Video: Three arrested after disrupting Hindu prayer in Senate; Update: Reid audio added
posted at 2:31 pm on July 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Classy: “Lord Jesus, forgive us, father, for allowing the prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight.” There’s no report of them being linked to any organization but the AFA encouraged its members earlier this week to e-mail Congress and express their disappointment. Money quote:
Barton says given the fact that Hindus are a tiny constituency of the American public, he questions the motivation of Senate leaders. “This is not a religion that has produced great things in the world,” he observes.
According to ABC, Harry Reid took the floor after the disruption and paid tribute to the tiny statue of Gandhi that he keeps in his office and the Indian food he used to enjoy as a college student. I can’t find the footage but I e-mailed the guys at Beyond The News to see if they’ve got it. I’m cautiously optimistic that it might provide as much pure potent schmaltz as the now infamous “Tommy” speech before the shamnesty vote. Click the image to watch.
Update: It’s not as funny as the “Tommy” clip because his cause here is just, but it’s still Reid and it’s still absurdly schmaltzy. Deep thanks to the BTN team for making it happen.
Meditate upon this as you listen.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 4 Next »
Nonfactor – your description of the church, and Christianity, is simplistic, inaccurate and unfair.
nailinmyeye on July 12, 2007 at 7:45 PM
The Senate is part of the government of this nation, in which reside the people of God, HELLO?
You’re avoiding my point, and wasting my time, by splitting hairs.
infidel4life on July 12, 2007 at 7:46 PM
You call that proof?
Thanks for playing, try again when you can present an intelligent argument.
infidel4life on July 12, 2007 at 7:49 PM
I am not avoiding your point, and I am not splitting hairs. You are making an equivalence between what the Senate does, and what the church does. I am saying that those two things are not equal. I don’t know how else to attempt to communicate this. Again, if this happened in my church, my argument would be similar to yours. As it is, this happened in a governmental institution that represents people of all faiths.
Take your thoughts to their logical conclusion…
nailinmyeye on July 12, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Simplistic? Okay, I can accept that subjective label. Unfair? Subjective again, I can accept that. But innacurate? You’ll have to point out to me where I said something untrue because until you do my point still stands.
I understand the concept of proof may be foreign to someone who believes in an invisible being who sent his zombie son to Earth to die for mankind’s sin, but yes, my post constitutes proof. Proof that religions do indeed attempt to enforce group think on the masses. Unless of course you’re denying that the things I mentioned don’t occur.
Nonfactor on July 12, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Eh. If you can’t discourse in a manner that isn’t purposefully offensive, then I have nothing to say to you. Besides, I’m not the one who made the claim, and, the burden of proof is not upon me.
nailinmyeye on July 12, 2007 at 8:07 PM
The claim that the goal of Christianity is to enforce group think, that is.
nailinmyeye on July 12, 2007 at 8:08 PM
One should talk. I can smell your hypocrisy through my computer screen.
Which is why I asked the question: do you deny my claims that the top leaders in these hierarchical organizations (Catholic church, radical Islam, et cetera) attempt to persuade the masses into a certain group think? If you do I’ll find a link to verify my claim, but if you agree there is no point in debating and you should accept the fact that religions are the perfect avenues for group think.
Nonfactor on July 12, 2007 at 8:15 PM
What?
nailinmyeye on July 12, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Please please please people! Stop being so ignorant. Please the last people I want to defame my religion are on the people on my favorite website. I have to say the prayer was uncalled for and that the reference to Ghandi would not work in this current situation when one side wants peace and the other side wants power.
Now I look at the comments and they seem pretty hateful. Hinduism, even though it is a very conservative religion also expresses tolerance to other beliefs. Now what I see is hatred among some users that say that we hindus are a bunch of cow worshiping hippie leftists. Now the last thing I want is for all of us to start acting like a bunch of liberals and start hating on a religion that was featured on a senate floor. I disagreed with it mostly because it was admired by Harry Reid.
I mean c’mon! Have I asked for prayer shrines to be placed in airports or schools in America. NO!
Few points
-Hindus do not worship the cow, we honor the cow.
-The Kama Sutra is not a hindu scripture.
-There are a lot of Hindu scholars and professors that believe that Israel rightly belongs to the Jews
-Personally I believe that Hinduism is a dwindling religion that has lost conservative values and some are going towards liberal values.
Please people. The point is that we have a belief in a single god and that we need to use that to fight against liberals.
hinduconservative on July 12, 2007 at 8:29 PM
That would be Croissant Rolls
Zaire67 on July 12, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Why does this schmuck feel the need to say, “I’m from Searchlight” at least three times every time he opens his mouth? Hey Harry, where are you from again?
greggish on July 12, 2007 at 8:43 PM
A zealous Christian who was trying to convert a Hindu found himself getting nowhere. “The thing is,” argued the frustrated Christian, “you have to be born again!”
“But I have been born again!” insisted the Hindu. “And again and again and again …”
Zaire67 on July 12, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Does your knee get sore from all that jerking, Moral Relativist?
peacenprosperity on July 12, 2007 at 8:49 PM
A Baptist couple decide that they want to get a dog. As they are walking down the street in town, they notice that a sign in the pet shop is advertising “Christian Puppies.” Their interest piqued, they go inside.
“How do you know they’re Christian puppies?”
“Watch,” says the owner, as he takes one of the dogs and says, “Fetch the Bible.” The dog runs over to the desk, and grabs the Bible in its mouth and returns. Putting the Bible on the floor, the owner says, “Find Psalm 23.” The dog flips pages with its paw until he reaches the right page, and then stops. Amazed and delighted, the couple purchase the dog and head home.
That evening, they invite some friends over and show them the dog, having him run through his Psalm 23 routine. Impressed, one of the visitors asks “Does he also know ‘regular’ commands?”
“Gee, we don’t know. We didn’t ask,” replies the husband.
Turning to the dog, he says, “Sit.” The dog sits. He says, “Lie down.” The dog lies down. He says “Roll over.” The dog rolls over.
He says “Heel.” The dog runs over to him, jumps up on the sofa, puts both paws on the owner’s forehead and bows his head.
“Oh look!” the wife exclaims. “He’s PENTECOSTAL!”
Zaire67 on July 12, 2007 at 8:50 PM
An elderly Muslim lady was well-known for her faith and for her confidence in talking about it. She would stand in front of her house and say “Allah be praised” to all those who passed by.
Next door to her lived an atheist who would get so angry at her proclamations he would shout, “There ain’t no Lord!!”
Hard times came upon the elderly lady, and she prayed for Allah to send her some assistance. She would pray out loud in her night prayer “Oh Allah! I need food!! I am having a hard time, please Lord, PLEASE LORD, SEND ME SOME GROCERIES!!”
One night the atheist happened to hear her as she was praying, and decided to play a prank on her. The next morning the lady went out on her porch and found a large bag of groceries. She raised her hands and shouted, “Allah be praised!.”
The neighbor jumped from behind a bush and said, “Aha! I told you there was no Lord. I bought those groceries, God didn’t.”
The old lady laughed and clapped her hands and said, “ALLAH BE PRAISED. He not only sent me groceries, but he made the devil pay for them!”
Zaire67 on July 12, 2007 at 8:51 PM
I don’t understand how this can be an argument against religion (particularly Christianity). After all, isn’t the point of Christianity to encourage all people to do good and come to Christ?
