Hitchen's Challange

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said in post #395,,,,

"In my opinion we don't know if anyone is born either way."

Thanks

 

[DNB]

Nothing i said indicates I feel it states
" the truth".
Here and there it gets things right.
Thats actually not hard.

The bible offers a narrative about origins.
A psych 101 text would have a lot more practical info on human behaviour.

Since those days study has kept showing that
reality is far far stranger than was evident to
certain poor shepherds

The explanation in the bible is poetic or
metaphorical but low on truth you can
get your teeth into.

Poor shepherds? The Bible was written by a myriad of different statures in life: Monarchs, men trained in either a Pharaoh's court or a Babylonian king's court, a highly educated Pharisee, a Doctor, Prophets in the King's palace, some fisherman, some warriors or highly skilled musicians, trained prophets and theologians/Rabbi.

The Bible is not predominantly metaphorical, such a type of literary convention (allegory, figurative language, analogies, parables) only constitutes 5% - 10% of the Bible. And, when it's employed, it is categorically expressed as such.

Man is in need of salvation, that is the over-arching principle throughout the Bible. Christ's Messiahship, suffering servanthood, and enigmatic chronology, are unique enough to set it apart from all other pseudo religions.

 

[lukethethird]

Poor shepherds? The Bible was written by a myriad of different statures in life: Monarchs, men trained in either a Pharaoh's court or a Babylonian king's court, a highly educated Pharisee, a Doctor, Prophets in the King's palace, some fisherman, some warriors or highly skilled musicians, trained prophets and theologians/Rabbi.

The Bible is not predominantly metaphorical, such a type of literary convention (allegory, figurative language, analogies, parables) only constitutes 5% - 10% of the Bible. And, when it's employed, it is categorically expressed as such.

Man is in need of salvation, that is the over-arching principle throughout the Bible. Christ's Messiahship, suffering servanthood, and enigmatic chronology, are unique enough to set it apart from all other pseudo religions.

Maybe it's just you that is need of salvation.

 

[DNB]

So no atheist is capable or inclined to
such intellectual achievements because they are all lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual acumen, they are capable of, and have proven such.
They lack perception and insight, and thus, wisdom. They don't understand the world around them, nor are capable of comprehending discreet and profound principles, as in the Bible.

 

[DNB]

Maybe it's just you that is need of salvation.

Nope, me and quite a few others....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Intellectual acumen, they are capable and have proven such.
They lack perception and insight, and thus, wisdom. They don't understand the world around them, nor are capable of comprehending discreet and profound principles, as in the Bible.

Yeah, I still believe differently than you and have a different faith.

 

[Audie]

Poor shepherds? The Bible was written by a myriad of different statures in life: Monarchs, men trained in either a Pharaoh's court or a Babylonian king's court, a highly educated Pharisee, a Doctor, Prophets in the King's palace, some fisherman, some warriors or highly skilled musicians, trained prophets and theologians/Rabbi.

The Bible is not predominantly metaphorical, such a type of literary convention (allegory, figurative language, analogies, parables) only constitutes 5% - 10% of the Bible. And, when it's employed, it is categorically expressed as such.

Man is in need of salvation, that is the over-arching principle throughout the Bible. Christ's Messiahship, suffering servanthood, and enigmatic chronology, are unique enough to set it apart from all other pseudo religions.

Trained prophets, and all other pseudo religions.
You sure thats what you mean to say?

Is the flood account categorically identified
as non literal?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope, me and quite a few others....

Well, as long as you don't tell me how I have to do God I will do my salvation as me and leave you to yours. But I doubt that you can separate the 2 and you will claim that I can only be saved if I do as you believe.

 

[Audie]

Intellectual acumen, they are capable and have proven such.
They lack perception and insight, and thus, wisdom. They don't understand the world around them, nor are capable of comprehending discreet and profound principles, as in the Bible.

Much about perception / understanding of the
world will be revealed in the response to my question regarding " the flood".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I mean is that secular humanism hasn't got a track record, and there are plenty of examples of countries which tried to oust religion only to enshrine leaders as little gods. For all we know that could be how Egypt got its first pharoah.

Sounds like you are trying to put both secular humanism and something like N Korea style extreme communism, in the same bag?

Secularism isn't about ousting religion at all, off course.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are these the ones?

1. I honor virtue
2. I benefit with gratitude
3. I am peaceful
4. I respect the property of others
5. I affirm that all life is sacred
6. I give offerings that are genuine
7. I live in truth
8. I regard all altars with respect
9. I speak with sincerity
10. I consume only my fair share
11. I offer words of good intent
12. I relate in peace
13. I honor animals with reverence
14. I can be trusted
15. I care for the earth
16. I keep my own council
17. I speak positively of others
18. I remain in balance with my emotions
19. I am trustful in my relationships
20. I hold purity in high esteem
21. I spread joy
22. I do the best I can
23. I communicate with compassion
24. I listen to opposing opinions
25. I create harmony
26. I invoke laughter
27. I am open to love in various forms
28. I am forgiving
29. I am kind
30. I act respectfully
31. I am accepting
32. I follow my inner guidance
33. I converse with awareness
34. I do good
35. I give blessings
36. I keep the waters pure
37. I speak with good intent
38. I praise the Goddess and the God
39. I am humble
40. I achieve with integrity
41. I advance through my own abilities
42. I embrace the All

Many of these could be affirmed as virtues or performed as actions by a nonbeliever.

And those that can't, don't have any inherent ethical value.

Like
38. I praise the Goddess and the God

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not reasonable to think no religion was involved in developing and promoting those values in or society. Or that religions are not now involved in doing so.

Do you really think that early homo sapiens expanding their nomadic tribes into cooperative settlements required a god to tell them that murder, theft etc are not beneficial for the settlement and quite detrimental instead?

Also, off course, religions are reflections of the cultures they originated in. The ethical ideas therein are the ethical ideas of the times, or at best the new ideas people were coming up with. This is why there are so many questionable ideas in it. Questionable to us folks with modern ethical standards, but instead rather normal to the people of the culture the religions originated in.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sounds like you are trying to put both secular humanism and something like N Korea style extreme communism, in the same bag?

Secularism isn't about ousting religion at all, off course.

Some other people in the thread have replied to that post and got the same impression as you, but that isn't my position. I give a couple of example of countries which have tried to drive out religion without replacing it; but I'm not suggesting secular humanism attempts to drive anything out. I don't know whether you are reading through the whole thread or not, but my position is actually that secularism has a position similar to religion but doesn't have a track record and may not be able to hold down the fort. It may not be able to sustain morality in government under political stress, and it remains to be seen whether secular countries will resist internal corruption like religious ones.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hitchens was - I think - responding to claims that morals come from religion. I agree with Hitchens that this is a ridiculous idea. I'd say it's closer to the truth that religions attempt to steal morals from other sources and then try to rebrand them as their own.

Uhu, like the so called "goden rule" which christians like to claim as exclusive to christianity.
Just about every culture ever, incl those far older then christianity, has independently come up with some variation of it.


Which is to be expected from something so mega obvious if one takes a few moments to contemplate which type of behavior would make up for a better type of society in which one would want to live.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

WORSHIP God

He said "ethical" statement or action
The act of worshipping (of anything) has no ethical value.

And if you reject libertarian free will (like most atheist do) I would include things like

What do you mean by "libertarian free will"?

All these actions imply a libertarian choice. For example a lie implies that you had the option/ability to tell the truth but decided to lie instead.

Huh? And you think that "most atheists" would disagree with that? :-S

 

[PureX]

Do you really think that early homo sapiens expanding their nomadic tribes into cooperative settlements required a god to tell them that murder, theft etc are not beneficial for the settlement and quite detrimental instead?

Yes, just as people still do. Now we have elaborate legal systems to establish and enforce those ideals. Then we did not. So we really needed religions and their taboos and superstitions to do that for us. You think because there are other mechanisms, now, that religions were never necessary in this regard, but that's quite untrue. And it still is. Because even today, we can do significant harm to each other without breaking any laws, or incurring the wrath of our legal system. Something religions can still do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, just as people still do. Now we have elaborate legal systems to establish and enforce those ideals. Then we did not. So we really needed religions and their taboos and superstitions to do that for us. You think because there are other mechanisms, now, that religions were never necessary in this regard, but that's quite untrue. And it still is. Because even today, we can do significant harm to each other without breaking any laws, or incurring the wrath of our legal system. Something religions can still do.

Yeah, I mean it was a lot easier for me, when I discover that I had faith in humanity. I am a de facto naturalist, so that is my religion. I still have to do the work and try to learn, but yes, it helps that I have faith, because then I avoid fooling myself and believe I can do everything with evidence and rationality.
Here is a nice one from a Danish philosopher and theologian:
"Trust is not of our own making; it is given. Our life is so constituted that it cannot be lived except as one person lays him or herself open to another person and puts him or herself into that person’s hands either by showing or claiming trust. By our very attitude to another we help to shape that person’s world. By our attitude to the other person we help to determine the scope and hue of his or her world; we make it large or small, bright or drab, rich or dull, threatening or secure. We help to shape his or her world not by theories and views but by our very attitude towards him or her. Herein lies the unarticulated and one might say anonymous demand that we take care of the life which trust has placed in our hands."
Knud Ejler Løgstrup - Wikipedia

Peace my fellow human.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I said in post #395, the post you replied to,

"In my opinion we don't know if anyone is born either way."

Then why ask the question?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What's your price?

So you do own slaves and think it's moral to own human beings as property?

 

[We Never Know]

Then why ask the question?

As I said in post #404..
"Because when someone claims people are born gay, Ima going to ask them how they know."