Video: Hitchens welcomes Mother Teresa into the atheist fold
posted at 8:25 pm on August 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The guy on the other side of the window who seems to want to express Christ’s love by taking a swing at Hitch is Bill Donohue, whom you may remember from l’affaire Marcotte or from his highly nuanced comments about Jews on Scarborough’s show a few years ago. I wrote about the Mother Teresa “revelations” the other day but Hitchens’s reaction has me intrigued. It sounded to me as though a few moments of doubt expressed over the course of many years had been cherry picked to make it look like she had all but abandoned her faith; Hitch seems to think there’s something to that possibility, though. Fair reading or opportunistic attempt to enlist her to the atheist cause? The big A’s got a rendezvous with Amazon to find out.
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: 1 2 Next »
IMHO Bill Donohue is a very poor representative of the Catholic Church. Why didn’t they have a nun on to explain to Hitch what it is like. In case anyone didn’t notice, Bill Donohue is not a nun, never has been a nun, and never will be a nun, so doesn’t have a clue what Mother Theresa went through.
bnelson44 on August 28, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Well more religious fodder for the left.
canopfor on August 28, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Dang it! My pregnant wife just “asked” me to go get some cake for her, just as AP posted this. Oh well, have fun ya’ll.
Weight of Glory on August 28, 2007 at 8:37 PM
YeahbuhWHAT?!
ZK on August 28, 2007 at 8:37 PM
For a smart guy, Hitchens sometimes employs lazy thinking in advancing his attacks on religion. I’ve also heard him cite religious wars in support of his argument that God doesn’t exist, which is obviously not only a dishonest argument but lazy as heck. I like Hitchens sometimes, but his atheist thing is tiresome.
BillLalor on August 28, 2007 at 8:39 PM
What’s more important? Common.
Nonfactor on August 28, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Allah whats the point about “highly nuanced comments about Jews” like its some kinda stain? We all keep on playing games with ourselves here, but his statement about who opposed the movie at the time was correct, but only highly sensitive people want to claim anti-semtism
mainmann on August 28, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Bill Donohue didn’t do very well. The “Irish” comment was most off-putting. There are people who can clean Hitchens’ clock but you won’t see them on the air with Matthews and Co.
Mojave Mark on August 28, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Wow!
Can’t cable news people get people less outrageous than
Hitchens and Donohue.
Really, you’re gonna with these guys?
Hmm.
terryannonline on August 28, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Wow, Donohue must be taking his meds. I was expecting more red meat.
None the less, it’s a silly argument. I don’t know how the Catholic church views it, what with her being a nun and all, but her faith was her own personal business as far as I’m concerned. She did some wonderful things and inspired and helped many, so can she not rest in peace?
SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 8:45 PM
If Christopher Hitchens says ‘God does not exist,’ he’s a “dogmatic atheist,” if Mother Teresa says it she simply has “doubt.”
Nonfactor on August 28, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Primitive cannibalistic tribesmen only eat their enemies.
Cable news people aren’t nearly THAT particular about who and what they consume.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 28, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Huh? “Jews control Hollywood” is not anti-semitic? If he said Jews control the banks, would that be anti-semitic?
Yeah, its a stain. The stain of Jew-hatred.
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 28, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Sigh. Yes, that is correct. Her doubts were based on her religious belief that there was a God. Hitchens statement is obviously not. Why is that a problem for you?
Incidentally, you should look up the meaning of the word “Israel”. It means to “struggle” with God, even to question his existence. And the Jews have been doing that for more than 5000 years.
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 28, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Oh, so what? Job had doubts, Jesus had doubts, Moses had doubts, Abraham had doubts, Paul had doubts, John had doubts.
Mother Teresa had doubts about her faith in God? Join the club. That’s often what happens in faith, especially active faith. That’s why people with faith are so stubborn. No matter what happens, what curveballs are thrown, faith is about stubbornness.
mjk on August 28, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Her doubts were based on her religious belief that there was a God.
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 28, 2007 at 8:56 PM
My strong guess would be that her doubts were because on all the suffering that she saw. She probably asked herself, “If there is God how could “he” let this happen?”
MB4 on August 28, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Umm, no having faith means you dont have doubts. When you have doubt that means you are missing your faith. Read what she wrote. That is exactly what she says actually.
They are both wrong in the clip because expresseing doubt means neither that you have faith nor are you an atheist. It means you are agnostic.
Resolute on August 28, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Doubt is a part of faith. That is why we call it faith. It means belief, not only without proof, but without certitude. I don’t know if God exists. Or if Jesus does. I have an inkling they both do. But I am not sure. It could be, when I die, that’s it. Very possible. And if so, I won’t care. But it could also be that when I die, that is not the end.
I have a feeling that most atheists, and Hitchens is too smart not to be in this category, are afraid that there might be an afterlife. They know there could be. Their atheism is more of an intellectual protest against the world’s injustices and their inability to reconcile these injustices with the notion of an omnipotent, just God. Many people have this problem, Mother Theresa certainly would have had it in her chosen occupation.
There are two ways to reconcile this enigma. Either you adopt the philosophy articulated so well by Rabbi Harold Kushner in his book, Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, or you take the easy way out, and just say There Is No God.
Hitchens, like millions of others, took the easy way out. But I think inside, regardless of their smug sense of intellectual superiority that may be evident on the outside, they are full of doubt on the inside. Hitchens, especially, looks like a man torn apart by this conundrum. Intellectually, he sides with disbelief. It is convenient and seems principled. And it makes him an iconoclast, which as a writer, is where you want to be if you want to sell books. But inside, the man is not at peace. I think his principled stand against the notion of a just omnipotent God is eating him up.
jihadwatcher on August 28, 2007 at 9:21 PM
In a 90 page book, Hitchens can deliver more truth and logic, than Donahue could in a thousand, thousand page volumes.
This was like Albert Einstein arguing with Homer Simpson.
TheSitRep on August 28, 2007 at 9:27 PM
I could have sworn Mother Teresa was one of the individuals the Hitchmeister publicly skewered after her death. Now that we’re told she’s a closet atheist, suddenly all her bad deeds became good?
Xrlq on August 28, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Opportunistic, and more transparent than is worthy of Hitch.
marykatharine on August 28, 2007 at 9:38 PM
So not believing in something and dedicating your life to said thing because there is no evidence is easy whereas believing in a storybook and that tells you how to live your life is hard? Uh, what?
