I'm a producer on COLLISION. I live in West Hollywood. The token Jew on the team. I don't believe in God. I also don't feel that this film is skewed one direction or the other. It's fair and balanced. If it weren't, I wouldn't be involved.
Very compelling. I wanted to watch more. Looking forward to seeing and buying the full movie. I think the 'clash of lives' theme that Pastor Wilson mentions is the strongest argument of all. At least in the beginning of the video, that clash seems apparent. There is Mr. Hitchens, with himself. There is Mr. Wilson with his happy brood. Even if Mr. Hitchens' views of evolution were true, guess what?, he still loses!
How do you know Hitchens doesn't have a loving family as well, If I remember he doesn't like filming or naming family members because of the religious fascists who have given him death threats. Even if he was in fact not as "happy" as Wilson, it does nothing to prove the proposition that God exists, it doesn't prove anything.
How abhorrent to think "happiness" proves "truth". One question ... is this documentary going to be clips of previous debates? I've seen multiple videos of Hitchens absolutely burying Wilson in debates. Will these be fresh arguments, or rehashes of previous conflicts. And if the latter, it would seem a touch suspect given the amount of times Wilson has been made to eat his remarks? Thoughts?
Both Hitchens and Wilson have seen the movie and are happy with the result. It is comprised of footage from actual debates as well as behind the scenes with them one on one. I believe there are some youtube video's out there where both of them explain why one should see the movie.
I gotta think it will be a complete smackdown from the hitch in any regard. On another note ... any idea what happened to his site? Hitchensweb.com has become an ad site? I hope that means he is finally getting around to getting someone to design him a proper site that will be able to archive his material!
Chad, Both Hitchens and Wilson have seen the movie and are happy with the result. It is comprised of footage from actual debates as well as behind the scenes with them one on one. I believe there are some youtube video's out there where both of them explain why one should see the movie.
Yes, here is the link to that youtube clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBL9OMCfT28&feature=related
It all depends on your worldview...People who adhere to Hitch's worldview will agree with everything he says and see him as "the winner." The same is true with people who adhere to Doug Wilson's, or should I say, Christianity's worldview. So what do you believe, and upon who's authority do you stand because your own just doesn't cut it. Long live the King of kings.
Andrea, I would disagree on your "agreeing" point. I disagree with Hitch all the time, especially in regards to his views on Iraq. But that doesn't mean I discard his ideas OR, believe as truth, his every word. The simple fact is when talking about religion ... there really is no ground for the faithful to stand on. Hitchs' arguments are some of the most eloquent, rational and beautifully simple thoughts put forth by a non-believer ..... well, ever. If Hitch and Sam Harris put together a world tour (an endeavor I'd happily fund if able) I think we'd see an instant turn from religious dogma towards a more rational culture.
"I think we'd see an instant turn from religious dogma towards a more rational culture."
But that is exactly what the militant atheistic Soviet Union tried to do for over 50 years of their existence. Yet their was little impact in making those particular people lose their religious "dogma". The simple fact is most people don't go to science/rational thought to find God therefore science/rational thought cannot be effective in eliminating one's belief in God. Besides most people don't go to science in trying to solve much of anything. For example, there are still Pittsburgh Pirate fans in this world.
Travis -- To associate the Stalin-era "militant Soviet Union" practices/ideals with "Rationalism" is a sad statement indeed. These systems, in and of themselves were ultra-dogmatic. If anything, the problem was that they were to much LIKE religion, not that they didn't have a deity to believe in .... Stalin filled that void quite well on his own. You'll notice in my post that I wasn't calling for the destruction of religions as well. I was merely commenting on the fact that Hitchens and Harris are some of the most eloquent non-believers of this generation and it would be great to see two men of such ability take on theocratic bullying and finally turn the tables on religious nonsense. People will always have their faith (as you've mentioned), but with some work ... maybe the rational, free-thinker can have a voice as well.
"These systems, in and of themselves were ultra-dogmatic. If anything, the problem was that they were to much LIKE religion, not that they didn't have a deity to believe in .... Stalin filled that void quite well on his own."
You need to find out why they were to much LIKE religion. The militant atheists of the Soviet Union were well aware of such teachings as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. Eradicating religious "dogma" and producing a society that looked at rational/scientific inquiry as the only standard for truth was first and foremost the main goal. It's not sad at all to compare them, that is merely from a ontological basis of knowledge.
