Christopher Hitchens, though he was a smart man, all I hear from his sessions and debates are bashing and blunt comments toward religion. Granted I am ignorant to all of his positions, but I heard not one bit of evidence for the claims he maid.
@BassJunkysAnonymous He was a blunt, honest person and I have no doubt that he found willful ignorance of the religious to be insufferable. For which claims do you seek proof? The list of things allowed in the Pentateuch? What he said of Iran? Do you expect someone to prove every sentence they say in a discussion? Look it up yourself if you don't trust that he knows what he's talking about.
Morality does not come from god. It comes from the fact that we are primates, which are and always have been, social creatures, which means that we like spending time with other members of the same species, which is where we find out what doing right and wrong is. The fact that there are people who cant believe that we would be decent people who get on with each other without god is absolutely shocking
@MJ63551 Your order is 1. we are primates. 2. primates are social. 3. we like spending time together. 4. that's where we find out what right and wrong is. Being a social creature comes after having morals, not before. Being social is a good thing, and since we would not be able to decide good vs bad we would not be social. In fact, even if we were social we wouldn't realize the beneficial rewards of morality.
"To me, the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that cannot give way, is an offer of something not worth having. I want to live my life taking the risk all of the time that I don't know anything like enough yet, that I haven't understood enough, that I can't know enough, that I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of the potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom."
@Omariokw The argument fails as there is not a single shred of evidence that there is an eternal damnation. You don't get to make shit up and expect to be taken seriously.
Answer. Morality is a survival instinct present in some mammals. People have been declaring what is right and what is wrong, in the absence of a god, for as long as we can remember.
Do the religious believe in the movement of tectonic plates? Are earthquakes caused by movement of Earth's crust or is an angry God tutoring humanity in the ways of righteousness? If Earth is intelligently designed it's not designed very intelligently! The place is a fucking death trap! An accident waiting to happen. If God cares for us he has a funny way of showing it!
@MrFrontallobotomy "If Earth is intelligently designed it's not designed very intelligently!" lol check this out: The most extraordinary case of fine-tuning of the constants of physics is the cosmological constant, and it seems to be fine-tuned to about one part in 10120. If you had a ruler stretched across the entire universe and thought of it as a radio dial, it would have to be fine-tuned to much, much less than 1 trillionth of an inch.
@Bastiest Ahhh now I understand. You are one of those people who don't see everyone as an individual. You think that one message to one person should be broadcast to all. No my message was directed at Hitchens, not cancer children. Hitchens had a brilliant mind which I find he wasted on petty arguments. Let people believe what they want to believe. If you don't share beliefs with others then don't take part of it.Live and let live. No matter what faith or lack of one you have.
Anyone who begins her argument with HAHAHA or concludes with LOL can not be taken very seriously.
I'm a middle aged, intelligent adult. You need to try a lot harder to keep my attention. I don't believe in God, and I have yet to hear a good reason to change my mind. I require facts, not just promises. I also don't blindly believe things, because I'm not an idiot.
Christopher Hitchins did more for mankind than any religious zealot has ever done. The world is better because he lived in it.
"do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is not the motto of satanism but the founding principle of aleister crowleys thelema, if i may be so bold as to correct a man of such great intellect
@Andrew920917 crowley wasn`t a moral man but he certainly wasn`t a satanist, he thought, as do i, that the bible was horseshit and to believe in satan/the devil etc. you had to buy into all that old testament shite but he clearly enjoyed shocking people and revelled in his awful reputation. he used his cult status to fuck as many women as he possibly could, the old goat.
@SgtHawkinspxs You're an asshole! Would you say the same thing in the childrens ward of a hospital where many parents are on bended knee praying for that divine intervention?
@TheFedupcitizen The logic is sound. He was a very intellectual man but I think he wasted his gift on petty arguments that don't matter. I don't see any connection between cancer children and my comment.
petty arguments that don't matter? Like children being able to access a decent education including a broadminded view of science and history, or having an education at all in the case of islamic girls!
Or the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people suffering and dying for religious reasons every year! Or that religions create completely unnecessary conflicts between otherwise right-minded people!?
Such a far-reaching social problem is very important I think.
@SgtHawkinspxs The fact that you DON'T see it is what IS wrong with you. Should children with cancer spend more time finding a cure? And when they die, will you tell their grieving parents that the child should have spent more time finding a cure?
Ask a christian: Do you agree with stoning disobedient children, killing everyone not believing in your god, stoning women for getting raped and find eternal torture a fitting punishment for thinking a sinful thought? If he/she said no to any of these they´re cherry picking, and they´re doing so using a morality not based on religion.
George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Darwin, Jesus, Gandhi, John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr....all people whom I admire for their messages
likewise, I think there's a piece of God in ALL of them..
Anyone else has mentioned the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam?
I mean, I'm definitely not religious, but although I do agree that obsessively religious groups have a monopoly on suicide bombing, they're not the only ones doing it.
This one group I just mentioned are the most vicious suicide bombers and they are secularists (Marxist Atheist).
Morality falls under the Physiological Imperative of "Social-Amity."
Morality can be molded, which means that it is entirely subjective.
Morality, essentially, is the brain's way of retaining the rules of a culture and helping you follow them -- this occurs at a very young age. This way, your mind automatically remembers the rules and gives you an emotional string-plucking to remind you. It's like breathing, your body does it on its own.
@benoitddd42 his answer is: faith is used by sick, selfish people to justify horrible violent acts against humanity, while the absence of faith forces you to face your morals and realize what a horrible decision you are about to make. he says it is wrong to assume that people would need something like faith, that has been proven to be used for evil, when some of those evil acts can only be justified by faith while outspoken atheists could never even imagine justifying them.
i think the reason that people with "faith" dont end up becoming athiest after hearing thigs like this is because they dont have the slightest idea what them damn words mean. they are stupid.
@AscendingParadigm Yea.... I've figured that fundamental-religious people are not very debatable... I bet if Hitchens would explain the different moral philosophies since ancient Greece to the latest studies, they still would be asking the same questions...
Seems like they simply can NOT understand that they have free will, and they should really think about what things are right/wrong, and take personal responsibility... The truth is not as black and white and simple as the 10 commandments...
@bdejong7 The fact that the question is asked means that the questioner doesn't understand Hitchen's argument to begin with, or they wouldn't have asked the question in the first place; hence "His arguments run circles around theist intellect at blinding speeds". The question is answered repeatedly in all of Hitch' speaking engagements on the subject. Theists fail to follow the logic, revealing their blind position miles behind the argument, by asking questions already addressed.
@AscendingParadigm Something I will point out to you is that the person who asks him this question isn't a theistic intellect, they're a member of the audience. Before I referred you to the program Collision, where Douglas Wilson asks Hitchens the same question. Hitchens doesn't answer.
@bdejong7 You're missing the point my friend, which proves my point my friend. Nevertheless, to win this debate, all theists need to do is deliver a logically lucid argument backed by demonstrable evidence. Supernatural claims demand supernatural evidence. Until you demonstrate that spirits talk to humans through snakes, until you part a sea, until you survive for 3 days underwater inside a fish, until you command the sun to stand still, etc., we have no reason to believe such ever happened.
@AscendingParadigm no, i see your point. the question has been asked in the past and Hitchens has successfully evaded by saying "morality has evolved with us and is derived from innate human solidarity." But this causes problems for Hitchens. innate human solidarity.. derived by whom? is this derivation authoritative? if someone rejects innate human solidarity, are they being evil, or are they just a mutation in the inevitable changes that the evolutionary process requires?
@AscendingParadigm also, here's some supernatural evidence for our claims: the engineering that went into ankles. Bees fooling around in the flower bed. The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt. Joyous laughter. Sunrise, in colour. The ocean at night with a full moon.
@bdejong7 There are detailed natural explanations for everything you listed. There is nothing supernatural or mysterious about it. Review the demonstrable facts collected by unbiased professionals. You can observe any of the great ape social groups & see primitive forms of our morality & thus see how fundamentally basic & essential it is for group survival. You need to demonstrate a talking snake, angel, demon or parting sea, etc., for the biblical supernatural claims to be taken seriously.
