is unreasonable to hop both feet into the reason boat without examining it. To hop first into a reason boat to examine the reason boat is also unreasonable. If reason is one's authority, "just because" then you've made it irrational. If reason has authority because one endeavors to "Think God's thoughts after Him" then reason makes sense. Reason assumed is not reason reasoned. Reason reasoned is reason assumed. Hitchens idea of reason is self-refuting.
I think that Hitchens is educated beyond his intelligence. His logic sucks. Sure he's articulate, but that's about it. Wilson is not that articulate, but his logic was much better. Atheism and naturalistic evolution is just silly non-sense that takes an extraordinary leap of faith to believe. Even C.S. Lewis knew that, while he was an atheist, he was well aware that his paradigm contained too many contradictions.
@AsherJames if you think that wilson's logic, which does not exist, is better than hitchen's. you are an even bigger moron. wilson hung himself. right when he said, i presuppose.
@brownbigb The problem with Hitchens, as with a lot of atheists, is that his paradigm is based on delusions and makes himself look like an even bigger fool because he has painstakingly convinced himself in error. Further, I can perceive the level of your knowledge and maturity, and your weakness thereby revealed, when you have to resort to ad hominem libel. Wilson is not the best debater. If Hitchens wants a good debate, he ought to contend with Pastor Mark Driscoll.
"I accept all the miracles because of the resurrection of Christ " 2:05 - 2:14 So what he's saying is that he believes in them because of them? Makes sense if you don't think about it.
@doublezeroduck If a guy raises himself from the dead, then, yeah, it would probably make sense to believe what he's saying. That's the whole point of Christ's miracles, to prove his power and his claims.
@AsherJames I don't see why that would be true. There's always the possibility that the dead riser is simply lying, or more likely that you're under some sort of grave misapprehension. The only thing a genuine resurrection would prove is the ability to defy death. That's as far as it goes. I wouldn't trust the divinity of someone who defied death anymore than I would the word of someone who could fly on a magic carpet, even if these types of things did exist.
@killsourenemy Wow,u mean to tell me that if you witnessed a guy claim himself to be God for a period of three years,and give evidence for his claims by raising other people from the dead,heal diseases,have power over the forces of nature,create things ex nihilo,e.g. water to wine,feeding a crowd of 20,000 men, women and children from a kids sack lunch,and fulfill hundreds of prophecies from the Old Testament,and to cap it all off, prophesy his own death and resurrection,that wouldnt impress u?
@AsherJames You can have all the metaphysical claims you want, but nothing you've just said proves divinity. Another explanation for your claims could be witchcraft or sorcery. Until you can explain why these events can only be accomplished by God, you are stuck with an empty sack.
@killsourenemy Dang kid, what kind of world do you live in? Were you not hugged as a child? So are you an atheist? Wicca? Jehovah's Witness? Satanist? I don't even know what kind of categories you have on reality. Too many drugs? Tell me your story.
@killsourenemy Lol Really dude, I'm curious, what things brought you to that conclusion? And are you an atheist? Agnostic? I'm asking you questions. It's okay to answer them, you have nothing to be scared of.
@killsourenemy Lol! If you truly believe you won an argument, then, I'm sorry, but it appears you should ask for your money back. All you guys on here are clearly charlatans, you claim to be good debaters and are convinced of it, yet when the rubber meets the road, you guys are just clowns. None of you guys are that intelligent. That is evident. It's more fun to mess with you guys. But seriously guys, have an open mind and read some more material.
@AsherJames ok troll. you are of the school of coward shitfaced assholes, who talk crap on youtube, but would fall all over himself apologizing in person. it is unfortunate that opening your mind is not possible for you. you'd have to have one first. pull your head out of your ass, wipe the shit out of your eyes, and take a look around in reality.
@brownbigb What inspiring prose! I don't really perceive you have an education there Mr. brownbj. Once again, children are meant to be seen, not heard.
@AsherJames Yeah, but this guy didn't see any of that happen. It's a story. You didn't see it happen. You don't know anything about it first hand and neither does he. It's faith.
@doublezeroduck You're right. I didn't see it, and none of us have seen Christ's resurrection. But the New Testament authors did, and they wrote letters and accounts of it. Hence, the New Testament Gospels and epistles. Hundreds of people saw this man, Jesus of Nazareth raised from the dead. The New Testament is a series of accounts, eye witness testimonies, not story. Hence, New Testament, get it? The testimony of the apostle Paul is what seals it for me. I used to be a marxist atheist.
@AsherJames wow, all i can say is wow. which new testament author saw the ressurection? it is interesting that you know of this, when no other apologetic has been able to come up with one. atheism is based on delusion? wow. did paul ever meet jesus? how wouldhe have known what jesus looked like? saying you are a moron, is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem attack.
@brownbigb I must repeat you. Wow. You're probably the most ignorant atheist I've come across. I really don't even know where to begin with you and I actually have a life outside of posting crap on youtube. You're not worth the effort, so, go and get a better education, grow up a little, then maybe come back and debate a little.
@AsherJames i do have a better education, and i've grown up more than you ever will. as far as debating. no point. live in your delusions. having been a marxist, obviously you enjoy that. you are still an atheist though. like everyone else.
@brownbigb Lol. You're definitely entertaining. Poor written communication skills. Better educated? Special Ed isn't better. Remember, children are meant to be seen, not heard. ;)
@AsherJames There is clear debate on who actual authored many of what is written in the New Testament, because we know it was not written at the time when those events happened. And Paul never meet Jesus nor did he see any of the miracles, Mark is also one who seems to be written far later so it was not by first hand accounts. Next you can go to people who make those claims today, there are many who people claim do miracles all the time, and people who will testify that they saw it.
@AsherJames I am not an atheist, however if falls on faith, so you can not say oo there are claims for thosands of eye witnessed accounts that completely proves this and that, no, no it doesn't your faith is one thing but that is just stupid, you believe, leave it at that, and stop trying to argue for things that you can't prove.. Sheesh.
Logic, I agrue, isnt made made. I think the understanding of logic is man made (or accomplished, grasped). BUt logic is alway there, and has always been and always will be. Two rocks lying side by side on the moon, regardless of wether we're there to witness them, are still that- two rocks. Not one rock. Two rocks! The logic is self reinforcing.
@PaladinConstantin Oh dear, you're a very spiteful person. Not worth arguing with. Do you consider yourself a demigod? You certainly seem to... & your argument was not an argument, it was a pitiful generalisation based on your own limited experience.
Must be traumatic for a Christian College or educational institution to have Christopher Hitchens just blow away all their beliefs! Probably would have been better to preach Telhard de Chardin's philosophies and ideology that Christ is a trancendentalist Messiah...inviting people to perceive another world (heaven) and the probability that there is a loving Diety who will take the human spirit and take it into another dimension where those who believe are forever removed from this chaotic one.
The claim that human beings have a special place with regards to god(s) is spelled out very clearly in the mythology of most religions. Pointing that out has nothing to do with "sophism".
I am honestly growing weary of your blatant game of definitions, which is so typical for most theists. Talking with you is like trying to provoke a reasoned response from a brick wall, so I will butt out of this.
They claim they have a special place in the universe, since some deity is interested in them.
"most atheist believe that God is a man in the sky"
No, they don't believe God exists in the first place, and when you look at the lack of evidence this is a very reasonable position to hold. And why should you want to kill something if you don't even believe it's real?
What atheists may believe otherwise is irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
"before judging all theist the same, you must assume you have studied all religions and all theist."
You can already confirm recurring patterns of thought by examining the more prevalent theistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.) which all claim pretty much the same thing.
I also don't know any atheists who believes they can obtain superpowers. If anything. it's the theists who do do, since their god can suspend nature's laws.
"what's harder still is to convince you people to let go of ego "
Actually, it''s the theists who have a big ego problem. They believe that all of this vast universe has been created specifically for them and that some sort of all-powerful sky-daddy has some vested interest in their well-being. Not so. The universe is completely indifferent to our existence. If all of the human race disappeared, nobody outside our little blue planet would even know.
"it's harder to prouve God does not exist then to prove intelligence in the design."
The burden of proof for the existence of gods is on the theists. After thousands of years not a shred of evidence has ever been provided, so it's a very reasonable position not to believe any claims theists make about the deities they believe in.
Likewise, Intelligent Design offers no evidence, nor does it provide mechanisms for how this supposed designer worked.
"but even with the featherweight intellectual like wilson, hitchen almost thanked "
It doesn't matter whether a theist is intellectual or not. Theism is untenable, since it crumbles under any rational scrutiny. Theists lose any debate about the reasonability of their belief by default.
sooooo I guess there isn't universal logic. 1+1 can = 3 because man says so.
Considering the majority-atheist consensus here, I kind of find comfort in the fact that the most popular voted post are for the truly oblivious of Wilson's point about man's p-e-r-s-o-n-a-l reasoning. *points to kablamo9999*
@saulsaenz79 1+1 = 3 IS possible! depends on the monoid (at least, and if you dont know what that is, it is a form of algebra) you are operating in :))). mathematics try to represent the observable universe in consistent manner. that is all there is to it.
@saulsaenz79 and you didnt understand nature of my argument. it was meant to be a slight joke as well btw. logic is a product of humans. when someone says 1+1 = 2 to you, then he implicitly expects you to be working on a same algebra (at least a monoid in this case) as he does. that is the most probable one, the one used by most humans. which one is it here btw R or N or Q? in order to build up logic to the level of algebra, you have to do some amount of work. this is NOT what universal means.
@saulsaenz79 maybe you could watch this v=v02HM_-Dz2g there is a pretty good argument that touches the nature of the problem. also another atheist/christian debate. if you wish you could read this wikipedia on Algebra too. that should help a lot too. and what you described as an example still requires the toddler to create an abstract set of gummie~bear and a cookie. nature itself doesnt even need to do it. kids in elementary schools learn about Q, and still have no idea how it got there.
I agree. But I hate when religious people call reason faith. Reason and rationality are by definition self-evident therefore they need no proof. The burden of proof is with religious people of faith because they first have to first prove that their god is the right god before they claim that their faith is reasonable or rational.
Also, one point I never hear mentioned... God is pretty much THE ONLY THING, these people have blind faith in. They're happy to use reason and logic when it comes to every other aspect of life.Remove God from the equation and they're as rational as you and I.
I don't think Wilson or any theist is illogical or unreasonable... I think they choose to deny what they know, that they believe in God because they WANT to believe in God. Deep down, they know, they're BSing.
The problem with believing in the "infallibility of scripture" is the fact that it's so obviously fallible. First off, even a cursory examination of history would PROVE that the bible people today believe in was arrived at by committee. How many books were left out because they didn't follow the controlling dogma of the founders of the Catholic Church (the first Christian church, on which all others derive)? A lot. Are they any less true? Second, they conflict in so many ways, it's absurd.
your highest authority has to be self declaring, because otherwise it's not your highest authority. The Bible is the Christians highest authority because it says so, the atheist's is reason, because it is reasonable to make it so.
Ouch at 6:15 "..If you laugh at that..." from Hitch. I did laugh but, as I suspect is true for most of the audience laughers too, I was laughing AT Wilson for saying something so stupid.
I can't believe Wilson went with the old "You have faith in reason" ploy - it's pathetic.
Have you noticed how many liberals have turned into conservatives right after 9/11. There was more money to be made by converting to conservatism than staying in the liberal movement. Lot's of political comentators as well as comedians were saved by 9/11.
because they bought into the myth that conservatives keep Americans safe and fight terrorism. the record is much more ugly. In reality, they have coddled, traded with, supported, and aided extremist dictators and regimes and terrorist groups. they have also ignored and failed to respond to attacks committed by these same groups. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi and Muslim religious extremists and yet Bush chose to invade secular Iraq which never attacked the US?
Wilson's appeal to ridicule in his incessant laughing is appalling. His equivocation of "faith" as "confidence" was also poor.
Hitchens should have pointed out that he doesn't have "faith" in reason because because reason is a justified process based on evidence/experience. Faith by definition is a belief not based on evidence.
@dbes02 Think Hitchens struggles in this bit. Arms folded and turning a bit aggressive. Have you seen the clip where he turns on Bill Mahers audience? It's uncomfortable.
I think if he justified reason by appeal to experience he'd fall foul of the problem of induction which the guy at the end raises. He could probably get away with stating that without faith in reason there's no point in any sort of debate so both sides must accept it as axiomatic. Maybe?
deekomendez, Hitchens often does the arm folding as a statement. My reference to experience/evidence is in the context that, philosophically, reason is rationality, proportioning of a hypothesis to the grounds for advancing it, ie the strength of the evidence.
As faith is belief in the absence of evidence, then anything goes. The fraud of Wilson's type of position is playing it both ways: appealing to "evidence" when they want to and then playing the faith card against evidence they don't like.
@dbes02 Hey don't get me wrong I'm not defending Wilson's overall position. I think Hitchens makes him look pretty silly in most of this debate and 'cards on the table' I'm an atheist.
However I think that Wilson does raise a genuine issue (though not one which strengthens his case) in that we do have to have some sort of 'faith' in reason.
yes but faith, is having a strong inclination towards something that isn't true, or hasnt been discovered yet. while wilson inclines that you shouldn't question that who is unquestionable, hitchins explains that all that is unanswered will eventually be so. witch i find very hopeful and realistic.
While I totally agree that experience tells us that reason is a good way of finding truth. How do we know that experience is reliable? Through experience... which is a circular argument (See 'the problem of induction' on Wikipedia).
I guess in twisted logic, for Wilson if it's ok to have faith in reason, it's ok to have faith in other things too. A bit of a leap!
A point I was making was that "faith in reason" is an oxymoron by definition.
I understand about the induction problem - from the genius of Hume.
But regardless, religious belief slips shamelessly between the two when it suits. Maybe a useful response Wilson would be that Hindus start with the beliefs of Hinduism.
@dbes02 Sure. Depends on your definition of faith I suppose. If you mean something that stands outside of the realm of logic (eg.'I believe it because I just do') then I guess 'faith in reason' is oxymoronic.
On the other hand if by faith you mean trust then we could be said to trust reason to lead us to the truth or in other words way we have faith in it's power to do so?
A small point and as you say doesn't help Wilson either way.
As much as I find the irrationality of religion of concern, the delusion is so powerful, effective and helpful for so many people that it isn't going away overnight. And, amazingly, very intelligent thinkers (eg, WL Craig, not so sure about Wilson) are able to develop arguments to support their position and convince themselves. And there are examples in different religions, defending completely different positions.
And not for the first time. Hitchens showed him all corners of the room for most of the debate. Wilson is an intellectual featherweight and simply no match for someone of Hitchen's caliber.
agreed, and this is honestly one of hitchens opponents. i've watched him go up against people who don't even come close to douglas, however, none of them can seem to overcome hitchens knowledge and skill at what he does best. "douglas got spanked!"
Wilson, though I disagree with him, is obviously a reasonably intelligent man. But, this is what faith does. His backups arguments for what he believe is always the text promoted by the people that agree with him. If you're argument is "the bible says it happened", you lose.
BeckettKnox 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson 2
This debate reminds me of a boxing match, with each of the 12 episodes a boxing round, and each round ending up with a winner, a loser or as a draw. This round, Hitchens lost, and lost badly.
Just to get the trolls of my back, I'm not saying he lost the whole debate, ok.
Matthysable 2 months ago
@Matthysable what? did you think "reasoning and logic is just a kind of faith" was a knockdown argument?
frilansspion 2 months ago
@frilansspion You obviously didn’t understand the point. Both induction and deduction are simply empty structures which, in themselves, do not and cannot, make any comment on the contents used to fill them. All men have three heads, Socrates is a man, thus Socrates has three heads is VALID, and the syllogism can make no comment on the truth or not the conclusion. That is what is meant by ‘just another kind of faith’ - ultimate ULTIMATE contents are based on faith.
Get it?
Matthysable 2 months ago
@Matthysable I dont think I asked for an explanation of what he meant. I asked whether you thought it was so good an argument (or indeed an argument at all)?.
frilansspion 2 months ago
@frilansspion No, you didn't ask for an explanation, but, judging from your question, you obviously needed it.
Say thank you.
Matthysable 2 months ago
@Matthysable if you cant reply you dont think he "won the round" after all. pointless, rude little man
frilansspion 2 months ago
@frilansspion Read my first answer again, Actually, read it twice - you obviously still don't understand. As for my rudeness, you haven't said thank you for the illumination I freely and graciously offered you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Matthysable 2 months ago
@Matthysable Ill spell it out for you: it doesnt make any comment on _which_ belief is best motivated. this kind of technical wankery is what you engage in when you are losing. the pot wants the kettle to stop wanking please, I dont care about your color, its 2011 hello
frilansspion 2 months ago
@frilansspion Oh well, I've done my bit. As the saying goes:
"You can lead a donkey to understanding but you cannot make him think".
Fine discorso.
Matthysable 2 months ago
@Matthysable its "you can lead a donkey to water...". you cant "lead a donkey to understanding" fool
frilansspion 2 months ago
@frilansspion Actually, it's, "you can lead a HORSE to water but you can’t make him drink".
I guess you're a product of the USA school system! An entire illiterate generation!
Matthysable 2 months ago
@Matthysable haha you are mental. Ive heard both donkey and horse and it doesnt change the meaning. as long as you have "faith" that youre never wrong, thats all you need, eh? and no, Im swedish. and I also think were done now. Im sorry for replying to your comment to start this off. it was a mistake, but sometimes you actually run into sensible people even here on youtube and you can learn about others perspectives. not in this case obviously. have a nice day
frilansspion 2 months ago
@frilansspion Well, at least I've got you off my back! Thank God!
But, I want to be nice to you, so, as parting gift, I suggest to mosey over to a site called ""Phrases, sayings and idioms at The Phrase Finder" and type in "lead a horse to water". Sorry, but apart from the famous photo on the web, there simply is no other donkey (apart from you, of course!),
Now, say thank you!
Matthysable 2 months ago
@frilansspion Oh yea, and while you're at "Phrases, sayings and idioms at The Phrase Finder", why don't you type in "lead a donkey to water" as well, and see what you get?
Ha ha ha!!!
Sorry, but I have to sigh off now, I'm laughing so much I can hardly see straight!
Hee-haw, hee-haw, hee.haw - hey, look fellas! It's Dominick the donkey!!
Matthysable 2 months ago
@frilansspion Btw. why take it out on me? Take it out on your teachers who obviously filled up your head with PC hot air instead of teaching you what they were (supposedly) paid to do, i.e. make you literate.
