Wilson's answer at 1:20:00 is essentially "Christian miracles are true because Christianity is true. Therefore because Christianity is true, Christian miracles are true, and I am a Christian."
Christianity has had 2,000 years for intellectuals in suits to wax poetic and refine their arguments to sound reasonable to those who are primed to already agree with them, but at the end of the day if you listen to them long enough they always find themselves back to this vacuous axiom of their beliefs. Give Pastafarians 2,000 years to polish their satirical positions and you will have an equally credible epistemology. Wilson is championed as one of the best apologists, yet he will say with a straight face, “I believe it because it’s true.” Religion is doomed to empty tautologies.
One of Hitchens' BEST quotes from this debate is at 1:47:57 : "As long as they don't call it modesty, I don't mind. As long as they don't call it humility, I don't mind. But, I don't like being told that my arguments aren't as good as his, because he has divine information that's withheld from me."
How is it that what this fizzing space dust says any different from the other fizzing space dust in a non absolute universe. Y’all (atheists) are self refuting yourselves.😂
@@alterrihenri110 Since you were the one that brought it up, who gives a shit anyways? Besides, Why are you even attempting to argue about something I never mentioned in the first place? How about bothering someone else about it?
@@alterrihenri110 Because there's no evidence of any kind to support a *"...God like fizzing space dust..."* there's nothing but a bunch of man made piffle full of contradictions but believed by the many gullible.
@@alterrihenri110 ironic for a dust-made (claimed by your hole-y book) drone made to be a subservient worshipper to call someone else "dust". 😂 even more ironic for a subjective moralist who would claim kiIIing sinners (purge of Canaanites & Amalekites), or bibIical sIavery, or chiId sacrifice (binding of isaac) aren't moraIIy wrong, to criticize non-absoIutism. 😂
One thing I'll say about Mr Wilson is that he agreed to forgo his closing statement as requested by Hitchens, other debates I've seen, some opponents do not agree to.
No, Hitchens isn't being insulting as a means to an end, or as some rhetorical strategy. He's being genuine. It might come off as insulting, but only because there's no polite way to say to someone that they've dedicated their lives to a man-made fantasy.
Correct. It's not an ad-hominem if the insult is not the counterargument. You CAN insult someone to put them on the back foot in order to further expose their positions by breaking their composure.
@@joshcornell8510I appreciate the effort it took for you to make "atheism isn't real because it rejects my explanation of magic for why my brain does neat stuff" sound remotely intelligent. I mean, you failed, but it was still a good effort.
@@janepatton8100 in MY afterlife i get to zoom around this universe and enjoy it cos i wouldn't wast my time in empty tombs or churches. the god i invented drinks vodka and watches pornhub with me. gods are imaginary. especially yours. not only that: er. everyone seems to assume satan is going to be horrid. if i go to hell then GOD is "punishing me" for my sins, but why would satan want to punish me too? satan hates christians. if i'm being punished by satan, then satan is doing god's work - that makes zero sense, hell is eternity having WAY MORE FUN than you ever could on earth, this is what god hates, god wants you to suck his toes for eternity, satan is SAVING you from singing amazing grace for eternity. hell is where satan thumbs his nose at god and gives everyone a good time, no mind control, no ten commandments to follow, just eternal life that you can probably quit if you get bored with learning guitar from hendrix or trying to grasp relativity from einstein. why would hell be undesirable? why would satan want to torment me - he hates god and christians, not sinners.
59:25 seems to jump backward... why? Might be an error, not intentional -- sloppy editing or upload. It gets back on track around 1:09:00 or so, for those who are interested in skipping nearly 10 minutes of repeat.
Though I think his views are ludicrous, I respect that Doug Wilson actually takes the Bible seriously. Which can't be said of most "moderate" Christians who try and tip toe around the immoral barbarism in the Bible.
It is not possible to 'respect' those who give the bible literal credence. One is not speaking the truth if one says so. It is rather like the 'respect' a priest might expect because he is given the title 'Reverend'. It is like accepting that a 'man of faith' has some kind of superiority. Does one respect flat-earthers? Or those who dive in Loch Ness in search for a monster? Or those who claim to have been abducted by aliens? Or astrologers? We indulge such people - we grant them their silly hobby and expect them to be harmless. Should we not treat Godists and Bible literalists in the same patronising manner? Should we not pat them on the head and think, "..forgive them, for they know not what they do..."?
Do you respect the 'flat-earthers' who so earnestly cling to their insane belief? Do you respect the simpleton who has insufficient innate intelligence to understand that the six numbers, 1,2,3,4,5,6 are as equally likely to 'come-up' as any other combination of six numbers in the lottery? No, you would hold their intellect cheap; you would ridicule them. If I said that regardless of evidence to the contrary and without a mathical proof that two and two make five, you would think and say that I had lost my mind. And if I said further that I 'believe' it to be so, would you indulge me and offer me respect for being 'a man of faith'? No, you would think me insane; you ridicule them. One's faith confers no special protection from ridicule. A religion's antiquity nor it's popularity confers no privilege and no right not to be subjected to reason.
@@jvincent6548 Interesting enough, the majority of those who claim human biology isn't real and boys can be girls and vice-versa are also atheist. Have fun working that out...
Notice Wilson’s comment regarding the disciples “believing” Jesus had resurrected from the dead. He failed to mention that the APOSTLES never believed it UNTIL he APPEARED to them PROVING he had risen. Yet, we non-believers apparently aren’t worthy enough for him to PROVE it to us. We are required to BELIEVE a written account of a supernatural event that has never been witnessed in the history of mankind. Why should we be judged to ETERNAL torture for not believing when belief was never required for the apostles, Paul, Moses, Abraham, etc., etc.? Insanity.
fljagfan. Great point. Perhaps Paul Tamras' response was not a challenge but was just giving an example of the type of verses placed into the bible to keep the masses fooled.
Jonathan. Get out of here with that presuppositional nonsense. Your thinking and doing things you know are wrong sends you to hell, not your "sin against the God you know exists". "With what measure you mete out, it shall be measured to you again."Mathew 7 vs 2. Knowing that there is right and wrong, is not the same as believing that God exists.
Well, if they believe in the Bible in the 21st century, they are clearly delusional, ignorant, and/or amoral... Remember, the 'Bible' was verbal first. Then, it was written in parts in Hebrew. Then, 1,000 years later, the Roman Empire re-wrote it and added to it in Latin. Then, from 1604 to 1611 the fairly crude English edited it and re-wrote it in Middle English, and this is the book (King James' Bible) that mindless Christians follow today...
***** No. They differ on physics. Basic science. What we objectively know and observe. The basic observables that are incontrovertible. Wilson refers to all findings of physics, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience as "mere matter in motion" and "time and chance happening on matter". As if those words can dismiss the scientific evidence that thought is based on the physical operation of neurons, and that without neurons, there is no thought. As if we dont observe the physical degradation of these neurons dont have a negative impact on cognitive function (alzheimers, brain damage) and therefore must be extraphysical. This is scientific ignorance at its basest level and cannot be taken as a serious intellectual position by anyone.
Actually don't differ on the basics of science... not at all. They differ on over philosopher naturalism, or what is called metaphysical naturalism. Under philosopher naturalism (the bedrock of atheism), no free will (as current neuroscience strongly suggests), love is an illusionary darwinian mechanism to promote passing on genes, right and wrong are subjectively based on value judgments which can only be enforced by the majority that rules, and truth is not knowable since natural selection is not concerned at all with creatures having truth content so long as they reproduce successfully. I'd recommend Plantinga for a good explanation for why Philosopher Naturalism is a self-defeating world view - it essentially cuts it's own throat, and thus also proves atheism as an unlivable world view.
***** thanks for the intro to platgina. On the surface his arguments seem flawed, as most arguments seem against naturalism in that it hinges on a descriptive estimate cannot be trusted and that there cannot be truthful without a belief or beholder. This is a classic mistake but I'll dig deeper into his work.
Arturo Martes Sounds good. If you read actual atheist philosophers, and not just the talking point atheists, you'll see that they have a high view of theism compared to the new atheists - Nietzsche especially. Most philosophers agree that this is because they don't really grasp how complicated metaphysics is, so they just belittle and degrade since that's easier and unfortunately the public eats it up since they don't know any better. On the atheist side, I'd highly recommend Erik Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a godless universe. I've exchanged back and forth myself with Erik, and he's one of the best living atheist philosopher I've come across. Obviously as a theist I ultimately disagree with him, but he does a good job of explaining that both theism and atheism rest on unprovable beliefs - axioms, brute facts, presuppositions. In my book I'm just about finished writing on metaethics, I source him quite a bit. I'd say he's a philosopher version of Sam Harris. Don't get me wrong, Harris is alright on some things, he's not all bad, but in his book on metaethics he completely skips over discussing his axioms in a footnote because he "finds them boring". This is sloppy work, especially for a guy who believes morality is discovered not created. Atheist philosophers Massimo Pigliucci and Thomas Nagel have written some pretty good critiques of Harris' Moral Landscape. Pigliucci's is the most relentless of the two, but both are highly enjoyable reads. I've spent the better part of the last two years reading numerous atheist philosophers, and the one thing I'd warn you about, is be careful only reading the new atheists - Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Epstein, etc.. - They got popular because they built their arguments mostly on rhetoric and demeaning/bashing those they disagree with. Again, they aren't all bad, but they are miles apart of the real atheist philosophers who know better. Sadly though, presenting theism/atheism as both being philosophically sound world views doesn't get you on talk shows or prime time television... But if you pretend like your opponent has brain damage.... well that sells now doesn't it. People (on both sides) are often more comfortable demeaning/bashing those on the other side. This is mostly for psychological reasons since it helps them feel less threatened when the problems of their world view are brought to light - So instead of recognizing that their world view has problems (every world view does), they gloss over them and pretend like there aren't any problems in order to prevent feeling threatened and also to avoid having to think deeply over complex issues. Take care.
@livestoicism only at first when hitchens cuts him off. He goes on to answer exactly why. He says it’s because the evidence and the eye witness testimonies leave him no choice but to believe. Which is what he meant by “they’re the ones I believe.”
@@johnwestcott5612 don't get it, as a heavy drug user sure it would have killed him at some point or rather drastically increase his likelihood of premature death. But what do the last few years have to kill a hitch? I think it's quite the opposite he would have thrived. He was the finest provoquateur, he was a human eye of the storm, always in the centre of the controversy often the orchestrator, he was a fighter and things like trump or quanon would have been his battlefield. He would have been at the forefront of the fight against extrémism and irrationality, it would not have been a blow weakening him if anything it would have been adding fuel to the hichfero
Mortality is still only available on hardcopy and was $22.99, I am gald I got it, it is one of the most intense books I've ever read even though its very short due to his death. All I have to say as a Hitchens fan and anyone else who is reply to me if you want to know more about the book, but chapter 8 is just so deep that not only the words are profound but how its starts to take a different form in short spurts as in last throws of pain and death, but still grasping onto love that he cherished
@@democratpro Did that really make any sense to you when you said it in your head? I mean, you understand how debates work, right? You sound like a person who would read words of any religion's basic text and then say, "Sure. That makes sense".
@@leftyshawenuph4026 I'd assume the point he was getting across is that evidence has no meaning or purpose. Just like an atheist worldview, meaningless and purposeless.
@@id744 It seems to derive from the transcendental presuppositionalism method of apologetics. What Doug was trying to say is that from a godless atheistic worldview, ultimately speaking, evidence is meaningless unless you first have an ultimate basis for it. Presuppositionalists usually use this argument because they claim that in order to first argue for the need of evidence, your worldview need to make sense of it. They claim that unless you concede to the impossibility of the contrary when it comes to starting with God first, all you have left is your own reasoning to authenticate your own reasoning. Their alternative is that they claim that any knowledge is given through sense and authenticated by the God who's interpretation of reality is purely objective. If there is a presuppositionalist in the comments, please be indulgent with me if I somehow misrepresented your position. It is my understanding of the more Vantilian form of that philosophy which is present in Frame or Bahsnen.
