Hitchens doesn't quite answer all the questions directed at him fully. Here are my responses:
Where does morality come from?
Would you want to live in a society where murder is permissible? Would such a society function? The first question explains WHY it is immoral, and the second HOW it came to be innate in us. These questions can be universally applied to any action that can be defined universally (including even a specific context).
why do theists think that without god we would be immoral? Its as if these people are 5 years old, needing a parent to tell them how to be good. I've been atheist since I was 8 and I would never murder or hurt anyone because its morally wrong. I don't need a god to tell me that.
@nancy6ify It almost seems to say something bad about them. As if they're going "Oh, if it weren't for God/Jesus I'd be out there raping, stealing and purging to my heart's content!". I also think they're digging themselves a hole with that one. Like several other arguments of theirs, if we actually find a chemical or "material" explanation for morality (or at least influence) then (like so many of their arguments before) question will be completely destroyed.
@nancy6ify You probably had the benefit of growing up in a civil society founded on religion at some point, or you likely would have been eaten/sacrificed by a family member by now!
@GuyThreepwoody Actually secular people rarely carry out sacrifices. Cannibalistic traditions through out the world are also usually associated with a particular brand of mysticism (religion)
@TheAdawg1789 I take your point- it's symantics I suppose, but I'd say Christianity is an example of an organized religion that set moral standards above those of primitive mysticism?
@GuyThreepwoody That's fair, and I certainly do think that Christianity is ethically superior to a lot of other belief systems (in theory if not always in practice)
The point is such prohibitions would have formed naturally based on neccessity of living in a social environment with other humans. Legal murder and plunder has a tendency to impede on societal growth, and the very existence of such a state of affairs in the first place. Perhaps religion was neccessary at one time for such a state of affairs, but the point atheists make is that it no longer is, and that now in fact it impedes on moral progress more than it helps it along.
On the issue of the universe expanding at an every increasing speed, does that not mean that our solar system is also travelling faster away from the site of the Big Bang than was originally believed and so those other galaxies are not going to catch up with us? Or have I misunderstood? Also, does it not mean that we need to stop calling it a Big Bang and call it a Big Expansion, as explosions don't increase in force, whereas expansions, like the progress of life on earth, do?
As Jung pointed out, our worldview is a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected, especially the denied or repressed aspects of ourselves. Religious individuals who say that man cannot be moral without God are really saying that they feel that they themselves cannot be moral (in whatever way they interpret that concept) themselves, without the threat of Hell or of denial of Heaven. And yet, as Jesus said, "what you do not bring out will surely destroy you." Repression doesn't work.
@callofduty497 Well done this is correct no sensible human would suggest that atheist lack the ability to create morals the point is without a solid definition we have two choices. either everyone can decide for themselves what is right or wrong or the government can do it for us. It's interesting to me to see how atheist belittle others for there following an ultimate power when if the world were ubiquitously atheistic we would simply have to follow the morals of the gov.(New ultimate power)
I want to add to my last reply that it isn't just atheist who apply morality that way. Religious people also get their morality from the same principles, it's just that they don't realize it.
@callofduty497 It seems you haven't studied this enough. Because yes, we atheists indeed have a basis for morality. Some of it is actually selfishness, which isn't necessarily a bad habit. But some of it is also based on altruism and empathy. We are social animals, to be able to survive and live in livable societies, we have no choice but to be moral. You seem to think that we do have a choice, but you're wrong. Because the moment we decide to ignore morality, our societies fall apart and we die
@callofduty497 "there is no solid basis for behaving morally."
The basis is: Hurting people is discomforting. That's just it. Normal people just don't want to do it. It's an evolutionary thing, where this helped our species to survive.
Exactly the same reason why you don't see wolves eating each other....
Of course there's allways variation...
It's not because someone told us not to murder or rape, but we would do it if we weren't told. God has nothing to do with morality.
Has there ever been a war in which at least one side of the dueling parties believed they had divine guidance on their side? I doubt it. During both World Wars the German infantry even had the words "Got Mit Uns" [God with Us] etched onto their military issued belt buckles. And the Allies were busy singing, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
But if moralily is fact, then of course you have facts to back up your argument saying Hitler was evil. Where do these facts come from if not from science? People don't come up with them, morality is fact that does not change, or else slavery was not immoral. Morality does not change or else child labor was no immoral. If in the future, the majority of people say killing black people is moral, would that make it so? NO! Why not? Because God gave us morality.
We know this through God. God has 'written on our hearts' the moral laws which we live by. This is how we know that pedeophile priests are evil. This is how we know that ramming an airplane in the world trade center is evil. I mean, why don't atheist need scientific evidence to show that pedeophiles are evil? What scientific support do they have to know that ramming an airplane in the WTC is evil?
Morality has and always will be a judgement about what actions bring about goods desirable to the whole of society.
Don't conflate atheism with science. The point is that science determines facts and knowledge which we draw upon to inform our everyday actions. The fact of the matter is that our morality today wasn't *always* common sense.
Education, not special revelation, is what advances morality.
@dhx84 Morality is a law that is provided by the maker. Once, white southerners though that slavery was moral, but slavery has never, and will never, be moral. In their judgment, that though that slavery's actions would bring about goods desirable to the whole of society.
My point is to say that, although there is no scientific evidence for what is good and what is bad, Atheist seem to know the difference between what is good and bad. Hitting babies is evil and most people would agree. But if I were to ask for scientific evidence that hitting babies was evil, there is no way to scientifically prove that. However, despite lack of scientific evidence, people agree that the truth is hitting babies is evil. How do we know this without science?
Basic and CORRECT information informs our actions.
Religion, for example, perpetrated the race myth. Science actually disproves this in spite of how theists like to spin it as "Social Darwinism" (which was really an idea coined by Spencer and not Darwin). If the Jews didn't decide to set themselves up as a superior "race," one would have wondered if a Catholic-sanctioned Nazism would've perpetrated the Holocaust. The idea of a "chosen" people gets taken by the Abrahamic religions.
@dhx84 You are either ill informed on your history or you are being deceitful. Intelligent people will know this, unintelligent people will believe you.
The first treaty from the Nazi regime was with the Vatican, a point Hitchens likes to key home a lot.
And race myths and religion are like peanut butter and jelly. The Jews practically invented the idea of a "chosen people." And it's nothing new for kings, presidents and dictators alike to proclaim that they all have God on their side.
@dhx84 There are multiple stacks of information that shows the Vatican did not endorse the views of the Nazi Party. In Februray 1931, all the leaders of the Nazi Party were excommunicated. Hitler, as the leader of the Nazi Party, was excommunicated along with all the other people who were leaders. Hitchens seems to lack some knowledge or is deceiving people.
@dhx84 You do know, as well, that many many Catholics, including priests, nuns, monks etc. were killed in Nazi Concentration camps. You could be like Ahmadinejad and deny the facts, or you could do some simple research. If Nazi's really loved the Catholic Church, do you really think they'd be killing priests and nuns? That history is long and complex and if you think that Hitchens talking about a treaty between Nazis and the Vatican is enough to delegitamize the Church, you need to study.
@dhx84 Einstein said, "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth." I seriously doubt Einstein was an idiot and he probably would not be quoting things without some intelligent rationale behind it.
@dhx84 Correct and incorrect have nothing to do with morality, they have to do with facts. 2+2=4 is correct. What scientific evidence shows that Hitting babies is incorrect? If it is incorrect based on morality, what scientific data suggest the existence of morality. If there is no scientific datat that suggests the existence of morality, then how can anyone, except ignorant people believe in morality? Science can prove things, prove the existence of morality.
@dhx84 Science has not proven morality exists. If morality exists, you would think that, by now, science would have evidence for the existence of morality. Science has disproven a race myth like it has disproven the age of the earth, but it has not proven morality. Correct information and morality are two diffrent things. What is scientifically correct and what is scientifically moral?
@1EpicLulz Well, that means morality is not grounded in any fact and nobody should be considered imoral which means nobody should be considered evil. I bet you Hitler thought what he was doing was perfectly moral. Who is to say his opinion is wrong? Unless an atheist is going to be so arrogant as to say that there opinion is correct and another person's opinion is wrong.
@1EpicLulz In reality, what you say is that morality does not exist. If a man thinks it is moral to blow buildings up, but you don't, who is right? It is just opinion after all. It would be like saying which ice cream is better, vanilla or chocolate. Morality is law, that is how it is known that Hitler, despite whatever his opinion is, was evil.
You keep talking about science "Proving" morality exists, Morality exists only in our minds, its based off the Human emotion of empathy and sympathy. Its not a physical object, you cant run tests to detect it etc.
@1EpicLulz Ok, then it is just an opinion, nobody is wrong when they do something. Somebody might think it is moral to kill babies, somebody might think it is immoral, yet it is just an opinion, nobody is right, nobody is wrong. If this is true, Hitchens is not stating facts about the church being the source of immorality. It would not be a fact that Hitler's actions were evil, only opinion.
@1EpicLulz If morality exists, then everybody is right. If you have every taken a test that asked what your opinion is, there is no way to get the answer wrong. In a sense, that is what you are saying morality is. In your opinion, this is moral. And again, Hitchens is selling morality like it is a fact that religion is the source of immorality. What if people think religions immorality is moral? What if people think that Hitchen's morality is immoral?
