Is Peter seriously suggesting that there are not , and have not been, other peoples and cultures that haven't shared some of the moral axioms of Christianity?
This man is nowhere near of the quality of his brother.
Are all religions operating in a vacuum? How is it that they NEVER, ever give mention to the societies that lived and thrived in the absence of their morality?
I don't think Peter means that you have no basis for morality unless you borrow from the code of a religious organization. He means that unless you borrow the idea that there was a standard that cannot have arrived by chance that determines the whole idea that there are some things that you ought to do and some that you ought not to do, which is not directly related to survival, there's no explanation for why some things, like injustice to someone else, seem wrong or some things seem right
@TheSqualors I think you are right that is what he means. But his brother mocked that response because it is obviously false, and because he pre-refuted that point in his previous statements.
@jesse07ful There's intense debate over that validity of that statement, and you can argue that's it's false and have a lot to say. But I think it's unwise to refer to the idea of moral laws as "obviously false". Why wasn't that obvious to Ghandi, Einstein, Newton, Jefferson, Mandela, MLK, Kant...?
It's also sad that a debate about God turns into a debate about Religion. It's like having a debate over two scientist's theories and then only arguing about their personal lives. Everybody has foundation beliefs; not everyone is religious. You can believe in some sort of god and moral absolutes and not be a part of organized religion (although essentially religion is worship of something greater, which almost everyone does), or not believe that and attend a church all your life
Peter Hitchens: "What basis does an unbeliever have to say what he does is right or wrong----he can only determine it by religious morality---so you can borrow morality from religion but to claim that your morality didnt come from religion in the first place is and un-truth---i cant believe how hard it is for athiest to understand this simple point" .....yes it is a simple point...a simple point from a seemingly simple mind.....maybe we dont understand because its dribble--->pure circular logic
What it must be like inside of Peter Hitchens' head, what a dark and empty place his mind must be for him to be able to suggest that, without the fear of god and retribution to stop him, he would be capable of any depravity, capable of doing anything to anyone.
After all, to be able to make the claims he does, he must have imagined himself unable to perform any moral act without heavenly dictates to command him, and constantly tempted towards depravity and only held back by his fear of hell.
What a disgusting thing to say. The places in the world which most fit the description of hell are the ones that are most theocratic. It is only in countries where we have secular governments to enforce fairness and justice in this life that we find the best examples of civilisation. All the idea of hell does is tell people there is no need to strive for a better life now, because they will find justice after they are dead.
Justifying a fear of hell and then saying those societies who don't fear hell have hell brought upon them in the real world????? What vomit is this? Look at nazi germany, a christian nation, look at haiti, another christian nation, countless african countries, serbia, croatia, Europe during the first world war, the christian sudanese. This is so insulting, it makes me want to throw up things I can't remember eating---Christopher Hitchens line.
Does anyone else think that both of these brothers are utterly brilliant in the arguments they make, and there's an awful lot of circlejerking rather than simple contemplation of the ideas that they've both raised?
C.Hitch is such a bore to listen to, I can't go on. How could anyone recite such ignorant garbage about Christianity and keep a strait face. The answer is he doesn't keep a strait face. His rye little smirk of awareness of his dishonesty tells the real story of his depraved soul. P.S. Christopher has never heard of a "benevolent dictator"? That the law is written in nature and re-numerated in the commandments. Damn he's an ignorant fool.
@Howie47 That "ignorant fool" you're talking about is probably one of the most well spoken and intelligent men alive today. Do not let your religious biases blind you of that.
@Mckyleculkin "@Howie47 That "ignorant fool" you're talking about is probably one of the most well spoken and intelligent men alive today. Do not let your religious biases blind you of that." Satan can be very impressive. But if He or we "ignore" the truth of the Lord. Then we are still "ignorant fools". "The fool has said in his hearth, there is no god", "of this they are willingly ignorant." So all that your education nets, is a well educated fool in hell.
@Howie47 You are assuming that Satan and God are actually real. I, as well as many others, don't share the same viewpoint. But lets say that they are. If God was real and I knew he was real, I would never worship him. I could never worship anybody who kills all life on earth except for one family, or who allows and endorses slavery, or who orders an army to slaughter a city and then keep the virgins for themselves. I'm glad such a being is not real, or else I would be in hell.
@Mckyleculkin You assume that I'm assuming! You don't know what my experience is. You don't know all the details of history. Nor have you seen history from God's perspective. Your just another arrogant, vain, human being. Who believes he's smart, because of his out of control ego. Your far from reality, from truth, from the knowledge of Holiness. You don't even know and are incapable of knowing what that means.
@Mckyleculkin I can't think of a single good reason to answer you. But for sake of further levity which is a good medicine for the warped to serious soul. No, he did not!
OK, I am as big a C. Hitch fan as there is - and with that caveat, I can say this: guys, stop it with the Peter bashing. *You* try to debate CH and see how well you do. Sheesh.
Christopher has been interesting and sharp until now. He fell a little on the comment on Egypt when he says that there are no evidence whatsoever. He should check up some of Alt's, Finkelstein's and Laato's works.
The laws were more of an ultimatum that if the people followed them then God would help them. So of course they had some moral before as well., i don't see why not.
The samaritan was a story more than history, to teach people how to behave.
@woweixiaomiandui all history teachers, painters, atheists, theists and so on.
Religion isn't the only one who is threatening with punishment if you do something they don't want, eg the state does the same thing. Also Christopher himself is quite good telling people what to do. He even knows when people should appluad...
And i guess i don't need to critizies Peter, you have done it quite well already. Although i wouldn't call him an idiot...
To that lady about self-interest and morality. When comes to the crunch saving you own children and that of others, which would you save first. Motherly, instinct would say you would put your own before others. got it?
Sadly, Peter could have responded much more effectively -- the way William F. Buckley Jr, whose funeral Mr. C. Hitchens was about to attend, would have: God is mercy. That human beings do not practice mercy is a tragedy of our world, but it is not an indictment of God. Buckley responded this way to the same question: no person would be punished by God who was not deserving of punishment.
6 min: Socialism? There's a better way. e.g. If the government were to provide an 80% rebate for all medical equipment used in hospitals and paid for a large percentage of drugs (those which could not be easily converted to illegal ones) and also provided ambulances and paramedics all hospitals could be private. More efficent and people find out who really cares. Do a similar thing for schools and slowly get rid of much of welfare. Socialism naturally and always leads to a decline in morals.
So gangjoyful, do you think that it's ok to beat your slave so long as you don't kill them, or murder your family if they entice you to worship false gods,or any of the other barbarisms enjoined in the Bible? Where does my sense that these are wicked practices come from, because it can't come from religion, can it? How can something so clear be so opaque to the religious mind: religion borrows whatever morally commendable things it has say from us, our evolved ethics, and not the other way round
This whole debate demonstrates clearly the negative impact of religion on human development. Two brothers, of presumably equal potential as boys, yet one now demonstrates stultified and superstitious thinking, while the other is enlightened and enlightening.
Both are believers. Atheists are believers too. But i don't want to discuss this issue here. I have to agree that Christopher has chosen to encompass the more superior position in debates, the one of an atheist. However, Peter lost the second topic clearly, especially in the end. Whereas the first topic of invading Iraq was won by Peter, cause Christopher's final argument was really selective in contrast to Peter's conclusive summary.
