Sharpton / Hitchens Debate - Can Morality Exist Without God?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Complete video at: fora.tv/2007/05...
Author Christopher Hitchens debates the Reverend Al Sharpton on the question of whether morality can exist in the absence of God.
-----
A Debate: God Is Not Great with Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens.
Taking on possibly the greatest issue of our time - the malignant force of religion in the world - Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case against religion through a close and learned reading of the major religious texts, citing numerous historical instances in which sexual repression and outrageous acts of violence have been committed in the name of God. He argues for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble telescope's awesome view of the universe, and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry of the double helix. -- NYPL
Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist and literary critic. Now living in Washington, D.C., he has been a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Nation and Slate; additionally, he is an occasional contributor to many other publications.
Al Sharpton Jr. is a Pentecostal minister, a political activist, civil rights activist and film actor. In recent years, Sharpton has also become a perennial candidate in his quest for the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States. Author of "Go and Tell Pharaoh: The Autobiography of the Reverend Al Sharpton."
"If you're a black Christian, you have a real short memory" - Chris Rock.
Hmmmm; but Christian is nowhere in biblical text. Fascinating you would think that. However, Frederick Douglas believed in God. He did not believe the religious extremism he was under, but miraculously escaped for his freedom and lived to tell about it. I wouldn’t consider him a warped definition of the word Christian, but he most certainly believed in God!
What kind of memory, a memory like MLK or Harriet Tubman? Well, I'll take memories of God like they had over anything Chris Rock has!
@@jthanrubio1126 Thank you for proving my point - and I wager you're completely oblivious of it.
Adults are SUCH CHILDREN when it comes to god. It's like they are a bunch of first graders sitting around asking each other if they believe in Santa Claus. "I believe in god. Do you?" "Yes-I believe in god too". Fkn children. IF GOD WERE REAL HE WOULD SHOW HIMSELF IN WHATEVER WAY HE NEEDED TO IN ORDER TO MAKE IT SUPREMELY CLEAR THAT HE IS THERE AND EXISTS. But he doesn't. 25000 children die each day under age 5. Starvation, malnutrition, disease, homocide, accidents-AND ALL YOUR DAMNED GOD WANTS IS PRAISE AND TITHES AND ADORATION. FK HIM-let him get his adoration some other way. Name JUST ONE thing he does/has done to make the world a better, safer place.
@@aaricaceleste just for clarification the term Christian is in the biblical Text. Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
If you base morality on the dictates of Yahweh then you must concede that morality is mutable according to the whims of God. Rape, theft, genocide, infanticide (yes, God and God's people both killed babies) and murder were all either engaged in or ordered by the God of the Old Testament.
Religious morality is the RELATIVE morality. Atheistic morality, based on reason and empathy, while being subjective, is the CONSISTENT morality.
An atheist can say that genocide and the killing of innocents is ALWAYS wrong.
A theist can only say that it is wrong when God says it is wrong, and right when God says it is right.
The moral problem for theists is that anyone can claim that they are doing the will of God at any time to suit their selfish goals. No one can say that certain people were hearing the voice of God when he said 'kill your enemies' and other people are mistaken or lying when they slaughter for God.
The truth is the OPPOSITE of the theistic attack on atheistic morality. You can ONLY be a moral person if you reject the oscillatory pseudo-morality of the theistic God.
Sharpton really tries to act respond intellegently. doesn't work. What a fool.
I don't think he understood much of this.
Of course he didn't understand much of it. He had the nerve to call Hitchens arrogant. It's his arrogance that is keeping him from understanding what Hitch is saying!
His belief in a religion is the root cause. If he didn't believe in a religion I don't believe All would be arrogant, he wouldn't be a Reverend than either.
morality can only exist without god, for morality is what we think is right and wrong. in religion you only have orders, and you either obey or disobey. god ordered not to kill but ordered abe to kill his own son. against his own morality he wanted to please god. morally he knew it was wrong to kill his son but also knew disobedience of god meant hell. abe elects to kill his son. morality comes from religion? not even once. but its ok because later in the bible god took a whole village of first borns. so god still got what he wanted. obey or die and burn in hell. that is not how to build a moral compass.
Al is more of an intellect than I realized but Christopher should be declared a global treasure for his powerhouse intellect.
"Which is more likely? That the whole natural order is suspended, or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie."
that is just utter brilliance, love that quote!
@mez It's our human interpretation of Morality that is Subjective, but that doesn't stop there from being a Right and Wrong. It's like Truth. Our interpretation of Truth is Subjective, but things are still either objectively True or False. Our interpretation of suffering is subjective, but things either cause harm or don't. Thus by using suffering as a standard, which we do anyway, we can determine what is Moral is what helps us avoid harm and prosper, and what is Immoral is what causes harm.
YEAHHH Christopher!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Let's assume there is a God. How are we supposed to know what He thinks is moral?
We wouldn't know unless he told us somehow. Since he didn't there's no reason to assume that there is one.
because he said thy shall not kill and then told people to kill people. dont you understand his position?
***** The 10 commandments were written by men. Supposedly they were given to men by God, but we don't know that. We're just trusting the men that claimed that God talked to them.
Not to worry. He has given us his priests and his prophets to tell us. Of course, since all those who claim to among this elite, we must choose.
@LemUUU Exactly! We have the ability to reason the consequences of our actions, and that is what stops us from running wild. It doesn't take a supernatural being to make us "do good". Of course someone could make the argument that every action a person takes is therefore "selfish", but that would require a redefinition of what the word "selfish" fundamentally means in the context of a functioning society.
"Morality is innately in us" should be understood figuratively, not literally. Selfishness comes from our genes (not exactly "coincedental masses of tissue"), and morality/altruism is an important part of selfishness. In our evolution, we needed to cooperate with each other in order to survive and reproduce. We treat our family altruistically because they're likely to share our genes. We keep promises because we expect others to do the same (reciprocate). Morality is the expression of our genes.
@mezz But we make those definitions from our own observations, what stops our observations from being subjective? If moral values are not based on facts and observation but just on personal opinion, there is no reason to hold on to them. All beings try to avoid suffering. We feel pain so we avoid harm because harm can lead to death, and all life seeks to live. If i'm an axe-murderer most people would think i was bad, not because of personal opinion, but because i am a danger to their well being.
Moral (definition): "expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior". This concept is only practiced when there is fear involved, wether it's fear of God (or a supreme being), authority, or the fear of being repelled, subjigated or injured mentally or physically by one's loved ones, peers, enemies or society in general. In otherwords, people practice morals as a survival mechanism, nothing more. Survival of the species trumps all.
@sleepyredbull I see i may have gotten over wrong :-) I completely agree with everything you wrote, i was just taking up your comment and answering it in regard of Religion's use of the words "guidance", "protection" and "lost". It wasn't meant to be a direct answer to you using them, if you know what i mean. I may be lacking a bit of grammatic precision in my argument since i'm from Austria (Vienna) :-)
@WellConditionedChimp Unfortunately this clip does not frame his bias but in the complete interview he starts by laughing at pointing out his views on Mother Theresa and continues to used the word devil in association with Hitchens. Sharptons intro was just about his accomplishments and none of Sharptons controversial statements are mentioned. All the questions given to Hitchens are harsh "what do you have against religion" against the softball questions given to Sharpton.
Most of the commandments have nothing to do with modern law
to understand. Anselm coined the phrase used in theological circles that God is, something than which nothing greater can be thought." It is impossible to not think the word God because the existence of God is ingrained into everyone. Those refusing the deity of God, can not remove God from their minds because it is the highest thought one can think. Denying God existence proves his existence. Your efforts to disprove God's existence is proving his existence.
Thank you --I dearly needed that.
Oh Al 🤦♀️
@OkWheresMyMonkey I see. Firstly please quote the verse you're referring to. My contention is that defining morality based on something like "They stoned their children.." might not be comensurate with God's instruction and that determining this requires a careful theological study. Secondly and more importantly, you're referring to the Old Testament documents such as Deutronomy which had a particular morality for a particular people at a particular time (as opposed to the New Testament, Christ)
How does blindly following what god tells you to do (assuming this is possible) make anyone moral?
The conscience, is something innate, but when one is born, the brain is gap so it is filled from all kinds of information, then it 's where somebody end up getting the behaves by being seen for other people, and being judged, i mean by that sometimes misjudged, or simply judged at his, or her attitudes, or behaves.
@davidmelnick: I apologize for other Christians that do not walk in the Spirit but walk after the flesh, or the things of this passing world (1 John 2:15-17). I cannot answer for others who profess with their mouth that they are for Christ but their hearts being distant from who they call Lord.I can answer for myself David and please listen,it is all about your personal relationship with the Son of God. People will fail you but there is a comfort,safety and defence beyond any ways of this world.
@WitnessoftheTruth Heard it before.
Which do you think it will be? a, b, or c? I'm guessing b, but it well could be a.
What is wrong with believing in god or the teachings of the word? What is wrong with not believing in god and the teachings of the word. I am not sure that either gentlemen could emerge victorious in such a debate.
@TheSindakit
actually no, it was confucius and buddha who had said it first, but that isn't the point. the point is that it's a completely secular maxim; a god doesn't need to reveal the golden rule to us, we can figure it out perfectly well on our own and also, a god doesn't need to exist in order for it to be meaningful.
Please explain more about religion softening the minds of Stalin/ Maos folowers .I agree with you but need it explained more .
@Scape9047 I don't know what you would think. I on the otherhand would think of whether its moral or not. It matters because those whom believe there is an absolute objective morality believe its from a supernatural force and that humans could not be or act moral without this supernatural implantation. Its an insult to everything we've worked towards and evolved to.
@1tabligh Its not matter in its ignorance, its matter in its tangibility, and demonstrability.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism". The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives. Also, the Bible condemns& DOES NOT support slavery.
@flylike1 -well, yes- "really"! I know it's difficult here to make the point, but I would highly suggest that you make use of a BIble commentary (such as Strong's) and take an in depth comparative study course on the writing of the Apostle Paul- e.g. Galatians. Sadly, you merely repeat a common error of people who have the bad habit of quoting proof texts and scriptures out of context (this, BTW is the main methodology of muslims).Also see,Susan Wise Bauer, The History of the Ancient World.
Same problem in some of these debates with the Hitch. He studies both sides of the argument. The other side double down on their views limiting their appeal to an agnostic or undecided audience.
@mezzanur I never used the word develope. I'm saying our sense of morality evolved with us. When we were apes what was good and bad was the same as it is today but our capacity for understanding and behaving morally was limited. As we evolved we could make more complex judgments about what is good or bad. Objective morality is the abstract, we have to perceive what is moral ourselves the same we have to perceive what is true, using logical and reason. It is our perception that is subjective.
"To make a good person do an evil thing that takes religion"
"So you think every evil thing was done by a religious person?"
These are the people who challenge us
Well thats essentially what Hitchens says, atheists cant do evil only religion can do it. Chris didnt even respond to it
@@ceceroxy2227 no, that isn't what he said meant. I know simple logic can be difficult for theists, but that isn't what that means.
By who's measurement do we can someone "good?" Good only has value as a frame of reference to that of a perfect and objective standard. Without God who is the perfect standard of goodness all the time (Gahdi, Mother Teresa, Mr. Hitchens)?. Goodness itself becomes irrelevent to the conversation without a perfect good. Without a perfect good we are left with moral relativism for you may think Gahdi was good, but anyone who knew him would tell you he wasn't "perfectly good."
Also I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "atheistic" modern medicine. Do you mean to say that the medicinal field today is dominated by primarily atheists? =) If you could clarify that would be much appreciated.
something's wrong with UA-cam. My first comment wasn't posted. I was trying to clear things out but, anyway... Attending to masses inspire you to do good more than the limited uplifting effect inspirational movies can offer.
Sharpton - "without god what is morality based on?"
Does he really think that's a difficult question to answer?
Then he says "we'll just decide morality based on any given time, because there is nothing up there governing it anyway" - there you go you've answered your original question!
An athiest can not obey the great commandment, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind'
@0hN0M3l0n Actually, a change in language is something that can be documented in time unlike becoming a man. A change in language has an origin. Someone has to start it. Without the Tower of Babel, then at some point someone said, "I don't like this language I'm using, I'm going to create another, and another, and another and......." The process may have been long but who started it?
Thankfully Modern juris prudence was not founded nor where the laws of the country founded on any Godless Atheism. What where they founded on?
@EJNewbury I said good shot. I didn't say he hit any targets. I don't think the word SERIOUSLY is necessary. Your passion sounds like something else. Yes, I agree that Hitchens owned Sharpton. You're looking for something else in my comment. I should have been a little more precise
Incorrect; there is no ABSOLUTE definition of morality, and there never was nor will be anywhere on Earth. But lots of societies tend to have similar morals because they are in similar situations and share similar histories. If anything the fact that so many societies independently came up with such similar sets of rules governing behavior yet have totally different ideas about their "creator" shows that no supernatural force was involved.
Argument from consequences. Whether objective morality exists or not has to do with truth and evidence, not with what bad could result from the idea.
@WitnessoftheTruth People like you are the reason I don't take religious argument seriously.
"Any healthy humans has a conscience."
I agree, but that healthy conscience can and does lead us down immoral paths. If your claim is that everybody who does something immoral is doing so because of faulty biochemistry or because of a disregard of their conscience, I'd have to disagree. There are plenty of healthy, conscious-containing people who do immoral things and I would argue that the cause is that they're ignorant of what exactly constitutes as moral.
Did I really just hear Hitchens say that Stalin would have been crazy NOT to abuse his own people?!?!?!
I think that is a very good point.
Regardless of your opinion of Christopher Hitchens or his points of view, you must acknowledge that he is an absolutely superb orator.
Why?
@@aaricaceleste Why what, honey?
The video is missing entire debate, so I’m unable to tell if he’s a great orator or not.
@@aaricaceleste you can find him in many other videos. If you are a believer I’m sure you will not like his point of view, but if you can overlook that I think you’ll agree he is very good at oration.
@@tommym321 Perhaps.
BTW, how suitable is it for Sharpton of all people to bat for god given his notorious record for, shall we say, continuous evasion from Christ’s prescribed “rendering unto Caesar”?
What is illustrated by the Old Testament is that the 10 commandments only govern human morality, and God lives above these rules, apparently having no moral code of his own. This massively questions his moral ability, as how can a moral code from one who is without morals be trusted? In fact this provides basis for beginning to argue that morality necessarily should come from outside of the Bible, as God's moral compass seems hugely flawed, as illustrated by his actions in the Old Testament.
Sharpton appears as a simple populist, spewing phrases/(pompous words and catchy interpretations), trying to win cheap scores, while Christopher Hitchens, uses a scientific, intellectual way of understanding the argument. Chris is definitely the superior factor here!
Some of the problems with the concept that the xian god has supplied us with morality:
1. Why would someone like Stalin or Hitler do as they do if god had imbued us with a common morality?
2. Why do different societies have different moral standards?
3. Why would moral standards change throughout time if they were developed by and strictly enforced by god?
4. Why would EVERY culture has a set of moral standards even if they had never heard of god or xianity have any moral standards at all?
@Grendo147 I meant it says that morality exists in those who don't believe in God, lol my mistake. Nice one.
Sharpton attempting to using secular examples of tyranny to support why theism is necessary to have a moral society is a moot point. The fact is while there are some secular political structures that are immoral there are some that aren't, while with all religious political structures there are none that ARE moral.
--> that the people i know and care about, haven't done anything like that as far as i know.
Liars hate to be confronted by truth
That innate sense can and does go wrong. You can't seriously be claiming that everybody that has ever done an immoral act was either insane or chemically unbalanced. (German citizens alright with their neighbors being rounded up and murdered, the code of the streets which prohibits 'snitching') Religion is not the only structure that provides people with a reason to do bad things.
@sleepyredbull Please do not go down the kabbalistic science approach although some of it seems logical its a combination of psuedo religion & psuedo science. Just stick with quantum spirituality (it's broad, detailed & logical- it also doesnt limit its opinion like kabbala its open to new idea). As for your second question the best book which combines the holographic theory and quantum spirituality & also my favourite book is "the holographic universe" by Micheal Talbot it's a sem-easy read :)
No, there is no objective standard if there is no God. In order for an objective standard to be in place, there must some form of authority through which that objective standard flows. Objectivity requires externality. Without God, we can't assess 'life' or 'existence' any worth. With that as the case, morality MUST be subjective. Once morality is deemed subjective, morality no longer exists. It's as if 'red' was subjective. Anybody could call any color 'red' and nobody would be wrong.
of course it's true. Morality certainly never came nor never could come from atheism.
Getting back to the Abrahamic religious practices would definitely be a plus in this day and age.
Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity
Why are people without even a preliminary grasp of the philosophy of ethics, such as Al Sharpton here, considered moral authority?
There is moral philosophy that is hundreds of years old that proves that objective morality can be discoupled from immaterial mechanisms, and even if it couldn't, there is no proof of any god, so why is Sharpton acting as if he has a mechanism of conclusive objective morality to argue from?
@jojoane The problem with Ayn is that reason didn't go too well with her self-aggrandized sense of self.
I would also ask you what is wrong with my two-pronged level? What other possibilities are imaginable? How would explain, without utilizing God, that stealing food for your starving family is wrong? How would you explain that assault is wrong, without God? Without an objective, external entity, one can justify anything. I would challenge you to propose an action that is 'immoral', even without a God.
@transtlantic Christianity saves people physcologically. It gives them inspiration and optimism. I know that because I am a Christian.
Nothing but history and overwhelming evidence behind him, that's all. Being correct often does come off as arrogance to someone who is hopelessly wrong and unwilling to reconsider their position.
You totally missed his point, and I will try to rectify this:
Imagine you poured a bowl of Alphabits cereal into your cereal bowl... In case you are unaware, Alphabits cereal has all the letters of the English Language in tasty cereal bit sizes...
Now suppose you were to not eat this bowl of cereal but were to look for words instead...
What are the chances you will find a 2 letter word like "No" or "Is"? Very likely.
How about a bigger word... like "Hello"... not likely, but it is possible
@OkWheresMyMonkey You can contemplate these things as much as you like, I'm not saying you can't. But you'll probably come to the wrong conclusion like you are now with your Biblical interpretation. When one studies at Tertiary level one always defers to an authrotative source greater than oneself if they encounter difficulty. Tell me why you think this scenario is different?
hitchens is right. people should not do good things because god wants them to, people should do good things because they are good.
@OkWheresMyMonkey The reason why we're having this futile discussion is because the Bible is subject to differing interpretations. If you have particular objections you must go to the proper arbitrating authority, in this case the Catholic Church, they cononised the books of the Bible at the councils of Hippo and Catharge, circa 4th - 5th century AD. It's analogous to law, you and I might have two different interpretations and hence we'd seek a higher legal *authority*, such as the Supreme court
This is the problem I have with this. Christopher Hitchens approaches this debate very intellectually and with class in his answers. Whereas the Reverend, who one would believe would approach this with more class and kindness in his answers being a Reverend and what not, comes off as confrontational and rude in some of his responses. The line about "Don't look at the referee for help I'm right here" makes me believe that the religious one actually has worse manners and morals than the atheist.
Actually they wanted to keep politics out of religion or rather The State out of the Church.
@MagicTimeVideos --I know God exists. Psalm 14 & Psalm 53. No valid question there.
@WILLTHEWGMAN "All Atheists if honest in science alone should reject all morality the same as they do religion and any philosophy as only opinion."
Philosophy is still logical conjecture, not opinion. Logic is objective. That's why it works.
In both theistic and secular philosophy, suffering being "bad" is self-evident, because it is; therefore the minimization of suffering is a logical goal for how to act. You don't even know what moral objectivism is if you think it has to do with authority.
before some mainstream world deity came about people decided what to do and not to do by themselves for tens of thousands of years. that's how we did it, with our own ridiculously intelligent, rational and logical brains that we've all had from birth. not a big fuckin surprise to anyone raised sans religion
Agreed, Hitchens derogatory comments were meant to intimidate Al Sharpton. I really found Hitchens a little hard to understand. Just what point was he making, with all those joke type insults.? Which wasn't answering the question.
@nVei06 I love the way your attacking the morals of atheists while saying someone " should be found and killed" for expressing an opinion. Your a smart guy
I agree with hitchens on many things, but I must come to Sharpton's defense. His question about morality was not answered. He did a bad job of getting his question answered. Hitchens brought up how religion has justified acts deemed by many is immoral, but not about how a governing power could be the only final say in an ultimate morality.
@VitalSigns1 , disagree. We most certainly do NOT do all that we want. Why there is the punishing arm of the law. Fear keeps us in check. Look at the looting ,etc, that jumps up when a catastrophe happens and the police or others can't respond. dbmcmillan has a valid point.
What laws are you talking about? If you're making the "teleological argument" there are plenty of sites with ripostes if you google. An easy way to think about it is like this. If you hit a golf ball, and it lands on a blade of grass in a sea of millions. You don't say "wow! Of ALL the blades of grass, it landed on THIS one! There must be a god!" You dont' say that, you say "well, it had to land somewhere." What you perceive to be order maybe not be as ordered as you think.
@83Hammerhead ,
When U say that at least they are not harming anyone by their actions, have you not made a dogmatic statement and declared it to be moral?
So U now declare also sex between a mother and son moral and sex between a father and daughter moral.
Would U say that all those who oppose this position have a morality that springs from another basis than reasoning?
Unless of course there is moral merit to what consitutes a family.
cont
If you do not take them literally, then you take them figuratively.
How come you cannot apply this to the "Pantheonic" religions as well? Perhaps they are written in the same fashion?
It is extremely self-serving to say that Christianity should not be held under the same standards as the other religions, which is what you seem to be implying...
@WakeUpMightyEarth He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." John 8:47
That's a big negative. Morality is a learned response and empathy is developed and conducive to our environment and upbringing. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Humans have an empathetic sense, biologically speaking, so why not base morality on that? The goodwill and empathy for other human beings, instead of basing it upon a fictional book which is thousands of years old...
@brokentwice78 What about animal morality? Are they divinely inspired as well?
I already answered the Catholic priest and cult leader thing in my last post. The location of the Ark is a matter of much heated debate some claim it's in Ethiopia others claim its buried somewhere under Jerusalem. Frankly as a Christian I don't really care because as a Christian I don't need the object just the commandments.
@ristan57
thats funny you would say that because there are plenty of scientists that believe in God & some dont...would you call those scientist who believe gullable? God exists independent of your belief. PERIOD
@sleepyredbull Personally, i never made the connection between Religion and "guidance" or "protection". It never occured to me that people would need Religion for those things because i didn't and no one i grew up with or know today does. Not one person i know is religious in any way and yet they lead a normal life without being immoral or "lost", whatever the bleeding hell that means in the first place...
@rockafelladw By that logic, then your god does no better since people don't agree on gods. Why is there so much variation in morality if morals are only given by god?
As a black person, I am ashamed that Sharpton has such a following in the black community.
Initially Morals came from religion and religion came form God. Atheism may or may not be alright for individuals? but look at those countries under institutionalized Atheism: Russia under stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under pol pot. Psalm 14 & Psalms 53
Either you go to heaven no matter what,as long as you believe,as some believe.Or you go to hell no matter how good you were,even if you believed,because you didn't truly love god,and just wanted to avoid hell,because god can see what's truly in your heart,as some believe.Either way,that kills the idea of no morality without god.
@MJMiller7 Ah, but you do tell me these things because they are written in a book, a book written hundreds of years after the so called existence of jesus, and more importantly, a book written by man. Hitchens isn't making wild claims about anything, so there's no reason to take what he says as beleif.
it's 4:30 in the morning. GOD DAMMIT HITCH
@MJMiller7
I'll send you a message
"The high and low pressure systems usually develop due to temperature differences.
Temperature differences result in pressure differences and this causes the air to move."
Learn some instead of speaking out of IGNORANCE.
@1tabligh We don't have "creators" and yes scientists do come to this conclusion because we do know where the elements that contitute our bodies came from. You seem to be of the position that because our universe is too complicated and unlikely to come about on its own it must have come from a creator.
First of all, I never endorsed the morality of the Judeo-Christian God or the morality of the Bible. You imagined that (strawman) and then refuted it. In addition, you yourself admit that our species doesn't know right from wrong. I just proposed two examples of group consensus morality and you believed them to be behaving morally. That doesn't cut it with me. Also, a 'celestial dictator' would imply that we're incapable of not following his orders, which we clearly are, so that's false.