Hitchen's Challange

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Yeah, but that is neither so for religion or your world view. Both are neither true or false, they work in limited terms and so does my worldview. I just know that for all 3.

 

[firedragon]

I hear you, but what about N Korea?

All we know about NK is that its an atheist state.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All we know about NK is that its an atheist state.

Well, again where it is religious or not depends on what you assume religion is. And I am not a "we", but you are.

 

[Colt]

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.​

Religion also evolves. In those earlier forms of primitive religion God wasn't much more than a shadow of the men of the priest class. They wrote in "preacher speak", as if God were actually giving them these directives. Blood sacrifices were common around the world.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but that is neither so for religion or your world view. Both are neither true or false, they work in limited terms and so does my worldview. I just know that for all 3.

Have a lovely day!

 

[blü 2]

Religion also evolves. In those earlier forms of primitive religion God wasn't much more than a shadow of the men of the priest class. They wrote in "preacher speak", as if God were actually giving them these directives. Blood sacrifices were common around the world.

And it's reasonable to conclude from the archaeological evidence that Yahweh began as just one more tribal god in the Canaanite pantheon about 3.5 thousand years ago (and originally had a consort, Asherah, though the divorce seems to have been particularly bitter).

 

[firedragon]

Well, again where it is religious or not depends on what you assume religion is. And I am not a "we", but you are.

Nice. Thanks for the side snide remark.

Cheers.

 

[Colt]

And it's reasonable to conclude from the archaeological evidence that Yahweh began as just one more tribal god in the Canaanite pantheon about 3.5 thousand years ago (and originally had a consort, Asherah, though the divorce seems to have been particularly bitter).

Yes, Yahweh was one of thousands of nature Gods among the nomadic groups. Yahweh was associated with the Sini volcano. Hense Moses's group adopted that name for their deity. Throughout the evolution of Judaism there were 7 names for deity. At the times of Abraham El Elyon was prevalent.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Oversimplification is where we begin. Sometimes a data mining technique can retrieve useful results. I'm not saying the first model should be the last, but in a dark room you must take a step to feel around with your toe.

Wait a minute. You are related to Shadow Wolf? Hello! I didn't know about that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oversimplification is where we begin. Sometimes a data mining technique can retrieve useful results. I'm not saying the first model should be the last, but in a dark room you must take a step to feel around with your toe.

Well, yes, for a limited context, simple is the way to go. For the world as such simple and complex has to be manage. How we apparently can't agree on.

Wait a minute. You are related to Shadow Wolf? Hello! I didn't know about that.

No or rather well, only as cognitively diverse.

 

[1213]

So like atheists act in bad faith.

I don't know, but what do you think,
1. Person does good, because he loves others and wants to do good for them.
2. Person does good thing only to prove that the person in case number one is not anyway different.

Is there any difference between those 2 cases? what do you think, are they equally good?

 

[joe1776]

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

How is that possible when the Torah, the Quran and the Bible, with more than 100 comments on the topic, do not condemn slavery?

In 1866, a year after the American Civil War, and at a time when half the nations of the world had abolished the legal practice, the Catholic Pope advised his large flock that he found nothing in Divine Law (his Bible) opposed to the buying, selling or trading of slaves. That Pope was correct.

You have overlooked the simple fact that religious people are also humans, and like the rest of us, gifted with conscience. You jumped to the conclusion that they were inspired by their religious beliefs when it was their conscience that moved them as it did the non-religious..

Conscience is now moving us to give women and homosexuals equal treatment. You won't find support for those moral advances in the sacred texts either.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

All we know about NK is that its an atheist state.

Wrong, the leader and his son are whorshiped as Gods in North Korea. Not the least bit athiest. And since we are here, neither was Hitler's Germany. I know theists love to incorrectly say Nazis were athiest

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong, the leader and his son are whorshiped as Gods in North Korea. Not the least bit athiest. And since we are here, neither was Hitler's Germany. I know theists love to incorrectly say Nazis were athiest

I think it is a bit more complex than that.

 

[Audie]

I don't know, but what do you think,
1. Person does good, because he loves others and wants to do good for them.
2. Person does good thing only to prove that the person in case number one is not anyway different.

Is there any difference between those 2 cases? what do you think, are they equally good?

That has nothing to do with atheists.

But you might address the Christian who
only acts out of fear of punishment

 

[EtuMalku]

Do you think torturing babies for fun is a subjective moral issue? Is that okay with you?

You obviously don't understand subjectivity. For those torturing babies, it is a good thing, for the babies it is not. It's really as simple as that. There is no Judgment by some imaginary authority. GOOD & EVIL only exists subjectively. This is why we have societies, governments, etc.

 

[lukethethird]

Do you think torturing babies for fun is a subjective moral issue? Is that okay with you?

According to The Bible it's OK with God;

“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” Psalm 137

 

[joe1776]

You obviously don't understand subjectivity. For those torturing babies, it is a good thing, for the babies it is not. It's really as simple as that. There is no Judgment by some imaginary authority. GOOD & EVIL only exists subjectively. This is why we have societies, governments, etc.

Conscience, an intuitive moral sense, is our only moral authority. When a specific act is wrong, we feel it.

Biases don't render moral judgments subjective. They merely render them biased. Moral judgments are objective when they are made by a group of uninvolved people, unbiased on the relevant case. For example, unbiased juries judge whether an act is wrongful or justified in most nations of the world.

 

[EtuMalku]

Conscience, an intuitive moral sense, is our only moral authority.

Biases don't render moral judgments subjective. They merely render them biased. Moral judgments are objective when they are made by a group of uninvolved people, unbiased on the relevant case. For example, unbiased juries judge whether an act is wrongful or justified in most nations of the world.

"Conscience, an intuitive moral sense, is our only moral authority" Plato would agree as would, However, not everyone is 'NORMAL' hence psychological discrepancies abound.

 

[joe1776]

"Conscience, an intuitive moral sense, is our only moral authority" Plato would agree as would, However, not everyone is 'NORMAL' hence psychological discrepancies abound.

It could be true that some people are born deprived of conscience. Are you arguing that exceptions render the general rule false?