Hitchen's Challange

[Sheldon]

It happens, but not systematically and they can go to jail.

The child abuse by the Catholic priesthood was by definition systemic, and also endemic. Even if we are now fully aware of the scope of it all, and that seems unlikely, given the limitations of historical evidence, and the obvious attempts from the highest levels of the RCC to cover it up, and protect the guilty from justice, it is more likely the scope is massively larger than the horror of what we currently have uncovered.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hitchen's Challange

Name an ethical statement made or action performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever.

Name a wicked statement made or action performed precisely because of religious faith?

I don't see any challenge quoted from Hitchens in the above post, please.
Did one delete it subsequently, please? or I missed noting it, please. Kindly highlight Hitchens' words for me with the reference if any, please. Right?

Regards

 

[ppp]

Hitchen's Challange

I don't see any challenge quoted from Hitchens in the above post, please.
Did one delete it subsequently, please? or I missed noting it, please. Kindly highlight Hitchens' words for me with the reference if any, please. Right?

Regards

The challenge is to provide the information requested in the post that you responded to.

 

[DNB]

Again, gender is a social construct, not a biological one. You really need to understand this.

You're off your rocker, like seriously!

 

[DNB]

What if neither are "victims?"


How so? You still haven't explained.

So you claim, but since you're not even aware that gender is a social construct, I see no reason to lend any credence to your opinion on the subject.

A man has a penis, and a woman has a vagina - are you able to figure the rest out?

 

[DNB]

Why do you assume that gay people are promiscuous? Where do you come up with this stuff?

The point was that behaviour affects one's personality and character.

 

[DNB]

Wow. Just wow.


Sure it has. Morality has evolved A LOT since the bronze age. It's no longer moral in most places to stone unruly children to death or to own human beings as property, as the Bible dictates.
That's what people mean when they ask why you cling to ancient views of morality.

But it has equally, and more so, devolved into decadence and peculiarities - were you aware that some people even believe that it's ok for a man to have sex with another man?

 

[ppp]

You're off your rocker, like seriously!

@SkepticThinker is correct. And not just correct, but so obviously correct that your arguments against are all strawman fallacies, ad hominem fallacies, and simplistic denials.

 

[DNB]

Why not? Homosexuals can, and do father children.

That cannot be sustained. Women giving birth to children then have them taken away. Even surrogate mothers suffer this problem of reneging on their contract, due to the innate affection for their own offspring.
Such a relationship will never be accepted, as genes dictate a large part of the children's attributes - people chose mates often in anticipation of what their progeny will become.
Surrogate parents only work on a very small scale.

 

[ppp]

That cannot be sustained.

False.

Women giving birth to children then have them taken away.

False.

Even surrogate mothers suffer this problem of reneging on their contract, due to the innate affection for their own offspring.

only partially true, and irrelevant.

Such a relationship will never be accepted, as genes dictate a large part of the children's attributes

False.

people chose mates often in anticipation of what their progeny will become.

Irrelevant.

Surrogate parents only work on a very small scale.

Irrelevant

Even if no gay people ever parented children, it would be of no significant impact to the human population.

 

[DNB]

Even if no gay people ever parented children, it would be of no significant impact to the human population.

The original statement was '...life will not persist if all were homosexual...'

 

[ppp]

The original statement was '...life will not persist if all were homosexual...'

Well, that is irrelevant. All are not gay.

 

[KWED]

That cannot be sustained. Women giving birth to children then have them taken away. Even surrogate mothers suffer this problem of reneging on their contract, due to the innate affection for their own offspring.
Such a relationship will never be accepted, as genes dictate a large part of the children's attributes - people chose mates often in anticipation of what their progeny will become.
Surrogate parents only work on a very small scale.

No idea what your point is. You argued that homosexuals cannot father children. They can, and do.
Imagine a world where there are no heterosexuals. Gay men donate sperm for gay women to bear children. Then there are all the bisexual couples. A perfectly practicable system.

 

[KWED]

Hitchen's Challange

I don't see any challenge quoted from Hitchens in the above post, please.
Did one delete it subsequently, please? or I missed noting it, please. Kindly highlight Hitchens' words for me with the reference if any, please. Right?

Regards

There are two, denoted by the phrase "Name an x that couldn't be y".
The challenge is clearly apparent. It is implying that all instances of x fall under the conditions y. It is challenging you to provide an example of x that doesn't fall under conditions y.

 

[KWED]

You're off your rocker, like seriously!

From the Oxford English Dictionary...

Gender - Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

You're welcome.

 

[KWED]

The point was that behaviour affects one's personality and character.

You seem woefully misinformed.
Personality and character affect ones behaviour.

A dog barks because it is a dog. It isn't a dog because it barks.

 

[KWED]

were you aware that some people even believe that it's ok for a man to have sex with another man?

Of course it's ok (as long as it's consensual). Why wouldn't it be? (Cue a load of question begging and evidence-free assertions)

 

[KWED]

The original statement was '...life will not persist if all were homosexual...'

But as gay men can father children and gay women can bear them, it could quite easily persist.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't see any challenge quoted from Hitchens in the above post, please. Kindly highlight Hitchens' words for me with the reference if any, please.

"My challenge: Name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever.”

 

[Sheldon]

some people even believe that it's ok for a man to have sex with another man?

Why wouldn't it be, who does it harm for two consenting adults to have sex? More to the point why does this bother you so much?