So the goalpost has been moved to simply being able to have a voice. Okay, I'll bite...no more Christmas songs in public school.
Travis -- Way off base my friend. Again, to even remotely associate Stalinism and rationalism is simply a fabrication on your part. This "system" was inherently oppressive with extensive government spying, extrajudicial punishment, and political "purging", or "elimination of political opponents either by direct killing or through exile, and it involves a state making extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality CULT around an absolute dictator to maintain control over the nation's people and to maintain political control for the Communist Party." Which of this sounds "rational" again? To associate a RATIONAL passion for science and the pursuit of knowledge with such a dogmatic system as Stalinism is a blatant disregard for history. It Is a mistake (or direct attempt to deliberately spread misinformation) that I've experienced from the religious before. Furthermore, I find it humorous you should mention "Christmas" .... a Pagan holiday with it's roots based in orgy and debauchery (a history that is easily discovered with little research.) Do you simply deny all of history if it goes against your own ideological biases?
Funny how these issues become cloudy so quickly. A point of note to all who may contribute to this board. The Christian Holy Bible says in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Hence, every atheistic argument that asserts Christ as a myth and/or irrelevant all the while asserting those of faith are fools prove this point through to the end. Please, if this gives you pause consider it more deeply. 1 Corinthians 1:20, "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" Time and again - be it flat earth, Geocentrics solar system/universe, etc - Time and again, our science debunks previously held truths. We should all tread lightly upon these subjects as we are observers, not the initiators.
Jason -- Forgive me, but once I hear the white-noise babble of religious poetry (and try to establish a basis in reality) I tend to become sleepy. Are your comments FOR an atheistic perspective ... or against? I would also mention that most atheists would never associate a "lack of intelligence" with being religious. The greatest scientific mind (Newton) that we've ever produced as a species was a man with deep faith. That bodes neither for or against his grasp of the universe, or his concept of the "heavens" .... it just means a brilliant man happened to "believe" in the theological point of view he happened to have been indoctrinated into. Not based on fact, but faith. The real point at hand is to reveal "faith" for what it is. Neither virtue nor attribute for envy.
Chad do you know what epistemology means? If so show me how the militant atheists of the Soviet Union differed, pertaining to epistemology, with the new atheists.
Travis -- Do you know what Metaphysics means? How about Aesthetics. Or, the Theory of Forms for that matter? Great, grand, wonderful .... I'm happy for you that your passionate about Epistemology. But, that doesn't make your argument ONE.) True, or TWO.) based in a rational discourse that couldn't go in an infinite number of philosophical directions. Is this a chair I'm sitting in? Is this really a computer I'm typing at .... yada, yada ... white noise. My original point to you was that Stalinism was NOT based on atheism. Nor, was anything he did perpetrated in the NAME of atheism. The irony here (although the religious ignore it) is that this system was more LIKE a religion than anything else. It was set up with it's own set of irrational (political and ideological) dogmas based on the deified leader (Stalin) and the unquestionable principles of "our way or the highway". Hmmmm, who does that sound like? My friend, you can argue in philosophical circles until your blue in the face. You can believe nonsense if you want .... but I can't envy you for it.
Chad, yes I am much aware of them. However, the root of rational is in epistemology. One would say through accepting rational thought, as an epistemological basis for knowledge, comes a metaphysical framework. One needs to understand how they define knowledge before they claim knowledge. Thus, my comparison to the "League of Militant Atheists", the rough draft being headed up by Leon Trotsky. Last time I checked Trotsky wasn't a Stalinist, as validated by a Mexican ice pick.
Read up on Durkheim to understand why they replaced religious symbols with secular one's. There was certainly a rational point behind it. The Soviet experiment in secularization failed and the French militant atheistic experiment of secularization failed. How many years did Voltaire overestimate? The fact is religion is exploding throughout the world and there is nothing Harris or Hitchens can do about it. If bigger giants like Trotsky and Voltaire couldn't succeed I'm not sure why you would hold to such optimism.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 11:42PM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (103)
Looks very interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing this.
Given the address of this production company I'd say Douglas Wilson is behind this DVD as well as the editing. I hope it's not skewed...