I've lived past 5 decades, was raised going to church with my little tie on all dressed up and now speaking frankly for just myself as a science lover and non-believer, I think all religions are boring as well as over rated. Boring is the best thing I can say about religion. Thought crime (as mentioned in the tenth commandment) is a victimless crime unless I believe there's a non-physical god that cares what one out of billions of people thinks. I'm a nicer guy without the bull shit religion preaches. I dropped off god at the curb two years after Santa Claus and I didn't need Hitchens to agree with me. I like watching Hitchens debates because he was to well world travelled and funny getting the audience laughing at religion.
Joseph Nordenbrock Well said! That's the thing that bugs me about religion the most. I'm kinda shocked to see someone else who gets that. Religion is just....so....*_boring_*. The _questions_ asked by religion are _fascinating_....yet their answers are utterly pedestrian. They're boring because they aren't true or honest or ethical....therefor they aren't interesting _either_. Truth is *_always_* fascinating.
Haven't gone as far as you have, but I have dropped off my previous struggling belief ( and common conservative church belief ) in "God", and have been unlearning distortion and mind control that led me to be more stressed out and mentally enslaved. Damn the thought control policing and behavior control. Such a cheapening of the beauty of what I think/thought good religion, if you will, was supposed to be about. Relationship. Love of God and neighbor, which ought to imply truth, though often is lost, or worse, disrespected. ( In Hitchenspeak: blasphemed? ) The rampant intellectual dishonesty within the Church, when challenged by Science, is anything from laughable to sad. As much as Hitchens might have scorned me for cherry picking the Bible and not being a through and through absolutist like Douglas Wilson, I still think many more passages of the Bible were allegory, not literal, not necessarily actually occurring in real life, rather, parable to teach a principle. Or a "day" in Creation might have been a billion years. Thank you to Science as well as further debate within Theology. Hitchens, as Atheist, did a great service to hold the Church to the fire. I do miss him for that, as well as his broad, deep intellect, and oratorical skill.
27:35 That is exactly why we need to tremble, because if God only gave Justice and No Saving Grace we would all be damned since we all have fallen short of the Glory of God.
@Greg Brown Its Ok with me because God has reveled to me How Evil I have been and at many times still am. I have heard that its an abomination to say we have free will because God is the only one with Free Will because God is perfect and will always do the right thing. We have a will but it is not a good will. Its not God's fault that we love our sin, its our fault. Most people including Christian's seem to forget that God is not only Love but is also Wrathful.
tell me, if god said "you don't get any second chances, there is no forgiveness, one strike and you're out" would you still worship him, or would you say "my god would never do that" because i made up my own version of god who kinda fits with my preferences, which is what i think all people do, your god would forgive you no? that's why christianity has a GOAL, you aren't going to follow a religion that condemns you regardless are you. it's all MADE UP.
@@HarryNicNicholas Actually mathematical God gives us millions of second chances based on our sinful nature even as Regenerated Christians. God owes no one Mercy and or Grace only Justice. Christian's don't have to make up our own version of God because the Bible tells us who God is and who we are. The Goal you are talking about has been established by God not us. Theology is the Study of God and religion is the study of Man.
@@HarryNicNicholas Well whatever weird what if box you just tried to put God in is indeed ALL MADE UP. Read the Bible instead of making up hypotheticals
+Joshua Casper it's not jaw dropping that he can talk so seriously about it, it's jaw dropping that he believes it so seriously. I don't think you would need to turn any of your rational faculties off to be in a literature class and pass, unlike Christianity.
I can't believe how evolutionist believe they evolved from a rock now that makes a lot of sense to me. You were brainwashed into your blind faith. I choose to believe what I believe in.
These christian debaters often say “you have faith in….” ( insert logic, reason, science etc). There is a stark difference between having confidence in a process such as science because it is based on proven, repeatable, measurable outcomes and by contrast, believing in something despite lack of evidence to support that belief.
The word "confidence" comes from Latin "con" (with) and "fide" (faith). You tried, but you also failed. I'm sorry. Good of you to mention that we should trust in proven, repeatable, measurable outcomes. Indeed we should. But that isn't the only way to gather information. For instance, you cannot prove the Holocaust happened using the scientific method. You're going to have to rely on other things, like historical evidence, reliable testimony, et cetera, in order to *prove* the truth of a claim. We know Jesus rose from the dead the same way we know George Washington was the first president of the United States. But if you're actually going to dupe yourself and your fellow lacktheists into thinking that you can't believe that fact because you have no proven, repeatable, and measurable evidence (kind of like how we don't have proven, repeatable, and measurable evidence for, say, Darwinian evolution), then you've got another thing coming. Also, anyone who asserts the evidence is lacking is actually going to have to say *why* and *prove* why that is the case. Otherwise, given that the soundness of the Christian's arguments has been demonstrated, the counterclaim of the atheist/lacktheist can be dismissed.
Wrong. Very little in science is "proven". There are proofs in mathematics. Science is thus far powerless to explain the origin of life on Earth. So certainly an atheist debater necessarily has faith in claiming (like Stephen Hawkins) that God is not necessary for everything we see around us.
Glennsimonsen8421 is right. Science is not "proven". Science has not provided the explanation for the origin of life that exceeds more than a hypothesis. And scientific studies are being disproven all the time by newer studies. Humans are flawed and therefore science is flawed. Soooo YES, scientist have FAITH even though they know they don't know it all.
Hitchens misses a key contradiction at around 1:12:00. Wilson says the miraculous birth of a diety was so common among religions because of counterfeiting. Surely by that reasoning the first miraculous birth is genuine and all subsequent virgin births, including jesus are false.
My favorite closing statement he ever made was where he admitted that he wouldn't get rid of Christianity if he had the power to, thereby admitting that it's good for the world.
I listened to this whole debate, and I have an observation that I hope other people have caught. Christopher did not answer a single question that was presented to him. If he did, then it was barely answered. He only took every question as an opportunity to mock Christianity, not to disprove it and not to prove atheism. He also preyed on private conversations with Wilson and used them as leverage to make his point, which is not very noble. He did ask Wilson’s permission once, though, which was good. I do find it hard for Wilson to say, “no, you can’t use that in this discussion”. I’ve watched a number of debates between atheists and Christians, and the atheists’ greatest weapons are rhetoric and attitude. They are typically snide, rude, arrogant, and belittling. Only sparingly are true pieces of evidence and logic used to debunk Christianity, and by my calculation, they usually don’t prove anything, usually a fallacy will follow in their reasoning. The argument kinda goes like this: Person 1: don’t buy Fords, they suck. Person 2: why do they suck? Person 1: because they are just stupid. Person 2: why are they stupid? Person 1: because they are just dumb. You get the idea. There is no objective truth to why the Ford is a bad vehicle. The Ford just sucks so don’t buy a Ford. That’s not a legitimate debate with legitimate reasoning. Hitchens seems to reject God’s existence simply because he doesn’t like God, not because he can make any sort of proof of God’s non-existence. I hope people see through the rhetoric and can see that there was no true debate here.
So-called "debates" between theists and atheists end up that way because theists all too often refuse to accept their burden of proof. If you want atheists to actually discuss evidence and argument then the theist must start the discussion with clear, coherent claims that are buttressed by specific, clear, coherent arguments. They never (rarely) do, and in fact, theism doesn't even work this way. It purposefully resides in the realm of the incoherent, the ambiguous, the unclear, the ignorance of humanity. And when you do actually meet a theist who makes serious and clear claims, they are typically extremists that nobody takes seriously (like biblical literalists, young-earthers and the like). _Those_ people are very clear about what they are claiming - it's just that when you discuss the evidence with them they don't have a clue what they're talking about, they use false claims, or are purposefully obtuse so as to avoid cognitive dissonance. There's not any serious chance that the Earth is young, that evolution didn't occur, for instance, and the most rudimentary science can be used to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. On the other hand, when you get the more run-of-the-mill theistic debater who (rightly) doesn't meddle in scientific debates but instead retreats to vague assertions about the ultimate nature of reality, assertions that _nobody_ can claim to actually know, it takes two seconds to just point out to them that they are either (a) wrongly treating a _possibility_ as a _fact_ or (b) making logical errors. Atheists have pointed these out to theists over and over again ad nauseaum ad infinitum but of course nothing ever comes from it. You just get the same tired rejoinders from theists over and over again, the same canned responses. And around and around it goes. Basically what it boils down to is that there is, in fact, no serious evidence for theism, and the so-called "logical arguments for theism" are just pitiful attempts to establish some random religious assertion as "actually true." Because of the dearth of substance from the theistic side, we get all the typical theist bullshit, like the all-too-common attempt to shift the burden of proof. Instead of dealing with the same tired rhetoric over and over again most atheist or secular speakers in this so-called "debates" prefer to just us the platform to open dialogue on many relevant moral issues, encourage secular thinking and discussion, and make a living as independent philosophers. Is it really necessary for the atheist to go over for the billionth time the reasons that the Kalam is a bad theistic argument? Or the reasons that evolution is accepted by scientific community? Or to explain that we don't need religion to enjoy our moral instinct?
@@superdog797 nothing created something is reasonable? The very, very intricate and exact design of the universe isn’t pointing to a designer? Even Dawkins and Hitchens are stumped on that piece of evidence. Morality was created by society? When was slavery moral, and when was it immoral? What about homosexuality? Where did math, logic, reason, and emotions, and the mind come from? They aren’t material realities, but they exist. Humans didn’t create them, because we would have used logic to create logic. That’s like saying Columbus created the new world. He didn’t create it, He just discovered it. As far as evolution goes, where did the first life come from? It is a scientific impossibility that non-life could create life, but that’s exactly what these “scientists” believe. They are anti-science. Where did the Cambrian explosion come from? All of the information from the Cambrian explosion seemingly came out of nowhere. None of that is really philosophy. That’s hard facts. Have you ever listened to real arguments with people like William Lane Craig who went toe-to-toe with Hitchens. Other atheists have said that Hitchens looked like a disobedient child getting spanked when he argued Craig. Have you listened to the sound evidence from young-earthers from guys like Jason Lisle? Have you read scientifically sound and researched books written by guys like Stephen Meyer who is an expert in his field? If you remain entirely unconvinced that there is a Creator then I’m afraid you are the one who is unreasonable. Seriously consider these books: Reasonable Faith by Craig Why Believe by Neil Shenvi Darwin’s Doubt by Meyer Signature in the Cell by Meyer Taking Back Astronomy by Lisle These guys are actually scientists. Except Craig who has been widely recognized as perhaps the best Christian Apologist of this age, which is a reputable title. If you are actually perusing truth, then I seriously recommend these books. If you choose to just ignore the evidence, then you must understand that evidence is not the problem.
@@War-Daddy I've listened to literally hundreds of atheist-christian debates over the last 20 years, during which time I obtained degrees in both natural and social sciences, studied philosophy, was raised in, and grew up in, and studied christian theology. I've known about and read the work of people like Meyer and Craig for years and years now. I don't know Lisle or Shenvi but literally everything else you've said I've know about for at least a decade if not twice that. At some point you just face enough evolution deniers and learn enough about biology, science and philosophy to know that there's not a chance in hell that the next guy who comes along and says the Earth is young is gonna offer anything worth seeing. Lisle is a guy who claims to believe that 6 day creation is compatible with modern science - science obviously has _nothing_ to do with his cosmological beliefs. Secular skepticism wins hands down on literally every single point you bring up, and to be clear, there are things you obviously don't even understand in the content you mentioned. As an example, you seem to think that the big bang was an event in which "nothing created something." Well, that's just plain incorrect, and yet you hear creationist types all the time mischaracterizing it, failing to grasp the basic nature of the event, insisting "science says it is an absolute beginning," and other such nonsense. They say these things out of ignorance and refusal to learn about the matter. The irony is, of course, that it is theists who are the ones who believe in creation out of nothing - you literally do believe in _creation ex nihilo_ don't you? You know that that means "creation out of nothing" right? It's bonkers to hear these theists say over and over again that atheist scientists, who believe in the 1st law of thermodynamics (i.e. matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed), believe the universe was unscientifically created out of nothing at all, and then turn around and say that creation ex nihilo happened. It's hilarious to be honest. But I digress. Take any single point you want to discuss - choose one, and we will focus on it - take a claim you made and we can discuss it. It doesn't have to be the big bang (though it could be) and you can explain to me why you think that single point points towards God and I will explain why that is not the case.
