| _mevildan said: @richardhutnik "So again here, if Hitchens is correct in that, there is NO act anyone needs any God for to do, that is right, then exactly why do people fall short?" ... you have me completely baffled here. The premise: No good act can be exclusively performed by someone religious. Your question: Why aren't people always good? I just don't follow... how does your question relate to the premise? Do you really think the premise is false? |
Initial statement: Hitchen's challenge: Show a single moral act that can be performed by a religious person that can't be by an atheist.
Premise: If Hitchen would be correct, then that means that all moral acts are performable by all human beings, irregardless of their beliefs.
Question from the premise: If this premise is true, then is there any example of ANYONE who is totally and completely moral in nature and didn't "sin" at any time in their life alive now?
The question asked follows because if something is within the capabilities of humans, without assistance from God/gods, then why do they fail at it? Is morality nothing more than some niceties one should try to do for no particular reason, or something that is an ideal sought to be hit, that should be possible.
I
