Hitchens: religion degrades humanity.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 พ.ย. 2024
- Q&A part VII of the Hitchens vs. Turek debate at VCU, VA. Full debate: www.vimeo.com/1...
Hitchens repeats a strong anti-theist point: if you do a moral deed "for god" it is done for a reward or out of fear but not out of empathy or solidarity -it thus abolishes morality, individual choice etc.
Tureks stupidity (or the credulity of his followers) forces this repetition upon us, his point about the immorality of materialism is old as well. I would guess it is a (corrupted) version of the "argument from despair" against naturalism: humans are supposedly not able to live decently without a "cosmic meaning of life".
Also cringeworthy is Tureks announcement that he stops believing in Christianity if the body of Christ is discovered (!?).
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
The American in the chair is sweating here. Its interesting to watch religious people getting questioned. They generally tend to get louder and louder - and essentially more aggressive. I always enjoy watching Hitchens in action.
That's something I've often observed with people who are arguing something they have no capacity to defend. it's like watching trump argue with someone. he'll start interrupting repeatedly and getting louder, and if he's at a rally he might rally the crowd to overwhelm the person with noise. I don't want to drag the topic towards politics though. I argued with a religious person today and lo and behold, he was the first one to get loud and start interrupting.
Derek Newport they also tend to get rude and vulgar...
I remember debating a Catholic earlier this year, I had him cornered so he resorted to calling me “retarded” and “stupid as shit”. Needless to say I won that debate
1st law of thermodynamics:
Time, space and matter cannot be created or destroyed naturally... Hitchens never answered the question because he knew the answer would make argument void.
WafflingMean44 Poor triggered liberal, Trump lives in your brain. TDS
We miss you Christopher Hitchens.
You and me both. We need more men like him.
hankkemp or women *cough* *cough*
RoadKillzine Sadly or not, that is a fact.
But we can always blame the patriarchy for those limitations, can't we.
Facts are sexist.
U guys heard of Christopher Bollyn?
@@hankkemp Christ what kind of a world would it be like with more of this, wrong waffling turd, we have plenty of people like him, you can't move for them..
"It's OK. I already know some people will clap anything."
LOL
Truth Teller yes, and what a sarcastic, specious, nasty little comment that was, and from the mouth of a man endowed with the same qualities, for out the mouth of a man his heart is revealed
I got the clap once
That proves he is egoistic.
@@zvone4016 Ultimately, yes. He was clearly intelligent and rational, and thus fixated on the level of conceptual thought and analysis. Ultimately, the Truth that figures like Jesus and the Buddha pointed to lies beyond conceptual understanding. All the religions that come from such teachings have distorted the teachings, either intentionally or unintentionally, leading to doctrine and dogma. Funny how, towards the end, he began to resemble a Buddhist monk.
hey! dude! You are such a clown.
Empathy is good because it advances mankind, it reduces suffering, it is respectful, unselfish and humble. There are those out there who believe that being humble means "submission to a greater entity" a God. I believe that being humble means "accepting our frailties", "admitting our mistakes", "accepting the fact that mankind does not have all the answers". Hitchens puts it all so well.
All that is lie. empathy most likely has completely another function than putting you at disadvantage for inability to harm some chicken or cow because you supposedly feel their pain.
Hitchens completely failed on that topic, because he just refused to say anything sensible
deltaxcd I don't agree with you.
RATIONALMIND001
You claim that empathy we feel for chicken and cows is very important for humankind advancement?
deltaxcd Empathy - the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions. It means that before I shoot the bank teller or the 7/11 attendant or commit some other crime, I would place myself in the other person's position. It revolves around "the golden rule". Some do choose to apply it to animals as well.
RATIONALMIND001
If you can chose to who to apply your empathy you can chose NOT to apply it to that bank teller and shoot him just as you chop chicken head
while if you cant chose to whom you apply it it is serious disadvantage if you feel bad for preparing your food.
“It’s okay. I already know people who will clap for anything.” The god damned legend.
"When I do good I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad, and that's my religion." Abraham Lincoln
Admirable quote. Lincoln also called the Bible the greatest gift from God.
@@evanleebuxton1054 Two admirable quotes. The first came from the heart... and the second is purest sarcasm.
Walt F.
That's too simplistic an explanation. Not everyone is fine tuned to respond to this feel good feel bad thing
Anger can easily justify atrocious actions. Why? The answer is simple. Your emotions make you feel good to do what you do.
That goes for anger. That goes for lust. That goes for mania, jealousy, resentment, you name it.
So you only care about how you feel? There is nothing good about that. Sometimes doing the right thing is difficult and painful but you still have the duty to do them. You have proved a lack of real morality that is characteristic of atheists.
Turek is a despicable man. His arguments are deplorable. He seems to have no concept of true compassion nor does he seem to have an understanding of how to think critically and honestly.
Graham McCann Sounds like a typical religious person.
***** lol
Graham McCann I was about to type the same thing before I scrolled down and saw that you already said it.
Turek is so hung up on saying that people can't know the difference between good and evil without some magic sky daddy. If he needs that hallucination to be "good", then he is pure evil.
I know what his response to my comment would be: "how do you define good and evil without God?". I would have to say "if you don't know, then you are evil".
Funny how cultures all over the world thrived and operated (with morality) just fine for thousands of years before christianity was put to their throats with a sword and by force; "believe or burn"... Now there's some real moral hypocrisy Mr. Turek...
Graham McCann It seems that Turek can see the world through only one lens.
On every comment page of discussions like this you'll find the 'question' (no doubt spoken with a high-pitched, whiny voice): "Why do atheists keep talking about god and religion if they don't believe in it?". The answer is simple: if the religious would stop shitting into the nest of mankind, stop trying to sneak into politics, science and education, stop pushing their fairy-tales on other people and generally keep it at home or in their temples, we wouldn't have to talk about you. In fact, we wouldn't need to waste a thought on you for the rest of our lives. Sadly, this is not the case.
fenriz218
Well said my brother
That comment was 4 years ago and is true today as it as always been and will be thus
Don't forget, God commanded them to do this, to insure survival of the tithe.
Wonderfully written and expressed, I alongside many, on this forum concur 100% with your sentiment.
Wonderfully profound elucidation.
this man was truly brilliant.
