RIP Christopher Hitchens

[Grizalltheway]

Man defines what is right and what is wrong. Saying that God defines what is right and what is wrong is just an excuse.

As far as your game is concerned, I think "because that's just obviously wrong" is a better answer than "because God said so".

Fine. But why it is obviously wrong?

Not an easy question to answer, Joe. The main difference between myself and you or St. Onge is that I don't claim to know for certain exactly who or what it is that distinguishes between right and wrong in this world. There probably is some driving force behind the universe that instills in most of us a sense of morality, I just don't think it's the traditional Judeo-Christian figure that does it.

[JoltinJoe]

Fine. But why it is obviously wrong?

You are like the three year old who asks "why?". He gets his answer and then asks "why?" again. Of course the three year old asks "why" because he's curious, you do it because you are a great debater.

I was just posing the same question that many of the great moral philosophers have asked: why is something "right" or "wrong."

To say something is "obviously wrong" begs the question: "Why?" To the thinking of many of the great philosophers, to say something is "obviously wrong" is tantamount to saying that there is a plain and objective source of what is right or wrong ... and you can see where that goes.

[travelinman67]

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does. As Grizalltheway noted I've posted on the principle many times before but I'll do it again.

If the atheist view is correct there is nothing beyond ourselves that sets rules of right and wrong. And there is no intrinsic right or wrong. There just is. And one can take any act that everyone assumes is wrong and ask why it is wrong. Whatever the answer to the first why question is, there is always another "why" question.

If you wish, as an exercise, we can play a game. You pick an act that you think is wrong and explain why it is wrong under the premise that there is nothing outside of ourselves...no God or higher power...that establishes it as such. Then I'll ask a question in response. At some point you'll have to just say, "because that's just obviously wrong." But that won't work.

And that's why Hitchens had no credibility. He was constantly engaged in moral preaching while his fundamental view of reality precluded any intrinsic morality.

Are you suggesting morality emanates uniquely from God?

I'm a believer, but even I'll suggest that the Godless can develop a quasi-morality ethos solely from hedonistic (stick and carrot) existence. I believe ethologists call is "natural behavior", emotional response which has a "moral" equivalent, and the debate is, of course, the origin: Is it spiritual or driven by sexual habit?

Having spoken with D1B, I can attest to the existence of morality in the lowest of Godless primates.

[BlueHen86]

You are like the three year old who asks "why?". He gets his answer and then asks "why?" again. Of course the three year old asks "why" because he's curious, you do it because you are a great debater.

I was just posing the same question that many of the great moral philosophers have asked: why is something "right" or "wrong."

To say something is "obviously wrong" begs the question: "Why?" To the thinking of many of the great philosophers, to say something is "obviously wrong" is tantamount to saying that there is a plain and objective source of what is right or wrong ... and you can see where that goes.

To be honest, I got my posters crossed. I thought I was responding to JSO. Apparently, I am not a great reader.

[JoltinJoe]

I was just posing the same question that many of the great moral philosophers have asked: why is something "right" or "wrong."

To say something is "obviously wrong" begs the question: "Why?" To the thinking of many of the great philosophers, to say something is "obviously wrong" is tantamount to saying that there is a plain and objective source of what is right or wrong ... and you can see where that goes.

To be honest, I got my posters crossed. I thought I was responding to JSO. Apparently, I am not a great reader.

Why aren't you a great reader?

[BlueHen86]

To be honest, I got my posters crossed. I thought I was responding to JSO. Apparently, I am not a great reader.

Why aren't you a great reader?

Because God made me that way. Or maybe it's because I was distracted.

[grizzaholic]

Why aren't you a great reader?

Because God made me that way. Or maybe it's because I was distracted.

Booze.

[kalm]

You are like the three year old who asks "why?". He gets his answer and then asks "why?" again. Of course the three year old asks "why" because he's curious, you do it because you are a great debater.

I was just posing the same question that many of the great moral philosophers have asked: why is something "right" or "wrong."

To say something is "obviously wrong" begs the question: "Why?" To the thinking of many of the great philosophers, to say something is "obviously wrong" is tantamount to saying that there is a plain and objective source of what is right or wrong

Cooperation and experience which can obviously exist outside of belief.

The spiritual component is the feeling good about doing the right thing...of acting out of compassion.

[JoltinJoe]

I was just posing the same question that many of the great moral philosophers have asked: why is something "right" or "wrong."

To say something is "obviously wrong" begs the question: "Why?" To the thinking of many of the great philosophers, to say something is "obviously wrong" is tantamount to saying that there is a plain and objective source of what is right or wrong

Cooperation and experience which can obviously exist outside of belief.

The spiritual component is the feeling good about doing the right thing...of acting out of compassion.

(1) Cooperation and experience aren't sources for what is right or wrong. They help us ascertain what is right or wrong.

(2) Why?

[kalm]

Cooperation and experience which can obviously exist outside of belief.

The spiritual component is the feeling good about doing the right thing...of acting out of compassion.

(1) Cooperation and experience aren't sources for what is right or wrong. They help us ascertain what is right or wrong.

(2) Why?

1) Lawyering

2) Because

(Damn you!)

[JoltinJoe]

(1) Cooperation and experience aren't sources for what is right or wrong. They help us ascertain what is right or wrong.

(2) Why?

1) Lawyering

2) Because

(Damn you!)

(1) Evasion

(2) Evasion

( )

[kalm]

1) Lawyering

2) Because

(Damn you!)

(1) Evasion

(2) Evasion

( )

All you need is love, Joe.

[Grizalltheway]

(1) Evasion

(2) Evasion

( )

All you need is love, Joe.

But WHY is that all you need??

[kalm]

All you need is love, Joe.

But WHY is that all you need??

It's obvious.

[JoltinJoe]

But why is it obvious?

[AZGrizFan]

He's been dead for 12 days. This thread needs to go the way of HItchens.

[Vidav]

He's been dead for 12 days. This thread needs to go the way of HItchens.

At least you helped that by bumping it back to the top.

[AZGrizFan]

He's been dead for 12 days. This thread needs to go the way of HItchens.

At least you helped that by bumping it back to the top.

My post was 2 minutes after JJ's. It was already AT the top. Hater.

[dbackjon]

At least you helped that by bumping it back to the top.

My post was 2 minutes after JJ's. It was already AT the top. Hater.

[Vidav]

At least you helped that by bumping it back to the top.

My post was 2 minutes after JJ's. It was already AT the top. Hater.

[AZGrizFan]

My post was 2 minutes after JJ's. It was already AT the top. Hater.

My post was 2 minutes after JJ's. It was already AT the top. Hater.

[Vidav]

[Grizalltheway]

What's wrong with coffee, hater?

[D1B]

I never found him that compelling. I would love to have debated him; just as I would love to have debated any atheist. Their whole edifice is a paradox.

Now, if they start off by saying there is no right or wrong they'd be OK. But they don't do that. They want to be athetist and at the same time say there is a right and there is a wrong.

Hitchens was like that too. He'd argue against religion using morality when the fundamental basis of his world view, if true, meant there is no morality.

[D1B]

Fine. But why it is obviously wrong?

You are like the three year old who asks "why?". He gets his answer and then asks "why?" again. Of course the three year old asks "why" because he's curious, you do it because you are a great debater.

He does it because he typically has nothing. It's hard for people of faith, especially christians, to argue that their dipshit of a god is the source of morality.

For several years now I've used Joe as just one example of the inferiority of theistic morality. It took Joe's church almost 2000 years to figure out that raping children is wrong. I'm not sure Joe even gets this right now. I tend think he personally thinks it's wrong, but it's OK for priests and cardinals to rape children.

Morals, ethics, behavior and codes of conduct are all inventions of man and products of thousands of years of critical rational inquiry. Unlike religious codes, they're always changing as society advances. Religious codes typically follow suit, sooner or later - but no one really pays attention to this.