7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by therealblankman.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-Hells-Angel-Mother-Teresa

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by kulpims. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-Hells-Angel-Mother-Teresa

From Hitler to Mother Teresa: 6 Degrees of
Empathy
Simon Baron-Cohen proposes that evil can be is more
scientifically defined as an absence of empathy, made worse
by negative parental and societal factors, with a genetic
component.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14scibks.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210

So, I've been thinking about conflict and rhetorical escalation. I genuinely feel bad for hurting blankfists feelings to the point that he will not speak to me, but in all honesty, I feel my comments were far less severe than his, which got me thinking about how arguments effect feelings.

There are two ways to view what is appropriate in a heated discussion.

#1) tit for tat-Code of Hammurabi-eye for an eye: If someone says something nasty to you, you say something nasty back and all is fair.

#2) Taking personal boundaries into consideration: Personal boundaries can vary greatly from person to person; some are resistant to high levels of verbal aggression, some can take very little. And, to make things more complicated, people can have different boundary tolerances between what they give and take. So in this sense, the least offensive language in the world dealt to a sensitive person could be seen as more cruel than the most offensive insult in the world dealt to someone with a high tolerance to invective.

I'm not sure which is correct - my right brain and left brain are beating the shit out of each other.

I don't like the idea of going past peoples boundaries, but at the same time, I feel that when others get exceedingly aggressive, they would be well served to experience some of that aggression turned back on them. Of course, I don't say this out loud, so the logic of it all is lost, and in the end I've just hurt someone's feelings whom I care about.

I'd love to hear more opinions on this. I think this gets at the heart of the psychology of this all. I'm also a bit high, and Netrunner says I can be incomprehensible in this state, so hopefully this comment is comprehensible.

Post Script:

#3): Always be completely polite and completely respectful, regardless of anything. This may be the way to go, but you need to be Ghandi or Mother Teresa to have the patience to pull this off.

Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism, regardless of how you try to game the definition. Did you miss that part? Of course he didn't have any arguments for this assertion. I think Hitchens fell far short of even the most objective measure of success here.

Why did I show this part? Because I thought it would be interesting to people and spur a dialogue. I posted a link to the entire debate, which is well wortth watching..

In the debate Craig posits 5 main arguments as to why Theism is a better explanation for reality than atheism. He challenged Hitchens to come up with an argument as to why atheism was a better explanation, which he didn't. Neither did Hitchens seriously challenge any of Lanes main assertions, in fact he left a few completely untouched. Hitchens offered a lot of emotionalism and extended diatribes, even at one point trashing Mother Teresa, but not much else. He simply was completely unprepared for this debate. Philosophy doesn't seem to be his strong point.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I'm confused as to why you would post this one segment of a larger debate if the larger debate is available.
I'm also confused as to why you would think Hitchens "badly loses". Do you mean in this particular interchange? Because I see nothing of the sort.
It seems to me this comes back to the debate from the previously posted video about definition of terms. Because right from the start the theist in this argument starts using the term atheist incorrectly and Hitchens wastes time and brain power trying to correct him. This is a dumb way to engage in debate or discussion.
Again I'm going to ask that since you are not an atheist, and not an agnostic, that you stop insisting that you know how everybody should use those words.
Among the people who label themselves as atheist, the vast majority agree that this simply means we are not convinced that any particular religion is true. Many of us are still open to evidence if some were to be presented, which is why we get into these discussions with theists. We use the term atheist in the manner of a- meaning "not", and -theist, meaning a follower of a religion.
I understand that this is not the way you have heard the term atheist used, but that does not make us wrong. We are trying to spread the correct usage of the term. And if you have any intention of continuing to have discussions with non-believers, I strongly recommend that you accept the way we use the word. It's not a difficult transition to make. It simply means non-religious.
Perhaps you miss using that straw-man argument about atheism requiring faith? If so, let it go. That argument never did anything except make theists snicker and feel superior. It's empty. It's a waste of time. Move on.

@braindonut

"I get the argument of "people don't want to come to god, because their sins will be revealed." But this is a fallacious argument - an ad hominem attack. Just saying that I don't believe in something because I clearly have a bunch of faults that I'm trying to hide does not make it so."

Well, I am not going to press you here since I don't know what you've done in your life, but in my experience this is true. Most of the people I find running away from God are prideful and sinful, and they don't want to stop. They don't want their "freedom" to sin restricted in any way because they are only living for that gratification and they don't think there is anything else.

Remember, I believe in the literal truth of these statements..it only seems like an attack to you because you see all things are being equal here, and don't think God is real. I see it as a completely accurate description of the state of things, then and now.

"And by what do I measure my morality? I measure it through the impact on others, how much it affects the general well being of humanity. Obviously, it's my own morality which is constantly improving and questioning itself. However, saying that it's filthy rags in comparison to god does not make it so."

If God exists, and is Holy, then our righteousness would be a broken thing compared to His..since we're all sinners. In any case, I would ask..how would you measure the general well being of humanity? How do you know what is best for one human, let alone all of them?

"And yes, everyone has done "evil," if you want to call it that. Including god, if we accept that premise. I've read the bible, and I underlined every situation that was immorality due to god with a red pencil. There were too many underlines to count. But how does one consider something immoral? That's a big and excellent question. The wholesale slaughter of humanity, aka genocide - that qualifies as evil for me. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the evil that is attributed to the Christian god."

How do you judge an omnipotent being? What is your basis of comparison? How do you judge a holy God who has never done evil? Lets take the flood for example. You say wiping out humanity was evil. Yet this is what the bible says:

Genesis 6:5-8

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

It says that man was entirely corrupted except for Noah. That he was the only man left capable of doing Gods will. Now, would it be more merciful to have let Noah perish in this environment and let man become wholly degenerate, living completely futile lives until they utterly destroyed themselves anyway? Or was it better for God to wipe the slate clean and give humanity another chance?

"And simply saying that gods thoughts are higher than my thoughts does not make it so, nor does it convince me even remotely. What I am looking for is for YOUR thoughts to be higher than mine, since you are currently the person I am engaging with. If gods thoughts are higher than mine, he certainly hasn't demonstrated it. And that saying "You can't talk your way out of something you behaved yourself into" applies here. (of course, I'm just talking stories...)

And I didn't say I would go to hell to make a point. I said that if the premise I laid out is accurate (which I assume it is since you didn't challenge it), it seems obvious to me that an ethical person who truly cares about their integrity wouldn't be able to side with god. At the very least, it would be an extreme conflict that would take enormous rationalization to sweep aside. But what I described doesn't seem like madness, to me. I think it seems like the only honorable and honest position."

I just made the point to illustrate that God is Holy, and it is impossible for someone who isn't holy to judge someone who is. The ultimate point I was making really was that its impossible for any human being to judge God.

I am an ethical person, and God is the reason for that. Someone who doesn't know God is only going to see God from the angle of His punishment, because it is hanging over their heads. God is love, and He doesn't want to punish anyone. But if He didn't punish sin, He wouldn't be just.

I think people have a lot of hypocripsy on this viewpoint here..for instance..atheists will support the death penalty and life in prison for serious crimes. To an atheist, this punishment is permanent because they believe death is the end of life..but they have no problem supporting a human doing that to another human. Yet God, who created us and has the power of life and death..they can't support His punishment. Would it be just for humans to let murders run free? If we did this place would quickly devolve into anarchy. So if that is just punishment why isn't Gods punishment just?

No one here would advocate we shouldn't lock up rapists murderers and pedophiles..so why you are outraged when God punishes our crimes? He is the only one who could actually be completely fair about it, knowing as He does every last detail.

"And the idea that god would setup a world where he knows people aren't going to do what he wants, so he has to punish them, but then he gets tired of that so he eventually creates a manifestation of himself that he then gets killed/sacrificed... and all of this is so that he can create a loophole for all of humanity to make it into heaven... I'm sorry, this doesn't seem like godly, virtuous behavior, it seems like bronze age mythology and reasoning."

I think it's clear that God has foreknowledge. Yet, I don't think it's all predestined. God gives us choices and we couldn't make a choice if we didn't have free will to make one. When we receive Christ it literally says that God doesn't remember our sins anymore. So, to me this suggests He can arrange things around His omnipresent knowledge. He could easily set things up to give us real freedom. I think I could even figure out a way to do that.

"In conclusion, I truthfully used to be a very devout Christian. I did believe, strongly. However, I never experienced anything that would indicate that god exists. I did ask for him to reveal himself and I still have a standing invitation which he is more than welcome to fulfill at any moment. However, I find nothing interesting or compelling about the concept that I have to truly believe in order for him to show himself to me. One, that clearly wasn't the case (and don't tell me that I clearly didn't believe enough...). Two, deeply held beliefs are shown to cause people to look for validation of their world view, no matter how small or insignificant, because it's those rationalizations and experiences that fuels their continued dependency on belief

I make no claims to knowing that a god doesn't exist, but I definitely have more than enough reasons not to believe in the god of the Bible. Such a leap is not something I can honestly do - and yes, that's a moral stance. It's the same reason I don't lie to people - I also can't lie to myself. I really appreciate how much time and effort you put into your response. Thank you very much."

Well, lets take the example of Mother Teresa. She didn't hear from God for a period of over 40 years. Yet, she kept the faith and did what God commanded her to do the entire time. Personally, I have special revelation that God is real. It's not an issue for me at all..to me God is as real as my reflection in a mirror.

Now lets take your case as an example. Perhaps God has tested your love. You know first of all that we know God through faith, a faith which you abandoned after not getting the evidence you desired, which is entirely contrary to what God told you to do. Now if you were God and you knew that someone would love you only for a time and then leave you, unless you provided something extra above and beyond the perfect love you were already giving them, along with the fact that they wouldn't honor any of the promises they made to you ultimately, maybe you wouldn't give them any signs either. Maybe you would let them go and hope they would be able to see the difference and come back to you. Just a thought.

I also appreciate this discussion and I think you for your civility and magnanomousness. God bless.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'christopher, hitchens, mother, teresa, catholic, church, vatican, religion, christian' to 'christopher hitchens, mother teresa, catholic church, vatican, religion, christian' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^VoodooV:

I think you just need better examples of "good" atheists than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and James Cameron.
Wasn't it discovered that Mother Teresa had some journals where she questioned the existence of God?

Who would you recommend?

Mother Teresa is both a poor example of an atheist and a poor example of a moral person. She used the sick people in her "care" to collect donations and then used the funds to evangelize instead of getting medical care for her patients. You should watch Hell's Angel if you haven't already.

>> ^VoodooV:

We're equating giving to charity with morality?
I hope I'm not going out on too much of a limb (ooops, I hope that isn't too similar to my ape cousins) when I suggest that donating money and morality are two very separate things.
I think you just need better examples of "good" atheists than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and James Cameron.
Wasn't it discovered that Mother Teresa had some journals where she questioned the existence of God? That would have a deeper impact IMO. Atheists really need to fire their PR manager.


No, well, sort of, the video creator is giving simple, easy to digest cases of people who are atheists and are clearly NOT idiots, and also have done great good. It's hard to say that the donations they make are not morally good. Sure you can definitely be moral and not donate, and you could donate and not be moral, but as a quick 'just think about your inane comment' fire back against the moron that is Steve they are very good examples.

We're equating giving to charity with morality?

I hope I'm not going out on too much of a limb (ooops, I hope that isn't too similar to my ape cousins) when I suggest that donating money and morality are two very separate things.

I think you just need better examples of "good" atheists than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and James Cameron.

Wasn't it discovered that Mother Teresa had some journals where she questioned the existence of God? That would have a deeper impact IMO. Atheists really need to fire their PR manager.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Atheists are no more rational or free of self-delusion than Believers; these human flaws simply express themselves in different ways.
>> ^Longswd:
I don't know about happier, but I will say it's infinitely preferable to willful self-deception.


You know, I cant believe you just wrote that. No facts, findings or arguments to back it up, just an assessment. "Atheists are just as delusional" Its like a fat kid comeback to a mean tease: "Your'e also fat!" The irony is that this kind of rationalization is itself an act of self-delusion.

The act of willful self-delusion is not hard to come by in religion, take for instance the replies to mother Teresa when she expressed her doubts:

...feeling Jesus is not the only proof of his being there, and her very craving for God was a “sure sign” of his “hidden presence” in her life; and that the absence was in fact part of the “spiritual side” of her work for Jesus.

What is essentially said here, is that the doubts are actually themselves evidence that the very thing you are doubting is true. A more complete, circular, delusionary argument is hard to imagine. Its a war with your own mind you cant win. "The more you dont believe, the more you should believe." Amazingly, this kind of "reasoning" is actually quite common in religious apologetics.

This kind of silliness only works in religion. Atheists may occasionally delude themselves like anybody else, but at least we reject the main tool to get it done: Faith.

Kinda random how mother teresa gets in there and gives him a drink of water...

Drink up Judah Ben Hur... you truly are the king of kings!