Comments by "Monty Cantsin" (@MontyCantsin5) on "Peter Hitchens on Bolshevism, multiculturalism and his brother" video.

If only he'd admit that large parts of his views today are also terribly flawed.
2
@Confucius_76 : It is true. In case you hadn't noticed, PH believes in supernatural entities, miracles, etc. He bases his world view on something for which there is no evidence. If that doesn't strike you as deeply flawed then there's not much else I can add.
2
@Confucius_76 : Why limit the discussion to western culture only? That's an odd move that doesn't really strengthen your argument in any way. All it does is place Christianity on an unnecessary pedestal (something that you seem extremely keen to do for some strange reason). My argument does cover humanity. I'm glad you've finally admitted that society does not need religion to act in an ethical way though; took you long enough. As for your other point, that we need to cherry pick the good parts of the Bible when looking at morality only goes to demonstrate that there must be pre-existent ethical ideas that do not require religious belief in order for them to exist. In case it wasn't obvious by now, I dislike PH's religious beliefs because they are smuggled in under the guise of rationality when they are anything but. By definition they are founded on faith and non-evidence based thinking which I think should be condemned. If someone really thinks that their life is meaningless (as PH does) and not worth continuing without a god, that's pretty tragic; I would hardly call this viewpoint a paragon of rationality. And no, clearly I've got absolutely no morals. That's why I run around murdering people indiscriminately on a daily basis, as well as torturing animals, and stealing property that doesn't belong to me. If only I had a divine creator to persuade me not to carry out these awful acts. Any other daft questions you want to ask?
2
@Confucius_76 : Non-belief is certainly a more rational view to adopt if one accords their understanding of the world to the evidence available, that much is clear. And yes, the religious beliefs espoused by PH do invalidate much of what he says (his social conservatism for a start), hence my initial comment so you can dispense with the phoney outrage and condescension that you're accusing other people of. To give just one example, PH is on record making the claim that one cannot act in a principled moral or ethical way without believing in the supernatural. This is demonstrably false for obvious reasons. If you want to try and defend this bizarre idea then by all means go ahead. And I do have wonder why you seem to be upset by the idea that PH pins his beliefs to a non-naturalistic ontology. The central attributes of god are, by definition, supernatural in that the supposed powers god has transcends the physical. This is not remotely controversial; it's just statement of fact if you really believe in Christianity.
1
@Confucius_76 : From our evolutionary past (see work being carried out in the fields of evolutionary psychology and biology), from the fact that we are social animals shaped by culture (predating the advent of Christianity, of course; ethics as a branch of philosophical understanding has been around for thousands of years), from our rational capacity for empathy with others. None of these traits necessitate religious adherence in order for us to act in an ethical way. And I certainly do judge PH's arguments based on their own merits. The problem is that the foundations upon which he now bases his political, social, and philosophical views are rooted in religious belief; there is no way around this and PH is not shy in claiming that Christianity is ''everything'' when it comes to the core ideas he holds to be true. If you think that describing god as supernatural entity makes the idea of a deity sound stupid that should tell you everything you need to know. No further comment necessary. As for Dawkins and others (why you felt the need to describe atheists as ''edgy'' is very bizarre), they largely agree that certain basic Christian tenets are good in principle, but the Bible taken as a whole is a dreadful set of principles by which to live one's life (you only need to look at the Old Testament to see evidence of that). So no, it's simply not accurate to claim that our moral values ultimately come from Christianity. This is a huge hole in PH's understanding of the world.
1