Hitchens vs. Hitchens on religion debate (2 of 10)

Having to explain morality is a terrible proof for a god. It assumes that morality is absolute and needs to be explained, when in fact morality is something going on in the head, just like gods. To argue god using morality as evidence is like saying god exists because I can think of him and believe it. It argues that 'goodness' and 'good actions' are reasons for believing the truth validity of a deity. That something produces something favourable to you does not make it objectively true.

The morality argument is the strongest argument I've heard in all the debates I've watched so far. It's difficult to argue for morality in our genes because we, to the best of our knowledge, haven't really located any of that yet. We are aware of mirror neurons, which are the bits of our brain that allow us to feel empathy and promote compassion, but I'm not sure if that is enough. All of the atheists coming to these debates grew up in Christian societies and are influenced by their values.

None of what you just said made any sense >.> "Hollow" attacks are subjective, "undermining" what tenants? What are the central tenants? Faith in Jesus? Follow the old laws? Subjective again. "Ignores the compelling history and testimony" What are you talking about here? Define compelling here. In the first century the "church" of Jesus was split, book against book, Mark vs Luke vs Paul and etc. He acknowledges protestants, but that isn't where the core of his argument lies.

Allow me to recommend that you read the Bible to understand what I mean by the tenants (i.e., beliefs, doxologies)of Christianity.... I would also recommend the book Mere Christianity by C..S Lewis. Thanks

I grew up in a secularist society, I still have moral values.

You're saying that because we haven't found the roots of morals in our brain yet, that a God must exist to prove it?

If we had absolute morals from God, then why do we differ so much on our moral outlooks?

what christian ideas could a normal human being with empathy and compassion not create by his damn self!

morality isn't some monolithic feature that human beings have that pose some threat to atheism (reality). it is an EMERGENT PROPERTY. it is a friggin word we label all the issues that fall under the blanket of what makes us feel good and bad.

its a pitiful argument im sorry.

Well you've got to look at the argument in its context. Atheists like Hitchens have Christian values (Dawkins would even call himself a cultural Christian), rather than say, Islamic ones, and they argue that atheists can be just as 'moral' as anybody else when he is arguing morality in debates with actual Christians, and he can point to himself as evidence. This argument would not be as compelling to a Muslim. Hitchens seem to consider his own 'Christian' values superior to other cultures.

Now I would agree that if you take two steps back and analyze morality under the philoso-scope, ultimately it's just a bunch of reactions people have adapted over time genetically, and had imprinted on them like so many superstitions through observation of their own personal society and peer pressure, but the fact that all four Horsemen seem to agree that their own nations' Christian values are superior to other nations is what opens up that argument to legitimate attack by actual Christians.