"The knife was not used." Wow. Strapping down your child and getting ready to murder him is much better! Yay, Christians. Does that go in your win coulmn?
Big respect to Christopher for having the balls to stand in front of what I'd guess is a majority christian American audience inside a church and speak so strongly against the case for the existence of god.
How many people do you think have gotten aroused listening to Christopher Hitchens debate? Vaginas wet? Penises hard?
Millions.
Also, Peter is a douchebag that doesn't even know about the nonsense is blabbering about. What of Jephthah? That is the sacrifice of a child...AFTER Abraham. An innocent girl gets burned to death in a heinous filicidal act?
@MrJaydawger Imaginary magic man in the sky... really? that is perhaps what a child may believe or someone who has not taken the effort to cultivate their view
@sdfwrestler What is your view based on? Is there any real evidence in your shaping of a view of God? Fantasy is something other than known reality. I say that beliefs based on total fantasy are childish, no matter the age of the believer.
@MrJaydawger Evidence as you are requiring probably doesn't exist to prove God exist... or doesn't exist. and there probably never will be. The fact is God as far as i know cannot be proven to exist (though i haven't read Summa Theolegia or every claim to) or not exist (though I haven't read all claims here either) that would satisfy a scientific burden of proof. I suppose it's just a matter of your early shaping and experience of God and then choice or faith.
@MrJaydawger Every piece of evidence for or against can probably be easily dismissed. I feel it is a mute point. As for the fantasy well, i would be as bold as to say that most everything 'know' is based on some degree of fantasy and in some cases total fantasy.
Ah now, Christopher. Christians do not say: God is on my side. They say: I am on God's side. God's side is well well set forth in the Christian Bible. Love your enemy, do good to those who hate you. Torture? not allowed. Hatred? not allowed. Make no mistake when a titular 'Christian' does anything else, they are not a Christian. Christopher confuses the deeds of the titular Christian with what Christianity actually is, on paper, in fact.
@MrWildbill20056 REALLY??? Only in the last century or so Christians say that torture and hatred are not allowed...before that, for 2 thousand years they were slaughtering people for not believing the same thing as them (Inquisition, Crusades, the war(s) between Catholics and Protestants, etc.) And read some history, you'll find many men in power that thought that God was on their side...I'll let you figure out what the results were.
@sera7ares Irrelevant to my actual point which is to do with the conflict which arises, oft-times, between what people subscribe to, and what they actually do. Someone who calls themself a 'Christian' is no more a Christian than an Elephant if they actually ignore Christ's teachings. After all you cannot be a Christian if you ignore Christ. So, yes, really.
@sera7ares Aha? If you are about to either a) try to pin Christians down to being obliged to follow Mosaic law as defined in Leviticus, I'll save you the time: i) by example Christ alters/negates huge parts of this law and ii) explicitly makes a new covenant thus rendering Leviticus and blood sacrifices null; or b) to make some comment on it being totally acceptable to 'curse' your parents, I'll save you more time, cursing means more than simply bad mouthing in context; then don't bother :P
@MrWildbill20056 sure, when something doesnt suit Christians, then of course it's taken out of context, but the "turn your cheek" and "love thy neighbor" is not...and if the blood sacrifice negates everything previous to it, EVEN WHAT CHRIST SAID in Mark 7:9-13 (kill your kids if they curse you...doesnt matter what it means in any context, there's NOTHING that a kid can do which will give its parent the right to kill him/her), then it also negates all the "good" parts of Christianity, right?????
@sera7ares I made any comment regarding anything being 'out of context?' Not that I'm aware of! Next, there is nothing a child can do .... etc? Really in many parts of the world, many states of the US included, we have capital punishment. Effectively many enlightened societies reserve the right to kill those who they feel cross a line. Further Christ is explicitly against killing. The point he is making is in regards to the legalistic approach of the pharisees and their hypocrisy.
@MrWildbill20056 interesting thing he chose THAT particular part of the Old Testament...not to get into other things Jesus said that you dont follow, such as giving EVERYTHING to the poor, giving up ALL earthly possessions etc. Maybe that's also taken out of context?
Actually in the United States unless a child is on trial AS AN ADULT they can't be subject to the death penalty! Which means YOU are either Ignorant of the Laws in the United States or Intentionally LYING!
As for your claim that Christ is Explicitly against killing I draw to Your attention and Everyone Elses MATTHEW 10:34 -36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
What EXACTLY do you think was done with a SWORD except KILL!
IN FACT--im sure religion is one of the main proponents of negative outcomes in the name of morality----we can clearly see through our history that horrible attrocities have been commited under the guise of protecting Gods moral law....id agree with Hitchens that religion not only isnt the origin of morality---but it fails heavily at premoting it aswell....no moral action doesnt prevoke posititvity for someone---Yet morality claimed to side with God has shown that it can function without it
BTW Ulitarianism is based upon a moral scale---morality is not determined until the outcome has made itself apparent----however, acting in a way that you hope achieves postive outcomes for either you or others is the backbone of morality and not interchangable with Ulitarianism---its like saying i believe in socialism because i think healthcare should be universal---i still believe morality is determined by intent---even if your moral action leads nowhere its still moral...this isnt Ulitarianism
Answer to second question: It's not because some bad things have been done in the name of religion that we can conclude that God doesn't exist.These two things are completely unrelated. It's like saying that because you don't agree with the consequence (or the misuse) of a concept, that it automatically disappears. Atomic bomb killed hundred of thousands... is physics wrong? Like I said: COMPLETELY UNRELATED. Using the idea of God to justify one's evil action: nothing new. Says nothing about God
@Gazdo01 It does say that god and religion does not lead to moral authority or moral behaviour. There is already no evidence that god exists, or that there is any supernatural entity that cares about our behaviour. The next most common argument about god is that it leads to good behaviour, which is demonstrably untrue.
@xincrii I never hear any believer say as a proof of God that "it leads to good behaviour". Those are two completely different ideas, and they cannot be compared.
1. I could argue that THE TRUE FAITHFULL will act better (e.g. the life of numerous saints)
2. The concept of God is necessary just to imply that any behaviour is "good". If God doesn't exist, we're all just particules vibrating, and the events we experience are consequences of chances and necessity only, i.e. NO MORALITY at all.
@Gazdo01 Your second assertion is of course blatantly untrue. Morality comes from humans. We decide what is moral based upon considerations of what is best for us as individuals and humanity as a whole.
The codes we live by now are human inventions, even the religious ones. It's just that the religious ideas are inflexible and contain a lot of bronze age garbage. And people who claim to speak for god tend advocate things that are decidedly immoral such as bigotry or murder of 'infidels'.
"The codes we live by now are human inventions, even the religious ones."
Fine, that's a good atheist argument. But call it rightfully a "code" rather than "good" or "moral".
"It's just that the religious ideas are inflexible and contain a lot of bronze age garbage" I disagree of course. I like to see it as Truth, and since I believe in Universal Truth, then it must be invariable. That's why I LOVE mathematics.
@Gazdo01 I don't believe I ever even mentioned utilitarianism. Human morality that we live by and what we define as good have all been human inventions, even the ones religions like to trumpet.
I believe in truth too, Things that are found in the bible are demonstrably untrue however.
If you believe the garbage to be found in religious texts to be Truth and timeless, please tell me if you stand by the passages in the bible, the Qur'an and the Tanakh which advocate bigotry, genocide and slavery.
@Gazdo01 I would like you to tell me then what you feel is the better alternative as the basis for morality. A code that does not consider what is best for the individual and doesn't give a crap about humanity as a whole?
...actually that describes what is found in religious texts rather well. I guess that's what you get from something completely wrong but allegedly infallible.
'read in the light of Jesus Christ' seems to mean nothing more than "Let's just close our eyes and pretend real hard."
@xincrii "And people who claim to speak for god tend advocate things that are decidedly immoral such as bigotry or murder of 'infidels" Absolutely correct. But that has nothing to do with the existence of God per se.
@Gazdo01 No it has nothing to do with the existence of god. It just goes to show that those who claim to believe in It and who claim to speak for It are immoral. They have no greater claim to moral authority than any other human, and often they have proven themselves to be far inferior arbiters of what is right and wrong.
@xincrii I thought about it today, and I could argue that atheist act morally only because they were raised in a society which is founded on religious values.
Look bad in history: no society has ever survived without the idea of God. All who have tried perished.
Like Peter Hitchens said: it's not because atheist decide to act according to religious people moral standards that we therefore conclude that God doesn't exist.
@Gazdo01 You could argue that, as I'm sure it has been done, but you would be wrong.
I would say the same, look back in history and you will find innumerable societies who have held onto the idea of god and fried and perished.
I agree we do not conclude god does not exist based upon the fact morality does not religion. We simply conclude that religion's claim to have any claim on morality to be false. We conclude there is no god because there has never been any evidence for god.
Answer to Christopher's first question: what he says doesn't prove that morality doesn't come from God at all.
1. Morality doesn't exist without God, so the question is rhetorical.
2. Not to believe (or ignore) the existence of something doesn't make it go away. People don't necessarity know that they need O2 to live, but they'll nontheless continue to breathe it.
You don't "need" God to make a moral action. However, you need God to say that is action is "good".
@Gazdo01 Why is god the arbiter of morality? What gives It the right to say genocide and slavery is okay when our humanity recoils in disgust at the idea?
