HOLY HANNAH ! Fry's knose looks like it just got smashed to the left. does he have a messed up knose from previous incident ?

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 8th, 2010 3:40pm PST - promote requested by original submitter Nonbrainwashed.

*blocked and in britain, very odd.

Invocations (blocked) cannot be called by Kerotan because Kerotan is not privileged - sorry.

Neither one of them answered the damned question. They did a nice job skirting around it.

They're all full of shit. What's new?

>> ^Chaucer:
Neither one of them answered the damned question. They did a nice job skirting around it.


What is there for them to skirt around? People don't have to be told that murder is wrong to know that it's wrong. Even *IF* they need to be taught that, religious indoctrination certainly 100% shouldn't be required as part of that process. Belief in a deity has nothing to do with morality.

I think she truly feels that the commandments are explicitly responsible for keeping people on the straight and narrow and that religion has therefore, done its job; that without religion people like Fry and Hitchens would eventually regress into wild bands of killer rapist thieves. Hitchens and Fry would contest that, and Hitchens did so by saying the morality she's speaking of is innate, that it's not given to us by religion, but the other way around. Kind of like Arthur C Clarke's famous quote:

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be
the hijacking of morality by religion.”

It's no wonder that people like Fry and Hitchens get so enraged and walk out of rooms occupied by people like this lady. Her kind have had their say for far too long.

Would love to see more of that. any links?

Maybe that haven't realized that a vast majority of tendencies we have are garnered from previous information: instinct, friends, parents, teachers, grandparents, books, tv, etc... All of these things use information that was previously there. I would suggest that many "moral" rules we live by are altruistic via instinct or domineered by somebody's else opinion and power.

Sadly I think willed leaders and war are the biggest force at play; at least during the very beginnings of our species. Religion is just more of the same. It gets just as much "right" as it does "wrong" (relativity and all that).

<sup>[citation needed, same with the other stuff; if you go back too far you find that it's based off of instinct]

edit-- Also, if you truly understand evolution and look at what we can teach to other animals you're forced to conclude that the same is true for humans.
-- expressio unius est exclusio alterius</sup>

"That stealing from members of your own community is immoral requires no divine revelation. It is revealed by a moment's reflection on the type of society that would exist if everyone stole from one another. If lying were considered a virtue instead of truth telling, communication would become impossible. Mother's have loved their children since before mammals walked the earth - for obvious evolutionary reasons. The only precepts unique to religion are those telling us not to question their dogma."

Victor J. Stenger / "GOD - The Failed Hypothesis"

>> ^Chaucer:
Neither one of them answered the damned question. They did a nice job skirting around it.


They tried, but the premise of the question is deeply flawed, she gives a flawed, cherrypicked and highly airbrushed version of the ten commandments and asks "whats so wrong about that?". Its like saying "Hitler was a vegetarian, so whats so wrong about him then?" Where could you start against such an idiotic question?

The fact is that these commandments were all given under threat of capital punishment, for things like "having other gods before me", swearing and being disobedient as children. And as Fry rightly points out, they seem to forget a whole lot, including slavery etc. In addition they do nothing in terms of providing rights for people, in fact they strip anyone who follows them of any rights at all, including free speech and free thought, and freedom of religion.

as long as religion has sway over large groups of people the ruthless will use religions to wield power. Organizing people to encourage them to NOT think for themselves is a terrible cost to society and I for one would like to ban any religion that does not encourage people to think for themselves and find their own path.

-Karl

>> ^BoneRemake:
HOLY HANNAH ! Fry's knose looks like it just got smashed to the left. does he have a messed up knose from previous incident ?


Stephen Fry had his nose broken many times when he was young while playing rugby.

Hitches and Fry both came off as rude and dismissive. Shame.

The translation for "Thou shall not steal" is considered incorrect by many scholars. The original word that was translated to steal meant kidnap, and specifically was used to denote kidnapping people into slavery.

So apparently it was OK to own slaves and purchase them, but not to bring people into slavery that were free.

Like BicycleRepairMan noted these commandments were potentially punishable by death (or going to hell as modern Christians see it), so they are supposed to be big crimes against society, not little things like stealing or general lying.

I'm surprised neither Hitchens or Fry rebutted her with the specifics of any of the first few commandments.

For example: what is the great good that is brought to society by not making idols? Doesn't the catholic church have a man on a cross hung up in most of their churches? Don't they have statues of their saints? Didn't the Jews even create cherubim in their temple that looked over the Arc of the Covenent? If these commandments were/are the way to have a better society then why does the church so brazenly ignore them?

She speaks as if the commandments are moral because they are divine. Morality needs no divinity. If it did, I would hope that God would come down and speak more often, and in greater depth. For instance, honor thy father and thy mother is a good edict, unless your parents are abusing you. What does God have to say about that circumstance? Not a bit. This woman, and many others like her, would have us believe that the Almighty God of the entire Universe only has ten simple rules for all of humanity, and he does not elaborate. That kind of simple-minded belief is absurd.

The Hitchens video was heavily edited to look as if he's storming off for no real reason. I'm getting the impression that we're missing some important pieces of content that she may have said to set him off.

This "interview" could've been her way at getting back at those two for tearing her arguments apart in the fair, unedited debate they had where the entire group of undecided viewers were convinced by Hitchens/Fry's arguments over hers. I can't find a link to the debate, but it's definitely worth a view for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

Yeah, it's edited to look like he sits down and then storms off. I find it hard to believe either of Hitchens or Fry would not be interested in engaging in the debate. Looks highly edited to me.

bullshit. the underpinning of all modern morals is the "code" of the new testament, which could not have arisen without the old. morality is cultural, not natural. Even dawkins knows this ffs, but his view of "culture" is so dim that he doesn't realize he has cornered himself into a historical trap. Hitchens - as an ex-marxist is probably quite aware of this; but when he ceased being marxist he also apparently ceased to be intelligent.

It's f*cking marvelous that Fry mentions Plato. It's precisely CHRISTIANITY which enabled the Philosophers to gain a greater foothold in the consciousness of the masses. The romans didn't give a flying fuck about Plato, too busy having gang-bangs and re-vomiting the same meal again and gain.

But the truth has nothing to do with religion OR moral philosophy. Actual moral behavior comes down each person's cost/benefit.

People value themselves and their immediate lives far more than their soul (which may be judged later) - or their consciously decided rules or morals (rules can be broken if my need is sufficient).

Comfortable middle classes don't murder or steal because of the law - their lives have too much to lose. But regardless of religion, they still cheat on their wives if they feel they can get away with it.

The majority of the pyramid of humanity is poor, uneducated, overworked. And more often religious as they tend to need the emotional support of belief and belonging to cope with their hardships. and yet Crime is higher. Not because of religion, but simply because their personal needs are higher and they have less to lose if caught.

>> ^bluecliff:
bullshit. the underpinning of all modern morals is the "code" of the new testament, which could not have arisen without the old. morality is cultural, not natural. Even dawkins knows this ffs, but his view of "culture" is so dim that he doesn't realize he has cornered himself into a historical trap. Hitchens - as an ex-marxist is probably quite aware of this; but when he ceased being marxist he also apparently ceased to be intelligent.
It's f cking marvelous that Fry mentions Plato. It's precisely CHRISTIANITY which enabled the Philosophers to gain a greater foothold in the consciousness of the masses. The romans didn't give a flying fuck about Plato, too busy having gang-bangs and re-vomiting the same meal again and gain.


Morality is cultural and not natural?

I need to be told that causing others pain is "BAD", when I know from the age of zero that pain is something I'd rather avoid? The life I love living isn't evidence enough for me to know that it's "BAD" to take that away from someone else? I need to be told that? That may not have been your argument but for those that make it, come on.

If all modern morals share the same "code" with the New Testement: so what? What does that prove? That god therefore exists? Nope. That religion gets to take credit for all good that humans are apparently mind-controlled into doing? Nope. All it proves is that the Bible puts forth the same morality that exists concurrently in the minds of non-believers. Religion pretends authorship of morality, that it came up with the idea of good and bad. That's horseshit by my reckoning. All it(Christianity I suppose) came up with, with respect to morality, are the ideas of the reward of Heaven for those that abide by the "code", and the punishment of eternal fiery damnation for those that deviate from it. Spiritual "carrot and stick". That may be perfectly sensible to some, but count me out, and good day to you.

On the surface the Ten Commandments seem reasonable and “good.” However, just as Stephen Fry said the Ten Commandments COMMAND under punishment of death. So as a result there is no room for an individual to use their brain to think and reason; to develop optimal moral decisions for any given situation for themselves (want to emphasize individual reasoning). Take Thou shalt not kill for example. I can think of an example that it would seem perfectly logical to kill an individual.

There is a suicide bomber about to blow himself/herself up in a busy market, you have the ability to kill this person and save many innocent lives and this is the only way you can save innocent lives. It would seem ok to kill this person since he is going to kill himself anyways.

My point is WE as a people regardless of who we are have the ability to develop our own “moral barometer”, and make decisions on our own. So the Ten Commandments have NO bearing on human life in reality.

>> ^bluecliff:
bullshit. the underpinning of all modern morals is the "code" of the new testament, which could not have arisen without the old. morality is cultural, not natural. Even dawkins knows this ffs, but his view of "culture" is so dim that he doesn't realize he has cornered himself into a historical trap. Hitchens - as an ex-marxist is probably quite aware of this; but when he ceased being marxist he also apparently ceased to be intelligent.
It's f cking marvelous that Fry mentions Plato. It's precisely CHRISTIANITY which enabled the Philosophers to gain a greater foothold in the consciousness of the masses. The romans didn't give a flying fuck about Plato, too busy having gang-bangs and re-vomiting the same meal again and gain.


Hmmmm....

So all of the people who lived on earth who never heard of the Old or New Testament were immoral?

And it's Christianity that brought philosophy to the masses even when Plato was born over 400 years before Jesus?

People don't need religion to be moral.

Well...maybe the stupid people....

I like how Hitchens slips out through an ancient door marked "Fire, keep closed" returning, I presume back through the GATES OF HELL!! lol

I know given the number of atheists here on the Sift maybe writing this is a moot point--and I will preface all of this by saying I am NOT a Christian--but I think people here who are hating on the 10 commandments need to put things into a little perspective.

The 10 commandments were written at a time when the Jewish people were on the verge of extinction. They had just fled slavery in Egypt and were moving through difficult and wild countryside on their search for a new (or old depending how you look at it) homeland. If they were to survive at all, everyone would have to work together.

Maybe some people here think not stealing or killing should be self-evident but just look at what is happening in Haiti right now--the hospitals are getting flooded with as many gunshot and machete wounds as they are quake injuries as people fight for survival. The Jewish people were in a far worse situation than the Haitians--they didn't have anybody coming to bail them out. They had only each other to rely on. I think Moses and the other Jewish leaders realized that a totalitarian regime was the ONLY way for them to survive that journey. You had to punish stealing with death because the survival of the group depended on people trusting each other and working together. If someone wasn't willing to work for the survival of the group, they were a threat to the group's survival. If Moses and the others didn't want things to devolve into chaos, they probably figured they needed to keep a firm grip.

I think if you regard the 10 commandments in this light, they make a lot of sense. If the Jews lost their collective sense of identity and some people in the group started worshiping other gods, then that would be a threat to the group's security. It might cause internal friction or an outright split. Furthermore, the only thing people are more afraid of losing than their lives is their souls. If the 10 commandments are God's word, then maybe you think twice about stealing something. Notice that we have lots of laws against stealing in civilized countries and yet we also have jails full of thieves. Apparently the word of man is not enough to deter people, but for the Jews at this time, the word God may have been enough.

Now, obviously the world has changed a lot since Moses' time. But I don't think that totally negates a need for the ten commandments. As I mentioned above, despite having laws, despite whatever "innate" sense of morals we might have (I have large doubts about the idea that any morals are innate, but for the sake of this post let's just say it is true), there are still people out there willing to kill, rob, or screw their neighbor's wife if given the opportunity. But would they be willing to do those things if they believed in a deity that would punish them for these things even if they were not caught while alive in this world? I don't have the answer. For some, such as the criminally insane, it obviously wouldn't make any difference. But for others...? If it does keep them from doing something that we all agree is immoral (I'm leaving aside the worshiping idol stuff at the moment) is that really such a terrible thing? If it reinforces our own "innate" sense of morals, is that so bad? Regardless of what religious view you take, can you really argue that rules against killing or stealing are a bad thing?

My 2 cents. Thanks for reading.

>> ^garmachi:
Hitches and Fry both came off as rude and dismissive. Shame.


Not sure about Fry, but I'm certain Hitchens is quite happy to come off as rude and dismissive, it's part of his style. That he pairs it with being many times smarter and better educated than his opponents is what makes him so interesting. Someone says of him on one of his books that "he'll make you laugh and smile even when you disagree with him the most".

*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 radx.

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

*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 chicchorea.