This is the original video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yrcQ_PTkVD4.html I'm surprised that Prager is still spouting this nonsense given how many times Hitchens directly refuted him in life. Prager thought that now that Hitchens is dead, that he could get away with this garbage. He was wrong! For that he gets, ***HITCHSLAPPED!*** My collaboration video with Cosmic Skeptic on morality: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hKW_ZwaKlQc.html
Holy Koolaid I almost fear refuting these people because I'm always terrified by the idea that their faith in God is The only thing keeping them from committing murder. Then I remember that they don't really believe what they say they do. Not Christians at least...
His main argument is basically - "If God doesn't exist, then the world is scary because people are free to believe different things!! So if you don't want to be scared, believe in an imaginary being in the sky!" Irrationality fueled by fear of the unknown. Irrationality fueled by a desire for order in a chaotic universe.
+Godzilla John: Yes, that too. They are afraid of hell, afraid of demons, afraid of death. Since the jewish god offers a solution to those problems, they accept that religion. PS: I am not saying that other religions don't have anything to offer to their followers.
No that's not Prager's main argument. The main argument is that any "morality" needs a foundation of absolute truth. He argues we can agree on "moral ideas" but without a solid foundation, they can be argued away and twisted. This video mashup does a good job of highlight how much atheists don't understand Christian ideas.
@@gregorywullaert8618 yes, but that realization is merely a lament that human affairs are not easier to understand and manage. It is not evidence that therefore morality is in fact grounded in absolute truth.
Hitchens was good at speaking and has reported on a vast amount of topics. But eventually, another Hitchens will come along. I would do it except I am not a good speaker. We have to keep working and spread some logic into this world.
The closest thing to immortality we mortals have is how we affect the future. Those affects will continue to ripple forward long after even our names are forgotten. Even after it becomes impossible to seperate the results of our actions become inseparable from the din of humanity they continue on contributing to that din we can no longer separate into individual threads of cause and effect with our finite perceptions. This in mind, I find the best way to honor someone is to carry forward the things they did with their life. For Hitchens, that can mean spreading his wisdom. For someone close to you it can mean trying to connect with others their death who has left a hole in their lives to support each other. Carrying forward our contributions into the future ensures that, as long as people endure, none of us are ever completely gone.
Honestly proud to be Muslim not in a arrogant but blessing You can see C.H threw out the video he was always attacking Jew-Christian God about morality and so but he never brought Islam into because The God of the Quran is just and we Muslims believe the previous scriptures are corrupted by men for their whims and desires that’s why last revelation came to distinguish what’s right and wrong from the previous scriptures I encourage you guys to study Islam with open mind and not bias Salam- “peace”❤️
Ditto - I think he was one of the great orators and a true defender of freedom. Of course, he would be very quick to shoot down any attempt to put him on a pedestal, and to say that a big part of his point was that people needed to take the initiative (and have the courage) to think for themselves. I highly recommend that people get the audiobooks for "God is not great" and "Hitch-22" that he read himself. I think between those works, you get a large portion of his character and convictions.
Honestly proud to be Muslim not in a arrogant but blessing You can see C.H threw out the video he was always attacking Jew-Christian God about morality and so but he never brought Islam into because The God of the Quran is just and we Muslims believe the previous scriptures are corrupted by men for their whims and desires that’s why last revelation came to distinguish what’s right and wrong from the previous scriptures I encourage you guys to study Islam with open mind and not bias Salam- “peace”❤️
@@A1.4U you need to watch some of his other videos then, he constantly puts down your religon that involves genital mutilation of little girls. No thank you. Barking up the wrong tree here dude. Anyone who watches these videos are devout atheists and we do not and will not buy into or follow your false religon...any of them. Especially anything rooted in the blood cults of abrahamic religons.
As Prager himself said, without god morality is just an opinion. But if god said something is moral, isn't that just god's opinion? Prager now has to prove to me that god's opinion is objective.
it comes back to Epicuris, who cites the paradox very succinctly: If God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. If he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. If he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? If he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Tim Hyatt Evil is an action. Yahweh can do what is logically possible to do. Creating individual conscious beings means creating beings who have wills of their own. Yahweh can undo any evil that created beings do. Therefore Yahweh can allow created beings to do evil to prove to them that they will become evil doers without a relationship with the source of goodness, the source of life, Yahweh.