I'm a producer on COLLISION. I live in West Hollywood. The token Jew on the team. I don't believe in God. I also don't feel that this film is skewed one direction or the other. It's fair and balanced. If it weren't, I wouldn't be involved.
Very compelling. I wanted to watch more. Looking forward to seeing and buying the full movie. I think the 'clash of lives' theme that Pastor Wilson mentions is the strongest argument of all. At least in the beginning of the video, that clash seems apparent. There is Mr. Hitchens, with himself. There is Mr. Wilson with his happy brood. Even if Mr. Hitchens' views of evolution were true, guess what?, he still loses!
How do you know Hitchens doesn't have a loving family as well, If I remember he doesn't like filming or naming family members because of the religious fascists who have given him death threats. Even if he was in fact not as "happy" as Wilson, it does nothing to prove the proposition that God exists, it doesn't prove anything.
How abhorrent to think "happiness" proves "truth". One question ... is this documentary going to be clips of previous debates? I've seen multiple videos of Hitchens absolutely burying Wilson in debates. Will these be fresh arguments, or rehashes of previous conflicts. And if the latter, it would seem a touch suspect given the amount of times Wilson has been made to eat his remarks? Thoughts?
Chad,
Both Hitchens and Wilson have seen the movie and are happy with the result. It is comprised of footage from actual debates as well as behind the scenes with them one on one. I believe there are some youtube video's out there where both of them explain why one should see the movie.
Thanks Dave,
I gotta think it will be a complete smackdown from the hitch in any regard. On another note ... any idea what happened to his site? Hitchensweb.com has become an ad site? I hope that means he is finally getting around to getting someone to design him a proper site that will be able to archive his material!
Chad,
Both Hitchens and Wilson have seen the movie and are happy with the result. It is comprised of footage from actual debates as well as behind the scenes with them one on one. I believe there are some youtube video's out there where both of them explain why one should see the movie.
Yes, here is the link to that youtube clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBL9OMCfT28&feature=related
It all depends on your worldview...People who adhere to Hitch's worldview will agree with everything he says and see him as "the winner." The same is true with people who adhere to Doug Wilson's, or should I say, Christianity's worldview. So what do you believe, and upon who's authority do you stand because your own just doesn't cut it. Long live the King of kings.
Andrea, I would disagree on your "agreeing" point. I disagree with Hitch all the time, especially in regards to his views on Iraq. But that doesn't mean I discard his ideas OR, believe as truth, his every word. The simple fact is when talking about religion ... there really is no ground for the faithful to stand on. Hitchs' arguments are some of the most eloquent, rational and beautifully simple thoughts put forth by a non-believer ..... well, ever. If Hitch and Sam Harris put together a world tour (an endeavor I'd happily fund if able) I think we'd see an instant turn from religious dogma towards a more rational culture.
Chad,
"I think we'd see an instant turn from religious dogma towards a more rational culture."
But that is exactly what the militant atheistic Soviet Union tried to do for over 50 years of their existence. Yet their was little impact in making those particular people lose their religious "dogma". The simple fact is most people don't go to science/rational thought to find God therefore science/rational thought cannot be effective in eliminating one's belief in God. Besides most people don't go to science in trying to solve much of anything. For example, there are still Pittsburgh Pirate fans in this world.
Travis -- To associate the Stalin-era "militant Soviet Union" practices/ideals with "Rationalism" is a sad statement indeed. These systems, in and of themselves were ultra-dogmatic. If anything, the problem was that they were to much LIKE religion, not that they didn't have a deity to believe in .... Stalin filled that void quite well on his own. You'll notice in my post that I wasn't calling for the destruction of religions as well. I was merely commenting on the fact that Hitchens and Harris are some of the most eloquent non-believers of this generation and it would be great to see two men of such ability take on theocratic bullying and finally turn the tables on religious nonsense. People will always have their faith (as you've mentioned), but with some work ... maybe the rational, free-thinker can have a voice as well.
Chad,
"These systems, in and of themselves were ultra-dogmatic. If anything, the problem was that they were to much LIKE religion, not that they didn't have a deity to believe in .... Stalin filled that void quite well on his own."