We can prove oxygen exists, we can see how respiration works, and we would believe in it because of the evidence. There has never been evidence for god. If you think we shouldn't disbelieve something for which there's consistently been no evidence, then can you justify why you ignore the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the FSM?
@xincrii "What gives It the right" He's the Principle of all things,.. But I can't remember Jesus saying that genocide or slavery is okay.
"humanity recoils in disgust at the idea" I understant your point. But look at it this way... SO WHAT? What do particules vibration know about "morality", about anything "absolute"? Dostoievsky understook this point perfectly when he said that in the end, if God doesn't exist, anything's possible.
@Gazdo01 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46, NIV)
@Gazdo01 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. (1 Timothy 6:1-2, NIV)
The New Testament too expects and condones slavery.
@xincrii "We can prove oxygen exists, we can see how respiration works, and we would believe in it because of the evidence. There has never been evidence for god"
Ok, very true. But you don't understant my point. Proof of God in reverse. I'm just saying that God exists in order for morality to exist. Just say that you don't believe in morality, or Universal Truth, or right and wrong...
If God doesn't exist, that's your position.
I reject that claim, therefore I believe in God by definition.
@xincrii Now I'm not saying that BECAUSE you don't believe in God you CAN'T do moral actions, sometimes even better than believers. My point is that to CALL this action "good" in the first place, you must refer to a Moral Law Giver, i.e. God.
Ok if you don't believe in God (understand the DEFINITION of God). But then don't say that atheist are capable of "good" things, and religion doesn't lead to "morality"...It's a rhetorical claim, since you have no grounds to judge what is moral (if exists)
Can i ask you why morality has to stem from God at all? Why cant morality be a biological tool in order to achieve positive outcomes---both individually and collectively (since are intellectual evolution has provided us with complex communicative skills which leaves us to invest greater in our social environment) we could feel empathy as a result of subconscious projection----we fear tragedy therefore when others are effected we will project our own feelings on them and protect or consolate
@TheGreatDeciever55 Morality is not necessarily synonym with utilitarism. You can't call something "moral" only because it serves to achieve some outcomes. I believe there is a Universal Truth, which derives from a Moral Law Giver, who has existence from Itself. I think, just like it is expressed in the Prologue of the Gospel of St John, that the Logos (Intelligence) is primitive, and that everything derives from it, not the other way around. I don't believe in: "in the begining were particules"
Meh, Ulitarianism is just a different outlook on morality-----most people consider morality determined by intent----Ulitarianists believe morality is determined by outcome....but that doesnt denote the possiblity that morality claims origins within our intellectual evolution...because i mentioned positive outcomes it seems you ran with that term and took it to the extreme----no moral action by any standards does not look to achieve a postitive outcome whether personally or empathetically
@HighPoweredLasers I was listening to this, and not watching...so I assumed you were talking about what Peter was saying. But, then I rewatched it. Splendid.
You've committed a strawman. Your entire point was WRONG. You don't recognize any of your mistakes, and you can't be bothered to take a look.
And saying you're right no matter how many times, won't change that. You're a wilfully ignorant, disingenuous idiot, and as long as you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes, chances are you'll remain one for a long, long time. And I guess now that I've explained that to you, I feel kind of content. Almost like Buddha.
Nice to see you deleted all of your ad hominem, and straw mans. Quit with the self congratulating attitude. In any event. my original comment is there for anyone to see, So far no one else has responded with such inappropriate aggression.
The fact that you still cannot grasp how ridiculous your first response was, the fact you refuse to recognize your blant straw man, speaks to your deficiency in critical thinking skills.
If the only thing that motivates a person to act morally in the first place, is that god demands it, if they believe that moral truth is predicated on the authority of a presupposed god, then ofcourse some people will reject morality, when they reject that god. If the foundations of the only morality they have ever known crumbles, ofcourse some people will cease to act morally.However, this is not the fault of atheism, but the belief in the first place. This is clearly what I said
Clearly I said that WHEN people do lose any sense of morality, along side their loss of religion, it was only ever religions fault anyways. Religion domesticated them, the cure is secular moral reasoning, not returning to religion. Keep straw manning me all you want. The only possible way you could interpert what I said, the way you did, was if you had a confirmation bias, you lost the forest for the trees. You expected to see evangelicals, so you projected that expectation on me.
You're a clown. You did it, you defeated the straw man, way to go! Ego points for you!
You clearly straw manned me into some kind of evangelical christian position, its so patently clear. Praise yourself all you want, no amount of praise with change the facts. You straw manned me. Clearly I never said anything about atheists being amoral - especially considering im an atheist, clearly I never implied religion was neccessary to have morality.
"That belief in an uncontestable written law, domesticated people to the extent they were incapable of, or perhaps skeptical of, secular moral judgement."
I think the best part is that it took you three months to come up with something more than "bullocks".
Your comments, and their faults are still there for everyone to see. Its extremely clear you straw manned me. You took a single sentence, that had no contribution, other than to tie the comment into this debate, clearly glossing over every other word, and then implied I was a religious nutcase. You can't legitimately defend that.
... topic (you've been refuted by the other guy and couldn't bring yourself to admit that).
And you can't do the above any better than by handing out tired clichés like "all Germans have a guilt complex", or "Kraut". So yea, vegetables are good for health... like, much better than the TEA you probably drink all day since you're apparently a British type!
Spare me with this bullshit.
You're a disgrace to humanity, and I'm sincerely sad people like you exist. Get well soon.
What you didn't know is that I'm a Russian, who's been living in Germany for 10+ years. So there goes your "Teuton genes" argument.
"Of course you presume to know more about English than an Englishman...you're a Kraut! Nuff said."
Whatever you might know about the English language, you certainly don't know ANYTHING about argumentation or debating, and you can't even tell the two apart.
Let's see:
-sweeping stereotyping of nation with huge populations.
"A foreign speaker of my language, and you come from...wait for it, Germany!"
That should teach you about making hasty unbased assumptions, eh? But since you're obviously an idiot, it probably doesn't.
"It's nice to know that the misplaced arrogance, born of an innate inferiority complex, carried deep within the psyche of the Teuton, is alive and sick as ever today, and residing in your pitiable pea brain, my little fool. I realize now why you are deluded, it's your Germanic genes."
"That is the definition of a sentence you fucking moron. It stands alone and makes sense on it's own. Any exceptions merely prove the rule. It's such a pity to say this, but you must be American. I know you speak some kind of Creole version of my language and you never were taught it properly, but you really have to learn your place in the linguistic hierarchy....it's way beneath me, son."
"Pwned" is internet slang. Now you've learned something new!
Let's see how that helps your argument, and your integrity. "BUT YOU SED HOW TO KILL PEOPLE, KILLING PEOPLE IS A CRIME!! WHO CARES ABOUT SECOND SENTENCE, a SENTENCE IS SELF-CONTAINED!!1!"
Mhm. Typical insecure idiot tactic - when cornered and refuted, try to grasp at straws and and toss condescending plattitudes... maybe that'll distract.
"That is the definition of a sentence you fucking moron. It stands alone and makes sense on it's own."
Yes, but a sentence doesn't have to, and in most cases, CAN'T, contain the entire argument. If you can't tell the value of a stand-alone sentence from the value of a stand-alone ARGUMENT comprised of sentences, then boy, you're...
You can tell peter doesn't debate as much as christopher. Peter is a pretty good speaker, but he take the debate to personally, he lets it get to him.
Sentences rarely stand on their own accord. But collaborate with a series of sentences to illustrate a single point. Taking a sentence, any sentence, out of proper context, is not a logical thing to do. Do you actually need someone to explain that to you?
You anwsered that point in such a way, that is inconsistent with what I was getting at. I did not say, "everyone that believes in god is moral". I did not say, " everyone that denies god existence is less moral". And thus your anecdotes were irrelevant. Your generalization, " you guys are such half wits" , clearly doesn't apply. Nothing you said even applies to the sentence to responded to. Are you actually about to argue taking sentences out of context, is justified?
Did you bother to read what I said at all? Or did you just read the first sentence, and respond, like an idiot. Because it should be quite clear, that im saying the only reason anyone would reject morality after losing faith in god, is because they put their faith in an absolute morality predicated on the assumption god exists in the first place. Throwing ridiculous anecdotes at me, and failing to actually read the comments you respond to, makes you the half wit out of the two of us
Few things nietzsche said, do I agree with. But I think he was on to something, when he observed the relationship between religious absolutism and nihilism.
Nietzsche observed that it was the belief in an absolute uncontestable morality, predicated on the will and authority of a hypothetical god, that lead people to nihilism. That belief in an uncontestable written law, domesticated people to the extent they were incapable of, or perhaps skeptical of, secular moral judgement.
I think peters observation is a correct one, a great deal of people have rejected morality, after rejecting god. But perhaps thats because they were conditioned to think, morality operates under the juristiction of god's authority alone, in the first place. And thus once that authority was rejected, by neccessity the morality was rejected. The anwser is filling that moral vaccuum with secular moral reasoning and philosophy, and not falling back to the safety of redomestication.
no wonder peter hitchens turned to religion and conservatism with all its inherent complacency, sentimentality and closed-mindedness. he has to cope with living in his brothers shadow
Are they still trying to argue that the story of Abraham was a good moral lesson? Blind, unquestioning obedience is morally superior to questioning the dictator's motives? If Abraham was really a good person, the first thing he should have said is "I will NOT do so, for my god would never ask me of such things."
