Hitchen's Challange

[paarsurrey]

No one has concealed anything, the challenge is self explanatory and the book it was first used in has no direct relevance that I can see. You can Google the quote in a few seconds, obviously. The context is also obvious from the challenge, that very often theists and religions assert oral ascendancy of those who don't share that belief, and particularly over those who do not believe in any deity or deities. Thus the challenge is pretty clear, and is the reasoning behind it.

Please give the reference after all, I guess , one has seen it and admires it and is pleading for it. Right?
Hitchens wrote some plethora of words and then , I understand, he didn't know what to name it. Right?
People told me that on suggestion of somebody else, he named it "God Is Not Great". Right?

Regards

 

[KWED]

Please give the reference

Now you have the reference, take the challenge.

 

[paarsurrey]

Now you have the reference, take the challenge.

Well somehow I had the idea that the "nones" had the reference but they are most probably convinced that the man (Hitchens) had an impulse of extending unreasonable challenges to the Revealed Religions so they preferred not to exhibit it. Right?
But here comes a bold friend who has exposed him (Hitchens), and I thank him for it. Right?

Regards

 

[KWED]

Well somehow I had the idea that the "nones" had the reference but they are most probably convinced that the man (Hitchens) had an impulse of extending unreasonable challenges to the Revealed Religions so they preferred not to exhibit it. Right?
But here comes a bold friend who has exposed him (Hitchens), and I thank him for it. Right?

Regards

Do you use a random text generator for your posts? Genuine question.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you use a random text generator for your posts? Genuine question.

What is "random text generator ",please? I hear about it for the first time from one.

Regards

 

[DNB]

Prove that a woman having consensual sex with another woman is improper.

What's a vagina for?

 

[DNB]

In your hypothetical world of only homosexuals, social expectations would be different. Women would see surrogacy as an important and valuable service to society. The fact remains that an all gay world could be sustainable.

With all due respect, you were the one who brought up the idea of a world populated entirely by homosexuals!

Cuckoo.

Also, there are no other species that worship invisible gods. So presumably you reject that trait as unnatural and undesirable?

You're confusing naturalism and secularism, with spiritualism, ...no wonder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's a vagina for?

Who says that it has a specific "for"? And how would one support that claim? I would say that it whoever owns one would be the one to decide its uses.. I don't have one. I could not decide for others how theirs are to be used.

 

[DNB]

Huh?
I provided the dictionary definition to help you understand that "gender" and "biological sex" are different concepts.
Didn't help though, did it? Possibly because you are arguing from emotion and dogma rather than evidence and reason.

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

I would not be so quick to put transgender into the group of "hedonists". Talk to some of our transgender members. It seems that hedonism is rather low on their slate of accomplishments.

 

[DNB]

But as there is nothing wrong, unnatural, improper, immature or irrational about being homosexual your argument is meaningless.

Well, we can go on forever (unfortunately) debating what's subversive behaviour - toys, role playing, promiscuity, swinging, orgies, etc...?
What the flippin' heck is a penis for, if it's not meant for a flippin' vagina?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, we can go on forever (unfortunately) debating what's subversive behaviour - toys, role playing, promiscuity, swinging, orgies, etc...?
What the flippin' heck is a penis for, if it's not meant for a flippin' vagina?

Wow! You sound incredibly accomplished. I have never managed to flip a vagina with my penis. It sounds like it could be extremely stressful and possibly might damage the unit.

 

[ppp]

What's a vagina for?

Asking me questions will never be proof of your claims. Put up. Or shut up.

 

[DNB]

Asking me questions will never be proof of your claims. Put up. Or shut up.

You should take your own advice, like seriously!

 

[KWED]

What's a vagina for?

1. Delivering babies.
2. Delivering pleasure.

 

[KWED]

You're confusing naturalism and secularism, with spiritualism, ...no wonder.

Didn't think you would be able to respond.

 

[KWED]

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.

As I said, you are arguing from emotion and dogma rather than evidence and reason.
Yes, we understand that you have an irrational prejudice against anything LGBTQ+, but as has been repeatedly been pointed out, your prejudice has no justification in reality.

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

You still seem confused.
You made a claim about the meaning of the term "gender". The dictionary definition was provided to illustrate your error. If you still can't acknowledge your mistake, that just illustrates the problems you have, not anyone else.

 

[KWED]

Well, we can go on forever (unfortunately) debating what's subversive behaviour - toys, role playing, promiscuity, swinging, orgies, etc...?

What does homosexuality "subvert"?

What the flippin' heck is a penis for, if it's not meant for a flippin' vagina?

Do you think a wife performing fellatio on her husband, or giving him a hand job is also depraved, degenerate, perverted, deviant, disgusting, etc?

 

[Sheldon]

Please give the reference

Already given twice now?

after all, I guess , one has seen it and admires it and is pleading for it. Right?

I have read the original book, the challenge was the author's not mine, and I have no idea what you mean by admire here? I already explained the OP, again not mine, is derived a challenge from the late Christopher Hitchens, the context is that it was offered in response to an oft used claim by theists that atheists cannot be moral, or for the moral ascendancy of various theistic religions.

Hitchens wrote some plethora of words and then , I understand, he didn't know what to name it. Right?

What?

People told me that on suggestion of somebody else, he named it "God Is Not Great". Right?

I have no idea where the Hitch derived the title of his book, it has absolutely no relevance to the challenge though, as has been explained.

If you don't want to take the challenge, then why are you spinning this off into irrelevant obfuscation?

 

[Sheldon]

Well, we can go on forever (unfortunately) debating what's subversive behaviour - toys, role playing, promiscuity, swinging, orgies, etc...?
What the flippin' heck is a penis for, if it's not meant for a flippin' vagina?

What are you claiming homosexuality is subverting and what evidence can you demonstrate to support the assertion, beyond your own prejudice?

A penis is not "meant for" anything, it evolved to perform certain functions, one of which is procreation, though the pleasure one derives from sex need involve that obviously, indeed why should it?