You need to find out why they were to much LIKE religion. The militant atheists of the Soviet Union were well aware of such teachings as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. Eradicating religious "dogma" and producing a society that looked at rational/scientific inquiry as the only standard for truth was first and foremost the main goal. It's not sad at all to compare them, that is merely from a ontological basis of knowledge.
So the goalpost has been moved to simply being able to have a voice. Okay, I'll bite...no more Christmas songs in public school.
Travis -- Way off base my friend. Again, to even remotely associate Stalinism and rationalism is simply a fabrication on your part. This "system" was inherently oppressive with extensive government spying, extrajudicial punishment, and political "purging", or "elimination of political opponents either by direct killing or through exile, and it involves a state making extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality CULT around an absolute dictator to maintain control over the nation's people and to maintain political control for the Communist Party." Which of this sounds "rational" again? To associate a RATIONAL passion for science and the pursuit of knowledge with such a dogmatic system as Stalinism is a blatant disregard for history. It Is a mistake (or direct attempt to deliberately spread misinformation) that I've experienced from the religious before. Furthermore, I find it humorous you should mention "Christmas" .... a Pagan holiday with it's roots based in orgy and debauchery (a history that is easily discovered with little research.) Do you simply deny all of history if it goes against your own ideological biases?
Funny how these issues become cloudy so quickly. A point of note to all who may contribute to this board. The Christian Holy Bible says in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Hence, every atheistic argument that asserts Christ as a myth and/or irrelevant all the while asserting those of faith are fools prove this point through to the end. Please, if this gives you pause consider it more deeply. 1 Corinthians 1:20, "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" Time and again - be it flat earth, Geocentrics solar system/universe, etc - Time and again, our science debunks previously held truths. We should all tread lightly upon these subjects as we are observers, not the initiators.
Jason -- Forgive me, but once I hear the white-noise babble of religious poetry (and try to establish a basis in reality) I tend to become sleepy. Are your comments FOR an atheistic perspective ... or against? I would also mention that most atheists would never associate a "lack of intelligence" with being religious. The greatest scientific mind (Newton) that we've ever produced as a species was a man with deep faith. That bodes neither for or against his grasp of the universe, or his concept of the "heavens" .... it just means a brilliant man happened to "believe" in the theological point of view he happened to have been indoctrinated into. Not based on fact, but faith. The real point at hand is to reveal "faith" for what it is. Neither virtue nor attribute for envy.
Chad do you know what epistemology means? If so show me how the militant atheists of the Soviet Union differed, pertaining to epistemology, with the new atheists.
Nice non sequitur on the history of Christmas.
Travis -- Do you know what Metaphysics means? How about Aesthetics. Or, the Theory of Forms for that matter? Great, grand, wonderful .... I'm happy for you that your passionate about Epistemology. But, that doesn't make your argument ONE.) True, or TWO.) based in a rational discourse that couldn't go in an infinite number of philosophical directions. Is this a chair I'm sitting in? Is this really a computer I'm typing at .... yada, yada ... white noise. My original point to you was that Stalinism was NOT based on atheism. Nor, was anything he did perpetrated in the NAME of atheism. The irony here (although the religious ignore it) is that this system was more LIKE a religion than anything else. It was set up with it's own set of irrational (political and ideological) dogmas based on the deified leader (Stalin) and the unquestionable principles of "our way or the highway". Hmmmm, who does that sound like? My friend, you can argue in philosophical circles until your blue in the face. You can believe nonsense if you want .... but I can't envy you for it.
Chad, yes I am much aware of them. However, the root of rational is in epistemology. One would say through accepting rational thought, as an epistemological basis for knowledge, comes a metaphysical framework. One needs to understand how they define knowledge before they claim knowledge. Thus, my comparison to the "League of Militant Atheists", the rough draft being headed up by Leon Trotsky. Last time I checked Trotsky wasn't a Stalinist, as validated by a Mexican ice pick.
Read up on Durkheim to understand why they replaced religious symbols with secular one's. There was certainly a rational point behind it. The Soviet experiment in secularization failed and the French militant atheistic experiment of secularization failed. How many years did Voltaire overestimate? The fact is religion is exploding throughout the world and there is nothing Harris or Hitchens can do about it. If bigger giants like Trotsky and Voltaire couldn't succeed I'm not sure why you would hold to such optimism.