@1EpicLulz If I were to say that I think killing babies is moral, who are you to say my opinion on morality is wrong? If turns into a childish argument of basically, "Chocolate is better than vanilla". It is a waste of time. But everybody knows that killing babies is wrong. That is why society has chosen to say that if you kill babies, you go to jail. What about child molesting priests? In their minds they could be the most moral people in the world.
@1EpicLulz But we know that child molesting priests are immoral. It is something inside of us that says so. It is the moral law which God has written on our hearts. If morality did not exist as a fact, not opinion, then why was Hitler evil? Because, in your opinion, killing innocent people is evil. You have no facts to back your argument up. He is evil because you that is your opinion.
The bible says non believers, disobedient children, and non virgin wifes (among others) should be put to death. No morally sane person (In a western civilization) thinks these are moral actions, but the supposed word of God tells us they are yet we go against it. Proof we dont get our morals from religion. In times rather in spite of it. Its obvious humans develop their morals through reason our sense of empathy and sympathy. Not though religion.
@1EpicLulz I don't think you understand how the Bible is supposed to be read. There are numerous courses that you can take that could help you learn how read the Bible. I don't think morality comes from religion, I think it comes from God. Religion is not God. That is how both a religious person and a nonreligious person can agree that killing a baby is evil. If you don't believe in God, the moral law maker, then there is no rational reason to believe morality exists.
Our morality comes from our ability to think and reason with each other. It does not come from some divine being. Your examples on slavery are perfect examples.
Through discussion and debate over many years we have decided (on a general consensus) that slavery is in-moral. The same thing is currently taking place with allowing gay marriage as another example. What we deem moral is ever changing and evolving.
@1EpicLulz But wait, what happened before debates when people still though slavery was moral? Was it moral before the debates or only after? And, hypothetically of course, what if the debating found slavery was moral? If you had been white in the south--before the debates--would you have thought slavery was moral or immoral? Do you let society be your 'church' or "god"? Again, what is moral and immoral never changes. Hitler will always be evil, even if one day society deems him a hero.
@comeonfolks "what is moral and immoral never changes"
History says otherwise
You said earlier that killing children is in-moral (which it is) so why does god do it and call for it in the bible? Same as slavery. Religion/God is a abysmal guide to absolute morality as it constantly contradicts itself. The fact that we now cherry pick what we deem good behavior out of religious texts is more proof (it if already didn't have enough) that our morals don't come from religion/god but from ourselves
@1EpicLulz If religion came from only ourselves, then who is to say I am wrong if I believe killing babies was moral? How does morality come from ourselves? What one person says is moral might be immoral to another person. So, who is evil? The person who just happens to believe what the minority believes? That is not a very fair way of deciding who is evil and who is not.
"If you don't believe in God, the moral law maker, then there is no rational reason to believe morality exists." Just because someone does not believe in a god means they couldn't have morals? I find that absurd and nonsensical.
@1EpicLulz What real reason do you have to believe in morality? Because someone told you such and such was moral and so and so was evil? That is about as good as me believing what I believe because the pope told me to. I mean, if you were a white man in the south in the 1830s, you would likely think that slavery was moral. If you were born in the days of the Aztecs, you would likely think that human sacrifice was moral. Good and evil will never change, people will and society will.
@1EpicLulz What if, years from now, they think that equal rights for black people is immoral. Nowadays we think that equal rights for black people is moral. Are you telling me that, if one day, society thinks that equal rights for black people is evil, that we did evil things because society has changed? In other words, do you think an evil thing changes into a good thing or do you think society changes?
@1EpicLulz I mean, will the definition of evil ever change? Will people like Hitler ever be considered good people? I am sure that slave owners did not think they would be considered evil people, but today they are. But just because they weren't considered evil in the hey days of slavery, does that mean they were not evil then? I think they were evil then and now. They were never moral people.
@1EpicLulz Again, you REALLY need to study the culture and the context in which the bible was written. There are many leyman explanations as to why God killed in the bible. One such explanation is that it was a fictionalized account written by the Israelites to the Egyptians. Another explanation, that has a theistic basis, is that God owns our lives.He can do with us what he pleases, and perhaps, he was saving the Egyptian children from evil by taking their lives.
@1EpicLulz You are right, religion does not always give us morality. Morality comes from God. Religion is a vehicle through which we can learn morality. Just like society. But if society started saying that killing black people was moral, would killing black people be moral? No. God tells us that, not religon or society.
@1EpicLulz I think, if you want to discuss this issure further, then you should pm me. Points are really difficult to get across on such a short space, as well as being hard to find replies. If you choose not to pm me, that is fine, but I will say, you made excellent points and allowed me to understand atheisim(or agnosticism) a bit better. And I will pray for the miracle that you will come to know God.
@1EpicLulz This statement also contradicts Hitchens statement saying that religion is the source of immorality. What facts is he basing this comment on? His opinion? If morality is just an opinion, what makes Hitchens' point any more correct than a religous point? Nothing. Just his opinion versus, say, the Pope's. If morality is just opinion, then everybody who argues about what is moral and what is not are like children arguing about chocolate versus vanilla. I guess Hitchens is childlike.
if you take it that literally then there is no right or wrong. its all just pure opinion and everyone is arguing like children (including us) over a meaningless topic.
@dhx84I never said that science cannot prove a single thing. It can prove a lot of things, like a bird is a bird, or a the degree at which paper burns. Science can prove things, but it most certainly cannot prove evil or morality exists yet you seem to believe in evil and morality despite science. just like I believe in God despite scientific evidence(the lack of).
Your faith is a vice, not a virtue. I tolerate your right to indulge in it, but don't it receive a single iota of respect. Science is a valid adult enterprise. Religion is a childish folk superstition.
You can argue that slavery is bad because I can demonstrably see it cause human suffering. Your god however, is not demonstrable.
@dhx84 Why is suffering an evil thing? And for pointing out childish behavior, your language below is a very good example of such behavior. 1EpicLulz, on the other hand, seems to be mature. Perhaps your amygdala is not fully developed and you are just acting on gut instincts. In any case, if the best defense you can come up with are insults, then I suggest you learn something with substance to counter my points.
If you think chiding me for insulting you allows you to sidestep what substance there is to my argument, then I think you deserve being called an idiot.
Faith is not a virtue nor is it worthy of praise. Your defense of it belies your weakness.
My entire point, the one you ignore and never fully address, is that science doesn't need to prove things. It's inability to prove certain things doesn't make religion or any of its superstitious claims to be correct.
I'm perfectly content in thinking that many things can be a fine ART, rather than an exact SCIENCE. Which is why I say that ethics are in the former category.
But part of education's value is in its ability o quietly empower judgement.
@dhx84 Anyone who claims to know god or hopes that you come to know god isn't worth debating with. Your speaking to a brick wall hard wired and indoctrinated at such an age its ability to think on its own behalf has been decimated by indoctrination at key points of learning early in its construction. Good luck!
Actually let me rephrase my premise. Try and fucking pay attention this time because I'm tired of repeating myself.
Science informs human judgement (i.e. morality). It doesn't need to do anything else.
You are speaking from the unspoken argument that religion does provide proof, not just EVIDENCE for morality. Which is an idiot's fixation. Frankly water-to-wine, virgin births and resurrections are no proof of your morality either.
Frankly, talking to theists about subjects like this is like talking to half-wit children. You have all these immature fascinations and non-sequiturs floating around in your brain. And you confuse these with proper reason and argumentation.
Get an education, otherwise, please shut the fuck up.
And frankly, I'm tired of your goddamned ungrateful attitude. You're perfectly fine taking advantage of the technologies and knowledge provided by science while thumping your fucking Bible.
As if discrediting the first is somehow proof of the other.
Stop taking a piss on things that have prevented your mother from dying in childbirth, provided food and given you decent medicine your entire life.
There is also medicine. Religion constantly obstructs medical progress and even today, some people think of diseases and plagues as a God's punishment for sins (e.g. AIDS as a punishment for homosexuals). In the past, it also forbade the study of human anatomy, partly out of a fear that a material explanation be given for human biology.
Graverobbers and "undertakers" existed precisely because you could not study human anatomy by legal means past ages.
@dhx84 I never said AIDS was punishment from God. I don't think the Catholic Church has made any official statement on Aids being the punishment from god. The church does not endorse homosexual relations, that does not equate the church causing aids. Take a basic biology class to know that. The church does not support condom use because people tend to believe that condoms are a safeguard against AIds. It is not. You are misconstruing information and are either ill informed or quite deceitful.
@1EpicLulz Again, there is not an official teaching by the Church that says that Aids is a punishment for gays. And you are correct about condoms. But what is wrong with that belief? Does that cause aids? Nope. What does? Indiscriminate sex. That is another thing the church says. The church believes sex should be intimate and special with person you will spend the rest of your life with. This belief is not ignorant. The belief that Catholic teachings casues sexual diseases is.
@1EpicLulz People having sex indiscriminatley with each other causes aids, not catholic teaching. You are only stating half the Catholic teaching about sexual relations. The other half is only having sex after you are married with the person you will spend the rest of your life with. Again, you are either ill informed or deceitful.
@1EpicLulz What lies? There are none. Unless it is a lie that having sex with multiple people is riskier than having sex with one person. Or that condoms don't always protect against aids. Then, you get into theology, which is not a lie. How is it a lie that having sex with a spouse is more special than having sex with multiple people? You need to read information and study things a little more before you start making ignorant statements.
@1EpicLulz That is stating the obvious. Telling uneducated people that Christopher Hitchens is skinny is a lie...Your statement is quite illogical. If the implication is that the Church tells uneducated Africans that AIDS only affects gays, then you are either ill informed or deceitful.
