Morals do evolve, but that doesn't mean any moral will change at random in the future. NO.
Morals evolve for the better, just as our species did. We don't evolve to go blind, just as our morals won't evolve to accept murder, rape, and incest.
We can clearly see this moral evolution in the works: from the abolishment of slavery to women gaining rights to homosexuality gaining acceptance. Open your eyes.
Morality CLEARLY evolves as it is demonstrable by the cherry picking contemporary followers of religion do with the edicts listed in their contemptible scriptures. You won't find too many Christians advocating murdering disobedient children today, as one example.
Tenable morality that does not depend on an external threat can only be obtained from empathetic questions about the circumstances of our fellow beings, not from mythologies that seek to keep us as eternal cowering, ignorant infants.
if Jesus still wins then maybe the theists are on to something. However, given the force feeding of Christianity and the do or die , monotheistic, absolutist nature. I think we would shift away from it a lot faster then we are now. I mean when I think of the ultimate love, It goes far past the teachings of Christianity without even giving it much thought. Does Christian philosophy influence the evolution of our sophistication and love? Yes, but its no reason to submit and fear any 1 philosopher.
Also, USA condones itself under Aramaic ethics. This is not the only form of ethics and by force feeding it to society as the best way or correct way to live. We are not learning much. If this is to be a true democracy, we would benefit a great deal from learning all forms of ethics and teaching interpersonal communication, healthy emotional development, philosophy and so on from a very young age so people can grow up thinking critically/voting about how they want society to turn out.
would say I believe in warning labels because they can be put into context, plainly and clearly to real dangers of the material world. They are scientific, ethical and protect us from one of two forms of suffering; emotional and physical. "God" if not indirect and very subjective, warn against dangers of a supernatural world that we do not know exists. I would say this is more dangerous. Social psychology, interpersonal communication and other topics teach ethics very clearly.
It all boils down to what we call the word of God or the logos/logic, love thy neighbour. It is the universal constant on which the entire universe is built and was the reason for Jesus to come into this world. To reconise the importance of putting the common good in front of your own requires the acceptance of something more valuable then yourself e.g. to identify oneself in those others thus destroying the distinction between hedonism and altruism.
"Then the things which we most strongly disapprove now, could be permitted later."
I'm sure he's willing to agree that the opposite could happen. Because it has. Its happened to christians. In the bible, both old and new testament, slavery is supported. Endorsed by god. Endorsed by humans. Now its not. Are you still in God's pocket, peter? Or has your evolving human secular morality strayed you off the beaten path?
If, as Peter Hitchens said, morality is what you do when you think no one is looking, then he has no morality. I say that because he, as a Christian, must believe that God/Jesus is always looking.
@HelFKiernan You're welcome. I hope my kindness leads you to the loving kindness God has for you. With your reply it shows me that I was giving truth out of love. Without love it profits no one. Give me a shout if you want to talk some more. I hope you had a good Christmas and are having a Happy New Year.
.. woah, I looked away and didn't realise that Chris had stopped talking and Peter had started. Got me really confused. Y'know, they could've played the best pranks on each other by calling into radio stations, pretending to be each other, and renouncing their ideals. Oh man, why didn't they do that??
Morality is informed by human knowledge. It used to be "ok" to tear human hearts out of chest cavities to ensure the sun came up. Then we learnt about astronomy a bit more. Now it's "not OK". It's pointless.
@Harrymfink Wikipedia: Hitchens has written of his homosexual experiences when in boarding school in his memoir, "Hitch-22." These experiences continued in his college years when he allegedly had relationships with two men who eventually became a part of the Thatcher government.
@TazJumperHardjump yes Peter is Christopher's younger brother. Peter in many ways followed Chris's footsteps in that he became an outspoken Atheists and a Journalist. Peter, however, had a conversion and very publicly went "back" to the Church of England (they grew up in Britain, so they were both christened, so yes he went back). This has been edited down severely though, as Peter's replies were usually much more erudite in the actual interview.
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
@ThePregnancySlaves Maybe you should bash the allies for bombing German civilians ruled by Hitler. Maybe you should be glad whenever a supporter of the allies passes. It is consistent with your logic.
I Hope Hitch is in heaven, so he could join Orwell.
What an asshole. "There's... alot of things I would do If I didn't believe in God."
Implied is that he wouldn't think twice about rape or murder, at the extremes, if he didn't think the eternal big brother was watching and would care what he did. Doing what is good for fear of retribution and desire of paradise is not moral, it is the height of disgusting immorality.
@HarrisJamesBen Well, it's kind of sad when people make these kinds of statements. It's basically saying, that, without god they don't have a moral compass to guide them. But the fact is that, atheists can have perfectly good morals without a belief in a god. This is the lie of religion saying that you can't be a morally good person without it. Peter Hitchens' arguments always fall short as they are based on falsehoods and beliefs (the two sometimes are the same thing).
A LIGHT IN THE CELLAR—The leaders of the Christian Right are purely in it for the money. They've reached an agreement w/the powers that be. Since 1947 Christians have lost EVERY major court case. We now have shops open on the Sabbath; abortion {infanticide}; a ban on school prayer; homosexual "marriage"; no-fault divorce & unmarried couples living together (the laws against this stand unenforced).
we are all going to experience the great warning with the intervention of our holy mother all we can do is pray for the nonbelievers so that they may convert.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
There was a book written in 1989 called, 'After The Ball: How America Will Conquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s", which simply told the LGBT not to speak and present themselves as "victims", rather they are to present their position as "mainstream". The two authors Marshall Kirk (deceased), was a researcher in neuropsychiatry, Hunter Madsen is a public relations consultant. Quite the formula on how having created this "LGBT manifesto."
So Peter can come up with nothing but an argument from ignorance? Just because something is difficult to explain does not mean it has to be the result of some supernatural entity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
it's funny how atheistic arguments which always sounds rock-solid at the begining fall away like dust in the wind when you invert its premise and point its arrow back to the shooter.
The magnetic pole is constantly shifting slowly. (To compensate you have to add or subtract magnetic declination to convert the magnetic bearing into a true bearing.) It's also flipped polarity many times in the past and over the last decade or so appears to be weakening possibly towards a reversal.
Peter says, "morality is what you do when you think nobody's looking." That must be why the religious are so often so immoral. They think they have a god who's always looking.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
If you need religion to be moral as PETER Hitchens says, are all atheist by consequence immoral? I don't see think so, in fact, I'm sure they're not, so his theory is completely flawed.
E.g. It seemed moral for the Inquisition to burn witches at the stake, but would it be now? Morality shifts, inevitably.
@boorslurf I would not say all atheists are immoral, yet no atheist can have a valid justification for leading a moral life. Because atheism at its core rejects the concept of morality ordained by a higher power to be absolute, no atheist can logically explain his adherence to morality as long as his transgressions from it do not result in civil punishment.
Nowhere under the New Covenant is the behavior seen in the Inquisition called for or justified, so it was only the opinion of man.
@TheGeekyNinjaStudios Morality is an evolved behavior that's necessary for living in a society. It's an extension of empathy and self-sacrifice, which are traits that all mammals and other social species require in order to thrive in a group.
@doombuggy123 Not all animals live in a group, and certainly most do not live in any sort of sacrificial system outside one of order, which is separate from morality. So while some animals do ascribe to such behavior, not all do, making it a mere opinion in the chaos of the world. As such atheists are only capable of coming up with competing opinions of morality as defined by man, which could easily lead us down a terrible path.
@TheGeekyNinjaStudios Mammals live in a group, that's part of what being a mammal is. Having evolved to raise your young. There are other species that aren't mammalian that live in groups too, but that's not relevant because human beings are mammals therefore the rule that they need social order to raise their young and function in a society applies to them. The root of our morality is getting along with each other, which would explain the Golden Rule.
If you need religion to be moral as Chris Hitchens says, are all atheist by consequence immoral? I don't see think so, in fact, I'm sure they're not, so his theory is completely flawed.
E.g. It seemed moral for the Inquisition to burn witches at the stake, but would it be now? Morality shifts, inevitably.
"...We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment...Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind..." [Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man," 1871 ed. vol. I, p. 168]
Peter is kind of wrong in his reasons on the last things he says, he needs to read more (Catholic) moral theology. In fact, it all works together: hardwired laws, attraction to holding universal absolutes we can believe in, and also derive and purify it because we do indeed form them within a culture. One of the greatest reasons for this is that without people there would be no need for moral. Without God, as a person you are in relationship with, there won't be as many standards of living.
You do not need the Bible to be moral. You can be moral without it. I did for many years before I became a Christian. Following morals in not what God wants. He wants you to believe in what His says to be true. Hewbrews 11:6. Believing leads to following. If you don't believe that. Then why do you believe in the warning labels, road signs, cooking recipices, etc.? If you do not believe in what they say then you would not follow what they are telling you.
@saved03 I find the first part of your comment about morality and what God wants interesting because it is so honest so thanks for that. The problem, for me, is that I believe a written text is not a direct hotline to God but an interpretation by a representative on earth - My question is; how can you rule out human intervention and so know you really are following the word of God?
@corksmusic1 Human internention is a good question however with all the intervention. God's Word stands the test of time and human intervention. For the most part the Holy Bible is grounded in history. Although it does not give every historical fact at the time(s) due to what was really important at that time period(s). You can trace historical facts written in the Bible. Why would this history text book be different than one on ancient Greece or some other? There is human intervention in them.
@saved03 You say 'Why would this history text book (the Bible) be different than one on ancient Greece or some other?'. There is no difference - all books are written by man. And that really is the point of my question - knowing that man must have played a part in the writing of the bible, how are you sure that it is truly the pure word of God and has not been tainted by fallible human beings? I'm not trying to catch you out. I am genuinely interested and you seem like an honest person to ask.
@corksmusic1 I am glad that you came to the conclution that there is no difference. However you seemed to have missed the point I was making. That point is believing in what is written in other historical text books. If you can believe in a text book that tells of events during ancient times. During those times that the Bible covers also. What is the difference if you can believe in what is written in one compared to the other?
If i unstand right, we have both come to the conclsion that ALL books are written by man; including the bible. You misunderstand me if you think I belive all books. Some books are entertainment and patently not true. Other books, like your bible, are obviously more serious. We both agree that man had a hand in writing it, and so therefore it is possible that it contains errors; would you agree - that it is at least possible that the bible contains errors? If not, why not?
@corksmusic1 Yes every 66 books of the Bible were written by man but inspired by a perfect God. However the point I was making is that a non-fictional history text book tells of events that had taken place well before both of our times can be believed upon with the accounts in that book. How is it different when it come to the Bible that also tells of events that took place well before our time? Does this clear it up as to what I'm asking you? It is the matter of faith. That is what I'm asking.
@corksmusic1 Let's take a court reporter for an example. They are using a short hand typewriter to document the case. The words he or she type out are not his or her words but rather it is the words of other people. Like your post and replies. I can write every word like you wrote but are they my words or your words? If there was an error. You would correct me would you not? That is why the Bible is without error. God would not allow even one error in the whole canon of scripture(66 books).
@saved03 I actually don't believe that everything written in a non-fictional history textbook is necessarily true; in fact, I think a good historian is sceptical about taking any kind of information at face value. So I'm not making an exception in the case of the bible. I do understand your point though - as far as you're concerend God would not allow any error because he would watch over the process. However, I don't believe in God, and so must view the bible like any other man-made document.
@corksmusic1 What evidence do you have that supports your position that there is no God? Here is my question that everyone who believes in evolution cannot answer both historically & scientifically. At what time during "our evolutionary process" did we humans obtain the knowledge of good & evil? Also what is to purpose for this knowledge? We didn't need it before why now? The account that the Bible gives is both historical & scientific. Knowing G&E is evidence we can see. How did we get it?
@saved03 'When did man obtain the knowledge good and evil?'. I can't answer that question. All honest, non-religious people will tell you the same. However, I clearly DO have knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps it was your God who put it inside me but many religions say the same thing. The trouble is, ultimately religion means that one has to follow someone who is a representative of God. That is not trust in a god, but trust in a fellow, fallible human being.
@corksmusic1 So you cannot give an answer to that question. Does that not bother you that evolution cannot give an answer to that question? From you post I can tell it does not. Also I can tell that you are not even willing to challenge your own beliefs. You acknowledge that you have knowledge of good and evil but you refuse to find out why you have it. I cannot help if you are unwilling to challenge what you too have been taught. Like you said man is failible but yet you follow them yourself?
@saved03 My post was honest, that I have no answers - and I also said that perhaps it WAS God who gave me a knowledge of good and evil. You are the one saying the bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so answer me, honestly; who is the one making the absolute claims here?
@corksmusic1 Do you believe that there are absolute truths? The Bible makes the claims not I. I only believe in those claims. The Bible defends it's claims. I believe in these claims because the evidence supports the claims the Bible makes. Like with the knowledge of good & evil. Nowhere in evolution can I find why and how we obtained this knowledge. The Bible does. I have it and this is evidence. Now who has the most logical explaination. Evolution doesn't at all. Yet Evolution makes big claims
@saved03 I'm not sure I do believe there are absolute truths. And that's why I am sceptical about the bible. It really is as simple as that. The bible makes such big claims and its justifiication for its truth is that it is the bible! Please tell me how you get out of the circularity of this thinking. That is one hell of a grand statement to make, and while I suppport you in your beliefs, surely you could support me and understand why an atheist might be slightly sceptical about those claims
@corksmusic1 It's not being sceptical it's being suppressive. Atheists aren't sceptical of the truth there is a God. They merely suppress that truth within there thinking. The reason I know this is one the Bible says so and two I had done the same thing for 20+ years of my own life. I was once an Atheist myself. If there is room for this Atheist there is room for you also. Right now it seems you're not ready to believe. I understand that. You'll come when you are ready. Later
@saved03 It goes the other way too you know. Some people who were religious become atheists. Some people who were christians become muslim and vice versa; round and round it goes and it proves nothing
'The bible says so' is simply not an answer. You wouldn't accept 'The Qur'an says so' would you? Mohammed is as real to the people who believe in him as Jesus is to you - don't forget that. If I were to believe in a god, how could you convince me that Jesus is the truth and not Mohammed.
@saved03 What convinced you that this specific religion was true out of the one it comes from and hundreds of others along with thousands of denominations under it's own belief system?
@clipsryan What convinced me was the fact that the Bible described my sinful nature and out of this nature. I needed a Savior to fix the seperation I had with God. All of the other religions requires you to do enough good works to out weigh the bad in order to get a relationship with God. It seems logical however it is very controlling of masses. Salvation once gained can never be lost no matter how many bad acts a Christian does. So I don't have to worry about how good or bad I am.
@clipsryan You are proving that you have the knowledge of good & evil. Now tell me where, when, & how did we obtain this knowledge of good & evil during "our evolutionary process"? If you do not challenge that question towards Evolution. Than I'm afraid that it is you who are the lazy one and that folllow what you are told. I was an Atheist myself and I challenged my believes. Why can't you? Get back with me when you find the answer to my question. Do not give me a rant. That shows laziness.
@saved03 History. History is the biggest teacher of what works and what doesn't in a moral society. Certainly didn't obtain it from a being that could excuse any action you do and who only cares that you're moral to you and your kind instead of outsiders. There's no such thing as atheists beliefs but curiousity, what beliefs did you have and how did they apply to you being an atheist. I challenged my views when I was a christian so stop assuming things before asking them.
@clipsryan I'm not assuming anything. If you went to a church and walked away an Atheist. Then you truly were not a Christian to begin with. This is not what I say but rather what the Bible says. The answer I am seeking is a histroical & scientific answer. Since you have not answered in that fashion. You truly do not want to challenge your belief in evolution. I did not say nor does the Bible say that we obtained the knowledge of good & evil from God. Show me historical & scientific evidence.
@saved03 You've been assuming alot. Nobody's a true christian. It's an unrealistic expectation and like you think now, I thought I was a true christian but nice cop out. As if I haven't seen that before. Knowledged in evolution. Get it right. So god doesn't know what good and evil is? Gotcha. You're rediculous. BTW, I get explain where we get it from and from the start you assumed wrong and now, you don't like my answer. Please, grow up and learn how to debate.
@saved03 Don't forget James chapter two where it says "Faith without works is dead" nor the book of Matthew where Jesus was asked by the rich man what he would have to do to inherit the kingdom of God and Jesus responded by saying:Give all you have to the poor, take up your cross and follow me. You pretend you have a free ticket to ride from this very contradictory book called the Bible, but the truth is, even animals know to care for their young and their tribe. Innate morality.
@corksmusic1 Sceptical is good. However no one is a 100% pure sceptic. There are truths that are accepted. You are a sceptic of creation while I'm a sceptic of evolution. If you were a 100% pure sceptic then you would not accept either & could not believe in anything told to you. I too was once an atheist. I questioned my position. Are you will to do the same for yours? I even question teachers of my own faith. The Bible tells us to do so. Test the spirits. Test means examine, question, compair.
anyone who says "without god I would do horrible shit" does not deserve to live near other human beings. That said, he is right that morality evolves- that's why we believe pedophilia is wrong while the Quran says it's okay and the Bible didn't bother talking about it.
Hearing Peter talk about this is about as close as we can get to imagining what it would be like if Christopher with his intellect and charisma was on the opposite side of the issue.
Such great courage as he goes through chemotherapy and whatever other processes he has to conend with to gain a few more months or, one hopes, years. His brothers comments about the evolution of morality are stunningly self cancelling as it is clear that, if you will, secular morality has consistently sought to expand compassion and tolerance and understanding while religious morality, ever medieval, has fought this tooth and nail.
@nextHeritage I find it funny that you think some how your intellectually superior to those who don't think like you. So in your opinion if someone agrees with something Dawkins might say they are being mindless clones. But you quote Newton and some how are not a mindless Newton clone. Try thinking for yourself and leave Newton out of it.
I am always worried about people you say "there are a lot of things I would do if no one was looking". A friend of mine told me that once. The he needed religion, because it teaches morality and He would hate to think how he would live without it. I was a little taken aback by that.
Peter would do certain actions he's abstained from if god didn't exist.
It's a good thing that you checked to see if god exists, otherwise you might be working on Sunday, like all of those other abominations. Or you might eat shellfish. Or you might be keeping an additional 10% of your income. Or you might have to take responsibility for all the prejudices you have, rather than saying 'god told me to hate these certain demographics'.
@BigMikeMcBastard its a sick immoral thing to say...Thanks for saying it peter, religion and its teachings are above anything else, fear based. If you do good or dont do bad based on a divine creator watching you ITS NOT MORALITY, it is fear based BEHAVIOR. The single most beautiful thing about human existence is that feeling you get from helping someone without anything in return. This feeling is cheapened everytime someone does good or refrains from doing bad on the merits daddy is watching.
@BigMikeMcBastard Just what I was thinking. Unless he's trying to be profound in a simplistic & immature manner, he's basically admitting to possessing an amoral personality at best, and a fundamentally immoral personality at worst. Two things should prevent us from doing what society regards as immoral or illegal: the effect it will have on others, and the effect it will have on ourselves. Basing any decision on the diktats of religion demonstrates a lack of natural morality that needs control.
Magnetic North does shift and so does Morality... Sex and marriage with girls under 10 years old was accepted in the past, now it would be considered disgusting, (unless you are Muslim). So BOLLOCKS PETER!
look at the two brothers...look at the leach who is nowhere near as intelligent or inherently good as hsi brother. Yet the leach will out live the hero brother....proof there is no god
@BigMikeMcBastard Perhaps Peter has the sense to realize his own limitations. Have your actions your entire life been morally upright based upon your own innate goodness, Mr. McBastard? Or have you at times been led to sober second thought by the notion that someone might find out and disapprove?
@tamething1 My actions are based upon my own sense of morality, yes. And no, I've never had second thoughts about doing something because some god or other might disapprove of me doing whatever it is I might have done otherwise.
Christopher Hitchens has a sharp mind that became closed by a door of what material? Anger, contempt of faith, hurt? He chooses to limit himself to the physical world, including the intellectual, blocking with determination the spiritual. Therefore, he cannot see with spiritual eyes or think with an intellect open to the spiritual. It may be that if he really listens during debate, rather than repeating his mantra, he could be persuaded to open that stubborn door he hides behind. I pray he will.
Really....one of the greatest minds of this century? I'm a big fan of Peter, I like Hitchens as well, I'm not a douche bag atheist who follows Cicero's teachings "If you don't have an argument, attack the Plaintiff" but I wouldn't for a second consider Peter (or Hitchens for that matter) to be one of the greatest minds of this century.
@Jim1905 - Steady up bro. I didn't put him in the top ten but when it comes to humanists trying to rid the world of nonsense for the sake of the survival of the human race I say yes, he is one of the greatest minds of this century. I wish there were more like him.
@Jim1905 - Steady up bro. I didn't put him in the top ten but when it comes to humanists trying to rid the world of nonsense for the sake of the survival of the human race I say yes, he is one of the greatest minds of this century. I wish there were more like him.
Peter says there would be alot of things he would do if there was no god. That is disgraceful. We must and indeed are moral, despite god. We are altruistic because of our inborn genetic makeup and we certainly do not need religion, which is nothing more than a fraudulent and dangerous ideology.
The Catholic Catechism & Christianity in general teaches that if you go off by yourself sometime and earnestly ask God, if he is there, to reveal himself to you in some way that you will know he exists, then God will answer. St. James wrote "Draw close to God and he will draw close to you"
these guys are the shwarzenegger and de vito of punditry... of course in that movie the good looking twin was the dumb one, and, er, these guys aren't twins... but apart from that, diamond allegory eh! Thanks, i'm here all week.
@mockerofscoffers What a convenient assumption. i suggest you google the words 'logical fallacy no true scotsman' to educate yourself as to why that response does nothing to refute my implication
@mockerofscoffers i know that the bible offers four contradictory accounts of christ's life and teachings, and that each one of some 38,000 christian sects and denominations on earth has a different idea of 'what a christian should be'. I know that a christian doesn't suddenly cease to be a christian the moment he gives way to anger and posts abusive language on the internet. And i suspect you are sadly lacking in either the inclination/capacity to understand the concept of logical fallacy.
@PlanetBongoSan ahh classic..presuposing from a couple of banter lines my conception of understanding.
Your so called four contradictory accounts of Christ's life is secular false interpretation of the bible and has been debunked by by bible Scholars many times.
If you want to send the examples i think you are talking about i will send you the refutations.
Denominations are man made and account for nothing when it come to the Gospel of Christ.
@mockerofscoffers i can't fault anyone who teaches love, compassion and forgiveness. Thanks for conceding that even christians who occasionally stumble from the path are still christians. Its certainly a shame christ never wrote his own gospel down so that subsequent generations of his followers and scholars of his teachings didn't have to rely on the testimony of men writing decades after his ascension. But all this is beside the point - did i say anything about christians in my initial reply?
Peter = religious, horrible human being.... he makes his brother's point for him! Ahhh, that was so easy. tsk tsk, Peter. Newsflash, nobody IS looking, now what? What's really on your mind ol' boy?
What a damning last statement by Peter Hitchen's 'there's a lot of things that I would do if I thought there was no one (god) looking'.
His sane brother doesn't believe that there's any deity watching him, and he doesn't choose to kill, murder, rape or engage in other socially unacceptable behavior. We can only assume that under the right circumstances Peter would reveal his true sociopathic nature.
Peter would do those things if no one was looking because his code of morality comes from a system of belief based on coercion. If God wasn't looking, he'd do X- but God is looking and so to avoid punishment he refrains from X. Christopher would not do X, because his code of morality is taken to heart. Good secular upbringing uses inductive parenting as opposed to power assertion. When the only thing stopping you from being immoral is force, you're no moral being at all.
Ok I have no idea what happened what happened with the double comment.
Anyhow, I also do not think it is appropriate to associate God with a text. I think instead we could reasonably think of God as the greatest possible being that could be conceived, based on our inner sense and reason. If we truly believe in no God, what is our grounding for moral values? There can be none, besides, us. Rather than appealing to this person of God to base our sense of intuitive justice on, we rely on the self.
Quit acting as if its an inaccurate statement. If you don't believe in any transcendent law above yourself, it makes it that much easier to instead follow your own law. Many atheists exhibit this, they DON'T want authority. Listen to Chris Hitchens, he deplores the idea of a God existing, precisely because he doesn't want to be under that authority. I really think you are a deluding yourself and in the process, try to make Peter look like a sociopath.
@v01741r31 You really don't seem to have a point here. Be a peach and rephrase your comment so that what you're driving at is more clear, would you? It sounds as if you're saying that if someone doesn't believe in any religion then they won't follow a religion's laws and will instead follow our man-made laws. I think that's true, but it's also very obvious and considering our laws are pretty decent at keeping an orderly society but are also subject to change, I don't see what the problem is.
I'm not really talking about religious tenets, I'm talking about acts which you yourself would probably be quick to admit are evil, and will remain evil always. Selfishness, hatred, murder, lying, theft, etc. A persons atheism would do nothing but help someone do these things, because it denies an ontological justice and guilt on the perpetrator. He can instead feel free to do what he wants. I really don't think you are going to understand this but hopefully someone else will.
@v01741r31 Ooh, scathingly patronizing and everything. Great job.
There isn't any correlation between religious belief and moral behaviour, nor is there between non-belief in religion and immoral behaviour. Whatever you imagine your divine authority compels you to do, it clearly doesn't have the opposite effect in the lives of people who don't believe such an authority exists.
This stuff has been covered ad nauseam by people like Christopher Hitchens though, so I'd recommend you keep watching.
Beliefs have implications. Whether a negative or positive belief, its going to impact you in some way. There is no neutral ground, which you imply is atheism/non theism. It seems you have taken to heart, the idea that atheism is lack of belief, and that it doesn't effect people's lives. This is just wrong. Beliefs have implications, worldviews have an impact. Atheism is a worldview, therefore it has implications and qualities that are uniquely attributable to it.
@v01741r31 The only implication of non-belief in god is that that individual is not likely to believe the religious texts or opinions associated with that particular god. There's nothing more to say. You may conjecture that lack of belief in god goes hand-in-hand with immoral behaviour or whatever, as you seem to be skirting around here, but there's no evidence to support that opinion. On the contrary, in fact.
I don't really want to be forced into presenting evidence for the moral superiority of Christianity, as I don't really think that is a particularly optimal way to argue. I do think that true Christian faith heals the human heart. Its hard to look at history and not be confused with historical religious institutional Christianity, or perhaps Christianity infused with the state, and not come out wondering about the so called moral goodness of Christianity.
@BigMikeMcBastard I was thinkin the same thing...the definition of a sociopath is "someone whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience" (Might explain about the Canadian archbishop who turned himself in today on charges of sexually assualting 2 young boys...sensing a pattern here..)
Poor Peter, morality does shift, and so do magnetic poles, but at a rate that allows adaptability. Ever read what passed as "moral" behavior in leviticus? He would do well to study the true implications of evolution before mentioning it. Retard fail.
@BigMikeMcBastard Probably he'd try to do what such believers in atheist dogma as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin did. Of course, he'd have to gain political power first.
@Purushadasa Your videos, like your comments here, are hostile and condescending. It's pretty obvious you're not interested in any reasonable sort of discussion, you've made up your mind and just want to be inflammatory. Well, fine, it's YouTube, knock yourself out.
@BigMikeMcBastard I call 'em like I see 'em, shithead. Actually, I wasn't being hostile; I was being generous. Now go fuck your mother, except not in the ass like I fucked her last night. It's full of smelly pustules and parasites.
@Purushadasa Well, Hitler was a catholic as he claimed in the "mein kampf": "I have and will always be a catholic". And speaking of genocidal killers: God.
Moses and the crusaders was the same however they didn't have the technology to kill so many Stalin did.
And i dont understand why you would block me, are you afraid of my arguements? Shouldn't you persuade me into christianity since if i dont belive in your god i burn in hell? If you simply gonna ignore me then you're simply evil.
"things we may disprove of now are things we may accept later, in which case its not really morality" So in his view it would be better if we still followed the same moral code our ancestors did thousands of years ago, when for example slavery was still permitted?
"there's a lot of things I would do if um, I thought nobody was looking"
If he is moral only because he is afraid someone's watching then I submit that this is not true morality, its nothing more than not wanting to get into trouble.
Anyone remember the movie "Twins"? lol.
l337pwnage 2 days ago
Peter you're not thinking rationally.
Morals do evolve, but that doesn't mean any moral will change at random in the future. NO.
Morals evolve for the better, just as our species did. We don't evolve to go blind, just as our morals won't evolve to accept murder, rape, and incest.
We can clearly see this moral evolution in the works: from the abolishment of slavery to women gaining rights to homosexuality gaining acceptance. Open your eyes.
ryanrenesis 6 days ago
Does anyone know where i can find the full debate? Thanks
jorritschulte 2 weeks ago
Hey Peter Hitchens, magnetic north IS constantly shifting, you moron.
BadStarcraft 2 weeks ago
@BadStarcraft I'm thankful SOMEONE stated this.
CFDragon 6 days ago
Morality CLEARLY evolves as it is demonstrable by the cherry picking contemporary followers of religion do with the edicts listed in their contemptible scriptures. You won't find too many Christians advocating murdering disobedient children today, as one example.
Tenable morality that does not depend on an external threat can only be obtained from empathetic questions about the circumstances of our fellow beings, not from mythologies that seek to keep us as eternal cowering, ignorant infants.
LeySun 4 weeks ago
if Jesus still wins then maybe the theists are on to something. However, given the force feeding of Christianity and the do or die , monotheistic, absolutist nature. I think we would shift away from it a lot faster then we are now. I mean when I think of the ultimate love, It goes far past the teachings of Christianity without even giving it much thought. Does Christian philosophy influence the evolution of our sophistication and love? Yes, but its no reason to submit and fear any 1 philosopher.
codyStrode 1 month ago
Also, USA condones itself under Aramaic ethics. This is not the only form of ethics and by force feeding it to society as the best way or correct way to live. We are not learning much. If this is to be a true democracy, we would benefit a great deal from learning all forms of ethics and teaching interpersonal communication, healthy emotional development, philosophy and so on from a very young age so people can grow up thinking critically/voting about how they want society to turn out.
codyStrode 1 month ago
would say I believe in warning labels because they can be put into context, plainly and clearly to real dangers of the material world. They are scientific, ethical and protect us from one of two forms of suffering; emotional and physical. "God" if not indirect and very subjective, warn against dangers of a supernatural world that we do not know exists. I would say this is more dangerous. Social psychology, interpersonal communication and other topics teach ethics very clearly.
codyStrode 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It all boils down to what we call the word of God or the logos/logic, love thy neighbour. It is the universal constant on which the entire universe is built and was the reason for Jesus to come into this world. To reconise the importance of putting the common good in front of your own requires the acceptance of something more valuable then yourself e.g. to identify oneself in those others thus destroying the distinction between hedonism and altruism.
fourteatwo 1 month ago
Comment removed
fourteatwo 1 month ago
Peter Hitchens is an embarasment.
boazmoss 1 month ago
To have a brother like Peter ,would make one's life a total compromise.
boazmoss 1 month ago
Comment removed
boazmoss 1 month ago
"Then the things which we most strongly disapprove now, could be permitted later."
I'm sure he's willing to agree that the opposite could happen. Because it has. Its happened to christians. In the bible, both old and new testament, slavery is supported. Endorsed by god. Endorsed by humans. Now its not. Are you still in God's pocket, peter? Or has your evolving human secular morality strayed you off the beaten path?
Barbershop666 1 month ago
If, as Peter Hitchens said, morality is what you do when you think no one is looking, then he has no morality. I say that because he, as a Christian, must believe that God/Jesus is always looking.
Godfree5 1 month ago
@HelFKiernan You're welcome. I hope my kindness leads you to the loving kindness God has for you. With your reply it shows me that I was giving truth out of love. Without love it profits no one. Give me a shout if you want to talk some more. I hope you had a good Christmas and are having a Happy New Year.
saved03 1 month ago
.. woah, I looked away and didn't realise that Chris had stopped talking and Peter had started. Got me really confused. Y'know, they could've played the best pranks on each other by calling into radio stations, pretending to be each other, and renouncing their ideals. Oh man, why didn't they do that??
Zebonka 1 month ago
...Does Peter not understand what morality is?
AidanMakesGames 1 month ago
Morality is informed by human knowledge. It used to be "ok" to tear human hearts out of chest cavities to ensure the sun came up. Then we learnt about astronomy a bit more. Now it's "not OK". It's pointless.
hypernation2007 2 months ago
The last quote sent chills down my spine. "There are lots of things a would do without religion." Followed by a creepy smile.
Harrymfink 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Harrymfink Wikipedia: Hitchens has written of his homosexual experiences when in boarding school in his memoir, "Hitch-22." These experiences continued in his college years when he allegedly had relationships with two men who eventually became a part of the Thatcher government.
procommenter 2 months ago
Pardon the ignorance, but are they actually blood related brothers?
TazJumperHardjump 2 months ago
@TazJumperHardjump yes Peter is Christopher's younger brother. Peter in many ways followed Chris's footsteps in that he became an outspoken Atheists and a Journalist. Peter, however, had a conversion and very publicly went "back" to the Church of England (they grew up in Britain, so they were both christened, so yes he went back). This has been edited down severely though, as Peter's replies were usually much more erudite in the actual interview.
treymedley 2 months ago
@TazJumperHardjump yes
M0stBlunt3d 1 month ago
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
ThePregnancySlaves 2 months ago
@ThePregnancySlaves Maybe you should bash the allies for bombing German civilians ruled by Hitler. Maybe you should be glad whenever a supporter of the allies passes. It is consistent with your logic.
I Hope Hitch is in heaven, so he could join Orwell.
Tomer1776 2 months ago
@Tomer1776 : I do. The attack on Dresden should've put Truman in the dock.
ThePregnancySlaves 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christ' Hitchens' next stop is Worm Shit City.
ThePregnancySlaves 2 months ago
Magnetic North does shift, a complete 180 degrees (or so) much like Peter Hitchens has.
emnetic 2 months ago
What an asshole. "There's... alot of things I would do If I didn't believe in God."
Implied is that he wouldn't think twice about rape or murder, at the extremes, if he didn't think the eternal big brother was watching and would care what he did. Doing what is good for fear of retribution and desire of paradise is not moral, it is the height of disgusting immorality.
daemonowner 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daemonowner : You are but one of countless You-Tube degenerates who can't post a comment without alluding to bodily functions.
ThePregnancySlaves 2 months ago
the admission at the end by hitch's brother is telling to say the least. strange
BER2ERKER 2 months ago
Exactly, the only thing dissuading him from performing immoral acts is the fear of divine punishment. What a twat
weefeatures 2 months ago
"there's a lot of things I would do if I didn't believe in God"
Very chilling.
HarrisJamesBen 3 months ago 10
Comment removed
1960pj 3 months ago
@HarrisJamesBen Well, it's kind of sad when people make these kinds of statements. It's basically saying, that, without god they don't have a moral compass to guide them. But the fact is that, atheists can have perfectly good morals without a belief in a god. This is the lie of religion saying that you can't be a morally good person without it. Peter Hitchens' arguments always fall short as they are based on falsehoods and beliefs (the two sometimes are the same thing).
1960pj 3 months ago
@HarrisJamesBen Or at the very least it's revealing. Because for a very long part of his life he didn't believe in a god....
mblackchurch 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A LIGHT IN THE CELLAR—The leaders of the Christian Right are purely in it for the money. They've reached an agreement w/the powers that be. Since 1947 Christians have lost EVERY major court case. We now have shops open on the Sabbath; abortion {infanticide}; a ban on school prayer; homosexual "marriage"; no-fault divorce & unmarried couples living together (the laws against this stand unenforced).
TransUnicorn 3 months ago
we are all going to experience the great warning with the intervention of our holy mother all we can do is pray for the nonbelievers so that they may convert.
MsPeques1 4 months ago
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
@lightandbeautiful Ahahahahaaaaa! The Gay Agenda. Yes, how dare they demand the equal right afforded to them as citizens!
proprodigySD 4 months ago
@lightandbeautiful There's a reason for that,
There was a book written in 1989 called, 'After The Ball: How America Will Conquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s", which simply told the LGBT not to speak and present themselves as "victims", rather they are to present their position as "mainstream". The two authors Marshall Kirk (deceased), was a researcher in neuropsychiatry, Hunter Madsen is a public relations consultant. Quite the formula on how having created this "LGBT manifesto."
Tsuruta1 4 months ago
Bahaha
They have almost the same voice.
90talisten 5 months ago
So Peter can come up with nothing but an argument from ignorance? Just because something is difficult to explain does not mean it has to be the result of some supernatural entity.
Britonbear 5 months ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it's funny how atheistic arguments which always sounds rock-solid at the begining fall away like dust in the wind when you invert its premise and point its arrow back to the shooter.
whiteliketar 5 months ago
Nice analogy Peter!!
The magnetic pole is constantly shifting slowly. (To compensate you have to add or subtract magnetic declination to convert the magnetic bearing into a true bearing.) It's also flipped polarity many times in the past and over the last decade or so appears to be weakening possibly towards a reversal.
paulski1080 5 months ago
Is there a full video on youtube?
AWilberforce 5 months ago
Peter says, "morality is what you do when you think nobody's looking." That must be why the religious are so often so immoral. They think they have a god who's always looking.
EricAnderson3220 5 months ago
i wonder how many people are confused as to like or dislike this, since they wan to dislike one or the other brothers.lol
brucefetter 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
where is the Christopher response to Peters last comment?? its not that i can't imagine what he is going to say but that i can't wait to see it.
EmceeKayR 7 months ago
If you need religion to be moral as PETER Hitchens says, are all atheist by consequence immoral? I don't see think so, in fact, I'm sure they're not, so his theory is completely flawed.
E.g. It seemed moral for the Inquisition to burn witches at the stake, but would it be now? Morality shifts, inevitably.
boorslurf 7 months ago
@boorslurf I would not say all atheists are immoral, yet no atheist can have a valid justification for leading a moral life. Because atheism at its core rejects the concept of morality ordained by a higher power to be absolute, no atheist can logically explain his adherence to morality as long as his transgressions from it do not result in civil punishment.
Nowhere under the New Covenant is the behavior seen in the Inquisition called for or justified, so it was only the opinion of man.
TheGeekyNinjaStudios 7 months ago
@TheGeekyNinjaStudios Morality is an evolved behavior that's necessary for living in a society. It's an extension of empathy and self-sacrifice, which are traits that all mammals and other social species require in order to thrive in a group.
doombuggy123 6 months ago
@doombuggy123 Not all animals live in a group, and certainly most do not live in any sort of sacrificial system outside one of order, which is separate from morality. So while some animals do ascribe to such behavior, not all do, making it a mere opinion in the chaos of the world. As such atheists are only capable of coming up with competing opinions of morality as defined by man, which could easily lead us down a terrible path.
TheGeekyNinjaStudios 6 months ago
@TheGeekyNinjaStudios Mammals live in a group, that's part of what being a mammal is. Having evolved to raise your young. There are other species that aren't mammalian that live in groups too, but that's not relevant because human beings are mammals therefore the rule that they need social order to raise their young and function in a society applies to them. The root of our morality is getting along with each other, which would explain the Golden Rule.
doombuggy123 6 months ago
@boorslurf It shifts if you make arbitrary rules that repress human nature, yes.
doombuggy123 6 months ago
If you need religion to be moral as Chris Hitchens says, are all atheist by consequence immoral? I don't see think so, in fact, I'm sure they're not, so his theory is completely flawed.
E.g. It seemed moral for the Inquisition to burn witches at the stake, but would it be now? Morality shifts, inevitably.
boorslurf 7 months ago
funny fact...the magnetic north DOES SHIFT !! lol ;D
ParanoidAndroid86 7 months ago
"...We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment...Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind..." [Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man," 1871 ed. vol. I, p. 168]
UTubeOfficialSite 8 months ago
i soooooo feel for Christopher.....sooooo sorry he has cancer....
brinnyboppitybop 8 months ago
Peter is kind of wrong in his reasons on the last things he says, he needs to read more (Catholic) moral theology. In fact, it all works together: hardwired laws, attraction to holding universal absolutes we can believe in, and also derive and purify it because we do indeed form them within a culture. One of the greatest reasons for this is that without people there would be no need for moral. Without God, as a person you are in relationship with, there won't be as many standards of living.
Portubed 8 months ago
You do not need the Bible to be moral. You can be moral without it. I did for many years before I became a Christian. Following morals in not what God wants. He wants you to believe in what His says to be true. Hewbrews 11:6. Believing leads to following. If you don't believe that. Then why do you believe in the warning labels, road signs, cooking recipices, etc.? If you do not believe in what they say then you would not follow what they are telling you.
saved03 9 months ago 6
@saved03 I find the first part of your comment about morality and what God wants interesting because it is so honest so thanks for that. The problem, for me, is that I believe a written text is not a direct hotline to God but an interpretation by a representative on earth - My question is; how can you rule out human intervention and so know you really are following the word of God?
corksmusic1 1 month ago
@corksmusic1 Human internention is a good question however with all the intervention. God's Word stands the test of time and human intervention. For the most part the Holy Bible is grounded in history. Although it does not give every historical fact at the time(s) due to what was really important at that time period(s). You can trace historical facts written in the Bible. Why would this history text book be different than one on ancient Greece or some other? There is human intervention in them.
saved03 1 month ago
@saved03 You say 'Why would this history text book (the Bible) be different than one on ancient Greece or some other?'. There is no difference - all books are written by man. And that really is the point of my question - knowing that man must have played a part in the writing of the bible, how are you sure that it is truly the pure word of God and has not been tainted by fallible human beings? I'm not trying to catch you out. I am genuinely interested and you seem like an honest person to ask.
corksmusic1 1 month ago
@corksmusic1 I am glad that you came to the conclution that there is no difference. However you seemed to have missed the point I was making. That point is believing in what is written in other historical text books. If you can believe in a text book that tells of events during ancient times. During those times that the Bible covers also. What is the difference if you can believe in what is written in one compared to the other?
saved03 1 month ago
If i unstand right, we have both come to the conclsion that ALL books are written by man; including the bible. You misunderstand me if you think I belive all books. Some books are entertainment and patently not true. Other books, like your bible, are obviously more serious. We both agree that man had a hand in writing it, and so therefore it is possible that it contains errors; would you agree - that it is at least possible that the bible contains errors? If not, why not?
corksmusic1 1 month ago
@corksmusic1 Yes every 66 books of the Bible were written by man but inspired by a perfect God. However the point I was making is that a non-fictional history text book tells of events that had taken place well before both of our times can be believed upon with the accounts in that book. How is it different when it come to the Bible that also tells of events that took place well before our time? Does this clear it up as to what I'm asking you? It is the matter of faith. That is what I'm asking.
saved03 1 month ago
@corksmusic1 Let's take a court reporter for an example. They are using a short hand typewriter to document the case. The words he or she type out are not his or her words but rather it is the words of other people. Like your post and replies. I can write every word like you wrote but are they my words or your words? If there was an error. You would correct me would you not? That is why the Bible is without error. God would not allow even one error in the whole canon of scripture(66 books).
saved03 1 month ago
@saved03 I actually don't believe that everything written in a non-fictional history textbook is necessarily true; in fact, I think a good historian is sceptical about taking any kind of information at face value. So I'm not making an exception in the case of the bible. I do understand your point though - as far as you're concerend God would not allow any error because he would watch over the process. However, I don't believe in God, and so must view the bible like any other man-made document.
corksmusic1 1 month ago
@corksmusic1 What evidence do you have that supports your position that there is no God? Here is my question that everyone who believes in evolution cannot answer both historically & scientifically. At what time during "our evolutionary process" did we humans obtain the knowledge of good & evil? Also what is to purpose for this knowledge? We didn't need it before why now? The account that the Bible gives is both historical & scientific. Knowing G&E is evidence we can see. How did we get it?
saved03 1 month ago
@saved03 'When did man obtain the knowledge good and evil?'. I can't answer that question. All honest, non-religious people will tell you the same. However, I clearly DO have knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps it was your God who put it inside me but many religions say the same thing. The trouble is, ultimately religion means that one has to follow someone who is a representative of God. That is not trust in a god, but trust in a fellow, fallible human being.
corksmusic1 1 month ago
@corksmusic1 So you cannot give an answer to that question. Does that not bother you that evolution cannot give an answer to that question? From you post I can tell it does not. Also I can tell that you are not even willing to challenge your own beliefs. You acknowledge that you have knowledge of good and evil but you refuse to find out why you have it. I cannot help if you are unwilling to challenge what you too have been taught. Like you said man is failible but yet you follow them yourself?
saved03 1 month ago
@saved03 My post was honest, that I have no answers - and I also said that perhaps it WAS God who gave me a knowledge of good and evil. You are the one saying the bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so answer me, honestly; who is the one making the absolute claims here?
corksmusic1 1 month ago
@corksmusic1 Do you believe that there are absolute truths? The Bible makes the claims not I. I only believe in those claims. The Bible defends it's claims. I believe in these claims because the evidence supports the claims the Bible makes. Like with the knowledge of good & evil. Nowhere in evolution can I find why and how we obtained this knowledge. The Bible does. I have it and this is evidence. Now who has the most logical explaination. Evolution doesn't at all. Yet Evolution makes big claims
saved03 4 weeks ago
@saved03 I'm not sure I do believe there are absolute truths. And that's why I am sceptical about the bible. It really is as simple as that. The bible makes such big claims and its justifiication for its truth is that it is the bible! Please tell me how you get out of the circularity of this thinking. That is one hell of a grand statement to make, and while I suppport you in your beliefs, surely you could support me and understand why an atheist might be slightly sceptical about those claims
corksmusic1 3 weeks ago
@corksmusic1 It's not being sceptical it's being suppressive. Atheists aren't sceptical of the truth there is a God. They merely suppress that truth within there thinking. The reason I know this is one the Bible says so and two I had done the same thing for 20+ years of my own life. I was once an Atheist myself. If there is room for this Atheist there is room for you also. Right now it seems you're not ready to believe. I understand that. You'll come when you are ready. Later
saved03 3 weeks ago
@saved03 It goes the other way too you know. Some people who were religious become atheists. Some people who were christians become muslim and vice versa; round and round it goes and it proves nothing
'The bible says so' is simply not an answer. You wouldn't accept 'The Qur'an says so' would you? Mohammed is as real to the people who believe in him as Jesus is to you - don't forget that. If I were to believe in a god, how could you convince me that Jesus is the truth and not Mohammed.
corksmusic1 3 weeks ago 2
@saved03 What convinced you that this specific religion was true out of the one it comes from and hundreds of others along with thousands of denominations under it's own belief system?
clipsryan 3 weeks ago
@clipsryan What convinced me was the fact that the Bible described my sinful nature and out of this nature. I needed a Savior to fix the seperation I had with God. All of the other religions requires you to do enough good works to out weigh the bad in order to get a relationship with God. It seems logical however it is very controlling of masses. Salvation once gained can never be lost no matter how many bad acts a Christian does. So I don't have to worry about how good or bad I am.
saved03 3 weeks ago
@saved03 That's pretty fucking immoral and lazy.
clipsryan 3 weeks ago
@clipsryan You are proving that you have the knowledge of good & evil. Now tell me where, when, & how did we obtain this knowledge of good & evil during "our evolutionary process"? If you do not challenge that question towards Evolution. Than I'm afraid that it is you who are the lazy one and that folllow what you are told. I was an Atheist myself and I challenged my believes. Why can't you? Get back with me when you find the answer to my question. Do not give me a rant. That shows laziness.
saved03 2 weeks ago
@saved03 History. History is the biggest teacher of what works and what doesn't in a moral society. Certainly didn't obtain it from a being that could excuse any action you do and who only cares that you're moral to you and your kind instead of outsiders. There's no such thing as atheists beliefs but curiousity, what beliefs did you have and how did they apply to you being an atheist. I challenged my views when I was a christian so stop assuming things before asking them.
clipsryan 2 weeks ago
@clipsryan I'm not assuming anything. If you went to a church and walked away an Atheist. Then you truly were not a Christian to begin with. This is not what I say but rather what the Bible says. The answer I am seeking is a histroical & scientific answer. Since you have not answered in that fashion. You truly do not want to challenge your belief in evolution. I did not say nor does the Bible say that we obtained the knowledge of good & evil from God. Show me historical & scientific evidence.
saved03 2 weeks ago
@saved03 You've been assuming alot. Nobody's a true christian. It's an unrealistic expectation and like you think now, I thought I was a true christian but nice cop out. As if I haven't seen that before. Knowledged in evolution. Get it right. So god doesn't know what good and evil is? Gotcha. You're rediculous. BTW, I get explain where we get it from and from the start you assumed wrong and now, you don't like my answer. Please, grow up and learn how to debate.
clipsryan 2 weeks ago
@saved03 Don't forget James chapter two where it says "Faith without works is dead" nor the book of Matthew where Jesus was asked by the rich man what he would have to do to inherit the kingdom of God and Jesus responded by saying:Give all you have to the poor, take up your cross and follow me. You pretend you have a free ticket to ride from this very contradictory book called the Bible, but the truth is, even animals know to care for their young and their tribe. Innate morality.
mblackchurch 2 weeks ago
@corksmusic1 Sceptical is good. However no one is a 100% pure sceptic. There are truths that are accepted. You are a sceptic of creation while I'm a sceptic of evolution. If you were a 100% pure sceptic then you would not accept either & could not believe in anything told to you. I too was once an atheist. I questioned my position. Are you will to do the same for yours? I even question teachers of my own faith. The Bible tells us to do so. Test the spirits. Test means examine, question, compair.
saved03 1 month ago
@saved03 So I can beat my slaves as long as they can get up after a day or two? I can stone my child at the edge of town? Yeah...you're an idiot.
dsrtdawg1 1 month ago
@dsrtdawg1 You are unteachable and have no desire to truly learn what the Bible is about. I need not to waste time on you. Good-Bye.
saved03 1 month ago
anyone who says "without god I would do horrible shit" does not deserve to live near other human beings. That said, he is right that morality evolves- that's why we believe pedophilia is wrong while the Quran says it's okay and the Bible didn't bother talking about it.
Lunchbert 10 months ago
How delightful it is that magnetic north has changed and continues to do so.
ShannonBrown10 10 months ago 2
Hearing Peter talk about this is about as close as we can get to imagining what it would be like if Christopher with his intellect and charisma was on the opposite side of the issue.
RaggedM88 10 months ago
Such great courage as he goes through chemotherapy and whatever other processes he has to conend with to gain a few more months or, one hopes, years. His brothers comments about the evolution of morality are stunningly self cancelling as it is clear that, if you will, secular morality has consistently sought to expand compassion and tolerance and understanding while religious morality, ever medieval, has fought this tooth and nail.
molloyxx1 11 months ago
@nextHeritage I find it funny that you think some how your intellectually superior to those who don't think like you. So in your opinion if someone agrees with something Dawkins might say they are being mindless clones. But you quote Newton and some how are not a mindless Newton clone. Try thinking for yourself and leave Newton out of it.
jrwilson98 11 months ago
I am always worried about people you say "there are a lot of things I would do if no one was looking". A friend of mine told me that once. The he needed religion, because it teaches morality and He would hate to think how he would live without it. I was a little taken aback by that.
jrwilson98 11 months ago
Hitchens should sue his barber.
KripkeSaul 11 months ago
@KripkeSaul Pig.
molloyxx1 11 months ago
Peter would do certain actions he's abstained from if god didn't exist.
It's a good thing that you checked to see if god exists, otherwise you might be working on Sunday, like all of those other abominations. Or you might eat shellfish. Or you might be keeping an additional 10% of your income. Or you might have to take responsibility for all the prejudices you have, rather than saying 'god told me to hate these certain demographics'.
ArgueExplain 11 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard its a sick immoral thing to say...Thanks for saying it peter, religion and its teachings are above anything else, fear based. If you do good or dont do bad based on a divine creator watching you ITS NOT MORALITY, it is fear based BEHAVIOR. The single most beautiful thing about human existence is that feeling you get from helping someone without anything in return. This feeling is cheapened everytime someone does good or refrains from doing bad on the merits daddy is watching.
GBeesing 11 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard That is exactly what i thought. smdh.
Gunnz287 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard raping and murdering I presume
m1ll10n1977 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Peter Hitchens is the Brent Gretzky of philosophy
Cainer666 1 year ago
Peter Hitchens is the Brent Gretzky of philisophy
Cainer666 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Just what I was thinking. Unless he's trying to be profound in a simplistic & immature manner, he's basically admitting to possessing an amoral personality at best, and a fundamentally immoral personality at worst. Two things should prevent us from doing what society regards as immoral or illegal: the effect it will have on others, and the effect it will have on ourselves. Basing any decision on the diktats of religion demonstrates a lack of natural morality that needs control.
G58 1 year ago
Magnetic North does shift and so does Morality... Sex and marriage with girls under 10 years old was accepted in the past, now it would be considered disgusting, (unless you are Muslim). So BOLLOCKS PETER!
xNoReligionx 1 year ago 2
look at the two brothers...look at the leach who is nowhere near as intelligent or inherently good as hsi brother. Yet the leach will out live the hero brother....proof there is no god
GBeesing 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Perhaps Peter has the sense to realize his own limitations. Have your actions your entire life been morally upright based upon your own innate goodness, Mr. McBastard? Or have you at times been led to sober second thought by the notion that someone might find out and disapprove?
tamething1 1 year ago
@tamething1 My actions are based upon my own sense of morality, yes. And no, I've never had second thoughts about doing something because some god or other might disapprove of me doing whatever it is I might have done otherwise.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens has a sharp mind that became closed by a door of what material? Anger, contempt of faith, hurt? He chooses to limit himself to the physical world, including the intellectual, blocking with determination the spiritual. Therefore, he cannot see with spiritual eyes or think with an intellect open to the spiritual. It may be that if he really listens during debate, rather than repeating his mantra, he could be persuaded to open that stubborn door he hides behind. I pray he will.
Opinari1 1 year ago
When god was handing out brain Peter thought he was handing out milkshakes and asked for his to be extra thick. (Ironic joke)
Chris is one of the greatest minds of this century.
petestrat07 1 year ago
@petestrat07
Really....one of the greatest minds of this century? I'm a big fan of Peter, I like Hitchens as well, I'm not a douche bag atheist who follows Cicero's teachings "If you don't have an argument, attack the Plaintiff" but I wouldn't for a second consider Peter (or Hitchens for that matter) to be one of the greatest minds of this century.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905 - Steady up bro. I didn't put him in the top ten but when it comes to humanists trying to rid the world of nonsense for the sake of the survival of the human race I say yes, he is one of the greatest minds of this century. I wish there were more like him.
petestrat07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jim1905 - Steady up bro. I didn't put him in the top ten but when it comes to humanists trying to rid the world of nonsense for the sake of the survival of the human race I say yes, he is one of the greatest minds of this century. I wish there were more like him.
petestrat07 1 year ago
Peter says there would be alot of things he would do if there was no god. That is disgraceful. We must and indeed are moral, despite god. We are altruistic because of our inborn genetic makeup and we certainly do not need religion, which is nothing more than a fraudulent and dangerous ideology.
roac7777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Catholic Catechism & Christianity in general teaches that if you go off by yourself sometime and earnestly ask God, if he is there, to reveal himself to you in some way that you will know he exists, then God will answer. St. James wrote "Draw close to God and he will draw close to you"
JoM80 1 year ago
these guys are the shwarzenegger and de vito of punditry... of course in that movie the good looking twin was the dumb one, and, er, these guys aren't twins... but apart from that, diamond allegory eh! Thanks, i'm here all week.
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
Gee you can really tell which comments come from the atheists mouth here...charming.
Funny thing is it kinda proves Peters point on morality.
swearing,derogatory comments, snide remarks and the general poison that rolls of the tongue shows the true colours of the atheists heart here.
mockerofscoffers 1 year ago
@mockerofscoffers yes because religious believers never engage in foul or threatening language on the internet do they?
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
@PlanetBongoSan ...well they are not true Christians are they?Simple really.
mockerofscoffers 1 year ago
@mockerofscoffers What a convenient assumption. i suggest you google the words 'logical fallacy no true scotsman' to educate yourself as to why that response does nothing to refute my implication
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
@PlanetBongoSan it is a total refutation...to think it is not, is to blatantly show your gross misunderstanding of what a Christian should be.
Do you even know what Christ taught?
Please give some quotes from the bible where he teaches abuse and the use of foul language?
If I sing under the flag and claim my patriotism to my country and then betray my country to the Russians the next day..am i really a patriot?
mockerofscoffers 1 year ago
Comment removed
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mockerofscoffers i know that the bible offers four contradictory accounts of christ's life and teachings, and that each one of some 38,000 christian sects and denominations on earth has a different idea of 'what a christian should be'. I know that a christian doesn't suddenly cease to be a christian the moment he gives way to anger and posts abusive language on the internet. And i suspect you are sadly lacking in either the inclination/capacity to understand the concept of logical fallacy.
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
@PlanetBongoSan ahh classic..presuposing from a couple of banter lines my conception of understanding.
Your so called four contradictory accounts of Christ's life is secular false interpretation of the bible and has been debunked by by bible Scholars many times.
If you want to send the examples i think you are talking about i will send you the refutations.
Denominations are man made and account for nothing when it come to the Gospel of Christ.
There is only one Gospel of Christ.
mockerofscoffers 1 year ago
@PlanetBongoSan No he or she does not give up being a christian, as we all give in to anger sometimes.
But he or she certainly does stop like acting one for that period of time.
Swearing or abusing some one is far from being Christ like which is the blue print put down for all Christians, no denomination can change that.
It is impossible to be like Christ as he was perfect but we must try the best we can to follow the path.
Christ taught love, compassion and forgiveness..you can't fault this?
mockerofscoffers 1 year ago
@mockerofscoffers i can't fault anyone who teaches love, compassion and forgiveness. Thanks for conceding that even christians who occasionally stumble from the path are still christians. Its certainly a shame christ never wrote his own gospel down so that subsequent generations of his followers and scholars of his teachings didn't have to rely on the testimony of men writing decades after his ascension. But all this is beside the point - did i say anything about christians in my initial reply?
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
Cant hear a fucking word that Peter is saying. All i hear is whistling every time he opens his mouth.
LOLM8USWE 1 year ago
Peter was an atheist for a large part of his life. It's not like during that time he was killing and raping. Give me a break.
amereChristian 1 year ago
Peter = religious, horrible human being.... he makes his brother's point for him! Ahhh, that was so easy. tsk tsk, Peter. Newsflash, nobody IS looking, now what? What's really on your mind ol' boy?
sparky7718 1 year ago
What a damning last statement by Peter Hitchen's 'there's a lot of things that I would do if I thought there was no one (god) looking'.
His sane brother doesn't believe that there's any deity watching him, and he doesn't choose to kill, murder, rape or engage in other socially unacceptable behavior. We can only assume that under the right circumstances Peter would reveal his true sociopathic nature.
000phill000 1 year ago
Peter would do those things if no one was looking because his code of morality comes from a system of belief based on coercion. If God wasn't looking, he'd do X- but God is looking and so to avoid punishment he refrains from X. Christopher would not do X, because his code of morality is taken to heart. Good secular upbringing uses inductive parenting as opposed to power assertion. When the only thing stopping you from being immoral is force, you're no moral being at all.
Yellothar4 1 year ago
Bless poor Peter's heart. He can never measure up to big bros. intellect even on big bros worst day.
kick08ful 1 year ago
Ok I have no idea what happened what happened with the double comment.
Anyhow, I also do not think it is appropriate to associate God with a text. I think instead we could reasonably think of God as the greatest possible being that could be conceived, based on our inner sense and reason. If we truly believe in no God, what is our grounding for moral values? There can be none, besides, us. Rather than appealing to this person of God to base our sense of intuitive justice on, we rely on the self.
v01741r31 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard
Quit acting as if its an inaccurate statement. If you don't believe in any transcendent law above yourself, it makes it that much easier to instead follow your own law. Many atheists exhibit this, they DON'T want authority. Listen to Chris Hitchens, he deplores the idea of a God existing, precisely because he doesn't want to be under that authority. I really think you are a deluding yourself and in the process, try to make Peter look like a sociopath.
v01741r31 1 year ago
@v01741r31 You really don't seem to have a point here. Be a peach and rephrase your comment so that what you're driving at is more clear, would you? It sounds as if you're saying that if someone doesn't believe in any religion then they won't follow a religion's laws and will instead follow our man-made laws. I think that's true, but it's also very obvious and considering our laws are pretty decent at keeping an orderly society but are also subject to change, I don't see what the problem is.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard
I'm not really talking about religious tenets, I'm talking about acts which you yourself would probably be quick to admit are evil, and will remain evil always. Selfishness, hatred, murder, lying, theft, etc. A persons atheism would do nothing but help someone do these things, because it denies an ontological justice and guilt on the perpetrator. He can instead feel free to do what he wants. I really don't think you are going to understand this but hopefully someone else will.
v01741r31 1 year ago
@v01741r31 Ooh, scathingly patronizing and everything. Great job.
There isn't any correlation between religious belief and moral behaviour, nor is there between non-belief in religion and immoral behaviour. Whatever you imagine your divine authority compels you to do, it clearly doesn't have the opposite effect in the lives of people who don't believe such an authority exists.
This stuff has been covered ad nauseam by people like Christopher Hitchens though, so I'd recommend you keep watching.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard
Beliefs have implications. Whether a negative or positive belief, its going to impact you in some way. There is no neutral ground, which you imply is atheism/non theism. It seems you have taken to heart, the idea that atheism is lack of belief, and that it doesn't effect people's lives. This is just wrong. Beliefs have implications, worldviews have an impact. Atheism is a worldview, therefore it has implications and qualities that are uniquely attributable to it.
v01741r31 1 year ago
@v01741r31 The only implication of non-belief in god is that that individual is not likely to believe the religious texts or opinions associated with that particular god. There's nothing more to say. You may conjecture that lack of belief in god goes hand-in-hand with immoral behaviour or whatever, as you seem to be skirting around here, but there's no evidence to support that opinion. On the contrary, in fact.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
Comment removed
v01741r31 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard
I don't really want to be forced into presenting evidence for the moral superiority of Christianity, as I don't really think that is a particularly optimal way to argue. I do think that true Christian faith heals the human heart. Its hard to look at history and not be confused with historical religious institutional Christianity, or perhaps Christianity infused with the state, and not come out wondering about the so called moral goodness of Christianity.
v01741r31 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard I was thinkin the same thing...the definition of a sociopath is "someone whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience" (Might explain about the Canadian archbishop who turned himself in today on charges of sexually assualting 2 young boys...sensing a pattern here..)
zootella 1 year ago
Peter Hitchens should debate Richard Dawkins
potsocket 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard He'd watch a lot of gay porn.
ASKaPHYSICIST 1 year ago
Poor Peter, morality does shift, and so do magnetic poles, but at a rate that allows adaptability. Ever read what passed as "moral" behavior in leviticus? He would do well to study the true implications of evolution before mentioning it. Retard fail.
LordMcmontegue 1 year ago
@LBGreenwood You've done that?
Purushadasa 1 year ago 3
@BigMikeMcBastard Probably he'd try to do what such believers in atheist dogma as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin did. Of course, he'd have to gain political power first.
Purushadasa 1 year ago 2
@Purushadasa What on earth is "atheist dogma"? There is no such thing.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Sure there is. Ignorant much?
See my channel to be educated as to what it is.
Purushadasa 1 year ago 3
@Purushadasa Your videos are really silly and virtually unwatchable. I'll have to take a pass.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Fine -- remain in your ignorance. You lose!
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa Your videos, like your comments here, are hostile and condescending. It's pretty obvious you're not interested in any reasonable sort of discussion, you've made up your mind and just want to be inflammatory. Well, fine, it's YouTube, knock yourself out.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Fuck you, asshole. He's not hostile or condescending, and I've seen his videos -- they're great!
You are the only hostile and condescending one here, you stupid cunt.
Ravloma 1 year ago
@Ravloma You call me a "stupid cunt" and say I'm the only one be hostile?
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard I call 'em like I see 'em, shithead. Actually, I wasn't being hostile; I was being generous. Now go fuck your mother, except not in the ass like I fucked her last night. It's full of smelly pustules and parasites.
Ravloma 1 year ago
@Ravloma You're really rude. I hope you don't talk to people like this when you aren't anonymous on the Internet.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
@BigMikeMcBastard I'm not anonymous, you dumb fucking cunt. My name is clearly displayed.
Ravloma 1 year ago
@Ravloma Oh, my bad, your name is Up Yours and you live in China. My bad. Have a nice night, Mr. Yours.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 year ago
@Purushadasa Well, Hitler was a catholic as he claimed in the "mein kampf": "I have and will always be a catholic". And speaking of genocidal killers: God.
Moses and the crusaders was the same however they didn't have the technology to kill so many Stalin did.
And i dont understand why you would block me, are you afraid of my arguements? Shouldn't you persuade me into christianity since if i dont belive in your god i burn in hell? If you simply gonna ignore me then you're simply evil.
WallieTF 1 year ago
"things we may disprove of now are things we may accept later, in which case its not really morality" So in his view it would be better if we still followed the same moral code our ancestors did thousands of years ago, when for example slavery was still permitted?
"there's a lot of things I would do if um, I thought nobody was looking"
If he is moral only because he is afraid someone's watching then I submit that this is not true morality, its nothing more than not wanting to get into trouble.
xhaze8 1 year ago