Are The Claims Of Christianity Valid?

[WinePusher]

Hitchens 1
Hitchens 2
Dennett 1

This thread is a spin off of a thread in the "Members Only Chat." There's alot of stuff in these videos, and I only watched the Hitchens videos. But here are some questions based off the videos:

1) The Hitchens 2 video deals with miracles. Hitchens repeats David Hume's Argument aganist miracles. If you believe violations of the natural order are possible, present reasons why. If not, present reasons why.

2) The Hitchens 1 video deals with substitutionary atonement, and Hitchens asserts that it is an immoral doctrine, is similar to scapegoating and wipes away personal responsibility. Agree or disagree?

3) Feel free to rebutt or bring up any other material from these videos that I left out.

[Question Everything]

Hitchens makes a very good point when he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make, and points out that believers will make immoral statements or actions that an unbeliever could not also make.

I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean the unbeliever could not also say the words or believe them or come up with them? I think moral statements vary between religions, societies, and cultures so this needs clarification.

I don't see how an unbeliever would say that witches should be burned at the stake, and I don't see how an unbeliever would fly an airplane into a building with the intent of killing himself, innocent people on the plane, and innocent people on the ground.

I'm meant the positive part of the claim - "he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make." Moral statements differ between religions, societies, and cultures so of course there will be statements that an unbeliever will not make.

Well, if a believer says that stealing is wrong or that murder is wrong, etc., an unbeliever could also say and believe the same words. You don't need to believe in a deity to be a moral person.

[cholland]

I'm meant the positive part of the claim - "he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make." Moral statements differ between religions, societies, and cultures so of course there will be statements that an unbeliever will not make.

Well, if a believer says that stealing is wrong or that murder is wrong, etc., an unbeliever could also say and believe the same words. You don't need to believe in a deity to be a moral person.

I would agree only in areas where the believer and unbeliever both agree on the moral statement. What if they disagree?

[Question Everything]

I'm meant the positive part of the claim - "he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make." Moral statements differ between religions, societies, and cultures so of course there will be statements that an unbeliever will not make.

Well, if a believer says that stealing is wrong or that murder is wrong, etc., an unbeliever could also say and believe the same words. You don't need to believe in a deity to be a moral person.

I would agree only in areas where the believer and unbeliever both agree on the moral statement. What if they disagree?

So what if they do? Believers disagree about morality all the time. Look at the American Civil War where Mark Twain observed that both sides claimed their morality from the same god.

[cholland]

I'm meant the positive part of the claim - "he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make." Moral statements differ between religions, societies, and cultures so of course there will be statements that an unbeliever will not make.

Well, if a believer says that stealing is wrong or that murder is wrong, etc., an unbeliever could also say and believe the same words. You don't need to believe in a deity to be a moral person.

I would agree only in areas where the believer and unbeliever both agree on the moral statement. What if they disagree?

So what if they do? Believers disagree about morality all the time. Look at the American Civil War where Mark Twain observed that both sides claimed their morality from the same god.

Wouldn't that prove his claim incorrect? A believer could come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make.

[Question Everything]

So what if they do? Believers disagree about morality all the time. Look at the American Civil War where Mark Twain observed that both sides claimed their morality from the same god.

Wouldn't that prove his claim incorrect? A believer could come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make.

No, because another unbeliever could come up with the same a moral statement or action.

The point is that any statement or action that is just or moral can be said and done by unbelievers, maybe not all of them, but at least some. You do not need a deity to get morality.

[cholland]

So what if they do? Believers disagree about morality all the time. Look at the American Civil War where Mark Twain observed that both sides claimed their morality from the same god.

Wouldn't that prove his claim incorrect? A believer could come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make.

No, because another unbeliever could come up with the same a moral statement or action.

The point is that any statement or action that is just or moral can be said and done by unbelievers, maybe not all of them, but at least some. You do not need a deity to get morality.

What about the belief and/or any acceptable worship of God?

[Question Everything]

So what if they do? Believers disagree about morality all the time. Look at the American Civil War where Mark Twain observed that both sides claimed their morality from the same god.

Wouldn't that prove his claim incorrect? A believer could come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make.

No, because another unbeliever could come up with the same a moral statement or action.

The point is that any statement or action that is just or moral can be said and done by unbelievers, maybe not all of them, but at least some. You do not need a deity to get morality.

What about the belief and/or any acceptable worship of God?

You can get a good system of morality and ethics without all that.

[cholland]

So what if they do? Believers disagree about morality all the time. Look at the American Civil War where Mark Twain observed that both sides claimed their morality from the same god.

Wouldn't that prove his claim incorrect? A believer could come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make.

No, because another unbeliever could come up with the same a moral statement or action.

The point is that any statement or action that is just or moral can be said and done by unbelievers, maybe not all of them, but at least some. You do not need a deity to get morality.

What about the belief and/or any acceptable worship of God?

You can get a good system of morality and ethics without all that.

?? I guess I'm not following. The claim is that an unbeliever is capable of making any moral statement that a believer also holds.

The statement is: God is good.
The action is: any acceptable worship of God.

[Adamoriens]

Hitchens makes a very good point when he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make, and points out that believers will make immoral statements or actions that an unbeliever could not also make.

The closest I can come to is, "blasphemy is morally wrong."

[Question Everything]

?? I guess I'm not following. The claim is that an unbeliever is capable of making any moral statement that a believer also holds.

The statement is: God is good.
The action is: any acceptable worship of God.

Well, OK, an unbeliever would not make the statement or the action. However, it is not moral to say God is good, that is simply an opinion on the attribute of something. I also don't see how "any acceptable worship of God" can be considered a moral action, although it would not necessarily be immoral either.