Nonfactor on August 28, 2007 at 9:42 PM
The proper perspective and from a flaming Liberal no less:
You have to be human before you can be a saint
By Margery Eagan
Boston Herald Columnist
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
When we shuffle off this mortal coil, most of us, I presume, would prefer angels and bliss to the alternatives.
Nothing. Or worse.
That’s one reason I’m thrilled that the terribly depressing “God is Not Great,” written by spoil-sport Christopher Hitchens, is headed down the best-seller list. Meanwhile, “Eat, Pray, Love,” Elizabeth Gilbert’s sillier but hopeful mystical-quest-at-the-ashram memoir, remains No. 1 among paperbacks for the 28th week in a row.
It is this eternal question – hopeless vs. hopeful – that made me feel hopeless indeed when I heard that Mother Teresa, of all people, lived life as a Big-Time Doubter. What hope can there be, then, for the rest of us?
But yesterday I took heart.
For nearly three years Gina Scalcione has led a vigil to keep open Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in East Boston. She compared Mother Teresa to Doubting Thomas, the apostle who practically lived with Christ yet doubted his Resurrection.
“So why can’t Mother Teresa have doubts?” Besides, she said, “Every time I lose my car keys I pray to St. Anthony, the patron saint of finding things, and I find them,” says Gina, “and he didn’t do much, compared to Teresa.”
The Rev. Bob Bowers, who lost his own Charlestown parish and now serves at downtown’s Paulist Center, said he “identified with Teresa for the first time ever today, a fellow seeker like I am, filled with questions. I’m in good company.”
At Jesuit-run Boston College, our local repository for thinkers on matters theological, scholars did not view Teresa’s doubt as cause for wailing and the gnashing of teeth. Theology Professor Harvey Egan doubts this will hurt Teresa’s canonization prospects. Many saints experienced long periods of “the absence of God,” what the frequently frustrated St. John of the Cross called the “dark night of the soul.”
The Jesuits’ patron, St. Ignatius, after a decadent life of wine, women, dueling, gambling and vicious court politics, experienced a conversion “after taking a cannon ball to his legs,” said Egan. But even then, “in his period of purification he reached a state when he was close to suicide.”
Other wavering saints include Maria of the Incarnation, St. Vincent de Paul, Catherine of Genoa and Carmelite nun Teresa of Avilla who, at one point of particular pique, issued this famous line: Lord, if this is how you treat your friends, it is little wonder you have so few.
Thomas Groome, director of B.C.’s Institute of Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry and author of “What Makes Us Catholic,” said, “Authentic faith always entails at least some doubt.”
Groome pointed to another famous biblical line from a dying Christ: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
Said Groome, “The key is that he felt abandoned by God and yet he still addresses God, prays to God.”
Mother Teresa apparently felt abandoned as well in the midst of the overwhelming suffering she witnessed. “But she continued to minister,” said Groome. “Talk about being tested. In some ways this makes her faith even more extraordinary.”
The obvious question at this point: Why such brutal testing? Didn’t Mother Teresa, and other long-suffering saints, earn a bit of fuzzy feeling? But that’s a question for another day.
Let’s end with this: Mother Teresa will be dead 10 years Sept. 5, six days after the anniversary of the death of Princess Diana. At the time this caused a media moral crisis: Should we in the media jet to Calcutta to cover Teresa’s funeral or to England to cover the royals? Most chose England, then felt guilty.
This past month, Diana’s anniversary got all the attention, again. Almost no word about Teresa, savior of thousands, until this.
TheBigOldDog on August 28, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I think what people are missing here is the somewhat “fluid” nature of belief. I think most religious believers have moments of doubt (some more than others: I happen to experience a great deal, but that probably has partly to do with my youthful age), but that hardly makes them a rabid, foaming at the mout atheist like Dawkins or Hitchens. Hitchens really has turned into a parody of himself. He always was something of an opportunist, but his willingness to semi-take-up Teresa’s mantle because she had moments of doubt is really just far too much to take. I really wish he would just go away.
Nobody said faith was easy. There’s a really good article from the magazine First Things about Mother Teresa, faith, and doubt, and it was published four years ago (Teresa’s spiritual crisis has been known for years, but the media has to turn this into some huge revelation). Here’s the link:
WillBarrett on August 28, 2007 at 9:52 PM
http://firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=486
WillBarrett on August 28, 2007 at 9:52 PM
In this corner weighing approximately 250lbs, believing in nothing, Christerfer Hitchens!
And in this corner, weighing anything it wants, the creator of all things, GOD!
I would hate to judge this smackdown.
Kini on August 28, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Funny she quote Hamlet considering what the “To be, or not to be” speech implies. It was about the uncertainty of an afterlife, not knowledge of one. And simply because you want to live in a fairy tale where you’re whisked off to paradise after you die does not make it true, and the only reason I feel the need to say this is because religious people like the author of this article, like many of the people on this website, feel the need to enforce their beliefs onto others in this society.
And lets clear something up. It is not doubt when someone says ‘God does not exist,’ it is doubt if they say ‘I do not know if God exists.’ I wouldn’t expect the author to understand that considering her strident belief in said afterlife, but there is a difference. Fooling yourself into thinking that Mother Teresa was a devout Catholic when her own writings indicate otherwise is simply a lie to make yourself feel better.
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
Depressing to some. Not to me.
Nonfactor on August 28, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Even Christ said on the cross, “Father, why have thou forsaken me?” If Jesus Christ himself could doubt God, or at least doubt His intentions, anyone can doubt. But faith in God’s love also means to overcome those doubts. In the end, faith is rewarded.
jihadwatcher on August 28, 2007 at 10:00 PM
There’s nothing smart about Hitchens. He’s an ingorant, psychotic atheist Taliban (only without any real power to do harm, thank Darwin). I have no idea why AP seems to like him. Is he that desperate for pro-war atheists that he’ll take the first piece of pond scum that comes along?
Darth Executor on August 28, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Man, you are so annoying.
What in the hell are you talking about? I could swear I’ve wandered into the Huffington Post. How is anyone forcing their beliefs on you? Sure, I’d prefer it if you were Christian, but when in is anyone compelling you to believe God or Jesus? Why do you atheist have TO CONSTANTLY PLAY THE VICTIM?!?! It is SO tiresome. For the love of God, this isn’t the Spanish Inquisition….you aren’t being put to the test.
