Collision has now been released (for the first time ever) for digital download. It is $12.99 and if you are so inclined, you can go to VHX or Vimeo to purchase it. Those links are here and here. The original 90-minute feature film is available for download now, and those who purchase it will be getting over an hour of bonus footage (extended scenes, debates, outtakes, etc.) over the next month for them to download. This is a very similar deal to what they have been doing for those who downloaded The Free Speech Apocalypse. 
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Great movie! Just purchased it. Can’t wait for the special features to come out, I’ve really enjoyed the ones they have released thus far for TFSA.
I saw this in the theatre. Having watched hours of both of these men debate, I was gobsmacked at the ‘fair and balanced’ editing… as if this discussion was ever some kind of even battle. Hitchens handed Wilson his ass regularly in every other instance- except this one. Do yourself a favor and watch Hitchens tie one hand behind his back and wipe up Wilson and 4 other apologosts at the christian book expo. Much more fun. And since it is a continuous cut, you cannot cry foul. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms5WXYr3vuo p.s. I actually paid money to see this in the theatre… Read more »
I’ve watched several christan vs athiest debates and the christian that has faired best in them is John Lennox.
I’m not sure you saw the same movie if you came out of it thinking that.
Not only did I see it, I drove in LA traffic for the pleasure and paid money. it was perfectly fine except that it was edited to seem like an even match. Hitchens oddly coddled Wilson, I think because he was such an easy target being a biblical literalist.
Did you miss the part where Doug said that he didn’t interpret all of the Bible literally, but he believed it fundamentally? How carefully did you watch this film?
Hitchens didn’t coddle Wilson at all. Hitchens did, however, state his appreciation for debating a person who actually believed what the Bible said. Hitchens said it made Wilson a more challenging opponent.
That first line is classic Wilson moving the goalposts. It makes zero sense and I imagine the explanation of it if there was one took ten minutes and was exhausting to listen to. I mean, let the cherry picking begin? Who decides what is true, to be read literally, what is a metaphor etc.? Always a big problem for christians and muslims, any religionists. I think that he appreciated Wilson for not trying to weasel out of the frankly more ridiculous parts of christianity. A literalist made his job easier and made his point stand out more. I have watched… Read more »
Lol. Nice try sunshine.
Indeed. Randman is totes adorbs when he thinks he’s on his game. It reminds me of my toddler pretending to be a policeman. Except my toddler is actually pretending.
Why not speak about the debate? Or you can trot out another flaccid attempt at a dis.
You’re not here about the debate or to debate. You’re here to mock and scorn. You have one shallow dimension.
Then you do not read my posts josh.
Where would a comment of mine be without my lil’ pal Evan to cheer me on with puff? Hi Evs!
I have a feeling in a different set of circumstances you and I would get on pretty well. Ah well, we just have to play the cards we’re dealt I guess.
Weird how Hitchens saw the finished film and gave it the thumbs-up as being totally fair. I’m glad you’re more perceptive than ol’ Chris.
Merely my opinion. And my personal experience of the screening.
However, I am probably seeing things through my progressive liberal athiest materialistic bias, so there’s that.
You’re seeing things from an atheistic perspective…and Hitchens wasn’t?
In a materialist universe, where do the concepts of “debate”, “winning”, and “losing” come from? Why should we accept them as meaningful?
You shouldn’t. You should stay in the ‘real world’ where the confederacy is still a meaningful metaphor to associate oneself with.
Events in Mizzou and Princeton have proven ashv right.
Doesn’t that depend on what Ashv means by his use of the Stars and Bars? If he is saying that race relations are at a new low, certainly. If he is saying that the goings-on on college campuses waver between the criminal and the lunatic, I agree. But if he means he would like a return to the Confederacy, that’s different.
The reference was to the symbols. They lunatics first came for the Stars-n-Bars. Now they are eating their own and Woodrow Wilson is getting the treatment at Princeton and the administrators at Mizzou.
Ashv stands in defiance of these criminals and lunatics. I applaud him for it.
I support the right for any individual to wave that hateful symbol of slavery and white pride. I also reserve the right to call him out as a racist or at the very least a dumbass who is misunderstanding the position he is taking. Just as any idiot who would rebrand the nazi flag as a symbol of some kind of similarly prideful political stance should also be ridiculed.
Being ridiculed by you is a non-event RandMan; your support is meaningless given the behavior of the mob and your inability to stop it coupled with your disdain for the symbol and the people who wield it. Unfortunately “evolved behavior” motif is no match for the real world and real events. I just don’t know how to reach you and get you to begin to look at the roots of your rage. I went through the same thing–rage at God and His people and His Word. I used many of your arguments and was quite confident my reason and intellect… Read more »
I feel no rage to anyone. Exasperation at willful ignorance, especially of the religious variety. For me to feel rage at your god is as silly as me raging against Zeus, or raging against allah etc… I reject your god and think about it just as much as you reject and obsess on Shiva or Ra. Just a pile of dead gods. Yours is merely on top at the moment. Clear? :)
Except none of us spend a good chuck of our day leaving comments on websites written by followers of Shiva or Ra or Zeus or Allah.
No, but interest in where we come from does not equate to rage. I am an ex-christian. A happy apostate. If people did believe in those equally dead gods and tried to institute public policy based upon their beliefs, And I had a family in that ‘kirk’, you bet I would be on those sites discussing it, making an alternative voice known, and seeing what makes those people tick.
