Christopher Hitchens Moral Challenge to the god fearing religious folks

[comeonfolks]

Hitchens needs to clarify. By science, what is moral? What is wicked, in terms of scientific evidence. If I am going to distinguish between good and wicked, then I need to know the scientific difference between the two. Surely, if wicked exists, there is scientific data that I could use to base my answer on. Of course, if there is no scientific data, presumably wicked does not exists (if wicked did exist, surely sciece would have discovered it by now) which this question would be irrational.

[edheldude]

@comeonfolks As Sam Harris puts it: Values reduce to facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Well-being is a very plastic concept bound to change as our understanding and technology changes but health is a similar concept and we have no trouble handling that. Wickedness is not a thing but a concept, and I'm sure you understand that without resorting to puerility.

[saugustus1]

its amazing how many religious people suspend their logic on this issue

[dman519]

@saugustus1 haha. its not amazing that religious people suspend logic. they do it everyday.

[saugustus1]

@dman519 truth. those rats...

[dman519]

@saugustus1 I prefer to call them sheep.

[beerbuddy]

Easy answer to be taken in the following context.

Man points gun at your head.

Asks simple question if you renounce god you live.

Athiest can and will do this no problem.

Many christians will refuse to do so and will therfore die.

[ace1122tw]

@beerbuddy That is not an answer. Try again.

[viridismonasteriense]

@beerbuddy So religion makes you hurt yourself for no reason whatsoever. But we all knew that already. The sado-masochistic tendencies in the foundations of the Abrahamic faiths are obvious to all.

It is the most dangerous and disgusting concept of all, to think that all suffering in this world happens for a reason. The notion that any horror committed may be justified by the ends. Redemption justifies mass-murder, excused by "we deserve it" and "they deserved it". Religious morality is sick.

[chriskraska]

Your argument is specious and in no way invalidates any of Hitchens' claims, nor have you answered his challenge.

To demonstrate, belief in a god can and does cause some people in certain situations to act LESS morally than if they had NO belief in god.

You're statement and mine are both valid. You have proven nothing.

[barifkin31]

@burnyourcrutch

My ENTIRE argument, just to reiterate, was that a belief in God CAN AND DOES motivate some people in some situations to behave more morally than had they had no belief in God. This is a fact. This fact clearly and directly stands in opposition to Hitchens' thesis. Both of these statements cannot be true and since I've given adequate and sufficient reasons why my statement is true, Hitchens' must be false. Feel free to respond using PROPER CONVERSATIONAL (LOGICAL) ARGUMENTATION.

[edheldude]

@barifkin31 I don't think anyone's claiming that unjustified beliefs couldn't lead to good or utilitarian outcomes - but that wasn't Hitchens' point in his challenge.

[barifkin31]

@burnyourcrutch

You also write, "belief in God is NOT a valid predictor of moral behavior". That's fine. I agree with you. I NEVER stated this as a fact or as a personal belief. You clearly have a very weak grasp on logic, semantics, and argumentation.

There are rules to conversation. You can't just say anything you want. If I say 'How is your day?' and you respond 'are when bacon' you HAVE violated the rules of proper conversation. Non-Sequitur means DOES NOT FOLLOW. Read more books.

[barifkin31]

@burnyourcrutch

Really? You "could easily knock that ball right back"? Please explain in detail how I misrepresented your argument. I don't understand how a direct quote could constitute a strawman. Please enlighten me.

You write, "a person will act in accordance with his own nature". This statement is far too vague to actually mean anything. What exactly is a nature? Where do natures come from and from do they derive? Do natures change? You see, all you've offered is empty rhetoric.

[barifkin31]

@burnyourcrutch

Now I get it. It's the theists fault for not providing atheists with adequate avenues through which their charity can flow. It's the poor atheists who are being kept from being charitable by the cruel, overlord theists. Good one.

You speak of having an argument and yet you provide nothing of the sort. All you do is offer your "suspicions", and refuse to engage in the conversation properly. You write, "a good person will do good and a bad person, bad."

Duh! Nice tautology!

[barifkin31]

@burnyourcrutch

Yes yes yes. Congratulations on passing your freshman seminar and engaging in a superficial study of Freudian/Nietzschen ethics.

Typical internet intellectual. You've 1) levied a baseless accusation, 2) NOT replied to my objection, and 3) successfully moved the target of the discussion off course. You're a wunderkind!

Never did I state that belief in God has always proven morally advantageous, but only that it can and does SOMETIMES. Again, strawman.

[barifkin31]

@burnyourcrutch Secondly, I never said anything about punishment. Congratulations!; You've built a straw man and tore him down. What I did say is that belief in God motivates a lot of people to perform moral acts. That belief in God (irrespective of fear of hell, damnation, etc.) does not negate the morality of their action. If that were the case, then ANY motivation for performing moral acts would negate the morality of an act, thereby eliminating morality altogether.

[barifkin31]

@burnyourcrutch Good work! You've built a straw man and torn him down.

Nobody disputes Hitchens' claim that atheists CAN'T do things that theists do. The argument states that atheists DON'T do things that theists do. Numerous studies have shown that atheists rank at or near the bottom of quantity of charity given when compared with other groups. There are very few irreligious homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and volunteer organizations when compared to the number religious ones.

[OJB42]

@burnyourcrutch That's right, humanism has nothing to do with superstition, that's why I said "non-superstitious beliefs (like humanism)". What was your point?

[Remogogy]

All humans lie ,cheat, steal and worse.

The supreme being (God)cannot compromise by arbitrary forgiveness of these sins.

To arbitrarily forgive wrong is equal to condoning it,even in the human justice system.

The supreme being instituted the substitutionary payment method to forgive sinners He loves while protecting his Holiness.

God then paid the penalty for sin by himself,So that He may forgive sinners while protecting perfection.

How?Faith alone.Repentance proves faith is real.

Fear God!

[CheekyVimto08]

A thiest can do one moral action that a non-believer cannot. They can go from being theist to a non-believer. So do I get a reward?

[Marchant2]

Bravo!

[punxsutawneybarney]

Christopher Hitchens had the guts to try out waterboarding for himself. "Believe me, it's torture" he says. See my video "hannity inanity"

[OJBaxter42]

Very good point: religion gives us very little good which we couldn't have through non-superstitious beliefs (like humanism) anyway, but it gives us plenty of bad things we wouldn't have otherwise!

Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities. - Voltaire

[barifkin31]

Hitchens constantly asks this question (in several interviews, debates, lectures, etc.) and it is really a non-sequitur on the issues of morality and ethics. NO theist argues that atheists are incapable of performing any act that theists do, however, one only need to look at the acts that theists do to recognize that a belief in God plays a pivotal role in some of their honorable moral actions. There are literally millions of people who ONLY do some good things, because of a belief in God.

[Polonaise2008]

You said: There are literally millions of people who ONLY do some good things, because of a belief in God.

???

If you do a moral things because there is a God you believe in, then... Then you are very immoral person yourself. It's not you - it's god who does it for you. You do a moral thing only because god asks you to do it.

Where is YOUR human morale ? YOUR sense of what's good - whats not? Its god who decides these things for you.

Continue...

[Polonaise2008]

continuing from previous...

You are just his puppet on a string. Brainless marionette. Complete nobody. Have you been born a total dumb and youve been waiting all your life for god to tell you what to do? You just cant decide this for yourself? Wasnt just enough for you to know that youve been born a filthy sinner unworthy of his love till the day you die and he will decide if youve repented your sins or not. And your god loooooves that relation tremendously.

Amen.

[barifkin31]

Aside from your baseless statements, in no way are theists promoting unfree-will, or determinism. That's an absurd statement. In addition, I have no idea what you're talking about in the latter half of your statement. Theists are BROAD range of people that aren't necessarily christian, or even religious. You've let youro vitriol and malice poison your argumentation to the point of appearing mentally unbalanced and severely out of touch with reality. Insults aren't arguments.

[Polonaise2008]

There is not a word of insult in my rhetoric. It's just a free speculation upon : Are you the man on your own will and quite able to do the most human deeds or, you are a dumbass who has to be given a command to do them ?

Somehow - I strongly believe that you are a great human being. You just grossly underestimate yourself. You are much, much better than you think you are. Just try to be a free man and not a slave - that's all.

Love and rezpekt.

..............................­..

[barifkin31]

First of all, I never claimed that theists were superior to atheists. However, are you claiming that even if somebody does a positive moral action because of a belief in God, then that action is intolerable and/or immoral? If a man sees an old woman about to get hit by a car, and runs to the rescue to push her out of the way for no other reason than the belief that God would be unhappy with him, does that mean that it is a less good deed than if he were an atheist? That's nonsense.

[Polonaise2008]

The action you had described is a very moral one, but... It's not you who has done it. You are just blind and quite primitive executor of someone's else good will.

BTW: So, you are saying that rescuing that women from being hit by the car was only because you don't want the god to be unhappy with you ?

[barifkin31]

But God doesn't force us to do anything. If he did, he would force perfection upon this world and there would be no immoral acts. To claim that religious people are forced into doing the moral things that they do as opposed to simply prodded or suggested is nonsensical and completely at odds with the known world.

In regards to your second statement, I'm not sure whether or not you mean me personally, or "you" as in the collective "you".

[LogicAndFacts]

@barifkin31 Not forced into doing something? "Either believe in me or go to hell" Yeah I don't see much of an option there...

[barifkin31]

Are you claiming that religion forces people to do things? How do you explain transgressions then? 'Force' means to not allow otherwise. If God forced anybody to do anything, they would not have free will, which would make none of their actions moral or immoral. One needs to be able to choose between right and wrong for right and wrong to exist. Otherwise, we're not even agents but mere puppets. God doesn't force anybody to do anything. Ps, I'm not a Christian nor do I believe in hell. Read More

[LogicAndFacts]

@barifkin31 By force, I mean you're not left with much of an option. As I clearly stated, God's ultimatum is, "Either follow me, or go to hell..." And one needs to choose between right and wrong for wrong to exist eh? Tell that to Adam and Eve, who obviously had no moral concepts, hell, no concepts of anything, yet were punished severely (as well as all man kind) for committing an act that they had no knowledge of as "being wrong."

[barifkin31]

@LogicAndFacts Using your own example...Adam and Eve were explicitly told to not eat from the tree of knowledge. Transgressing authority figures whom you believe arrive at and/or exercise their authority properly is immoral. THEREFORE, they did know what they did was wrong. That is also why they tried hiding from God. Your argument holds no water.

Again, I should reiterate, I don't believe any of the old testament's fairy tales to be historically accurate. I'm just using your own example.

[LogicAndFacts]

@barifkin31 They knew what they did wrong after they acquired the knowledge to understand the capacity of right and wrong. In a hypothetical situation, I have a child and told them not to eat some cookies that I left on the table and they ate them anyway, should I punish them by cutting off their hands? I'm punishing a finite crime with an infinite punishment. Any loving parent, would never even ponder on committing such acts...

[RuudJH]

Why is this clip only 41 seconds? Are we having philosophy tutorials in small chunks now?

[Nostatementinthename]

I would not have passed my high school philosophy test if I argued like Hitchens. Fucking sycophant.

[Acrimonator]

sycophant: a person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer.

That's more of a religious prerogative...

[Nostatementinthename]

@Acrimonator: No, it's not. It goes for all kind of people. I must agree however, that the religious leaders are in the leading group.

But sycophant is so much more than that in the original meaning of the word - I'm using it like Plato would have: a false intellectual, blackmailer, fraudster would be good place to begin. And Hitchens most certainly displays these feats quite often.

[faithisfiction]

One of the strongest points ever made against religion...

[Nostatementinthename]

I get his first point, but not the second - which is the immoral action / statement that could only be commited / uttered by a religious person??

[FreeInquisition]

Like "you will burn in hell" or "let's circumcise this little girl" or "let's fly a plane into a building".

[Nostatementinthename]

Both threats, torture and terrorism are made and committed by non-religious people as well. If intention or reason for doing it counted as a reason for separation of one evil deed / statement from another, there are several things of which it could be said that only a-religious people could commit them.

[FreeInquisition]

The point still stands though. You couldn't get a morally decent secular human beings to do those things unless you indoctrinated them from birth with religion.

[Nostatementinthename]

Adding that a morally decent secularist would not do these things is moot - a ditto religious person would not either. Indoctrination with the result of moral breakdown is practiced just as much by secular people. Which means that you could get a morally decent secularist to do these things by indoctrinating him with pretty much anything. Now, the point I already made: it does not matter whether a persons motivation or intention is secular or religious: if he does evil deeds, he is evil.

[mike11742069]

he means that religion drives very immoral acts, which it obviously does. sorry that you couldn't see it right away. pardon my phrasing but... DUH

[jojoinhere]

one question that answer everything...

[roxasroks]

What if a someone religious said Social Morality is the reason atheists conform to christian standards.

To put it another way, morals were introduced by religion, and have been since lived by. As a result, they have become a part of our moral zeitgeist. Therefore, atheist conform to them, dispite their non-beliefe in god.\

I AM an atheist. I was just wandering how someone could get around it philisophically.

[nycistanbul]

Christian standards are very new considering the history of civilization. Societies had come up with ethics and morality long before any of the popular monotheist religions were invented.

[roxasroks]

It sounds like you are attributing modern morals to Christian influence.... That wasn't an answer I was hoping to get.

Assuming you are an atheist; if you ask me, they are a vainglorious bunch. Im not good because of their "SUPERIOR" influence.

[McConsumer]

Your assumption is that morals didn't exist before Christianity. An atheist might point out that the morals Christians subscribe to stem from Social Morality and not the other way around.

[roxasroks]

Yes I know, if you read my messages, I indicated that I am an atheist.

When our social morality actually evolved I duno....

[McConsumer]

Yes, I know, if you compared the message, I parodied the format of your comment.

If this makes a difference to you, I duno...

[roxasroks]

Ah lol.

[mikedamat]

That wouldn't explain why other animals such as chimpanzees seem to conform to a moral code, even though chimpanzees do not subscribe to any religious dogma.

[roxasroks]

I don't understand your point, you can account for morals phylogenically is what I was trying to say...

I think you misunderstood my message as well.

[brutalbaron]

did i hear him right? did he just ask if a "non-believer" can say something that believers" would call moral? did he then ask if a "believer" can perform wicked acts and make vile statements that THEY attribute to their religion? "Answer me this if you think that morality comes from the super- natural AND would require celestial dictatorship permission for it..." load your questions much?

[mammers11]

No, he's saying that there is nothing inherently religious about moral behavior or moral sentiments. In other words, of all the moral things that religious people could plausibly do and think, they could just as plausibly be done or thought by non-believers. But, there ARE evil things that a religious person could plausibly do or think that a non-believer could not plausibly do or think. In other words, morally: religion = atheism + several unique wicked concepts.

[brutalbaron]

"...nothing inherently religious about moral behavior..."

thank you for the response. i am an atheist who argued with people for years that i wasn't evil by default for not believing in a god. on that front i agree with mr hitchens and you, mammers. however, his questions were lop-sided and he started by inferring that if you believe morality comes from a god that you would require said god's permission to be moral.

i really was asking if i heard him right :)

[neilswann80]

If God took away morals... would all actions then become neutral? If this is the case, would it follow that God created Good and Evil by creating morals?

[justwannamakeluv]

Putting the "get saved" part aside for a second Mr. Hitchens brings up an extremely valid point. As for me I never asked for nor want to "get saved" so it bears to relevance to me.

[jaraha]

Good point

[alexmcvey]

Well, I know an act that a believer can do that a non-believer can't - get saved, lol.

An "anti-theist" is also incapable of giving thanks to Whom it is due.

[lailum]

lol wut

[Anti1Theist]

Sorry "get saved" is not a moral action or statement.

[mammers11]

good contribution there reverend

[alexmcvey]

Says who?

[dman519]

@alexmcvey "give thanks to Whom it is due." so many assumptions in that one statement. 1. that god exists 2. that you need to thank god for something 3. that thanking someone is a moral action. (its nice to do, but its not immoral if you don't thank someone, just rude.)