Video: Gloves off — Hannity versus Hitchens on Falwell
posted at 11:38 pm on May 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I was going to save this for the a.m. but the word is out and commenters are asking for it. Here you go: Hitch proving that he can’t quite match Larry Flynt for basic decency and Hannity pretending that he’s shocked, shocked by Hitchens’s willingness to say the sorts of things that earned him a spot on the show in the first place.
I guess Hitch figures no one’s going to want to talk about Falwell in a week, so if he wants to get in his shots, now’s his chance. Is the body cold yet?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]
I dub thee…Christian Derangement Syndrome.
Hitch is in stage 3.
John on May 17, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Ayn Rand is very happy with you today.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I would like to go against the grain here and put in a good word for Hitchens. He is a fantastic debater and is fearless. One cannot prove or disprove the existense of God through logical argument so debating the issue is fruitless.
Hitchens does come across as mean-spirited in his arguments. However, he is right-on in condemning Falwell’s outrageous remarks blaming 911 on “decadent” American society. This shows a total mean-spirtedness on Falwell’s part and also a lack of confidence in the essential goodness of American society.
Overall, I enjoyed the debate. Colmes was very reasonable in his comments and questions (unusual for him) and Hannity is not the brightest bulb, but one has to admire his convictions and bulldog persistence in driving home points. Ralph Reed, however, was overshadowed, an undoubtedly unusual experience for him.
ptolemy on May 17, 2007 at 1:08 PM
you have my fealty, my liege.
jummy on May 17, 2007 at 1:12 PM
The great non-believers of our time, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. also thought their kind of morailty was based on reason. As a result of their kind of reasoning, it is estimated that 100 million people died.
And your worried about masterbation? Give me a break!
pocomoco on May 17, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Student,
I wasn’t attempting to address his “arguments.” There is no point in addressing a person who is to preoccupied dancing on another’s grave, and I thought it was equally pointless to put him on the show just to have Hannity tell him he’s a bad person (Hitch actually made a point similar to this).
Therefore, short and simple, I was sincerely asking if the guy is ever sober. It’s no secret the guy’s a boozer; he’s probably proud of it.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I always marvel at how all those that don’t belive in “God” spend so much time hating him and his followers.
I also love how people cheer for Falwells death and for his remarks on the cause of 9/11, yet where are all these people when liberal nut jobs are blaming thier own country for 9/11?
God forbid a man live his life with consitancy of belief and a core of values that will not be changed with every wind.
God Bless Jerry, he fought the good fight and kept the faith. Even if I was to diagree with statements that he has made through the years, one cannot erase all the good that man has done over his lifetime and all the lives he has touched.
“Wherefore Come out from among them, and be ye seperate, saith the Lord,” 2 Cor 6:17
americaslaststand on May 17, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Highrise on May 17, 2007 at 3:58 AM, followed by
Glynn on May 17, 2007 at 8:56 AM
I’m so happy I found this site. Truly, the best mix of everything.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Ayn Rand is very happy with you today.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 1:05 PM
She’s dead, so her ability to be happy or sad is also gone.
The great non-believers of our time, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. also thought their kind of morailty was based on reason. As a result of their kind of reasoning, it is estimated that 100 million people died.
And your worried about masterbation? Give me a break!
pocomoco on May 17, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I don’t have to distance myself from some of history’s greatest monsters simply because one aspect of their belief system is somewhat similar to mine. They don’t speak for me, nor do I have the temerity to speak for others. I’m also not interested in setting myself up as a living god.
I was also pretty clear that I was against sexual repression based on religious scripture. I don’t see much difference between actual potato sacks for women and metaphorical ones.
Krydor on May 17, 2007 at 1:35 PM
You are weird. :)
I’d just like to chime in again and say that the idea that ethics/morality come solely from religion is a myth. Myth myth myth! Muslims are programmed to believe that suicidebombing Jews is moral and ethical because of their cultural programming; Americans are programmed to believe that religion is the only source of morality. Both myths are equally silly (although the Muslims obviously have a higher body count associated with theirs).
Free yourselves from the myths of your culture!
Enrique on May 17, 2007 at 1:39 PM
csdeven,
That for sure. They certainly didn’t get it from the theory of evolution. Let us look the beast straight in the face shall we. Thousands of years of evolution have genetically encoded certain incontrovertible truths into the human psyche.
Eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. The brutal truth so few dare to face is that for every single day you survive some other living creature had to die. Be it plant or animal the life of every single human being is dependant on ingesting the tissue of another living creature.
Because of the reality of this situation we have created a hierarchy of things killable. Plants, because of their lack of mobility and frequency of their nutritional value are always permissible to kill. Likewise most animal are permissible to kill for the same reason.