Jesus? Sure was. Jk.
You watched what he said and called him brilliant?? That was the saddest most confused statement i have ever heard a person speak. And you believe what he say's and call him brilliant? He is not brilliant! he is a sad liar who has deceived millions about belief in God is the truth about him. And if there is a hell he has lead them there! and there most definitely is one ( a hell)Jesus said so ! Nothing he ever said has been found to be false or an untruth!
To know more about a man who tells the truth Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the book of acts You just need to know about a man who CH say's did not exist or was deluded as he once said Be wise don't be a fool like CH was all of his life, till the very end, and died with Folly on His lips.
How about this man what he said ?
Here is Jesus view of his purpose for the human race and what they need to know about himself.
John 14:6New International Version (NIV)
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Paul O'Reilly that's great in all but I don't believe in fairy tales.
***** don't bother. This bloke is delusional.
STFU!!!!
"If we're just particles and chemicals then morals don't exist!"
Am I wrong in feeling that this is a total non-sequitur? Yes, we are - technically speaking - a bunch of matter and energy, but the way this matter and energy is organized produces something very special - sentience. We don't yet understand how it works, but I sure as hell understand that something with sentience is NOT equal to a bunch of matter that I can do anything I please with, if only because I myself am a sentient bunch of matter and energy that wouldn't want to be abused by another bunch of matter and energy.
People like Turek think that only when consciousness is eternal (the core concept behind the soul) does it make sense to behave morally. This is a very dangerous way of thinking.
I'm not even sure I would allow it the luxury of being called a way of "thinking." Every time he spoke I was like what in the hell is he going on about, it makes no sense, it is all non-sequiturs.
Turek had no business debating Hitchens,,,
+duTCHIEization .. right you are sir , but he has the right to look as silly as anyone else who debated hitch, and he succeded very well... in looking the fool..
Some advice to Turek: "Better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt".
@@andybb10 "it is better to remain silent, and considered a fool, than to open ones mouth, and remove all doubt"
Such a great quote, I needed to put it in full
It's getting more difficult for the con men to con! Education makes people question.
yep,and thats why religion is doing her best to restrain knowledge
hey no, we all know God is a straight white male. although depending on where you go in the world he's still straight and male but his ethnicity changes. When I was in India I saw Jesus depicted as an Indian. That totally isn't a symptom of religion just being a construct of humans.
Not as long as Fox News exists...
Hitch for the win! As usual.
Go Hitchens Go. WE LOVE YOU. RIP❤️🙏
RIP and praying 🙏 hands for Hitchens?? Ahahahaha
@@yerzyo I know, right
Hitchens sounds like a man, Turek like a petulant child
"If it were true, I'd consider it living under a tyranny" Genius. Miss you Hitch.
The tyranny of heaven? Literally the words of the devil in paradise lost.
@@theAEDan the tiranny of god who eternally punishes innocent people just because they didn't believed in him because of the place in which they born
Every tiranny will let you live in peace if you never go against the government
@@theAEDan Better to reign in Hell than to be a slave in Heaven.
@@nealgrimes4382 is it?
@@theAEDan do you really think praising an entity for eternity (thats a reallllllyyyy long time, doesnt end in fact) while being in their presence literally harms one, while being aware that everyone is else is suffering torment for eternity (too) is something you would want to go through? I suggest joining a cult then
What I love about Hitch is that he ultimately makes it clear how ridiculous worshipping God would be if there was a chance he actually existed...
There is no chance that God exists? Spoken by a true fanatical believer.
@@barrywhite7771 He means, there is no evidence whatsoever. And given that there is no evidence, then there is a near zero possibility (which we can round to zero) that it is true. So, yes. No chance.
@@JGlennFL what evidence you have too disprove God's existence
@@bashydee4936 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that there is an invisible, all-powerful deity who snapped us into being from dust in a reverse-Thanos method is an extraordinary claim to be sure. The burden of proof lies with those making that claim.
@@JGlennFL I never made the claim. just cause there isn't any evidence doesn't make it not true I mean that's a fallacy in it self. how do you assign a probability to something which you have nothing off. No evidence as you stated so the probability is yet to be determined
There are a lot of empty comments being published these days - that attempt to refute or undermine Hitchen's arguments and submissions. All of them in his apparent absence too. I think this is laughable for 2 reasons: 1) anyone wishing to one-up CH knows full well, they'd never take him on if he was still with us and 2) their silly, non-logical, non sequitur commentary seems only to embolden the wit, insight and courage that Hitchens left for us.
Artemis...that was great
Jazzkeyboardist1 your comment ads much credibility to Artemis’s ;)
Why must you keep commenting on every video about his mothers death, no one looks at your comment and thinks ''what a cool guy'' they just think your intellectually challenged and hell bent on some vendetta against a dead man. Your a sad person who needs serious therapy, which ironically science can provide.
1) I would. I would very much liked to have talked with him when he was alive. He's one of my heroes, and think that he was humble, sincere and searching for the truth and with that I think I would be able to have given him something to think about, specially on his often asked question of "what can a religious person do that a non-religious person cannot do".
2) I suppose if you are so assured that there's nothing possible of value and that there is no valid criticism to Hitchens or his position, in which case I would say that Hitchens himself had a more open mind than you appear to
non-logical , what is logical ? you don't know you are f**king born , you don't know anything , think you have sussed it all out, think again , if you had a million lifetimes you would never understand it all. and how does everything get by by chance answer , it doesn't , it was put here , nothing does not come from nothing , for nothing by nobody and then evolve once it has got here, come on that's bollocks.
The position that morality cannot be obtained without god is ironic. This is demonstrated in the fact that those morals deemed divine, were created by mere men thousands of years ago. The fact that morality exists is proof that it doesn't need to be commanded by god.
If you boil down the term "morality", it boils down to "common decency". Every child understands the concept and no culture could strive or survive without it. However, add ideology - be it religion or politics - then all you get is a toxic brew, that poisons everything.
What religious folk don't see to understand: what does the promise of reward, or the threat of punishment, have to do with "morality"? Generally, only psychopaths think along those lines...
I actually weep sometimes listening to Hitch, he has changed my life so much for the better, I am very sad he is gone, his arguments are spot on. Live each day the best that you can, enjoy your senses, we are here for such a brief period and afterwards there is nothing, in the words of Hitch forget religion and an afterlife, more truth, beauty, and happiness awaits you. I love Hitch, thankfully there is TH-cam!
"actually"
@@jamesmcinnis208 Hitchens can't guarantee that there isn't afterlife. He has his opinions, that's all.
@@jounisuninen He can't do much of anything these days.
Cold water won't help for all those third degree burns that the Hitch gave him!
How weird that you'd capitalize hot and lava and be scared to spell out hell.
"You're a primate too, and it shows...."
"I'm a primate; I conceal it better than some, though..."
Well it might, a cold water shower always clears the mind
The problem with suggesting that some deity is responsible for morality, is that this is not actually proof for such a deity. The argument that morality exists because God exists because morality exists is clearly circular. If you want to say morality is divine, you first have to prove that such divine power exists in the first place.
Agreed. I also find it frustrating as hell that Turek admits that empathy is created by chemical processes in the brain AND that this indicates chemical causes of morality, yet somehow seems incapable of grasping the idea that a sense of right and wrong is created in the brain. Instead he resorts to nonsensical queries like "how much does justice weigh" to prove how you can't quantify feelings, which makes less than zero sense within the given context because justice isn't even created in the brain; it's an external concept observed by the brain and not an internal feeling created in it. He might as well ask how much January weighs. I'll help him out if he's struggling: both have a weight of zero because they AREN'T PHYSICAL OBJECTS.
It makes me truly sad that this nonsense is put forth as a legitimate side of a debate, and I wish Hitchens would have smacked him down much harder than he did.
But you've got it wrong, I think. The argument is:
1) Morality is a true concept(right vs wrong)
2) Morality requires an objective source
3) An objective source of morality then exists.
What are the foundations for the two starting premises?
Well the first one is assumed. Even Hitchens assume there is a 'right' and a 'wrong'. It's rare to find someone who disagrees that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong'. That somehow kidnapping three women and raping them repeatedly for years is not a 'wrong' thing to do and that as Hitchens said, sacrificing yourself for others is not a 'good' thing to do.
The disagreement is on the premise 2) and it's what Turek's arguing. That with atheism there is no objective source so you can't have real morality without an objective source of morality.
Natanael Lizama The man who kidnapped the women and raped them for years probably wouldn’t consider his actions “wrong”, point being I disagree that morality is objective because exceptions are constantly demonstrated (like they are in your example).
However even if we take objective morality for granted and accept it as a given for the sake of argument, it’s still a massive jump from “an objective source exists” to “that objective source is the Christian God” or “atheism cannot supply an objective source”. In the latter case, I would suggest that the human psyche has evolved to provide an objective source of morality for the benefit of mutually beneficial cohesive societies.
> point being I disagree that morality is objective because exceptions are constantly demonstrated
But isn't your example just attempting to show that there are people who disagree with morality. How do you then derive the conclusion that therefore morality has to be subjective? My main point is that morality being objective is an universal given for humans. What the actual moral law is it's different, just as with every other field of knowledge, but the fact that there are disagreements or a few people who disagree doesn't mean that there isn't an objective truth to the claims just as in the same way that there being flat earthers does not in any way prove that there is no objective truth regarding the shape of the earth.
You also have to take into consideration who are these sources of conflict? It's not well-balanced, healthy people, it's usually people with a depraved ideology or a very selfish nature and even so when they wouldn't consider it "wrong" they can't say it's a moral good, they would say they don't CARE about it being right or wrong. See the difference? I think it's important. Even if they would say it's a moral right due to ideology, that ideology can be dispelled with reason, showing that their deviation from the moral nature of man was not in fact, natural, but rather manufactured through ideology.
> “that objective source is the Christian God”
I agree with that. I don't think God is the "Christian" God, or the other God, God is just God.
> “atheism cannot supply an objective source”.
Completely disagree with this. Under atheism what possible objective source could there be? You propose(without any evidence I would point) that the human psyche has evolved for morality. It's not clear to me what you mean by it, as if you refer to the psyche you are referring to the mind, and you would first need to prove that the faculties of man(his mind) is evolved, much less so evolved towards this direction of morality. Even so, if morality were to be evolved, you would be making a self-refuting case because there are people who aren't moral. Are they poorly evolved individuals? How come then have they survived so long? Regular people engage in immoral actions; just to give an example around half of people have cheated in their lifetimes. That is a serious immoral action that it's performed casually and commonly: is that IMMORALITY evolved? I would say yes. So, if you were to say that morality is evolved, then you also would have to concede that immorality is evolved and there's no reason why you ought to choose one over the other in a particular scenario(cheat vs don't cheat).
You're also not considering the difference between a possible source of a moral truth versus the source of MORALITY. Morality precludes an OUGHT. That is, it's not just saying "it's morally wrong to rape people", but rather "you OUGHT not rape people". Under atheism what possible source is there for this moral obligation(which is a pre-requisite for morality)?
The problem with claiming that there is an objective, factual morality is that we derive facts from repeatedly testing hypothesis. Morality is an entirely mental, non-physical thing so we can't have any facts about it. The difference between arguing morality and arguing flat-earthers is that the flat-earthers are arguing about proven and testable facts. If a person disagrees on objective morality, there is no test to prove that one is correct - it just is because you say it is. That's opinion, not fact.
This is really best showcased by the fact that you bring up "depraved ideologies". By it's very nature an ideology is not indifference to morality or objection to morality, it is an alternative morality. Take Hitler, for example (I know, a tired example but I feel that it can serve the discussion well). Hilter's ideology is what compelled him to lead the Nazis into WW2 and to conduct the holocaust; by his morals this was correct, he felt justified in his actions and felt compelled to act on his morals. As much is made clear by Mein Kampf, he wasn't saying he didn't care about right or wrong, he was saying that his ideology was right and the ideology of the Jews and the rest of the modern world was wrong. You can say that his ideology was depraved, but it's only depraved by your ideological standards and he would probably say the same thing to you. This same thing is still evident in less extreme, more nuanced examples, like how many religious claim that homosexuality is a moral depravity on the basis of their belief but homosexuals believe it is moral on the basis of love.
