Hitchen's Challange

[Ashoka]

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

My body is my own. It's not "meant" for anything other than what I choose.

 

[KWED]

I have no idea where the Hitch derived the title of his book

Wasn't it a play on Allahu akbar ("god is great")?

 

[ppp]

My body is my own. It's not "meant" for anything other than what I choose.

Damn right.

 

[Sheldon]

Wasn't it a play on Allahu akbar ("god is great")?

I believe so, but I hadn't heard it was inspired by anyone else as was claimed. In fact I recall a debate where a member of the audience jokingly asked him did it have to be a literal negation of that Islamic exaltation of a deity, and he replied with one word, yes. He did expand on it once the laughter had died down, but I don't recall what was said. I will try and find a YouTube link.

 

[paarsurrey]

Already given twice now?

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.

What?

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?

First of all because the title " God is not Great" is most unreasonable. Shouldn't Hitchens have first discussed existence of G-d, please? Right?

Regards

 

[DNB]

1. Delivering babies.
2. Delivering pleasure.

FAIL!
It was designed for a penis.

 

[DNB]

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.

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.

You're confusing emotion with empirical evidence, ...no wonder.,

 

[DNB]

What does homosexuality "subvert"?

Both love, and sound character

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

What does that have to do with the design, function and purpose, and the symbiotic relationship that exists between a man and a woman's genitalia?

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe so, but I hadn't heard it was inspired by anyone else as was claimed. In fact I recall a debate where a member of the audience jokingly asked him did it have to be a literal negation of that Islamic exaltation of a deity, and he replied with one word, yes. He did expand on it once the laughter had died down, but I don't recall what was said. I will try and find a YouTube link.

Sorry, that couldn't have been the case, I understand.
If yes, then the book had been only with reference to Islam. Right?
It makes (Hitchens) one of the four horsemen of Atheism, an unreasonable man.

Regards

 

[DNB]

My body is my own. It's not "meant" for anything other than what I choose.

...oh Ashoka, but your body is not your own. You have absolutely no control as to how it is designed, as to what gender that you are, as to the intrinsic stature and health that you were born with, as to the colour of your skin or hair, as to the size of your lips or length of your eyelashes.
You have absolutely no say as to whether you were born or not, or ultimately, when you will die.
You only have choice in the small and insignificant matters.
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).

 

[ppp]

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

ROFLMAO

 

[KWED]

First of all because the title " God is not Great" is most unreasonable. Shouldn't Hitchens have first discussed existence of G-d, please? Right?

Regards

Perhaps you should read the book before attempting to comment on it?
Please?

 

[KWED]

FAIL!
It was designed for a penis.

You asked "what is a vagina for?" It is not "for a penis".
It has several functions, the most important probably being the delivering of babies. Without that it would simply be for please.
BTW, the human vagina wasn't "designed" at all because if it had been it would be quite different as the current form presents serious problems in performing its primary function.
Or perhaps the "designer" was just incompetent? Which do you think it was?

 

[KWED]

You're confusing emotion with empirical evidence, ...no wonder.,

 

[KWED]

Both love, and sound character

But there are many homosexuals who epitomise love and sound character, while there are heterosexuals who are full of hate and

What does that have to do with the design, function and purpose, and the symbiotic relationship that exists between a man and a woman's genitalia?

You claimed that a penis is only meant for a vagina. So, what is your position of marital fellatio and hand jobs?
Similarly, do you also condemn a husband performing cunnilingus of his wife as perverted and disgusting?

I think we can all see how irrational and unsupportable your prejudice-based position is.

 

[KWED]

Sorry, that couldn't have been the case, I understand.
If yes, then the book had been only with reference to Islam. Right?
It makes (Hitchens) one of the four horsemen of Atheism, an unreasonable man.

Regards

1. "God is great" is a common theme amongst the Abrahamic religions.
2. It is merely the title of the book, not its contents. Do you also criticise Tolstoy for only mentioning the war between France and Russia in "War and Peace", when there are many other wars and peaces?

 

[Ashoka]

...oh Ashoka, but your body is not your own. You have absolutely no control as to how it is designed, as to what gender that you are, as to the intrinsic stature and health that you were born with, as to the colour of your skin or hair, as to the size of your lips or length of your eyelashes.
You have absolutely no say as to whether you were born or not, or ultimately, when you will die.
You only have choice in the small and insignificant matters.
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).

Several things here:

1. My body is my own, despite what your Bible says. It's mine, to do with what I please.
2. You know what my stance is on this. Yes, people do have say in their gender, because it's a social construct. People can put on makeup, dye their hair, hell, they can get plastic surgery. People can change and modify their bodies at will, because it belongs to them.
3. Why, oh why do you resort to ad hominems? All the time?
4. My private parts are for me to do with what I want. I don't want a penis, another vagina, anything near it, because I am asexual. I can choose not to use my private parts for any reason. Yes, a penis and a vagina are biologically there for reproductive purposes, but I don't want to reproduce, and am quite happy with being the genetic dead end Because again...my body, my choise.

 

[Sheldon]

First of all because the title " God is not Great" is most unreasonable. Shouldn't Hitchens have first discussed existence of G-d, please? Right?

Regards

Irrelevant to the challenge, and Christopher Hitchens spent much of his life debating the existence of any deity, as he did in his book, so that claim is as absurd as it is irrelevant to the challenge.

 

[Sheldon]

FAIL!
It was designed for a penis.

It wasn't designed at all, it is a product of evolution, as are all living things. Nor is that the only orifice a penis will fit, so by your rationale they were "designed" for that as well.

 

[Sheldon]

Both love, and sound character

Gay people don't subvert love, that is axiomatic, there is ample evidence of loving lasting relationships between gay men and women, and it is equally and absurdly false to claim being gay subverts character.

The allies would not have defeated Nazism without Alan Turing, despite bigotry and prejudice he lead the team that broke the German Enigma code machine. He also is considered the father of modern computers. It's hard to imagine a man of more sound moral character, and he happened to be born gay.