Hitchen's Challange

[PureX]

Wow, like its not super obvious.

Then it should very easy for you to explain to me. And yet, we all know you aren't going to be able to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
These are the Affirmations of Humanism. These are my values:

Affirmations of Humanism
A Statement of Principles
Drafted by Paul Kurtz
We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

...​

​

And here we do again. So have you solved this yet?
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[lukethethird]

Is that all you think religion has ever had to say about social values? Or is that just the easiest thing you can think of to promote your bias?

Non-believers will burn in hell, that's another religious value that comes to mind, I can think of more.

 

[Audie]

Then it should very easy for you to explain to me. And yet, we all know you aren't going to be able to.

That being the royal "we" unless you
mean everyone makes your mistakes.

Note you made a point of " just saying"
re motives and sincerity of a ( shudder)
atheist who might ( gasp) get paid

Along comes someone and comments
About the billions raked in by preachers
of dubious intent and you really - really cannot see the relevance?

Spate me.
But "we" know you wont.

 

[Audie]

Non-believers will burn in hell, that's another religious value that comes to mind, I can think of more.

Go ahead.
Top ten would do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Non-believers will burn in hell, that's another religious value that comes to mind, I can think of more.

Well, according to some non-believers this is true:
—Ayn Rand Lexicon First entry

But I guess you can't spot the relevance?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Go ahead.
Top ten would do.

Can you spot the relevance?
—Ayn Rand Lexicon First entry.

 

[Orbit]

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.

The idea that religion is anti-war is laughable. Look at the history of Europe and the current Middle East! Secular humanism IS anti-war, and its principles aren't undergirded by any religion. Present-day northern Europe is largely non-religious, and they seem to be doing fine. The principles of secular humanism didn't come from monotheism; secular humanism has been around since the ancient Greek philosophers, but not by that name. In the present-day US, secular humanism is not "protected" by religion, religion sees it as the enemy.

 

[Audie]

Yes you did: you posted "Those are the values we are raised with. No religion involved." That clearly suggests that religion was not involved in developing and spreading the values our society currently hold.
They go to be reminded of the importance of those values, and how to apply them in their everyday lives. Why do you find this so "odd"?

Billions of dollars and countless hours
of which a tiny fraction is used to remind people of what they learn at home must seem
normal like anything does if you grow up with it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The idea that religion is anti-war is laughable. Look at the history of Europe and the current Middle East! Secular humanism IS anti-war, and its principles aren't undergirded by any religion. Present-day northern Europe is largely non-religious, and they seem to be doing fine. The principles of secular humanism didn't come from monotheism; secular humanism has been around since the ancient Greek philosophers, but not by that name. In the present-day US, secular humanism is not "protected" by religion, religion sees it as the enemy.

Well, that is at least debatable.

 

[Audie]

Then it should very easy for you to explain to me. And yet, we all know you aren't going to be able to.

Two posters already indicsted they got it before
you got this posted

 

[Wildswanderer]

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?

A nonbeliever could not pray sincerely.
The second one? People killed millions through out history because of their faith in a different God than those people.

 

[lukethethird]

Yes you did: you posted "Those are the values we are raised with. No religion involved." That clearly suggests that religion was not involved in developing and spreading the values our society currently hold.
They go to be reminded of the importance of those values, and how to apply them in their everyday lives. Why do you find this so "odd"?

Name a religious value that is important, besides non-believers go to hell and God hates ****.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Name a religious value that is important, besides non-believers go to hell and God hates ****.

That science is the best method we have to understand the universe. That is a religious belief and it is important.

 

[lukethethird]

That science is the best method we have to understand the universe. That is a religious belief and it is important.

“There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: “Let us be friends.” It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: “Let us agree not to step on each other’s feet.” Robert Ingersoll

 

[sun rise]

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?

So? Anyone can say anything for starters. Anyone including nonbelievers can quote scripture. Saying something is thus meaningless.

As far as action goes, again, that someone performs what they think is an ethical action is meaningless for other reasons. First we have to consider statistics. Are believers more likely to perform ethical acts than nonbelievers?

One example is charitable giving. Religious people give more. I've not seen statistics about other ethical acts nor about disputes about what should be our ethical beliefs - Catholic womb-to-tomb pro-life vs anti-abortion but does not care what happens after birth to pro-choice for example.

Beyond that, measuring whether believers engage more or less often in actions they believe are ethical is not something I've seen. Unless someone has a good study, I rate that as unproven.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

“There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: “Let us be friends.” It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: “Let us agree not to step on each other’s feet.” Robert Ingersoll

Yeah, that is a part of your belief system and your form of art.
Try something new and give evidence for the fact, that science is the best method, we have to understand the universe.

 

[sun rise]

There is no harmony between religion and science

I don't agree. Science is the method to understand and appreciate the wonder and beauty of creation.

 

[sun rise]

Religion / suoerstition is so deeply tangled
into human thought it probably cant ever be rooted out.

That untangling has been going on for some time. If we look at religious beliefs and practices from a few centuries ago, the difference is clear at least for Christianity. Women used to be considered witches and burned. People had all sorts of superstitions about illness, performed magic rituals for material items, gave money to the Church to get a piece of paper absolving them of what was considered sinful and so on.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

Sure. I also affirm the theology of hope, peace and love as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence.

secular humanism is not "protected" by religion, religion sees it as the enemy.

That's a logical fallacy which overgeneralizes the situation. Many religious people have no issue with secular humanism.

Name a religious value that is important, besides non-believers go to hell and God hates ****.

Love.

 

[Audie]

That untangling has been going on for some time. If we look at religious beliefs and practices from a few centuries ago, the difference is clear at least for Christianity. Women used to be considered witches and burned. People had all sorts of superstitions about illness, performed magic rituals for material items, gave money to the Church to get a piece of paper absolving them of what was considered sinful and so on.



Sure. I also affirm the theology of hope, peace and love as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence.



That's a logical fallacy which overgeneralizes the situation. Many religious people have no issue with secular humanism.



Love.

" Totally" disentangled, then.

" love" is a human value, tegardless of which religions want to try to hijack it