Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson Debate at Westminster Theological Seminary, Part 7 of 12

A debate at Westminster Theological Seminary between Christopher Hitchens, renowned atheist, and Douglas Wilson, renowned Christian author. It was moderated by Dr. Scott Oliphint, and you can read his response to the debate at http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=296.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christopher Hitchens
• Douglas Wilson
• Hitchens-Wilson debate
• atheist
• apologetics
• Scott Oliphint

[DNRvideos]

anyone dismissing logic and reason, replacing them with "faith " and "belief", are not only fools but willing fools~ this guy is one of them. his arguments are equally illogical and unreasonable.

[Apollinian]

Wilson's criteria for believing the miracles he believes in is precisely the same criteria cited by believers of the miracles he rejects. But since he rejects those miracles, there must be some other reason he believes the ones he accepts. That reason is bald faith, inculcated in him in childhood, never honestly questioned, and excused by a tangled mess of rhetorical feints. Wilson is is an intellectual lightweight; my jaw has been agape every time he's spoken, at the inanity of his arguments

[scratchbang]

@ibzzibrahim hitchens knows more about religion than you may think, and he often quotes the muslim faith. He simply doesn't state anything about Mohammad's birth, all he says is what is stated in the texts, ie. he is illiterate(cannot read/write) and is a merchant.

He simply says that the muslims believe in jesus, mary, moses etc.

I know this for a fact because i live with two muslims, and they constantly quote the qu'ran when talking about their beliefs.

I dont see where you come from.

[ibzzibrahim]

Muslims do not believe Mohammad was born miraculously. Thus, either Mr. Hitchens is not aware or he does not regard Islam to be a religion.

[frilansspion]

I wish they would debate more narrow subjects than "does god exist / is the bible true". it seems it never goes anywhere really.

[Matthysable]

Hithchens oscillates between immediate sense perception (eg. the experience of pain) and value judgments (eg. cruelty) treating them as if they are the same thing. This is how he solves the problem of giving value to anything - i.e. by conflating ethos and pathos into pathos.

[kjohnsen045]

Wilson is applying his counterfeit analogy to the other religions that contained a virgin birth and other similarities. The religions in question came BEFORE Christianity. If one agency created something before another agency creating something very similar, you couldn't say that the first agency was guilty of counterfeiting.

[mdgreg]

The Argument of Parthenogenesis doesn't Work, Because All Offspring Must Be Female.

[Jornev]

@foxhanson Yes. It's so obvious it hurts my brain to try and understand how a grown man capable of tying his own shoes could argue so ridiculously.

[writersblock26]

@MRKetter81 Well, I have known some pretty robust scarecrows in my time.

[IfUrGivingIn]

@MrAtheism33 So the statement isn't falsifiable. Claiming the world revolved around the sun, thousands of years ago, would be a non-falsifiable claim. Claiming that bacteria caused illness, thousands of years ago, would be a non-falsifiable claim. Just because something at this moment may not be falsifiable, doesn't mean it's not relevant. If that was so, you'd be saying that, those people thousands of years ago that claimed the earth revolved around the sun, made absurd assumptions.

[MrAtheism33]

@IfUrGivingIn If you are still unsatisfied, what If I told you that the unicorn I purport to exist is invisible and beyond comprehension or imagination? That it exists beyond the physical universe? How are you going to go about proving that my unicorn doesn't exist? You CANNOT. But do you see how absurd my assertion is? I've just demonstrated that I, myself, could not possibly know whether it exists and am thus contradicting myself.