@@alex8480 They're just good at hiding such because they always had to and most probably you didn't confront them with reality in an unapologetic, straightforward and direct manner.
I know I’m arguing semantics a little here, but, “converted to atheism” isn’t the right way to put it, as it suggests atheism to be a belief system or thought process. Atheism is merely the lack in belief of deities. A- meaning “without”, and theism meaning “belief in god”. It is the absence of something, rather than a belief. A better way to put it, I think, is to say you’ve freed your mind, or renounced your religion. Gotta be careful with words around religious folk, particularly theists, as it can give the wrong impression and perpetuate their misinterpretation that “atheism” is a belief, in their eyes, and continue to use it as ammo to divert a debate. Pardon the ramble. I also realize your comment is over a decade old. lol
Ahh where was I when Hitchens was alive ? I was being sucked in and brainwashed horribly by Religion. Thank goodness I kept looking around and asking...always keep asking questions.
@Healthy Vegetarian Recipes but more atheists are nihilists and hedonists. Also destroying the nature is a sin. I think anything is permitted without a God and religious people will be more moral because they're aware that God is watching.
@Healthy Vegetarian Recipes well I think nihilism is very popular. People are sinning and having abortions because nothing matters at the end of the day, it's all matter. About hedonism, every sin in the bible has its consequences so there are lots of normalized things (like sexual freedom) that actually have really bad consequences. The divorce rate is 50% women are working family values are being destroyed. I think every Christian should be in pursuit of being like Jesus. I don't really care if they do it because fear God, are aware that everything they have is from God or if they simply know that its the best for their soul and everyone around. Everyone has eternal life it's either in hell or heaven and Christians believe that we're all sinners so I'd disagree with the notion that we're less virtuous just because we know that our actions have consequences, we shouldn't disobey God because he promised us Heaven. I'm pretty sure atheists will be less likely to die for their country and will also commit more abortions. Also suicide rate has gone up quite a lot and most of these people just think this world is all there is to life
@@karole7345 Your assumptions are showing. Who’s not to say that believing oneself significant because they believe a god has made them in his/her image, thus better than others who do not believe in that god, are no less hedonistic or less virtuous?!
He needs to get a new line and stop interrupting. He lost this one because he never actually explains WHY a chemically induced behavior that we consider good is good. The explanation is that the behaviors we're addressing contribute to the survival of the species so they are instinctual to us and reinforced by chemical signals from our brains. I'm speaking generally, of course, but that's the simple explanation. We call these things good because our brains have evolved to reward us with pleasure when we do things that contribute to the survival of our species. And of course, society generally reinforces these thoughts and behaviors.
"But we do not get it from big brother; if we did, that would degrade it. It would mean it wasn't heroic, it wasn't brave, it wasn't individual, it wasn't exemplary, didn't deserve anything." "Why is this good?" "Because it would be in the hope either of a reward from big brother or for fear of punishment from it. It would abolish morality. It destroys ethics."
@@natanaellizama6559 He understood what was meant. He made the case that we deem following the better angels of our nature as good while the Christian relies on an external judge to determine good. Why is following the edicts of some god good? It is your subjective opinion that it is. Your morality is no more objective than the atheist. The atheist gets his ought from human nature. The theist gets his oughts from big brother. In Htch's opinion, doing good in the name of human nature is better than doing good for the hope of reward and fear of punishment. In Turek's opinion, it isn't. Simple as that.
This is possibly the greatest moment of the Great Hitch ! I think I sensed a lump in his throat when he mentioned the universal nature of heroism & courage. One of a kind. Sorely... Utterly.. missed.
"Why are all those things good?" Because we think they're good. We value heroism. Obviously Turek thinks they're good because "God said so." Well, why does God think they're good? The question still stands!
@@ignipotent7276 - Actually, nothing you've seen me write confirms your assumption whatsoever, however, your unwarranted intrusion tells me everything I need to know about you.
Turek claims "Morality comes from God" and naturally, he claims it's a "Biblical God"...same God who committed genocide and ordered genocide. And yet, an atheist says genocide is wrong and immoral. In fact, all but the Christian apologists say that. Only the apologists say "Genocide is fine, if God does it or orders it."
Franks entire argument is, I’m uncomfortable that this might be the reality because of what that might mean. And Christopher‘s point is, your comfort about reality has no bearing on whether it’s reality. I don’t like the fact that everybody I have ever known or loved will die one-day, but they will, whether that is acceptable to me is irrelevant.
If you only have empathy and kindness for the sake of an afterlife reward, then you weren't that great of a person, to begin with. I don't need an immoral god watching me 24/7 to know not to do objectively bad things because I know how to emphasize due to being a social mammal.
"If God didn't tell us about morality, we wouldn't have it" - Turek, basically. Or maybe it's innate to social creatures, whether they can read the Bible or not.
Why does our species, or any species, have a desire to survive and thrive? Evolution addresses how, not why...why strive for more if we're only highly self-conscious animals?
@@thegrouchization That's obvious but doesn't answer the question. Why isn't it "good" for a species to survive or why is it "bad" they go extinct? THAT is the question, none of you have answered. You must prove why not going extinct is a good thing in a universe with no purpose.
@@knpstrr Ultimately, it is subjective, but the same applies to any moral foundation. Even if a god exists and tells you what is right and wrong, that is merely that deity's own opinion on the subject (the alternative being that morality is somehow inherent to the universe, in which case the god is redundant).
The attempt to present what is merely faith as science is intellectually dishonest and consciously and wilfully deceitful. It demonstrates a determination to ignore the lack of evidence for religious claims, wishing to remain ill-informed rather than truthful. It is worse than ignorance because it is an intentional attempt to deceive and use logical fallacies for that purpose.
Because it's not only life after death but a perfect objective source of ethics, that's what you need. Without it you would care about your own safety but not others when it doesn't benefit you
@@orionlax626 Atheists validating the category of "good and evil" are as rational as atheists think theists are validating the category of "what God would want". You're not even understanding my point. My point is not that atheists do not act in ways socially perceived as moral/immoral, but that they can't rationally justify their own position, in the same way that to an atheist a theist cannot rationally justify their own position.
Turek was so hopelessly outclassed one almost pities him, but my empathy is tempered by my sense of justice. That and schadenfreude, the most Christian of emotions.
As Sam Harris points out, it all boils down to the well-being of conscious creatures. Self sacrifice like throwing yourself on a grenade to save your friends is good because you put the greater amount of conscious suffering above your own and act against it. Easy as that.
No, it's not. Why is that rational to the sacrificed individual? It alleviates more global suffering perphaps, but why should the individual care? Not eating a burger leads to less suffering, but why should the individual care too much about pigs if he can just enjoy his burger and be done with it?
And to answer where love and compassion derive, also simple: evolution. People are violent, if we never evolved traits like love and compassion, we would have died off long ago. We need those traits to survive. SIMPLE!
"Why are they good ?" it doesn't matter why hitchens think they feel good or anybody else, you could say that perhaps we agreed that those things are good, that we use logic to determine that if we don't attack someone that other person won't attack us , and derive everything else from this concept. However even if the answer is "I don't know" it doesn't justify the concept "It comes from this non-material thing, that it is undetectable and yet interacts with material things somehow"
😃 logic, you say? What do you mean by logic? The ability to infer that if you use a stick you can kill another animal (including your species)? Oh, dear.
Morality is objective because it is directly related to our own wellbeing. If you want to be happy, you have to contribute to the happiness of others. Helping others makes the world better, and if the world is better we can be more peaceful and less afraid. How can you be happy if everyone around you is angry and full of hate? Compassion is the basis of happiness.
This question of "objective" morality has a very simple answer to me. The key concept is relativity, everything in the universe must be described relative to something else. The argument between theists and atheists is merely what do we measure our morality against, or relative to. Theists say that we must relate it to a "supreme being" of which they have a dubious understanding of to begin with, whereas many atheists such as Hitchens and Sam Harris are saying we can objectify it relative to ourselves, to the human race. I find this to be a much more logical and correct method considering that we are truly the only ones that care about our own well being.
+Mr. Mammal. - Imagine you see a young child learning to walk. 1) Think to yourself, "I hope the brat falls and breaks her leg." Then observe the effect it has on your mind. 2) Think to yourself, "I hope all of her dreams come true, I hope happiness and peace will find her someday." (Then observe the effect it has on your mind). Which thoughts had a more positive effect on your mind? Which thoughts more uplifted you as a person? And which thoughts brought you down...
Well, of course if being moral leads to our individual happiness we should do so, but if the suffering of another leads more to my wellbeing, why ought I be moral then?
it is really simple, in fact. Societies where people behave morally are stronger and self-sustainable. Those societies where people doesn't behave morally are weak and can't defend themselves. A simple case of natural selection. Those societies where people didn't behave as they should just didn't succeed, they self-destructed. It's not hard to understand that our societies are also the result of natural selection. Morality is a component of a successful society. It's that simple.
"Why is heroism good?" WTF. At what point does the moderator need to step in and point out that his questions are purely semantic. Heroism is defined by just and good actions more so than the actions themselves. He's more asking about perspective of morality than morality itself but he lacks the words to even phrase that correctly.
Doesn’t it appear that Turek is often on the verge of a tearful nervous breakdown? Besides fairytale wish-thinking, the guy has some serious psychological issues. So, without a belief in a human-created, supernatural, invisible sky-god and a human-created holy book, Turek would not know the difference between morality and evil, the difference between right and wrong, the difference between helping someone in need and ignoring someone in need? He is a sad dope.
He says you can't quantify 'love'. The reason for that is not the shortcoming of science, but of the English language as a means of denoting empirical truths and underlying causes. English, like any language other than mathematics and science, evolved in pre-scientific eras and as a result we label things in highly subjective, un-scientific and often meaningless ways. That's why we still say I 'believe' in the theory of evolution.
Turek's whole and only rebuttal is "why is heroism, self sacrifice and love all good?" Its because these along with our moral and ethical codes helps us to keep together as family, as society and ensure carry forward and survival of our species.
Three men volunteered to venture under the Chernobyl reactor, knowing the radiation levels would likely kill them. They did it, not because they were ordered to, but because they knew it had to be done, or millions would die. That was an act of self-sacrifice, which, unlike the split second decision to throw yourself on a grenade, was a carefully considered decision.
The carefully considered decision to throw oneself on a grenade to save others occurs before the moment takes place. Some people decide that going into an event they'll do everything they can to save people, if that moment comes, they act.
Why are those things good? Because we feel like they are! That doesn't cheapen it. Objectively we feel in the fiber of our being that those things are good. It could have gone another way, it wasn't preordained, but it just so happens that humans feel that certain things are good and certain things are bad. Seeing as we appear to be the only advanced intelligent life in the known universe, I'd say that's enough cause to legitimize our ways.
An action is considered "good" if the act is done for the well-being and/or greater good for either yourself and/or someone(s) other than yourself without negative effects. As much as I agree with Hitchens' perspective, I wish he'd approached this question differently. He had ample opportunity to make a solid point and capitalize on Turek's valiant, but futile attempt to dominate the debate with such an arbitrary question. What does the definition of "good" prove?
@AmbroseEpeeMaster If that is the case, your faith never had a chance. This debate is like a warm hug of humanism, righteousness and sanity. Hitchens is at the top of his game here.
the biggest mistake we humans make in our thinking is that we are somehow extraordinarily special, divine in origin. that what we do shows this, yes we have great potential but we have not yet reached it. does a wolf not protect her cubs? does a pack not defend it's members from another? animals exhibit a sense of right and wrong, it is merely in the shadow of their survival instincts. just as those instincts to protect are in them so too are they in us. Why must we be ashamed of this point?
Really, a human has obvious abilities that are vastly greater than any other animal known to exist. Are wolves building rockets and sending them to Mars? Hahaha. Humans are at a "different level" than all other animals, it isn't even close.
Nobody is arguing that you need God to have an idea of morality in common with other people. What you are not able to account for is "why goodness is good". You may say it is good because it helps people, but that just pushes the question back one more step and doesn't actually answer anything.
As a society we decide what is and isn't good for ourselves, that's why different things are good and bad in different parts of the world, different cultures, from different time periods. That's how we can read the Bible and other old religious scripture and tell that they weren't divinely inspired, because they sound simple, archaic, and barbaric as times were back then. God would have known better than to sanction slavery...
its all well and good Hitchens theorising, discussing in a warm room with a nice book deal. In real world, morals have real significance. More importantly, ppl have choice. God is not a dictator, ppl choose to follow Him from their own freewill. If He was a dictator, then why are we not enslaved by Him right now? why allow freewill in the 1st place?
@@kane4013 Your mother definitely was lifting you. You did not walk when you were born. LMAO. Your mother also did not create you by herself unless her name is Marry and your name is Yeshua.
@@LGpi314 I’m just not getting the significance of being able to lift something anyway. Do you have another analogy that can make the same point? Or can you explain why being able to lift something is important?
the religion guy wants to claim that morality comes from religion....how is slavery moral? he does know that the book he lives by endorses slavery? im not religious, but i find slavery a bit immoral.