When you open your argument with "I'm not going to work on the basis of evidence" you have to work hard to go further downhill. Wilson, however, manfully succeeds.
@1:29:39sec - a possible 2nd Book title "I'll give you the Donkey" - Should be the opening gambit of the Theistic side in any future Old Testament - New Testament discussion.
This strange argument from theists keeps coming up: "If the godless universe doesn't mind murder, why should you mind it?" Well, we don't care if the universe minds it. We mind it.
To 'mind' something implies a consciousness of, or at least a recognition of, that something. The universe has no such faculties to do either. It is always an error to ascribe 'human' characteristics to inanimate objects - even to other animal species. We 'mind' it of course because our abhorrence of homicide is innate in us. Long before we had evolved to be Homo sapiens and our archaic hominid ancestors became conscious of knowing, they 'knew' that one did not indiscriminately kill either oneself or one's kin.
@@luboshcamber1992 To 'mind' something implies a consciousness of, or at least a recognition of, that something. The universe has no such faculties to do either. It is always an error to ascribe 'human' characteristics to inanimate objects - even to other animal species. We 'mind' it of course because our abhorrence of homicide is innate in us. Long before we had evolved to be Homo sapiens and our archaic hominid ancestors became conscious of knowing, they 'knew' that one did not indiscriminately kill either oneself or one's kin.
Hitchens owns his moral compass. Before he joined the outspoken atheist movement he was such a great champion for womens rights, the neglected, and abused in this world. His views are solidly supported by research and facts. Dislike him all you want, but the only wrong any religious may see in him is that he shoots down imaginary deities and the atrocities performed in the name of those deities.
I don't see why Hitchens wouldn't just say that he appeals to reason. If I were in a debate with someone and they admitted that they believe in stuff based on an appeal to the bible, and then said "well you appeal to reason" i'd be perfectly happy to say yes. The question is then this, "Which is more likely to be true, the belief in something based upon a singular book, or the belief in something based upon reason?"
Jack Palkovic Only a person with a very low developed intellect or a believe trapped and dogma ridden mind - can argue otherwise. In which category do you stand exactly?
Jesusistheonlysavior Of course, since you're probably an irrational mind holding irrational believes... It is to be expected that reason makes no sense to you LOL
I’ve watch about 10 Hitchens debates at this point. And the “infallibility” of Scripture is the root of all these disagreements. The Christian typically has all its intellectual leaps grounded in that belief first. The Bible viewed in this way is the first departure from being able to evaluate any of this objectively/clearly.
Not sure which debates you speak of. Try Hitch vs. John Lennox. Lennox never goes to "infallibility". Hitch admitted afterward that Lennox won the debate.
Hitchens shows himself here as an expert at avoiding questions that he cannot answer, through haphazardly throwing out arrogant or sarcastic statements that subtly shift attention from the intention of the original question. I feel that Wilson handles this entire debate with great humility and defends his viewpoint gracefully every time. Contrast this with Hitchens' tone at 1:26:30, for example. He just sounds like a man on the ropes. Losing his cool several times throughout the discussion.
I actually agree with you, Michael Bester. I love Hitch. He amuses me. But he lost this debate. He completely dodged the morality question around the 1:30 hour mark. He doesn't want to say what his worldview necessarily connotes: morality is a social creation that is absolutely relative; that Hitler and Stalin are morally equitable to Charles Darwin or Mother Teresa.
Tennyson Bush i would put hitler and stalin right along mother teresa indeed. of curse, if yu learned a little bit about the issue, you'd know how truly evil she was.
rohadt Anyad I'm going to assume for this answer that you are an atheist. If not, I apologize for misunderstanding you. When I said he dodges the question, I mean that instead of explicitly he stating what the atheistic worldview necessitates (i.e. that morality is a meaningless social construct) he dances around the issue. In your comment you call Mother Teresa evil. Evil has no meaning, however, from an atheistic worldview. Under an atheistic worldview, the terms "right" and "wrong" are merely synonyms for "things I like" and "things I don't like." Dawkins realizes this in The God Delusion, where he says that there is no objective right or wrong, good or evil. I don't have a problem with you being an atheist, Anyad. I do have a problem with you being an atheist and pretending that the term "evil" has any meaning. That's intellectually dishonest. Regards, Tennyson
Tennyson Bush atheism is not a worldview. atheism indeed does not inform us about morals. but reason does. situational morality is even objective. otoh, if there is a god, morality is impossible. you can only be moral if god does not exist. are you moral?
rohadt Anyad Atheism is the viewpoint that humanity operates in a world without a God. Hence, atheism is a way of looking at the world. i.e. a worldview. Secondly, what do you believe morality is? (I need more than just "right and wrong," or, "good and evil.") Third, you say reason can inform us about morals. Alright. . . logically show me that murder is wrong without appealing to emotion. (Reason operates without emotion). Third, why can I only be moral if God does not exist? Fourth, am I moral? No. Not always. I try. I don't succeed all the time. Do you?
Remarkable debate, where Mr. Hitchens did not succeed in getting his opponent out of balance by insulting what is dear to him. This is actually how bullying works: harm your opponent so that he loses his nerves, fights back inappropriately, makes himself look stupid and funny and thus justifies the bullying. In this case, despite trying to push the same method occasionally, Mr. Hitchens was unable to escape the kindness and friendship of Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. W., for setting a good example.
Mr Wilson may be kind and generous but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he is wrong on every point. There are no gods other than the ones that have been created by man.
Nobody can argue with reason. I'm sure a fair amount of christians converted to agnosticism if not Atheism by the end of that debate. Christopher Hitchens was one of a kind. He is missed but I'm glad we have all your work, videos, interviews, etc..available to us and to continue to spread the message of truth, evidence-based beliefs and rationality.
@@astroza_science Reason (including the scientific method) looks at predictions and the evidence of those results. It also looks at confirmation for those results including peer review. It’s not perfect but it’s the most reliable method we have to reality and truth. If it fails, then science modifies too until it gets reliable results. There’s nothing like that with faith. Having faith on anything without proper evidence to support it is a great way to be wrong.
i dont understand how he can say without god the universe is beautyless and meaningless...there is nothing more beautiful than the universe and all its processes and i wake up in awe every day knowing what has had to take place for me to exist...religion could never replace that, and the irony is its the christians who say we athiests must be so empty inside.
You have no meaningful basis in which to make the claim because all claims are subjective in the atheistic worldview. Atheist believe this beauty happened by accident while Christian's know it was the hand of our magnificent creator. That's what makes it beautiful.
Next time you want to unintelligibly bash an atheistic viewpoint, you may want to respond to a post that isn't 4 years old.. I'll happily step in for this one though. All claims are subjective in an Atheists worldview?... I won't insult you for your ignorance, I'll instead invite you to do more (just any) research. Atheists generally pride themselves on the value of scientific fact, something for which there is next to no subjectivity to inject. Your smugness and lack of self awareness combine to make a particularly toxic attitude.. I'm an atheist, here's a factual claim for you: Your religion is becoming more powerless with each passing generation, the day of the height of it's popularity is long since over, soon you and all else who subscribe to its ancient views, will take their seats beside the other relics of history. Enjoy yourself.
Well, seriously ask yourself, at what point in History has science ever conceded ground to religion? I could list countless areas in which Religion used to provide an answer for questions we all had, that Science has since provided more accurate answers for. There are literally no cases where Science provided an answer for a question that religion has since disproved or provided a more accurate one.
Wilson's case is laughable. He's basically saying "If you don't agree that God exists, you have no right to say that anything works without him because that would fuck up my position." Lame, dishonest and insulting. Period.
I believe the argument goes, If you don't agree that God exists, then you have no right to say anything as you do not have an objective basis for any claim you make.
Out of all the people Hitchens has debated, Douglas seems to be the closest in terms of wit and mannerism. Shame he quickly destroys himself in the first few rounds of debate.
I can definitely agree that these boys have many of the same mannerisms. In fact, I have a theory that Wilson is actually Hitch's Christian doppelganger.
I had to switch off after 40 mins when Douglas confirmed that he believed Jesus met a man possessed by demons. He caused the demons to leave the man and enter the minds of 200 pigs. The pigs then stampede over a cliff and into the sea. I'm certain that demons don't exist but it's obvious that intelligent minds can be possessed by the most ridiculous nonsense. Well maybe I'm overestimating him. i see he published a pamphlet which said "slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since." I take back everything I said about him being intelligent. Whatever 'smarts' he was born with have been totally strangulated by religious indoctrination. A sad case.
I'm getting to this late, and I doubt the author of the comment will respond, so I invite anyone else to as well. My question is this: How did Douglas destroy himself in the first few rounds of debate? I'd love to dialogue on this.
Amazing isn't it, that as science continues to unveil the true nature of the universe, religion has to 'catch up' and readjusts itself to continue its argument for the existence of a God. How long was it before the church accepted copernicus?
Hmmm one may 'measure the time' in the numbers of burnt humans who dared to think for themselves and who dared to challenge the stupidity of the catholic church's absurd dogma.
How about the millions killed by atheistic communist politicians because they think men are mere evolving chemicals ? Just use them to elevate your pride? How many kids especially blacks who are in jail because they had no father at home due to feministic secular views?? How about young ones who are in drugs because atheistic Hollywood lied to them?....
@@emmanuelkagabo-q4c what a ridiculous argument. people kill in the name of religion. this a fact. no one kills in the name of atheism. Primarily because no one does but also because atheism is not itself a doctrine; it is not a world view nor is it a philosophy. it is simply a rejection of the claims of religion. Man kills because he is an animal,an evolved one, but still an animal. Religion just provides the justification.
If one had neverrr heard either side: This is the most embarrassing i have ever witnessed Christopher. Mr. Wilson truly did Demolish his arguments and Worldview.
And, our empathy was an emergent property of the evolution of social species. It is a common trait of many social species, as it improves survivability. Remember, evolution has no goals. Evolution is a PROCESS that results in increased numbers of any species that develops traits that increase survival rates. It is not "only the strong survive". It is "the most suited to survive usually survive better than other species".
Douglas Wilson (like so many Christian apologists) dodged a very good question posted by Hitchens: *what gives one religion the authority to say that the superstitions that THAT particular sector believes in are legit, but the superstitions of all the other world faiths and religions (both past and present) are false? On what grounds does one faith get to say, "The laws of the physical universe are suspended only in our favor, and no one else's"?* And as Hitchens so eloquently pointed out, either all religions are true, all religions are false, or (the least likely) only one of them is true. In which case none of them have any more or less evidence than the others to prove so. In addition, if one takes the "rationality" monotheists use for believing in the characters of their holy texts, there is just as much "evidence" for them to believe in Zeus, Athena, Thor, Odin, Spiderman, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Which once again begs the question: on what authority does a person have the right to say that their imaginary friend is more legit than anyone else's imaginary friend?
As a Theist, I threw up my hands when I heard that. Though I relate with being persuaded by the arguments based on eyewitnesses ( trusting in them as such ) and lives remarkably lived out to the point of persecution and murder. I do know the comebacks which are valid: many people can live distressed lives for believing in anything or anyone, and the written accounts took place too many years later. As well as none of the original manuscripts are in existence as of yet. Jesus Christ just seemed like an incredibly good man, teacher, perhaps "god". As Hitchens commented, it's unfortunate Marcion's suggestion didn't win out.
Youthful me thought Hitch won this. Life experience and humility before God changed that perspective. God bless Mr. Wilson. And I pray for Hitch’s soul.
Here September 13th, 2021 5:55 P.M God I miss Christopher Hitchens... He would have Been the greatest free speech warrior alive today along with JP and Sam Harris.
Wilson understands Hitchins, but Hitchins cannot understand Wilson. This is all past tense now that Hitchins, sadly, has passed on. We all got to go to that lonesome valley. No one can go there for us. Unless, of course, we acknowledge the account of the One who already did so on our behalf.
As a Canadian who likes winter environments, I have also been impressed by frozen waterfalls, be they singlets, doublets, triplets... but without reducing myself to indignity by falling to my knees for Jesus! No, much better, I saw their beauty, and the beautiful struggle, indeed purpose for me to climb up them. No god required. Have pictures. Douglas Wilson is left holding an empty sack.
Hi O'Reilly, from a Biblical world view I would say you needed something other than yourself to see those things. You didn't make them so you could see them. The beautiful scene's of nature were there many thousands of years before you were born.
Christopher Hitchens , one of the greats of the 20th and 21st centuries. I hope my early teenage American nephews, can get to listen to Chris on you tube..(got a Jesus loving, all American Mom)..so i am not very hopeful. ....although will try my best..
All the atheists who talk trash about Christians would have not gotten along with Christopher, since he has such a deep respect for Christians with convictions and had deep friendships with many.
@WilliamByronIs atheist communists killed 100,000,000 human beings in a single century because they thought they were on the right side of history. All humans are capable of killing for a cause they believe in.
@@billbadson7598 Christians (and Muslims) have destroyed every civilisation they came upon. Even the Romans were the most powerful empire on earth before they became Christian and it all fell apart. The US is now doing the same thing.
@@tommym321 It won't until the atheist communists stop being thousands of times more murderous than the faithful they're trying to convince you to fear.
Why didn't Wilson put on the cap after the first 10 mins... he was losing (and lost) right from the get-go. Hitchens clearly and succinctly explained and gave examples of what it is to have religious faith; the illogicality, contradiction, inconsistencies, ridiculous gullibility, etc. Wilson had fizzing Dr. Peppers, speaking to spilt milk, analogies. He doesn't know where logic comes from..
Hitchens is merely anecdotal in this video, there is no argumentation, much less any presentation of evidence for any of his position. It's just a smattering of isnt-god-mean-isms which is appeal to emotions which consistently one of the weakest forms of argumentation. Knee-jerk hitch-fan boys never critically analyzes the evidence and argumentation, but accept everything he says as "gospel" but don't have the courage to admit that they are just basically cult.
He presents some of his arguments in the form of anecdotes. It's not that he doesn't have any arguments; you just need to think about the anecdotes to understand the arguments. He doesn't appeal to emotion; he exposes the lack of emotion in a monotheist God. If you really listened to what he said, it should be obvious.
I think he's always pretty clear to point to specific religious injunctions that require its followers to cause the pain he complains about. He's not dumb enough to say "religious people do bad things therefore no god".
With all due respect to Doug Wilson, I never found his arguments particular compelling but he clearly loved Hitchens so much that I find him very endearing. He giggles with such genuine happiness whenever hitch drops a gem or interjects and Hitch clearly thought he was a decent guy too, as he spent so long with him and spoke so kindly about him.
Ol' Wilson ain't so cocky sitting by Hitchens. When he debated (and got trounced by) Dan Barker, he was insufferable making snide remarks and speaking a mile a minute. Here he is reserved, even timid, as he prepares to poke the beast that is the Hitchens intellect. Amazing how Hitchens' presence commanded respect from any opponent.
Heath Kitchen the same Wilson shows up at all his debates. He talks that way in his preaching, his debates and his interviews. You are projecting your own insecurities. He took both Barker and Hitchens on a ride they weren’t prepared for. Hitchens remembered Wilson over any other apologist he ever debates. Do a little research on it.
Hitchens didn't even try to address Wilson's central argument. His unusual cleverness gave him the ability to bury his evasion under winsome rhetoric, but he did not bother to answer the main challenge Wilson offered.
What debate did you watch? Wilson did very well against Hitchens every time they debated. Wilson had Hitchens stumped numerous times . The atheists cannot answer the morality question
Hitchens: truth, truth, truth, history, fact, history, fact, truth, fact. Wilson: *MAGIC!* I have never watched a debate with Hitchens where the audience ever ended on the side of the Christian apologist. Never. At worst, Hitchens leaves a devout Christian audience shook. It's kind of crazy...
+Thomas Fitzpatrick I have read somewhat extensively about Hitchens and I have listened to quite a few of these videos but I still have one remaining question; Does Christopher Hitchens... at all... in any of his works... describe the process of individual human enlightenment… all I can find on him is him trashing religionists... which he did pretty darn well... but...
+ShinRaPresident ... ''by describing the process of individual human enlightenment'Generally, to come to a level of understanding regarding the processes of your endarkenment, (i.e. biases and negative influences accepted as uncorroborated truth by you during your youthful and formative years) thereby exposing you to the processes which can lead to your enlightenment. For each individual it is a different combination of process or processes, so to elaborate: Go find out what your endarkenment entails, and how you came to be endarkened on that particular issue, and go about developing a process for unendarkening yourself... and then you will be somewhat enlightened... lather, rinse, repeat... until you are fully enlightened...
+Thomas Fitzpatrick I like Hitchslap better to describe what occurred here. The poor, deluded fool Wilson on miracles:"The ones I believe are the ones I believe in." I can't stop laughing. We miss you Hitchens.
Long winded introduction ends at 11:45
That was the longest fucking introduction I have ever seen
Thanks for the heads up 😉👍
I don't know if you are a Christian, or an atheist, or other; but you are a saint.
I agree. Blessed are timestampers
Sheeeshhh
Wilson's answer at 1:20:00 is essentially "Christian miracles are true because Christianity is true. Therefore because Christianity is true, Christian miracles are true, and I am a Christian."
Christianity has had 2,000 years for intellectuals in suits to wax poetic and refine their arguments to sound reasonable to those who are primed to already agree with them, but at the end of the day if you listen to them long enough they always find themselves back to this vacuous axiom of their beliefs. Give Pastafarians 2,000 years to polish their satirical positions and you will have an equally credible epistemology.
Wilson is championed as one of the best apologists, yet he will say with a straight face, “I believe it because it’s true.” Religion is doomed to empty tautologies.
Clown logic
This is called “begging the question.” It’s true because it’s true.
@@kdbwiz Not when it is an ultimate claim
And 56:25, I think
“Donkeys can always be arranged” is top tier Hitch
While I'm sure others have pointed this out, the debate loops at a certain point and repeats probably a 15 minute section that it already played.
+A Skeptical Human Surprised to find that this is pointed out so far down in the comment board.
+A Skeptical Human I was listening to it, and although I noticed the loop, I loved listening to Hitchens fucking this guy up so I just let it play.
there's a zit on your noze and a mispelling in both. who cares?
The loop starts at 59:25 and ends at 1:09:09 for those who would like to skip the repetition without searching around for the end of it.
Scrolled down for this comment haha
One of Hitchens' BEST quotes from this debate is at 1:47:57 :
"As long as they don't call it modesty, I don't mind. As long as they don't call it humility, I don't mind. But, I don't like being told that my arguments aren't as good as his, because he has divine information that's withheld from me."
How is it that what this fizzing space dust says any different from the other fizzing space dust in a non absolute universe. Y’all (atheists) are self refuting yourselves.😂
@@alterrihenri110 Since you were the one that brought it up, who gives a shit anyways? Besides, Why are you even attempting to argue about something I never mentioned in the first place? How about bothering someone else about it?
@@alterrihenri110 Because there's no evidence of any kind to support a *"...God like fizzing space dust..."* there's nothing but a bunch of man made piffle full of contradictions but believed by the many gullible.
@@alterrihenri110 That was a very poorly conceived post. You have a lot of studying to do before you debate atheists…
@@alterrihenri110 ironic for a dust-made (claimed by your hole-y book) drone made to be a subservient worshipper to call someone else "dust". 😂
even more ironic for a subjective moralist who would claim kiIIing sinners (purge of Canaanites & Amalekites), or bibIical sIavery, or chiId sacrifice (binding of isaac) aren't moraIIy wrong, to criticize non-absoIutism. 😂
debate starts at 11:52
Legend.
and ends about 12 secounds later when Wilson admits hes a presup and wont defending any of his assertions.
One thing I'll say about Mr Wilson is that he agreed to forgo his closing statement as requested by Hitchens, other debates I've seen, some opponents do not agree to.
No, Hitchens isn't being insulting as a means to an end, or as some rhetorical strategy. He's being genuine. It might come off as insulting, but only because there's no polite way to say to someone that they've dedicated their lives to a man-made fantasy.
Even worse that dougie exploits and abuses based on fantasies
The only fantasy is believing that atheism can account for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility that make moral categories possible.
@@joshcornell8510Cool story bro.
Correct. It's not an ad-hominem if the insult is not the counterargument.
You CAN insult someone to put them on the back foot in order to further expose their positions by breaking their composure.
@@joshcornell8510I appreciate the effort it took for you to make "atheism isn't real because it rejects my explanation of magic for why my brain does neat stuff" sound remotely intelligent. I mean, you failed, but it was still a good effort.
At least he is honest. Unlike the others who lose to the Hitch.
Hardly a loss. Wilson may only have been a victim of untaught obfuscation by Hitchens. Every address of scripture is fraught with ignorant bias.
what a loss! R.I.P Hitchens!
kaunis paikka
Where is he now?
@@janepatton8100 in MY afterlife i get to zoom around this universe and enjoy it cos i wouldn't wast my time in empty tombs or churches. the god i invented drinks vodka and watches pornhub with me.
gods are imaginary. especially yours.
not only that:
er. everyone seems to assume satan is going to be horrid. if i go to hell then GOD is "punishing me" for my sins, but why would satan want to punish me too? satan hates christians. if i'm being punished by satan, then satan is doing god's work - that makes zero sense, hell is eternity having WAY MORE FUN than you ever could on earth, this is what god hates, god wants you to suck his toes for eternity, satan is SAVING you from singing amazing grace for eternity. hell is where satan thumbs his nose at god and gives everyone a good time, no mind control, no ten commandments to follow, just eternal life that you can probably quit if you get bored with learning guitar from hendrix or trying to grasp relativity from einstein. why would hell be undesirable? why would satan want to torment me - he hates god and christians, not sinners.
He’s brown fukin bread 😢
2:00:47
I love how rapt in thought everyone in the audience is. Hitchens sure had a way with a captive crowd.
I wish Hitch was around for Trump.
He wouldn't waste his time on a moron like tRump.
If you want to skip the windbag introduction skip to 11:45.
Jonathan McCulley you.
Skip to 22:45 for the first non-bullshit segment.
i just skip to everything Hitchens says
Cus your ignorant
This is a really intellectually stimulating debate.
59:25 seems to jump backward... why? Might be an error, not intentional -- sloppy editing or upload. It gets back on track around 1:09:00 or so, for those who are interested in skipping nearly 10 minutes of repeat.
Christopher Hitchens’ debates are Truly missed💜
misled buffoon, who is continuously contradicting himself.
His debates are right here!
I love Christopher Hitchens I truly hope he found the Lord through the gospel of Jesus Christ before he passed
Though I think his views are ludicrous, I respect that Doug Wilson actually takes the Bible seriously. Which can't be said of most "moderate" Christians who try and tip toe around the immoral barbarism in the Bible.
