Hitchen's Challange

[Brickjectivity]

Sure. Totalitarianism. I am not a historian, but I am under the impression that not all theocracies have been totalitarian.

All theocracies have begun that way to my knowledge: totalitarian.

Towing it? It seems to me that the Enlightenment is a rejection of religious authority.

People don't reject religious authority but begin to question it more. They remain religious. During this period people there is a shift from pure philosophy. There used to be an idea that we could only know what was real through thinking, as if the world around us could not be trusted and we relied upon educated people, upper classes to know what was going on. A similar line of thinking is always present in philosophies about what is real, but this has a hard edge to it when not so many people can read. There is always going to be the question of what is real, but in the enlightenment period people stop taking pat answers. Next to the bible the most influential publication is Euclid's geometry. The understanding of the methods of geometry is itself transformative. Geometry is very empowering to the individual. In this period people begin to rely upon themselves more. They begin to respect their own minds and eyes more, but religious authority remains.

That the ideals of religious tolerance are a direct repudiation of the bitter and bloody religious wars of the prior centuries. And Christianity certainly cannot take credit for abolition, women's suffrage, marriage equality, trans rights, etc.

Religious tolerance has always been present in the ideals of catholicism for anyone willing to be tolerant. Suffrage and marriage equality are revolutionary ideas even as recent as the 20th century. Trans rights are not new and come and go like seasons. Abolition is protestant.

I understand the argument that the Civil Rights movement was centered around Black Christian churches. And that is true. But I also know that a lot of the people in my family from that generation privately reject much of the religion and stay in it for the cultural bonds.

I have not made any arguments about the civil rights movements of the 20th century and know almost nothing about black christian churches having been to only two services. I think Christians in this country let the slavers manipulate us into supporting slavery, so we became complicit in what we now know to be a terrible sin. It came to be that a man who had dark skin was presumed to be less intelligent and with less moral capacity, and that was accomplished through propaganda and ignorance. It was just a few dedicated christians in the UK who led the way to banishing slavery in that country, which ended with the Abolition act of 1833. Not long after that the term 'Secular humanism' was coined in 1851 in Britain at the beginning of a new secular movement. As Christians in USA became more aware of the foulness of slavery war broke out, and it was only resolved here through warfare which ended in 1865. Not long after the secular movement came here, too.

1833, 1851, 1865. Then in 1967 we had the summer of love. There were widespread calls to just love everyone and have free sex, and drugs and try to end war that way. It was a good try.

 

[ppp]

All theocracies have begun that way to my knowledge: totalitarian.

IIRC, once the Arabic Empire sprang up in the 7th century, it was tolerant of both Jews and Christians.

People don't reject religious authority but begin to question it more. They remain religious.

Questioning authority is an initial form of rejection. It is a refusal to simply obey, but to run the rules through one's own filters to decide whether to obey.

Religious tolerance has always been present in the ideals of catholicism for anyone willing to be tolerant.

I see no practical evidence of that. And it is the practice that matters.

Suffrage and marriage equality are revolutionary ideas even as recent as the 20th century. Trans rights are not new and come and go like seasons.

18th century. And is that supposed to be a refutation of my statement that Christianity cannot take credit for them?
And come and go like seasons? What the hell is that?

Abolition is protestant.

In the US most of the slavers were protestant..

Abolition first popped up in ancient India and ancient China. If only briefly. And slavery has been railed against as being immoral since Seneca -- and apparently by some unspecified people during Aristotle's time. There have always been a small contingent of people who were against slavery. The eventual abolishment of slavery was an economic decision, dressed up in religious clothing. It was the industrial revolution that allowed the tiny minority of anti-slavers to finally get a hand hold and make progress.

I think Christians in this country let the slavers manipulate us into supporting slavery, so we became complicit in what we now know to be a terrible sin.

I think that you are forgetting that the slavers were Christians. And that Christians have been practicing slavery since they got economic and political power in 4th century. The Atlantic trade was simply another instance of that. There is nothing inherently anti-slavery about Christianity. And the Protestant defenders of the practiced cited the Biblical passages where the practice of chattel slavery is explicitly condoned. Ostensibly, by God.

 

[firedragon]

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?

1. Why doesnt Hitchens ask the same question from himself? Does he fear he would fail or/and he will lose his audience?

Ask that question from yourself.

2. The question is worded in order to not get responses. Its a Strawman. I dont know which religion teaches that there are ethics only proposed by religious books we can read today and only religious people state them.

3. 7% of wars in history are aligned with religious motivations, but even then questions remain. Hitchens is either absolutely ignorant in history and theology or he is intentionally ignoring what he knows.

 

[firedragon]

However both morality and immorality are subjective experiences and not absolutes,

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

 

[DNB]

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?

Why no clause;
Name a wicked statement made or action performed precisely because of atheism? i.e. no repercussion if not caught by man.

Like @Audie said, the question is not about the capability or potential, but the desire and fortitude to do so unconditionally, even at the cost of sacrifice. What would compel an atheist to do the same, ...life is much too short for that.

On what grounds would an atheist love his neighbour exactly as himself? Theists know that God created all things and has a purpose for all, for better or for worse. But, an atheist would justify his contempt or disdain for his neighbour based on his own narrow and selfish assessment.

Both are capable of doing good and evil, but theists have stronger and more fundamental convictions to endeavour to act righteously to their best ability.

 

[ppp]

Why no clause;
Name a wicked statement made or action performed precisely because of atheism? i.e. no repercussion if not caught by man.

That is not an action taken. That is just the result of an action by another being.

On what grounds would an atheist love his neighbour exactly as himself?

Why do I need grounds? I am an empathetic being. No more is required.
Hell, why do you need grounds?

Theists know that God created all things and has a purpose for all, for better or for worse.

No. Some theists claim that they know that.

But, an atheist would justify his contempt or disdain for his neighbour based on his own narrow and selfish assessment.

This is just something Christians tell each other. It has nothing to do with me.

Both are capable of doing good and evil, but theists have stronger and more fundamental convictions to endeavour to act righteously to their best ability.

I see no practical evidence of that in the real world.

 

[Audie]

Why no clause;
Name a wicked statement made or action performed precisely because of atheism? i.e. no repercussion if not caught by man.

Like @Audie said, the question is not about the capability or potential, but the desire and fortitude to do so unconditionally, even at the cost of sacrifice. What would compel an atheist to do the same, ...life is much too short for that.

On what grounds would an atheist love his neighbour exactly as himself? Theists know that God created all things and has a purpose for all, for better or for worse. But, an atheist would justify his contempt or disdain for his neighbour based on his own narrow and selfish assessment.

Both are capable of doing good and evil, but theists have stronger and more fundamental convictions to endeavour to act righteously to their best ability.

Which so totally explains why atheists are so underrepresented in US prisons.

 

[Brickjectivity]

IIRC, once the Arabic Empire sprang up in the 7th century, it was tolerant of both Jews and Christians.

My comment was that all theocracies begin as totalitarian, and this is no exception. Its a theocracy and its beginning is totalitarian even if it tolerates this or that. You seem to be moving towards some other tangent topic.

Questioning authority is an initial form of rejection. It is a refusal to simply obey, but to run the rules through one's own filters to decide whether to obey.

I think you'd agree that its healthy for people to ask questions of the world around them. That is why the enlightenment is good. It affects religion, and religion becomes more healthy. The people in it become more healthy. Religion becomes stronger as a result. There's not a simple rejection of religion. The countries still call themselves Christian, and people still go to church for centuries. They question things more and ponder internal thoughts and question absolutist claims. This gives space to the movement called secular humanism, space for it to exist.

I see no practical evidence of that. And it is the practice that matters.

Remember you brought up the toleration in the early caliphate which tolerated jews and christians somewhat? Such toleration comes from Abraham who is an influence on catholics and on jews, so there is practical evidence that the ideas of toleration are present and available to those who will stomach them.

In the US most of the slavers were protestant..

Abolition first popped up in ancient India and ancient China. If only briefly. And slavery has been railed against as being immoral since Seneca -- and apparently by some unspecified people during Aristotle's time. There have always been a small contingent of people who were against slavery. The eventual abolishment of slavery was an economic decision, dressed up in religious clothing. It was the industrial revolution that allowed the tiny minority of anti-slavers to finally get a hand hold and make progress.

Abolition is present in early catholic writings in the bible. I only say its protestant, because its a protestant who makes the real difference in the UK. Modern abolition is the breakthrough of W Wilberforce, a protestant. I brought it up because it was relevant in the context, not because I was denying that people have always had consciences or claiming that people never thought of abolition before.

I think that you are forgetting that the slavers were Christians. And that Christians have been practicing slavery since they got economic and political power in 4th century. The Atlantic trade was simply another instance of that. There is nothing inherently anti-slavery about Christianity. And the Protestant defenders of the practiced cited the Biblical passages where the practice of chattel slavery is explicitly condoned. Ostensibly, by God.

I am not forgetting. I just finished writing in that same post that Christians and churches were complicit. I also mentioned that all of this new abolition began to happen prior to the coining of secular humanism the term. It preceded secular humanism, cutting a path for it, creating shade for it to exist in. You have just told me also how ideas of freedom and abolition were previously short lived in ancient India, in China and in Greece. This lends weight. Secular humanism fails unless someone holds the door open for it. Slavery returns unless a big brother keeps it out of the barn. It is important to reform religion, for religion is the only known force that can do this. You don't like it, but its true.

So the challenge is this: can you make secular humanism last without religion? I think you have a chance to try. We will see.

 

[DNB]

Which so totally explains why atheists are so underrepresented in US prisons.

lol, well said!

 

[DNB]

That is not an action taken. That is just the result of an action by another being.


Why do I need grounds? I am an empathetic being. No more is required.
Hell, why do you need grounds?


No. Some theists claim that they know that.


This is just something Christians tell each other. It has nothing to do with me.


I see no practical evidence of that in the real world.

Yes, perception really seems to be the problem here?

 

[ppp]

Remember you brought up the toleration in the early caliphate which tolerated jews and christians somewhat?

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

Such toleration comes from Abraham who is an influence on catholics and on jews

This statement assumes that your earlier assertion, "Religious tolerance has always been present in the ideals of catholicism(sic) for anyone willing to be tolerant." has been accepted as fact. It has not.

Abolition is present in early catholic writings in the bible.

Abolition is not present in the Bible. The Bible condones slavery. Paul reinforces that position. Jesus is utterly silent on the matter.

I am not forgetting. I just finished writing in that same post that Christians and churches were complicit.

Not mere complicit, but primary actors. Christians were the slavers.

I also mentioned that all of this new abolition began to happen prior to the coining of secular humanism the term.

Ok.

It preceded secular humanism, cutting a path for it, creating shade for it to exist in. Y

The economics of the industrial revolution created a place. Without that, the quaker movement would have gone the way of previous denunciations of slavery. In fact, the institution was only banned in the places where factories were being built. It was unhindered on the still rural plantations of the Caribbean. Quakers were working directly against Christian doctrine in the matter of slavery.

Secular humanism fails unless someone holds the door open for it.

Bald assertion. Again abolition flouts Biblical law.

It is important to reform religion, for religion is the only known force that can do this. You don't like it, but its true.

And yet nether women's suffrage, nor marriage equality were the province of religion. Exactly the opposite. And yet, like with slavery, in a generation y'all will claim it was Christian Doctrine all along.

 

[ppp]

Yes, perception really seems to be the problem here?

Or vague statements.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Supernatural morality? Expand on that please. If it exists, how would any human, believer or non-believer, be guided by it?

That is not the point per se.
The point is this. If you only accept that something is natural, you can't test if something is supernatural, because you only accept that something is natural.

 

[firedragon]

All theocracies have begun that way to my knowledge: totalitarian.

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

 

[Clara Tea]

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?

WICKED ACTION ON FAITH:

God told Abraham to kill his son, Isaac. Some believe that it was a test of faith (to see if Abraham was willing to do it). I believe it was a test of morality. An immoral person cannot get into heaven. One cannot sacrifice another in order to put themselves ahead. I think that Abraham failed the test (he was apparently willing to kill his own son merely because God had commanded it).

Another immoral act was President W. Bush hiring a dummy look alike to get shot at before his helicopter lands. He was willing to sacrifice another to save himself.

FAITH IS FINE:

Unless God (or some other entity) is trying to trick us, faithfully following their commands is likely a good idea. Christians believe that God sees the future, so he would know the best outcome if there was a choice of outcomes.

The problem is, when people abandon faith, they have bad outcomes.

For example: In Revelation, God commanded that no one attack Iraq or face His wrath (one bit of wrath is Revelation 15 (7 plagues)). The faithful would have agreed with God and would not have attacked Iraq. But the faithless (like Reverend John Hagee) would be consumed by Satan's fear (fear of another terrorist attack) and give up faith and protect themselves and their families. Reverend Hagee said that we have to pray to Jesus to win the war in Iraq (that is, Jesus will help us kill more effectively, in Hagee's view).

ETHICAL ACTION OF A NONBELIEVER:

I can't think of anything that could not have been done by a non-believer. Plenty of people objected to the war in Iraq, and many were atheists.

Theists, on the other hand, believe that they will be pardoned for any sin, so many sin often.

 

[Clara Tea]

That is not the point per se.
The point is this. If you only accept that something is natural, you can't test if something is supernatural, because you only accept that something is natural.

What if it is a mixture of natural and supernatural?

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Many atheists grew up with no religious training, but they are naturally moral.

Some absorb religious morality because it is mirrored by laws. For example, God commanded "thou shalt not kill" and the law says that we must not kill or we will go to prison. So, the law is much like God's commandments. Therefore, one could follow God's morality by merely following the laws.

 

[Clara Tea]

Non-believers will burn in hell, that's another religious value that comes to mind, I can think of more.

A wrathful God would burn people in hell for eternity, and a loving God would not. It makes no sense to want to join a wrathful God in heaven.

If we loved someone, and they were attacked, we might attack them back to save our loved one, and make them know that they are protected. Does that mean that, under the right conditions, all those who love are wrathful?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What if it is a mixture of natural and supernatural?

Then you need another paradigm in the end.
If you want an idea of how that could work, then consider Lawrence Kohlberg's model of moral cognition and then claim that there is level 7 or higher, which is only possible with religious cognition.

 

[PureX]

Many atheists grew up with no religious training, but they are naturally moral.

Some absorb religious morality because it is mirrored by laws. For example, God commanded "thou shalt not kill" and the law says that we must not kill or we will go to prison. So, the law is much like God's commandments. Therefore, one could follow God's morality by merely following the laws.

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.