Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson - Debate - Part 2

Hitchens and Wilson at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia on 10-30-2008.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Douglas
• Wilson
• Debate
• Westminster
• Theological
• Seminary
• Atheist
• Theologian
• Christian

[Pontusky]

thanks for the upload, i only wish you had a tripod.

[Intellisecular]

Hmmm. Red, you ought to read more. The Attributes of your ficitious God are self contradictory. Read, Atheism: The Case Against God. A mind-independent reality is the only way to discover the law of non-contradiction. Read: The Construction of Social Reality by John Searle.

[Cougar139tweak]

Lets state something a bit deeper- Evil people do evil things and look for a reason- be it religious or political. Good people do evil things when told to do them when forced to (at cost of death) . "Because I said so" never works, unless you are a dictator, you must have a reason to do "evil deeds" unless you are a lunitic. Whereas doing good needs no reason but religion takes that one for themselves- why else would we be good, shows a failure of imagination, just watch battle at kruger.

[newfagscanttrif0rce]

I honestly don't know what Hitchens see's in Wilson who believes yahweh is 'loving'. Sure, he is loving, but you have to overlook the supposed fact that dead people are currently being tortured in hellfire and knowing never ending pain because they lived virtous lives but didn't belive the bible to be anything more than the work of superstitious primitive men. Sure Wilson, some loving father.

[MrSalamander7]

1:25 It may be hard to grasp, or imagine, but it makes sense mathematically and scientifically.

Side note: 1:40 = Epic Fail on Wilson's part

[regelemihai]

The primary scope of the crusades was not to invoke violence and masscares. Pope Urban the II made it very clear. Their intention was to reestablish Jerusalem as a Christian city after years of muslmis oppression. However, even if the pope did encourage violence, it would still be contrary to what the NT teaches.

If without secularism the actions of seculars would not change, then what are we arguing?

[Doormatters]

@regelemihai

"...in favor of Christianity. "In the name of" is a meaningless phrase so long as the doctrine itself does not advocate those actions."

without secularism, the actions performed by secularists would still be there. without religion, the actions made by the religious would not be there.

also, the catholic church is a prime example of a religion endorsing violent acts (the crusades)

[regelemihai]

My bad, I meant: I'm willing to concede..committed by atheists is NOT a direct...

Freudian slip maybe? :P

Kidding...

[regelemihai]

...savagery,when the facts point to the other direction.

I am willing to concede that violence committed by atheist is a direct consequence of secularism,but then again this is what I've been stressing out with regard to Christianity as well:if the doctrine itself does not promote murder and oppression,it's just as faulty to pin the blame on the religion instead of on the believers who are, inevitably, fallible human beings.

That's all my beef with it. Apply the same standard to both parties

[regelemihai]

"Large tracts" is misstating it a bit. The only alleged passages that deviate somewhat from Jesus are Paul's epistles, and he was not a desciple of jesus. But nontheless, he never invokes violence upon non believers or anything that can be interprted as such.

I got it from Solyenitzin, many history books,and even from the Guiness Book of WR, whose data is a matter of public knowledge.

I do bring it up because religion is often times accused as being the apotheosis of human decadence and...

[tielec01]

Ok we stand at an impasse here, Jesus was nice, but large tracts of the NT are not. The OT is barbaric. Interpretation and rationalisation are fantastic things.

But let's examine your claim that secularists have a far greater track record of killing.

Where do you get your statistics for this from ?

You have already said that there is no causal pathway between secularism and violence - why bring it up ? Presumably you yourself don't even believe secularism had anything to do with it...