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
hitchens looks younger than wilson
God is man-made control, nothing more, nothing less.
- Nathan Charles Gagné
I’m surprised how Hitchens even considers this guy worthy of a debate. I have seen better theist arguments. It’s only an apologist professor could invite such an ass to a debate. Such people deserve to spend their life with a belief in god, that is their best treatment.
The teleological argument is redundant “without god there would be no reason..” A reason cannot exist without being attributed to something, so “before” the universe where/when/how would the reason exist? Do christians have a god function in their excel spreadsheets? Logic does not permit it.
I never get tired of listening to Hitchens.
@Muchodelcrazy ever seen ray comforts banana?
@Averagegamer100 heh a universal moral giver gives out universal attraction.. i like it
@CityzenJane yes, it’s a false dichotomy
@the13thof12 There are no objective standards of beauty, it’s all subjective.
Your post was pretty clear.
@Averagegamer100 Again, I think you’ve missed the point.
@the13thof12 Being fat, and a male, used to be a sign of attractiveness and wealth a few hundred years ago.
In the middle ages, women with FLAT chests were seen as more beautiful.
There is no objective view of what is or isn’t beautiful.
@DandAinTac It is objective. Do some reading on “The Beauty Equation”. As it turns out, people tend to find things attractive when they are built in certain proportions. However, I think you have misapprehended Mr. Wilson’s argument.
Wilson insists that God must exist for objective standards for beauty? Really??
OKAY THEN!
Can ANYONE tell me what the OBJECTIVE standard for beauty is? If it’s objective, then it should be explainable in such a way that we can all look at it and agree on what is beautiful.
Is this standard to be found in the Bible? It must be, for how else can one claim that God sets the standard for beauty? Please supply the Book, chapter and verse(s).
No! It is BECAUSE God is just, you must take responsibility.
What kind of fool would argue with Hitch, they must not do much research on there opponent, it is probably arrogance that suggest to them they might be able to hold there own against him. Have watched dozens of scenes where Hitch just destroys them, calmly.
skip past the tard to 2:50
@jamaicanification
First. Einstein only believed in a metaphorical God for that which we don’t understand and the mystery of the universe. The pantheistic tradition. Newton, Galileo, and da Vinci were Christian, but the majority of the people in their time were Christian, and you could possibly be put to death for admitting to be non-Christian. Who’s to say what they would be today, knowing what we do now from such people as Mr. Darwin? No way to know. I think the argument is inconsequential.
hitchens is like a bored evil toad. hahaha….i love him!
Yes that is a great arguement, i think Christopher by far won so far…i didn’t watch all of it but know the arguement of Douglas,and Christopher won…BUT, God still exists no matter what ANYONE says…and the Bible and it’s prophecies will come true then Mr. Hitchens you will know why you shoud have trembled before the Lord that WAS and IS and IS TO COME!!!!!
2:17-3:30. Douglas admits, without saying so, that a believe is derived from wishful thinking. He basically advocates that if something is not mentally appealing, and there is an alternative perception, go with the alternative. This is a classic example of “Pascal’s wager.”
@metanosis …. that my friend is pure gobblydegook.
you may comfortably refer to it as ‘just the plumbing’ – but that ‘plumbing’ is responsible for all human creativity you see – including the creation of thousands of gods for thousands of human cultures…
you may not be satisfied with that but I certainly am.
@CityzenJane but of course, what is the human mind, to be a bit definitional, but the product of a meaningless process, an incredible(many say impossible) series of chance occurences thru speciation(if Darwinist, random mutations) ending in the mass of tissue inside the human skull, which is not a mind yet, just the plumbing. Can the mind(whatever definition you use, which as an atheist must be simply the plumbing following a predetermined program), create anything???? On this definition…NO!
religious people r mentally disordered. its not an insult. its my observation and opinion.
@herdondoozer I’m sure I would. Either that or bored to death.
@dopejoel Wouldnt you be if you were debating this intellectual drip. Its like the Yankees playing a high school team