It is not possible to 'respect' those who give the bible literal credence. One is not speaking the truth if one says so. It is rather like the 'respect' a priest might expect because he is given the title 'Reverend'. It is like accepting that a 'man of faith' has some kind of superiority.
Does one respect flat-earthers? Or those who dive in Loch Ness in search for a monster? Or those who claim to have been abducted by aliens? Or astrologers? We indulge such people - we grant them their silly hobby and expect them to be harmless.
Should we not treat Godists and Bible literalists in the same patronising manner? Should we not pat them on the head and think, "..forgive them, for they know not what they do..."?
It is rather like having respect for the convicted killer of a child because he admitted his quilt.
Do you respect the 'flat-earthers' who so earnestly cling to their insane belief?
Do you respect the simpleton who has insufficient innate intelligence to understand that the six numbers, 1,2,3,4,5,6 are as equally likely to 'come-up' as any other combination of six numbers in the lottery?
No, you would hold their intellect cheap; you would ridicule them.
If I said that regardless of evidence to the contrary and without a mathical proof that two and two make five, you would think and say that I had lost my mind. And if I said further that I 'believe' it to be so, would you indulge me and offer me respect for being 'a man of faith'?
No, you would think me insane; you ridicule them.
One's faith confers no special protection from ridicule. A religion's antiquity nor it's popularity confers no privilege and no right not to be subjected to reason.
@@jvincent6548 Interesting enough, the majority of those who claim human biology isn't real and boys can be girls and vice-versa are also atheist. Have fun working that out...
@@jvincent6548 Depends on the quality of the quilt. We talkin about quality handmade shit here?
Notice Wilson’s comment regarding the disciples “believing” Jesus had resurrected from the dead. He failed to mention that the APOSTLES never believed it UNTIL he APPEARED to them PROVING he had risen. Yet, we non-believers apparently aren’t worthy enough for him to PROVE it to us. We are required to BELIEVE a written account of a supernatural event that has never been witnessed in the history of mankind. Why should we be judged to ETERNAL torture for not believing when belief was never required for the apostles, Paul, Moses, Abraham, etc., etc.? Insanity.
+Paul Tamras
So the apostles, Paul, the "more than 500 witnesses" were not blessed? What exactly does "blessed" mean?
fljagfan.
Great point.
Perhaps Paul Tamras' response was not a challenge but was just giving an example of the type of verses placed into the bible to keep the masses fooled.
@@thenowchurch6419 because your lack of belief doesnt send you to hell. Your sin against the God you know exist, sends you to hell.
Jonathan.
Get out of here with that presuppositional nonsense.
Your thinking and doing things you know are wrong sends you to hell, not your "sin against the God you know exists".
"With what measure you mete out, it shall be measured to you again."Mathew 7 vs 2.
Knowing that there is right and wrong, is not the same as believing that God exists.
Well, if they believe in the Bible in the 21st century, they are clearly delusional, ignorant, and/or amoral... Remember, the 'Bible' was verbal first. Then, it was written in parts in Hebrew. Then, 1,000 years later, the Roman Empire re-wrote it and added to it in Latin. Then, from 1604 to 1611 the fairly crude English edited it and re-wrote it in Middle English, and this is the book (King James' Bible) that mindless Christians follow today...
I feel rich when I come across a Hitch debate for the first time.
This is the first one I've watched so I'm about to be a very rich fellow
@@freethink2303How many have you watched now?
I'm just getting into him now! I must be a millionaire 😅😅
Hitch on top of his fucking game. the delusions and sheer childlike ignorance of wilson is astonishing. truly astonishing.
Who am I? Oh stop it. Neither Hitchens nor Wilson are deluded, they just differ on metaphysics.
***** No. They differ on physics. Basic science. What we objectively know and observe. The basic observables that are incontrovertible. Wilson refers to all findings of physics, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience as "mere matter in motion" and "time and chance happening on matter". As if those words can dismiss the scientific evidence that thought is based on the physical operation of neurons, and that without neurons, there is no thought. As if we dont observe the physical degradation of these neurons dont have a negative impact on cognitive function (alzheimers, brain damage) and therefore must be extraphysical. This is scientific ignorance at its basest level and cannot be taken as a serious intellectual position by anyone.
Actually don't differ on the basics of science... not at all. They differ on over philosopher naturalism, or what is called metaphysical naturalism.
Under philosopher naturalism (the bedrock of atheism), no free will (as current neuroscience strongly suggests), love is an illusionary darwinian mechanism to promote passing on genes, right and wrong are subjectively based on value judgments which can only be enforced by the majority that rules, and truth is not knowable since natural selection is not concerned at all with creatures having truth content so long as they reproduce successfully.
I'd recommend Plantinga for a good explanation for why Philosopher Naturalism is a self-defeating world view - it essentially cuts it's own throat, and thus also proves atheism as an unlivable world view.
***** thanks for the intro to platgina. On the surface his arguments seem flawed, as most arguments seem against naturalism in that it hinges on a descriptive estimate cannot be trusted and that there cannot be truthful without a belief or beholder. This is a classic mistake but I'll dig deeper into his work.
Arturo Martes Sounds good.
If you read actual atheist philosophers, and not just the talking point atheists, you'll see that they have a high view of theism compared to the new atheists - Nietzsche especially.
Most philosophers agree that this is because they don't really grasp how complicated metaphysics is, so they just belittle and degrade since that's easier and unfortunately the public eats it up since they don't know any better.
On the atheist side, I'd highly recommend Erik Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a godless universe. I've exchanged back and forth myself with Erik, and he's one of the best living atheist philosopher I've come across. Obviously as a theist I ultimately disagree with him, but he does a good job of explaining that both theism and atheism rest on unprovable beliefs - axioms, brute facts, presuppositions.
In my book I'm just about finished writing on metaethics, I source him quite a bit. I'd say he's a philosopher version of Sam Harris. Don't get me wrong, Harris is alright on some things, he's not all bad, but in his book on metaethics he completely skips over discussing his axioms in a footnote because he "finds them boring". This is sloppy work, especially for a guy who believes morality is discovered not created.
Atheist philosophers Massimo Pigliucci and Thomas Nagel have written some pretty good critiques of Harris' Moral Landscape. Pigliucci's is the most relentless of the two, but both are highly enjoyable reads.
I've spent the better part of the last two years reading numerous atheist philosophers, and the one thing I'd warn you about, is be careful only reading the new atheists - Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Epstein, etc..
- They got popular because they built their arguments mostly on rhetoric and demeaning/bashing those they disagree with. Again, they aren't all bad, but they are miles apart of the real atheist philosophers who know better.
Sadly though, presenting theism/atheism as both being philosophically sound world views doesn't get you on talk shows or prime time television... But if you pretend like your opponent has brain damage.... well that sells now doesn't it.
People (on both sides) are often more comfortable demeaning/bashing those on the other side.
This is mostly for psychological reasons since it helps them feel less threatened when the problems of their world view are brought to light - So instead of recognizing that their world view has problems (every world view does), they gloss over them and pretend like there aren't any problems in order to prevent feeling threatened and also to avoid having to think deeply over complex issues.
Take care.
“How can you be sure miracles are only true when they’re Calvinist?” Hammer blow. 😮💨
“CaUsE ThEy HaPpEnEd” 😭😭
Even worse, he says "Because *I BELIEVE* they happened." 🙄
Timestamp?
@livestoicism only at first when hitchens cuts him off. He goes on to answer exactly why. He says it’s because the evidence and the eye witness testimonies leave him no choice but to believe. Which is what he meant by “they’re the ones I believe.”
Really? This honestly wasn't too good.
As a Christian I miss Hitchens. Wish he was around for these days in 2021
God rest his soul.
@@bluegtturbo - how?
As a heavy smoker and drinker, the events of the last few years would have killed him anyway, I think.
@@johnwestcott5612 why?
@@johnwestcott5612 don't get it, as a heavy drug user sure it would have killed him at some point or rather drastically increase his likelihood of premature death.
But what do the last few years have to kill a hitch? I think it's quite the opposite he would have thrived. He was the finest provoquateur, he was a human eye of the storm, always in the centre of the controversy often the orchestrator, he was a fighter and things like trump or quanon would have been his battlefield. He would have been at the forefront of the fight against extrémism and irrationality, it would not have been a blow weakening him if anything it would have been adding fuel to the hichfero
Mortality is still only available on hardcopy and was $22.99, I am gald I got it, it is one of the most intense books I've ever read even though its very short due to his death. All I have to say as a Hitchens fan and anyone else who is reply to me if you want to know more about the book, but chapter 8 is just so deep that not only the words are profound but how its starts to take a different form in short spurts as in last throws of pain and death, but still grasping onto love that he cherished
Thanks for the upload! been looking for this one
It's not the hitchens's arguments that convinced me that religion is poison, his opponents's arguments convinced me
+Derp Derpington Or lack thereof :)
+Derp Derpington So often the way. Watching someone dig his own grave without outside help is delightful.
+RationalThinker1859 Jesus hated religion. He was after mans hearts.
So what you're telling me is that Jesus was gay. It all makes sense to me now.
He makes it easier though.
LOL "I'm not going to use evidence in this debate" wow he really said that.
If you ignore God's word, then evidence is futile. Evidence is enormous, but won't fix your spiritual problem.
@@democratpro evidence is futile??? Good one godboy!🤣🤣
@@democratpro
Did that really make any sense to you when you said it in your head? I mean, you understand how debates work, right?
You sound like a person who would read words of any religion's basic text and then say, "Sure. That makes sense".
@@leftyshawenuph4026 I'd assume the point he was getting across is that evidence has no meaning or purpose. Just like an atheist worldview, meaningless and purposeless.
@@id744 It seems to derive from the transcendental presuppositionalism method of apologetics. What Doug was trying to say is that from a godless atheistic worldview, ultimately speaking, evidence is meaningless unless you first have an ultimate basis for it. Presuppositionalists usually use this argument because they claim that in order to first argue for the need of evidence, your worldview need to make sense of it. They claim that unless you concede to the impossibility of the contrary when it comes to starting with God first, all you have left is your own reasoning to authenticate your own reasoning. Their alternative is that they claim that any knowledge is given through sense and authenticated by the God who's interpretation of reality is purely objective. If there is a presuppositionalist in the comments, please be indulgent with me if I somehow misrepresented your position. It is my understanding of the more Vantilian form of that philosophy which is present in Frame or Bahsnen.
@55:50 Mr. Hitchens "How can u manage to say that miracles are only true when their Calvinist,"....NAILED IT!
I've lived past 5 decades, was raised going to church with my little tie on all dressed up and now speaking frankly for just myself as a science lover and non-believer, I think all religions are boring as well as over rated. Boring is the best thing I can say about religion. Thought crime (as mentioned in the tenth commandment) is a victimless crime unless I believe there's a non-physical god that cares what one out of billions of people thinks. I'm a nicer guy without the bull shit religion preaches. I dropped off god at the curb two years after Santa Claus and I didn't need Hitchens to agree with me. I like watching Hitchens debates because he was to well world travelled and funny getting the audience laughing at religion.
Joseph Nordenbrock Well said! That's the thing that bugs me about religion the most. I'm kinda shocked to see someone else who gets that. Religion is just....so....*_boring_*. The _questions_ asked by religion are _fascinating_....yet their answers are utterly pedestrian. They're boring because they aren't true or honest or ethical....therefor they aren't interesting _either_. Truth is *_always_* fascinating.
