Christopher Hitchens Debates Mark Roberts (Part 09/12)

[Iluvpolitics114]

7:12- 7:15 LOL!

[thinlizzybone]

Damn, Hitchens is just spankin' away!

[SlayingMinion]

@thinlizzybone lol, i know, right? some potent shit

[kaiyeem]

I say load there asses up in a rocketship and launch them into outer space to find their makers lol. Boy those two christians are absolutely fu$^ing retarded.

[Crazytalk589]

Madeline Kara Neumann, age 11, died of diabetic ketoacidosis in 2008. She received no medical treatment for her condition; Leilani and Dale Neumann preferred to spend their time praying.

Would you consider their prayers a moral action, Mr. Roberts?

[phelps6660]

Hitchen's demolishes this guy, his head is removed.

[wild112233]

I prayed to my jug of milk last night. Twice. Therefore, I am doubly moral than this priest.

Good lord, this priest is a moron.

[BillKiernan]

The host and Roberts get totally owned on the "redefining secular regimes as religious is special pleading." Point. As mentioned, Cuba is not an atheist regime but a Catholic one. Stalin was supported by the Orthodox church. Mao had his photo/image replace statues of deities on ransacked alters in Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian temples. North Korea WORSHIPS their leaders. Neopagan Nazis well there you go, NOT atheist. Etc. etc. etc.

[BillKiernan]

Cuba is not atheist, Castro even mentions god in some of his speaches.

[PurushaDesa]

"...Gosh. Well I think it does as much good as aerobic dancing would do, frankly."

LMAO! Couldn't believe I'd heard that right at first.

[VarialProductions]

Roberts says "something has to poison everything".

But why does it have to be ONE thing? Hitchens is right in saying Religion poisons everything in that he means everywhere it is applied it does more harm than good. However, one can not construe to mean Religion is the main reason for suffering and strife.

I'm sorry but when you talk seriously about civilization and its problems, suffering and morality etc. one has to seriously conclude that this is a complicated topic open for ration..

[lashkaretoiba]

I have to take Hitchen to task on Russia.

Sorry but Communist do not believe in God peroid. Communist texts by karl marx are not only filled with anti-semtic rants but are also the disbelief for God.

Dear leader is a Man. A Man is not a God. Perhaps, one would could assert "demigod"

but even that has no relation to the "bibical God", "spinoza's God", or "isa" not in this context. As Hitchen would like us to believe.

That is ex-communist comming out in him.

[dougmanjones]

Karl Marx was (ethnically) Jewish. He was anti-religious, but hardly anti-semitic.

Also, communism, as practiced by governments, do not necessarily require atheism. For example- Cuba, where most people are Catholic. North Korea- where people are taught Kim Jong Il is, himself, a deity.

There are parallels between communism and atheism, but they are not necessarily co-dependant or mutually inclusive.

[VarialProductions]

That wasn't the point. He said that the people of Russia because of a incredulous faith-based mentality were readily exploitable to the cynical such as Stalin.

[geeoogle]

nature, including human nature, can only function with balancing reactionary force. Otherwise nature couldnt survive in the universe of limited resources.

[Phi1618033]

Prayer is a moral action? WTF? Religious people just don't get it. Maybe they never will.

[martiangrundy]

"Something poisons everything".

Right so get rid of religion, and at least that will get rid of quite a lot that we know about.

Then any that happens after that we can deal with those on their merits.

[Grak70]

Segment before this: "redefining secular regimes as religious is special pleading."

This segment: "For me, praying for my children is one of the most moral things I can do."

gtfo.

[ChicksInKicksTV]

Absolute faith poisons everything.

[Lion117]

Something poisons everything.

[poorknight123]

I worship the magic marshmallow, and that makes me more moral than Christians because only I can do the magic marshmallow dance - which is an act of morality that they are incapable of.

