Look at Turek the absolute incarnation of pride, vanity, total ignorance and he's an absolute bully, he's angry, he's false anyone that can't see it does not embody true christian values, Hitchens is the embodiment of christianity because he has been given the knowledge to destroy all the man made parts of the bible and true faith.. the absolute corruption of the faith..
Faith= still believing even after seeing the knob Turek get flayed by absolutely perfect reasoning, yes I still am a Christian but I love to see pride and vanity and ignorance of Turek get destroyed...
Actually Hitler was indeed a humanist. When your whole criteria is based on who is and who is not a human being, then that is perforce humanism. Hitler's biologism was a humanism. He understood himself to be prosecuting his war on behalf of the entire human race. Auschwitz can only be understood on humanistic grounds.
@rklight33 You are aware though that there is such a thing as secular humanism and religious humanism, correct?
Also, differentiation between which races are to be considered "human" and "not human" is not humanism—that's more close to antisemitic racism. The racism of the Nazis had the sole aim of ridding Europe of so called 'inferior blood' and had no interest in racial groups outside of Europe (not the human face) which is why the original plan was for deportations of these people.
The exception to this rule is if one has a true longing to be "good" then it can become real and nourish the spirit. However, when one discovers this beauty of life (the cause and effect relationship between desire and creation) and embraces the selfishness that allows this magic to take place, they will see how the majority of those who demand justice don't understand that power to make what one wants in the world comes from oneself and the futility of trying to help these people.
Turek hits right on the head with his first response "I'm not saying that you don't know morality Christopher, I'm saying you can't justify morality without a being beyond yourself". The trouble with Christian morality when you take out heaven and hell is that there is no way to justify being good. What purpose does good actually serve? Is there any physical cause and effect benefit that I receive when I become good if there is no God?
Here Hitchens sits, defending a science which at the time was perhaps not possible to precisely pin point. Yet now, just a few years later. The biochemical reactions that cause morality, has been tested and well documented. For him to use, as an argument against this twat. Even back then, Hitchens knows very well that morality does have it's origins in some chemical reaction. That in itself should be self-evident.
Turek has odd thoughts. Molecule? Ehm, as in chemistry like dopamine, which we feel when we do something nice to us? It's still miles apart. And that person has to be a equal debater? He only falls on: suppose and believe that- statements...
@elgapoalso Hitchens can usually afford the few drinks prior to a public performance, but apparently not this time. He has kinda obviously crossed himself up on the 'atoms, molecules' stuff and probably unintentionally avoided Turek's point.... as to what the source of morality and ethics is. If it's not just the current fashion and tastes of a Turek or Hitchens or Hitler ...then what's the more objective basis?
depressingly, i think hitchens is wrong in this video. this topic is literally the only thing ive ever seen him mistaken on, but i suppose its nice to see he's actually human.
The phrase "punching above one's weight class immediately springs to mind when watching these two quarrel for longer than 40 seconds. Watching this debate I get the impression that Turek actually knows he's defending the indefensible and is just trying to come out of this debate looking like a worthy adversary.
"You cannot justify morality without a being beyond yourself."
Sorry Mr Turek, but you can't justify that morality is from God. Even if there is a God, morality is still subjective according to his values or beliefs, therefor unjustified. And if you claim morality comes from God, your also assuming God is good and only good. There is a way to justify morality... 'the theory of morality' if you will. I don't know the precise way to test it, but perhaps soon we'll have one agreed upon.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
come on hitchens! this is an easy question. morality comes from the desire to progress as a speicies. good acts are beneficial to the population where as bad acts are not.
@CaptainPie5 Not necessarily. Rape isn't detrimental to the population. It's an effective way of passing on genes. That doesn't mean it's ethical, however.
@mynameisjonas45 Rape only helps the individual. Making more people is a very ineffective way to benefit the population. We have far too many already.
@mynameisjonas45 perhaps you could make a case that the future population would be higher if rape was more frequent, but that is not the same as saying it is beneficial to the population. We already have enough people to not be at risk of extinction any time soon, and the quality of life of the population would benefit more from reducing the rate that the population is increased as there is a limitied ammount of resources needing to be shared thinner and thinner. So rape is not benefitial.
@PooeyBum11 I was speaking about the past, before mass society; when humans were tribal animals. I could make the case that it is beneficial, however, being that it IS an effective way to pass on your genes.
@mynameisjonas45 yes it might be, but that doesnt mean its good for the population as at the moment, having a decreasing population would probably be better for us. Also the quality of life is an important factor, and a child with just a single parent not always but is definatly more likely to have a lower quality of life, you were talking about whether it was beneficial for society and i was saying its not, its not atleast not now. Larger population doesnt mean the population alive benefits.
Talking of Ethics vs. religion, Dr. Frank Turek was fired just about 2 weeks ago from CISCO systems for discrimination against a gay coworker (or has christians spin it, for defending family values).
Maybe the reason why Hitchens wasn't directly answering his question was because he knew the god of the gaps argument was about to be dragged out. He could make abstract points about human self-awareness, but Turek was asking him to name a specific neurochemical which Hitchens could never do, because we don't know enough about the brain to do that. Then Turek would inevitably say "You have no alternative. It must be god!"
To continue we can see that our close cousins the chimps share many morals with us. Indeed all social groups exhibit some form of morality which by the way is always more consistent than ours. If it is written in our hearts then why were remote tribes headhunters until they encountered modern man and his morals? The answer is clear. Our morals are the result of both bilogical evolution and the evolution of society. Knowing which "atom" is irrelevant & a smokescreen. BTW Hitch is great again.
So morals are written on our hearts are they? Well Hitler had a heart and his morals left a lot to be desired. If they are etched in your heart then you are bound to follow them. If you throw up the free will card then the "written on our hearts" response answers absolutely nothing as to HOW and WHY one chooses to follow what is "written". Also if they are "written" then we should all be able to "read" & hence write them down & compare notes but of course that brings us back to square one.
@pilgrimpater That's what laws are for. Morals via religion do nothing but provide license for people to make unethical discriminatory judgements about other people. There are always going to be people with a few screws loose who do bad things -we call these people psychopaths for a reason: they aren't normal. Why is Hitler famous? Because the whole world knows of his crimes against humanity, atheist, theist alike condemn him. I don't need a bigoted religion to set my moral compass thanks.
Morality, such that it is, has been passed down through the ages by the evolutionary process. The fact of the matter is that for humans to survive in family groups and tribal groups and to survive in cities and countries there must be an innate morality and that morality was born of need.
However, though we like to claim morality, it's very interesting that religions are very amoral toward each other and even other sects of the same religion.
It is an insult to Hitchens intelligence to be in the same room as this superstitious knob! I am astounded with Hitchens patience and composure, a true gentleman.
Obviously I'm on Hitchens' general side in this debate, but for crying out loud he does love answering questions he wasn't asked and not listening very hard to the points Turek is trying to make. There are plenty of argument I feel Hitchens could have whipped out to bitch slap him with on many of the issues they discussed, but I got the impression Hitch either wasn't listening half the time or just felt like going offf on whatever tangent he saw fit. Well, that's my two cents.
Morality is justified by rational thought, why does there have to be a god? I agree that the impulse is triggered by the authority of our superiors, but what is superior to one man? Society.
I loved how the guy brought up Hitler like he was Atheist and when the other guy brought up the fact that he was Christian and the guy responded with that defensive question "So no evil comes from Atheism?" that made me laugh.
Hitler on Christianity: "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
hitchens unfounded pomposity really annoys me. Case in point he is asked:-
'where does morality come from?'
And Hitchens waffles away trying to push it away. But its a valid question. Any biologist can give you a concise simple answer:-
'evolution, over successive generations it was beneficial for ape species to have social contracts and get along. Those that did bred more and had more offspring. We as humans inherited that structure and it has continued to evolve since'.
@srspower I found hitchens waffling funny and the Christian should have just plainly said he was dodging the question (then he would probably have answered) but still, the waffling was funny.
Anyway, I totally agree about morality. I think it evolved to facilitate teamwork, the benefits of which may be greatly enhanced by our brains (superior intelligence relative to other animals) and perhaps out hands to some extent too.
Where does morality come from, in a materialistic worldview? (Turek asks...)
It comes from the same place as every other thought you have! Not from a particular molecule, as you absurdly jest, but from the sum total of neural activity, superimposed on the framework of ones perfectly natural and objectively material experience. He is essentially denying the very act of cognition, and insultingly asserting that good for the sake of oneself or the sake of others is not justification enough.