Apparently he thought it completely within the nature of god to ask for blood sacrifice. Morality fail.
With respect to this debate against Christopher, Peter did as well as Tony Blair did . Which is to say, Peter, like his counterpart from the foolish Bible story, stood on water. Only this Peter, the one we see in the debate, fell under the water and drowned himself in the suffocating nonsense of his words. Truth is a menace and logic is an enemy for Peter Hitchens. But for Christopher Hitchens, they are allies that keep him on top of his debate and make him an easy winner.
if you are a maniac you will find a reason to kill from just about anything. Religion, games, money, family, Darwin etc...
It also happens within religion where emotions are quite big and if there is someone who knows how to controll this and have mad ideas, bad things will probably happen. This also occurs if one is on drugs or alcohol or do something else that make you loose your inhibitions. Also occurs quite frequently in mobs
Before Roosevelt dropped the arom bomb, weapon of mass destruction, on Japan, he sought God's guidance, so did Bush (George), when he unleashed the U.S military might on Iraq. These two had killed more people in the name of God more than the Muslim suicide bombers
The Abraham thing... surely he's missing that was c is talking about is that Abraham was willing ot do it? God decided against scrifice or whatever, but he tested to makes sure Abraham was willing first... The point C was making was about subservience... Or am I missing somehting?
Christopher's point was about Abraham's willingness to put the knife to his son's throat, and the notion that a "loving god" would even suggest such a thing.
Way to waste your whole allotment of time on missing the point.
P. Hitchens: "You HAVE to give people hope when they have don't things whose remembrance is grievous, and whose burden is intolerable. It HAS to be done. And what other hope can be done than some kind of sacrifice?"
No, Pete. It doesn't have to be done. It is not incumbent on anyone or anything to provide hope for the morally depraved. We may choose to do so, but I don't think a logical argument can be formulated for the *IMPERATIVE to do so.
"Error has no rights." That is why the Catholic Church justified persecution of heretics. Christopher seems to hold to the same idiotic idea. God help us all if men like Christopher get into power. 7 minutes in Christopher poses a challenge. A moral action or statement that can be made by a believer that cannot be honestly made by a nonbeliever is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength." If God gave Christopher life then it is immoral to turn his back on him.
"belief in supernatural dictatorship will be the excuse for worst evil then any secularist had permitted themselfs"
you fuking sheep
where the fuck do you live
eugenics, french relovultion ( jacobins killing in the name of freedom), Stalin killing becasue he was god in his own eyes and it seemed reasonable to him.
I began a task for discrediting Hitchens out of justice for those who actually have given his ideas credence and even respect. But as I watch him more and more I find myself actually becoming bored. His addled presentation
of Church basics is either ineptness or purposeful deception. Either way, the effect would be more dangerous to the receptive mind than the servitude which he proclaims religion exposes its adherents to.
At 4:35 Hitch doesn't even believe what he is saying. Which is what he accuses many religious of doing (like Billy Graham) because he knows he's wrong. It's not a moment of preparation or recolletion of thought. Then he knows he is continuing down a path of destruction. It is the most simple of teachings of the Church that man was made to know God through his nature, therefore of course, there is no choice or decision that a believer or non-believer could not both make. (continued)
So some Larry Flynt-type buys up a newspaper and prints one of C.Hitchens's articles and this answers the challenge?? What does Peter win? $10,000, a brand new car? A free copy of god Is Not Great?
Ridiculous characterisation of the Abraham story by PH there. The point is of course to demonstrate Abe's total submission to god's will. The fact that his hand was stayed just before the murder is intended to demonstrate god's more laudable qualities; but it is anciliary to the main point of the story - the desirability of total submission to god. If PH can't see that then he is truly deluded.
the answer to the challenge of Christopher challenge is simple: Christian don't claim to be better, but acknowledge that atheist can be better people.. the difference is that Christian would know that they did a bad thing, atheist probably won't
Imagine if the president went crazy and puts a gun to your head and tells you he will pull the trigger unless you give all your possessions to charity. Do you comply out of fear or love? What's the emotion most humans would feel in this situation?
Keep in mind that god threatens you with eternal torment for disobedience rather than a bullet, but what exactly is the difference between the threat of a gun and the threat of eternal torment?
@ArchhereticK Does God really threaten each person like a crazed gunman does? Did I miss out on this experience?
That's what I mean by saying a man is not God. It doesn't even work as a metaphor, because a man is a limited and mortal being with fears and desires, hopes and worries. Most of all a man can sin, is imperfect. God is infinite, timeless, perfection. Therefore a gun-to-the-head from a man and the "threat" of Hell from God are not quite the same thing.
So because they're from two different types of entities: one type of threat is ok while the other one is not. It's not the threat exactly that I'm getting at, it's the reaction. Do you react to threats with fear or love?
Another difference between the situations is that the man demands a single good action and in punishment for not doing it promises a single negative repercussion. It doesn't quite reach the level of God's "promises"/"threats."
If the guy said, "Do good and you'll live in harmony with the universe and have paradise at your doorstep. Don't do it, and you'll suffer," he comes closer to what we're talking about. Such a message serves as a warning of consequences for actions, but not as sole motivator for goodness. Do you see the difference?
@nosfearic It is a distinction with little difference. There is a threat to appeal to human cowardice, but there is also a promise of infinite reward to appeal to human greed.
Peter did then proceed to take a post at the mail, a newspaper well known for having endorsed the Nazi party in germany in the 30's, and british facists such as moselys facists. They recently ran an article smearing a dead gay pop star and falsely alleging a fatal drug overdose on his part. I'd rather get in bed with the pornographer than the nazis, racists and homophobes...if you'll pardon the pun...
You have to name a moral action done, or moral statement made by an atheist, agnostic, or secularist that COULD NOT be done or made by a person of faith.
I don't think he could, because that's not his point (as I understand it). When he states the first question, I see the vice versa (which you are referencing) as being implied. The points of his two questions (as I understand them) are as follows: (continued...)
1) As you point out, believers are just as capable of good, but he's highlighting the fact that non-believers are EQUALLY as capable as believers of acting morally (and therefor believers do not have the inherent moral superiority that many of them claim)
2) Not only that, but there are certain immoral actions that believers can justify that a non-believer could not. Therefor, the net result is that religion allows people to act less morally than they otherwise would.
You are probably right that this is his point, but in reality he may be pushing at an open door here. I watch a lot of these debates and the religious person almost always says a non-believer is equally capable of right action.
It is true that since atheism is not really a thing, it does not motivate people to evil actions. But the belief that religion is poison could lead to evil actions such as trying to wipe it out by force for the long-term good of humanity.
@UnbelievableRANTLERS If there is no god, then there are no moral absolutes. That is one of Peter’s points. Who is going to determine them? Who says murder is wrong? The State? Maybe, but that doesn’t make it morally wrong, only socially wrong.
@UnbelievableRANTLERS Additionally, I would also say that if history teaches us anything, it is that people, no matter what their religious point of view, are ingenious at creating reasons to justify their actions. If you don’t think that atheists are as capable of this as adherents of religion, consider the Soviet Union or Communist China.
Peter is arguing that all morality comes from God and is not innate in humans and so, presumably, if we didn't subscribe to God, we wouldn't have morality.
But Christopher is arguing that morality is innate in humans by nature and so we would have it whether we believed in God or not.
So turning the challenge back on Christopher doesn't work because he isn't arguing that morality is the preserve of the atheists.
@zedro1000 To be fair, Peter is not saying that we who are atheists don't know morality. Very few religious people say that.
As Richard Dawkins says, there is no logical path from a-theism or a-teapotism to atrocities. But there might be a logical path from wanting to destroy religion to atrocities.
@sulljoh1 I would look at the ethical principle of Individual Freedom. I think there the religious mind begins to break down in regards to how free each person really is.
@sulljoh1 Actually, that doesn't work. Because Hitchens isn't claiming he has the monopoly on morals; it's the religious who claim that all morality is founded on their position, who say that without God no one can be moral. Hitchens destroys that argument by pointing out that the religious do not have the monopoly on moral actions. Morality is innate in everyone, religious or not. The religious are just more dependent on a mental toy to make them believe that right is actually right.
@axl170 IDK how many religious people you know, but do you think that the religious claim all morality is founded on their position? I don't get that impression. They think that the moral law is written on our hearts. All of us. Even if we don't believe in God, as I don't.
I am a big fan of Hitchens. Read Hitch-22 if you haven't yet. But this challenge of his is going after a straw man.
@sulljoh1 The answer to the first question is, "way too many". I live in America after all. We've got no shortage here. To the 2nd question, that is indeed what religious people say again and again to Hitchens: "people wouldn't know right from wrong unless there was God to tell us/police it for us!" "Without religion, there would be no morality and everyone will do whatever they want!" They repeat it nauseum. It's not a straw man, it's the argument they've come to depend on. He's callin them out
@axl170 I must meet different religious people from you. I have lived in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Maybe I meet to many educated, moderate believers than you, but from my experience many poor black Christians on the south side of Chicago think atheists are alright. I have been to Evangelical services where the preachers say everybody, even nonbelievers, have the law in their hearts. This is their way of saying we all basically know morality.
You are right, but that is not the question. No true-thinking-Christians will say that Atheist are immoral people. The question is, what is the imperative for a moral principle for Non-Believer?
@stlouispictures actually you do. If everything exists by mere coincidence/chance without purpose/meaning, then it doesn't matter if you went around killing people you deem useless. Without God, there is no morality.
@Trelli28 You are yet to prove why there is no atheists killing people because they're atheist. I'd imagine you could conjure up something from your hippocampus representing people who kill people as a result of their faith. Religion is not a source for morality, it's rather the opposite.
@Metamorphosis20091 fella, if existence is mere chance, then people's lives have no purpose and if there is no purpose or reason to a person, why not get rid of him? He's useless anyway, save only the fittest. That's the viewpoint that Hitler used to carry out the holocaust. You need to learn and read more so that you'll understand the atrocities carried out by atheistic governments.
@Trelli28 Firstly, to answer your question, morality is innate in us, thus making your claim that every atheist is evil invalid. And it can be seen, not as implications, but as assertions in his speeches, that he was advocating God hence: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!"
peter hitchens seems so much more mature and is the first person ive seen that seems to get to his brother, theres irritation etched on his face .
What i find fascinating is whats really behind all of this, its almost like sibling rivalry thats driven them in both their careers.spolied public schoolboys!
Christopher question to everyone at 7:00 or so, has already been refuted (google it).
We all come from the Lord and have been instilled with morality. Its not a question to ask if we can make different choices.
Does anyone notice how Christopher continues to group Christ with all the religions of the world when in a bind? He's debating Peter Hitchens, a born again Christian. Not a Muslim or a Jew, so why continue to broaden the terms at will? For the sake of his mock-argument.
Not really. He's just making the point all the Judaic religions (all religion, really, but those in particular) are bunk. They're all based on control, fear, and subjugation. The bible is its own worse witness.
@thelionsshare100 You're a moron. There are a myriad of different moral standards throughout the world. Did your "lord" instill in you the same morality that he gave to the tribes of Tonga, who to this day practice cannibalism? Were you and the members of the Khmer Rouge instilled with the same morality? What about the people that came before your fake "lord?" Did the Assyrians have the same "natural" morality as you? The list is perpetual. Have an independent thought for a change.
You try too hard; you assert 'we all come from the lord with instilled morality' as if it were an actual claim of knowledge. That doesn't work, I assume you either have not been through much education or couldn't have gotten through it writing like THAT.
As for your comment about broadening the debate, you miss the point; the point is not about if Christianity is in some metaphysical sense true, the point is the principles or religion are backward
From what I can see, not many of us would make it very far in any career field or university based on our youtube comments.
What is one comment to tell my life? (factors: drunk, mad, enthusiastic, proud, angry, etc)
To say Christianity is backwards is to say that your current understanding of reality is correct in fullness (or true, or the ultimate knowledge to be had, to be unsurpassable).
I do see what you are saying about 'religion' (as a whole, including many, if I may say, very odd beleif systems).
I'm vexed by the fact that a Christian (Peter Hithchens) is having to deal with claims against entire other beleif systems as his authority is diminished by this. He's not claiming them. Doesn't make sense, does it?
AR333, you seem educated, not many at all in the world are born into that position with that opportunity and live to see its fulfillment.
I'm afraid to inform you, 99 out of 100 Christians will disagree with you on this and tell you that morality does not exist inside you, unless you correlate perfectly with their views.
This is a debate on the existence of a god, not a debate on Christianity, he refers to places like Belfast and the Middle-East where the line between politics and religion has been blurred to help debunk religion as a whole, something you clearly didn't comprehend.
@BelfastAtheist "99 out of 100 Christians will disagree with you on this and tell you that morality does not exist inside you"
I just spent a week at camp with 130 kids and also have never met any of these 99 out of 100 Christians you speak of. Morality is in us, if it wasn't -we would not have guilt. We don't and can't always listen to our morals or they have been corrupted -so we need Christ. We all know what is right -but we choose not to do it.
@BelfastAtheist This is a debate on the existence of a god, not a debate on Christianity" then "he refers..."
Who refers? Christopher! C.H. brings other religions into the debate when he can't refute the Christian answer. That's bogus. We all know Peter speaks for Christianity and that is what is really on the line. Take down the false religions (easy to do) and try to group Christ in there with them after you took them down. It's a common strategy that is not new to debates.
@qqs764 yes, I agree that the debate is about God and not Christianity, but look at who Christopher is debating with -his brother, a Christian. There is no one there who supports or represents any other 'religion'. If Christopher ever gets into a bind with Christian doctrine he resorts to Muslim, Jewish or Morman practice and their absurdity and claims his victory against Christianity.
"The knife was not used." Wow. Strapping down your child and getting ready to murder him is much better! Yay, Christians. Does that go in your win coulmn?
TheSultan03 6 days ago
The knife was not used. What about Jeptha's daughter? Bullshit, Peter. Your "Holy" book is appalling asswipe.
mouthyweasel 4 weeks ago 2
Big respect to Christopher for having the balls to stand in front of what I'd guess is a majority christian American audience inside a church and speak so strongly against the case for the existence of god.
1TheLoneWolf1 1 month ago 2
How many people do you think have gotten aroused listening to Christopher Hitchens debate? Vaginas wet? Penises hard?
Millions.
Also, Peter is a douchebag that doesn't even know about the nonsense is blabbering about. What of Jephthah? That is the sacrifice of a child...AFTER Abraham. An innocent girl gets burned to death in a heinous filicidal act?
undisputedgreatest 2 months ago
Even his brother can't stand up to Hitch.
rfranklinw1 2 months ago
seems more like sibling rivalry than an argument at this point.
popeyecb 2 months ago
8:18 Why u so mad bro?
Sidnelsom 4 months ago
At 2:00 is that god?
Drexyify 5 months ago 5
@Drexyify Even if he is not god, I would say he has enlightened the people more in the last 20 years than the imaginary magic man in the sky.
MrJaydawger 4 months ago
@MrJaydawger Imaginary magic man in the sky... really? that is perhaps what a child may believe or someone who has not taken the effort to cultivate their view
sdfwrestler 4 months ago
@sdfwrestler What is your view based on? Is there any real evidence in your shaping of a view of God? Fantasy is something other than known reality. I say that beliefs based on total fantasy are childish, no matter the age of the believer.
MrJaydawger 4 months ago
@MrJaydawger Evidence as you are requiring probably doesn't exist to prove God exist... or doesn't exist. and there probably never will be. The fact is God as far as i know cannot be proven to exist (though i haven't read Summa Theolegia or every claim to) or not exist (though I haven't read all claims here either) that would satisfy a scientific burden of proof. I suppose it's just a matter of your early shaping and experience of God and then choice or faith.
sdfwrestler 4 months ago
@MrJaydawger Every piece of evidence for or against can probably be easily dismissed. I feel it is a mute point. As for the fantasy well, i would be as bold as to say that most everything 'know' is based on some degree of fantasy and in some cases total fantasy.
sdfwrestler 4 months ago
@MrJaydawger oh and i was saying more that is much more abstract than that
sdfwrestler 4 months ago
Ah now, Christopher. Christians do not say: God is on my side. They say: I am on God's side. God's side is well well set forth in the Christian Bible. Love your enemy, do good to those who hate you. Torture? not allowed. Hatred? not allowed. Make no mistake when a titular 'Christian' does anything else, they are not a Christian. Christopher confuses the deeds of the titular Christian with what Christianity actually is, on paper, in fact.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 REALLY??? Only in the last century or so Christians say that torture and hatred are not allowed...before that, for 2 thousand years they were slaughtering people for not believing the same thing as them (Inquisition, Crusades, the war(s) between Catholics and Protestants, etc.) And read some history, you'll find many men in power that thought that God was on their side...I'll let you figure out what the results were.
sera7ares 5 months ago
@sera7ares Irrelevant to my actual point which is to do with the conflict which arises, oft-times, between what people subscribe to, and what they actually do. Someone who calls themself a 'Christian' is no more a Christian than an Elephant if they actually ignore Christ's teachings. After all you cannot be a Christian if you ignore Christ. So, yes, really.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 oh hell no...do you uphold Mark 7:9-13???
sera7ares 5 months ago
@sera7ares Aha? If you are about to either a) try to pin Christians down to being obliged to follow Mosaic law as defined in Leviticus, I'll save you the time: i) by example Christ alters/negates huge parts of this law and ii) explicitly makes a new covenant thus rendering Leviticus and blood sacrifices null; or b) to make some comment on it being totally acceptable to 'curse' your parents, I'll save you more time, cursing means more than simply bad mouthing in context; then don't bother :P
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 sure, when something doesnt suit Christians, then of course it's taken out of context, but the "turn your cheek" and "love thy neighbor" is not...and if the blood sacrifice negates everything previous to it, EVEN WHAT CHRIST SAID in Mark 7:9-13 (kill your kids if they curse you...doesnt matter what it means in any context, there's NOTHING that a kid can do which will give its parent the right to kill him/her), then it also negates all the "good" parts of Christianity, right?????
sera7ares 5 months ago
@sera7ares I made any comment regarding anything being 'out of context?' Not that I'm aware of! Next, there is nothing a child can do .... etc? Really in many parts of the world, many states of the US included, we have capital punishment. Effectively many enlightened societies reserve the right to kill those who they feel cross a line. Further Christ is explicitly against killing. The point he is making is in regards to the legalistic approach of the pharisees and their hypocrisy.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 interesting thing he chose THAT particular part of the Old Testament...not to get into other things Jesus said that you dont follow, such as giving EVERYTHING to the poor, giving up ALL earthly possessions etc. Maybe that's also taken out of context?
sera7ares 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrWildbill20056
Actually in the United States unless a child is on trial AS AN ADULT they can't be subject to the death penalty! Which means YOU are either Ignorant of the Laws in the United States or Intentionally LYING!