[weversonman]

I think the fact that Christianity is spreading in China, South America, and Africa is a good point. But the contrast to that is that churches are getting emptier and emptier in every developed country in which people enjoy a high standard of living. The areas of growth are places where people are on the whole poorly educated and live under poor economic conditions. They've been brought over by missionaries and it's no argument for the validity of the concept. Educated people are leaving.

[earthypig]

"praying" is a moral action? only morons would think that!

[earthypig]

"praying" is thinking you have a skydaddy that you can talk to and having enough hubris to think that he will favor u over all the others who are not grovelling and *praying* to him.

it's brownnosing to your imaginary friend.

[earthypig]

praying is a feel good idiocy.

[RDissonant]

praying is the only way to do absolutely nothing and still feel good about yourself.

[earthypig]

Religion is the biggest conspiracy theory. a bunch of idiots who think they have the whole cosmos figured out. Gimme a break!

[Ellesime89]

"...And it isn't an action, either." Haha

[irishmauddib]

Ah 8:30 the old "We have more beleivers than you do so we win" argument. A useless argument. Remember all that once upon a time EVERYONE beleived that the earth was flat. Did this make it true? Clearly not.

[pfisterbaby]

OK LOL lemme get this straight, you agree that theres something wrong with humanity, but theres no way it can be Religion. Pretty sure Jews and Muslims wouldn't be fighting over a virtually worthless territory if that were true. The inability for Roberts to analyze the white noise coming from his mouth is just irritating. Hitchens clearly lays out logically that you can't believe in religion without extraordinary faith based reasons yet fundamentalists can't grasp this simple concept.

[sashascall]

"Pretty sure Jews and Muslims wouldn't be fighting over a virtually worthless territory if that were true."

....Really??? You don't think two nations would fight over land...even without a difference of religion?

And don't you know what "white noise" means? You just called Hitchens incoherent!

[kingthamus]

Furthermore, you reveal your level of intelligence by misreading a clear statement: "The inability to analyze the white noise coming from his [own] mouth..." He called Roberts incoherent, not Hitchens.

[sashascall]

Then it's a meaningless statement. How can someone analyze white noise? The definition of white noise is that it's random, which means it defies analysis! You wouldn't be upset that Roberts can't analyze white noise, you'd be astounded if he could!

When applied to Hitchens it becomes more metaphorical, as if the writer thinks Hitchens is so above someone's level that his words sound like white noise. Either way the post is poorly written. It is definitely not "clear", so reserve your insults.

[kingthamus]

Well, that's just stupid. It was a clear remark for anyone who is accustomed to reading.

[sashascall]

And that's a stupid statement for anyone accustomed to arguing. You've left two conclusions:

a) you're wrong.

b) I'm not accustomed to reading.

Stupid is as stupid does sir.

[kingthamus]

Ma'am, "b" is the correct answer.

[sashascall]

The really pathetic part about this is that as I type this in another thread you're having me explain why I find you immature.

[kingthamus]

Congratulations.  Do you have anything relevant to say?

[irishmauddib]

Just reading over the comments. Nothing to do with me I know but can you quote for me where the user said what you refer to when you say "you don't think two nations would fight over land?"

It seems to me the user is saying they wouldnt fight over WORTHLESS land, a part of the users comment you convieniently ignore. Changing what people say into something they did not say in order to attack it better is not big... its not clever.

[sashascall]

Gee. Great point. How will I ever respond to that? Do I even need to?

Irishmauddib I've talked to you enough to know that you don't really know much history. The number of times countries have fought over "worthless" pieces of land, even when religion was not involved, is mind-boggling. Wars are started over soccer games let alone "worthless" pieces of land!

[irishmauddib]

And Ive talked to you enough to know that all you do is talk yourself out of having to make a point ("Do I even need to?") or use false ad hominem ("you dont really know much history") and you dont even address the points put to you (I asked you where the user said anything about worthless land, you didnt answer)

[sashascall]

"I asked you where the user said anything about worthless land, you didnt answer"

Because it's self-evident you fucking idiot. See that blue scroller on the right hand side? MOVE IT UP. GO TO THE POST. READ FOR YOURSELF.

I'm not talking to you any more. You're just downright retarded.

[irishmauddib]

Ah insults followed by a withdrawl. Not big. Not clever.

The user didnt make the inference you put in his mouth and now you dont have the decency to withdraw the statement. Also not big. Also not clever.

At least some intellectual honesty would be nice. Some decorum please.

[sashascall]

"Pretty sure Jews and Muslims wouldn't be fighting over a virtually worthless territory if that were true."

vs.

"I asked you where the user said anything about worthless land, you didnt answer"

You are fucking retarded.

[irishmauddib]

"I'm not talking to you any more."

A liar are you too?

You know what I was referring to. Yes I made a typo here, well done for pointing it out. Youre the big man now.

But you know what Im referring to. HE said worthless land and YOU suggested he said ANY land. Have the honesty to withdraw that comment. Show SOMME honesty here. Or is lies like above and insults all you are made of?

[irishmauddib]

He said.

"Pretty sure Jews and Muslims wouldn't be fighting over a virtually worthless territory if that were true."

and here is what you said

"You don't think two nations would fight over land..."

Have some honesty and admit you changed what he said slightly to make it look ridiculous when in fact he never claimed any such thing. Can the theist be honest? Show us.

Of course you are not talking to me anymore so I guess you cant.... oh wait you lied about that too... pattern?...

[gdn12]

This fucking debate is more like 2 against 1.Chris against mark and the radio host.i dont like the fact that the point of whether jesus ever existed or not was not discussed more in detail because there are alot of interesting points to be brought out on that.

[TomPiltoff]

I disagree. Of all of those who disagree with Hitchens views on religion I find Hugh Hewitt to be the most intelligent and respectful.

[BeforeTheNoose]

Hugh Hewitt is the most respect and intelligent i've heard so far. But he is still clearly bias.

[sashascall]

Yes but Hitchens doesn't seem to mind and it's still a good conversation so I don't think it's that big a deal. It would be different if they were ganging up to control the airtime, which they're not.

[TBlake34]

After all this time the religious still doesn't get it. Cases of religious people acting horribly are not examples of perversions of religion. Religion asks its followers to do terrible, immoral things.

[Rhology]

Please. As if you as an atheist (if you're an atheist) have an objective way to define "moral" and "immoral".

[TBlake34]

Lame. Why does it need to be "objective" to have functional utility? And most of all, why do I need any reference to religion to be able to develop a system of morality. Every serious philosophical system since Aristotle has understood the futility of basing morality on a god. And no one since Kant, who argued that whether there is or isn't a god, we cannot base any of our systematic thought on his reality, has even tried. Nope, just the nutters who advance silly arguments like yours.

[Rhology]

B/c if it's not objective, then I can just stipulate my own subjective moral basis and you have no rational way to challenge it.

I didn't say you need a religion, but I do maintain that you need an objective basis to ground an OBJECTIVE morality.  It just so happens the only rationally maintainable basis is a theistic God.

"Every serious" - oh, big talk. Maybe you could explain HOW you would do so. You're welcome to try at my blog. rhoblogy dot blogspot

[TBlake34]

Within the context of our culture murder is wrong. We enforce that rule. It isn't objective, yet it functions perfectly well. It isn't true because God said so, It's true because man discovered murder destroys society.

Why do I need anything more than that?

[Rhology]

So it's culture-specific? Can you condemn a ritualistic murder in another culture, then, as morally wrong? How about the Nazi genocide - since society approved of it, it must have been OK, then?

And so what if murder destroys society? Why is that the basis for morality? Who said? You? If so, I say opposite, and where are we now? Nowhere objective, that's for sure!

[TBlake34]

That is such a lame argument. You jump to extremes, trying to make a straw man to make your nonsensical system seem legitimate.

We can learn how to treat one another by observing what humans need to lead a fulfilling life. This empiricism is, roughly speeking, the foundation of Aristotlian ethics. The BASIS for morality, which you seem concerned about, is the observational gathering of information throughout history. I can condemn ritualistic murder by observing its effect on people. Lame try.

[Rhology]

It's called a reductio ad absurdum - reducing your argument to its logical conclusion to see if it works.

Just answer the question.

But WHY aid others in living a fulfilling life? Come on - you're the "reasonable atheist" - just answer the question.

You're making a basic philosophical mistake - confusing IS with OUGHT. It's OK - many atheists have gone before you in the same screw-up. At least have the balls and intellectual honesty to admit it.

[TBlake34]

Ahh yes, the naturalistic fallacy. So we have made it back to philosophy 101. That is only a problem if I need to know in some meta-physical sense that I am 100% correct. I don't care. Why aid others? Because I am not retarded and I can look around and contrast suffering from happiness. Add to that out knowledge of psychology, which easily rebuts the childish argument of"women in Muslim countires like burkhas," and you end up with a reasonable, non-objective basis for human morality.

[TBlake34]

Hume is right about the impossibility of deriving an OUGHT from an IS and its impact on the way that many ethics philosophers (Kant primarily) sought to develop universal laws from human reason--the categorical imperitive and such. But that's not what I'm arguing, which is why your reductio is so silly. To paraphrase Hitchens, murder wasn't condoned before the Israelites received the ten commandments.

[Rhology]

Contrast suffering with happiness all day. I want to know WHY suffering=bad and happiness=good.

And it IS what you're arguing - you're saying these things that make you unhappy are bad, etc.

And no one is arguing that murder was OK before the 10 Cmdmts - burn your strawman elsewhere. It's also a tu quoque - two philosophical fallacies in one sentence! I'm impressed.

[TBlake34]

Alright, this is getting silly, you clearly have no interest in even attempting to understand what I'm saying. Why is suffering wrong? I don't see how any human could non-ironically pose that question. Why is getting you hand burned wrong? The answer is the same. I would need more if I were trying to sustain a universal, objective system. I'm not. Why was murder wrong in the Israeli community before the ten commandments?

[Rhology]

I'm arguing that God is the basis for objective morality. COMMUNICATION of that morality is irrelevant to its objectivity or to the subjectivity of your own moral system.

[TBlake34]

And like every other thinker before you, you will fail to establish any sort of reasonable system from that "truth." God isn't the basis of your morality, some ancient plagarist from one religion or another who was concerned with his immediate reality and pretended like supernatural powers were behind him is.

[Rhology]

Oops, missed this one down low.

But you've still not answered my questions on morality.

And you don't know whether God is the basis or not - you can't prove a negative, that the Bible is *not* the Word of God. I was beginning to think you had some philosophical training, but maybe not since that's 3 classic fallacies in 2 consecutive comments.

[TBlake34]

I don't think you understand the naturalistic fallacy. For example, Hume also pointed out that there is nothing logically necessary about causation. One is incapable of proving that just because things have behaved one way in the past, they will continue to do so in the future. Claiming certainty about causation is also a fallacy in logical terms, yet we do so every day, and our entire society is built around technology that has been developed in spite of this problem. The NF is no different.

[Rhology]

1) I didn't mention causation anywhere. But I'm glad to know that you doubt that things need a cause. Ludicrous.

2) I didn't mention the naturalistic fallacy. Actually never heard of it. Thanks for pointing it out, though - I will. :-)

3) You keep saying that it IS preferable, that we DON'T PREFER to be shoved into ovens. You consistently leave out the WHY, the SO WHAT of the question. That's what I want answered. Are you talking to someone else here? Answer MY questions.

[TBlake34]

1) The point is that logical truths don't necessarily have the potency you think.

2) the naturalistic fallacy is the Is/Ought gap you refered to. You did bring it up.

3) I treat the things that you call "moral truths" as contigent, observational propositions about the best way to form a society. In that sense I make no conceptual distinction between a restriction on murder and the creation of a capital gains tax, for example.

[TBlake34]

1) I just re-read this and it made me angry. Where did I say things don't need a cause? You have got to be kidding me. The point is clear. Just because Hume proposed a problem with deriving Oughts from Is's, doesn't mean we can functional use that rationale to develop proper laws and codes. In the same way, just because causation doesn't operate with the same sort of logical structure as math, for example, doesn't mean we can't use empirical eveidence of constant conjuntions.

[Rhology]

4) Who cares if HISTORY says so? Is history your Pope of Morality now? Where is your argument for that?

5) Who cares if people like being tortured? I want to know WHY I shouldn't, whether someone likes it or not.

[TBlake34]

4) The point is that you have to observe the history of human society to understand what laws and actions work and what don't. That is how we decide what to promote and what to punish.

5) I can't believe you've actually read what I've written if you are asking this question.

[Rhology]

You have avoided several of my questions.

1) Can you condemn a ritualistic murder in another culture, then, as morally wrong? How about the Nazi genocide - since society approved of it, it must have been OK, then?

2) And so what if murder destroys society? Why is that the basis for morality? Who said? You? If so, I say opposite, and where are we now?

[TBlake34]

I have answered both of those. Begin with the observed proposition that life is preferable when you aren't being starved and shoved into furnaces, and it's a fairly simple step to say that such things shouldn't be imposed on others.

Who says so? History. You can pretend like we know nothing about psychology and make a silly argument claiming some people like being tortured, but we are well aware of what causes such things. You have a different perspective? By all means, show me the facts.

[Rhology]

But you haven't said WHY life SHOULD BE preferable. You're just answering IS questions, but those aren't the questions I'm asking.

History says that some people don't like to be shoved into ovens. It also says that other like shoving people into ovens.  Which am I to believe is "right" and why?

[TBlake34]

Science tells us there is no such thing as race. Therefore the Nazi's argument that they should have a special expemtion to murder nazi's is wrong. We know murder is wrong because sanctioned murder destroys society. We also know the conditions under which humans thrive, therefore it is our duty to stop countries from denying others that right.

[Rhology]

So what if there's no such thing as race? Maybe the "others" are just the next tribe a mile into the jungle, but I define them into non-human-ness. What's wrong with that from an athest POV?

And you keep repeating yourself. SO WHAT if murder destroys society? WHY is destroying society wrong?

And WHO SAYS it's a human right to thrive? Not God, certainly, since you're an atheist. Who then?

[TBlake34]

If there is no scientific basis for race, there is no way to abuse others based on that criteria.

Once again, the answers you are looking for come from an empirical observation of human history. You clearly don't know what that means, but I guess I'll say it again. Who says it? The same people who say that you should eat more vegitables than Ice cream, and sexual abuse is destructive to children. It's one thing to disagree with me, but you don't even understand what has happened.

[Rhology]

Yep, that must be it - I just don't understand what you're saying. :-\ There's no way that the problem here is that you can't/won't answer simple questions, even when I've repeated and clarified them numerous times.

Let the reader judge. Nice talking to you.

[TBlake34]

Haha. You used the naturalistic fallacy and didn't know what it meant. You didn't understand the analogy i was making with Hume's points on causation. You asked the same question over and over ignoring my answer because you had assumed yours was the only acceptable form. And you believe there's a big boogey man in the sky. I'm sure it was my fault.

[Rhology]

I agreed that I don't know what that fallacy is, but I never labeled it "the naturalistic fallacy".

Where did I use it? Quote me and then maybe I'll know what you're talking about.

It's one thing to use an argument, it's another maybe to know what someone else names that argument. I'd be dealing in sophistries if I just said, "You've committed the naturalistic fallacy" but didn't know the definition, but you of course can't quote me saying anythg of the sort. So where did I do that?

[Rhology]

And you have refused to take this to a forum where the character count is not limited to a pitiful 500. I did not even bring up causation; my questions have been very focused and very direct. If you want to go somewhere else, that's fine, but the record will show it and honest readers will see who ran away from what.

[TBlake34]

Uh, ok.  What's a better forum?

[Rhology]

My blog, which I already proposed and you ignored.

rhoblogy blogspot

See you there if you're interested. Just leave a comment and we can correspond.

[TBlake34]

mmkay.

[Rhology]

If you just repeat yourself again, I'm gone. Don't have time to waste with someone who can't even follow a simple line of questioning.

Here's hoping you get it right this time.

[TBlake34]

Such weak, self-righteous attacks are perfect evidence that you've abandoned due to your complete inability to grasp what I'm saying. You have decided that there is only one way to answer the question and you are either too stupid or unwillingly to actually analyze what I'm saying.

[TBlake34]

Im lost. You're right, this forum sucks...

[ThecrazyworldofBM]

hitchens always thinks he is right. although I do think me makes some good points.

[kat1989]

duh why would he hold and express an opinion he believed to be wrong :p

[ThecrazyworldofBM]

hitchens is a fraud, making money in America by badmouthing good people. He is intelligent but also a former commie. George Galloway has described him well.

[knightofdreamz]

He does a decent job of not actually insulting the individual rather than the religion. And you can tell sometimes he has to bite his lip when someone starts spewing something as ignorant as "the worlds 6,000 years old".

[TomPiltoff]

Hitchens is not a fraud. Any time he personally attacks somebody he has good reason. It's just fine if you don't like him, but Hitch DESTROYED Galloway in debate.

[rebharath]

john paul ii was "a great mammal" - ha ha ha :)

[spncram]

1 million points to hitchens! haha!

[RhondaH]

If Hugh and Mark has been born in India, they would probably believe just as hard in Hinduism. Silly all. Majorities are not automatically correct. There is a majority of ignorant people and ignorance is not a path for truth. If you need to pray, pray to yourself. That way you might get an answer - from yourself.

[GrimVixen]

So . . . our host is claiming that Atheists are outnumbered, therefore Believers are right. Say WHAT? How is that rational? Simple answer: it's not. He just ran out of ideas and instead just lashed out like the emotionally volatile dickhead he is. What a joke.

[driubi]

what do you expect from a religious person? rationality? heh

[jackfin]

I think indoctrinating an innocent child, to be most immoral. It's tantamount to child abuse.

[jegonus]

Ditto. Is it any wonder if our parents are Jews, we are, or if they're Hindu, then we are, etc. So obvious. If children were given a world education of religion and left to decide on their own, religion would lose so many new followers. That is the reason for indoctrination. Fear.

[Canaximander]

Labor is the only prayer that nature answers.

-Robert G. Ingersoll 1833 - 1899

[meshie3]

The moral is biological. Is there a part of you that isn't biological? And if so, can I get one of those too?

[ClumsyRoot]

Praying for you children is a moral thing to do? In what possible sense? EVERY parent wishes the best for his child, and for some parents that includes prayer. So what? It's biological, not moral.

[eruagnostic]

About the "answer" to Christophers challenge.

Of course an atheist wouldn't pray to god.

But what's the difference between praying to a god and just sincerely hoping for a good life for ones children apart from the involvement of the god? ... and what excatlyt makes it more moral, if there's a god involved?

So, no. It's not an answer.

[richter75]

Im an atheist and im not hoping for a good life, i`m making myself a good life and instead of thanking god i can go through all my good actions and thank my internal sence of judgement. Religious nutcases are never making sence, and its a reason for that; reason.

[eruagnostic]

But you do HOPE that your CHILDREN will have a good life... right?