The nation he described that follows the various philosophies of the people he mentioned: I would propose the same in the light of true Christianity. There has never been a whole nation to live by the true teachings of Christ. He can argue against religion all he wants, just don't categorize true Christianity within the same boat. By doing so his argument becomes null and void.
The Hitch makes really educated points. However, I think he diverts the issue on many occasions . The prompt is a question of God, but Hitch often makes it a question of religious organizations and churches, and he strikes them hard and with nearly all cases with justice. However, in the Jewish and Christian scriptures you find God being very harsh and blunt with people who claim to follow Him and worship Him and are extremely religious but act completely wrongly and disowns that conduct
People can't be secular. When there's no God, something fills the void. Unfortunately for people, when a person fills the void, a howling ruin results.
what void? there is no void that exists without god or without believing in god, so nothing needs to or has to fill the void.
However, since god doesn't actually exist, for the people who believe a god does exist, there is a void, that gets filled by humans. Priests and rabies and Popes, and that always does lead to genocides, or raping of children.
A good point, Chris. However, I have been told - and rightly so - that it is wise to discern whether God is speaking to you or not. Joseph Smith was told to found Mormonism by an angel. Was he right in doing so? Not according to the Bible, which is what he followed. Moroni told him every other Christian church was in error. But that could not be, because of what Christ said in Scripture. You see, you can't just go around saying everything done in the name of God is in the name of God.
@GenghisKhan44 I can't imagine how one could possibly discern whether or not an action was divinely inspired, as such actions are subjective and we really must just take a man's word for it. I would also point out that the credentials of the bible are easily just as shady as those of the book of Mormon, and anyone who says otherwise knows very little about the formulation and construction of the bible. Just as with Joseph Smith, we are asked to take it on faith that THIS book is the word of god.
i) I am rather perplexed that Christopher is even entertaining the argument put forth in the 3d minute of this video. All one needs to say is 'correlation does not equal causation'; instead, to use statistics and historical evidence as proof, without contextual analysis, as though all societies now (and before) are carbon copies of each other bar the presence, or the lack of, a state religion?...What?
ii) A paraphrase: 'In the last 2,000 years states with endorsed religions have killed 1bn, those without have killed 2; therefore having a state religion is good' (keep in mind, implicit in that statement is the notion that religion is good for *all* states)
Christopher Hitchens appears silly is arguments are frivolously and I believe he was clearly beaten by Peter. He says things like the Jews were never in Egypt and that fascism is just another term for right wing Catholicism which is just false. Why isn't St. Francis of Assisi right wing Catholicism? He makes arguments that if one has a subjective experience of God one has to accept that someone is told to go out and shoot someone because 'god' (or the dog) told him. That doesn't mean God did.
@David20092203 You missed the point, his argument that God told nobody to do anything because He doesn't exist, however if you want to grant that someone did good because God told him to, what about those who claim they do evil because God told them to? The Catholic church was teaching children that the Jews killed Jesus until 1964, Hitler was raised Catholic. Coincidence? When they were caught raping children again, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said the only problem was the "Jewish" media.
@rationalsalvation Unfortunately you are wrong on all counts. Let's be clear, Catholicism and religion in general is not something that can be approached with a priori reasoning alone. The religious believe that God is objectively true and religion itself is knowledge based.
Your first argument is circular, one must follow what evidence they have objectively where ever it leads, not start and end with their own prejudicial presumptions. Jews did kill Jesus, He was killed breaking Jewish law, not Roman. However, the understanding is that of course this served God's purpose. "Hitler was raised Catholic", yes, but so was Mother Teresa, Hitler became engrossed in eugenics which originated in the United States.
@David20092203 I missed these comments, I'll have to try to keep up with you. Mother Teresa did her best to make sure India remained poverty stricken because she got off on it. With all the money she received, she could have built hospitals, instead she built convents. There is no evidence that Jesus even existed, and even if he did, there is no evidence that he was killed by the Jews, therefore, it is a disgusting thing to raise children with this prejudice, the holocaust was inevitable.
. As for sexual assault of minors, that is not a sin of the Church, that is a sin within the Church and to lesser and variant degrees outside the Church. We are even now however unraveling sexual mores we claimed to cherish only fifteen years ago, it's a turbulent sea, better the Holy See.
@David20092203 The current pope, Ratzinger, covered it up. There seems to be a direct connection between the catholic church and child rape, and we're learning of more and more horror stories everyday, not just new ones, but ones that date back further and further. The catholic church is a paedophile cult.
Christopher Hitchens claims that the Soviet Union is a religious state because he saw a picture of an Orthodox Bishop(no doubt in Stalin's employ) in a picture with Stalin. Did he notice the picture of Stalin with Winston Churchill and F.D.R.? Christopher Hitchen's claims that Heaven is a celestial North Korea but he makes this claim in one of the free countries if not the most free country in the world, America, which has the world's largest Christian populations. Absurd.
@David20092203 If you were British citizen, as I am, a percentage of your tax goes to funding the Church of England. America IS the most free country in the world BECAUSE of it's secular constitution that forbids any one religious sect to control the government. Kim Jong Il presents himself as a God, and he is worshipped as a God, smells like some pseudo religion to me, atheists don't do that. Same goes for Stalin (I forgot about him).
@rationalsalvation I always sympathize with the British on that. For one, the Church of England is really a heretical concoction which no one can take seriously so I can understand why people there choose atheism. Second, the split with the Church by King Henry VIII was not based on theological grounds, he wanted male heirs and didn't have the science to see that depended exclusively on him, the man. Besides, England has had a great procession of Queens who ruled splendidly even to this day.
According to Christopher Hitchens, North Korea is a heaven on earth, he should go there. Not that he's been to the Soviet Union either for that matter as his brother has but good ol' 'no experience Chris' babbles on.
@David20092203 Christopher Hitchens has reported from 60 countries worldwide, including Russia and North Korea, also including Iraq and Iran, I daresay he's travelled more extensively than his brother.
This old moron asking the question is just trying to receive emotional approval from all those who will agree with him regardless. Let's ignore the fact that SO MUCH evil is done in the name of religion, and only focus on the happy, touchy feely things. Yes, religion can provide beneficial services, but only if they're allowed to tack on the 'converting' aspect as well. That's truly selfish.
could be argued that the middle period of the united states did many of the things christopher mentioned, and of course it was founded upon democracy etc.
however i suppose it could also be argued that Christianity and the idealism of White European supremacy played a large part in the slavery of africans, the genocide of native americans.....
I dont think that peter is the type of christion that chris is attacking......there is organised religion an simple faith.....and there is a world of difference......for what its worth i am an atheist...
To the free intelligent open mind, Peter obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on and makes his self look like a dork in his feeble attempts to match witts with is genuis bro.
There is no such thing as atheistic preacing. Preaching is what priests and other believers do. Atheists have a lack of belief, ergo no preaching. We could do brainwashing like the religious people do, but that has nothing to do with atheism.
An atheist = one who doesn't believe in God. End of story. Has nothing to do with a world view or politics.
For the first time so far Peter manages to make a good point; that people do evil things not because they are atheists/believers, but because they are people.
Too bad he didn't realize he was making an argument, at the start of the debate, from exactly the point of view he's denouncing here...
What about the French Republic after the Revolution, inspired as it was largely by Rousseau? An anti-clerical, rational, enlightened State, at least in conception, that led to the slaughter of thousands and just ended up in dictatorship. The USA would be the other, which is presumably why Hitch has moved there, and yet the imperialism continues as he himself has expertly detailed.
It is truly as simple as this: atheists can't be blamed for violent communism any more than people who are anti-communists, or a-communists, can be blamed for Nazism.
Atheism isn't a position itself. It's rejection of one. Stalinists didn't kill people because they were atheists, they killed people because they were Stalinists!
It's a pathetic tactic, yours. Someone points out the evils and fallacies of your belief system and your retort is to point out that some people that didn't yield to your system killed people too.
@maatwerk67-R U serious!!! Have u ever heard of Hitler, Stalin, The communists, Obama who kills thousands of babies every day, etc. WOW! i can't believe u made that statement. Remember Jesus loved u so much he died & rose from the dead to save u from ur sins that will lead u to hell if u don't repent & accept Christ as ur Lord & Savior. Hope u accept that gift soon b4 it's to late.
@HelloWorld1947 Hitler and the Nazis were Catholics. The oath of the Hitler Youth included the phrase "we will obey God". Obama is a Christian, and has attended church every week for decades. He was criticised for his association with his preacher during the campaign. And Jesus isn't real, and even if he was, he didn't die willingly, he was murdered against his will, and his last words were "Father, why have you forsaken me?"
@hugoegbert79_I don't know whether to call u stupid or ignorant.......So i'll let u decide which one u r and then we can have a smart people discussion, OK, buddy.
@HelloWorld1947 You're the one who claims the Nazis were atheists. Sorry to correct you, but I think it's important to enter some facts into this debate.
I almost feel sorry for Peter, Chrisopher makes a much better arguement on both issues. I strongly disagree with Chrisopher on the Iraq war, but if I went solely by the information provided in this debate I think I would have been for it.
I am not sure what you are trying to say, but if you seriously think that, then don't worry - He can't have a plan to lead me to a non-existant place.