In this hierarchy we even place humans under certain specific situations, thus we differentiate the difference between killing and committing murder. To kill in self defense or the defense of others whose lives are threatened is permissible. While killing for profit, out of anger or some sick and twisted motive is not permissible.
An evolutionary model predicated first upon being prey of other creatures and then upon being the most successful of all predators leaves no room for Hitchens assertions of moral development through human solidarity.
Humans do not place reluctance on killing humans out of a higher intellectual sense of morality but because having achieved the status of ultimate predator it services a basic biological imperative for survival of the species.
Without acquiescence to the existence of a higher power that ultimately holds one accountable for their actions logic dictates no other possible behavior then the ruthless exploitation of opportunity to ensure the survival of ones genetic code.
This is seen throughout nature as the domination of heard or pack by the Alpha male who fights ruthlessly and often to the death to ensure the dominances of his genetic code. The development of the higher intellect only ensures that the strategies for domination become more complex, and explicitly excludes any notion of morality.
doriangrey on May 17, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Theists always bring up Mao and Stalin and occasionally Hitler as Strawmen to argue against atheism.
In reality, these regimes all elevated their ideologies above all. Above reason. Above humanity. Above even common decency.
In this regard, these regimes have far more in common with religions than theists will ever admit.
Stalin and Mao erected giant images of themselves in place of the crosses, stars of davids and crescents of the pious, but their tactics and suppression of free thought make them blood brothers with religion.
Please stop using this tired old chestnut of Stalin and Mao. Their ideologies have nothing to do with atheism and it reveals the lack of argement of the theists when they fall on it time and time again.
Theists only have 2 arguments
1) The Bible!!!
2) Stalin was an Atheist, so Atheists suck.
Neither has any merit.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Krydor, I so regret that she’s dead. I’d like for her to write a novel about NY and the U.S. of today. I wrote that wrong, and here it is, and in support of you “If she’d be alive, she’d be happy”.
Well, thank you Enrique. Just don’t ever call me common. Now, that w/b the ultimate insult.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Wouldn’t “reason” tell us that if we observe that engaging in certain behaviors leads to negative consequences (either for the individual or for society as a whole) that those behaviors should be avoided?
And while some of the behaviors you listed do not appear to result in negative consequences, some of them apparently do (for the individual or for society), and yet you find all of them “immoral”.
So, is your “morality” truly based on reason?
Fatal on May 17, 2007 at 1:54 PM
csdeven,
I see what you’re saying. The truth is, I have never met or spoken with any atheists personally. So my only knowledge of the thoughts and musings from an atheist mindset come from the writings of people on the internet. Which, unfortunately, skews my perspective.
I do think, though, that even without a background of religious learning, most individuals were taught as children by parents (or a parent or a grandparent or whatever) who gave them some sense of a moral compass of what is right and what is wrong in the world. Thus, a standard of basic human decency. I’m not positive, though. And I’m not an atheist and don’t belong to a community of atheists so therefore cannot speak to their upbringings..(that’s for full disclosure and all).
serpentineshel on May 17, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Definitely the hand of
Godblackmail in thatdialecticrevelation. Still, I belong in Marxist jail - because I’m still a Christian sympathizer at heart (though only occasionally a collaborator).RD on May 17, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Why the MSM is so negative on Mr. Falwell, at least in this poll.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 2:28 PM
The basic fact of the matter is.
1, It’s not necessary to be Christian to be a decent human being.
And following right on as in Hitchens case.
2, There’s a giant difference between Atheism and a$$holeism, we should not confuse the two.
Speakup on May 17, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Wouldn’t “reason” tell us that if we observe that engaging in certain behaviors leads to negative consequences (either for the individual or for society as a whole) that those behaviors should be avoided?
Hmm, sounds like the temperance movement to me. Sounds remarkably like the war on drugs, as well. Seeing as how we’re talking about sexual repression, I would say that unrealistic prohibitions on what the human body is built for leads to a cure much worse than the disease.
And while some of the behaviors you listed do not appear to result in negative consequences, some of them apparently do (for the individual or for society), and yet you find all of them “immoral”.
I don’t find any of those behaviours immoral. That I choose to engage in some and studiously avoid others boils down to a personal choice based on what I know, and the real world consequences. Stuff like losing my wife or risking infection have far more impact on my personal well being than the fear of losing heaven. But hey, if the only thing keeping others from infidelity is that God has a giant book catalouging sins, then good for them.
So, is your “morality” truly based on reason?
Sure it is, it’s unreasonable to supress sexual contact and equally unreasonable to not allow alternatives to procreation or to lessen the chance of STD’s. Therefore, reasonably, one would provide education on how babies are made and how to short circut the process. We would provide information on how to best avoid sexually transmitted diseases and push for a vaccination program for HPV.
The big difference is that I have no intention of imposing my morals on anyone. I’m not telling people to have all kinds of crazy sex because I have mystical book that says having lots of crazy sex makes God happy. That would be really lame.
Krydor on May 17, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Hitchens has to be captain for the “angry” far-left. I would say he would be dancing on Falwell’s grave if he could, but I don’t think they have even had his funeral and put his casket in the ground yet. What a sick jerk.
Planet Boulder on May 17, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Agreed. Strawmen and tired misguided arguments be damned.
Where should we begin?
nailinmyeye on May 17, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I could not agree more with your missive.
Jerry Falwell was a great man.
I began reading Jerry Falwells columns at worldnetdaily and found him to a be compassionate reasonable man. I began to look forward to reading his column every weekend.
I never have understood the hatred that people exuded over the mere mention of his name. I urge all of you that hate the man to at least read some of his articles that are archived at worldnetdaily and tell me why he was so terriable. His wrote his last article on May 14, 2007.
I think Ann Coulters column today is a very good read, as usual, on Jerry Falwell.
Here is the money quote from her article:
“No man in the last century better illustrated Jesus’ warning that “All men will hate you because of me” than the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who left this world on Tuesday. Separately, no man better illustrates my warning that it doesn’t pay to be nice to liberals.”
May he rest in peace.
ScottyDog on May 17, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Atheism (and indeed basic morality) has been around a lot longer than the concept of God and the major religions that believe in God.
Morality has evolved as societies grew. Without basic rules of conduct on stealing and murder, no primitive (or even modern) society could last longer than a few weeks.
Morality came out of need. It wasn’t dictated by God to Moses (although I’m sure he found the idea of an omnipotent, though invisible superbeing to be am effective crowd control measure)
uptight on May 17, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I gotta say, all your posts on these subjects are great.
I can only assume you didn’t mention Hitler because you were afraid someone might call you out in violation of Godwin’s law.
P.S. Global warming was a plot by Satan to distract Christians from the real issues such as abortion.
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Krydor on May 17, 2007 at 2:33 PM
I re-read my post quite carefully, there was absolutely nothing in there about “God” or “Giant books cataloging sins” or what “other people” do at all. Strawman much?
I did challenge your assertion that your “morals” were based on reason, when clearly they are not as evidenced by statements like this:
Unless your definition of “reason” is very different from what is generally accepted, “Reason” would not hold as a “good” thing, engaging in conduct that is harmful to the individual or society. And yet you clearly find any such prohibition “immoral”. Your morality isn’t based on reason, its based on nothing more than “society (or even worse, “religion” gasp!) says this is “bad” so I disagree”. That’s not morality, that’s petulant childishness. Unless you can point out how actual “Reason” would support the destruction of the individual.
You include “homosexuality” in there with “unrealistic prohibitions on what the human body is built for“? Wow.
You attack strawmen (and apparently your favorite target is some kind of religious boogeyman), you cannot support your assertions and you engage in nonsensical rhetoric that you seem to believe somehow qualifies as thoughtful insight.
Sad
Fatal on May 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM
So much wrong. And some of your sentences don’t even make sense. What do you think reason is defined as?
So you don’t believe someone could have a concept of “good” or “bad” without the aid of society telling them what’s good and bad or a “god”/religion telling people what’s good or bad? What “reason” do you use to back that up?
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Oh baby, I can’t wait to use that in Bible study group!!
Right on.
Hening on May 17, 2007 at 3:12 PM
- - Ann Coulter
I wouldn’t count on that Ann. The reaction to Rev. Falwell is nothing, comparably.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Then all atheists are only moral because it serves them personally. The exact point some theists point to when they criticize atheists version of morality.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 3:19 PM
This thread is about 300 years behind it’s time; this whole debate about morality and reason–where they derive from, do they exist, what we should do with them–were central to a little something called The Enlightenment…you may have heard of it. A bunch guys a lot smarter than you or I had a lot to say. Maybe some reading would do you good.
You might want to start with Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, maybe even some Hobbes for good measure. From what I’m reading some of you could learn a lot just from browsing their Wikipedia entries.
JaHerer22 on May 17, 2007 at 3:20 PM
It’s hilarious to see O’Rielly Jr. Hannity so totally outclassed and outwitted. He should know better, but then again, he’s not the brightest bulb now is he.
thegreatsatan on May 17, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Everyone is free to believe the way they want. This is America.
Atheist or not!
Oxybeles on May 17, 2007 at 3:28 PM
re Coulter “And when I die, if you didn’t always agree with me, would you mind keeping it to yourself?”: Hell no I won’t. Look, Falwell was a polarizing figure to many, many people. He shot himself in the foot many times with his statements. He promoted a brand of Christianity many people disagreed with in it’s extreme fundamentalism.
Was the man a good Christian? That’s not for me to answer. Was he overall a good man? I’m sure he was, and he always seemed very sincere. Does his life deserve a critique? IMHO, of course, because he was a public figure of influence.
But: Does he deserved to be verbally savaged by Hitch before the embalming has even begun? Of course not. No one would, not even Ms. Coulter. But she will deserve to be criticized.
SouthernDem on May 17, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Fatal,
So, wait a second, I’ve been talking about religious prohibitions on sex, and how they are unreasonable. If they are unreasonable by my standards they are immoral by my standards. Oh No! I’m a relativist, therefore I have no morals, or something.
Strawman, indeed.
Unless you can point out how actual “Reason” would support the destruction of the individual.
Odd that you would bring that up in hopes of some kind of point scoring. It’s poorly phrased, but I’m guessing that it’s probably intentional to allow you some wiggle room.
-Capital punishment is a reasonable verdict for the offense of taking a life. Some restrictions apply.
Wait, you meant SELF destruction, I’m sure. Doctor assisted suicide to avoid the death pangs of terminal cancer? Seems reasonable to me. I don’t see how it wouldn’t be.
Then again, I don’t even think you meant that. You’re simply implying that the nanny state is good, as long as you approve of the nanny.
Krydor on May 17, 2007 at 3:41 PM
That is a very good point. It makes me wonder where their parents learned that moral compass. If we extrapolate that down through their ancestors and society, there should be a point where all morality started.
In my view, the study of feral children is all I need to read to know that had man evolved from animals, he would have the morals of animals. These feral children have no concept of morality, possessions, empathy, etc. because they were not taught them by their parents. Neither did they develop them on their own because they did not need moral behavior to survive. Even when two unrelated feral children are raised in the same den, no empathy toward the other is displayed.
Therefore, SOME HOW, man has developed the emotion of empathy and developed morals outside of any evolutionary process. And since we have established no reason for an evolved species to need empathy to survive, there is no way that man developed morality out of a “need” to do so.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I agree - to a certain extent. But, the Enlightenment is no longer the be all and end all of thinking. The Modern project is no longer as strong as it used to be, and the narrative of limitless human progress through rationality is, for good reason, in tatters. And good riddance.
nailinmyeye on May 17, 2007 at 3:44 PM
The atheists morality may be based on reason. Religious morality is based on empathy. Religious people do it because they want to and it sounds like you are saying that atheists do it because it serves a rational need. This is another flaw in the atheists assertion that man evolved from beasts. There is no rational need to be moral. It doesn’t help you survive.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Wow! Men who were responsible for the murder of 100 million people are strawmen who are to be passed them off as just anomalies, and should not be used as an argument against atheism begs the reality of the very “aspect” of their existence which was atheism.
Basic morality it not learned, it is inborn by what is called the conscience. Later, because we have ‘free will’, we can decide whether that morality will be used for good or bad.
Your so called strawmen, using their ‘free will’, decided to take the ‘bad’ route and in doing so had a profoundly negative effect on all of humanity, even to this day.
I do not equate what these men did with atheists in general, I am only pointing to the fact that there is a connection. And it’s called intolerance.
pocomoco on May 17, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Religious morality is not based on Empathy. Religious morality is based on fear. Fear of eternal punishment if you don’t folow the rules.
Atheist: “I don’t believe in god.”
Christian “Well then you are going to spend eternity in horrific neverending pain.
Nice morality, there, csdseven. Right up there with sacraficing your son on an altar or ripping the still beating heart out of your victims to appease your gods.
I will pass on what religions call morality.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 4:01 PM
please read other comments before asking the same thing others already did, here’s a bit:
I believe we don’t act that way because we aren’t programmed to act that way, because we aren’t just a highly evolved bacteria. It’s tough for you atheists to understand this because you’ve had the idea that we’re just animals forced on your since you were young, but my position doesn’t come from that belief. So no, it’s not a belief in God that holds me back from that. I simply don’t think it’s in us to act like that. I believe we are uniquely created as humans. My point is that if one is a true atheist, they shouldn’t care about all these laws and society and just go have a fun life and live crazy until they die.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Nonfactor - May 17, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Ok, I’ll bite. (I am sorry you have difficulty understanding my sentences, I will try to be as clear as possible)
Can we can agree to start from the simple premise that, generally speaking, it is not reasonable to purposely engage in activities that are self-destructive or harmful to society? (Although, like everything else, I am sure there are probably a few exceptions we could come up with).
Therefore, ignoring everything else, a prohibition against engaging in such activities would be one based on reason?
If that premise is rejected, the rest of the argument isn’t going to make sense, so you can ignore it or offer an alternative premise.
Krydor claimed that his/her “morality” was based on reason, but also made assertions that prohibitions against various self-destructive behaviors were “immoral”.
Therefore, his/her morality isn’t really based on “Reason”, its just based on an antipathy to various prohibitions he/she doesn’t like. This seems to be the case especially if those prohibitions have any kind of basis in religion. However, Krydor also displays antipathy to prohibitions where they are simply based on nothing more than society’s collective wisdom that certain conduct is “bad” because it harms the individual (or the society).
Is that hard to understand?
His/her morality is not based on “reason” it is based on his/her own distaste for rules that he/she doesn’t agree with, regardless of the purpose behind the rule or whether the rule is based on reason.
For example:
Irregardless of any religios beliefs, nearly everyone would agree that drug dependance/addiction is destructive, both to the individual and to the society in which that individual lives. “Reason” would say that it would be better for the individual, and for society, if people did not engage in the use of addictive/destructive recreational drugs. Therefore “reason” would find a prohibition on such use “moral”
However, Krydor clearly does not want to abide by any such rule, therefore Krydor declares the rule immoral. By doing so, Krydor provides an example of where Krydor’s morality is not based on “reason”.
I sincerely hope that is clear? (no snark intended!)
Fatal on May 17, 2007 at 4:14 PM
uptight,
Not withstanding the self deluding eloquence of this statement the facts as recorded throughout human history simply do not bear this out. Atheism traces its roots no further back then the 5th century BCE. Whereas the belief in deities can be traced back some 80,000 years.
Stanford.edu
doriangrey on May 17, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Then why do we need the notion of God to justify morality? Isn’t this just what the atheists are saying: morality is part of our human nature?
Who says I’m an atheist? You don’t know anything about my background or beliefs. And why does it matter if I am or am not? Can’t you defend your beliefs and assertions without resorting to labeling or calling names?
student on May 17, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Oops. Hit the submit button by mistake. To continue:
This doesn’t make any sense, even on your own terms. An atheist will feel free to do whatever he wishes as long as it doesn’t violate his own ethics or violate the law. How is that any different from the Christian position?
student on May 17, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Didn’t you call for an end to strawmen, just a few comments above?
Where do you get this stuff? When did Christianity condone sacrificing your son on an altar, ripping out a beating heart to appease the gods, or even say that you would spend eternity in hell for “not believing in God.”
nailinmyeye on May 17, 2007 at 4:34 PM
You’re missing the entire point student and I don’t have the energy to try to explain it to you. I’ve done it earlier, if you care enough you’ll go back to how the entire exchange started and read all the way down, because I can see myself basically repeating myself, breaking it down further and further and you still not understanding.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Fatal,
However, Krydor clearly does not want to abide by any such rule, therefore Krydor declares the rule immoral. By doing so, Krydor provides an example of where Krydor’s morality is not based on “reason”.
I clearly use drugs? Outside of beer and cigarettes, I’d say that’s untrue. That’s just me, though.
I thought I made mention, actually I did make mention, that I have reasoned out the pros and cons to promiscuous behaviour and drug use and found them to be not worth my time. That I would not partake of such risky endevours does not mean I have the right to demand no one else does.
-A prohibition on alcohol did not reduce alcohol consumption
-A prohibition on recreational drugs did not stop people from imbibing
-A prohibition on premarital sex did not stop people from having children out of wedlock
-A prohibition on homosexual sex did not erase homosexuality.
I’m kind of interested from whence your rules came and the enforcement mechanism of said rules.
Krydor on May 17, 2007 at 4:40 PM
And I was attempting to point out that irregardless of religion, some of those “prohibitions” could be considered based on “reason”. You keep bringing religion into this, I never did.
Okay, so which is it? Are your morals based on “reason” or are they based on what you believe is reasonable, because those are two very different things. If you meant to say that your morals are based on what you deem to be reasonable, that’s what you should have said. I would not have challenged that assertion.
However, you didn’t say that, you attempted to gain the high ground by claiming your morals were based on “reason”. I believe most people would take “reason” to mean based on: sound judgment, good sense and logic. I do not believe most people would believe “reason” to mean nothing more than your own personal beliefs about what is, or is not, reasonable. (Because that is nothing more than moral relativism).
By the way, I have never said that you have no morals, I have never said that “relativists” have no morals, I have never said that atheists have no morals. Arguing against a position I have never taken is the classic definition of engaging in the “straw man” argument.
Which would have been clear to a seven year-old who was reading the statement within the context of the post. Stooping to that kind of snarkiness is intellectually dishonest and is beneath you.
Fatal on May 17, 2007 at 4:41 PM
The simple answers to your questions are no and no.
I know that drinking alcohol and using drugs is harmful to my body; however using reason I have decided that the potential negative consequences are outweighed by the positive effects—namely improved social interactions and feelings of well-being. You on the other hand may reason that the health of your body is of paramount importance and thus choose not to use alcohol and drugs. We have both used reason but our priorities have led us to different conclusions; this is liberty.
Which transitions perfectly into your second question about prohibition; liberty guarantees the freedom to act as one pleases as long as this act does not interfere with another’s liberty. So as long as my as my drinking and drugging does not interfere with your liberty, it should not be prohibited.
You can add J.S. Mill to your list of readings for tonight.
JaHerer22 on May 17, 2007 at 4:42 PM
So you’re taking your ball and going home?
That’s because what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense. I did, in fact, read the entire set of comments in this thread, and your earlier posts didn’t make any sense either. That’s why I was asking for clarification before you left the field.
student on May 17, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I grew up Catholic and only turned atheist a few years ago, after some REALLY SINCERE believers flew some planes into our shit. That made me question the veracity of my own beliefs. After all, if someone can believe very earnestly and wrongly that God wants to murder innocent people, then maybe all of us need to examine our own assumptions about God. Honestly, the whole “the one thing He won’t do is prove His existence” thing stopped cutting it for me. It had nothing to do with being brought up to believe humans are animals.
By the way, when your car breaks down, what do you do? I bet you take it to a mechanic. I bet you don’t pray for God to fix it. Because you know the prayer won’t be answered.
Hey, weren’t we supposed to commit suicide 200 comments ago? :)
Enrique on May 17, 2007 at 4:53 PM
This is a false dichotomy. Morals are based on reason, but reason can be used to reach different conclusions based on one’s priorities and circumstances; these conclusions are not more or less moral as long as they do not interfere with another’s liberty. See my above example regarding the use of alcohol and drugs.
JaHerer22 on May 17, 2007 at 4:54 PM
I did not say that. You continue to try to score points off of things I simply did not say.
The only thing I did was take exception to your claim that your morals were based on “reason”, and that’s all I’ve done. But, you’ve pretty much conceded that you didn’t really mean your morals were based on “reason”, you meant that your morals were based on what you deemed to be reasonable. Example:
Therefore, I would say the discussion is concluded.
Although, I suppose we could start a new one about the wisdom of disposing of certain prohibitions simply because those prohibitions do not appear to have reduced the overall frequency with which the prohibited conduct takes place.
For example, you said:
Does that mean you think the prohibition should be done away with, or that the prohibition is “immoral”, or that the prohibition should remain, but it isn’t particularly effective, or . . .?
I would agree that this particular prohibition, standing alone, has not been particularly effective, but I would disagree with the idea that, just because a prohibition is not particularly effective it should just be done away with.
Fatal on May 17, 2007 at 5:05 PM
JaHerer22 on May 17, 2007 at 4:42 PM
And, thus is demonstrated the futility of trying to reason with people like you. If people cannot even agree on the basic definitions underlying an argument/discussion, then there is little point in engaging in such discourse.
By the way, you make suggestions about what I should read (apparently under the mistaken assumption that: 1. I have not read them, and; 2. It somehow makes you sound “smart”), may I suggest you try picking up a dictionary in order to determine what most people agree to be the definition of “reason”?
I could not find any dictionary that defined “reason” to mean “personal relativism”, which is how you seem to define it in your posts.
Oh, and while you are at it, maybe you could find a book on reading and comprehension. My arguments really had nothing to do with anyone’s use/non-use of drugs or alcohol. Both are things that others, not me, continually tried to inject into the discussion in order to make personal relativism sound more “reasonable”.
P.S. You might also try a basic primer on logic, logical fallacies and critical thinking.
Fatal on May 17, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Fatal,
Okay, so which is it? Are your morals based on “reason” or are they based on what you believe is reasonable, because those are two very different things. If you meant to say that your morals are based on what you deem to be reasonable, that’s what you should have said. I would not have challenged that assertion.
Um, well, that’s a tough one because they both have the same connotation. If I’ve used reason to determine a moral stance, then I can deem the stance to be either reasonable or unreasonable.
See that? That’s snark. It’s not beneath me, for I use it daily here and in the real world. It’s the undertones of the snark which make it a particularly good snark. I will now pat myself on the back, because I have put you in a position you cannot find a way out of.
Do I win some kind of internet medal now?
Krydor on May 17, 2007 at 5:29 PM
JayHaw
Morality is based on empathy and fear. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” pretty much sums up that of empathy.
If you are an atheists you fear man’s laws. If you are religious you fear God’s laws. What, then, is the difference?
For atheists, man’s laws must be physically obeyed, while for the religious, God’s laws must be morally obeyed.
I do not say that atheists are not moral people. It’s just a question of from where their morality emanates. While those of religion have the Bible to steer their morality, atheists appear to use the cafeteria method of deciding theirs.
pocomoco on May 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM
You admit there are a few exceptions yet you still think it reasonable to make laws that force people to act against their nature? You would prohibit people from killing themselves if they wished to? You’d prohibit people from sacrificing themselves to save others? Both are self-destructive acts, but it is the person’s freedom to choose whether or not to engage in them. Reason would allow people to do what they wanted so long as no other human was harmed in the process. Would you agree the “reason” is subjective, however? That one person could look at a stick of wood and reason that it could be used for a fun little game and another could look at the same stick and reason that it could be used for hunting and killing.
Done and done, but you still haven’t defined reason and yet you use the word nine times in your post.
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Hitchens’ hate of Falwell has nothing to do with atheism nor Christianity.
It has everything to do with Falwell’s comments about homosexuality, which were blown completely out of proportion anyway.
.
The Machine on May 17, 2007 at 5:46 PM
How dare the accurately quote Jerry Falwell!
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Maybe this is the problem? I don’t do anything because of fear. I am moral because I choose to be.
I don’t believe that.
You should REEEEALLLY read and learn the scriptures before making such statements. Really.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I was generalizing about religion, not just referring to Christianity. I do not see much differenc between religions, they all sell BS. Some just have more BS believers than others.
The other example is taken straight from the Old Testament which, btw, is part of the Christian Bible that I was given as a child.
Do you know what I am referring to, or would you like me to throw a scrupture reference like a ninja throwing star for you?
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Yup.
It makes perfect sense, and there’s nothing I can do in a thread to improve your reading comprehension or reasoning skills, so I’ll see ya later.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 9:18 PM
JayHaw
This comment would make a great bumper sticker for intolerance which, as I suggested earlier, is a primary tenet of atheism.
Your Hitchens type rage is unfathomable to me. Why not just be a non–believer in God at let it go at that like an agnostic would? But, n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o, there’s that bugaboo of intolerance raising its ugly head.
Please , then, explain to us who believe in this BS why atheists find such acrimony necessary. Did someone hit you in the head with a Bible as a child?
pocomoco on May 17, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Hitchens will always be a sweaty, long-winded drunkard.
Travis on May 17, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Enrique, the god of the Koran is named Allah, who has no begotten Son and no Holy Spirit. The believers in Allah find Koranic references to lead them to believe that Allah will reward them if they kill non-believers.
The God of the Bible has a begotten Son and works through a Holy Spirit. This concept of God is considered blasphemy by those who follow the Koran.
They are not the same at all. The concept that all the gods of the various religions are just all variations of worship of the same god is not true.
What sense does it make to toss the Bible out for the teachings found only in the Koran??!??
naliaka on May 17, 2007 at 9:55 PM
I find it odd that both discussions of Hitchens’ behavior turned into religious debate.
The fact is that the man has no class.
Nutshell.
Connie on May 17, 2007 at 10:05 PM
This is too bad, I had some respect for Hitchens before this. Now I think he is a very misguided man.
Maxx on May 17, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I do know what you are refering to and you are out of context.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 11:30 PM
To which I could fire back: theists are only “moral” because they are scared of God (a point seemingly backed up on this board when some asked why atheists do just go wild).
In reality, I don’t think Judeo/Christians are moral simply out of fear of God and, although karma is an atheist concept, I don’t think atheists are moral simply for self-serving reasons.
We automatically adopt the morality of the society we are brought up in. Some of this is rooted in natural instinct, but most we learn.
As an atheist, I don’t kill or steal…because I have standards, because it’s the way I’ve been brought up, because it feels wrong. It’s nothing to do with fear of law or God, it’s just something I don’t want to do.
Don’t ask me about coveting my neighbor’s wife’s ass, though….
uptight on May 18, 2007 at 2:20 AM
“Drink-sodden Trotskyite” is the quote I believe Hitchens himself is the most fond of.
Ah, but who decides what consitutes “harm”, thus whether another human has been “harmed”? As long as a given person has familial relations, members of that family might feel they have been “harmed” by the person’s premature death from a drug overdose; to them the “harm” is the pain of loss, and other harm (about to be discussed).
I personally believe it’s possible to arrive at a workable definition of “harm”, but I also believe that a good % of so-called upstanding members of society (and Christians in particular) will also arrogate that term to mean anything that might cause shame or dishonor (as their moral code defines it) to fall on their family within the community they agree to live in.
So, even if Johnny opts out of the stifling, predominantly Christian community of his family and takes up his alternative lifestyle - gay, hemp-using, birthing-out-of-wedlock - take your pick - the shame of it all is enough to drive that group, if they are in some position of power, to curtail that activity, even if it doesn’t really harm them (in a way I’d be willing to stipulate is harmful).
I’ll naturally leave abortion out of this because the argument against abortion is not [exclusively] based on shame or dishonor, but a form of -cide (fetucide?).
I think a lot of the drive & support for Anslinger-style prohibition on all currently illegal substances is based on at least the perception of harm to society (read: other humans). Admittedly some of that is justified by objective notions of harm, but a discomforting amount of it is also driven by the fact that such activities are associated with depravity and degeneracy, and thus bring shame and dishonor to others associated with those individuals within the societies that judge them.
Of course, I could be completely full of it.
RD on May 18, 2007 at 5:19 AM
Hitch looks like a bad mug shot.
Nick Nolte’s comes to mind.
seejanemom on May 18, 2007 at 7:36 AM
Like the Pajamas Media election party clip way back in November, when he WAS completely toasted. Looks like not much has changed.
seejanemom on May 18, 2007 at 7:39 AM
chuckles, at the silly people.
to the intellectual atheists….another oxymoron.
MarkB on May 18, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Maybe we need to debate this question sometime in the near future.
Is there such a thing as true altruism?
Connie on May 19, 2007 at 12:43 AM
What is God? My “atheist” friends are so absurd in leaving it up to “theists” to declare what God is, deciding on the basis of the content of their declarations that God doesn’t exist, and then leaving the matter there. Assuming that my “theistic” friends are right in believing there’s a supreme judge, for example, one may still ask, Is a supreme judge God?, What is supremacy?, What is judgment?, and What is God?
Kralizec on May 19, 2007 at 1:17 AM
I want to complicate matters further, with the conjecture that Allahpundit’s defense of atheism is in some small way holy.
Kralizec on May 19, 2007 at 1:33 AM
The opinion that rational choice’s proper aim is personal survival seems absurd; we will not in any case survive.
Kralizec on May 19, 2007 at 1:58 AM
When a theiest says that he is moral out of fear, yes you can. The person I responded to said atheists are moral from need. His words, not mine. So I summerized saying “Then all atheists are moral because it serves them personally”.
csdeven on May 19, 2007 at 12:06 PM
A evolved being does not concern itself with the fact that it will not survive. It’s sole goal is to survive at all costs.
csdeven on May 19, 2007 at 12:07 PM
A evolved being does not concern itself with the fact that it will not survive. It’s sole goal is to survive at all costs.
csdeven on May 19, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Generally, that entails behaviours that are beneficial/do not negatively impact the group as well as itself. As those standards vary over time, there’s a bunch of caveats I readily acknowledge.
Never enough space to fully flesh out ideas in a comments section.
Krydor on May 19, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Hitchens is right
harry on May 19, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Yep and in the words of Hannity I know you think you are the smartest person in the room but you sound like a jackass.
I love that line…thanks harry for giving me an opportunity to use it.
;)
Joe on May 19, 2007 at 6:54 PM
hahaha I knew he reminded me of someone. What a weirdo he is.
Highrise on May 20, 2007 at 2:09 AM
No. Hitchins is a pathetic jackass.
Connie on May 20, 2007 at 3:23 AM
I’ve read lots of remarks like this from those who disagree with Hitchens, but I’m not seeing much in the way of refutation of his assertions and arguments. An honest reader would be justified in concluding that the people making these remarks
countervailing arguments, only their violent disagreement with and dislike of Hitchens.
If you think that Falwell was a great man and that he wasn’t a fraud and charlatan, then give us some arguments to support that view. There’s a reason that ad hominem arguments are frowned upon.
student on May 20, 2007 at 9:52 AM
student on May 20, 2007 at 9:52 AM
If you need it spelled out for you on why hitchens is a pathetic jackass, you are most likely a pathetic jackass yourself if you can’t see it.
Highrise on May 21, 2007 at 12:36 AM
People who knew Mr. Falwell have posted here that he was not a fraud or a charlatan. You cannot judge this man merely by what his enemies say about him. You have to research what those who worked with him and knew him socially say about him. If you are to call him a fraud and a charlatan you need to have more proof than just a ranting man’s opinion.
Rose on May 21, 2007 at 2:15 AM
As I was saying. If it’s so obviously true that Hitchens is a pathetic jackass, you shouldn’t have any problem explaining why in terms so clear that even I can understand. Yet you resort to ad hominem instead. Why is that?
at least tries to answer the question. You may or may not find her remarks convincing but she does make a good faith effort. Was that so hard?
student on May 21, 2007 at 8:04 AM
There’s much in the natural world to contradict that claim. There are many cases where the sole goal is to clearly to reproduce at all costs, often at the expense of one’s life. Frequently, the reproductive act itself is the cause of fatality. In an evolutionary sense, long life is only of value in as much as it allows for better chances at reproduction.
Of course, that’s in the animal world. If by “an evolved being” you mean humans specifically, death by virtue of mating isn’t the common case (has been known to happen, though…). However, there are many cases in which it appears the instinct to protect one’s offspring even at the potential cost of one’s own life is more powerful in humans than the instinct to protect one’s self. That should be a sufficient fly in the “survive at all costs” ointment.
Blacklake on May 21, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]