Yea, you said that before when you responded “atheist no god atheist’ to an earlier comment of mine along the same vein and now you are maybe 2% agnostic. See, progress. How do I know hatred and rage? because that is what sin is. When He finally shows it to you you will be surprised at the depth of your hatred for Him. I know I was and I was very surprised by it. His grace becomes that much more astounding when we see our enmity with a bit of clarity. One other thing. Do you notice the assured knowledge… Read more »
People also ‘knew’ that bleeding a patient cured disease, that the earth was flat, that our world was the center of the universe, that evil spirits caused disease, that mermaids were real and so on.
I notice the ‘assured knowledge’ you convey. It is the same kind that scientologists have, mormons have, islam has. And so on.
I notice the ‘assured knowledge’ you convey. It is the same kind that scientologists have, mormons have, islam has. And so on.
How do you know it is the same kind ? How can you know?
It’s not a metaphor and I am triggered by your marginalizing language,
Well, then you can call for my ouster and/or go do a lynching or polish up your southern slavery apologetics. All apparently in your wheelhouse.
Disqualify and deflect; its what you do.
I find he babying of american college student horrifying. So, we all agree on that then? It is hardly a revelatory position to take. For the left or right. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Re ash and his confederate flag, he said it was not a metaphor. Perhaps he merely finds the symbol of southern slavery provocative? He can explain it or continue to let me draw my own conclusions. Until then ashv, only you marginalize you.
It is a symbol of rebellion against the centralizing forces of progressives. It is a defiant “no” to those who insist we must facilitate our own death as a free people. It still flies.
It flew in Oklahoma yesterday where defiant, Americans greeted Obama with it
Be refusing to remove it, ashv is telling the totalitolerance mob that he will not comply with their designs on him. For that, I respect ashv.
As for marginalization, “marginalized by who?” is an appropriate question to ask. He has the right enemies.
Nope. It is not.
Surely you have watched the take down of such idiocy re the myth of state’s rights by ‘progressive icon’ Colonel Ty Seidule, a Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
No I have not. I have seen the parameters of the debate.
There are people on this blog who are knowledgeable on the matter and I will defer to them.
One other thing. The symbol today is a giant middle finger directed at all the right people. I support it for that reason.
So many great parts in Collision, but the one that stands out above all others is the bit with Doug and Hitch in the limo, and Hitch tells the story of telling his fellow New Atheist compadres (to their dismay) that if he were down to the last believer on earth, and had plenary power to persuade that person to recant, that he wouldn’t do it – (and that he’s not sure why). That always made me wonder if he was “closer” to possible conversion than he appeared. So poignant and sad.
This is a great film that I have watched about three times. Hitchens was the coolest atheist out there, and seemed like a genuinely interesting and interested fellow. I am a Christian and I enjoyed listening to him and hearing his thoughts on many occasions. He seemed to care for the truth, but could never account for why the truth has any value. That must’ve been a terrible inner struggle. @matt Massingill mentioned the limo ride here in the comments: that was probably the main thing that made me respect Hitchens. I think he must’ve been a pretty nice guy… Read more »
Hitchens was an independent thinker. I’m sure if he were still alive, he be speaking out relentlessly to expose the Sandy Hook Deception.
I really hope your being ironic
Not at all.
No not at all, the other more ‘onic’ word.
Hitchens response to a 9/11 truther was “I don’t have time for people like you” I expect his response to you would be similar.
Well, I imagine he no longer feels that way. Burning in hell has a way of making you wish you’d done things differently.
In the words of Mercy Me “I can only immagine”
Who are we to set limits around God’s mercy?
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people who reject Christ don’t go to hell? The Bible says they do go to hell, and burn for all eternity. Do you see anything in there that says “except for people we like”?
Hi BRB, this may be a theological difference between us. As a Catholic, I believe that those who ultimately reject Christ are not saved. But Catholics are forbidden from asserting that any one individual person is in hell. We don’t know what happens between God and the soul in the last few moments before death. But I respect that you may not feel the same way. I don’t think it has anything to do with people I may or may not like. I personally found Hitchens a little irritating sometimes.
Personally, I didn’t care for him either. IMO, he was the epitome of the phrase “a real no-good bastard.” He hated God, hated Jesus, hated the Bible, enjoyed having sex with men, etc., etc. But after 9/11, he broke with most liberals and came out in favor of the Iraq war, and suddenly, and on that basis alone, millions of Christians decided he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But as skilled as he was, he never answered Mr. Wilson’s main argument throughout the film:
Where do you get your standard?
Hitchens danced around it brilliantly, handled himself very well, pulled all the emotional strings he could, and fully had the spirit of the age on his side, but at the end of the day he never answered it.
Which is exactly how most people deal with the question – What do you do with all the overwhelming evidence that Sandy Hook was a giant hoax?
Why do you introduce that topic into every thread?
I don’t. Why do you imagine things that aren’t so? It’s because so many people are like you that the Sandy Hook Hoax is so hard to expose.
You are correct. It is not “every” thread. I count two of them. Why do you introduce this off-topic idea into this post?
Doug! Your people say you take care of trolls. Here is one.
Calling someone a troll does not make someone a troll. And I think you know that, Andrew. Or should I call you Poz?
I would love to see Doug debate Wesley Petersen on the nature and purpose of art. (But only if Wes agrees to keep his clothes on.)
(But only if Wes agrees to keep his clothes on.)
Doug too.
http://www.moscowcares.com/CC_Debate
Thank you.
Does anyone know if this deal ends before Christmas?