I was cleaning up the basement and painting things and had the xbox / Youtube on with this Wilson / Hitchens debate; I thought Wilson was one of the best opponents that Hitchens faced. While Mr. Wilson didn't score any knockout blows he did state cases that are hard to assail. He did concede where he should and he had some rather bizzarre disconnects like he believed certain Christian miracles but he didn't believe in Muhammad's miracle. He was a reasonable debater with some problematic opinions.
All except the basic one I wanted to point out here in a reply.
Mr. Wilson makes the case that based on belief in the stories of certain apostles of Jesus that he believes that the resurrection miracle, for instance, is true.
What he did was state the truth of his belief. He claimed that his belief is true because he believes it's true. Where is the fault in that? There is none.
If a religious person that believes something unprovable is true then it should be stated to make it clear that the truth is in the belief.
But, if a religious person states that a miracle IS true without any proof then it should be nothing more than a belief. It should not be taken as the same as a fact that can be proven. Most ancient history is based on hearsay, so like anything else we can't demonstrate or prove it true. It is intellectually dishonest to substitute a belief in a fact for a truth as if they are equivalent. They are not.
With religious fervor they tend to overstate the case without qualification. Be on guard for this deception. They are proclaiming their faith and not apologizing.
When a religious person claims a fact is true without proof mistaken for a belief, it is fair game for the anti-theist to point out it doesn't have to be true. There is no proof so there is nothing holding up all other arguments.