Saturday, April 4, 2009

Rebuttal on the moral argument

The problem with morality is this: you can't prove that anyone behaves better if they are closer to a supreme dictator than if not.

You must point out a divine sanction that a person of faith can make that I cannot also make.

However, if you look at evil acts, such as genital mutilation, these are almost exclusively religious in nature.

15 comments:

  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCy8MpT45gk

    ReplyDelete
  2. The issue isn't making it, it is what the moral imperative is grounded in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hitchens constantly makes this claim... Craig should answer..

    ReplyDelete
  4. Its hard to believe he can say this with a straight face, oblivious to the blatant contradiction he is making.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "you can't prove that anyone behaves better if they are closer to a supreme dictator than if not."

    What?! Calomie88 - perfect response!

    ReplyDelete
  6. haha... I keep looking at the youtube link even though I've seen it...

    Makes funny debate commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. the point is you recognize because they are objectively founded...

    ReplyDelete
  8. is hitchens refering to circumcism as genital mutilation? if so is he aware that scientific studies in Africa show a medical benefit (rducees the chance of getting HIV by 50%) oops.... Hitchens needs to check up on facts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Atheists like Hitch can certainly recognize moral truths, but that's not in question. Hitch must provide an adequate grounding for those truths, and so far he hasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hitchens claiming acts of "Evil" when all of that is just motion and matter to him. It is pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I once used the video I posted in a response to a myspace blog, where my arguments went 'right over their heads.'

    ReplyDelete
  12. It seems like Hitchens has missed the point of the moral argument by saying that it is not necessarily true that religious people are more moral than non-religious people. My understanding of the argument is that objective moral values exist, therefore a "law-giver" must exist.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.