Christopher Hitchens debates Jay Richards part 3

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christopher
• Hitchens
• debates
• Jay
• Richards
• Dawkins
• atheism
• religion
• Ben
• Stein

[Pomme843]

@Plagueis1017 That's how religion survives. It feeds on the questions to which we don't have an answer, and on the answers we would like to hear. And then, we have to give it money, so it can proliferate and contaminate others, lest we must go to the purgatory.

[Plagueis1017]

@awia12 Good intelligent well thought out contribution to the debate :D

[TheUsername1029]

Morality sits MUCH better in an atheistic world view than a theistic one. Many religious texts command immoral acts and hardly tell the followers to stop immoralities. Where does it say in the Quran or Bible that slavery is wrong? Evolution explains innate morality better than religion does. "God wrote it in their hearts," doesn't explain anything. And his next point attempts to argue why a theistic world view was useful to Galileo and Copernicus. It isn't relevant to whether theism is true.

[325982668]

Asking william lane craig for advice on debating a logically minded polemicist is the fastest known way to introduce complete and utter bullshit into your arguments.

[Floortjahh]

@Setzer well put

[askandir]

It's not really atheism-theism, is it. It's more Atheism- American Christianity. If it wasn;t, it would be clear to Jay that morality is far to different in different society's.

By the way: not an atheist, just a transformer

[Setzer]

The idea that having morality is indicative of a divine degree is absurd. I would consider it a plausible explanation if I knew right from wrong, but was baffled by how I know it. There's a very easy logical path for explaining why torturing children is wrong. There's also a compelling evolutionary argument for explaining how we acquired an intuitive sense of right and wrong. The last nail in the coffin is the fact that most religious texts contain decrees we know accept as immoral.

[mlcollins10]

IF you lack something, you don't have it intrinsically.Read carefully and think!

[mlcollins10]

For those who are enlightened morals are intrinsic - isn't this clear/

[paegun]

@mlcollins10 how do you lack something that is intrinsic?

[macgeek2004]

Why in the FUCK would this guy bring up Carl Sagan's Cosmos?! In the middle of episode 2 of Cosmos, Sagan pretty much lays WASTE to even the CONCEPT of an "intelligent designer/creator," a.k.a. God! And it's not even an argument that he ADDRESSES! (The whole "who created God," argument.) WTF?! lol!

[ChrisBrett2K]

Oh my God ;0) the moral theistic argument is tripe. Just because there is an overwhelming subscription to the recognition of a natural sense of morality there must be an external arbiter of this morality. WHY because it feels that way? Isn't it obvious what the directly opposing postulation is? Why can't this simply be explained by evolution. From my own personal perspective this is the perfect, logical explanation.