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
No, I (we) don’t think that. What I have been posting is that empathy, love, compassion are qualities placed in us by our Creator. They are not “evolved” qualities. The closer we are to God, the more these Fruits of the Spirit can blossom in our lives. I have pointed out that the contradiction of atheists, in my view, is that when they react against the horror of an atrocity like VT, they will not acknowledge that God created them with the capacity of such reactions.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I said D’Souza is an idiot. Many of us have. He is. He’s a shameless opportunist.
My point was that the Jews of the time were looking for the Messiah in a different form. Many of the Jews believed, and are still coming to believe. I can show you from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah. That is proof. Scripture is proof. It’s just not proof you will accept. You prefer your proof, which is whatever you say it is.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I agree, but there is a certain, albeit small, leap of faith involved that someone purely depending on logic would refuse to take.
albo and JayHaw can’t even prove purely logically that they, themselves, exist—how can we expect them to do so with God?
jdpaz on April 19, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Genesis 3:15. Jesus is the Seed that crushed the Serpent’s head. Jesus conquered death and crushed Satan in the process, redeeming some by his blood.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 3:00 PM
They were barbaric leaders of atheistic states. Can you say that Nazi Germany, Russia, and China allowed religious freedom? Perhaps we can throw Che and Castro onto that list also.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Neither could you unless your intellect and free will were first liberated by the Holy Spirit.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 3:02 PM
OK, now quote your substantiation that this happened. Please point out specifically how Satan was identified.
And again, the presence of this in the bible is not substantiation that it happened any more than the book “Jurassic Park” is substantiation that Dinosaurs are frolicing on an island near South America.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM
On that note, I am going to drop out of this thread too.
Evidence is meaningless to fanatics.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I’m not so sure about that. Your mind already seems made up…
jman on April 19, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Yes, because this is exactly what I said. If I don’t agree with your proof then I am making stuff up. Alrightie then. My work here is done.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Satan is identified how the Bible identifies him. He tempted Adam and Eve, he accused Job before God, he tempted Christ (the Last Adam) in the Wilderness, etc. Jesus ‘crushed his head’ by being the sacrifice, the Lamb of God, that purchased men for God with his own blood on the cross.
“Jurassic Park” never claims to be the Word of God, does it? The claims of the Bible can also be substantiated externally, by archaelogy and other ways. But that is never an acceptable proof to an atheist.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 3:10 PM
It’s not that you don’t agree with our proof, it’s that you only agree with yours. Your logic and reasoning is fallible, but you assert certainty for your claims. Ours is based on the Word of God.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 3:13 PM
b4itsover on April 19, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Bits, my condolences on the loss of your mother. I miss my parents as well. May you find peace.
I apologize if I have made it sound as though atheists are immoral or unfeeling. Clearly they are not without morals or feelings. Atheists are human, and by my way of thinking, they are divinely inspired creations the same as theists. You can’t help loving and feeling the loss of loved ones because you are not an animal. You are a human.
However, by abandoning faith in God, you have no reason to love or feel loss. By denying your divine creation, you are also relinquishing your claim to your humanity, and demoting yourself to the level of mere animal. You are sustained by your upbringing and God-given nature, and you are likely to continue functioning well in a stable, civilized society. But I believe you are challenged to come up with a reason for your life. And I pray that you will react like a theist if your civilization becomes unstable and at risk.
Just a theory.
huckleberry on April 19, 2007 at 3:20 PM
You’ve gotta be kidding me. So you don’t think that people would believe killing is wrong if it weren’t for religions telling them it was wrong? Seriously?
Nonfactor on April 19, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I dislike this type of back and forth debate as it never leads anywhere. Like most debates no one ever looks for common ground, the good in each of us (regardless of how it may have gotten there). I am an atheist. My 16 year old son found religion 2 years ago and I love him as much as I ever and he loves me. Where does this debate take us but further apart. We live in the greatest country on the planet and we have many more serious matters to face and we would be best suited if we face them together. Believe it or not, this is one atheist who will gladly climb in a foxhole with anyone of you to defend this nation and anyones right to worship as they see fit as long as they offer me the same right.
b4itsover on April 19, 2007 at 3:21 PM
I like how we are “fanatics” for believing in God. Face it, Jayhaw Phrenzie, you don’t have answers.