One cannot do/speak to something that does not exist. One can never pray to God, for there is not one shred of evidenece to suggest such a being. One can never claim to do good or bad, for there is not one shred of scientific evidence that good and bad actually exist.
Atheist say that God cannot be proven by science and so does not exist. What concepts that Hitchens brought up can be proven through science? How can one scientifically prove that a certain action is cruel? Can an action be scientifically proven to be moral? Can morality be proven to exist through science? Since God cannot be proven by science, he must not exist. Since morality cannot be proven by science, morality must not exist.
No, atheists say that there is no evidence about a god's existence. Particularly YOUR kind of god. We aren't just talking about a Christian god here.
The thing is, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you. Not the non-believer. You cannot run a society by just asserting something as true without evidence. We certainly don't behave that way with respect to any kind of non-religious belief.
Opinions vary as to whether proofs could ever be given for a supreme God's existence.
@dhx84 Prove to me, scientifically, that evil exists. If there is no scientific evidence for the existence of evil, how can anyone say that evil exists?
@comeonfolks Perfect example of what Dennett describes as a 'use error'. The concept of 'God' exists just as the concept of 'evil' exists. What you have done is equivalent to saying, "Prove to me, scientifically, that a 'verb' exists."
Hopefully you can see that no one will waste their time demonstrating scientifically the existence of a 'verb' - nor should they.
@TheGreatReprobate You are really just stating history and psuedo history. You have not provided any scientific evidence for the existence of evil. How is one supposed to know what evil is if there is not one shred of scientific evidence for what evil is? I am talking about the existence of the noun. If we do not have evidence for the noun, how do we know what the verb is?
@TheGreatReprobate Evil can be used as a noun. If I were to ask you to choose between good and evil, how would you do this? Not scientifically I assume, because there is no sceintific evidene for the existence of evil. If I were to ask you to choose between religion and atheist, I assume you would not choose religion because of the lack of scientific evidence.
@TheGreatReprobate Another noun example, Do you believe in "Evil"? Do you believe in God? What Scientific evidence do you have to suggest evil exists.
What does that have to do with anything? I don't think anybody says that science tries to do so. But that's like complaining that hockey doesn't feed people. It doesn't. So what? They're not meant to do either.
@dhx84 If an atheist is to make a claim that Hitler is evil, they should first have to prove that evil exists. The topic that does not make sense is that rainbows taste like purple. This is a point that makes no sense. Evil is obviously a topic that concerns morality. Yet how does Hitchens even know morality exists? Is there scientific proof that morality exists? If atheist want scientific evidence for the existence of God, I want scientific evidence of the existence of evil and morality.
@dhx84 If there is no scientific tests proving the existence of evil, I have serious doubts about Hitchens' intellect. Evil is just a concept that man has created to 'imprison' free will. Just like God. One shouldn't do 'something evil'. One shouldn't do "something against God'. Who is to tell us what God thinks, who is to tell us what is evil? Nobody has ever tried to say what rainbows taste like, but people do often say what evil is, just like people say what God thinks.
I suppose that patriotism is evil. There is a logical pathway that might lead a patriotic person to do an immoral act. We should do away with patriotism, if we follow Hitchens' logic. Is a country bad because a patriotic citizen does something evil? Nope. Is religion bad because a member does something evil? Nope.
@callofduty497 Why is your interpretation any valid. And please answer the questions. If you can't answer that's fine but just know that means that your argument doesn't really have a solid foundation beyond saying the other is wrong.
I have answered yours yet you refuse to answer mine.
@callofduty497 It doesn't. There are plenty of cultures throughout the world that says Killing is ok...we call them casualties of war...or Holy Killings. (To answer your question)
As well you didn't answer my questions. What of Feral Children? Why are there discrepant MORAL Views on discrimination if we have such an objective morality to draw from? I mean really What gives you (Not saying this is your view) the right to say gays are wrong, when another religious group says God says its A Ok.
@callofduty497 I'm sorry...Why does there need to be an Objective MOrality? I mean if morality is written on our hearts why is there such a disparaging account or what morality is? EVEN By religious believers?
And what of Feral Children? They have not had the evils of society influenced upon them BUT HOWEVER have been withheld soceital interaction and can be said to lack morals since they rely for the most part on instinct.
@callofduty497 There can be no "atheistic definition" of anything as atheism is not a belief system. It's a lack of belief in deity with no other implications. Atheists can be moral or immoral, humane or inhumane, kind or cruel. There is no standard to live up to or live down.
Why does it have to be any more than the golden rule. Treating others as you wish to be treated. This is not necessarily an "Atheistic" View more of a common sense view. In this instance you're putting faith in your fellow man, someone relatable to you as opposed to some socially created concept that's supposed to be a higher being. OF course there are abberations in this manner: we call them sociopaths...or and this isn't meant as an insult religious fanatics who justify horrors with the bible
@callofduty497 and to actually "answer" because there is no proof or even logical postulation that doesn't require the bible in order to state that there is a "Morality of GOd" Can we prove or show a "higher" being without the ready made idea of God?
And even then which God defines what morals? Surely not Judeo-Christian God If we were to follow his example...well I'd be a total asshole to people and far worse off in my life.
@callofduty497 I'm sorry but aren't you trying to work m einto a logical fallacy? Making a Word define itself? I mean the definition of an objective fact is something that can be observed with evidence.
I Feel as though you're going into a side tangent about semantics and logic problems in order to not bring ACTUAL Evidence that God Exists. God cannot be proven or disprove through logic problems or logical fallacies or logic tricks.
@callofduty497 ...You're attempting to be clever with the same comment I heard at the Turek Debate "have you ever been skeptical of sketicism". Logical fallacies and self-defining words have no bearing on the real world. I get your point and I have thought of that before. the phraseyou mention does not exist an objective fact however it is merely commenting ON Objective facts...if that makes sense.
@callofduty497 And to clarify I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic with Atheistic Leanings. Though I prefer to describe myself as a skeptical thinker and inquirer.
@callofduty497 and that golden rule is so eloquently put by Mr. Wilde as " Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live". Also a bit of logic. if one says God placed MOrals there then you are stating I assume an objective fact. And therefore are able to test, scientifically whether or not this is valid. if you can't prove or disprove it the question is non-falsifiable. So for all intents purposes in relation to the problem..god is nonexistant
@callofduty497 Well Not even Christianity is Consistent with itself..and that's why I said NOT ALL Atheists are HSs. I never claimed any kind of consistency. Nor Did I say atheism was moral...But who says a faith or lack of faith GIVES Morals. Altruism and Morals have been shown to be adaptive. Who says there HAS TO BE standards. I'm not living up to some unknown invisible measuring stick.
And that reason you mention: Its the age old Golden rule with a mix of optimism.
@callofduty497 Atheism does..its called Secular Humanism. Not ALL Atheist are Secular Humanists...alternatively: Not All Christians Are Moral by other's moral standards.
Czech poet and former president Vaclev Havel probably said it best: "Seek the company of those who are searching for the truth; and flee from those who have found it." Can there be anyone more dangerous than a man filled with religious certitude? History tells us 'no.'
The question can be asked either ways and will have same answer. Ask this idiot what moral value non-believers can do and believers can not? This is not the scale and not an answer to the fact that non believing is the source of immorality. I need this idiot to answer what is the reference for morality? Don't need long story about humanity bla bla bla and the conscious creatures bla bla bla because that don't give the answer.
It is unfair to say that Arabs suicide bomb because of Islam without conceding that Stalin was evil because of atheism. Stalin's atheism was even MORE significant. It permeated his life completely; it made him hate the world to a point where he said of his son's failed suicide attempt "see, he can't even shoot straight". Hopelessness is not truth, Hitchens, and Stalin proved that.
When asked the purpose of life, Hitchens replied "I love watching others suffer". Yea, Hitchens is real gold.
Christopher Hitchens, eloquently and charismatically telling a crowd they are utterly worthless and getting applauded for it. What has the world come to? Oh God help us.
@tpstrat14 that is your religion speaking. Utterly worthless and getting applauded for it? He is trying to give them good conscious dumbass. Now get off youtube and go commit suicide so you can go to heaven. You sickening religious people disgust me trying to impose the ending of the world on us and armageddon and all that total bs. If the afterlife is so great why don't you go join your pathetic God and Jesus who I would gladly nail in the head to the cross. You people are disgusting.
To refrain from immoral acts due to either fear of retribution or for promise of reward is not morality. Morals clearly do not come from any religious text or any moral standard, otherwise they and we would all be in agreement.
how so the andromeda system be headed towards us, as the whole universe expands? can it be claimed that the currently detected expansion be continuing forever, or is there possibility that this expansion later stops, then the whole thing starts contracting? this would seem more logical with the big bang theory, but still begs the question;how does something come from nothing?
without a consciousness even on the subatomic level, how does life evolve from bacteria into conscious beings?
Would a devout Christian answer the following question for me: if you became absolutely convinced that God commanded you to blow up a building full of people, would you do it? You can't say he would never do this, because the Bible is full of instances of God ordering his followers to acts of shocking violence. Does anyone doubt what the honest answer to this question is? And yet they claim moral superiority! If you believe God is on your side, you are capable of the most horrible crimes.
Hitchens presumes that all Theists believe that the intelligent designer designed the universe for us to live in forever. That is as presumptuous as the people that presume to know what God said/felt/thought/did (religions).
@TheGoalSetter -good points. tho i feel that is also presumption to say that life evolves from nothing and from total random chance.
my suspicion is that there may be a collective latent consciousness in all matter that manifests itself on a galactic scale.hopefully humanity lasts long enough to have open contact with intelligent alien species to converse on this subject.
i think religion would end up totally discredited,except perhaps buddism
Hitchens is too polemical. His sarcastic jokes and acerbic quips almost always undermine his real argument, which is a decent one. But I take issue with this speech. By definition (unless you want to get into the definition of morality), without a defined God--or gods--there is no morality. But that doesn't mean that there is no such things as ethics. There may not be such things as "good" or "bad," but paying attention to the "other" is in the best interest of the "self."
@Melvin6566842 If I understand you correctly...Krauss does believe that the universe came from nothing and hitchens kinda lied when he said in a short time we will be surrounded by nothing...Kruass said that in about 100 billion years(short time) if we were to look out into the universe it would appear as if nothing existed beyond our galaxy...and completely off the subject it doesnt matter cuz in 6 billion years we are going to colide with another galaxy and be destroyed lol
yeah but in the view of science, if nothing can be observed, then nothing exists. of course those people in the future (if they still exist) will hopefully have our records and observations, and so they will know what's up
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book The World As I See It that the harmony of natural law Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.*
I would agree, the "Kingdom of God is within you" is probably the most ethical and reasonable statement made in the Bible and by Jesus. But if that is truly the case, then there is no need to believe in religious figures like Jesus at all because the Kingdom could also be in Socrates or Confucius, who lived centuries before Jesus existed.
Ah, another point! God is the source of morality, whether non-believers do moral actions or not. If God is all, or created all, it does not matter if someone "believes" in God or not. It is still God who created the non-believer, and everything (s)he does, whether we like it or not, is God in action.
The problem with saying that is that it is founded on no evidence. Therefore, if that is true, I can say the opposite with just as much justification.
God is not the source of morality, whether believers do moral actions or not. If God doesn't exist, or created anything, then it doesn't matter if someone believes in him or not. It still isn't God who created that believer and everything he or she does. Whether we like it or not, God is non-existent.
That seems right; just as valid. It all depends on the main issue: does God exist? Science can't give you empirical "evidence" (except the arguments (pro or con) whether God is a good designer or not). Such "evidence" must come to you in other ways. I say that it does so, and so do other mystics.
You do realize the evidence for god has the same weight as the teapot orbiting halfway to mars right? Or unicorns, or any stupid fairy tale for that instance.
Oh come on... If you were a deist then you may have a ghost of a point, but I'm going to assume you're a theist. If that is the case, how do you account for the lack of correlation between what is deemed moral by society, and the preachings of your religious texts?
I'm a theist, but not a believer, and not an adherent of any religious text. There is correlation between religious commandments and moral (or government) laws held by society (some of which I disagree with), but I would not argue that all morals held by society come from religion. It is a source, but not the only source. Hitchens argues that it's not true that non-believers can't do moral acts. So far as I know, none of his debating partners disagrees with him on that point.
@byteresistor Carl Jung had a pretty good answer for that one. Someone asked him (in fact, this interview is now posted on you tube), if he believed in God. He said no, "I know."
Not a really good answer at all no matter who said it, sounds something a wannabe intellectual would say and thinks it's something very clever (although I know Carl Jung but like I said doesn't matter who said it, everyone can say stupid things).
Knowledge requires something much more than faith. Can you guess what it is?
It's not a question of faith or belief, but of knowledge. Can YOU guess what knowledge is? Hint: mere empirical evidence is not knowledge, because it is partial and temporary; or "contingent" in philosophical language. True knowledge is a priori. Awareness, experience, truth.
@eameece "God is NOT the source of morality, whether believers do moral actions or not. If God does NOT exist at all, it does NOT matter if someone believes in God or not. It is still NOT God that created the believer, and everything (s)he does, whether we like it or not, is NOT God in action". You are brilliant, and you can verify the incredible power of your propostions yourself just by evaluating my inversions of what you are saying.
@eameece I don´t care with the beliefs of others. You can pray for leprechauns on sundays if it gives meaning to your life. If you don´t harm anybody, it´s not my business . But when believers wants to inform morality and legislation of all society based on propositions backed only by "inner feelings" and mythology, yes, I think I care. Secularism is the way to go. It protects your right to believe in bullshit, and my right to say it´s bullshit. Your country was founded under this principle.
I always thought the devil was the "source of immorality." Or was it the serpent? Or just sex in general? Or is it bad genes? Or cool jeans? I guess we have to blame something or other in order to make us feel better.
I have felt that the increase in the expansion of the universe, against the expectations of Newtonian mechanics, should give pause for believers in those mechanics. It might even imply something more is going on than the momentum from a physical explosion. AND, SO WHAT if someday we won't be able to see the big bang? How is that a poor design? His problem is not seeing that by the time these things happen, we'll be so spiritually advanced that they won't affect us.
He didn't say it was poor design because we won't be able to "see" the big bang in a few billion years. he said it because our galaxy will collide with another in about 4 billion years. If there is a god, then he clearly intends to wipe us out sooner or later.
If there is no God, no use complaining about him.
Yes he quite clearly complained about not being able to see the big bang, because the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing; as well as about the collision.
@JMSofSweden If he doesn't exist, don't complain about Him! Hitchens DID say it's poor design because we won't be able to see the big bang! Listen already. Why else did he mention the rate of expansion is increasing? That has nothing at all to do with Andromeda coming toward us. And so what about that? Galaxies are so huge and slow moving it may not matter to us if they collide. And with any luck, we'll be somewhere else by then anyway, one way or another.
You completely missed the point of the argument. Hitchens pointed out a massive flaw in the "design" of the universe as an argument against the existence of god. not against his competence.
JMS, That's not a good argument. His argument does not disprove God's existence; indeed it only argues that He is incompetent or otherwise not quite the God he is claimed to be. But merely saying a myth does not measure up to the reality, doesn't disprove the reality which the myth represents.
"The reality that the myth represents?" What the hell does that mean?
And asking for an argument against the existence of god is pointless anyway. You can point out some obvious flaws in the "design", but the burden of proof isn't even on us to begin with.
religion did not INVENT morality. have a nice day.
dkthg 1 month ago
Hitchens doesn't quite answer all the questions directed at him fully. Here are my responses:
Where does morality come from?
Would you want to live in a society where murder is permissible? Would such a society function? The first question explains WHY it is immoral, and the second HOW it came to be innate in us. These questions can be universally applied to any action that can be defined universally (including even a specific context).
supersnowyangel 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Melvin6566842
why do theists think that without god we would be immoral? Its as if these people are 5 years old, needing a parent to tell them how to be good. I've been atheist since I was 8 and I would never murder or hurt anyone because its morally wrong. I don't need a god to tell me that.
nancy6ify 5 months ago
@nancy6ify It almost seems to say something bad about them. As if they're going "Oh, if it weren't for God/Jesus I'd be out there raping, stealing and purging to my heart's content!". I also think they're digging themselves a hole with that one. Like several other arguments of theirs, if we actually find a chemical or "material" explanation for morality (or at least influence) then (like so many of their arguments before) question will be completely destroyed.
VenomShock 2 months ago
@nancy6ify You probably had the benefit of growing up in a civil society founded on religion at some point, or you likely would have been eaten/sacrificed by a family member by now!
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Actually secular people rarely carry out sacrifices. Cannibalistic traditions through out the world are also usually associated with a particular brand of mysticism (religion)
TheAdawg1789 3 weeks ago
@TheAdawg1789 I take your point- it's symantics I suppose, but I'd say Christianity is an example of an organized religion that set moral standards above those of primitive mysticism?
GuyThreepwoody 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody That's fair, and I certainly do think that Christianity is ethically superior to a lot of other belief systems (in theory if not always in practice)
TheAdawg1789 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody
The point is such prohibitions would have formed naturally based on neccessity of living in a social environment with other humans. Legal murder and plunder has a tendency to impede on societal growth, and the very existence of such a state of affairs in the first place. Perhaps religion was neccessary at one time for such a state of affairs, but the point atheists make is that it no longer is, and that now in fact it impedes on moral progress more than it helps it along.
Pervyable 3 days ago
On the issue of the universe expanding at an every increasing speed, does that not mean that our solar system is also travelling faster away from the site of the Big Bang than was originally believed and so those other galaxies are not going to catch up with us? Or have I misunderstood? Also, does it not mean that we need to stop calling it a Big Bang and call it a Big Expansion, as explosions don't increase in force, whereas expansions, like the progress of life on earth, do?
Aussiescribbler 6 months ago
As Jung pointed out, our worldview is a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected, especially the denied or repressed aspects of ourselves. Religious individuals who say that man cannot be moral without God are really saying that they feel that they themselves cannot be moral (in whatever way they interpret that concept) themselves, without the threat of Hell or of denial of Heaven. And yet, as Jesus said, "what you do not bring out will surely destroy you." Repression doesn't work.
Aussiescribbler 6 months ago
amazing
vwlover94 6 months ago
@callofduty497 Well done this is correct no sensible human would suggest that atheist lack the ability to create morals the point is without a solid definition we have two choices. either everyone can decide for themselves what is right or wrong or the government can do it for us. It's interesting to me to see how atheist belittle others for there following an ultimate power when if the world were ubiquitously atheistic we would simply have to follow the morals of the gov.(New ultimate power)
scar504 7 months ago
You are getting brainwashed by ignorant fool
gogolplex74 7 months ago
@gogolplex74 You're grossly overestimating your persuasiveness.
etnlIcarus 7 months ago
I want to add to my last reply that it isn't just atheist who apply morality that way. Religious people also get their morality from the same principles, it's just that they don't realize it.
dutchbb1979 8 months ago
@callofduty497 It seems you haven't studied this enough. Because yes, we atheists indeed have a basis for morality. Some of it is actually selfishness, which isn't necessarily a bad habit. But some of it is also based on altruism and empathy. We are social animals, to be able to survive and live in livable societies, we have no choice but to be moral. You seem to think that we do have a choice, but you're wrong. Because the moment we decide to ignore morality, our societies fall apart and we die
dutchbb1979 8 months ago
@callofduty497 "there is no solid basis for behaving morally."
The basis is: Hurting people is discomforting. That's just it. Normal people just don't want to do it. It's an evolutionary thing, where this helped our species to survive.
Exactly the same reason why you don't see wolves eating each other....
Of course there's allways variation...
It's not because someone told us not to murder or rape, but we would do it if we weren't told. God has nothing to do with morality.
KeistasZmogelis 8 months ago
Religion is the source of good moral teaching; Google "The Corpral and Spiritual Works of Mercy" and see how Hitch is incorrect.
HouseHaunter992 8 months ago
Has there ever been a war in which at least one side of the dueling parties believed they had divine guidance on their side? I doubt it. During both World Wars the German infantry even had the words "Got Mit Uns" [God with Us] etched onto their military issued belt buckles. And the Allies were busy singing, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
JackKangaroo1 9 months ago
But if moralily is fact, then of course you have facts to back up your argument saying Hitler was evil. Where do these facts come from if not from science? People don't come up with them, morality is fact that does not change, or else slavery was not immoral. Morality does not change or else child labor was no immoral. If in the future, the majority of people say killing black people is moral, would that make it so? NO! Why not? Because God gave us morality.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
We know this through God. God has 'written on our hearts' the moral laws which we live by. This is how we know that pedeophile priests are evil. This is how we know that ramming an airplane in the world trade center is evil. I mean, why don't atheist need scientific evidence to show that pedeophiles are evil? What scientific support do they have to know that ramming an airplane in the WTC is evil?
comeonfolks 10 months ago
@comeonfolks
Morality has and always will be a judgement about what actions bring about goods desirable to the whole of society.
Don't conflate atheism with science. The point is that science determines facts and knowledge which we draw upon to inform our everyday actions. The fact of the matter is that our morality today wasn't *always* common sense.
Education, not special revelation, is what advances morality.
dhx84 9 months ago
@dhx84 Morality is a law that is provided by the maker. Once, white southerners though that slavery was moral, but slavery has never, and will never, be moral. In their judgment, that though that slavery's actions would bring about goods desirable to the whole of society.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
My point is to say that, although there is no scientific evidence for what is good and what is bad, Atheist seem to know the difference between what is good and bad. Hitting babies is evil and most people would agree. But if I were to ask for scientific evidence that hitting babies was evil, there is no way to scientifically prove that. However, despite lack of scientific evidence, people agree that the truth is hitting babies is evil. How do we know this without science?
comeonfolks 10 months ago
@comeonfolks
Basic and CORRECT information informs our actions.
Religion, for example, perpetrated the race myth. Science actually disproves this in spite of how theists like to spin it as "Social Darwinism" (which was really an idea coined by Spencer and not Darwin). If the Jews didn't decide to set themselves up as a superior "race," one would have wondered if a Catholic-sanctioned Nazism would've perpetrated the Holocaust. The idea of a "chosen" people gets taken by the Abrahamic religions.
dhx84 9 months ago
@dhx84 You are either ill informed on your history or you are being deceitful. Intelligent people will know this, unintelligent people will believe you.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
Or you're just an idiot.
The first treaty from the Nazi regime was with the Vatican, a point Hitchens likes to key home a lot.
And race myths and religion are like peanut butter and jelly. The Jews practically invented the idea of a "chosen people." And it's nothing new for kings, presidents and dictators alike to proclaim that they all have God on their side.
dhx84 9 months ago
@dhx84 There are multiple stacks of information that shows the Vatican did not endorse the views of the Nazi Party. In Februray 1931, all the leaders of the Nazi Party were excommunicated. Hitler, as the leader of the Nazi Party, was excommunicated along with all the other people who were leaders. Hitchens seems to lack some knowledge or is deceiving people.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@dhx84 You do know, as well, that many many Catholics, including priests, nuns, monks etc. were killed in Nazi Concentration camps. You could be like Ahmadinejad and deny the facts, or you could do some simple research. If Nazi's really loved the Catholic Church, do you really think they'd be killing priests and nuns? That history is long and complex and if you think that Hitchens talking about a treaty between Nazis and the Vatican is enough to delegitamize the Church, you need to study.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
Comment removed
comeonfolks 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dhx84 Einstein said, "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth." I seriously doubt Einstein was an idiot and he probably would not be quoting things without some intelligent rationale behind it.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
Comment removed
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@dhx84 Correct and incorrect have nothing to do with morality, they have to do with facts. 2+2=4 is correct. What scientific evidence shows that Hitting babies is incorrect? If it is incorrect based on morality, what scientific data suggest the existence of morality. If there is no scientific datat that suggests the existence of morality, then how can anyone, except ignorant people believe in morality? Science can prove things, prove the existence of morality.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@dhx84 Science has not proven morality exists. If morality exists, you would think that, by now, science would have evidence for the existence of morality. Science has disproven a race myth like it has disproven the age of the earth, but it has not proven morality. Correct information and morality are two diffrent things. What is scientifically correct and what is scientifically moral?
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
"Science has not proven morality exists."
Morality is opinion based. its not something you "Prove".
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz Well, that means morality is not grounded in any fact and nobody should be considered imoral which means nobody should be considered evil. I bet you Hitler thought what he was doing was perfectly moral. Who is to say his opinion is wrong? Unless an atheist is going to be so arrogant as to say that there opinion is correct and another person's opinion is wrong.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz In reality, what you say is that morality does not exist. If a man thinks it is moral to blow buildings up, but you don't, who is right? It is just opinion after all. It would be like saying which ice cream is better, vanilla or chocolate. Morality is law, that is how it is known that Hitler, despite whatever his opinion is, was evil.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
You keep talking about science "Proving" morality exists, Morality exists only in our minds, its based off the Human emotion of empathy and sympathy. Its not a physical object, you cant run tests to detect it etc.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz Ok, then it is just an opinion, nobody is wrong when they do something. Somebody might think it is moral to kill babies, somebody might think it is immoral, yet it is just an opinion, nobody is right, nobody is wrong. If this is true, Hitchens is not stating facts about the church being the source of immorality. It would not be a fact that Hitler's actions were evil, only opinion.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz If morality exists, then everybody is right. If you have every taken a test that asked what your opinion is, there is no way to get the answer wrong. In a sense, that is what you are saying morality is. In your opinion, this is moral. And again, Hitchens is selling morality like it is a fact that religion is the source of immorality. What if people think religions immorality is moral? What if people think that Hitchen's morality is immoral?
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz If I were to say that I think killing babies is moral, who are you to say my opinion on morality is wrong? If turns into a childish argument of basically, "Chocolate is better than vanilla". It is a waste of time. But everybody knows that killing babies is wrong. That is why society has chosen to say that if you kill babies, you go to jail. What about child molesting priests? In their minds they could be the most moral people in the world.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz But we know that child molesting priests are immoral. It is something inside of us that says so. It is the moral law which God has written on our hearts. If morality did not exist as a fact, not opinion, then why was Hitler evil? Because, in your opinion, killing innocent people is evil. You have no facts to back your argument up. He is evil because you that is your opinion.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
The bible says non believers, disobedient children, and non virgin wifes (among others) should be put to death. No morally sane person (In a western civilization) thinks these are moral actions, but the supposed word of God tells us they are yet we go against it. Proof we dont get our morals from religion. In times rather in spite of it. Its obvious humans develop their morals through reason our sense of empathy and sympathy. Not though religion.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz I don't think you understand how the Bible is supposed to be read. There are numerous courses that you can take that could help you learn how read the Bible. I don't think morality comes from religion, I think it comes from God. Religion is not God. That is how both a religious person and a nonreligious person can agree that killing a baby is evil. If you don't believe in God, the moral law maker, then there is no rational reason to believe morality exists.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
Our morality comes from our ability to think and reason with each other. It does not come from some divine being. Your examples on slavery are perfect examples.
Through discussion and debate over many years we have decided (on a general consensus) that slavery is in-moral. The same thing is currently taking place with allowing gay marriage as another example. What we deem moral is ever changing and evolving.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz But wait, what happened before debates when people still though slavery was moral? Was it moral before the debates or only after? And, hypothetically of course, what if the debating found slavery was moral? If you had been white in the south--before the debates--would you have thought slavery was moral or immoral? Do you let society be your 'church' or "god"? Again, what is moral and immoral never changes. Hitler will always be evil, even if one day society deems him a hero.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks "what is moral and immoral never changes"
History says otherwise
You said earlier that killing children is in-moral (which it is) so why does god do it and call for it in the bible? Same as slavery. Religion/God is a abysmal guide to absolute morality as it constantly contradicts itself. The fact that we now cherry pick what we deem good behavior out of religious texts is more proof (it if already didn't have enough) that our morals don't come from religion/god but from ourselves
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz If religion came from only ourselves, then who is to say I am wrong if I believe killing babies was moral? How does morality come from ourselves? What one person says is moral might be immoral to another person. So, who is evil? The person who just happens to believe what the minority believes? That is not a very fair way of deciding who is evil and who is not.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@comeonfolks
"If you don't believe in God, the moral law maker, then there is no rational reason to believe morality exists." Just because someone does not believe in a god means they couldn't have morals? I find that absurd and nonsensical.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz What real reason do you have to believe in morality? Because someone told you such and such was moral and so and so was evil? That is about as good as me believing what I believe because the pope told me to. I mean, if you were a white man in the south in the 1830s, you would likely think that slavery was moral. If you were born in the days of the Aztecs, you would likely think that human sacrifice was moral. Good and evil will never change, people will and society will.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz What if, years from now, they think that equal rights for black people is immoral. Nowadays we think that equal rights for black people is moral. Are you telling me that, if one day, society thinks that equal rights for black people is evil, that we did evil things because society has changed? In other words, do you think an evil thing changes into a good thing or do you think society changes?
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz I mean, will the definition of evil ever change? Will people like Hitler ever be considered good people? I am sure that slave owners did not think they would be considered evil people, but today they are. But just because they weren't considered evil in the hey days of slavery, does that mean they were not evil then? I think they were evil then and now. They were never moral people.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz Again, you REALLY need to study the culture and the context in which the bible was written. There are many leyman explanations as to why God killed in the bible. One such explanation is that it was a fictionalized account written by the Israelites to the Egyptians. Another explanation, that has a theistic basis, is that God owns our lives.He can do with us what he pleases, and perhaps, he was saving the Egyptian children from evil by taking their lives.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz God does own us, he does not impose his will on us, rather, he grants us freewill. Whether or not you believe in him is irrelevant.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz You are right, religion does not always give us morality. Morality comes from God. Religion is a vehicle through which we can learn morality. Just like society. But if society started saying that killing black people was moral, would killing black people be moral? No. God tells us that, not religon or society.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz I think, if you want to discuss this issure further, then you should pm me. Points are really difficult to get across on such a short space, as well as being hard to find replies. If you choose not to pm me, that is fine, but I will say, you made excellent points and allowed me to understand atheisim(or agnosticism) a bit better. And I will pray for the miracle that you will come to know God.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz This statement also contradicts Hitchens statement saying that religion is the source of immorality. What facts is he basing this comment on? His opinion? If morality is just an opinion, what makes Hitchens' point any more correct than a religous point? Nothing. Just his opinion versus, say, the Pope's. If morality is just opinion, then everybody who argues about what is moral and what is not are like children arguing about chocolate versus vanilla. I guess Hitchens is childlike.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
if you take it that literally then there is no right or wrong. its all just pure opinion and everyone is arguing like children (including us) over a meaningless topic.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
Comment removed
dhx84 9 months ago
@dhx84I never said that science cannot prove a single thing. It can prove a lot of things, like a bird is a bird, or a the degree at which paper burns. Science can prove things, but it most certainly cannot prove evil or morality exists yet you seem to believe in evil and morality despite science. just like I believe in God despite scientific evidence(the lack of).
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
No. Try again.
Your faith is a vice, not a virtue. I tolerate your right to indulge in it, but don't it receive a single iota of respect. Science is a valid adult enterprise. Religion is a childish folk superstition.
You can argue that slavery is bad because I can demonstrably see it cause human suffering. Your god however, is not demonstrable.
dhx84 9 months ago
@dhx84 Why is suffering an evil thing? And for pointing out childish behavior, your language below is a very good example of such behavior. 1EpicLulz, on the other hand, seems to be mature. Perhaps your amygdala is not fully developed and you are just acting on gut instincts. In any case, if the best defense you can come up with are insults, then I suggest you learn something with substance to counter my points.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
No, I insult you because you fully deserve it.
If you think chiding me for insulting you allows you to sidestep what substance there is to my argument, then I think you deserve being called an idiot.
Faith is not a virtue nor is it worthy of praise. Your defense of it belies your weakness.
dhx84 9 months ago 11
@comeonfolks
My entire point, the one you ignore and never fully address, is that science doesn't need to prove things. It's inability to prove certain things doesn't make religion or any of its superstitious claims to be correct.
I'm perfectly content in thinking that many things can be a fine ART, rather than an exact SCIENCE. Which is why I say that ethics are in the former category.
But part of education's value is in its ability o quietly empower judgement.
You consistently ignore this.
dhx84 9 months ago 13
@dhx84 Anyone who claims to know god or hopes that you come to know god isn't worth debating with. Your speaking to a brick wall hard wired and indoctrinated at such an age its ability to think on its own behalf has been decimated by indoctrination at key points of learning early in its construction. Good luck!
strikenetter 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
Actually let me rephrase my premise. Try and fucking pay attention this time because I'm tired of repeating myself.
Science informs human judgement (i.e. morality). It doesn't need to do anything else.
You are speaking from the unspoken argument that religion does provide proof, not just EVIDENCE for morality. Which is an idiot's fixation. Frankly water-to-wine, virgin births and resurrections are no proof of your morality either.
dhx84 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
Frankly, talking to theists about subjects like this is like talking to half-wit children. You have all these immature fascinations and non-sequiturs floating around in your brain. And you confuse these with proper reason and argumentation.
Get an education, otherwise, please shut the fuck up.
dhx84 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
And frankly, I'm tired of your goddamned ungrateful attitude. You're perfectly fine taking advantage of the technologies and knowledge provided by science while thumping your fucking Bible.
As if discrediting the first is somehow proof of the other.
Stop taking a piss on things that have prevented your mother from dying in childbirth, provided food and given you decent medicine your entire life.
dhx84 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
There is also medicine. Religion constantly obstructs medical progress and even today, some people think of diseases and plagues as a God's punishment for sins (e.g. AIDS as a punishment for homosexuals). In the past, it also forbade the study of human anatomy, partly out of a fear that a material explanation be given for human biology.
Graverobbers and "undertakers" existed precisely because you could not study human anatomy by legal means past ages.
dhx84 9 months ago
@dhx84 I never said AIDS was punishment from God. I don't think the Catholic Church has made any official statement on Aids being the punishment from god. The church does not endorse homosexual relations, that does not equate the church causing aids. Take a basic biology class to know that. The church does not support condom use because people tend to believe that condoms are a safeguard against AIds. It is not. You are misconstruing information and are either ill informed or quite deceitful.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
The Church has gone as far as saying AIDS are a punishment to gays.....
They are also against Condoms because according to the bible "Wasting a mans seed" is a abomination.
Spreading this kind of ignorant nonsense to uneducated people in places like Africa has resorted to countless deaths and suffering from STDs.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz Again, there is not an official teaching by the Church that says that Aids is a punishment for gays. And you are correct about condoms. But what is wrong with that belief? Does that cause aids? Nope. What does? Indiscriminate sex. That is another thing the church says. The church believes sex should be intimate and special with person you will spend the rest of your life with. This belief is not ignorant. The belief that Catholic teachings casues sexual diseases is.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz People having sex indiscriminatley with each other causes aids, not catholic teaching. You are only stating half the Catholic teaching about sexual relations. The other half is only having sex after you are married with the person you will spend the rest of your life with. Again, you are either ill informed or deceitful.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks "People having sex indiscriminatley with each other causes aids, not catholic teaching"
Yes but spreading false information and down right lies to uneducated people is only making the problem worse.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz What lies? There are none. Unless it is a lie that having sex with multiple people is riskier than having sex with one person. Or that condoms don't always protect against aids. Then, you get into theology, which is not a lie. How is it a lie that having sex with a spouse is more special than having sex with multiple people? You need to read information and study things a little more before you start making ignorant statements.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
Telling uneducated Africans that AIDS only effects gays in a lie.....
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz That is stating the obvious.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@1EpicLulz That is stating the obvious. Telling uneducated people that Christopher Hitchens is skinny is a lie...Your statement is quite illogical. If the implication is that the Church tells uneducated Africans that AIDS only affects gays, then you are either ill informed or deceitful.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
If you think the Church has never said such things you must be ill informed.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
The church flat out tells people to not even use condoms.
1EpicLulz 9 months ago
One cannot do/speak to something that does not exist. One can never pray to God, for there is not one shred of evidenece to suggest such a being. One can never claim to do good or bad, for there is not one shred of scientific evidence that good and bad actually exist.
comeonfolks 10 months ago
Atheist say that God cannot be proven by science and so does not exist. What concepts that Hitchens brought up can be proven through science? How can one scientifically prove that a certain action is cruel? Can an action be scientifically proven to be moral? Can morality be proven to exist through science? Since God cannot be proven by science, he must not exist. Since morality cannot be proven by science, morality must not exist.
comeonfolks 10 months ago
@comeonfolks
No, atheists say that there is no evidence about a god's existence. Particularly YOUR kind of god. We aren't just talking about a Christian god here.
The thing is, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you. Not the non-believer. You cannot run a society by just asserting something as true without evidence. We certainly don't behave that way with respect to any kind of non-religious belief.
Opinions vary as to whether proofs could ever be given for a supreme God's existence.
dhx84 9 months ago
@dhx84 Prove to me, scientifically, that evil exists. If there is no scientific evidence for the existence of evil, how can anyone say that evil exists?
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks Perfect example of what Dennett describes as a 'use error'. The concept of 'God' exists just as the concept of 'evil' exists. What you have done is equivalent to saying, "Prove to me, scientifically, that a 'verb' exists."
Hopefully you can see that no one will waste their time demonstrating scientifically the existence of a 'verb' - nor should they.
TheGreatReprobate 9 months ago
@TheGreatReprobate You are really just stating history and psuedo history. You have not provided any scientific evidence for the existence of evil. How is one supposed to know what evil is if there is not one shred of scientific evidence for what evil is? I am talking about the existence of the noun. If we do not have evidence for the noun, how do we know what the verb is?
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@TheGreatReprobate Evil can be used as a noun. If I were to ask you to choose between good and evil, how would you do this? Not scientifically I assume, because there is no sceintific evidene for the existence of evil. If I were to ask you to choose between religion and atheist, I assume you would not choose religion because of the lack of scientific evidence.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGreatReprobate Another noun example, Do you believe in "Evil"? Do you believe in God? What Scientific evidence do you have to suggest evil exists.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@comeonfolks
What does that have to do with anything? I don't think anybody says that science tries to do so. But that's like complaining that hockey doesn't feed people. It doesn't. So what? They're not meant to do either.
Prove to me that rainbows taste like purple.
Stop saying pointless things.
dhx84 9 months ago
@dhx84 If an atheist is to make a claim that Hitler is evil, they should first have to prove that evil exists. The topic that does not make sense is that rainbows taste like purple. This is a point that makes no sense. Evil is obviously a topic that concerns morality. Yet how does Hitchens even know morality exists? Is there scientific proof that morality exists? If atheist want scientific evidence for the existence of God, I want scientific evidence of the existence of evil and morality.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
@dhx84 If there is no scientific tests proving the existence of evil, I have serious doubts about Hitchens' intellect. Evil is just a concept that man has created to 'imprison' free will. Just like God. One shouldn't do 'something evil'. One shouldn't do "something against God'. Who is to tell us what God thinks, who is to tell us what is evil? Nobody has ever tried to say what rainbows taste like, but people do often say what evil is, just like people say what God thinks.
comeonfolks 9 months ago
I suppose that patriotism is evil. There is a logical pathway that might lead a patriotic person to do an immoral act. We should do away with patriotism, if we follow Hitchens' logic. Is a country bad because a patriotic citizen does something evil? Nope. Is religion bad because a member does something evil? Nope.
comeonfolks 10 months ago
Who is the second person he mentions ?
tubehax 11 months ago
@callofduty497 Feral Children are evidence creator? Evidence against a standard Objective morality is proof?
SO you're essentially saying anything is "Evidence for a god". That's such a lame cop out. C'mon Man. POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE.
I mean Your argument should be more than "My God is Real...and He's bigger and better than all the other Gods".
mattfoley99 11 months ago
@callofduty497 Why is your interpretation any valid. And please answer the questions. If you can't answer that's fine but just know that means that your argument doesn't really have a solid foundation beyond saying the other is wrong.
I have answered yours yet you refuse to answer mine.
mattfoley99 11 months ago
@callofduty497 It doesn't. There are plenty of cultures throughout the world that says Killing is ok...we call them casualties of war...or Holy Killings. (To answer your question)
As well you didn't answer my questions. What of Feral Children? Why are there discrepant MORAL Views on discrimination if we have such an objective morality to draw from? I mean really What gives you (Not saying this is your view) the right to say gays are wrong, when another religious group says God says its A Ok.
mattfoley99 11 months ago
@callofduty497 I'm sorry...Why does there need to be an Objective MOrality? I mean if morality is written on our hearts why is there such a disparaging account or what morality is? EVEN By religious believers?
And what of Feral Children? They have not had the evils of society influenced upon them BUT HOWEVER have been withheld soceital interaction and can be said to lack morals since they rely for the most part on instinct.
mattfoley99 11 months ago
@callofduty497 There can be no "atheistic definition" of anything as atheism is not a belief system. It's a lack of belief in deity with no other implications. Atheists can be moral or immoral, humane or inhumane, kind or cruel. There is no standard to live up to or live down.
ciaochowbella 11 months ago
Why does it have to be any more than the golden rule. Treating others as you wish to be treated. This is not necessarily an "Atheistic" View more of a common sense view. In this instance you're putting faith in your fellow man, someone relatable to you as opposed to some socially created concept that's supposed to be a higher being. OF course there are abberations in this manner: we call them sociopaths...or and this isn't meant as an insult religious fanatics who justify horrors with the bible
mattfoley99 1 year ago
@callofduty497 and to actually "answer" because there is no proof or even logical postulation that doesn't require the bible in order to state that there is a "Morality of GOd" Can we prove or show a "higher" being without the ready made idea of God?
And even then which God defines what morals? Surely not Judeo-Christian God If we were to follow his example...well I'd be a total asshole to people and far worse off in my life.
mattfoley99 1 year ago
@callofduty497 I'm sorry but aren't you trying to work m einto a logical fallacy? Making a Word define itself? I mean the definition of an objective fact is something that can be observed with evidence.
I Feel as though you're going into a side tangent about semantics and logic problems in order to not bring ACTUAL Evidence that God Exists. God cannot be proven or disprove through logic problems or logical fallacies or logic tricks.
Why does morality have to be from God?
mattfoley99 1 year ago
@callofduty497 ...You're attempting to be clever with the same comment I heard at the Turek Debate "have you ever been skeptical of sketicism". Logical fallacies and self-defining words have no bearing on the real world. I get your point and I have thought of that before. the phraseyou mention does not exist an objective fact however it is merely commenting ON Objective facts...if that makes sense.
mattfoley99 1 year ago
@callofduty497 And to clarify I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic with Atheistic Leanings. Though I prefer to describe myself as a skeptical thinker and inquirer.
mattfoley99 1 year ago
@callofduty497 and that golden rule is so eloquently put by Mr. Wilde as " Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live". Also a bit of logic. if one says God placed MOrals there then you are stating I assume an objective fact. And therefore are able to test, scientifically whether or not this is valid. if you can't prove or disprove it the question is non-falsifiable. So for all intents purposes in relation to the problem..god is nonexistant
mattfoley99 1 year ago
@callofduty497 Well Not even Christianity is Consistent with itself..and that's why I said NOT ALL Atheists are HSs. I never claimed any kind of consistency. Nor Did I say atheism was moral...But who says a faith or lack of faith GIVES Morals. Altruism and Morals have been shown to be adaptive. Who says there HAS TO BE standards. I'm not living up to some unknown invisible measuring stick.
And that reason you mention: Its the age old Golden rule with a mix of optimism.
mattfoley99 1 year ago
@callofduty497 Atheism does..its called Secular Humanism. Not ALL Atheist are Secular Humanists...alternatively: Not All Christians Are Moral by other's moral standards.
mattfoley99 1 year ago
God is big brother
go tell the anti-communist people that... most of them are religious freaks anyway.
DrNHand1994 1 year ago
At first I thought I was playing Bioshock again. :P
Slogson 1 year ago
Czech poet and former president Vaclev Havel probably said it best: "Seek the company of those who are searching for the truth; and flee from those who have found it." Can there be anyone more dangerous than a man filled with religious certitude? History tells us 'no.'
JackKangaroo1 1 year ago 3
The question can be asked either ways and will have same answer. Ask this idiot what moral value non-believers can do and believers can not? This is not the scale and not an answer to the fact that non believing is the source of immorality. I need this idiot to answer what is the reference for morality? Don't need long story about humanity bla bla bla and the conscious creatures bla bla bla because that don't give the answer.
jomanjy09 1 year ago
Thou shalt not fuck with Christoper Hitchens.
www4funzCom 1 year ago 24
It is unfair to say that Arabs suicide bomb because of Islam without conceding that Stalin was evil because of atheism. Stalin's atheism was even MORE significant. It permeated his life completely; it made him hate the world to a point where he said of his son's failed suicide attempt "see, he can't even shoot straight". Hopelessness is not truth, Hitchens, and Stalin proved that.
When asked the purpose of life, Hitchens replied "I love watching others suffer". Yea, Hitchens is real gold.
tpstrat14 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens, eloquently and charismatically telling a crowd they are utterly worthless and getting applauded for it. What has the world come to? Oh God help us.
tpstrat14 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 that is your religion speaking. Utterly worthless and getting applauded for it? He is trying to give them good conscious dumbass. Now get off youtube and go commit suicide so you can go to heaven. You sickening religious people disgust me trying to impose the ending of the world on us and armageddon and all that total bs. If the afterlife is so great why don't you go join your pathetic God and Jesus who I would gladly nail in the head to the cross. You people are disgusting.
123tindris 1 year ago
HITCHENS BACKHAND!!!
btw i love when he asks a question he bops his head and hops up and down!!! LOL hitchens you're amazing.
shadow1867 1 year ago
@shadow1867 I'm so glad there are smart people in the world that really understand the issues at hand. Thank you, sir.
tpstrat14 1 year ago
To refrain from immoral acts due to either fear of retribution or for promise of reward is not morality. Morals clearly do not come from any religious text or any moral standard, otherwise they and we would all be in agreement.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
The Catholic church has paid out over a BILLION dollars in sex abuse cases.
kurtcochran 1 year ago 5
how so the andromeda system be headed towards us, as the whole universe expands? can it be claimed that the currently detected expansion be continuing forever, or is there possibility that this expansion later stops, then the whole thing starts contracting? this would seem more logical with the big bang theory, but still begs the question;how does something come from nothing?
without a consciousness even on the subatomic level, how does life evolve from bacteria into conscious beings?
bademoxy 1 year ago
the funny thing is that anybody believes in the joke that is god
ExtraordinaryStorms 1 year ago
Would a devout Christian answer the following question for me: if you became absolutely convinced that God commanded you to blow up a building full of people, would you do it? You can't say he would never do this, because the Bible is full of instances of God ordering his followers to acts of shocking violence. Does anyone doubt what the honest answer to this question is? And yet they claim moral superiority! If you believe God is on your side, you are capable of the most horrible crimes.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
Hitchens presumes that all Theists believe that the intelligent designer designed the universe for us to live in forever. That is as presumptuous as the people that presume to know what God said/felt/thought/did (religions).
TheGoalSetter 1 year ago
@TheGoalSetter -good points. tho i feel that is also presumption to say that life evolves from nothing and from total random chance.
my suspicion is that there may be a collective latent consciousness in all matter that manifests itself on a galactic scale.hopefully humanity lasts long enough to have open contact with intelligent alien species to converse on this subject.
i think religion would end up totally discredited,except perhaps buddism
bademoxy 1 year ago
Here's a great example of people who believe their religion encourages them to use violent (rape, murder, torture against men, women, and children).
watch?v=OIdd0vqti_4
TheGoalSetter 1 year ago
I want to bear that mans children.
And I'm a straight guy. THATS how awesome Hitchens is.
tipoomaster 1 year ago 3
Hitchens is too polemical. His sarcastic jokes and acerbic quips almost always undermine his real argument, which is a decent one. But I take issue with this speech. By definition (unless you want to get into the definition of morality), without a defined God--or gods--there is no morality. But that doesn't mean that there is no such things as ethics. There may not be such things as "good" or "bad," but paying attention to the "other" is in the best interest of the "self."
ETW206 1 year ago
Booze and crack are Hitchen's spinach. Awesome
Redfoot208 1 year ago
@Melvin6566842 If I understand you correctly...Krauss does believe that the universe came from nothing and hitchens kinda lied when he said in a short time we will be surrounded by nothing...Kruass said that in about 100 billion years(short time) if we were to look out into the universe it would appear as if nothing existed beyond our galaxy...and completely off the subject it doesnt matter cuz in 6 billion years we are going to colide with another galaxy and be destroyed lol
jonl34 1 year ago
yeah but in the view of science, if nothing can be observed, then nothing exists. of course those people in the future (if they still exist) will hopefully have our records and observations, and so they will know what's up
SovietSR71 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book The World As I See It that the harmony of natural law Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.*
majorl31 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Mr Darwin spent too long time in the Jungle without a woman.
When studying the female apes,
he came up with the idea on that apes and man are related.
The only missing link there is,
is the one between Darwin and the ape - It was never born. "
MattiEevertSimonaho 2 years ago
@MattiEevertSimonaho
So your way of denying an established, proven and through decades checked theory is calling Darwin a fag? Nice argument there.
Murdulo 1 year ago
Comment removed
eameece 2 years ago
I would agree, the "Kingdom of God is within you" is probably the most ethical and reasonable statement made in the Bible and by Jesus. But if that is truly the case, then there is no need to believe in religious figures like Jesus at all because the Kingdom could also be in Socrates or Confucius, who lived centuries before Jesus existed.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago 33
That's exactly right; I agree.
eameece 2 years ago
Ah, another point! God is the source of morality, whether non-believers do moral actions or not. If God is all, or created all, it does not matter if someone "believes" in God or not. It is still God who created the non-believer, and everything (s)he does, whether we like it or not, is God in action.
eameece 2 years ago
The problem with saying that is that it is founded on no evidence. Therefore, if that is true, I can say the opposite with just as much justification.
God is not the source of morality, whether believers do moral actions or not. If God doesn't exist, or created anything, then it doesn't matter if someone believes in him or not. It still isn't God who created that believer and everything he or she does. Whether we like it or not, God is non-existent.
Given the terms, what I said is just as valid.
coreygames 2 years ago
That seems right; just as valid. It all depends on the main issue: does God exist? Science can't give you empirical "evidence" (except the arguments (pro or con) whether God is a good designer or not). Such "evidence" must come to you in other ways. I say that it does so, and so do other mystics.
eameece 2 years ago
But that's the thing. You can SAY that it does, but until you can SHOW that it does, it really has nothing behind it.
coreygames 2 years ago
You do realize the evidence for god has the same weight as the teapot orbiting halfway to mars right? Or unicorns, or any stupid fairy tale for that instance.
Murdulo 1 year ago
Oh come on... If you were a deist then you may have a ghost of a point, but I'm going to assume you're a theist. If that is the case, how do you account for the lack of correlation between what is deemed moral by society, and the preachings of your religious texts?
Only a fool could claim religion to be moral.
ubernaffa 2 years ago
I'm a theist, but not a believer, and not an adherent of any religious text. There is correlation between religious commandments and moral (or government) laws held by society (some of which I disagree with), but I would not argue that all morals held by society come from religion. It is a source, but not the only source. Hitchens argues that it's not true that non-believers can't do moral acts. So far as I know, none of his debating partners disagrees with him on that point.
eameece 2 years ago
"I'm a theist, but not a believer"
That's an oxymoron.
byteresistor 2 years ago 2
@byteresistor Carl Jung had a pretty good answer for that one. Someone asked him (in fact, this interview is now posted on you tube), if he believed in God. He said no, "I know."
eameece 2 years ago
Not a really good answer at all no matter who said it, sounds something a wannabe intellectual would say and thinks it's something very clever (although I know Carl Jung but like I said doesn't matter who said it, everyone can say stupid things).
Knowledge requires something much more than faith. Can you guess what it is?
byteresistor 2 years ago
Carl Jung is not stupid. He meant what he said.
It's not a question of faith or belief, but of knowledge. Can YOU guess what knowledge is? Hint: mere empirical evidence is not knowledge, because it is partial and temporary; or "contingent" in philosophical language. True knowledge is a priori. Awareness, experience, truth.
eameece 2 years ago
Experience is a priori? Doesn't make much sense does it?
You're convoluting the debate because you can't give a clear answer, and you get tangled in the process.
Murdulo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eameece "God is NOT the source of morality, whether believers do moral actions or not. If God does NOT exist at all, it does NOT matter if someone believes in God or not. It is still NOT God that created the believer, and everything (s)he does, whether we like it or not, is NOT God in action". You are brilliant, and you can verify the incredible power of your propostions yourself just by evaluating my inversions of what you are saying.
lfzadra 1 year ago
@lfzadra You seem to care a lot whether I or others believe in God or NOT. Hitchens sure does.But Ify, do you think there is a cause for anything?
eameece 1 year ago
@eameece I don´t care with the beliefs of others. You can pray for leprechauns on sundays if it gives meaning to your life. If you don´t harm anybody, it´s not my business . But when believers wants to inform morality and legislation of all society based on propositions backed only by "inner feelings" and mythology, yes, I think I care. Secularism is the way to go. It protects your right to believe in bullshit, and my right to say it´s bullshit. Your country was founded under this principle.
lfzadra 1 year ago
@lfzadra Yes, I don't want religion ruling legislation, and I agree with secularism as the separation of church and state.
eameece 1 year ago
I always thought the devil was the "source of immorality." Or was it the serpent? Or just sex in general? Or is it bad genes? Or cool jeans? I guess we have to blame something or other in order to make us feel better.
eameece 2 years ago
I have felt that the increase in the expansion of the universe, against the expectations of Newtonian mechanics, should give pause for believers in those mechanics. It might even imply something more is going on than the momentum from a physical explosion. AND, SO WHAT if someday we won't be able to see the big bang? How is that a poor design? His problem is not seeing that by the time these things happen, we'll be so spiritually advanced that they won't affect us.
eameece 2 years ago
@eameece
He didn't say it was poor design because we won't be able to "see" the big bang in a few billion years. he said it because our galaxy will collide with another in about 4 billion years. If there is a god, then he clearly intends to wipe us out sooner or later.
Like he wasn't corrupt enough already...
JMSofSweden 2 years ago
If there is no God, no use complaining about him.
Yes he quite clearly complained about not being able to see the big bang, because the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing; as well as about the collision.
eameece 2 years ago
@JMSofSweden If he doesn't exist, don't complain about Him! Hitchens DID say it's poor design because we won't be able to see the big bang! Listen already. Why else did he mention the rate of expansion is increasing? That has nothing at all to do with Andromeda coming toward us. And so what about that? Galaxies are so huge and slow moving it may not matter to us if they collide. And with any luck, we'll be somewhere else by then anyway, one way or another.
eameece 2 years ago
@eameece
"If he doesn't exist, don't complain about him."
You completely missed the point of the argument. Hitchens pointed out a massive flaw in the "design" of the universe as an argument against the existence of god. not against his competence.
JMSofSweden 2 years ago
JMS, That's not a good argument. His argument does not disprove God's existence; indeed it only argues that He is incompetent or otherwise not quite the God he is claimed to be. But merely saying a myth does not measure up to the reality, doesn't disprove the reality which the myth represents.
eameece 2 years ago
In addition, it's only his opinion that these are "flaws."
eameece 2 years ago
@eameece
"The reality that the myth represents?" What the hell does that mean?
And asking for an argument against the existence of god is pointless anyway. You can point out some obvious flaws in the "design", but the burden of proof isn't even on us to begin with.
JMSofSweden 2 years ago