What I can agree on is that modern Western society has come to more or less an agreement on what we broadly consider moral and immoral. When accounting for the people who act immorally, there are a few ways to reconcile this with an atheistic source of moral truth. In the evolution example, we could say that the psychopathic or depraved people are born lacking the evolved moral truth as a form of disability, in the same way that humans have evolved to see but some people are born blind. I agree with you, though, that this doesn't necessarily account for the prevalence of immorality we see. The evolution example was just an example, there are other possibilities for objective atheistic morality. Many atheists believe that morality is entirely a social construct, and that based on our natural tendency towards empathy we have codified and solidified social standards for morality that we uphold as objective truth.
But really I'm just playing devils advocate, because personally, that's _not_ what I believe. I think that the idea of objective morality is bullshit, I think morality is subjective to where you are born, how you grew up, the depth of your empathy, and a whole host of other determining factors that vary from person to person.
like hitchens says. its no longer heroic if your doing it for a reward or to avoid punishment. you believe in your god because if ypu don your told you will spend eterenity in hell. these aren't choices yours forced into it
They say freedom of choice. But if u do certain things your going to burn in hell for eternity.... eternity people thats a long fucking punishment.
its obviously is.and back in the day if you said u dint believe in it you were burned alive
***** funny you should mention near death experiences. When the first one says that it got hotter and hotter and everybody, even some of his/her relatives and friends he/she saw were on the way to the bottom of the pit and screaming - it might be something worth to concider...
+tyler chapman This is why I get pissed off when people mention the few good things about religion, like charities. we don't need religion to be good to others, in fact without religion our actions would be even more genuine.
@Tyler chapman
To repeat Turek's question. Why is heroism a good thing for an individual to do rather than not when it leads to a terrible outcome for the individual?
Morality and empathy allow for the survival of the human species. That's why morality and empathy exist without the need for a deity.
It's a pretty simple concept, but to be able to grasp that you have to first grasp evolution.
What a great human being. Christopher Hithens RIP
resting in peace when youre a hardened atheist is illogical as well as the worlds biggest oxymoron
Yup! God definitely broke the mold when "He" "created" Hitchen's.
Turek is very intellectually primitive. Much to learn, he has.
religulous420 Such a shame at what he will learn.
religulous420 People like him aren't capable of learning.
+Dan k are you talking of Hitchens? He really was incable of learning
Bruni Schling Nope. If you have two eyes you can see that the subject of the comment that I replied to originally was "Turek" and not "Hitchens".
And Hitchens didn't need to learn anymore than what he already knew. He was a brilliant man.
Bruni, learn to spell "capable." Then, go fuck yourself. Dan, you keep killing shit brother.
I love the slow, calm and deliberate way in which Hitchins speaks and argues. He displays more patience and forebearance than I could possibly show in his place.
Fire in the heart, ice in the mind.
Oh how I miss this man ! We need him now more than ever!!!’
What is the chemical composition of love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
Dopamine
@@MrDmadness Oxytocin?
@@coreycox2345 ahhh yes, though more of a balance of such things :)
1. If I hurt, I don't like it - if I don't like it, it's bad - hurting is bad.
2. If I cause hurt, someone might hurt me in response - see #1
3. People hurting each other is not conducive to continuance - it is likely that retaliatory hurting will escalate to a point of mutual destruction.
4. Continuance is important.
5. That which fosters continuance is moral.
6. Sometimes hurting is necessary to avoid worse hurting.
7. Unnecessary hurting is not moral.
No god necessary.
I would ask Turek what kind of person he believes he would be without his imaginary friend -- I've spent a lot of hours watching him, and I think he'd be a gang-leader in a federal prison.
I'd like to hear Turek's response to Plato's Euthyphro dilemna. A modern form, (from Iron Chariots WIKI) would be, "Is that which is good commanded by god because it's good, or is it good because god commands it?"
I think Turek would choose #2 and then justify it through presuppositionalist 'faith', which I see as a terribly shaky basis upon which to live one's life. Of course, choosing the first would entail that 'god' is bound by greater precepts than itself, which denies it ultimate power.
4:25 "I'm a primate. I can't alter the fact that I'm a primate [but] I can conceil it better than some people can. That's the best I can do".
Great punch from Hitchens.
I am always happy to see the level of likes on these videos. I hope that it is evidence that more people are thinking, and less people are falling for anything. That would mean hope for mankind!
He told the truth right down to the core of the human heart and mind. One of the very best individuals the planet ever saw.
Hitchens really nails it in the last few sentences about faith.
Morality and immorality have no business in the concept of intelligent design. That is because morality and immorality equate to humane and inhumane on our scale of thinking. Assisting, helping or aiding our fellow man is humane, or good. Harming, torturing or destroying would be inhumane, or evil. We are human by nature, and our moral compass drives us to survive as a species, not to dismantle it.
I don't understand why people argue that it is because of a "divine being."
But that's wrong. If naturalism is true then there's nothing humans do that it's inhumane. We say it's inhumane because we have an ideal template of what it means to be human that transcends the current context and situation of men. Under naturalism it makes no sense to say "inhumane" when referring to action like torturing or rape, etc... as they are by definition done by humans.
Our moral compass is a biological delusion just as religion. We are built to be religious yet atheists disregard that social and biological imperative in other to "free" themselves of it, yet they still maintain the social and biological imperative of morality that keeps them tied. That morality is maintained through metaphysical suppositions(like ideals) that have no foundation under atheism, yet the atheist maintains them, sometimes without realizing it, falling into an incompatible mindset of maintaining morality yet disregarding the metaphysical.
If as Hitchens said, we are merely primates, what's wrong with acting like primates do? Primates rape, engage in prostitution, torture, maim and kill. It's not all that they do, of course, they also co-operate, but that has a selfish basis. If the biology of someone drives him to be a serial killer or rapist, how under atheism can you rationally dissuade him from it? What possible argument can you conjure up? The atheist has none, for his actions are those of a primate and as much a product of mother nature as anyone else's. It may not be always practical for him to do so, but that doesn't mean it's IMMORAL for him to do so. It may even be stupid at times to do it, but also at times it would be intelligent to do so. Why should you introduce morality in the equation of how should a primate act in other to maximize his well-being?
Lee Zen, you are so right!....
Natanael Lizama, but the Bible the Koran and the Torah all sanction rape, torture, slavery, genocide, so why do you disagree with them? You can't claim morality is from god when those things are openly sanctioned in religious texts. We know they are wrong because innate human morals born of empathy tells you these things are wrong..."that hurts, I don't want you to do it to me, so I won't do it to you" We all fail that "do unto others" ideal in differing amounts, but most people, religious or otherwise, try to live up to it to some extent, and agree with it as an ideal, unless, A. you're a psychopath or B. a so called divine authority commands you to do otherwise.
So, a religious person will do what they are told, by a god, holy book, holy leader, regardless of what they instinctively know is right, whereas a moral person without religion will do what they instinctively think is right, regardless of what they are told by a so called god or holy book.
Religious so called morality has sanctioned some of the most heinous and barbaric practises in history, don't start claiming you have a moral basis from your god or religion!
Having said all of that, very few things are black and white right and wrong, morality evolves with civilisation, education, learning from history, and is often subjective and subject to change and perspective. Christians can't cope with that. Religious people want everything in neat little boxes of good/bad, right/wrong, black/white, sheep/goats, saved/damned, when in truth, very few things are. And religion has very often stood in the way of change for the better in terms of human morality. Your primate argument is a bogus one, because no one would argue that we are not more intelligent, advanced and evolved than other primates, and therefore have far greater capacity for considering morality and ethics, and far greater responsibility in this regard, to behave well towards each other.
Additionally, Natanael, are you saying that you need Big Brother to tell you murder and rape are bad things? Is that the only thing keeping you from murdering and raping, the boss in the sky says so? what's "moral" about that? It merely makes you a psychopath on a leash. Your portrayal of primates is also incorrect, they co-operate entirely on a selfish basis? Nope, they are capable of love, loyalty and compassion, as are many animals.
> Natanael Lizama, but the Bible the Koran and the Torah all sanction rape, torture, slavery, genocide, so why do you disagree with them? You can't claim morality is from god when those things are openly sanctioned in religious texts.
Sure I can. Religious texts have been corrupted, modified, mistranslated, misunderstood and are imperfect.
You also state that morality is inherent to us. I would agree, but you say that it's inherent because of our biology, but all of those things occur in nature. It is WHY throughout history all of that has happened. Rape is a perfectly natural and successful biological strategy, for example. Sociopathy is also natural. Yet, all the violence in older times(and even modern one) is not the product of sociopaths, and not because of religion(not all of it, and maybe not even the majority of it, and you also have to consider why religion is such an universal and important theme, is it because of our biology? Then that means that such violent acts are a product of our inherent biology). In fact, if materialism is true, then biology is ALL we have, whatever act you see man do is a byproduct of an accidental process that makes that person not a moral agent but an observer at best.
> Religious so called morality has sanctioned some of the most heinous and barbaric practises in history, don't start claiming you have a moral basis from your god or religion!
Under atheism why should I put attention to your word of heinous? You have no solid grounds for morality other than you personal preference. You seem to have fallen under the delusion of new atheism that religion is the root of all evil. Violence is inherent to the animal kingdom including humans. Violence can be very successful.
> Having said all of that, very few things are black and white right and wrong, morality evolves with civilisation, education, learning from history, and is often subjective and subject to change and perspective.
Often subjective? It is necessarily subjective. How do you get an objective morality under atheism? You need an objective source for morality(which is why God is necessary for objective morality). Mongols had civilization, education and learning from history, which is why they were very successful in dominating other nations. Why is their inherent morality better or worse than yours? To say this morality is better or worse you need an objective standard to compare them with and to create a hierarchy of moralities, which you CAN'T have under atheism.
> Your primate argument is a bogus one, because no one would argue that we are not more intelligent, advanced and evolved than other primates, and therefore have far greater capacity for considering morality and ethics, and far greater responsibility in this regard, to behave well towards each other.
You didn't understand the argument then. We still have the selfish motivations of an animal(get shelter, mate with as many suitable mates you can, get "bananas"). Our intelligence now provides us a better way to get those selfish goals. As I said, mongols were very intelligent and so they could use that intelligence in a way that was very profitable for them. Why was Genghis Khan wrong? He got everything a primate could want.
> Additionally, Natanael, are you saying that you need Big Brother to tell you murder and rape are bad things?
That is such a superficial counter-argument. I'm saying that only with an objective source of morality can we actually HAVE morality(rather than the practical behavior based on our selfish goals). Only with that can we actually say this is good and this is evil.
> It merely makes you a psychopath on a leash.
A sociopath. Psychopaths are different. But I'll ask again: why is sociopathy wrong? Sociopathy can be a very successful biological trait.
> Nope, they are capable of love, loyalty and compassion, as are many animals.
Loyalty? No, first of all under materialism free will CANNOT exist. So a person can't "DO" anything, they just react without agency to external factors, like their brain states. Beyond that, why is loyalty a reasonable trait? If you are with someone because it benefits you than you are not being loyal to them, if you are with someone even though it does not benefit you, then you're doing something stupid for yourself. There's no workaround without an objective morality.
Now, animals do display such behaviors but they do because they are commanded to do that by their biology. It's the same biology that tells the cat to slaughter the mouse, or the biology that tells the mongol to rape his enemy's wife. Nature is brutal. Don't you know about the selfish gene? Nature is competition and the essence of competition is selfishness. Talk even to your fellow atheistic biologists. Our nature is necessarily selfish and self-centered. Even the filial relationships are motivated by that selfish goal, not true love. True love does not exist under materialism, love is only the byproduct of a biological trait whereupon the gene has a better chance of surviving if it makes two other individuals fall in love long enough to rear their offspring and to make them stick together because of their shared genes(NOT love), it's just a chemical reaction in your brain without the participation of you.
Who is Christopher's opponent? Idiot comes to mind, what more must be say.
Frank turek
Clear thinking as opposed to magical thinking.
It always amazes me how Mr.Hitchens can say such fantastically cogent, complexly germain arguments while appearing so drunk.
Very true. Imagine how awesome he would be if he was sober. 😁
Sometimes people can express their true feelings more truly when intoxicated. Either way I agree with him wholeheartedly
This is one of the best debates I’ve ever seen from Christopher Hitchens. Even though I think all of his debates are amazing are One sided in his favor but this one is the nail in the coffin for religion.