@Torrriate -- "Atheists are believers too." If you don't want to discuss it, then don't mention it. When people say believer, it's synonymous with religious faith; not someone who has an opinion.... Religious people (or believers) have a god, by definition. You can't be a believer without one.
salvation by works is the oldest and newest forms of religion: paganism and atheism.. whoever disagrees - please take 101 on Christianity.. and has very little to do with opression, dictatorship, humiliation.. mixing religions up is a way too general of a topic.. but oh well we are still counting those years (at least that what Christopher offers us to do) hundreds of million years heere, billions there - well faith is exactly about today and now.. exactly about you
God told the Israelites that they should take babies by the heals and bash their heads against the rocks. Jesus never said it was wrong not to do that.
"It's amazing how difficult it is to get atheists to understand this very simple point [that atheists borrow morality from religion]."
Actually, the exact opposite is true. As Plato had Socrates argue in his Dialogue with Euthyphro, morality cannot be dependent on God's commands/character, because that would mean that God could make murder, rape, theft, child abuse, etc, right, by commanding it or condoning it. But if God says that something is right when it isn't right, then God is wrong.
1:20-1:28 And people have actually been saying that Peter is the more mature one? Watch that three times and tell me you don't see 5 year old written all over his body and face.
I would say that an exorcism COULD be and almost certainly HAS been performed by a nonbeliever as in evangelical hustlers. That is of course ignoring the somewhat tautology Christopher points out. Assuming the supernatural does not exist you would have to then assume that what some see as an exorcism is really something else. Hypnotic regression therapy can be completely secular and resemble very closely exorcising a demon as with abreactions. It's rare but it has been documented well.
Christopher doesn't get what is being said about morality. Of course unbelivers have morals, we come from the same God who wrote them on our hearts and minds.
You don't have to believe in Christ to sense what is good or evil.
Otherwise, how would Christ Jesus expect to show an unbelieving world Good if they couldn't recognize what WAS GOOD in the first place?!
Our morals generally come to us naturally. Babies will naturally gravitate toward someone helping another person rather than someone hurting another person for instance.
"If we are able to recognize and do good without jesus then why do we "need" jesus in the first place. Answer, we don't."
We can recognize good, thats apparent. We *can* do good, thats also apparent. But do we always do good? Does the world show this? Not by any stretch. The example I get from a glimpse of the world and its history is that we are not perfect.
yes, athiests borrow morality from religion. Even the religious pick and choose, proving that while thier moral truths may have been may have come from a religion, their source of morality is not religion. lets all just admit that we can take the best of religion and bin the superstion bull.
But what has been argued is that those morals that are said to be from religion aren't really from religion and are more from man itself. Greek philosophers and oriental philosophers had been tackling morality effectively before christianity had gotten it's diapers on.
i agree. however, religion has been effective in establishing a moral code in many cultures (for better or worse). so in at least one sence, it is the "source of morality". while you are correct in that it is not the ultimate or only source, I was just trying to give some credit where credit is due.
I disagree. It hasn't been effective, which is what we're trying to say. As C.H. mentions many of the "morals" in religion are fundamentally flawed. Even IF it was our first attempt at having a moral code (which it is not) it is still massively flawed and should be scrapped completely...yes completely. It promotes ignorance, discrimination, authoritarianism, war, and genocide. You said it's both "The source" and "Not the source. It's one or the other. We both know it's the latter.
you disagree with the statement that religion has been effective in establishing a moral code in many cultures (for better or worse)? really? you may want to think about that one for a second.
its not "one or the other". joe sold me a car. he is the "source" and NOT the ultimate or only source.
one of three things is happening here.
1. you missread BOTH my posts and completel missed the point of what i was saying.
This notion that we get our morality from religion is totally obsurd and every time somebody like Dawkins or Hitchens so beautifully illustrates why we obviously don't and could not, I'm gobsmacked by the idiocy of the opponent to understand them.
The very fact religious people can look through a bible and cherry pick. And say "well... That's terrible but that's just a metaphor now" PROOOOVES, that whereever they get morality from it IS NOT THAT BOOK or religion! It's built-in!
What religious person says we get our morality from religion? They say we get our morality from God, the practice of religion is to emphasize and nurture this divine part of ourselves so as to downplay and hopefully transcend the parts of us that aren't divine, and could be called devilish. Such a vision sees morality as being unconditional, ie that it is able to be expressed in all circumstances to all beings. Morality based on evolution however has to be of a conditional nature so that a
person is moral inasmuch as it is to his/her evolutionary advantage. So Darwin would have a hard time explaining why the Samaritan helped the Jew considering they're from different gene pools whereas the religious could simply say that he was obeying his inner divine voice.
@zootsoot2006 100,000 years ago we lived in very small societies, so it became beneficial to help any human that you came accross as chances are, you will come accross them or their tribe in the future and then the good deed can be reciprocated. If you have ever studied Homer's Illiad you can see that soldiers on opporsite sides of the war sometimes avoided fighting for the "my father knew your father" reason, and this refers to a far later time, but still before monotheism.
evolution does not result in changes that are predictive. if selective pressure results in a species that has a trait where helping others increases the potential for successful reproduction then it will presist, even if it has some "unhelpful" effects as well. for example, helping those with whome they choose not to breed.
@83zeus; Interesting, thanks. We have to ask though whether this theory of altruism is in any way falsifiable - if I help some creature that is a million miles removed from me, even one that was actively threatening me, you'd still just claim this was helpful altruism misfiring.
this theory is falsifiable, but it would involve derailing evolutary theory or the theory that altruism could be selected for.
the example you give is interesting because according to evolutionary theory, altruism would have evolved in close knit communities prior to the globalization of the world. the world has since changed and maybe selective pressures have too. evolution is an ongoing thing you know.
But we obviously DO NOT get our morality from 'god' either.
Otherwise moral atheists couldn't fucking exist.
Why do you think morality shifts? Why isit that we used to burn people at the stake for being witches but no more? Because morality comes from HUMANS. And as society changes, as we get smarter and more socially evolved = morality shifts too.
@AtheistMovement; 'More socially evolved' - seems like you're trying to use the argument from evolution out of context. We may have 'socially evolved', whatever that means, but Dawkins et al would say that we haven't significantly evolved since the dawn of man and therefore whatever this moral sense that's evolved in us hasn't evolved either. Therefore there's a difficulty in explaining this social evolution in biological evolutionary terms. Now you use your brain.
@AtheistMovement; I should also add, a pretty obvious point, that from a religious perspective everyone is born with this divine spark, whether one is explicitly religious or if one decides to become an atheist. The religious believer tries to come to know and honour this divine spark whereas the atheist refutes that it exists at all. Note I'm saying this from the religious perspective, not that this is the absolute truth. .
Britain is a socialist, totalitarian, multicultural, nanny-state shit hole. Anyone with the brains and / or opportunity is leaving post haste for either the lands of the former Empire or, if advanced in years, Southern Europe.
Without religion you can search for a true objective morality like the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is the guiding principle of my morality, I don't want to freely murder because I don't want to be freely murdered. Same for theft, etc. That seems pretty obvious. We do NOT get our morality from the Bible, or working on the Sabbath would be an offense punishable only by death (its in the commandments), among many MANY others.
It is very clear that Christopher inherited all of the brains in that family. It is a very old English tradition that the idiot son entered the church. I thought it had died out, but evidently not.
@donepearce I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter is an idiot, but when you've voluntarily constricted you're own intellect by the nonsense and dogma of religion, it's hard to come across as the brainier of the two.
@donepearce On second thought, after seeing Peter's rebuttal to Christopher's stab about his column being more widely syndicated, I rescind my previous comment. :)
I agree. Peter failed miserably on that point. How pompous to say atheists may borrow their morality!! again we would say well whose pious morality are we to borrow? Yours (which you clearly think is superior) or from which religion? again circles back to "morals" of various morally offensive types of religion blah blah. The arguments just are the same time and time again. And by the way, all the good that people do in the name of religion does not cancel out the evil that is done in its name.
Interesting how Peter established the notion that Atheist are "immoral"; and if they attempt to be moral they "barrow" it from Religion entirely-that is simply not the case; and that ignorant retort revealed his incompetence blatantly.
Morality is derived not by Religion, but through ourselves; it's innate in us and serves to support/protect our species. And if that's not proof enough, ask yourself this:
What of morality before Christ? Before the Bible?
Peter prefers infinite torment and suffering to finite torment and suffering and attributes the longer lasting of the two to the all powerful, eternal, dictatorial, yet benevolent, generous and meek God of them all! Shame on him for believing such a thing.
Peter didn't address the point regarding the Samaritian. If religion is the root of all morality, how could that Samaritian, who had no religious knowledge and who lived before Jesus at that, have been moral?
Dawkins is my favorite out of the 4 but by watching this debate, and many others of hitches, Prof. Hitchens, wait sorry, Doctor, hitchens is catching up to Dawkins in my score book pretty fast!! he is simply fucking amazing in how he thinks, transfers his arguments, and how he interacts with people and the entertainment he brings out. I mean it's really crazy to think that i was laughing almost 2/3 of the debate, when the debate is on existence of god lol. His fucking good.
Yes, Peter is falling under the blistering waves of Christopher's mighty wordprobe, and native ability to not entertain sophistries and fallacious reasoning.
I can't believe Peter used the "Atheists have no morality, unless they borrow it from religion" argument. My respect for him dropped tremendously within three seconds.
Yeah it doesn't make much sense. What you can say is that religions contain moralities that seem to be universal human ones.
Most of the deadly sins and the commandments where identified and railed against by the Greek philosophers who where either atheists or who believed in amoral Gods.
@AtheistCowboy lol. I laugh because Peter explicitly said how difficult it is for the a/Atheist to understand this simple point, and here is an a/Atheist (you) proving that. He did not say that a/Atheists aren't moral but that a/Atheist have no *objective* means with which to determine *objective* morality since, in abolishing absolutes, morality becomes relative and subjective. And a/Atheist luminaries have struggled with this for decades and none have overcome it.
i used to think that chris hitchens was a really snide and cold type who misrepresented atheists, and was annoyed by his 'worship' of science, but after getting into his world, reading one of his books and watching a shitload of his debates, i really like him. he has a huge heart, nothing but a good feeling comes from him and his brutal, human honesty, i like how he always involves the audience and calls for them to judge him and challenge him, he is most interested in reaching the people.
Modesty is one of the most beautiful characteristics of the fully enlightened human self. It truly is beautiful. Imagine if the only people you knew were arrogant self-aggrandizing, pompous fools. Humility, if it is a value emphasised by Christianity - and lent to us from the teaching of Socrates - is a virtue we are greatly in need of. Moreover, an argument conducted with modesty and humility is infinitely more powerful than one conducted by a self-important, egocentric snob.
Nonsense, what can we say of the modesty, that it is contrived, that it is formed by a misjudgement of oneself or worst of all that the beholder of this supposed virtue ought to be modest.
Honesty and self awareness are far finer virtues than the gentle masochism that is modesty.
Modesty is not contrived by those who have mastered the intellect. Those that realize all things are interconnected by a common thread (death) recognise that individual achievement, whilst honourable, is not the sole impetus for life. Whilst some people most certainly "contrive" to show modesty, they equally "contrive" to show honesty and self-awareness (for, of course, objectivity is a difficult beast, even impossible beast, to tame). Intellectual honesty and humility go hand in hand.
"Imagine if the only people you knew were arrogant self-aggrandizing, pompous fools."
- BeholdZeus
I don't need to imagine this, as it is usually the case that the people I know are extremely arrogant. They are religious after all.
Humility is valued by Christianity?
To say that the universe, and everything in it, was created by god, for us, does not exactly strike me as humble and modest. In fact, I find it to be one of the most arrogant and foolish claims around.
If he treats his brother with such disdain, how should we regard his as a person? By no means is he regarded a hero in a European context. Yet in America he is lauded and praised without end. Odd.
To the other point of C. Hitchens: if there was no God , would there be no moral code?
Of course there would be. But the moral code of this world would be much different than today. We know that man, unrestrained, seeks to improve his position.
A science fiction example would be the mirror world of Star Trek. Like in the animal world, strength would be the penultimate arbiter of power.
On the point of morality as well, isn't it easy to explain our sense of morality from an evolutionary and social perspective? If we took two cultures, one with morals and one without, the one without would kill, steal and rape each other until there were none left while the moral group would work together and thrive. It's an evolutionarily beneficial trait, if we weren't moral we wouldn't even be here to discuss our morality.
'In societies that do not believe in hell, hell pretty quickly comes into existence' Quite anironic statement given that some of the most religious-centric societies on earth rank among the most violent. Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Uganda and Pakistan all come to mind.
Christianity is an effective mixture of truth and lies. First is the comforting lie about an afterlife which is obvious. Then you have truly good morals mixed with a rather reasonable lie about having to uphold those morals to avoid punishment in the afterlife. It's a good thing to believe in even if it is a lie because it offers comfort and greater enforced responsibility to be good. A lie is a small price to pay I think. But this only applies to Christianity. Other religions fail like Islam.
I don't think Christopher was too inpolite in this debate. In the debates I have seen I have witness far more rudeness towards him.
In the grand scheme of things I don't think it really matters. Don't get me wrong in the normal course of things I am the biggest sticker for politeness. However I would just like to celebrate this debate. It is western culture at its noblest.
I admire Christopher, however, I believe he was particularly rude and lacked any sort of politeness in the majority of this debate. Some may feel that from the aethiest view point that concerning what religion has done its a small trivial thing, but I however felt that he belittles his speech on the morality of man without god by behaving like a rude ass. Do not get me wrong, I think he means well and I admire him, but I do not think he does himself or his argument any favors.
Indeed, I think the one that epitomizes his rudeness and condescending manner throughout, is the unwarranted and needlessly scathing "Pah, you're going to clap that? Who clapped that? Stand up who clapped that!".
Christopher is very audacious to borrow the teachings within the parable of the Good Samaritan, to then use it to undermine the Christian religion that espouses such a creed.
Precisely. The 'Parable Of The Good Samaritan' was a moral tale told by Jesus. The parable is a popular piece in Christian philosophy, and is disseminated by the Christian Church, whom Christopher Hitchens rallies against.
But his point was that in that story the altruistic one was the unbeliever, so any profession that morals come from religion is ludicrous. That's precisely why he chooses that particular story.
The Samaritan in the parable wasn't an unbeliever, or as Christopher has misconstrued him, an atheist.
A gentile was one who was not Jewish, a non-Israelite. The Samaritans were a religious tribe, but they were still outsiders to the Jews, as no doubt Jews would be outsiders to the Samaritans. Jesus was attempting to allay the militant and partisan ingroup mentality of rampant tribalism.
Incidentally, it is a parable, which means it is likely that Jesus coined it to illustrate his philosophical views to his own people. As far as I know, the parable is fictional, it didn't actually. happen.
Of course, even supposing Jesus actually existed. That does nothing to lessen the point that Hicth is making in this case. He would still be deemed an unbeliever by Jesus and his followers, as he didn't believe in Yahweh. Bear in mind, too, that Christians were called atheists by the Romans until the conversion of Constantine.
"However widely it was syndicated I wouldn't want it THERE"
Interesting repost from Peter, considering he works for one of the most notoriously closed-minded, paranoid and sensationalist, conservative and right-wing broadloid publications in the UK: The once Nazi-supporting Daily Mail.
I think there's another point to be made: there's nothing inherently immoral about pornography. How can you say that polymath? The porn industry is replete with cutthroats and scumbags. Well, assuming this is true, the argument confuses cause and effect. If a given activity is by societal consensus regarded as immoral, it will tend to attract unscrupulous individuals whether it is truly immoral (causes needless) harm or not. I can think of no argument that would demonstrate that (cont.)
why does Peter hate Britain so much? it's not hell here it's actually pretty nice!
jadagod 3 weeks ago
luv it luv it
mp3talon 1 month ago
Gotta hand it to Chris as much as his evangelizing atheist mantra disturbs me, Peter's childish rebuke does so even more
mikejpete 3 months ago
nice camera work lol
glwsn 3 months ago
I love how when peter walks away from the podium, he walks away with the air of someone who's just performed a hitchslap. How deluded he is.
AlecN2011 4 months ago
7:54 Peter just felll from my grace.
JaguarEscarlata 4 months ago 3
Is Peter seriously suggesting that there are not , and have not been, other peoples and cultures that haven't shared some of the moral axioms of Christianity?
This man is nowhere near of the quality of his brother.
TheMrGerund 4 months ago
OMG! peter is like a little child, and hitch is like his big brother! :D
truthfulheretic 5 months ago
Thank you for posting this, HauensteinCenter.
writersblock26 5 months ago
Are all religions operating in a vacuum? How is it that they NEVER, ever give mention to the societies that lived and thrived in the absence of their morality?
Emaniac69 6 months ago
I don't think Peter means that you have no basis for morality unless you borrow from the code of a religious organization. He means that unless you borrow the idea that there was a standard that cannot have arrived by chance that determines the whole idea that there are some things that you ought to do and some that you ought not to do, which is not directly related to survival, there's no explanation for why some things, like injustice to someone else, seem wrong or some things seem right
TheSqualors 6 months ago
@TheSqualors I think you are right that is what he means. But his brother mocked that response because it is obviously false, and because he pre-refuted that point in his previous statements.
jesse07ful 4 months ago
@jesse07ful There's intense debate over that validity of that statement, and you can argue that's it's false and have a lot to say. But I think it's unwise to refer to the idea of moral laws as "obviously false". Why wasn't that obvious to Ghandi, Einstein, Newton, Jefferson, Mandela, MLK, Kant...?
TheSqualors 4 months ago
It's also sad that a debate about God turns into a debate about Religion. It's like having a debate over two scientist's theories and then only arguing about their personal lives. Everybody has foundation beliefs; not everyone is religious. You can believe in some sort of god and moral absolutes and not be a part of organized religion (although essentially religion is worship of something greater, which almost everyone does), or not believe that and attend a church all your life
TheSqualors 4 months ago
did u clap that
detahdomo 6 months ago
We all sprang from apes, but apparently Peter did not spring far enough.
WHIREAS 6 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs. Peter Hitchens Debate
"What reason do you have to suppose that any action is right?" Oh, Peter. If you really have to ask this question, I'm frightened.
ameliaparvaneh 7 months ago
Is there a version available with Peter's comments omitted? I would save some time.
44SuperShredder 7 months ago
Peter Hitchens: "What basis does an unbeliever have to say what he does is right or wrong----he can only determine it by religious morality---so you can borrow morality from religion but to claim that your morality didnt come from religion in the first place is and un-truth---i cant believe how hard it is for athiest to understand this simple point" .....yes it is a simple point...a simple point from a seemingly simple mind.....maybe we dont understand because its dribble--->pure circular logic
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 This comment is non-sense. Sorry but it is. Please take some courses in logic and then try again.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
What it must be like inside of Peter Hitchens' head, what a dark and empty place his mind must be for him to be able to suggest that, without the fear of god and retribution to stop him, he would be capable of any depravity, capable of doing anything to anyone.
After all, to be able to make the claims he does, he must have imagined himself unable to perform any moral act without heavenly dictates to command him, and constantly tempted towards depravity and only held back by his fear of hell.
xincrii 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
What a disgusting thing to say. The places in the world which most fit the description of hell are the ones that are most theocratic. It is only in countries where we have secular governments to enforce fairness and justice in this life that we find the best examples of civilisation. All the idea of hell does is tell people there is no need to strive for a better life now, because they will find justice after they are dead.
xincrii 7 months ago
8:15 Click here for Hitchens' "Pah!". Loved it.
Jotto999 8 months ago 2
1:16 is what peter said the most childish thing ever said in a debate? Or is it just me?
Hivebot 8 months ago 21
@Hivebot I liked his little spin and stupid smirk.
dragster178 7 months ago 3
@Hivebot hell they're both being a little childish at times
sdfwrestler 4 months ago
"you gonna clap that? stand up and clap that? you will clap that?" gotta love hitch
RaggedM88 10 months ago 23
@RaggedM88 Was gonna write that, word for word. It cracked me up when he said that.
comanchio1976 9 months ago
Justifying a fear of hell and then saying those societies who don't fear hell have hell brought upon them in the real world????? What vomit is this? Look at nazi germany, a christian nation, look at haiti, another christian nation, countless african countries, serbia, croatia, Europe during the first world war, the christian sudanese. This is so insulting, it makes me want to throw up things I can't remember eating---Christopher Hitchens line.
davexy22 10 months ago
Does anyone else think that both of these brothers are utterly brilliant in the arguments they make, and there's an awful lot of circlejerking rather than simple contemplation of the ideas that they've both raised?
kenan6346 1 year ago
Christopher is amazing.
Hankatu 1 year ago
Ooh, Christopher's comment on the good Samaritan is very persuasive!
SkullOfYorick 1 year ago
Comment removed
JacksInn 1 year ago
C.Hitch is such a bore to listen to, I can't go on. How could anyone recite such ignorant garbage about Christianity and keep a strait face. The answer is he doesn't keep a strait face. His rye little smirk of awareness of his dishonesty tells the real story of his depraved soul. P.S. Christopher has never heard of a "benevolent dictator"? That the law is written in nature and re-numerated in the commandments. Damn he's an ignorant fool.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 That "ignorant fool" you're talking about is probably one of the most well spoken and intelligent men alive today. Do not let your religious biases blind you of that.
Mckyleculkin 1 year ago
@Mckyleculkin "@Howie47 That "ignorant fool" you're talking about is probably one of the most well spoken and intelligent men alive today. Do not let your religious biases blind you of that." Satan can be very impressive. But if He or we "ignore" the truth of the Lord. Then we are still "ignorant fools". "The fool has said in his hearth, there is no god", "of this they are willingly ignorant." So all that your education nets, is a well educated fool in hell.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 You are assuming that Satan and God are actually real. I, as well as many others, don't share the same viewpoint. But lets say that they are. If God was real and I knew he was real, I would never worship him. I could never worship anybody who kills all life on earth except for one family, or who allows and endorses slavery, or who orders an army to slaughter a city and then keep the virgins for themselves. I'm glad such a being is not real, or else I would be in hell.
Mckyleculkin 1 year ago
@Mckyleculkin You assume that I'm assuming! You don't know what my experience is. You don't know all the details of history. Nor have you seen history from God's perspective. Your just another arrogant, vain, human being. Who believes he's smart, because of his out of control ego. Your far from reality, from truth, from the knowledge of Holiness. You don't even know and are incapable of knowing what that means.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 I laughed pretty hard at the idea that I am the arrogant one who is far from reality. I don't even know how to reply to such a statement.
Just answer me one last question: Did God create humans to be the focus of all the universe?
Mckyleculkin 1 year ago
@Mckyleculkin I can't think of a single good reason to answer you. But for sake of further levity which is a good medicine for the warped to serious soul. No, he did not!
Howie47 1 year ago
OK, I am as big a C. Hitch fan as there is - and with that caveat, I can say this: guys, stop it with the Peter bashing. *You* try to debate CH and see how well you do. Sheesh.
magicpony9 1 year ago 2
Christopher has been interesting and sharp until now. He fell a little on the comment on Egypt when he says that there are no evidence whatsoever. He should check up some of Alt's, Finkelstein's and Laato's works.
The laws were more of an ultimatum that if the people followed them then God would help them. So of course they had some moral before as well., i don't see why not.
The samaritan was a story more than history, to teach people how to behave.
And of course all priests are bad, just like
woweixiaomiandui 1 year ago
@woweixiaomiandui all history teachers, painters, atheists, theists and so on.
Religion isn't the only one who is threatening with punishment if you do something they don't want, eg the state does the same thing. Also Christopher himself is quite good telling people what to do. He even knows when people should appluad...
And i guess i don't need to critizies Peter, you have done it quite well already. Although i wouldn't call him an idiot...
woweixiaomiandui 1 year ago
The professor/doctor business of Christopher's cracks me up completely.
MrHandagote 1 year ago
Toot! Toot! There goes Peter again, waffling
lye54 1 year ago
To that lady about self-interest and morality. When comes to the crunch saving you own children and that of others, which would you save first. Motherly, instinct would say you would put your own before others. got it?
lye54 1 year ago
Sad that Christopher should dent his credibility by mouthing the deluded concept of natural selection (how we humans evolved form apes)
lye54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lye54 "Sad that Christopher should dent his credibility by mouthing the deluded concept of natural selection (how we humans evolved form apes)"
- not only is your part in brackets NOT other words for natural selection, we DID NOT evolve from apes, but from a common ancestor !
nordhorny 11 months ago
Peter's IQ is so low; amazing how he got through university
lye54 1 year ago
who the fucking people clapping stand up O.o
earthangelrojanie 1 year ago
All insults aside Peter begins to behave as a child who's had their teddy bear taken away from him by his older brother.
PaytonFu 1 year ago
Sadly, Peter could have responded much more effectively -- the way William F. Buckley Jr, whose funeral Mr. C. Hitchens was about to attend, would have: God is mercy. That human beings do not practice mercy is a tragedy of our world, but it is not an indictment of God. Buckley responded this way to the same question: no person would be punished by God who was not deserving of punishment.
shadroui 1 year ago
6 min: Socialism? There's a better way. e.g. If the government were to provide an 80% rebate for all medical equipment used in hospitals and paid for a large percentage of drugs (those which could not be easily converted to illegal ones) and also provided ambulances and paramedics all hospitals could be private. More efficent and people find out who really cares. Do a similar thing for schools and slowly get rid of much of welfare. Socialism naturally and always leads to a decline in morals.
BBBradH 1 year ago
So gangjoyful, do you think that it's ok to beat your slave so long as you don't kill them, or murder your family if they entice you to worship false gods,or any of the other barbarisms enjoined in the Bible? Where does my sense that these are wicked practices come from, because it can't come from religion, can it? How can something so clear be so opaque to the religious mind: religion borrows whatever morally commendable things it has say from us, our evolved ethics, and not the other way round
BRussellspouts 1 year ago
This whole debate demonstrates clearly the negative impact of religion on human development. Two brothers, of presumably equal potential as boys, yet one now demonstrates stultified and superstitious thinking, while the other is enlightened and enlightening.
TheSpoovy 1 year ago
Both are believers. Atheists are believers too. But i don't want to discuss this issue here. I have to agree that Christopher has chosen to encompass the more superior position in debates, the one of an atheist. However, Peter lost the second topic clearly, especially in the end. Whereas the first topic of invading Iraq was won by Peter, cause Christopher's final argument was really selective in contrast to Peter's conclusive summary.
Torrriate 1 year ago
@Torrriate -- "Atheists are believers too." If you don't want to discuss it, then don't mention it. When people say believer, it's synonymous with religious faith; not someone who has an opinion.... Religious people (or believers) have a god, by definition. You can't be a believer without one.
austereben 1 year ago
@austereben
Yea, in that sense you're right.
Torrriate 1 year ago
salvation by works is the oldest and newest forms of religion: paganism and atheism.. whoever disagrees - please take 101 on Christianity.. and has very little to do with opression, dictatorship, humiliation.. mixing religions up is a way too general of a topic.. but oh well we are still counting those years (at least that what Christopher offers us to do) hundreds of million years heere, billions there - well faith is exactly about today and now.. exactly about you
kaunaskas 1 year ago
God told the Israelites that they should take babies by the heals and bash their heads against the rocks. Jesus never said it was wrong not to do that.
zackindy312 1 year ago
"in countries were there is no belief in hell, it pretty quickly comes into existence."
Can you support this with any kind of evidence? Thank you.
Seriously, what a joke! Worst of all, the people clapped at that.
RafaelH9X 1 year ago
Who and what does he mention at 0:44?
TheFragile89 1 year ago
@TheFragile89 Verdi, I think
zhidd 1 year ago
"It's amazing how difficult it is to get atheists to understand this very simple point [that atheists borrow morality from religion]."
Actually, the exact opposite is true. As Plato had Socrates argue in his Dialogue with Euthyphro, morality cannot be dependent on God's commands/character, because that would mean that God could make murder, rape, theft, child abuse, etc, right, by commanding it or condoning it. But if God says that something is right when it isn't right, then God is wrong.
logician360 1 year ago
That was a brilliant answer by Christopher regarding the balance of self-interest and morality.
chansetwo 1 year ago
1:20-1:28 And people have actually been saying that Peter is the more mature one? Watch that three times and tell me you don't see 5 year old written all over his body and face.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
I would say that an exorcism COULD be and almost certainly HAS been performed by a nonbeliever as in evangelical hustlers. That is of course ignoring the somewhat tautology Christopher points out. Assuming the supernatural does not exist you would have to then assume that what some see as an exorcism is really something else. Hypnotic regression therapy can be completely secular and resemble very closely exorcising a demon as with abreactions. It's rare but it has been documented well.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
hate the way peter whistles when he talks, so annoying.
herepooch 1 year ago
Christopher doesn't get what is being said about morality. Of course unbelivers have morals, we come from the same God who wrote them on our hearts and minds.
You don't have to believe in Christ to sense what is good or evil.
Otherwise, how would Christ Jesus expect to show an unbelieving world Good if they couldn't recognize what WAS GOOD in the first place?!
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
Our morals generally come to us naturally. Babies will naturally gravitate toward someone helping another person rather than someone hurting another person for instance.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
"How would Christ Jesus expect to show an unbelieving world Good if they couldn't recognize what WAS GOOD in the first place?!"
If we are able to recognize and do good without jesus then why do we "need" jesus in the first place. Answer, we don't.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago 2
Makeshift,
"If we are able to recognize and do good without jesus then why do we "need" jesus in the first place. Answer, we don't."
We can recognize good, thats apparent. We *can* do good, thats also apparent. But do we always do good? Does the world show this? Not by any stretch. The example I get from a glimpse of the world and its history is that we are not perfect.
Look at the suffering world -we NEED Jesus.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
yes, athiests borrow morality from religion. Even the religious pick and choose, proving that while thier moral truths may have been may have come from a religion, their source of morality is not religion. lets all just admit that we can take the best of religion and bin the superstion bull.
83zeus 1 year ago
But what has been argued is that those morals that are said to be from religion aren't really from religion and are more from man itself. Greek philosophers and oriental philosophers had been tackling morality effectively before christianity had gotten it's diapers on.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
i agree. however, religion has been effective in establishing a moral code in many cultures (for better or worse). so in at least one sence, it is the "source of morality". while you are correct in that it is not the ultimate or only source, I was just trying to give some credit where credit is due.
83zeus 1 year ago
I disagree. It hasn't been effective, which is what we're trying to say. As C.H. mentions many of the "morals" in religion are fundamentally flawed. Even IF it was our first attempt at having a moral code (which it is not) it is still massively flawed and should be scrapped completely...yes completely. It promotes ignorance, discrimination, authoritarianism, war, and genocide. You said it's both "The source" and "Not the source. It's one or the other. We both know it's the latter.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
you disagree with the statement that religion has been effective in establishing a moral code in many cultures (for better or worse)? really? you may want to think about that one for a second.
its not "one or the other". joe sold me a car. he is the "source" and NOT the ultimate or only source.
one of three things is happening here.
1. you missread BOTH my posts and completel missed the point of what i was saying.
2. your incredibly stupid
3. your a troll.
83zeus 1 year ago
Peter comes across as a pouty little twit...shows how different people can be within the same family....
earthmuscle 1 year ago
lol who clapped that? did you clap that?!?
fknwtf 2 years ago
have these chaps not heard of game theory & evolutionary stable states, as popularised by Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene"?
Sadly, Dawkins best, most profound work was overshadowed by his atheist books.
nr900 2 years ago
you can't be too british old chum
nr900 2 years ago
hes too much of a prude. i mean who cares about porn these days, let alone quiting your job over it.
deathstar367 2 years ago
Exactly. There is nothing wrong with porn itself. Porn is wonderful. Porn makes the world go round. Porn also prevents rape.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
This notion that we get our morality from religion is totally obsurd and every time somebody like Dawkins or Hitchens so beautifully illustrates why we obviously don't and could not, I'm gobsmacked by the idiocy of the opponent to understand them.
The very fact religious people can look through a bible and cherry pick. And say "well... That's terrible but that's just a metaphor now" PROOOOVES, that whereever they get morality from it IS NOT THAT BOOK or religion! It's built-in!
AtheistMovement 2 years ago
Comment removed
zootsoot2006 2 years ago
What religious person says we get our morality from religion? They say we get our morality from God, the practice of religion is to emphasize and nurture this divine part of ourselves so as to downplay and hopefully transcend the parts of us that aren't divine, and could be called devilish. Such a vision sees morality as being unconditional, ie that it is able to be expressed in all circumstances to all beings. Morality based on evolution however has to be of a conditional nature so that a
zootsoot2006 2 years ago
person is moral inasmuch as it is to his/her evolutionary advantage. So Darwin would have a hard time explaining why the Samaritan helped the Jew considering they're from different gene pools whereas the religious could simply say that he was obeying his inner divine voice.
zootsoot2006 2 years ago
@zootsoot2006 100,000 years ago we lived in very small societies, so it became beneficial to help any human that you came accross as chances are, you will come accross them or their tribe in the future and then the good deed can be reciprocated. If you have ever studied Homer's Illiad you can see that soldiers on opporsite sides of the war sometimes avoided fighting for the "my father knew your father" reason, and this refers to a far later time, but still before monotheism.
hendigon 2 years ago
evolution does not result in changes that are predictive. if selective pressure results in a species that has a trait where helping others increases the potential for successful reproduction then it will presist, even if it has some "unhelpful" effects as well. for example, helping those with whome they choose not to breed.
83zeus 1 year ago
@83zeus; Interesting, thanks. We have to ask though whether this theory of altruism is in any way falsifiable - if I help some creature that is a million miles removed from me, even one that was actively threatening me, you'd still just claim this was helpful altruism misfiring.
zootsoot2006 1 year ago
this theory is falsifiable, but it would involve derailing evolutary theory or the theory that altruism could be selected for.
the example you give is interesting because according to evolutionary theory, altruism would have evolved in close knit communities prior to the globalization of the world. the world has since changed and maybe selective pressures have too. evolution is an ongoing thing you know.
83zeus 1 year ago
But we obviously DO NOT get our morality from 'god' either.
Otherwise moral atheists couldn't fucking exist.
Why do you think morality shifts? Why isit that we used to burn people at the stake for being witches but no more? Because morality comes from HUMANS. And as society changes, as we get smarter and more socially evolved = morality shifts too.
Use your brain.
AtheistMovement 2 years ago
Morality doesn't change necessarily but the interpretation of what is right can.
Murder has always been murder.
However, the difference between murder and a justified killing is open to INTERPRETATION that MAY or MAY NOT CHANGE.
True that documents such as the bible or constitution can be interpreted differently.
However, unless these documents are completely destroyed we are simply talking about interpretation and not MORAL EVOLUTION.
hypermonkey24 1 year ago
@AtheistMovement; 'More socially evolved' - seems like you're trying to use the argument from evolution out of context. We may have 'socially evolved', whatever that means, but Dawkins et al would say that we haven't significantly evolved since the dawn of man and therefore whatever this moral sense that's evolved in us hasn't evolved either. Therefore there's a difficulty in explaining this social evolution in biological evolutionary terms. Now you use your brain.
zootsoot2006 1 year ago
@AtheistMovement; I should also add, a pretty obvious point, that from a religious perspective everyone is born with this divine spark, whether one is explicitly religious or if one decides to become an atheist. The religious believer tries to come to know and honour this divine spark whereas the atheist refutes that it exists at all. Note I'm saying this from the religious perspective, not that this is the absolute truth. .
zootsoot2006 1 year ago
Damn. I didn't think a relative of Christopher would fall into the theist's moral trap of supposing there has to be or must be an absolute morality.
mikeyman211 2 years ago
wow is Britain so terrible?
msquestionmark 2 years ago
Britain is a socialist, totalitarian, multicultural, nanny-state shit hole. Anyone with the brains and / or opportunity is leaving post haste for either the lands of the former Empire or, if advanced in years, Southern Europe.
newcjon 2 years ago
@newcjon fuck europe im off to thailand and live in sin city.
userwl2850 2 years ago
I'm from Britain.
It's no different than most parts of Europe or America lol.
You couldn't really make that statement about any... Established country.
Yes there are terrible parts. Really terrible parts. And yes there are rich parts, really rich parts, and quite parts, and noisy parts.
And cities, and towns, and country sides, and urban areas, and drug dealing, and ballroom dancing... Lol, it's not ONE anything.
AtheistMovement 2 years ago
Without religion you can search for a true objective morality like the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is the guiding principle of my morality, I don't want to freely murder because I don't want to be freely murdered. Same for theft, etc. That seems pretty obvious. We do NOT get our morality from the Bible, or working on the Sabbath would be an offense punishable only by death (its in the commandments), among many MANY others.
QuestionMarc 2 years ago
It is nice to see that Christopher has the brains in his family. Peter reminds me of my own fanatic brother.
exa0 2 years ago 14
that is unlucky that ure brother im presuming a religious fanatic
imadamjad1 2 years ago
@exa0
yes, my sister is catholic and i am an athiest lol :D
Dougca1985 2 years ago
It is very clear that Christopher inherited all of the brains in that family. It is a very old English tradition that the idiot son entered the church. I thought it had died out, but evidently not.
donepearce 2 years ago 75
As shown in the fictional Father Ted where his brother is a DR
waldoistwisted 2 years ago
@donepearce 10 month old DISS at Darwins face remains standing?
MrCattlehunter 1 year ago
@donepearce Well there's a comment to be taken seriously. Oh wait...
baughskeet 1 year ago
@donepearce That's an Irish tradition.
Ohyewildthong 1 year ago
@donepearce
To call either idiotic in any sense of the word, is in itself, stupid.
PinkFloydDudi 1 year ago
@PinkFloydDudi Not at all. Peter Hitchens demonstrates his idiocy every time he opens his mouth. He is intellectually negligible.
donepearce 1 year ago 2
@donepearce I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter is an idiot, but when you've voluntarily constricted you're own intellect by the nonsense and dogma of religion, it's hard to come across as the brainier of the two.
bigballer215 1 year ago
@bigballer215 - perfectly surmised. That's the problem that has and always will prevent any rational understanding between the two arguments.
gefnanroolz 1 year ago
@donepearce On second thought, after seeing Peter's rebuttal to Christopher's stab about his column being more widely syndicated, I rescind my previous comment. :)
bigballer215 1 year ago
@donepearce bravo!!!!
amatorynumber 1 year ago
I had some respect for peter before the borrow comment
joshuagahan 2 years ago
I agree. Peter failed miserably on that point. How pompous to say atheists may borrow their morality!! again we would say well whose pious morality are we to borrow? Yours (which you clearly think is superior) or from which religion? again circles back to "morals" of various morally offensive types of religion blah blah. The arguments just are the same time and time again. And by the way, all the good that people do in the name of religion does not cancel out the evil that is done in its name.
godisnotgr8 2 years ago 2
Interesting how Peter established the notion that Atheist are "immoral"; and if they attempt to be moral they "barrow" it from Religion entirely-that is simply not the case; and that ignorant retort revealed his incompetence blatantly.
Morality is derived not by Religion, but through ourselves; it's innate in us and serves to support/protect our species. And if that's not proof enough, ask yourself this:
What of morality before Christ? Before the Bible?
I rest my case. Peter failed this one.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago 2
@ninjaboy7
yes and to say that athiests are immoral is in a way offending his brother lol
Dougca1985 2 years ago
Cristopher hitchens brain is like a V-8 Hemi engine. Peter hitchens mind is like a hamster on a running weel.
DjetGlea 2 years ago
Peter prefers infinite torment and suffering to finite torment and suffering and attributes the longer lasting of the two to the all powerful, eternal, dictatorial, yet benevolent, generous and meek God of them all! Shame on him for believing such a thing.
flipperth1 2 years ago
Peter didn't address the point regarding the Samaritian. If religion is the root of all morality, how could that Samaritian, who had no religious knowledge and who lived before Jesus at that, have been moral?
accountbypass1 2 years ago 16
And by the way, the point that Christopher makes at around 5:25 is completely correct. It's why I am a deist Quaker.
kenan6346 1 year ago
"Professor Hitchens, um, can you-"
"Doctor Hitchens"
Haha!
oldtimeyspaceman 2 years ago
Dawkins is my favorite out of the 4 but by watching this debate, and many others of hitches, Prof. Hitchens, wait sorry, Doctor, hitchens is catching up to Dawkins in my score book pretty fast!! he is simply fucking amazing in how he thinks, transfers his arguments, and how he interacts with people and the entertainment he brings out. I mean it's really crazy to think that i was laughing almost 2/3 of the debate, when the debate is on existence of god lol. His fucking good.
Omid45 2 years ago 2
Pete cant keep up. Chris is just too powerful.
libertineKuntSodom 2 years ago 7
Yes, Peter is falling under the blistering waves of Christopher's mighty wordprobe, and native ability to not entertain sophistries and fallacious reasoning.
supruzr 2 years ago
I can't believe Peter used the "Atheists have no morality, unless they borrow it from religion" argument. My respect for him dropped tremendously within three seconds.
AtheistCowboy 2 years ago 57
Yup. Fuck that, Peter. Not a good move
GreggaryPeccary 2 years ago
Yeah it doesn't make much sense. What you can say is that religions contain moralities that seem to be universal human ones.
Most of the deadly sins and the commandments where identified and railed against by the Greek philosophers who where either atheists or who believed in amoral Gods.
d1bx4pp 2 years ago
@AtheistCowboy lol. I laugh because Peter explicitly said how difficult it is for the a/Atheist to understand this simple point, and here is an a/Atheist (you) proving that. He did not say that a/Atheists aren't moral but that a/Atheist have no *objective* means with which to determine *objective* morality since, in abolishing absolutes, morality becomes relative and subjective. And a/Atheist luminaries have struggled with this for decades and none have overcome it.
botwindfish 1 year ago
@AtheistCowboy Why? Because he was stating the obvious?
Gangjoyful 1 year ago
yes but....
does it make it true?
theozzman91 2 years ago 2
Christians make up 75% of the population of America.
75% of prisoners are Christian.
Atheists make up 10%
In prisons, they form 0.2% of inmates.
The figures say it all.
theozzman91 2 years ago 4
Also, 7% of scientists believe in a personal god.
Echelon030 2 years ago 3
i used to think that chris hitchens was a really snide and cold type who misrepresented atheists, and was annoyed by his 'worship' of science, but after getting into his world, reading one of his books and watching a shitload of his debates, i really like him. he has a huge heart, nothing but a good feeling comes from him and his brutal, human honesty, i like how he always involves the audience and calls for them to judge him and challenge him, he is most interested in reaching the people.
guitardrew05 2 years ago 13
Modesty is one of the most beautiful characteristics of the fully enlightened human self. It truly is beautiful. Imagine if the only people you knew were arrogant self-aggrandizing, pompous fools. Humility, if it is a value emphasised by Christianity - and lent to us from the teaching of Socrates - is a virtue we are greatly in need of. Moreover, an argument conducted with modesty and humility is infinitely more powerful than one conducted by a self-important, egocentric snob.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
Nonsense, what can we say of the modesty, that it is contrived, that it is formed by a misjudgement of oneself or worst of all that the beholder of this supposed virtue ought to be modest.
Honesty and self awareness are far finer virtues than the gentle masochism that is modesty.
CPGallagher89 2 years ago 3
Modesty is not contrived by those who have mastered the intellect. Those that realize all things are interconnected by a common thread (death) recognise that individual achievement, whilst honourable, is not the sole impetus for life. Whilst some people most certainly "contrive" to show modesty, they equally "contrive" to show honesty and self-awareness (for, of course, objectivity is a difficult beast, even impossible beast, to tame). Intellectual honesty and humility go hand in hand.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
"Imagine if the only people you knew were arrogant self-aggrandizing, pompous fools."
- BeholdZeus
I don't need to imagine this, as it is usually the case that the people I know are extremely arrogant. They are religious after all.
Humility is valued by Christianity?
To say that the universe, and everything in it, was created by god, for us, does not exactly strike me as humble and modest. In fact, I find it to be one of the most arrogant and foolish claims around.
rbrunski89 2 years ago
Comment removed
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
If he treats his brother with such disdain, how should we regard his as a person? By no means is he regarded a hero in a European context. Yet in America he is lauded and praised without end. Odd.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
They're debating. You notice they do not make eye contact during the debate in an attempt to remain detached.
thejobloshow 2 years ago
that last call from peter really was completelly pitifull. i feel almost sorry for him, hes getting totally owned by his brother.
theheretic999 2 years ago 4
LOOOL 'who clapped that-stand up who clapped that'!!!
pritz29 3 years ago 9
To the other point of C. Hitchens: if there was no God , would there be no moral code?
Of course there would be. But the moral code of this world would be much different than today. We know that man, unrestrained, seeks to improve his position.
A science fiction example would be the mirror world of Star Trek. Like in the animal world, strength would be the penultimate arbiter of power.
Roguewarrior100 3 years ago
Here is an answer for Question #1:
"I willed all of my money to the Church so that they could educate poor youth."
Roguewarrior100 3 years ago
a non-believer could do that. that's the point
jadachris10 2 years ago 3
christopher hitchens is such an older brother.
AFreeThinker999 3 years ago 5
On the point of morality as well, isn't it easy to explain our sense of morality from an evolutionary and social perspective? If we took two cultures, one with morals and one without, the one without would kill, steal and rape each other until there were none left while the moral group would work together and thrive. It's an evolutionarily beneficial trait, if we weren't moral we wouldn't even be here to discuss our morality.
PPartisan 3 years ago
Chris's clearly drunk: I love the guy!
PPartisan 3 years ago
he's even more eloquent when he's drunk than i think i am when i'm drunk.
burnhippiesforfuel 3 years ago 3
stand up who clapped that lol
MrOnatopial 3 years ago
who clapped that classic Christopher Hitchens
davidatheist 3 years ago 6
'In societies that do not believe in hell, hell pretty quickly comes into existence' Quite anironic statement given that some of the most religious-centric societies on earth rank among the most violent. Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Uganda and Pakistan all come to mind.
CULAVE 3 years ago
Christianity is an effective mixture of truth and lies. First is the comforting lie about an afterlife which is obvious. Then you have truly good morals mixed with a rather reasonable lie about having to uphold those morals to avoid punishment in the afterlife. It's a good thing to believe in even if it is a lie because it offers comfort and greater enforced responsibility to be good. A lie is a small price to pay I think. But this only applies to Christianity. Other religions fail like Islam.
silvercade 3 years ago
Sum up first two minutes:
Christopher calls Peter a loser, virgin who is never gonna get some.
Peter calls Christopher a skanky whore.
lollygager3664 3 years ago 8
"Bah! Who clapped that!? You clapped that?" lol
BrandonMSwan 3 years ago 3
LOL, epic finisher there by Peter. Very witty ;)
ignorantpom 3 years ago
I don't think Christopher was too inpolite in this debate. In the debates I have seen I have witness far more rudeness towards him.
In the grand scheme of things I don't think it really matters. Don't get me wrong in the normal course of things I am the biggest sticker for politeness. However I would just like to celebrate this debate. It is western culture at its noblest.
newcjon 3 years ago 3
"You can clap that?" rofl
Christopher is OWNING his brother
Dgc2003 3 years ago
It's a very modern paradox when prostitution (or soliciting) is illegal, yet filming it, packaging it, and selling it makes it legal! Heh..
tomsega 3 years ago
I admire Christopher, however, I believe he was particularly rude and lacked any sort of politeness in the majority of this debate. Some may feel that from the aethiest view point that concerning what religion has done its a small trivial thing, but I however felt that he belittles his speech on the morality of man without god by behaving like a rude ass. Do not get me wrong, I think he means well and I admire him, but I do not think he does himself or his argument any favors.
SVisionary 3 years ago 2
Indeed, I think the one that epitomizes his rudeness and condescending manner throughout, is the unwarranted and needlessly scathing "Pah, you're going to clap that? Who clapped that? Stand up who clapped that!".
Christopher is very audacious to borrow the teachings within the parable of the Good Samaritan, to then use it to undermine the Christian religion that espouses such a creed.
TheBlackWhirlwind 3 years ago
He's making a point, and a very good one. In that story, it was the gentile who showed compassion.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
Precisely. The 'Parable Of The Good Samaritan' was a moral tale told by Jesus. The parable is a popular piece in Christian philosophy, and is disseminated by the Christian Church, whom Christopher Hitchens rallies against.
TheBlackWhirlwind 3 years ago
But his point was that in that story the altruistic one was the unbeliever, so any profession that morals come from religion is ludicrous. That's precisely why he chooses that particular story.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
The Samaritan in the parable wasn't an unbeliever, or as Christopher has misconstrued him, an atheist.
A gentile was one who was not Jewish, a non-Israelite. The Samaritans were a religious tribe, but they were still outsiders to the Jews, as no doubt Jews would be outsiders to the Samaritans. Jesus was attempting to allay the militant and partisan ingroup mentality of rampant tribalism.
TheBlackWhirlwind 3 years ago
Incidentally, it is a parable, which means it is likely that Jesus coined it to illustrate his philosophical views to his own people. As far as I know, the parable is fictional, it didn't actually. happen.
TheBlackWhirlwind 3 years ago
Of course, even supposing Jesus actually existed. That does nothing to lessen the point that Hicth is making in this case. He would still be deemed an unbeliever by Jesus and his followers, as he didn't believe in Yahweh. Bear in mind, too, that Christians were called atheists by the Romans until the conversion of Constantine.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
"However widely it was syndicated I wouldn't want it THERE"
Interesting repost from Peter, considering he works for one of the most notoriously closed-minded, paranoid and sensationalist, conservative and right-wing broadloid publications in the UK: The once Nazi-supporting Daily Mail.
tomsega 3 years ago
I think there's another point to be made: there's nothing inherently immoral about pornography. How can you say that polymath? The porn industry is replete with cutthroats and scumbags. Well, assuming this is true, the argument confuses cause and effect. If a given activity is by societal consensus regarded as immoral, it will tend to attract unscrupulous individuals whether it is truly immoral (causes needless) harm or not. I can think of no argument that would demonstrate that (cont.)
polymath7 3 years ago