But just to REALLY tick you off, I’ll go with a proof from my faith, Mormonism. In the 1830′s, Joseph Smith made a prediction of civil war in America that would begin in South Carolina and arise through the slavery question. He prophecied in the name of God. This was over 20 years BEFORE the civil war began. He also predicted that the confederacy would call on Great Britain for help.
Now, many of my fellow Christians don’t accept Joseph Smith, but they also have a hard time explaining how he did that. Is that not prophecy? How does “science” explain it away? There’s no “second Isaiah” to pin it on here. The date is certain. Oh, he ALSO healed an entire camp full of sick and dying people in one day through the power of God. How is that explainable by Atheism? Curing fatal diseases, with multiple people? By the laying on of hands? A mighty strange coincidence to heal 40-50 people at one time, and have it all be sudden remission.
There’s tons of evidence, even in THIS day, not just an ancient book of “mythology” that you people seem to regard the Bible as. And even though we mormons part company with our fellow Christians on some of this stuff, I believe we have much stronger evidence of God’s existence than they do, because we have dates and times in a modern era.
Vanceone on April 19, 2007 at 3:22 PM
I still don’t see how it is logical or scientific to believe that all life evolved from a single celled organism that spontaneously generated with the ability to reproduce. How is it that belief in that supposed event which had no witnesses is acceptable to the atheists but belief in eyewitness accounts of a man’s life isn’t?
Rose on April 19, 2007 at 3:28 PM
b4itsover on April 19, 2007 at 3:21 PM
True enough for all practical purposes…
I was only drawn in to this particular struggle by what I perceived as incendiary text in Allah’s original post. But I can leave this stuff alone as well as the next guy.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
huckleberry on April 19, 2007 at 3:35 PM
I think they would be less likely to kill themselves in a suicide bombing – although, the Kamikaze pilots in WWII were not heading to any reward (that I recall) but doing sacrificing their lives out of a sense of duty.
However, their goal would likely remain the same, even without 70 black-eyed virgins waiting on the other side. Only their willingness to sacrifice their lives to achieve it would change (and, perhaps, not even that).
JadeNYU on April 19, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I, for one, feel sorry for atheists. They have no one to talk to when they’re having good sex.
IrishEi on April 19, 2007 at 4:04 PM
IrishEi…LOL, now that’s a good post.
b4itsover on April 19, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Do some reading on Shinto, the ancient religion of Japan. Take note of the root of the word kamikaze, kami, it has meaning. BTW, Shintoism is also older than Christianity and has many gods. Books, too.
WWII was not the first time the Japanese employed kamikazes. They went willingly because they had a reward waiting for them, too.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Actually I was trying to get a frame of reference for your point. This behavior by religious persons are in fact misguided attempts to save others. It is not the teachings of the religion, it is the result of mans interpretation of Gods will.
Blaming God for mans erroneuos reading of his moral teachings is akin to blaming fatness on spoons.
I’d still like someone to give me an example of how morality is a required trait in the atheists belief that man evolved from goo. Darwinism is the antithesis of morality.
Most of us have been party to discussions involving charitable acts by people and why they do it. There is an argument that the act of charity is motivated by what the giver gets from the act. Good feelings, etc. These feelings serve only themselves. This is a survival of the fittest mentality. We get to feel moral and that makes us more fit for society. We have seen this belief expressed in this thread by our atheist friends as well as our religious friends. So, our base desire to look out for ourselves is still intact albeit manifest in a different way. If the atheist evolutionary man were to use these traits as the basis of his existance, he would not exist. So the only way for the atheist to square evolution is to admit that men had no morality at all. I agree with them that man, in his basic desire is that of self preservation. I just disagree with how God is connected with him.
God has given us the concept of selfless sacrifice because we were incapable of figuring it out on our own. This concept constantly pushes us to be more altruistic than we were last week. Even the sins committed by religious persons are rooted in altruism. Misguided for sure, but the desire to share blessings (even by the point of a sword) with others that have no benefit to you, is by definition altruistic.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 4:11 PM
You are free to provide several examples where morality is achieved without a religious belief having influence.
If you believe that, then you belive that children do not need to be taught right from wrong. They would just naturally be moral. This is misguided thinking. A child raised by wolves would be as moral as a wolf.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 4:17 PM
It’s been given, given again and then given some more. Buddhism, which is a religion without a god but a very human face behind it’s teaching which is older than Christianity, is one perfect example of a very strong moral code without any outside influence.
What do I win?
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Agnostics, on the other hand, can draw on every theory, while not knowing the ultimate truth of any. It is provisional. Like finding a lover or creating music or dancing down a mountain on skis.
To affirm (theism)or deny (atheism) what the human mind is incapable of determining (by virtue of its self-ignorance and short lifespan) is cute, but ultimately means little.
Meaning is our creation.
It is the art of being an intelligence.
And having desires, instincts and awareness merging into human judgment, born from the outcome of the Given mating with the Mysterious.
Decency is natural. You don;t need to have it handed down from on high.
As any mother animal in nature proves, sacrificing her freedom for her offspring. Or any father who dies to protect his children.
Love grows from growing consciousness.
If there is a Hand behind it all, how could we ever determine it? Except to hope our guess was more than a wish?
meanwhile, D’Souza is a pathetic fellow.
And about as bright as a putrifying fish.
profitsbeard on April 19, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Did some quick reading. The official JAPANESE name for suicide units was “tokubetsu kōgeki tai ” which translates to “special attack unit”. Only the aerial assault units were called “shinpū tokubetsu kōgeki tai ” which translates to “divine wind special attack unit” which, the English translators mistranslated the characters to Kamikaze instead of Shinpu (same meaning, different pronunciation). Adding a poetic name to one of their suicide units does not prove that all (or even most) of the people involved did it because of their religious belief in a reward.
I also found this interesting quote from one of the most famous pilots in Japan who was also part of the first group of Kamikaze pilots: “Japan’s future is bleak if it is forced to kill one of its best pilots. I am not going on this mission for the Emperor or for the Empire… I am going because I was ordered to.” Going out of a sense of duty to follow the orders he was given? Surely his next sentence must have been “Oh yeah, and because I think I’ll get a great reward in the next life, because that’s the only reason anyone would ever be willing to do something like this.”
Then, there is this as well: “In 2006, Watanabe Tsuneo, Editor in Chief of the Yomiuri Shimbun, criticized Japanese nationalists’ glorification of kamikaze attacks:[7] [8] “It’s all a lie that they left filled with braveness and joy, crying, ‘Long live the emperor!’ They were sheep at a slaughterhouse. Everybody was looking down and tottering. Some were unable to stand up and were carried and pushed into the plane by maintenance soldiers.”" Once again, this doesn’t exactly sound like brave religious zombies marching off to get their special reward in the afterlife. Sounds like scared little boys trying to fulfill the duty that their country assigned to them.
Which brings me to my final point. Religion/belief in an after life is but one of many reasons a person can use to justify sacrificing their own life (whether it’s a noble sacrifice that saves others or a terrorist act that takes other lives). When a soldier throws himself on a grenade is it because he thinks of his afterlife or could it possibly be because he feels a duty to his fellow soldiers? I’m sure an atheist soldier has put his own life at risk to save the life of his comrades before. If a potential life sacrifice can be made for a noble purpose, it can just as easily be made for a terrorist purpose.
JadeNYU on April 19, 2007 at 4:31 PM
That should have read:
I’m sure an atheist soldier has put his own life at risk to save the life of his comrades before. If a potential life sacrifice can be made for a noble purpose, it can just as easily be made for a terrorist purpose without religion being the culprit.
JadeNYU on April 19, 2007 at 4:34 PM
JadeNYU on April 19, 2007 at 4:31 PM
With respect, read something other than Wikipedia. There’s a lot more to it. Shinto, Bushido, the Japanese warrior culture and how it tied into their religious beliefs was central to the Japanese mentality pre-WWII.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Kamikaze translates literally to “divine wind” and is a reference to the Typhoons that occurred on two occasions when the Chinese sent their fleet to fight the Japanese. I have never seen references to human Kamikazes before WW2 – perhaps you could share your source. The sources I read regarding the WW2 Kamikazes painted a picture of many young teenagers being chained into the plane with enough gasoline to make a one way trip.
All the ties to Bushido, Shinto and Buddhism would take a web site dedicated to the discussion so I’ll stay away from that aspect of the discussion.
Bradky on April 19, 2007 at 4:57 PM
One additional note re the WW2 Kamikazes – those who spoke Japanese and listened to the radio transmissions of the Kamikazes said the most chilling thing was hearing many of them crying out for their mother in their last seconds.
Bradky on April 19, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Here is the fallacy of your arguement regarding the use of the Bible as proof of God’s existence. If the premise is, “Prove the Bible is God’s word,” and the response is “The Bible tells me it is God’s word,” then that would be a void argument. If the premise is “Prove God exists” and the response is “Because I feel him in my heart,” while a vaild belief, would be a void argument. But, if the premise is “Prove God exists,” it is valid to cite the Bible as the record of the events and teachings of God in the history of Israel and the presence of His Son Jesus Christ. The counter argument is not “You can’t use the Bible.” The counter argument must then be to prove that the Bible is not a valid document and an accurate record of God’s interaction with His creation.
So, you/others have asked for proof of God’s existance, and I/others have responded that the Bible is the documentation of God’s presence on Earth. You certainly don’t have to accept the validity of the Bible, but to support your argument that God does not exist, you need to offer proof that the Bible is not an accurate or true document.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 5:12 PM
With respect:
Note 1: I said quick search.
Note 2: The fact that the quotes are in wikipedia does not mean that they aren’t accurate. I’m sure there’s a whole lot more to Shinto, Bushido & the warrior culture of Japan. I never claimed to be describing that. I was simply pointing out that it’s not a clear cut case of starry-eyed juju worshipers running of to kill themselves and as many other people as they can in the name of religion.
Note 3: I proposed “duty” as a concept that people would be willing to die for. This concept is a concept that (while it can be tied to religion in certain instances) does not have to involve any form of religious belief at all. You skipped this point altogether even though it had more to do with my original post (the response to Allah about suicide bombers) than any of the info about Kamikazes.
JadeNYU on April 19, 2007 at 5:12 PM
The burden of proof isn’t on the people who don’t believe in the God of The Bible it’s on the Christians. For example: “Prove God exists” – A Christian then cites The Bible – “Prove The Bible gives a truthful account of the things you cited.” See? People don’t need to prove The Bible is wrong if you’re the one citing it; you need to prove The Bible is true to cite it.
Nonfactor on April 19, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Fine. Proving the Bible is true can and has been done.
Prove that random molecules collided into each other and eventually produced human beings with intelligence and empathy. Then, prove that this is a more sound belief than the existence of a Creator as the reason for our existence.
Mallard T. Drake on April 19, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Actually, the literal translation is God’s WInd. The word Kami in Shinto means god or essecnce. That ought to be a clue.
On the second part, you are correct. It dates from the war with the Mongols in the 1200′s further establishing that Kamikaze was not something that sprung up during WWII. Most of my learning on this is from college and study of the Bushido Code, Samurai. I’ll see what I can find on line. But briefly, what I remember of Shintoism, which contained many god’s and not a single one, was that deity was contained in everything, from rocks to trees, to animals to people. In the Shinto belief, there was the concept of death. But Shinto was not the only religion in Japan. Buddhism had been introduced into Japan hundreds of years before WWII and the two religions co-existed and both were adopted by much of the populace. One of the central tenants of Japanese Buddhism was reincarnation.
Now you mix this religious stew with the code of Bushido, the Samurai warrior culture, and you had warriors who not only were honor bound to give their lives in battle if required, but also a people who were imbued with the belief that Kami existed in all things and rebirth was not only possible, but the quality of that rebirth was based on your actions in this life. Kamikaze was one example, but the banzai attack, which has been misconstrued to be a battle cry when it really was a cry to accept death before the shame of defeat, was another example of people who’s religion told them that they would reap a better fate through honorable death rather than defeat. Indeed, one of the deciding factors in using the nukes in Japan was an understanding of the enormous toll an invasion would take on US troops because of this almost fanatical belief of the entire Japanese population. It’s no coincidence that the entire Japanese way of life, including the belief that the emporer was a reincarnated diety, collapsed with the defeat of Japan.
It’s a lot more complictated, obviously, but that’s the gist of what I recall.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Yea, and? Islamic terrorists use retarded kids as suicide bombers. Not everyone who is used is committed. Doesn’t mean those running the show don’t buy into the concept.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 5:57 PM
In your earlier post it seemed that your were suggesting this was a parallel with the Islamist Extremists. Not trying to start a debate but just don’t think there is a very strong parallel between the two. The Japanese population was not nearly as mindlessly devoted as the North Koreans are to “Dear Leader”. The military used religion for expansionist purposes rather than a jihad.
The groupism found in many Asian cultures made them more compliant than another society might have been.
Were this not the case we wouldn’t have had the successes in rebuilding the country and making them a pretty reliable ally in such a short time.
Historical factors you mentioned were definitely a part of it but I risk taking this thread wildly off topic to “go there”.
Bradky on April 19, 2007 at 6:03 PM
First I want to apologize for my last post. The tone was snippy and that’s not necessary.
Second, I’m not sure the guys pulling the strings do buy into the concept (at least not in every instance). Sort of like the leaders in the USSR living it up while the proletariat starved (all in the name of the proletariat, of course). While I do believe that people like bin Laden have some religious beliefs, I find it interesting that (to my knowledge) there has never once been an instance of one of these higher level guys (Khomeini, Al Sistani, bin Laden, KSM, etc) ever sacrificing their own lives for the cause. It’s true that, once they are captured, they are more than willing to make grand pronouncements prior to their execution about how they are happy to be a martyr, however, I find it quite telling that they do everything they can possibly can to stay alive until the moment they are captured.
I’m sure that if someone brought it up, they’d say “Some are called to sacrifice and others are called to lead” or some other nonsense, but, that’s only what they’re saying. The fact that they’ll hide out in caves and eat bugs just to avoid possibly being martyred is quite telling.
JadeNYU on April 19, 2007 at 6:08 PM
A trip to the library to discover what prompted Buddhism to emerge. The short story is that the belief in an eternal God was an ideal that was around way before Buddhism.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 6:25 PM
I would disagree. The average N. Korean has almost zero contact and understanding with the outside world. The Japanese pre-WWII were practically global citizens by comparison (yea a stretch but come on, the don’t call N. Korea the Hermit Kingdom for nada). Dear Leader is “revered” by his people. Some because they believe, some because they like eating. The Emporer, was considered a living deity by almost every single Japanese citizen. A god. A devotion freely given. I couldn’t disagree with you more on that one.
No need. I don’t take internet debating personally. Kick my dog and I will skin you and feed you to the crabs. But you can kick me around out here all you want.
Indeed. But isn’t this true throughout history? Both in a religious and non-religious context? Again, the Emporer of Japan was considered a god and he was great at sending others to their death to defend his religion. Him? Not so much. I don’t remember the Pope leading the Crusades. I’m not trying to bash Christians, some of my best friends know Christians (kidding), but relious leaders picking up the lance are kinda rare.
Yea, well, you hit on one of my biggest issues with religion. I don’t like the idea of any group, no matter how benevolent it begins, ordering my life. A lot here have taken issue with that and say that my life has no meaning without religion. I choose not to have a group tell me what is right and wrong. I can do that for me and it seems to work just fine. Your mileage may differ.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Isn’t that the point I was trying to make to you, Jack?
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Unreal. The arrogance and condescension of some Christians knows no bounds. Let me retort in kind. Hey Skippy, Buddhism was founded in a land that Christianity didn’t get to until after Jesus. Buddhism was practiced for over 500 years by then.
You can go to a library and look it up.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 6:42 PM
To be honest, I don’t know. This whole thread has gone far afield but began with a post by a Christian using a the tragedy at VT to slam non-believers. It was a cheap shot, disgusting and not something I would ever associate with a Christian. Had the positions been reversed, and a non-believer had used VT to taunt Christians or any religion, I would have been as disgusted. Indeed, I cringed when I saw a lot of people jump to blame the VT slaughter on Muslims before the facts came out.
I am personally agnostic. I don’t believe any one faith because I don’t have it, faith. I have no problem with anyone who does, in any religion, so long as that religion doesn’t attack me or try to order my life.
You have faith in the Bible as the word of God. I don’t. You think I’m wrong. I don’t know if you are or if you aren’t and really, it doesn’t matter to me. Just don’t be surprised when those of us who don’t believe as you do get tired of hearing that we are wrong. Faith does not equal proof to some of us.
Now I really must go beat my dog. It’s been fun.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 6:52 PM
JackS, Christianity is an offshoot of the Jewish religion. It predates Buddhism by a fer piece.
jdpaz on April 19, 2007 at 6:52 PM
I don’t think D’Souza commands a lot of respect around here. He commands about as much as Richard Dawkins. AP just threw this post up here to have us go at it. That’s the point. He’s done it several times over the past four months or so. It’s fun. Oh well. Later.
PRCalDude on April 19, 2007 at 6:58 PM
I never said anything about Christianity.
csdeven on April 19, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Nothing better than the Christians Versus The Atheists.
Anyway, one cannot use the Bible as sole proof of God because it is a circular argument. Besides, isn’t faith, well, faith? People believe in God, they do so purely on faith. Faith cannot be scientifically proven.
One also cannot use the Bible as an all encompassing history because, well, it certainly isn’t. We could, if we want, go through the historical inaccuracies. We could, if we want, go through the failed prophecies. There is no point, because those that believe that the Bible is the holy revealed word of God do so on faith.
The history of Christianity is a blast to follow. Some martyrs over here, some book burning over there, some co-opting some pantheist rituals from Rome and so on. The Gnostic gospels are quite fascinating, and I heartily encourage believers and non believers to take a gander at them.
Just reading them helps understand the thought process behind their suppression. That’s a book in and of itself.
Anyway, no beef with theists from this atheist. I’m not into judging an entire group based on the words of a couple of vocal idiots.
Krydor on April 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM
He is way to long winded. This is the entirety of his point:
Humans have no innate morals and need a higher power to give it to them.
You don’t even have to be an atheist to call that absurd theology. That is essentially the defunt(?) protestant Christian belief of predestination.
Resolute on April 19, 2007 at 7:30 PM
The question isn’t whether it’s possible for atheists to have morals. If they didn’t, I’d be careful to avoid Allahpundit in a dark alley way. ;)
The question is where morals come from. The “what” of morality can be considered by anyone, but the “why” of morality is something atheists don’t have an answer for. All they can arrive at ultimately is a lame appeal to the “evolution” of organisms living in large groups harmoniously. In other words, we’re moral beings because we just happened to evolve that way. I think that’s rubbish and the evidence behind evolutionary psychology and morality is scanty at best.
We’re moral beings because we were created by a moral God, and we’re also selfish, disgusting, evil, amoral beings because we’ve inherited a fallen, sinful nature that is contrary to our original created purpose. And that’s the real message of all of this: you could have been that shooter. I could have been that shooter. Place us in a certain time, certain place, with a certain upbringing, and who knows how low we would go? Despite how horrific this seems, I must admit that there’s evil in my heart, and I have to make a choice to do good — which isn’t always possible but by the saving grace of God. My question is simple: will you admit you have evil in your heart, O atheist?
Jared White on April 19, 2007 at 8:12 PM
I suggest to everyone who somewhat enjoys this conversation to read Euthyphro by Plato. I’m no fan of Plato at all, but the discussion in the dialogue is at least interesting.
Wrong. An atheist and a theist can both discuss what is moral and immoral and they both can discuss why they think something is moral and immoral. Usually the theist will say “because God said so” whereas the atheist will say “because I think so.” It’s a foundation of Existentialism and Subjectivism.
Where we came from doesn’t have anything to do with the “why” of morality.
This is a subjectivist argument but no subjectivist has ever made this argument simply because it’s nonsensical. Who has claimed that we are all “moral” because of evolution?
You know this, how? Just kidding. I know it’s a question religious people can never ask but I just like asking it so much.
You think this is true because The Bible says it’s true. You think The Bible is true because The Bible says The Bible is true. And if anyone tries to point out your circular reasoning they are morally bankrupt.
Believe it or not (and with you I have a feeling it will be not), atheists can make a choice to do “good” as well.
Define evil. Seriously. Evil as described by the God in The Bible? Evil as defined by Allah? Evil as defined by the Pope? To answer your question I believe I can have evil tendencies, but you won’t really know what that means until you know what I think evil is.
Nonfactor on April 19, 2007 at 8:27 PM
All humans came from the same place. (unless you have some other threory) So then, if we recieve morality at creation, as you say, then belief or faith has nothing to do with having morality.
Read D’Souza’s arguments again because he disagrees with you. His line of reasoning is that athiest are not moral because humans are not inherently moral. They have to be granted morality by a deity or else all they see is a material world.
To me, admitting you only have morals because you believe in a diety is no better then saying you only follow the law because of the criminal justice system. In other words this line of thinking does exactly the opposite of what he was trying to do. It shows someone who gets all thier morals from a diety has no internal compass.
Resolute on April 19, 2007 at 9:09 PM
And still you guys press on.
Yep. Good call. That Jesus thing.
Of course, Jews didn’t start going to India until about 200 BC, 300 years after Siddhartha Gautama, the guy we call Budha. He was a man and made no pretense about being a god. Strike two. We can keep doing this all night. I’ll win.
No. Just God.
Which god? Vishnu? The god of Islam or the god of Christianity?
Which I have shown you are wrong about. For the umpteenth time, there are many instances of morality outside cultures with god, any god.
9/11. That’s only one, but it should be enough. If not, I can give you a list that will make you an atheist.
M’kay. First you tell me who made God, and don’t give me the goo that God has always been. Oh, ok. I’m bored. People have been stating over and over again that there are inumerable cases of cooperative civilization in the animal kingdom that humans describe as moral, but every single time, you guys say “thats not proof, its instinct”. Take a look at gorillas. Or whales. How about elephants. They are amazingly devoted to their families, particularly in times of sickness and even grieving over their dead. Where does that come from? Religion or instinct? Why is it instinct in animals but religion in humans?
Still though, I want just one person to give a real answer to where did God come from without any of this he’s always been stuff. Otherwise I’ll just say man has always been moral since he came out of the goo and claim the win.
.
You might want to think hard on that one. Don’t mistake intelligence for morality. Wolves don’t kill for the sake of killing. They don’t kill each other. They don’t pimp their kids out out on American Idol. They kill to eat. Best I can tell, they aren’t very religious. Wolves don’t need lessons from humans on morality.
JackStraw on April 19, 2007 at 11:56 PM
We’d like to know everything (that’s just human nature), but we can’t. We’re too limited by time, by space, by our own fallibility, by the fact that we’re not infinite. That’s human nature, too, and that means that no matter how much we learn we’ll never know everything.
But you know what? I can live with that. If life had no mystery, it would lose one of the things that make it worth living in the first place.
There is no one path to all truth. There is no single way to all knowledge. And that’s okay.
And profitsbeard (April 19, 2007 at 4:31 PM)? Of all the comments I’ve seen in the various theism-vs.-atheism threads I’ve read here, yours may be my favorite. Thank you for making me smile.
p.v. cornelius on April 20, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Us understanding God is like an ant understanding the Internet. We simply can’t understand God. All of us know that we exist so all of this had to have come from something, we are without a choice in the matter. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob gave us ample evidence of His interaction through history all contained in the bible. The bible in turn is verified by history, archeology, anthropology, and a bunch of other ‘ologies. The overwhelming amount of evidence is embarrassing. Atheists are going to have some serious ‘splainin’ to do one day.
Mojave Mark on April 20, 2007 at 1:13 AM
I think he’s saying that you won’t find an atheist in a fox hole.
And Allahpundit, the more defensive an atheist sounds about their atheism, the less inclined I am to believe that they don’t believe…
unamused on April 20, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Based on my admittedly secondhand understanding of Dinesh D’Souza, it seems he’s not one of the theists who sees beyond the existence of the god to the circumstance that only plants are unbelievers. For the animals, striving toward the divine is often deadly, as we see in Cho’s case; however, whoever doesn’t strive toward the divine is already decadent and will soon be dead. While on the topic, I’ll mention my view that, in general, contemporary muslims, Catholics, and Mormons strive toward the divine more ardently than contemporary American Protestants and irreligious people. Moreover, I think technology has made damnation so easily achievable that, in the near future, there will arise a generation of human beings more ardent toward the divine than any that has previously existed.
Kralizec on April 20, 2007 at 2:55 AM
The point is that the concept of God has been around much longer than Buddhism. Look at the roots of Buddhism and what religious tensions sent the founder of it to look in other directions. Ergo, the concept of morality was derived from the experiences with religion. Just as the modern day atheist stands on the shoulders of religious teachings and think they are the keepers of morality.
Wolves have no morality, therefore a child raised by a wolf would not have or need a moral code beyond that which helps the group survive. The child would never develop a moral code of responsibility to other men, animals, the earth, etc. Which defeats the atheists notion that morality evolved. It did not evolved because it is not a required trait.
If you would take the time to look up the definition of altruism you would get a clearer understanding of how it is defined in humans and animals. Over billions of years, wolves have never got beyond the basic motivation to the survival of the group for the sake of the group.
Man, because of Gods influence, has the capacity to be concerned for others with no resulting benefit to himself. We struggle with it on a daily basis, but it is a feeling unique to a society that has it’s roots in belief of a deity.
csdeven on April 20, 2007 at 7:43 AM
It is the limits you place on your own thinking that keeps your mind from expanding to other possibily explanations. You think everything has a beginning and an end. You apply this to the universe, God, and man. Yet, you have zero proof that these things did not always exist.
You, because your life has had a beginning and will eventually have an end, apply your experiences to your entire world view. I submit to you that this is errouneous thinking and is not in the least bit rational. Can you name me some things that you believe has always existed?
Lastly, We still debate the chicken and the egg theory, but do not doubt it’s existance. Why? Because we errouneous believe that all things must have a beginning and an end, and therefore, this unsolvable question has no answer. That is because it is a erroneous question.
If you accept that the chicken has always existed, the question is squared with other enigmas men have put to bed. IE: The world is flat. The questions was always….”What happens when you reach the end of the earth?”. We now know that that is the wrong question. The real question should have been….”IS there and end to the earth?”.
And along with that fact, men, (because we apply to unsolvable situations our past experiences) have decided that to explain the vastness of the universe have decided the universe is loops back on itself, thus creating enterity, yet being finite. Just as we learned from debunking the flat earth theory. What we didn’t learn was to ask the proper question, which ultimately was the key to the truth. The assumption that will set the mind free is the one that gives creedence to the fact that the universe has always existed and work forward from there. Then, the answers to a lot of these unsolvable questions become clear. Neither the chicken or the egg came first because it has always existed. Once you accept that, the question of who created God is exposed as irrational.
csdeven on April 20, 2007 at 8:07 AM
You’ll say that anyway. Nobody made God. He is the “Alpha and the Omega.” He’s existed since eternity. Even physicists will tell you that time hasn’t always existed, so it’s not really a relevant question. They’ll tell you time itself is a product of the Big Bang. They just stop short of saying where all of the energy for the Big Bang came from.
PRCalDude on April 20, 2007 at 11:39 AM
That’s easy – Rosie and Danny Devito.
Sorry it’s Friday ;)
Bradky on April 20, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3