Dinesh D’Souza on VTech: What say you now, atheists?
posted at 10:52 am on April 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
I’ve read this three times and still don’t understand it. I think he’s suggesting that atheists simply can’t appreciate the scope of the horror because we’re too busy playing with beakers and nattering on about how veddy interesting it is when a psychotic blows away a bunch of kids. Which is another way of saying that he thinks we have no morals.
Stupid:
Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning…
To no one’s surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it’s difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho’s shooting of all those people can be understood in this way–molecules acting upon molecules.
Right. The thousands of words I’ve written about the shooting in the past three days all come from the fact that I’m fascinated by molecular interplay. Fancy thinkin’, Dinesh.
Moran responds at length. Exit question re: D’Souza: Cynical attempt to coopt the murders for his own agenda or transparent case of projection by a religious believer who’s a little ticked at God for not stopping Psy-Cho in his tracks?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Can’t we all just get along?
I suppose… but the Golden Rule, for example, doesn’t rely on religion or God. In fact, it functions at even the most base and selfish level and yet it still does the job.
saint kansas on April 19, 2007 at 12:57 PM
So, atheists don’t have morals, or personal beliefs. You can’t have beliefs unless they’re religious? Gee, that’s strange. See, I have many beliefs, that have nothing to do with religion. Basically, you’re arguing that since atheists have no God, they can see nothing wrong with taking the lives of 33 people, and destroying families. If that’s what you’re attempting to convey, that’s extremely ignorant.
amerpundit on April 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
That’s right. Those atheists are using the examples of morality and tact that they co-opted from religions. But in the back of their mind, there are thinking exactly that.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Allahpundit, you sure know how to ruffle some feathers around here!
No one here is wrong nor are they right.
Antony Flew
Google It!
kiakjones on April 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM
This statement shows a lack of undersranding of how evolution works. Human’s are a social species. Traits like altruism benefit the group that the altruistic memeber is a member of. Therefore, altruism, makes the group stronger, but not necesarily a single individual.
The various memes of religion, including christianity, evolved over the years in a manner not unlike how genes evolve.
It is easy to see how concepts like killing apostates and destroying cities that worship rival gods makes this a stronger meme. Many of the individual parts of the Christian meme are evolved to discourage independant thought and to punish those that question dogma.
These thing make for a very hardy meme set that has survivied and evolved over the years but it doesnt make a personal god that answers your prayers suddenly pop into existence.
When people tell me that all of the answers to lifes questions are in the bible, I wonder if these same people ever heard of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
This is the council set up by constantine, over 300 years after Jesus died, to decide which gospels would be accepted and which ones would not.
Do people really understand when they read the bible, they are not reading the word of god, they are reading the gospels that were approved and edited by this council as the ones that would most benfit the spread of their new religion and help the governement maintain control.
This one fact alon, should shetter anyones belief in the bible as the “word of god”.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 1:05 PM
What are you talking about? I just said that the atheists are probably hugging, and comforting the parents. What is the argument that hugs don’t really mean anything unless you have a religion, as well? Comforting is more than just saying “Your son/daughter is with God now, in a better place”. Comforting doesn’t even need to be talking.
Unless, of course, this goes back to the argument that atheists can’t possibly see anything wrong with slaughtering 33 people, because they don’t believe in a religion. Newsflash: al-Qaeda doesn’t see anything wrong with slaughtering 33 people, and they have a religion.
amerpundit on April 19, 2007 at 1:06 PM
That’s absolutely, 100%, correct.
amerpundit on April 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM
I’ll be charitable and assume that “individual” can be freely substituted for “soul” here, so that the response can even be addressed as anything other than a (needless) attempt to put the cart in front of the horse.
That said, the response is still ridiculous. Molecules “demand” nothing. And unless one is schizophrenic and hearing voices, presumably “God” demands nothing, either; rather, one has read the bible and has adopted a code of behavior based, at least in part, on edicts found in the religious texts.
