Hitchen's Challange

[PureX]

Here's another one; Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, how many tens of millions have been slaughtered for believing in the wrong god? Surely we can do without religious values.

None. That was never really why we slaughtered each other. And it still isn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And not just laws, but social taboos as well. Many of these were developed and promoted by religion, and then adopted socially and legally. So claiming that morality happens apart from religion is false. It might, but we'll never know because religions have been a significant part of every society that has ever existed.

Not even that. The assumption is some versions of science is that universe is lawful in terms of natural laws. That is similar to that God guarantees that the universe makes sense. And in Western culture that is connected to Christianity and Greek philosophy.

 

[PureX]

Religions were not involved in the abolition of slavery...

That is false. Most abolitionists were inspired by their religious beliefs.

... or in advancing equal rights for women and homosexuals.

Also false. Martin Luther King, for example, was a preach, and used his religion to justify his cause all the time.

Their sacred texts do not support those moral advances. However, the faithful are also human, and we humans have consciences.

Sacred texts are irrelevant in and of themselves. It is the interpretation of them that matters. And that has inspired many religious theists to exemplary moral behavior.

Your bias is really blinding you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's another one; Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, how many tens of millions have been slaughtered for believing in the wrong god? Surely we can do without religious values.

Yeah, generalization is, it seems ,not your strong suit. That is in general terms foundationalism in philosophy. Find a point of view/principle and everything else follows and if you don't follow that, you are wrong.

So religion is in natural terms no special, because if it is always an underlying general psychological/social/cognitive/biological feature, then in general terms can also be found in non-religious terms.

Now there is properly a Nobel prize in it, for you if you can find a specific set of religious genes that enables a behaviour that can't be found in non-religious people. I doubt it, because it appears that religion is nothing but a variation of natural behavior and not a special unique negative, that is so special, that in effect is supernatural.

That is the irony with your kind of worldview. You go to such lengths to explain religion as a special negative, that you end up making in unnatural and in effect supernatural. In effect it seems connected to the naturalistic fallacy. If it is good, it is natural. If it is bad, it is unnatural.

Start be reading some general overviews of cognition and morality and don't make your model to simple. "Me good, you bad."

 

[Colt]

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?

If one doesn’t have faith trust in God then they cannot act on it. One can have the qualities of their Heavenly Father yet deny him.

Ideological allegiance to religion or politics can be the basis of wicked acts without being condoned by God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If one doesn’t have faith trust in God then they cannot act on it. One can have the qualities of their Heavenly Father yet deny him.

Ideological allegiance to religion or politics can be the basis of wicked acts without being condoned by God.

Yeah, that is your model. I have another model including another model of God.

 

[blü 2]

Name an ethical statement made or action performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever.

I'm not sure of the ground rules here about what's an ethical statement and what isn't.

But let me try this answer to your challenge: a devout and sincere cry of 'DEATH TO THE BLASPHEMER!"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure of the ground rules here about what's an ethical statement and what isn't.

But let me try this answer to your challenge: a devout and sincere cry of 'DEATH TO THE BLASPHEMER!"

Strip away the particulars and term it in general terms.

 

[Colt]

Yeah, that is your model. I have another model including another model of God.

I’ve read a lot of your post, what you have is ultraindividualism.

 

[Colt]

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?

Atheist ideology has also lead to many wicked acts against the children of God.

 

[blü 2]

Strip away the particulars and term it in general terms.

One good example, or counter-example, is worth a thousand words.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One good example, or counter-example, is worth a thousand words.

No, you have reason and I don't. So you can do it yourself, because you have reason. Be your axiom and live up to it.

 

[blü 2]

Atheist ideology has also lead to many wicked acts against the children of God.

It's not as if the children of God have always been noted for their kindly attitude eg

Exodus 22:29-30 You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’ve read a lot of your post, what you have is ultraindividualism.

Well, not quite. I can do same, similar and/or different for the world as such. But in these threads in always involves in part different as individual differences. You just do that differently than me.

 

[blü 2]

One good example, or counter-example, is worth a thousand words.

Why on earth are you suggesting that general terms MUST be better than specifics (which I referred to).

 

[Brickjectivity]

Which you rejected. But are now trying to use as support for your position. Nah.

Thanks for wasting our time. Lets not do this again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why on earth are you suggesting that general terms MUST be better than specifics (which I referred to).

We use the same axioms and thus we get the same results. There is no difference among humans because all cases of nature and nurture are the same and indeed we have the exact same brain, cognition, nature and nurture, because we do the same axioms.
So if I can get a result, you can get the same result, because we use the same axioms.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The most staunchest so called "Totalitarian" regimes, most brutal and murderous, have been anti theistic.

I hear you, but what about N Korea?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I hear you, but what about N Korea?

In general all 2 factor models of X and non-X are properly too simple. Logic has its usage, but always look out for oversimplification as in effect a false dilemma.

 

[blü 2]

We use the same axioms and thus we get the same results. There is no difference among humans because all cases of nature and nurture are the same and indeed we have the exact same brain, cognition, nature and nurture, because we do the same axioms.
So if I can get a result, you can get the same result, because we use the same axioms.

If that were true, it'd be bad news for religion.