A Challenge For Xians From Mr Hitchens

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

Not sure I'm understanding the statements very well, but these seem to be saying it's wiser to not define a stand so that you won't be criticized for making one..

 

First you said you didn't understand, but thought maybe Mr. H. was saying "don't take a stand, you might get shot down."

 

Then you made the claim that evil is done in the name of humanism.

 

 

And the evil done in the name of religion would cease.

What about the evil done in the name of humanism.

 

 

Now, I know it is not your intention to address the OP, but holding you accountable to support your claim is not beating a dead horse.  It is holding you responsible.  Bombing ISIS has nothing to do with humanism.

 

Either withdraw the claim or support it.  It's not really that difficult.

[Guest end3]

 

 

(Again, a nice quick response.  I don't have to hedge my answers because I am not afraid that God is watching and getting pissed.)

So you have a particular belief that condones blowing these people into pieces and this is different HOW?

 

 

Reading fail?  Dude, if you can't read then there is nothing I can write that will fix the problem.

 

 

Edit:

Oh wait, this is just a tactic for you.  You want to get the conversation away from your phobia.  Can you name an atrocity that was commited in the name of Christianity?  Can you name an atrocity that was commited in the name of humanism?  No games please.

 

Y'all just made my point. You think it's not an atrocity. The Prof thinks it is per some particular belief system. Yet both of you want to hold evil Christianity or some other evil religion accountable for some relative definition of atrocity. And then, to boot, blame me for some phobia that you think I have. "He won't confess, so there has to be something wrong with him" type mentality. Y'all cant see the forest for the trees.

 

I digress.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

(Again, a nice quick response.  I don't have to hedge my answers because I am not afraid that God is watching and getting pissed.)

So you have a particular belief that condones blowing these people into pieces and this is different HOW?

 

 

Reading fail?  Dude, if you can't read then there is nothing I can write that will fix the problem.

 

 

Edit:

Oh wait, this is just a tactic for you.  You want to get the conversation away from your phobia.  Can you name an atrocity that was commited in the name of Christianity?  Can you name an atrocity that was commited in the name of humanism?  No games please.

 

Y'all just made my point. You think it's not an atrocity. The Prof thinks it is per some particular belief system. Yet both of you want to hold evil Christianity or some other evil religion accountable for some relative definition of atrocity. And then, to boot, blame me for some phobia that you think I have. "He won't confess, so there has to be something wrong with him" type mentality. Y'all cant see the forest for the trees.

 

I digress.

 

 

 

Having a phobia is not an atrocity.  You don't blame somebody for having a phobia.  All you can do is ask them to face it.  In your case your phobia is that you can't identify an atrocity done in the name of Christianity because your heavenly dictator is watching your every move.  You don't want to piss off the boss.  Is Jesus getting angry over your thoughts?

 

I didn't make your point.  RNP has already explained that to you.  The fact that I think that so far bombing ISIS is not an atrocity does not mean there are no atrocities.  Christianity is a way of thinking and it leads to many things, most of them bad.  Perhaps on a deep level you already know this which is why you won't name any atrocity commited in the name of Christianity.  Christianity has a very long list of rotten fruit and it is hypocrisy when Christians won't judge their religion by it's fruit.  Changing the subject won't make this go away.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

(Again, a nice quick response.  I don't have to hedge my answers because I am not afraid that God is watching and getting pissed.)

So you have a particular belief that condones blowing these people into pieces and this is different HOW?

 

 

Reading fail?  Dude, if you can't read then there is nothing I can write that will fix the problem.

 

 

Edit:

Oh wait, this is just a tactic for you.  You want to get the conversation away from your phobia.  Can you name an atrocity that was commited in the name of Christianity?  Can you name an atrocity that was commited in the name of humanism?  No games please.

 

Y'all just made my point. You think it's not an atrocity. The Prof thinks it is per some particular belief system. Yet both of you want to hold evil Christianity or some other evil religion accountable for some relative definition of atrocity. And then, to boot, blame me for some phobia that you think I have. "He won't confess, so there has to be something wrong with him" type mentality. Y'all cant see the forest for the trees.

 

I digress.

 

How does the fact that MyMistake and I view the bombing of ISIS differently even remotely tie in to the fact that christianity has been responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities in human history? 

 

And what is this "particular belief system" you accuse me of having?

[Guest end3]

How does the fact that MyMistake and I view the bombing of ISIS differently even remotely tie in to the fact that christianity has been responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities in human history? 

 

And what is this "particular belief system" you accuse me of having?

Your belief system is uniquely yours.

His is uniquely his.

 

Christianity is also unique in more than one respect.....i.e. the Bible alone and the varied interpretations of the Bible.

 

So when Hitchens says atrocities are done in the name of religion, it's no more, imo, than saying atrocities are done per some individuals particular belief system.

 

It's no more than this in my mind.

 

We have already discussed that I relate atrocity to anything "fail" or sinful, or short of producing good in someone else's life. You have admitted that humans in humanism are not perfect and meet this definition. And I have already admitted to Christians meeting this definition as well. So I am having trouble understanding how you and MM are not seeing these relationships.

 

So, and here it is for everyone to see. If a Christian sins, then its an atrocity in my mind. And I will repeat this for you the first time you didn't catch it.......all sin is equal.

[mymistake]

It's okay End.  I won't make you anger Jesus.

 

However you need to pick up a dictionary and figure out what uniquely means.  When millions of people agree about something that isn't unique.  While you are at it you should read up on the real meaning of atrocities and for that matter also relationships.  Of course when Hitchens issued his challenge he meant every word using definitions found in the dictionary rather than your personal, private meaning you wish words had.

[Guest end3]

It's okay End.  I won't make you anger Jesus.

 

However you need to pick up a dictionary and figure out what uniquely means.  When millions of people agree about something that isn't unique.  While you are at it you should read up on the real meaning of atrocities and for that matter also relationships.  Of course when Hitchens issued his challenge he meant every word using definitions found in the dictionary rather than your personal, private meaning you wish words had.

Ha, y'all regularly note how there are so many different versions of Christianity. I guess you are backing up now on that when it's convenient?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

How does the fact that MyMistake and I view the bombing of ISIS differently even remotely tie in to the fact that christianity has been responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities in human history? 

 

And what is this "particular belief system" you accuse me of having?

Your belief system is uniquely yours.

His is uniquely his.

 

Christianity is also unique in more than one respect.....i.e. the Bible alone and the varied interpretations of the Bible.

 

So when Hitchens says atrocities are done in the name of religion, it's no more, imo, than saying atrocities are done per some individuals particular belief system.

 

It's no more than this in my mind.

 

We have already discussed that I relate atrocity to anything "fail" or sinful, or short of producing good in someone else's life. You have admitted that humans in humanism are not perfect and meet this definition. And I have already admitted to Christians meeting this definition as well. So I am having trouble understanding how you and MM are not seeing these relationships.

 

So, and here it is for everyone to see. If a Christian sins, then its an atrocity in my mind. And I will repeat this for you the first time you didn't catch it.......all sin is equal.

 

So, you're saying that the Salem Witch killings took place because of some individual's particular belief system?  It had nothing to do with the bible saying that witches should be put to death?  Is that your postition?

[mymistake]

 

It's okay End.  I won't make you anger Jesus.

 

However you need to pick up a dictionary and figure out what uniquely means.  When millions of people agree about something that isn't unique.  While you are at it you should read up on the real meaning of atrocities and for that matter also relationships.  Of course when Hitchens issued his challenge he meant every word using definitions found in the dictionary rather than your personal, private meaning you wish words had.

Ha, y'all regularly note how there are so many different versions of Christianity. I guess you are backing up now on that when it's convenient?

 

 

Nope

 

The fact that you use the word uniquely incorrectly does not change the fact that there are thousands of different flavors of Christianity.

 

And I'm okay with you changing the subject because I have given up hope that you will ever name an atrocity commited in the name of Christianity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

And again I feel the need to ask you, End3, what does the fact that MyMistake and I see the airstrikes differently have to do with the scourge of atrocities committed in the name of christianity?

 

Now you have two questions to answer.

[Guest end3]

 

 

It's okay End.  I won't make you anger Jesus.

 

However you need to pick up a dictionary and figure out what uniquely means.  When millions of people agree about something that isn't unique.  While you are at it you should read up on the real meaning of atrocities and for that matter also relationships.  Of course when Hitchens issued his challenge he meant every word using definitions found in the dictionary rather than your personal, private meaning you wish words had.

Ha, y'all regularly note how there are so many different versions of Christianity. I guess you are backing up now on that when it's convenient?

 

 

Nope

 

The fact that you use the word uniquely incorrectly does not change the fact that there are thousands of different flavors of Christianity.

 

And I'm okay with you changing the subject because I have given up hope that you will ever name an atrocity commited in the name of Christianity.

 

Who would y'all argue with if I didn't show up? You do realize that once it's driven to semantics that you have lost, right?

[Guest end3]

And again I feel the need to ask you, End3, what does the fact that MyMistake and I see the airstrikes differently have to do with the scourge of atrocities committed in the name of christianity?

 

Now you have two questions to answer.

Let me see if I can rephrase it. The beliefs are relative. If Hitchens is going to convict Christianity, then he must convict any belief "in the name of". You believe in the name of you. MM in the name of MM. I just think he is using more agreement between people as a scapegoat.

[mymistake]

You do realize that once it's driven to semantics that you have lost, right?

 

 

 

 

Sure End.  You can win any argument simply by dodging.  You are so victorious!

 

 

[mymistake]

 

And again I feel the need to ask you, End3, what does the fact that MyMistake and I see the airstrikes differently have to do with the scourge of atrocities committed in the name of christianity?

 

Now you have two questions to answer.

Let me see if I can rephrase it. The beliefs are relative. If Hitchens is going to convict Christianity, then he must convict any belief "in the name of". You believe in the name of you. MM in the name of MM. I just think he is using more agreement between people as a scapegoat.

 

 

 

The old "if my beliefs are wrong then all beliefs are wrong" card.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

And again I feel the need to ask you, End3, what does the fact that MyMistake and I see the airstrikes differently have to do with the scourge of atrocities committed in the name of christianity?

 

Now you have two questions to answer.

Let me see if I can rephrase it. The beliefs are relative. If Hitchens is going to convict Christianity, then he must convict any belief "in the name of". You believe in the name of you. MM in the name of MM. I just think he is using more agreement between people as a scapegoat.

 

So, in other words, the fact that MM and I see things differently really has nothing to do with the atrocities committed in the name of christianity.  Now that we've cleared that up, what about the Salem Witch thing?

[Guest end3]

 

 

And again I feel the need to ask you, End3, what does the fact that MyMistake and I see the airstrikes differently have to do with the scourge of atrocities committed in the name of christianity?

 

Now you have two questions to answer.

Let me see if I can rephrase it. The beliefs are relative. If Hitchens is going to convict Christianity, then he must convict any belief "in the name of". You believe in the name of you. MM in the name of MM. I just think he is using more agreement between people as a scapegoat.

 

So, in other words, the fact that MM and I see things differently really has nothing to do with the atrocities committed in the name of christianity.  Now that we've cleared that up, what about the Salem Witch thing?

 

How about that whole beheading thing.

How about that whole bomb them into pieces thing.

 

 

 

Burning is more atrocious because of misunderstanding people, not knowing them?...or our ignorance? And then you want to condemn me for having a God that coincidentally mentions ALL of the above?

 

Y'all are amazing. Fun to argue with, but literally amazing.

 

The one I really like is the brass cow thing. They put the human inside of the cow and light a fire underneath. When the human yells, it comes out the cow's nose like the cow is mooing.

 

Now there is someone who was thinking when they invented....mixing aesthetics and utility.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

And again I feel the need to ask you, End3, what does the fact that MyMistake and I see the airstrikes differently have to do with the scourge of atrocities committed in the name of christianity?

 

Now you have two questions to answer.

Let me see if I can rephrase it. The beliefs are relative. If Hitchens is going to convict Christianity, then he must convict any belief "in the name of". You believe in the name of you. MM in the name of MM. I just think he is using more agreement between people as a scapegoat.

 

So, in other words, the fact that MM and I see things differently really has nothing to do with the atrocities committed in the name of christianity.  Now that we've cleared that up, what about the Salem Witch thing?

 

How about that whole beheading thing.

How about that whole bomb them into pieces thing.

 

Burning is more atrocious because of misunderstanding people, not knowing them?...or our ignorance? And then you want to condemn me for having a God that coincidentally mentions ALL of the above?

 

Y'all are amazing. Fun to argue with, but literally amazing.

 

As I said before, all acts of war are atrocities in my view.  Beheading is no different than bombing.  Both are atrocities.  The main difference that you don't seem to get is that we are NOT bombing them in the name of christianity.  The Salem Witch burnings WERE done in the name of christianity.

 

And for the record, I'm not condemning you; I'm condemning atrocities done in the name of christianity.  And I'm condemning christianity for committing atrocities.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

And again I feel the need to ask you, End3, what does the fact that MyMistake and I see the airstrikes differently have to do with the scourge of atrocities committed in the name of christianity?

 

Now you have two questions to answer.

Let me see if I can rephrase it. The beliefs are relative. If Hitchens is going to convict Christianity, then he must convict any belief "in the name of". You believe in the name of you. MM in the name of MM. I just think he is using more agreement between people as a scapegoat.

 

So, in other words, the fact that MM and I see things differently really has nothing to do with the atrocities committed in the name of christianity.  Now that we've cleared that up, what about the Salem Witch thing?

 

How about that whole beheading thing.

How about that whole bomb them into pieces thing.

 

Burning is more atrocious because of misunderstanding people, not knowing them?...or our ignorance? And then you want to condemn me for having a God that coincidentally mentions ALL of the above?

 

Y'all are amazing. Fun to argue with, but literally amazing.

 

As I said before, all acts of war are atrocities in my view.  Beheading is no different than bombing.  Both are atrocities.  The main difference that you don't seem to get is that we are NOT bombing them in the name of christianity.  The Salem Witch burnings WERE done in the name of christianity.

 

And for the record, I'm not condemning you; I'm condemning atrocities done in the name of christianity.  And I'm condemning christianity for committing atrocities.

 

Which brings me back to my original point that Hitchens imo, is complaining.

[midniterider]

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

 

I bet ISIS thinks so.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

And again I feel the need to ask you, End3, what does the fact that MyMistake and I see the airstrikes differently have to do with the scourge of atrocities committed in the name of christianity?

 

Now you have two questions to answer.

Let me see if I can rephrase it. The beliefs are relative. If Hitchens is going to convict Christianity, then he must convict any belief "in the name of". You believe in the name of you. MM in the name of MM. I just think he is using more agreement between people as a scapegoat.

 

So, in other words, the fact that MM and I see things differently really has nothing to do with the atrocities committed in the name of christianity.  Now that we've cleared that up, what about the Salem Witch thing?

 

How about that whole beheading thing.

How about that whole bomb them into pieces thing.

 

Burning is more atrocious because of misunderstanding people, not knowing them?...or our ignorance? And then you want to condemn me for having a God that coincidentally mentions ALL of the above?

 

Y'all are amazing. Fun to argue with, but literally amazing.

 

As I said before, all acts of war are atrocities in my view.  Beheading is no different than bombing.  Both are atrocities.  The main difference that you don't seem to get is that we are NOT bombing them in the name of christianity.  The Salem Witch burnings WERE done in the name of christianity.

 

And for the record, I'm not condemning you; I'm condemning atrocities done in the name of christianity.  And I'm condemning christianity for committing atrocities.

 

Which brings me back to my original point that Hitchens imo, is complaining.

 

No, End3, your original point was that you didn't understand but thought Hitchens was saying, "Don't take a stand; you might get shot down."  Then you went on the attempt the point that humanists commit atrocities.  If, at some point, you mentioned Hitchens complaining, I overlooked it.

[mymistake]

 

Burning is more atrocious because of misunderstanding people, not knowing them?...or our ignorance? And then you want to condemn me for having a God that coincidentally mentions ALL of the above?

 

Y'all are amazing. Fun to argue with, but literally amazing.

 

 

What is amazing is your inability to read.  Nobody is condemning you.

 

Oh and burning people at the stake is atrocious because it is an intentionally slow and painful way to kill.  Again for the slow readers I am not holding you accountable for burning anybody at the stake.  You didn't do that.  I just find it mildly amusing that you are unable to bring yourself to name an atrocity commited in the name of Christianity.

 

I do not presume your inability is because of anything on your part.  I think you can't help it.  I think it is something Christian indoctrination has done to you.  It isn't your fault.

[mymistake]

 

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

Not sure I'm understanding the statements very well, but these seem to be saying it's wiser to not define a stand so that you won't be criticized for making one..

 

 

 

"Not sure I'm understanding the statements very well, but these seem to be saying it's wiser to not define a stand so that you won't be criticized for making one" = Hitchens is complaining?

 

 

Sometimes your word salads sound like you are speaking a different language.  However yes Hitchens is complaining.  Hitchens is complaining about all the Christians who claim that Christianity has the moral high ground and people cannot be moral without the Christian God when the facts of history demonstrate this is not the case.

 

In other words Christians lie when they say Christianity is moral.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I just want to point out to end that Hitchens didnt specify xianity in his challenge.  He referred to "belief" and "faith".  So that includes all religions.  Such as Islam, and the recent beheadings it inspired.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens.

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

Generally speaking, I enjoy Hitchens' critiques of religion. I agree with much of what he had to say. This challenge, however, always struck me as rather missing the point, at least as far as Christianity goes.

 

For the first question, I've never heard a Christian claim that there is such an action. It is not a claim of Christianity that to be a Christian makes one a better person. Hence the question is irrelevant.

 

For the second, Christians will be quick to tell you that many people of faith do reprehensible things, and that sometimes they do these things because of their faith. Faith can be misplaced, but not all faith is misplaced.

 

The only way that I can see these questions being useful is as a critique of the utility of religion from a humanistic perspective. But if Christianity were actually true then it wouldn't matter whether it was useful from a humanistic perspective. The humanistic perspective would be incorrect. Also, a statement may be true and not useful. It may even be true and damaging. All this is to say that while these questions may be interesting, they don't really do anything at all to demonstrate that any particular religion is not true. So I was always puzzled by Hitchens' insistence on returning to this challenge over and over at every opportunity. It seems to me that there are better critiques that can be made.

I agree with your assessment, but I have heard many Christians insist that, even if Christianity is not true, it is still better to believe in something, that their religion gives them a firm moral foundation that atheists can't have. There may be better critiques of religion as a truth claim, but Hitch's questions challenge the idea that religion is a better basis for morality.

 

Whether Christians admit it or not, they do believe their morality is superior to secular morality. They agree that everyone can be moral, but that only Christian based morals are ultimately meaningful.