When Frank Turek was asked what evidence would change his mind it's interesting that he said "I don't know how you would refute theism". It's as if he's aware that it's an unfalsifiable position.
Does turek not understand that materialism doesn’t apply in the same way in philosophy as it does in science?
I love how Turek gets gradually more and more hysterical as the debate goes on - if you watch the full version, you'll notice that his voice is about an octive and a half higher than it was at the start. And Hitch is still laconic and relaxed. XD
"What is the chemical composition of love?" - what is the chemical composition of being stupid?
still alive in a lot of minds... RIp
You can sense whose winning the argument by how Tureks voice changes pitch from high to higher.
Why does every Christian scholar look like he is the sales manager at a car dealer
The argument of objective morality is one of the weakest arguments that the theist side has to offer.
It's basically: X is wrong or right because god says so.
Real morality originates in the individual human brain and has developed over time due to evolution.
Humans are emotional, social beings. We have established morale rules in society, so that people can live happily and unharmed.
The individual wellbeing is a/the standard by which morales originate.
The idea that humans behave properly, just because they hope for some reward in afterlife is insulting to their individual intelligence.
Even the idea of an afterlife is so obviously manmade that I wonder how these arguments for the truth of theism, especially individual religions like christianity, are still going on.
Turek has a folder full of notes, Hitch has his Mind?
I do enjoy it when hitch didn't even bother to hide his contempt for some of the charlatans he spoke with.
Turek is locked into the fact that we can’t derive an ought from an is. He identifies “is” as the physical and concludes that the “ought” must then come from beyond the is/physical.
What he doesn’t understand is that even if his God existed, if his God was an “is”, there is still no way to derive an ought from that. Why ought we do as God commands? I wish Hitchens would have asked him that. Turek would have had no argument other than, “to avoid punishment”, which as Hitchens rightly point out has nothing to do with morality.
Gotta love the Hitch...
"There is no such thing as morality if you are just bunch of chemicals" Are you freaking kidding me this man is insane lol
What are chemicals?
Energies in vibrations defining molecules, cells, organs, people ...
Is not simple Life Itself amazing enough ?
That from a handfull of dirt & larger amount of water, you can fashion singing, dancing, thinking & loving human beings ?
When I want to see the
gods, I look for any forms of life, or even the planets and stars themselves.
WHAT ARE WE ?
and not really knowing this,
HOW WONDERFUL IT IS TO EXIST ! How Amazing, joyful, blissfully exciting it is to say,
"I AM. I EXIST.
I AM HERE, I AM NOW."
Is their any experience greater than full self awareness ?
To Love & be Loved ? To have your favorite Ice Cream ? :-)
LIFE IS EXCELLENT !
So.. if you are just a punch of chimicals, how can you say that the bible morality is good if you dont know what morality is?
I guess what he meant to say is if every “moral or empathic” choice can be reduced to chemical equations and combinations it calls into question ones autonomy. By the same token if all negative consequential decision making is the byproduct of different combinations of chemical connections and the “chemicals” are responsible for both sets of outcomes seemingly indiscriminately, in other words, a materialist or empiricist moral perspective, than where are we left I guess?
Sure we can have a general assessment based on our ability to reason about which is more favorable, to be treated with compassion and empathy or taken advantage of and treated violently. And we can assume for the most part which is the more pleasant of the two options to be on the receiving end of. But if everyone’s empathy vs. self interest and narcissism is pre-established via chemical combinations it means your capacity for these ‘ideals’ like self sacrifice and charity are pre programmed and fixed, in other words outside the purview of free will. What would be the point or purpose of an ability to reason then?That means all idealism is folly because everything is already written in bio chemical code. You can’t aspire towards anything because all you will ever be is pre-written. Maybe not down to the individual thought but the behavior that determines and codifies the causeways of your life are buried so deep in your neurochemical code that any notion of free will is just an illusion. What that unfortunately means is immorality and violence is just as fixed and pre-programmed and so just as valid. In other words some believe all ‘morality’ is is a choice of what we would or would not like to happen to us. But in this view it isn’t a choice at all and the entirety of the judiciary system is a joke and a lie because people are going to behave and operate in a way that allies with their programming regardless of what the ‘law’ says.
Now, I don’t have a perfect rebuttal for this argument. It may very well be the ultimate transcendent truth of existence. But I do believe Hitchens, if he was an out and out materialist, contradicts himself a few times throughout the discussion. Flip flops between sentiments without following through with the logic of what he’s implying.
What I will say is there is an age old moral problem that goes like this:
Can you think of a circumstance in which you could be surrounded by water and dying of thirst but unable to drink?
Right, if you’re stranded at sea let’s say.
So we can agree that it is not to your bio chemical benefit to die right? When you’re thirsty beyond belief or starving your body is begging you to indulge that desire. If you are stranded at sea you are surrounded by water but you are unable to drink it because you know the salt in the water will dehydrate you and speed up the process of your death. So you stay your own hand and defy your programming, which is screaming at you and begging you to drink the water, and you suffer on.
At the very least what this age old example illustrates is that the human psyche is ruled by at least two masters. There is the animal physical nature pre programmed with its own strong needs wants and desires. And there is, let call it- your reason. As illustrated in this example the two can act in opposition to one another. This is the strongest argument I can make for free will and autonomy but it isn’t a catch all and it still does not prove necessarily if your ability to reason is naturally allied with a moral compass or if your morality is programmed in the so called ‘animal matrix or not’. If, let’s say it’s about 50/50 morality is pre-programmed natural revulsion and the like as well as musings based upon reason that still begs the question how does that reasoning ability arrive at its conclusions as to what does and does not constitute moral behavior. This is where Hitchens talks about the idea of the witness, or the sort of gut feeling. Now is this an amalgamation of ideas based on some sort of ideal be it religious or sociological? Or is it a much more amorphous thing? If we agree that we have the capacity for reason and the very fact that it on occasion acts in direct contradiction with our animal nature implies evidence for free will that opens up a whole other kettle of worms. If everything is biochemical then it cast doubts upon Hitchens statements about heroism and self sacrifice because these behaviors are no longer attributable to choice but to chemical combinations and since those chemical combinations are equally responsible for murder violence and misery it renders both autonomy and morality utterly meaningless.
If On the other hand some morality is attributable to reason and reason alone there is still no way to prove true altruism exists. Hitchens says if people behave morally to please ‘big brother’ that is subversive to the idea of morality. It spits in the face of it and devalues the very notion of it. And if that big brother isn’t religion it could be ones peers or institutions or any other code or creed or faith that one hopes to glean something from in exchange for having acted in accordance with the general notion of ‘rightliness’. I believe Hitchens says this because he believes an objective morality supported bio chemically. But if we’ve already proven biochemical certainty renders morality null, and we’ve already proven there are two opposing forces at play within the human psyche, the only solution to Hitchens problems is an objective morality that exists as an independent entity in nature outside of human biology and outside of the human brains ability to think freely. Now I’m not saying this is evidence for god. I’m more of a Platonist. What I will say is that Hitchens is a great and ferocious debater but his ideas aren’t fully tested in this debate and are full of holes
@@cicerogsuphoesdown7723 Yeah, these are deep and unresolved questions of philosophy. I feel like these debaters love to go there because if generations of philosophers couldn't definitively solve the problem, you aren't going to do it in the middle of a debate. It's just a red herring anyway, because the question of morality has no bearing on whether or not the claim "there is a God and he had a son named Jesus etc etc" is true or not.
No. Just poorly educated and supremely dishonest. Almost as bad as Sy Ten Brugencate,
Amen to religion degrading humanity. Go Hitch! RIP, continue to have your common sense influence. It is so wonderful that so much of your wisdom has been preserved on video records.
I definitely have a man crush on him, brilliant mind. I could only hope he would be proud to know I do all i can to follow his lead as I believe all religion is brain cance, i hope one day to visit his grave for sentimental reasons and to pay my deepest respects, even knowing how ridiculous is would be to do so. I am amused at the thought of his amusement to know how profound his influence was and continues to be. :)
I truly miss Hitchens everyday. Almost 10 years have passed, but it feels like yesterday
I recently listened to an Athiest-Christian podcast interview with Frank Turek that was recorded last month (December 2020), and it's notable how weak and how little his arguments still are after more than a decade since this video.
Theists don't have new arguments as religions don't evolve.
Look at that, religion has been removed from society and degeneracy looms large. Who could have possibly predicted.
I love how pissed off Turek is for the duration of this debate. The love of the Redeemer isn't with him, it seems(!)
Turek is sweating like a priest in a playground
The gentleman arguing against Hitch is insufferable.
The last one was a heavy blow. A truly outstanding move.
He tried way too hard to argue the non-existence of God.
The fact that human beings have a conscience, doesn't at all mean the nonexistence of a creator.
UNREAL We lost a legend
we lost fuck all, the world got lighter mate.
@@heighwaysonthewing bitter theist?
Mr. Hitchens, please reincarnate now. We need you SO much! Ohhhhhhh, yeah, I was wishful thinking...sorry.
I always assumed societal norms are what determined morality... Humans are social creatures and for the most part we thrive when were part of a society.
Theft, Rape, & Enslavement of a conquered people were once deemed morally acceptable behavior under Christianity...
But that type of behavior, if practiced today, would ensure you were ostracized from your social group...
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (Plato's Euthyphro, 10a)
I love to see Christopher express his glee when he knows he has deconstructed and destroyed his opponents argument. I do miss him still.
It's even more delicous when he realises but his opponent doesn't as is sometimes the case.
"Doctor" Turek; what's his doctorate? Apologetics.
I'm not making this up.
Who refers to chemicals as a bunch of chemicals. Only a silly confused yank.
How can anyone honestly say morality is objective, when we've witnessed moral shifts in our lifetime?
Plus the bible is considered the true bastion of morality (which is an argument I have seen used countless times) even though parts of the bible are kind of ignored or sugarcoated because guess what? We´re past that moral point of humanity´s history. If it was written with knowledge from God, shouldn´t it stand the test of time?
Morals mean that humanity works as a collective, relying on their personal and group empathy to achieve and work for common good goals. Some have used the collective mindset to achieve bad aims but the progress made for the good is on the whole a reflection of humanity greatness.
I think Hitchen's 'my microphone fell off' trick was a masterstroke; it makes him the focus and draws attention to him as a speaker.
i love the hitchslap at the end
Morality serves survival of our species. It's basic natural selection and evolution. That's all it is.
The Religious Guy is aggressive. Everything out of him is preachy and indignant. It's impossible to ignore that
We miss you Hitch. Gone way too soon but you'll never be forgotten
People who do good things because they think they have to are terrifying to me.
Wow! Turek's intellectual deficiency is painfully exposed. I almost feel sorry for him.
My family (inlaw) told me CH had a deathbed conversion, I almost lost my shit.
they should read his last book
I assure you he didn't and that your inlaws are idiots for slandering a man's life mission with their falsehood to prop up their own ignorance..
Wow CH is just Destroying this Christain rocker and the dude still thinks he's winning! Lol
Finding it too difficult to watch anything with Turek in it. How did Hitchens keep calm and carry on being rational?
We are in luck that we got Hitchens' so many videos though he died before the era of YT started in full throtle.
Although I agree that we cannot determine what is right or wrong in a materialistic world, I must say that Turek is wrong in his initial claim. Here's why:
We don't live in a materialistic society! We have moved on and have advanced to a society that determines what's right and wrong based on OUR very own understanding of the world. By the way, that's why anarchism wouldn't work...
Also if his point is that its good because its in the bible, then he also has to explain why then raping a woman and paying her father 60 pieces of silver not OK. What exactly lets him choose between which one to take and which one to ignore?
While I'm not at all sure we don't live in a materialistic society, I believe the use of the term "materialism" in this debate was not in the popular sense of valuing the acquisition of goods and such, but rather the philosophical proposition that only material things exist, or that there is no supernatural aspect to reality. Turek seems to think the existence of morality requires some sort of mystical voodoo to explain it, without bothering to advance any reasons why a material brain could not conceive of or generate such concepts.
I disagree. I think science can inform us of what is right and wrong; however, I think people make the inaccurate claim that there 'is' right and wrong for everything. There's a lot of gray area in morality and there are items of right and wrong that are actually neither. An example, people once thought being left-handed was morally wrong...really, it's neither right nor wrong.
aquatix I see what you're talking about. Most people, I believe, see "right" and "wrong" as two conscious, independent and supernatural forces. I don't see it lile this. To me each one of us have our own morals. That is way we have democracy, so we can come to an understanding and estipulate the rules and moral view ls that our society desires.
Fernando Dobbin I agree with that as I'm humbled by the fact that there are things I probably do today that the next generation or two will find deplorable. But, if someone sincerely does not know what they are doing is 'wrong', does it make it any less wrong or right? Sincere philosophical question...I struggle with that one.
Additionally, though I honor the intention of democracy, it really does not demonstrate what is morally right and wrong. People hold vehement religious views on gay marriage (and previously, slave ownership); is it right or wrong? I would assert that it is neither, but to intentionally withhold happiness from another simply due to one's personal convictions, is morally wrong.
turek the way of he argue is sometimes nonsense may be this guy is highschool level
Bahahaha he needs a book to be a good person bahahaha. If you need a book then your were already a horrible person without without the fictional tale.
exactly, how psychopathic is that?? does that mean without the book telling you no, you'd murder people left and right?? these people creep me out
I dunno I'm only a good person cause I grew up reading batman comics ;) :D
Is it wrong to have faith in something? Absolutely not. However, when that person decides that their faith is the be all and end all of ALL faiths and everyone will be condemned to a horrific death should they not accept the 'one and only' faith then it is no longer a faith but a tool of manipulation. If it really is your faith, then you will be both happy with what you have and accepting of whatever anyone else believes for themselves.
I have never heard one good argument to prove the existence of God, not once. It seems to be what most religious people do is always go Into what I call "Grey" areas, where science and neither prove nor deny.
this is why God is not taught in an science classroom
Best I can figure is the laws of thermodynamics indicate there must be a higher power, since you can't get more energy out than in, when dealing with a closed system. However, I think whatever that means would be intuitive to each individual, not needing it to be preached to them, especially when we look at the fact all of religon has been used to do things that are, at its core truly antihumanist.
Just look at his body language ...
speaks a million words ...his struggling to bring forward good arguments and seem to be holding on to his believes so firmly!!!
Hilarious ....😏😂🤔
Theist all around the world have no courage cos it takes hell a lot of courage to get out of primitive thoughts to be an atheist .
Oh yes one more thing...
Reading helps ....
Not one book
Like a million books out there for you to read about origins of life and astronomy ..
No religion in the world could give you an explanation better then true science ....
The concept of God cheapens what is already amazing and great. Theists are perverting humanity out of the narcissistic belief that they are the center of it all. At the theist's core, he believes he IS God.
Its almost a shame we can’t talk to the dead... i’d love to hear him again, especially with todays leftist climate.
Love watching Hitchens- I wish he'd addressed the gent's question of "Why are these things good?" There are many secular answers but instead Hitchens talks about the VALUE of morality instead of what CONSTITUTES morality.
1:22 Being secure and having positive relationships (leading to security) do.
This is both for species safety and for individual safety.
I am an atheist and also an admirer of Hitchens. But I wonder why he refused to answer the last question. What would he require to happen to make him believe there exists a God?
To me it's clear. If God performed in front of me one of those miracles of the Bible, like resurrecting Lazarus or opening the Red Sea, then I would believe it. I would require something else to be convinced that God has really good moral values, but I would admit that He exists. If Hitchens says that there is no evidence for the existence of God then he should be able to tell us what kind of evidences are these that don't exist.
Gaudio Wind And how would you recognise God as being God ? Did someone tell you it was God ? Did God say "I`m God" ?
lesselp What I mean is these kind of miracles performed in front of me would be enough to prove that there is something supernatural and personal. Then I would have to reconsider my point and admit that there was some evidences to believe that there is a God. But as I said, it require a little more to know that this God would be the God of the Bible. How about you? What could make you think that there is a personal supernatural being?
If the majority of scientists agreed there was a supernatural being,I`d have to consider it.The problem with your idea of miracles is that it could be done by an alien life form from another planet.We could never prove it was God as we have no conception of what God is.
lesselp Yes. I agree with you. It could be aliens. But if these aliens wouldn't present to us, then we wouldn't be capable to differentiate aliens from God. Let's say the accounts in the Bible could also be true, but it could only be telling us events performed by aliens.
In this case, if the atheist would prefer believe in hidden aliens instead of God, even in the presence of apparent miracles, then we, atheists, would be as narrow minded as religious people are now. In my opinion, in this case, atheists would be just searching irrational excuses for not believing in God. The same way, theist do it now, saying that God prefers to keep himself hidden, to justify their beliefs despite all the evidences that there are no God at all.
Bogdan Lazar Yes. I think they don't have the slightest idea of what they mean by God.
Lol, turek. 😂
"it means the individual example is dust" -- touched my heart
Like Alpert Einstein said in his "God letter": All religions are the incarnation of the most childish superstition.
one of the definitions of 'good' is desirable or pleasant. Everyone can agree that empathy towards others is good.
There is nothing in science that suggests the universe requires a cause. Quite the contrary, there is no such thing as a beginning or end except in a mind according to some particular purpose.
It’s the combination of great learning, exhaustive research and superb oratory that makes Hitchens so valuable: and, of course, the polite and thorough way in which he dismantles the arguments of his opponents.
What a loss. 😥😥
These religion defenders so often as this man comes across as being evidently unkind in nature. Those with an inbuilt moral compass require not religion to be a good person; while those without it try to hide its absence with religiosity.
I am 66 when i was 10 a priest told me to cut my hair i said jesus had long hair. I told my father. (It was sunday school) my father talked to the priest, i have never been back. I have never been back i have faith in myself that is the best faith to have. And i have lived a decent life.a life of happiness and love for others. Live your life how you feel not how someone tells you how to live it.
@Callirgos1 I totally agree. I once saw a mother elephant as she stood by her little one who was too weak to go on and try to find water. She first started to go with the rest of the herd, but then stopped, looked back at her baby and then went to it. They died together. You could see her thinking. You could see that she knew if she stayed, she would die. So our human emotions of empathy are not unique and not god-given.