There’s no reason somebody who answers “I don’t know” to questions about human behavior, rather than “Because God made it that way,” can’t read precisely the same texts and adhere to roughly the same codes of behavior, for any variety of alternate reasons (for instance, maybe there’s simply an appreciation for the historical fact that society has worked relatively well to the extent that its members have adhered to the code).
More superficially, the notion that the term “God” must be invoked to arrive at any sort of code of ethics is readily refuted by (whether you agree with her or not–I frequently don’t) the fact that Ayn Rand even existed. I am not an Objectivist, nor do I even consider Rand a good philosopher. However, she was an atheist who advanced a rather rigid code of ethics, based on principles which made no mention of supernatural forces. So whether you agree with her or not, she provides a high profile case in which atheism was in fact combined with a code with an ethics.
Blacklake on April 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Do people really understand when they read the bible, they are not reading the word of god, they are reading the gospels that were approved and edited by this council as the ones that would most benfit the spread of their new religion and help the governement maintain control.
Good grief.
Rightwingsparkle on April 19, 2007 at 1:08 PM
This argument is going around, and around in circles. I think I’m done on this thread. I’ve said what I needed to say.
amerpundit on April 19, 2007 at 1:08 PM
If I wanted to co-op the morality of religion, I would kill my neighbor for not being an athiest.
Or maybe burn my son on an altar as a burnt offering.
No, i think I will stick with my own personal morals.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 1:10 PM
We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a “belief about deity”
atheism is a religion just as baldness is a hair color.
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:11 PM
True Bible scholars, the ones who learn the original languages so that they can study the original texts as well as the customs and traditions of the times, do not rely on Wikipedia, of all things, to gain their knowledge of the origins of the Bible.
Rose on April 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Way to miss the whole point there, JayHaw!!!
There is no such thing as morals or good or evil for the atheist—just personal preference.
jdpaz on April 19, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Without reading all the comments to this post so far, I’d just like to say that Dinesh D’Souza is approaching Keith Olbermann levels of douchbaggery.
If I could express my feelings towards Dinesh using only two words and quoting Dick Cheney – “F*ck yourself.”
Enrique on April 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM
There is no such thing as morals or good or evil for the atheist—just personal preference.
that’s ridiculous. morals are independent of religion.
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Blacklake on April 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM:
What was Rand’s take on altruism? Isn’t the sacred idea behind Objectivism self-service? Taking care of one’s self is part and parcel of the atheist creed, and it does not interest me. I really think you need to recognize some sort of God in order to truly love others. Love springs from a divine sense of connectedness to others. What springs from molecules?
Why do atheists oppose murder? On what grounds does murder violate their ethics?
huckleberry on April 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Why do atheists oppose murder? On what grounds does murder violate their ethics?
it takes another person’s ultimate liberty–his life. i have right to do that if i am to expect nobody to do that to me in return.
see, it’s that “golden rule” again, which pops up, before, durning and regardless of relgion, when hominids join together to form cooperative groups.
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:28 PM
typo, sorry.
i have no right to do that if i am to expect nobody to do that to me in return.
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:29 PM
So they had a council to determine the canon of the Bible and which texts were divinely inspired and which weren’t. This was an “administrative” meeting to weed out false texts and clarify the theology. How does this negate that the Bible is the word of God?
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 1:33 PM
albo, you’ve expressed a lot of outrage but have failed to show why you should care if you violate another’s right to life. Why does anyone even have the right to life anyway? What are rights anyway? What is it about glorified pond scum that confers any rights on it? Why doesn’t every animal have these same rights?
jdpaz on April 19, 2007 at 1:35 PM
JayHaw,
You fail to understand how the canon was determined. Books that were left out of the canon were much later than the gospels, which were written in the first century. The other ‘gospels’ were written by 2nd and 3rd century heretics who WERE NOT EYEWITNESSES of the events they described.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Please cite where the golden rule is established in cultures prior to being recorded in the Bible. Also, if you do find a prior reference, please show that it is not sourced from some other ancient religion or belief system. In short, please show that the Golden Rule is purely the development of secular culture and human interaction.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Why does anyone even have the right to life anyway? What are rights anyway?
again, we evolved from plains apes that lived in groups for mutual benefit. you can’t keep a group together if other members will kill or steal from or not help each other. the societies that humans live in can’t work if we don’t abide to this concept.
there was no god needed to see how this idea worked and how groups that practiced it were successful and had offspring who were successful. it comes naturally to us. god doesn’t endow us with these natural rights–our own history and success as a species have
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM
In short, please show that the Golden Rule is purely the development of secular culture and human interaction
sure thing. once you prove to me the existence of god.
until then, we’re both speculating.
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:41 PM
For my next lesson, we can talk about the origin of mormonism, or to quote South Park,
dum.dum.dum.DUM,DUM.dum
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 1:42 PM
huckleberry asks:
albo answers:
So basically, it comes down to me… I should not do unto others what I would not have them do unto me. That is pretty much what I said, isn’t it?
Where is the love? How about you don’t murder others because you love them? Where will that love come from without God? Do you see my point? I find it difficult placing much trust in people whose basic creed is so ego-centric. I will love them, and be friends with them, but when bullets are flying or people are dying, I’d just as soon be surrounded by people of faith. I think that was D’Souza’s point.
huckleberry on April 19, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Not ignorant, I’m just pointing out the logical conclusion of atheism; a godless, hopeless, pointless, purposeless, and meaningless point of view.
Mojave Mark on April 19, 2007 at 1:44 PM
It’s not that evidence doesn’t abound, albo, it’s that you are the final judge of that evidence. It’s the pot demanding evidence of the potter. There is plenty of evidence, you are just dependent on your own fallible reasoning as to what you will accept.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 1:47 PM
This is the height of Theist arrogance, God = Hope, Purpose and Meaning ergo, without God…
Coloosolly arrogant and completely wrong.
My only regret is that after they are dead, there will be no one to tell them I told you so.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM
“theories” are not Science, science simply is. They would need to prove this theory using the scientific method to make it science
jp on April 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM
There is plenty of evidence, you are just dependent on your own fallible reasoning as to what you will accept.
my “own fallible reasoning” is the scientific method. use that to successfully defend your thesis that god exists and i will become a believer.
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Would you say that you keep the “golden rule?” The golden rule, in it’s fullness, started with “love the Lord your God with all your soul and all your strength and all your mind.” The second part is “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Would you say that you keep even the second part?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I know this all proves one thing…man stinks. We make stupid decisions that screw up everyone else’s lives. If man is the hope of the world, we’re screwed. Thank goodness there is a God!
danarchy on April 19, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Since when is every truth determined by science? Since when did science become infallible? There is a wide diversity of thought in the scientific community. If the scientific method was such a great method, there wouldn’t be any diversity of thought. We would have the truth. The problem with the scientific method is the people using it, who are fallible.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM
JayHaw Phrenzie, I’d recommend NOT discussing the origins of Mormonism unless you want to be pwned. :P
Vanceone on April 19, 2007 at 1:53 PM
I don’t accept evolution to the extent that we are discussing it here. So, yes, my opinions wont follow that understanding. I believe evolution exists within our species.
Altruism does benefit us now, but as a trait required to advance us from the primordial goo to a species that can sustain altruism, it would be counterproductive. What you are describing as alturism I see as a function of selfish survival. A memebr of the group who cannot benefit the group would be cast out. I hasten to add that I am refering to a group way back in the evolutionary timeline that the atehists believe in. If 20 people out of a group of 25 suddenly were unable to contribute to the groups welfare, they would not be sustained. The strongest would be barely capable of sustaining themselves, much less anyone else. In the context of the social structure, of the five remaining, they would adopt whatever role needed for the sustaining of the productive members of the group, even if that role wasn’t one of a tradition nature. If the remaining memebrs were phyiscally unable to, let say hunt for the group, the entire group would die. If only men survived, they would seek out females not because of altruism, but because they needed to produce members to help sustain the group. That isn’t altruism.
Yes. A poor balance between altruism and the need to survive. Both are at play in religious wars. It is altruism that motivates a religious group to try to spread their religion. It is a need to survive that casts altruism aside and engages in the completely immoral act of killing.
As for the rest of your comment, I mostly agree. I accept that I believe in a a God that may not exist and the bible is rife with mans prideful desires. I have faith that God lives and I believe many truths exist within the pages of the bible and I gravitate to those teachings which are most moral and try to find the truth in those passages that seem to contradict those moralities.
My point here is that atheists have co-opted the idea of morality from religions. In the vast majority of systems that engage in moral behavior, the belief in a God is present. In systems where there is no belief in God, well, they don’t exist, unless their survival is ensured by a moral society. Atheists exist because an altruistic religious society allows them to.
So in a circular way, I agree with you that altruism is required. But only for a civilization to survive. Civilizations void of a belief in God do not survive.
I think the atheists are trying to evolve the culture of religion into a culture most suited to their beliefs. A moral society that is not burdened with supersitions. But their error is that they have taken that morality from religion and if they succeed, generations from now will ask the question…Why be moral? Because our forefathers believed in it? If I can do away with morals, then I can have more stuff and be more successful. There is no punishment for immoral behavior.
Because to the atheist, the desire is toward more tangible items. Items that they must compete with others for. That desire would lead their children to eliminate those who get in the way of their persuit of stuff, knowledge, or honor. Eventually, the atheist culture would produce exactly what they claimed produced them. A culture of survival of the fittest. I may not happen in one generation, but it certainly would happen many years down the road.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 1:54 PM
I do have references to cite, beyond the presence of God in my life. The Bible contains the proof that God exists and that he was manifest on this Earth as His Son, Jesus Christ. The books of the New Testament were written by eyewitness’ to Jesus life, death, and resurrection. They are first generation documents. They have withstood the scrutiny of 2000 years of speculation and criticism. There is a whole field of apologetics to provide proof regarding the validity of the Bible and thus the existence of God.
Your turn: the Golden Rule as a secular construct.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Are you going to be bold enough to assert you are an infallible applier of this method?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Since when did science become infallible?
it isn’t. that’s the basic idea. scientists are wrong all the time. they invite others to disprove their theories. that’s the way truth and fact are confirmed
science demands that when you make an assertion, especially an extraordinary one, you provide proof of that assertion’s truth. for example, i could tell you i slept with jessica alba last night, and you wouldn’t believe me unless i provided some evidence of that. and extraordinary evidence, since i made an extraordinary claim. pointing to a book and saying “see, it’s printed there” is not evidence.
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Study the timeline of thought and reason by man, there was an axis shift in the 1800′s by the philosophers which created the ‘materilist’ mind that thinks they have ‘reason’, the complete opposite is actually true. Francis Schaeffer wrote brilliantly on the subject and history of it.
jp on April 19, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Drat.
Copy and paste screwed up.
Are you going to be bold enough to assert you are an infallible applier of this method?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 1:57 PM
The books of the New Testament were written by eyewitness’ to Jesus life, death, and resurrection. They are first generation documents.
People claim they see UFOs and can provide witnesses and even write books about it. that doesn’t prove UFOs exist.
you can’t point to the Bible and say, “there’s your proof.” personal testimony of people we cannot now question is not proof
albo on April 19, 2007 at 1:59 PM
So if science isn’t infallible, neither is the application of the scientific method, why should I trust it to prove or disprove the evidence of God found in the Bible?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 1:59 PM
The “extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim” standard is another example of you applying your own standards to what evidence is valid and what isn’t. Who determines what is extraordinary, you? Who made you the arbiter of truth?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:01 PM
So, all of history is suspect because we can’t question those who documented it? For someone who, I assume, claims logic is their guiding principle, these are not logical arguments.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 2:02 PM
No. My point is that the morality that atheists claim as their own, really originated from religion. And behind the comforting hugs, the atheist is thinking how deluded these poor religious people are. Sure, they help with the comfort, but that is as far as it goes. religious persons are looking to square this event with their faith and their concern for the well being of their loved one NEVER diminishes. That is the authors point.
In order for an atheist to be truely effective, they would need to comfort another atheist because all that matters is the atheist getting over their loss.
Another point I make. It’s alllll about the atheist and their feelings.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM
You are leaving out the possibility that one of these views could be correct.
jman on April 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Arrogant? Perhaps. But I’m not sure it is completely wrong. Nor have you offered any explanation why it is wrong.
But first, let us be sure that we agree that “Hope, Purpose, and Meaning” are good things. I believe that they are, and I also believe that civilization collapses without them.
Do the atheists agree?
huckleberry on April 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM
why should I trust it to prove or disprove the evidence of God found in the Bible?
it’s the best way we’ve found to study what exists and find the truth–you propose a theory and then back it up with evidence. we use it to study everything except religion–religion we take on faith. by why should religion be exempt?
albo on April 19, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Buddhism. Been around a lot longer than Christianity. Interestingly enough, is also non-theistic.
The simple fact is that D’Souza wrote his article as a hit piece on “non-believers”. He used a national tragedy to do it. Y’all can bemoan the fact that at times some atheists slam Christians.
This is not an example of one of those times. Just the opposite.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Who is ‘we’? Didn’t you just admit that science is fallible, that it’s constantly evolving? Aren’t you taking a lot on faith yourself?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:06 PM
The fact that people can not agree on what is true does not truth cease to exist. Is a former smoker, I can say that I never really believed that I would die of cancer. Had I continued, the probability would have been high, regardless of my denial.
jman on April 19, 2007 at 2:06 PM
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM
True. If we think of civilization as the Tour De France, then the atheist riders are drafting off of the theists.
huckleberry on April 19, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Should have proofread better. Here is is again:
The fact that people can not agree on what is true does not make truth cease to exist. As a former smoker, I can say that I never really believed that I would die of cancer. Had I continued, the probability would have been high, regardless of my denial.
jman on April 19, 2007 at 2:08 PM
You should believe the Bible because it’s the revelation of the Creator to his creatures, it explains man’s fall and his need for a Saviour. You should believe it because Jesus died according to the Scriptures and was raised again according to the Scriptures.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Hitler was no Christian, all you have to do is Read the Gospels to understand what a real christian is and then look at said person actions. I.e. hitler or stalin. What someone says and what they do can be very different things. Just look at the Catholic Church that Luther/Calvin revolted against. “Christian Theocracy” or biblical theocracies for that matter in reality were basically radical libertarianism.
jp on April 19, 2007 at 2:09 PM
In short, you should believe it because it’s the Word of God.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Besides, I question just how the Scientific method would prove there is a God. Let’s examine this: The Atheist demands that proof conform to the scientific method, i.e. be repeatable by anyone. Well, if God does a miracle, suspending the laws of science (or applies a higher one or something)–what then? The Miracle is proof of God, right? Well, no, that could be a coincidence, or something inexplicable–and besides, we can’t repeat it in a lab, so it fails the scientific method–it’s not a repeatable thing. Ergo, no proof, so thus, no God.
What if God DID make it repeatable under all conditions? Well, then it’s just a new scientific law that always happens, and thus, not proof of God’s existence either. It’s just another scientific law, right?
So how, exactly, could you test for the existence of God using the scientific method? Really, what hypothesis would work that wouldn’t be explained away as either coincidence or a scientific law?
God showing up to man? Well, that’s what the Bible is full of… yet that’s not believed. Is the only form of proof acceptable a massive appearance of God to everyone everywhere, continually, so that when your kids show up they won’t say it’s a myth (like God and the Israelites at Mount Sinai)?
Vanceone on April 19, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Good analogy.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 2:10 PM
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Agreed. D’Souza should have waited a week or two before sharing his philosophical musings.
huckleberry on April 19, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Yep. The atheists are borrowing logic and morals from Christians.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:11 PM
there is True science, then there are theories yet to be proven(like darwinism).
Sir Isaac Newton, creationist and scientist, what he discovered is not fallible. Its the truth and infallible.
jp on April 19, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Thanks for the help, but Newtonian mechanics fails under certain conditions. Even Newton, whose intellect and will was freed from the bondage of sin, failed to come close to the inspired Word of God.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:13 PM
You should believe it because Jesus died according to the Scriptures and was raised again according to the Scriptures.
and i contend the latter didn’t happen because there’s no evidence a human can come back from the dead. and i’ll leave it at that, because as christopher hitchens said:
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
albo on April 19, 2007 at 2:13 PM
The atheists are borrowing logic and morals from Christians.
or lots of other religions:
Confucianism: Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Hinduism: This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
google it!
albo on April 19, 2007 at 2:15 PM
There’s plenty of evidence of that as well, just none that you will accept. Again, all you will accept are your own assertions that ‘no one can rise from the dead.’ Why are you the standard? Why is science the standard?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:16 PM
some beleive that the mere existence of the Scientific Method reveals the truth of God’s existence.
jp on April 19, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Yea, albo. I already tried the Buddhism thing. Appears they aren’t interested in a real answer.
For those of you scoring at home, Buddhism is centuries older than Christianity and was based on the teachings of a man, not a god.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 2:18 PM
This isn’t the Golden Rule. The golden rule is stated above. The Buddhists, Confucians, and Hindus assert the negative of the Golden rule, and give no grounds upon which it should be followed, like the preamble our Lord gave to Israel, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.[a] 5You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” Dt 6:4-5
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:20 PM
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3171.html
jp on April 19, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Again, poor logic. Christians put up as proof of God’s existence, the record of God in the Bible. We are asserting our claims and belief with the Bible as proof. You are dismissing our proof, “without proof.” Because you don’t believe it can happen, that is not adequate proof to rebut the accounts of the Bible. What proof do you have that the events recorded in the Gospels and the Book of Acts never existed e.g. Jesus was crucified and rose again to be witnessed by his disciples and at least 500 others.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Didn’t Christians “steal” logic from the greeks?
In the process they changed Zeus’s name to Jaweh and fired the rest of the pantheon.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 2:22 PM
are you saying the “Laws of Gravity” Newton discovered have faults?
jp on April 19, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Look, I’m not trying to be insulting, but can you bring anything to this discussion that hasn’t been rebutted at length by Christians for the past 2000 years? Have you even tried to read our arguments to the contrary?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:24 PM
What proof do you have that the events recorded in the Gospels and the Book of Acts never existed e.g. Jesus was crucified and rose again to be witnessed by his disciples and at least 500 others.
nobody can prove a negative. that’s impossible. it’s up to those who assert a claim to prove it. christians–and other religions–provide no proof that god exists except a book that says “god exists.”
i gotta skate. i’ll leave with this concept: the difference between me and you is that i don’t believe in any god and you don’t believe in any god except one.
albo on April 19, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Ok. Let’s use book Logic. The Koran said Mohamed rode off into the sunset on a horse and is hiding in a cave awaiting an apocolypic event when he will return. It’s in the book. Are you saying Muslims are wrong?
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I’ll second PRCalDude’s point that these are not the equivalent to the golden rule. In addition to that, you have proven my point: these are statements from religious, not secular sources. These show that the idea of compassion and the golden rule are not evolved from secular or atheist “societies.” They are religious ideals.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 2:26 PM
They don’t fully understand gravity yet. Gravity is a distortion of space-time around a mass. They also don’t understand the force particles that cause gravity, and they’re not sure they exist. Newton’s concept of gravity was much different.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:26 PM
You have no argument beyond faith. I do not agree with your faith, therefore it does not advance your argument. I require evidence.
Please cite your evidence.
And note, quoting the bible does not equal evidence.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 2:26 PM
The Revised Athenian version of the Bible was never accepted as Canon. [/sarcasm]
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Yes. Mohammed attempted to use the Bible to give credibility to what he was saying. The Bible and the Qur’an don’t agree, so that blows quite a few holes in the reasons to believe Mohammed.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:27 PM
You have no argument beyond faith either, if you’ve been following the discussion. You have faith in yourself. We have faith in the account of Scripture.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Or we could use the Torah. No mention of Jesus being the son of God in there. Are the Jews wrong?
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Fixed that for you.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 2:30 PM
There’s plenty of pointers to the coming of Christ in the Torah. Read Isaiah 53, Daniel 7, etc. The Jews were looking for a military leader to overthrow the Romans.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Why?
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Read Genesis 3:15. That’s the first one.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:32 PM
But you have co-opted a part of the religious morality.
Killing people in the name of religion…can you give me the exact example you are refering to?
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Historically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians
More recently:
9/11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence
Do you really need help finding more? really?
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Unless, of course, the Bible substantiates itself with hundreds of fulfilled prophesies.
jman on April 19, 2007 at 2:43 PM
LOL, well, JayHaw Phrenzie: If you are going to tar religion with the brush of the Inquisition, etc… then I’ll tar Atheism with the holocaust, Stalin, and Mao–who by FAR have killed more people in the last 100 years than any religion. All in the name of “science” too–that’s what the cultural revolution and Nazism preached, wasn’t it?
Vanceone on April 19, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Hesitated to comment here seeing as how I am definitely one of the people in the minority here, “conservative atheist”. But some of you seem to be equating atheist to a bunch of ego centric loners, incapable of morallity or even love. My mother recently died and I have never felt an emptiness inside of me like her passing left me with. I wept with the nation on 9-11 and can imagine the heartache for the parent that have lost a child or loved one at VTech, because I know how I would feel if something happened to my child. Think of us as you will but please don’t assume we are not touched by the world around us.
b4itsover on April 19, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Oh my word! Where to start?!? Didn’t the Christians get Yahweh from the Jews who had Him way before the Greeks came around?
I don’t know if Christians “stole” logic or not, but they’ve used it quite effectively to deductively prove that there must, of necessity, be a Creator. And inductively shown that the God of the Bible is extremely likely to be the One.
jdpaz on April 19, 2007 at 2:49 PM
That tired old argument again.
Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had one thing in common. They made their political ideology dogma. That gives them more in common with theists than atheists.
The worst crime in any of those political systems is rejecting the party. The worst crime in any religion is rejecting god.
Enlightened athiests are not dogmatic.
Dogmatism, either in politics or religion kills people.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 2:50 PM
JayHaw, you need to separate the truth of something from the bad behavior of those who profess to believe it. The Inquisition/etc have no bearing on whether Christianity is true or not.
jdpaz on April 19, 2007 at 2:51 PM
That wasn’t what I said. I said Jews don’t believe Jesus is the son of God. I’m not looking for Biblical passages that say he was. My point is you can find alternate texts which are every bit as sacred to adherents who disagree with you.
This is one reason why I and many like me are agnostic. We don’t say there isn’t a God but we have not seen any proof that your God is the right one or your way of worshiping is the right way. As I and others have pointed out, morality as we know it has been around a lot longer than Christianity. Just because you don’t like the examples we have given doesn’t make it not true.
Your faith is enough for you. Fine. It’s not enough for me. Equally fine. What D’Souza wrote was a shameless (not surprising for him) attempt to slam atheists using the deaths of innocent men and women. Not fine.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I’d settle for one, if it could be substantiated.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Dude, he’s not extremely likely to be the one, he is the one, we know this because of the Word of God.
Many of us are not doing that. Atheists have a conscience. We believe they are given one by God, as they are made in his image, but they have one nonetheless.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:53 PM
I agree somewhat with JackStraw. This thread’s degenerated from its original topic. D’Souza shouldn’t've spouted off. Shameless backstabbing.
jdpaz on April 19, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »