Hitchens' Morality Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

That isn't moral.





True, but the religion gives the evil belief credibility that it wouldn't otherwise have.

Thank you. You answered the question .



Atheism simply means without god. You made a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.





True, there are secular versions of those.

Says who? What the heck *is* this morality that everyone seems to refer to?

This entire game is nonsense. Prove to me ethics, somebody go ahead and do so. Don't just say "X makes me feel good therefore it is good" but rather instead construct an ethical theory from the bones of the earth and prove it to have truth. Prove this strange notion of laws governing how atoms ought to act. If morality is an expression of culture, then this is just a statement of culture, and thus meaningless. If morality is an expression of divinity, then atheists cannot be moral from the onset. If morality is an expression of some laws of intelligence, then there must be some derivation of this as to show the connection between intelligence and morality.

This is not even a statement that atheism is wrong or anything like that, but rather an attack on the foundations of this argument. Morality is not one. There is not just one ethical theory in existence, a "The Ethical Theory That All People Know And Some Refuse To Obey", but rather a diverse set of branches of ethical beliefs. Some atheists even dismiss the notion of morality as nonsense, such as philosopher J.L. Mackie, so I don't see how this is a major issue.


And Marx gave Stalin more credibility than he'd otherwise have. Should we ban thoughts that have the potential to go outside the One True Morality (TM) ? I don't see the sense to be made from this discussion.

On behalf of C. Hitchens, you're a douchebag too. Namecalleng begets namecalling.

Take your own advice.

Well, I think what I meant is they're just losing track of what in their personal development came from where. Feeling good about one's self and the actions a person takes to have that seem to have more to do with the environment they grow up in rather than anything intrinsic or instinctive.

So I'll correct myself; all, every, none, no, there are no absolutes - the prevailing majority though, from my best guess, don't really know what their arguing for though; or at the very least they need to address that part of the issue in their own way.

"Allmighty God, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing."

... or ...

"In Jesus' name, I forgive you for killing me."


"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

Translation: "Kill them. For the Lord knows those who are his."

Supposed statement by Abbot Arnold Amaury before the massacre of Béziers during the Albigensian Crusade, recorded 30 years later, according to Caesar of Heisterbach.

Cited in "The Perfect Heresy," by Stephen O'Shea

Last edited by Fnord on 30 Dec 2008, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

your defining morality on your own terms and not on the terms of other people, just because it is not moral to you... doesn't mean it is not moral to others. Science can give evil beliefs credibility. Down with science?

Morality stems from empathy not logic. Rules are made for people who aren't able to empathize. Moral rules are subjective. One shouldn't impose one's sense of morality on another but we do it because there are a lot of cold, mechanical people out there.

it is viewed as a moral action by the person... and since this thread would fail even attempting to define morality... There is no saying it is not moral. And the person who sacrifices, benefits others. A person who is not religious, would not die for a religious belief. Hence the question in its failures and vagueness... as been answered.

You want a better answer? ask a better question.

I say we resolve this issue by ignoring obviously stupid evangelism in the future, whether it comes from Christians or atheists.

The difference is that religion can act, not just as an excuse to do wrong, but as a way of convincing yourself - & convincing others - that you are righteous to do wrong.



As I said above, & as should have been obvious anyway from what I already said, the difference is that the religious person thinks he will be rewarded by God for being immoral.



I can't think of anything other than religion that could convince a person to both ignore his misgivings in order to commit an immoral act he felt no inclination to do, & that he was good & praiseworthy to do so. I can't think how a secular person could convince himself he was morally right to advocate for a policy of circumcising all female children in the community. & I'm not ignoring anybody, I address them in the very quote you have below.



There are immoral acts that it is hard to imagine someone being compelled to perform or support or advocate by the usual base human urges of greed, selfishness, etc., but that a decent person might feel compelled to perform or support or advocate by virtue of being a religious believer, & because if he didn't he would suffer through all eternity, & that he would deserve to so suffer, because to obey his innate human tendencies of solidarity, altruism, & sympathy in contravention of God's law is evil. As I said, I don't know what a secular argument for the moral rightness of female circumcision would look like, also, I don't know how a secular person would convince himself he was right in thinking that the benefits in allowing the use of condoms in order to stop the spread of aids were outweighed by the possibility that doing so might cause someone to think you didn't consider sex evil.



Why would it? How does believing a God created the universe help you understand the difference between right & wrong?



I think I've seen you make the point elsewhere that the religious give more generously to charities than secularists (if that was you?), the obvious counter-statistic would be, I suppose, that although somewhere between 10 & 15% of Americans are atheist, significantly less than 1% of the American prison population is atheist.



I see no essential problem with the proposition that an otherwise sane person can harbour a few crazy beliefs - there would need to be other symptoms before I made a diagnosis.



& I would thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head.

This whole argument sounds like utter nonsense. I mean, many people might say killing others is wrong or be repulsed by the idea intuitively, but that doesn't mean they may not swallow the bitter pill if their values somehow dictate it - "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" and all that. Do we automatically assume that only religion can lead to people doing things that they may find having high ick factor? How can say that religion convinces you that you are righteous if you do wrong that isn't sufficiently objective that we can turn on its head and say any moral system which we find objectionable to do the same thing?

I mean, the idea that only religion could possibly lead anyone to do something they find somehow objectionable is a pretty strong claim that requires quite a bit of justification. Suppose I held "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" as a strong moral axiom. Suppose that I also (as I do) have deep misgivings about killing. Yet I am for the sake of argument in the position of assassinating a tyrant the death of whom would prevent the killing of many innocents. What aside from where we place the words right and wrong is their that is intrinsically different about this situation than about a religious one? Upon killing, I may suffer regret etc, but will I not (if I am of a strong will) judge myself righteous by own values?

Ducasse, you simply are not arguing clearly and you are ignoring obvious failures of reasoning that have already been pointed out to you. I don't feel like continuing to run around in circles any longer, so unless you're able to actually make a cogent point, I'm done here.

I'm not saying religion is the only thing that can lead people to do things they feel are wrong. It very obviously isn't.

I'm talking about a situation where a person is presented with a moral choice. He has misgivings about the immoral option & does not feel inclined to choose it, but if his religion specifically says he must do it, & if he is serious about his religion, then he must choose it, regardless of the consequences.

What you're talking about is very different. You're talking about a person faced with a moral choice. He has misgivings about the immoral option & does not feel inclined to choose it, but he can see choosing it would serve some greater moral good.

The second man is performing an action he considers repugnant, & that taken in isolation is immoral, because he believes it will have a result he considers beneficial - he may be right or wrong to think this.

The first man is simply performing an action he considers repugnant & that is immoral - he is wrong to do so.

The point is this distinction is artificial entirely. Either way the person is faced with a choice they find repugnant; they appeal to some set of values which runs contrary to this impression in order to force themselves to do it. What my religion tells me to do could be no different to me than what my values tell me to do; God telling someone to do something necessitates the subjective perception of morality in that action. See

versus

But in the eyes of someone who is truly religious, obeying the tenants of that religion is selfsame with undertaking the action to serve some greater moral good. This distinction between the man doing something for a reason he sees as beneficial or moral and one doing it because his religion tells him to do it is completely artificial. Do not many religious people posit God's will as selfsame with morality?