A debate at Westminster Theological Seminary between Christopher Hitchens, renowned atheist, and Douglas Wilson, renowned Christian author. It was moderated by Dr. Scott Oliphint, and you can read his response to the debate at www.wts.edu
Tags: Christopher · Debate · Douglas · Hitchens · Part · Seminary · Theological · Westminster · Wilson25 Comments
@Domzdream Ronald McDonald would annihalate Sarah Palin.
@jonathanpaulmayer dawkins didnt fall on his face at all.. while he didnt convert everyone of course.. his book the god delusion and his arguments against christianity and religion has changed the opinion of many many christians and religious people.. fell on his face is a bit extreme.. however you cantt prove god doesn’t exist no matter how smart you are… its not falseifiable…thats why of course it isnt scientific at all and why i would argue creationsim should not be taught in schools
@jonathanpaulmayer Can you provide resources that would back the claim of Dan Brown’s history as sensational fiction? It is observable that people have a penchant for sensationalism these days like Springer, Fox News, Hitchins and even Dan Brown.
@jonathanpaulmayer
I’ve never read a Dan Brown book in my life. And, even the majority of apologist “historians” agree that the gospels are anonymous. Not to mention that they disagree heavily with one another. Luke is the gospel most likely written by the author of the same name, but he also wrote acts and that is the book in the bible that most contradicts a historical Jesus (See Richard Carrier’s talk about acts here on Youtube.) You just don’t have a leg to stand on here.
@Tcrowaf Actual history is supported by actual evidence, such as the sources I mentioned. Dan Brown’s history is sensationalized fiction, supported by imagination and wishful thinking. Do your homework.
It’s 2010. We know of black holes and billions of galaxies. Yet there are those that still believe in devils with pitchforks and angles in a heavenly theme park. If I were a theist, I’d be embarrassed.
Religion is for those who are children, or the intellectually challenged. What’s really annoying is how theists justify their stupidity (beliefs) by using science.
@michaelkitselaar
I totally agree. I’d LOVE for him to be in thesame room as Sarah Palin. He’d annihilate her, intellectually, as well as politically. Especially, politically.
It would be total extirpation.
Hitchens speaks so well, Douglas Wilson is not even in the same league.
@jonathanpaulmayer
You are definitely referring to the apologetic version of history. I prefer actual history.
@Tcrowaf I think you might be referring to Dan Brown’s version of history. Most of the books of the New Testament are not anonymous. The books that were included in the canon of Scripture were recognized as authoritative from the very beginning. There are primary source documents from Ireneaus, Polycarp, and several other second-and-third-generation disciples that connect the gospels to their respective authors. The Old Testament had already been canonized two centuries before Jesus.
this is my favorite part of the debate; discussion about beauty is so untouched on and I think it’s one the best defense for christianity
@jonathanpaulmayer
Do you mean the random collection of anonymously written books that some men arbitrarily decided to call canon some ten lifetimes after Christ’s death? Is that the book we’re talking about?
@Tcrowaf The version that was canonized at the council of Carthage in 397 AD is the same 66-book version accepted by nearly every church body, and found in every hotel room.
@jonathanpaulmayer i have a creator too. my parents.
@jonathanpaulmayer
First, you need to tell me which one of the mutually exclusive versions of “The Bible” is in actuality, “The Bible.”
@Tcrowaf I assume by that statement that you can produce evidence that the Bible has undergone changes since its canonization. If so, by all means, please produce it. If not, your astonishment is misplaced.
@jonathanpaulmayer
The Bible has not changed? Wow… just… wow
@xSilverPhinx I do not rely on feelings or ‘personal experiences with God’ do prove that I have a creator. I wouldn’t ask you to accept as evidence something that only I can experience, especially when there is plenty of evidence in the natural world.
@MrAtheism33 Christianity has certainly undergone shifts in popular opinion, but orthodox Christianity is still rooted in the Bible, which has not changed. I concur with what many of the first church fathers wrote in the First and Second Centuries AD: Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.
You’re right—humans usually aren’t rational. I don’t see what that proves.
@jonathanpaulmayer Human beings are not very rational or logical most of the time. You cannot speak of Christianity as a fixed doctrine. It too has evolved, adopting tales and mythology of other groups, constantly being revised and re-interpreted throughout history. The problem is that it just doesn’t hold up anymore no matter how you interpret it
@jonathanpaulmayer You must understand that in the historical context in which Christianity was created there was little understanding of the natural world (evolution, geology, psychology, microbiology, physics) These people did not have a lot to work with. Knowledge was passed on as mythology,folklore and verbal tradition. (more)
@jonathanpaulmayer
No, I’m not able to disprove god’s existence, just as no other person is able to, but just because god can never be disproven it doesn’t mean that he exists. I was talking about the non logical subjective experiences that people associate with god and the supernatural when in reality it’s far more probable that they have either a natural cause or is the product of poor reasoning and poor pattern assoiative thinking – linking things with no valid connection.
@xSilverPhinx I never argued that all religions are true— most of them are the product of human invention, whether conscious or unconscious. But as Wilson argued, just because it is possible to make counterfeit money does not mean that all money is counterfeit, or that no real money exists.
So you are able to prove God’s non-existence by mathematics and logic? If so, you are far more intelligent than Richard Dawkins, whose attempt to do the same fell on its face.
@jonathanpaulmayer
Religion may not be the conscious invention of the human mind, but that doesn’t rule out the high possibility (given all that we know and observe) that it is the product of the human mind. Not all though processes follow objective logical mathematical rules so as far as we know, the god as concieved by chritianity and other religions is not out there.
@MrAtheism33, If you don’t believe in something, it’s easy to say that it doesn’t make sense. You are defining God as something physical, i.e. 1+1=2.
Besides, if Christianity does not follow mathematical, human logic, it is all the more evidence that it was not invented by humans. The early Christians were very intelligent minds, and if they had chosen to invent a religion, they surely could have satisfied your craving for elementary math.