Why I Don't Need God | The Hitchens Challenge

[KevinWestern]

a response...

I'm a non believer, but here's my response to the OP.

What is moral and what isn't moral will vary significantly if the Christian god exists as described, or doesn't actually exist.

Lets for the sake of the argument say that the Christian god does actually exist. In this case, it WOULD be considered "moral" to believe in this god, and would be considered moral for one to sincerely encourage those around to do the same because - according to Christians - that is the only way one will be saved when they perish.

A non believer, by definition, cannot believe in god and therefore it is a moral action he/she cannot partake in while a believer can.

I think Chris lays out this challenge based on the assumption that the Christian god doesn't exist, which is a flawed approach.

Again, I myself am a non believer, but this is just my objective take on the challenge.

yet, cannot name one action or statement.

Sincere belief in God IS an action, in my opinion.

 

[Dragon]

I think Hitchens' challenge covers what it covers. What you are doing is what most are doing because (I believe) it is impossible to list an action or statement that proves humanity needs a supernatural daddy, in order to exist as moral beings. Morality is not tied to a belief in god.

As I have no interest in proving that humanity needs God in order to exist as moral beings, you are incorrect in regard to my motivations.

But then, I fall into a category w/r/t religion that neither dogmatic believers nor their flip side, atheists, understand exists. Dogmatic believers keep calling me an atheist, and you keep trying to imply that I'm a dogmatic believer. Both of you are wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

::: fail ::: poor baby -- you can't even be Christian - your immorality has you striking out blindly ::::fail:::::

It wasn't like you could reply and refute me.

refute what? I always said I disliked Hitchens personally. He was a drunkard, but so are many religious leaders and their followers.

and your statement that Atheists have no moral compass is opinion masquerading as the word of some god. and easily proven to be false.

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

Yeah, Hitchens was a miserable drunkard who eventually died from complications from long-term drug abuse.

Hitchens fulfilled one stereotype about Atheists, that they're miserable (such as without hope). Really, what credibility does have have to refute any common belief about Atheists? Atheists have no moral compass.

::: fail ::: poor baby -- you can't even be Christian - your immorality has you striking out blindly ::::fail:::::

now go pray for forgiveness before your almighty gawd puts your name on the nazi list 'to the left'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

a response...

I'm a non believer, but here's my response to the OP.

What is moral and what isn't moral will vary significantly if the Christian god exists as described, or doesn't actually exist.

Lets for the sake of the argument say that the Christian god does actually exist. In this case, it WOULD be considered "moral" to believe in this god, and would be considered moral for one to sincerely encourage those around to do the same because - according to Christians - that is the only way one will be saved when they perish.

A non believer, by definition, cannot believe in god and therefore it is a moral action he/she cannot partake in while a believer can.

I think Chris lays out this challenge based on the assumption that the Christian god doesn't exist, which is a flawed approach.

Again, I myself am a non believer, but this is just my objective take on the challenge.

yet, cannot name one action or statement.

Sincere belief in God IS an action, in my opinion.

a belief is as an action? a belief can be proven? an action is something in the physical world. if the mind be part of the physical world, fine. I always say god is a creation of the mind. now you say your belief in god is of the mind? how far apart are we?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think Hitchens' challenge covers what it covers. What you are doing is what most are doing because (I believe) it is impossible to list an action or statement that proves humanity needs a supernatural daddy, in order to exist as moral beings. Morality is not tied to a belief in god.

As I have no interest in proving that humanity needs God in order to exist as moral beings, you are incorrect in regard to my motivations.

But then, I fall into a category w/r/t religion that neither dogmatic believers nor their flip side, atheists, understand exists. Dogmatic believers keep calling me an atheist, and you keep trying to imply that I'm a dogmatic believer. Both of you are wrong.

I don't think I went to your motivations. If I did, please show me where so I can clear things up?

You are wrong that I called you a believer, let alone a dogmatic believer. I haven't made a guess as to whether you are a believer, Atheist or non-believer as I am.

 

[KevinWestern]

a response...




yet, cannot name one action or statement.

Sincere belief in God IS an action, in my opinion.

a belief is as an action? a belief can be proven? an action is something in the physical world. if the mind be part of the physical world, fine. I always say god is a creation of the mind. now you say your belief in god is of the mind? how far apart are we?

Is taking a mental note of something not an action?

Love for someone can be completely encased within one's mind, and never make it into the physical world in any fashion, but the love still exists does it not?

 

[Dragon]

I don't think I went o your motivations. If I did, please show me where so I can clear things up?

It's implied in this: "What you are doing is what most are doing because (I believe) it is impossible to list an action or statement that proves humanity needs a supernatural daddy, in order to exist as moral beings."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

here is an example of morality discussions

Nope. Come back when you can speak to the point.

I did.... you asked who wrote the bible, and I said backward-ass Bronze Age savages.

You tried to point out they were more moral than we are, and i pointed out- BASED ON YOUR BOOK OF THEIR MORALITY- that they weren't.

Argument Epic Fail...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sincere belief in God IS an action, in my opinion.

a belief is as an action? a belief can be proven? an action is something in the physical world. if the mind be part of the physical world, fine. I always say god is a creation of the mind. now you say your belief in god is of the mind? how far apart are we?

Is taking a mental note of something not an action?

Love for someone can be completely encased within one's mind, and never make it into the physical world in any fashion, but the love still exists does it not?

Love exists in the mind. God exists in the mind. I believe the mind is part of the physical world. Can what exists in the physical world of the mind exist outside of the mind in the greater physical world? Does everything that exists in the mind exist outside of it? False beliefs? God?

an action in the context of the Hitchens Challenge would not include your mental note.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't think I went o your motivations. If I did, please show me where so I can clear things up?

It's implied in this: "What you are doing is what most are doing because (I believe) it is impossible to list an action or statement that proves humanity needs a supernatural daddy, in order to exist as moral beings."

I didn't mean to address your motivation. I was trying to state why I believed you were doing, what you obviously were doing (not answering the challenge), by not doing what the challenge asks. People are addressing questions not asked and are adding things, restating the questions with added context.

 

[KevinWestern]

an action in the context of the Hitchens Challenge would not include your mental note.

Well, I think here’s what it comes down to.

The actions that I consider moral personally can be performed equally by both believers and non-believers. Let me just get that out of the way.

But to play devil's advocate:

If the Christian God exists, and everything in the Bible is true, then there are a heck of a lot of “moral” actions that a believer would be much, much more likely to partake in vs a non-believer.

And let's get real, Chris's main intention here is to demonstrate that religion really doesn't serve a purpose, because anything that a believer can say or do can also be done by a non-believer. You don't need religion to be nice to someone.

However, I'd argue that the likelihood a non-believer doing these things on a regular basis would probably be 0.01%:

1.) Partaking in lent
2.) Confessing sins to a priest
3.) Going to church and receiving the Eucharist
4.) Performing missionary work to spread the word of God
5.) Only having sex missionary style for the purpose of having children

A person who partakes in these actions – in the case that a Christian god exists – will be a “morally superior” individual vs someone who does not partake in these actions.

Therefore, the purpose of religion, would be to compel people to do those things, so in essence religion DOES serve a very valuable purpose (if in fact a Christian God exists) - it keeps people on the "moral path" with regards to what the Christian God thinks is moral.
.
.
.

 

[Uncensored2008]

address teh challenge

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

Hitchens is a mindless bigot.

You are a redundant, feral baboon.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, I think here’s what it comes down to.

The actions that I consider moral personally can be performed equally by both believers and non-believers. Let me just get that out of the way.

But to play devil's advocate:

If the Christian God exists, and everything in the Bible is true, then there are a heck of a lot of “moral” actions that a believer would be much, much more likely to partake in vs a non-believer.

And let's get real, Chris intention is to prove that religion really doesn't serve a purpose, because anything that a believer can say or do can also be done by a non-believer.

However, I'd argue that the likelihood a non-believer doing these things on a regular basis would probably be 0.01%:

1.) Partaking in lent
2.) Confessing sins to a priest
3.) Going to church and receiving the Eucharist
4.) Performing missionary work to spread the word of God
5.) Only having sex missionary style for the purpose of having children

A person who partakes in these actions – in the case that a Christian god exists – will be a “morally superior” individual vs someone who does not partake in these actions.

Therefore, the purpose of religion, would be to compel people to do those things, so in essence religion DOES serve a very valuable purpose (if in fact a Christian God exists) - it keeps people on the "moral path" with regards to what the Christian God thinks is moral.
.
.
.

What if the Christian god exists, but isn't Catholic? With the exception of missionary work, the rest are exclusively Catholic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

.

.

.

address teh challenge

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

hitchens is a mindless bigot.

You are a redundant, feral baboon.

 

[KevinWestern]

Well, I think here’s what it comes down to.

The actions that I consider moral personally can be performed equally by both believers and non-believers. Let me just get that out of the way.

But to play devil's advocate:

If the Christian God exists, and everything in the Bible is true, then there are a heck of a lot of “moral” actions that a believer would be much, much more likely to partake in vs a non-believer.

And let's get real, Chris intention is to prove that religion really doesn't serve a purpose, because anything that a believer can say or do can also be done by a non-believer.

However, I'd argue that the likelihood a non-believer doing these things on a regular basis would probably be 0.01%:

1.) Partaking in lent
2.) Confessing sins to a priest
3.) Going to church and receiving the Eucharist
4.) Performing missionary work to spread the word of God
5.) Only having sex missionary style for the purpose of having children

A person who partakes in these actions – in the case that a Christian god exists – will be a “morally superior” individual vs someone who does not partake in these actions.

Therefore, the purpose of religion, would be to compel people to do those things, so in essence religion DOES serve a very valuable purpose (if in fact a Christian God exists) - it keeps people on the "moral path" with regards to what the Christian God thinks is moral.
.
.
.

What if the Christian god exists, but isn't Catholic? With the exception of missionary work, the rest are exclusively Catholic.

I just used some Catholic examples because that is what I'm familiar with. I think you can pick out alternate examples for each of the Christian variations.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

an action in the context of the Hitchens Challenge would not include your mental note.

Well, I think here’s what it comes down to.

The actions that I consider moral personally can be performed equally by both believers and non-believers.

that is what Hitchens said

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

an action in the context of the Hitchens Challenge would not include your mental note.

And let's get real, Chris's main intention here is to demonstrate that religion really doesn't serve a purpose, because anything that a believer can say or do can also be done by a non-believer. You don't need religion to be nice to someone. me

methinks you misrepresent what Hitchens says and his motivation(s).

I don't think Hitchens says religion serves NO purpose. Hitchens says the purpose doesn't need religion. a huge distinction (with a difference).

 

[Uncensored2008]

.

.

Get thee to a baboonary.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What if the Christian god exists, but isn't Catholic?

hen he owes an awful lot of people a refund

 

[KevinWestern]

that is what Hitchens said

Yes, but this is just my own point of view - from my non-believer lens.

Anyways, how would you approach this question:

– This scenario below presumes that the Christian God is real, and everything in the Bible is true –

In the absence of religion, what mechanism would compel people to do missionary work (a good, virtuous “moral action&#8221 and spread the word of God?