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.

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.

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

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?

Rose on May 21, 2007 at 2:15 AM

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?

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.

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

don’t have any

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.

Hitchens is right

harry on May 19, 2007 at 2:44 PM

No. Hitchins is a pathetic jackass.

Hitch looks like a bad mug shot.

Nick Nolte’s comes to mind.

seejanemom on May 18, 2007 at 7:36 AM

hahaha I knew he reminded me of someone. What a weirdo he is.

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.

;)

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.

The media’s coverage of Christopher Hitchens’ book: “god is not Great.”…

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

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.

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).
uptight on May 18, 2007 at 2:20 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”.

There is no rational need to be moral. It doesn’t help you survive.

csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 3:49 PM

The opinion that rational choice’s proper aim is personal survival seems absurd; we will not in any case survive.

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

Maybe we need to debate this question sometime in the near future.

Is there such a thing as true altruism?

to the intellectual atheists….another oxymoron.

Nick Nolte’s comes to mind.

Hitchens will always be a sweaty, long-winded drunkard.

Travis on May 17, 2007 at 9:50 PM

“Drink-sodden Trotskyite” is the quote I believe Hitchens himself is the most fond of.

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.

Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 5:41 PM

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.

all atheists are only moral because it serves them personally. The exact point some theists point to when they criticize atheists version of morality.

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….

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

I do know what you are refering to and you are out of context.