Free Documentaries Online

Mind blowing! I tend to agree more with the atheist, but they both make very good points. I would’ve loved to see the audience questions.

This was the most long winded so called debate I’ve heard in a long time. All of this could have been put into 15 min’s. Yes the Book is for sale seems to be the only clear point. As an atheist I can see God in its definition ( creator ) is an Impossibility under its own logic, for if all things need a creator, I simply say and what created the creator.
Over and above all the discoveries Science has made. Points against all claims these Man made books each claiming to be the one and only True word of God make. As an example evolution is evidence we were not created. The age of the earth and on and on.

I am not one to start a debate on a comment portal, however, @ Tiago C., How at all did Hitchens stumble in anyway? When did he dodge any point, quite the opposite in fact, you saw the same video I did? Please inform us all of this moment.

Bravo to hitchens and I hope someday that Mr. Wilson comes to grip with this unintentional life we have.

P.S., wish we would have got the audience questions with the video.

To this question i would say that through evolutionary processes it has benefitted man to not be on one’s own. Meaning that having friendships and familial connections would benefit one and this would be reinforced through chemical processes in our brains which would increase feelings of saftey and deep connection and perhaps best of all…. Empathy.
Once these processes are aquired by the human species, the answer is to me, clear as day. Perhaps there is no MORAL reason, perhaps from our need to survive it is the very processes that give humanity these feelings of attatchment and empathy that lead us to say what feels correct, what feelings natual selection has deemed beneficial such as empathy, could then lead a person to imagine the plight of another (such as imagining one’s self a slave) and compel one to act to rectify the situation to where it did not conflict with one’s natually selected emotions.

To sum up, perhaps what we perceive as morality as decreed by a higher power or not is simply the chemical processes and the emotions they trigger as a result of thousands of generations of selection. I am not saying that because what we perceive as morality may have a simple explanation that it somehow is less powerful to humanity because whatever the underlying explanation, WE STILL FEEL WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG just the same.

So to answer the question, why should we care? Well, i can’t say for sure on this one about why we should care however, the fact is that WE DO CARE because apparently it benefits us to care, otherwise selection would have taken away that fact.

But you are right, in the film i did see what you said and for whatever reason, he did seem to shy away from that question just as when asked why are Christianity’s miracles to be believed when none of the others are… he said to the effect of “because this happened” and “there were eyewitnesses”….as if there were no eyewitnesses to those things in which he was denying… but very balanced doc. i will say!!! Thanks for it!!!

Actually one only has to look at history to see mankind following his/her animal instincts as you said and taking that chance to improve one’s position by enslaving/killing/etc.

However, seeing the consequences and given a rise in technology which makes life easier for many in the world, makes it less likely that killing someone would be the only option in order to improve our own standing.

Perhaps human innovation combined with centuries of seeing the consequences of our basest instincts played out not as our initial instincts told us it would but in fact we may have been better off with a less violent action.(an example would be the urge to kill to improve one’s place, killing that person and having a short term gain in status but in the long term realizing that perhaps compromise would have served us better)

The fact is that we know much of human behavior to be a result of the choices and trials of our ancestors.
So perhaps to a point you are right, maybe we see part of it as following what someone said one day to be right and wrong but what i believe to be the bigger picture is WHY DID THAT PERSON COME TO SAY THAT?

I believe that the explanation i have laid out to be a logical deduction based on clear concise circumstances.

BTW, thank you for the reply, you indeed have brought up a good point but as i said i think what pushed “a man” to create rules for human understanding of right and wrong is more important that the fact that he said it…. thanks again.

Im no religious person, and not nearly knowledgeable enough about all of the bible’s contents, but where in the bible does it say slavery is ok?
On the other hand, I know that they mention “a little exodus” (not a big deal story) about escaping it.

If you mean that after, people used a distorted interpretation of the bible to support slavery (and their own personal interests), that’s a whole different story.

And in any case my previous comment wasnt about the Bible and not even about Christianity. I was refering to religion period.

@Leo
Np, I always like a healthy debate of ideas.

Im sorry, but your statement is wrong. Some animals actually kill their own species to survive.
Some animals kill their own species for territory, mating, prey…
And for example, adult lions are even known to kill baby male lions to prevent future competion…same thing happens with bears and other big cats…the list probably goes on.

The statement by Presupp below ironically presupposes (which is to assume some truth without proof, usually for the purpose of reaching a conclusion based on that truth) that although the universe is extremely precise in its working, that it is ‘random’ forces that constitute evolution when it is actually the exact opposite. Presupp then goes on to link the creation of a pencil (which would never happen naturally) to the absurdity of evolution. This shows that he has little to no understanding of the theory of evolution or how it works. After that, he again presupposes that without god there would be no understanding or logic, which is incredibly assuming. And to show he has no bias at all, ends with a link to a christian gospel site.