Theists seem to believe morality is objective, a unified moral system implanted into us by god. This refutes their free will theory if we are implanted with behavioral modification. If morality is objective, why is it morality varies from one society to the next? This is can not be explained by theists. They state in every society its still wrong to kill. Ie. The first commandment. Wrong, it is moral to kill for certain reasons, the reasons set by society.
You know something that played a big part in my beginning to suspect that there really were flaws in Christianity was not from hearing logical, rational arguments from atheists like Hitchens; quite the contrary, it was a result of seeing Christian apologists repeatedly avoiding questions, using circular reasoning, and refusing to admit when they're proven wrong on a matter. Thanks in part to duplicitous, prideful, arrogant, dishonest apologists like Turek I'm an Atheist saved from religion!!!
Turek is such a fucking cunt!... He flip flops his words with a very threatening tone of voice. And yet he still wonders why most people hate religion at this day in age.
Religion is slowly becoming an institution for people who have parents that are both brother and sister.
@callofduty497 Alright... 1st box. 2:25 "Where does morality come from? Does it come from the Benzine molecule?" Idiotic! A large, complicated thing like a society or a computer or an elephant is greater than the sum of its parts. "Where does an elephant get it's knowledge of child rearing? The Carbon molecule?" "Which molecule tells a computer how to process a command? The Iron molecule?" Obviously large, complex objects produce effects that cannot be reduced to single molecules. (Cont)
@templarart 2nd box "Where does morality come from?" cont... So where do members of societies/herds/packs/troops/hives get the knowledge of how to interact in the social structure? Trial and error & instinct passed down from the best organized societies/herds/packs/troops/hives. Obviously societies that simply allowed murder, theft and rape would collapse into warring families while organized (moral) societies would outcompete and conquer them. It's all really obvious when you think about it.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein
@callofduty497 (Note: dysfunctional in accordance to the greater community)
As societies are represented within a greater community, and if that greater community consists of morals that are in conflict with how a single society in that community operates, then the greater community can label it evil.
It is apparent to me that you are religious. Religion, causing segregation, ignorance, etc which all leads to societal dysfunction, is evil.
@callofduty497 Well, societies today that survive on such things ARE dysfunctional. The rest of the world views such a community as evil, and the current moral zeitgeist is how we decide what is and is not evil. For example, such a community would not be considered immoral in, say, the Old Testament, because that was just what people did. But nowadays when we look back at the Old Testament and the absolute atrocities committed (rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, etc) we label it evil.
@callofduty497 Ignorance and societal dysfunction are inherently "evil" things to us, because they lead to a state where it is harder for us to function as a people and lead to lower chances of surviving evolution. I have already stated this numerous times, yet you fail at being able to clearly deduce things. We are a social species like may others, and the social dysfunction disrupts that, therefor is "evil". Religion disrupts social cohesion and is therefore "evil".
@callofduty497 You make the assumption that not only "honour" exists, but that honour is based solely on your your own morals. You also make the assumption that it is somehow dishonourable that our evolutionary history made us see the "evil" (ie. someone or something that promotes social dysfunction) as something undesirable, when we have no control over it. No, it's not the morality atheism leads me to, it's the morality evolution created in us, my atheistic views simply allow me to see that.
@callofduty497 It causes lots of conflict unnecessarily, it is evil. It propagates ignorance, societal dysfunction. a functioning society is important, things that disrupt it in such wicked, malicious ways as religions are evil.
@callofduty497 Well, obviously, this is a very obsessive subject to you, because you just feel the NEED to reply to all my comments when the debate is over.
And dont play stupid:
"Ohh, this was a serious debate??" "But you replied to me, invalidating your point"
@callofduty497 (part 2) While the actions of religions a thousand years ago might have been acceptable to the common populace, therefor not evil, in the light of today's moral standard, it was - and still is in some areas - atrocious. Evil is considered by the moral standard of the day, and is quite inherent in religion following this line of reasoning, as religion disrupts social cohesion. It is a wicked organisation that willfully promotes societal dysfunction and segregation. It is evil.
@callofduty497 I applaud you ability to make massive assumptions and jumps in logic, however, it does not help you argument. So I will try to simplify this so you can understand. Evil is a word we created for actions that disrupt social order - whether it be intentional on the part of the person/organisation or whether it be accidental/uncontrollable such as in the case of a psychopath who could be (but probably not now) called "evil". This is an example of our changing moral zeitgeist. (cont.)
@callofduty497 You make the assumption that there is "fake" and "real" morality. Hitchens was explaining that we invent evil (as I said above), we made the word, and we named wicked, cruel, malevolent actions as "evil". Evil is not an entity, it is a word that describes actions that society frowns upon for disrupting social cohesion. And I am not straying from the topic.
@callofduty497 "fallaciousness of Turek" I could easily fill 20 boxes. Morality is a trait found in all herd, pack or hive animals, an evolved trait necessary for the organization and success of the unit. Humans, ants, wolves all live as communities which would be impossible if we didn't know how to interact with one another. Do you follow traffic laws? Yes? Do you find them in the Bible? No. We create traffic laws and obey them because it's good for our society - same with all morality.
And that means..... evil comes from us, we invent evil and we commit crimes we dub "evil". If you could not see that you are obviously so caught up in your own ego that you can't see what is blatantly obvious.
I would think it was so clear I would not need to explain it to anyone.
@callofduty497 How is religion the source of all evils, you ask?
It tells people they can do whatever they want, as long as God said so. It tells people ignorance is bliss and knowledge is sin. It promotes racism, segregation, and elitism. It sanctions evil with repentance and stupidity with divine revelation.
I don't think so because Hitch said it. I thnik so because it's true.
So think for YOURself before you immortalize your stupidity on the internet.
I'm thinking that Turek's question is so vapid that Hitchens seems incapable of understanding it or in fact incapable of believing that an adult could advance such a question - which is why he never truly answers it. Turek's question is fallacious in at least three different ways so a logical, educated mind is likely to spit it out as garbage and reinterpret it into a more clear, rational question.
@Proteus6684 Turek idles at apoplectic. The man ALWAYS appears on the verge of a stroke or massive coronary. We can only hope he fulfills his genetic destiny as soon as possible.
REV 22-16 IS THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR-VENUS WORSHIP--ITS ALL ASTROTHEOLOGY-JESUS IS REPTILLIAN WORSHIP-AND HE WAS BARIED IN SRINIGAR-INDIA--ANYWAYS--CHRISTIANITY IS --A THROW AWAY SOLAR CULT RELIGION WAKE UP-THE SAME STORY WAS RUNNING AROUND THE MED FOR `1000 YEARS BEFORE RA HORUS--MYTHRA-KRISHNA-SAME STORIES --IT CAME THRU THE MEROVIGN BLOODLINE THIS RELIGULOUS NONSENSE
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y-please watch and understand ur own bible
@MGsven Slight correction though I agree with your statement. Chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys.
Extra fun fact: Elephants are on par with Chimpanzee intelligence. They care for their wounded and sick, are known to use extremely primitive forms of medication, as well as mourn the dead.
I justify my morality through my own selfishness. I wish to live and live well. I live in a social structure and must allow others to do so as well and perhaps even aid them in doing so, that in my poorer times they will also aid me. Morality is based in selfishness and the recognition of the reality of one's situation ... period. For those who have learned to enjoy this process, the world is a more wondrous place. For others, Sartre was right, "Hell is Other People".
In pre-religious culture you had small clans that would fight one another. If someone in your clan was killed then you would go and attack their clan and kill five of them. People didn't think. They just acted.
With organised religion came an oral tradition that when spread beyond one clan brought many clans together under a system of rules and rituals. That's where an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth came from. Later statements like "do good to those that hate you".
Religious dogma =0 Humanist thinking=? This stuff makes me laugh so much! Religion has had about 5000 years to embed itself into human society but just 90 seconds of moralisic objectivism destroys it!! If Onebased this arguement on economic practise the religious argument would be considered REDUNDANT!!!
What is the beef! 5000 years of runnig a bussiness that can no longer adhere to the consumer!!
wouldn't you try to change/improve outmoded ethical practise'?
I think Karl Popper put it best in "The Open Society.." when he said that it is a huge mistake to attribute our ethical decisions and responsibilities to someone or something else. They are our decisions and responsibilities that we have to deal with and be accountable for. Attributing them to another being or thing leaves open the possibility of justifying certain heinous acts in the name of the supposed being or thing that attributed those ethics to us.
@relaxin001 He doesn't understand or accept that. Religion defends itself from a religious standpoint... the only standpoint it has. It's so full of holes.
If you do think about what you wrote you..... then will perhaps see that you are presupposing a standard of judgement.... a "standard of judgement" whereby you judge matters of intelligence & morality by.. would you be able to answer me on what that standard is ?
I'm an unwavering atheist who is pro-life. I don't agree on abortion if the birth control fails, but I do agree on medical abortions if the mother will die if it's not done and the embryo/fetus is going to be lost anyway. I still see the medical abortion as a loss of life, but it's a matter of saving as many lives as possible. If the embryo/fetus can be saved as well as the mother, that would be ideal. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. Hitchens isn't alone being a pro-life atheist.
Its impossible for science to prove there is no God. A person could still live what is known to be a good moral life without believing in God. Yet... without God as the basis or foundation for morality..... I don't see any reason to see any action as objectively wrong. We can say that an action is wrong but it doesn't mean it is wrong if there is no objective basis for morality.
1. If we are a planet just floating in space. No God & no reason for our existence. We have come & we will go. Thats all. Then no one has the ability to say how a person should live their life. Nor what a person should accept and believe in. What difference would it make whether someone was a madman or a rational person, or whether someone believed that cows danced on the moon etc... The type of objectivity given by science means nothing on a planet just floating in space.
@TheMirabillis Little hypothetical for you. Say science proved to a certainty how and why the universe exist and in this explanation there is no god at all. You upon listening to the scientific evidence have concluded that science has proved that there is no god and you fully accept this fact. What now? Do you start killing people? Raping? Abusing children? Beating up nuns? Why would discovering that there is no god out there make you change the moral principles you've decided to live by?
2. It can only have a "relative meaning" for some primates who think themselves clever & who have created a set of values & morals for themselves. Yet.... looking at a planet floating in space with no real reason & a planet that will eventually burn out.... nothing that the atheist trusts in & values is of any more or any less value & true than what a theist believes in & accepts as true.
3. Creatures called primates.... trying to do power grabs over one another. One claiming a God & one claiming a science. A planet floating in space with no rhyme nor reason.. how laughable are these creatures on the planet. Refer to Nietzsche because he is the man who has the insight on this. This is why I see what you say as debunked because it has no meaning outside of what you & some other primates give it.
4. Atheists are the most foolish of the creatures because they hold onto what can't be held onto. Again.. Nietzsche was one of the very few that seen that... Friedrich Nietzsche "Truth And Lie In An Extra Moral Sense" available on google.
I beg to differ saying atheists are the most foolish of the creatures.....
But what I do want to say is that religious people are so ignorant that they will not listen to anything we say no matter how much they know that they are following the religion blindly.They followed some guy that claimed that he was spoken by god.. How foolish can people get
and btw.. Richard Dawkins and christopher maher are atheists and trust me they are not a fool.They are actually smarter than you..
1. If no atheist says they really know where morals come from.. then how can they know if morals don't come from God and even if there is a God you dipstick. I tell you what... I am sick to the teeth of you ignoramus atheists who have have read no Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, Wittgenstein, Deleuze, hermenuetics or philosophy of science.
@TheMirabillis Ignoramus just stop it you dont even take science as valuable evidence just stop. We make decisions for our self you make decisions from what "god" told you to if your moral because someone told you to be your scum and stupid. We are good people because we want to be your a good person out of fear of god.
2. And of course freedom is abitrary you ignoramus because if Theism makes many people free then why the heck do idiots like Hitchens want to see religions shut down. You dont think. Hullo is anyone home inside your head. Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are all dipsticks. Nietzsche is an honest atheist and doesn't try on all the crap the rest of you nuts go on with. Read Nietzsche's "Truth And Lie In An Extra Moral Sense" available on google.
1. Chemicals cannot tell everyone what exact morals to adopt. The problem is of course... if chemicals allowed a society or a person to adopt a fundamentally Christian morality then Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins & so on do not like this. They want to take the moral & intellectual high ground when there is none to take. To take the high ground one has to have an "objective standard" that one must "measure against" & "appeal to".
@TheMirabillis "if chemicals allowed a society or a person to adopt a fundamentally Christian morality then Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins & so on do not like this. They want to take the moral & intellectual high ground when there is none to take."
In summary, Chemicals "adopt" morality. "High ground" something, blah, blah blah. Your ability to write matches your ability to think. All blabber, no substance.
2. Under evolutionary processes one can only look at the survival mechanisms of a society. To argue against a Christian morality defeats your purpose of what your arguing for. For in many societies & people groups & persons it can actually show that a Christian morality causes people and societies to flourish.
@TheMirabillis 1. "Chemicals cannot tell everyone what exact morals to adopt" You don't know that. Hitchens already speaks about that in this debate, why don't you put on your listening ears?
2. "3. Hitchens talks a lot about freedom. He wants to have freedom & help others to go free. Of course... this is "abitrary" It's not arbitrary at all. Christians admit that they are servants to god. God is a dictator. A dictator by definition is an absolute ruler who cannot be challenged that's their god
3. Hitchens talks a lot about freedom. He wants to have freedom & help others to go free. Of course... this is "abitrary" because what makes one person or society be free may not help another to be free. If a society found it was flourishing in a certain way by having a certain set of morals & passed laws on those morals and it impinged on your existence and you didn't like it then it would be just be to bad for you.
4. Hitchens cannot say "conclusively" where morals come from... he sidesteps the question & comes back only with his critique of religion. On your statement you say..... "He does his best to explain what we do know, but don't you or anyone else dare say that you know 100% because none of us know 100%"
If you or anyone else do not know 100 % then you can't be sure that no one does know. otherwise if you did know... then u would be 100 %. Your statement is self refuting.
@TheMirabillis "4. Hitchens cannot say "conclusively" where morals come from..." NO ATHEIST DOES SAY THEY KNOW where it comes from. RELIGION CLAIMS to know! Did you not LISTEN to ANY of the debate? That is NOT side stepping you idiot. That is called being modest about how little one knows of science and their surroundings.
@TheMirabillis "If you or anyone else do not know 100 % then you can't be sure that no one does know. otherwise if you did know." You're a fucking idiot. No atheist claims to be able to prove their isn't a god or there is one. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. It's impenetrable. That's typical of religious people. Read my initial comments. They are more concise and better written than the fecal matter that you spewed all over this page. You didn't listen to them the first time. Shame.
1. Obviously you just have not read enough. I can only come to that conclusion... fears of repercussion ? hmmm ? How does that tell a person or a society what actions are "really" wrong or "really" right ? A society could say actions x,y & z are good and if you disagree you will reap bad repercussions.. Well.. I must say thats a weak argument. Hitchens sides steps because he cannot answer the fundamental problem of morality.
@TheMirabillis He claims that morality may very well come from biological make up. There are variations in societies on morality, but there are deeply rooted human impulses, instincts,feelings that, as hitchens has said, help our species to survive. You want a one shot answer to figure out everything. Not only does hitchens admit the modesty and humbleness of science, he also is honest enough to say that there very well might be scientific chemical reasons that produce what we call "morality".
@TheMirabillis Hitchens doesn't side step one bit. It's not a one shot deal kind of answer. He does his best to explain what we do know, but don't you or anyone else dare say that you know 100% because none of us know 100%. If you're religious, you don't know that there is a god. You cannot prove him her or it. You cannot prove morality came from him her or it. What is most likely is that there are impulses and strategies and habits that helped our imperfectly evolved species to survive = morals
@TheMirabillis You're the kind of person that automatically ASSUMES that interactions of chemicals cannot produce morality, feelings, emotions. Try taking a narcotic. See how your instincts, morals, and ethics change 180 degrees. Take psychiatric drugs, see how your emotions change. That alone attests to the notion that morality is in some way built in, and only needs to conform to the environment that the homosapiens sapiens is born into. THat's how we SURVIVE
2. For him.. its... "I want freedom and I want other people to go free" ... yet he never answers the question of freedom itself. Why do we value freedom and how should it be attained...what morals "for everyone" should be adopted to gain freedom ? Hitchens and Harris are very weak of the "why" of morality. Its good because its good and bad because its bad they think. And thats no answer.
