Christianity vs Athiesm. A debate at Westminster Theological Seminary between Christopher Hitchens, renowned atheist, and Douglas Wilson, renowned Christian author.
On May 28, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
Christianity vs Athiesm. A debate at Westminster Theological Seminary between Christopher Hitchens, renowned atheist, and Douglas Wilson, renowned Christian author.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
@bigbody8822 so basically you are anti religion or even anti christ. Would you comfortable or be at ease when saying that you are the people of anti christ. Would that be ok for me to call you that.Since you dont worry or care or believe in religion… Are you proud to be among the many people who is anti christ.. Or do you think there is shame in admitting you are anti religion or anti christ..
Athiests are pussys. Jesus walked into a church and beat peoples asses. No athiest in modern times has done this.
@bigbody8822 i am also an agnostic. however i dont think science with ever dissprove god. i think there are things that people want to believe and that is that. if people want to beieve that they will see a loved one in another life or that evil people will be judged in the here after, there is nothing that fat, condescending, alcoholic , know it all’s like hitchens will say to make them throw their faith away. the main reason is that he will never offer anything positive in its place.
it’s more important to disregard all the semantics, find a set of principle and stick to them no matter what others have to say. in choseing to have judeo-christian principles i find my life to be more meaningful, fulfilling and i find strength in scripture that gets me through the tough times. idc what the arguments for or against are, i know what works.
@tonybeak Thats what i like to see! not “GOD DOESEN’T EXIST FAGGOT” or “PRAISE THE LAWD, HE IS OUR SAVIOR.” but a happy go lucky athiest spreading a good message.
@BruNoLoCc
Stupid question. If I answered you with “life is a collection of experiences, etc” you’d say, “what is experience”? Who cares? Some things are irreducibly true. They just ARE. Period. As 1984′s, Winston, says, “Truisms are true. The solid world exists, it’s laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall toward the earth’s center. Freedom, then, is the freedom to say 2 + 2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follows.” Why complicate things any further?
You say , “Enjoy life for what it is.”
What is life?
they just put out a movie called “collision” it was pretty good wilson always hijacks the debate and takes it away from the questions asked
Spread the TRUTH! FREE THE PEOPLE.
Kindness is our true religion.
Love all of you!
“Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl” – New video on my channel.
Hitchens destroys this man by the end of the debate, I myself am an agnostic. TO BE FAIR to Wilson, who is an intelligent man he is trying to defend what science and most intelligent people see as indefensible. Religion gets disproven more and more as science progresses. So if the Christians cant win the arguments now as seen in this debate, it will not get any easier. Cut your losses Christians and enjoy life for what it is.
Not at all. The Atheistic approach looks at evolution and finds that our goodness our “caring” all have roots in Darwinistic natural selection.
And no my friend, that is certainly not what agnosticism means. To be agnostic is to say that we don’t know the truth AND the truth is FOREVER unknowable. We may not have a definite answer right now, but that doesn’t mean that we never will or never can!
I’ll speak agnostically. Why can God have only one son? Why does he have to die? Why do we exist without reason, and if so why would we have consciously knowledge or care about it for that matter? Both theories are logically flawed. If we accept one word as law, we are blinded. If we accept all words as possibilities than nothing can be decided upon. Perhaps the principles of religion can be used in the theories of atheism….
Oh wait, its called agnosticism nevermind.
Wilson is making a foreboding disclaimer – throwing the mumbo jumbo around pretty liberally and telling people how they should interpret Hitchens. That’s a common technique to sway the listener prior to the actual debate. It makes me suspect his points will be weak. Hitchens is probably going to shred them mercilessly – this should be interesting. On to Part 2.
hitchens is wearing a poppy so its round about end of october start of november time, he wears it in remembrance of the soliders that died for our freedom, and that day is the 11th of the 11th , if you don’t know any thing about it you should check it out the somme and verdun on youtube they are some of the battles from ww1. but not sure of the year, try and find out the year that he got american citizenship then you’ll find the year in wehich this was held
Apologetics class? Scary.
lol
well it hardly happened last week after the video was posted. lol
senorsquiid – “Always with the long tedious introductions.”
You ungrateful little prick! If the uploader cut it, some stupid shit would say the opposite: what happened during the introduction?
In less time than it took you to make that comment, you could have fast-forwarded to the debate.
Ous114 – thanks for taking the time to upload an interesting debate!
Always with the long tedious introductions.
First was an introduction, so I didn’t include it just for the sake of time
Go two Christians to pray I would win the lottery, so much for Christianity……
Think so…
Oh, and second!
First?