He did. Been answered time and time again. I'd be annoyed too if someone says to me an equally stupid question, "but why are there happy people when there sad people exist? ". That's a stupid question and an adult does not deserve the answer. If I child asked that, we could be more lenient.
carpnter I do agree actually, but I think that admission hurts the naturalists case. Moral acts are the "right thing to do". The admission of moral obligations, the fact that we recognize some behavior is proper notwithstanding our personal benefit only makes sense under objective morality. If Hitchens openly affirms objective morality, he will prove the existence of God through the moral argument. Hitchens constantly strawmans or dodges the moral argument rather than addressing it head on.
morality is the assessment of the impact of your actions on others, it’s that simple. why do theists have to butcher it so badly? show me an act, that is considered morally virtuous, that does not take the wellbeing of others into consideration.
The Rev. Dr. Dick Checker gets to decide right or wrong. He gets to be the guardian of public morality. He's a man of faith. By using the theological equation: (ignorance + stupidity) × (arrogance + intellectual dishonesty) = faith; god always will favor you.
He's talking about what is "right" or "wrong", and asks what makes empathy "right". This is a question that does not make sense unless you accept that some things are transcendentally right, which I don't believe is the case.
@silverstream314 I think you're being obtuse here. The word 'right' has different meanings, but it's obvious that it's meant as 'how is it justified and something to be imitated'? Of course without an objective source of morality there is no 'rightness' or 'wrongness' which are fundamental to morality, which is precisely the point. What you have left is not an intrinsic rightness or wrongness but actions and morality as tools towards the well-being not of society but the individual. That means that if lying and cheating works at your advantage, you are perfectly justified(that is, 'right') in doing it.
there is a simple metric: does the action cause unnecessary harm, for no genuine benefit. remember, killing should only be done for the purpose of survival, to an actually moral person there are only 3 reasons: for food, self-defense, euthanisation of the those dying in torment. all other excuses for killing are done to gratify an innate sense of cruelty. the same for non-lethal assaults of all stripe, most thefts, all frauds, particularly the fraud of religion. so, because we have a genuinely autonomous capability to make the choice of vetoing almost any voluntary actions we undertake, we can use that metric to arbitrarily judge a "universal standard" (as if we set the tone for a nigh infinite universe. oh, the arrogance) of right v wrong based on the consequences resulting from choices made and acted upon. no transcendent authority required.
Our morality/empathy is socially innate because we're social animals/herd animals. We survive better socially, thus our empathy and morality is online early in life. And our empathy, if not hijacked by religion or strongly reinforced behavior patterns that are in opposition of utilizing empathy and morality (both are environmental elements and environment influences behavior) is what will guide us to steward the earth in a manner that's flourishing for all other species and the planet
Regarding agnostic. It simply means I don't know. To assert there is no God, is to say you know something you cannot know. To assert there is a God ,is to say you know something you cannot know.
People often complain about morality in an analogous way to the absurd story I've just given. They demand a basis for the property of good that doesn't make reference to goodness, but how is that any different from demanding a non-trivial basis for why any object has any property. I think goodness is connected to human health and well-being and when asked what that is, at best I can point to paradigm examples and say some trivial things, but how is that different from any concept we have.
I have to LOL my ass off at the end when Hitchens basically calls Franky a monkey. Frankey just looks at the moderator as if to say.. "What can I say to that?"
Broadly, it's quite simple to my eyes. Morality comes from two things. We EVOLVED to be moral (instrisic) and we LEARNED (extrinsic) through our life moral values which are preserved and reinforced by society.
(cont'd) To assume that it is even POSSIBLE to label some perspective "superior" to another perspective is to assume that there is an "objective" standard by which one can determine the difference. I wouldn't say my favorite color is "superior" to yours; that makes no sense. We're both right about our own favorite colors. But if I were to assume my favorite color genuinely is "superior" to yours, I must assume an outside objective standard by which our colors can both be judged.
Morality is a human invention.... just like religion. The only reason that anything is considered right or wrong is because people in a society agree. Religions play a part in defining the ethics of a society but they do not own ethics. I think that empathy is the guiding principle behind our social behaviour, we couldn't possibly function socially without it. It's easy to feel empathy towards your family and immediate group but if you extend this to larger and larger communities you need to codify behaviour, this is why we have social rules and laws. The more evenly this empathy is spread across a society the more just it will be, but there never will be a society that is 100% just (i.e. perfect) because of the sheer complexity of our societies, this is why we will always have to strive for justice. Religions shift the axis of justice from empathy to the absolute will of a divinity and consequently become a hindrance to justice instead of a help, morality needs to be flexible and relative it needs to be adapted to different social conditions. This happens all the time, just consider the social attitudes and legislation regarding any number of issues (in no particular order): divorce, polygamy, workers rights, monarchy, democracy, children's rights, religious freedom, abortion, homosexuality, the death penalty, the distribution of wealth, the environment, racial equality, women's rights the list is endless.
A human invention would be lets say a light bulb, how many people have invented that? Love on the other is innate and experienced by 90% of the population, so I wouldn't say its an invention. Morals is a product of mind/consciousness and that is a product of metaphysical phenomena which we call God or the divine. Although Religion is man made and partially mythical, it established a basis for morality in early civilizations.
George Christopher morals don't come from non-existent beings, actually, nothing comes from mythical characters, if you need some external entity dictating what's moral to you because you're too stupid to come up with it yourself, it is your fault, but those of us who can don't need a bronze age IMMORAL and above anything ignorant dusty book.
Luis De La Peña morals are innate, but being that it stems through consciousness, that places metaphysics in the world beyond the material. Objective morality exists, therefore a standard beyond human opinion exists as well.
There is no such thing as objective morality. All of morality is subjective. There is very little debate about this within the scientific and philosophical community. It is only religious people who think that morality is objective because they so desperately want their silly holy books to be true.
@MissingChurchill The answer to your question(s) is yes. I've given you numerous, examples of why morality is subjective. are you going to take a counter position ? Strangely you don't seem to disagree with my position,but the semantics of the word "subjective". Do you have a position on this topic ?
Watched the whole debate. Christ.. okay, so Turek basically says "In spite of all the evidence, God still created it", where Hitchens actually addresses the evidence and labels it as relevant in disproving God, and then shows that the belief in God is fundamentally wrong, and has done the world harm, while also showing that the morals that can exist with god can exist without because these are fundamentally human traits. Turek had his fingers in his ears, and closes repeating his same old points
Hitchen's opponent kept asking "Why are all of those things good? What makes them moral?" It's so simple that I wanted to shout it at my fucking screen. Because people like the idea that somebody might die for them, or help them for no reason! People's Wants = Good Someone wants sex, SEX = GOOD Someone wants a hero that might save them or their family, HERO = GOOD
@blastor8or 1. It's a red herring because you're pushing the conversation into the arena of biblical interpretation. OUR conversation is about whether morality is objective and thus provides evidence for the existence of a creator/god. My belief in objective morality doesn't stem from the proposition that "the Bible says so," it stems from the proposition that there is a designed intent for how life OUGHT to be lived in this universe (i.e. a created order)...(cont'd)
I always feel theists in these exchanges on morality rig the debate by asking "how do you know it's good." When their definition of good includes God. Then when the atheist changes that definition to something more pragmatic they are accused of inconsequential wordplay.
The intelligent man has no panic when he speaks, no need to shout over or be over anxious to be heard. Turek fails in every way here in the face of a man who knows his own mind.
He's giving the 'question' the contempt it deserves by ignoring it because it's a stupid, childish utterance that has no answer. Like 'why is blue blue' and 'are we there yet?'
@@xeroaishintu5777 Ok. If you were serious, then what is bogus from the premise? The question pertained to Ethics from a pure physicalist/materialist perspective. It pertains to how are we to ontologically ground Ethics, not to explain selective moral aspects within a society. What's bogus about it? Hitchens response was "we don't need Big Brother", but that's an evasion of the question, not a proper answer, as one may still do away with the concept of Big Brother and are no closer to grounding Ethics. It's like when he answers "The Bible is monstruous". Well... ok... so what? How does that solve Ethics under a materialist/naturalist view? It doesn't.
@ArmourApple he does that a lot, in comparison, while hitch was talking you could hear on the background "why are they good? why are they good? why are those things good? why are they good? why are they good? why are they good?" reminded me of stewie "lois, mom, mom, mommy, mom ,mom..." and so on
DM, First, I'd invite you to define what you mean when you say [certain] moral truths are "objective." What do you mean by objective? When I say "objective," I mean murder (for example) is evil for everyone independent of human thought or feeling. Second, this is not about moral epistemology or even the ability to BE moral; it's about the nature of morality. If it's objective, there must be a universal "way things are supposed to be." Apart from designed intent, this is impossible.
@DocBlasto Well i was a roman catholic, given top notch theological education. i actually LIKED learning about my faith and their apologies. but hitchens just made me see the truth
It's amazing to me that anyone has the brainless desire to get on a stage to debate Hitchens. Hitchens leaves them bloody and twitching in the ditch. He so destroys this religious fool that it's hard to believe "Dr." Turek has the gall to show his face in public again. The world owes people like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and Hitchens a HUGE "THANK YOU" for standing up to the dark agenda so treasured by the religious community.
So much for the idea of 'moral judgement'. "What makes courage, love, self sacrifice right if i don't get salvation/reward at the end?" A fine example of the dangerous pattern that the religious lack the moral-highground they profess, or morals at all for that matter considering no reasoning, thinking or a sincere sense of compassion is involved - only the shameful rationale of punishment & reward can command their "good deeds". Disgrace to humanity.
I do not think Hitchens answered this very well.It is good and moral because most agree that it is.Morality comes from society.What I think is moral may not be the same as what you think is moral,but religious people believe their morals are better than mine because they come from a god that is more powerful than they are.
The look on Turek's face at the end is priceless. Like, "did he just call me an ape? I'm not really sure. Smart people confuse me."
I can't take Turek seriously because he gets so visibly angry every time he speaks.
He's insufferable.
It's a Christian thing.
Ever met a Christian that wasn’t angry?
@@dylancoleman1921 yes, quite a few
@@alex8480
They're just good at hiding such because they always had to and most probably you didn't confront them with reality in an unapologetic, straightforward and direct manner.
I have watched these clips and the whole debate so many times and I never get sick of seeing Hitch completely dismantle this guy's world...
Why is there something, rather than nothing? Simple question.
Kane spam
@@kane4013 Can god create a rock that it can't lift?
@@kane4013 define nothing
@@kane4013 why not?
christopher, from this whole debate, converted me to atheism
I have never believed there was a god/creator,and having watched Christophers debates,he reinforces my opinion in a way i never could.
I know I’m arguing semantics a little here, but, “converted to atheism” isn’t the right way to put it, as it suggests atheism to be a belief system or thought process. Atheism is merely the lack in belief of deities. A- meaning “without”, and theism meaning “belief in god”. It is the absence of something, rather than a belief. A better way to put it, I think, is to say you’ve freed your mind, or renounced your religion. Gotta be careful with words around religious folk, particularly theists, as it can give the wrong impression and perpetuate their misinterpretation that “atheism” is a belief, in their eyes, and continue to use it as ammo to divert a debate. Pardon the ramble. I also realize your comment is over a decade old. lol
You cant be "converted" into atheism, you are a BORN atheist....thats why the word shouldn be used at all. like Hitch said several times.....
Ahh where was I when Hitchens was alive ? I was being sucked in and brainwashed horribly by Religion. Thank goodness I kept looking around and asking...always keep asking questions.
@Healthy Vegetarian Recipes virtues? Dont you think more atheist lack virtue? It's a lot easier to live without a God
@Healthy Vegetarian Recipes but more atheists are nihilists and hedonists. Also destroying the nature is a sin. I think anything is permitted without a God and religious people will be more moral because they're aware that God is watching.
@Healthy Vegetarian Recipes well I think nihilism is very popular. People are sinning and having abortions because nothing matters at the end of the day, it's all matter. About hedonism, every sin in the bible has its consequences so there are lots of normalized things (like sexual freedom) that actually have really bad consequences. The divorce rate is 50% women are working family values are being destroyed. I think every Christian should be in pursuit of being like Jesus. I don't really care if they do it because fear God, are aware that everything they have is from God or if they simply know that its the best for their soul and everyone around. Everyone has eternal life it's either in hell or heaven and Christians believe that we're all sinners so I'd disagree with the notion that we're less virtuous just because we know that our actions have consequences, we shouldn't disobey God because he promised us Heaven. I'm pretty sure atheists will be less likely to die for their country and will also commit more abortions. Also suicide rate has gone up quite a lot and most of these people just think this world is all there is to life
@@karole7345 Your assumptions are showing. Who’s not to say that believing oneself significant because they believe a god has made them in his/her image, thus better than others who do not believe in that god, are no less hedonistic or less virtuous?!
@@skiphoffenflaven8004 Why is there something, rather than nothing? Simple question.
"It's okay, I already know some people will clap anything." (clap clap clap)
Preceding Rick Sanchez's "I've seen what you cheer." line by several years.
He needs to get a new line and stop interrupting. He lost this one because he never actually explains WHY a chemically induced behavior that we consider good is good. The explanation is that the behaviors we're addressing contribute to the survival of the species so they are instinctual to us and reinforced by chemical signals from our brains. I'm speaking generally, of course, but that's the simple explanation. We call these things good because our brains have evolved to reward us with pleasure when we do things that contribute to the survival of our species. And of course, society generally reinforces these thoughts and behaviors.