@@davidohara7669 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. - Matthew 5:11 Shalom/Peace
Of course that's the wrong inference with which atheist retards like to strawman religious arguments. The inference is: would you exist in a set of circumstances were it wouldn't be so inconvenient to murder, you might just do it. You don't know how much of your behaviour is preconditioned. Exctract yourself from your particular circumstances (or evolutionary model like Harris like to put it), and murder might just be right. There is no way to know with absolute certainty that it is ALWAYS wrong. Praguer argues in metaphysics, Hitchens answers in circumstancial. Glad to sort that out. Now you can put the Hitchens trash back in the trash bin.
😂Peterson makes himself cry, I’ve seen like 6 Jordan Peterson videos and he’s sobbing in all of them! Pathetic excuse for men, these “children of god.”
If God says murder is wrong, God has an opinion. Morality is an opinion whether God exists or not. God is nothing but a third wheel in this discussion.
Dennis Prager, the guy sounds like he's trying to sound so smart with this old apologetic, as if it's the first time anyone's hearing it. He comes off very smug to me. He also kind of botches it a little. He doesn't really get his own apologetic.
If nothing matters sociopathy is a better trait for the acquisition of resources, making it a better trait than it’s counterpart no? It’s not born sociopathy you have to worry about it’s a cold logical decision.
Each of the Four Horsemen postulate their cases for atheism in unique ways (such as Dawkins with Biology) but Hitchens was always the most historically based; Hitch speaks to one's inner rebel.
MrMojoRising909 yes, rebel against god, the guy who orders people to mutilate the genitals of children, and who had a son who was also him who whipped slaves
Hitchens was possibly one of the best among the horsemen but a windbag in the end and one heck of an apostate in life. Not that he was the worst of them all Dwkins has that.
pat999x it would be easy if you're an Israelite living in the Bronze Age, because all of the Bible's morals and rules were written for the Israelites by the Israelites. Other then that, yeah, I really don't understand it
MrElionor is right, they aren't reading it at all. They go to church and give money for someone else to pull out happy comforting passages while ignoring all that horrible shit that's in there. People are discouraged from reading the bible, especially on their own, because that leads to clear thought.
I believe he has absolute morality since he's like the top man. I also belive that he's just sometime s akjerk that labersl it with divine design or something
Well, thats because the bible does not offer absolute morality. Absolute morality is a specific type objective morality in which the laws never change. The bible clearly has a law change when going from the OT to the NT. So, no, the bible is not absolute morality; however, it is able to be a type objective morality called moral realism.
“Babies are not born beautiful, they’re born ugly, they need to be sawn a bit. Because the handiwork of god is such garbage.” Christopher Hitchens you were the best of us
It always astounds me when grown-ups organize their lives around the translated scribbles of Iron Age goat herders who didn't understand why it rained. This is just beyond stupid.
First you watch an animated Hitch and then your favourite youtuber, which is Holy Koolaid in my case replies to your comment.. Seriously, what a day :)
Well, there you go. If God exists, it is God's opinion that good and evil exist. If God doesn't exist, it is my opinion that good and evil exist. Either way, that's just like, your opinion, man.
Is this a serious critique? Assuming the monotheistic God exists, He is Truth itself. His opinions are, by definition, fact because He can't be wrong and He can't lie.
@@gregorywullaert8618 The idea that a conscious entity is itself "truth", that it is "equal to truth", is incoherent. If it's a thinking entity, or a kind of library, it may *know* every true fact, but it cannot "equal truth". Truth is a concept or a property describing a statement's relationship to some reality (whether that is the "one true reality", or perhaps "true in-universe" like in a narrative). But more to the point: it doesn't matter if a god knows everything and does not lie, that doesn't preclude it from having opinions. The point about "Prager takes for granted ..." is that it's an assumption that both moral ideals are absolute facts -- in the same way that objective descriptions of reality are facts -- and that God's opinions are themselves absolute facts. Conceptually, gods are capable of never lying and knowing everything *while also* having opinions. If you define "God" as "Truth", then what you're telling me is that you subscribe to a model that says God's opinions are to be valued above all others. Essentially: divine command theory, so "it's true because he said it's true", which is an opinion. I don't subscribe to that ethic, nor the implied metaethics it rests on. I don't believe it's coherent to say that moral truths exist as objective facts independent of any creature or circumstance, so if you tell me "God is truth, therefore his opinions are facts, therefore you must value his opinion above yours", I say "go fuck yourself, I'll think for myself, thank you very much".
@Anase Skyrider Maybe we should take divinity out of this for a second. Some people are smarter than me. It is a good idea to listen to seriously to what they say and advice they give. If I intentionally ignore them, things get worse for me. If a child ignores a parent's rule about the stovetop being hot, they burn their hand. They may not understand how heat energy is based on the random kinetic motion of molecules and how that energy quickly transfers to the skin via conduction or that such energy can damage the skin but they can follow the rule "don't touch the stove." If the intricate details are more complicated, we don't need to understand that, for example, sex creates a hormone release that creates an emotional connection and if directed at more and more people it weakens the brain's ability to have healthy attachments and creates a mindset more ready to objectify people thus allowing a certain willingness to obtain for ourselves at our partners' expenses and break up families to follow the rule "don't commit adultery." Some advice is just good advice whether we understand why or not. The issue with talking about the monotheistic God is that everyone always thinks of a really powerful, smart version of, like, Zeus. But Prager, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not believe in a super powerful and smart sky fairy. They belief in a metaphysical, bodiless (minus the Incarnation for Christianity) super-rational spirit who literally holds reality in existence. So in Christian theology, if God stopped thinking about you, you would cease to exist and, since God is outside time, you would have never existed. Now, since God is outside time, He can't really "stop" Himself like that so no worries (not that He would anyways). But the idea that His mind is a constant foundation for creation to continue chugging along is why He is truth. Whatever He thinks is the reality (Brahma in Hinduism is a similar idea). I will concede He has "opinions" but I stand by my statement that they are always true. For example, let's say God wants me to be a firefighter. His opinion would NOT be "Gregory is a firefighter." His opinion would be "Gregory should be a firefighter" and He would be right (in this fictional world). He would only want that because it would be the objectively best course of action His universe could take because all of Earth comes from Him and that's His plan for it. If I become a dancer then His opinion would be "Gregory should be a firefighter but at Gregory's present moment he is a dancer." But we can even take away this specific view of God and just say He's an omniscient individual Zeus-style. He is still infinitely smarter than me so He could discern with 100% accuracy that "Gregory should be a firefighter for the best possible outcome" and His opinion would still align perfectly with objective fact. Now back to morality: morality is just defined as "right conduct" so, yes, either way an all-knowing God could say with 100% certainty what the best "right conduct" is for humans, either because He is making the world that way or He discerned it perfectly. If you are concerned that this takes away too much from human cunning then you should look into moral theology where they take the few "givens" God tells us (don't kill the innocent, don't lust after people) and determine how individual situations look like (is the atomic bomb ever okay? Is contraception permissible?) Sorry, this response was way longer than I intended. Hope I didn't ramble too much :)
@@RobespierreThePoof if their dishonest, falacy-ridden arguments are the best defenses of those things, that's all the more reason to be dismissive of the whole lot.
MrBumbaclyde & EMS 76 While I do find your comment quite amusing I tend to agree more with +EMS 76. As such, I feel I should point out that this time Prager may not be as wrong as you think. The only person I know of (though not to the the _only,_ person I'm sure) who has come anywhere close to making a convincing argument for the possibility of a scientific, or even just non-religious, _objective_ basis for morality is Sam Harris. As you probably know, but just incase, Sam makes the argument that idea of (I'm paraphrasing here) "the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people and the least possible misery for least possible number people" can provide us with an objective basis for morality, although personally I still think he falls short of the admittedly lofty target. Just for one, who's to say that the greatest possible good truly is objectively "good"? What if homicidal psychopathy was the societal norm and so called "neurotypical" people were an equivalently small minority? Would the preying on of the people who find themselves in the minority in that society be considered moral in the same way that we consider it moral to lock away homicidal psychopaths and throw away the key (or in some places even put them to death)? For me the flaws in Harris' argument most starkly appear in his debate on the topic with William Lane Craig, who made quite a good case against him (though not as much such so for his own views on morality). Cosmic Skeptic and his atheist mate, whose name eludes me right now, also had quite a good, though a little awkward and at times a bit slow, discussion on the topic. The flaw in my own argument falls, of course, with the fact that Prager doesn't appear to have made his case at all effectively here either. In fact I'm not convinced that there can be _any_ objective basis for morality at all, God or no God. I would be interested, of course, to hear if anyone can point me toward an argument that they found entirely compelling. Links or good search terms would be much appreciated. :)
EMS 76 After reading your 2nd comment I find myself agreeing with quite a lot of what you have to say but I must take exception with one of your comments (though admittedly maybe mistakenly, as I am stoned myself and my memory may be failing me). You wrote "However, the entirety of this Prager argument still relies on the (disproven) assumption that we are, without the control of religion, an essential evil (amoral) species." I truly don't remember him making that argument, at least not strongly or not harping on it. From memory (if I weren't so tired I'd watch it again) the main point of his argument was that without God (I use the capital here because of the particular god we are talking about, as everybody knows one means Yahweh when it's capitalised) ones "morality" is merely opinion. He even went out of his way to make the point that irreligiousioty does not equal "bad person", it simply means that one does not have an _objective_ basis for their morality. Although, as I stated in my previous comment, he didn't make a great case for the idea that "God-given" morality is truly objective either. Furthermore I'm not yet convinced that truly objective morality is even possible. I will say, though, that I have heard a much better and more nuanced case for this possibility made by (so far as I can tell) more thoughtful or accomplished theologians but I admit I am not at all familiar with Prague's other works. This may just be a very simplified version of his argument. However, judging solely by his tenor and the impression it gave, which I admit is not at all the most solid foundation on which to make an opinion, he seems to me just to be a glorified pastor. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I just granted myself permission to make a hasty generalisation based on the fact that I'm totally baked which means that such lack of scholarship is not only permitted, it should be expected, encouraged even! ;)
@@bennyroe6667 you do realise that, never, had any civilisation, accepted raoe, murder and theft as OK. You find one civilisation that promotes any of these things. Morality existed way before the bible tried to fuck it up
Don't know what is worse, all the killing sprees justified by Sky Man's will or all the people that think it's the only thing that keeps them from murdering.
And people that go on murder sprees BECAUSE of their belief in a god. And people that believed in god but it still wasn’t good enough. It’s almost like religion doesn’t haven’t a monopoly on morality, in fact it’s quite the opposite.
Honestly proud to be Muslim not in a arrogant but blessing You can see C.H threw out the video he was always attacking Jew-Christian God about morality and so but he never brought Islam into because The God of the Quran is just and we Muslims believe the previous scriptures are corrupted by men for their whims and desires that’s why last revelation came to distinguish what’s right and wrong from the previous scriptures I encourage you guys to study Islam with open mind and not bias Salam- “peace”❤️
@@A1.4U Spamming much? Also, why are you here copying and pasting this crap on an Atheist channel? You really think you are going to convince an Atheist to join your religion all because you said you like it and are prions and that you lot believe in the “real” Bible and to study it with an open mind? You provided zero facts that yours is the correct religion and that your god is the real one. What if Buddhism is the true religion? What about Hinduism? Sorry, but Shiva is a lot more badass and cooler of a god than the god of the Muslim and Christian god. I would sooner believe in Hinduism than be a Muslim.
maxwell simon But wait. God said all these things in the old testament. Then god said all these things in the new testament and now the old testament is wrong.... so is it objective morality or subjective morality?
TheCommunistDragon Considering the understanding theists has for their book and god is highly subjectiv, i'd say religious morality is just as subjectiv as secular morality.
I am so grateful to have found you wonderful people! I am somewhat new to the harsh realities of being a non believer among believers. Just realized at Thanksgiving as I was the only person at the table who did not confess to being grateful to Jesus and wha, wha, wha, wha. My grandchildren now view me as suspect now that their parents are "insane". My daughter was an atheist up until a couple weeks ago so this is a very fresh wound in my family's fabric. It hurts to know they believe their beloved grandma is going to hell. Poor children. So very sad.
👨🏻🏫 How good to hear Christopher Hitchens in full voice! How we miss such a trenchant demolition of religious waffle 🤣 I am perfectly capable of deciding my moral standards by considering the consequences of my actions upon other people and the wider world on which I live. The Golden Rule is a powerful precept on which to base morality, standing uniquely of itself without any need for supernatural justification. Should I fail to live up to this measure, then I would expect to be corrected according to the laws of the society of which I am a recognised member. Thomas, yet another excellent production 👨🏻🏫🏛🇬🇧
@XszablaSABRE The golden rule is much older than Christianity. Confucius wrote about it 500 years before Christianity. In general it is the maxim of reciprocity.
Two hundred years before that in the Torah which is the first five books of the Christian Bible in 700 B.C.E. It was written “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." Leviticus 19:18
Sir Meow The Library Cat Morality is not just about you. What you are saying is that you are able to define your own morals. Then it's not morals anymore. When rulers decide it's moral to lie to you, to impose you their wil despite the fact that it is ruining your life, what are you going to oppose them? "But my moral!" ??? They do not care about your morals, they have their own set of morals and ther screw you. Christianity was a revolution : it put an end to the idea that the law of the strongest shall prevail. It set that the humble= the rich and powerfull. Your moral relativism means that the humble has his own set of morals when the rich and powerfull has his own. And guess who rules over the other? Yes. You got it. Fuck the weak.
Because Hitchens rejected Jesus Christ. Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6
Godzilla: I think you mean to say "Jesus is reported to have said...". After all, it appears as if Jesus was never any more than a celestial deity (as taught in the biblical letter called Hebrews and throughout Paul's true corpus), whose physical appearance on earth was never known (by any secular writer and any catechumen) until decades after the event (the reason nobody outside the fledgling Jewish faction later called Christianity wrote about him doing anything in the entire first century), and those gospel pericopae are entirely allegorical (like the cursing of the fig tree) and whose purpose seems to have escaped most modern followers of the cult!
Chistopher Hitchens is a great exemple of why death is not the end, as long as i live his work will continue to existe. RIP Hitchens, the Socrate of our time.
9:02 "I don't like murder". Well, I have to agree with Prager; I don't like murder either. But am I allowed to pray Prager would die and Hitchens cometh back to us?
Morals come from the earliest communities where it was understood that killing, robbing and raping your own people was not good for the groups survival.
Fedora Molded F#ck off Fedora your negative remarks aren't welcome here. Don't like the comments don't go into the comment section, don't like the video then don't watch. Simple.
Fedora Molded Sure, i make it my business to protect good people from Asshats like you. Not that it's needed thou, your as minimal a threat can be. Enjoy what attention you got thou it's the last you'll get. Good Bye. 😎
George Orwell could have been thinking about Prager when he said "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".
Okay, I kinda like what you did with the end part, I expected this to be all a smear on Prager, and I wasn't disappointed, but that little dig where 'I have enough respect for you' and then Prager brings up the book, Christopher goes 'don't bring up that again'. Unexpected and hilarious in it's own way.
It's sad when you think about how this video being made was possible if you are a theist. Hitchens died in '11 and religion has yet to be able to create any new or decent arguments and can be destroyed by previous conversations or debates. Hitchens really was one of a kind.
There is no wrong or right because there is no moral absolute. You have to think within the context of the social contract theory. Murder within your own tribe is wrong, but pillaging and raping other groups isn't. Getting on a moral high horse to virtue signal your idol as being against murder isn't just incorrect, it's cultural suicide.
I love this , Prager bothers me, I love Hitchens, and this animation is awesome , the only thing that bothers me is he usually parted his hair in the other side 😄 anyway awesome vid!
Morality is only an opinion, when there is no god? Through god morality is objective? Two things: 1. Morality is always an opinion. Either an opinion of man or an opinion of a god. 2. Are the moral thigs moral because god did them? Or did god do them because they were moral?
Half Eye 3. Who's to say that opinions are bad and hat we need objective moral anyways. Wouldn't it be more socially and ethically responsible to have a system of morality that is editable? What if the opinions of humans and gods were wrong?
Who says opinions are bad? Me. Here are just a few opinions held by countless people: Earth is 6000 years old and/or flat Elvis is still alive Hoax - Moon landing, Holocaust Opinions are completely without merit. They are only given merit when they are backed by evidence/science/logic. I'm an atheist, and I *know* that morality is objective.
The Moral law is not the opinion of the Christian God, so 1) is wrong. 2): Neither: Moral things are moral because God commands them, however, because of God's immutability, as stated in the bible, He couldnt choose to do something different even if He wanted to. Rape is wrong because God says so; yet God couldnt say anything to the contrary either.
Why is it that non-theists never point out that "murder" is a word used to define wrongful killing? People like Prager use "murder" rather than "killing" precisely because they won't run into the obvious objections that killing is not always wrong. There is such a thing as self-defence and justified homicide. Not to mention that people like Prager don't believe that killing is wrong and are more likely to support capital punishment, the use of lethal force by police, and war in general. Prager is playing word games and should be called out for that before the discussion continues.
+WinterXL Prager claims to "offer the clearest possible example" of what separates Judeo-Christian values from Secular values : _murder_. But since murder is wrong by definition there is nothing there that separates the two value systems. He chooses to use murder, a word which neither side will disagree is wrong, solely as a rhetorical trick to hide the fact that Judeo-Christian values offer no objective grounds upon which to decide whether a killing is murder or is not.
Finally! I've spent ages looking for anyone else that recognised the question "if murder is wrong, how do you know murder is wrong?" was complete tautological silliness. Killing someone isn't always considered wrong. Even the premeditated killing of someone isn't always considered wrong. When it IS considered wrong, we have a word for it - murder. So, how do I know murder is wrong? Because I know what the word 'murder' actually means. Prager has relied on people failing to recognise his tautology. We do not start by calling it murder then deem it wrong. We start by deeming it wrong thus calling it murder.
gavsmith1980 But you still have to 1st, recognize what is good, before you can define something to be evil... because the 2 concepts mutually define each other. Life must exist before it can be corrupted with murder... because if there is no life, there is nothing to murder, thus the evil of murder cannot exist. If murder never existed... life could exist, but there would not be a way to exclusively (define) life as morally good, because there is no amoral concept to compare it to. Now because living things have life spans & die, we define death as a bad thing, because we desire to live... & when faced with the need to kill for survival, such as for food or self defence... we have a bases from which to justify killing. It is from that justification, we are able to define murder as amoral, unjust, & evil, because we have a moral justification to compare it to. Otherwise, without evil... all the things we define as good, would just simply be what they are.
Catfish Cave and on what perfectly logical platform does your Hitchens stand on? I will tell you that Hitchens is far from logical. So I am curious why you think he is....
Who the hell said he was being objective? There are no objective truths. What WAS being said is that he approached the argument from a logical standpoint. Argued his side of the debate logically.
What he should know is that a lot of gods in history actually didn't command their subjects not to kill, but the subjects forbade themselves from killing nonetheless. Clearly no god, and certainly not YOUR god, are responsible for the moral intuition of secular or polytheistic people.
Thanks for "resurrecting" Hitch! ;) Prager has this unearned reputation as a kind, wise, reasonable spokesman for theism. I find him to be incredibly dishonest, deliberately deceptive, and insufferably hypocritical. In a just world, Christoper would be the one who was alive today, not Dennis the Menace. Very well done, Mr. Westbrook!
I often disagree with Prager, after all he is a religitard. But I am curious about your claim of dishonesty. For instance, I could not disagree more strongly with his video on morality, but I think he genuinely believes what he is saying. I think it sounds irrational, because he is a religitard, not a liar.
Pretending to know what you don't actually know is the essence of dishonesty.. and that is exactly what Prager does.. he asserts as fact that which is not, or cannot be shown to be true.. therefore, he's dishonest.
But when he genuinely believes it and then uses logic to support it then how can yo u still claim dishonesty? Uness you can show like a secret tape of him saying "i actually don;t believe what I'm saying" then your claim of dishnoesty is fickale at best. then again this insult was always fickle.
I remember years ago when I was a die-hard republican, conservative, and devout Catholic, I ate up these Prager institute videos. I saw their ignorance only when I left conservativism behind. Watching this video makes me wince, it's so stupid, so ignorant...and I used to believe that crap. Thank you for the video. It was good for me to hear Hitchens rebuttals.
I have three boys. The first two were both circumsized. We did this just because it what we did. Each time I had to pay out of pocket. The first was $120 in early 2003. The second boy was $400 in 2007. When my 3d boy bounced into our lives the cost was going to be $450 in 2013. I was unemployed at the time and my wife and I decided it could wait. My mother bless her heart freaked out and said we must do it and if we don't he'll be teased his whole life. She even offered to pay. Our doctor said we could wait if we wanted to, but he added that as the child grows and the more we wait, we risk traumatizing the poor little guy emotionally. After some deliberation with my wife and others and myself I finally said fuck this shit! He's NOT getting chopped.
It is an awful practice. How it is still allowed in civilized world is beyond me. Like if someone wants to do it after 18 or because they have phimosis after puberty go ahead, but doing it to newborns is pure evil.
If it weren't for dopes like Prager, the great mind of Hitchens may have had more time to focus on loftier pursuits. As it was, Hitch fought the battle in academia then rushed to the trenches to help hold the line against the great troll onslaught. His tirelessness is admirable and thank Circumstance we live in a time that we can replay it through technology.
I had the most bizarre experience with my mom yesterday She debunked the existence of God in her own words and then said "but it's wrong to not believe in god. There is a god!" (facepalm)
There is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian value." For one thing, "Judeo-Christian is just another word for "Christian." They are completely synonymous. There is nothing "Judeo-Christian" which is not Christian. There is nothing Christian which is not "Judeo-Christian." There is no distinction whatever between those words, so you might as well just say "Christian. Nothing unique to Judaism is "Judeo-Christian" so it doesn't work the other way. "Judeo-Christian" is phony inclusiveness with no genuine semantic or philosophical utility. For another thing, there is no moral belief or ideal in Christianity that is original to Christianity or is in any way dependent on it. Christianity did not come up with the idea not to murder or steal or to love one's neighbor or even to love one's enemy. Christianity just adopted a bunch of moral ideas from Judaism (which got it from Zoroastrianism) and Hellenistic philosophy that already existed. So there is no such thing as a "Christian value." There are only the same universal values that already existed in all humans because they are wired into our biology as a social species. Moreover, Christianity and Judaism also promote some values which most people now see as immoral. Slavery, for example, or the subjugation of women. The abolition of slavery was the result of ethical thinking which CONTRADICTED Christian values. The equality of women is another and more recently, the understanding of homophobia as morally backwards and harmful. Other things that contradict Biblical morality are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Does Dennis Prager believe in freedom of speech? If so, then he does not follow "Judeo-Christian values." Does he think slavery is wrong? How does he know that? he didn't get that from the Bible. On thing is true. There is no such thing as objective morality, but so what? We have never needed it. Our evolved, biological "morality" has been sufficient to sustain us as a species. Prager is also too dumb to realize that his own moral views are subjective as well. How does he know that God is good? He has to use his own opinion for that one. Any decision to follow a religious morality requires, in itself, a subjective moral decision that it's the "right" thing to do. The fact that Prager fails to realize this only goes to show what a shallow, philosophically untrained and uninterested thinker he really is. I hesitate to even use the word "thinker," because he never actually makes any effort to do that. He's really just a flatulent, narcissistic blowhard incapable of insight or self-examination or genuine critical thinking. He's an imbecile who thinks that he's smart which is the worst kind of imbecile. he's also a bigoted, intolerant, self-important asshole with no authentic ethical core at all. I'm a way better person than he is. I'm a way better person than his God is too. Those are both very low bars, though.
Judaism also, and likely even chiefly, got it from Mesopotamia, just look at the Code of Hammurabi, and that's also where it gets the Genesis cosmology that was passed down to Christianity, which in addition to commonalities seems to have inherited those pillars of itself that differentiate it from its mother faith from Hinduism, compare the Gospel to the Ramayana.
Man do I miss Hitch! From Robert G Ingersoll to 'The Four Horsemen' of Atheism' of which Hitch was one, the moral, ethical and logical argument has and remains on the side of us ATHEISTS!!!
Religion is lazy and half-hearted like ready-made muffins; and arriving at thoughtful, sound conclusions through experience and philosophy is like making muffins from scratch...one is a easy shortcut that makes people think that a person can do something when all that person did was blindly follow the instructions on the back, adding a cup of water. Learning to bake from scratch requires an understanding of how things work, thinking about the reasons things happen and why it is beneficial to do so- this is the importance of philosophy and thinking for one's self.......
It’s simple; how is gods morals any more objective than mine? They’re simply opinions of a higher being who simply suggests we follow a code which any sentient being forming any type of competent civilised nation would come up with.
yeah, but lets say God exists and he CREATED us just as we can create robots and WE decide what the robots should do and what they are not allowed to do. If God created us then technically its him who decided how we should act and function. And being a much higher being than us, he should know a hell of a lot more about existence and reality than us... that said, i don't really believe in God, but keep an open mind as no one can say anything for absolute certainty. :D
Phillip Scott I didn't understand a word you just said. Also whatever argument you were trying to make is immediately invalidated since you put God is quotes with a lowercase g. It's like saying "sky daddy" or "wizard." If you do those things, I know ahead of time that you are worth debating.
Phillip Scott When did I show any signs of being a victim? You haven't done anything that threatens me. Your arguments are pathetic. How could I be a victim to you?
I've only recently found your videos. I'm uncomfortable/embarrassed how little I knew about the scriptures and their complete lack of historicity. Thank you for posting these fantastic videos. It's weird how many religious companies' (Joel Olsteen, the Mormons, etc.) advertisements get promoted by them.
Well the thing is... even if you think it would be better if objective morality existed... it doesn't mean it DOES exist. You can't have ABSOLUTE truths just because you want them. And how the fuck are they ever absolute if you decide to cherry-pick from your Holy Book depending on the era you live in? Oh yeah, the dogma of infallibility is it called? Point taken! I apologize.
Good points. Who is it that decides what God "said" was absolute morality? The men who wrote the books that were edited and compiled by other men into the Bible? The men who translated this Bible into different languages like English? The priests and pastors who "explain" the Bible to you? If God's Word is absolute, then why can't God tell everybody, instead of going through men as intermediaries?
lmnop1022 because you are biased. If you can’t hear a convincing argument in the preager U video hitches had holes in his argument. I mean he tried to say that religion will make people do evil things out of will, well feeling morally righteous about it, then used Islam to slam Christianity. Yes Islam is a religion that is in some ways similar to Christianity but Islam is completely different for the most part. In fact Christianity has fought out groups like Islam in the past. but using Islam to slam Christianity is like using basketball to slam football. They have similar pieces but are completely different sports.
Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he can't lift it?If yes, he's not omnipotent because there is a weight that he can't lift.If no,he's also not omnipotent because there is something that he can't do.
GUY RORO so now asking oxymoron questions, proof that God is not a creator. If guy said he cannot lie because he's holy, do does that mean he's Limited? It's a silly notion from the get-go
We had a guest preacher who delivered a sermon titled: The things that God can't do. There were only two aspects of the sermon that I remember: God was incapable of lying and he couldn't overlook the sins of man. There were more, but it's been around 20 years since I heard them.
I'm constantly amazed at how very very intelligent Christopher Hitchens was. I could listen to him speak for hours. I've just discovered this man recently. Sadly after his death. But. Better late than never.
@@vincegonzalez2171 This is the very thing that the idea of original sin is built upon, isn't it? That humans have less morals than other animals instead of more?
That's the problem with the "morality comes from god" argument. The religious can justify almost any vile act by claiming that 'god told them to do it'. How curious that it seems to be related to "The devil made me do it".
I find this to be the most hilarious Christian argument because of how self defeating it is. When they ask how morals could exist without a god, that very fear of their absence that they have when asking is the very answer to that question. The societal decline and calamity that they point out would ensue is the very thing that morality exists to avoid.
5:02 "the entire western world / civilisation is based on this." ...No. It isnt. There had been many different beliefs in nothern europe for example, and still these civilisations did have moral values