Joseph Nordenbrock But "boring" doesn't disprove
Haven't gone as far as you have, but I have dropped off my previous struggling belief ( and common conservative church belief ) in "God", and have been unlearning distortion and mind control that led me to be more stressed out and mentally enslaved. Damn the thought control policing and behavior control. Such a cheapening of the beauty of what I think/thought good religion, if you will, was supposed to be about. Relationship. Love of God and neighbor, which ought to imply truth, though often is lost, or worse, disrespected. ( In Hitchenspeak: blasphemed? ) The rampant intellectual dishonesty within the Church, when challenged by Science, is anything from laughable to sad. As much as Hitchens might have scorned me for cherry picking the Bible and not being a through and through absolutist like Douglas Wilson, I still think many more passages of the Bible were allegory, not literal, not necessarily actually occurring in real life, rather, parable to teach a principle. Or a "day" in Creation might have been a billion years. Thank you to Science as well as further debate within Theology. Hitchens, as Atheist, did a great service to hold the Church to the fire. I do miss him for that, as well as his broad, deep intellect, and oratorical skill.
So what do you have against Santa Claus? I'm going to throw an egg at you as soon as the bunny lays one on Easter Island or something like that.
@@sayitwithyourchest3944 the creator of all this is boring? you're okay with that?
1:45:11 I think that attempt at a joke by Wilson offended Hitchens. Sorted him out shortly though.
This resolved itself now that Douglas WIlson started his cult in Moscow, ID. RIP Hitch!
Video starts at 23:00
A wonderful exchange. Exemplary display of dialogue and disagreement with courtesy.
27:35 That is exactly why we need to tremble, because if God only gave Justice and No Saving Grace we would all be damned since we all have fallen short of the Glory of God.
@Greg Brown Its Ok with me because God has reveled to me How Evil I have been and at many times still am. I have heard that its an abomination to say we have free will because God is the only one with Free Will because God is perfect and will always do the right thing. We have a will but it is not a good will. Its not God's fault that we love our sin, its our fault. Most people including Christian's seem to forget that God is not only Love but is also Wrathful.
tell me, if god said "you don't get any second chances, there is no forgiveness, one strike and you're out" would you still worship him, or would you say "my god would never do that" because i made up my own version of god who kinda fits with my preferences, which is what i think all people do, your god would forgive you no? that's why christianity has a GOAL, you aren't going to follow a religion that condemns you regardless are you. it's all MADE UP.
@@HarryNicNicholas Actually mathematical God gives us millions of second chances based on our sinful nature even as Regenerated Christians. God owes no one Mercy and or Grace only Justice. Christian's don't have to make up our own version of God because the Bible tells us who God is and who we are. The Goal you are talking about has been established by God not us. Theology is the Study of God and religion is the study of Man.
@@HarryNicNicholas Well whatever weird what if box you just tried to put God in is indeed ALL MADE UP. Read the Bible instead of making up hypotheticals
How a grown man can sit and talk so seriously about the pig story is jaw dropping.
If it means I get to keep my rational faculties then.... i'm ok with that.
+Joshua Casper it's not jaw dropping that he can talk so seriously about it, it's jaw dropping that he believes it so seriously. I don't think you would need to turn any of your rational faculties off to be in a literature class and pass, unlike Christianity.
I can't believe how evolutionist believe they evolved from a rock now that makes a lot of sense to me. You were brainwashed into your blind faith. I choose to believe what I believe in.
Joshua Casper Many feel the same about the belief that the more inbred an animal becomes the better it gets.
Bayonne Blasphemer i have, it rained on rocks and made soup, then the soup came alive. So yes, evolutionists believe we came from rocks.
it's called empathy. Most humans have it. If they don't they are sociopathic.
Why is one section in the middle (the one dealing with the Gadarene swine) repeated?
These christian debaters often say “you have faith in….” ( insert logic, reason, science etc). There is a stark difference between having confidence in a process such as science because it is based on proven, repeatable, measurable outcomes and by contrast, believing in something despite lack of evidence to support that belief.
The word "confidence" comes from Latin "con" (with) and "fide" (faith). You tried, but you also failed. I'm sorry.
Good of you to mention that we should trust in proven, repeatable, measurable outcomes. Indeed we should. But that isn't the only way to gather information. For instance, you cannot prove the Holocaust happened using the scientific method. You're going to have to rely on other things, like historical evidence, reliable testimony, et cetera, in order to *prove* the truth of a claim.
We know Jesus rose from the dead the same way we know George Washington was the first president of the United States. But if you're actually going to dupe yourself and your fellow lacktheists into thinking that you can't believe that fact because you have no proven, repeatable, and measurable evidence (kind of like how we don't have proven, repeatable, and measurable evidence for, say, Darwinian evolution), then you've got another thing coming.
Also, anyone who asserts the evidence is lacking is actually going to have to say *why* and *prove* why that is the case. Otherwise, given that the soundness of the Christian's arguments has been demonstrated, the counterclaim of the atheist/lacktheist can be dismissed.
Confidence is latin, con meaning with, and fide meaning faith. so you are "with faith'
@@sovereigngrace9723based
Wrong. Very little in science is "proven". There are proofs in mathematics. Science is thus far powerless to explain the origin of life on Earth. So certainly an atheist debater necessarily has faith in claiming (like Stephen Hawkins) that God is not necessary for everything we see around us.
Glennsimonsen8421 is right. Science is not "proven". Science has not provided the explanation for the origin of life that exceeds more than a hypothesis. And scientific studies are being disproven all the time by newer studies. Humans are flawed and therefore science is flawed. Soooo YES, scientist have FAITH even though they know they don't know it all.
I miss hit Hitch so much.
Then go and dig him up, lol
@@dantalbot1201 lmao. WTF? 😂
His commentary is sorely missed
Hitchens misses a key contradiction at around 1:12:00. Wilson says the miraculous birth of a diety was so common among religions because of counterfeiting. Surely by that reasoning the first miraculous birth is genuine and all subsequent virgin births, including jesus are false.
Exactly what I was thinking.
38:11 the "I'm fucked" shuffle.
No one does closing statements better than Christopher Hitchens.
If you like hitch watch him vs. Donahue
My favorite closing statement he ever made was where he admitted that he wouldn't get rid of Christianity if he had the power to, thereby admitting that it's good for the world.
Yay! We are meaningless! What a relief!
Lol
I listened to this whole debate, and I have an observation that I hope other people have caught.
Christopher did not answer a single question that was presented to him. If he did, then it was barely answered. He only took every question as an opportunity to mock Christianity, not to disprove it and not to prove atheism.
He also preyed on private conversations with Wilson and used them as leverage to make his point, which is not very noble. He did ask Wilson’s permission once, though, which was good. I do find it hard for Wilson to say, “no, you can’t use that in this discussion”.
I’ve watched a number of debates between atheists and Christians, and the atheists’ greatest weapons are rhetoric and attitude. They are typically snide, rude, arrogant, and belittling. Only sparingly are true pieces of evidence and logic used to debunk Christianity, and by my calculation, they usually don’t prove anything, usually a fallacy will follow in their reasoning.
The argument kinda goes like this:
Person 1: don’t buy Fords, they suck.
Person 2: why do they suck?
Person 1: because they are just stupid.
Person 2: why are they stupid?
Person 1: because they are just dumb.
You get the idea. There is no objective truth to why the Ford is a bad vehicle. The Ford just sucks so don’t buy a Ford. That’s not a legitimate debate with legitimate reasoning.
Hitchens seems to reject God’s existence simply because he doesn’t like God, not because he can make any sort of proof of God’s non-existence.
I hope people see through the rhetoric and can see that there was no true debate here.
So-called "debates" between theists and atheists end up that way because theists all too often refuse to accept their burden of proof. If you want atheists to actually discuss evidence and argument then the theist must start the discussion with clear, coherent claims that are buttressed by specific, clear, coherent arguments. They never (rarely) do, and in fact, theism doesn't even work this way. It purposefully resides in the realm of the incoherent, the ambiguous, the unclear, the ignorance of humanity. And when you do actually meet a theist who makes serious and clear claims, they are typically extremists that nobody takes seriously (like biblical literalists, young-earthers and the like). _Those_ people are very clear about what they are claiming - it's just that when you discuss the evidence with them they don't have a clue what they're talking about, they use false claims, or are purposefully obtuse so as to avoid cognitive dissonance. There's not any serious chance that the Earth is young, that evolution didn't occur, for instance, and the most rudimentary science can be used to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.
On the other hand, when you get the more run-of-the-mill theistic debater who (rightly) doesn't meddle in scientific debates but instead retreats to vague assertions about the ultimate nature of reality, assertions that _nobody_ can claim to actually know, it takes two seconds to just point out to them that they are either (a) wrongly treating a _possibility_ as a _fact_ or (b) making logical errors. Atheists have pointed these out to theists over and over again ad nauseaum ad infinitum but of course nothing ever comes from it. You just get the same tired rejoinders from theists over and over again, the same canned responses. And around and around it goes.
Basically what it boils down to is that there is, in fact, no serious evidence for theism, and the so-called "logical arguments for theism" are just pitiful attempts to establish some random religious assertion as "actually true." Because of the dearth of substance from the theistic side, we get all the typical theist bullshit, like the all-too-common attempt to shift the burden of proof. Instead of dealing with the same tired rhetoric over and over again most atheist or secular speakers in this so-called "debates" prefer to just us the platform to open dialogue on many relevant moral issues, encourage secular thinking and discussion, and make a living as independent philosophers. Is it really necessary for the atheist to go over for the billionth time the reasons that the Kalam is a bad theistic argument? Or the reasons that evolution is accepted by scientific community? Or to explain that we don't need religion to enjoy our moral instinct?
@@superdog797 nothing created something is reasonable? The very, very intricate and exact design of the universe isn’t pointing to a designer? Even Dawkins and Hitchens are stumped on that piece of evidence. Morality was created by society? When was slavery moral, and when was it immoral? What about homosexuality? Where did math, logic, reason, and emotions, and the mind come from? They aren’t material realities, but they exist. Humans didn’t create them, because we would have used logic to create logic. That’s like saying Columbus created the new world. He didn’t create it, He just discovered it. As far as evolution goes, where did the first life come from? It is a scientific impossibility that non-life could create life, but that’s exactly what these “scientists” believe. They are anti-science. Where did the Cambrian explosion come from? All of the information from the Cambrian explosion seemingly came out of nowhere. None of that is really philosophy. That’s hard facts.
Have you ever listened to real arguments with people like William Lane Craig who went toe-to-toe with Hitchens. Other atheists have said that Hitchens looked like a disobedient child getting spanked when he argued Craig.
Have you listened to the sound evidence from young-earthers from guys like Jason Lisle?
Have you read scientifically sound and researched books written by guys like Stephen Meyer who is an expert in his field? If you remain entirely unconvinced that there is a Creator then I’m afraid you are the one who is unreasonable.
Seriously consider these books:
Reasonable Faith by Craig
Why Believe by Neil Shenvi
Darwin’s Doubt by Meyer
Signature in the Cell by Meyer
Taking Back Astronomy by Lisle
These guys are actually scientists. Except Craig who has been widely recognized as perhaps the best Christian Apologist of this age, which is a reputable title.
If you are actually perusing truth, then I seriously recommend these books. If you choose to just ignore the evidence, then you must understand that evidence is not the problem.
@@War-Daddy I've listened to literally hundreds of atheist-christian debates over the last 20 years, during which time I obtained degrees in both natural and social sciences, studied philosophy, was raised in, and grew up in, and studied christian theology. I've known about and read the work of people like Meyer and Craig for years and years now. I don't know Lisle or Shenvi but literally everything else you've said I've know about for at least a decade if not twice that. At some point you just face enough evolution deniers and learn enough about biology, science and philosophy to know that there's not a chance in hell that the next guy who comes along and says the Earth is young is gonna offer anything worth seeing. Lisle is a guy who claims to believe that 6 day creation is compatible with modern science - science obviously has _nothing_ to do with his cosmological beliefs.
Secular skepticism wins hands down on literally every single point you bring up, and to be clear, there are things you obviously don't even understand in the content you mentioned. As an example, you seem to think that the big bang was an event in which "nothing created something." Well, that's just plain incorrect, and yet you hear creationist types all the time mischaracterizing it, failing to grasp the basic nature of the event, insisting "science says it is an absolute beginning," and other such nonsense. They say these things out of ignorance and refusal to learn about the matter. The irony is, of course, that it is theists who are the ones who believe in creation out of nothing - you literally do believe in _creation ex nihilo_ don't you? You know that that means "creation out of nothing" right? It's bonkers to hear these theists say over and over again that atheist scientists, who believe in the 1st law of thermodynamics (i.e. matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed), believe the universe was unscientifically created out of nothing at all, and then turn around and say that creation ex nihilo happened. It's hilarious to be honest.
But I digress. Take any single point you want to discuss - choose one, and we will focus on it - take a claim you made and we can discuss it. It doesn't have to be the big bang (though it could be) and you can explain to me why you think that single point points towards God and I will explain why that is not the case.
When you open your argument with "I'm not going to work on the basis of evidence" you have to work hard to go further downhill. Wilson, however, manfully succeeds.
+Anthony Purcell Beautifully put. It becomes a race to the bottom, which he wins.
Yea nicely put.
Manfully? I think you misgendered it.
@1:29:39sec - a possible 2nd Book title "I'll give you the Donkey" - Should be the opening gambit of the Theistic side in any future Old Testament - New Testament discussion.
This strange argument from theists keeps coming up: "If the godless universe doesn't mind murder, why should you mind it?" Well, we don't care if the universe minds it. We mind it.
Okay, but why do you mind it?
...I agree. These arguments are infantile non-sequiturs. Rather like a child's reason being, "because".
But why do you mind it? Shouldn't be a problem to answer childish question...
To 'mind' something implies a consciousness of, or at least a recognition of, that something. The universe has no such faculties to do either. It is always an error to ascribe 'human' characteristics to inanimate objects - even to other animal species.
We 'mind' it of course because our abhorrence of homicide is innate in us. Long before we had evolved to be Homo sapiens and our archaic hominid ancestors became conscious of knowing, they 'knew' that one did not indiscriminately kill either oneself or one's kin.
@@luboshcamber1992 To 'mind' something implies a consciousness of, or at least a recognition of, that something. The universe has no such faculties to do either. It is always an error to ascribe 'human' characteristics to inanimate objects - even to other animal species.
We 'mind' it of course because our abhorrence of homicide is innate in us. Long before we had evolved to be Homo sapiens and our archaic hominid ancestors became conscious of knowing, they 'knew' that one did not indiscriminately kill either oneself or one's kin.
Hitchens owns his moral compass. Before he joined the outspoken atheist movement he was such a great champion for womens rights, the neglected, and abused in this world. His views are solidly supported by research and facts. Dislike him all you want, but the only wrong any religious may see in him is that he shoots down imaginary deities and the atrocities performed in the name of those deities.
What moral compass?
Just wondering, since there are a lot of moral compasses around these days...
@Greg Brown You have no evidence for all your claims
@Greg Brown you also just testified to scripture
@Greg Brown jeffrey Epstein has a moral compass, why does it matter
The vid repeats a large section towards the middle. Go to 1:08:00 to continue
I don't see why Hitchens wouldn't just say that he appeals to reason. If I were in a debate with someone and they admitted that they believe in stuff based on an appeal to the bible, and then said "well you appeal to reason" i'd be perfectly happy to say yes. The question is then this, "Which is more likely to be true, the belief in something based upon a singular book, or the belief in something based upon reason?"
Another overwhelming victory for Hitchens.
Jack Palkovic Only a person with a very low developed intellect or a believe trapped and dogma ridden mind - can argue otherwise. In which category do you stand exactly?
+Claudiu Cojocaru Of course you must be more evolved than christians, or than any other human been right?
+Claudiu Cojocaru Thanks for your "opinion"......
That's your point of view, for me he make NO sense .
Jesusistheonlysavior Of course, since you're probably an irrational mind holding irrational believes... It is to be expected that reason makes no sense to you LOL
Why is it that in nearly every debate involving Hitchens, the volume is so low that even at the highest settings he's hard to hear? Bad stuff there!
I’ve watch about 10 Hitchens debates at this point. And the “infallibility” of Scripture is the root of all these disagreements. The Christian typically has all its intellectual leaps grounded in that belief first. The Bible viewed in this way is the first departure from being able to evaluate any of this objectively/clearly.
Not sure which debates you speak of. Try Hitch vs. John Lennox. Lennox never goes to "infallibility". Hitch admitted afterward that Lennox won the debate.
At the very least, Wilson seems like a nice guy.
Yes, he's much more witty and likable than most of Hitchens' opponents in these debates.
Why would it matter what one does to random interactions of matter?
Why do you consider humans to be just random interactions of matter? I don't think any atheist considers them "just" that.
@@georgechristiansen6785 You mean you don't know?
@@BenjaminGoose by what basis can a atheist claim otherwise and know for certain that humans have meaning that transcends matter in motion?
Please check out the other deabtes. It only gets better
I like Hitchens and Douglas ...both very polite and smart folks
Dougie says horrendous things about women. He is vicious and vile
Hitchens shows himself here as an expert at avoiding questions that he cannot answer, through haphazardly throwing out arrogant or sarcastic statements that subtly shift attention from the intention of the original question. I feel that Wilson handles this entire debate with great humility and defends his viewpoint gracefully every time. Contrast this with Hitchens' tone at 1:26:30, for example. He just sounds like a man on the ropes. Losing his cool several times throughout the discussion.
I actually agree with you, Michael Bester. I love Hitch. He amuses me. But he lost this debate. He completely dodged the morality question around the 1:30 hour mark. He doesn't want to say what his worldview necessarily connotes: morality is a social creation that is absolutely relative; that Hitler and Stalin are morally equitable to Charles Darwin or Mother Teresa.
Tennyson Bush i would put hitler and stalin right along mother teresa indeed. of curse, if yu learned a little bit about the issue, you'd know how truly evil she was.
rohadt Anyad I'm going to assume for this answer that you are an atheist. If not, I apologize for misunderstanding you. When I said he dodges the question, I mean that instead of explicitly he stating what the atheistic worldview necessitates (i.e. that morality is a meaningless social construct) he dances around the issue.
In your comment you call Mother Teresa evil. Evil has no meaning, however, from an atheistic worldview. Under an atheistic worldview, the terms "right" and "wrong" are merely synonyms for "things I like" and "things I don't like."
Dawkins realizes this in The God Delusion, where he says that there is no objective right or wrong, good or evil.
I don't have a problem with you being an atheist, Anyad. I do have a problem with you being an atheist and pretending that the term "evil" has any meaning. That's intellectually dishonest.
Regards,
Tennyson
Tennyson Bush atheism is not a worldview. atheism indeed does not inform us about morals. but reason does. situational morality is even objective. otoh, if there is a god, morality is impossible. you can only be moral if god does not exist. are you moral?
rohadt Anyad Atheism is the viewpoint that humanity operates in a world without a God. Hence, atheism is a way of looking at the world. i.e. a worldview.
Secondly, what do you believe morality is? (I need more than just "right and wrong," or, "good and evil.")
Third, you say reason can inform us about morals. Alright. . . logically show me that murder is wrong without appealing to emotion. (Reason operates without emotion).
Third, why can I only be moral if God does not exist?
Fourth, am I moral? No. Not always. I try. I don't succeed all the time. Do you?
26:00 ... "with a large plaque long after I'm gone" ... always sobering when you hear something like that not too long after someone dies unnaturally.
Death is very natural.
Douglas Wilson trusts in the miracles ‘according to the bible’ ‘as a Christian’.
Hitchens kicked ass on the miracles question. Wilson looked like a dogmatic fool.
Remarkable debate, where Mr. Hitchens did not succeed in getting his opponent out of balance by insulting what is dear to him. This is actually how bullying works: harm your opponent so that he loses his nerves, fights back inappropriately, makes himself look stupid and funny and thus justifies the bullying. In this case, despite trying to push the same method occasionally, Mr. Hitchens was unable to escape the kindness and friendship of Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. W., for setting a good example.
You're point of view appears to be biased, or you didn't watch the entire debate.
@@Romamb I'm pretty sure I'm biased, nobody is not. (Wow, 9 years since I commented! Unbelievable.)
@@petrmaresu Is there a statute of limitations? Just having fun, no malice intended.
Mr Wilson may be kind and generous but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he is wrong on every point. There are no gods other than the ones that have been created by man.
Mr Wilson also publicly defends pedophiles and wife beaters in his church. I would know, he my next door neighbor.
Nobody can argue with reason. I'm sure a fair amount of christians converted to agnosticism if not Atheism by the end of that debate. Christopher Hitchens was one of a kind. He is missed but I'm glad we have all your work, videos, interviews, etc..available to us and to continue to spread the message of truth, evidence-based beliefs and rationality.
SaintofYeshua777. You need to repent to me. I am your only god. The truth and the light happens only with me. You are my slave! Lol
Lol you're so religious in your atheism. Doug's opening statement was never well addressed throughout the whole debate
@@ethanmulvihill7177 I go by evidence unlike you people.
what evidence do you have for reason? what reason do you have to go by evidence?
@@astroza_science Reason (including the scientific method) looks at predictions and the evidence of those results. It also looks at confirmation for those results including peer review. It’s not perfect but it’s the most reliable method we have to reality and truth. If it fails, then science modifies too until it gets reliable results. There’s nothing like that with faith. Having faith on anything without proper evidence to support it is a great way to be wrong.
i dont understand how he can say without god the universe is beautyless and meaningless...there is nothing more beautiful than the universe and all its processes and i wake up in awe every day knowing what has had to take place for me to exist...religion could never replace that, and the irony is its the christians who say we athiests must be so empty inside.
You have no meaningful basis in which to make the claim because all claims are subjective in the atheistic worldview. Atheist believe this beauty happened by accident while Christian's know it was the hand of our magnificent creator. That's what makes it beautiful.
Next time you want to unintelligibly bash an atheistic viewpoint, you may want to respond to a post that isn't 4 years old.. I'll happily step in for this one though.
All claims are subjective in an Atheists worldview?... I won't insult you for your ignorance, I'll instead invite you to do more (just any) research. Atheists generally pride themselves on the value of scientific fact, something for which there is next to no subjectivity to inject.
Your smugness and lack of self awareness combine to make a particularly toxic attitude..
I'm an atheist, here's a factual claim for you: Your religion is becoming more powerless with each passing generation, the day of the height of it's popularity is long since over, soon you and all else who subscribe to its ancient views, will take their seats beside the other relics of history. Enjoy yourself.
@@DanielGilchristYT is this absolutely true or could you be wrong about this?
Well, seriously ask yourself, at what point in History has science ever conceded ground to religion?
I could list countless areas in which Religion used to provide an answer for questions we all had, that Science has since provided more accurate answers for. There are literally no cases where Science provided an answer for a question that religion has since disproved or provided a more accurate one.
@@DanielGilchristYT that didnt answer the question....is what you're saying absolutely true or could you be wrong about that?
Wilson's case is laughable. He's basically saying "If you don't agree that God exists, you have no right to say that anything works without him because that would fuck up my position." Lame, dishonest and insulting. Period.
I believe the argument goes, If you don't agree that God exists, then you have no right to say anything as you do not have an objective basis for any claim you make.
Three periods in a row. 🤔
Out of all the people Hitchens has debated, Douglas seems to be the closest in terms of wit and mannerism. Shame he quickly destroys himself in the first few rounds of debate.
I can definitely agree that these boys have many of the same mannerisms. In fact, I have a theory that Wilson is actually Hitch's Christian doppelganger.
I had to switch off after 40 mins when Douglas confirmed that he believed Jesus met a man possessed by demons. He caused the demons to leave the man and enter the minds of 200 pigs. The pigs then stampede over a cliff and into the sea. I'm certain that demons don't exist but it's obvious that intelligent minds can be possessed by the most ridiculous nonsense.
Well maybe I'm overestimating him. i see he published a pamphlet which said "slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since."
I take back everything I said about him being intelligent. Whatever 'smarts' he was born with have been totally strangulated by religious indoctrination. A sad case.
I'm getting to this late, and I doubt the author of the comment will respond, so I invite anyone else to as well. My question is this: How did Douglas destroy himself in the first few rounds of debate? I'd love to dialogue on this.
Love this debate!
какой горячий и очевидный искренный выпуск ! спасибо те Christopher
Q/ How do you know that Christ rose from the dead?
Douglas Wilson - "The bible says so". The end.
The word "Bible" is properly capitalized just as you would capitalize the titles of Hitchens' books.
@@DavidParker-cf2km god will get him in the end for not capitalizing so rest easy
@@Resenbrink Take your own advice.
How do know Christ didn't rose from the dead?
Atheist: Christopher says so "the end.
@@edgesherun9880 You must be a genius. BTW, The burden of proof is on Wilson
Amazing isn't it, that as science continues to unveil the true nature of the universe, religion has to 'catch up' and readjusts itself to continue its argument for the existence of a God. How long was it before the church accepted copernicus?
Hmmm one may 'measure the time' in the numbers of burnt humans who dared to think for themselves and who dared to challenge the stupidity of the catholic church's absurd dogma.
How about the millions killed by atheistic communist politicians because they think men are mere evolving chemicals ? Just use them to elevate your pride? How many kids especially blacks who are in jail because they had no father at home due to feministic secular views?? How about young ones who are in drugs because atheistic Hollywood lied to them?....
@@emmanuelkagabo-q4c what a ridiculous argument. people kill in the name of religion. this a fact. no one kills in the name of atheism. Primarily because no one does but also because atheism is not itself a doctrine; it is not a world view nor is it a philosophy. it is simply a rejection of the claims of religion.
Man kills because he is an animal,an evolved one, but still an animal. Religion just provides the justification.
If one had neverrr heard either side: This is the most embarrassing i have ever witnessed Christopher. Mr. Wilson truly did Demolish his arguments and Worldview.
And, our empathy was an emergent property of the evolution of social species. It is a common trait of many social species, as it improves survivability. Remember, evolution has no goals. Evolution is a PROCESS that results in increased numbers of any species that develops traits that increase survival rates. It is not "only the strong survive". It is "the most suited to survive usually survive better than other species".
Douglas Wilson (like so many Christian apologists) dodged a very good question posted by Hitchens: *what gives one religion the authority to say that the superstitions that THAT particular sector believes in are legit, but the superstitions of all the other world faiths and religions (both past and present) are false? On what grounds does one faith get to say, "The laws of the physical universe are suspended only in our favor, and no one else's"?* And as Hitchens so eloquently pointed out, either all religions are true, all religions are false, or (the least likely) only one of them is true. In which case none of them have any more or less evidence than the others to prove so.
In addition, if one takes the "rationality" monotheists use for believing in the characters of their holy texts, there is just as much "evidence" for them to believe in Zeus, Athena, Thor, Odin, Spiderman, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Which once again begs the question: on what authority does a person have the right to say that their imaginary friend is more legit than anyone else's imaginary friend?
Excellently crafted comment. See me after class !
Eh, needs a federal government sponsered resurrection to settle a pointless personal petty dispute.
"I believe it because I believe it" Anybody else see the problem here?
That was the point he lost the debate.
Joseph Nordenbrock
Actually, he lost the debate when Hitchens sat down next to him.
sparklingmichele exactly that lol.
Stephen Lord
...and I was thinking earlier how much I missed him.
As a Theist, I threw up my hands when I heard that. Though I relate with being persuaded by the arguments based on eyewitnesses ( trusting in them as such ) and lives remarkably lived out to the point of persecution and murder. I do know the comebacks which are valid: many people can live distressed lives for believing in anything or anyone, and the written accounts took place too many years later. As well as none of the original manuscripts are in existence as of yet. Jesus Christ just seemed like an incredibly good man, teacher, perhaps "god". As Hitchens commented, it's unfortunate Marcion's suggestion didn't win out.
Christopher Hitchens is an awe-inspiring debater. We miss you.
If you like hitch... Watch him vs. donohue
Patrick Novak Phil Donahue?
No just search for hitchens debates Donahue
Patrick Novak Will do...
Patrick Novak thats a good one
Youthful me thought Hitch won this. Life experience and humility before God changed that perspective. God bless Mr. Wilson. And I pray for Hitch’s soul.
Which ‘god’?
Good debate well worth the view.
Where was Jesus 2100 years ago? Nowhere.
Very good questions from the audience as well.
The deception is great and the war for the souls of men rages on
In your mind
Is “the deception” in the room with you right now?
Here September 13th, 2021 5:55 P.M
God I miss Christopher Hitchens... He would have Been the greatest free speech warrior alive today along with JP and Sam Harris.
.....I miss him too. Nice profile picture, by the way.
How is Sam Harris a free speech warrior? He doesn’t even believe in free will
Don't miss Hitchens, become Hitchens. It's what he would have wanted.
Wilson understands Hitchins, but Hitchins cannot understand Wilson. This is all past tense now that Hitchins, sadly, has passed on.
We all got to go to that lonesome valley. No one can go there for us. Unless, of course, we acknowledge the account of the One who already did so on our behalf.
The absolute contempt on Hitchens' face after Wilson talks is priceless.
The absolute consternation when he gets called out on Reddit-level understanding of the end times is also brilliant.
I'm just at the start, he seems quite gentlemanly so far.
@@Lambdamale. Hitchens was very professional but you can see the contempt all over his face.
They're on tour together and spent time together out of the debates. It's difficult for me to believe he'd do that with someone he had contempt for.
@@FoulPet It's real contempt, but it's for the arguments, not the person.
As a Canadian who likes winter environments, I have also been impressed by frozen waterfalls, be they singlets, doublets, triplets... but without reducing myself to indignity by falling to my knees for Jesus! No, much better, I saw their beauty, and the beautiful struggle, indeed purpose for me to climb up them. No god required. Have pictures. Douglas Wilson is left holding an empty sack.
Hi O'Reilly, from a Biblical world view I would say you needed something other than yourself to see those things. You didn't make them so you could see them. The beautiful scene's of nature were there many thousands of years before you were born.
“I believe” < “I know”. Believing is NOT knowing.
Do you believe that?
Christopher Hitchens , one of the greats of the 20th and 21st centuries. I hope my early teenage American nephews, can get to listen to Chris on you tube..(got a Jesus loving, all American Mom)..so i am not very hopeful. ....although will try my best..
Lol gotta hate those Jesus lovers just a blight on society
"Donkeys can always be arranged." -Christopher Hitchens
All the atheists who talk trash about Christians would have not gotten along with Christopher, since he has such a deep respect for Christians with convictions and had deep friendships with many.
He woudl have liked them even more if they were atheists
46:42 Dough Wilson saying that he would kill the Amalekites, if he thought he were divinely commanded to do such a thing, was really surprising.
@WilliamByronIs atheist communists killed 100,000,000 human beings in a single century because they thought they were on the right side of history. All humans are capable of killing for a cause they believe in.
@@billbadson7598 Christians (and Muslims) have destroyed every civilisation they came upon. Even the Romans were the most powerful empire on earth before they became Christian and it all fell apart. The US is now doing the same thing.
@@billbadson7598Ah yes, the “atheist communists did XYZ so therefore….” The fallacious argument that just refuses to die.
@@tommym321 It won't until the atheist communists stop being thousands of times more murderous than the faithful they're trying to convince you to fear.
@WilliamByronIsAs Harris says 'good people doing bad things'
Why didn't Wilson put on the cap after the first 10 mins... he was losing (and lost) right from the get-go.
Hitchens clearly and succinctly explained and gave examples of what it is to have religious faith; the illogicality, contradiction, inconsistencies, ridiculous gullibility, etc. Wilson had fizzing Dr. Peppers, speaking to spilt milk, analogies. He doesn't know where logic comes from..
+Jack Palkovic Not from god.
Hitchens is merely anecdotal in this video, there is no argumentation, much less any presentation of evidence for any of his position. It's just a smattering of isnt-god-mean-isms which is appeal to emotions which consistently one of the weakest forms of argumentation. Knee-jerk hitch-fan boys never critically analyzes the evidence and argumentation, but accept everything he says as "gospel" but don't have the courage to admit that they are just basically cult.
He presents some of his arguments in the form of anecdotes. It's not that he doesn't have any arguments; you just need to think about the anecdotes to understand the arguments. He doesn't appeal to emotion; he exposes the lack of emotion in a monotheist God. If you really listened to what he said, it should be obvious.
it all comes down to, if something is granted or sought after, kill me now
I think he's always pretty clear to point to specific religious injunctions that require its followers to cause the pain he complains about. He's not dumb enough to say "religious people do bad things therefore no god".
his closing statement was reality overload. awesome
That was a hilarious as a title...I'll give you the donkey, granted the ass."
Love Hitch. Brilliant as always.
Great discussion.
With all due respect to Doug Wilson, I never found his arguments particular compelling but he clearly loved Hitchens so much that I find him very endearing. He giggles with such genuine happiness whenever hitch drops a gem or interjects and Hitch clearly thought he was a decent guy too, as he spent so long with him and spoke so kindly about him.
Ol' Wilson ain't so cocky sitting by Hitchens. When he debated (and got trounced by) Dan Barker, he was insufferable making snide remarks and speaking a mile a minute. Here he is reserved, even timid, as he prepares to poke the beast that is the Hitchens intellect. Amazing how Hitchens' presence commanded respect from any opponent.
Heath Kitchen the same Wilson shows up at all his debates. He talks that way in his preaching, his debates and his interviews. You are projecting your own insecurities. He took both Barker and Hitchens on a ride they weren’t prepared for. Hitchens remembered Wilson over any other apologist he ever debates. Do a little research on it.
Hitchens didn't even try to address Wilson's central argument. His unusual cleverness gave him the ability to bury his evasion under winsome rhetoric, but he did not bother to answer the main challenge Wilson offered.
Just from this bombastic and insecure comment, it is quite clear that you are deluted, sir. What color has sky in your world?
What debate did you watch? Wilson did very well against Hitchens every time they debated. Wilson had Hitchens stumped numerous times . The atheists cannot answer the morality question
hitchens is right, the audience were just like bill mahers..laugh at fucking evvvvverything
Hitchens: truth, truth, truth, history, fact, history, fact, truth, fact.
Wilson: *MAGIC!*
I have never watched a debate with Hitchens where the audience ever ended on the side of the Christian apologist. Never. At worst, Hitchens leaves a devout Christian audience shook. It's kind of crazy...
Not so much a Hitchslap as a Hitchbeating.
+Thomas Fitzpatrick I have read somewhat extensively about Hitchens and I have listened to quite a few of these videos but I still have one remaining question;
Does Christopher Hitchens... at all... in any of his works... describe the process of individual human enlightenment… all I can find on him is him trashing religionists... which he did pretty darn well... but...
+ShinRaPresident ... ''by describing the process of individual human enlightenment'Generally, to come to a level of understanding regarding the processes of your endarkenment, (i.e. biases and negative influences accepted as uncorroborated truth by you during your youthful and formative years) thereby exposing you to the processes which can lead to your enlightenment.
For each individual it is a different combination of process or processes, so to elaborate: Go find out what your endarkenment entails, and how you came to be endarkened on that particular issue, and go about developing a process for unendarkening yourself... and then you will be somewhat enlightened... lather, rinse, repeat... until you are fully enlightened...
+Thomas Fitzpatrick Yet God has given Hitchens a beating that will last forever.
+Tim Ballentine only in your deluded mind... his energy is even now enjoying a new life...
+Thomas Fitzpatrick I like Hitchslap better to describe what occurred here.
The poor, deluded fool Wilson on miracles:"The ones I believe are the ones I believe in." I can't stop laughing.
We miss you Hitchens.