Hitchen's Challange

[Sheldon]

Sorry, that couldn't have been the case, I understand.

What couldn't have been the case?

then the book had been only with reference to Islam. Right?

No, I thought you claimed to have read it?

It makes (Hitchens) one of the four horsemen of Atheism, an unreasonable man.

Well that's just your prejudiced opinion, I shan't even feign surprise that you think someone who doesn't share your beliefs is unreasonable, but that notwithstanding, it is irrelevant to the challenge, which you clearly never had any intention of taking.

 

[Sheldon]

...oh Ashoka, but your body is not your own.

Yes it is.

You have absolutely no control as to how it is designed,

It's not designed, it evolved, that is a scientific fact.

You only have choice in the small and insignificant matters.

That is not true.

But, it is a grand shame that you have no idea what either a penis or vagina is used for, especially at your age (assuming that you're over 10 years old).

Just because someone doesn't share your veneration of archaic homophobic bigotry, doesn't mean their ideas are wrong and yours right, quite the opposite in fact. What consenting adults do to and with each other, as long as no one is harmed or forced or exploited, is their business, not yours. Some people have no interest in your beliefs, if you don't like homosexuality, then you don't have to participate.

 

[Sheldon]

the symbiotic relationship that exists between a man and a woman's genitalia?

I don't think symbiotic means what you think it means.

 

[Ashoka]

the symbiotic relationship that exists between a man and a woman's genitalia?

Y'all, when I say I hollered and scared my cat after reading this...

 

[Ashoka]

FAIL!
It was designed for a penis.

First off, no one says "FAIL" anymore. Let it die back in 2007, it was lame then anyway.

What exactly is wrong with what was quoted? A vagina is for delivering babies and for pleasure as well. And some people just use it for pleasure. That's okay. You don't have to have kids. You can just...do it and enjoy the closeness of your partner.

 

[paarsurrey]

Individually anyone can accomplish what anyone else can, but let him show a secular movement which outlasts countries and which can accomplish antiwar objectives. If we left the world in secular hands what would become of it? History has shown us over and over. New gods would arise, as in N. Korea. As in other places. These would then oppress all people until slowly resistance in the form of monotheism began to arise: God, Brahman, Tao, etc.

But I realize there is a weakness in my argument. Didn't monotheism give rise to secular humanism? That it did, both nurturing and protecting it in a world which otherwise would have chewed it up and spit it out.

So what is Hitchens argument? That there may someday be an immortal and virtuous ethical secular humanist in charge? Good luck with that.

"Didn't monotheism give rise to secular humanism?"

Sorry, I don't agree with one here.
Isn't Western Atheism/Humanism a bye-product of (unreasonable and in reaction to) Trinity of Pauline-Christianity, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, but still, not knowing the context in which it was said, I can almost see this being said as a joke.

Yes, the Atheism people, I understand, have little of reasoning and most of the time they are mocking and ridiculing. Right?

Regards

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're off your rocker, like seriously!

That's not a valid response.

Everyone seems to understand what gender is, except for you. But the rest of us are off our rockers?
Nah.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, of course. Those that are not, are the exceptions, obviously.

Again, that's not an answer to any of the questions I asked.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe you asked an unrelated question?

No, you're just apparently trying very very hard to evade answering any questions directly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But why to conceal the reference?
I read the book "God is Not Great" somebody challenged me to read it, maybe I missed it.

Regards

Just pull up pretty much any debate Hitchens took part in. He almost always brings it up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which part of the math do you not understand?
If two gay men are to have children, this obligates at least one woman, somewhere, to relinquish her child.
How long can this be sustained.

Anyhow, just drop it, you're speaking in hypotheticals which are entirely implausible, unnatural and extremely unconventional. You're talking in desperation, leading to ludicrous conclusions.
Just accept the fact that there are no species of animals that donate their children to others, outside of an extremely small demography of humans. And, even then, it's not always successful and painless.

No, we're talking about real life. You're talking about made up nonsense.

My cousin and her wife have a child. My cousin gave birth to that child. No hypothetical there, just reality.
You really need to get out more.

Why do you care if other species of animals donate their children to others? Don't you say that humans aren't animals? So what's your point?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's a shame that you need a dictionary to understand an overt biological fact.

Gender is a social construct that human s made up and changes over time.
Why are you having such a hard time with this?

 

[Sheldon]

"Didn't monotheism give rise to secular humanism?"

Sorry, I don't agree with one here.
Isn't Western Atheism/Humanism a bye-product of (unreasonable and in reaction to) Trinity of Pauline-Christianity, please?

Regards

No, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, nothing more. You are making a very common mistake and projecting your theistic views onto atheists, but beyond the lack of theistic belief, no two atheists need necessarily have anything in common.

 

[Sheldon]

Gender is a social construct that human s made up and changes over time.
Why are you having such a hard time with this?

It doesn't support his adherence to archaic religious bigotry and homophobia.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have witnessed the utterly deranged behaviour that ensues from such a ludicrous notion. Woman dressing like men, and boys acting like girls. It's pathetic, and elicits such confusion in the recipients mind, and frivolous and hedonistic attitude in their behaviour.

But, you need a dictionary in order to comprehend what's taking place right before your eyes?

Women dressing like men? You mean, like wearing pants or having short haircuts? Oh, the horror!
You've tried this one before.


By the way, you know what can cause confusion and emotional turmoil in in boys? Telling them that when they experience natural human emotions that they are "acting like a girl" or telling them that if they like the colour pink they're "acting like a girl." By the way on an historical note, a couple of hundred years ago pink used to be a "boy colour" and blue used to be a "girl colour." See that? It's almost like gender norms are a social construct that change over time!

And guess what? a couple hundred more years ago men used to wear make-up and high heels and were considered perfectly "manly." I'm wearing pants right now and still consider myself a woman. How strange! Again, it's almost like gender norms are a social construct that change over time!

Seriously, you have to understand how ridiculous you sound here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, nothing more. You are making a very common mistake and projecting your theistic views onto atheists, but beyond the lack of theistic belief, no two atheists need necessarily have anything in common.

Theists tend to feel more threatened by atheism than other religious beliefs. Perhaps that is because when a Muslim points out a silly or self contradictory belief of Christian the Christian can point out an equally bad belief of a Muslim. One cannot do that if one is accurate in describing atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Women dressing like men? You mean, like wearing pants or having short haircuts? Oh, the horror!
You've tried this one before.


By the way, you know what can cause confusion and emotional turmoil in in boys? Telling them that when they experience natural human emotions that they are "acting like a girl" or telling them that if they like the colour pink they're "acting like a girl." By the way on an historical note, a couple of hundred years ago pink used to be a "boy colour" and blue used to be a "girl colour." See that? It's almost like gender norms are a social construct that change over time!

And guess what? a couple hundred more years ago men used to wear make-up and high heels and were considered perfectly "manly." I'm wearing pants right now and still consider myself a woman. How strange! Again, it's almost like gender norms are a social construct that change over time!

Seriously, you have to understand how ridiculous you sound here.

You wear pants!?. You just gave me a flashback to my college days and Brother Jed and Sister Cindy:

Brother Jed - Wikipedia

Once a year Brother Jed would hit our campus with his travelling evangelical sideshow. He went so far as to preach against the use of tampons. And Sister Cindy was the Christian eye candy. She always wore a full length skirt or dress. Not even an ankle to be seen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You wear pants!?. You just gave me a flashback to my college days and Brother Jed and Sister Cindy:

Brother Jed - Wikipedia

Once a year Brother Jed would hit our campus with his travelling evangelical sideshow. He went so far as to preach against the use of tampons. And Sister Cindy was the Christian eye candy. She always wore a full length skirt or dress. Not even an ankle to be seen.

Ah, the good old Victoria era. When ankles and wrists were super sexy.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sorry, I don't agree with one here.
Isn't Western Atheism/Humanism a bye-product of (unreasonable and in reaction to) Trinity of Pauline-Christianity, please?

Regards

I am not going to presume any evil basis. In my experience people of all kinds can be evil or good. The inside is hidden from us. We are impressed by roofs and beautiful fences, because that is what we see. The inside we cannot see.

If Paul maintained that Jesus retained his individuality after death then I'd be more pressed to consider his ideas to be pagan; but I think Paul is simply misunderstood (by you and others). Obviously if Jesus retains his individuality then the trinity does seem contradictory, however that is a misunderstanding of Paul and of trinity, too.

Paul does not ever use the term trinity. I have obtained some information about the development of trinity from a book by the late Panagiotes K. Chrestou in his book Greek Orthodox Patrology. From what I understand the Trinity is discovered in 2nd century and is never mentioned by Paul who dies before that.

Trinity depends upon the dissolution of the individual who becomes nothing but a vessel. The original concept from Paul is, I think, that Jesus the man becomes divine by his obedience to the Father, partly through giving up his human life, becoming nothing. There is nothing left of the original man born of woman, except for that spirit that comes from God in the first place. The trinity, then, is not about three people but one spirit and is about humanity joining the father through obedience. The individual is dissolved and the will of God performed instead. It is about us submitting to God, pretty much, and it is the lesson that we become nothing in the process. Obviously it is not a popular message.

So since it is not popular it does not do well, but that doesn't mean Paul is an idolater. Rather, it is people who think god owes us an eternal afterlife. The way it seems is that we appear, spend the life given to us, and then we shrink giving way to God. Accepting this idea present in the gospels does leave room people to believe in secular humanism.