What exactly is your point here? First, it’s somewhat laughable that you, an atheist, are going to dictate who is or who isn’t a “devout Catholic”? I’ll let God be the judge on that one, Nonfactor, big guy. Second, why must you atheists constantly create this either/or mentality between belief and unbelief? Doubt with faith is not a new theological phenomenon. Read that First Things article I linked above, or better yet, read St. John of the Cross. But you’re not going to do that, are you Nonfactor? You’ve already made up your mind long, long ago. But it’s OK, you’re the rational one (in case you’d thought I’d forgotten).
WillBarrett on August 28, 2007 at 10:11 PM
It’s not just about conversion there, buddy, it’s about public policy that affects me and mine. And to think I’m acting a victim would be purely misguided.
My point is Mother Teresa was an atheist if we are to believe her writings. She wasn’t a ‘doubter’ any more than the millions of other atheists who were once religious.
Because it’s so hard to see how not believing in God doesn’t make you a “devout Catholic.” You’d obviously need to be a Catholic to determine such.
Because it is an either/or idea. Offering choices between two things when there are more options is a fallacy (are you a Christian or are you an atheist?), but pointing out black and white is something different altogether (of course agnostics have an easy way out of this conundrum).
Or am I simply a doubter?
Nonfactor on August 28, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Even the most religous or devout person can have doubt. Only some kind of real fool goes through life and never questions anything. However it is absurd to say that doubt is part of faith. It is a lack of faith or lapse of faith. Some of you are stretching to redefine what the word faith even means, apparently in an attempt to say that even when you dont have it, you still do. It is absurd.
Resolute on August 28, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Ugh…not that obnoxious anti-Semite prick…
Ugh…not that obnoxious anti-religion prick.
You know what, God should have rained sulfur down on that interview. As often as Hitch is right, he’s boring me with his little jihad against theistic religion.
Bill Donahue is an anti-semite who’s been trying to get my favorite TV show cancelled for years, and beyond that runs the Catholic League like the National Action Network and the Rainbow Coalition grievance groups. No wonder Mother Theresa questioned her faith, I would too if God refrained from smiting these two dipshits fighting over the right to exploit her legacy in this life.
Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Man, South Park nailed that cretin right on the money.
Go, Go Christians. Love that spokesman.
I’ll take hitch representing my side over that bloated moron in the purple shirt and yellow tie.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 28, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Hey neato, my comment is awaiting moderation. When did that little feature start? I imagine its because I used the word dipsh*ts. I guess maybe I’ll have to start controlling my pottymouth…
Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Mother Teresa was going thru what is called a time of trial and tribulations. She was in a place that was Godless. People all around her were starving to death.
This interview tries to make it sound like she thought this her entire life. This is typical rhetoric of those who try to belittle religion. They’re trying to apply a very personal and intimate moment to describe an entire life time of humanitarian events.
KCtheKat on August 28, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Believe me, most of us wish Bill Donahue would go away…but he doesn’t. I loved the South Park where Jesus dealt with the scumbag.
Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Ah, I see….This is actually very interesting. Now, Nonfactor, how do you characterize your atheism? Do you: 1) lack belief in God (which would seem to me to indicate some sort of agnosticism, but more on that below), 2)believe that there is no God, 3)know that there is no God (as you seem to imply in one of your answers, which is just fundamentally absurd: do you really know?)
What you seem to be saying about Teresa is that because at times she experienced 1) (or some form of 1)) she therefore was a 2). Which is clearly fallacious. In fact, this is why I think atheists are wrong when they claim that they merely “lack belief”! They don’t “lack” belief! They believe that there is no God or they claim to know that there is no God. But this whole “lack of belief” is just foolishness and a complete dodge. Lack of belief to me seems like some sort of middle ground, an agnostic point, where doubt can occur. But since when did moments of doubt or agnosticism or what have you indicate that Teresa fully rejected God? You, Nonfactor, have rejected God (or the imaginary big guy in the sky, whatever you want to call it), you believe that he does not exist, or better yet, know that he does not exist. Mother Teresa never claimed these things. She expressed doubt, like we all have. But that does not make her an atheist.
WillBarrett on August 28, 2007 at 10:44 PM
A subtitle noted she wrote these in a letter to Jesus, as suggested by a confessor. I would think that here she displays her true human emotions, including anger, toward God – that it is more of a venting than a description of her creed. As several above have noted, periods of doubt and outright disbelief are common among the religious.
mikeyboss on August 28, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Atheist is an unneeded word.
I do not need a special term to denote that I do not believe in astrology.
I do not need a special term to denote that I do not believe in dragons and unicorns.
If I need to pick a term to describe my religious beliefs, I prefer the term enlightened to Atheist.
I also understand that most of the human race will always need the “god crutch”. Ignorance and superstition are powerful forces.
And, of course, if God came down out of the sky and offered me proof of his existence, I would change my views. I have nothing invested in Atheism, it is simply the end result of enlightenement.
Of course, we both know that won’t happen. God doesn’t do that, you know why? Because god is imaginary.
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Theists, click on that link and learn something. IF YOU DARE!!!
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 28, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Wow, you’re right, I already learned something from that! I’ve learned that some atheists are sophomoric retards.
Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Wow, you sure gave me a lesson in maturity, thanks.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 28, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Yea, really. When I clicked on that link I thought I was back in my philosophy and religion class back in college (which I took as a sophomore!) Never heard any of those arguments before!
But seriously, I’m sorry, JayHaw, but your whole post is just the normal, tired atheist dodge. Yea, we get it: you’re rational, you’re enlightened, you’re smart. We get it, we get it, we get it. Are you done yet?
WillBarrett on August 28, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Margery Eagan and the theologians at Boston College got this one right. She had doubts as did many of her saintly predecessors. So what? It makes her even more wonderful to me — leave to a hyper-secularized media to turn it into a feeding frenzy…
D2Boston on August 28, 2007 at 11:05 PM
The onus is on you to convince me that God is a fraud, that moronic little site does nothing.
Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I know there is no Christian God similar to how I know there is no Muslim God or Grecian gods. I do not know whether or not there is a “God,” but the way you think of God is most likely different than what I am thinking of (not something that personally created human beings et cetera). The only reason I do not know that there is a God is because it is impossible to prove, similarly I do not know whether or not there are aliens (though probability would indicate there are) or invisible beings that take the shape of unicorns and dance around in clouds after rainy days. If it was proven that a God did exist (in whatever form) I would obviously believe in it, but that isn’t to say I’d worship it and mold my life around what human beings interpret it’s will to be.
What I’m saying is that, if we are to believe the letters, Mother Teresa was most definitely a 2.
What part of “I have no faith,” makes you think she had all but “rejected God.” If I or Christopher Hitchens or AP were to say the same exact thing we’d simply be affirming the “dogmatic atheist” point of view.
Agreed.
Nonfactor on August 28, 2007 at 11:16 PM
I think you see things clearly.
I however, think the science is not all in yet in either case.
TheSitRep on August 28, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Crap! I’m going to bed these theological discussion tend to make me stay up too late.
I swear sometimes HotAir is addictive.
TheSitRep on August 28, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Why do believers and non-believers alike have to be so damned militant?
We don’t agree. Duh. So what.
Just because you believe doesn’t make you stupid. Just because I don’t doesn’t make me lazy. There is room for every one of us and all of the lovely gray shades in between.
This isn’t football. There is no advantage to cheering on your team or belittling mine. If there is a God, I really don’t think He’d be big on the whole “Go Me” thing. It just doesn’t seem to fit the God stereotype, somehow.
I respect your right to believe what you wish as long as you don’t force my kids to pray in school or wear religious tokens. I subscribe to the outlook that encourages study of all things so that people can come to their own conclusions. I even encourage my kids to *gasp* read liberal views as well as conservative so that they have a complete view of what people think. I do this with religion/spirituality as well. I’ve always done the same for myself. It’s the rational way to approach life…at the minimum, it allows me to know mine enemy and what makes him tick.
I feel like singing a chorus of Kumbya…..sigh.
cat on August 28, 2007 at 11:22 PM
These religion threads are tame compared to the Mac vs PC debates I used to get into online.
:)
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 28, 2007 at 11:26 PM
What is it with all the militant atheists bashing Christians? I have never treated an atheist this way, and yet they act the victim? What is this, bad acting by liberal democrats?
I’m sorry guys, but you will not convince me to give up Christianity. I just don’t have the blind faith to be an atheist. And I’m not afraid to question it. Everytime I have, it has only solidified my faith.
I’ve researched the writings of ancient historians like Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger. I have compared archaeological discoveries against the Bible. I’ve looked at the evidence, and you can’t shake my faith with these childlike attacks.
Jesus Christ was a living, breathing man who lived about 2,000 years ago. He was written about by noted ancient historians, who were not friends of Christianity. His actions were witnessed by hundreds of people. When Paul wrote to the churches, he admonished them “why am I having to remind you of these things?… you still have witnesses among you!” And early Christians died for their faith, because they knew witnesses. The first writings we have were written at a time when the witnesses were still around… they were peer reviewed!
And yet he performed miracles. Even atheists admit that he is the greatest teacher who ever lived. He fulfilled dozens of prophesies, many of them about his birth, which he would not have been able to fake. And these prophesies are accurate, confirmed by the science’s carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls at over 100 years before Christ’s birth! So we know the prophesies came first!
And I know how he has changed my life. Before, I was a self-centered fool… who lived only for myself. But after accepting him into my life, I live to serve others. When I went down to help with Katrina, I encountered hundreds of volunteers… from churches. And these volunteers have continued to flood the area. I know because my cousin has helped coordinate over a 1,000 volunteers in the time since Katrina.
So, you are arguing at a disadvantage. Because I have lived on your side of the argument… and have been a fool. But no longer. I challenge you to read….
Evidence that Deserves a Verdict
…but I don’t know that you have the guts to take your head out of the sand and do some real research.
dominigan on August 28, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Nah, I’m open minded, if the the atheists bring a convincing argument to the table, I’ll listen. Till then…
Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I disagree. You need to prove the existence of your deity to me.
How do you prove a negative?
Prove to me the entire universe wasn’t created by an intelligent cheesecake. It’s a ridiculous proposition, isn’t it? Equally ridiculous is your assertion that I need to disprove your mytholgical deity.
The burden of proof, which has never been met, is on the sky god worshipper, not me.
Hey, here’s an interesting question:
Why does god hate amputees?
He cures disease. He rids people of cancer. He even brings back the dead. Wow. But in all of recorded history and even in the bible, god has never caused an amputee to regrow a limb.
Why is that? Because god is imaginary.
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 28, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I love Christopher Hitchens in his writing and incredible gifts for extemporaneous trenchent speech. But when he hammers on faith, he is lame, and almost admits it. He considers his intellectual inability to even for a moment entertain the existance of something larger than life to be a strength. This is the equivalent of a life-long frigid nun considering her lack of sexual desire to be a virtue. Such a nun, like Hitch, spend their lives trying to save the rest of us from our folly.
laelaps on August 28, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Too damn bad, you’ll either prove the negative or I’ll stay a theist, or at least a Deist…I’m one of those two, I’m not sure yet…I’ll decide at some point
Hey, I never said assuredly that the Deity or Creator was the Christian or Jewish one. How the hell do I know? Could be anything, really. I’ll leave it to the theorists and scientists to come up with the answer.
I barely passed remedial math classes, so I’m leaving it others to do all the sciency stuff. Its not a major factor in my life anyway. I’m not strongly religious. I never have been. But I do know that I find a good number of atheists to be the most obnoxious pricks around, and even if I were atheist I’d probably throw in with the religious because of the obnoxious nature of atheists.
Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Bad Candy, don’t argue with an atheist. Atheism is a belief system that is one of the most intolerant of belief systems, next only to islam.
The fact remains that no atheist knows, for a fact, if God exists. They believe He doesn’t. I believe He does. Or something along the lines of a god does. Or at least, an afterlife. But the salient point is, if a believer is mistaken, then no harm, no foul. He’ll never know.
But if an atheist is mistaken…
jihadwatcher on August 28, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I am certain, after reading a number of your posts that you are an expert on the subject of “obnoxious pricks”. A self-taught expert, no doubt.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 29, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Read a few pages. Basically making a straw man and knocking it down by picking and choosing verses out of context to “prove” a point.
I say there is a God, you may think there is not. One of is right and will find out who is when we die.
Given the stakes involved, you must have an awful lot of faith in your position.
jman on August 29, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I don’t think that Mother Theresa lost her faith. Although in her line of work I’m sure she was sorely tested. It seems to me that those who long for God the most are attacked more and suffer more from the evil that opposes God in the first place. This fact is mentioned in the bible although I don’t remember where.
I also notice that some people refer to the passage in the bible where Jesus says, “Why have thou forsaken me?”. Jesus never lost faith. What he spoke of was the feeling that men (and women) feel when they perceive that God goes away from them. They feel abandoned and their faith suffers. We are tested. Some fail the tests. Many do in fact, myself included and we “backslide” into a state of denial for a while. We go through “dry places”. We question the existence of god. We try to get by doing things “our own way”. Deep down though we know that God didn’t move away from us. We moved away from him. We move back into his grace the same way any child moves back into the grace of a parent we have disobeyed. By asking forgiveness and admission of our transgressions.
If Mother Theresa truly did not believe in God then her life made no sense. It means she wasted her life on a lie and what’s worse she spread the lie knowing it was a lie. I don’t think for one second she doubted god. I do believe she felt abandoned at times. We all do including Jesus himself. I decided long ago that God is simply incomprehensible especially when we try and make him fit into human standards. To question God is to be deluded into thinking that we know all the answers and that God somehow fails our test.
All in all though I feel sorry for atheists. I have experienced the indescribable joy that only comes from the presence of God. To feel the burden of life and it’s ugliness and failures lifted from your shoulders. Brief but unforgettable experiences that will last me a lifetime. To have hope when there is no hope. To feel happy no matter what life throws at you. Atheists will never know what that feels like because they simply choose not to. God is a complete gentleman. He won’t knock your door down trying to introduce himself to you. He won’t go where he’s not wanted. You have to invite him into your life. Mother Theresa understood all this and I think her life reflected that. I think if anyone had asked her she would have said that she was lamenting man moving away from God and the subsequent loss of God’s presence in our world.
Guardian on August 29, 2007 at 12:11 AM
hitchens is so into himself and his hatred for christians he looks for ANYTHING to support it. It’s like anything that even touches christianity he has to have an opinion on it and he’s a know it all. He has no idea what was in her heart or said to God and he looks like a fool to those of us who know different.
What a jerk.
Highrise on August 29, 2007 at 12:17 AM
As much as I admire Hitch’s brain (tho I disagree with it often), he disappoints every time he sinks into his anti-religion tirade. The disproportionate intensity of it diminishes his credibility… suggests a personal problem is clouding otherwise clear thinking.
petefrt on August 29, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Hmmmm, now where have I heard something that sounds like that before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal’s_Wager
Oh yeah.
The flaw in Pascal’s Wager (and yours as well) is that it is not a binary question. You are not choosing between Christian and Atheist. Either your particular sect of christianity is right, or islam is, or Juadaism, or Hinduism, or Norse Muthology, or Atheists, or we are all wrong and some other god is the real god.
When you consider the many variations of god worship, your odds on this bet aren’t much better than mine.
If, in your after life, you suddenly find yourself having to explain why you chose your Christian beliefs to Thor or Allah, did you win the wager?
I have no faith in my position. I have no faith period. I simply refuse to believe that the mythology of middle aged sheepherders is the sum total of the knowledge that is attainable in our universe.
I am prepared to believe God exists, if he simply comes to me and proves his existence.
Of course he won’t, because (see above)
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM
This is the kind of post that only someone ignorant of Judeo-Christian religion could write. Pontificating on that which you are obviously ignorant just proves your opponents point.
So I’ll enlighten you. In the context of Judeo-Christian philosophy God only performs “miracles”. These are ONE time occurrences. “Miracles” such as the “parting” of the Red Sea. God did not cure cancer, nor bring back the dead (I ain’t a Christian). As for “amputees”, are there any that lived after losing a limb in the Bible (I’m not familiar with the Christian Testament)? I doubt it. Furthermore, if God was to cure each and every amputee that lived, he would not be performing miracles. You can choose to accept that or not.
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 29, 2007 at 12:27 AM
OK, all this debate has got my curiosity up. Maybe some day in the not too distant future I will see if I can find God’s MySpace entry.
MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Ultimately faith is what squares the circle. Not just for Catholicism, but for every religion.
There’s a simple reason for this – we can not possibly understand or explain why life exists.
We get together, make religions. We refine, reform, re-define and re-form religions. We lie, spin, borrow and emulate to make our religions more appealing.
We use the religions we invent to control people with fear and loyalty, and we allow ourselves to be used and controlled by our religions and their clergy. We go to war against other religions and schisms of our own religions.
We willingly look the other way when our religions make no sense, make false claims, display hypocrisy and advocate stupidity or barbarism. And when they do, we make (and accept) excuses for them that nobody would make and accept for anything other than a religion.
Yet, despite all these grand efforts, we can not get our religions to explain why life exists.
Religions are man-made and explanations are beyond the realm of mankind. Maybe that’s why some religions claim their holy books are the word of God or dictated by angels.
So we need faith. To a believer, this is natural. To an atheist it’s a cop out.
To an atheist, all religions are like believing in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or rubbing the belly on the Buddha amulet. But worse. The fact that religions are so profoundly flawed would be fine – indeed quaint – if they were as benign as the tooth fairy myth, but the fact that they control, extort and wage war makes them the ultimate liability for mankind.
A person of faith would say that disbelief is the ultimate liability for mankind.
Personally, I’m a bit lost. Being a human, I can’t understand life. Being a rational thinker, I can’t accept the claptrap explanations offered by religions and I won’t be cowed by fear, into replacing logic with faith.
I can’t say that God exists or doesn’t exist.
I just can’t think of a reason why he would exist (or create us if he did). I also can’t imagine why we are here if he doesn’t exist.
All I know is that we can’t explain life. To me, this logically means that we aren’t meant to try and that we shouldn’t trust any religion or prophet that does try.
If, as a result of my reaching this conclusion, an angry and vengeful God is going to condemn me to an eternity of hell, then that’s sad. I’d apologise, but for offending him, but he shouldn’t he given me a brain to think with, he shouldn’t have allowed so many religions to form and he should have given more concrete signs of his existence.
Other than that, I value the fact that I am free from the control and claptrap of religion and can see life without its filters.
If I’m missing something, then please fill in the blanks, God.
uptight on August 29, 2007 at 12:46 AM
After considering this post and thread for a while tonight, your comment finally prompted me to respond.
First of all, thank you for the polite tone you used to express your thoughts.
I have arrived at the conclusion, in agreement with you, that Mother Teresa never LOST her faith. That instead, she was sorely tested. To walk in her shoes is simply unimaginable, and for Christopher Hitchens, whom I admire, to blithely “welcome” her “into the atheist fold” comes across as offensively opportunistic.
Now, Guardian, here’s what you said that I wish to dispute, in the most respectful way:
Brief, unforgettable, and indescribable moments of joy are also experienced by atheists. So indescribable, in fact, that I refer to them as “Its”. As in, perhaps, It Just Is, and there is no language that can describe the sense that floods out all other thoughts and concerns – all but just situational/functional instinctual awareness. See — my language doesn’t suffice, but I trust you understand.
These are rare states of being, certainly not subject to be summoned or willed into being. They just happen. One time, to me, in heavy traffic, the reason it was so unforgettable. So when you say, atheists will never know what that feels like because they simply choose not to, I must propose to you that choice is not a part of it. I believe it is a gift bestowed on a percentage, that will be recognized by those who have it, and inscrutable to those who do not, regardless of their religion or complete lack of religious faith.
RushBaby on August 29, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Silliness.
Everyone, at one time or another, doubts the existence of God. And everyone at one time or another, prays to him.
Any religious person who says he has never doubted his own belief, is a liar.
Any Atheist who says he has never doubted his own belief, is a liar.
Case closed. No need for “intellectuals”.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Montana on August 29, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I had already clicked on that link. I did take a closer look at many of the articles.
ColtsFan on August 29, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Donahue is the Washington Generals of high minded debate. He is a stereotype who exists to make liberals feel they are right about conservatives and the religious. It really hurts me to see the Catholic church’s defense left to people like him. It reminds me of the church’s ham-handed attempt to defuse the pedophile priest scandal.
What I want to see is Buckley vs. Hitchens. Perhaps Bill is not feeling up to it but if he is it would be a debate for the ages.
Bill C on August 29, 2007 at 1:17 AM
I understand where you come from. I used to call those “glimpses”. They were a part of my coming into faith in the first place. I’m glad you recognize it as a gift. Many don’t. A gift by definition is something that is given by one to another. Perhaps you believe more than you are consciously aware of.
As to the above blockquote, I achieve that “state of being” in varying degrees every time I pray in earnest for the sake of someone else.
Guardian on August 29, 2007 at 1:22 AM
JayHaw Phrenzie,
Feel free to take a look at some of the scholarly books which have shaped my differing position. You may find them interesting. I posted them
here towards the bottom half of the comments section with the html Amazon.com links.
Stuart C. Hackett, Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim: A Philosophical and Critical Apologetic
J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig,
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian World View
Gordon H. Clark, Christian View of Men and Things
Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and its Critics
Gordon H. Clark, In Defense of TheologyGordon H. Clark, Logic
Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Science and Belief in God
Gordon H. Clark, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark
Gordon H. Clark, Reconsidering Ayn Rand
J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City
J.P. Moreland, Christianity and the Nature of Science
Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy
These scholarly books are not intended to “convert you.” That is not the purpose. But they do set the stage for a rational discussion that is intellectually tough, while being fair to both sides.
ColtsFan on August 29, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Personally, I am not Catholic because I subscribe to “Scripture Alone,” position, etc.
But Buckley is a serious intellectual giant. He writes well, and he is tough.
ColtsFan on August 29, 2007 at 1:25 AM
jman said
Leaving aside the “miracle of creation” – that can be explained in many ways that don’t involve God – the only absolute, tangible proof that God offers us comes from the bible (and the Koran, if you believe in it).
In the bible God publicly proves his existence in quite a few ways. Off the top of my head:
1) He spoke through via a burning Bush – which although ludicrous, probably gives better reception than Skype.
2) He turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt. A creative punishment for the sin of “looking back”, but strange when you consider that people like Pol Pot and Idi Amin lived their entire lives without being turned into any kind of condiment.
3) He gave the Egyptians boils, locusts & other assorted insects. He rained fiery hail stones and frogs on them and turned their rivers into blood. He condemned the place to darkness, gave the cattle diseases and murdered their first born sons. Nice, Classy. He had the power to do all that, but not to – you know – leave them alone and just airlift the Jews or something.
4) He parted the sea for the departing slaves (and offed a whole load more Egyptians who were chasing them).
5) Through the medium of his son, he turned water into wine and fed 5000 people on a few fishes and loaves. David Copperfield walked through the Great Wall of China!
6) His son appeared to a select group of people after he died. David Blaine was frozen in Ice.
7) He murdered the populations of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim. Towns which don’t seem any more outrageous than Las Vegas.
God’s tangible proof seems to be largely a) killing people (sometimes entire populations) for petty offenses b) bizarre punishments for Egyptians and c) some magic tricks.
The ultimate reason you give for believing in him, seems to be the threat of the cruel punishment he has in store for us unbelievers, after we die.
With the track record shown in the bible, this seems a fairly logical assumption, but then if he wanted us to believe because we were scared crapless, why go to all the bother of making us in the first place? To create a few unbelievers to torture?
I can’t believe a compassionate God would a) do all that cold hearted crap ascribed to him in the bible and b) condemn those who use the logic he built into mankind and reach the reasonable assumption that he doesn’t exist.
Now if God proved his existence in the modern era by doing something nice or useful – making it rain chocolate that doesn’t make you fat or smiting jihadists, wasps and rap music, speaking via cable television – then I’d believe.
I may even believe if he didn’t use fear to make me believe. It’s just…spending eternity with a sadistic, petty meglomaniac doesn’t seem much of an alternative to the hell we are threatened with.
uptight on August 29, 2007 at 1:25 AM
I still haven’t learned to reference a past html link so that a particular comment pulls up, instead of the beginning of a long comment thread. My bad. The books with the Amazon.com links are located at the referenced link above at..
ColtsFan on August 29, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Personally, until I realized the depth of the problem (my problem), then I never fully appreciated the magnitude of the solution.
ColtsFan on August 29, 2007 at 1:32 AM
sorry – it’s too early in the morning for me to decode that. What do you mean?
uptight on August 29, 2007 at 1:38 AM
JayHaw Phrenzie:
Your critical review and opposing comments are welcome here.
“You are invited to join a group discussion of Greg Bahnsen’s book, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. A few of us have committed to reading and discussing two chapters a week. Bahnsen’s chapters are very short, often only four pages long. But he does a very good job at presenting concepts in a concise, readable, engaging style. This book is a classic read in the field of Presuppositional apologetics.”
“No prior reading experience with the book or author is required. My intention is to read a few chapters, stop, and then make some reflective comments for group discussion. Then we will jointly begin the next couple of chapters, etc. We will start the book discussion in about three weeks in order to allow everyone interested to purchase the book. You are encouraged to return to this thread to post your comments about the book.”
ColtsFan on August 29, 2007 at 1:39 AM
I meant that, until I fully understood the signifance of my “sin problem” (and I am now speaking in an autobiographical, existential sense), then I never really even appreciated nor even grasped the significance of the solution in Christ alone.
You earlier made some interesting points. You write, “I may even believe if he didn’t use fear to make me believe. It’s just…spending eternity with a sadistic, petty meglomaniac doesn’t seem much of an alternative to the hell we are threatened with.”
I think previously, for me, religion was just religion. Until I understood the significance of my problem existentially, then I never understood the need, let alone, desire to study the Bible carefully and apply it to my life.
I am just waxing existentially right now. Thanks for your comments earlier.
ColtsFan on August 29, 2007 at 1:47 AM
I glanced at the first 20 “proofs”. They are really poor. I can’t imagine anyone seriously using those to try to “convert” someone to atheism.
Rose on August 29, 2007 at 1:54 AM
Of course, I have nothing to lose by believing in God – and if I believe correctly I will avoid hell
…it’s just there’s so many religions out there it’s kind of a lottery anyway.
Suppose I pick, I dunno, the Jehova’s Witnesses and it turns out that Mormonism was the right choice. All that wasted effort, for nothing.
Pascal was wrong. Betting on God’s existence is not straightforward and you do lose something – a life free from the shackles of religion.
uptight on August 29, 2007 at 1:56 AM
Uptight, are you Christopher Hitchens?
MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 1:58 AM
I know exactly how you feel because I’ve been there myself. God defies all known logic. I simply don’t understand why God does (and doesn’t do) things the way that he does. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it was MY inability to comprehend God that was the problem. I simply expected God’s actions to conform with MY standards on what was right or wrong. The truth is, no one knows why God does what he does.
Guardian on August 29, 2007 at 2:02 AM
This has been, by far, one of the most ridiculous threads I’ve read in quite a while.
Jesus said Christians would be persecuted for their beliefs. Can anyone out there denounce his statement?
Most of the time, I tolerate the arguments of Christ’s prophesies and subsequent miracles v. him actually living; a majority of atheists (or agnostics) at least acknowledge he lived, as documented, but merely dispute his divination and performance of miracles.
And yes,
in the Scriptures Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead; besides defeating death himself (three days later, he resurrected).
Look: Obviously, some of us agree and some of us disagree. I think this whole debate over who’s right and wrong is absurd.
Neither will convince the other, ever. Though Christians have a ’spiritual duty’, or ‘need’ to ’save’ others, there are some who just can’t believe in what they can’t see. Hence the term “faith”.
And yes; for those non-believers out there, whom I respect every bit as much as those who do, doubt is or has been in each of you.
As a Christian all my life, I’ve strayed many times.
I’ve doubted, denounced, and even cursed Him.
I’ve even committed criminal offenses.
At times when I’ve been robbed; viciously attacked by an angry mob; hit & run on my motorcycle (later finding the assailant, only to find out he fled as a result of believing I was “Dead” due to the perceived damage and crash that totaled my bike, without so much as the police even pressing charges other than a citation for “Failure to Render Aid” and “Fleeing the Scene of and Accident”); I certainly had cause, at least in my mind, to question the existence of God and why he/she/it would allow such things to happen to me…
I’m clearly a sinner, and so are we all. Do I think I have all the answers? Not even close. I’m no saint, preacher or role model; but do these things make me any less of a Christian? To be one merely indicates a dedication of one’s life to TRY to be Christ-LIKE, not Christ Himself. None of us is perfect, or right, or worthy of judging the other.
This one’s a no-brainer. The winner of the thread is…
My sentiments exactly.
nationspatriotcom on August 29, 2007 at 2:06 AM
Donohue debating Hitchens academically is silly he’s out of his league.
Although Hitchens is right, to an Atheist an explanation of faith as a believer is just so much white noise and yet as Donohue says, is perfectly understood by the believer.
So far as Mother Theresa is concerned in my opinion they are both correct to at least a certain degree.
She obviously lost her faith at least for some time and that can’t be taken lightly, but she continued her belief even under the very heavy yolk she carried.
Did she become Atheist? I doubt that, did the extreme burden she carried and the horribleness she witnessed cause her to doubt? Yes. Did she go with God? I hope so.
Speakup on August 29, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Madalyn Murray O’Haire -like the articulate and ameniable Mr. Hitchens, was at one time an out-spoken atheist, but I’m sure she’s changed her position by now. At the risk of offending my Roman Catholic friends, I’m sure Mother Theresa, had she met the ex-priest Martin Luther instead of the Archbishop of Calcutta. She might have received the help, as Martin Luther did, that experiencing and enjoying a living relationship with Christ is not to be found in empty rituals, the Eucharist, Liturgy and Sacrements but simply contacting Christ through our regenerated human spirit.
Texas Mike on August 29, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Eventually I came to the conclusion that it was MY inability to comprehend God that was the problem. I simply expected God’s actions to conform with MY standards on what was right or wrong. The truth is, no one knows why God does what he does.
Guardian on August 29, 2007 at 2:02 AM
If you are looking for the explanation for something, first look to the simplest explanation as it is probably the correct one.
-Somebody or other
MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 2:13 AM
Coltsfan said
Religious experience is subjective, and I can’t climb inside your head, but if it took some major introspective revelation to make you turn to the bible, how do you know that this experience isn’t coloring your assessment.
People can read anything into anything. 9/11 conspiracy theorists prove this. They look at the evidence and, because of their perspective is skewed by their problems, it “makes sense” to them that the government flew the planes into the WTC.
People who don’t suffer from their problems, see exactly the same evidence and form more reasonable conclusions.
I don’t know what your sin is. If it’s a big, huge. real sin (like killing someone), then perhaps the “forgiveness” offered in the bible, gives you comfort and allows you to cope with what you did.
It doesn’t mean it’s true, though.
uptight on August 29, 2007 at 2:15 AM
This has been, by far, one of the most ridiculous threads I’ve read in quite a while.
nationspatriotcom on August 29, 2007 at 2:06 AM
Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it.
- Confucius
MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 2:18 AM
MB4 said
No. But I am British and an atheist.
Perhaps, not as extreme as Hitch. I believe that some religions have got good things to offer and I’ve even heard a plausible explanation for the universe from one.
I also might believe in God if a reasonable case were to be made. I’ve just never heard one.
uptight on August 29, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Dude. You can do better than that. You are usually good at the quote game.
Guardian on August 29, 2007 at 2:22 AM
OK, my turn to guess…
Are you Richard Dawkins?
:)
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 29, 2007 at 2:23 AM
I think he’s trying for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 29, 2007 at 2:25 AM
lol
No. I’m nobody famous.
yet…
uptight on August 29, 2007 at 2:26 AM
uptight on August 29, 2007 at 2:20 AM
I am also an atheist, probably for much the same reasons as you, but I keep this in mind, as I think that you probably also do, although I’m not certain about Hitchens:
The more like Christ a Christian is the better person he likely is. The more like Mohammad a Muslim is the worse person he likely is. So I guess we should all want Christians to be good at being Christians and Muslims to be poor at being Muslims. Frankly the best Muslims seem to be those who are not very good at being Muslims.
MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 2:28 AM
Checked that site out. You know why nobody cares what atheists think? Because of tortured logic, cherry-picking, and non-sequiters in sites like the one you linked too. Atheists look foolish to believers because they operate from the premise they are right and then try and “prove” it to everyone. It would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic. Look at Christopher Hitchens. What motivation does he possibly have to try and co-opt Mother Teresa into the atheist hall of smug cynics? Probably because atheism has never done anything positive for the world when you ask anyone other than an atheist.
You are free to waste your time “proving” God does not exist. The rest of us will just sit back and laugh at you. Taking only the “Bible is repulsive” “proof,” you will notice how if killing people is SOP for violators of the ten commandmants, how no Christian leaders have ever called for the death of people who work on Sundays. It’s always interesting how atheists, after they finish telling us we’re a bunch of backwards dopes for beleiving in the divine, feel the need to interpret our religious texts for us. They always get it wrong, and interestingly enough they never do any self-referrent fact-checking.
More interesting is their “Jesus is a jerk” screed, where they assume Jesus is a hypocrite because he says “love your enemies,” then proceeds to tell them they can only attain immortal life through him. That must mean they define love only in terms of kindness. If they were to run into Tookie Williams, they would say that loving him would be sending hinm a bouquet of flowers instead of locking him up.
Finally, their whole “statistical proofs” regarding prayer flies in the face of every study that reports that the religious live longer, healthier lives.
Good job JayHaw Phrenzie, you’ve bought into atheist propaganda and believe in it, dare I say, religiously. You accept it on faith, even though if you applied even the basic principles of logic you and other athiests claim to hold so dear, you would see they are full of crock.
But you’re an atheist. Anything that criticizes God must be a fact; after all, atheists wrote it, and atheists are the only ones who know what happens in the afterlife. Just ask them! If I were to pick a word to describe you, I would choose gullible, not enlightened. The enlightened can see through deception, even when it is propagated by their side. You accept it blindly, just as long as it attacks a deity you don’t believe exists and that deity’s believers.
BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 2:29 AM
Too bad, I think number 21 would have convinced you.
J/K
You are a credit to your
religionmeme.JayHaw Phrenzie on August 29, 2007 at 2:30 AM
Are you Richard Dawkins?
:)
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 29, 2007 at 2:23 AM
If he is he needs to give up his belief in evolution and go with punctuated equilibrium. Much more logical.
MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 2:35 AM
Funny you should use this quote. Is this to suggest, contradictory to your previous postings, that you’ve opened your mind to something? Perhaps you’re seeing something with beauty that you never had before?
Maybe it’s the silly, “God’s MySpace Page” you referenced.
Thank you for solidifying my point. In attempting to be sarcastic on what I’m unable to see, you’ve shown that, unless some “God” proves something to you, despite your affection for philosophical (spiritual) words of wisdom, you’ll use a prophetic quote to legitimize what makes sense for BOTH sides of this debate.
MB4- Don’t take this (above OR below)as a personal attack; it’s not meant to be.
I like most of what you write on this site, and think you’re very witty (and no-doubt a Patriot like your father who fought in the war); I just can’t help but wonder whether or not he, while serving his country (and) in wartime against the JAPaneSe (remember that thread?), believed in a Creator while heroically facing down the enemy…
Can’t help but wonder: Where did he get his strength, courage and *gulp* faith to fight for what he believed was right, true and just??? – Just pondering this since the beginning of this thread, along with a few other thoughts, given the “Prove it to me” arguments spread on both sides throughout here.. which, again, is why I said, “This is ridiculous”..
nationspatriotcom on August 29, 2007 at 2:43 AM
I just can’t help but wonder whether or not he, while serving his country (and) in wartime against the JAPaneSe (remember that thread?), believed in a Creator while heroically facing down the enemy… Can’t help but wonder: Where did he get his strength, courage and *gulp* faith to fight for what he believed was right, true and just??? – Just pondering this since the beginning of this thread, along with a few other thoughts, given the “Prove it to me” arguments spread on both sides throughout here.. which, again, is why I said, “This is ridiculous”..
nationspatriotcom on August 29, 2007 at 2:43 AM
My father, who is still alive, was in Germany, not Japan. He was about to board a ship when Truman dropped the A-bombs,making that trip unneeded. He was on a 4 man patrol once, when during the “Battle of the Bulge” the patrol ran into a company of Germans and two were captured (both made it out alive, as did 98% of American captured by the Germans v. 50% captured by the Japaneses). I think that was about the main action that he saw.
I can not recall him ever saying anything about a God one way or the other. I guess the subject is of no interest to him. It is usually not to me either. I remember my mom saying that she thought that God was the Universe. He never went/goes to church. I am pretty sure that he is a non believer.
MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »