What Peter doesn't understand is that evil and good are simply ideas humans have attached to actions they perceive as harmful and not harmful. Life isn't simple enought to label ANYTHING utterly good or utterly evil. Peter also brings up the argument that we can't have any moral guiding because our dictatorship god isn't or isn't acknowledged to the be there to guide us. Speak for yourself I decide what is right and wrong. The bible doesn't condem slavery, but it's recognized as wrong.
@ProRanting You get a thumbs down for that uninsightful comment.
If good and evil were simply human ideas then they are subjective and illusory, and there is no proof that objective good and evil are illusions. The fact we make moral judgments which would make no sense on an atheisti worldview indicates there really are objective moral values, so God exists.
Slavery cant be "wrong" because, on atheism,morality is just a by-product of evo-social mechanisms so nothing is really "wrong"
@relarerfhjk So God Exists. Ha! I love your pathetic argument. You wrap up your ass hat comment with SO THAT MEANS MY SPECIFIC CHRISTAIN GOD IS REAL.
Then I love how your wrongly label athiesm anything that holds the weight of morality. Athiesm isn't anything other than a lack of belief in god. Yet you claim we have morals that we've made.humans have morals and only a few come from the ten commandments. Athiests are intelligent enough to know right from wrong without god. Assumptions.....
@ProRanting Oh, no that is not the principal evidence for Christianity, the fine-tuning of the Universe for life, the evidence that space, time and matter all came into being with the Big Bang and the historical evidence for the ressurection all additionally support the existence of the Christian God.
If humans made morals, they wouldnt be morals, but subjective illusions. The fact atheists know "right from wrong" proves there is a God, as without God there can be no objective right and wrong
@relarerfhjk You ARE FAILING TO LISTEN TO ME. Without god there can be no objective right or wrong. AND (As you can't tell because you haven't been listening) I'm saying their is no objective natural right or wrong. The only thing that decides what is good and what is evil are our morals. You think you know or understand the true nature of evil. Fool.
I'm done talking to you because you are not even hearing me out.
@MrSalamander7 In a theistic world absolute morality is perfectly logical, because if morality does not come from humans, then humans dont have the power to change it
Christopher's brother is like an evil morphed version of him. Even though I disagree with Peter on just about everything, I still like listening to him and reading his articles and blog. He's a genuinely good orator and author.
@cfibb Your talking rubbish, Peter is a brilliant writer, far more thoughtful and insightful than his brother. To give you an idea of how talented Peter is, this year he became the first right-wing writer to win the prestigious Orwell Prize For Political Journalism for about twenty years.
No, Peter is not as good a writer as his brother Christopher. He is just way more right wing uber alles, which is why guys such as yourself prefer him - no matter what rubbish he churns out.
Btw, it's the contraction "you're" as in YOU ARE. Not "your".
@cfibb Wrong. Peter is a better writer than Christopher. When was the last time Chrstopher won the Orwell prize. Peter is braver and takes unfashionable positions, whereas Christopher is the darling of the liberal elite with his celebrity atheism
Wrong. Both are contrarian but, as a writer, CH is much braver, taking WAY MORE unfashionable (and carefully considered humanistic and ironically realistic) positions on issues than Peter ever will - and CH is not the darling of anyone but hardcore fans...while Peter is stuffier, stodgier, "Eyor-ish", staidly fist-in-the-air-stick-in-the-mud in his approach. Often, PH's opinions don't even don't project anything but the desire to sound indignantly conservative.
@cfibb CH is brave?? Haha he is a toady of the US elite, who fawns all over leading politicians, and is guaranteed regular slots on TV as a result of his fashionable views. Peter Hitchens is much more thoughtful and interesting than his shallow brother who, beneath the witticisms and rhetoric, has no actual insight into the issues he discusses.
PH is one of the most thoughtful conservatives out there, he even opposes Britain's involvement in WW2 and wants the Conservative Party to collapse
CH is bravER in his positions. He's the daring maverick, a toady of no elite and appears on TV often because he is provocative, not necessarily mainstream. This is common knowledge, not a conspiracy.
Compared to his searingly intelligent & well-read brother, PH is NOT more thoughtful and interesting. Peter seems nice, but also a frustrated bore who should always dress in tweed - it'd suit him more. Most of the good (if not, great) Hitchens genes were used to produce CH.
@cfibb CH isnt remotely brave in his positions, which is why he gets constant airtime, while Peter Hitchens, despite winning the Orwell prize, is shunned by the mainstream media, for taking un-PC and unfashionable positions.
CH is an uninsightful paunchy Sixties"flower power" leftie, who drinks and smokes his way to an early grave. He is wrong about almost every issue, as you can see if you watch him get battered in debate against his more intelligent brother on the Abolition of Britain.
CH is braver and way more radical, and correct. PH (if one MUST compare the amount of air time he gets as if there's a contest or a law saying that they MUST have equal time) doesn't get nearly the same amount because he is, well, ...boring. Bor-ing.
CH is staunchly, relentlessly insightful. I could care less about his appearance. It's the mind, dear.
PH is paunchly, conservative. Boringly so. No one gives Peter a damn? So what. This is to be expected.
How can intelligent people, like Peter Hitchens, not understand the simple point, that RELIGIONS ARE FUCKING MADE BY MAN! Therefore, the whole "absolute basis for morality" card they try to play as their trump card is easily dealt with. Religions present us with a fucked up morality that has had to be refined over the years, we don't stone women for cheating on their husbands anymore, for example. WE make up morality, based on creating harmonious societies. We don't need belief in faireys for it
@BillKiernan It is you who has failed to understand Peter's point. You can choose to believe morality comes from Man, or choose to believe it comes from God. His point is that, if you believe morality comes from Man, then it logically follows that Man can make his own mind up what is right and wrong and, when presented with that freedom, the most powerful humans tend to make the moral rules to suit themselves.
@relarerfhjk "if you believe morality comes from Man, then it logically follows that Man can make his own mind up what is right and wrong and, when presented with that freedom, the most powerful humans tend to make the moral rules to suit themselves" but this happens anyway, it happens with religious societies. in the end, it's obvious we are writing the books, holy or otherwise, and WE are making the rules. this has always been the case, whatever spiritual label you want to put on it.
@BillKiernan But religious societies have a reason to resist this, because they believe Man cannot change the moral rules to suit current needs, but must follow the Commandments. This is why the Catholic Church,for example,refuses to alter its moral teachings to suit the fashion of the times, which annoys many liberal Catholics (who would like it to support abortion etc)the question is whether a society which believes morality has a source above humans functions better than one which doesnt.
@relarerfhjk "the question is whether a society which believes morality has a source above humans functions better than one which doesnt" we have no proof of this. Current atheistic liberal democratic societies, such as sweden, have FAR lower crime rates, better standard of living, etc than religious societies do. there's no correlation from studies that show religious societies function better. again, man makes the morality, regardless whether or not he ascribes it to the divine.
@BillKiernan Now that is just nonsense. Sweden has horrific social problems, it has the highest rate of fatherless children in Europe,and there is virtually no civic society,everything is state-controlled,most kids are raised in giant state nurderies, they have also only kept crime rates low through a rigorous policy of drug prohibition,enforced by jail terms for cannabis possession, standard of living is only high because it is a small country, with a healthy economy.
@BillKiernan Again, there is evidence religious societies function better,because they believe in absolute morality.The evidence is all around us, look at the decline of civic society in the West, since the de-Christianization of the West, look at,the rise in single motherhood/illegitimacy, abortion,drug abuse,crime and delinquency,since Christianity began to fade in Western societies.Look at how free Christian civilisation has been compared to atheist civilisations like the Soviet Union.
@relarerfhjk That not true, there have always been crimes, single mothers, drug abuse etc. Infact you can add child pregnancies holy wars and burning witchs at the stake as crimes committed during a religious Britain. There is absolutely no link between atheism and a lack of morality, it is the religious that show the poorest ethical behaviour, just look at the middle east! Stoning for adultery, lashes for being raped, genital mutilation, suicide bombing, murders over blasphemy.
@LowleyUK But all of those things got massively worse since Christianity declined. That is an obvious fact, so dont dodge the issue.
Atheism leads to a lack of morality, look at the Soviet Union,Communist China, North Korea etc. The 20th-century slavery (which was abolished by Christians) was brought back by atheist regimes e.g Stalin's Gulags. Look at how abortion and euthansia are rising as we become more atheist.
@relarerfhjk Firstly, 'm not dodging the issue by stating a contrary opinion. Secondly I strongly disagree that lack of religion is contributing factor to increased crime and I stand by my first assertion.
Also, I find your point "atheism leads to a lack of morality" offensive as this is not the case for me, I would argue that opposite, that religious people tend to discriminate and are less inclinded to be tolerant, though I am aware that this is just a generalisation. Continued..
@relarerfhjk Continued.. The "Stalin, atheist regimes" (oxymoron) point is a fallacy. No regime does anything in the name of atheism, it is an absurd assumption. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a supernatural belief because of lack of evidence.
Abortion and euthansia are not bad things, the reduce suffering and it has nothing to do with anyone else other than the person involved. It is THEIR life not yours.
@LowleyUK "no-one does anything in the name of atheism". Oh yes they do, because atheism is a belief. Only agnosticism (which is neutral on the existence/non-existence of God) is not a belief.
Stalin's crimes were committed in the name of atheism, as were all communist crimes. Russians were not allowed a Communist Party Membership Card unless they were declared secularist/atheists. Marx wrote of abolishing religion to create an atheist utopia, the Communists banned all religion for this reason
@relarerfhjk Again, more nonsense. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief due to insufficient evidence. It's the default state of a baby for example. Its a poor word because it's easily misconstrued. We don't have a word for non astrologers or non superstitious people but it is the equivilent. To then go and say Stalin did everything in the name atheism is barmy. Stalin did everything in the name of non astrology - that exposes you to your staggering illogic.
@ytfmichaelxu "Why is Christopher's brother not nearly as intelligent as he is, not even close......."
I believe you take away from both of them what you phrase it like that.....If Christopher put in as much time as most modern day intellects did he would take the form of his brother, or George Galloway or any other of these fools he rolls over daily ...Christopher has given and sacrificed every aspect of his 60 year life and the end result we get to enjoy
@ytfmichaelxu Actually Peter Hitchens nails him in this debate, which is why Chris has to keep changing the subject and ducking Peter's simple question, "what basis do you have for absolute right and wrong if morality has no source above humans"
@ytfmichaelxu Throughout, whenever Chris poses a question Peter eposes the flaws in it and then explains his opinion once the question has been properly addressed. I think that as much as I like Chris and think that it is stupid to measure intellect in that way, I think that Peter goes a little more deeply into issues than his brother does.
Peter pulls out the supernatural single-source for morality argument. This is probably the worst argument for religion you can find. Such supreme authority comes "via" the local (or your religion's original) witchdoctor "from" the witchdoctor's imaginary friend. When Christopher has time in his debates and uses human solidarity (benevolence, compassion empathy) a source for morality, this too often blows passed his debating opponent -- as if they are *incapable* of empathy. What of that?
@wjcapehart Well Christopher couldnt deal with the argument, which is why he kept ducking Peter's question. I'm not sure Christopher even understood the point Peter was making, because his replies were irrelevant to it, so Peter had to repeatedly ask him to stop changing the subject. Peter's point was that we can choose to believe morality comes from Man or we can choose to believe it comes from God, but, if we believe it comes from Man, then humans will alter that morality to suit the powerful
The problem with his question is that, once you've decided there is no moral absolutes, why the hell would you suddenly just become evil? This makes no sense!
Peter says the universe either comes out of order or chaos, then you decide your actions. This is a nonsensical premise, as once you research evolution, and particularly the evolution of social/communal behaviors as a benefit to survival, you see why good behavior is quite fully addressed.
It might not necessarily make you smart, but if you actually are smart - it sure is important to use good grammar and have a deceny vocabulary.
The problem is, even people who are smart can have extremely large misunderstandings, or just not be seeing things the way they need to be seen in order to fully understand the truth. Intelligence is not a lack of ignorance, just look at all of the smart people who still buy into "spirituality."
Yes I definitely agree with both points, though I must say I was using "evil" as a demostration point, and did not mean literally biblical or absolute evil.
The strong may prey upon the weak, but as you said people will do whatever they think works best. There are plenty of situations where being "evil" might be the better choice, but if you look at the bulk of our evoltuionary span, you can see there are more than enough reasons NOT to be evil. Communities thrive more than a lone indiviual.
exactly! And then Peter has no choice but to basically say "well, you can chose to believe it or not." Well then, we can also chose to believe in absolute standards of morality WITHOUT belief in an invisible supercop in the sky. If it's all just a matter of belief, an atheist can believe in morality just the same. Thanks for playing Peter, now back to church with you.
What Peter doesn't understand is that evil and good are simply ideas humans have attached to actions they perceive as harmful and not harmful. Life isn't simple enought to label ANYTHING utterly good or utterly evil. Peter also brings up the argument that we can't have any moral guiding because our dictatorship god isn't or isn't acknowledged to the be there to guide us. Speak for yourself I decide what is right and wrong. The bible doesn't condem slavery, but it's recognized as wrong.
ProRanting 1 year ago
@ProRanting You get a thumbs down for that uninsightful comment.
If good and evil were simply human ideas then they are subjective and illusory, and there is no proof that objective good and evil are illusions. The fact we make moral judgments which would make no sense on an atheisti worldview indicates there really are objective moral values, so God exists.
Slavery cant be "wrong" because, on atheism,morality is just a by-product of evo-social mechanisms so nothing is really "wrong"
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk So God Exists. Ha! I love your pathetic argument. You wrap up your ass hat comment with SO THAT MEANS MY SPECIFIC CHRISTAIN GOD IS REAL.
Then I love how your wrongly label athiesm anything that holds the weight of morality. Athiesm isn't anything other than a lack of belief in god. Yet you claim we have morals that we've made.humans have morals and only a few come from the ten commandments. Athiests are intelligent enough to know right from wrong without god. Assumptions.....
ProRanting 9 months ago
@ProRanting Oh, no that is not the principal evidence for Christianity, the fine-tuning of the Universe for life, the evidence that space, time and matter all came into being with the Big Bang and the historical evidence for the ressurection all additionally support the existence of the Christian God.
If humans made morals, they wouldnt be morals, but subjective illusions. The fact atheists know "right from wrong" proves there is a God, as without God there can be no objective right and wrong
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk You ARE FAILING TO LISTEN TO ME. Without god there can be no objective right or wrong. AND (As you can't tell because you haven't been listening) I'm saying their is no objective natural right or wrong. The only thing that decides what is good and what is evil are our morals. You think you know or understand the true nature of evil. Fool.
I'm done talking to you because you are not even hearing me out.
ProRanting 9 months ago
dese guys!!!
sgtmcwallace 1 year ago
its like the day vs the night this argument
000omgthtscool 1 year ago
"Absolute morality" is truly illogical and non-existent EVEN in a theistic world. I'm surpised even Hitch hasn't realized this.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
@MrSalamander7 In a theistic world absolute morality is perfectly logical, because if morality does not come from humans, then humans dont have the power to change it
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
Christopher's brother is like an evil morphed version of him. Even though I disagree with Peter on just about everything, I still like listening to him and reading his articles and blog. He's a genuinely good orator and author.
Harmonyww 1 year ago
It's plain as day where the smart genes ended up in this family.
Sorry for the cheap joke but you lost the coin toss on this one, Peter. You seem nice enough though.
cfibb 2 years ago
@cfibb Your talking rubbish, Peter is a brilliant writer, far more thoughtful and insightful than his brother. To give you an idea of how talented Peter is, this year he became the first right-wing writer to win the prestigious Orwell Prize For Political Journalism for about twenty years.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk re: "your talking rubbish"
No, Peter is not as good a writer as his brother Christopher. He is just way more right wing uber alles, which is why guys such as yourself prefer him - no matter what rubbish he churns out.
Btw, it's the contraction "you're" as in YOU ARE. Not "your".
cfibb 1 year ago
@cfibb Wrong. Peter is a better writer than Christopher. When was the last time Chrstopher won the Orwell prize. Peter is braver and takes unfashionable positions, whereas Christopher is the darling of the liberal elite with his celebrity atheism
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk
Wrong. Both are contrarian but, as a writer, CH is much braver, taking WAY MORE unfashionable (and carefully considered humanistic and ironically realistic) positions on issues than Peter ever will - and CH is not the darling of anyone but hardcore fans...while Peter is stuffier, stodgier, "Eyor-ish", staidly fist-in-the-air-stick-in-the-mud in his approach. Often, PH's opinions don't even don't project anything but the desire to sound indignantly conservative.
cfibb 10 months ago
@cfibb CH is brave?? Haha he is a toady of the US elite, who fawns all over leading politicians, and is guaranteed regular slots on TV as a result of his fashionable views. Peter Hitchens is much more thoughtful and interesting than his shallow brother who, beneath the witticisms and rhetoric, has no actual insight into the issues he discusses.
PH is one of the most thoughtful conservatives out there, he even opposes Britain's involvement in WW2 and wants the Conservative Party to collapse
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk
CH is bravER in his positions. He's the daring maverick, a toady of no elite and appears on TV often because he is provocative, not necessarily mainstream. This is common knowledge, not a conspiracy.
Compared to his searingly intelligent & well-read brother, PH is NOT more thoughtful and interesting. Peter seems nice, but also a frustrated bore who should always dress in tweed - it'd suit him more. Most of the good (if not, great) Hitchens genes were used to produce CH.
cfibb 9 months ago
@cfibb CH isnt remotely brave in his positions, which is why he gets constant airtime, while Peter Hitchens, despite winning the Orwell prize, is shunned by the mainstream media, for taking un-PC and unfashionable positions.
CH is an uninsightful paunchy Sixties"flower power" leftie, who drinks and smokes his way to an early grave. He is wrong about almost every issue, as you can see if you watch him get battered in debate against his more intelligent brother on the Abolition of Britain.
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk
Once again you are wrong.
CH is braver and way more radical, and correct. PH (if one MUST compare the amount of air time he gets as if there's a contest or a law saying that they MUST have equal time) doesn't get nearly the same amount because he is, well, ...boring. Bor-ing.
CH is staunchly, relentlessly insightful. I could care less about his appearance. It's the mind, dear.
PH is paunchly, conservative. Boringly so. No one gives Peter a damn? So what. This is to be expected.
cfibb 9 months ago
I never knew Christopher had a conservative brother. WOW lol
Akhotnik 2 years ago
I do think Mr Hitchens (Peter) has a good argument about absolute morality. I enjoy his blog but I am not myself a religious believer.
baresolid 2 years ago
How can intelligent people, like Peter Hitchens, not understand the simple point, that RELIGIONS ARE FUCKING MADE BY MAN! Therefore, the whole "absolute basis for morality" card they try to play as their trump card is easily dealt with. Religions present us with a fucked up morality that has had to be refined over the years, we don't stone women for cheating on their husbands anymore, for example. WE make up morality, based on creating harmonious societies. We don't need belief in faireys for it
BillKiernan 2 years ago 4
@BillKiernan It is you who has failed to understand Peter's point. You can choose to believe morality comes from Man, or choose to believe it comes from God. His point is that, if you believe morality comes from Man, then it logically follows that Man can make his own mind up what is right and wrong and, when presented with that freedom, the most powerful humans tend to make the moral rules to suit themselves.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk "if you believe morality comes from Man, then it logically follows that Man can make his own mind up what is right and wrong and, when presented with that freedom, the most powerful humans tend to make the moral rules to suit themselves" but this happens anyway, it happens with religious societies. in the end, it's obvious we are writing the books, holy or otherwise, and WE are making the rules. this has always been the case, whatever spiritual label you want to put on it.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan But religious societies have a reason to resist this, because they believe Man cannot change the moral rules to suit current needs, but must follow the Commandments. This is why the Catholic Church,for example,refuses to alter its moral teachings to suit the fashion of the times, which annoys many liberal Catholics (who would like it to support abortion etc)the question is whether a society which believes morality has a source above humans functions better than one which doesnt.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk "the question is whether a society which believes morality has a source above humans functions better than one which doesnt" we have no proof of this. Current atheistic liberal democratic societies, such as sweden, have FAR lower crime rates, better standard of living, etc than religious societies do. there's no correlation from studies that show religious societies function better. again, man makes the morality, regardless whether or not he ascribes it to the divine.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Now that is just nonsense. Sweden has horrific social problems, it has the highest rate of fatherless children in Europe,and there is virtually no civic society,everything is state-controlled,most kids are raised in giant state nurderies, they have also only kept crime rates low through a rigorous policy of drug prohibition,enforced by jail terms for cannabis possession, standard of living is only high because it is a small country, with a healthy economy.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@BillKiernan Again, there is evidence religious societies function better,because they believe in absolute morality.The evidence is all around us, look at the decline of civic society in the West, since the de-Christianization of the West, look at,the rise in single motherhood/illegitimacy, abortion,drug abuse,crime and delinquency,since Christianity began to fade in Western societies.Look at how free Christian civilisation has been compared to atheist civilisations like the Soviet Union.
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@relarerfhjk That not true, there have always been crimes, single mothers, drug abuse etc. Infact you can add child pregnancies holy wars and burning witchs at the stake as crimes committed during a religious Britain. There is absolutely no link between atheism and a lack of morality, it is the religious that show the poorest ethical behaviour, just look at the middle east! Stoning for adultery, lashes for being raped, genital mutilation, suicide bombing, murders over blasphemy.
LowleyUK 10 months ago
@LowleyUK But all of those things got massively worse since Christianity declined. That is an obvious fact, so dont dodge the issue.
Atheism leads to a lack of morality, look at the Soviet Union,Communist China, North Korea etc. The 20th-century slavery (which was abolished by Christians) was brought back by atheist regimes e.g Stalin's Gulags. Look at how abortion and euthansia are rising as we become more atheist.
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk Firstly, 'm not dodging the issue by stating a contrary opinion. Secondly I strongly disagree that lack of religion is contributing factor to increased crime and I stand by my first assertion.
Also, I find your point "atheism leads to a lack of morality" offensive as this is not the case for me, I would argue that opposite, that religious people tend to discriminate and are less inclinded to be tolerant, though I am aware that this is just a generalisation. Continued..
LowleyUK 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk Continued.. The "Stalin, atheist regimes" (oxymoron) point is a fallacy. No regime does anything in the name of atheism, it is an absurd assumption. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a supernatural belief because of lack of evidence.
Abortion and euthansia are not bad things, the reduce suffering and it has nothing to do with anyone else other than the person involved. It is THEIR life not yours.
LowleyUK 10 months ago
@LowleyUK "no-one does anything in the name of atheism". Oh yes they do, because atheism is a belief. Only agnosticism (which is neutral on the existence/non-existence of God) is not a belief.
Stalin's crimes were committed in the name of atheism, as were all communist crimes. Russians were not allowed a Communist Party Membership Card unless they were declared secularist/atheists. Marx wrote of abolishing religion to create an atheist utopia, the Communists banned all religion for this reason
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk Again, more nonsense. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief due to insufficient evidence. It's the default state of a baby for example. Its a poor word because it's easily misconstrued. We don't have a word for non astrologers or non superstitious people but it is the equivilent. To then go and say Stalin did everything in the name atheism is barmy. Stalin did everything in the name of non astrology - that exposes you to your staggering illogic.
LowleyUK 10 months ago
Haha, I love the moments of semantic chaos.
Mike3303 2 years ago
Why is Christopher's brother not nearly as intelligent as he is, not even close.......
ytfmichaelxu 2 years ago 7
Chris likes information a lot more.
ExtremeBogom 2 years ago
Comment removed
alwayspoppies 2 years ago
he's intelligent, he's just a bit of a flacid boring sod.
BillKiernan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ytfmichaelxu "Why is Christopher's brother not nearly as intelligent as he is, not even close......."
I believe you take away from both of them what you phrase it like that.....If Christopher put in as much time as most modern day intellects did he would take the form of his brother, or George Galloway or any other of these fools he rolls over daily ...Christopher has given and sacrificed every aspect of his 60 year life and the end result we get to enjoy
RomeAndMarty4Ever 1 year ago
@ytfmichaelxu Actually Peter Hitchens nails him in this debate, which is why Chris has to keep changing the subject and ducking Peter's simple question, "what basis do you have for absolute right and wrong if morality has no source above humans"
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
@ytfmichaelxu XD Peter is way beyond his brother, he tears apart most of his questions as they are pre-conditioned and bias Peter reveals them as so.
BiffaTW 9 months ago
@BiffaTW where exactly in this video?
ytfmichaelxu 9 months ago
@ytfmichaelxu Throughout, whenever Chris poses a question Peter eposes the flaws in it and then explains his opinion once the question has been properly addressed. I think that as much as I like Chris and think that it is stupid to measure intellect in that way, I think that Peter goes a little more deeply into issues than his brother does.
BiffaTW 9 months ago
@ytfmichaelxu He was dropped on his head as an infant. Repeatedly. By Christopher.
Fortune favours the brave.
YouAreAnIdiotSoThere 2 weeks ago
Peter pulls out the supernatural single-source for morality argument. This is probably the worst argument for religion you can find. Such supreme authority comes "via" the local (or your religion's original) witchdoctor "from" the witchdoctor's imaginary friend. When Christopher has time in his debates and uses human solidarity (benevolence, compassion empathy) a source for morality, this too often blows passed his debating opponent -- as if they are *incapable* of empathy. What of that?
wjcapehart 2 years ago
@wjcapehart Well Christopher couldnt deal with the argument, which is why he kept ducking Peter's question. I'm not sure Christopher even understood the point Peter was making, because his replies were irrelevant to it, so Peter had to repeatedly ask him to stop changing the subject. Peter's point was that we can choose to believe morality comes from Man or we can choose to believe it comes from God, but, if we believe it comes from Man, then humans will alter that morality to suit the powerful
relarerfhjk 1 year ago
5.22 - 5.42.
Absolutely mullers his arguement
TheIkaraCult 2 years ago
It absolutely does, and I'd bet he knows it.
The problem with his question is that, once you've decided there is no moral absolutes, why the hell would you suddenly just become evil? This makes no sense!
Peter says the universe either comes out of order or chaos, then you decide your actions. This is a nonsensical premise, as once you research evolution, and particularly the evolution of social/communal behaviors as a benefit to survival, you see why good behavior is quite fully addressed.
IanBillings00 2 years ago
Throwing a bunch of clever words around doesn't make you smart
ExtremeBogom 2 years ago
@ExtremeBogom It puts you ahead of the rest of the common herd. You have to be able to read and comprehend.
Albtraumen 2 years ago
It might not necessarily make you smart, but if you actually are smart - it sure is important to use good grammar and have a deceny vocabulary.
The problem is, even people who are smart can have extremely large misunderstandings, or just not be seeing things the way they need to be seen in order to fully understand the truth. Intelligence is not a lack of ignorance, just look at all of the smart people who still buy into "spirituality."
IanBillings00 2 years ago
@Ianbillings00
kk
ExtremeBogom 2 years ago
@IanBillings00
"once you've decided there is no moral absolutes, why the hell would you suddenly just become evil?"
You wouldn't become "evil" at all, because by definition no such thing would exist! It would just be you doing whatever you think works best.
"once you research evolution, and particularly the evolution of social/communal behaviors as a benefit to survival,"
Trouble is, this involves strong preying upon the weak just as much as ultruism, and without free will.
Birdieupon 2 years ago
Yes I definitely agree with both points, though I must say I was using "evil" as a demostration point, and did not mean literally biblical or absolute evil.
The strong may prey upon the weak, but as you said people will do whatever they think works best. There are plenty of situations where being "evil" might be the better choice, but if you look at the bulk of our evoltuionary span, you can see there are more than enough reasons NOT to be evil. Communities thrive more than a lone indiviual.
IanBillings00 2 years ago
exactly! And then Peter has no choice but to basically say "well, you can chose to believe it or not." Well then, we can also chose to believe in absolute standards of morality WITHOUT belief in an invisible supercop in the sky. If it's all just a matter of belief, an atheist can believe in morality just the same. Thanks for playing Peter, now back to church with you.
BillKiernan 2 years ago 2
Who would want to mediate any conversation between these two? Egad.
Andraste77 2 years ago
I guess Hitch took all of his sense from his mother before Peter was able to capitalize on it a few years later. ^_^
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
I concur. Also, the utter contempt with which C.Hitch regarded the interviewers' last question was fantastic.
humanfly78 2 years ago
Hooray, DailyHitch- another one I hadn't heard/seen yet. Ripping stuff, thanks!
Andraste77 2 years ago 6
I'm glad you're glad.
DailyHitchens 2 years ago 2
@DailyHitchens How could he not be glad? Your channel is fantastic.
qwer4o 2 years ago
yeah ive been enjoying your channel since youve put it up, loads of Hitchens stuff i havent seen or heard before. Keep up the good werk.
TheIkaraCult 2 years ago
Yes, the daily stuff, and more importantly stuff that isn't readily found when you just do a search on C.H., is nice! Thanks!f
wjcapehart 2 years ago