*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, October 13th, 2010 10:46am PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

That last quote just proved that Peter Hitchens is, at best, of weak moral character, and at worst, completely immoral. He believes that if there wasn't a being that would punish him for his immoral acts then there would be no limit to what he would commit. This is not morality.

A moral person would not commit those acts even if there was no way they would get in trouble for it.

>> ^Skeeve:

That last quote just proved that Peter Hitchens is, at best, of weak moral character, and at worst, completely immoral. He believes that if there wasn't a being that would punish him for his immoral acts then there would be no limit to what he would commit. This is not morality.
A moral person would not commit those acts even if there was no way they would get in trouble for it.


I agree whole heatedly. I actually used this as a point of contention several times when I was debating about religion with friends. One friend was VERY insistent that if god did not exist there would be nothing stopping him from going on a killing rampage (his words not mine).

And while I tried to help him, if you'll pardon the pun, see the light, he is still frustratedly walking around apparently wishing he could go on a killing rampage and the only thing stopping him is he's worried about going to hell. I think it says a great deal about his moral character that the only thing stopping him is an invisible man in the sky.

His assertion that if morality changes then in the future we as different cultures would do things we find offensive and be fine with them makes the case for the absurdity of religious morality.

History CLEARLY shows the evolution by cultural means of morality... there are more then a few examples of things having been considered morally acceptable in the past that are generally considered reprehensible now.

You can even see examples of wide moral divergence in the modern world. The easiest example would be cultures in which it is morally acceptable to cover females from head to foot and remove the clitoris of infant females. so it is clear that morality is much more subjective than theists or deists are willing to admit.

He seems to believe that "moral" acts have always been static, not so. not even two centuries ago it was normal and acceptable even in the western world for a 40 year old man to betroth, marry and copulate with females as young as 12. The notion of a perceived age of consent is a VERY young concept and yet is embraced as a part of this perceived moral constant.

I wont even go into the many acts that are justified in the bible that are rightly viewed as absolutely morally unacceptable in the modern world.

Dang!

The level discussion put forward for the religious side is disappointing.

The stupidity and inadequateness of Peters last argument is laughable. Aside from the already mentioned immorality of being moral only because of god/supervision, the whole "North pole" metaphor is pathetic.

Lets say then, that there is such a thing as a "north pole of morality" well.. how do we get access to it? I'm sure Peter feels guided by jesus or something, I, for my part, just try my best to be guided by reason and evidence, and then there are these guys, who beat a woman to death because her daughter refused forced marriage. Which of us is closer to the "pole"? Any answer you give to this question is where I rest my case.

My answer would be that we'll just have to make the best of what we've got: to use our reason, logic, evidence and stand on the shoulders of those who have used the same things before, and just simply strive to find the pole as best we can.

If the answer lies in scripture, you still owe me the answer to which scripture, and an explanation of why I should believe any of it, how we know which parts to ignore, and so on, basically, were back to the basic problem with all religion: Theres no evidence that any of it is true.

>> ^CyberViperDriver:
His assertion that if morality changes then in the future we as different cultures would do things we find offensive and be fine with them makes the case for the absurdity of religious morality.
History CLEARLY shows the evolution by cultural means of morality... there are more then a few examples of things having been considered morally acceptable in the past that are generally considered reprehensible now.
You can even see examples of wide moral divergence in the modern world. The easiest example would be cultures in which it is morally acceptable to cover females from head to foot and remove the clitoris of infant females. so it is clear that morality is much more subjective than theists or deists are willing to admit.
He seems to believe that "moral" acts have always been static, not so. not even two centuries ago it was normal and acceptable even in the western world for a 40 year old man to betroth, marry and copulate with females as young as 12. The notion of a perceived age of consent is a VERY young concept and yet is embraced as a part of this perceived moral constant.
I wont even go into the many acts that are justified in the bible that are rightly viewed as absolutely morally unacceptable in the modern world.


I would argue that religion controls morality less than people think; rather, morality is controlled by finite resources (Which education falls under, because without a university or resources, education withers and dies...etc.)

For example, Spartans slammed deformed babies against cliffs. Nations sacrificed humans to appease volcano deities. People danced to appease farm gods and men had sex with 10 year old girls to ensure the human race procreated. All these "horrors" were caused by survival instincts and lack of education (Resources.)

Now, fast forward. Add vast resources, like technology, to the world. Then examine communities. Nowadays we cannot rely on our own next-door neighbors. Why? Well, technology (a resource) has broken up communities and allowed everyone their distance. We no longer rely on each other because we don't need to. Oh, freedom this, freedom that. Bah. Freedom = antithesis of community.

One example of resources/morality would be an island that had a very advanced culture. When trees ran out, they started eating each other. What changed in less than 100 years? (Hint, resources.)

I will say there are a myriad number of contributing factors--religions, resources, social growth, etc.--that will affect "morality," but then, to blame a natural instinct (Belief a higher power) is to exaggerate cause and effect. Religion is evil, yes... And so are people.

Hello guys!?!?

It is a scientific certitude that not only does magnetic north constantly fluctuate, but it has completely reversed itself several times in the past and will continue to do so.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Hello guys!?!?
It is a scientific certitude that not only does magnetic north constantly fluctuate, but it has completely reversed itself several times in the past and will continue to do so.


Yeah guys, his magnetic north metaphor is in fact a totally good argument for atheism.

Anyway, all of you are taking the debate on a way too high level to be easily analysed. Go read some basic/introductory moral philosophy books and come back.

Without any background knowledge of who Peter Hitchens really is, I'm operating under the assumption that he is a cleverly placed straw man counterpoint for his brother Christopher. Now watch the video again and enjoy the "debate".

Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it.

China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Soviet Union. Case dismissed.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it.
China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Soviet Union. Case dismissed.


Totally agree. if not fish, bicycle.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it.
China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Soviet Union. Case dismissed.


This is how it's been my friend.

Don't bother mentioning those cases in history where Emperors/Kings were godheads by divine right and worshiped as the human embodiments of God on Earth, because that would like, totally undermine your argument and stuff.

"Remove Zeus---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it." - Quantomos Mushromolis, 400 BC

It sounds like Hitchens and Sam Harris disagree about morality. Hitchens seems to be suggesting that morality is relative, whereas Harris seems to think that morality is absolute--that, in his words, "there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind." I would be interested in seeing them debate the issue.

My own idea is that it probably falls in the middle somewhere... that there are certain general moral principles or guidelines that are absolutes but that these principles manifest themselves quite differently in different cultures. I think as a species we are approaching agreement on these general principles (in the form of codifying human rights). I don't know if science can help us find these (Harris' talks are always vague on the details), but I agree with Hitchens that they should come from rational thought.

However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say (though fundamentalists often interpret the Bible that way). Usually when there is a law--any law, religious or secular--it exists for a reason. And I think it is pretty easy to understand the reasons why a society would have laws (or commandments in this case) forbidding people from murdering each other. He's right, it doesn't deal with the particular cases. But as a general moral rule it's not supposed to address every single instance.

If I understand his argument correctly, he's offended that a deity is telling him what to do because he assumes that deity is not respecting his right to think for himself. A different perspective would be that said deity (or human author as the case may be) was providing a hint at how to live a happier and more peaceful life. Killing people, sleeping with their wives, etc. is not usually the way to achieve that. The thought-crime stuff that Hitchens talks about is only one interpretation (primarily Catholic) of the commandments, but there others as well--for example,that the act of "coveting" means actively planning to take what someone else has (wife, goods, or otherwise). In that interpretation being envious isn't a sin, but plotting how to trick someone out of their property (scamming them) would be.

Hey he's looking pretty healthy. Actually, he's looking healthier than I've seen in videos where he has hair..

I'd love to hear about an example of, or perhaps the direction to look towards, 'an absolute right or wrong answer to a moral question.'

Furthermore, is the ten commandment example a liar's paradox?

And an aside, if it is not supposed to address every single instance, should not the same attitude be applied to the other commandments? I interpret that this sense of relativity or subjectivity is one of the cornerstones of Hitchen's issues with religiously founded morality, especially when there are zealots who do take them absolutely.

>> ^SDGundamX:
It sounds like Hitchens and Sam Harris disagree about morality. Hitchens seems to be suggesting that morality is relative, whereas Harris seems to think that morality is absolute--that, in his words, "there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind." I would be interested in seeing them debate the issue.
My own idea is that it probably falls in the middle somewhere... that there are certain general moral principles or guidelines that are absolutes but that these principles manifest themselves quite differently in different cultures. I think as a species we are approaching agreement on these general principles (in the form of codifying human rights). I don't know if science can help us find these (Harris' talks are always vague on the details), but I agree with Hitchens that they should come from rational thought.
However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say (though fundamentalists often interpret the Bible that way). Usually when there is a law--any law, religious or secular--it exists for a reason. And I think it is pretty easy to understand the reasons why a society would have laws (or commandments in this case) forbidding people from murdering each other. He's right, it doesn't deal with the particular cases. But as a general moral rule it's not supposed to address every single instance.
If I understand his argument correctly, he's offended that a deity is telling him what to do because he assumes that deity is not respecting his right to think for himself. A different perspective would be that said deity (or human author as the case may be) was providing a hint at how to live a happier and more peaceful life. Killing people, sleeping with their wives, etc. is not usually the way to achieve that. The thought-crime stuff that Hitchens talks about is only one interpretation (primarily Catholic) of the commandments, but there others as well--for example,that the act of "coveting" means actively planning to take what someone else has (wife, goods, or otherwise). In that interpretation being envious isn't a sin, but plotting how to trick someone out of their property (scamming them) would be.

@SDGundamX: I'm not certain Harris believes there's an actual absolute right answer, but that we can study it as a scientific question. I don't think there exist objective answers to moral questions, since we always have a perspective. A meter is always a meter, no matter if your eyes are screwed up, since we have multiple ways of measuring it that can verify the length - I cannot, at this point, see how we can "measure" morality, without resorting to a perspective like "What's best for humanity as a whole" for instance.

I think morality is "evolving", changing towards a better morality, more suited to the environment we live in. I think Peter Hitchens' assessment of a relative morality is misunderstood in the same way as the regular evolution misunderstanding of "Why isn't life springing up all around us if life evolves?" or "Why do we still have monkeys" It seems that he doesn't grasp the idea of an evolving idea - it doesn't mean that murder will all of a sudden be an accepted thing, and that any judgment can flip on its head - there are certain directions which our morality is guided by our circumstances, just as all land-based animals have to absorb energy somehow or oxygen. In the same way, we are guided to in general be nice to each other, because we've been bred that way, not because an outside force tells us to. This is the reason for the conscience.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'christopher hitchens, peter, debate, religion, christian, christianity' to 'christopher hitchens, peter hitchens, debate, religion, christian, christianity' - edited by xxovercastxx

@gwiz665 The problem with relativism is that it frames itself in the negative. It cannot be a moral guide and tell us how to act. I've seen it argued that moral relativism is in fact simply a denial of absolutism and nothing more. (See here for an opponent's point of view and here for a proponents point of view.)

@chowhound155 To answer your first challenge: the Golden Rule, which exists in almost exactly the same form in every major religion practiced today, both Eastern and Western.

Second question: Not sure what you mean by liar's paradox... could you elaborate?

Third question: Yes. That is what I was saying (I used the examples other than killing further on in my post). I was pointing out that Hitchens defines them as absolutes but that is only one interpretation (primarily the Catholic one).

I seem to read too much mathematical theory and then apply that to life...


Examples: Gödel's first theorem of incompleteness, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. Stew on it and get back to me.

You can't just say something like that without presenting an argument. And no, listing 4 countries that went down the shitter under oppressive atheist regimes is not an argument. There are atheist and secular governments which have flourished and there are religious governments which have been disastrous. Oppression is the problem and that can be done with or without imaginary friends.

All you have to do is cross-reference this with this.

As a sampling, 4 of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is not important" countries. None of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is important" countries.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can't just say something like that without presenting an argument. And no, listing 4 countries that went down the shitter under oppressive atheist regimes is not an argument. There are atheist and secular governments which have flourished and there are religious governments which have been disastrous. Oppression is the problem and that can be done with or without imaginary friends.
All you have to do is cross-reference this with this.
As a sampling, 4 of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is not important" countries. None of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is important" countries.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy


An argument would be that without hate, humans would not be human, would they. We use religion as a scapegoat for a man made, natural concept that must be learned through (Religion.)

I made an argument before that kind of suppliments what QM said, but with different meaning and intent. I am tired but the gist is there...

And you cannot really use nations versus nations arguments. All Atheist nations have other nations to compete with. I wonder what would happen in a world with no religion and all Swedens? Perhaps a good South Park episode? The one where the Atheists fight a world war over what name their organization should be called.

Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?

All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.

You are correct that it's not an argument, it's what is proven to happen time and again. Some countries regimes use religion in an evil way. I have yet to hear of any country using atheism in a "good way", all you really get is indifference. And were there purely atheist countries they'd soon be conquered by an assertive religion, a la the islamization of Europe.

Opinion: it seems there are no strong cultural values without religious underpinnings.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

You can't just say something like that without presenting an argument. And no, listing 4 countries that went down the shitter under oppressive atheist regimes is not an argument. There are atheist and secular governments which have flourished and there are religious governments which have been disastrous. Oppression is the problem and that can be done with or without imaginary friends.
All you have to do is cross-reference this with this.
As a sampling, 4 of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is not important" countries. None of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is important" countries.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy

Your argument doesn't undermine my statement. Yes, God-Kings and such ruled by divine right, and for much of history this worked, to the point even the Devil-Kings got sh!t done. Yet unlike the Statist oppressors of recent history, the God-King could not easily change traditions like s/he did mere laws.

These "atheist" countries of late are an historical eyeblink, typically small with homogeneous populations and cultural values forged by religion. When they forget their god(s) completely they'll be ripe for conquest.

It doesn't matter whether you or I support or condemn religion, that's how it's always been.


>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
This is how it's been my friend.
Don't bother mentioning those cases in history where Emperors/Kings were godheads by divine right and worshiped as the human embodiments of God on Earth, because that would like, totally undermine your argument and stuff.
"Remove Zeus---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it." - Quantomos Mushromolis, 400 BC

Well, @quantumushroom atheism isn't really a force for good or evil, it is something which breaks your chains. The whole point of atheism is that you are no longer religious and are no longer required to submit to a deity, you are free. I've not seen atheism used for evil either. Even though Stalin's communism was non-religious/atheistic, it was certainly not a drive force in that movement, unlike suicide bombers who have a definite driving force in their religion.

One could argue that science itself is a driving force for good (well, more good than evil) and while it might not be accurate to describe this as atheistic, it is certainly indifferent to the existence of any gods.

Scandinavia and really most of Europe is atheistic, even though we have a state-religion. It's sticking because of traditions, like the monarchy, every one lives as atheists.

>> ^SDGundamX:
However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say


Uh.. thats EXACTLY what they say, have you even read them? The first THREE commandments deal with this, by forbidding effectively any other viewpoints. There's a reason they are not called The Ten Suggestions.

I know that most religious people don't interpret them this way today, but this doesnt excuse or explain away the actual texts.

The point is that clearly, the morality of those with the modern, liberal interpretation of the ten commandments, do not come from the ten commandments. If they had based their morality on the commandments, then they would not think of the commandments as vague guidelines that can mostly be ignored. Most modern Christians, for instance, support religious freedom, while the very first commandment strictly forbids it.

Even the three commandments that actually deals with anything of concern to a 21st century human, the ones about lying,stealing and killing are first of all to general, vague and imprecise to actually be of any use in forming a proper morality, besides, its pretty obvious that humans have had a basic understanding of these concepts and why they are wrong, or the human race would never have, as Hitchens has pointed out, gotten as far as mount Sinai, or anywhere else for that matter.

I think we're partially in agreement. I would interpret "atheist government" to mean a government which enforces atheism. This is what your 4 examples are. Atheism isn't the problem with those governments/societies, enforcement is.

But then you seem to speak of government indifference as a bad thing. Government indifference is the pinnacle of government religious involvement.

It's also a little contradictory to claim that atheist societies are weak and give 4 examples where robust religious societies were taken over by the godless. Again, oppressive societies are weak because they breed enemies left and right, and because their populace, in time, will jump at the chance to have the government overthrown.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You are correct that it's not an argument, it's what is proven to happen time and again. Some countries regimes use religion in an evil way. I have yet to hear of any country using atheism in a "good way", all you really get is indifference. And were there purely atheist countries they'd soon be conquered by an assertive religion, a la the islamization of Europe.
Opinion: it seems there are no strong cultural values without religious underpinnings.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can't just say something like that without presenting an argument. And no, listing 4 countries that went down the shitter under oppressive atheist regimes is not an argument. There are atheist and secular governments which have flourished and there are religious governments which have been disastrous. Oppression is the problem and that can be done with or without imaginary friends.
All you have to do is cross-reference this with this.
As a sampling, 4 of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is not important" countries. None of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is important" countries.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think we're partially in agreement. I would interpret "atheist government" to mean a government which enforces atheism. This is what your 4 examples are. Atheism isn't the problem with those governments/societies, enforcement is.
But then you seem to speak of government indifference as a bad thing. Government indifference is the pinnacle of government religious involvement.
It's also a little contradictory to claim that atheist societies are weak and give 4 examples where robust religious societies were taken over by the godless. Again, oppressive societies are weak because they breed enemies left and right, and because their populace, in time, will jump at the chance to have the government overthrown.
>> ^quantumushroom:
You are correct that it's not an argument, it's what is proven to happen time and again. Some countries regimes use religion in an evil way. I have yet to hear of any country using atheism in a "good way", all you really get is indifference. And were there purely atheist countries they'd soon be conquered by an assertive religion, a la the islamization of Europe.
Opinion: it seems there are no strong cultural values without religious underpinnings.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can't just say something like that without presenting an argument. And no, listing 4 countries that went down the shitter under oppressive atheist regimes is not an argument. There are atheist and secular governments which have flourished and there are religious governments which have been disastrous. Oppression is the problem and that can be done with or without imaginary friends.
All you have to do is cross-reference this with this.
As a sampling, 4 of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is not important" countries. None of the top 10 HDI are in the top 10 "Religion is important" countries.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy




Curly and Moe solve all the problems of the world.

Anybody who finds common ground with QM is....

Really showing what he's made of.

Hi @BicycleRepairMan! Since we’re discussing the 10 commandments, I thought I’d do us a favor and actually post them here for us to look at so it’s easier to discuss. Note that there are two versions, the ones from Exodus and the ones from Deuteronomy, so I’ve posted both versions (as printed on Wikipedia):

Exodus

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Deuteronomy

6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
7 you shall have no other gods before me.
8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,
10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.
15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.
16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
17 You shall not murder.
18 Neither shall you commit adultery.
19 Neither shall you steal.
20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.
21 Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

I do not see anywhere in either version of the Ten Commandments any “command” about not thinking about or interpreting these commandments. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so. My original point stands—that’s not what they actually say. There is no need to excuse or explain away the original text, because there’s nothing explicitly written there that supports your interpretation.

That being said, to some extent Hitchens’ interpretation of the Ten Commandments as including thought crimes matches that of the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Ten Commandments. However, you yourself pointed out that most Christians—including Catholics—don’t interpret it that way personally. And that’s the weakness with Hitchens’ argument. He’s not arguing against religion here, he’s arguing against one particular interpretation of a particular religious ruleset (the Ten Commandments) of a particular religious sect (orthodox Catholicism). His interpretation, it turns out, is not even held by the majority of the worshipers of that particular religion (Christianity as a whole). Which begs the question of why he’s even going off about it (the thought crime thing) in the first place? His claim is that the Ten Commandments are a terrible place to get your morality from, yet his argument is actually not against the Commandments themselves but against the unthinking interpretation of some religious adherents. I don't find that to be a very rational or convincing argument against the Commandments themselves.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?
All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.


You impertinent, lying fuckstick. I downvoted because I disagreed with your use of post-modernist relativism and the whole freedom = bad mantra, I don't need to give a fucking explanation to downvote someone I disagree with. Downvotes must really piss you the fuck off to elicit such a response. "Wah wah! I was downvoted! I do declare I might be coming down with a case of the vapors!" They are a part of the site, and should be used more than they are when expressing disapproval of a comment, in my opinion. Learn to get over it, everyone else does.

What I don't see others doing is calling someone out for an individual downvote and then claiming the downvoter is the one who is acting like a child while lying and strawmanning in an attempt to prove it. Project on, my friend, project on!

"Blame religion for every human woe"? I cannot even think of one person who wasn't a flyby troll who has done that here, let alone myself! Nice picture of the Sift that you're painting for us all. "Downvote your every [BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS, yours, mind you] comment"? Well then, if you went out of your way to bold that one word then it must mean you are like really super duper serious! Make a Sift Talk, thems grounds for bannination, we've seen many come and go for that offense. Unfortunately you are a liar, and this is easy for anyone to verify. If you could kindly quote where I have said that or show that I have downvoted anywhere approaching ALL(a few comments = all in Lawdeedaw world) of yours comments, that'd be great. Please get back to me on that, okay, cupcake?

Have any more words to put into my mouth? Fuck off with your dishonesty.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?
All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.

You impertinent, lying fuckstick. I downvoted because I disagreed with your use of post-modernist relativism and the whole freedom = bad mantra, I don't need to give a fucking explanation to downvote someone I disagree with. Downvotes must really piss you the fuck off to elicit such a response. "Wah wah! I was downvoted! I do declare I might be coming down with a case of the vapors!" They are a part of the site, and should be used more than they are when expressing disapproval of a comment, in my opinion. Learn to get over it, everyone else does.
What I don't see others doing is calling someone out for an individual downvote and then claiming the downvoter is the one who is acting like a child while lying and strawmanning in an attempt to prove it. Project on, my friend, project on! <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
"Blame religion for every human woe"? I cannot even think of one person who wasn't a flyby troll who has done that here, let alone myself! Nice picture of the Sift that you're painting for us all. "Downvote your every [BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS, yours, mind you] comment"? Well then, if you went out of your way to bold that one word then it must mean you are like really super duper serious! Make a Sift Talk, thems grounds for bannination, we've seen many come and go for that offense. Unfortunately you are a liar, and this is easy for anyone to verify. If you could kindly quote where I have said that or show that I have downvoted anywhere approaching ALL(a few comments = all in Lawdeedaw world) of yours comments, that'd be great. Please get back to me on that, okay, cupcake? <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Have any more words to put into my mouth? Fuck off with your dishonesty.


Touchy.

Your opinions are valid about revisionism, even if you can never prove them. They are yours, so keep them and try to explain them. I simply would rather have a debate of reason, something none can do while calling each other names, than a click of a down-arrow and you occasionally saying somehting like, "You are wrong Law, you take the pussy way out and do not blame religion at all."

I do not mind a downvote, in fact I have been downvoted by many and am fine-as-peach-wine with those downvotes---but when they grow to "Oh, another downvote by, I wonder who? Oh, its Animals again, surprise surprise," I stop finding it amusing.

I was not even offended by you at first, and took many of your downvotes casually.

Further, I only bolded "Every" because bold is a function on the sift and just like a "downvote," I think it should be used more often. Thanks for unintentionally pointing that out Animals! Learn to get over it please.

Oh, and I clearly stated that blaming religion for every woe was a dying horse on the Sift. I congradulated and congradulate the entire Sift again.

Addionally, I clearly stated that I was using hyperbole(I.E using hyperbole) when I was making the assertions about you "Downvoting ALL," my comments. That makes the statements satire, like the comedy Lewis Black uses... And since I stated they were blown outlandishly out of proportion, everyone knew they were intentionally ficticous. In short, I did not lie, nor did I insult you with a personal attack---I made a clear joke. Kind of like when you were joking (I assume) and called me an "impertinent, lying fuckstick." If you were not joking there, I am sorry I assumed you were; however, I would like you to prove that I am indeed a "fuckstick." And since fuckstick is a made up word, good luck with that.

Also, since we are speaking of Sift Talk and being 100% accurate, prove to me where I am actually a "cupcake" as you stated. The definition of cupcake follows;
"1. a small cake, the size of an individual portion, baked in a cup-shaped mold.
2. Older Slang .
a. a sexually attractive young woman.
b. a beloved girl or woman." (Dictionary Reference)

This is, by definition, the equivilent of calling me a transvestite (Although there is nothing wrong with being a transvesite, I am not a transvestite,) and I would like veryfiable evidence that I am indeed a woman in a man's body. Either that, or you were calling me a food product, which I doubt I am.

After all, since we want to be 100% correct in ALL statements, get back with me on that. Either that, or you lied, and never made it clear you were joking. Which makes them lies.

Threats aside (I find them amusing) it seems, with your diatribe, that you took far more offense to my comments than I to your downvote. Because I am so offense, I am stopping here. Lawdeedaw out.

I do not mind a downvote, in fact I have been downvoted by many and am fine-as-peach-wine with those downvotes---but when they grow to "Oh, another downvote by, I wonder who? Oh, its Animals again, surprise surprise," I stop finding it amusing.

I was not even offended by you at first, and took many of your downvotes casually.


"Many?" Christ, more weasel language. You're blowing it out of proportion, no where were these FEW and SPREAD OUT OVER TIME downvotes anywhere indicative of anything but disagreement. Even if I downvoted you more, where do you get off deriving any sort of ill-intent from such a small sample? Unless there's a clear pattern of a downvoting spree/vendetta (of which you could have taken the time to take to any of the admins to verify before opening your stupid mouth and spouting more butthurt nonsense), kindly shut the fuck up you overly sensitive twat, and no I'm not literally calling you a gigantic, walking, talking and typing twat, just in case you're confused.

Claiming I'm the one being "touchy" is priceless, more projection from you who felt the need to start something ONCE AGAIN, by making mountains out of molehills, so everyone can see how unfairly you're being treated by big mean me.


Further, I only bolded "Every" because bold is a function on the sift and just like a "downvote," I think it should be used more often. Thanks for unintentionally pointing that out Animals! Learn to get over it please.

Are you thick? It's the choice of words in combination with the bold.

Addionally, I clearly stated that I was using hyperbole(I.E using hyperbole) when I was making the assertions about you "Downvoting ALL," my comments. That makes the statements satire, like the comedy Lewis Black uses... And since I stated they were blown outlandishly out of proportion, everyone knew they were intentionally ficticous. In short, I did not lie, nor did I insult you with a personal attack---I made a clear joke. Kind of like when you were joking (I assume) and called me an "impertinent, lying fuckstick." If you were not joking there, I am sorry I assumed you were; however, I would like you to prove that I am indeed a "fuckstick." And since fuckstick is a made up word, good luck with that.

Oh right. Here I was thinking from the pretty clear cut context that every thing else after your unambiguous statement of fact(that I downvote all your posts) was your intended "hyperbole", ie: I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?


Notice I didn't even bother mentioning the above because it was pretty clear what it was, verbal masturbation, not worth addressing.

But since you chose to preface the next paragraph with "All hyperbole aside..." you afford yourself an easy-out and are then able to disown the previous paragraph when and where you choose, depending on the response you get, despite the fact that it is clear as day what that hyperbole was. Disingenuous, I'd expect no less of you.

Even, for the sake of argument, I assume the entire thing was hyperbole per your lame technicality worthy of the most ineffectual kind of dishonest, sophist wanker, your next paragraph STILL shows that yes, you are still a petty liar. Right after you state, "All hyperbole aside...", which I assume would mean you now intend to be truly taken seriously, you then proceed to lie (once again)about so-called statements I've made while displaying astounding levels of hypocrisy:

What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.

First, you assert that I've ever said such a thing AND that this has been the general sentiment of the Sift but is now dying (in thanks, perhaps you assume, to your fine efforts?). Both aren't true and are thus straw-men you use in an attempt to make yourself appear so gosh darned mature and civil, all the while showing traits of someone who wishes to project his own inadequacies onto someone else. In my opinion, you've stooped far lower than your imagined, dishonest staw man version of me and my views. Pots and kettles and all that...

The rest of your "response" can pretty much be summed up as "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!" You know what slang is, you're being a facetious ass.

Lying "holds no place in reason", you big fucking hypocrite.

Threats aside (I find them amusing) it seems, with your diatribe, that you took far more offense to my comments than I to your downvote

Threats? Is this more of the same from you (see: lies)? Because only a crazy person would find something that isn't there amusing. And yes, I take offense at people who pathologically lie more than I or anyone else would a downvote. What is so odd about that? Seems pretty morally consistent to me, but then again, I'm not fucking insane. This asinine observation of yours speaks volumes of your attitude towards honesty.

Lawdeedaw out.

No comment.

@SDGundamX. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so

Ah, the old "its only meant for the jews then and there" defense.. Well, then why are even discussing them?

I am considering them in their context, their ENTIRE context, which includes the later clarifications of them; the proper way to treat slaves, how disobedient children must be put to death, how witches cannot be suffered to live, how anyone making offerings to other gods must be put to death..

If these rules are merely local, time-restricted directions, invented by illiterate, desert-dwelling barbarians, then I suppose they are understandable to some degree.

But we have to consider them for what they are claimed to be: Commandments from an all-knowing god. Not only that, but it is claimed that they are the basis for our sense of right and wrong. My point was that this is clearly ridiculuos: these are not good rules to live by: They are in direct opposition to religious freedom, they posit ridicululuosly hard punishments for things that could hardly even be considered crime, and they speak of some of the most brutal and disgusting crimes one can imagine as if they were part of a perfectly acceptable behaviour.

The fact that most people ignore most of the contents and interpret left and right, well, for the purposes of my argument (The ten commandments are not godgiven/the source of our morality/good rules to live by)is IRRELEVANT. If I wanted to make extravagant claims about the wisdoms contained in Mein Kampf, I'd make damn sure to tone down the various mentions of "the jew problem", but that wouldnt change a goddamn thing. Mein Kampf isnt the source of our morality and innate good behaviour (quite the contrary). And the same can be said of the bible/Ten Commandments.

@BicycleRepairMan

Uh, I agree with you... I think?

I never claimed that the Ten Commandments were the source of our morality. It's easy to debunk such a claim--if it were true, any country in which Christians are not the majority should be mired in immoral chaos and clearly this isn't the case.

I simply disagreed with Hitchens interpretation that "You shalt never think about or question these commandments" was part and parcel of either the Commandments themselves or being a Christian. You asked if I'd read them and I posted them for both of us to read. I think we both agree that there is nothing explicitly written in them that says that.

Now, if I understand your argument correctly, you believe the Bible implicitly requires unthinking obedience to not only the Ten Commandments but everything else that is written in it. And I'm sure you could make a strong argument for it. My point was only that others could make a strong argument against it as well, because by arguing about the implicit message we've wandered into the realm of interpretation. I'm not here to argue for or against either position, by the way, just to point out that interpretation is more vital to your argument then you appear to think.

One last point: just because the Commandments are really old doesn't mean they're entirely useless or inapplicable to today's world. The reason we are talking about this is because a lot of those "commandments" are still decent moral guidelines in spite of how old they or whatever the original writers' environment was at the time of writing. Not stealing, killing, lying, scamming people, sleeping around with people's partners behind their backs etc. are still good ideas even in today's world. You're right, they're not good moral guidelines "because god says so." But I also see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because some (completely confused) individuals are making that claim.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by doogle.

Awarding radx with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=5:54

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 5:54 - length declared by radx.