Anyway, I’m, not going to waste my time on you anymore. Have the last word it you like, but, as for me, I’m outa here!. As I said, “You can lead a donkey to understanding .....”
Matthysable 2 months ago
It's awesome to see a civilized mature dialogue between religion and atheism, it's refreshing!
woopsme 3 months ago
the chick from the beginning did, then the conversation helped me maintain it.
fightfanian 5 months ago
This part of the discussion damn near gave me an erection.
Clifton100 6 months ago
@Clifton100 Um...eww.
writersblock26 5 months ago
Hitchens got Wilson early in this conversation if he believed that Mohammed flew to the heavens.
That was the point were Wilsons argument got very weak. He stated that he believed in the christian miracles because there were wittnesses.
As if Islam doesn't claim to have eye wittnesses for Mohammeds departure.
Then he went on claiming that Jesus' wittnesses were more reliable... which is a ridiculous thing to say since you neither know the christian nor the islamic wittnesses in person.
Verrsus 6 months ago
Hitchens hit the nail on the head. Any holy book has been conceived, written, edited, printed, distributed and interpeted by the hand of man not an omnipotent being.
And should one belive in an omnipotent creator, who are you as mere flesh and blood to pretend to know it's will and/or desire for all humanity. Surly an omnipotent creator's will and desire would be incomprehendable and inconceivable to mere mortals. To say otherwise proves the point.
MrBoggles 6 months ago
I wish Wilson did a better job explaining the issue with Hitchens' epistemological approach with miracles. Despite books like "The Selfish Gene" trying to explain it, the human existence itself is astronomically improbable to be just about impossible rising through chance. Hitchens seems to refuse to want to explain the world because it can't be proven how we formed so improbably. Reason is comforting in that it limits us to what can be proven, but ultimately it cannot answer everything.
mateo134 8 months ago
@jif99- You have misunderstood what real faith is. Faith is essentially and practically a synonym for trust. Both faith and trust, particularly in the Biblical sense, are evidence based, and thus logical. Every time God laid forth a command He qualified His right to do so by reminding the recipients and objects of that command of His trustworthiness; " I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who brought you out of Egypt." i.e. You can trust me based on what I have already done. So faith
jimhamby 8 months ago
Daniel Faraday: 9:41
MasterElefonte 9 months ago
"We [atheists] don't assert as true what we have just been asked to prove. I think that's a methodological difference worth observing in an institution of higher education." Hitchens at his best.
nichtrostend 10 months ago 4
Wilson also ultimately relies on his own faculties (to read and understand the Bible and the world around him), therefore he places his faith in reason AND the Bible, and the entirety of the field of apologetics is still trying to address the inevitable conflict. He's a profoundly dishonest and unpleasant man, and I don't understand how Hitchens has tolerated him enough to co-write a book.
dorsk188 10 months ago
Hitchens is a very intelligent man but he keeps getting pinned by every question put to him and somehow he dodges them with out answering them head on.
31stmp 10 months ago
@31stmp When I read a comment like this it feels like I'm watching a completely different video (or series of videos) then some people are.
VicVinegar 8 months ago
@VicVinegar If you read their book, which is very small, you'll notice Hitchens keeps failing to answer the question of 'where do innate morals come from'. However, we obviously have opposing views and neither you nor I are going to be convinced of the other's view by a mere youtube debate :)
31stmp 7 months ago
@VicVinegar Well it is true I haven't read their book (I did see the movie) but I'm not quite sure he dodges the morality question. I think he says that morality is more or less innate in us and that the how's and why's are mostly unknowable at this point (1st Turek debate particularly). I'd agree it's maybe not the most satisfying answer in the world, but I do think it's better than claiming with absolute certainty on the basis on no supporting evidence that the Christian God is responsible.
VicVinegar 7 months ago
Seriously, is this guy joking? He believes in Christ because he was resurrected, he believes in the resurrection because its' in the Bible, and he believes in the Bible because he believes in Christ. How can a grown-up spout this bilge in public with a straight face?
PatchesRips 10 months ago 6
I have gas
ExNihiloJimmy 11 months ago
Doug got Hitch slapped.
smokyp3nguin 11 months ago
Wow! What a moment when one man's argument is admittedly complete faith, and the other is rational, logic, and reason based. As Hitchens says, that cant have escaped you can it? In front of a crowd at an institute of higher learning. Its an important point is it not?
shortfuse41 11 months ago 5
"the worst kind of patronizing tyrannical authority is the one that says it's controlling you for your own good". classic.
SebiSthlm 1 year ago 9
Faith in reason? Face palm.
roophies 1 year ago
I'm a pastafarian, What god is it these two keep going on about? There is only one True god, and of course, it's the one that I worship.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations Pasta? D:
Hankatu 1 year ago
@Hankatu The 1'st of church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am from the strict orthodox branch!
Touched by his noodley appendage.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations You're amazing <3
Hankatu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thank god there is no god
ckogden 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens getting stumped over and over again...I love it. But again, he does have a clever way of getting out of his embarrassment...Hitchens is way too prideful to admit fault or admit when he's wrong. He has a clever way of going around the issue and eventually discussing a different subject.
buitrami 1 year ago
@buitrami Swing and a miss.
DirectInjected 1 year ago
@DirectInjected I know! LOL...Poor Hitchens...But he can't expect to be right EVERY time...LOL
buitrami 1 year ago
@buitrami Haha... not quite! The swing and miss was on your part! Hitchens is at his finest here. Wilson practically couldn't breathe his arguments were so refuted.
DirectInjected 1 year ago 2
@DirectInjected Ha! When will you atheists learn to admit defeat? Especially when it's as clear as this?? Unbelievable you atheists are. LOL
buitrami 1 year ago
Wilson got owned big time. Ha, so did the audience
iamadamsusername 1 year ago
The concept of sin drips with centuries of oppression.
- Me
SlayingMinion 1 year ago
I say that Logic isnt man-made at all. It is understoon by man, but man didnt make it at all. Logic supports itself, on its own.
If there is no one or no biological entity to witness two boulders standing next to each other, regardless, it's still two boulders. The concept of the boulders, even the representation of the amount of them can change, but the essence is still the same IE two boulders.
Domzdream 1 year ago
Most of Wilson's life is conducted under reason. Why doesn't he stop eating? Why doesn't he set his leg of fire? Why doesn't he use his hair to speak? He by default has to use reason to function in life including this debate so why suddenly throw it out because of an old book?
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
once again wilson proves he's an idiot
slaughtersaults 1 year ago
1:30 BIG FOOT SPOTTED IN BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER - PROVING THAT LIKE BEAVERS, BIG BOOT MUST CHEW ON PENS TO KEEP TEETH AT A HEALTHY LENGTH
mackles 1 year ago
I think there becomes a point where someone has justified their BS beliefs to such an extent that there truly is no way back. That's why scientists are so great, they are willing to drop a theory or refine it if evidence is found to the contrary.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@asexychef
Your English is broken at best, but that does not refute your stance. To say one is not an expert in a field of study, does not prove the opposing opinion, end of story. I don't even have to continue, but I will add that a lack of knowledge in an opposition does not prove the arguement against said opposition.
winnter211 1 year ago
You cannot just base your faith on the fact that miracles occurred because the bible said so. Who is to say what's true in the book, if anything. Its written hundreds of years ago by an array of people, and not only contains thousands of examples of ancient superstition and lawless murder and rape and pillage, rules that cannot and should not be followed by a decent society, and copies fables from hundreds of years before and from other religions, not least the "virgin" birth.
sids500 1 year ago
"You're like Bill Maher's audience"
lolz
ChrisZimny 1 year ago 2
there is absolutely no way to argue for faith, it makes no sense to try, so why is Wilson doing it?
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01
It has been his life, as passed down to him by his parents. He has no choice otherwise his world view falls apart.
babyshambler 1 year ago
Did anyone else have difficulty finding the proper numerical order?
johneamer 1 year ago 3
@johneamer Yep and it pissed me right off. Couldn't find no.9
BLAGASPANTS 1 year ago
Wilson confuses trust and faith -- which are similar in there differences to the concept of knowledge and belief. Trust is evidence based -- you have a position and it is reasonable to hold that position based on prior learning and future confirmations of the veracity of that position. Faith is an emotional deduction based on lack of material evidence and not resting on any kind of logic.
jif99 1 year ago 33
@jif99 that is the definition of blind faith you have there. and that isn't the case with Douglas's. And when you are saying about knowledge and belief, actually those two are not totally separated, instead they are interconnected in a way to that of diagram Venn. Be rational, but not rationalist.
sl1mm 1 year ago
@jif99 "Wilson confuses trust and faith .." but faith is trust...BY DEFINITION... your definition of faith is a false Modern Atheist definition that no Theologian would agree with.
TrueTaike 9 months ago
Dear god (no pun intended), do religious people not see the ohhh soooo obvious problem with this mans argument? " I believe in miracles because of the resurrection of god". Where did he get that tid-bit of "information".. that damn book.. where are the rest of the "miracles" he discusses.. that damn book.. FIGURE IT OUT!
winnter211 1 year ago 3
Just because Wilson has "faith" in a book doesn't mean that book is right. Period. End of conversation. Nothing to argue. It's right "for him." It's very pea-brained and narcissistic of Wilson to assume that he needs to sit up there and impress his faith on other people as "truth". Chris Hitchens is there for the opposite reason, not to impress his views, but to aid in discrediting Wilson's - which is something that arguably has needed to be done for thousands of years.
2063563313 1 year ago
Wilson makes it so easy with his 'it's true because I believe it' arguments. Hitch hardly has to exert himself that much to destroy Wilson's position.
tpn365 1 year ago
@detectivetackett
Evasion?.. so in your opinion, Hitchens being presents a question on physics, and himself not being a physicist, is evading by starting a response with " I'm not a physicist"... Which, Oh by the way, he's not...
winnter211 1 year ago 2
@winnter211 Well many religious people, see themselves as an expert on everything because one book to them trumps all others. So I know about everything because I have the truth. So if you say well I am not actual an expert on physics, well than he loses because the bible tells you all you ever need to know about everything by their standards.
ASexyChef 1 year ago
"I start with the Bible, you start with reason." Shouldn't the debate end there?
eNRGy27 1 year ago 73
@eNRGy27
Unfortunately I can only click you ONE thumbsup :)
trannyniggr 1 year ago
@eNRGy27 Correct me if I'm wrong but if the theist said that then it would just stop there. But the theist does not stop right their, they go on to say that the bible is reason and that their morals are greater than ours, that we will burn in hell and so forth.. That's where the conflict I believe starts.
dsmrider 1 year ago
@eNRGy27 wait. in that case, you have reason as your "bible". And you might mix some other science hypothesis / logical assumption / etc into your foundation, together with your own "bible". Don't you find this.. well.. not that much different in method, as you building your reason on your "bible". It's absurd if you think that in this way, you are in a higher position and thus able to see things in a bird eye view
sl1mm 1 year ago
@eNRGy27 What debate?! There is no debate without both sides starting from reason!
flibbertergibbet 10 months ago
@eNRGy27 Its not even a debate anymore thats the irony!!
gezzer2 8 months ago
@eNRGy27 Wilson's point is that it is unreasonable to hop both feet into the reason boat without examining it. To hop first into a reason boat to examine the reason boat is also unreasonable. If reason is one's authority, "just because" then you've made it irrational. If reason has authority because one endeavors to "Think God's thoughts after Him" then reason makes sense. Reason assumed is not reason reasoned. Reason reasoned is reason assumed. Hitchens idea of reason is self-refuting.
atozach 6 months ago
Right at the end, Hitchens says, "I'm not a physicist."
Biggest. Evasion. Ever.
DetectiveTackett 1 year ago
starting at 4:00, basically admits that he will only accept evidence if it is consistent with his own belief.
pillowbugg 1 year ago
LULZ when Wilson said he wrote a book on Logic
vegasOasis 1 year ago 5
07:47 retard giggle
asdashopperrr 1 year ago
I think that Hitchens is educated beyond his intelligence. His logic sucks. Sure he's articulate, but that's about it. Wilson is not that articulate, but his logic was much better. Atheism and naturalistic evolution is just silly non-sense that takes an extraordinary leap of faith to believe. Even C.S. Lewis knew that, while he was an atheist, he was well aware that his paradigm contained too many contradictions.
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames if you think that wilson's logic, which does not exist, is better than hitchen's. you are an even bigger moron. wilson hung himself. right when he said, i presuppose.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb The problem with Hitchens, as with a lot of atheists, is that his paradigm is based on delusions and makes himself look like an even bigger fool because he has painstakingly convinced himself in error. Further, I can perceive the level of your knowledge and maturity, and your weakness thereby revealed, when you have to resort to ad hominem libel. Wilson is not the best debater. If Hitchens wants a good debate, he ought to contend with Pastor Mark Driscoll.
AsherJames 1 year ago
Hitchens is clear, brilliant. Until it can be proved otherwise, I don't think he can be rivalled, seriously, in this subject matter.
mazklassa1 1 year ago
What I hate about these "debates" is that the Christians never really say: "Well, that seems reasonable. Yes, you might be right."
Jammed9000 1 year ago
he's using scripture... sweet baby jesus...
lukeism2 1 year ago
"I accept all the miracles because of the resurrection of Christ " 2:05 - 2:14 So what he's saying is that he believes in them because of them? Makes sense if you don't think about it.
doublezeroduck 1 year ago
@doublezeroduck If a guy raises himself from the dead, then, yeah, it would probably make sense to believe what he's saying. That's the whole point of Christ's miracles, to prove his power and his claims.
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames I don't see why that would be true. There's always the possibility that the dead riser is simply lying, or more likely that you're under some sort of grave misapprehension. The only thing a genuine resurrection would prove is the ability to defy death. That's as far as it goes. I wouldn't trust the divinity of someone who defied death anymore than I would the word of someone who could fly on a magic carpet, even if these types of things did exist.
killsourenemy 1 year ago
@killsourenemy Wow,u mean to tell me that if you witnessed a guy claim himself to be God for a period of three years,and give evidence for his claims by raising other people from the dead,heal diseases,have power over the forces of nature,create things ex nihilo,e.g. water to wine,feeding a crowd of 20,000 men, women and children from a kids sack lunch,and fulfill hundreds of prophecies from the Old Testament,and to cap it all off, prophesy his own death and resurrection,that wouldnt impress u?
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames You can have all the metaphysical claims you want, but nothing you've just said proves divinity. Another explanation for your claims could be witchcraft or sorcery. Until you can explain why these events can only be accomplished by God, you are stuck with an empty sack.
killsourenemy 1 year ago
@killsourenemy Dang kid, what kind of world do you live in? Were you not hugged as a child? So are you an atheist? Wicca? Jehovah's Witness? Satanist? I don't even know what kind of categories you have on reality. Too many drugs? Tell me your story.
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames Someone just lost an argument and is angry.
killsourenemy 1 year ago
@killsourenemy Lol Really dude, I'm curious, what things brought you to that conclusion? And are you an atheist? Agnostic? I'm asking you questions. It's okay to answer them, you have nothing to be scared of.
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames It's called an education. You ought to youtube that word next.
killsourenemy 1 year ago
@killsourenemy Lol! If you truly believe you won an argument, then, I'm sorry, but it appears you should ask for your money back. All you guys on here are clearly charlatans, you claim to be good debaters and are convinced of it, yet when the rubber meets the road, you guys are just clowns. None of you guys are that intelligent. That is evident. It's more fun to mess with you guys. But seriously guys, have an open mind and read some more material.
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames ok troll. you are of the school of coward shitfaced assholes, who talk crap on youtube, but would fall all over himself apologizing in person. it is unfortunate that opening your mind is not possible for you. you'd have to have one first. pull your head out of your ass, wipe the shit out of your eyes, and take a look around in reality.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb What inspiring prose! I don't really perceive you have an education there Mr. brownbj. Once again, children are meant to be seen, not heard.
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames then why are you talking little boy?
brownbigb 1 year ago
@AsherJames Yeah, but this guy didn't see any of that happen. It's a story. You didn't see it happen. You don't know anything about it first hand and neither does he. It's faith.
doublezeroduck 1 year ago
@doublezeroduck You're right. I didn't see it, and none of us have seen Christ's resurrection. But the New Testament authors did, and they wrote letters and accounts of it. Hence, the New Testament Gospels and epistles. Hundreds of people saw this man, Jesus of Nazareth raised from the dead. The New Testament is a series of accounts, eye witness testimonies, not story. Hence, New Testament, get it? The testimony of the apostle Paul is what seals it for me. I used to be a marxist atheist.
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames wow, all i can say is wow. which new testament author saw the ressurection? it is interesting that you know of this, when no other apologetic has been able to come up with one. atheism is based on delusion? wow. did paul ever meet jesus? how wouldhe have known what jesus looked like? saying you are a moron, is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem attack.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb I must repeat you. Wow. You're probably the most ignorant atheist I've come across. I really don't even know where to begin with you and I actually have a life outside of posting crap on youtube. You're not worth the effort, so, go and get a better education, grow up a little, then maybe come back and debate a little.
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames i do have a better education, and i've grown up more than you ever will. as far as debating. no point. live in your delusions. having been a marxist, obviously you enjoy that. you are still an atheist though. like everyone else.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb Lol. You're definitely entertaining. Poor written communication skills. Better educated? Special Ed isn't better. Remember, children are meant to be seen, not heard. ;)
AsherJames 1 year ago
@AsherJames There is clear debate on who actual authored many of what is written in the New Testament, because we know it was not written at the time when those events happened. And Paul never meet Jesus nor did he see any of the miracles, Mark is also one who seems to be written far later so it was not by first hand accounts. Next you can go to people who make those claims today, there are many who people claim do miracles all the time, and people who will testify that they saw it.
ASexyChef 1 year ago
@AsherJames I am not an atheist, however if falls on faith, so you can not say oo there are claims for thosands of eye witnessed accounts that completely proves this and that, no, no it doesn't your faith is one thing but that is just stupid, you believe, leave it at that, and stop trying to argue for things that you can't prove.. Sheesh.
ASexyChef 1 year ago
Wilson got schooled, of course, but he was polite and kind and even funny, unlike many that I see take on Hitch.
MrSueVeneer 1 year ago 2
Faith in reason? Is he joking? Is he as we English would say 'taking the mickey'? (you can have that one for free).
JohnnyZenith 1 year ago
Logic, I agrue, isnt made made. I think the understanding of logic is man made (or accomplished, grasped). BUt logic is alway there, and has always been and always will be. Two rocks lying side by side on the moon, regardless of wether we're there to witness them, are still that- two rocks. Not one rock. Two rocks! The logic is self reinforcing.
Domzdream 1 year ago
religious people r mentally disordered. its not an insult. its my observation and opinion.
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin Sorry i meant to put the first argument in inverted commas but forgot to because my level of interest in you is low.
BrokenBassBin 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin Oh dear, you're a very spiteful person. Not worth arguing with. Do you consider yourself a demigod? You certainly seem to... & your argument was not an argument, it was a pitiful generalisation based on your own limited experience.
And no, i've never smoked pot.
BrokenBassBin 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin I am an atheist & i hate metal. Get some REAL reasoning dude, your life experience is not the sum of reality.
BrokenBassBin 1 year ago
Must be traumatic for a Christian College or educational institution to have Christopher Hitchens just blow away all their beliefs! Probably would have been better to preach Telhard de Chardin's philosophies and ideology that Christ is a trancendentalist Messiah...inviting people to perceive another world (heaven) and the probability that there is a loving Diety who will take the human spirit and take it into another dimension where those who believe are forever removed from this chaotic one.
warwickshire008 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin
"how do you know this?"
The claim that human beings have a special place with regards to god(s) is spelled out very clearly in the mythology of most religions. Pointing that out has nothing to do with "sophism".
I am honestly growing weary of your blatant game of definitions, which is so typical for most theists. Talking with you is like trying to provoke a reasoned response from a brick wall, so I will butt out of this.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin
"what do they clame"
They claim they have a special place in the universe, since some deity is interested in them.
"most atheist believe that God is a man in the sky"
No, they don't believe God exists in the first place, and when you look at the lack of evidence this is a very reasonable position to hold. And why should you want to kill something if you don't even believe it's real?
What atheists may believe otherwise is irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago 4
@PaladinConstantin
"before judging all theist the same, you must assume you have studied all religions and all theist."
You can already confirm recurring patterns of thought by examining the more prevalent theistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.) which all claim pretty much the same thing.
I also don't know any atheists who believes they can obtain superpowers. If anything. it's the theists who do do, since their god can suspend nature's laws.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin
"what's harder still is to convince you people to let go of ego "
Actually, it''s the theists who have a big ego problem. They believe that all of this vast universe has been created specifically for them and that some sort of all-powerful sky-daddy has some vested interest in their well-being. Not so. The universe is completely indifferent to our existence. If all of the human race disappeared, nobody outside our little blue planet would even know.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin
"it's harder to prouve God does not exist then to prove intelligence in the design."
The burden of proof for the existence of gods is on the theists. After thousands of years not a shred of evidence has ever been provided, so it's a very reasonable position not to believe any claims theists make about the deities they believe in.
Likewise, Intelligent Design offers no evidence, nor does it provide mechanisms for how this supposed designer worked.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin
"but even with the featherweight intellectual like wilson, hitchen almost thanked "
It doesn't matter whether a theist is intellectual or not. Theism is untenable, since it crumbles under any rational scrutiny. Theists lose any debate about the reasonability of their belief by default.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Lol @ Hitchens: "logic is man made"
sooooo I guess there isn't universal logic. 1+1 can = 3 because man says so.
Considering the majority-atheist consensus here, I kind of find comfort in the fact that the most popular voted post are for the truly oblivious of Wilson's point about man's p-e-r-s-o-n-a-l reasoning. *points to kablamo9999*
saulsaenz79 1 year ago
@saulsaenz79 1+1 = 3 IS possible! depends on the monoid (at least, and if you dont know what that is, it is a form of algebra) you are operating in :))). mathematics try to represent the observable universe in consistent manner. that is all there is to it.
Blackerer 1 year ago
@Blackerer
A toddler can empirically observe that a gummie~bear and a cookie = 2 treats. Thanks for the revisionism though. Try again!
saulsaenz79 1 year ago
@saulsaenz79 and you didnt understand nature of my argument. it was meant to be a slight joke as well btw. logic is a product of humans. when someone says 1+1 = 2 to you, then he implicitly expects you to be working on a same algebra (at least a monoid in this case) as he does. that is the most probable one, the one used by most humans. which one is it here btw R or N or Q? in order to build up logic to the level of algebra, you have to do some amount of work. this is NOT what universal means.
Blackerer 1 year ago
@saulsaenz79 maybe you could watch this v=v02HM_-Dz2g there is a pretty good argument that touches the nature of the problem. also another atheist/christian debate. if you wish you could read this wikipedia on Algebra too. that should help a lot too. and what you described as an example still requires the toddler to create an abstract set of gummie~bear and a cookie. nature itself doesnt even need to do it. kids in elementary schools learn about Q, and still have no idea how it got there.
Blackerer 1 year ago
@saulsaenz79 Abstract Algebra article on wikipedia works even better than the one for regular algebra.
Blackerer 1 year ago
When Wilson says, 'You have faith in reason.' is he acknowledging that his faith is unreasonable?
TheAUKid 2 years ago 35
@TheAUKid
I agree. But I hate when religious people call reason faith. Reason and rationality are by definition self-evident therefore they need no proof. The burden of proof is with religious people of faith because they first have to first prove that their god is the right god before they claim that their faith is reasonable or rational.
Sylosis333 2 years ago
Also, one point I never hear mentioned... God is pretty much THE ONLY THING, these people have blind faith in. They're happy to use reason and logic when it comes to every other aspect of life.Remove God from the equation and they're as rational as you and I.
I don't think Wilson or any theist is illogical or unreasonable... I think they choose to deny what they know, that they believe in God because they WANT to believe in God. Deep down, they know, they're BSing.
TheAUKid 2 years ago
I think he means his faith is unreasoning, not unreasonable. It comes not from thought but from some other, as of yet undisclosed, source.
ariuszarim 1 year ago
@TheAUKid
I love the moron who spews what he learned in physics 101 trying to debunk Hitchen's Genius. Gotta love these Christian College kids.
Romansteel13 1 year ago
The problem with believing in the "infallibility of scripture" is the fact that it's so obviously fallible. First off, even a cursory examination of history would PROVE that the bible people today believe in was arrived at by committee. How many books were left out because they didn't follow the controlling dogma of the founders of the Catholic Church (the first Christian church, on which all others derive)? A lot. Are they any less true? Second, they conflict in so many ways, it's absurd.
Joe41272 2 years ago 2
your highest authority has to be self declaring, because otherwise it's not your highest authority. The Bible is the Christians highest authority because it says so, the atheist's is reason, because it is reasonable to make it so.
redfish87 2 years ago 2
Ouch at 6:15 "..If you laugh at that..." from Hitch. I did laugh but, as I suspect is true for most of the audience laughers too, I was laughing AT Wilson for saying something so stupid.
I can't believe Wilson went with the old "You have faith in reason" ploy - it's pathetic.
queenastilon 2 years ago
What astonishes me is how CH can sit calmly beside people like this and not want shake or slap them.
robzrob 2 years ago 7
its the scotch..
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Lol! Could be. :)
robzrob 2 years ago
That's his job.....I'm a fan of CH but he's there to make money.
vcomp1960 2 years ago
Yes, of course, don't suppose he'd get invited many places if he started throwing the furniture around. :)
robzrob 2 years ago
yes its all about money isn't it??
edgartaljaardet 2 years ago
Have you noticed how many liberals have turned into conservatives right after 9/11. There was more money to be made by converting to conservatism than staying in the liberal movement. Lot's of political comentators as well as comedians were saved by 9/11.
vcomp1960 2 years ago
because they bought into the myth that conservatives keep Americans safe and fight terrorism. the record is much more ugly. In reality, they have coddled, traded with, supported, and aided extremist dictators and regimes and terrorist groups. they have also ignored and failed to respond to attacks committed by these same groups. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi and Muslim religious extremists and yet Bush chose to invade secular Iraq which never attacked the US?
pele6922 2 years ago
All true......but many just turned conservative to make the money.
vcomp1960 2 years ago
@robzrob It's easy...he isn't a Christian...
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine Good one! :)
robzrob 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens: "Logic is manmade, yes."
Wilson: "So there's no reason to follow it then?"
Hitchens: "...No"
Hitchens got his head handed to him.
jonathanpaulmayer 2 years ago
@jonathanpaulmayer
There was a little more than to this point then what you said.
cifier 2 years ago
Wilson's appeal to ridicule in his incessant laughing is appalling. His equivocation of "faith" as "confidence" was also poor.
Hitchens should have pointed out that he doesn't have "faith" in reason because because reason is a justified process based on evidence/experience. Faith by definition is a belief not based on evidence.
dbes02 2 years ago
@dbes02 Think Hitchens struggles in this bit. Arms folded and turning a bit aggressive. Have you seen the clip where he turns on Bill Mahers audience? It's uncomfortable.
I think if he justified reason by appeal to experience he'd fall foul of the problem of induction which the guy at the end raises. He could probably get away with stating that without faith in reason there's no point in any sort of debate so both sides must accept it as axiomatic. Maybe?
deekomendez 2 years ago
deekomendez, Hitchens often does the arm folding as a statement. My reference to experience/evidence is in the context that, philosophically, reason is rationality, proportioning of a hypothesis to the grounds for advancing it, ie the strength of the evidence.
As faith is belief in the absence of evidence, then anything goes. The fraud of Wilson's type of position is playing it both ways: appealing to "evidence" when they want to and then playing the faith card against evidence they don't like.
dbes02 2 years ago 3
@dbes02 Hey don't get me wrong I'm not defending Wilson's overall position. I think Hitchens makes him look pretty silly in most of this debate and 'cards on the table' I'm an atheist.
However I think that Wilson does raise a genuine issue (though not one which strengthens his case) in that we do have to have some sort of 'faith' in reason.
deekomendez 2 years ago
yes but faith, is having a strong inclination towards something that isn't true, or hasnt been discovered yet. while wilson inclines that you shouldn't question that who is unquestionable, hitchins explains that all that is unanswered will eventually be so. witch i find very hopeful and realistic.
edgartaljaardet 2 years ago 2
cont..
While I totally agree that experience tells us that reason is a good way of finding truth. How do we know that experience is reliable? Through experience... which is a circular argument (See 'the problem of induction' on Wikipedia).
I guess in twisted logic, for Wilson if it's ok to have faith in reason, it's ok to have faith in other things too. A bit of a leap!
deekomendez 2 years ago
I realise you're not defending Wilson.
A point I was making was that "faith in reason" is an oxymoron by definition.
I understand about the induction problem - from the genius of Hume.
But regardless, religious belief slips shamelessly between the two when it suits. Maybe a useful response Wilson would be that Hindus start with the beliefs of Hinduism.
dbes02 2 years ago
@dbes02 Sure. Depends on your definition of faith I suppose. If you mean something that stands outside of the realm of logic (eg.'I believe it because I just do') then I guess 'faith in reason' is oxymoronic.
On the other hand if by faith you mean trust then we could be said to trust reason to lead us to the truth or in other words way we have faith in it's power to do so?
A small point and as you say doesn't help Wilson either way.
deekomendez 2 years ago
brilliant comment. you are obviously very well informed. when will the insanity of this world recede.
edgartaljaardet 2 years ago
Thank you, edgartaljaardet.
As much as I find the irrationality of religion of concern, the delusion is so powerful, effective and helpful for so many people that it isn't going away overnight. And, amazingly, very intelligent thinkers (eg, WL Craig, not so sure about Wilson) are able to develop arguments to support their position and convince themselves. And there are examples in different religions, defending completely different positions.
dbes02 2 years ago
Of those two - Hitchens and Wilson - the latter looks and sounds definitely more 'evil'...
firebatas 2 years ago
But you know which one would make a better Bond villain. ;)
PinkandDeadly 2 years ago
I wish theists would use what made them christian, not what they use to strengthen faith...
oooo
6:00 haha
snofthndr 2 years ago
8:30 powned! douglas got spanked!
steveo3141 2 years ago
"douglas got spanked! "
And not for the first time. Hitchens showed him all corners of the room for most of the debate. Wilson is an intellectual featherweight and simply no match for someone of Hitchen's caliber.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago 15
agreed, and this is honestly one of hitchens opponents. i've watched him go up against people who don't even come close to douglas, however, none of them can seem to overcome hitchens knowledge and skill at what he does best. "douglas got spanked!"
steveo3141 2 years ago