Hitchen's Challange

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, the good old Victoria era. When ankles and wrists were super sexy.

They are still doing the same gig. I checked YouTube. Brother Jed does not dance as he preaches as he did in the past. And he is not as slim and svelte as he was in those days. And Sister Cindy's voice is old lady crackly. But it is still the same message of hate and intolerance.

 

[paarsurrey]

Just pull up pretty much any debate Hitchens took part in. He almost always brings it up.

I prefer reading books than listening to debates on YouTube. I had no interest in Atheism and the like. One of a member in another website forum challenged me to read "God is not Great ", therefore, I started reading it. I read it 3 times and then started discussing its contents there. I began with the title of it. I held that the title of the book suggested that Hitchens was unreasonable to name it " God is not Great":

1. first he should have discussed the existence of G-d.
2. then, His greatness was to be discussed.

Right?

Regards

 

[ppp]

I prefer reading books than listening to debates on YouTube. I had no interest in Atheism and the like. One of a member in another website forum challenged me to read "God is not Great ", therefore, I started reading it. I read it 3 times and then started discussing its contents there. I began with the title of it. I held that the title of the book suggested that Hitchens was unreasonable to name it " God is not Great":

1. first he should have discussed the existence of G-d.
2. then, His greatness was to be discussed.

Right?

Regards

Titles are for giving the person passing by a general idea of the subject being discussed. I suspect that you know that. And I also suspect that you are digging in your heels and quite literally 'judging the book by its cover' so as to avoid having to contend with the substance of the topics discussed therein.

You don't appreciate the title. We've heard you. Is that all you've got?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I prefer reading books than listening to debates on YouTube. I had no interest in Atheism and the like. One of a member in another website forum challenged me to read "God is not Great ", therefore, I started reading it. I read it 3 times and then started discussing its contents there. I began with the title of it. I held that the title of the book suggested that Hitchens was unreasonable to name it " God is not Great":

1. first he should have discussed the existence of G-d.
2. then, His greatness was to be discussed.

Right?

Regards

Well, if you've read it, then you already know what the Hitchens Challenge is.

Hitchens doesn't believe in God. So there's not much to discuss there.

 

[Sheldon]

One of a member in another website forum challenged me to read "God is not Great ", therefore, I started reading it.

That seems unlikely given your comments about it here, could you link this post that suggested you read it?

I read it 3 times and then started discussing its contents there.

Really, could you link the thread for me please, as again this seems a very dubious claim to me based on your recent comments here about the book.

I began with the title of it. I held that the title of the book suggested that Hitchens was unreasonable to name it " God is not Great":

You never said why, so just a subjective assertion, is it because the negation of the Muslim salutation offends you? Only offending someone is not unreasonable per se, especially with a book title, given it was meant to as a challenge to theistic belief, offending theists was pretty much inevitable.

first he should have discussed the existence of G-d.

Christopher Hitchens spent much of life discussing and debating religious apologists, so this is an absurd statement, and if you've read the book, let alone 3 times, you'd know how ludicrous a statement it is.

then, His greatness was to be discussed.

Again this just makes it abundantly clear that you haven't read the book.

 

[DNB]

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?

A vagina is designed for a penis, and a penis for a vagina - otherwise, we'll all be dead - that is it's most eminent purpose, tantamount to miraculous.
...until you can come up with a better way to engender life, or any way whatsoever, I would refrain from critiquing such an enigmatic and sublime process.

 

[DNB]

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

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.

Design denotes functionality and compatibility, primarily. Many items in life, whether natural or synthetic, serve multiple purposes, but their intrinsic design determines the parameters.
In other words, attempting to use a screwdriver as a hammer, will either frustrate your efforts, damage the tool, or bend the nail. Design determines efficacy and harmony.

 

[DNB]

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.

There goes the flippin' neighbourhood, right out the window with no hope of return.
Why do i bother....?, but like I said, you are not on this planet by your own volition, nor was your biological framework or gender, or nationality - respect the powers that are above you.

 

[DNB]

First off, no one says "FAIL" anymore. Let it die back in 2007, it was lame then anyway.

What exactly is wrong with what was quoted? A vagina is for delivering babies and for pleasure as well. And some people just use it for pleasure. That's okay. You don't have to have kids. You can just...do it and enjoy the closeness of your partner.

The fail grade that I gave to Kwed was because his answer was out of context. The question was posed for a specific reason, as was the topic of our discussion, therefore he failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A vagina is designed for a penis, and a penis for a vagina - otherwise, we'll all be dead - that is it's most eminent purpose, tantamount to miraculous.
...until you can come up with a better way to engender life, or any way whatsoever, I would refrain from critiquing such an enigmatic and sublime process.

There is an appearance of design, but no creationist has been able to find any evidence of design as of yet. New traits can arise when a potential of another use for an organ develops and is advantageous. Find evidence for design and then you may be able to claim that things are "miraculous'.

 

[DNB]

Again, that's not an answer to any of the questions I asked.

Yes, gender, biology, and one's constitution determine their character. All men act in a certain, and all women act in manner entirely different than men. This is called a complementarian relationship - what one lacks, the other provides.

Like I said, exceptions and variations exist, but as a general rule and guideline: men are masculine, and women are feminine

 

[Subduction Zone]

FAIL!
It was designed for a penis.

Sorry, but you need to prove this. Once again, do not conflate function with design.

 

[DNB]

Gender is a social construct that human s made up and changes over time.
Why are you having such a hard time with this?

Because I, as opposed to yourself and your cohorts, simply have to look at one's genitalia to establish their gender. But, much prior to that, I will know just merely by looking at them.
How is it possible that you can't?
Why are you so secular, and succumbing to such degenerate and pretentious nonsense?
If one has breasts or a vagina, it's a flippin' girl, why the controversy?

 

[DNB]

No, we're talking about real life. You're talking about made up nonsense.

My cousin and her wife have a child. My cousin gave birth to that child. No hypothetical there, just reality.
You really need to get out more.

Why do you care if other species of animals donate their children to others? Don't you say that humans aren't animals? So what's your point?

Did the subject matter just suddenly change?

 

[DNB]

Women dressing like men? You mean, like wearing pants or having short haircuts? Oh, the horror!
You've tried this one before.


By the way, you know what can cause confusion and emotional turmoil in in boys? Telling them that when they experience natural human emotions that they are "acting like a girl" or telling them that if they like the colour pink they're "acting like a girl." By the way on an historical note, a couple of hundred years ago pink used to be a "boy colour" and blue used to be a "girl colour." See that? It's almost like gender norms are a social construct that change over time!

And guess what? a couple hundred more years ago men used to wear make-up and high heels and were considered perfectly "manly." I'm wearing pants right now and still consider myself a woman. How strange! Again, it's almost like gender norms are a social construct that change over time!

Seriously, you have to understand how ridiculous you sound here.

Even in the animal kingdom, gender dictates disposition and role, and this is because there is an innate chemistry and physiology that determines that.
Why the flippin heck, as always, do some twisted and perverted humans come along, in order to accommodate and gain approval for their deranged and hedonistic fetishes, turn everything on it's head and then insidiously call it normal?
And how is it that you can't tell the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I, as opposed to yourself and your cohorts, simply have to look at one's genitalia to establish their gender. But, much prior to that, I will know just merely by looking at them.
How is it possible that you can't?
Why are you so secular, and succumbing to such degenerate and pretentious nonsense?
If one has breasts or a vagina, it's a flippin' girl, why the controversy?

You are conflating gender and sex. One's sex refers to one's genetics. Does the person have an X and a Y chromosome or two Y chromosomes? That is sex and it will determine one's plumbing. Gender is one's behavior. One cannot judge gender by plumbing. I can't tell whether a person will like tacos or hot dogs by what plumbing they have. I know there are traditional beliefs of how a person with certain chromosomes should act, but that does not mean that they will act that way. And those beliefs have changed over the years.

There will be behaviors that most of a sex had, but at no time have all members of that sex have that behavior.

Gender and health

 

[paarsurrey]

SkepticThinker said: ↑
Again, that's not an answer to any of the questions I asked.

Yes, gender, biology, and one's constitution determine their character. All men act in a certain, and all women act in manner entirely different than men. This is called a complementarian relationship - what one lacks, the other provides.

Like I said, exceptions and variations exist, but as a general rule and guideline: men are masculine, and women are feminine

The following maybe helpful to our friends:
masculine (adj.)
mid-14c., "belonging to the male grammatical gender;" late 14c., "of men, of male sex," from Old French masculin "of the male sex" (12c.), from Latin masculinus "male, of masculine gender," from masculus "male, masculine; worthy of a man," diminutive of mas (genitive maris) "male person, male," a word of unknown origin. The diminutive form might be by pairing association with femininus (see feminine). Meaning "having the appropriate qualities of the male sex, physically or mentally: Manly, virile, powerful" is attested by 1620s. As a noun, "masculine gender," from c. 1500.

Entries linking to masculine
feminine (adj.)

mid-14c., "of the female sex," from Old French femenin (12c.) "feminine, female; with feminine qualities, effeminate," from Latin femininus "feminine" (in the grammatical sense at first), from femina "woman, female," literally "she who suckles" (from PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck"). The usual modern sense of "woman-like, proper to or characteristic of women" is recorded from mid-15c. Related: Femininely.

The interplay of meanings now represented roughly in female "characteristic of the sex that bears children," feminine "having qualities considered appropriate to a woman," and effeminate "having female qualities in a bad sense, unmanly," and the attempt to keep them clear of each other, has led to many coinages. Among nouns, in addition to feminity "womanishness," femininity, femaleness, feminineness (1810, "female qualities"), there is feminitude (1878); feminility "womanliness" (1824); feminie "womankind" (late 14c.); femality (17c., "effeminacy;" 1754 "female nature"); feminacy "female nature" (1829); feminicity "quality or condition of being a woman" (1843). Also feminality (1640s, "quality or state of being female"), from rare adjective feminal "female, belonging to a woman" (late 14c.), from Old French feminal. And femineity "quality or state of being feminine," also "effeminate; womanly," from Latin femineus "of a woman, pertaining to a woman." feminile "feminine" (1640s) seems not to have survived.
masculine | Etymology, origin and meaning of masculine by etymonline
Does it help somehow, please? Right?

Regards

 

[Sheldon]

A vagina is designed for a penis, and a penis for a vagina - otherwise, we'll all be dead - that is it's most eminent purpose, tantamount to miraculous.
...until you can come up with a better way to engender life, or any way whatsoever, I would refrain from critiquing such an enigmatic and sublime process.

No part of any living thing is designed. The pleasure derived from those appendages can be achieved without them being anywhere near each other, nor is sexual congress and pleasure their only function, in short you couldn't be more wrong, as usual.

 

[Sheldon]

Design denotes functionality and compatibility, primarily.

Not even close, do you ever consult a dictionary?

Many items in life, whether natural or synthetic, serve multiple purposes, but their intrinsic design determines the parameters.

Since the pleasure derived from sex would also in that scenario be designed, and that pleasure is equally achievable in the many ways gay couples have sex, you're defeating your own argument.

Design determines efficacy and harmony.

Gay sex being both efficacious and harmonious for those who are gay, you have rather stood on your own tail here, yet again.

 

[Sheldon]

respect the powers that are above you.

Global warming?