@tat20001 I would like to disagree with CH about his Iraq stance but I lived and worked in Iraq for 5-1/2 years and spent most of that time with the Kurds in Northern Iraq, who were decimated by the Baathists. I can relate to reasons to remove Saddam, but perhaps there could have been diplomatic (or even covert) means to reduce harm, especially factoring-in the terrible price paid by civillians between 1991 through current times by way of Coalition embargoes and outright war.
BTW,, the chinese had a God and were not atheists,,, they worshiped him from the early age of 12, I think, made sacrifices to him all of his life and offered gifts and concubines and mates with the right genetic features to pass on his holy and imperial genes.
they're both well read, well educated, well spoken, and yet... Christopher is obviously the smarter of the two brothers. throughout the debate Peter continually misses the point entirely.
@chaoszieg continually misses the point and continually passes on answering the questions put to both of them, because he couldn't think of anything to say.
@chaoszieg Clearly he does not. Christopher always always avoids or misses the point about objective morality. He always always goes off onto a tangent of actual behaviour as opposed to the reality or relativity of morality. It's actually very very tedious.
well there is no such thing as objective morality. Looking at either culture, or history, will tell anyone that.
Things considered immoral in America 50 years ago are now considered moral. Things we view as disgusting and evil today, were part of everyday life and considered the moral and just way to live 200 years ago.
The mere suggestion of objective morality is a joke not worth addressing.
@chaoszieg You are making an argument that doesn't even touch on the subject of the existence, or otherwise of objective morality. All you are proving is the transient nature of relative morality. Thanks.
The mere suggestion? Given that you believe the above even addresses the issue I suspect that you need to reconsider the issue in depth before making such a statement again.
@MrWildbill20056 if you think Objective morality exists, you first have to explain what things are objectively moral and objectively immoral, and why they are moral or immoral without using personal opinion, which cannot be done.
For instance I could describe objectively immoral things as anything that harms another person. But that's my opinion and doesn't mean that in reality it's objectively immoral to not do harm to others.
you can say I'm only proving the transient nature of relative morals, doesn't change the fact that things considered objectively immoral are now considered moral. Everyone who's always claimed to know what is "objectively moral" has been proven wrong by culture or time. So you or anyone else claiming to know anything about objective morals is a joke.
@chaoszieg I will reply to this and thus all of your posts. 1) Yes all you prove is the transience of relative morality, agreed. 2) No one who has claimed objective morality has ever been proved wrong, only observed to be within a secular framework 3) If 'God' exists and is capable of omniscience and perfect reason his 'morality' would be objective 4) Simply because people have said 'God' told me to do it, does not make it actually true.
I simply have to facepalm at your second sentence. I'm sorry but I have a very low tolerance level for stupidity and you shattered it by a mile with that one. your third sentence only doubles your obvious stupidity.
Try reading what you just posted, think about it for a minute, and if you can't see what's wrong with it, I have no more time to waste on someone of your inferior level of thinking.
@chaoszieg Seriously, this is the typical 'new atheist' response. Instead of having an argument, sneer and try to 'appear' superior. You are basically guilty of a form of circular reasoning. You establish human views on morality are subjective and transient because they are. If objective morality exists, it is possible to behave in an objectively moral way, however transient human morality would be incapable of totally realising or refuting it. 3 is in no way stupid, that would be, your opinion.
I have explained as simply as I can, that even if objective morality exists we don't know what it is, and never will, so trying to talk about it is a complete waste of time.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the more times I read your second point, the more fucking retarded I realize you are.
@chaoszieg 1) True unless an authority that can know what it is can relate it to us 2) How sad, please mock the disabled some more in your quest to appear intellectually superior. 3) My second point stands in light of your own concession that, to paraphrase, 'you don't what objective morality is.' If you do not know what it is, even if it exists, then you have no objective framework to judge it against to validate or invalidate it. Simple logic my friend.
1) as already explained, and already proven by all of human history, no such authority exists, or has never been known, so again a completely pointless point.
2) I'm not mocking the Disabled, I'm mocking you. Stop being one of those sensitive butthurt little shits who's acting like a word no one had a problem with using 1 year ago is no oh so offensive and mean to say because Sarah Palin said so. Grow the fuck up
@chaoszieg 1) Clearly the absence of 'God' (ie the appropriate authority) has not been proved, and neither can you assert that the entity you cannot disprove has not been known. Sorry.
2) Civilized people have always had an issue using a term which refers to the mentally disabled for the sake of cheap invective, it's not new, sorry to inform you. The Special Olympics have a standing campaign against the use of the word. Deal with it. Oh and mocking isn't arguing, it's just pathetic.
1) you're right that God has not been proven, but you're wrong on the latter half. Every god that has been dreamed up by humans can easily be proven wrong.
2)civilized people? I think you mean people who need to grow up.
mocking isnt arguing, glad you managed to figure something out for yourself. It's not "pathetic" though, it's quite a necessity in some cases. For example when dealing with someone too stupid to really worry about arguing with. I.E. you
@chaoszieg 1) I said the 'absence,' do pay attention. I agree with your subsequent assertion on man-made ideas of 'God.' At last a point of concensus.
2) Please keep illustrating your apparently self imposed limitations when it comes to discussion. I am being charitable and assuming you could do better. The Special Olympics organisation 'needs to grow up' yes, I'm sure. How did this make you feel?
Yes they do, and to keep on this point, "civilized people" have not always been against the word retarded, because it original was, and actually still is, the clinical definition of a mental condition. To be against the word retarded is kind of like being against the word black. Yes people did begin to use it as a word to insult people with that condition, but what to be against is using it in that context, not the word itself.
@chaoszieg Please stop trying to justify your position. That you think that 'retarded' or 'retard' are acceptable language is no better than using any other derogatory term for people that are different from you. Just see what the people at Special Olympics have to say about it. The people who are directly connected and influenced by your use of such language are better qualified to comment on it than either of us.
No either stop hiding from the fact you've been thoroughly shown to be full of shit, and either except it, or try to give even 1 example of something objectively moral without using your own opinion.
And no, the people at the "special Olympics" are not better qualified to comment on it because they have personal investment in it, so their opinions would be biased rather then objective.
@chaoszieg You are living under the delusion that your position is anything other than I have presented. I do not need to give an example of something 'objectively moral' to argue that they can exist and that your presentation on the subjective nature of human-generated morality in no way impacts on the discussion UNLESS humans are the only 'creators' of morality.'
With regards to your second statement, that's simply bull headed ignorance. Your language offends just as using the 'n' word does
Language offending or not is of no importance to it's meaning or significance.
Also niggers aren't offended if other niggers use the word nigger, there's also nothing inherently insulting or degrading about the word nigger. It's the context it's used in that makes it insulting.
@chaoszieg I begin to think you are hugely naive. Further you are conflating with the term 'nigga' which while related is not synomymous. The history of the word makes it pejorative in nature. The fact that only those people whom the word was promoted to insult consider themselves qualified to use it, or derivations, far from removing the intended insult, is a deliberate refutation and denial of that insult. Go call a selection of random black people on the street by the term, see how that goes.
@chaoszieg Ok we'll just put this down to pig-headedness and naivety. Please go and, prefacing with 'this is not an insult but' and then adding 'hello my nigger friend' see how a random selection of black people react. When several of them hit you, despite your best attempts to use the word politely, perhaps you will reconsider.
*sigh* again, you are attributing how someone would react to the word to the actual meaning of the word.
Do you even know what objective means? I already explained to you that a persons reaction to a word has no barring on the objective meaning of the word, yet you continue to act like it does.
You made a false comparison to begin with between nigger and retarded, because no one calls a non-black person a nigger, while retarded is used primarily on those who aren't retarded.
@chaoszieg merriam-webster. com/dictionary/nigger: 'Its use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive, but, except in sense 3, it is otherwise a word expressive of racial hatred and bigotry.' Sense 3 is 'a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons.' It is thus defined as generally offensive.
No doubt the dictionary is wrong.
It's a false comparison because of who you use the word to offend? The point is they are both slurs born of contempt for a group of people
read websters again, definition 1: A black person.
definition 2: A member of any dark skinned race.
The dictionary isn't wrong, you are though.
Yes it is a false comparison for that very reason.
The point is neither were born fro contempt and neither were slurs. People used them for insults yes, but so what? Niggers call white people crackers, should we now stop using the word cracker because it's a slur and an insult to a group of people?
@chaoszieg So your way to avoid this particular argument is to totally ignore the issue of usage, good. Going back to my earlier citation, in the first 2 senses, it is with the exception of the 3rd, expressive of racial hatred and bigotry. Are you saying you can divorce words from their usage? What 'use' is an 'unused' word?
'Cracker' is not comparable because it has an everyday, legimitate usage. The same is no longer true of 'nigger.'
which is why there's no problem with me using it to describe you, because I'm not using it to insult anyone with that mental condition, I'm only using it to insult you.
Words are not defined only by their meaning, they are defined by their context and intent as well.
I have shown no limitations, as I have been able to both explain why you're an idiot, and call you an idiot in the same posts.
@chaoszieg *sigh* I pity you. Please if this self reassuring invective is all you have to offer, do us both a favour and stop posting. You have demonstrated nothing except your ability to make the loudest 'noise.' The paradigm runs, 'empty vessels make the most noise.' This is definitely apt.
You should pity me, since I've had to waste my time talking to you.
Again, I am not "self reassuring" no reason to do that. If these pathetic little attempts to hide from the fact you have no argument that can't easily be defeated then you are the one who should stop posting.
Course I think you should have done that after your second post, when it still looked like you actually had a brain.
dont hide from your inadequacies with "stop being mean to me." try to actually learn.
@chaoszieg You still haven't actually made any response to the points you called 'stupid' other than to say, 'that's stupid.' People said much the same to Charles Darwin. All it indicated was they hadn't actually read his proposals with any care or thought. You say I make no argument, and yet I am the last person to put up a reasoned position. Since then all you have done is confuse assertion with argument and cover it up with bravado. Your first line in this post is worthy of the school yard.
Even if I haven't made any actually response other then to call them stupid, which I actually have, I already know it will go right over your head. To anyone else it should be more then painfully obvious why they're stupid, and it would be insulting for me to have to explain it. Both insulting to them and to me
You haven't put up a reasoned position yet youve simply ignored everything that shows your position is weak, and tried unsuccessfully to respond where you think you can
@chaoszieg Like I say, you have a great deal of growing up to do. The only reasoned part of your argument was to show that secular morality is transient, we agree. You believe this argument invalidates the possible reality of objective morality, whereas it doesn't even touch on the subject. You then asserted even with 'God' it is still only 'God's opinion.' You have further failed to show how anyone's claim to objective morality has been fundamentally refuted, other than with personal opinion.
Showing secular morality is transient, if you think that's what I did, also proves that the very idea that anyone could know anything about objective morals is a joke, and a conversation not even worth having. That you could miss that is just sad, especially since I also pointed it out to you, which of course you ignored cause you have no argument against it.
@chaoszieg Consider this again: Secular morality is transient = knowledge of secular morality is impossible. Do you really think this is a logical sequitur? You seem to think this has been missed. No, it has been demonstrated to be illogical. All you have proved is that human-generated morality is incapable of being truly objective. However the argument with regards to objective morality relies, in no part, on humans having a hand in its creation.
Also whoever said knowledge of secular morality was impossible? I know I never did, and I'm pretty sure you didn't either.
What I have proven, to tell you again, is even if objective morality exists, no one can demonstrate it, it can never be shown to exist, so it's pointless to think it does, and useless to debate over it. You have done nothing to show objective morality exists. You have done even less to show that if it does, how we would ever know it.
@chaoszieg Apologies, it should have read = knowledge of objective morality is impossible*.
I refer you to your first response: 'there is no such thing as objective morality' said you. You have tried to shift the goal posts, and yet this was your central contention, which I have refuted with no response from you.
All you have demonstrated is that humans are incapable of discerning it due to their nature. All I have done is to show your own argument to be far from proven.
All you have done is nothing. you haven't shown a single thing, except your own ignorance.
I have not "shifted the goal posts" the goal was objective morality does not exist. You have yet to even attempt to show argue, or defend, the idea that it does exist.
You've lost and I have nothing to do until you at least try to defend that it does
Of course I've already shown that even if it does exist it's pointless to talk about because we'll never know it I'm already ahead of you
@chaoszieg Oh no no, you totally misunderstand the nature of my response. I have, at no stage, please quote me otherwise, stated 'you are wrong because objective morality does exist.' You have shifted the goal posts by trying to impose this duty upon me, and further by trying to ascribe it to me in the first place :P
I only needed to suggest objective morality 'could' exist to invalidate your position. I have set forth the argument, you have ignored it :) (That includes whether we can know it.)
If all you've got is "Objective morals exist!" which is so far all you do have, you've already lost. And if all you've got is, objective morals exist, and you can't prove they don't" you've still lost, because an argument that can't be proven false is not an argument. It fails on it's very face.
@chaoszieg Erm I haven't stated that anywhere, at anytime. You are now refuting an argument I have not made. Please refer back and consider that all I have done is refuted the surity of your position ie 'objective morality cannot exist therefore it does not exist.'
Again you have refuted nothing. I also did not say they cannot therefore they do not, because in fact they could possibly exist. I simply said they do not. You've done nothing to refute that. If you can in anyway refute it, please go ahead and try to prove they do exist.
I've already given you the best you'll be able to do, "they could exist." but just because something can exist doesn't mean it does exist.
@chaoszieg Hang on. Do you realise the contradiction inherent to:
Objective morality could exist but Objective morality does not exist.
We aren't discussing whether or not there have been any Black Presidents of the US before Obama. Sure there 'could' have been, and yet it is demonstrably not the case.
When it comes to morality you cannot empirically prove their absence if logic concedes they could exist. Unless of course you can disprove 'God.'
you show more and more why you deserve the label retarded. There is no contradiction, that you think there is, is laughable at best.
When it comes to morality or god or anything else I do not have to prove their absence to state they do not exist, even if it is possible they could. You or someone else has to prove they actually do exist, until then the default is to assume they don't
@chaoszieg So nothing exists until it is proved to exist, really? Evolution by natural selection did not place until Wallace and Darwin began to 'prove' it, or maybe till Watson and Crick established the cellular mechanism?
The default position, my friend when you cannot prove, or disprove something is to state 'I don't know whether it exists or not.' Not 'It does not exist.'
Yes you are the one who lacks logic. I'm really getting tired of having to explain everything to you. Go try to learn something on your own for a change.
I didn't say anything close to nothing exists until it is proven to exist, I said if something cannot be proven to exist, the default is to assume it doesn't.
@chaoszieg I quote your entire first sentence to me: "well there is no such thing as objective morality."
You have subsequently said, "I also did not say they cannot therefore they do not, because in fact they could possibly exist."
So unless your assumption is a form of proof, you have invalidated your first statement. The best you can state is that you do not believe objective morality exists, or that you think it is improbable to whatever degree.
@chaoszieg Nope, I am going to say, 'I believe, on the available evidence that there are no such entities in existence.' I am not going to say, 'they do not' only that that they 'probably do not.'
However ultimately I would have to concede, however improbable, that 'I do not know.'
and again with the retarded statements. I have failed to show how anyone's claim to objective morality has been refuted? you really are deserving of the title mentally retarded. The fact that things once considered objectively moral are now considered objectively immoral refutes claims to objective morality.
What you have failed to do is to give even 1 example of something that is objectively moral or immoral, and how it is objectively so.
@chaoszieg No, that fact only says that transient human morality is transient. Circular. It says nothing, absolutely nothing, about whether or not objective morality exists or whether anyone has ever correctly described their behaviour as objectively moral.
Consider: If objective morality exists it does so independent of human opinion. Opinions on a subject do not change any fundamental truth inherent. DNA exists whether or not someone 'thinks' we have cotton wool for genetic material.
Also I have no need to "quest" or try to look or appear superior to you in any way. To begin with I have no reason to do that, and secondly, all I have to do to appear superior to you is have you post responses. You're doing a perfect job of displaying your own ignorance all on your own thank you
I also believe I already told you, I have a very low tolerance level for stupid. Once you cross it I'm not going to do much else but mock you. I'll of course explain why all your arguments are stupid while mocking you, but you aren't going to get any more civility out of me. I don't have any to waste on people who post things as retarded as you have.
@chaoszieg You haven't made a coherent case for your position yet. You may believe you have. However you have really only established the premise: human based morality is subjective, via circular reasoning. Everything else you have had to say has simply been assertion upon assertion. I begin to think you must be very young, either in biological age or in 'other ways.' Peace.
@Adavidson100 Free exercise of religion, bro. The church is not a branch of the state and rightly so. So public policy only applies to public establishments. You should also be aware that if churches come out and openly support a political candidate, they lose their tax exemption.
@Adavidson100 And yet the statement is ridiculous on its face because parents are legally bound to send their children to school, not so to church. The demand is hardly equal under the terms of the law.
@Adavidson100 Don't worry, I'm not a creationist. But your point is more or less valid... Churches teach what they believe in. It's their right to believe in whatever they want. Schools on the other hand ought to teach every possible theory out there. That's the difference I wanted to point out.
That being said, I'm Catholic, and we don't believe in creationism in the litteral sence of the term :) I think creationists are stupids, but that's another topic
@Adavidson100 As do I. Evolution is the best scientific position we know of. And it need not be in conflict with religion, either. It will, however, force evangelical Protestants to think not only in Biblical terms, but in empirical terms. Early Christian scientists thought in material AND spiritual terms, not merely, or even primarily, spiritual.
It is of course are only means of attempting to explain "anything." I mean that, within the realm of human experience, between the interstices of reason and intuition, there is a quantum as yet unknown. Some day reason might make this known and therefore render speculation defunct. But the numinous experiences of selfhood, since the beginning of time, have always pointed (however irrationally or rationally) to the postulation of a God-like entity. The conception is an old one.
Reason and empiricism will never remove all doubt because whenever a person's pet theory is disproven, any number of hypotheses can be discarded to protect the pet theory. You can always hug onto what you want, even if it means you pretend the world is flat and that light bends asymptotically.
Numinous experiences are nothing to an outside observer. I don't care if you orgasm over feeling special, it doesn't make you or your gods special.
Did I say the conception verified itself? No, I did not. When did I say I believed in God? You are very misguided here. The nouminous, as Spinoza points out, does not have to lead to the supposition of a deity. Rather, it might lead one to a conception of individual rootedness in Nature, in the material matrix of existence; it might well lead to an understanding of being. Ontology is not a "pet idea": it is the attempt to answer the question of the causality of existence.
You said "But the [blah blah] have always pointed [...] to the postulation of a God-like entity." Which boils down to either a belief in or an explanation for why others believe in gods.
I assume you are a philosopher of one stripe or another, but some old philosopher's feelings and writings about feeling special can easily be explained with Natural Selection. Brains are hard-wired to see things that aren't there. It has saved many lives over the last few hundred million years.
Your respect for philosophy is misplaced, if not unearned. Most likely you are an American pissed off with the many Bible bashers that convene upon your shores and work in your capitals. Perhaps you live in some desolate place like Alaska: somewhere in which you are outnumbered by Bible-thumbing idiots. So let me say this: I am not your enemy. I do not object to your atheism (why anyone would is beyond me). But I do believe you should read more philosophy, if possible.
I shall take your advice under consideration. However, do not think that I disregard philosophy. I am very much a fan of logic, the philosophy of science and consciousness, to name a few.
In effect, to what extent does humanism even apply to atheism? Why should morality matter in the atheistic paradigm? I can understand that it can exist agnostically - even theistically - but if we predicate a humanism solely within the domain of atheism, an atheism which rejects the primacy and ethical relevance of human life, then surely we are not left with much of humanism at all? I myself am Spinozistic in my belief in Godliness, in my conviction that reason cannot explain everything.
If the atheist believes that life is not sacred, special, significant, then, yes there is a possibility that genocide can be committed flippantly. Yet the theist, who is said to believe such things, has committed such genocide in any event. I believe greater damage "can" be committed in the name of atheism "if" and only "if" it believes that life is not sacred. Most would agree with this. The problem is that the postulation of sacredness lies in the domain of the spiritual.
You don't mean atheists or atheism here. You are talking about nihilism. There is only a one-way connection between the word sacred and the words special or significant. Look at the vast, empty, cold, dark universe and tell me that I think life is not special or significant. There is nothing MORE significant than life. Especially sentient life. But that does not imply that we are magically endowed with sentience by a monkey god (which I assume you mean when you say sacred).
Nihilism, atheism and agnosticism are equal to the degree they participate in the formation of skeptical propositions. I too regard life as infinitely significant. It is beautiful. But I do not rule out noumenal experience of beauty, the infinitude of mathematics, the expansive of space and time, the inductive possibilities of metaphysics, the emotive connectedness to life, the "being-in-the-world" that Heidegger often spoke of. This "being-in-the-world" can be sacred all on its own.
By the way, classical theism does not believe in an interventionist God...ergo, the idea that revelation transforms the subject is actually rejected under this tenant. That puts an end to that.
Oh does it? Which classical theism? The one that says that god turned into a perpetually burning shrub to convince some stuttering moron to throw a stick that turns into a snake at a Pharaoh? The one that turns women into pillars of salt for having regret? The one that makes a dude survive in a fish for a week? That's pretty classical theism for the Judeo-Christian world. If you want t talk about Greek Mythology, there's even better examples if interventionist gods.
You evidently have no idea what classical theism is. A reading of Aquinas might help. Classical theists, in the same manner as Aristotle, concede that there is a first cause responsible for created being: we call this the big bang, though the multiverese theorem contends that they may be several singularities (not just one). Ergo, classical theism, in the sense of which I speak, concerns causalities and effects. It replaces theology with metaphysical supposition and logical inference.
The "numinous in other ways" is still numinous by definition. This being the case, the numinous requires study and reflection. Music, sex, love point to a numinous realm of experience. But can this experience, this fancy of the divine, be classed as purely religious? Would Mr. Hitchens contend that it is at least spiritual in a Spinozistic sense?
scandanavian government are not killers and they are atheist and stalin didnt kill because he was an atheist or in the name of atheism whereas people blow themselves up in the name of religion. nobody blows themselves up in the name of atheism
You're an idiot mate. You follow the loudest voice , the best speaker , the minstrel giving the gallery of sheep what they scream for , while the gentle man speaks his truth quietly .
Firstly I'm not your mate. Secondly, this guy is saying "Atheism will kill if it gets into power" That's not truth, that's a flat lie. None of the crimes of the 1900s were committed in the name of atheism, unlike every single crime ever linked to religion. The questionner speaks no truth, at all. Every point Hitchens made about the church and Nazism, fascism, Stalin, Mao etc is factually correct. No loudest voice, just smacking this idiot round the head with plain facts.
Also, if you want further fact, you need to look no further than Japan, a country where 12% of the population states that religion has any effect on their lives or thoughts, yet it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. That's the plain example of a country, unburdened by religion, ruled by fair minded people (mostly), that operates perfectly. That's proof that this idea that "Atheists gaining power = mass death" Because it is simply not true.
Firstly , I wouldn't want you as a mate ( I was being derogitive ) .Yes , read the book" The rape of Nanking " and tell me about japanese morality. None of the crimes in the 1900s had anything to do with belief in Christ ( no matter what they professed ) . rapes , drug violence , abortion, race violence, greed, pornography , prostitution , gang warfare, broken homes in the states alone . The numbers are in the millions And DARE to tell me they were all God living people
"Ruled by fair minded people" Japan in the Second World War was not ruled by fair minded people, it was a dictatorship ruled by a despotic Emperor who was worshipped as a living God; his translated title was Heavenly Sovereign. Since then however, religiousness declines, crime rate drops. Whoops.
Regarding crime, I said: "unlike every single crime ever LINKED to religion"
Every crime LINKED to faith almost always ends up being carried out in its name. Learn to read before responding again.
Crime rate dropping in Japan has FUCK ALL to do with the absence of religion , you blind fool . The Japanese have a very different culture to ours ( especially the US ) . They are a civilised people who place great value on honour and culture and who worship their own gods ( another arguement ) .I can't stop laughing at this post
Inteesting. When I bring up Japan, you link its atheism lead to the horrible acts of the Second World War, ad think its a fine point. I point out that out that your incorrect on your accusation, but when I link its atheism to its low crime rate - like you attempted to link its atheism to its war crimes - I'm wrong? Someones being a hypocrit here.
god took the wrong brother
MrHitchslap 1 week ago
Poor Peter. Never stood a chance.
mouthyweasel 3 weeks ago
HITCHENS FOR THE WIN!
HelFKiernan 3 weeks ago
Ivan the Terrible. That questioner needs to look that up.
adknerr 2 months ago
The nation he described that follows the various philosophies of the people he mentioned: I would propose the same in the light of true Christianity. There has never been a whole nation to live by the true teachings of Christ. He can argue against religion all he wants, just don't categorize true Christianity within the same boat. By doing so his argument becomes null and void.
MrDddlll 2 months ago
One of the most beautiful arguments I've ever heard is given by Christopher Hitchens in this video.
AULhall 5 months ago 3
@AULhall Which one?
Barbershop666 2 weeks ago
Thank you for posting this, HauensteinCenter.
writersblock26 5 months ago 5
The Hitch makes really educated points. However, I think he diverts the issue on many occasions . The prompt is a question of God, but Hitch often makes it a question of religious organizations and churches, and he strikes them hard and with nearly all cases with justice. However, in the Jewish and Christian scriptures you find God being very harsh and blunt with people who claim to follow Him and worship Him and are extremely religious but act completely wrongly and disowns that conduct
TheSqualors 6 months ago
People can't be secular. When there's no God, something fills the void. Unfortunately for people, when a person fills the void, a howling ruin results.
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
@MPaulHolmes
what void? there is no void that exists without god or without believing in god, so nothing needs to or has to fill the void.
However, since god doesn't actually exist, for the people who believe a god does exist, there is a void, that gets filled by humans. Priests and rabies and Popes, and that always does lead to genocides, or raping of children.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg lol.
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
A good point, Chris. However, I have been told - and rightly so - that it is wise to discern whether God is speaking to you or not. Joseph Smith was told to found Mormonism by an angel. Was he right in doing so? Not according to the Bible, which is what he followed. Moroni told him every other Christian church was in error. But that could not be, because of what Christ said in Scripture. You see, you can't just go around saying everything done in the name of God is in the name of God.
GenghisKhan44 7 months ago
@GenghisKhan44 I can't imagine how one could possibly discern whether or not an action was divinely inspired, as such actions are subjective and we really must just take a man's word for it. I would also point out that the credentials of the bible are easily just as shady as those of the book of Mormon, and anyone who says otherwise knows very little about the formulation and construction of the bible. Just as with Joseph Smith, we are asked to take it on faith that THIS book is the word of god.
24arimar 6 months ago
i) I am rather perplexed that Christopher is even entertaining the argument put forth in the 3d minute of this video. All one needs to say is 'correlation does not equal causation'; instead, to use statistics and historical evidence as proof, without contextual analysis, as though all societies now (and before) are carbon copies of each other bar the presence, or the lack of, a state religion?...What?
ExEverest10 9 months ago
ii) A paraphrase: 'In the last 2,000 years states with endorsed religions have killed 1bn, those without have killed 2; therefore having a state religion is good' (keep in mind, implicit in that statement is the notion that religion is good for *all* states)
ExEverest10 9 months ago
Hitchens is Hitchslapping Hitchens.
rgdtexas 10 months ago
worst debate ever> Oh, hang on>>>>WHAT DEBATE!!!!????
hemlock91 11 months ago
Christopher Hitchens appears silly is arguments are frivolously and I believe he was clearly beaten by Peter. He says things like the Jews were never in Egypt and that fascism is just another term for right wing Catholicism which is just false. Why isn't St. Francis of Assisi right wing Catholicism? He makes arguments that if one has a subjective experience of God one has to accept that someone is told to go out and shoot someone because 'god' (or the dog) told him. That doesn't mean God did.
David20092203 11 months ago
@David20092203 You missed the point, his argument that God told nobody to do anything because He doesn't exist, however if you want to grant that someone did good because God told him to, what about those who claim they do evil because God told them to? The Catholic church was teaching children that the Jews killed Jesus until 1964, Hitler was raised Catholic. Coincidence? When they were caught raping children again, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said the only problem was the "Jewish" media.
rationalsalvation 10 months ago
@rationalsalvation Unfortunately you are wrong on all counts. Let's be clear, Catholicism and religion in general is not something that can be approached with a priori reasoning alone. The religious believe that God is objectively true and religion itself is knowledge based.
David20092203 10 months ago
@David20092203 I think I already knew that, thanks.
rationalsalvation 10 months ago
Your first argument is circular, one must follow what evidence they have objectively where ever it leads, not start and end with their own prejudicial presumptions. Jews did kill Jesus, He was killed breaking Jewish law, not Roman. However, the understanding is that of course this served God's purpose. "Hitler was raised Catholic", yes, but so was Mother Teresa, Hitler became engrossed in eugenics which originated in the United States.
David20092203 10 months ago
@David20092203 I missed these comments, I'll have to try to keep up with you. Mother Teresa did her best to make sure India remained poverty stricken because she got off on it. With all the money she received, she could have built hospitals, instead she built convents. There is no evidence that Jesus even existed, and even if he did, there is no evidence that he was killed by the Jews, therefore, it is a disgusting thing to raise children with this prejudice, the holocaust was inevitable.
rationalsalvation 10 months ago
. As for sexual assault of minors, that is not a sin of the Church, that is a sin within the Church and to lesser and variant degrees outside the Church. We are even now however unraveling sexual mores we claimed to cherish only fifteen years ago, it's a turbulent sea, better the Holy See.
David20092203 10 months ago
@David20092203 The current pope, Ratzinger, covered it up. There seems to be a direct connection between the catholic church and child rape, and we're learning of more and more horror stories everyday, not just new ones, but ones that date back further and further. The catholic church is a paedophile cult.
rationalsalvation 10 months ago
Christopher Hitchens claims that the Soviet Union is a religious state because he saw a picture of an Orthodox Bishop(no doubt in Stalin's employ) in a picture with Stalin. Did he notice the picture of Stalin with Winston Churchill and F.D.R.? Christopher Hitchen's claims that Heaven is a celestial North Korea but he makes this claim in one of the free countries if not the most free country in the world, America, which has the world's largest Christian populations. Absurd.
David20092203 10 months ago
@David20092203 If you were British citizen, as I am, a percentage of your tax goes to funding the Church of England. America IS the most free country in the world BECAUSE of it's secular constitution that forbids any one religious sect to control the government. Kim Jong Il presents himself as a God, and he is worshipped as a God, smells like some pseudo religion to me, atheists don't do that. Same goes for Stalin (I forgot about him).
rationalsalvation 10 months ago
@rationalsalvation I always sympathize with the British on that. For one, the Church of England is really a heretical concoction which no one can take seriously so I can understand why people there choose atheism. Second, the split with the Church by King Henry VIII was not based on theological grounds, he wanted male heirs and didn't have the science to see that depended exclusively on him, the man. Besides, England has had a great procession of Queens who ruled splendidly even to this day.
David20092203 10 months ago
@David20092203 I agree with most of that, however I'm what you might call a British republican, or an anti-monarchist.
rationalsalvation 10 months ago
According to Christopher Hitchens, North Korea is a heaven on earth, he should go there. Not that he's been to the Soviet Union either for that matter as his brother has but good ol' 'no experience Chris' babbles on.
David20092203 10 months ago
@David20092203 Christopher Hitchens has reported from 60 countries worldwide, including Russia and North Korea, also including Iraq and Iran, I daresay he's travelled more extensively than his brother.
rationalsalvation 10 months ago
Fuck you Christopher! National Socialism all the way!
HomogeneousEurope 1 year ago
This old moron asking the question is just trying to receive emotional approval from all those who will agree with him regardless. Let's ignore the fact that SO MUCH evil is done in the name of religion, and only focus on the happy, touchy feely things. Yes, religion can provide beneficial services, but only if they're allowed to tack on the 'converting' aspect as well. That's truly selfish.
echalko 1 year ago
could be argued that the middle period of the united states did many of the things christopher mentioned, and of course it was founded upon democracy etc.
however i suppose it could also be argued that Christianity and the idealism of White European supremacy played a large part in the slavery of africans, the genocide of native americans.....
123jataylor 1 year ago
Christopher is a fucking BEAST
ibreakkidslegs 1 year ago
Doctor Hitchens cannot hear the response to his question over the sound of applause.
'I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am'
andonome 1 year ago
I dont think that peter is the type of christion that chris is attacking......there is organised religion an simple faith.....and there is a world of difference......for what its worth i am an atheist...
daveculhane 1 year ago
And you shall know my name is the Hitch, when I lay my slap upon thee.
wearealltubes 1 year ago 23
lol @ the guy in the background at 3:18 who rolls his eyes at the questioner
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 year ago
To the free intelligent open mind, Peter obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on and makes his self look like a dork in his feeble attempts to match witts with is genuis bro.
kick08ful 1 year ago
There is no such thing as atheistic preacing. Preaching is what priests and other believers do. Atheists have a lack of belief, ergo no preaching. We could do brainwashing like the religious people do, but that has nothing to do with atheism.
An atheist = one who doesn't believe in God. End of story. Has nothing to do with a world view or politics.
MultigamerLygre 1 year ago
For the first time so far Peter manages to make a good point; that people do evil things not because they are atheists/believers, but because they are people.
Too bad he didn't realize he was making an argument, at the start of the debate, from exactly the point of view he's denouncing here...
MrCattlehunter 1 year ago
Get it? Where we started. Hahah. d(:
pervertedmind 1 year ago
That's NOT the point PETER!!! damn... =D
iekenta03 1 year ago
"Virality"
Isn't a word.
His point is equally nonexistent.
niginit 1 year ago
@niginit virality
Pronunciation: /vʌɪˈralɪti/
Definition: (n) the state of being viral.
Tsicar 1 year ago
What about the French Republic after the Revolution, inspired as it was largely by Rousseau? An anti-clerical, rational, enlightened State, at least in conception, that led to the slaughter of thousands and just ended up in dictatorship. The USA would be the other, which is presumably why Hitch has moved there, and yet the imperialism continues as he himself has expertly detailed.
zootsoot2006 2 years ago
@zootsoot2006 That is indeed a good point!
PlatonsArm 1 year ago
It is truly as simple as this: atheists can't be blamed for violent communism any more than people who are anti-communists, or a-communists, can be blamed for Nazism.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
I agree! Atheists never kill people!
maatwerk67 1 year ago
Did you even read my comment?
Atheism isn't a position itself. It's rejection of one. Stalinists didn't kill people because they were atheists, they killed people because they were Stalinists!
It's a pathetic tactic, yours. Someone points out the evils and fallacies of your belief system and your retort is to point out that some people that didn't yield to your system killed people too.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
@maatwerk67-R U serious!!! Have u ever heard of Hitler, Stalin, The communists, Obama who kills thousands of babies every day, etc. WOW! i can't believe u made that statement. Remember Jesus loved u so much he died & rose from the dead to save u from ur sins that will lead u to hell if u don't repent & accept Christ as ur Lord & Savior. Hope u accept that gift soon b4 it's to late.
HelloWorld1947 1 year ago
@HelloWorld1947 Are you joking? I don't want to waste my time telling you how ridiculous your statement is if you aren't serious.
ISS5731 1 year ago
@HelloWorld1947 DOesn't sound like a gift to me. Sounds like celestial blackmail.
trailofdeadpeople 1 year ago
@HelloWorld1947 Hitler and the Nazis were Catholics. The oath of the Hitler Youth included the phrase "we will obey God". Obama is a Christian, and has attended church every week for decades. He was criticised for his association with his preacher during the campaign. And Jesus isn't real, and even if he was, he didn't die willingly, he was murdered against his will, and his last words were "Father, why have you forsaken me?"
hugoegbert79 1 year ago
@hugoegbert79_I don't know whether to call u stupid or ignorant.......So i'll let u decide which one u r and then we can have a smart people discussion, OK, buddy.
HelloWorld1947 1 year ago
@HelloWorld1947 You're the one who claims the Nazis were atheists. Sorry to correct you, but I think it's important to enter some facts into this debate.
hugoegbert79 1 year ago
I almost feel sorry for Peter, Chrisopher makes a much better arguement on both issues. I strongly disagree with Chrisopher on the Iraq war, but if I went solely by the information provided in this debate I think I would have been for it.
tat20001 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
but if I went solely by the information provided in this debate I think I would have been for it.
"" Think the same way about his plane to lead you to the hell"
TAXILA76 2 years ago
I am not sure what you are trying to say, but if you seriously think that, then don't worry - He can't have a plan to lead me to a non-existant place.
tat20001 2 years ago 2
@tat20001
dude, you gotta watch ritter vs. hitchens, good debate, equal i say on the war of iraq :D
Dougca1985 2 years ago
@tat20001 I would like to disagree with CH about his Iraq stance but I lived and worked in Iraq for 5-1/2 years and spent most of that time with the Kurds in Northern Iraq, who were decimated by the Baathists. I can relate to reasons to remove Saddam, but perhaps there could have been diplomatic (or even covert) means to reduce harm, especially factoring-in the terrible price paid by civillians between 1991 through current times by way of Coalition embargoes and outright war.
7democracY7 2 years ago 3
@7democracY7 first hand information is hard to come by, thank you for this
pyjamas1191 1 year ago
BTW,, the chinese had a God and were not atheists,,, they worshiped him from the early age of 12, I think, made sacrifices to him all of his life and offered gifts and concubines and mates with the right genetic features to pass on his holy and imperial genes.
exa0 2 years ago
he said 'S$X', what is his problem
kamalgilkes 2 years ago
old dude got smacked intellectually
tg343441 2 years ago 3
owned lol
Patrick1176 2 years ago 2
What the fuck? How? He's not even comparable to Chris.
steveey251 2 years ago 2
they're both well read, well educated, well spoken, and yet... Christopher is obviously the smarter of the two brothers. throughout the debate Peter continually misses the point entirely.
chaoszieg 2 years ago 45
@chaoszieg continually misses the point and continually passes on answering the questions put to both of them, because he couldn't think of anything to say.
angryafghan 7 months ago
@chaoszieg Clearly he does not. Christopher always always avoids or misses the point about objective morality. He always always goes off onto a tangent of actual behaviour as opposed to the reality or relativity of morality. It's actually very very tedious.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
well there is no such thing as objective morality. Looking at either culture, or history, will tell anyone that.
Things considered immoral in America 50 years ago are now considered moral. Things we view as disgusting and evil today, were part of everyday life and considered the moral and just way to live 200 years ago.
The mere suggestion of objective morality is a joke not worth addressing.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg You are making an argument that doesn't even touch on the subject of the existence, or otherwise of objective morality. All you are proving is the transient nature of relative morality. Thanks.
The mere suggestion? Given that you believe the above even addresses the issue I suspect that you need to reconsider the issue in depth before making such a statement again.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 if you think Objective morality exists, you first have to explain what things are objectively moral and objectively immoral, and why they are moral or immoral without using personal opinion, which cannot be done.
For instance I could describe objectively immoral things as anything that harms another person. But that's my opinion and doesn't mean that in reality it's objectively immoral to not do harm to others.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
you can say I'm only proving the transient nature of relative morals, doesn't change the fact that things considered objectively immoral are now considered moral. Everyone who's always claimed to know what is "objectively moral" has been proven wrong by culture or time. So you or anyone else claiming to know anything about objective morals is a joke.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
I suggest you reconsider the issue.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
One final note, if you are thinking of attributing objective morals to God you lose there as well, for a number of reasons.
God was used as the standard for objective morality by the same people who committed acts we now call immoral.
which god and which list of morals are the objective ones is entirely based on your opinion
Even if you get the right god and right list, those would only be god's opinions.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg I will reply to this and thus all of your posts. 1) Yes all you prove is the transience of relative morality, agreed. 2) No one who has claimed objective morality has ever been proved wrong, only observed to be within a secular framework 3) If 'God' exists and is capable of omniscience and perfect reason his 'morality' would be objective 4) Simply because people have said 'God' told me to do it, does not make it actually true.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
I simply have to facepalm at your second sentence. I'm sorry but I have a very low tolerance level for stupidity and you shattered it by a mile with that one. your third sentence only doubles your obvious stupidity.
Try reading what you just posted, think about it for a minute, and if you can't see what's wrong with it, I have no more time to waste on someone of your inferior level of thinking.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Seriously, this is the typical 'new atheist' response. Instead of having an argument, sneer and try to 'appear' superior. You are basically guilty of a form of circular reasoning. You establish human views on morality are subjective and transient because they are. If objective morality exists, it is possible to behave in an objectively moral way, however transient human morality would be incapable of totally realising or refuting it. 3 is in no way stupid, that would be, your opinion.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
I'm not trying to appear superior, I am superior to you. I'm sorry the fact you're a moron has had many people point that fact out.
I didn't say your 3rd point, I said your 3rd sentence. That's your 2nd point.
As for finally if you think there was any circularity in my argument you have just again proven what an idiot you are.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
I have explained as simply as I can, that even if objective morality exists we don't know what it is, and never will, so trying to talk about it is a complete waste of time.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the more times I read your second point, the more fucking retarded I realize you are.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg 1) True unless an authority that can know what it is can relate it to us 2) How sad, please mock the disabled some more in your quest to appear intellectually superior. 3) My second point stands in light of your own concession that, to paraphrase, 'you don't what objective morality is.' If you do not know what it is, even if it exists, then you have no objective framework to judge it against to validate or invalidate it. Simple logic my friend.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
1) as already explained, and already proven by all of human history, no such authority exists, or has never been known, so again a completely pointless point.
2) I'm not mocking the Disabled, I'm mocking you. Stop being one of those sensitive butthurt little shits who's acting like a word no one had a problem with using 1 year ago is no oh so offensive and mean to say because Sarah Palin said so. Grow the fuck up
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg 1) Clearly the absence of 'God' (ie the appropriate authority) has not been proved, and neither can you assert that the entity you cannot disprove has not been known. Sorry.
2) Civilized people have always had an issue using a term which refers to the mentally disabled for the sake of cheap invective, it's not new, sorry to inform you. The Special Olympics have a standing campaign against the use of the word. Deal with it. Oh and mocking isn't arguing, it's just pathetic.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
1) you're right that God has not been proven, but you're wrong on the latter half. Every god that has been dreamed up by humans can easily be proven wrong.
2)civilized people? I think you mean people who need to grow up.
mocking isnt arguing, glad you managed to figure something out for yourself. It's not "pathetic" though, it's quite a necessity in some cases. For example when dealing with someone too stupid to really worry about arguing with. I.E. you
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg 1) I said the 'absence,' do pay attention. I agree with your subsequent assertion on man-made ideas of 'God.' At last a point of concensus.
2) Please keep illustrating your apparently self imposed limitations when it comes to discussion. I am being charitable and assuming you could do better. The Special Olympics organisation 'needs to grow up' yes, I'm sure. How did this make you feel?
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
Yes they do, and to keep on this point, "civilized people" have not always been against the word retarded, because it original was, and actually still is, the clinical definition of a mental condition. To be against the word retarded is kind of like being against the word black. Yes people did begin to use it as a word to insult people with that condition, but what to be against is using it in that context, not the word itself.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Please stop trying to justify your position. That you think that 'retarded' or 'retard' are acceptable language is no better than using any other derogatory term for people that are different from you. Just see what the people at Special Olympics have to say about it. The people who are directly connected and influenced by your use of such language are better qualified to comment on it than either of us.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
No either stop hiding from the fact you've been thoroughly shown to be full of shit, and either except it, or try to give even 1 example of something objectively moral without using your own opinion.
And no, the people at the "special Olympics" are not better qualified to comment on it because they have personal investment in it, so their opinions would be biased rather then objective.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg You are living under the delusion that your position is anything other than I have presented. I do not need to give an example of something 'objectively moral' to argue that they can exist and that your presentation on the subjective nature of human-generated morality in no way impacts on the discussion UNLESS humans are the only 'creators' of morality.'
With regards to your second statement, that's simply bull headed ignorance. Your language offends just as using the 'n' word does
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
Language offending or not is of no importance to it's meaning or significance.
Also niggers aren't offended if other niggers use the word nigger, there's also nothing inherently insulting or degrading about the word nigger. It's the context it's used in that makes it insulting.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg I begin to think you are hugely naive. Further you are conflating with the term 'nigga' which while related is not synomymous. The history of the word makes it pejorative in nature. The fact that only those people whom the word was promoted to insult consider themselves qualified to use it, or derivations, far from removing the intended insult, is a deliberate refutation and denial of that insult. Go call a selection of random black people on the street by the term, see how that goes.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
there is no intended insult in the word nigger. The intended insult comes from the person using it.
It can be used as an insult yes, but it isn't an insult by itself.
And again, someone's person opinion or reaction to a word says nothing about the actual meaning or intent of the word itself.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Ok we'll just put this down to pig-headedness and naivety. Please go and, prefacing with 'this is not an insult but' and then adding 'hello my nigger friend' see how a random selection of black people react. When several of them hit you, despite your best attempts to use the word politely, perhaps you will reconsider.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
*sigh* again, you are attributing how someone would react to the word to the actual meaning of the word.
Do you even know what objective means? I already explained to you that a persons reaction to a word has no barring on the objective meaning of the word, yet you continue to act like it does.
You made a false comparison to begin with between nigger and retarded, because no one calls a non-black person a nigger, while retarded is used primarily on those who aren't retarded.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg merriam-webster. com/dictionary/nigger: 'Its use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive, but, except in sense 3, it is otherwise a word expressive of racial hatred and bigotry.' Sense 3 is 'a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons.' It is thus defined as generally offensive.
No doubt the dictionary is wrong.
It's a false comparison because of who you use the word to offend? The point is they are both slurs born of contempt for a group of people
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
read websters again, definition 1: A black person.
definition 2: A member of any dark skinned race.
The dictionary isn't wrong, you are though.
Yes it is a false comparison for that very reason.
The point is neither were born fro contempt and neither were slurs. People used them for insults yes, but so what? Niggers call white people crackers, should we now stop using the word cracker because it's a slur and an insult to a group of people?
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg So your way to avoid this particular argument is to totally ignore the issue of usage, good. Going back to my earlier citation, in the first 2 senses, it is with the exception of the 3rd, expressive of racial hatred and bigotry. Are you saying you can divorce words from their usage? What 'use' is an 'unused' word?
'Cracker' is not comparable because it has an everyday, legimitate usage. The same is no longer true of 'nigger.'
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
which is why there's no problem with me using it to describe you, because I'm not using it to insult anyone with that mental condition, I'm only using it to insult you.
Words are not defined only by their meaning, they are defined by their context and intent as well.
I have shown no limitations, as I have been able to both explain why you're an idiot, and call you an idiot in the same posts.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg *sigh* I pity you. Please if this self reassuring invective is all you have to offer, do us both a favour and stop posting. You have demonstrated nothing except your ability to make the loudest 'noise.' The paradigm runs, 'empty vessels make the most noise.' This is definitely apt.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
You should pity me, since I've had to waste my time talking to you.
Again, I am not "self reassuring" no reason to do that. If these pathetic little attempts to hide from the fact you have no argument that can't easily be defeated then you are the one who should stop posting.
Course I think you should have done that after your second post, when it still looked like you actually had a brain.
dont hide from your inadequacies with "stop being mean to me." try to actually learn.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg You still haven't actually made any response to the points you called 'stupid' other than to say, 'that's stupid.' People said much the same to Charles Darwin. All it indicated was they hadn't actually read his proposals with any care or thought. You say I make no argument, and yet I am the last person to put up a reasoned position. Since then all you have done is confuse assertion with argument and cover it up with bravado. Your first line in this post is worthy of the school yard.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
Even if I haven't made any actually response other then to call them stupid, which I actually have, I already know it will go right over your head. To anyone else it should be more then painfully obvious why they're stupid, and it would be insulting for me to have to explain it. Both insulting to them and to me
You haven't put up a reasoned position yet youve simply ignored everything that shows your position is weak, and tried unsuccessfully to respond where you think you can
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Like I say, you have a great deal of growing up to do. The only reasoned part of your argument was to show that secular morality is transient, we agree. You believe this argument invalidates the possible reality of objective morality, whereas it doesn't even touch on the subject. You then asserted even with 'God' it is still only 'God's opinion.' You have further failed to show how anyone's claim to objective morality has been fundamentally refuted, other than with personal opinion.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
Showing secular morality is transient, if you think that's what I did, also proves that the very idea that anyone could know anything about objective morals is a joke, and a conversation not even worth having. That you could miss that is just sad, especially since I also pointed it out to you, which of course you ignored cause you have no argument against it.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Consider this again: Secular morality is transient = knowledge of secular morality is impossible. Do you really think this is a logical sequitur? You seem to think this has been missed. No, it has been demonstrated to be illogical. All you have proved is that human-generated morality is incapable of being truly objective. However the argument with regards to objective morality relies, in no part, on humans having a hand in its creation.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
Also whoever said knowledge of secular morality was impossible? I know I never did, and I'm pretty sure you didn't either.
What I have proven, to tell you again, is even if objective morality exists, no one can demonstrate it, it can never be shown to exist, so it's pointless to think it does, and useless to debate over it. You have done nothing to show objective morality exists. You have done even less to show that if it does, how we would ever know it.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Apologies, it should have read = knowledge of objective morality is impossible*.
I refer you to your first response: 'there is no such thing as objective morality' said you. You have tried to shift the goal posts, and yet this was your central contention, which I have refuted with no response from you.
All you have demonstrated is that humans are incapable of discerning it due to their nature. All I have done is to show your own argument to be far from proven.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
All you have done is nothing. you haven't shown a single thing, except your own ignorance.
I have not "shifted the goal posts" the goal was objective morality does not exist. You have yet to even attempt to show argue, or defend, the idea that it does exist.
You've lost and I have nothing to do until you at least try to defend that it does
Of course I've already shown that even if it does exist it's pointless to talk about because we'll never know it I'm already ahead of you
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Oh no no, you totally misunderstand the nature of my response. I have, at no stage, please quote me otherwise, stated 'you are wrong because objective morality does exist.' You have shifted the goal posts by trying to impose this duty upon me, and further by trying to ascribe it to me in the first place :P
I only needed to suggest objective morality 'could' exist to invalidate your position. I have set forth the argument, you have ignored it :) (That includes whether we can know it.)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
If all you've got is "Objective morals exist!" which is so far all you do have, you've already lost. And if all you've got is, objective morals exist, and you can't prove they don't" you've still lost, because an argument that can't be proven false is not an argument. It fails on it's very face.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Erm I haven't stated that anywhere, at anytime. You are now refuting an argument I have not made. Please refer back and consider that all I have done is refuted the surity of your position ie 'objective morality cannot exist therefore it does not exist.'
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
Again you have refuted nothing. I also did not say they cannot therefore they do not, because in fact they could possibly exist. I simply said they do not. You've done nothing to refute that. If you can in anyway refute it, please go ahead and try to prove they do exist.
I've already given you the best you'll be able to do, "they could exist." but just because something can exist doesn't mean it does exist.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Hang on. Do you realise the contradiction inherent to:
Objective morality could exist but Objective morality does not exist.
We aren't discussing whether or not there have been any Black Presidents of the US before Obama. Sure there 'could' have been, and yet it is demonstrably not the case.
When it comes to morality you cannot empirically prove their absence if logic concedes they could exist. Unless of course you can disprove 'God.'
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
you show more and more why you deserve the label retarded. There is no contradiction, that you think there is, is laughable at best.
When it comes to morality or god or anything else I do not have to prove their absence to state they do not exist, even if it is possible they could. You or someone else has to prove they actually do exist, until then the default is to assume they don't
Logic is obviously something you don't have
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg So nothing exists until it is proved to exist, really? Evolution by natural selection did not place until Wallace and Darwin began to 'prove' it, or maybe till Watson and Crick established the cellular mechanism?
The default position, my friend when you cannot prove, or disprove something is to state 'I don't know whether it exists or not.' Not 'It does not exist.'
I am the one who lacks logic? :P
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
Yes you are the one who lacks logic. I'm really getting tired of having to explain everything to you. Go try to learn something on your own for a change.
I didn't say anything close to nothing exists until it is proven to exist, I said if something cannot be proven to exist, the default is to assume it doesn't.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg I quote your entire first sentence to me: "well there is no such thing as objective morality."
You have subsequently said, "I also did not say they cannot therefore they do not, because in fact they could possibly exist."
So unless your assumption is a form of proof, you have invalidated your first statement. The best you can state is that you do not believe objective morality exists, or that you think it is improbable to whatever degree.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
it's possible pink unicorns exist on the planet cymptex just outside the gravix nebula, which humans wont discover for another 5,000,000,000 years
I can't prove that and you can't disprove it, so are you now going to think pink unicorns could exist on an alien planet?
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg Nope, I am going to say, 'I believe, on the available evidence that there are no such entities in existence.' I am not going to say, 'they do not' only that that they 'probably do not.'
However ultimately I would have to concede, however improbable, that 'I do not know.'
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
and again with the retarded statements. I have failed to show how anyone's claim to objective morality has been refuted? you really are deserving of the title mentally retarded. The fact that things once considered objectively moral are now considered objectively immoral refutes claims to objective morality.
What you have failed to do is to give even 1 example of something that is objectively moral or immoral, and how it is objectively so.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg No, that fact only says that transient human morality is transient. Circular. It says nothing, absolutely nothing, about whether or not objective morality exists or whether anyone has ever correctly described their behaviour as objectively moral.
Consider: If objective morality exists it does so independent of human opinion. Opinions on a subject do not change any fundamental truth inherent. DNA exists whether or not someone 'thinks' we have cotton wool for genetic material.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
3) your second point doesn't stand in light of anything. I could make 1,000 concessions and it would still be a retarded sentence.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
Also I have no need to "quest" or try to look or appear superior to you in any way. To begin with I have no reason to do that, and secondly, all I have to do to appear superior to you is have you post responses. You're doing a perfect job of displaying your own ignorance all on your own thank you
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg If I ever want a post to illustrate a definition of pseudo-intellectual arrogance, I will use this as an apposite example.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
I also believe I already told you, I have a very low tolerance level for stupid. Once you cross it I'm not going to do much else but mock you. I'll of course explain why all your arguments are stupid while mocking you, but you aren't going to get any more civility out of me. I don't have any to waste on people who post things as retarded as you have.
chaoszieg 6 months ago
@chaoszieg You haven't made a coherent case for your position yet. You may believe you have. However you have really only established the premise: human based morality is subjective, via circular reasoning. Everything else you have had to say has simply been assertion upon assertion. I begin to think you must be very young, either in biological age or in 'other ways.' Peace.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
Are you serious?
RHDZ3 2 years ago
I have no idea how. Peter is a buffoon.
deRoyLight 2 years ago 4
What is with your obsession with christopher Shaan? BONKERS
yington 2 years ago
the moderator got slapped down by hitchens for being so dumb to not see the question posed at one point - stupid mod
emuholic 2 years ago
I don't think he actually posed a question before the moderator intervened. Correct me if I'm wrong.
RHDZ3 2 years ago
I simply admire the comment in episode 11, if we are to teach creationism in schools than churches should preach darwinism, equal terms.
Adavidson100 2 years ago 42
@Adavidson100 Free exercise of religion, bro. The church is not a branch of the state and rightly so. So public policy only applies to public establishments. You should also be aware that if churches come out and openly support a political candidate, they lose their tax exemption.
alanswindoll 1 year ago
@Adavidson100 And yet the statement is ridiculous on its face because parents are legally bound to send their children to school, not so to church. The demand is hardly equal under the terms of the law.
CebeliusBotV 1 year ago
@Adavidson100 Don't worry, I'm not a creationist. But your point is more or less valid... Churches teach what they believe in. It's their right to believe in whatever they want. Schools on the other hand ought to teach every possible theory out there. That's the difference I wanted to point out.
That being said, I'm Catholic, and we don't believe in creationism in the litteral sence of the term :) I think creationists are stupids, but that's another topic
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Adavidson100 As do I. Evolution is the best scientific position we know of. And it need not be in conflict with religion, either. It will, however, force evangelical Protestants to think not only in Biblical terms, but in empirical terms. Early Christian scientists thought in material AND spiritual terms, not merely, or even primarily, spiritual.
GenghisKhan44 7 months ago
It is of course are only means of attempting to explain "anything." I mean that, within the realm of human experience, between the interstices of reason and intuition, there is a quantum as yet unknown. Some day reason might make this known and therefore render speculation defunct. But the numinous experiences of selfhood, since the beginning of time, have always pointed (however irrationally or rationally) to the postulation of a God-like entity. The conception is an old one.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
And since when has an old idea been a right idea?
Reason and empiricism will never remove all doubt because whenever a person's pet theory is disproven, any number of hypotheses can be discarded to protect the pet theory. You can always hug onto what you want, even if it means you pretend the world is flat and that light bends asymptotically.
Numinous experiences are nothing to an outside observer. I don't care if you orgasm over feeling special, it doesn't make you or your gods special.
beriukay 2 years ago
Did I say the conception verified itself? No, I did not. When did I say I believed in God? You are very misguided here. The nouminous, as Spinoza points out, does not have to lead to the supposition of a deity. Rather, it might lead one to a conception of individual rootedness in Nature, in the material matrix of existence; it might well lead to an understanding of being. Ontology is not a "pet idea": it is the attempt to answer the question of the causality of existence.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
You said "But the [blah blah] have always pointed [...] to the postulation of a God-like entity." Which boils down to either a belief in or an explanation for why others believe in gods.
I assume you are a philosopher of one stripe or another, but some old philosopher's feelings and writings about feeling special can easily be explained with Natural Selection. Brains are hard-wired to see things that aren't there. It has saved many lives over the last few hundred million years.
beriukay 2 years ago
Your respect for philosophy is misplaced, if not unearned. Most likely you are an American pissed off with the many Bible bashers that convene upon your shores and work in your capitals. Perhaps you live in some desolate place like Alaska: somewhere in which you are outnumbered by Bible-thumbing idiots. So let me say this: I am not your enemy. I do not object to your atheism (why anyone would is beyond me). But I do believe you should read more philosophy, if possible.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
I shall take your advice under consideration. However, do not think that I disregard philosophy. I am very much a fan of logic, the philosophy of science and consciousness, to name a few.
beriukay 2 years ago
In effect, to what extent does humanism even apply to atheism? Why should morality matter in the atheistic paradigm? I can understand that it can exist agnostically - even theistically - but if we predicate a humanism solely within the domain of atheism, an atheism which rejects the primacy and ethical relevance of human life, then surely we are not left with much of humanism at all? I myself am Spinozistic in my belief in Godliness, in my conviction that reason cannot explain everything.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
If the atheist believes that life is not sacred, special, significant, then, yes there is a possibility that genocide can be committed flippantly. Yet the theist, who is said to believe such things, has committed such genocide in any event. I believe greater damage "can" be committed in the name of atheism "if" and only "if" it believes that life is not sacred. Most would agree with this. The problem is that the postulation of sacredness lies in the domain of the spiritual.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
You don't mean atheists or atheism here. You are talking about nihilism. There is only a one-way connection between the word sacred and the words special or significant. Look at the vast, empty, cold, dark universe and tell me that I think life is not special or significant. There is nothing MORE significant than life. Especially sentient life. But that does not imply that we are magically endowed with sentience by a monkey god (which I assume you mean when you say sacred).
beriukay 2 years ago
Nihilism, atheism and agnosticism are equal to the degree they participate in the formation of skeptical propositions. I too regard life as infinitely significant. It is beautiful. But I do not rule out noumenal experience of beauty, the infinitude of mathematics, the expansive of space and time, the inductive possibilities of metaphysics, the emotive connectedness to life, the "being-in-the-world" that Heidegger often spoke of. This "being-in-the-world" can be sacred all on its own.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
By the way, classical theism does not believe in an interventionist God...ergo, the idea that revelation transforms the subject is actually rejected under this tenant. That puts an end to that.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
Oh does it? Which classical theism? The one that says that god turned into a perpetually burning shrub to convince some stuttering moron to throw a stick that turns into a snake at a Pharaoh? The one that turns women into pillars of salt for having regret? The one that makes a dude survive in a fish for a week? That's pretty classical theism for the Judeo-Christian world. If you want t talk about Greek Mythology, there's even better examples if interventionist gods.
beriukay 2 years ago
You evidently have no idea what classical theism is. A reading of Aquinas might help. Classical theists, in the same manner as Aristotle, concede that there is a first cause responsible for created being: we call this the big bang, though the multiverese theorem contends that they may be several singularities (not just one). Ergo, classical theism, in the sense of which I speak, concerns causalities and effects. It replaces theology with metaphysical supposition and logical inference.
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
The "numinous in other ways" is still numinous by definition. This being the case, the numinous requires study and reflection. Music, sex, love point to a numinous realm of experience. But can this experience, this fancy of the divine, be classed as purely religious? Would Mr. Hitchens contend that it is at least spiritual in a Spinozistic sense?
BeholdZeus 2 years ago
scandanavian government are not killers and they are atheist and stalin didnt kill because he was an atheist or in the name of atheism whereas people blow themselves up in the name of religion. nobody blows themselves up in the name of atheism
bonfirejovi 2 years ago 3
Good point, the Scandinavians are also neutral and have the highest standard of living in the world.
The rest of the world should follow their example.
Evolution has conclusively been proved read the origin of species by Charles Darwin.
infokemp 2 years ago 2
hithchens pwns that answear!!
pritz29 2 years ago 6
Wow the old fucker who posed the question lost it. Looked like a lunatic.
cupocity303 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
wow chris is a disgusting man- and a liar
valerienanh 3 years ago
Really? Maybe you can tell us where he lied? That would be more helpful than just name calling.
irishmauddib 2 years ago
Wow. That may just be the most comprehensive owning of someone I've ever seen in a debate. Brilliant.
mw2000 3 years ago
I can't agree more :) that was amazing!
kmaiyssss 3 years ago
You're an idiot mate. You follow the loudest voice , the best speaker , the minstrel giving the gallery of sheep what they scream for , while the gentle man speaks his truth quietly .
123strauss 3 years ago
Firstly I'm not your mate. Secondly, this guy is saying "Atheism will kill if it gets into power" That's not truth, that's a flat lie. None of the crimes of the 1900s were committed in the name of atheism, unlike every single crime ever linked to religion. The questionner speaks no truth, at all. Every point Hitchens made about the church and Nazism, fascism, Stalin, Mao etc is factually correct. No loudest voice, just smacking this idiot round the head with plain facts.
mw2000 3 years ago
Also, if you want further fact, you need to look no further than Japan, a country where 12% of the population states that religion has any effect on their lives or thoughts, yet it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. That's the plain example of a country, unburdened by religion, ruled by fair minded people (mostly), that operates perfectly. That's proof that this idea that "Atheists gaining power = mass death" Because it is simply not true.
mw2000 3 years ago
Firstly , I wouldn't want you as a mate ( I was being derogitive ) .Yes , read the book" The rape of Nanking " and tell me about japanese morality. None of the crimes in the 1900s had anything to do with belief in Christ ( no matter what they professed ) . rapes , drug violence , abortion, race violence, greed, pornography , prostitution , gang warfare, broken homes in the states alone . The numbers are in the millions And DARE to tell me they were all God living people
123strauss 3 years ago
"Ruled by fair minded people" Japan in the Second World War was not ruled by fair minded people, it was a dictatorship ruled by a despotic Emperor who was worshipped as a living God; his translated title was Heavenly Sovereign. Since then however, religiousness declines, crime rate drops. Whoops.
Regarding crime, I said: "unlike every single crime ever LINKED to religion"
Every crime LINKED to faith almost always ends up being carried out in its name. Learn to read before responding again.
mw2000 3 years ago
Crime rate dropping in Japan has FUCK ALL to do with the absence of religion , you blind fool . The Japanese have a very different culture to ours ( especially the US ) . They are a civilised people who place great value on honour and culture and who worship their own gods ( another arguement ) .I can't stop laughing at this post
123strauss 3 years ago
Inteesting. When I bring up Japan, you link its atheism lead to the horrible acts of the Second World War, ad think its a fine point. I point out that out that your incorrect on your accusation, but when I link its atheism to its low crime rate - like you attempted to link its atheism to its war crimes - I'm wrong? Someones being a hypocrit here.
mw2000 3 years ago