@@RedSiegfried Why is there something, rather than nothing? Simple question.
@Kane why do you spam?
@@JohnDoe-vy5hh Because Kane is dumb.
"But we do not get it from big brother; if we did, that would degrade it. It would mean it wasn't heroic, it wasn't brave, it wasn't individual, it wasn't exemplary, didn't deserve anything."
"Why is this good?"
"Because it would be in the hope either of a reward from big brother or for fear of punishment from it. It would abolish morality. It destroys ethics."
No, Hitchens didn't understand what was meant with "why is this good", he meant the previous statement. Why is being heroic good?
@@natanaellizama6559 He understood what was meant. He made the case that we deem following the better angels of our nature as good while the Christian relies on an external judge to determine good. Why is following the edicts of some god good? It is your subjective opinion that it is. Your morality is no more objective than the atheist. The atheist gets his ought from human nature. The theist gets his oughts from big brother. In Htch's opinion, doing good in the name of human nature is better than doing good for the hope of reward and fear of punishment. In Turek's opinion, it isn't. Simple as that.
This is possibly the greatest moment of the Great Hitch ! I think I sensed a lump in his throat when he mentioned the universal nature of heroism & courage.
One of a kind. Sorely... Utterly.. missed.
"Why are all those things good?" Because we think they're good. We value heroism. Obviously Turek thinks they're good because "God said so." Well, why does God think they're good? The question still stands!
You assume Turek thinks but he only uses God as the perfect Objective Comparison.
Why does God think they're good?God knows their good by their works
God never told me how to behave, my parents, society and laws did, not magic sky person.
@@ChantingInTheDark and you still failed to behave properly
@@ignipotent7276 - Actually, nothing you've seen me write confirms your assumption whatsoever, however, your unwarranted intrusion tells me everything I need to know about you.
@@ChantingInTheDark Yes a Biased Conclusion to not further the argument,typical
Turek claims "Morality comes from God" and naturally, he claims it's a "Biblical God"...same God who committed genocide and ordered genocide. And yet, an atheist says genocide is wrong and immoral. In fact, all but the Christian apologists say that. Only the apologists say "Genocide is fine, if God does it or orders it."
Franks entire argument is, I’m uncomfortable that this might be the reality because of what that might mean. And Christopher‘s point is, your comfort about reality has no bearing on whether it’s reality. I don’t like the fact that everybody I have ever known or loved will die one-day, but they will, whether that is acceptable to me is irrelevant.
“Love without evidence is stalking.”
- Tim Minchin
If you only have empathy and kindness for the sake of an afterlife reward, then you weren't that great of a person, to begin with.
I don't need an immoral god watching me 24/7 to know not to do objectively bad things because I know how to emphasize due to being a social mammal.
No true Christian would ever say they are a "great person" because of their own doing. The standard of morality isn't empathy.
Christians claim superiority over non Christians every day.
if their god is all knowing he doesnt need to watch anyone because he ALREADY knows what you are going to do....
does a religious person save a child from a burning building to get into heaven, or to save the child's life????
Religion makes angry people.
"If God didn't tell us about morality, we wouldn't have it" - Turek, basically. Or maybe it's innate to social creatures, whether they can read the Bible or not.
Saying its innate is a rather radical assumption that not even evolution confirms🤷
I have seen animals help others even human beings but I never see them expressing belief in an invisible Sky daddy .
Completely forgetting the fact that humans with moral wrote the fucking thing. Some people are just born without functioning brains..
@@ignipotent7276 what in the fuck are you even saying? Ofcourse evolution proves that morality in innate in humans you absolute mong.
@@Mikael-jt1hk Eh and where those humans get that morality perspective 🤣🤣on their own?
Hitch had a way of getting under Frank's skin that always worked, and Frank never saw it coming, not once. ☺
Chemical composition of Love: Several dozen nano grams each of Dopamine, Serotonin and Oxytocin
Try again. Love isn't lust or pleasure.
"Why are those things good?"
Because they help our species survive and thrive. Simple.
Why does our species, or any species, have a desire to survive and thrive? Evolution addresses how, not why...why strive for more if we're only highly self-conscious animals?
Because if we didn't we would have gone extinct a long time ago...
@@richardb9185 Put simply, species that don't have a desire to survive and thrive don't tend to last very long.
@@thegrouchization That's obvious but doesn't answer the question. Why isn't it "good" for a species to survive or why is it "bad" they go extinct? THAT is the question, none of you have answered. You must prove why not going extinct is a good thing in a universe with no purpose.
@@knpstrr Ultimately, it is subjective, but the same applies to any moral foundation.
Even if a god exists and tells you what is right and wrong, that is merely that deity's own opinion on the subject (the alternative being that morality is somehow inherent to the universe, in which case the god is redundant).
The attempt to present what is merely faith as science is intellectually dishonest and consciously and wilfully deceitful. It demonstrates a determination to ignore the lack of evidence for religious claims, wishing to remain ill-informed rather than truthful. It is worse than ignorance because it is an intentional attempt to deceive and use logical fallacies for that purpose.
Morality is for Mortals, If you believe in life after death, then why are you concerned with human safety?
Because it's not only life after death but a perfect objective source of ethics, that's what you need. Without it you would care about your own safety but not others when it doesn't benefit you
@@natanaellizama6559
Almost every atheist alive is living proof that you're full of shit. Do you think we're all mass murderers?
@@orionlax626
Atheists validating the category of "good and evil" are as rational as atheists think theists are validating the category of "what God would want".
You're not even understanding my point. My point is not that atheists do not act in ways socially perceived as moral/immoral, but that they can't rationally justify their own position, in the same way that to an atheist a theist cannot rationally justify their own position.
@@natanaellizama6559
What position are we supposed to be justifying?
@@orionlax626
That one ought to live their life under the dictums of the categorization of right and evil, including oughts themselves (obligations)
Turek was so hopelessly outclassed one almost pities him, but my empathy is tempered by my sense of justice. That and schadenfreude, the most Christian of emotions.
As Sam Harris points out, it all boils down to the well-being of conscious creatures. Self sacrifice like throwing yourself on a grenade to save your friends is good because you put the greater amount of conscious suffering above your own and act against it. Easy as that.
No, it's not. Why is that rational to the sacrificed individual? It alleviates more global suffering perphaps, but why should the individual care? Not eating a burger leads to less suffering, but why should the individual care too much about pigs if he can just enjoy his burger and be done with it?
It's called actually giving a damn about others above one's self
@@natanaellizama6559
Because normal people do care. If you don't, that's on you.
@@orionlax626 there’s a medical diagnosis for those who don’t care. it’s called sociopath
@@natanaellizama6559 We certainly don't need an invisible man to tell us what is right, awaiting reward or punishment from him.
And to answer where love and compassion derive, also simple: evolution.
People are violent, if we never evolved traits like love and compassion, we would have died off long ago. We need those traits to survive. SIMPLE!
The religious guy really is a broken record.
I can't tell if Turek is pretending to be obtuse or if he really doesn't understand the question.
He is blinded by the Light! 😂
Turak makes no sense to me. He's a burk. Hitchens 10 - Turek 0
How deluded is Frank? He thinks he can take on Hitch. If he believes that he will believe anything.
i love how hitch can put the mic closer to himself when he needs a slight volume boost :)
We are social mammals. And otherwise would have died out long before Big Brother was invented.
"Why are they good ?" it doesn't matter why hitchens think they feel good or anybody else, you could say that perhaps we agreed that those things are good, that we use logic to determine that if we don't attack someone that other person won't attack us , and derive everything else from this concept. However even if the answer is "I don't know" it doesn't justify the concept "It comes from this non-material thing, that it is undetectable and yet interacts with material things somehow"
😃 logic, you say? What do you mean by logic? The ability to infer that if you use a stick you can kill another animal (including your species)? Oh, dear.
I can find no redeeming qualities in Frank Turek.
In his defence, his work does seem to have impressively increased the numbers of atheists.
Morality is objective because it is directly related to our own wellbeing. If you want to be happy, you have to contribute to the happiness of others. Helping others makes the world better, and if the world is better we can be more peaceful and less afraid. How can you be happy if everyone around you is angry and full of hate? Compassion is the basis of happiness.
This question of "objective" morality has a very simple answer to me. The key concept is relativity, everything in the universe must be described relative to something else. The argument between theists and atheists is merely what do we measure our morality against, or relative to. Theists say that we must relate it to a "supreme being" of which they have a dubious understanding of to begin with, whereas many atheists such as Hitchens and Sam Harris are saying we can objectify it relative to ourselves, to the human race. I find this to be a much more logical and correct method considering that we are truly the only ones that care about our own well being.
+Mr. Mammal. -
Imagine you see a young child learning to walk. 1) Think to yourself, "I hope the brat falls and breaks her leg." Then observe the effect it has on your mind. 2) Think to yourself, "I hope all of her dreams come true, I hope happiness and peace will find her someday." (Then observe the effect it has on your mind).
Which thoughts had a more positive effect on your mind? Which thoughts more uplifted you as a person? And which thoughts brought you down...
Well, of course if being moral leads to our individual happiness we should do so, but if the suffering of another leads more to my wellbeing, why ought I be moral then?
@Jazzkeyboardist1 That is a very stupid comment.
it is really simple, in fact. Societies where people behave morally are stronger and self-sustainable. Those societies where people doesn't behave morally are weak and can't defend themselves.
A simple case of natural selection. Those societies where people didn't behave as they should just didn't succeed, they self-destructed.
It's not hard to understand that our societies are also the result of natural selection. Morality is a component of a successful society. It's that simple.
"Why is heroism good?" WTF. At what point does the moderator need to step in and point out that his questions are purely semantic. Heroism is defined by just and good actions more so than the actions themselves. He's more asking about perspective of morality than morality itself but he lacks the words to even phrase that correctly.
Turek only thinks that whatever he believes in is what makes right.
I can tell by Turek's voice that he is mad.
Doesn’t it appear that Turek is often on the verge of a tearful nervous breakdown? Besides fairytale wish-thinking, the guy has some serious psychological issues. So, without a belief in a human-created, supernatural, invisible sky-god and a human-created holy book, Turek would not know the difference between morality and evil, the difference between right and wrong, the difference between helping someone in need and ignoring someone in need? He is a sad dope.
Incredible that some people still think there is a God when science has explained and debunked so much religious mantra.
He says you can't quantify 'love'. The reason for that is not the shortcoming of science, but of the English language as a means of denoting empirical truths and underlying causes. English, like any language other than mathematics and science, evolved in pre-scientific eras and as a result we label things in highly subjective, un-scientific and often meaningless ways. That's why we still say I 'believe' in the theory of evolution.
Turek's whole and only rebuttal is "why is heroism, self sacrifice and love all good?" Its because these along with our moral and ethical codes helps us to keep together as family, as society and ensure carry forward and survival of our species.
Three men volunteered to venture under the Chernobyl reactor, knowing the radiation levels would likely kill them.
They did it, not because they were ordered to, but because they knew it had to be done, or millions would die.
That was an act of self-sacrifice, which, unlike the split second decision to throw yourself on a grenade, was a carefully considered decision.
The carefully considered decision to throw oneself on a grenade to save others occurs before the moment takes place. Some people decide that going into an event they'll do everything they can to save people, if that moment comes, they act.
Why are those things good? Because we feel like they are! That doesn't cheapen it. Objectively we feel in the fiber of our being that those things are good. It could have gone another way, it wasn't preordained, but it just so happens that humans feel that certain things are good and certain things are bad. Seeing as we appear to be the only advanced intelligent life in the known universe, I'd say that's enough cause to legitimize our ways.
It’s ok ‘ I already know some people will clap anything ‘… Legend
An action is considered "good" if the act is done for the well-being and/or greater good for either yourself and/or someone(s) other than yourself without negative effects.
As much as I agree with Hitchens' perspective, I wish he'd approached this question differently. He had ample opportunity to make a solid point and capitalize on Turek's valiant, but futile attempt to dominate the debate with such an arbitrary question. What does the definition of "good" prove?
It’s ok, Frank. Have a nice, warm cup of cocoa. Maybe tomorrow will be better.
@AmbroseEpeeMaster If that is the case, your faith never had a chance. This debate is like a warm hug of humanism, righteousness and sanity. Hitchens is at the top of his game here.
I love this man. Hahaha such a genius.
R.I.P Christopher
#BetterBabyInstitutions?
the biggest mistake we humans make in our thinking is that we are somehow extraordinarily special, divine in origin. that what we do shows this, yes we have great potential but we have not yet reached it. does a wolf not protect her cubs? does a pack not defend it's members from another? animals exhibit a sense of right and wrong, it is merely in the shadow of their survival instincts. just as those instincts to protect are in them so too are they in us. Why must we be ashamed of this point?
thuzan117 Human pride probably
Really, a human has obvious abilities that are vastly greater than any other animal known to exist. Are wolves building rockets and sending them to Mars? Hahaha. Humans are at a "different level" than all other animals, it isn't even close.
cliffs: "Morality coming from a Big Brother deity would destroy the very idea of morality!" :)
Nobody is arguing that you need God to have an idea of morality in common with other people. What you are not able to account for is "why goodness is good". You may say it is good because it helps people, but that just pushes the question back one more step and doesn't actually answer anything.
As a society we decide what is and isn't good for ourselves, that's why different things are good and bad in different parts of the world, different cultures, from different time periods. That's how we can read the Bible and other old religious scripture and tell that they weren't divinely inspired, because they sound simple, archaic, and barbaric as times were back then. God would have known better than to sanction slavery...
its all well and good Hitchens theorising, discussing in a warm room with a nice book deal. In real world, morals have real significance.
More importantly, ppl have choice. God is not a dictator, ppl choose to follow Him from their own freewill. If He was a dictator, then why are we not enslaved by Him right now? why allow freewill in the 1st place?
turek is a poor 2nd hand car salesman... made a good living out of it but to me comes across as an obnoxious boor.
pure Gold 🪙
Christopher Hitchens is a genius
Why is there something, rather than nothing? Simple question.
@@kane4013 Can god create a rock that it can't lift? Simple question.
@@LGpi314 You might have to elaborate, I don’t get your reasoning. My mother created me and she can’t lift me?
@@kane4013 Your mother definitely was lifting you. You did not walk when you were born. LMAO. Your mother also did not create you by herself unless her name is Marry and your name is Yeshua.
@@LGpi314 I’m just not getting the significance of being able to lift something anyway. Do you have another analogy that can make the same point? Or can you explain why being able to lift something is important?
How did Frank work out God was the good one????
the religion guy wants to claim that morality comes from religion....how is slavery moral? he does know that the book he lives by endorses slavery?
im not religious, but i find slavery a bit immoral.
Hitchens never answered why self-sacrifice and heroism is good in the first place. Just side stepped that question like he didn't hear it.
He did. Been answered time and time again. I'd be annoyed too if someone says to me an equally stupid question, "but why are there happy people when there sad people exist? ". That's a stupid question and an adult does not deserve the answer. If I child asked that, we could be more lenient.
This one was childs play for hitch
carpnter
I do agree actually, but I think that admission hurts the naturalists case. Moral acts are the "right thing to do". The admission of moral obligations, the fact that we recognize some behavior is proper notwithstanding our personal benefit only makes sense under objective morality. If Hitchens openly affirms objective morality, he will prove the existence of God through the moral argument.
Hitchens constantly strawmans or dodges the moral argument rather than addressing it head on.
morality is the assessment of the impact of your actions on others, it’s that simple. why do theists have to butcher it so badly? show me an act, that is considered morally virtuous, that does not take the wellbeing of others into consideration.
The Rev. Dr. Dick Checker gets to decide right or wrong. He gets to be the guardian of public morality. He's a man of faith. By using the theological equation: (ignorance + stupidity) × (arrogance + intellectual dishonesty) = faith; god always will favor you.
Hitchens had a wonderful way with language and logic
He's talking about what is "right" or "wrong", and asks what makes empathy "right". This is a question that does not make sense unless you accept that some things are transcendentally right, which I don't believe is the case.
@silverstream314
I think you're being obtuse here. The word 'right' has different meanings, but it's obvious that it's meant as 'how is it justified and something to be imitated'? Of course without an objective source of morality there is no 'rightness' or 'wrongness' which are fundamental to morality, which is precisely the point. What you have left is not an intrinsic rightness or wrongness but actions and morality as tools towards the well-being not of society but the individual. That means that if lying and cheating works at your advantage, you are perfectly justified(that is, 'right') in doing it.
there is a simple metric: does the action cause unnecessary harm, for no genuine benefit. remember, killing should only be done for the purpose of survival, to an actually moral person there are only 3 reasons: for food, self-defense, euthanisation of the those dying in torment.
all other excuses for killing are done to gratify an innate sense of cruelty. the same for non-lethal assaults of all stripe, most thefts, all frauds, particularly the fraud of religion.
so, because we have a genuinely autonomous capability to make the choice of vetoing almost any voluntary actions we undertake, we can use that metric to arbitrarily judge a "universal standard" (as if we set the tone for a nigh infinite universe. oh, the arrogance) of right v wrong based on the consequences resulting from choices made and acted upon.
no transcendent authority required.
Our morality/empathy is socially innate because we're social animals/herd animals.
We survive better socially, thus our empathy and morality is online early in life. And our empathy, if not hijacked by religion or strongly reinforced behavior patterns that are in opposition of utilizing empathy and morality (both are environmental elements and environment influences behavior) is what will guide us to steward the earth in a manner that's flourishing for all other species and the planet
Regarding agnostic. It simply means I don't know.
To assert there is no God, is to say you know something you cannot know.
To assert there is a God ,is to say you know something you cannot know.
Many people would say they choose to have faith/believe in God.
People often complain about morality in an analogous way to the absurd story I've just given. They demand a basis for the property of good that doesn't make reference to goodness, but how is that any different from demanding a non-trivial basis for why any object has any property. I think goodness is connected to human health and well-being and when asked what that is, at best I can point to paradigm examples and say some trivial things, but how is that different from any concept we have.
Natural selection describes how we act. But it doesn't in any way tell us how we "should" act.
I have to LOL my ass off at the end when Hitchens basically calls Franky a monkey. Frankey just looks at the moderator as if to say.. "What can I say to that?"
I wish I could tell this man how much I respect and admire him. A world class intellectual we were so lucky to have.
Broadly, it's quite simple to my eyes. Morality comes from two things. We EVOLVED to be moral (instrisic) and we LEARNED (extrinsic) through our life moral values which are preserved and reinforced by society.
(cont'd) To assume that it is even POSSIBLE to label some perspective "superior" to another perspective is to assume that there is an "objective" standard by which one can determine the difference.
I wouldn't say my favorite color is "superior" to yours; that makes no sense. We're both right about our own favorite colors. But if I were to assume my favorite color genuinely is "superior" to yours, I must assume an outside objective standard by which our colors can both be judged.
It was Confucius who first said
Don't do unto others what you don't wish to be done to you
I thought it was the Buddha
turek is a sociopath.
That host was bad and biased.
how much does justice weigh?
what flavour is an itch?
how long is the colour red?
Desperate non sequiturs
Morality is a human invention.... just like religion. The only reason that anything is considered right or wrong is because people in a society agree. Religions play a part in defining the ethics of a society but they do not own ethics. I think that empathy is the guiding principle behind our social behaviour, we couldn't possibly function socially without it. It's easy to feel empathy towards your family and immediate group but if you extend this to larger and larger communities you need to codify behaviour, this is why we have social rules and laws. The more evenly this empathy is spread across a society the more just it will be, but there never will be a society that is 100% just (i.e. perfect) because of the sheer complexity of our societies, this is why we will always have to strive for justice.
Religions shift the axis of justice from empathy to the absolute will of a divinity and consequently become a hindrance to justice instead of a help, morality needs to be flexible and relative it needs to be adapted to different social conditions. This happens all the time, just consider the social attitudes and legislation regarding any number of issues (in no particular order): divorce, polygamy, workers rights, monarchy, democracy, children's rights, religious freedom, abortion, homosexuality, the death penalty, the distribution of wealth, the environment, racial equality, women's rights the list is endless.
A human invention would be lets say a light bulb, how many people have invented that? Love on the other is innate and experienced by 90% of the population, so I wouldn't say its an invention. Morals is a product of mind/consciousness and that is a product of metaphysical phenomena which we call God or the divine. Although Religion is man made and partially mythical, it established a basis for morality in early civilizations.
Bottom line, an atheist cannot give an account for morality.
George Christopher morals don't come from non-existent beings, actually, nothing comes from mythical characters, if you need some external entity dictating what's moral to you because you're too stupid to come up with it yourself, it is your fault, but those of us who can don't need a bronze age IMMORAL and above anything ignorant dusty book.
Luis De La Peña morals are innate, but being that it stems through consciousness, that places metaphysics in the world beyond the material. Objective morality exists, therefore a standard beyond human opinion exists as well.
There is no such thing as objective morality. All of morality is subjective. There is very little debate about this within the scientific and philosophical community. It is only religious people who think that morality is objective because they so desperately want their silly holy books to be true.
C H is still a legend despite his loss. No one has his charismatic oratory!
He was an extraordinary speaker. He'll be quoted for centuries.
He speaks so much truth....
Couldn't they have paused the debate for 30 seconds while someone reattached Hitch's mic ?
@MissingChurchill
The answer to your question(s) is yes.
I've given you numerous, examples of why morality is subjective. are you going to take a counter position ?
Strangely you don't seem to disagree with my position,but the semantics of the word "subjective".
Do you have a position on this topic ?
Watched the whole debate. Christ.. okay, so Turek basically says "In spite of all the evidence, God still created it", where Hitchens actually addresses the evidence and labels it as relevant in disproving God, and then shows that the belief in God is fundamentally wrong, and has done the world harm, while also showing that the morals that can exist with god can exist without because these are fundamentally human traits. Turek had his fingers in his ears, and closes repeating his same old points
Hitchen's opponent kept asking "Why are all of those things good? What makes them moral?"
It's so simple that I wanted to shout it at my fucking screen. Because people like the idea that somebody might die for them, or help them for no reason!
People's Wants = Good
Someone wants sex, SEX = GOOD
Someone wants a hero that might save them or their family, HERO = GOOD
@blastor8or
1. It's a red herring because you're pushing the conversation into the arena of biblical interpretation. OUR conversation is about whether morality is objective and thus provides evidence for the existence of a creator/god. My belief in objective morality doesn't stem from the proposition that "the Bible says so," it stems from the proposition that there is a designed intent for how life OUGHT to be lived in this universe (i.e. a created order)...(cont'd)
I always feel theists in these exchanges on morality rig the debate by asking "how do you know it's good." When their definition of good includes God. Then when the atheist changes that definition to something more pragmatic they are accused of inconsequential wordplay.
3:44
That clap was purely out of sympathy, not agreement.
The intelligent man has no panic when he speaks, no need to shout over or be over anxious to be heard. Turek fails in every way here in the face of a man who knows his own mind.
@dallased25
"I mean...is Turek serious?"
Yes. He raised his voice. Didn't you hear it? Perhaps you should listen again.
It's funny how Mr. Hitchens dodges Mr. Tureks question and doesn't answer it - because he can't.
Yes, you’re right. But that’s the mark of a good debater. They counter very effectively with a straw man argument
It's innate in us. Why don't you leave your country and travel? You'll learn a lot.
He's giving the 'question' the contempt it deserves by ignoring it because it's a stupid, childish utterance that has no answer. Like 'why is blue blue' and 'are we there yet?'
Hitchens does a lot of talking for someone who doesnt answer the question.
Turek is feeling the heat here and it shows.
No, Hitchens didn't really answer the core of his question, he evaded it
@@natanaellizama6559 He didn't need to. It was a bogus premise to begin with.
@@xeroaishintu5777 That's not a serious answer by any stretch
@@natanaellizama6559 Well, I was being serious. So I guess it is a serious answer. ^w^
@@xeroaishintu5777
Ok. If you were serious, then what is bogus from the premise? The question pertained to Ethics from a pure physicalist/materialist perspective. It pertains to how are we to ontologically ground Ethics, not to explain selective moral aspects within a society. What's bogus about it? Hitchens response was "we don't need Big Brother", but that's an evasion of the question, not a proper answer, as one may still do away with the concept of Big Brother and are no closer to grounding Ethics. It's like when he answers "The Bible is monstruous". Well... ok... so what? How does that solve Ethics under a materialist/naturalist view? It doesn't.
@ArmourApple he does that a lot, in comparison, while hitch was talking you could hear on the background "why are they good? why are they good? why are those things good? why are they good? why are they good? why are they good?"
reminded me of stewie "lois, mom, mom, mommy, mom ,mom..." and so on
DM,
First, I'd invite you to define what you mean when you say [certain] moral truths are "objective." What do you mean by objective?
When I say "objective," I mean murder (for example) is evil for everyone independent of human thought or feeling.
Second, this is not about moral epistemology or even the ability to BE moral; it's about the nature of morality. If it's objective, there must be a universal "way things are supposed to be." Apart from designed intent, this is impossible.
@DocBlasto Well i was a roman catholic, given top notch theological education. i actually LIKED learning about my faith and their apologies. but hitchens just made me see the truth
It's amazing to me that anyone has the brainless desire to get on a stage to debate Hitchens. Hitchens leaves them bloody and twitching in the ditch. He so destroys this religious fool that it's hard to believe "Dr." Turek has the gall to show his face in public again. The world owes people like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and Hitchens a HUGE "THANK YOU" for standing up to the dark agenda so treasured by the religious community.
my computer must be more than a bunch of metal, plastic and electricity to be able to create light and sound, there must be fairies unvolved too
So much for the idea of 'moral judgement'. "What makes courage, love, self sacrifice right if i don't get salvation/reward at the end?"
A fine example of the dangerous pattern that the religious lack the moral-highground they profess, or morals at all for that matter considering no reasoning, thinking or a sincere sense of compassion is involved - only the shameful rationale of punishment & reward can command their "good deeds". Disgrace to humanity.
I do not think Hitchens answered this very well.It is good and moral because most agree that it is.Morality comes from society.What I think is moral may not be the same as what you think is moral,but religious people believe their morals are better than mine because they come from a god that is more powerful than they are.