Hitchen's Challange

[leroy]

So your god doing torturing King David's newborn baby in the bible for 7 days, until it died as immoral then?

So the biblical deity is immoral then? This is news...

The theist answer woulb be ether:

1 you are misrepresenting the text

2 there are morally good reasons to justify that action.

This is why I said that it is moraly wrong to torture a child for fun, if you have a higher purpose you can (and should) torture a child and you will still be morally good, (a dentist or a doctor performing a hard and painful procedure would be examples of this)

 

[blü 2]

Primitive religious concepts began hundreds of thousands of years ago. The Neanderthals had ideas of an afterlife.

Amen.

 

[Colt]

I think I know the answer, but I'm guessing you and I infer different things from that.

I infer that primitive fear based religion was the intended scaffolding for the reception of revealed religion among evolving human culture.

 

[firedragon]

Wrong, the leader and his son are whorshiped as Gods in North Korea.

Haha. Nice. Very nice apologetics.

 

[firedragon]

You obviously don't understand subjectivity. For those torturing babies, it is a good thing, for the babies it is not. It's really as simple as that. There is no Judgment by some imaginary authority. GOOD & EVIL only exists subjectively. This is why we have societies, governments, etc.

Who spoke of an "Imaginary Authority"? Whats with that obsession?

So someone thinks torturing babies for fun is a good thing right? Is that good?

 

[firedragon]

According to The Bible it's OK with God;

“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” Psalm 137

Who spoke of the Bible? What is seriously with this obsession?

 

[DNB]

Yet there is no evidence that atheists are any less moral than theists. In fact there are longstanding bodies of research that suggest atheists are at least as moral as theists in comprable situations.



Again the evidence of longstanding bodies of research shows that atheists are at least as moral as theists. Also if all that's stopping someone from committing egregious acts like murder and rape, is the threat of Hell, or the saccharine promise of heaven, then that person is a pretty ****** human being.



Insanity? It is a preposterous idea, and I'd love to see you evidence the idea theists in general comply to this most asinine theistic idea. Empathy for others is an evolved trait, and is not dependant on religion, but rather precedes it.



Does this include all the murderers and rapists who are theists, all the dictators who torture rape and murder indiscriminately throughout human history, most pointedly in the bible of and koran of course.



Another sweeping piece of unevidenced bigotry.



Blind adherence to archaic religious texts that among other things endorse slavery, murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, sex trafficking female prisoners, blind homophobic bigotry, (see your own many examples on that score). Though again if one need the reason, as you so bluntly put it, to refrain from egregious acts like murder and rape for example, that rather says it all.

Any fool, Sheldon, can identify criminal acts by simply appealing to the more egregious ones i.e. murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc...But, what truly distinguishes a righteous person from a wretched one, are the smaller less obvious acts, the ones the man cannot feign for the sake of pretense. Like, turning the other cheek or refraining from retaliation. Like patience and compassion on an everyday level, in regard to the less conspicuous issues i.e a slow talker, a simple minded person, refusing to take more than one deserves or anything at all for a service rendered, not offending another by one's vernacular speech or attire, doing a kind act anonymously, etc...

Atheists take pride in their perceived moral compliance, simply because they exclaim that they don't commit murder, war or assault (the most egregious sins). But, it is the theists who beat their chests in remorse as to how wicked they know that they are (in relation to God's holiness, not man's).
A truly smart man will only tell you how ignorant that he is. Equally, a veritable righteous person will only tell you how fall short he falls from what he knows he should truly do.
Theists are more compelled to be good in all manners of life, more so than atheists - the view that each one has of themselves elucidates that fact.

 

[DNB]

You may want to look up underrepresented, as I think you have misunderstood what Audie's saying there, or at least what it implies.

Longstanding research has shown that in the US prison system, the percentage of atheists is lower than in the general populace. Now whilst there may be many factors to consider, that hardly lends any credence to the bigoted notions many are espousing about the rectitude of atheists.

I'm fully aware of all that Audie stated, ...i thought that she was being sarcastic? Especially judging by her post that I initially mentioned her on.
But, i was hesitant to react the way that I did, feeling that I may be misconstruing the intent of her remark?
...if you're correct, too bad, I was hoping that there was at least one other level headed person on this forum, ...i may have to keep looking...?

 

[firedragon]

The theist answer woulb be ether:

1 you are misrepresenting the text

2 there are morally good reasons to justify that action.

This is why I said that it is moraly wrong to torture a child for fun, if you have a higher purpose you can (and should) torture a child and you will still be morally good, (a dentist or a doctor performing a hard and painful procedure would be examples of this)

Forget higher powers, theists and all the other anti god apologetics.

Why is torturing babies for fun morally wrong in a subjective moral framework?

 

[lukethethird]

Forget higher powers, theists and all the other anti god apologetics.

Why is torturing babies for fun morally wrong in a subjective moral framework?

Have you never learned to behave in a civilized manner, I mean, you really have to ask?

 

[firedragon]

Have you never learned to behave in a civilized manner, I mean, you really have to ask?

If you understand the question, you will respond differently. Maybe go back and read it again.

Just responding like this about behaving in civilised manner in a discussion on ethics is invalid. Yet, I will respond to you.

Yes. Human beings have learned to behave in a civilised manner. They are taught by society, parents and they have an innate moral values. Your question about humans having this nature shows that you dont believe morality is subjective. Its objective.

Cheers.

 

[We Never Know]

Have you never learned to behave in a civilized manner, I mean, you really have to ask?

Is having reckless sex for fun and then killing the unborn civilized?

 

[lukethethird]

Is having reckless sex for fun and then killing the unborn civilized?

Is it civilized to bring an unwanted child into the world?

 

[We Never Know]

Is it civilized to bring an unwanted child into the world?

It starts with reckless sex. So... I ask again....
Is having reckless sex for fun and then killing the unborn civilized?

 

[lukethethird]

It starts with sex. So... I ask again....
Is having reckless sex for fun and then killing the unborn civilized?

It's not killing if it is unborn, but to answer your question I would say using birth control is more civil than not, if that is what you mean by reckless sex. Having sex on or near the edge of a cliff might be considered reckless whether using birth control or not.

 

[We Never Know]

It's not killing if it is unborn, but to answer your question I would say using birth control is more civil than not, if that is what you mean by reckless sex. Having sex on or near the edge of a cliff might be considered reckless whether using birth control or not.

I thought "reckless sex" was clear but I think you knew that.
However a life starts growing at conception, so abortion is stopping a life.

 

[Augustus]

Almost as if humans are anachronistic.

He did say origins of humanism, or was I mistaken perhaps. I can see, simpleton and ignoramus that I am, that the morality and reasoning of evolved mammals would change and possibly improve over time. I can't see how the morality of a perfect deity can alter though, or be anachronistic, so either misogynistic murderous, slave owning patriarchal societies are the pinnacle of morality, or we're being sold a pup.

She said Secular Humanism has existed since the Greeks.

If you are going to describe ancient Greeks and Romans as "Secular Humanists" despite them being neither secular nor humanists, you might as well call cavemen Secular Humanists because they were humans who had some kind of beliefs about the world and are also our ancestors.

Also you are confusing the human practicing of religion which obviously changes and some kind of normative idea of what you personally think a true religion would ential if God were real.

The influence of religions on society is not contingent on a God existing, and seeing as you know I'm an atheist why would you think it makes sense to reply to a point about the real human activity with some nonsense about an actual god?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you taking anything for that?

What do you mean? Are you genuine or what?

 

[joe1776]

What do you mean? Are you genuine or what?

No, just teasing. It sounded like an illness to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, just teasing. It sounded like an illness to me.

Yeah, that could be your psychology as an illness in you, if you want to play that game. But it is not that. It is different cognitive schemata in respectively you and I.