1. Comment #55532 by Aaron on July 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Awesome I'm the first to make a comment! It's too bad I don't have one :(

Uh...there is no god and stuff.

Other Comments by Aaron

2. Comment #55533 by ChinmayKukade on July 11, 2007 at 12:49 pm

I like Hitchens' style and his impressive forcefullness - Dr. Dawkins' style is more scientific and accurate, whereas Hitchens appeals to a different type of audience - the plus point being that people who buy God is not Great for entertainment will also end up being educated.

Other Comments by ChinmayKukade

3. Comment #55534 by Steven Mading on July 11, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I read through this and was annoyed by Wilson's constant attempt to claim that Christianity represents an absolute morality system which makes it better than some relative one. If Christians really followed an absolute unchanging moral system, then why don't they stone people to death for wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing, as dictated in Leviticus? The answer is, of course, that their system has changed and adapted over time. Anyone who is aware of history and still claims Christian morality is unchanging is a liar.

The thing is, if Christians really did treat the morality espoused by their religion as an absolute that does not evolve, then they would all be following the moral norms of 2000 years ago, and clearly they are not doing so.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

4. Comment #55535 by Linda on July 11, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Wilson's replies seem quite juvenile and rather frivolous compared to the eloquent Hitchens who challenges the theologian to prove him wrong. Wilson cannot tell the truth and answer Hitchens because if he admits that humans invent gods and most of them are in the images of monsters and terrorists it would feel like he was betraying a lover.

"I cannot, of course, prove that there is no supervising deity who invigilates my every moment and who will pursue me even after I am dead. (I can only be happy that there is no evidence for such a ghastly idea, which would resemble a celestial North Korea in which liberty was not just impossible but inconceivable.) But nor has any theologian ever demonstrated the contrary. This would perhaps make the believer and the doubter equal—except that the believer claims to know, not just that God exists, but that his most detailed wishes are not merely knowable but actually known. Since religion drew its first breath when the species lived in utter ignorance and considerable fear, I hope I may be forgiven for declining to believe that another human being can tell me what to do, in the most intimate details of my life and mind, and to further dictate these terms as if acting as proxy for a supernatural entity. This tyrannical idea is very much older than Christianity, of course, but I do sometimes think that Christians have less excuse for believing, let alone wishing, that such a horrible thing could be true. Perhaps your response will make me reconsider?"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

God is CCTV!

Other Comments by Linda

5. Comment #55537 by The_Stone on July 11, 2007 at 1:14 pm

So we're talking about whether or not a lie is "good" for the world, and that we should just accept it because some people are insistent and have believed it for long (in human terms) time.

If one enjoys the status quo, one blinds oneself to the truth of other possibilities. Apparently, some of those who have profited from others' blindness wish to convince the rest of us to follow suit.

I don't know about the rest of humanity, but I continually seek out self-deception in my life as a means to improving its quality. It would seem to me, if others are to get at the root of their personal problems or those of their various societies, they must be capable of introspective-honesty as well as worldly-honesty.

To date, I don't see any evidence of this type of widespread honesty in religion. Religions' defenders wish to distort the facts, mixing them up with further lies, in order to confound those doubting their faiths. The sooner this profit-driven, or even ignorance-driven system comes to an end the better.

Its my vow that no defender of religion should go un-countered.

Other Comments by The_Stone

6. Comment #55538 by Science H Logic on July 11, 2007 at 1:21 pm

In agreement with the last comment, Wilson continued with the worse line of argumentation that Christians seem to make "with out god how do you REALLY know what is right and what is wronge". The thing is,(and what made this debate pointless by page three) was that Hitchens answered it with the obvious observation (one the Dawkins is found of making to) that we certainly don't get that ultimate authority from the bible. Wilson never addresses this. It was the same way with the Sharpton/Hitchens debate. Sharpton kept accusing Hitchens of veering away from the question when he couldn't that that assault on religious moral authority is the best way to do so.

Other Comments by Science H Logic

7. Comment #55539 by GBile on July 11, 2007 at 1:26 pm

From the first contribution of mr Wilson:

If a professor takes credit for the student who mastered the material, aced his finals, and went on to a career that was a benefit to himself and the university he graduated from, the professor must (fairness dictates) be upbraided for the dope-smoking slacker that he kicked out of class in the second week.

Now consider this:

[Pope] Innocent III was considered a vigorous opponent of heresy, and had campaigns to force the heretics to convert. Under his authority, measures were taken against those accused of being Manichean heretics and under the leadership of Simon de Montfort, against the Albigenses (Cathars), the Albigensian Crusade (1209–29). The latter, strongly supported by Innocent, was one of the most controversial moves of the medieval church, being mostly directed against other Christians and soon turning into a mere conquest campaign by the northern French barons against the more tolerant Midi. This was a prelude to the legitimization of the Inquisition in 1233, wherein heresy was said to be punished for the spiritual good of the individual as well as for the preservation of the Church. The pope supported two new holy orders: the Franciscans and the Dominicans, as well as smaller ones like the Holy Spirit Order.
And:
Arnaud, the abbot-commander, wrote to Pope Innocent III: "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex".[3] The population of Béziers was then probably no more than 15,000 but with local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls, the number claimed, 20,000, is possible.

We are dealing with a 'slacker, kicked out of class' here ?

Other Comments by GBile

8. Comment #55541 by ChinmayKukade on July 11, 2007 at 1:27 pm

The Atheist position is simple and elegant: We know very little yet, what we do know is a testment to millenia of labour and creativity from the Greeks to Einstein.
We cannot yet explain the physical origins of the cosmos, but a divine intelligence is an idea that YOU, the theist, with your own brand of theism, whether Abrahamic, polytheistic or otherwise have brought up. The onus is on YOU to justify this belief, not on us to disprove a negative.
Theists ought to be challenged on every count. Why are you a Christian?
Is it an accident of birth?
Is everyone else going to hell?
If so, a fanatical Muslim says the same; why is your word to be beleived over his?
If not, what does the New Testament say? Aren't you being untrue to it?
And what do you say to those who do believe in the literality of the New Testament and that non-christians are going to Hell?
Who's the real Christian? You or them?

The variety of theist responses are so broad that inconsistency is the only consistency - the atheist position is refreshingly lucid and nonvariant.

Other Comments by ChinmayKukade

9. Comment #55542 by ChinmayKukade on July 11, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Here's a truly shocking article in the Calgary Sun:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2007/06/26/4290796-sun.html

Extract:
"Friends, I fully believe when I die -- if I keep to the straight and narrow -- I will meet my grandparents, parents, sisters and Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu friends in Heaven.

My pet Shih-Tzu puppies, Muffin and Dolly, too.

For sure, though, I will not meet Richard Dawkins there. Not that I'd want to do so.

So here's my little prayer right now, please stand with me alongside Preston, Stock, Bishop Fred Henry, Calgary evangelical Pastor Phil Nordin, and all other believers of many faiths of a Supreme Creator.

We all have it made -- a joyous everlasting life ahead of us."

How can people REALLY believe this?

Other Comments by ChinmayKukade

10. Comment #55544 by ImagineAZ on July 11, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Our morals HAVE evolved, and they are also CONTINUING to evolve...and that's a good thing.

The Bible recommended slavery and subjugation of women. Look where we are today compared to our morality during the time of Constantine. Our two leading candidates to run our country are a woman and a black man. The BOOK seems hopelessly outdated.

Conclusion: having no BOOK to judge right from wrong is a good thing.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

11. Comment #55547 by Broshiesq on July 11, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Aaron, you have the best comment so far. Way to sum up.

Other Comments by Broshiesq

12. Comment #55548 by robert s on July 11, 2007 at 1:37 pm

But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order.
The engineering that went into ankles.
The taste of beer.
That Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, just like he said.
A woman's neck.
Bees fooling around in the flower bed.
The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt.
Forgiveness of sin.
Storms out of the North, the kind with lightning.
Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist).
The ocean at night with a full moon.
Delta blues.
The peacock that lives in my yard.
Sunrise, in color.
Baptizing babies.
The pleasure of sneezing.
Eye contact.
Having your feet removed from the miry clay, and established forever on the rock. From page 5

So, trick question, out of that list, which items are actuallly evidence?

Other Comments by robert s

13. Comment #55549 by sane1 on July 11, 2007 at 1:40 pm

This is a very entertaining "debate" and you have to give Wilson credit. He stays in the game and is clever and entertaining. His main thrust, about the "warrant" for morality, really means something to christians. They fear a "valueless void" would exist without religion. Sure that is nonsense to someone who has been brought up without the distorted lens of the fear of hellfire and the power of the devil if you waver from the godly way, but to someone in that fog - the nonsense makes sense.

I just had lunch with someone who told me he wouldn't have extramarital affair (though he is presently tempted) because he is a believer and believes he'd "probably" end up in hell. He conceded as an afterthought that it might be wrong also.

Its how they think, and Wilson does a good job of explaining it in a way that is not nearly as offensive as many of his co-religionists.

p.s. His temptress is someone from his church, who has 1 kid from her first marriage, 1 out of wedlock, and is currently married to her second husband.


Other Comments by sane1

14. Comment #55554 by Goldy on July 11, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Christianity good for the World? there's a bunch of native Americans (North and South) that might argue the toss. And a few Muslims too - mainly Arabs...

Other Comments by Goldy

15. Comment #55581 by AtheistAcolyte on July 11, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Two points:

1) To have a rational discussion on the question, we must first ask, "How do we define good-ness", and "What degree of good-ness are we willing to accept?" Are we only looking for the purely good, that which only brings good, and no evil nor purgatorial piffle? What balance of these will we classify as all-around "good"?

2) I'm tired of Xtians asking where morality stems from solely atheism, as if Atheist/Xtian is a legitimate dichotomy. The antonym of Atheist is not Xtian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Zoroastrian. The antonym of Atheist is Theist.
While I recognize this statement would be sound-bitten to hell and back if Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris/Dennett said it, Atheism cannot account for morality any better than Theism.
Think about it. An atheist does not believe in the existence of any god or supernatural being. A theist believes in the existence of at least one god or supernatural being. At this level, and this level only, no one can make any headway. But when you open it up to other beliefs, such as "Everyone has a right to live their life as they see fit" or "The Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God", then we start to develop morality.

Other Comments by AtheistAcolyte

16. Comment #55589 by Jolly Wally on July 11, 2007 at 3:36 pm

"Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than they respect the internal churnings of any other given chemical reaction? That's all our thoughts are, isn't that right? Or, if there is a distinction, could you show how the premises of your atheism might produce such a distinction?"

What utter drivel! Clearly a man deprived of intelligence and science. What a miserable little person.

Other Comments by Jolly Wally

17. Comment #55591 by rthille on July 11, 2007 at 3:43 pm

If you are on the receiving end, there is only death, and if you are an agent delivering this genocide, the long-term result is brief victory and death at the end. So who cares? Picture an Israelite during the conquest of Canaan, doing every bad thing that you say was occurring back then. During one of his outrages, sword above his head, should he have stopped for a moment to reflect on the possibility that you might be right? "You know, in about three and a half millennia, the consensus among historians will be that I am being bad right now. But if there is no God, this disapproval will certainly not disturb my oblivion. On with the rapine and slaughter!" On your principles, why should he care?

Well, given the choice, if you knew for a fact that after you died that it would be oblivion, would you:
a) Like to be killed immediately?
b) Like to be tortured for an extended period of time, then die.
3) Live a full and happy life, raise many children who also live full and happy lives, then die.

No, at the point of the heat death of universe, no choice matters more than any other, but to you, now, the choices matter very very much.

Other Comments by rthille

18. Comment #55592 by David Blackwell on July 11, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Theologian Douglas Wilson argues that there is no rational basis ("warrant") for any moral code that an atheist (i.e. non-believer in "God") can provide, in the process attacking the idea of ethical imperatives being "derived from innate human solidarity" (Hitchens) on the grounds that this begs the questions of which imperatives and whose deriving prevails. I don't think Hitchens ever really answers Wilson on this. For instance, he (Hitchens) advocates "love thy neighbour." But on what rational grounds? Why "love one's neighbour"? (Notice relatedly how humanist manifestos and declarations typically resort to adherence to reason AND compassion.).

In response to Wilson, Christopher ("bearer of Christ"!) Hitchens holds that "ordinary morality is innate," and thus seemingly argues along the lines, it is rational to be moral/ethical because in doing so one is being consistent with what one is. For one thing, this would beg the question why one should be true to what one is. Also, if one grants the obvious fact that solidarity is a characteristic of the human species (among other animals), the obvious fact remains that a lot of "non-solidarity," e.g. desire to harm, which Hitchens acknowledges, is also a human characteristic. Which in turn begs the question, why therefore give priority to the solidarity characteristic? What rational case can be made for this? I have the distinct impression that Hitchens is missing Wilson's point (or understanding but avoiding answering it because he really can't?)—or at a minimum not really addressing it satisfactorily. If, for instance, experiencing compassion (sympathy, a feeling of solidarity and related) per se is claimed as sufficient rationale for helping others (i.e. "God" is surplus to requirements), as Hitchens and others clearly seem to do, then the question remains, what is the rational case to be made for a person to be compassionate who does not already feel compassion?

I know none of the above is in the slightest original. However, judging from the Wilson-Hitchens exchanges, these considerations remain, as they say, "operative.

All of which in no way even begins to intimate that supernaturalist Wilson makes a rational case for his own "objective" position on morality. The problem, though, is that Hitchens' (among others?) failure to rise to the challenge has left a theist visibly scoring points—and being in a position to do so again in the future by pointing to this.

As I see it anyway.

D.B.

Other Comments by David Blackwell

19. Comment #55608 by Serious on July 11, 2007 at 4:52 pm

I think Hitchen got bored. He let an awful lot of complete drivel pass.

One problem with arguing with prominent faithheads is that they *cannot* get bored or give up. Their livelihood and social position depends on staying in the game and never giving an inch where it matters.

Other Comments by Serious

20. Comment #55614 by rschimnosky on July 11, 2007 at 5:27 pm

I'm surpised Hitches didn't handle this better. Wilson kept pushing him for how an atheist determines right from wrong and the answer is obvious and simple.

The essence of morality is "Do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone". Its wrong to harm others, and its right to help others. We instinctively know what is moral because we know what harms and helps us as individuals. We know its in our best interests to treat others as we would want to be treated because if we don't offer that to others we can't expect them to offer it to us.

Other Comments by rschimnosky

21. Comment #55623 by crazy4blues on July 11, 2007 at 6:08 pm

So Wilson's rhetorical strategy is to keep demanding an answer for the question: What is the color of water?! When Hitchens responds with the subtlety required for such an answer, Wilson reponds, "Ha! You refuse to tell me the color of water! I win the argument because God has told me this answer! The color of water is that Jesus died on the Cross!" This is how Wilson seems to reason everything.

I think that Hitchens didn't really bother to "get into it" with Wilson because it's rather like Mohmmad Ali against a child in a boxing match; it simply would be *immoral* to carry on in such a contest! Yet, it's the child who insists that fight go forward. Wudda ya gonna do?

Other Comments by crazy4blues

22. Comment #55628 by chileman on July 11, 2007 at 6:42 pm

This is a perfect example of why RD will not debate the delusional. They don't or can't speak the same language. Does Wilson understand the definition of evidence? How much circular logic can one sane man endure before his head spins off. Hitch you're a better man than me...I'm now headless.

Other Comments by chileman

23. Comment #55633 by antonio on July 11, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Wilson kept insisting on the question of what consistent standard may an atheist use to decide what is good.

The most hygienic answer to that question is to challenge its implied assumption that Christians have a standard for goodness that comes from the Bible.

While Christians *claim* to derive their morality from the Bible, in actuality THEY DO NOT. It is very easy to ask a series of uncomfortable questions in this direction. Why do you condemn slavery, if it is encouraged in the Old Testament? The answers typically appeal to the idea that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of Bible passages. But then: how does one judge what is a correct interpretation? How does one choose to trust one Bible scholar and not another? Certainly not by reading the Bible.

You may substitute your favorite Biblical outrage in place of slavery of course. It is typically safer to choose one from the New Testament to avoid the "Jesus canceled it" kind of answer.

[I was going to say that this is one of Dawkins' main arguments in his book, but I'm not sure now... I might be confounding ideas from Dennett's book.]

Other Comments by antonio

24. Comment #55638 by ryanbooker on July 11, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Let's pretend, for a moment, that we can't answer 'Why?'

Wilson's reason that 'a fixed standard, grounded in the character of God, allows us to define evil, but this brings with it the possibility of forgiveness', is no reason at all. He only thinks it is. He's asserting that his own brand of cherry picked Christianity is the correct interpretation, and that all others are wrong. This is clearly absurd, but is the cornerstone of all versions of this ridiculous non argument.

He also ridicules a changing moral compass with his acronym 'POOMCOT', as if that is an argument. You only need look at recorded human history to see that yes indeed, our moral standard does and has evolved, and will in all likelihood continue to do so. Claiming that a book is required to mandate an absolute moral code is both stupid and ignorant of both human history in general, and religious history.

Other Comments by ryanbooker

25. Comment #55640 by crazy4blues on July 11, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Great point, Antonio.

Here's one of my favorites: What in the OT or NT prevents me from marrying and impregnating my 12 year old cousin? There's nothing, of course, and the 10 Commandments fall completely flat. Indeed, the Bible would actually condone such an abomination!

When present-day theists are gently reminded that it is, in fact, our evolved knowledge of modern psychology and medecine that provides the *authority* for the inherent immorality of marrying and impregating an adolescent, it boggles the mind how quick the "faithful" are to run to the Bible as the "authority" to disallow a union between two consenting *adults* merely because they are of the same sex!

So the Bible is the authority for morality?

Other Comments by crazy4blues

26. Comment #55643 by Bonzai on July 11, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Indeed if you go by the morality of the bible you should applaud Stalin instead of condemning him because arguably he was imitating the moral example set by Yewah. If there is only one objection, it is that he shouldn't have made himself a god. Every thing else, including killing millions, was completely in keeping with biblical morality.

Other Comments by Bonzai

27. Comment #55644 by Shuggy on July 11, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy? When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?

I've heard something like this often in the past: "But if there's no God, no absolute standard of morality, how can you condemn Stalin/Hitler/Mao?" To which my answer (difficult to express concisely): "You and I have no difficulty condemning Stalin/Hitler/Mao, I because they broke the Golden Rule (and I know I wouldn't like what they did to be done to me), you because they broke the arbitrary rules of your God. But you seem to have a prior assumption that they must be condemned, and no doubt that I will agree, and I do. Why not just go with that?"

I don't think much of his expression of it, because
1. Who says it has to come from a book?
2. How does the supernatural help? All it means is that someone said "I had a vision, I was supernaturally prompted to proclaim/write." That doesn't make it so.

Other Comments by Shuggy

28. Comment #55650 by Shuggy on July 11, 2007 at 9:40 pm

robert s quote:

But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order.
The engineering that went into ankles.

Back to the argument from design are we? Who was the knucklehead who designed ankles to be so easily twisted?

Bees fooling around in the flower bed.

They're not fooling, if they don't work like little boggers, they die.

Forgiveness of sin.

Who made sin? As Hitchens says, the vicarious atonement is odious (as odious as whipping boys)

Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist).

What nonsense! You need to believe in a sky-fairy to enjoy laughing? What a peculiar religion you must have!

The peacock that lives in my yard.

Runaway sexual selection. He dollies himself up like that because he's "desperate" for (sexual) attention. If he doesn't, his line dies out. The fact that we like the look is a by-product.

Other Comments by Shuggy

29. Comment #55652 by Shuggy on July 11, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Our current "morals" are therefore just a way station on the road. No sense getting really attached to them, right? When I am traveling, I don't get attached to motel rooms. I don't weep when I have to part from them. So, in the future, after every ferocious moral denunciation you choose to offer your reading public, you really need to add something like, "But this is just a provisional judgment. Our perspective may evolve to an entirely different one some years hence,"

It's an interesting concept, but the evolution of morals is the evolution of a memeplex, and it is under our conscious control, like the evolution of a car, or a computer or any other human creation. That means we are working to improve it, and we won't throw out any feature we find useful. Our morality isn't likely to evolve into parasitism or exploitation, like some of those species of which the male is now just a bag of gonads inside the female.

One way in which our morality has yet to improve, for example, is our treatment of animals, in keeping with their actual level of consciousness. Does Wilson think that when we do that, we will abandon the equality of the sexes or resume slavekeeping - to mention just a couple of issues on which religious morality was markedly deficient for millennia.

Other Comments by Shuggy

30. Comment #55695 by Logicel on July 12, 2007 at 2:15 am

Wilson's last response was full-blown Christian preaching at its worse. And it was in that 'sermon' in which Wilson finally responded, however indirectly, to Hitchen's stating several times, believe what you want, but just leave me and other non-believers out of it. Wilson's response was but our news is so fantastic, so uplifting, so wonderful we must cram it down your throats every chance we get (and also have big tax-free structures which balk at being criticized and have the power to indoctrinate children to assist us in this unasked-for "helping.")

Wilson is the kind of a person that thrives on the authority, purity, and loyalty bases for morality. Change is a problem for him; it causes anxiety and doubt in him. It can only be accepted if it is regarded as an illusion where events and changes are filtered through the unchanging God lens. Change for Wilson is not really authentic change, but just the fulfillment of the absolute notion of Godliness.

Without change, society can't evolve in a positive manner--the bad needs to be taken along with the good. I regard Hitchens as doing an excellent job in debating this Christian, a Christian so wedded to absolutes that he can't see that they are the illusion. Accepting reality based on facts and scientific knowledge has been our best way to proceed forward and will continue to be so.

Other Comments by Logicel

31. Comment #55697 by Goldy on July 12, 2007 at 2:41 am

Having read one Xian's views o what morality entails, all I can say it I'll bet Wilson is only staying on the path to gain brownie points. The first real indication that God is non-existant, he'll be whoring away like tomorrow isn't coming!
I'm sick of Xian morality - it seems so shallow and sick.

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #55701 by stag on July 12, 2007 at 2:51 am

Wilson seems to have fallen for the familiar conceit of equating atheism with nihilism. That somehow, without "God", life becomes meaningless.

Haven't we already been through this a million times already?

Other Comments by stag

33. Comment #55706 by Konradius on July 12, 2007 at 3:39 am

In true biblical fashion most of Wilson's argument can be put in the following analogy.
Christianity is a car, Wilson is the car salesman and morality is scoring chicks.

Car salesman: You cannot score a chick without a car!
Potential buyer: I can score chicks without a car.
Car salesman: Hah! You can't say how you score a chick without a car! Surely you must need a car to score a chick!
Potential buyer, now put off: I know I can score a chick without a car. And anyway, I wouldn't want the chicks that can get scored purely on the basis of a car.

Other Comments by Konradius

34. Comment #55714 by pewkatchoo on July 12, 2007 at 4:02 am

ChinmayKukade
Hahahaha, I read the article in the Calgary Sun and initially thought that it was a spoof, bit like the Onion you know. Then I realised it wasn't. FFS. So I sent an email to the editor.

Sir

I have just read the disgraceful article by your columnist Paul Jackson, in which he states 'Atheist Author no Einstein'.

Well, apart from the fact that Professor Dawkins has never claimed to be an Einstein, so a strawman straight away, he is very much respected throughout the UK and the rest of the thinking world as a very emminent scientist and a downright nice human being. Unlike, of course, your ad-hominem columnist.

Just to give two examples of the ridiculous things he states:

'Does he 'Dawkins' think he is more intelligent than god?'

This was just after he made it clear that Prof Dawkins does not believe in god! Is your columnist smoking some illegal substances or what?

He then compounds his stupidity by arguing:

'Has he ever been over to the Other Side? (his capitals not mine for all as if the other side is a real place that people go to on holiday!)
'I'll bet you 1,000-to-1 he hasn't.'

Leaving aside the superfluous comma in the 1000 and the -to-1 instead of the normal /1, I would like to ask the author if he has been to the other side? Perhaps he has! Could he recommend it as a nice place to visit? What are the beds like there? Food any good?

'Doesn't Dawkins believe in open discussion?'

Er, yes. He is involved in open discussions all the time. For example he had a very open and interesting discussion with the Bishop of the Anglican Church in the UK. He has been on literally hundreds of open discussion forums. So basically your author is talking rubbish here.

'Dawkins himself makes preposterous claims that God is non-existent -- claims he can't possible prove.'

This is a most absurd statement to make and, if I thought that he had any intellectual integrity at all, he completely disabused me of that with this statement.

I could write a rational rebuttal of every single one of your columnists' points but, to be honest, unless you paid me to do it I just cannot be bothered. In short, your columnist is a seriously deluded individual and a terrible writer to boot. How is that for an ad-hominem?

regards

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

35. Comment #55719 by ChinmayKukade on July 12, 2007 at 4:10 am

Good job, pewkatchoo.

It still baffles me that the fellow can indulge is such over-generous ecumenicism so as to to say hindus(polytheistic) will be with him in heaven, but Dawkins and other atheists? Oh no. Theirs is the fate of the lake of fire and brimstone.. How can people harbour such evil beliefs?

Other Comments by ChinmayKukade

36. Comment #55723 by pewkatchoo on July 12, 2007 at 4:43 am

I don't see them as evil! I see them as totally bonkers.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

37. Comment #55725 by StewE17 on July 12, 2007 at 4:52 am

I don't know why Hitchens bothered to get involved in arguments against such casuistry from a faith-head. All he needed to do was refer to this piece of research:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

or to this synopsis (excusing the typos):

http://www.freethinkerscs.com/articles/whycantweallbejapanese.htm

Other Comments by StewE17

38. Comment #55730 by BicycleRepairMan on July 12, 2007 at 5:10 am

You recieve 10 internetpoints from me for that analogy, Konradius :)

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

39. Comment #55739 by pewkatchoo on July 12, 2007 at 6:17 am

Konradius
I have to concur with the BicycleRepairMan, that is both a wonderful analogy and a beautiful putdown.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

40. Comment #55740 by pewkatchoo on July 12, 2007 at 6:17 am

Robert s
I would say sneezing!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

41. Comment #55757 by Donald on July 12, 2007 at 7:00 am

Douglas Wilson was scattering so many targets that I guess Hitchens couldn't go for them all.

Wilson began with an unprovoked insult to atheists, comparing their minds to foul soup. Nice start.

Then he goes on:

Your first point was that the Christian faith cannot credit itself for all that "Love your neighbor" stuff, not to mention the Golden Rule, and the reason for this is that such moral precepts have been self-evident to everybody throughout history who wanted to have a stable society. You then move on to the second point, which contains the idea that the teachings of Christianity are "incredibly immoral." In your book, you make the same point about other religions.

Fine so far.

Apparently, basic morality is not all that self-evident.

Wham. A deception. (I notice religious apologists use deception far more than atheists....)

The immoral teachings from the bible do not imply the people of that time did not understand basic morality.

The problem is that religious teachings claim to put god above all human affairs, including natural morality.

God has to be obeyed, above all else. He will reward you if you do, even if immoral things are done to obey him. And god has to be feared - he will punish you with eternal pain in hell if you disobey.

So, in the atheist view, basic morality has always been self-evident. However, there have been times when it was overwhelmed by enticement from religious false promises of reward, and fear from religious stories of god's terrible vengeance.

Wilson implies a contradiction in Hitchens view. There is no contradiction.


I didn't read on. I have already learnt enough about Douglas Wilson.

I don't know how the musketeers keep their patience when debating intellectual dishonesty.



Other Comments by Donald

42. Comment #55781 by _J_ on July 12, 2007 at 8:50 am

Aaron, Comment 1

Surely you've been at the top of enough lists in your life...? ;)

Other Comments by _J_

43. Comment #55784 by JupiterMoonbeam on July 12, 2007 at 9:03 am

I have never quite understood why religious people believe they have a monopoly on morality. Wilson seems stuck on the point that if you have no religious authority on right and wrong there is only nihilism. This is a common religious trick akin to using chance as the only alternative to design.

What has always interested me is how an atheist potentially has a greater respect for life than a religious person (though this is not a universal truth). For example, the religious can wave away death with the 'knowledge' that they are going to a better place. Starving millions may be horrific but if they believe and prey and ask for forgiveness then that is all that can be done (I have heard many Christians say just that). As an atheist I cannot turn a blind eye to that suffering: this is these peoples lives, their only existence, there is no after-life: every person who has a miserable life and a miserable death we fail: there is only one alternative to their death and that is their life, pure and simple.

It's for this reason atheists tend to have a very high regard for life (as they believe in nothing else), much higher than the religious possibly can. I find this evidence in my peers: my wife and I are ethical vegetarians, as are a number of our friends. All of our vegetarian friends are self-confessed atheists and we all hold such a high value of life that we believe it immoral to kill any living being, especially when it serves no purpose to our own survival. My Christian friends however have no issue with killing animals for food as animals have no soul and apparently God has told them to do what they will with the planet and its creatures. The same can be said for the war in Iraq: most of my atheist friends (not all of them) are pacifists and were against the war where as the Christian friends (not all of them) felt it was morally justified (eye for an eye and all that). Interestingly I had some Christian friends who had the very same attitude to environmentalism: as in it was of no consequence to save the planet as God had given it to them to do with as they would and if the planet did suffer (which they doubted as God would not allow it) then that was that as either God had a master plan or Heaven was unaffected by greenhouse gases. And to push the point of morality further I do not need to even start to go into the treatment and attitude towards homosexuals and women (some of my Christian friends still believe that the man has the right to hit his wife as he is the master of the house).

Time and again it is evident that the religious quite often have a far lower level of moral-consciousness than the liberal atheist. Just because they have a book of rules which they choose to obey and ignore based on the slightest excuse (which is why Wilson's repeated calls of Christianity abolishing hypocrisy is just so hypocritical) does not in any way mean they have a greater authority or moral code than those who actually search their consciousnesses. Surely a morality which comes from one's own personal consciousness is far more powerful than just following a supernatural authority?

Maybe Wilson is giving us an insight into his own character: without following his religious code it is he that would descend into a sociopath. The fact he cannot grasp that humans can have a consciousness without a supernatural authority is merle an admission of the weakness of his own personal morality and begs the question if his religion preached a different morality would he follow this authority with equal blindness?

Other Comments by JupiterMoonbeam

44. Comment #55795 by squinky on July 12, 2007 at 10:33 am

Here's how to prove the point that superior morality (innate) is superior to the teachings of the Old or New Testament:

1) Display 10 commandments
2) Get Wilson to quote Jesus for the ten most moral pieces of advise from the New Testament
3) Make up your own off the top of your head.

Guarantee that #3 will have the moral high ground over 1 and 2.

Example: Use not your strength to oppress others or cause them hardship; help them as you are able.

Other Comments by squinky

45. Comment #55798 by 3legcat on July 12, 2007 at 10:43 am

david blackwell wrote:

I have the distinct impression that Hitchens is missing Wilson's point (or understanding but avoiding answering it because he really can't?)—or at a minimum not really addressing it satisfactorily.

i share your frustration, when theologians like wilson engage in the circular argument that absolute morality is evidence of god's existence, because it is eternal, they prey upon our innate deeply held passion for justice. wilson holds that god enables us to avoid moral relativism, i.e.. good and bad themselves are created into the universe and everything in it including atheists, he is not talking about scripture or fear of damnation here, he is asserting a platonic absolute. this is a very appealing notion, when someone harms someone close to us, it feels deeply wrong, not simply because society has said so, but wrong in all possible worlds, even ones without humans.

it is time to turn this emotional appeal back on the theologians and then concede a draw on this eternal question.

i suggest repeating this ancient response:

does god hate murder because it is wrong, or is it merely wrong because god made it so?

wilson holds the later, and from god's POV morality is again subjective, so god doesn't really solve the problem any better than evolutionary explanations and while believing "god hates what you did to me" is more emotionally satisfying than "we evolved a negative physiological response to that bad shit" it is simply that, merely more emotionally satisfying with no evidence for it.

i suspect this is why hitch changed the subject it isn't a sexy argument and people don't like to think of themselves as consequentialists

deja vu?

Other Comments by 3legcat

46. Comment #55799 by robert s on July 12, 2007 at 10:49 am

Perhaps one could ask, with equal futility, what is the objective basis for thinking that bank notes have value?

We all agree that they do, we all have done for hundreds of years, but atheists claim that God is not involved. How, then, can atheists claim that bank notes have value? Aren't they just pieces of paper?

The atheist might argue that a bank note is a contract. Sterling notes have the contract printed on them: "I promise to pay the bearer..." and are signed by the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England. But that's not 'objective' value, the Chief Cashier is just a human, the Bank is just a human institution, the contract might be a forgery.

At this point we can claim that US Dollars are better - they have 'In God we trust' printed on them, afterall. Therefore they have an objective value that Sterling notes do not.

Nevermind that the Federal Reserve is also a human institution, nevermind that US currency is the most forged in the world. Stirling notes don't mention God, so Dollars are better.

Other Comments by robert s

47. Comment #55802 by padster1976 on July 12, 2007 at 11:17 am

I got to particular spot that I felt summed up the 2 sides quire well.

Hitchen's of whom i admire on not all areas I may add, it very lucid and puts his argumement across well. For example...

'...Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral. I would principally wish to cite the concept of vicarious redemption, whereby one's own responsibilities can be flung onto a scapegoat and thereby taken away...'

...This exorbitant fantasy of "forgiveness" is unfortunately matched by an equally extreme admonition—which is that the refusal to accept such a sublime offer may be punishable by eternal damnation...'

and...

'...the Old Testament, which speaks hotly in recommending genocide, slavery, genital mutilation, and other horrors, stoops to mention the torture of the dead. Those who tell this evil story to small children are not damned by me, but have been damned by history...'


Here we have the statement followed by an example. There's some 'opinion' in there but once again it is backed up evidence or, as one who is familar with the relevant sections of the 'good book' know he's correct.

However, compare this 'rebuttal'.

'You then move on to the second point, which contains the idea that the teachings of Christianity are "incredibly immoral." In your book, you make the same point about other religions. Apparently, basic morality is not all that self-evident.'

There you have it in all its penetrating veracity! Here's the short version...

CH - 'christianity is immoral because morality preceeded the 'events' in the old testement by the application of common sense and evidence of history.

DW- 'No it doesn't. Er, that's it.'

Other Comments by padster1976

48. Comment #55809 by Caveman on July 12, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I have to admire Wilson for being such a jackass. Most Christians at least try to fake being "nice".

Other Comments by Caveman

49. Comment #55810 by 3legcat on July 12, 2007 at 12:34 pm

There you have it in all its penetrating veracity! Here's the short version...

CH - 'christianity is immoral because morality preceeded the 'events' in the old testement by the application of common sense and evidence of history.

DW- 'No it doesn't. Er, that's it.'

i do not find this approach very powerful, because this is not what the christians i know believe. they believe that god created right and wrong and us with the ability tell the difference between them, and gave us the freewill to choose. that these "events" happened at creation and long before moses and mt sinai. they believe that the ten commandments were only a dramatic reminder, further more, moderate/liberal christians do even believe that, but that the OT is inspired fiction. an imperfect and childish human account of what really happened. certainly hitchens knows this, and i find this line of attack disingenuous on his part. his much more powerful arguments are his direct attacks on the nobility of faith itself. what is more telling in the ten commandants is not that people didn't know better till they read them, but that 4 of the ten are about belief itself, that what is most important to religion is the religion and its self perpetuation, that it uses every human weakness to continue itself.

to me the strong arguments go straight to the heart of the matter, faith:

why is believing in god more important than being good?

why would anyone want an after life of only joy? (sounds pretty dull to me)

the concept of hell and is an obvious man made idea, it is wicked cruel and stupid.

why didn't the world end in the lifetime of the apostles as jesus said it would?

religions come and go with each claiming to have the "inside track", but yours is different?

god can only be defended as long as he doesn't do anything.

does the study of anthropology, authoritarianism and confirmation bias explain religion better than theology?

could we keep the good things people do without religion and remove the harm it causes?


ok i am done now, i got a headache.

Other Comments by 3legcat

50. Comment #55846 by gr8hands on July 12, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Dear Mr. Wilson,

Atheists get their morality from the exact same place as theists -- from within their own mind, making choices that usually fit in with the culture they live in. Only the theists have the arrogance to say theirs is from god, making it absolute, unchangeable, and definitive for all time.

Let's look at that, with an example from the new testament shall we? Mark 10 discusses divorce and what Jesus is reported to have said about it. He was clear that divorce was always wrong, that Moses only authorized it because the Jews were so stubborn, but that it had always been a sin anyway. "11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

If the Moses was wrong about divorce, and his explicit instructions were actually causing people to sin for generations, why didn't god tell anyone about this mistake until Jesus came around? Or, is it simply more likely that this is a change.

Change, of course, means that the standard it was based upon could not possibly be absolute and unchanging. You see, the bible is internally inconsistent on this significant point, just as an example.

Of course, the best example is that one of the 10 commandments is "thou shalt not kill" and then shortly after giving that to the people, god tells them to slaughter the occupants of the land of milk and honey. So, either the rule is absolutely "thou shalt not kill" or not.

Of course, that conflicts with the admonition in Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Or all the many reasons in Leviticus that you shall be put to death.

Perhaps the commandment was "thou shalt not kill, except when god tells you to, or if you're executing someone that has committed some crime or sin to be announced in the future."

And Mr. Wilson, saying that Jesus came to "fulfill the law" doesn't alter the fact that his teachings changed the law. If something was a sin before Jesus, and isn't a sin now, then something has CHANGED. It hasn't been fulfilled, it's been changed. That can only mean the basis was not divine, absolute, unchanging morality.

Even if you believe that you're no longer under the law of Moses, THAT is a change! Something is either a sin or it isn't. It can't be both. If it depends, then the term "sin" is relative, which contradicts what you've said.

So, if you don't hold yourself to the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, you're choosing to be sinful. The internal mental mechanism of your choice is exactly the same as the internal mental mechanism of atheists -- you choose a morality that fits in with what you have already thought is good/evil based on internal instincts as part of a society. It is completely relative.

Had you been having this discussion 200 years ago, you might have tried to have Hitchens killed, and might have been successful. THAT is demonstration of the changing nature of morality.

Sincerely,

gr8hands, a Bright and an atheist

Other Comments by gr8hands