Hitchen's Challange

[PureX]

Those are the values we are raised with.
No religion involved.

It's not reasonable to think no religion was involved in developing and promoting those values in or society. Or that religions are not now involved in doing so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see any preachers refusing to pass the collection plate around. Just sayin'

I do.

 

[PureX]

I don't see any preachers refusing to pass the collection plate around. Just sayin'

I have no idea how you think that relates.

 

[lukethethird]

I have no idea how you think that relates.

Of course you don't.

 

[lukethethird]

It's not reasonable to think no religion was involved in developing and promoting those values in or society. Or that religions are not now involved in doing so.

Religious values like homosexuality is wrong is not the kind of values we are talking about.

 

[Audie]

It's not reasonable to think no religion was involved in developing and promoting those values in or society. Or that religions are not now involved in doing so.

Didnt suggest otherwise.
Religion / suoerstition is so deeply tangled
into human thought it probably cant ever be rooted out.
However, thats not the point. We see it as
odd that people go to church to hear what
we learn at home.
Not meaning we also teach things
we consider to be superstitions.

 

[Audie]

I have no idea how you think that relates.

Wow, like its not super obvious.

 

[Audie]

Of course you don't.

You sure?

 

[Nakosis]

Another TTA ( trash the atheists) post?

The preachers, in stark contrast, no matter how big the megatemple, are pure of heart n motives, and no lectures, books, etc are done
for " by the word" profit, we wonder.

Any ideas which is more profitable, talkin'
atheism or preachin'?

Current worth of the Catholic church is 30 billion. Kind of hard to beat.
Imagine the ability to use one book to coerce that kind of capital.

I imagine atheist authors can only wish they could coerce that well.

 

[lukethethird]

You sure?

I guess my sarcasm didn't show through.

 

[lukethethird]

Current worth of the Catholic church is 30 billion. Kind of hard to beat.
Imagine the ability to use one book to coerce that kind of capital.

I imagine atheist authors can only wish they could coerce that well.

Atheist authors are in the wrong business if they want to make real money.

 

[Psalm23]

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?

What was the purpose of his challenge? What was he seeking to show by this?

 

[icehorse]

What I mean is that secular humanism hasn't got a track record, and there are plenty of examples of countries which tried to oust religion only to enshrine leaders as little gods. For all we know that could be how Egypt got its first pharoah.

In my understanding, SH does NOT mean "let's oust religion". I would say SH means let's grow up and accept the fact that no supernatural being is going to save the day for us, we have to solve our own problems. As for the religious aspect, the SH is not trying to oust religion in the world, only in politics, or other "open to the public" problem solving initiatives.

 

[icehorse]

What was the purpose of his challenge? What was he seeking to show by this?

Hitchens was - I think - responding to claims that morals come from religion. I agree with Hitchens that this is a ridiculous idea. I'd say it's closer to the truth that religions attempt to steal morals from other sources and then try to rebrand them as their own.

 

[PureX]

Yes, but still, not knowing the context in which it was said, I can almost see this being said as a joke.

Maybe. Whatever the context, it's point seems confusing.

 

[PureX]

Another TTA ( trash the atheists) post?

The preachers, in stark contrast, no matter how big the megatemple, are pure of heart n motives, and no lectures, books, etc are done
for " by the word" profit, we wonder.

Any ideas which is more profitable, talkin'
atheism or preachin'?

Again, I don't see why you think this relates. If someone says, "Bob may be a thief", and you respond "I think Steve stole my neighbor's wallet", what am I supposed to make of this?

 

[leroy]

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?

WORSHIP God


And if you reject libertarian free will (like most atheist do) I would include things like

- Lying / being honest

- Decide to do something good rather than something bad

- Comitte suicide

- Murder

- Etc.

All these actions imply a libertarian choice. For example a lie implies that you had the option/ability to tell the truth but decided to lie instead.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But I realize there is a weakness in my argument. Didn't monotheism give rise to secular humanism? That it did, both nurturing and protecting it in a world which otherwise would have chewed it up and spit it out.

I disagree. Secular humanism isn't a spin-off of monotheism. It's a reaction to it, a rejection of it, a rejection of theocracy, a rejection of faith as a virtue, a rejection of the divine right of kings, and the rejection of the idea that man is a inherently defective (sinful) helpless without God.

It is monotheism that would chew up and spit out secular humanism if it could. It's secular humanism that produced freedom of and from religion, which safeguards religious freedoms that competing denominations would deny one another if they could.

What I mean is that secular humanism hasn't got a track record, and there are plenty of examples of countries which tried to oust religion only to enshrine leaders as little gods.

Secular humanism does have a track record, and it is excellent, unsurpassed. Secular humanists don't oust religion. They protect it. Perhaps you're confusing the genocidal, atheistic, totalitarian regimes with secular humanism. They have nothing in common apart from the atheism. They're also theocracies, except with a human god, imposing their antidemocratic ideology on the unwilling. Secular humanism objects to both.

These are the Affirmations of Humanism. These are my values:

Affirmations of Humanism
A Statement of Principles
Drafted by Paul Kurtz
We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.​

Look at how much of that is antithetical to Christianity, for example. The emboldened line is a rejection of both traditional theocracy and atheistic, authoritarian states. You're in good hands when secular humanist principles are the forefront. What you are reading there in the Affirmations is to me the pinnacle of human intellectual and moral philosophy. No holy book can compete. Can you see that there is room for people like you to go about their lives unmolested and with equal rights and social status under those principles, but that there is no room for people like me to do the same under the Ten Commandments, where I am commanded to worship a particular god? You can thrive in a secular humanist state being who you are, but I wouldn't survive in a Christian theocracy which embraced Christian values without pretending to be Christian.

 

[PureX]

Religious values like homosexuality is wrong is not the kind of values we are talking about.

Is that all you think religion has ever had to say about social values? Or is that just the easiest thing you can think of to promote your bias?

 

[PureX]

Didnt suggest otherwise.

Yes you did: you posted "Those are the values we are raised with. No religion involved." That clearly suggests that religion was not involved in developing and spreading the values our society currently hold.

Religion / suoerstition is so deeply tangled
into human thought it probably cant ever be rooted out.
However, thats not the point. We see it as
odd that people go to church to hear what
we learn at home.
Not meaning we also teach things
we consider to be superstitions.

They go to be reminded of the importance of those values, and how to apply them in their everyday lives. Why do you find this so "odd"?