The other option (that a group of men decided to create religion for the sole purpose of controlling people) seems a bit far-fetched. Sure, there have been people who have abused religion, but I don’t think Christianity at its core provides a means for extortion (monetarily or otherwise, 10% tithing aside).
Misty217 on July 12, 2007 at 8:57 PM
If this is true, I stand corrected.
So you are the one to intuit what I “mean” and analyze my subconcious biases? The first person to rage against judgementalism is usually the most judgemental.
Try Ben-Gay on that knee.
peacenprosperity on July 12, 2007 at 8:58 PM
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods.
What majestic trees!
What powerful rivers!
What beautiful animals! he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes
behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7 foot grizzly charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw
that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again, and the
bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out: “Oh my God!…”
Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky: “You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others I don’t exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?”
The atheist looked directly into the light, “It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps could you make the BEAR a Christian?”
“Very well,” said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed his head and spoke:
“Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen.”
Zaire67 on July 12, 2007 at 9:08 PM
You can try to redefine him or act like he doesn’t exist but the God of Holy Scripture does exist and there is more than enough proof for any objective student to come to the same conclusion. Your lack of faith or poking fun at God’s chosen Saviour doesn’t change what he did for mankind and for you. As Christians we are not going to sit by and watch all other religions accepted while ours is shunted aside, taken out of the public discourse and made fun of! Other religions are creations of man, Christianity is not. Man could not have envisioned this plan of salvation!
sabbott on July 12, 2007 at 9:23 PM
I’m troubled by Reid bringing up Gandhi to justify Hinduism. Hinduism is an ancient religion. Like many forms of Protestant Christianity, some congregations of Conservative Judaism, many forms of Buddhism, many forms of Hinduism have good values that work in the context of a democracy, yet remain realistic about the possibilities of good and evil in this world.
On the other hand, the values of Gandhi were horrible. He suggested that the appropriate response of Jews to Nazi Germany was to commit suicide. Pacifism or the idea that the good should not resist is as evil an ideal as one could imagine. It enables the Nazis to be Nazis and the Pol Pots to be Pol Pots. We must resist evil, if we don’t want evil to win. And that means fighting back!
Reid would have us expose our necks to the Islamic bringers of darkness–people who mutilate their daughter’s genitalia, people who kill their daughters for their sexual desire, people who kill their gay sons for their sexual desire, people who kill people who will not submit to a Islamic theocracy, people who murder, murder, and torture. As he enables such people, Reid’s value are simply as evil as values can get, and his speech here is part and parcel of those values.
thuja on July 12, 2007 at 9:43 PM
In other words group think. If you look at my post at 7:27 I brought up the entire group think discussion in a response to someone’s statement–a tangent. The fact that people would argue that religions do not attempt to enforce group think on their members is absurd.
I stated before that the ideas in certain religions are very nice (Christianity for example and not caring about material possessions, etc.), but that those ideas are turned into a religion and that religion is incorporated by the church. The purpose of a church is to spread the belief so more and more people can be consumed by the particular persuasion of group think.
Agreed as noted above.
Funny how whenever someone says this they slink away from the thread and fail to provide and proof. I also notice how some Christians (or religious people in general) state that there is evidence that God exists and some say that there is no evidence.
You have proof of this? Or is this the part where you say “Christianity requires no proof”? You’ve been conned into believing a story you’ve been taught and read in a fictionalized book.
Nonfactor on July 12, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Proof!
Guardian on July 12, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Actually, I’m an Evangelical.
Don’t feed Nonfactor.
nailinmyeye on July 12, 2007 at 10:04 PM
more proof!
Guardian on July 12, 2007 at 10:10 PM
This is a toss up fer me… not sure where to come down on it.
However I’ll make a comment or two.
There is no such thing as seperation of church and state and any educated person knows this…
..or no one state or the Federal Government can declare or denounce one religion over the other.. which if if you read just a bit.. you’d know thats why this counrty was founded…
‘
I don’t know all the rules for prayers in the House (cap hill)but lately I’ll give a pass to any relgion or religous group who doesn’t pronounce hourly that they want to destroy us and Isreal.
Just becuase these folks quote the bible doesn’t give them a pass.. if they violated laws they should be scolded.
Who are those whacko Baptists (I pretty much Baptist BTW) who go around protesting our Hereo’s funerals and even the real tards who were going to protest the funerals of the Amish girls about this time a year ago.
I’m all for protesting in legal means and I am against our government showing leancy to one religion over antoher….
Maybe they should have taken the fight here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20070702-9999-1n2prayer.html
-matt
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 10:10 PM
ok?
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Because I have seen you display actual intelligence and humor in other posts on this blog, I’d like to respond to this.
1. There can be a huge differece between a religious institution (such as the Catholic Church or the dictates of Muslim Imams) and the faith of an individual believer. Which points out the difference between religion and faith. Religion can be decribed as man’s attempt to get into God’s good favor by his (man’s) performance. Faith can be described as man’s utter dependence on God’s favor alone, regardless of performance. There is a big difference.
Of course there are dogmatic, repressive religions that want nothing more than their adherents to toe the line. Islam is one, and (at the risk of offending Catholics here) one could argue that the organized Catholic Church leadership (at the higher levels) is another.
2. Catholicism does not equal Christianity.
2. Painting every Christian believer with the same broad brush as intolerant religions such as Islam is lumping all religions or faiths into the same category. This is an inherently false assumption. One needs to examine each faith based on its characteristics, practices, and the results of its workings in the world (its fruit, so to speak). That requires an honest, unbiased analysis of the facts about each faith.
Your generic description of “religion” that requires “group think” is a pretty good description of a cult (and Islam, for that matter, which requires the believer to check their brain at the door). Christianity is not blind faith, it is a thinking faith.
Consider this: This does not necessarily apply to Christianity in its true form. You need to put aside the prejudice and take a good look at ALL of the religions (or faiths) you are slamming, and have the patience to discern which do good in the world and which do not.
infidel4life on July 12, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Edit: Organized, hierarchical religion does not necessarily equate to Christianity in its true form.
Sorry, lost my train of thought there.
infidel4life on July 12, 2007 at 10:21 PM
No I’m not the same person as Guardian.
And while I don’t think the best way to deal with other people is to “Shout them down” I’ll sure as sh*t be caught dead before you catch me afraid to challenge people of false religions. And as far as I’m concerned most people who try to turn Jesus into some gay hippie in a dress are just that – afraid.
They aren’t “Tolerant”, they aren’t “Open Minded”, they aren’t “Peace Loving”. They are good old fashioned cowards who are afraid to defend their faith in the arena of ideas.
thareb on July 12, 2007 at 10:21 PM
No I’m not the same person as Guardian.
And while I don’t think the best way to deal with other people is to “Shout them down” I’ll sure as sh*t be caught dead before you catch me afraid to challenge people of false religions. And as far as I’m concerned most people who try to turn Jesus into some gay hippie in a dress are just that – afraid.
They aren’t “Tolerant”, they aren’t “Open Minded”, they aren’t “Peace Loving”. They are good old fashioned cowards who are afraid to defend their faith in the arena of ideas.
thareb on July 12, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Is that your impression of me? Just curious.
nailinmyeye on July 12, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Name one that hasn’t led to further freedom and enlightenment for the Human race. Name ONE! YOU CAN’T!
The Eastern religions teach that the self is meaningless and lost in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. Is it any great mystery that China is one giant communist dictatorship!?
It shouldn’t!!
Islam teaches every man to be a warlord just like mohommed. Is it any great mystery that the entire muslim world is awash in barbaric tyranny and despotism?
It shouldn’t!!
Look at the myriad of heathen religions and voo doo that bog down India (no Hinduism is not a uniform belief system) and Africa. Is it any great mystery that they are awash in confusion and chaos?!
It shouldn’t!!
Now – look at the Western world. The Christian World. Christ teaches that his life is divine, and that through him we attain the same right and distinction. No other religion places as much value or worth on that of the individual human being. Is it any great mystery that we have the God given freedoms and civil rights that we do? Is it any great mystery that our civilization flourishes specifically because of those freedoms and rights?!
IT SHOULDN’T.
Praise Jesus. He is the only way.
thareb on July 12, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Name one that hasn’t led to further freedom and enlightenment for the Human race. Name ONE! YOU CAN’T!
The Eastern religions teach that the self is meaningless and lost in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. Is it any great mystery that China is one giant communist dictatorship!?
It shouldn’t!!
Islam teaches every man to be a warlord just like mohommed. Is it any great mystery that the entire muslim world is awash in barbaric tyranny and despotism?
It shouldn’t!!
Look at the myriad of heathen religions and voo doo that bog down India (no Hinduism is not a uniform belief system) and Africa. Is it any great mystery that they are awash in confusion and chaos?!
It shouldn’t!!
Now – look at the Western world. The Christian World. Christ teaches that his life is divine, and that through him we attain the same right and distinction. No other religion places as much value or worth on that of the individual human being. Is it any great mystery that we have the God given freedoms and civil rights that we do? Is it any great mystery that our civilization flourishes specifically because of those freedoms and rights?!
IT SHOULDN’T.
Praise Jesus. He is the only way.
thareb on July 12, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Lord forgive my browser. It is posting twice tonight for some reason!
thareb on July 12, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Lord forgive my browser. It is posting twice tonight for some reason!
thareb on July 12, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Can Nonfactor point to any one organization (political, religious or what-have-you) whose hierarchy does not attempt to impose a sense of groupthink upon its members? In fact, does not the word organization imply groupthink? Even our Government is an organization with a distinct hierarchy whose sole responsibility is to create and enforce laws that must (not should) be obeyed by all (despite how they might impede our particular “innate” desires) in order to provide for the common good of all society.
What is your point Nonfactor in bringing up Pascal anyway; did “new” math somehow distort the wager?
kiakjones on July 12, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Edit: (not should be)
kiakjones on July 12, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Save for Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court of the United States and most serious Constitutional scholars.
I know some Catholics who’d disagree.
I’m not singling out individual Christians I was speaking of the churches they belong to, but I do believe I called members of these religions (not just Christianity) an “extension of the perversion” that originates from the churches, which is true. Simply look at the many Catholics in the world who’ll believe the Pope’s words.
Agreed, but it still doesn’t change the fact that churches (organized religion) that are set up in a hierarchical manner enforce group think onto the lower members.
There’s a reason I described religion as such.
“Thinking faith”? How do you figure? What is there to think about when a book tells you what is true or false and good or bad or when a church tells you how to interpret said book? The words “faith” and “thinking” don’t mix, some Christians even admit to it claiming that they “don’t need proof when they have faith.” I’m sure the definition for a “thinking faith” could just as easily apply to almost every other religion.
Good and bad are very relative terms when speaking of gods and followers.
Nonfactor on July 12, 2007 at 11:02 PM
‘Hindu Al-Qaeda’ training suicide bombers in Nepal
Connie on July 12, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Do you know what Jefferson’s reasoning was for a wall of separation?
Connie on July 12, 2007 at 11:18 PM
No I can’t off the top of my head. I said “almost” because I didn’t want to say “every” only to have someone find a hierarchical religion in Thailand that says it’s members can believe whatever they want to believe. The very base of a religion ensurers that X is true and that all the follower must believe in X (in other words “group think”).
We agree.
Yes, but this does not equate to group think. Let me emphasize my post that brought up the idea of the church as a propagator for group think: The goal of Christianity is like most other religions. To pacify the masses into a certain form of group think. The idea behind Christianity might be all well and good (not caring at all about material possessions et cetera), but the second those ideas are turned into a religion where not believing in them will eternally damn you and what constitutes a believer is defined by a corporate hierarchy called “the church” the entire practice becomes perverted and the followers become an extension of that perversion. People can all believe in the same thing and it is not group think. For example, everyone can believe in a certain god, but the second that god is taken by the church and turned into a symbol for obedience and coercion and said church says “you must believe X, Y, and Z to be a ‘true believer’ of this god,” group think has been imposed in a very anti-freethinking way.
I didn’t bring up Pascal’s Wager, I defined it’s use by another poster. Pascal states that you might as well believe in a god because the consequences of not believing in said god and him existing are worse than believing in him and him not existing. This assumption fails on many levels. One being that there are many interdependent religions that claim that you will suffer if you don’t believe in their God and a person cannot believe in all of them in attempts to save himself. Secondly, we know that all these different faiths have no proof to their claims (some will even admit it), and to blindly believe the word of someone with no evidence whatsoever and change all aspects of your life for an infinitesimal chance that their belief is right is impractical, illogical, unreasonable, and insane.
Nonfactor on July 12, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Wrong. You just failed the test. Good/bad and right/wrong are absolute concepts. Without a standard of measurement for judging a faith or religion or ideology or individual, everything is relative (typical lefty philosophy). Ultimately we all will be judged according to absolute standards of good and bad.
Better get ready, my friend.
infidel4life on July 12, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Common sense. Don’t read hatred, though, into any of the comments, just frustration at how ignorant poeple are about 1) Christianity itself and 2) other religions and the actual practices of other religions. I would venture to add that although I personally cannot bow to an idol, I appreciate very much, in fact enjoy, the religious sense of most Hindus – the “forget about yourself and focus on God,” aspect, which is emphasized in the Bible as well (not empty oneself, but fill oneself with the Word of God). The retention of the sense of carefulness and awe of the spiritual world; that God deserves respect. Too much of that is going missing in Western Christian worship – a loss of formality and ceremony – though it’s still healthy in many Third World churches.
I’ve said this before, those who worship idols have a very developed sense of the existence of sin and the need to pay for it. Thus, it is much more pleasant and informative and challenging in a good way that a Christian and Hindu can sit down and debate the religious issues because both recognize the immense problem of sin.
Not so the Liberal Left humanist who rejects the notion of sin to the point of immediate and open hostility directed at the hapless person foolish enough to mention it.
The Left humanists would coddle a Hindu just long enough to harrass out a Christian, then turn on the Hindu for being too religious.
naliaka on July 12, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Well put. A reasonable opinion in a hostile crowd.
Bradky on July 12, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Agreed, however one of the issues not addressed in your many diatribes against religion in general (and I’ve read quite a few) is that God did not create religion; God created the universe. Many “religionists” believe in Black holes yet have never seen one and bow venerately at the altar of Steven Hawkins and Charles Darwin based on the same idiotic blind faith of which you accuse religionists …so what’s the difference?
I say none, except for the fact that one believes the order of the universe has intelligence while the other does not, one believes in the concept of law and order while the other relishes in chaos or chaos defined in mitigating terms…and only time will tell who is right.
I say, God help us all.
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 12:04 AM
The word “organization” does not necesarliy mean groupthink alothough it might seem that why for someone who “group thinks”
An organisation simply and softly (in most cases) imposes a set of known declensions… or a set of ideals for a person or group of peeps (modern) whose beliefs will decompose with time and with trial.
The Greeks discovered it and the Romans perfected it. Organize or “compartmentalise” groups of the military and the citizenry to perform certain and actual functions or in most cases atleast act that way…
An organization, government or alike… a “set of laws and impositions” are not always meant to suffer its members but in the Platonic thought: to serve a greater good for the whole with some small sacrafice to the individual.
Realistically.. Governments are not always an option like organizations. I could join the NRA (organization) CODE PINK (organization) and the PWBIETS (people who believe in extra terestails…i made that up) and not abide to the their rules.
An organization such as the the NRA or the PWBEITS can organize me but they can’t eventualy make me do what they want or…govern me as my Constitution and more importantly my Bill of rights allows my Governement to conrol/organize/impose on me and you.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm
If you read it carefully or heck not even that carefully its brillianty about -organization and non organization- at the same time…
its about natural freedom if… you keep your own self… organized.
I’m done with this one.
matt
amend2 on July 13, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Prove it.
Black holes are a scientific fact. They exist. Stephen Hawking made a scientific prediction about black holes based on some evidence and his prediction was validated once they were discovered.
I’m glad we agree that blind faith is idiotic. The difference between science and religion is that scientists make predictions that are based on evidence and are willing to give up on those predictions if evidence is shown in contrast. Many religions (or more accurately religious people), however, will not admit that their holy books are wrong despite evidence to the contrary. Blind faith science is not.
“The order of the universe has intelligence,” a bold claim, one that, if it were true, could be easily validated. So, kiak, prove it.
Back to the same old argument. Law and order, morality, et cetera can be derived without the need to invent a being you believe in. And guess what? The universe is chaotic!
Time, as well as technology, has already shown us that The Bible contains falsities. Of course you can continue abridging your belief system in attempts not to appear too irrational, but eventually your belief will not hold water, and even if 99% of the population lobotomized due to it the truth will still be that the holy book you base your faith on is nothing more than a crock of sh*t.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Thanks for the input Matt, I’m sure your non-defining the word “organization” or even retro-defining it will do all the readers here well.
I’m sorry for being so obtuse, how dare I actually strain the gray matter and actually utilize a word for which I am obviously incapable of comprehending?
Sweetheart; have you ever driven over the speed limit? Parked in a Handicap spot? Are you for real?
The Government is not an organization you can opt out of? Whatd’ya live in the friggin Evergaldes?
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 12:41 AM
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 12:43 AM
On what basis do you make either of the 2 assumptions:That Hinduism is monotheistic, when in fact, we have several Gods & Goddesses? Do you mean to tell us that Brahma is Vishnu is Shiva?
That monotheism is superior to either polytheism or pantheism? Under the monotheism model, one has to allow for not just the possibility, but indeed the probability that God is evil – allowed the successful Jihads, witch burnings, holocaust, ethnic clensings, and so on. Under the polytheism model, one can allow for the fact that all Gods have limits to their powers, and due to that, unfortunate things happen and have happened throughout history that they ultimately contributed to helping overcome.
I don’t mean to sound bigoted, but after seeing the sentiments on this thread, I’m in no mood to be generous with the +tianist jihadis in this crowd. I normally agree with most people on most of the political issues here, and even on this one, I’m happy to concede that the US is a Christian nation, and that Hindus prayers aren’t appropriate at the Senate. However, beyond that, reading the bigoted sentiments of some of the posters about Hindus – be it the caste system, cow worshipping, Kali’s skull necklace, et al, I can only conclude about some of you (the AFA and the pro-Life Nazis included) that you and the Jihadis richly deserve each other. Mohammed was right in calling you the people of the book.
infidelpride on July 13, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Funny the vast majority of cosmologists would disagree with that assessment. How is it that an ant could launch a pea towards a grapefruit twenty miles away with pinpoint accuracy if there is no intelligence behind the universe?
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 12:49 AM
. Of course you can continue abridging your belief system in attempts not to appear too irrational, but eventually your belief will not hold water, and even if 99% of the population lobotomized due to it the truth will still be that the holy book you base your faith on is nothing more than a crock of sh*t.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 12:38 AM
And on this solid rock of pure personal opinion, I stand, Nonfactor
So, what’s your opinion on Ghanesh?
naliaka on July 13, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Just some background info:
http://www.sanatan.org/en/campaigns/Ganesh/page3.htm
naliaka on July 13, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Photo of a Lord Ganesh idol
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arpana/41199990/
It is always much more useful to know what the facts are especially when it comes to other religions, Nonfactor.
naliaka on July 13, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Yea I drive over the speed limit in places where:
I won’t endanger anyone. I-95 maybe a few miles over… thats still in the organizational mode or within the geoverntmental tolerance.
My input wasn’t opinion It was fact as we know it… or “belief” in ideas that some of us agree on.
If quoting the Greeks and Romans is re-historying… well I can’t go back much earlier…maybe the Hebrews… which I can do If you want to go there…
Being “obtuse” is like being “onlique” or “nuanced” not a something that impresses me … facts.. articles of faith.. articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights…
I’m not saying that anyone has to agree on and abide ny everything in the “organization” or the government, or the “party”… I’m say ing the opposite..
Agree with what you feel is right and disagree with what actively, mentally, or however… that was the point of my post… you didn’t read it as I intended it perhaps.
amend2 on July 13, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Perhaps you didn’t write it as you intended or were incapable of knowing the difference. Thanks for the input none-the-less.
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 1:14 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/
Please, at least do some research before looking stupid. Saying black holes don’t exist is like saying neutron stars don’t exist.
This discussion with you went from inane to pointless.
Left field.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 1:15 AM
A whole 30 minutes and you come up with a wiki-article? Hey, I believe in Leptons and Quarks too. I can’t prove they exist, nor can anyone else, the only proof is what is left behind when we destroy them.
When did you become an astro-physicist, can you figure how an explorer gets from Earth to Mars and lands without burning up in the Atmosphere without the people on the ground on Earth knowing if the precise location of Mars three years in the future is acurate?
Who the hell is the real idiot here Nonfactor?
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 1:25 AM
.. the “old testament” which came 6000 years before (some would argue) any other scripts, testaments of faith, or assembled religions… theres really not much contest on the outcome.
the problem is that while Hinduism and Bhudism are quite possiblly that old.. and thats all fine… they don’t poise themselves as a player in the prophecies and if you don’t believe in that well ..
As I originally stated in my first post here… I don’t have an intellectual problem with a Hindu praying in court (if its under the law/house statues) but I do have a problem with countering Judeo/Christian thinking by giving preference to every religion under the sun thats not Judeo/Christian out of a parade of fairness.
As I know for a fact… the Fathers meant to include all and any religion into the culture with the exceptions of those that imposed itself as one that would impose on the freedoms of its civilians
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
amend2 on July 13, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Nonfactor….Hello?????
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 1:36 AM
No I think I wrote it all as intended.. both posts..
I may have spelt somethings incorrectly but I’m sure you’ll not stoop to pointing that out.
amend2 on July 13, 2007 at 1:36 AM
amend2
So you admit to breaking the law when “no one is looking ” and couldn’t care less about law and order if it doesn’t apply to you right?
So if I rob you and nobody is looking it’s cool…right???
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 1:41 AM
If I told you there was such a thing as supernovae you’d be amazed wouldn’t you? What about white dwarfs? Or pulsars? You were wrong, got caught, and are now trying to weasel your way out of it. It looks pathetic; you’re like a sick animal I just want to put out of it’s misery.
Take an entry-level astronomy course at your local community college for 40 dollars. Not only will you get stuck in another situation like this where you look like an idiot, but you might even learn something! You don’t need to be an astrophysicist to know that black holes exist, just as you don’t need to be an expert on fusion to understand e=mc^2.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 1:49 AM
No I always assume that someone is looking… the God I trust and believe in is always looking.
I abide to that God and I live in a country and a community (America) where most of my fellows think the same.. so tolerances in the laws and ordiances of my community are tolerated.
A speed limit is just that… its a limit.. not a law persay.. don’t go over the “limit”… by more than whats acceptable by what you understand that limit to be.
You really have no concept of what laws and organiations and governments are do you?
amend2 on July 13, 2007 at 1:54 AM
Nonfactor:
What’s up? I have enjoyed reading some of your posts in the past.
As a Christian theist, I can see where you are coming from on some issues. I even agree with you on other points that you have made in the past.
A denial of expository Biblical preaching, joined together with the embrace of the postmodern “meta-narrative turn”, unfortunately, leads many so-called Christian churches to simply be sad and scary caricatures of group think psychology.
But this is not the model for Christian theism. This is a violation of the Bible understood on the Bible’s own terms.
I agree with you that one should base one’s beliefs on “reason, logic, and evidence.” That is commendable for you to point that out to others.
Are you an atheist? If so, how do you philosophically account for Logic, when Logic is what Atheism denies?
You write, “Good and bad are very relative terms when speaking of gods and followers.”
I agree with you if you are referring to the vast majority of religious or non-religious systems of thought that exalt in denying the universal law of non-contradiction.
But Christian theism is not one of the above.
Atheism is an irrational system of thought, because atheism denies the immaterial law of non-contradiction.
I respect your thought process and your premises. I simply disagree with your conclusion that atheism is the solution.
Atheism, with its denial of the laws of logic, is indeed part of the problem. Any system of beliefs that denies or entails the denial of the law of non-contradiction is a system bankrupt from the start. And that should cause more deep reflection on all of us, me included, who are continually striving to be “freethinkers.”
ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Youv’e gotten off the point .. typical.
Seems there are two discusscions going on … one about articles of faith and governments and one about astro physics… (to late for me to go there).
Anyway,.. kiakjones you’ve obviously no skill in arguing as you perpetually “branch” or “declension” away from the topic rather that hone in on the more valuable parts.. or more arguable points of a debate… the “proofs” and real facts so I’ll have to let back into the water as a small fish.
amend2 on July 13, 2007 at 2:02 AM
No I love the dance of the universe (the dance of shiva) and appreciate creation, What I hate is idiots who mar the creation with abject stupidity (of all stripes)…
So forty dollars will make me Einstein? Who woulda thunk!?!?! And will Eighty bucks make me as smart as Hikaru Sulu?
The sorry part of this exchange is that I never disagreed with you other than to state that you are just as ignorant as those you choose to oppose (in a multitude of ways). You have yet to substantiate the claims made by the astro-physicists you cite and I am led to believe you are incapable of the mind numbing mathematics with which they base their findings.
Such is the sad fate of people who require the links to people smarter than themselves and yet oblivious of the real science by which they base their conclusions. HMPH want a depressing world filled with down loadable stupidity.
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 2:19 AM
Nonfactor:
I just want to be clear here.
My intention was never to insult you personally in the above post. I was only making a comment about your system of beliefs known as atheism.
Many atheists I know are logical folks. But their system cannot account for their own usage of logic.
ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 2:31 AM
Have no idea what HMPH refers to in the last sentence. Amend2 What the hell are you???Whhhatt??? Blah, Blah…what? Are you trying to keep up or as incoherent your fellow (I will not place a personal attack here).
Go To Bed
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Newsflash!
God doesn’t control our lives. If he did we wouldn’t be having this discussion, there would be no wars and no one would know who Rosie or Paris Hilton are. You propose that God is evil because he allows us free choice. Man chose to create “successful Jihads, witch burnings, holocaust, ethnic clensings, and so on.” Not God. God is firmly against these activities as they are all sinful. The very definition of sin is to have knowledge of the difference between good and evil and to willfully choose evil. The foundation and freedom that this nation enjoys is directly based on the Christian principles of our God given freedom of self determination. You might even say that “We have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (where have I seen this?).
The point is, Man is evil and commits unspeakable sins upon each other. God commits no sin. He allows us the freedom to make choices. Good or evil. Why do you blame god for the choices of man? Are you saying that god is evil because he allows you to choose?
Guardian on July 13, 2007 at 2:33 AM
I’m glad you asked. It’s unfortunate that our public schools don’t teach the true foundation of our country….
Congress has always opened in prayer and to understand why you need to learn some history…
In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was in shambles and near utter failure when one of the few men in the room who had also been present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin, reminded all in attendance of how important prayer had been in the formation of our country.
The men then fasted and prayed for three days, then returned and successfully wrote our constitution.
Subsequently, President George Washington, in his first inaugural address in 1789 said:
Congress has always opened in prayer since the start of our country.
More info: PRAYER IN CONGRESS
FYI, the “Establishment clause” of the first amendment was to protect the Church from the Government, not to protect the Government from the Church. The founders had seen what happened in England when the government established the state-run Church of England, and wanted to prevent that here. It was NEVER their intention to separate the church from all state activity and have a secular government. Please do some research and educate yourself. America is truly unique in the world, due in very large part to our Spiritual, Political, and Economic FREEDOM.
ITookTheRedPill on July 13, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Agreed.
The people who prescribe to the metanarrative definition would argue that the Bible does back up their claims. I can’t speak for them, but I know there are many here on HotAir, but sadly it might be too late for them to find this thread and enter in the discussion. But who decides what interpretation is correct? It’s slight variances in religion (specifically Christianity) that form more and more churches all claiming to be the true Christian religion. This leads to my other argument against churches taking good ideas and incorporating them.
Yes in the sense that I don’t believe in a god. Why don’t I believe in a god? Simply because there is no proof. Could a god/spirit/moral standard exist in this universe? Possibly, but I’m not going to believe in it sans evidence. I don’t think atheism denies logic, I think it embraces it. It is logical to view the world and the universe we live in and determine that even if a god/spirit/moral standard did exist the chances of it aligning itself to the exact specifications of the religions of this world are near impossible. I am defining logic and reason in a scientific way where evidence and observation are used and I can see why you may think atheism illogical if you define it in a different way.
I’m not dismissing the idea of a god, but I’m not going to believe in something because an old purported holy book says He exists when that very “holy book” has been shown to be wrong in many of it’s other claims.
By atheism do you mean moral relativism/subjectivism? I know the law of contradiction is often used as a tool to prove absolute truths (and in this case absolute moral truths–because atheists can believe in absolute truths, i.e. the corners of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees), but the law of contradiction cannot be proven to be true nor proven to be false. In a sense it’s like a god. But when referring to moral truths I disagree. Something can be both “good” and “bad” at the same time depending on who you ask.
Where is the rationality in believing that somewhere out in the universe there is an absolute moral yardstick for representing all humanity? How can you view this as any more rational than the idea that one does not exist. My argument isn’t that one doesn’t exist, but that we have no proof that one exists, and sans proof it’s just as well it doesn’t exist. Unless of course someone were to travel to space, see the moral guideline, and have it verified through actual evidence (different from someone simply saying they’ve “spoken to God” and everyone believing them). In my mind it’s irrational to say “this is true” or “this is false” without having any verifiable proof to the matter.
Solution? No, because I don’t even think there was a problem. Atheism is conclusion if you apply the same rules of logic used in everything else to the questions of “does God exist?” and “is there proof?” So before questioning the logic of atheists or moral relativists question the logic of the religious. Where is the logic in believing in something that has been proven false (The Bible) and something that hasn’t been proven to exist (God)? The answer: there isn’t any; that’s why it’s called faith.
No problem. In a discussion like this everyone “insults” one another’s beliefs, but we can both agree that the goal of this argument isn’t to offend one another, but to get our points across and hope one another sees their position differently.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 AM
So Nonfactor I’m going to guess you have no inclination of treating me to the knowledge imparted to you (for forty dollars at your local community college) explaining the entire reality of the physical known universe. It must be money well spent that you have time insult those whom you disagree.
Could you at least give us a refresher of Plank’s theorem…Could you at least tell me Plank’s first name without Googling it first?
I thought not. Just like you were lost on the whole ant analogy, funny, most cosmologists would have picked it up without a second thought..
By the way, E=MC2??
Be it clearly understood that space is nothing but a mode of particularisation and that it has no real existence of its own…Space exists only in relation to our particularising consciousness…
The Tao of Physics Pg. 164 Chapter 12 Space – Time by Fritjof Capra…
Again I ask you, who is the real idiot here.
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 3:20 AM
Ok that was a crappy shot but you refuse to answer other than with wiki crap. I hold nothing but disdain for nitwits who engage me and have no comprehension of the science they cite…and I might add you are by far the least informed dolt of the Bunch.
Discovered by what?!?! A probe? Physical interaction? Do you have physical data relating to a probe that visited and returned information or is his “theory” a mathematical theorem on a chalk board somewhere. String theory? Has he answered the question, “Are black holes cold or hot”?!”?! Can you??? I mean I’m stupid…can you edumacate me?
You wanna bitch about stupid Christians but want to glorify equally stupid physicist’s.
I would desist from calling anyone stupid until I got my own intellectual house in order Nonfactor.
kiakjones on July 13, 2007 at 3:41 AM
As Christians we are never surprised by those that attack us. Jesus himself was crusified for his teachings. Without faith which is a gift from God, our “religion” will not make sense. To fallen man trying to earn salvation or actually denying the very existence of the creator, Christianity will never stand. To a sinner, however in need of forgiveness and seeking reconciliation by a loving God it is a wonderful and magical experience! I a poor miserable sinner can’t do anything to either earn or keep my salvation. The work is done by God. Very cool stuff and I can rest assured that He won’t ever let me down! I’m glad I no longer must worry “have I done enough?” If you don’t know Christ, there is unbelievable freedom and relief in this faith!
sabbott on July 13, 2007 at 6:25 AM
Re: (being called a liberal)
Heh, yep.
Wow, this thread has everything! We even got a bit of the moronic ‘My Christianity is Christianity and your Christianity isn’t Christianity’ theme…in a thread about Hinduism.
James on July 13, 2007 at 7:44 AM
Hmmm. Riiigghhttt….
nailinmyeye on July 13, 2007 at 8:13 AM
*sigh*
Unfortunately…
nailinmyeye on July 13, 2007 at 8:17 AM
Amen Brother. The Judeo-Christian God is the author of freedom and the only God.
Maxx on July 13, 2007 at 11:02 AM
I agree with nailinmyeye, ignore these yahoos and ignore the far Right Fringe, it will bring nothing to the GOP but lots of loss in more ways than one. America, thankfully is a Moderate nation, too Far Right and Left gives most people gas. Americans just don’t go for that extreme ideaology.
Let’s leave the extremeism in Wahhabism and call it a day. We do not need Christians parroting the verbal rantings of the dark side of Islam. Fear based insanity is all it is.
AprilOrit on July 13, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Thats where I stand on this. I am a Christian but I think all religions should be practiced in the privacy of your home and church/temple whatever. Not school, and certainly not in the government. If we allow prayer then you have to allow ALL religions. And that means Islam too. Whats next, are we going to have wiccan prayers or satanic prayers in the senate too? Have to represent them all now don’t we? The biggest thing we have going for us in the war against Islamics is the separation of church and state – so for God’s sake SEPARATE THEM
Keli on July 13, 2007 at 11:15 AM
My position is that Christian churches that practice and apply the Biblical model of expository, Christ-honoring, Biblical preaching avoid the sad tendency towards “group-think” psychology.
And to be honest with you, I have also seen some group think prevalent in atheist/agnostic/skeptics circles that I have been to in the past.
You ask, “which interpretation is correct?”
That is a complex postmodern question that I think James F. Harris does a decent job in explaining clearly in his book on epistemology called: AGAINST RELATIVISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL DEFENSE OF METHOD (ISBN: 0-8126-9202-0).
My short answer: as thinkers, we should reject the excesses of postmodernity, while being open to some of its benefits. It is a struggle to wade through the murky waters, but all forms of subjectivism and relativism must be quickly abandoned. I guess that makes me (on epistemological terms) a **particularist**. But a particularist does grant that we as thinkers do have items of knowledge of our world, and then moves forward to ask, “how does one account for these?”
I appreciate your desire in wanting to base everything on evidence.
My definition of logic is the same as used in standard analytic philosophy. For clarity, we could use “logic” as a word to refer to “the law of non-contradiction”, “in that A cannot be NOT-A at the same time and in the same place.”
Yes, I am wholeheartedly a fan of observation and evidence. But the nature of logic is **a priori**, in that the structure and ontology of logic is outside of what is often called “science.”
Logic can never be reduced to science, for the same reason that logic can never be reduced to language or psychology. Logic can never be reduced to biology or to evolutionary epistemology or whatever. Logic is a-priori.
My position is not: “atheists are bad illogical people.”
I read Nietzsche all the time. My position is: “while atheists may use logic, they cannot account for their usage and practice of logic, because their worldview prohibits referencing to that which is non-natural.”
Logic is non-natural, therefore atheists do not have a worldview that explains or is able to make reference for the everyday practice and usage of the immaterial laws of logic. Since atheism is a form of Naturalism, atheists do not have the philosophical tools nor the philosophical furniture to explain or make reference for their usage of the immaterial laws of logic.
Atheists themselves may believe in logic, unfortunately, their worldview, ***consistently applied*** prevents them from being able to make reference or justify their usage of the immaterial laws of logic.
ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 11:19 AM
By the way, thank you for taking the time and going into some detail concerning your position.
A very rough outline of my position can be viewed here.
I agree with you on some points you made in your above quote.
If the Bible is full of holes or contain contradictions, then the Bible’s credibility is shot and lacking, and everyone needs to move on.
I disagree that the Bible is full of holes. I believe there are no internal contradictions found in the Bible. I have found the following books helpful for providing a rough sketch on how to answer some popular questions:
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE DIFFICULTIES, by Gleason L. Archer, ISBN: 0-310-43570-6
HARD SAYINGS OF THE BIBLE, by Walter C. Kaiser, ISBN: 0-8308-1423-X
My position is this:
5.) there are facts or data that suggest the need for a theistic world.
10.) given 5.) what worldview best makes sense of the data or facts?
I am not arguing:
a.) One should believe in the Bible.
b.) The reason for a.) is because a verse in the Bible told me so.
c.) Conclusion: therefore, the conjunction of a.) and b.) leads to a defense of Biblical infallibility.
I am not arguing in the above form at all.
Rather, I am presenting a case for:
5.) there are facts or data that suggest we live in a theistic world.
7.) one of those facts is the undeniability of the universal, immaterial laws of logic that are a-priori.
8.) we know that atheism cannot justify or explain 7.)
10.) given 8.) what worldview best makes sense of the data or facts?
ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM
I’m suddenly glad that I didn’t come back to this thread last night.
Sure, God’s people, but America is just a country, not God’s people. THAT’S the distinction.
Actually, Nonfactor, I’m speaking of people who actually have a map, rather than those who simply believe they have one.
You can argue that it’s a map that leads nowhere, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a map.
Atheist would argue that there is no way to get out of the cave, and that we should just sit there and enjoy it rather than working so hard to find a way out that, they believe, does not exist.
But you have no proof that it doesn’t exist.
Of course we have no proof that it does exist, but so what. There’s no harm done if we’re wrong.
Besides, in all your condescension, you completely forgot to answer my question.
Again, if you’re right, no harm, no foul, but if we’re right and didn’t at least try to help others, doesn’t that make us monsters?
I’m not going to engage in an argument with you about whether or not we’re right. I honestly don’t care about your opinion on that just as you don’t care about my opinion on that. It’s irrelevant here and completely pointless, leading to nothing but the all too famous atheist arrogance that I am just not interested in reading.
Again, if you’re right, no one cares. All it does is turn the Bible into a book full of very entertaining stories that provide good advice for people to live their lives by if they so choose. Wow. Big freakin’ deal.
And sure, religions in general can easily turn people into sheep (though dogma of any type, even the nonreligious type, can do the same exact thing), but that’s bad no matter what. That’s bad even if Christians are right.
See, you don’t have to prove that God doesn’t exist to prove that “group think” is bad. It’s bad either way.
Esthier on July 13, 2007 at 11:51 AM
And no one should place their faith in a book, a person, or a religion. That’s stupid.
Esthier on July 13, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Actually, I never said that. I only said it would be worth looking at, not believing in. Those are two different things.
Esthier on July 13, 2007 at 12:07 PM
You write, “by atheism do you mean moral relativism/subjectivism?”
No. I am not equating atheism with the identification of moral relativism or subjectivism. By atheism, I am referring to the classical definition of “a person who disbelieves in the existence of God.”
Atheism is a topic in philosophy of religion. Atheism should never be defined strictly as moral relativism.
However, it is true that
manyalmost allthinkers believe that atheism entails the negative consequences of moral relativism in the field of ethics or subjectivism in the field of epistemology. But this is very different from defining at the very beginning “as atheism IS moral relativism.”
Let me backtrack for a second. I know several atheists who, while accepting the view that atheism entails the ***negative consequences of moral relativism***, nonetheless disbelieve that atheism entails the negative consequence of subjectivism.
As a theist, I am kinda inclined to think they are right. But then again, the disquieting voice of Nietzsche’s “perspectivism” rings loud and clear right now.
25.) You write, “because atheists can believe in absolute truths, i.e. the corners of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees.”
My response is: if you rationally believe 25.), then you have also believed, by necessity, in the mind-independent existence of abstract entities, propositions, etc. The next question is: can your worldview of atheism account for 25.?
I am not denying atheists use logic. I am only saying that atheism, as a worldview, ***when consistently applied***, cannot account for their usage and practice of the laws of logic. Thus, atheism fails as a worldview. Atheism, (not the people, but the worldview) can be compared to a man writing checks on an empty bank checking account. The man is using checks (”logic”), but he cannot ***account*** for his usage of the checks because the checks bounce every single time when they come due.
You write, “but the law of contradiction cannot be proven to be true nor proven to be false.”
You are absolutely correct!! Very good point.
I think myself and Norman Geisler in his book (CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS ISBN: 0-8010-3822-7) agrees that the universal law of non-contradiction is **undeniably true**, though it cannot be proved to be true because the law of non-contradiction must be “used” in order to disprove or to prove something.
The law of non-contradiction is an axiom of thought. It is a First Principle, a First Presupposition upon which reality is founded upon. It is a fundamental non-natural feature of thought. It reflects logical necessity, and this law must be true if words, language, science, ethics, or whatever are meaningful.
ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Interesting. So, for a Muslim, from their beliefs, attempting to violently convert or destroy the non-Muslim world is appropriate and understandable (at least from your viewpoint).
Since it is appropriate to break laws and violate the right of others over “false gods” surely you understand why some Muslim believe that blowing up those they disagree with is also appropriate, right?
Note, these actions are not equivalent, but are a matter of scale. If you can’t be relied upon to follow the law and act in a reasonable manner; then perhaps society would be better off with you spending time in a cell.
And oddly, those who aren’t Christians aren’t too surprised when you attack them. Especially when you’re in full-on “martyr mode”. A Christian is never as dangerous as when they’re breaking the law, infringing in the rights of others, and claiming to be a victim all at the same time. Oddly, breaking the law, infringing on the rigths of others, and hypocrtically claiming to be a victim while doing this tends to ensure some form of “attack” allowing the martyr complex to continue. Convenient strategy.
Well, if I want an opinion on tolerance, open mindedness, and peace loving viewpoints I’ll certainly hunt down the first closed-minded bigoted person I can find who approves of violating the law to promote their religion.
Actually, here you are thareb. What sort of experience do you have with tolerance, open-mindedness, or peace?
You don’t believe theirs was the best plan, but are comfortable with stating:
Interesting viewpoints. So, when you are intolerantly shouting down your opposition to truly enforce your (and only your) religion having any sway in America; do you realize that you’re attempting to ensure and enforce a system of Government that is the problem with most of the world?
No, of course you don’t. Because America isn’t great for it’s freedoms; it’s great because of a religious viewpoint. Heck, even if we were conquered by a dictator, Jesus would make us free. Whereas even if another country had our freedoms without a Christian background, they wouldn’t be as good.
Why? I dunno… thareb said so? Socialism can’t hurt the U.S. economy while Jesus is enforced… I guess. I’m not sure thareb’s closed-minded viewpoints, bigotry, intolerance, and sociopathic rants don’t really lend to having their underlying logical precepts observed.
Thareb, any idea on why the Jews (who follow the same God as you, albeit not in the same way) seem to have more problems with the world than those who don’t even follow the “correct” God? Since Government structure, is entirely a product of religion; you can explain the prosperity and peace of Japan since WW2 from their belief structure? Perhaps you can explain the peace and freedoms of the island nations in the Pacific (before the coming of the Christians of course, which destroyed that peace).
Oh… maybe Government isn’t a product of religion? Seeing as I have a counter-example that is valid, reasonable and doesn’t match your “only Jesus allows and brings freedom” theory. For my second trick… “Hong Kong”… very free, good economy, nice place to live; not Christian.
Freedom isn’t due solely to Jesus, or Jesus likes people in Hong Kong and Japan for reasons you have yet to explain…
… sorry guys, I’m not trying to make thareb look intolerant; but I will admit to helping him make himself look this way.
gekkobear on July 13, 2007 at 12:21 PM
We all agree that different thinkers possess different moral perspectives. But that descriptive fact is separate and independent of the different claim of moral relativism, which attempts to pass off “relativism” as a normative feature of moral discourse.
There are too many problems with moral relativism. If you want to discuss it further, we can.
ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 12:25 PM
He didn’t really need any help, but you did a good job. I liked this one:
Esthier on July 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM
No, I’m saying that God can be considered evil because he allows bad things to happen to innocent people. My argument above was that under a polytheistic model, there are several Gods, not one, and all of them have limits to their power. Under the monotheistic model, there is only one omnipotent God, who gives man free will, but does nothing to protect those who are at the receiving end when man exercises that free will for evil.
I recognize the 2 schools of thought in monotheism – Christianity, where ‘God’ grants everybody free will, vs Islam, where ‘Allah’ micro-manages everything. I’m not suggesting that ‘God’ is evil for giving man free will, but I do think that if monotheism was true and God allowed bad things to happen to innocent people because of the manner in which man exercised free will, then such a God is ‘evil’ for having the power and yet not intervening. It would be like a driver on a freeway witnessing an accident and doing nothing to help the injured party.
While Atheism denies the existence of a God in the first place, Polytheism allows for the possibility that despite being the creators, there are limits to the power of all Gods. I tend to go with Polytheism, since Atheism would require me to believe that everything in the world is a structured combination of elements, put together over time at random, with no creator behind it all.
infidelpride on July 13, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Because the country as founded was not secular in the ACLU meaning. The very first act of the very first session of the very first Continental Congress was a debate to choose a minister to lead them in prayer. The prayer was very long and well received by all. See the Library of Congress
Congress endorsed an American translation of the Bible. Even President Thomas Jefferson asked Congress to appropriate money to purchase New Testaments to be distributed to the Indians so they might understand the principles upon which our nation was founded. Congress approved that purchase.
Here is a wonderful description of that first prayer by John Adams. George Washington among others knelt during the prayer. When the prayer ended there was a ‘profound silence’. Then a man stepped forth to give a speech that ‘electrified the house’. Thus the representatives were introduced to Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry was one of many who insisted that America was first and foremost a Christian nation.
There has been a huge redefinition of America led by the media and the schools. The same game has been played with gun ownership. The straw man is hunting, as in ‘ who needs an automatic to hunt deer?’. The question creates the redefinition.
I like the Bible quote ‘By their fruits ye will know them’. Do not listen to the opinions of what America is. Read the actual history, the facts, the letters, the speeches. America the Real has not been erased, only hidden
entagor on July 13, 2007 at 12:37 PM
First, I am not personally questioning the logic of atheists. I have learned much from many different folks. So my case or argument is not directed personally at atheists, but rather at their philosophical system, which cannot account for the universal, immaterial laws of logic.
Atheists in fact do use logic. The problem is that their worldview cannot account for (both metaphysically and epistemologically) their usage and application of logic.
I do not see internal contradictions present in the Bible. If there was one, then all of us need to reject the Bible, and move on. But the Bible does not contain contradictions. It contains propositions and truth.
By the way, all of us thinkers have “faith.” All of us thinkers believe in the following, yet there is no “proof” for them in the history of philosophy:
***existence of mind-independent reality
***existence of other minds (subject-object problem)
***Hume’s problem of a Self or Person. Note: this Humean problem is often directed at theists who believe in a dualistic (Mind-Body) constitution of a human. But this is just as much, if not more a serious problem, for atheists who embrace a Materialistc conception of personhood.
***arguments for Solipsism are wrong.
Again, the above is just a quick summary of enduring problems in philosophy that lack “knock-down, hard, conclusive, apodictic certainty type of proof.” But yet, on a practical level, all of us, including atheists and skeptics, use “faith” every single day.
My point is simply:
it is unfair to restrict the use of “faith” to Christians. After all, atheists use “faith” a lot more often than Christians.
The real question is,
“is it a rational faith or an illogical faith?”
Atheism, as a system, can be compared to a man writing checks on an empty bank account. The man does write checks, (”logic”), the problem is his system cannot account for his usage of checks.
I have suggested in the past that the Book of Hebrews and the Gospel of John point toward Jesus Christ as the Epistemological Logos who provides knowledge to mankind out of His sheer grace alone.
Knowledge to fallen mankind is a gift of God.
ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 12:42 PM
You just dissed a group of people, close to the magnitude of the population of the United States, by mocking what they hold deeply holy. You cannot believe that people would be insulted by what you just said, but entire neighborhoods in India have been torched and rampaged through for just such a dismissive slight against Ganesh or Shiva or Kali. You did not even notice that the protest calls at the Senate did not mock the gods of the Hindus, as you just did, but that the God of the Torah/Bible commanded no other gods before Him.
For the general reader, Nonfactor is so confident of his position, he won’t task a single braincell to educate himself as to what’s out there, even speaking ignorantly on physics – the study of the LAWS of force and motion, blithely calling the universe “chaotic,” to the astonishment of those who working in that highly structured discipline; now throwing around religious slurs with pure ignorance and disinterest – Nonfactor having no concept of the solemnity of deeply held faiths of people who arrange the hours of every single day to incorporate prayers and burnt offerings to their gods. He’d stand in the house of a Buddhist, slack-jawed, watching the man’s wife prepare a morning cooked plate of food for the idol in their shrine in the center of their house, the offering for the idol given BEFORE the people of the house eat their own food, with the stupid, “What the hell are you wasting your time with that?”
World’s worst guest. Pissing off people of every faith from Kalamazoo to Timbouktou.
The phoney constructs of the Left are 1) all religions are the same, so what’s the big deal? 2) all religion is only cheap opiate of the masses. 3) with 1) and 2) falsely established as a “truth,” then any type of religious strife is pointless and mindless so everything would be fixed if there was no religion.
The secular humanists have been no kinder to Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Animists, Jews or Christians, sending millions upon millions upon millions to massacre. ALL religions calling people to spiritual cleanliness, awareness of the spiritual realm, leading people to think beyond the here and now are a threat to the secular government state, and must be eliminated so that the State is god.
The Dems invited a very nice and earnest and probably unsuspecting man to a solemn US Government official occasion, for the opening prayer. UP-ENDING over 200 years of solemn and beloved TRADITION … WITHOUT having the respect for established tradition NOR the COURTESY to CONSULT the AMERICAN PEOPLE who consider the Capitol as THEIR property and with NO REGARD for the considerations of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Right on cue, as anticipated by the Democrats, an American citizen protested.
Why is it the American citizen’s fault? Why is the American citizen being thought of as boorish and rude? It was the majority Democrats who forced it, it’s the Democrats who were the ones being boorish, rude and inconsiderate, 1) using an unsuspecting guest as the trigger, making him feel uncomfortable 2) slapping the American People across the face and then sneering at them for being surprised, then irate.
THe Hindus Parlimentarian in secular India would think twice about pulling such a stunt. Hindu rioting keeps them in check. The Dems gamble, and smirk, knowing Christians are restrained by faith NOT to encourage mob justice.
naliaka on July 13, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »