(Not) Answering Hitchens' Impossible Question (Mike Winger response)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2021
- Christopher Hitchens was well-known for is debating theists and making fools of them, at least from the perspective of some people. Christian Apologist Mike Winger was struck by a particular challenge that he threw out regularly in debates. While none of his debate partners (to Mike's knowledge) ever offered a good response to his challenge, Mike thinks he has the perfect answer.
But did Mike miss the point of the question?
Answering Hitchens' Impossible Question
• Answering Hitchens' Im...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
99.99% of all religious vs. atheist arguments could be settled just by religious people understanding that the question "is atheism true" makes no fucking sense.
Don't make this easier than it has to be.
Part of their indoctrination includes implanting strawmen in all opposing positions.
Ikr? When that comes up, you know that they're not even trying to understand.
under calvinism every statement makes epiphenomenally nonsense.
YES! William Lane Craig ALWAYS uses that ridiculous language. And he calls himself a PHILOSOPHER! Jesus!
Mike's not even really answering the question, because he's not proposing a new moral behavior at all. Showing love is the fundamental behavior he's describing, and atheists can show love to anybody around them who evidently exists. Mike's just trying to package the act of directing this same behavior toward God as a NEW behavior so he can smuggle it past us as an actual answer to Hitchens' question. The only new thing he's bringing to the table is a new being we can choose to exhibit existing actions toward or not - and we already knew that, so his is a spectacularly useless response. By his logic, the moment anybody proposes any new being (Bigfoot, for example), they can instantly produce endless new moral imperatives such as "loving Bigfoot," "showing kindness to Bigfoot," "defending your family against Bigfoot," and so on. Why did Mike not reflect on how embarrassing this is before saying it in public?
Hey PoZ... i just wrote a comment above, musing a bit about how the story Whinger appeals to, the Tower of Babel actually shows god's (or "the gods' ") insecurity about humans "being able to do whatever they put their mind to" without any influence of god, if they only are left to try... wouldn't that ... in the spirit of countless apologetical arguments about the bible being perfect in any part ... mean that god itself admits that atheism is superior and to be feared? ;)
I'm sure as it was a spontaneous thought I did not fully think through all possible philosophical curls and twists and I did not really look the story up in a bible to see if anything in it would directly contradict the idea, but it MIGHT be something you would have fun with looking into in the future... We could even start a new bumpersticker campaign ... "Man's success is god's distress" or something like that :D
Deep, deep down in their heart, every blood cell is happily atheist. So all religious people are atheists to their core. So, everything they do, is done by an atheist. 🥁
Does God love God? He is the measure of Good, so if he doesn't, then loving God is not Moral.
Nothing other than any reason to love God prevents an atheist from Loving God. Unless God doesn't exist, in which case the theist cannot love God either. And if God DOES exist, then nothing other than the lack of meeting with the atheist and showing they are worthy of being loved prevents an atheist from loving God, so it is all in that case God's fault.
One of the few times I've audibly reacted to a video.
"...is loving god!"
"Whhhhhat?"
Wanna run that by us one more time? Your moral action that atheists can't do is... love? Specifically for a creature which, if present at all, is arguably the most horrible, unjust, jealous, tyrannical creature imaginable?
Though, loving god as if it were real is one of the very few things that Christians can do, that atheists by definition can't. So we gotta give him some slack, right? That's how this works?
@@ferociousfeind8538 Actually, the only way NOT to be able to love God is if God doesn't exist, meaning the action cannot be taken by either theist or atheist alike. But someone NOT currently loving God is NOT evidence that they CANNOT love God. They just have no reason to.
Oh I would love to have seen this guy putting his answer to Hitchins himself.
He was flustered by Dilahunty. I don't think he'd even slow Hitchens down.
@@goldenalt3166
To be fair, how many people DID slow Hitchens down?
Hitch-slap incoming. Prepare for shame and embarrassment.
Hitch Slap!
@@Diviance None that im aware of.
"If they ask a question you don't know how to answer, they think they've won" ... the projection is so strong here. How many times has an atheist been asked "Why is there something instead of nothing?" as if being unable to answer means the answer is GOD.
If one could answer that question they would in essence be god as far as I can tell.
Because it might be that nothing isn't even a possibility. There's no indication that there ever could be nothing, nothing is an abstract philosophical concept humans made up.
In fact, one of the most fundamental laws of physics is already quite convincing evidence that "nothing" isn't even a possibility.
If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that already implies the impossibility of "nothing". Matter and energy exist. They cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, the entire concept of there ever being "nothing" - as in, there not being any matter or energy - is entirely absurd.
@@jvlaina I agree, I do think people can be brought up in an environment where you are mocked or belittled if you can't repeat the prescribed answer to a question the right way, and others can be brought up where questioning is ok even if you don't have answers. I think that kind of upbringing can have huge consequences later in life.
Can you show that nothing is even a possibility?
> "If they ask a question you don't know how to answer, they think they've won" ... the projection is so strong here.
The prime example of this off the top of my head was when a Stephanie from FL called the AXP, who at around the 5 minute mark took exception to atheists saying 'I don't know' to questions: ua-cam.com/video/m7tueyUObpc/v-deo.html
How is loving _anything_ automatically moral? Even more so when Mike himself says we were "made for" loving god.... in what world is it moral to create a sentient being for the purpose of having that being love and worship you? That seems downright repugnant to me.
I agree. Also if you don't worship/love him and or mock him then he punishes you for eternity. For that I tell them that their god is a "soy boy".
Agreed, but then you'd have to discuss/define 'morality' to get into it, which would rather prove the point of the starting question
Reasons...
General antinatalism deems it immoral to create morally gifted beings.
I am not morally gifted enough to understand or even act upon the argument.
@@porchhonky9146 I would just call him what he is, a narcissistic tyrant. There's no need to bring in pseudoscience and toxic ideas about masculinity.
“Not even Pascal Wagering…” Paulogia, what book do you get your dad jokes from? THAT WAS AWESOME! Wish you well.
Was it a joke? I thought he was serious - that the prohibition on gambling extended even to rhetorical arguments.
@@tetsujin_144 ,
And... a lot of religions don't support questioning the faith...
I find Dad Jokes just come naturally to dad's, it's like some weird instinct father's possess.
knowing Viced Rhino, Brainy Beaver and other Canucklandians i'd say it's in their citizenship tests or something.
Him saying that is as nonsensical as saying Christians can't love unicorns.
Oooooh unicorns. I loooooooove unicorns.
@@rhabdob3895 one horn rhinos are great
Exactly, because he hasn’t demonstrated this Yahweh character exists then essentially all he’s said is he loves his imaginary friend which I’m not sure is moral because that would be delusional behaviour.
Tithing has always been a form of extortion.
At its base, tithing is a form of socialism, those who have, giving to, or supporting, those who have not.
Glad to see christians being good little socialists.
Marx would be proud.
@@alking9022 I would almost agree with you except that given the vast real estate holdings of the Catholic Church, LDS and certain TV preachers needing new Gulfstream jets, very little is going to those who have not. In fact, in some cases, the have nots are encouraged to increase their “prayer offerings” in order to improve their lot. It doesn’t usually change anything for them except to leave them with even less. But they feel good so their prayer offerings are working. The pain comes when the rent is due and the shelves are empty.
@@alking9022 The term "socialism" refers to production, distribution and exchange owned or regulated by the community AS A WHOLE. The phrase "division of church and state" (and no taxes by the church) means no one's tithes go to anything but the church. The church is not the whole community.
@@alking9022 tithing is taking the results of the labour of others and distributing it among the ruling class of the church almost exclusively. Churches and religious organisations benefit from tax exemptions and also the use of tax funds of both believers and non believers to conduct activities to assist those in need. nothing they do resembles socialism.
Tithing as defined in the OT seems most similar to contemporary taxation which is used for community services -- in a world without a governmental infrastructure to provide such services, tithes through religions served that need, not to mention in English law taxes are gifts to the community, much like a tithe is defined by most religions
His entire premise is begging the question from the onset. Loving god as the most moral imperative assumes god’s existence.
But even if we concede god’s existence, it still doesn’t tell us WHY loving god is a moral imperative. Simply because he said so? Committing actions simply because they’re dictated by an authority figure isn’t morality.
According to many Christians, following God's authority is what defines morality.
Loving a certain religions god might be viewed as immoral by believers of other religions.
Very much so. Christians themselves, of Mike's ilk, would think that loving any other god other than his own to be immoral. Tell Mike you love Lord Krishna and he will probably tell you that you are deluded and/or that Krishna is a demon; that in placing your love on a false god you are sinning against the real god.
It's moral to love a being who will torture you if you don't? Sounds more like obedience based on threat to me.
And torture you FOREVER, too.
How is being threatened to love someone or be tortured a moral thing to do?
Exactly, it’s just a god administered extortion racket: love & worship me and I won’t throw you into hell for eternity.
Stockholm syndrome
His answer made no sense. The most moral thing you can do is to toss the ring of Sauron into Mount Doom.
One "Ring" (God) to Rule Them All? ✌ May all sentient beings be liberated from sufferings ✌ {:-)
The most moral thing you can do is save John Connor from a Terminator.
@@pandora8610 In either case, it must be cast into the fire! Be done with it!
😂🤣😂🤣...at 4:00 when he talks about a "lack of self-awareness"😂🤣😂🤣
It's his biggest weapon after all :D
"pop atheism online" quickly poisons the well before getting started.
Could just as easily refer to what winger does as pop Christianity.
@@uninspired3583 literally
I am a Christian and I find your approach and videos very respectful and intellectual.
Wow, I'm surprised you take the time to try and understand the world from a former Christians perspective. As a former Christian and an apostate, I really appreciate that.
Early Quakers in England used to walk around naked to outrage Anglicans as well as other dissenters. Was that moral or immoral?
That was hilarious, is what that was.
The irony is that once you get aware what "taking the Lord's name in vain" REALLY means in Jewish context, Pascal's wager actually DOES become blasphemy...
Oh no caring about other people more than some random god! The horror!
Not here to debate just here to see atheist arguments! But the next command that Jesus gives us is to love our neighbor as ourselves. So when we love God we should also be living others or His love flows through us unfortunately we’re all sinners as well so there are time we fall short. Praise God for His grace through Jesus Christ our LORD God bless!
@@grantcaldwell1938 so you say "But" and agree with what you're responding to.
interesting.
@@thinboxdictator6720 thanks for the advice
Loving god isn’t a moral thing and is certainly not the most moral thing a Christian can do that an atheist can’t do. Hitchens wins.
He needs to prove his assertion that loving "god" is moral.. did he do that?
@@aralornwolf3140 They assume morals come from god written to our hearts giving the example of killing a child for fun is immoral is a general moral rule accepted by everyone. How come loving god is a moral thing atheists cant do but they can, when loving god is already a subjective matter, spesific to theists, not a shared concept. By that logic, apparently throwing a person to active volcano is a moral thing too that atheists cant do but they can
obeying determism is an absolutely epiphenomenally moral thing to be done.
Does God love God? If not, it isn't moral to do so. It isn't in the bible, either.
@@markhackett2302 In my opinion, when it comes to morals, issue is not secular morality or according to christians "immorality". There is no one single christian who obeys moral rules in the bible. It is not like they dont obey because "we are all sinners" as they say. They dont obey them because they see them as immoral. They see Bible immoral, whether they accept it or not . You cant see any christian today while burning witches, getting slaves and many more things that I can find in the bible. Despite those things are moral according to bible, no one even thinks about doing those things. I would like to ask this question to any christian, If god morally perfect why dont you obey those things.
Every single time with these apologists it's the smug supercilious arrogance that gets me. It's the one thing that I know I can always count on recieving from believers.
It is because they can't stand it that people are ridiculing their beliefs.
@@roqsteady5290 no we’re ridiculing THEM because of their beliefs.
Amen, Bro--my sentiments--the arrogance is stifling. ✌
Irony
argh, if only Hitch was still around. 🙁
For many reasons but the epic hitchslap after this one would be a fine thing
@@bodricthered the hitch-waveform remains un-collapsed
He'll be in hell, if you wanna find him anywhere.
@@jacques9515 Why would he be in hell? - Oh that's right, for the heinous crime of failing to worship an entity for which there is no evidence of existence. I love your user name, btw. I used to have an imaginary friend a long time ago when I was growing up but I put him away when I was about 7, the fact that you didn't is quite cute, if a little sad and depressing.
Everybody keeps saying, “If only Hitch were around to respond.” Why? Don’t you already know how he would respond, if you’re such a devotee to him? Man, the amount of people devoted to this guy is absurd lol
Let's invert Mike's assertion: Not loving God is immoral.
To me this is clearly a category error. Morality has to do with behavior; not feelings.
Yes ! Mate you nailed it and could have saved paul 11 minutues. Although he could read the weather and still be entertaining.
Loving is a verb
Ah, but lusting is adultery, hating is murder, etc etc etc
It is begging the question in favour of theism
I can do the same by asking "give evidence for God" while assuming naturalistic world view. This would bite those theists in their back
But then I saw that Sean McDowell objected to it. Same with this
@@jacques9515a verb for an action that takes place entirely in a person's body, which is called emotion, and couldn't be faked to an all knowing being. So, whether a person "loves god" is an entirely automatic chemical reaction, and therefore, not able to be judged by a moral god
Growing up I had 3 piggy banks - Savings, Spending, and Tithing. Tithing was never the needed 15%, so I had to invent a stash spot for my extra money so the relative percentage of my Tithing went up. Taught me precious life skills of avoiding taxes.
Be careful, or you'll end up like Kent Hovind.
A cornerstone of christianity in the US. There’s a good lad.
@@bdf2718 Good point! Luckily I had developed a moral compass that has a true North, rather than the religious compass that seems to change direction quite often.
@@TheDaggwood The religious compass of the apologists and evangelists points reliably in one direction: it points towards money.
@@bdf2718 I won't argue with you, the tax-free haven of a church has become ripe for abuse. But I can say with 100% honesty that not all evangelists do it for the money. I have known more than one on a very personal level that gave all the money back or took none at all to begin with. These evangelists just came to a different conclusion about the nature of our Universe, but didn't do so in any malicious way. They think God is real just as much as those in attendance to their service(s).
Look at it like this - At the height of my belief I wanted to evangelize and spread the "good word". I had no ill will toward others, in fact I wanted to help them! Money was the last thing on my mind, and that was from the perspective of a true believer.
Of course I'll concede that many pastors and church leaders lose faith and never admit to it, making money their new focus. Very sad indeed.
I think he had a Freudian slip at 9.20 when he first says "a Christian" and then catches himself and say "a human".
I think that is telling something about his beliefs.
I high key want to see where you took Frank Turek's "if you don't know the answer just say Jesus" clip from.
UA-cam :P
I meant the original video.
Tithing is a tax on gullibility.
Im gonna use that! Tks!
That definition is used to explain lotteries too. What’s funny is, at least there’s a CHANCE of you benefitting from a lottery.
@@EverettVinzant you CAN also benefit from belonging to a church... there are a lot of social aspects of groups supporting their community that are very good for your mental health for example... and an unscrupulous being could e.g. also seduce believers of a female persuasion *wink wink nudge nudge*
It's just way less direct and obvious as winning a jackpot or even a third tier prize...
That's not accurate. When I tithed in the past if the church wasn't clearly using the money for good then I would spend 10% of my income each month directly on needy persons. If someone was homeless, hungry, had lost belongings in an accident or disaster or needed help with medical bills this was my tithe.
@@Grock620 But a) did you stop going to church and b) why call it tithe - just donate to worthy causes because you want to.
The mere statement that an atheist cannot love what they consider a fictional character is also false. Fictional characters can definitely be loved.
How is love, an emotion, be moral or immoral? Emotions could be rational or irrational, but it can not be moral. If Hitler's mother loved him, is she immoral? How would you even quantify that? Loving god simply isn't moral or immoral. It's a ridiculous claim, but almost all Christian claims are ridiculous.
I love hearing christian claims being shot full of holes by Paulogia, Aron Ra, Seth Andrews and all the rest of the online atheist community. That's what I love!
To the christian, loving God is a commandment. To them, God is the source of morality, therefore obeying and loving him defines what morality is.
In their mind, we have redefined morality to exclude God.
This is primarily a problem of definitions, which is why I don't really like the Hitchens challenge. The christian answers loving God, as if its the most clear and obvious thing, and the atheist says it doesn't count. We're still at odds, we haven't solved anything with the challenge. For it to work we have to agree on what morality is first, then the challenge could have some teeth.
I do however really like Pauolgia's assessment, very succinct and clear description of the problem of theist morality.
@@uninspired3583 Does God love God? God is the measure of moral, so if he doesn't, then loving God is not a moral act.
@@uninspired3583 If I die, go to Heaven and God is there, a nice guy who explains why Earth is so f-d, I can love that God just as easily as any other person.
But isn't "loving God" predicated on God ACTUALLY EXISTING? Therefore it removes all validity of the theists' position to do so. Mike just said so.
@@markhackett2302 this is my point, the challenge itself smuggles in a moral standard that isn't agreed on.
I'm not defending theist morality, I fully agree with Paulogia here, it's bankrupt.
I'm just saying the challenge doesn't solve the problem of us not seeing eye to eye with theists.
I'm a simple person....I see a Paulogia video, I press the like button.
Also uses the hackiest of stolen internet memes lol
@@rob-890 Yes, but that is because I'm also extremely lazy ....
So does Mike think that it's "moral" for someone "to love" ANOTHER god or it just applies to HIS?? 🤔
I'm sure christians would be fine with Buddhists as long as they pray to yaweh every once in a while.
Seeing as the first 4 commandments can be summed up as "I'm YOUR GOD bitches, fuck those posers, no pictures", my guess is no.
@@Lightman0359 lol...
Not sure that Hitch would consider "loving God" to be a moral action in any way, or even an act you can choose to undertake.
Hitch would very rightly point out that the people who "love God" the most would be considered the least moral people in the world. He answered a similar question about... it's been a while. Something like 'wouldn't you feel safer walking the street after church services just ended?' and he went through a list of some cities starting with the letter B where he had done exactly that and it was the WORST time to be out on the streets.
So I'm sure he precisely *_wouldn't_* consider it moral. I wouldn't either. Anyone who thumps the bible is tacitly endorsing slavery and genocide.
His question doesn't include the provision "..that I wouldn't just veto as invalid.".
There's no point asking a question of you've already decided to dismiss any answer a person gives.
@@Payne2view Is "Love God" in the bible? Does God love God? Loving God requires a presupposition that God exist, and this, as Mike claims, invalidates the theist answer. Why be afraid of answering a question if you are just going to make up "moral"?
@@markhackett2302 Yes, Love God is in the Bible. Specifically Deuteronomy 6 verse 5. When LORD is capitalised in English translations it is to not offend those Jewish readers who think the name YAHWAH is too holy to be used. So "Love the LORD your God". Also the first 4 famous commandments are about love, honour and respect for God.
Since Jesus is the Son of God, the Word of God incarnate, within the Trinity nature of God and since Jesus loves God the Father, yes God loves God. Although I've never thought of it that way.
@@Payne2view No, Love God is not in the bible.
"So "Love the LORD your God"."
So not God, then, just humans. So God doesn't love God, and since God is the moral standard, loving God is not moral.
The bible doesn't even attempt to call loving God a moral act.
You know, the actual CONTEXT of this discussion.
Holy twisted metal batman, that was a lot of projection right out of the gate.
Does Mike see the reductio ad absurdum in his answer to Hitchens’ question?
If Leprechaun-worshippers told Mike that they are far more moral to all other religions because they love Leprechauns with all of their heart & that is their highest duty, everyone would see how absurd that is. 🤦♂️
I just checked if this channel upload 23 minutes ago and found nothing, only to find out he uploaded a minute later!
That was absolutely brilliant!! I think Hitchens would be most pleased with that breakdown. Thanks to the Genetically Modified Skeptic for sending me here; they were absolutely right that you are one of the most underappreciated atheist content creators on UA-cam.
So when i as an atheist love all gods, I'm the most moral person ever?
Yep. Thor is so awesome.
Yup. Gotta catch em all.
@@jaclo3112 Blaise Pascal betting on black and red.
@@gaynomadic
Not more than Kim Jong Un
@@hitesh8383 I’m not sure what you mean.
Why is loveing a being who doesn't exist: "The highest moral imparitive?"
It's based on the supposition that he exists .
Those that believe in silly things, surprise, surprise, also say silly things.
Is it my imagination, Paul, or is your library getting fancier?
Is it truly moral to love a being who orders genocide? mmm
"It's okay when god does it" "it's his creation and he's the giver of life and death" are the typical dumb arguments apologists like Mike Winger come up with.
Indeed, and this is a response that is in the spirit of Hitchen's usual polemics about the immorality and cowardice involved in worshipping a Divine dictator
Is it moral to love someone at all? I can love my friends, but what makes that moral?
@@markhackett2302 one answer would be that it depends on how that love is expressed. If we adopt a well-being type of standard for morality, then if your love enables their flourishing, then it is.
@@shinywarm6906 But nothing about LOVING is required for that to take place. I can care about the welfare of palestinian children being killed and NOT love them, both at the same time.
Yup, 99% of the time they say "God works in mysterious ways" Such a cop-out. lol
But a mystery is confusing and god is not supposed to be the author of confusion, or am I missing something? :))
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar lol
I had born again christian that talks to his personal holy spirit cornered on several occasions and his response was: if you wanna know ask god.
Honestly, how is even "loving God" a moral thing to do? It doesn't entail taking any actions in any way. How is your emotional state a "moral thing" if it doesn't lead to any actions at all? Loving my wife isn't specifically moral, loving my children isn't specifically moral, unless it leads me to take actions that improve their life or well-being, make them happy, or have some positive impact on them. If I say I love my child but take no action to help him or feed him or protect him, how is that moral?
it HAS to be "moral" as they define by necessity "not loving god" as the father of all sins ;)
@@Ugly_German_Truths But does God love God? If not, then it isn't moral.
@@markhackett2302 God seems like a huge narcissist so probably, yeah :)
@@isaacpriestley Ah, but nowhere does he do that. We don't know what God does, we know only what is in the bible. Not in the bible.
And besides “loving god” being a feeling not an action, is it genuine love when the basis of it is threat of eternal damnation? Idk, actually loving the abusive partner in an abusive relationship sounds more akin to psychological disorder than morality.
"Is atheism true" is a massive rolleyes every time. Is non-stamp collecting true?
Shh, I'm too busy not catching butterflies and not playing guitar to discuss this with you.
what I'd really like to know is whether not collecting stamps is a hair color.
Atheism stands for the view that god doesnt exists .
@@gamingdragon1356 Not exactly. Atheist includes the belief there is no god, but it also includes not believing there is a god, which is different from believing there is no god.
@@gamingdragon1356
you've got the burden of proof backwards: Atheism is the view that no convincing evidence has been presented, yet.
Loving someone is not a moral action in itself.
You're not actually doing anything.
_Feeling_ love for someone, or feeling _in love_ with someone seems to be as amoral as the experience of any other emotions, I’d agree. But the act of _showing_ someone that you love them might be a different story. To demonstrate your love for someone through acts of kindness, friendship, empathy, romance, respect, etc, seems more in line with “being moral”, I think.
And that's where tithing comes in. Sure it's good to love god, but it's much better to _prove_ your love.
....funny how god expects us to constantly show our love for him while never showing his love for us.
Exactly, and an immoral act is one that causes (or potentially causes) harm to someone. How is a hypothetical infinite being harmed by my failure to love it?
@@broddr the answer is when we die there are only two places to go. And if you don't choose God you reject heaven because god is there. you get your free will granted. And you go the only other place to go
@@Apocryphile1970-check_it nice myth. But you mistakenly claim it as fact. Show some evidence of heaven or hell (or anything) after death, I dare you. So far, no theologian has managed to do that. And remember, “holy books” are claims, not evidence. Show some evidence in the real world today, that is available to anyone.
Hi Paul - thank you for all the great work you do - your videos have been a huge help and strength to me over the last few months when I have finally dared to delve into the veracity of what I gave my life to back in the 70’s. I am Australian and have watched just about all you have put out- had never heard of Ken Ham before! I don’t know how many here do know KH but the champion here now is Martyn Isles of the Australian Christian Lobby. It seems many rely on him for their “Truth”. I wonder if you could give us your take on him? Thank you again! 😘
Am I the only one who thinks it’s kinda creepy for the all-powerful Creator of The Universe to be so needy for adoration?
If I reject a being exists, then yes, loving it is definitionally outside of my capabilities. That said, why is that a moral action? I think to properly respond to Hitchens, one needs an action _both_ interlocutors recognize as moral.
Atheism isn't the rejection of the existence of a being, however. To reject the existence of something or someone requires that the existence be shown. This has not happened.
I'm fairly confident that loving someone is not an action. At least, not outseide of sexual contexts.
I’m still a Christian but I can confirm. (In my experience). when I ask hard questions to spiritual leaders they always pretend to have the answers to things they don’t have a clue about. Yet Isn’t the beginning of knowledge the admission to ignorance and then embarking on a journey to fulfill that ignorance?
If we take the 10 commandments as the moral guideline here, all it really presents as immoral is worshiping other gods.
So technically, not worshiping any gods is moral. Only worshiping another god would be immoral.
Great content Paul and always look forward to your new videos. I am so glad that I stopped drinking the Koolaid years ago and starting questioning the beliefs I had adopted. I also believe one of the best and most truthful answers to a question is “I don’t know.”.
Glad you found your way out.
7:45. Lol that you used that scene fron the Dragnet movie.
Great video. Thanks for making it.
I hope America stays Secular!
Nice Video, Mister!
The US has never been secular, if that's what you meant by "America".
1. In what way is loving god a moral action?
2. I love the flying spaghetti monster. Does this mean we are now on equal footing, with both loving something that the other doesn't have a belief in?
3. Has it crossed anyone else's mind that, loving god isn't done out of a sense of morality, but a fear of eternal torture?
It is not hard to believe that a Christian would claim the most moral thing a human can do is give their unconditional love to the one being in the known universe that can not benefit from that love. Very sad.
"We didn't allow wagering... not even Pascal Wagering". 😂👏
Even if you accepted the existence of the Christian God you could easily make the argument that it isn't worthy of love or worship given its supposed behavior over the history of time.
I accept that Kim Jong Un exists, but I don't love or worship him because he's evil.
It only murdered 2 million people and that's a conservative number. So I sure as hell wouldn't worship it.
Looking at your merch and I'm so glad you have unisex mugs 😂
That's also a thing I never understood. Why would a PERFECT and WHOLE being feel hurt for my puny actions?
That clip of Dan Aykroyd bouncing around in llama legs and a red wig worshipping some kind of idol made me laugh so hard. What movie is it from?
"Athiesm is true" is a nonsense statement that betrays a lack of understanding of the most basic tenet of athiesm.
Your explanation of empathy and evolution, the benefits of helping others in your group increasing the survival of you and that group is spot on.
Love your channel! Informative, funny (those movie clips :), your knowledge of science...amazing and I am learning all the time.
Now I understand why I keep getting this Mike Winger guy's videos recommended. He must have been in one of your response videos and I didn't catch him.
Paulogia videos discipline of thought and research and analysis, not to mention careful attention to production values are sublime.
Extremely important point and counter point discussion venue for these times
Ask any father if they would be proud to see their child be independent.
Why would "our heavenly father" be different?
Because he is jealous and incompetent
Yeah, I gotta go with "loving God" would need to be justified in a rational way, it would seem that only believers are convinced that loving a god is moral.
Dude, I love that intro music and would listen to on repeat.
So I feel like the command “Love thy neighbor as you love thine self”, doesn’t account for people who absolutely hate themselves and have no love for themselves at all. It also gets thrown out the window if your neighbor isn’t a devout follower of Christianity
Or is a wife living on her own.
Pascal wagering, the worst kind of wagering. 🤣
Most absurd kind considering how many gods and goddesses and amorphous entities one must choose from.
👏🙂
Its sort of sweet to see Christopher Hitchens live on through his words
3:32 lol 😅
The only immortality we have is our reputation.
Best content on u tube, you're doing a good thing brother 🤘
Thank you so much 😀
Excellent work Paul - as ever, you are spot on the dot here. Big thumbs up.
Many thanks!
So how does the God who loves forskins so much be so beautifully moral?
Putting aside the asinine idea that an emotion can be moral; I honestly would disagree even with the premise that an atheist can't love God. There are plenty of closeted atheists out there; it's not impossible to imagine a case of someone who believed fully with their heart, loved God, then lost their faith but still remain for various reasons and still love the God they had believed in, even if they can't find it within themselves to believe that such a God is real.
That is a very good point. And people love fictional characters, a lot; I've been upset over the fate of some of the favorite characters when something bad happens to them even though I have no doubts that they are not real: it may not be terribly rational but most people who have immersed themselves deeply in a book, a movie, a series, a game, have gone through something akin to this.
In that sense, you can "love" god even without believing he exists, at all.
Christians don't define love as just an emotion though
History has taught us that the love for an imaginary sky being can lead to a lot of human suffering.
LOVE that Turok picture!
Ugh. I so loathe the tired apologetic trope “if atheism is true...”
no wagering in the mennonite zone!
Nor in the Seventh-Day Adventist zone (which I’m glad to be out of).
I have been binging your channel for a few days now and I only have one question ❓ when are we getting the "Can God hear me" app ?🤭
Hitchens' mind was something to be admired.. loved the way his mind ticked. 💯
#RIP 🕊
No theist loves the god he believes in. They love the idea. No one person had ever met a God even if there is one. So no Mike. A Christian cant do a moral act that an atheist cant. Also what makes loving a being moral when you dont assume it exists or even if you did again you dont know them directly.
Love god. That's it? That's their best effort? Embarrassing. Especially as most love is out of a fear of damnation.
8:30 I wasn't aware there was some kind of "Love Scale". Where can I learn more about this? Is it one of those 1 to 10 type scales? How do I measure my love?
Tithing to the church is moral in the same way as paying your Country Club membership fees...
Good job, christians, way to go the extra mile 👏
If god wasnt real, why would u get a tax break for donations, am i right
It’s immoral to lack love for an absentee father?
Been watching your videos on and off for almost 9 months now and I always questioned why you didn’t come up in my recommended more. Turns out I wasn’t subscribed, my apologies. This has been corrected
Was that clip from the Tom Hanks Dragnet movie?
It says something that this "answer" only flies after Hitchens' death. Its almost like it he would have had a few valid criticisms for it, so it requires the lack of the original interlocutor.
Reminds me of the Mike Birbiglia bit, what I should have said was nothing. But instead, I made a video and doubled down with a pinned comment.
She loved EEEEEEE.
But hated water.
#YoudBeSurprised
Way to few people think about using the Force.
Oh its mike, hi mike, just saw that debate with matt dillahunty you did a year back. Nice job mike. Great arguments. You gave me a new perspective on religion and religious ideas I never had before. Did you come up with all that yourself or was it like a group effort?
Good video.
Thankyou Paulogia, you proved that Hitchins is still unanswered in his question. So, he's undefeated. I think he might have laughed and said something like, 'well, what an idiotic answer. How can it be moral to love a delusion? Don't waste my time!' With his great accent. 👍🥰🤎✌🎃
Agree!
Hitch was far beyond his time.
I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned
- Richard Feynman
At 1:07 classic psychological projection, LMAO:)
💖He's rehashed this in the last month, did you know? He's managed to reduce this ludicrous sauce down to a 50sec clip... perhaps a short rebuttal clip? Not telling you how to do your thing, of course... but I find abusing those who can no longer defend themselves utterly reprehensible... "do not bear false witness", right? Loved Hitch...the finest man I never met.💖
I could never understand the "love your neighbour as yourself" command - church instilled in me a deep hatred for myself. So how could I love others as myself if I couldn't find any love for myself?
Well done
“Not even Pascel’s Wager” that is an S tier line.