As for your claim that Christ is Explicitly against killing I draw to Your attention and Everyone Elses MATTHEW 10:34 -36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
What EXACTLY do you think was done with a SWORD except KILL!
PastorIblis 5 months ago
Comment removed
PastorIblis 5 months ago
The greatest commandment: Love the lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind. Try that one, Christopher.
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
Evidence that intelligence is not genetic.
LambdaQuarks 7 months ago
IN FACT--im sure religion is one of the main proponents of negative outcomes in the name of morality----we can clearly see through our history that horrible attrocities have been commited under the guise of protecting Gods moral law....id agree with Hitchens that religion not only isnt the origin of morality---but it fails heavily at premoting it aswell....no moral action doesnt prevoke posititvity for someone---Yet morality claimed to side with God has shown that it can function without it
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
BTW Ulitarianism is based upon a moral scale---morality is not determined until the outcome has made itself apparent----however, acting in a way that you hope achieves postive outcomes for either you or others is the backbone of morality and not interchangable with Ulitarianism---its like saying i believe in socialism because i think healthcare should be universal---i still believe morality is determined by intent---even if your moral action leads nowhere its still moral...this isnt Ulitarianism
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
Answer to second question: It's not because some bad things have been done in the name of religion that we can conclude that God doesn't exist.These two things are completely unrelated. It's like saying that because you don't agree with the consequence (or the misuse) of a concept, that it automatically disappears. Atomic bomb killed hundred of thousands... is physics wrong? Like I said: COMPLETELY UNRELATED. Using the idea of God to justify one's evil action: nothing new. Says nothing about God
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 It does say that god and religion does not lead to moral authority or moral behaviour. There is already no evidence that god exists, or that there is any supernatural entity that cares about our behaviour. The next most common argument about god is that it leads to good behaviour, which is demonstrably untrue.
xincrii 7 months ago
@xincrii I never hear any believer say as a proof of God that "it leads to good behaviour". Those are two completely different ideas, and they cannot be compared.
1. I could argue that THE TRUE FAITHFULL will act better (e.g. the life of numerous saints)
2. The concept of God is necessary just to imply that any behaviour is "good". If God doesn't exist, we're all just particules vibrating, and the events we experience are consequences of chances and necessity only, i.e. NO MORALITY at all.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Your second assertion is of course blatantly untrue. Morality comes from humans. We decide what is moral based upon considerations of what is best for us as individuals and humanity as a whole.
The codes we live by now are human inventions, even the religious ones. It's just that the religious ideas are inflexible and contain a lot of bronze age garbage. And people who claim to speak for god tend advocate things that are decidedly immoral such as bigotry or murder of 'infidels'.
xincrii 7 months ago
@xincrii Utilitarism is not synonym of morality.
"The codes we live by now are human inventions, even the religious ones."
Fine, that's a good atheist argument. But call it rightfully a "code" rather than "good" or "moral".
"It's just that the religious ideas are inflexible and contain a lot of bronze age garbage" I disagree of course. I like to see it as Truth, and since I believe in Universal Truth, then it must be invariable. That's why I LOVE mathematics.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 I don't believe I ever even mentioned utilitarianism. Human morality that we live by and what we define as good have all been human inventions, even the ones religions like to trumpet.
I believe in truth too, Things that are found in the bible are demonstrably untrue however.
If you believe the garbage to be found in religious texts to be Truth and timeless, please tell me if you stand by the passages in the bible, the Qur'an and the Tanakh which advocate bigotry, genocide and slavery.
xincrii 7 months ago
@xincrii "We decide what is moral based upon considerations of what is best for us as individuals and humanity as a whole" This is utilitarism.
"Things that are found in the bible are demonstrably untrue"
Difference between" Bible inerrancy" and "Bible infaillibility".
As a Catholic, I believe the Bible is infaillible, but certainly not inerrant, since it has been written by MEN.
"bigotry, genocide and slavery"
Bible must be read in the light of Jesus Christ.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 I would like you to tell me then what you feel is the better alternative as the basis for morality. A code that does not consider what is best for the individual and doesn't give a crap about humanity as a whole?
...actually that describes what is found in religious texts rather well. I guess that's what you get from something completely wrong but allegedly infallible.
'read in the light of Jesus Christ' seems to mean nothing more than "Let's just close our eyes and pretend real hard."
xincrii 7 months ago
@xincrii "And people who claim to speak for god tend advocate things that are decidedly immoral such as bigotry or murder of 'infidels" Absolutely correct. But that has nothing to do with the existence of God per se.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 No it has nothing to do with the existence of god. It just goes to show that those who claim to believe in It and who claim to speak for It are immoral. They have no greater claim to moral authority than any other human, and often they have proven themselves to be far inferior arbiters of what is right and wrong.
xincrii 7 months ago
@xincrii I thought about it today, and I could argue that atheist act morally only because they were raised in a society which is founded on religious values.
Look bad in history: no society has ever survived without the idea of God. All who have tried perished.
Like Peter Hitchens said: it's not because atheist decide to act according to religious people moral standards that we therefore conclude that God doesn't exist.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 You could argue that, as I'm sure it has been done, but you would be wrong.
I would say the same, look back in history and you will find innumerable societies who have held onto the idea of god and fried and perished.
I agree we do not conclude god does not exist based upon the fact morality does not religion. We simply conclude that religion's claim to have any claim on morality to be false. We conclude there is no god because there has never been any evidence for god.
xincrii 7 months ago
Answer to Christopher's first question: what he says doesn't prove that morality doesn't come from God at all.
1. Morality doesn't exist without God, so the question is rhetorical.
2. Not to believe (or ignore) the existence of something doesn't make it go away. People don't necessarity know that they need O2 to live, but they'll nontheless continue to breathe it.
You don't "need" God to make a moral action. However, you need God to say that is action is "good".
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Why is god the arbiter of morality? What gives It the right to say genocide and slavery is okay when our humanity recoils in disgust at the idea?
We can prove oxygen exists, we can see how respiration works, and we would believe in it because of the evidence. There has never been evidence for god. If you think we shouldn't disbelieve something for which there's consistently been no evidence, then can you justify why you ignore the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the FSM?
xincrii 7 months ago
@xincrii "What gives It the right" He's the Principle of all things,.. But I can't remember Jesus saying that genocide or slavery is okay.
"humanity recoils in disgust at the idea" I understant your point. But look at it this way... SO WHAT? What do particules vibration know about "morality", about anything "absolute"? Dostoievsky understook this point perfectly when he said that in the end, if God doesn't exist, anything's possible.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46, NIV)
Justifying both slavery and racism.
xincrii 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. (1 Timothy 6:1-2, NIV)
The New Testament too expects and condones slavery.
xincrii 7 months ago
@xincrii "We can prove oxygen exists, we can see how respiration works, and we would believe in it because of the evidence. There has never been evidence for god"
Ok, very true. But you don't understant my point. Proof of God in reverse. I'm just saying that God exists in order for morality to exist. Just say that you don't believe in morality, or Universal Truth, or right and wrong...
If God doesn't exist, that's your position.
I reject that claim, therefore I believe in God by definition.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@xincrii Now I'm not saying that BECAUSE you don't believe in God you CAN'T do moral actions, sometimes even better than believers. My point is that to CALL this action "good" in the first place, you must refer to a Moral Law Giver, i.e. God.
Ok if you don't believe in God (understand the DEFINITION of God). But then don't say that atheist are capable of "good" things, and religion doesn't lead to "morality"...It's a rhetorical claim, since you have no grounds to judge what is moral (if exists)
Gazdo01 7 months ago
Can i ask you why morality has to stem from God at all? Why cant morality be a biological tool in order to achieve positive outcomes---both individually and collectively (since are intellectual evolution has provided us with complex communicative skills which leaves us to invest greater in our social environment) we could feel empathy as a result of subconscious projection----we fear tragedy therefore when others are effected we will project our own feelings on them and protect or consolate
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 Morality is not necessarily synonym with utilitarism. You can't call something "moral" only because it serves to achieve some outcomes. I believe there is a Universal Truth, which derives from a Moral Law Giver, who has existence from Itself. I think, just like it is expressed in the Prologue of the Gospel of St John, that the Logos (Intelligence) is primitive, and that everything derives from it, not the other way around. I don't believe in: "in the begining were particules"
Gazdo01 7 months ago
Meh, Ulitarianism is just a different outlook on morality-----most people consider morality determined by intent----Ulitarianists believe morality is determined by outcome....but that doesnt denote the possiblity that morality claims origins within our intellectual evolution...because i mentioned positive outcomes it seems you ran with that term and took it to the extreme----no moral action by any standards does not look to achieve a postitive outcome whether personally or empathetically
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
Comment removed
xincrii 7 months ago
1:59 to 2:11 THE BOSS !
HighPoweredLasers 8 months ago 11
@HighPoweredLasers I was listening to this, and not watching...so I assumed you were talking about what Peter was saying. But, then I rewatched it. Splendid.
undisputedgreatest 2 months ago
@undisputedgreatest Hahaha!
HighPoweredLasers 2 months ago
@hexcane
You've committed a strawman. Your entire point was WRONG. You don't recognize any of your mistakes, and you can't be bothered to take a look.
And saying you're right no matter how many times, won't change that. You're a wilfully ignorant, disingenuous idiot, and as long as you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes, chances are you'll remain one for a long, long time. And I guess now that I've explained that to you, I feel kind of content. Almost like Buddha.
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
Nice to see you deleted all of your ad hominem, and straw mans. Quit with the self congratulating attitude. In any event. my original comment is there for anyone to see, So far no one else has responded with such inappropriate aggression.
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
@hexcane
Wha, I'm still a German? °_°
At any rate:
"Losing faith doesn't necessarily entail loss of morals. End of story."
Strawman fallacy. You committed it. Look it up.
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
The fact that you still cannot grasp how ridiculous your first response was, the fact you refuse to recognize your blant straw man, speaks to your deficiency in critical thinking skills.
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
@hexcane
If the only thing that motivates a person to act morally in the first place, is that god demands it, if they believe that moral truth is predicated on the authority of a presupposed god, then ofcourse some people will reject morality, when they reject that god. If the foundations of the only morality they have ever known crumbles, ofcourse some people will cease to act morally.However, this is not the fault of atheism, but the belief in the first place. This is clearly what I said
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
@hexcane
Clearly I said that WHEN people do lose any sense of morality, along side their loss of religion, it was only ever religions fault anyways. Religion domesticated them, the cure is secular moral reasoning, not returning to religion. Keep straw manning me all you want. The only possible way you could interpert what I said, the way you did, was if you had a confirmation bias, you lost the forest for the trees. You expected to see evangelicals, so you projected that expectation on me.
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
@hexcane
You're a clown. You did it, you defeated the straw man, way to go! Ego points for you!
You clearly straw manned me into some kind of evangelical christian position, its so patently clear. Praise yourself all you want, no amount of praise with change the facts. You straw manned me. Clearly I never said anything about atheists being amoral - especially considering im an atheist, clearly I never implied religion was neccessary to have morality.
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
@hexcane
I NEVER implied it does.
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
". Is Dawkins less moral than believers in jail? Or the preachers caught screwing behind their wives backs With other men sometimes?"
" YOU guys are such halfwits."
"Go talk to a bush."
All clearly show you straw manned me.
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
"But perhaps thats because they were conditioned to think, morality operates under the juristiction of god's authority alone, in the first place. "
"The anwser is filling that moral vaccuum with secular moral reasoning and philosophy, and not falling back to the safety of redomestication"
Three months later and you are still straw manning me.
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
"That belief in an uncontestable written law, domesticated people to the extent they were incapable of, or perhaps skeptical of, secular moral judgement."
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
I think the best part is that it took you three months to come up with something more than "bullocks".
Your comments, and their faults are still there for everyone to see. Its extremely clear you straw manned me. You took a single sentence, that had no contribution, other than to tie the comment into this debate, clearly glossing over every other word, and then implied I was a religious nutcase. You can't legitimately defend that.
ghostbuddy 8 months ago
@hexcane
Ah, I see, now I'm a nazi (why not Stalinist??).
And you call people who can actually form a coherent thought "small-minded".
Either obvious troll is obvious, or sad retard is forever sad.
I'm leaving this bullshit exchange with a sickly feeling in my mouth, as well as slightly boosted cynicism.
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
Whatever.
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
... topic (you've been refuted by the other guy and couldn't bring yourself to admit that).
And you can't do the above any better than by handing out tired clichés like "all Germans have a guilt complex", or "Kraut". So yea, vegetables are good for health... like, much better than the TEA you probably drink all day since you're apparently a British type!
Spare me with this bullshit.
You're a disgrace to humanity, and I'm sincerely sad people like you exist. Get well soon.
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
What you didn't know is that I'm a Russian, who's been living in Germany for 10+ years. So there goes your "Teuton genes" argument.
"Of course you presume to know more about English than an Englishman...you're a Kraut! Nuff said."
Whatever you might know about the English language, you certainly don't know ANYTHING about argumentation or debating, and you can't even tell the two apart.
Let's see:
-sweeping stereotyping of nation with huge populations.
-inability to address the..
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
"A foreign speaker of my language, and you come from...wait for it, Germany!"
That should teach you about making hasty unbased assumptions, eh? But since you're obviously an idiot, it probably doesn't.
"It's nice to know that the misplaced arrogance, born of an innate inferiority complex, carried deep within the psyche of the Teuton, is alive and sick as ever today, and residing in your pitiable pea brain, my little fool. I realize now why you are deluded, it's your Germanic genes."
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
"That is the definition of a sentence you fucking moron. It stands alone and makes sense on it's own. Any exceptions merely prove the rule. It's such a pity to say this, but you must be American. I know you speak some kind of Creole version of my language and you never were taught it properly, but you really have to learn your place in the linguistic hierarchy....it's way beneath me, son."
"Pwned" is internet slang. Now you've learned something new!
So I'm an American, huh?
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
Let's see how that helps your argument, and your integrity. "BUT YOU SED HOW TO KILL PEOPLE, KILLING PEOPLE IS A CRIME!! WHO CARES ABOUT SECOND SENTENCE, a SENTENCE IS SELF-CONTAINED!!1!"
Good luck with that, retard.
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
... you're in no position to talk down to people, and should better strike out the word "son" from your vernacular for the time being.
Example:
-In order to kill a human target instantenously, it's best to shoot the person in the head.
-This step can become necessary when the target poses an imminent danger to defenseless civilians, and should only be taken as a last resort.
Ignore the second sentence, and respond to the first as a "self-contained sentence, cos its a sentence".
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
Mhm. Typical insecure idiot tactic - when cornered and refuted, try to grasp at straws and and toss condescending plattitudes... maybe that'll distract.
"That is the definition of a sentence you fucking moron. It stands alone and makes sense on it's own."
Yes, but a sentence doesn't have to, and in most cases, CAN'T, contain the entire argument. If you can't tell the value of a stand-alone sentence from the value of a stand-alone ARGUMENT comprised of sentences, then boy, you're...
twooffour 8 months ago
@hexcane
Mhm. Pwned.
twooffour 8 months ago
8:11 Theists in the nosebleed section don't want to clap!
josenros 9 months ago
9:12 Was that a BitchenHitchens?
HighPoweredLasers 9 months ago
Peter acts like a hurt little boy.
Aliof 10 months ago
You can tell peter doesn't debate as much as christopher. Peter is a pretty good speaker, but he take the debate to personally, he lets it get to him.
morningstomper123 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@morningstomper123 faggot fat boy
putademuerde1 10 months ago
Sibling Rivarly at its best.
Fike2308 11 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@thelionsshare100
What hope do you have that this will end/change? Only that religion might fall victim to reason, science, philosophy and skepticism.
What makes you think/know it ever will end/change? The delightful, exponential growth of the # of atheists in the world.
Do you put faith in this solution? Not in the sense that you mean "faith." =)
What savior can step in and reconcile man towards one another in love while bearing the truth until the point of death? See above.
Humperdink18 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thelionsshare100
What hope do you have that this will end/change? Only that religion might fall victim to reason, science, philosophy and skepticism.
What makes you think/know it ever will end/change? The delightful, exponential growth of the # of atheists in the world.
Do you put faith in this solution? Not in the sense that you mean "faith." =)
What savior can step in and reconcile man towards one another in love while bearing the truth until the point of death? See above.
Humperdink18 11 months ago
Comment removed
Humperdink18 11 months ago
@hexcane
Sentences rarely stand on their own accord. But collaborate with a series of sentences to illustrate a single point. Taking a sentence, any sentence, out of proper context, is not a logical thing to do. Do you actually need someone to explain that to you?
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@hexcane
You anwsered that point in such a way, that is inconsistent with what I was getting at. I did not say, "everyone that believes in god is moral". I did not say, " everyone that denies god existence is less moral". And thus your anecdotes were irrelevant. Your generalization, " you guys are such half wits" , clearly doesn't apply. Nothing you said even applies to the sentence to responded to. Are you actually about to argue taking sentences out of context, is justified?
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@hexcane
Did you bother to read what I said at all? Or did you just read the first sentence, and respond, like an idiot. Because it should be quite clear, that im saying the only reason anyone would reject morality after losing faith in god, is because they put their faith in an absolute morality predicated on the assumption god exists in the first place. Throwing ridiculous anecdotes at me, and failing to actually read the comments you respond to, makes you the half wit out of the two of us
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
Few things nietzsche said, do I agree with. But I think he was on to something, when he observed the relationship between religious absolutism and nihilism.
Nietzsche observed that it was the belief in an absolute uncontestable morality, predicated on the will and authority of a hypothetical god, that lead people to nihilism. That belief in an uncontestable written law, domesticated people to the extent they were incapable of, or perhaps skeptical of, secular moral judgement.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy
I think peters observation is a correct one, a great deal of people have rejected morality, after rejecting god. But perhaps thats because they were conditioned to think, morality operates under the juristiction of god's authority alone, in the first place. And thus once that authority was rejected, by neccessity the morality was rejected. The anwser is filling that moral vaccuum with secular moral reasoning and philosophy, and not falling back to the safety of redomestication.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
no wonder peter hitchens turned to religion and conservatism with all its inherent complacency, sentimentality and closed-mindedness. he has to cope with living in his brothers shadow
shab8697 1 year ago
what a lovely christmas time these two must have.awkward
daveeol 1 year ago
Are they still trying to argue that the story of Abraham was a good moral lesson? Blind, unquestioning obedience is morally superior to questioning the dictator's motives? If Abraham was really a good person, the first thing he should have said is "I will NOT do so, for my god would never ask me of such things."
Apparently he thought it completely within the nature of god to ask for blood sacrifice. Morality fail.
echalko 1 year ago
@Peter WHISTLE WHISTLE WHISTLE!
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
I like Jesus and all, I just think he stayed dead. Is that so hard to believe?
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
With respect to this debate against Christopher, Peter did as well as Tony Blair did . Which is to say, Peter, like his counterpart from the foolish Bible story, stood on water. Only this Peter, the one we see in the debate, fell under the water and drowned himself in the suffocating nonsense of his words. Truth is a menace and logic is an enemy for Peter Hitchens. But for Christopher Hitchens, they are allies that keep him on top of his debate and make him an easy winner.
MrAnthonyVance 1 year ago
Peter had to resort to childish, personal nonsense at the end here.
f0b0m 1 year ago
if you are a maniac you will find a reason to kill from just about anything. Religion, games, money, family, Darwin etc...
It also happens within religion where emotions are quite big and if there is someone who knows how to controll this and have mad ideas, bad things will probably happen. This also occurs if one is on drugs or alcohol or do something else that make you loose your inhibitions. Also occurs quite frequently in mobs
woweixiaomiandui 1 year ago
Before Roosevelt dropped the arom bomb, weapon of mass destruction, on Japan, he sought God's guidance, so did Bush (George), when he unleashed the U.S military might on Iraq. These two had killed more people in the name of God more than the Muslim suicide bombers
lye54 1 year ago
The Abraham thing... surely he's missing that was c is talking about is that Abraham was willing ot do it? God decided against scrifice or whatever, but he tested to makes sure Abraham was willing first... The point C was making was about subservience... Or am I missing somehting?
Surells 1 year ago
even when Chris is just sitting down being quiet, still has more commanding presence than his blabbering brother!
marcohorowitz8 1 year ago
Christopher's point was about Abraham's willingness to put the knife to his son's throat, and the notion that a "loving god" would even suggest such a thing.
Way to waste your whole allotment of time on missing the point.
drunkdeaddude 1 year ago
P. Hitchens: "You HAVE to give people hope when they have don't things whose remembrance is grievous, and whose burden is intolerable. It HAS to be done. And what other hope can be done than some kind of sacrifice?"
No, Pete. It doesn't have to be done. It is not incumbent on anyone or anything to provide hope for the morally depraved. We may choose to do so, but I don't think a logical argument can be formulated for the *IMPERATIVE to do so.
Politicimo 1 year ago
@Trelli28 Really? Germany was an atheistic government? RESEARCh
FreeMasonG 1 year ago
"Error has no rights." That is why the Catholic Church justified persecution of heretics. Christopher seems to hold to the same idiotic idea. God help us all if men like Christopher get into power. 7 minutes in Christopher poses a challenge. A moral action or statement that can be made by a believer that cannot be honestly made by a nonbeliever is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength." If God gave Christopher life then it is immoral to turn his back on him.
BBBradH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"belief in supernatural dictatorship will be the excuse for worst evil then any secularist had permitted themselfs"
you fuking sheep
where the fuck do you live
eugenics, french relovultion ( jacobins killing in the name of freedom), Stalin killing becasue he was god in his own eyes and it seemed reasonable to him.
niinja2 1 year ago
I began a task for discrediting Hitchens out of justice for those who actually have given his ideas credence and even respect. But as I watch him more and more I find myself actually becoming bored. His addled presentation
of Church basics is either ineptness or purposeful deception. Either way, the effect would be more dangerous to the receptive mind than the servitude which he proclaims religion exposes its adherents to.
Marxisto1 1 year ago
At 4:35 Hitch doesn't even believe what he is saying. Which is what he accuses many religious of doing (like Billy Graham) because he knows he's wrong. It's not a moment of preparation or recolletion of thought. Then he knows he is continuing down a path of destruction. It is the most simple of teachings of the Church that man was made to know God through his nature, therefore of course, there is no choice or decision that a believer or non-believer could not both make. (continued)
Marxisto1 1 year ago
So some Larry Flynt-type buys up a newspaper and prints one of C.Hitchens's articles and this answers the challenge?? What does Peter win? $10,000, a brand new car? A free copy of god Is Not Great?
morpheus8624 1 year ago
Ridiculous characterisation of the Abraham story by PH there. The point is of course to demonstrate Abe's total submission to god's will. The fact that his hand was stayed just before the murder is intended to demonstrate god's more laudable qualities; but it is anciliary to the main point of the story - the desirability of total submission to god. If PH can't see that then he is truly deluded.
TheSpoovy 1 year ago
Love Peter's point at the end. C.H. is clearly quite thick if he can't see the point he's making.
Ohyewildthong 1 year ago
peter's Whisle is so annoying.
SilveradoNL 1 year ago
the answer to the challenge of Christopher challenge is simple: Christian don't claim to be better, but acknowledge that atheist can be better people.. the difference is that Christian would know that they did a bad thing, atheist probably won't
kaunaskas 1 year ago
Imagine if the president went crazy and puts a gun to your head and tells you he will pull the trigger unless you give all your possessions to charity. Do you comply out of fear or love? What's the emotion most humans would feel in this situation?
Keep in mind that god threatens you with eternal torment for disobedience rather than a bullet, but what exactly is the difference between the threat of a gun and the threat of eternal torment?
ArchhereticK 1 year ago
@ArchhereticK Does God really threaten each person like a crazed gunman does? Did I miss out on this experience?
That's what I mean by saying a man is not God. It doesn't even work as a metaphor, because a man is a limited and mortal being with fears and desires, hopes and worries. Most of all a man can sin, is imperfect. God is infinite, timeless, perfection. Therefore a gun-to-the-head from a man and the "threat" of Hell from God are not quite the same thing.
nosfearic 1 year ago
@nosfearic
So because they're from two different types of entities: one type of threat is ok while the other one is not. It's not the threat exactly that I'm getting at, it's the reaction. Do you react to threats with fear or love?
ArchhereticK 1 year ago
@ArchhereticK
Another difference between the situations is that the man demands a single good action and in punishment for not doing it promises a single negative repercussion. It doesn't quite reach the level of God's "promises"/"threats."
nosfearic 1 year ago
@nosfearic
That's right, god's wrath is infinite while our deeds are finite. The nut-job with the gun is more just.
ArchhereticK 1 year ago
@ArchhereticK
If the guy said, "Do good and you'll live in harmony with the universe and have paradise at your doorstep. Don't do it, and you'll suffer," he comes closer to what we're talking about. Such a message serves as a warning of consequences for actions, but not as sole motivator for goodness. Do you see the difference?
nosfearic 1 year ago
@nosfearic It is a distinction with little difference. There is a threat to appeal to human cowardice, but there is also a promise of infinite reward to appeal to human greed.
ArchhereticK 1 year ago
Peter did then proceed to take a post at the mail, a newspaper well known for having endorsed the Nazi party in germany in the 30's, and british facists such as moselys facists. They recently ran an article smearing a dead gay pop star and falsely alleging a fatal drug overdose on his part. I'd rather get in bed with the pornographer than the nazis, racists and homophobes...if you'll pardon the pun...
Skipissatan 1 year ago
2:00 - 2:13
the boss
TheArnoldwong 1 year ago 39
@TheArnoldwong thats brilliant!
13olibrown 1 year ago
2:10 Christopher in the throne looks so smug. Quite rightly so, while Peter butchers his point.
bertiethetoupee4 1 year ago
Here's my challenge to Christopher:
You have to name a moral action done, or moral statement made by an atheist, agnostic, or secularist that COULD NOT be done or made by a person of faith.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
I don't think he could, because that's not his point (as I understand it). When he states the first question, I see the vice versa (which you are referencing) as being implied. The points of his two questions (as I understand them) are as follows: (continued...)
UnbelievableRANTLERS 1 year ago
(cont...)
1) As you point out, believers are just as capable of good, but he's highlighting the fact that non-believers are EQUALLY as capable as believers of acting morally (and therefor believers do not have the inherent moral superiority that many of them claim)
2) Not only that, but there are certain immoral actions that believers can justify that a non-believer could not. Therefor, the net result is that religion allows people to act less morally than they otherwise would.
UnbelievableRANTLERS 1 year ago
@UnbelievableRANTLERS
You are probably right that this is his point, but in reality he may be pushing at an open door here. I watch a lot of these debates and the religious person almost always says a non-believer is equally capable of right action.
It is true that since atheism is not really a thing, it does not motivate people to evil actions. But the belief that religion is poison could lead to evil actions such as trying to wipe it out by force for the long-term good of humanity.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@UnbelievableRANTLERS If there is no god, then there are no moral absolutes. That is one of Peter’s points. Who is going to determine them? Who says murder is wrong? The State? Maybe, but that doesn’t make it morally wrong, only socially wrong.
hrayanderson 1 year ago
@UnbelievableRANTLERS Additionally, I would also say that if history teaches us anything, it is that people, no matter what their religious point of view, are ingenious at creating reasons to justify their actions. If you don’t think that atheists are as capable of this as adherents of religion, consider the Soviet Union or Communist China.
hrayanderson 1 year ago
@sulljoh1
Peter is arguing that all morality comes from God and is not innate in humans and so, presumably, if we didn't subscribe to God, we wouldn't have morality.
But Christopher is arguing that morality is innate in humans by nature and so we would have it whether we believed in God or not.
So turning the challenge back on Christopher doesn't work because he isn't arguing that morality is the preserve of the atheists.
zedro1000 1 year ago
@zedro1000 To be fair, Peter is not saying that we who are atheists don't know morality. Very few religious people say that.
As Richard Dawkins says, there is no logical path from a-theism or a-teapotism to atrocities. But there might be a logical path from wanting to destroy religion to atrocities.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 I would look at the ethical principle of Individual Freedom. I think there the religious mind begins to break down in regards to how free each person really is.
MsLibertytree 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 Actually, that doesn't work. Because Hitchens isn't claiming he has the monopoly on morals; it's the religious who claim that all morality is founded on their position, who say that without God no one can be moral. Hitchens destroys that argument by pointing out that the religious do not have the monopoly on moral actions. Morality is innate in everyone, religious or not. The religious are just more dependent on a mental toy to make them believe that right is actually right.
axl170 1 year ago
@axl170 IDK how many religious people you know, but do you think that the religious claim all morality is founded on their position? I don't get that impression. They think that the moral law is written on our hearts. All of us. Even if we don't believe in God, as I don't.
I am a big fan of Hitchens. Read Hitch-22 if you haven't yet. But this challenge of his is going after a straw man.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 The answer to the first question is, "way too many". I live in America after all. We've got no shortage here. To the 2nd question, that is indeed what religious people say again and again to Hitchens: "people wouldn't know right from wrong unless there was God to tell us/police it for us!" "Without religion, there would be no morality and everyone will do whatever they want!" They repeat it nauseum. It's not a straw man, it's the argument they've come to depend on. He's callin them out
axl170 1 year ago
@axl170 I must meet different religious people from you. I have lived in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Maybe I meet to many educated, moderate believers than you, but from my experience many poor black Christians on the south side of Chicago think atheists are alright. I have been to Evangelical services where the preachers say everybody, even nonbelievers, have the law in their hearts. This is their way of saying we all basically know morality.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
Comment removed
axl170 1 year ago
You don't have to believe in God to be moral.
stlouispictures 1 year ago 55
@stlouispictures But you do to know where it comes from
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
You are right, but that is not the question. No true-thinking-Christians will say that Atheist are immoral people. The question is, what is the imperative for a moral principle for Non-Believer?
Imaginone 1 year ago
@Imaginone
Ever hear of the law?
Politicimo 1 year ago
@stlouispictures I agree with you, but as philosophers say: Its not whether you can be moral, its from where you derive your morals.
bfoaliali 1 year ago
@stlouispictures actually you do. If everything exists by mere coincidence/chance without purpose/meaning, then it doesn't matter if you went around killing people you deem useless. Without God, there is no morality.
Trelli28 1 year ago
@Trelli28 You are yet to prove why there is no atheists killing people because they're atheist. I'd imagine you could conjure up something from your hippocampus representing people who kill people as a result of their faith. Religion is not a source for morality, it's rather the opposite.
Metamorphosis20091 1 year ago
@Metamorphosis20091 fella, if existence is mere chance, then people's lives have no purpose and if there is no purpose or reason to a person, why not get rid of him? He's useless anyway, save only the fittest. That's the viewpoint that Hitler used to carry out the holocaust. You need to learn and read more so that you'll understand the atrocities carried out by atheistic governments.
Trelli28 1 year ago
@Trelli28 Firstly, to answer your question, morality is innate in us, thus making your claim that every atheist is evil invalid. And it can be seen, not as implications, but as assertions in his speeches, that he was advocating God hence: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!"
Metamorphosis20091 1 year ago
@Trelli28 you do know the know the slogan that was written on nazi badges and belt buckles? it was gott mit uns, this translates to GOD WITH US.
Hellenologophilia 1 year ago
@stlouispictures Moreover, you're mandated to be immoral if you believe in god.
comanchio1976 9 months ago
peter hitchens seems so much more mature and is the first person ive seen that seems to get to his brother, theres irritation etched on his face .
What i find fascinating is whats really behind all of this, its almost like sibling rivalry thats driven them in both their careers.spolied public schoolboys!
90byork 1 year ago
really?, seriously?... peters argument is quite weak, after watching hitchens take on other theists
lukeism2 1 year ago
i do , sure others arguments have been stronger, but his brother needles him more, you see it in his face, its vice-versa too must be a sibling thing
90byork 1 year ago
Christopher question to everyone at 7:00 or so, has already been refuted (google it).
We all come from the Lord and have been instilled with morality. Its not a question to ask if we can make different choices.
Does anyone notice how Christopher continues to group Christ with all the religions of the world when in a bind? He's debating Peter Hitchens, a born again Christian. Not a Muslim or a Jew, so why continue to broaden the terms at will? For the sake of his mock-argument.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
Not really. He's just making the point all the Judaic religions (all religion, really, but those in particular) are bunk. They're all based on control, fear, and subjugation. The bible is its own worse witness.
Joe41272 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100 You're a moron. There are a myriad of different moral standards throughout the world. Did your "lord" instill in you the same morality that he gave to the tribes of Tonga, who to this day practice cannibalism? Were you and the members of the Khmer Rouge instilled with the same morality? What about the people that came before your fake "lord?" Did the Assyrians have the same "natural" morality as you? The list is perpetual. Have an independent thought for a change.
Humperdink18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Humperdink,
"Did the Assyrians have the same "natural" morality as you?"
Yes.
"Did your "lord" instill in you the same morality that he gave to the tribes of Tonga, who to this day practice cannibalism?"
Yes, just like them, many go against what is right and natural.
"What about the people that came before your fake "lord?" "
According to my Lord, no one came before Him -we came from Him.
"Have an independent thought for a change."
My independent thoughts lead me to Christ.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You're a moron"
???????......
"There are a myriad of different moral standards throughout the world."
Yes, there are. They have also been established by man alone.
"The list is perpetual."
The list is unecessary, man has done so much wrong, its unfathomable.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
I'm going to swing your own post (adressed to me) against what Hitchens is claiming.
So man has done evil things and we need true morality. All throughout history and the world -even now (and 'now' being of the most relevance).
What hope do you have that this will end/change?
What makes you think/know it ever will end/change?
Do you put faith in this solution?
What savior can step in and reconcile man towards one another in love while bearing the truth until the point of death?
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
You try too hard; you assert 'we all come from the lord with instilled morality' as if it were an actual claim of knowledge. That doesn't work, I assume you either have not been through much education or couldn't have gotten through it writing like THAT.
As for your comment about broadening the debate, you miss the point; the point is not about if Christianity is in some metaphysical sense true, the point is the principles or religion are backward
AR333 1 year ago 2
AR333,
From what I can see, not many of us would make it very far in any career field or university based on our youtube comments.
What is one comment to tell my life? (factors: drunk, mad, enthusiastic, proud, angry, etc)
To say Christianity is backwards is to say that your current understanding of reality is correct in fullness (or true, or the ultimate knowledge to be had, to be unsurpassable).
(cont)
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
(cont'd)
I do see what you are saying about 'religion' (as a whole, including many, if I may say, very odd beleif systems).
I'm vexed by the fact that a Christian (Peter Hithchens) is having to deal with claims against entire other beleif systems as his authority is diminished by this. He's not claiming them. Doesn't make sense, does it?
AR333, you seem educated, not many at all in the world are born into that position with that opportunity and live to see its fulfillment.
Peace.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
I'm afraid to inform you, 99 out of 100 Christians will disagree with you on this and tell you that morality does not exist inside you, unless you correlate perfectly with their views.
This is a debate on the existence of a god, not a debate on Christianity, he refers to places like Belfast and the Middle-East where the line between politics and religion has been blurred to help debunk religion as a whole, something you clearly didn't comprehend.
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@BelfastAtheist "99 out of 100 Christians will disagree with you on this and tell you that morality does not exist inside you"
I just spent a week at camp with 130 kids and also have never met any of these 99 out of 100 Christians you speak of. Morality is in us, if it wasn't -we would not have guilt. We don't and can't always listen to our morals or they have been corrupted -so we need Christ. We all know what is right -but we choose not to do it.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100
'or they have been corrupted'
Corrupted by what arbitrary factors exactly?
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@BelfastAtheist This is a debate on the existence of a god, not a debate on Christianity" then "he refers..."
Who refers? Christopher! C.H. brings other religions into the debate when he can't refute the Christian answer. That's bogus. We all know Peter speaks for Christianity and that is what is really on the line. Take down the false religions (easy to do) and try to group Christ in there with them after you took them down. It's a common strategy that is not new to debates.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100 The debate is about god. Not about Christianity.
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764 yes, I agree that the debate is about God and not Christianity, but look at who Christopher is debating with -his brother, a Christian. There is no one there who supports or represents any other 'religion'. If Christopher ever gets into a bind with Christian doctrine he resorts to Muslim, Jewish or Morman practice and their absurdity and claims his victory against Christianity.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago