Hitchens on the morals of an atheist (part 1/2)

[Texasjim2007]

If trusting atheists makes such great sense, why did 60 million Chinese who trusted atheist Mao and 20 million Russians who trusted atheist Stalin get all there food stolen and murdered if they objected to being robbed? Why are 25 million dead of AIDS when atheists told us sex was safe and Christians were just being prudish?

[Pyro25892]

@Texasjim2007 Human sacrifice. Scientoligists not seeking help for psychological issues. Children born into poverty because the church doesn't allow contraception. People harming themselves (self-flaggelation and crucifixion) in the name of God. People killing others in "holy wars".  Also, crime is often more common in low-income areas as is also religion. Relgious people are just as susceptible to hurting others as atheists. We're all human.

[ZomBiezley]

@Texasjim2007 when the pope visited africa, he told them to NOT use condoms. how do you tell an AIDS ravaged nation to NOT use condoms?

[nactan]

As modern psychology has shown, human reason is far less "rational" than idealists would have us believe. Empiricism doesn't require this sort of Get Out of Jail Free ontological justification for reason itself.

[nactan]

Whether God exists or not, if you harm others and live a sloppy life, then you are a bad person with sloppy habits. Where does Jesus define what sort of lifestyle is moral and what isn't? Oh right, if you pray, then you Will Know. What the bible says is that it's moral to sell your daughters into slavery. Can't we just bypass the praying and bible study part, and simply reflect on what sort of behavior is ethical?

[psk6565]

On what bases do you claim "getting along with each other" is a good thing? In fact, Hitchens is essentially saying that he bases his moral actions on the already assumed idea that "getting along" is a good thing. That is no answer at all. You still must go further back in order to prove "getting along" is good.

[drfoxcourt]

Re the ethical question near 8:50: The hyper-religious would say that not believing in God IS an immoral action. A non-religious person would not claim God exists (which should be immoral under this claim)

I don't believe that not believing in God is an immoral act, but I'd love to hear Htichen's counter to the claim that it is.

[guerrillacap]

"why do we degrade this feeling by saying its a heavenly gift accompanied by heavenly punishment?"

[borgias2]

Hitchens said:

'THE Big Bang'?

Completely Unproven

[Timmy923]

@borgias2 im sorry, the era of the grand unified theory is widely known about and rectified thanks to Hubble. Unfortunately, for the theist, the big bang is far more provable than god is or ever will be.

[drfoxcourt]

@borgias2 Unproven? In the ideal it is unproven, but in the practical sense of proof there is overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty the Big Bang did happen.

Other things unproven: gravity, electo-magnetic effect, the sun will rise tomorrow, unicorns, fairies.

Proven in practical sense: gravity, electro-magnetic effect, tomorrow's sun rising

Shown false in practical sense: Unicorns and fairies

See the difference?

[bhigr]

This is the mind matter problem. How does conscience evolve from the material brain. Well, we do not know! So, what is the consequence? Christianity is the right religion! of course not. Morality must be grounded in religion? Of course not!

[darkthunder226]

Why does Peter Robinson remind me of Kryten from Red Dwarf?

[seacoastofbohemia]

I'm impressed with the taxi driver who returned the forgotten money at no small inconvenience to himself and declined any reward.

[LordBLB]

"Morals" are a Social Construct. Simple.

[Awesomesome]

I think it's part biological/instinctual, part cultural/social.

[LordBLB]

True. But ultimately it's subject to what the collective thinks is 'acceptable', as far a morals are concerned. You are correct as well. It's a matter of when and where, that's all. =D

[awesomewelles90]

In that case there is no need to follow them as long as we can get away with it.

[LordBLB]

"there is no need to follow them as long as we can get away with it"

Sure, and there are plenty of people who don't. But have fun with the results when you end up paying huge fines, in prison, or on death row waiting for your execution. You see, as a society, we have agreed on certain rules (some more serious than others). You break these rules? You pay for it, one way or another. There is no need for any "Moral Authority" beyond the society.

[awesomewelles90]

It's irrelevant whether you get caught or not .The point it that as you agree morals are not objective and to an atheist, rape is not (objectively) wrong.

[LordBLB]

"irrelevant whether you get caught or not"

Yes... it is. Because (I assume) you argue that 'God' is watching and will punish you after death for breaking his 'rules', correct? Therefore, the same principal applies. Crime & Punishment.

"rape is not (objectively) wrong"

Correct. Again, it's based on the society you live in and how you were raised more than anything else. Fortunately, our society doesn't accept it. But it certainly was a different story in antiquity (the OT Bible endorses rape).

[awesomewelles90]

No I do not argue that. I argue that if God exists then our intuitive morality is God -given and therefore has credence which it does NOT have in an atheistic world-view. I'm glad you agree that (in atheism) morality is completely relative and so horrible things like child abuse etc are not really wrong just "taboos", socially unacceptable because of where we happen to have been born.

[LordBLB]

"intuitive morality is God / has credence which it does NOT have in an atheistic world-view"

How do you figure? Does it not benefit us all to NOT run around killing each other? Or raping one another? Or lying to each other (subjective)? Or kidnapping children (God is neutral on that one)? And so on and so forth. You're mistake is assuming it takes an Atheist to allow such things to happen. As I said, Religions have perpetrated many of these 'taboos' to further instill fear, or force belief.

[awesomewelles90]

Don't make the mistake of confusing what theists or atheists do or have done with the philosophical argument we are having. If God exists then our intuitive morality/conscience can be reasonably assumed to be God-given. Therefore it is objectively true and to be followed as far as we can. I AM NOT asserting that atheists act in a less moral way than anyone else! Nor that religious people act any better!

[LordBLB]

Calm down. I'm not angry or starting a fight. I'm just talking here. I appologize if I came off as angry or something. That's not the case.

"if God exists"

There's your problem though. First, you must prove that there is a God. And IF you manage THAT. You still must prove which God it is. Then we can decide about the morals. Until you've proven God, and which God, morals are Man Made. It's that simple. The burden of proof is on the theist... The atheist just sees no proof... YET.

[awesomewelles90]

There is no proof of God's existence. I don't think that there ever will be. However that is not to say there aren't good arguments and reasons to believe. My reasoning goes thusly: I feel (and I think we all do) an innate moral essence which helps me to differentiate between right and wrong. If this feeling is real then it must come from a God. I believe it to be real. Therefore I believe in God. It's not a proof. It's just my line of thinking.

[LordBLB]

"good reasons to believe"

I require more evidence than appeals to emotion, or the ramblings of some ancient holy text. I was actual, hard proof. You'd think a 'God' wouldn't have a problem providing it. You know, being a 'God' and all that jazz

"an innate moral essence / must come from God"

Animals have that too. It's call instinct. We are animals (whether you think so or not), and therefore, we are subject to instincts as well. I think that's what you're feeling, and you relate it to a 'God'.

[awesomewelles90]

You believe in many things without proof though. That the past was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. That the physical world exists. You accept maths, logic and reason yet there is no way to prove that they are true (you could not use logic of reason to prove it because that would be circular). Science of course presupposes these so you also accept science without any proof that it is a good system.

[LordBLB]

"you accept maths, logic and reason yet there is no way to prove that they are true"

They are observations that are verifiable between people. Anyone can sit down and observe the same results from the things you mention. They are demonstrable and repeatable.

"Science presupposes these"

No. Science adjusts it's views, based on what is observed and verified. Faith is the denial of the observed, to preserve the view. They are polar opposites. To use them comparitively, is silly to be honest.

[awesomewelles90]

You're trying to prove logic and reason using the scientific method but that's circular because science relies on logic and reason.

[LordBLB]

"that's circular"

I don't have to "prove logic and reason". They are a given. How else can one determine what is real, and what is fake?

They are not the same thing, nor exclusive to one another. You're trying to simplify them by saying they are the same thing (circular?). They are not.

Logic: refers to a process taking place in your mind. Or, formal principals of a certain branch of knowledge.

Reason: refers to the conclusion and coming to it, in an orderly and rational way.

[LordBLB]

"logic and reason"

They are needed for survival.

Why is it you would leave your building or home using the front door, instead of the window on the 2nd floor? If you did not have reason or logic, there would be nothing stopping you. But, I assume you would do what everyone else would do. Use the front door, knowing full well, that the window would result in injury or perhaps death. Using your reasoning, you come to the logical, rational conclusion that you should use the front door.

[futurepsycdoc]

@awesomewelles90

I believe you are assuming causation when you state your "innate moral essence...must come from a God." Are you actually stating that you were never taught right from wrong by your parents and society since birth? If God instilled this sense, why would we even need laws? Also, you may not be able to derive another cause, but using a God of the Gaps argument is never compelling. I have yet to see an argument for a god that has not been ripped to shreds. Thanks for the discussion

[Pomme843]

Do you think we'll get proof?

[LordBLB]

"do you think we'll get proof?"

Probably not. But being the eternal optimist that I am. I can't rule it out either. We may indeed be presented with 'proof' one day for a God or Gods (although it's very doubtful). But until that day comes, the default stance Atheistic, and we wait for said 'proof'.

[psk6565]

@LordBLB You assume you come from neutral ground and that you do not base your philosophy of the origins of morals on any presuppositions. You base yours ideas upon 1 of 2 things: 1. Everything came from nothing. 2. Everything came from an impersonal something.

The world as it is, based on nothing or an impersonal something, is an absurdity because man is personal. The only answer is the Infinte-Personal Triune God. Nothing stays nothing and impersonal stays impersonal.

[LordBLB]

@psk6565 "1. Everything came from nothing"

Nope. That's what Creationists claim when they state that 'God' created everything, FROM NOTHING. -_-

"2. Everything came from an impersonal something"

Yup. Sounds right to me. No reason to assume anything beyond that without proof.

"The only answer is the Infinite-Personal Triune God"

Um... NO. Logic fail. What you've just said is, it doesn't have an answer yet, and I can admit that I don't know, so... GOD DUN IT!

*sigh*

[psk6565]

@LordBLB "Nope. That's what Creationists claim when they state that 'God' created everything, FROM NOTHING. -_-"

That's not true

3. Everything came from a personal someone. That is not everything came from nothing for God isn't nothing but He is something and someone.

So, you base everything on an impersonal something....IMPERSONAL DUN IT!

And I base everything on a personal someone...GOD DUN IT!

Ok, not we can have a discussion.

[LordBLB]

@psk6565 "Everything came from a personal someone"

And where did this 'someone' get all of the matter and energy in order to create the universe? Oh wait, prior to the 'Big Bang' there was NOTHING. Therefore, this 'God' being had to 'magically' create all of that stuff, from NOTHING. You fail...

"Impersonal dun it!"

Yup. I sure do. Because it's not 'magic' that way. The universe isn't Disney Land. Every answer that we have ever figured out, has turned out to be NOT magic.

[psk6565]

@LordBLB And where did this ' impersonal something' get all of the matter and energy in order to create the universe?

You still have someone and something when you have God. For you to claim there was nothing, even though He is something, is to simply contradict yourself. It is non consequential how He created the world, what matters is there was still something and not nothing.

[LordBLB]

@psk6565 "claim there was nothing"

Missed my point (not that I'm surprised)

Listen, you first must prove there's a 'God' or 'Gods' (please note NO ONE has ever done so). After you've done that, we can talk. If you have proof, I suggest you take it to the Nobel Prize board, and stop wasting your time on youtube. Until you do that, you're arguments are just about as sound as inserting fairies, trolls, or leprechauns in place of 'God'. I'm in no mood for Creationist retardation this evening.

[psk6565]

@LordBLB You have to prove there was an impersonal something.

[LordBLB]

@psk6565 "you have to prove there was an impersonal something"

No... that would be a burden for YOU to bear. I'm not the one claiming some 'Invisible Sky Daddy' created everything. YOU are. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you, not me. I claim that the cause of the universe, is unknown at this current time. So... you had better get to work. You'd be the first to prove there is such a thing as 'God'. Good luck...

[psk6565]

@LordBLB Wait, I thought you believed the impersonal something is eternal (though it decays) then therefore nothing caused it. But you already have claimed the cause of the universe was this impersonal something.

"2. Everything came from an impersonal something"

Yup. Sounds right to me. No reason to assume anything beyond that without proof.

[LordBLB]

@psk6565

Told you I wasn't in the mood. Headache.

By 'impersonal something' I need do nothing more than point at the 'Singularity' described in the 'Big Bang'. It may very well be that the universe ITSELF is eternal, and simply recycles itself over and over. But they DO think, that OUTSIDE of said 'singularity', nothing existed. All matter, energy, and time, was contained within this 'singularity'. Beyond that, I make no claims as to what existed.

[psk6565]

@LordBLB Alright, not in the mood? No problem.

[awesomewelles90]

Odd that you say "fortunately" btw. It would seem you're making a judgement on the validity of your cultural morals over anothers!

[LordBLB]

"Odd that you say "fortunately" / making judgement"

Why? Because I agree that it's wrong? It's not my place to tell someone else from 'another culture' what they should or shouldn't do. I only agree or disagree based on what I was taught. I only believe that because I was raised to think in such a manner. I think it was good advice. I was also raised to respect people and points of view, whether I agree or not is irrelevant.

[sam51092]

How else would you expect evolution to select for our brains to be, but to apprehend the world accurately? Anyone whose reason told him that a lava river was really a river of cool drinking water, or that a 10,000 foot drop was really a 1 foot drop, would have a hard time passing on their genes for apprehending the world so falsely. They'd be dead. Genes for accurate reasoning capability would obviously have greater selective advantage; and frankly I'm amazed we even have to point this out.

[ThePersistenceofTime]

This interviewer is the most annoying idiot I've ever seen.

[houstonTx457000]

interviewer is abit fucking patronizing

[beest909]

@houstonTx457000 I noticed that too. I expected better from Stanford.

[Otaconsps]

@houstonTx457000 like when he says....I can see I'm bringing you along Christopher.

[RhondaH]

I would suggest anyone who needs to see an example of a person developing a system of morals without religion read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. It is a rather short book but highly enlightening. Note that he invented the lightening rod and could have made a fortune from it but gave it away for humanitarian reasons. Thomas Jefferson's autobiography, also rather short, is extremely enlightening also.

[EGarrett01]

It's a bit frustrating how Hitchens circles around the points. This video could have been 60 seconds long and the questioner could've been left looking very foolish.

[newazagod]

"So far so good..."

[voskresene]

Better to be a straw man than be one who builds them ;)

[FilipH86]

like that he is an atheist do not like how he opposes Galloway

[MaguireMart]

I think an atheist acts out of kindness because he wants to conribute to making the world a better place. If everyone was nicer to eachother, don't you think our standard of living would be better? This is the kind of rational, logical thinking that atheists take up, whereas theists simply don't do bad out of fear of going to hell. It is not a matter of going to hell, but rather everyone contributing to help make society better.

[voskresene]

While some theists might act this way, to say that all do good for this reason is false.I do so because I think my theism gives me a reason to do good that is based on something that is objective.What guys like Hitchens need to do is define what it means to make a world a better place.I have recently talked with a guy who thinks the world would be a better place if we forced black races out of nations that are traditionally white.Can you make an argument that this opinion is universally wrong?

[gerbs96]

Can you make an argument that this opinion is universally wrong?

Absolutely. Discrimination based on skin color is immoral. Thanks to biology we know black, white, red, and yellow we are all the same species. This makes one realize how much we all depend on one another to survive. With enough education these petty lines of race and separation dissipate. Unfortunately the education system in the Unites States is awful.

[voskresene]

The only thing that this guy has going for him is he is articulate. Other than that, his arguments are groundless. Also, he stated that morality is innate and there are universal ethical principles that all societies have. Really? Did the Spartans not encourage stealing and punish those who did not get away from with it? Are their not tribes that practice cannibalism? The interviewer asked good questions here.

[gerbs96]

Hitchens is renowned as one of the most important and influential intellectuals of our time. I would hope that you can concede that establishing an argument on a topic as broad as religion requires more than a few minutes time on television. I have read the book in question and submit that it contains well constructed arguments and requires more than 15 or so minutes of time on a biased television network to convey his points.

[voskresene]

Although I have not read his books, I have seen some of his debates and lectures on youtube. I stand by my claim that his arguments are weak. I do not believe his world-view by definition has the grounds to even put forth any sound arguments against theism, especially on ethical grounds. It is obvious that Hitchens is well spoken, but rhetoric is just rhetoric and does not merit the title "important and influential intellectual".

[gerbs96]

Fair enough. We obviously have very different opinions and very likely world views. I am compelled to ask, how you are able of dismissing his moral arguments against theism? I can agree rhetoric is just rhetoric. Just look at George Galloway, well spoken but a complete whack job.

[voskresene]

I do so on the grounds that his world-view by definition can, at best, put forth moral arguments about anything on the grounds of conventionalism. That being the case, I can just assert that my convention allows for the things he does not like. End of debate. This is a guy that bases so much of his career on fighting "injustice" in the world through his articles and activism.

[gerbs96]

So basically you are saying because you ground your world view from an invisible order... game over? Most forms of modern theism requires submission for a divine reward or else face eternal punishment, and if you do wrong there are loopholes to dodge said wrong. This shits on personal responsibility which all morals and ethics depends. Has nothing to do with conventionalism. All three holy books are immoral just read the Qu'ran, Hadith, Bibile or Torah the immoral douche-baggery runs amok..

[voskresene]

No, that is not what I am saying. And while I understand that there are folks out there that practice their said religion in this way, I think it goes against the spirit of theism (at least Christianity anyways). Again, why are these books immoral from your perspective in a way that is universally binding? To put forth some sort of general observation from nature doesn't prove anything. It just shows that that's how things developed.

[gerbs96]

I am just in the opinion that morality cannot be supplied by books in which the "moral giver" is also the provider for mandates of slavery, murder, exclusion, rape, and oppression for women. These are the roots of all current Abrahamic faiths, and to say otherwise to misunderstand the history of our current monotheisms. If not for secular thinking dragging most religions through the mud we might still doing asinine things like stoning adulterers and burning witches and heretics at the stake.

[voskresene]

1. the above is overstated. 2. Give me a reason for going against those things from your world-view. 3. in terms of your statement of Christianity above, show me where something like an Islamic theocracy went on within Christianity before the 4th century.4. every "evil" stated above went on in the former Soviet Union (where I live), which was the brainchild of atheistic communists (or quasi communists depending on your perspective) so you don't have the moral high ground here either.

[gerbs96]

1. I disagree, and apparently there is no reconciling that. 2. Based on conscientiousness, reciprocity, self responsibility and solidarity. 3. Modern day theocracies still stone people. Christians have been killing heretics and "infedels" since the supposed time of christ. Only recently in Ireland have they decided not to kill each other for being the wrong kind of Christian.

[voskresene]

As far as 2 is concerned, it still doesn't answer the question that I raised at the very beginning. Explain to me why these things are binding in an atheist world. Your answer in three did not answer my question. Any atrocities committed by so called Christians did not occur before church and state joined. Along with that, there is no way you can argue that this reflects the behavior of Christ in the New Testament which is the basis on which Christians are supposed to live.

[gerbs96]

The things I mentioned in 2 are things everyone already uses in everyday life to get along and thrive. The point is without these things man would not have lived long enough to create religion. Atrocities in the name of Christianity have occurred since its formation...death penalties for apostasy, stoning for women that aren't virgins on their wedding night, death penalties for not keeping the sabbath...these are all things that occured before the formation of states.

[gerbs96]

There is no Hell in the Old Testament. Not until gentle Jesus meek and mild does hell make an appearance. Jesus is not immune from immoral preaching. Take no thought for the morrow, slay the non believer before me, and the whole nonsense where he does not repudiate but support all old testament treachery in Matthew 5:17. You really know nothing on this topic.

[voskresene]

Um, show me where Jesus taught to, "slay the non believer."

Old Testament treachery? You still haven't given me any basis for identifying treachery within your world-view beyond conventionalism.  You earlier put forth some sort of standards, but I have been given no reason to think that these are ethical principles that are universally binding.

[gerbs96]

These principles are universally binding...I don't have enough character count to explain how they are...if this topic interest you Richard Dawkins dedicates a chapter on the subject in his book The God Delusion.

[voskresene]

And I would strongly disagree with your assertion that atheism doesnt drive peolpe to do stupid things since I have already given you an example where it has at the expense of tens of millions of people.I am not saying that all atheists do these things,but it doesnt forbid it either. As far as an example of modern secular society failing based on the principles you states earlier, ask me that question in 50 years when all of Europe is going to the mosque 5 times a day ;) No, I am not a Muslim.

[gerbs96]

I granted that atheists can be sadists, murderers, rapists etc. But a non belief in theism does not drive someone to do these things. In our religious texts there are mandates for these evil acts that have been done and justified in the name of "god"...My point is morality does not come from our holy books. "But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." ~Jesus Luke 19: 27

[voskresene]

And a belief in Christianity doesn't either. There is no way you can argue that those that engaged in these things in the past were living consistently with what Jesus taught in line with the first 4 centuries of Christian history. And go back and check the context of the passage you sited. This is not a passage calling for Christians to go out and slaughter the infidel. It does imply that there will be a day of judgement. Maybe you don't like that idea, but that is beside the point.

[gerbs96]

Are you kidding me? If not for religion we would not have the problem with Israel, we would not have had September 11th, we would not have had the crusades, we would not have young earth creationism. Religion has been a root problem for thousands of years justifying evil that could only been done because of religion. To say this passage has to do with judgment day just shows the back flips you pious nut jobs go through to shed your own innate morality on an immoral passage to "justify" it.

[voskresene]

I am going to say that the passage is talking about that because IT DOES. There is no way that you can show contextually or historically that this passage has any thing to do with killing in the name of Christianity. By you saying otherwise just shows that you are into erecting straw men to prove your point. You cannot isolate this text from that which precedes it and surrounds it. By doing this you either show that you have poor reading skills are have no interest in truth.

[gerbs96]

Dude....I did not say this passage was used to kill people. I said this passage is proof that Jesus is not the moral person you erect him to be. There are no straw men here. You are a jackass who doesn't read correctly

[voskresene]

Besides that, I can make the same argument about atheism regarding what went on behind the Iron Curtain. It it weren't for atheism, we would not have had the rise of political philosphies like communism, which was used to justify the murder of millions of people, including public executions of priests (btw, footage of this can be found on the net) and the destruction of great works of architecture because of their "bourgeois religious significance".

[billhicks8]

A load of rubbish. This has been addressed by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett etc, you have obviously not read a damn thing these people have written, or you are knowingly using old flawed arguments in a place where you can get away with it and hope to look good. COME ON. I'm getting sick of witnessing the same crap from you people.

[voskresene]

While I have not read their books cover to cover since I don't live where they are easily accessible, I have seen their debates and news interviews which provide a good base for understanding where these guys are coming from. They don't address this issue in what I have seen and the little I have read. If you know of a debate on this site where they do, I would be happy to watch it. We certainly don't see any attempt to deal with the topic here, but that is partially the interviewer's fault.

[billhicks8]

Well if you are wanting clarification on the Stalin/fascist argument, then Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh Desouza debates are a good place to start since Dinesh loves using that old jive.The God Delusion has a very convincing chapter devoted to it, while God Is Not Great has Christopher Hitchens going for the slightly blunt attack as per usual.

If you CAN order the books somehow, get them. Even if you never agree, this is one of the more important issues to own a book on.

[TuPaCaLyPsE1872]

voskresene <------- Straw Man!

[voskresene]

Umm, I am assuming that you are saying that I am building a straw man. It might help to explain how instead of just asserting that.

[TuPaCaLyPsE1872]

thats enough out of you, strawman

[F1dgets]

communism and religion have nothing to do with each other. As for the public execution of priests, I don't suppose you bothered to think of what the Spanish did to the Native Indians in the name of god??? That was a genocide that puts ww2 to shame (figuratively). I don't expect to change your mind, but to associate communism and genocide with atheism is a losing battle.

[voskresene]

Refer to all other posts that were made five months ago during this discussion. I think I have answered all that you say here directly and/ or indirectly there.

[gerbs96]

4. To even think Soviet Russia was a model secular society is an insult to the word. Soviet Russia much like Nazi Germany relied on strict and corrupt social dogma's and were lead by quite wretched men. Find me a society that has fallen ill after accepting scientific knowledge of Einstein, the teaching of Paine, Jefferson, Spinoza, Lincoln and Darwin....Then you will have a point. No secular person would consider mass extinctions for people evoking free thought or speech.

[voskresene]

As far as Ireland is concerned, first what does that have to do with a theocracy? Second, refer to my statement above about living in harmony with Christ's teachings.

As far as 4 is concerned, I am not saying that the Soviet Union was a model of secular society. It is a fact, however, that these "wretched men" that started and ran the country were atheists and did the same things that you seem to think are inherent in Christianity. Does that mean that all atheists do these things?

[gerbs96]

The point is, atheism doesn't drive people to do stupid things. Atheism is a term without content. Its like being a non astrologer, or a non stamp collector...we do not require a word for a lack of belief anywhere else in life. Atheists can do evil things, but it is not due to their atheism. A lack of belief does not lead to sacrificial killings or suicide bombing etc. I did not say look at Ireland as a theocracy, pay attention. That was just an example of recent Christian atrocity.

[gerbs96]

If you want a glance of what Christianity used to be take a look at modern day Islamic Theocracies.

[voskresene]

Unfortunately, his world-view only allows for him to make these assertions in the same way that people decide what kind of beer they like. The problem is he wants to force me and everyone else only to drink his favorite kind of beer.

[wordavee]

Let us not forget that ALL the people on the earth were supposedly from Adam & Eve. So was EVERY being on the earth evil except Noah's family? it seems unlikely.

God appears to have had no influence on a majority of his creatures, and why chose a tribe of slaves in Egypt as his "chosen"? Also, they didn't seem to be treated badly, They had families and houses, and when Moses went to Pharo and said "set us free" he was not beaten or killed as you would expect a slave to be treated.

[wordavee]

If you want a count of the people god has ether killed, or commanded his "chosen people" to kill, go to

watch?v=IABptlAhyJw&feature=re­lated

get an update.

The dozens of tribes that were wiped out by the isrealites while claiming their "holy land" were not evil, they were attacked in a program of ethnic cleansing ans thousands of men women and children were killed, and virgins taken as..what? Slaves, prostitutes,? we can guess what lives they had!!

[wordavee]

The bible DOES say god killed without justification. There's the ridiculous story of the prophet whose bald head was mocked by children, who were killed by bears sent by god!! And in what way was it morally justified to kill the children of the Egyptians? surely they were the most innocent, why not kill all the soldiers, or why did god not just tell the isrealites to leave Egypt, and kill anyone who tried to stop them?? The bible is filled with injustice and murder in "god's" name.

[dawgster7]

Amazing and sad! Not one person could answer the question: "Can you give any objective reasons why one person's morals are more "right" than another person's morals?"

[wordavee]

On a couple of vids you have asked for someome to define right and wrong in absolute & not subjective terms, and youare right in that one society's right can be another's wrong.

[wordavee]

But if you are saying that true morality can only come from god, which one of the examples below is right?

Let's agree murder is wrong.

1) Is murder wrong because god says it is wrong. or

2)Does god say it is wrong because it is universally wrong?

A)God has sanctioned, condoned & commanded murder, so murder has not always been wrong.

B) If it is fundamentally wrong, we don't need god to tell us.

[yaya52]

God never murdered, he unleashed justice on evil people that got what they deserved. The wages of sin is death.

Is murder wrong in the Islamic Faith? I'd say not. I haven't seen a bunch of Christians in head wraps going out and blowing people up, have you?

[silverstream314]

Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades?

[Iglaoavrea]

God murdered, if you kill someone, you're murdering them. What if someone killed a rapist? Shot them in the head? Would that be murder? Or would the killer have unleashed justice on an evil person?

And your last comment was just... too dumb for words... more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. And silverstream314 is right, The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition are good examples of Christians killing.

[yaya52]

PEOPLE...not God. There is a big difference.

God brought justice. The Israelites faced brutal and inhumane people that were bent on destroying them. Such as they face today. God meted out justice on bhalf of his people.

Most of you don't understand that the stories of God destroying nations and people and yes, even the first born of Egypt, are also a metaphor for our lives. He wants us to destroy sin in our lives completely, and rid our lives of that which would destroy us.

[phocjame]

So then, the entire bible is full of nothing but metaphors?

[peterloohunt]

@yaya52 you think it's OK for god to kill children/ You disgust me. You're immoral.

[nactan]

@yaya52 Believe it or not, murder is wrong according to every religion on the planet, including Islam. Murder is, by definition, immoral killing. The difference is that Islamic civilization never underwent a renaissance and has been left in the dark ages. Like medieval Christians, they still think killing is negotiable, as Carlin used to say. Even Buddhists, whose religion forbids murder more explicitly than any other, used to kill lots of people before science slackened our resource constraint.

[yaya52]

God never murdered just to kill. He destroyed those that were evil, that tried to wipe out Israel.

Gods justice is a metaphor for our own lives. WE must destroy sin in our lives and cleanse ourselves from unrighteousness.

Capital punishment is condoned by God. In the US, a man is given so much mercy when it comes to their actions. Only the most henous premeditated murder is answered with the death penalty. It is the right thing to do and should be extended for rapists and pedophiles.

[dawgster7]

bonangusacdc,

Thanks for answering the questions. Though your answers sound reasonable, they are nothing more than subjective opinions. You stated, "Social norms and values are learned from parents, teachers and peers." Today certain groups of "parents, teachers and peers" are actually teaching their children to hate "infidels" and strap bombs to themselves and kill others. You said, "Killing of others comes from religion." Again, your subjective opinion. I counseled convicted murderers and

[hymnofashes]

People are often comforted by the idea that morality didn't 'just' come from genetic imperatives or practical social rules.

But let me ask you guys this: Would it satisfy you if everyone went to heaven? If God preferred you to act one way but told you there'd be no reckoning whatsoever?

Because, if not, then you're admitting that even your idea of morality is ultimately derived from carrot and stick.

Divine punishment might be scarier, but I don't see how it gets you to 'transcendent.'

[quinn2469]

But the parents that are teaching their kids to hate "infidels" and strap bombs to themselves are doing so because of religion- Islam. That IS their morality. Morality doesn't come from God. It comes from the society you live in and what it considers acceptable behavior. Abraham had a child through a concubine. Today that would be immoral but in that time and in that society it was perfectly acceptable.

[dawgster7]

nearly as many of them were atheists as were religionists. You said that "Hitler was wrong because he was a psychopath". Again, your subjective opinion. There are people today who espouse the same beliefs that Hitler did.

19th century New Guinea bushmen practiced cannibalism. They taught that it was "moral" to eat one's enemy. They taught that it was "immoral" to forsake one's tribe. Can you give any objective reasons why one person's morals are more "right" than another person's morals?

[rkzenrage]

Hitler was Catholic and those that have the same beliefs are sociopaths as well.

[dawgster7]

To say that Hitler was a "Catholic" is a fact. To say that Hitler was a "psychopath" or "sociopath" is also a fact. But to say that Hitler was "wrong" is only a subjective opinion of one's personal standard of morality.

Again, I'll pose the question: Can you give any objective reasons why one person's morals are more "right" than another person's morals?

[dawgster7]

Relevant questions for atheists:

How do you know "right" from "wrong"? How do you "know" that there really is right and wrong? Was Adolf Hitler "wrong" for committing mass-murder? If you think Hitler was wrong, please explain why he was wrong and how you arrived at this belief!?

[bonangusacdc]

From hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. From a time when our species were just a few thousand strong and the only way we were going to survive, and not join the 99% of species that are already extinct, was to look out for each other.

Morality comes from humanism. Social norms and values are learned from parents, teachers and peers.

Hitler was wrong because he was a psychopath and I'm unaware of cultures that say it is right to kill people.

Killing of others comes from religion.

[quinn2469]

Right you are. And Nazism was itself a religion. It was called "The Religion of the Blood." Hitler was killing for his religious beliefs. They believed Arians were once Godmen whose blood had been tainted through mixing with other races and the only way to reclaim their Godliness was to filter out the impure blood. It was a mixture of Occult and Nordic folklore. There was a great 2 hour documentary about this subject on the Discover Times Network.

[BrownBear019]

religion teaches the obvious. WE DON'T NEED IT!

people should be good for the sake of being good. where religious people just act good so they wont go to hell.

[akamola]

Here's what i don't get, animals display various forms of morality in their behaviour as well. Does that mean that they believe in god as well ? Cause they obviously don't show any gestures of reverence ??????

[Valetudo21]

Interesting. When Hitchens asks "who doesn't have that feeling" at 6:38 in context of the Muslim returning the money -- check our prisons first. There are plenty of people who would not have returned the money. It is flawed to say that the driver's religion had nothing to do with him returning the money.

[skearny1]

I was a murderer, thief, and adulterer before the Ten Commandments were divinely revealed to me. Yay for celestial instructions!

Praise Jebus

[ThePissedOffAtheist]

Well since Im not a psychopath or a sociopath I dont need God, thank you sir.

[bizzee1]

I am an atheist and have come to the conclusion that morality is founded in treating others as you would like to be treated. I don't need a god to prod me to do this because I have noticed that people tend to treat me as I have treated them. So, I treat others as I would like to be treated to give myself the best chance of being treated the same. The pang that Hitchens says he feels when doing wrong to others results from the subconscious knowledge that he would not like to be treated the same.

[sy1234]

Ooh, quote mining. I'll just pass on this, the interviewer is biased.

[josephdrew87]

Lewis is a smart guy and as good an apologist as they come, but Hitchens puts down his argument for "mere Christianity" (what false modesty) and against materialism brilliantly. You may not like materialism, but that has no bearing *at all* on the question of whether materialism is in fact true and there is nothing but material.

[drflynn73]

Hitchens's strenght is not his reasons why there is no god but his explanations of why we don't need a god and shouldn't even wish there to be a god. Great book.

[templarart]

Hitchens has the patience of Job! I don't know if I could've sat through all those STUPID questions without questioning the interviewer's capacity to reason.