@AscendingParadigm except that everything i listed has everything to do with the supernatural. God created it after all. If you really need miracles to believe, look in the Bible. The four gospels are accounts that are written during Christ's ministry on earth (no time for (what you call them) myths to develop) and talk about Christ doing miracles. You say that we see the primitive forms of morality in apes. Why doesn't our morality still evolve? Why are there people like Stalin, Mao, and Pot?
@bdejong7 Ahem, you show that you don't know your bible well. Not one of the four gospels were written while Jesus was alive. In fact, the earliest date given for ANY of the gospels is 60 A.D and this is refused by most respected scholars. Give that, there is still no justification for believing what someone wrote down without ample evidence. By the way, morality has always evolved. The church no longer endorses racism. We don't stone disobedient children either.
@thelordmemnoch nevertheless, the four gospels are historical accounts written by eyewitnesses. most NT critics admit that Jesus performed miracles. Rudolf Bultmann, a NT skeptic and critic says that "there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds which were miracles; ... doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons." the historicity of the gospels is not in question.
@bdejong7 [Rudolf Bultmann, a NT skeptic and critic]
Rudolf Bultmann was hardly a skeptic. Your definition of "skeptic" and "critic" is extremely lacking.
Nothing in the NT was written by eyewitnesses. By any reasonable historical account, everything was written long after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus.
Do a search for "cargo cults" to see how religious fish stories get bigger with each telling.
@sleazybtd Actually the 4 gospels were all eyewitnesses. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all disciples of Christ and were with Him until His ascension into heaven. I haven't searched it yet, but the search "cargo cults" sounds biased already. And anyway, Christianity is not a cult. We don't follow blindly whatever our leader says, we think about it and critically assess it first.
@bdejong7 [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all disciples of Christ]
True, but they didn't actually write the books. The books were written by other people in the gospel's names long after everyone was dead.
["cargo cults" sounds biased already]
Wow. Prejudging from a christian. How novel. Look it up before judging. They're actually historical records of things that happened after WW2. I was using it as an example of how fish stories can get out of hand in less than 1 generation.
@sleazybtd No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote the four gospels. They each have a specific style.
Now, I want to change the subject rather than debate the historicity of the Bible, since it seems we may have to agree to disagree. I want to return to the debate of an atheist's basis of morality. Please remind me of your official answer to the question "what is the basis for your morality?"
@sleazybtd You already said this to me and I already said I don't know when they were written. I guess after the crucifixion. But, your point of four total strangers having different styles is irrelevant. So can 4 people who know each other. The facts aren't against me. All I've said is that the gospels were written by who they say they were, and those people were eyewitnesses, and therefore the historicity of the gospels is not in question.
@bdejong7 in fact, every single person on the planet has a unique writing style, so what you say is.. stating the obvious, and when I say "so can 4 people who know each other" is also stating the obvious. Let's not embarrass ourselves on this very public forum of unanonymity and leave writing styles out of it. :)
@bdejong7 [But, your point of four total strangers having different styles is irrelevant. So can 4 people who know each other]
Holy crap! You're actually arguing against your own point now. You made the claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John must have written the gospels because each book has a different writing style. I countered that claim by saying that any 4 people (strangers or otherwise) would have different writing styles.
@sleazybtd sorry, I shouldn't have said they all have diff. writing styles in the first place. It's irrelevant. I think what I was trying to say is that at least two gospel writers (Luke and John) indicate that they were the authors of the gospels Luke and John. Luke begins with the words "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen."
@bdejong7 Also in the book of Acts, Luke changes tense (speaking about Paul and his companions) from "they" to "we". This shows that at one point he travelled with Paul. This is confirmed in Paul's letters. That shows that Luke wrote both Acts and Luke. As for the book of John, throughout the entire book John refers to one disciple as "the one whom Jesus loved". He never says his own name throughout the book. I admit I don't have further evidence except for the title: "The Gospel of John."
@bdejong7 It sounds like "Luke" was talking in the third person. He says "to the apostles he had chosen". If Luke was one of the apostles and actually wrote that particular line, he would have said it more along the lines of "he gave it to US". This is evidence that Luke did not write it.
Instead of being an amateur investigator trying to figure out things which are way over your head, read the works of some of the christian historians, and see what evidence they present.
@sleazybtd he says "to the apostles he had chosen" because he's writing to someone. also, saying "to the apostles he had chosen" it provides more detail and answers more questions. if he were writing to one of us and just said "he gave it to us".. i at least would ask "who?" and "why?" but the way Luke phrases it "to the apostles he had chosen" answers the "why?".
@bdejong7 You aren't paying attention. The gospels were not written during the time of Christ. Not even biblical scholars will claim that. The historicity isn't in question only if you are a Christian. Open up your bible and you will see that NONE of the gospels were written during Jesus lifetime. I have many bibles in my house. All you have to do is open up your own bible and check the dates. You have a lot of misinformation.
@thelordmemnoch I admit I may be misinformed about when the gospels were written. But I do know that they were all written by eyewitnesses who were Jesus' disciples.
@bdejong7 [I admit I may be misinformed about when the gospels were written]
WTF? In your reply to me, you still claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the 4 gospels, and immediately after, you reply to thelordmemnoch that you don't know when the gospels were written.
You know so little but still make unfounded claims.
Here's a hint, the answer of "I don't know" is a legitimate answer which carries no shame. Not bearing false witness is recommended by the bible.
@sleazybtd first, knowing who wrote the gospels and when they were written are two completely different things. I admit I don't know WHEN they were written, but I know that they WERE written by 4 eyewitnesses of the events recorded.
@bdejong7 Be honest here because the bible tells you not to bear false witness. You don't know WHO and you don't know WHEN the gospels were written. Even christian historians agree that they don't know who wrote it, and they also agree that they were written decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. Somehow, you seem to know more than people whose careers are built on studying the evidence. If you know more, provide evidence.
@bdejong7 "But I do know that they were all written by eyewitnesses who were Jesus' disciples." For the last time, NO THEY WEREN'T. Matthew was a disciple, but the book is of unknown authorship. John was an eyewitness to Jesus, but he didn't write the gospel. The author of that book is also unknown. So again, in case you missed it, NONE OF THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BY EYEWITNESSES OF JESUS.
@bdejong7 "Why doesn't our morality still evolve? Why are there people like Stalin, Mao, and Pot?"--
Because morality isn't inserted into every human by god apparently. Listing Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot actually weakens your argument since a lot of religious folks want to maintain that morality is inherent in us by god. This is simply not the case. Morality evolves over a period of time which is why all social creatures have some form of morality. Why don't piranha eat each other?
@thelordmemnoch no it doesn't weaken my argument because i believe that we are all born in sin and sin has tainted every aspect of our life. we are inclined to hate God and our neighbour. "morality evolves over a period of time".. then why doesn't it still evolve? maybe what we see now has wrong in 1000 years will be right. also, where does morality START? where has it come from?
@bdejong7 [where does morality START? where has it come from?]
It started when humans realized that living together for mutual benefit required certain rules. Those rules became our morals. You can see it in other animals which live in groups.
Chimps live in groups, and they live within certain rules. Anyone breaking the rules gets kicked out of the group.
Dogs also live in packs. There are specific rules to live in the pack. Anyone breaking those rules gets kicked out of the pack.
@sleazybtd Humans cannot realize that "living together for mutual benefit required certain rules". Say you have instinct A: to love your neighbour and do good things, and you have instinct B: to go to war and to kill other people. You do not have the authority to introduce a third instinct by which to choose between the two; it's like lifting yourself up by your own collar.
@bdejong7 [Say you have instinct A: to love your neighbour and do good things, and you have instinct B: to go to war and to kill other people]
Instinct B is your fallacy.
I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but me, my friends, and my family have no desire to go to war and kill other people. Even though many people cause harm in this world, I have no desire to kill any of them.
Seriously, if you have that desire in you, get professional help immediately.
@bdejong7 " no it doesn't weaken my argument because i believe that we are all born in sin" Belief means nothing. Tangible evidence is still required. As for morality evolving, I *just* answered that question. It DOES evolve. Stoning disobedient children, burning witches at the stake, stoning a guy for picking up sticks on the Sabbath won't be condoned by ANY Christian today, yet it was ok 2,000 years ago. Evolving morality is a fact you can't deny.
@thelordmemnoch On the contrary, belief is everything. Every position is a faith position. Evidence is required, but evidence helps you to place your faith in something. So by saying that our morality has evolved you also say that it is innate?
@bdejong7 [You are an atheist. An atheist is one who BELIEVES that there is no god. You have FAITH in that idea, based on the evidence.]
Actually, there is NO evidence, which is why I don't believe in the existence of god. There is no evidence for fairies either, so I don't believe in their existence. Try not to get the points backwards, it makes you look unintelligent.
@bdejong7 Every position is not faith based, that is a cop out so that you don't feel alone in believing something with no evidence. If you have evidence "faith" is not only not required, it becomes impossible. I love how you are misconstruing everything. If morality has evolved, why would I say it's innate? It's developed over generations upon generations of successful populations. I already gave you examples, I don't know why you are still confused.
@thelordmemnoch ...first, every position is a faith position, because when you explain it, you begin by saying I BELIEVE etc. When there is no proof of something you: Step 1: look at the evidence. Step 2: take a FAITH position based on the evidence. I know and understand your examples. You still haven't given the BASIS for morality. "It's evolved." From what? You say "developed over generations of successful populations." Do you mean to say it's evolved from innate human solidarity?
FAITH: [feyth] 2. belief that is not based on proof:
Once there is proof/evidence, it ceases to be faith based. If you want to say that there is some amount of faith BEFORE viewing the evidence, I might grant you that, but that's not what you are saying judging by your post. I like the fact that you have enough sense as to try to distance yourself from faith which has always been viewed as good. Faith is idiotic.
@thelordmemnoch I didn't say that I take a faith position based on proof. Then it wouldn't be a faith position. [Once there is proof/evidence] First of all, proof and evidence are not synonymous. Proof is defined as: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true". Those first 2 words "evidence sufficient" are the key. Evidence is defined as: "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;". Faith is belief based upon evidence, not proof.
@bdejong7 I think we can both agree that there isn't proof for evolution, and neither is there proof of a Creator. You look at the evidence of the earth and the universe etc., and you say "I believe it's here because of random chance." I look at the evidence of the earth and the universe etc., and I say "I believe that since it's so amazing there must be a Creator."
@bdejong7 No we can't agree on your first sentence. There is ample evidence for evolution That the religious reject it is a matter entirely different. In every almost every single instance that I debate evolution, Creationists are found to be lacking in knowledge and frankly I doubt this instance will be different. The fossil evidence is pretty overwhelming, but the best evidence would be DNA. Mitochondrial DNA, dating back 200,000 years links us to earlier creatures.
@shumble32 - the chance straw-man is the theist habit of staying that atheists ascribe the creation of the universe and/or evolution to chance. They don't, it's just a theist straw-man so please stop it.
@bdejong7 First of all, morality isn't solely a human necessity so let's start right there. Before we evolved into our modern form, some system of morality has been taking place. The basis for what you view morality can easily be explained with one word: Survival. Physically weak social creatures could not survive the dinosaurs, for instance, if they didn't look out after one another. Some system of "agreement" within a social group is a must. As it is, morality is subjective.
@bdejong7 Morality comes from our basic need to survive. Animals that cannot work together towards a common goal will be a weak species and will die out. A monkey has morality and a shark doesn't because of evolution, not because god puts it in them. If a god did then they would BOTH have it. If morality is only human then a monkey *shouldn't* have it. It's an evolutionary necessity.
@Hamez93 As he said at the start, he had already addressed that issue in his talk. Or did you start the video halfway through? Perhaps *you* were the questioner?
lol. the sense of right and wrong is a compulsion. where does this compulsion come from if not God? we are born inherently selfish and carnal. what would lead it to change if not a change in perception? what would lead someone to percieving differently? it can't be your mind, since perceptions are our premises, whereas conclusions would be based on current perceptions. therefore, it couldn't be the reasoning and conclusions in our mind....
@roy3951 Indeed he was. A great man. If this is "ahead of the times" in which you are living, I am very sorry. I'm assuming it's the US. No offense to you or any Americans, but how can such a developed country believe in such backward garbage?
@roy3951 depends on how you look at it, if you are saying that in the future there will be more religious people there for he will be needed; i hope not, theres alredy too many nowdays. if you are saying that in the future there will be more atheists there for he would truly belong in the future then yes i agree x)
@roy3951 said "we lost a great man in this christopher hitchens. far ahead of his time"
He was not ahead of his time. There is nothing new under the sun. He is not lost either, if you will but take up the flag and rally those around you. (Gently, it is easy to be to militant.)
@redshark618 am not a strong believer in god/religion or the laws that have been set for people to live by and i question the methods of it... so your right hope is probably not the word
a better question would be: are good and evil human constructs? if they are, what then of the state of morality itself? if they aren't, by what superlative (or scale) do we judge things as good or evil? a much more interesting question with a more interesting answer. by name dropping "God" in the question almost always leads to some bash on christianity rather than an insight into atheistic morality.
I always laugh at what Hitchens says because he often contradicts himself. In one interview he will say we can't disprove the existence of God and atheists don't set out to do that, which is completely wrong because they do. Then in another interview he will say he doesn't believe in God. lol
@foxylord What's your point? Just because we can't 100% prove a god doesn't exist, doesn't mean we have to believe in a god.
When talking about "God" we can reasonably say "God" doesn't exist. Why? Because the idea of "God" was created and spread by superstitious human beings who feared the unknown.
Saying "God" doesn't exist and saying a god doesn't exist are two different things. We can reasonably disprove "God's" existence, but we can't reasonably prove a god doesn't exist.
@foxylord I guess I should have continued my thought. Even though we can't soundly disprove the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer, there is far more evidence in favor of evolution than there is is support of a supernatural explanation. Therefore we can put the questionable existence of supernatural maker in the same category as unicorns, mermaids, goblins, Santa Claus, etc.
@foxylord I was a Catholic I know all about St. Nick. Just because Santa was based off of a real person doesn't mean he is real. That's like saying the tooth fairy is real because it is based off a dentist or something. You are hurting your argument already.
As for your statement on God and evolution, the beauty of evolution is, it can stand on it's own without the need for a supernatural being's help. It proves the universe came about without supernatural input or guidance.
@RoCk4LiFe90 It's called humour. Something atheists seem lacking in quite often.
As a scientist I refute that claim that it can stand alone. I have looked into the nature of things and found far too much order and design, but that is just the tip of the iceberg to my faith. How can all of the laws we know of plus the developments in life to such a vast extent happen as something from nothing in a random event? Impossible!
Oh wait tell you what lets invent a mathematical theory lol
@foxylord Oh it was a joke . . . right. Anyway, the fact that you refute a substantial amount of evidence because you think everything is designed tells me you are not a scientist. You are an intelligent design advocate(creationist) nothing more. Your would be attempts at distorting and refuting positive scientific evidence, in order to squeeze in your imaginary man, is childish at best.
@RoCk4LiFe90 That shows how much you know then lol I have a scientific honours degree, and I have worked very successfully in several scientific fields, because of the nature of my work. Just as Einstein did I have also found God in the creation, and order of the universe and everything contained therein.
@foxylord "...I have also found God in the creation, and order of the universe and everything contained therein."
Wow, then you MUST post these equations that include your deity in their structures. Quantum physics, medicine, etc. are unaware of these equations, and I am strongly in favor of anything that expands the evidence-based body of scientific knowledge. I feel cheated...I have a doctorate, two master's degrees and work in medical research and have NEVER been exposed to these equations!
@foxylord Bullshit. Science is the archetype of self-criticism. Disproving old theories or providing evidence for the new is how scientists make names for themselves. The scientific method demands re-analysis of data.
Besides,you have a command to try to convert unbelievers. If you present this peer-reviewable, reproducible evidence of your deity's incorporation into scientific principles, it will be "gobbled up"by today's Journals, and many will accept your deity as a fact rather than a belief
@foxylord Alternatively, how much data has to be compiled to incriminate a given myth-belief or deity as supernatural gibberish before its devout myth-believers abandon their beliefs? The "closed mind" analogy lies with the well-indoctrated who accept their "faiths" on nothing more than "belief" while blithly dismissing all other myth-beliefs that are based on the same level of proof--simple personal "belief."
@foxylord "Who is to say that God doesn't use evolution as a means of protecting His creation in a changing environment?"
With more than 99% of species that ever existed extinct? Some protection!
"It's called humour. Something atheists seem lacking in quite often."
So what are your favourite jokes from the Bible, then? Off the top of your head? Mm? No, it seems that your god doesn't have a sense of humour, either.
@foxylord Wow how clever you are you figured us out, damn you. You obviously do not understand what he means. If you would actually listen to any thinking atheist they point out that it is impossible to conclusively deny the existence of any gods or other fantastical claims. That is very different from evidence and likelihood of such claims of which there is none.
@lololololol47 Oh I understand it very well but I see it slightly differently to you. I see a man who is denying God exists but at the same time edging his bets just in case.
@foxylord Hmm that seems difficult to understand considering your God, I assume you are a christian, is not portrayed as very forgiving and Hitchens himself said many things that would be rather unforgivable to your diety. I suppose you can derive all sorts of opinions on Christopher and his life and thats fine too. He himself would probably laugh at most of the things said of him honestly. But he is dead and no longer in any sense alive so its pure speculation.
Christopher Hitchens, though he was a smart man, all I hear from his sessions and debates are bashing and blunt comments toward religion. Granted I am ignorant to all of his positions, but I heard not one bit of evidence for the claims he maid.
BassJunkysAnonymous 19 hours ago
@BassJunkysAnonymous He was a blunt, honest person and I have no doubt that he found willful ignorance of the religious to be insufferable. For which claims do you seek proof? The list of things allowed in the Pentateuch? What he said of Iran? Do you expect someone to prove every sentence they say in a discussion? Look it up yourself if you don't trust that he knows what he's talking about.
NeoConsREvil 17 hours ago
@NeoConsREvil I don't doubt he knows what he is talking about. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with him.
BassJunkysAnonymous 1 hour ago
Morality does not come from god. It comes from the fact that we are primates, which are and always have been, social creatures, which means that we like spending time with other members of the same species, which is where we find out what doing right and wrong is. The fact that there are people who cant believe that we would be decent people who get on with each other without god is absolutely shocking
MJ63551 1 day ago
@MJ63551 Your order is 1. we are primates. 2. primates are social. 3. we like spending time together. 4. that's where we find out what right and wrong is. Being a social creature comes after having morals, not before. Being social is a good thing, and since we would not be able to decide good vs bad we would not be social. In fact, even if we were social we wouldn't realize the beneficial rewards of morality.
bdejong7 1 day ago
@Ultramediacorp Grow up you uneducated bigot.
EmeryColors 2 days ago
If God doesn't exist everything is permitted
father042 2 days ago
Thank God that asshole dumbshit is dead. He believes in God now ha ha ha ha
Hows sucking dead monkey dicks in hell working out for ya xtopher hitchens!
Ultramediacorp 2 days ago
@Ultramediacorp What a turd you are. You sound like a Christian.
gamesbok 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HE IS IN THE LAKE OF THE FIRE NOW!!
freandwhickquest 2 days ago
"THERE, that's my answer"
Like a boss.
Arahant108 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join in on Debates at:
religiousdebates.co.uk
YouTutorials0 2 days ago
"To me, the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that cannot give way, is an offer of something not worth having. I want to live my life taking the risk all of the time that I don't know anything like enough yet, that I haven't understood enough, that I can't know enough, that I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of the potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom."
ChaseKittens 2 days ago
"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law" words to live by
SyrinxPriestOf 2 days ago
name one action performed by a believer in the name of faith that a non-believer could not do:
Bring another man/woman into believing in God and be saved eternal damnation.
Omariokw 3 days ago
@Omariokw The argument fails as there is not a single shred of evidence that there is an eternal damnation. You don't get to make shit up and expect to be taken seriously.
thelordmemnoch 2 days ago
Faith will never move mountains.
We've all seen what it can do to skyscrapers though.
leafblight27 3 days ago
Destroyed
SineFractal 3 days ago
Answer. Morality is a survival instinct present in some mammals. People have been declaring what is right and what is wrong, in the absence of a god, for as long as we can remember.
rubycubicle 4 days ago
@rubycubicle HOW have they been declaring what is right and wrong.
bdejong7 3 days ago
Do the religious believe in the movement of tectonic plates? Are earthquakes caused by movement of Earth's crust or is an angry God tutoring humanity in the ways of righteousness? If Earth is intelligently designed it's not designed very intelligently! The place is a fucking death trap! An accident waiting to happen. If God cares for us he has a funny way of showing it!
MrFrontallobotomy 4 days ago
@MrFrontallobotomy "If Earth is intelligently designed it's not designed very intelligently!" lol check this out: The most extraordinary case of fine-tuning of the constants of physics is the cosmological constant, and it seems to be fine-tuned to about one part in 10120. If you had a ruler stretched across the entire universe and thought of it as a radio dial, it would have to be fine-tuned to much, much less than 1 trillionth of an inch.
bdejong7 3 days ago
I could listen to this man talk all day. Very inspiring.
TNoiro 4 days ago
Basically, he answered your question by not answering it and bitchslapped over half of the world's population at the same time.
Bastiest 6 days ago
@Bastiest Ahhh now I understand. You are one of those people who don't see everyone as an individual. You think that one message to one person should be broadcast to all. No my message was directed at Hitchens, not cancer children. Hitchens had a brilliant mind which I find he wasted on petty arguments. Let people believe what they want to believe. If you don't share beliefs with others then don't take part of it.Live and let live. No matter what faith or lack of one you have.
SgtHawkinspxs 5 days ago
@SgtHawkinspxs *blinks*
I don't know which rat's arse you pulled that out from but please put it back.
Bastiest 5 days ago
@Bastiest Typical Atheist response is an Ad hominem when they don't have an intelligent rebuttal. Nice try but your reply is inefficient.
SgtHawkinspxs 4 days ago
@SgtHawkinspxs No, you are still just pulling stuff out of your arse.
Bastiest 4 days ago
@Bastiest Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Thank you for clarifying.
SgtHawkinspxs 4 days ago
@SgtHawkinspxs Insanity: You pulling stuff out of your arse which I don't even bother to answer to.
Bastiest 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyone who begins her argument with HAHAHA or concludes with LOL can not be taken very seriously.
I'm a middle aged, intelligent adult. You need to try a lot harder to keep my attention. I don't believe in God, and I have yet to hear a good reason to change my mind. I require facts, not just promises. I also don't blindly believe things, because I'm not an idiot.
Christopher Hitchins did more for mankind than any religious zealot has ever done. The world is better because he lived in it.
mdmusil 6 days ago
"do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is not the motto of satanism but the founding principle of aleister crowleys thelema, if i may be so bold as to correct a man of such great intellect
777oddball 1 week ago
@777oddball wasn't aleister crowley a satanist? even if he wasn't, he's hardly a moral man
Andrew920917 1 week ago
@Andrew920917 crowley wasn`t a moral man but he certainly wasn`t a satanist, he thought, as do i, that the bible was horseshit and to believe in satan/the devil etc. you had to buy into all that old testament shite but he clearly enjoyed shocking people and revelled in his awful reputation. he used his cult status to fuck as many women as he possibly could, the old goat.
777oddball 6 days ago
@777oddball yeah i guess. Veryy strange man though,
Andrew920917 6 days ago
Hitchens: God with my superior intellect I have spent my life denouncing you and your followers.
God: You should have spent your time trying to cure cancer.
SgtHawkinspxs 1 week ago
@SgtHawkinspxs You're an asshole! Would you say the same thing in the childrens ward of a hospital where many parents are on bended knee praying for that divine intervention?
TheFedupcitizen 1 week ago
@TheFedupcitizen The logic is sound. He was a very intellectual man but I think he wasted his gift on petty arguments that don't matter. I don't see any connection between cancer children and my comment.
SgtHawkinspxs 1 week ago
@SgtHawkinspxs
petty arguments that don't matter? Like children being able to access a decent education including a broadminded view of science and history, or having an education at all in the case of islamic girls!
Or the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people suffering and dying for religious reasons every year! Or that religions create completely unnecessary conflicts between otherwise right-minded people!?
Such a far-reaching social problem is very important I think.
InnuendoXP 1 week ago
@SgtHawkinspxs The fact that you DON'T see it is what IS wrong with you. Should children with cancer spend more time finding a cure? And when they die, will you tell their grieving parents that the child should have spent more time finding a cure?
TheFedupcitizen 5 days ago
They dropped the ball and then he dropped DA BOMB
leelue7 1 week ago
Ask a christian: Do you agree with stoning disobedient children, killing everyone not believing in your god, stoning women for getting raped and find eternal torture a fitting punishment for thinking a sinful thought? If he/she said no to any of these they´re cherry picking, and they´re doing so using a morality not based on religion.
Their statement have just become invalid.
LoverofLiszt 1 week ago 2
George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Darwin, Jesus, Gandhi, John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr....all people whom I admire for their messages
likewise, I think there's a piece of God in ALL of them..
Flyboy243 1 week ago
Christopher Hitchens is a GOD!!!! (and yes I understand the irony of the statement)
mylifeisawesome42 1 week ago
Ha! Hitchslapped that's brilliant
Slugginz 1 week ago
RIP HITCH!
dkthg 1 week ago
Anyone else has mentioned the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam?
I mean, I'm definitely not religious, but although I do agree that obsessively religious groups have a monopoly on suicide bombing, they're not the only ones doing it.
This one group I just mentioned are the most vicious suicide bombers and they are secularists (Marxist Atheist).
Ebvardh 2 weeks ago
Morality is completely subjective.
AnxietyPro 2 weeks ago
@AnxietyPro
Correct my good friend.
Morality falls under the Physiological Imperative of "Social-Amity."
Morality can be molded, which means that it is entirely subjective.
Morality, essentially, is the brain's way of retaining the rules of a culture and helping you follow them -- this occurs at a very young age. This way, your mind automatically remembers the rules and gives you an emotional string-plucking to remind you. It's like breathing, your body does it on its own.
Nemesis0300 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 2 weeks ago
Ah god if only those interviews could be made into texts, I speak english but not perfectly and I don't understand his answer, but I'd love to! grr
benoitddd42 2 weeks ago
@benoitddd42 his answer is: faith is used by sick, selfish people to justify horrible violent acts against humanity, while the absence of faith forces you to face your morals and realize what a horrible decision you are about to make. he says it is wrong to assume that people would need something like faith, that has been proven to be used for evil, when some of those evil acts can only be justified by faith while outspoken atheists could never even imagine justifying them.
schlafanzyk 2 weeks ago
genital mutilation lol and whoa
straighter100 3 weeks ago
i think the reason that people with "faith" dont end up becoming athiest after hearing thigs like this is because they dont have the slightest idea what them damn words mean. they are stupid.
pkendall19 3 weeks ago
i forgot the question after all that babel
paleface8 3 weeks ago
His arguments run circles around theist intellect at blinding speeds, evidenced by the question which inspired this HITCHSLAP.
AscendingParadigm 3 weeks ago 45
@AscendingParadigm Yea.... I've figured that fundamental-religious people are not very debatable... I bet if Hitchens would explain the different moral philosophies since ancient Greece to the latest studies, they still would be asking the same questions...
Seems like they simply can NOT understand that they have free will, and they should really think about what things are right/wrong, and take personal responsibility... The truth is not as black and white and simple as the 10 commandments...
aakkoin 2 weeks ago
@AscendingParadigm watch collision, with Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. Wilson asks the same question and Hitchens doesn't/can't answer it.
bdejong7 6 days ago
@bdejong7 And that means what to you?
AscendingParadigm 6 days ago
@AscendingParadigm that Hitchen's arguments don't run circles around Wilson.. and that Wilson is much smarter than Mcgrath.
bdejong7 6 days ago
@bdejong7 The fact that the question is asked means that the questioner doesn't understand Hitchen's argument to begin with, or they wouldn't have asked the question in the first place; hence "His arguments run circles around theist intellect at blinding speeds". The question is answered repeatedly in all of Hitch' speaking engagements on the subject. Theists fail to follow the logic, revealing their blind position miles behind the argument, by asking questions already addressed.
AscendingParadigm 6 days ago
@AscendingParadigm Something I will point out to you is that the person who asks him this question isn't a theistic intellect, they're a member of the audience. Before I referred you to the program Collision, where Douglas Wilson asks Hitchens the same question. Hitchens doesn't answer.
bdejong7 6 days ago
@bdejong7 You're missing the point my friend, which proves my point my friend. Nevertheless, to win this debate, all theists need to do is deliver a logically lucid argument backed by demonstrable evidence. Supernatural claims demand supernatural evidence. Until you demonstrate that spirits talk to humans through snakes, until you part a sea, until you survive for 3 days underwater inside a fish, until you command the sun to stand still, etc., we have no reason to believe such ever happened.
AscendingParadigm 5 days ago
@AscendingParadigm no, i see your point. the question has been asked in the past and Hitchens has successfully evaded by saying "morality has evolved with us and is derived from innate human solidarity." But this causes problems for Hitchens. innate human solidarity.. derived by whom? is this derivation authoritative? if someone rejects innate human solidarity, are they being evil, or are they just a mutation in the inevitable changes that the evolutionary process requires?
bdejong7 4 days ago
@AscendingParadigm also, here's some supernatural evidence for our claims: the engineering that went into ankles. Bees fooling around in the flower bed. The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt. Joyous laughter. Sunrise, in colour. The ocean at night with a full moon.
bdejong7 4 days ago
@bdejong7 There are detailed natural explanations for everything you listed. There is nothing supernatural or mysterious about it. Review the demonstrable facts collected by unbiased professionals. You can observe any of the great ape social groups & see primitive forms of our morality & thus see how fundamentally basic & essential it is for group survival. You need to demonstrate a talking snake, angel, demon or parting sea, etc., for the biblical supernatural claims to be taken seriously.
AscendingParadigm 4 days ago
@AscendingParadigm except that everything i listed has everything to do with the supernatural. God created it after all. If you really need miracles to believe, look in the Bible. The four gospels are accounts that are written during Christ's ministry on earth (no time for (what you call them) myths to develop) and talk about Christ doing miracles. You say that we see the primitive forms of morality in apes. Why doesn't our morality still evolve? Why are there people like Stalin, Mao, and Pot?
bdejong7 3 days ago
@bdejong7 Clearly the evolutionary process did not affect them, since they killed millions of people.
bdejong7 3 days ago
@bdejong7 Ahem, you show that you don't know your bible well. Not one of the four gospels were written while Jesus was alive. In fact, the earliest date given for ANY of the gospels is 60 A.D and this is refused by most respected scholars. Give that, there is still no justification for believing what someone wrote down without ample evidence. By the way, morality has always evolved. The church no longer endorses racism. We don't stone disobedient children either.
thelordmemnoch 3 days ago
@thelordmemnoch nevertheless, the four gospels are historical accounts written by eyewitnesses. most NT critics admit that Jesus performed miracles. Rudolf Bultmann, a NT skeptic and critic says that "there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds which were miracles; ... doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons." the historicity of the gospels is not in question.
bdejong7 3 days ago
@bdejong7 [Rudolf Bultmann, a NT skeptic and critic]
Rudolf Bultmann was hardly a skeptic. Your definition of "skeptic" and "critic" is extremely lacking.
Nothing in the NT was written by eyewitnesses. By any reasonable historical account, everything was written long after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus.
Do a search for "cargo cults" to see how religious fish stories get bigger with each telling.
sleazybtd 3 days ago
@sleazybtd Actually the 4 gospels were all eyewitnesses. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all disciples of Christ and were with Him until His ascension into heaven. I haven't searched it yet, but the search "cargo cults" sounds biased already. And anyway, Christianity is not a cult. We don't follow blindly whatever our leader says, we think about it and critically assess it first.
bdejong7 2 days ago
@bdejong7 [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all disciples of Christ]
True, but they didn't actually write the books. The books were written by other people in the gospel's names long after everyone was dead.
["cargo cults" sounds biased already]
Wow. Prejudging from a christian. How novel. Look it up before judging. They're actually historical records of things that happened after WW2. I was using it as an example of how fish stories can get out of hand in less than 1 generation.
sleazybtd 2 days ago
@sleazybtd No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote the four gospels. They each have a specific style.
Now, I want to change the subject rather than debate the historicity of the Bible, since it seems we may have to agree to disagree. I want to return to the debate of an atheist's basis of morality. Please remind me of your official answer to the question "what is the basis for your morality?"
bdejong7 2 days ago
@bdejong7 [No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote the four gospels. They each have a specific style]
Four total strangers can also have different writing styles. Even christian historians agree that the gospels were written long after the crucifixion.
Sure, let's conveniently change the subject when the facts are totally against you.
sleazybtd 1 day ago
@sleazybtd You already said this to me and I already said I don't know when they were written. I guess after the crucifixion. But, your point of four total strangers having different styles is irrelevant. So can 4 people who know each other. The facts aren't against me. All I've said is that the gospels were written by who they say they were, and those people were eyewitnesses, and therefore the historicity of the gospels is not in question.
bdejong7 1 day ago
@bdejong7 in fact, every single person on the planet has a unique writing style, so what you say is.. stating the obvious, and when I say "so can 4 people who know each other" is also stating the obvious. Let's not embarrass ourselves on this very public forum of unanonymity and leave writing styles out of it. :)
bdejong7 1 day ago
@bdejong7 [But, your point of four total strangers having different styles is irrelevant. So can 4 people who know each other]
Holy crap! You're actually arguing against your own point now. You made the claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John must have written the gospels because each book has a different writing style. I countered that claim by saying that any 4 people (strangers or otherwise) would have different writing styles.
Do you seriously not understand logic?
sleazybtd 1 day ago
@sleazybtd sorry, I shouldn't have said they all have diff. writing styles in the first place. It's irrelevant. I think what I was trying to say is that at least two gospel writers (Luke and John) indicate that they were the authors of the gospels Luke and John. Luke begins with the words "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen."
bdejong7 1 day ago
@bdejong7 Also in the book of Acts, Luke changes tense (speaking about Paul and his companions) from "they" to "we". This shows that at one point he travelled with Paul. This is confirmed in Paul's letters. That shows that Luke wrote both Acts and Luke. As for the book of John, throughout the entire book John refers to one disciple as "the one whom Jesus loved". He never says his own name throughout the book. I admit I don't have further evidence except for the title: "The Gospel of John."
bdejong7 1 day ago
@bdejong7 It sounds like "Luke" was talking in the third person. He says "to the apostles he had chosen". If Luke was one of the apostles and actually wrote that particular line, he would have said it more along the lines of "he gave it to US". This is evidence that Luke did not write it.
Instead of being an amateur investigator trying to figure out things which are way over your head, read the works of some of the christian historians, and see what evidence they present.
sleazybtd 17 hours ago
@sleazybtd he says "to the apostles he had chosen" because he's writing to someone. also, saying "to the apostles he had chosen" it provides more detail and answers more questions. if he were writing to one of us and just said "he gave it to us".. i at least would ask "who?" and "why?" but the way Luke phrases it "to the apostles he had chosen" answers the "why?".
bdejong7 1 hour ago
@bdejong7 You aren't paying attention. The gospels were not written during the time of Christ. Not even biblical scholars will claim that. The historicity isn't in question only if you are a Christian. Open up your bible and you will see that NONE of the gospels were written during Jesus lifetime. I have many bibles in my house. All you have to do is open up your own bible and check the dates. You have a lot of misinformation.
thelordmemnoch 2 days ago
@thelordmemnoch I admit I may be misinformed about when the gospels were written. But I do know that they were all written by eyewitnesses who were Jesus' disciples.
bdejong7 2 days ago
@bdejong7 [I admit I may be misinformed about when the gospels were written]
WTF? In your reply to me, you still claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the 4 gospels, and immediately after, you reply to thelordmemnoch that you don't know when the gospels were written.
You know so little but still make unfounded claims.
Here's a hint, the answer of "I don't know" is a legitimate answer which carries no shame. Not bearing false witness is recommended by the bible.
sleazybtd 1 day ago
@sleazybtd first, knowing who wrote the gospels and when they were written are two completely different things. I admit I don't know WHEN they were written, but I know that they WERE written by 4 eyewitnesses of the events recorded.
bdejong7 1 day ago
@bdejong7 Be honest here because the bible tells you not to bear false witness. You don't know WHO and you don't know WHEN the gospels were written. Even christian historians agree that they don't know who wrote it, and they also agree that they were written decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. Somehow, you seem to know more than people whose careers are built on studying the evidence. If you know more, provide evidence.
sleazybtd 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bdejong7 "But I do know that they were all written by eyewitnesses who were Jesus' disciples." For the last time, NO THEY WEREN'T. Matthew was a disciple, but the book is of unknown authorship. John was an eyewitness to Jesus, but he didn't write the gospel. The author of that book is also unknown. So again, in case you missed it, NONE OF THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BY EYEWITNESSES OF JESUS.
thelordmemnoch 1 day ago
@bdejong7 "Why doesn't our morality still evolve? Why are there people like Stalin, Mao, and Pot?"--
Because morality isn't inserted into every human by god apparently. Listing Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot actually weakens your argument since a lot of religious folks want to maintain that morality is inherent in us by god. This is simply not the case. Morality evolves over a period of time which is why all social creatures have some form of morality. Why don't piranha eat each other?
thelordmemnoch 3 days ago
@thelordmemnoch no it doesn't weaken my argument because i believe that we are all born in sin and sin has tainted every aspect of our life. we are inclined to hate God and our neighbour. "morality evolves over a period of time".. then why doesn't it still evolve? maybe what we see now has wrong in 1000 years will be right. also, where does morality START? where has it come from?
bdejong7 3 days ago
@bdejong7 [then why doesn't it still evolve?]
I see you're one of those people who can look at something and completely miss the point
- 150 years ago - the owning of another human being as a slave was acceptable
- 100 years ago - treating women as a second class human was acceptable
- 50 years ago - treating people of different skin colors as second class citizens was acceptable
- 10 years ago - denying homosexuals certain rights was acceptable.
Can you see our morals evolving now?
sleazybtd 3 days ago
@sleazybtd Thank you. I already typed up my retort, but I like yours better.
thelordmemnoch 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bdejong7 [where does morality START? where has it come from?]
It started when humans realized that living together for mutual benefit required certain rules. Those rules became our morals. You can see it in other animals which live in groups.
Chimps live in groups, and they live within certain rules. Anyone breaking the rules gets kicked out of the group.
Dogs also live in packs. There are specific rules to live in the pack. Anyone breaking those rules gets kicked out of the pack.
sleazybtd 3 days ago
@sleazybtd Humans cannot realize that "living together for mutual benefit required certain rules". Say you have instinct A: to love your neighbour and do good things, and you have instinct B: to go to war and to kill other people. You do not have the authority to introduce a third instinct by which to choose between the two; it's like lifting yourself up by your own collar.
bdejong7 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bdejong7 [Say you have instinct A: to love your neighbour and do good things, and you have instinct B: to go to war and to kill other people]
Instinct B is your fallacy.
I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but me, my friends, and my family have no desire to go to war and kill other people. Even though many people cause harm in this world, I have no desire to kill any of them.
Seriously, if you have that desire in you, get professional help immediately.
sleazybtd 1 day ago
@bdejong7 " no it doesn't weaken my argument because i believe that we are all born in sin" Belief means nothing. Tangible evidence is still required. As for morality evolving, I *just* answered that question. It DOES evolve. Stoning disobedient children, burning witches at the stake, stoning a guy for picking up sticks on the Sabbath won't be condoned by ANY Christian today, yet it was ok 2,000 years ago. Evolving morality is a fact you can't deny.
thelordmemnoch 2 days ago
@thelordmemnoch On the contrary, belief is everything. Every position is a faith position. Evidence is required, but evidence helps you to place your faith in something. So by saying that our morality has evolved you also say that it is innate?
bdejong7 2 days ago
@bdejong7 [belief is everything. Every position is a faith position]
You can believe all you want that the Earth is flat. You can believe it, but you'll still be wrong.
Not all beliefs are equal. Some beliefs are much closer to the truth than others.
sleazybtd 1 day ago
@sleazybtd You are an atheist. An atheist is one who BELIEVES that there is no god. You have FAITH in that idea, based on the evidence.
bdejong7 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bdejong7 [You are an atheist. An atheist is one who BELIEVES that there is no god. You have FAITH in that idea, based on the evidence.]
Actually, there is NO evidence, which is why I don't believe in the existence of god. There is no evidence for fairies either, so I don't believe in their existence. Try not to get the points backwards, it makes you look unintelligent.
sleazybtd 1 day ago
@bdejong7 Every position is not faith based, that is a cop out so that you don't feel alone in believing something with no evidence. If you have evidence "faith" is not only not required, it becomes impossible. I love how you are misconstruing everything. If morality has evolved, why would I say it's innate? It's developed over generations upon generations of successful populations. I already gave you examples, I don't know why you are still confused.
thelordmemnoch 1 day ago
@thelordmemnoch ...first, every position is a faith position, because when you explain it, you begin by saying I BELIEVE etc. When there is no proof of something you: Step 1: look at the evidence. Step 2: take a FAITH position based on the evidence. I know and understand your examples. You still haven't given the BASIS for morality. "It's evolved." From what? You say "developed over generations of successful populations." Do you mean to say it's evolved from innate human solidarity?
bdejong7 1 day ago
@bdejong7 You don't know what faith means.
FAITH: [feyth] 2. belief that is not based on proof:
Once there is proof/evidence, it ceases to be faith based. If you want to say that there is some amount of faith BEFORE viewing the evidence, I might grant you that, but that's not what you are saying judging by your post. I like the fact that you have enough sense as to try to distance yourself from faith which has always been viewed as good. Faith is idiotic.
thelordmemnoch 1 day ago
@thelordmemnoch I didn't say that I take a faith position based on proof. Then it wouldn't be a faith position. [Once there is proof/evidence] First of all, proof and evidence are not synonymous. Proof is defined as: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true". Those first 2 words "evidence sufficient" are the key. Evidence is defined as: "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;". Faith is belief based upon evidence, not proof.
bdejong7 1 day ago
@bdejong7 I think we can both agree that there isn't proof for evolution, and neither is there proof of a Creator. You look at the evidence of the earth and the universe etc., and you say "I believe it's here because of random chance." I look at the evidence of the earth and the universe etc., and I say "I believe that since it's so amazing there must be a Creator."
bdejong7 1 day ago
@bdejong7 No we can't agree on your first sentence. There is ample evidence for evolution That the religious reject it is a matter entirely different. In every almost every single instance that I debate evolution, Creationists are found to be lacking in knowledge and frankly I doubt this instance will be different. The fossil evidence is pretty overwhelming, but the best evidence would be DNA. Mitochondrial DNA, dating back 200,000 years links us to earlier creatures.
thelordmemnoch 21 hours ago
@thelordmemnoch again, evidence isn't proof. prove to me how a protein soup turned into bacteria. the specific transformation from abiotic to biotic.
bdejong7 1 hour ago
@bdejong7 - Google 'The non-random selection of random replicators' and you'll see that atheists don't believe it's chance.
And when you have discovered that will you please drop the silly 'chance' straw-man?
shumble32 1 hour ago
@shumble32 sorry i was mistaken. what's your point? and what is the "'chance' straw man"?
bdejong7 1 hour ago
@shumble32 - the chance straw-man is the theist habit of staying that atheists ascribe the creation of the universe and/or evolution to chance. They don't, it's just a theist straw-man so please stop it.
shumble32 1 hour ago
@bdejong7 First of all, morality isn't solely a human necessity so let's start right there. Before we evolved into our modern form, some system of morality has been taking place. The basis for what you view morality can easily be explained with one word: Survival. Physically weak social creatures could not survive the dinosaurs, for instance, if they didn't look out after one another. Some system of "agreement" within a social group is a must. As it is, morality is subjective.
thelordmemnoch 1 day ago
@bdejong7 Morality comes from our basic need to survive. Animals that cannot work together towards a common goal will be a weak species and will die out. A monkey has morality and a shark doesn't because of evolution, not because god puts it in them. If a god did then they would BOTH have it. If morality is only human then a monkey *shouldn't* have it. It's an evolutionary necessity.
thelordmemnoch 2 days ago
Hitchens might be gone, but his hitchslaps will remain.
jezmundberserker 3 weeks ago
@jezmundberserker HERE HERE!
Cenamark2 2 weeks ago
Hitchens was, by far, the most eloquent voice of Atheism there ever was.
TheBrettBretterson 3 weeks ago
@TheBrettBretterson I don't know, I think Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins edge him out slightly...
DBSpenser 3 weeks ago
He didn't answer the question...
Hamez93 3 weeks ago
@Hamez93 As he said at the start, he had already addressed that issue in his talk. Or did you start the video halfway through? Perhaps *you* were the questioner?
johnjsal 3 weeks ago
@Sudhish86 so god made Adam and Eve as terrible people or did Satan over power him and change them
lHeavenlyAssassinl 3 weeks ago
lol. the sense of right and wrong is a compulsion. where does this compulsion come from if not God? we are born inherently selfish and carnal. what would lead it to change if not a change in perception? what would lead someone to percieving differently? it can't be your mind, since perceptions are our premises, whereas conclusions would be based on current perceptions. therefore, it couldn't be the reasoning and conclusions in our mind....
Sudhish86 3 weeks ago
we lost a great man in this christopher hitchens. far ahead of his time
roy3951 3 weeks ago 89
@roy3951 my three favorite men of all time are 3.Ghandi 2.Charlie Chaplin 1.Hitchens
following example of these three people has given me a good life
maxthebeast11 2 weeks ago
@roy3951 Totally agree, a really brilliant man.
parsmad 2 weeks ago
@roy3951 Not a man being far ahead of his time, but rather sadly almost the whole world being far behind its time.
MrGeometres 2 weeks ago 7
@roy3951 Indeed he was. A great man. If this is "ahead of the times" in which you are living, I am very sorry. I'm assuming it's the US. No offense to you or any Americans, but how can such a developed country believe in such backward garbage?
itsbadlarry 2 weeks ago
@roy3951 Nope, right on time.
NotDuncan 2 weeks ago
@roy3951 depends on how you look at it, if you are saying that in the future there will be more religious people there for he will be needed; i hope not, theres alredy too many nowdays. if you are saying that in the future there will be more atheists there for he would truly belong in the future then yes i agree x)
ryonafan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roy3951 said "we lost a great man in this christopher hitchens. far ahead of his time"
He was not ahead of his time. There is nothing new under the sun. He is not lost either, if you will but take up the flag and rally those around you. (Gently, it is easy to be to militant.)
joestfrancois 6 days ago
I love the thumbnail for this video. As if Hitchens is raising his hand to give a profound intellectual slap to theists.
VenomShock 3 weeks ago
Interesting to hear the Christians in this dialogue, They seam to be avoiding the subject matter in the video.
kirbsnz 3 weeks ago
pwned
Moppy1988 3 weeks ago
hes a very smart guy no ignorance or nothing just straight facts hope his telling the truth
YoungSensation32 3 weeks ago
@YoungSensation32 I think "hope" is the wrong word.
redshark618 3 weeks ago
@redshark618 am not a strong believer in god/religion or the laws that have been set for people to live by and i question the methods of it... so your right hope is probably not the word
YoungSensation32 3 weeks ago
a better question would be: are good and evil human constructs? if they are, what then of the state of morality itself? if they aren't, by what superlative (or scale) do we judge things as good or evil? a much more interesting question with a more interesting answer. by name dropping "God" in the question almost always leads to some bash on christianity rather than an insight into atheistic morality.
saehyuk1991 3 weeks ago
I wonder how was a person "taught" to believe in God?
Is it mostly parental influence?
calvinjhfeng 3 weeks ago
If God is good , why are there men?
gofindyourmusic 4 weeks ago
WTF WHO WEARS WHITE SOCKS AND A SUIT
brbdndwtf 4 weeks ago
@brbdndwtf wtf who uses capslock when trying to make an arbitrary point?
ureatowel15 4 weeks ago
@brbdndwtf WTF why are you calling his socks white???? they're clearly not
CongoYambumba1981 4 weeks ago
@CongoYambumba1981 white socks and black shoes is stupid bro,white socks are for sport wear only.
brbdndwtf 4 weeks ago
@brbdndwtf They're tan LOL
CongoYambumba1981 4 weeks ago
@brbdndwtf But yes, it's not a good look. So I agree with you there LOL
CongoYambumba1981 4 weeks ago
@brbdndwtf Men who does not need to prove shit to you wear a suit and white socks! That's who! NEXT!
wealthmaster71 4 weeks ago
I always laugh at what Hitchens says because he often contradicts himself. In one interview he will say we can't disprove the existence of God and atheists don't set out to do that, which is completely wrong because they do. Then in another interview he will say he doesn't believe in God. lol
foxylord 4 weeks ago
@foxylord athiests aren't one monolithic entity of people. there are many different kinds and everyone has different views
trufuknplaya 4 weeks ago
@foxylord What's your point? Just because we can't 100% prove a god doesn't exist, doesn't mean we have to believe in a god.
When talking about "God" we can reasonably say "God" doesn't exist. Why? Because the idea of "God" was created and spread by superstitious human beings who feared the unknown.
Saying "God" doesn't exist and saying a god doesn't exist are two different things. We can reasonably disprove "God's" existence, but we can't reasonably prove a god doesn't exist.
RoCk4LiFe90 4 weeks ago
@RoCk4LiFe90 Yet all of those arguments have been proven wrong, but let's not split hairs.
foxylord 4 weeks ago
@foxylord I guess I should have continued my thought. Even though we can't soundly disprove the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer, there is far more evidence in favor of evolution than there is is support of a supernatural explanation. Therefore we can put the questionable existence of supernatural maker in the same category as unicorns, mermaids, goblins, Santa Claus, etc.
RoCk4LiFe90 3 weeks ago
@RoCk4LiFe90 Santa is actually based on a Saint Nicholas a rl Christian bishop lol but I digress.
Who is to say that God doesn't use evolution as a means of protecting His creation in a changing environment?
foxylord 3 weeks ago
@foxylord I was a Catholic I know all about St. Nick. Just because Santa was based off of a real person doesn't mean he is real. That's like saying the tooth fairy is real because it is based off a dentist or something. You are hurting your argument already.
As for your statement on God and evolution, the beauty of evolution is, it can stand on it's own without the need for a supernatural being's help. It proves the universe came about without supernatural input or guidance.
RoCk4LiFe90 3 weeks ago
@RoCk4LiFe90 It's called humour. Something atheists seem lacking in quite often.
As a scientist I refute that claim that it can stand alone. I have looked into the nature of things and found far too much order and design, but that is just the tip of the iceberg to my faith. How can all of the laws we know of plus the developments in life to such a vast extent happen as something from nothing in a random event? Impossible!
Oh wait tell you what lets invent a mathematical theory lol
foxylord 3 weeks ago
@foxylord Oh it was a joke . . . right. Anyway, the fact that you refute a substantial amount of evidence because you think everything is designed tells me you are not a scientist. You are an intelligent design advocate(creationist) nothing more. Your would be attempts at distorting and refuting positive scientific evidence, in order to squeeze in your imaginary man, is childish at best.
RoCk4LiFe90 3 weeks ago
@RoCk4LiFe90 That shows how much you know then lol I have a scientific honours degree, and I have worked very successfully in several scientific fields, because of the nature of my work. Just as Einstein did I have also found God in the creation, and order of the universe and everything contained therein.
What is your area of work?
foxylord 3 weeks ago
@foxylord "...I have also found God in the creation, and order of the universe and everything contained therein."
Wow, then you MUST post these equations that include your deity in their structures. Quantum physics, medicine, etc. are unaware of these equations, and I am strongly in favor of anything that expands the evidence-based body of scientific knowledge. I feel cheated...I have a doctorate, two master's degrees and work in medical research and have NEVER been exposed to these equations!
donfishmaster 3 weeks ago
@donfishmaster A closed mind is a closed mind regardless.
foxylord 3 weeks ago
@foxylord Bullshit. Science is the archetype of self-criticism. Disproving old theories or providing evidence for the new is how scientists make names for themselves. The scientific method demands re-analysis of data.
Besides,you have a command to try to convert unbelievers. If you present this peer-reviewable, reproducible evidence of your deity's incorporation into scientific principles, it will be "gobbled up"by today's Journals, and many will accept your deity as a fact rather than a belief
donfishmaster 3 weeks ago
@foxylord Alternatively, how much data has to be compiled to incriminate a given myth-belief or deity as supernatural gibberish before its devout myth-believers abandon their beliefs? The "closed mind" analogy lies with the well-indoctrated who accept their "faiths" on nothing more than "belief" while blithly dismissing all other myth-beliefs that are based on the same level of proof--simple personal "belief."
donfishmaster 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@foxylord "Who is to say that God doesn't use evolution as a means of protecting His creation in a changing environment?"
With more than 99% of species that ever existed extinct? Some protection!
"It's called humour. Something atheists seem lacking in quite often."
So what are your favourite jokes from the Bible, then? Off the top of your head? Mm? No, it seems that your god doesn't have a sense of humour, either.
Pleendriver 1 week ago
@foxylord Wow how clever you are you figured us out, damn you. You obviously do not understand what he means. If you would actually listen to any thinking atheist they point out that it is impossible to conclusively deny the existence of any gods or other fantastical claims. That is very different from evidence and likelihood of such claims of which there is none.
lololololol47 4 weeks ago
@lololololol47 Oh I understand it very well but I see it slightly differently to you. I see a man who is denying God exists but at the same time edging his bets just in case.
foxylord 4 weeks ago
@foxylord Hmm that seems difficult to understand considering your God, I assume you are a christian, is not portrayed as very forgiving and Hitchens himself said many things that would be rather unforgivable to your diety. I suppose you can derive all sorts of opinions on Christopher and his life and thats fine too. He himself would probably laugh at most of the things said of him honestly. But he is dead and no longer in any sense alive so its pure speculation.
lololololol47 4 weeks ago