Why I Don't Need God | The Hitchens Challenge

[Procrustes Stretched]

god is for those who can not fully understand the world

Also for those who have fully EXPERIENCED the world in all its sublime power. Besides, nobody fully understands the world.

Hitchens provided a good counter to the absurd argument that only religious people can be moral. His challenge really doesn't have any significance beyond that, but I suppose it's useful as far as that goes.

address teh challenge

::: fail ::: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...d-god-the-hitchens-challenge.html#post4981772 ::: fail :::

 

[Dragon]

I did address the challenge, Dante.

 

[Dragon]

without a god the world makes perfect sense to those who understand the reality of our exsistance.

No one understands the reality of our existence.

 

[Si modo]

without a god the world makes perfect sense to those who understand the reality of our exsistance.

No one understands the reality of our existence.

Too true. And TM provides a great example of the common saying, 'The more you know, the more you know you don't know'.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I did address the challenge, Dante.

you know exactly what is asked:

Why I Don't Need God | The Hitchens Challenge

The vulgar assumption that without god mankind would have no morality: Without god, humans are capable of doing anything. Without god there is no moral restraint on human beings.

Christopher Hitchens, you know who he is/was. Christopher Hitchens challenged people to name two things:

1) Name a moral action undertaken by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken by a non-believer, or name a moral statement made by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken or made by a non-believer.

2) Name something wicked that only a believer would be likely to do, or something wicked that only a believer would be likely to say.

--- --- ---

[youtube]XqFwree7Kak[/youtube]

name something wicked said or done, that can only be attributable to someones faith.

--- --- ---

here is a fraud pretending to answer the challenge:

Taking the Hitchens challenge Tom Flannery

you gave a non answer, answer

 

[KevinWestern]

I've asked this question before but it's worth repeating.

Who is the the moral man; is it the man who believes in god and does good works out of fear of a punishment or to attain some reward in the afterlife or is it the man who does not believe in god yet does good works for their own sake not motivated by fear of punishment or reward in heaven?

Exactly.

Would you rather live in a society where people refrain from stealing from one another solely because they're afraid of theoretically being punished by a god when they die, and don't understand WHY exactly they're not supposed to steal.

or

Would you rather live in a society where people refrain from stealing from one anther because they can understand why stealing is harmful to the community they live in, and are empathetic and can relate to their neighbors and realize that if "I personally don't want something stolen from me, what justification do I have to steal from someone else"?

 

[Dragon]

you gave a non answer, answer

For me, it's a non question question. I have never made the preposterous claim that only religious people can be moral. The challenge has no other application and no other significance than as a rebuttal to that preposterous claim, which I don't believe in anyway.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So far no one here, myself included, has named one action or statement that proves humanity needs a supernatural being to lay down a law demanding we be moral.

Why I Don't Need God | The Hitchens Challenge

The vulgar assumption that without god mankind would have no morality: Without god, humans are capable of doing anything. Without god there is no moral restraint on human beings.

Christopher Hitchens, you know who he is/was. Christopher Hitchens challenged people to name two things:

1) Name a moral action undertaken by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken by a non-believer, or name a moral statement made by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken or made by a non-believer.

2) Name something wicked that only a believer would be likely to do, or something wicked that only a believer would be likely to say.

--- --- ---

[youtube]XqFwree7Kak[/youtube]

name something wicked said or done, that can only be attributable to someones faith.

--- --- ---

here is a fraud pretending to answer the challenge:

Taking the Hitchens challenge Tom Flannery

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've asked this question before but it's worth repeating.

Who is the the moral man; is it the man who believes in god and does good works out of fear of a punishment or to attain some reward in the afterlife or is it the man who does not believe in god yet does good works for their own sake not motivated by fear of punishment or reward in heaven?

Exactly.

Would you rather live in a society where people refrain from stealing from one another solely because they're afraid of theoretically being punished by a god when they die, and don't understand WHY exactly they're not supposed to steal.

or

Would you rather live in a society where people refrain from stealing from one anther because they can understand why stealing is harmful to the community they live in, and are empathetic and can relate to their neighbors and realize that if "I personally don't want something stolen from me, what justification do I have to steal from someone else"?

still fail to adequately address the challenge, but...

 

[Truthmatters]

without a god the world makes perfect sense to those who understand the reality of our exsistance.

No one understands the reality of our existence.

yes we do.

Its random and we are lucky to enjoy being alive.

There is no master plan.



those who need god to make it acceptable to them are pretending that there is a great OUTSIDE meaning.

they are wrong

 

[Si modo]

Dante, Hitchens makes a good point with his challenge. But it is non-fasifiable - there exists no data set to prove him wrong - just as ID is.

It's just a point he makes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you gave a non answer, answer

For me, it's a non question question. I have never made the preposterous claim that only religious people can be moral. The challenge has no other application and no other significance than as a rebuttal to that preposterous claim, which I don't believe in anyway.

But the claim is made every day, by millions of people, many governments, and most religious institutions.

So you cannot name one action or statement that proves humanity needs a supernatural overlord?

 

[Dragon]

But the claim is made every day, by millions of people, many governments, and most religious institutions.

I might dispute your figures, but never mind; talk to the people who do make that claim. I don;'t.

So you cannot name one action or statement that proves humanity needs a supernatural overlord?

The term "supernatural overlord" is yours, not mine.

 

[Truthmatters]

there is not god and the sooner mankind accepts that the better decisions we will make

 

[Dragon]

there is not god and the sooner mankind accepts that the better decisions we will make

It is impossible for humanity ever to realize this.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante, Hitchens makes a good point with his challenge. But it is non-fasifiable - there exists no data set to prove him wrong - just as ID is.

It's just a point he makes.

but I wonder why people don't feel comfortable attempting to make a case. people make a case for most everything, lots of it loony.

 

[Dragon]

but I wonder why people don't feel comfortable attempting to make a case.

Well, at a wild guess, in many cases it's because they're being asked to make a case for something they don't believe. That certainly makes me unwilling to do so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there is not god and the sooner mankind accepts that the better decisions we will make

It is impossible for humanity ever to realize this.

another truthmatters circle jerk?


outta here

;;; people of the earth -- flee this thread ;;;;​

.. ... .. .. ​

 

[Si modo]

there is not god and the sooner mankind accepts that the better decisions we will make

Do you have any proof that there is no god?

Then, does anyone have any proof that there is a god?

Any blanket statement either way is nothing but a belief - accepted as true without any proof.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

but I wonder why people don't feel comfortable attempting to make a case.

Well, at a wild guess, in many cases it's because they're being asked to make a case for something they don't believe. That certainly makes me unwilling to do so.

people not only believe godly people are more moral, they believe we need god to be moral. they state this all the time, but when asked to provide an example...



... is truthy lurking?