1. On socio biological evolutionary processes the human being can have the capacity to be moral and act moral... Yet the processes don't exactly tell us what morals to adopt. Thats where it can get sticky... For one society... doing actions a, b & c will be good for the flourishing of that human culture. For another society actions x, y & z will be more conducive for them.
2. Now what happens when these groups disagree ? One wants to take the moral high ground and show they really have the truth of THE correct morality...The problem is that on evolution there is no objective standard to measure morality against.. so then we are left with no one having the truth of what morals to adopt.
3. Take that example and apply to to individuals and smaller people groups and one would be left wondering.. 'Man alive.. if there is no objective standard to measure morality against then why am I buying into the belief that my culture really has the right morals that I would be ultimately happy with.
1. Hitchens cannot justify what the basis of morality really is... he basically just keeps saying we should be moral but does not really know why. Where does morality come from ? Turek keeps asking him.... but Hitchens just keep giving opinion... Turek keeps asking him the question.
2. Hitchens just keeps giving examples of this and that and circumventing without saying straight out the real answer. Basically.. like all atheists Hitchens just really doesn't know what the answer is. I have talked to many atheists on YT and they move backwards & forwards between subjective & objective morality never being able to make their minds up between the two and they are very confused on the issue.
@TheMirabillis First of all “Morality” is an evolved instinct and is an abstract idea. Without our evolved morality humans would not have had our cultural evolution. You can look at the animal kingdom and see other animal’s with a similar “moral instinct”. For example a mother grizzly bear will fight to the death to defend her cubs from potential danger while other animals that have not evolved a “moral instinct” such as guppies will eat as many of its young that it can.
@TheMirabillis morality is st in place by our thoughts and fears of repercussion of said thoughts if you think he side stepped anything you are a fool and a farce to any one who actually thinks, congratulations are in order to you sir you have been shown a fool for your own words as have my own and that is a hard thing to do
@warpig15 and after many generation it becomes almost instinct. Morality existed before Christianity, Judaism or even Buddhism as cavemen did not kill eachother within the tribe or community -morality - without the revealing of any 'divine scripture or presence'. If god gives you morality then I ask you this question: if god told you to kill your family, regardless of whether he would tell you to, would you do it?
@Warpig15 morality came through a sort of evolutionary process. Imagine this situation with cavemen. If there is a tribe and one of the tribe is immoral, eg kills another member then he is most likely cast out of the tribe and will die.
The ones who are moral and work together towards a community survive, reproduce and pass this on..,
Eh. I don't think he did that great a job with this debate. Turek was trying to say that he think that humans are innately moral because god made them that way, and I don't think Hitchens picked up on that. He kept asking about needing god's permission to be good and needing god to tell us to be good, which wasn't really the point that Turek was trying to make. I still don't think Turek's argument had much merit, but Hitchens could've at least taken the time to understand.
Are you saying that morality is based on survival of the species, or the community? Or the individual? Then Bear Grylls, who's able to survive on his own, is not bound by morality?
Fundamentalism and fascism do not lead to the extinction of human race. Why then are these immoral?
What's the goal of morality and humans?
If we don't agree on that, then morality is relative.
Amazing. Hitchens in a totally shitfaced, inebriated, high-as-a-kite, plastered, drunk condition destroys Turek. Hitchens is as calm as a retiree feeding pigeon in the park, and Turek buttocks are clenched tighter than a vise.
@WarPig15 ...at least Hitchen's brain is not failing, like yours and idiot Turek's. Hey, you are new breed of angry, foul mouthed christian apologist. Refreshing. I like it, keep it up. The father, son, and holy ghost need more like you to defend them.
Boom, headshot.
NonisMain 2 days ago
Hitchen could have shut him up by saying
"Morality comes from humanity. It is what we call certain feelings and behaviours"
Turek: "But doesn't that mean whoever has the most power makes the morality?"
Hitchens: "They could make the rules, but not the morality. The morality evolved to help the individual and the group survive"
Turek: "So morality is just chemicals and molecules?"
Hitchens: "Fundamentally at base level, yes. But it does not take anything away from it"
Should have said that.
Absiintheee 4 days ago
Look at Turek the absolute incarnation of pride, vanity, total ignorance and he's an absolute bully, he's angry, he's false anyone that can't see it does not embody true christian values, Hitchens is the embodiment of christianity because he has been given the knowledge to destroy all the man made parts of the bible and true faith.. the absolute corruption of the faith..
Drpetya1965 5 days ago
Faith= still believing even after seeing the knob Turek get flayed by absolutely perfect reasoning, yes I still am a Christian but I love to see pride and vanity and ignorance of Turek get destroyed...
Drpetya1965 5 days ago
Actually Hitler was indeed a humanist. When your whole criteria is based on who is and who is not a human being, then that is perforce humanism. Hitler's biologism was a humanism. He understood himself to be prosecuting his war on behalf of the entire human race. Auschwitz can only be understood on humanistic grounds.
rklight33 3 weeks ago
@rklight33 You are aware though that there is such a thing as secular humanism and religious humanism, correct?
Also, differentiation between which races are to be considered "human" and "not human" is not humanism—that's more close to antisemitic racism. The racism of the Nazis had the sole aim of ridding Europe of so called 'inferior blood' and had no interest in racial groups outside of Europe (not the human face) which is why the original plan was for deportations of these people.
Scyntist 2 weeks ago
Hitchens keeps interrupting and speaking over the other guy and doesn't actually answer the questions.
He is ignorant of Samaritans. Read the Gospel of the Samaritan woman who Jesus speaks to at the well.
katherine3486 1 month ago
"You can't justify morality without a being beyond yourself."
I totally agree. I'll see your fictional Jesus and raise you 7,000,000,000 real human beings.
Dave83C 2 months ago
@Dave83C hahaha so good
duppymaker 2 months ago
The exception to this rule is if one has a true longing to be "good" then it can become real and nourish the spirit. However, when one discovers this beauty of life (the cause and effect relationship between desire and creation) and embraces the selfishness that allows this magic to take place, they will see how the majority of those who demand justice don't understand that power to make what one wants in the world comes from oneself and the futility of trying to help these people.
deadshepherd666 2 months ago
Turek hits right on the head with his first response "I'm not saying that you don't know morality Christopher, I'm saying you can't justify morality without a being beyond yourself". The trouble with Christian morality when you take out heaven and hell is that there is no way to justify being good. What purpose does good actually serve? Is there any physical cause and effect benefit that I receive when I become good if there is no God?
deadshepherd666 2 months ago
Here Hitchens sits, defending a science which at the time was perhaps not possible to precisely pin point. Yet now, just a few years later. The biochemical reactions that cause morality, has been tested and well documented. For him to use, as an argument against this twat. Even back then, Hitchens knows very well that morality does have it's origins in some chemical reaction. That in itself should be self-evident.
DannyOc3an 2 months ago 2
I love Hitchens, but sometimes he is the goddamn King Red Herring. Big Hitler spiel when Turek didn't even give a damn about that.
overman926 3 months ago
Turek has odd thoughts. Molecule? Ehm, as in chemistry like dopamine, which we feel when we do something nice to us? It's still miles apart. And that person has to be a equal debater? He only falls on: suppose and believe that- statements...
STICHYZ 3 months ago
Lol, Hitchens hit Frank Turek so hard that his mother is gonna have a bruise.
mikefromwa 3 months ago 2
@elgapoalso Hitchens can usually afford the few drinks prior to a public performance, but apparently not this time. He has kinda obviously crossed himself up on the 'atoms, molecules' stuff and probably unintentionally avoided Turek's point.... as to what the source of morality and ethics is. If it's not just the current fashion and tastes of a Turek or Hitchens or Hitler ...then what's the more objective basis?
Hitchens evades poorly here.
ProNorden 4 months ago
depressingly, i think hitchens is wrong in this video. this topic is literally the only thing ive ever seen him mistaken on, but i suppose its nice to see he's actually human.
1234funsies 4 months ago
The phrase "punching above one's weight class immediately springs to mind when watching these two quarrel for longer than 40 seconds. Watching this debate I get the impression that Turek actually knows he's defending the indefensible and is just trying to come out of this debate looking like a worthy adversary.
elguapoalso 4 months ago 2
"You cannot justify morality without a being beyond yourself."
Sorry Mr Turek, but you can't justify that morality is from God. Even if there is a God, morality is still subjective according to his values or beliefs, therefor unjustified. And if you claim morality comes from God, your also assuming God is good and only good. There is a way to justify morality... 'the theory of morality' if you will. I don't know the precise way to test it, but perhaps soon we'll have one agreed upon.
allfitch84 4 months ago
Turek is an empty toolbox
skydome29 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
I have never seen Hitchens make a bigger ass of himself than he did here. Every word he uttered dug a deeper hole!!
shueevon 5 months ago
@shueevon What do you mean?
mynameisjonas45 5 months ago
@shueevon How so? I thought he did just fine wiping the floor with that smug christer.
hznfrst 4 months ago
come on hitchens! this is an easy question. morality comes from the desire to progress as a speicies. good acts are beneficial to the population where as bad acts are not.
CaptainPie5 7 months ago
Comment removed
mynameisjonas45 5 months ago
@CaptainPie5 Not necessarily. Rape isn't detrimental to the population. It's an effective way of passing on genes. That doesn't mean it's ethical, however.
mynameisjonas45 5 months ago
@mynameisjonas45 Rape only helps the individual. Making more people is a very ineffective way to benefit the population. We have far too many already.
CaptainPie5 5 months ago
@CaptainPie5 If you go far back to when humans were more tribal and not in mass society it helped the society by producing offspring.
mynameisjonas45 5 months ago
@mynameisjonas45 perhaps you could make a case that the future population would be higher if rape was more frequent, but that is not the same as saying it is beneficial to the population. We already have enough people to not be at risk of extinction any time soon, and the quality of life of the population would benefit more from reducing the rate that the population is increased as there is a limitied ammount of resources needing to be shared thinner and thinner. So rape is not benefitial.
PooeyBum11 4 months ago
@PooeyBum11 I was speaking about the past, before mass society; when humans were tribal animals. I could make the case that it is beneficial, however, being that it IS an effective way to pass on your genes.
mynameisjonas45 4 months ago
@mynameisjonas45 yes it might be, but that doesnt mean its good for the population as at the moment, having a decreasing population would probably be better for us. Also the quality of life is an important factor, and a child with just a single parent not always but is definatly more likely to have a lower quality of life, you were talking about whether it was beneficial for society and i was saying its not, its not atleast not now. Larger population doesnt mean the population alive benefits.
PooeyBum11 4 months ago
@PooeyBum11I acknowledge that you have a very valid point.
mynameisjonas45 4 months ago
Morality comes from social interaction and evolution. How is that so difficult to understand?
AxeHomeless 7 months ago
Talking of Ethics vs. religion, Dr. Frank Turek was fired just about 2 weeks ago from CISCO systems for discrimination against a gay coworker (or has christians spin it, for defending family values).
Diamonddavej 7 months ago 11
@Diamonddavej ROFL Brilliant.
Skandronicus 7 months ago
Comment removed
Diamonddavej 7 months ago
Maybe the reason why Hitchens wasn't directly answering his question was because he knew the god of the gaps argument was about to be dragged out. He could make abstract points about human self-awareness, but Turek was asking him to name a specific neurochemical which Hitchens could never do, because we don't know enough about the brain to do that. Then Turek would inevitably say "You have no alternative. It must be god!"
APocketOfTime 7 months ago
wwwdotExposingChristianitydotcom
GahdeMalprigi1488x 7 months ago
To continue we can see that our close cousins the chimps share many morals with us. Indeed all social groups exhibit some form of morality which by the way is always more consistent than ours. If it is written in our hearts then why were remote tribes headhunters until they encountered modern man and his morals? The answer is clear. Our morals are the result of both bilogical evolution and the evolution of society. Knowing which "atom" is irrelevant & a smokescreen. BTW Hitch is great again.
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
So morals are written on our hearts are they? Well Hitler had a heart and his morals left a lot to be desired. If they are etched in your heart then you are bound to follow them. If you throw up the free will card then the "written on our hearts" response answers absolutely nothing as to HOW and WHY one chooses to follow what is "written". Also if they are "written" then we should all be able to "read" & hence write them down & compare notes but of course that brings us back to square one.
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
@pilgrimpater That's what laws are for. Morals via religion do nothing but provide license for people to make unethical discriminatory judgements about other people. There are always going to be people with a few screws loose who do bad things -we call these people psychopaths for a reason: they aren't normal. Why is Hitler famous? Because the whole world knows of his crimes against humanity, atheist, theist alike condemn him. I don't need a bigoted religion to set my moral compass thanks.
Skandronicus 7 months ago
Morality, such that it is, has been passed down through the ages by the evolutionary process. The fact of the matter is that for humans to survive in family groups and tribal groups and to survive in cities and countries there must be an innate morality and that morality was born of need.
However, though we like to claim morality, it's very interesting that religions are very amoral toward each other and even other sects of the same religion.
ButterflyStorms 7 months ago
It is an insult to Hitchens intelligence to be in the same room as this superstitious knob! I am astounded with Hitchens patience and composure, a true gentleman.
pootnikalexander 8 months ago 17
Why is Hitchens trying to avoid the question??
KeistasZmogelis 8 months ago
This vid needs to be renamed "Turek gets Hitchslapped"
hackmun 8 months ago
Obviously I'm on Hitchens' general side in this debate, but for crying out loud he does love answering questions he wasn't asked and not listening very hard to the points Turek is trying to make. There are plenty of argument I feel Hitchens could have whipped out to bitch slap him with on many of the issues they discussed, but I got the impression Hitch either wasn't listening half the time or just felt like going offf on whatever tangent he saw fit. Well, that's my two cents.
BrosoKintobor 8 months ago 4
Morality is justified by rational thought, why does there have to be a god? I agree that the impulse is triggered by the authority of our superiors, but what is superior to one man? Society.
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago 2
Burn!!! that hurts
Exli3r 8 months ago
I loved how the guy brought up Hitler like he was Atheist and when the other guy brought up the fact that he was Christian and the guy responded with that defensive question "So no evil comes from Atheism?" that made me laugh.
mmawilldesha 8 months ago
Hitler on Christianity: "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
mmawilldesha 8 months ago
hitchens unfounded pomposity really annoys me. Case in point he is asked:-
'where does morality come from?'
And Hitchens waffles away trying to push it away. But its a valid question. Any biologist can give you a concise simple answer:-
'evolution, over successive generations it was beneficial for ape species to have social contracts and get along. Those that did bred more and had more offspring. We as humans inherited that structure and it has continued to evolve since'.
srspower 9 months ago 4
@srspower I found hitchens waffling funny and the Christian should have just plainly said he was dodging the question (then he would probably have answered) but still, the waffling was funny.
Anyway, I totally agree about morality. I think it evolved to facilitate teamwork, the benefits of which may be greatly enhanced by our brains (superior intelligence relative to other animals) and perhaps out hands to some extent too.
Jamieishere1 9 months ago
Where does morality come from, in a materialistic worldview? (Turek asks...)
It comes from the same place as every other thought you have! Not from a particular molecule, as you absurdly jest, but from the sum total of neural activity, superimposed on the framework of ones perfectly natural and objectively material experience. He is essentially denying the very act of cognition, and insultingly asserting that good for the sake of oneself or the sake of others is not justification enough.
rmcdaniel423 9 months ago 2
i just heard myself say, outloud, here, alone, "YEAH!!!!!! FUCK YEAH......"
hitchens is a fuckn hero
noliarzz 9 months ago
Theists seem to believe morality is objective, a unified moral system implanted into us by god. This refutes their free will theory if we are implanted with behavioral modification. If morality is objective, why is it morality varies from one society to the next? This is can not be explained by theists. They state in every society its still wrong to kill. Ie. The first commandment. Wrong, it is moral to kill for certain reasons, the reasons set by society.
strikenetter 9 months ago 2
You know something that played a big part in my beginning to suspect that there really were flaws in Christianity was not from hearing logical, rational arguments from atheists like Hitchens; quite the contrary, it was a result of seeing Christian apologists repeatedly avoiding questions, using circular reasoning, and refusing to admit when they're proven wrong on a matter. Thanks in part to duplicitous, prideful, arrogant, dishonest apologists like Turek I'm an Atheist saved from religion!!!
Dhumm81 9 months ago 2
Turek is such a fucking cunt!... He flip flops his words with a very threatening tone of voice. And yet he still wonders why most people hate religion at this day in age.
Religion is slowly becoming an institution for people who have parents that are both brother and sister.
Jcdoyel 9 months ago
@callofduty497 Alright... 1st box. 2:25 "Where does morality come from? Does it come from the Benzine molecule?" Idiotic! A large, complicated thing like a society or a computer or an elephant is greater than the sum of its parts. "Where does an elephant get it's knowledge of child rearing? The Carbon molecule?" "Which molecule tells a computer how to process a command? The Iron molecule?" Obviously large, complex objects produce effects that cannot be reduced to single molecules. (Cont)
templarart 9 months ago
@templarart 2nd box "Where does morality come from?" cont... So where do members of societies/herds/packs/troops/hives get the knowledge of how to interact in the social structure? Trial and error & instinct passed down from the best organized societies/herds/packs/troops/hives. Obviously societies that simply allowed murder, theft and rape would collapse into warring families while organized (moral) societies would outcompete and conquer them. It's all really obvious when you think about it.
templarart 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein
1337Trollz 9 months ago
Oh, wow, that closing line.
"I will not be called a Hitlerite because I am a Humanist. Let us make that clear."
Turek has no idea who he's dealing with.
MisterTTG 9 months ago
@callofduty497 (Note: dysfunctional in accordance to the greater community)
As societies are represented within a greater community, and if that greater community consists of morals that are in conflict with how a single society in that community operates, then the greater community can label it evil.
It is apparent to me that you are religious. Religion, causing segregation, ignorance, etc which all leads to societal dysfunction, is evil.
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 Well, societies today that survive on such things ARE dysfunctional. The rest of the world views such a community as evil, and the current moral zeitgeist is how we decide what is and is not evil. For example, such a community would not be considered immoral in, say, the Old Testament, because that was just what people did. But nowadays when we look back at the Old Testament and the absolute atrocities committed (rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, etc) we label it evil.
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 Ignorance and societal dysfunction are inherently "evil" things to us, because they lead to a state where it is harder for us to function as a people and lead to lower chances of surviving evolution. I have already stated this numerous times, yet you fail at being able to clearly deduce things. We are a social species like may others, and the social dysfunction disrupts that, therefor is "evil". Religion disrupts social cohesion and is therefore "evil".
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 You make the assumption that not only "honour" exists, but that honour is based solely on your your own morals. You also make the assumption that it is somehow dishonourable that our evolutionary history made us see the "evil" (ie. someone or something that promotes social dysfunction) as something undesirable, when we have no control over it. No, it's not the morality atheism leads me to, it's the morality evolution created in us, my atheistic views simply allow me to see that.
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 It causes lots of conflict unnecessarily, it is evil. It propagates ignorance, societal dysfunction. a functioning society is important, things that disrupt it in such wicked, malicious ways as religions are evil.
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 Well, obviously, this is a very obsessive subject to you, because you just feel the NEED to reply to all my comments when the debate is over.
And dont play stupid:
"Ohh, this was a serious debate??" "But you replied to me, invalidating your point"
redshark618 9 months ago
@callofduty497 (part 2) While the actions of religions a thousand years ago might have been acceptable to the common populace, therefor not evil, in the light of today's moral standard, it was - and still is in some areas - atrocious. Evil is considered by the moral standard of the day, and is quite inherent in religion following this line of reasoning, as religion disrupts social cohesion. It is a wicked organisation that willfully promotes societal dysfunction and segregation. It is evil.
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 I applaud you ability to make massive assumptions and jumps in logic, however, it does not help you argument. So I will try to simplify this so you can understand. Evil is a word we created for actions that disrupt social order - whether it be intentional on the part of the person/organisation or whether it be accidental/uncontrollable such as in the case of a psychopath who could be (but probably not now) called "evil". This is an example of our changing moral zeitgeist. (cont.)
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 Yes, I have demonstrated to Youtube that i am out of rational responses. That means you win this Youtube argument by default.
Now go give yourself a nice Youtube pat on the back and feel good about yourself.
redshark618 9 months ago
@callofduty497 (Also, in case you are a bit slow-minded, religion, disrupting social cohesion, is therefore evil, and a source of more evil)
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 You make the assumption that there is "fake" and "real" morality. Hitchens was explaining that we invent evil (as I said above), we made the word, and we named wicked, cruel, malevolent actions as "evil". Evil is not an entity, it is a word that describes actions that society frowns upon for disrupting social cohesion. And I am not straying from the topic.
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 "fallaciousness of Turek" I could easily fill 20 boxes. Morality is a trait found in all herd, pack or hive animals, an evolved trait necessary for the organization and success of the unit. Humans, ants, wolves all live as communities which would be impossible if we didn't know how to interact with one another. Do you follow traffic laws? Yes? Do you find them in the Bible? No. We create traffic laws and obey them because it's good for our society - same with all morality.
templarart 9 months ago
Wow, this Turek guy was out of his fucking league.
ancalites 9 months ago
@callofduty497 I have more thumbs ups than you.
That's because my comment is bigger, stronger, harder and longer than your comment. My comment is also more likely to give your mom an orgasm.
I HAVE THE SUPERIOR COMMENT. END OF STORY.
redshark618 9 months ago
@callofduty497
And that means..... evil comes from us, we invent evil and we commit crimes we dub "evil". If you could not see that you are obviously so caught up in your own ego that you can't see what is blatantly obvious.
I would think it was so clear I would not need to explain it to anyone.
Vahtacen 9 months ago
@callofduty497 How is religion the source of all evils, you ask?
It tells people they can do whatever they want, as long as God said so. It tells people ignorance is bliss and knowledge is sin. It promotes racism, segregation, and elitism. It sanctions evil with repentance and stupidity with divine revelation.
I don't think so because Hitch said it. I thnik so because it's true.
So think for YOURself before you immortalize your stupidity on the internet.
redshark618 9 months ago
religious dude didn't see it comin!
sprinkles1691 9 months ago
I'm thinking that Turek's question is so vapid that Hitchens seems incapable of understanding it or in fact incapable of believing that an adult could advance such a question - which is why he never truly answers it. Turek's question is fallacious in at least three different ways so a logical, educated mind is likely to spit it out as garbage and reinterpret it into a more clear, rational question.
templarart 9 months ago
Christopher really got under this dudes skin, walked all over him the entire debate, I highly recommend watching the full debate.
Dethreid 9 months ago
Hitchslap me baby, one more time!
xkoenigseggx 9 months ago
remember people,truth goes through 3 stages>
1.ridicule,nobody takes it seriously and usually laughs at it
2.aggressive denial
3.acceptance
I think turek will prob kill himself before stage 3,he looks like he`s about to explode on stage 2 LOL
Proteus6684 9 months ago
@Proteus6684 Turek idles at apoplectic. The man ALWAYS appears on the verge of a stroke or massive coronary. We can only hope he fulfills his genetic destiny as soon as possible.
ciaochowbella 9 months ago
3:11 lmao bahahahahahahahahahaha
Proteus6684 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REV 22-16 IS THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR-VENUS WORSHIP--ITS ALL ASTROTHEOLOGY-JESUS IS REPTILLIAN WORSHIP-AND HE WAS BARIED IN SRINIGAR-INDIA--ANYWAYS--CHRISTIANITY IS --A THROW AWAY SOLAR CULT RELIGION WAKE UP-THE SAME STORY WAS RUNNING AROUND THE MED FOR `1000 YEARS BEFORE RA HORUS--MYTHRA-KRISHNA-SAME STORIES --IT CAME THRU THE MEROVIGN BLOODLINE THIS RELIGULOUS NONSENSE
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y-please watch and understand ur own bible
theywarnedus 10 months ago
chinmps also behave moral, was there a monkey jesus to teach monkeys to share food and mourn their dead?
MGsven 10 months ago
@MGsven Slight correction though I agree with your statement. Chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys.
Extra fun fact: Elephants are on par with Chimpanzee intelligence. They care for their wounded and sick, are known to use extremely primitive forms of medication, as well as mourn the dead.
cpu46 9 months ago
@cpu46 yeah, silly mistake, chimps and humans are of course apes, not monkeys :) hehe.
MGsven 9 months ago
@MGsven Yea, been studying for an Anthropology exam for the past week. Its kind of hard wired into me to correct the ape/ monkey confusion.
cpu46 9 months ago
Just putting it out there, carbon and oxygen are atoms. A molecule is a group of atoms.
bjh14player 10 months ago 2
I justify my morality through my own selfishness. I wish to live and live well. I live in a social structure and must allow others to do so as well and perhaps even aid them in doing so, that in my poorer times they will also aid me. Morality is based in selfishness and the recognition of the reality of one's situation ... period. For those who have learned to enjoy this process, the world is a more wondrous place. For others, Sartre was right, "Hell is Other People".
MrMZaccone 10 months ago
"Where does evil come from?"
"Religion."
Vahtacen 10 months ago 59
Oh my GODDDD
"Where does evil come from" 4:24 "Religion" 4:28
At this point, Turek, you have been Hitchslapped.
redshark618 10 months ago 47
the straw man, he's everywhere!
thenewovermind 11 months ago
4:26 possibly the best rebuttle I have ever heard! Turek is rapidly disolving,its so funny!!
Proteus6684 11 months ago
You don't need scripture to know right from wrong!?!?
SO why do we bother with scripture at all???
leonmaxard 11 months ago
@leonmaxard
In pre-religious culture you had small clans that would fight one another. If someone in your clan was killed then you would go and attack their clan and kill five of them. People didn't think. They just acted.
With organised religion came an oral tradition that when spread beyond one clan brought many clans together under a system of rules and rituals. That's where an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth came from. Later statements like "do good to those that hate you".
paulreubenbuckley 10 months ago
Religious dogma =0 Humanist thinking=? This stuff makes me laugh so much! Religion has had about 5000 years to embed itself into human society but just 90 seconds of moralisic objectivism destroys it!! If Onebased this arguement on economic practise the religious argument would be considered REDUNDANT!!!
What is the beef! 5000 years of runnig a bussiness that can no longer adhere to the consumer!!
wouldn't you try to change/improve outmoded ethical practise'?
leonmaxard 11 months ago
Morality came from a general consensus.
Those actions that benefited the primitive cultures became the accepted actions and were eventually named "morals."
gjsterp 11 months ago
@gjsterp Exactly!
Stevoukos 10 months ago
Are we Human, or Are we Dancers?
WickedxMage 11 months ago
Where does logic come from?
Draeber 11 months ago
I think Karl Popper put it best in "The Open Society.." when he said that it is a huge mistake to attribute our ethical decisions and responsibilities to someone or something else. They are our decisions and responsibilities that we have to deal with and be accountable for. Attributing them to another being or thing leaves open the possibility of justifying certain heinous acts in the name of the supposed being or thing that attributed those ethics to us.
Moun10eer14 11 months ago
@relaxin001 He doesn't understand or accept that. Religion defends itself from a religious standpoint... the only standpoint it has. It's so full of holes.
BlckSbthMan 11 months ago 2
Something in the yelling and the incredulous arm waving apoplexy tells me Turek was an only child whose mom doted on him incessantly.
i3u7n5 11 months ago
@i3u7n5 I hate him, regardless of what his upbringing was, I hate him. He is irritating to say the least.
BlckSbthMan 11 months ago
Wow. Turek was absolutely torn to pieces by Hitchens in this debate. Excellent.
rossow88 1 year ago
4:26 best part
redryan20000 1 year ago
@redryan20000 Ha ha ha ha ah yesss, indeed! I've laugh like crazy
zg76 1 year ago
@jackieeee007
If you do think about what you wrote you..... then will perhaps see that you are presupposing a standard of judgement.... a "standard of judgement" whereby you judge matters of intelligence & morality by.. would you be able to answer me on what that standard is ?
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
I'm an unwavering atheist who is pro-life. I don't agree on abortion if the birth control fails, but I do agree on medical abortions if the mother will die if it's not done and the embryo/fetus is going to be lost anyway. I still see the medical abortion as a loss of life, but it's a matter of saving as many lives as possible. If the embryo/fetus can be saved as well as the mother, that would be ideal. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. Hitchens isn't alone being a pro-life atheist.
HindsightPOV 1 year ago
@shady4life1991
Its impossible for science to prove there is no God. A person could still live what is known to be a good moral life without believing in God. Yet... without God as the basis or foundation for morality..... I don't see any reason to see any action as objectively wrong. We can say that an action is wrong but it doesn't mean it is wrong if there is no objective basis for morality.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@lilsm555
1. If we are a planet just floating in space. No God & no reason for our existence. We have come & we will go. Thats all. Then no one has the ability to say how a person should live their life. Nor what a person should accept and believe in. What difference would it make whether someone was a madman or a rational person, or whether someone believed that cows danced on the moon etc... The type of objectivity given by science means nothing on a planet just floating in space.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis Little hypothetical for you. Say science proved to a certainty how and why the universe exist and in this explanation there is no god at all. You upon listening to the scientific evidence have concluded that science has proved that there is no god and you fully accept this fact. What now? Do you start killing people? Raping? Abusing children? Beating up nuns? Why would discovering that there is no god out there make you change the moral principles you've decided to live by?
shady4life1991 1 year ago
@lilsm555
2. It can only have a "relative meaning" for some primates who think themselves clever & who have created a set of values & morals for themselves. Yet.... looking at a planet floating in space with no real reason & a planet that will eventually burn out.... nothing that the atheist trusts in & values is of any more or any less value & true than what a theist believes in & accepts as true.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@lilsm555
3. Creatures called primates.... trying to do power grabs over one another. One claiming a God & one claiming a science. A planet floating in space with no rhyme nor reason.. how laughable are these creatures on the planet. Refer to Nietzsche because he is the man who has the insight on this. This is why I see what you say as debunked because it has no meaning outside of what you & some other primates give it.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@lilsm555
4. Atheists are the most foolish of the creatures because they hold onto what can't be held onto. Again.. Nietzsche was one of the very few that seen that... Friedrich Nietzsche "Truth And Lie In An Extra Moral Sense" available on google.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis
I beg to differ saying atheists are the most foolish of the creatures.....
But what I do want to say is that religious people are so ignorant that they will not listen to anything we say no matter how much they know that they are following the religion blindly.They followed some guy that claimed that he was spoken by god.. How foolish can people get
and btw.. Richard Dawkins and christopher maher are atheists and trust me they are not a fool.They are actually smarter than you..
jackieeee007 1 year ago
@tharklark
1. If no atheist says they really know where morals come from.. then how can they know if morals don't come from God and even if there is a God you dipstick. I tell you what... I am sick to the teeth of you ignoramus atheists who have have read no Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, Wittgenstein, Deleuze, hermenuetics or philosophy of science.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis Ignoramus just stop it you dont even take science as valuable evidence just stop. We make decisions for our self you make decisions from what "god" told you to if your moral because someone told you to be your scum and stupid. We are good people because we want to be your a good person out of fear of god.
lilsm555 1 year ago
@tharklark
2. And of course freedom is abitrary you ignoramus because if Theism makes many people free then why the heck do idiots like Hitchens want to see religions shut down. You dont think. Hullo is anyone home inside your head. Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are all dipsticks. Nietzsche is an honest atheist and doesn't try on all the crap the rest of you nuts go on with. Read Nietzsche's "Truth And Lie In An Extra Moral Sense" available on google.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis lol you quoted Buff Tannen
chazdoit 1 year ago
@tharklark
3.Give me one atheist on youtube that can think deep !! I have yet to find one !!!
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@tharklark
1. Chemicals cannot tell everyone what exact morals to adopt. The problem is of course... if chemicals allowed a society or a person to adopt a fundamentally Christian morality then Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins & so on do not like this. They want to take the moral & intellectual high ground when there is none to take. To take the high ground one has to have an "objective standard" that one must "measure against" & "appeal to".
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis "if chemicals allowed a society or a person to adopt a fundamentally Christian morality then Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins & so on do not like this. They want to take the moral & intellectual high ground when there is none to take."
In summary, Chemicals "adopt" morality. "High ground" something, blah, blah blah. Your ability to write matches your ability to think. All blabber, no substance.
rockos414 1 year ago
@tharklark
2. Under evolutionary processes one can only look at the survival mechanisms of a society. To argue against a Christian morality defeats your purpose of what your arguing for. For in many societies & people groups & persons it can actually show that a Christian morality causes people and societies to flourish.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis 1. "Chemicals cannot tell everyone what exact morals to adopt" You don't know that. Hitchens already speaks about that in this debate, why don't you put on your listening ears?
2. "3. Hitchens talks a lot about freedom. He wants to have freedom & help others to go free. Of course... this is "abitrary" It's not arbitrary at all. Christians admit that they are servants to god. God is a dictator. A dictator by definition is an absolute ruler who cannot be challenged that's their god
tharklark 1 year ago
@tharklark
3. Hitchens talks a lot about freedom. He wants to have freedom & help others to go free. Of course... this is "abitrary" because what makes one person or society be free may not help another to be free. If a society found it was flourishing in a certain way by having a certain set of morals & passed laws on those morals and it impinged on your existence and you didn't like it then it would be just be to bad for you.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@tharklark
4. Hitchens cannot say "conclusively" where morals come from... he sidesteps the question & comes back only with his critique of religion. On your statement you say..... "He does his best to explain what we do know, but don't you or anyone else dare say that you know 100% because none of us know 100%"
If you or anyone else do not know 100 % then you can't be sure that no one does know. otherwise if you did know... then u would be 100 %. Your statement is self refuting.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis "4. Hitchens cannot say "conclusively" where morals come from..." NO ATHEIST DOES SAY THEY KNOW where it comes from. RELIGION CLAIMS to know! Did you not LISTEN to ANY of the debate? That is NOT side stepping you idiot. That is called being modest about how little one knows of science and their surroundings.
tharklark 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis "If you or anyone else do not know 100 % then you can't be sure that no one does know. otherwise if you did know." You're a fucking idiot. No atheist claims to be able to prove their isn't a god or there is one. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. It's impenetrable. That's typical of religious people. Read my initial comments. They are more concise and better written than the fecal matter that you spewed all over this page. You didn't listen to them the first time. Shame.
tharklark 1 year ago
@drumsforhands
1. Obviously you just have not read enough. I can only come to that conclusion... fears of repercussion ? hmmm ? How does that tell a person or a society what actions are "really" wrong or "really" right ? A society could say actions x,y & z are good and if you disagree you will reap bad repercussions.. Well.. I must say thats a weak argument. Hitchens sides steps because he cannot answer the fundamental problem of morality.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis He claims that morality may very well come from biological make up. There are variations in societies on morality, but there are deeply rooted human impulses, instincts,feelings that, as hitchens has said, help our species to survive. You want a one shot answer to figure out everything. Not only does hitchens admit the modesty and humbleness of science, he also is honest enough to say that there very well might be scientific chemical reasons that produce what we call "morality".
tharklark 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis Hitchens doesn't side step one bit. It's not a one shot deal kind of answer. He does his best to explain what we do know, but don't you or anyone else dare say that you know 100% because none of us know 100%. If you're religious, you don't know that there is a god. You cannot prove him her or it. You cannot prove morality came from him her or it. What is most likely is that there are impulses and strategies and habits that helped our imperfectly evolved species to survive = morals
tharklark 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis You're the kind of person that automatically ASSUMES that interactions of chemicals cannot produce morality, feelings, emotions. Try taking a narcotic. See how your instincts, morals, and ethics change 180 degrees. Take psychiatric drugs, see how your emotions change. That alone attests to the notion that morality is in some way built in, and only needs to conform to the environment that the homosapiens sapiens is born into. THat's how we SURVIVE
tharklark 1 year ago
@drumsforhands
2. For him.. its... "I want freedom and I want other people to go free" ... yet he never answers the question of freedom itself. Why do we value freedom and how should it be attained...what morals "for everyone" should be adopted to gain freedom ? Hitchens and Harris are very weak of the "why" of morality. Its good because its good and bad because its bad they think. And thats no answer.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
Mr Turekb has more than a fair share of the moronic molecule.
kramdoog 1 year ago
@xbox1768
1. On socio biological evolutionary processes the human being can have the capacity to be moral and act moral... Yet the processes don't exactly tell us what morals to adopt. Thats where it can get sticky... For one society... doing actions a, b & c will be good for the flourishing of that human culture. For another society actions x, y & z will be more conducive for them.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@xbox1768
2. Now what happens when these groups disagree ? One wants to take the moral high ground and show they really have the truth of THE correct morality...The problem is that on evolution there is no objective standard to measure morality against.. so then we are left with no one having the truth of what morals to adopt.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@xbox1768
3. Take that example and apply to to individuals and smaller people groups and one would be left wondering.. 'Man alive.. if there is no objective standard to measure morality against then why am I buying into the belief that my culture really has the right morals that I would be ultimately happy with.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@bobnelly
1. Hitchens cannot justify what the basis of morality really is... he basically just keeps saying we should be moral but does not really know why. Where does morality come from ? Turek keeps asking him.... but Hitchens just keep giving opinion... Turek keeps asking him the question.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@bobnelly
2. Hitchens just keeps giving examples of this and that and circumventing without saying straight out the real answer. Basically.. like all atheists Hitchens just really doesn't know what the answer is. I have talked to many atheists on YT and they move backwards & forwards between subjective & objective morality never being able to make their minds up between the two and they are very confused on the issue.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis First of all “Morality” is an evolved instinct and is an abstract idea. Without our evolved morality humans would not have had our cultural evolution. You can look at the animal kingdom and see other animal’s with a similar “moral instinct”. For example a mother grizzly bear will fight to the death to defend her cubs from potential danger while other animals that have not evolved a “moral instinct” such as guppies will eat as many of its young that it can.
xbox1768 1 year ago
Hitchens is totally circumventing the guys question on morality. I don't know why people are clapping for Hitchens. It pitiful.
TheMirabillis 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis In what way?
bobnelly 1 year ago
@TheMirabillis morality is st in place by our thoughts and fears of repercussion of said thoughts if you think he side stepped anything you are a fool and a farce to any one who actually thinks, congratulations are in order to you sir you have been shown a fool for your own words as have my own and that is a hard thing to do
drumsforhands 1 year ago
@warpig15 and after many generation it becomes almost instinct. Morality existed before Christianity, Judaism or even Buddhism as cavemen did not kill eachother within the tribe or community -morality - without the revealing of any 'divine scripture or presence'. If god gives you morality then I ask you this question: if god told you to kill your family, regardless of whether he would tell you to, would you do it?
SMTsquidge 1 year ago
@Warpig15 morality came through a sort of evolutionary process. Imagine this situation with cavemen. If there is a tribe and one of the tribe is immoral, eg kills another member then he is most likely cast out of the tribe and will die.
The ones who are moral and work together towards a community survive, reproduce and pass this on..,
SMTsquidge 1 year ago
Religion is bullshit.
xomiakas 1 year ago
Eh. I don't think he did that great a job with this debate. Turek was trying to say that he think that humans are innately moral because god made them that way, and I don't think Hitchens picked up on that. He kept asking about needing god's permission to be good and needing god to tell us to be good, which wasn't really the point that Turek was trying to make. I still don't think Turek's argument had much merit, but Hitchens could've at least taken the time to understand.
jemremyc 1 year ago
haha hitler a humanist? LOL
xn117 1 year ago
Are you saying that morality is based on survival of the species, or the community? Or the individual? Then Bear Grylls, who's able to survive on his own, is not bound by morality?
Fundamentalism and fascism do not lead to the extinction of human race. Why then are these immoral?
What's the goal of morality and humans?
If we don't agree on that, then morality is relative.
WarPig15 1 year ago
"perhaps hope that my fellow man and woman will give me some of the same consideration"
So they don't have to give you that consideration?
What if they kill someone?
WarPig15 1 year ago
hmmm... It comes from evolution... damn. But he didn't know that at the time :P
sebsunda 1 year ago
"ontological category," eh? It's painful to see this goon overreaching his intellectual abilities.
redetrigan 1 year ago
Amazing. Hitchens in a totally shitfaced, inebriated, high-as-a-kite, plastered, drunk condition destroys Turek. Hitchens is as calm as a retiree feeding pigeon in the park, and Turek buttocks are clenched tighter than a vise.
cupwithhandles 1 year ago
@cupwithhandles Blame my mother's womb then.
Sore ass troll.
You proved yourself an idiot without an answer, just like your liver-failed idol Hitchens.
WarPig15 1 year ago
Comment removed
cupwithhandles 1 year ago
@WarPig15 ...at least Hitchen's brain is not failing, like yours and idiot Turek's. Hey, you are new breed of angry, foul mouthed christian apologist. Refreshing. I like it, keep it up. The father, son, and holy ghost need more like you to defend them.
cupwithhandles 1 year ago
HITCH!!!
TheAlvinealy 1 year ago