You may very well have fond memories of The Muppet Show but please be aware that the neo Muppets have been corrupted and are not child/family friendly.At least in the case of the 2004 AD movie remake...
Many atheists, so called skeptics and religious tolerance minded in general claim that the Golden Rule has been known and taught by many regardless of chronology, geography or theology.
In a way, this is a non-issue however, in another way it is a fallacious claim.
New two parter on Christopher Hitchens' assertion that the Good Samaritan was non-religious and thus, that religion / God is not necessary for morality.
During many of his debates, Christopher Hitchens has argued that morality is not premised upon YHVH. One of his buttresses was based on Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan…It seems that only an atheist could consider a God prescribed moral action and come to the conclusion that a God prescribed moral action does not require God.
Vincent Bugliosi’s most recent contribution to the New Atheist dust bin is his book, “Divinity of Doubt: The God Question” wherein he wrote:
Death is dirty and rotten, horrifying, monstrous, vile, disgusting, grotesque, despicable, indescribably ugly, and if there is a God, evil. When our loved ones die before our eyes, when we die before our loved ones' eyes, who is responsible for this horrible, ghastly event?
I just finished posting a parse essay dismantling this assertion.
We now conclude considering part of the American Humanists Association’s “Interesting Facts You Might Not Know”: “Without a god, why be good at all?”
We now pick up where the last segment ended.
3) It is an argument to embarrassment:
The only answer to the premise “Without a god, why be good at all?” was a presupositional assertion, “Because you know you want to, anyway,” this was the only “why” offered.
Well kids, get your highlighters out as Sam Harris is publishing a new book. By the way, the aka is of my own making. Why? Because his new book, The Moral Landscape is about, as the subtitle states, “How Science Can Determine Human Values.”
Before getting into Sam Harris’ own description let us note that with friends like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris needs no enemies. Note what Dawkins wrote,
The video of my debate with my friend Michael Sizer on morality is now available.
This debate took place in March 2010 AD at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada.
At some point I may post segments and make a few comments.
For example, at one point, when it came to the question about harm causing in the Bible I misspoke;
I wanted to distinguish between me taking it upon myself to taken an innocent life--on the one hand--and a governing body prescribing capital punishment on a guilty person--on the other.
Yet, I accidentally said, "innocent" for both.
Here Sam Harris, apparently and in his own mind, proves that atheism most certainly does have a basis for morality "moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness." Elsewhere, Sam Harris makes reference to "fresh moral imperatives" and "conceptual revolutions."1