Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on October 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies.”
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
Im not a biblical literalist. I dont believe everything in the Bible to be true. I believe there are some falicies in there.
For example we are to believe that during passover a great cloud moved over the egyptians and killed all their first born. If you believe that then God is murdering innocent children because Pharoah wont let the Israelites go.
I dont think God would do that. I know the Bible was written by Men. True the do try and understand God but at times they fail. Thats why its important to read the bible and be critical of it. If you test your faith and it survives even the most critical of looks your faith grows stronger.
SO God gave you logic. Use it to find out truths and non truths
William Amos on October 29, 2007 at 1:53 AM
MB4,
My reference to the fallacy of universal negation incurred by atheism was not intended to sidetrack your questions.
Did you want to ask a second question?
ColtsFan on October 29, 2007 at 1:53 AM
I rest my case.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 1:54 AM
We may, in the future, have a separate discussion on the Old Testament.
Would you be interested in discussing general worldview type of questions now, instead of steering into Old Testament hermeneutic angles?
ColtsFan on October 29, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Not until you get the right answer to the first question. No helping him anyone.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Later maybe. Right now I’m in wise a$$ mode.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Okay.
But what would be the benefit to you or your worldview if I admit my ignorance of some questions.
I thought you wanted a philosophical discussion.
ColtsFan on October 29, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Okay.
But you are aware that late night non-philosophical discussions only lead to further hair loss on my part?
You do not want to cause me further pain, do you?
ColtsFan on October 29, 2007 at 2:05 AM
AP, do you really care what I believe and if so, why?
Connie on October 29, 2007 at 2:08 AM
MB4, and what case was that? It’s been fun but I have to make a lunch for my daughter for school tomorrow. ‘Night.
Rose on October 29, 2007 at 2:08 AM
You all have a good night.
ColtsFan on October 29, 2007 at 2:13 AM
Oy vey.
I don’t know what’s worse in this thread — the snarky atheists, the bad history, or the lousy theology.
/headache
Harpazo on October 29, 2007 at 2:29 AM
One of the many problems with that argument is then you are free to pick and choose what you prefer from God’s Word, as are others. Who’s to say which choices are the preferable ones? You end up with a lot of disagreement to which parts of the Bible are true and which aren’t. How can you count on salvation? How do you know Jesus is the Son of God? How do you know anything if the Bible isn’t the final word?
Proverbs 30:5&6
5 “Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Ordinary1 on October 29, 2007 at 2:45 AM
He’s long dead. And I believe people are getting mad at you for your terrible attitude. I’ve noticed that people like you make online discussion involving strong opinions impossible simply because you know that you can’t be smacked for being an a$$hat so you throw respect out the window.
Actually, your attitude is a good example of how people behave when there are no consequences. You could be polite like most the people talking to you, instead you choose to be a jerk because you know the people you make mad can’t do anything to you and you don’t believe in God, which means you don’t believe there will be any consequence for your poor behavior, therefore you say whatever you want and make no attempt to check yourself. All in all, you’re making an excellent example of what happens when people no longer believe there are consequences for their actions.
frost on October 29, 2007 at 2:57 AM
Both sides of this so-called debate are missing the boat. The so-called atheists are, IMHO, mainly reacting (while believing they are thinking) to obvious, gaping holes and irrationalities in traditional religious belief, while the so-called religious side holds tightly onto obvious absurdities mainly out of fear (fear of the consequences of thinking rationally for oneself about these things). As such, both sides are mainly beside the point.
Halley on October 29, 2007 at 3:22 AM
Didn’t Nietzsche say something very close to this? Something about the last man and his little pleasures. I think he might agree with Dalrymple.
John on October 29, 2007 at 3:47 AM
Even though I don’t believe atheists as a group are immoral, I have to agree with this comment’s assessment. I like AllahP because he’s honest about his atheism, is most of the time respectful of believers, and makes clear that truth is the only thing that matters to him (BTW Allah, speaking as a Catholic, you shouldn’t join the Catholic Church because you’re in “need of religious comfort,” you should join if and when you start to believe it teaches the TRUTH :) ).
I’d like to think so well of MB4 but I can’t unfortunately, mostly because it seems that all she can do is ridicule, be otherwise just plain rude, or else hide behind a quote from someone else, usually picking a snarky one. Don’t you have any serious, non-snark thoughts of your own? Those would be great to hear, for real. (And don’t hide again by calling me “mad”–you can see I’m not, as others weren’t.)
Hope you have a good day.
inviolet on October 29, 2007 at 7:39 AM
Allah’s Mom doesn’t know he tells people he’s an atheist.
peacenprosperity on October 29, 2007 at 7:41 AM
An atheist is nothing more than an arrogant self-absorbed twit who fancies themself smarter than you because they do not believe in what you do.
The essense of atheist “thought”: “I’m smarter than you because I don’t believe in God but you do!”
Atheists do not give one flying *&^% about their fellow man. They spit on the faith of the religious even though the religious do the most to help other people in need. They complain about the supposed “security blanket” of God while they firmly suck their thumb on the idea that God doesn’t exist, and therefore they never have to do anything beyond live their meaningless existence and die.
Maybe if atheists weren’t such vacuous slackers in the realm of charity and decency I’d care what they say, but otherwise they are literally nothing more than God’s lost children. No one cares how smart an atheist thinks he is because he stumbled upon “the truth” of God’s nonexistence.
Btw. MB4: Al Gore and Bill Clinton are fiction authors too.
BKennedy on October 29, 2007 at 7:42 AM
Existentialism has a place in theology and philosophy, but the current case of deconstructionism is what makes our culture and souls so ill.
Hening on October 29, 2007 at 7:50 AM
I fancy myself an agnostic. Atheism, at least for me, is just too extremely void of any sense of consequence either in this life or the next.
SouthernGent on October 29, 2007 at 8:15 AM
To assume that man can understand all that exists is uncommon hubris. In essence it says: “If I can’t comprehend/find/prove it then it doesn’t exist!”.
Is it really so hard to believe that God who values faith requires that you come to Him of your own will and not led there with a trail of scientific bread crumbs?
Physics recognizes three main aspects of our physical world: Time, Energy and Matter. If you read the Bible those are the first three things mentioned in Genesis.
DavidM on October 29, 2007 at 8:21 AM
Your views seem somewhat like mine. Although I don’t know if I’m an agnostic, or a “gnostic.” These atheist/theist threads are fascinating to me as I was raised in an effectively “secular” family. We simply didn’t talk about religion, or God, or spirituality. As such, I don’t feel strongly that I have either a “house” religion to defend, or disavow. None of that means I’m not intensely interested in religions, and certainly, as I became older, I educated myself about them. But the perspective of not being raised religious gives me a take on these debates that I don’t see here that often. It’s one of the very few areas in my life that I discuss, but don’t bring much emotion to.
I still question man’s purpose, and consciously question life’s meaning, and I am still curious about the God/No God question, the “which religion” question, etc. But I still feel like I have no horse in the race. Sometimes, the atheists here sound like me, until they get all bent out of shape about religion and believers. Sometimes the religious people sound like me, until they tell me that God’s words are literally written in the Bible, that people go to heaven, and stuff like that. Personally, IMHO, for someone to get worked up over being an atheist is weird– it just sounds like you’re running from something that was formerly imposed on you. And for someone to be a militant atheist because you were raised without religion/God is weird to me too. Anyone, raised in any faith, or raised without, ought to be searching to make their own lives meaningful. I don’t care that much how they do it, so long as they try to do it.
As an aside, since the majority do have religious belief, they constitute a powerful group who influence world events. If you’re going to self-identify as Christian, or Jewish, Muslim, whatever, there’s a personal obligation I think towards seeing that the group accomplishes good, and stands up to evil.
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 9:26 AM
What actual truth?
Atheist: “There is no God, no heaven, no hell”
Since there is no way to know that, calling it “actual truth” instead of faith is either ironic, dishonest or both.
It has been seriously suggested that for every real universe there are many virtual realities created by advanced civilizations. Thus odds are any reality one finds oneself in is more likely virtual.
Use that concept for this one point: An entity in a virtual reality can make no claims about other realities based on evidence or lack of it. It would be like the aliens in Halo discussing the “existence” of mutants in Bio Shock.
boris on October 29, 2007 at 9:36 AM
I’m a slow reader, could everyone please repeat their posts? Thanks.
Doug on October 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Actual truth is facts that can be verified empirically. I can’t prove there’s no God. You can’t prove there is one. In the absence of evidence, we assume something doesn’t exist. Otherwise you should believe that I have a little man living in my belly like Kuato in “Total Recall” just because I say I do.
This “but what is truth, really?” argument from Christians is really remarkable considering that most of the time you guys are railing against liberals for precisely that sort of squishy relativism.
Allahpundit on October 29, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Wouldn’t the many examples of atheists giving time or money to charitable causes disprove that? I might follow a line of reasoning that said that “a belief in God makes us all better people” but an argument that “a lack of belief makes us all misanthropes” is too easily countered.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 9:46 AM
you should believe that I have a little man living in my belly like Kuato in “Total Recall” just because I say I do.
I believe you do AP.
Am I actually here? Is this reality or some other state of existance?
Babs on October 29, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Not really. Absence of evicence is not evidence of absence.
There is no evidence of other life forms or intelligence in the universe either. Do we assume there is none? If men land on mars will they take bio hazard precautions or not?
boris on October 29, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Sorry to say but you’re totally wrong here, AP. “Actual truth” exists whether you can verify or prove it or not.
Two thousand years ago no one could prove that we were just one planet circling one star in one galaxy among billions. Does that mean that those other galaxies, stars and planets didn’t exist?
Even today there are many things about even the physical world that we can’t prove or show empirically, yet those things still exist.
Actual truth is self sufficient; it exists on its own. Even if some of us don’t yet believe in it.
12thman on October 29, 2007 at 10:02 AM
If that’s directed at me you have made an inaccurate assumption. According to the Hitch standard I am an atheist too. Jesus hasn’t visited or spoken to me directly for many years. (Well actually ever).
boris on October 29, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Hey AP, your comment reminded me of someone else who was wondering about truth.
As for evidence, the most powerful for me is the change in my heart and in my life that faith in God through Jesus has brought. The Disciples were willing to die in horrible ways rather than “admit” that they removed Jesus from the grave. His tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers and yet Jesus was not found in the tomb. He IS alive!
Ultimately, it comes down to faith. Hebrews 11 says without faith it is impossible to please God. Since God is so powerful and so loving, I want to be in the God pleasing business!
Ordinary1 on October 29, 2007 at 10:05 AM
I think you’re mixing up “evidence” and “proof” in your first paragraph there. I would say that “true” Christians (not those who just are Christian because their family was, etc.) look at the evidence, and it’s obvious to them that there is a God. It’s not “proof”, but there are plenty of people who believe the complexity of life, molecular machines, our unique place in the universe, etc. etc. are evidence. As for what is “science”, well that changes all the time. They move things from the oldest to the newest in geological time because actual study made it not fit old Earth/evolution belief, etc. Old long held and taught “science” is constantly being tossed out the window… even though, again, it had been taught as “science” for far longer. So, what is often used as “evidence”, turns out not to be, on down the road.
At any rate, I have to point out, with regard to having something living in your stomach “because you say so”, that this is the best argument gay accepters around here can ever come up with “why would they choose to be gay”, is always the argument. That’s not proof, nor is it evidence. There are any number of behaviors that one may claim to be compelled to do, but the fact that they do them isn’t evidence that they’re really compelled.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Two points here: First, you are stating a creed here. Second, perhaps the evidence for God’s existence is not in the places you are looking. You can’t use a sledgehammer to turn a screw; likewise, your brain and senses may be the wrong tools to find a spiritual reality.
mikeyboss on October 29, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Throw the Atheists down the well! Burn them! Burn them! Our loving God demands it!
ronsfi on October 29, 2007 at 10:29 AM
It’s a choice. Adam plunged man into darkness. Jesus came to bring light and salvation. If you don’t choose God, what is He supposed to do? He already sent His Son to DIE for all of us. God didn’t create robots. We are all free to choose.
Ordinary1 on October 29, 2007 at 10:34 AM
So since you can’t verify it empirically it can’t be “actual truth”. As you say it is an “assumption” ie faith.
boris on October 29, 2007 at 10:44 AM
When does one choose to be straight? For me it was when the girls in class started having curves. Since then women have absorbed an abundance of my waking thoughts.
If someone reached puberty and found themselves attracted to the same sex then treating them with scorn is wrong.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Creation screams that there is a creator! The Moon being 400 times smaller than the Sun and 400 times closer making total eclipses possible is just one “coincidence” that we enjoy here on Earth. Worth considering.
Ordinary1 on October 29, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Ordinary1 on October 29, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Feel better? Than everyone else that is…
ronsfi on October 29, 2007 at 11:02 AM
No. I’m no better than anyone else. I’ve managed to screw my life up more than once. I am grateful that God cares for me and never gives up on me. So it can be for anyone who chooses Him. It’s not about being better, it’s about being reconciled.
Ordinary1 on October 29, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Pathetic. No one “chooses” to be straight, they are because they are. Because we have male and female and it’s not a coincidence that each gender has uniquely designed reproductive parts that work together. Not female on female, not male on male. BTW, you people always use that argument, and it never makes any sense… not only that, it was a total diversion. I only mentioned it to begin with, because it’s a stupid argument for the “gay is natural” side. To say “why would they choose to be gay and put themselves through that”, is stupid and a non-argument, yet it’s the best your side can do.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 11:27 AM
thus my 1 sentence quote, early in the thread, AP thought was so Ironic.
one’s worldview, centered around final reality paticularly, and then take that worldview out to its Logical conclusion. Atheist do not do that, most of them anyway.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Ordinary1 on October 29, 2007 at 11:13 AM
It’s about being deluded.
ronsfi on October 29, 2007 at 11:32 AM
What is wrong with you people, seriously? Atheism should be so freeing to you. Why do you give a sh**, at all? Why not go out and drink, smoke and f*** and just live hard until you die? It doesn’t matter, right? Nothing “matters”.
Yet you’re such an angry douche, you come here with your militancy:
You need to take a look in the mirror, guy, and figure out why such a free person would trouble themselves with people who believe in God. You seem like the type who’s running from something.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Based on sound science (but no actual evidence) many conclude that life on other worlds is somewhere between a strong likelyhood and a near certainty.
One might argue that abduction stories and UFO sightings are “evidence” one way or the other, but trying to use the Hale Bopp cult to discredit SETI research would simply be self parody at maximum irony.
boris on October 29, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Wow, just wow. What a terrific article. It’s a keeper.
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Hmm Iam an “angry douche?” Believe me it’s no trouble. I set em’ up…you knock em’ down. Thanks for your incisive pshychological analysis and for your loving example of the joyous christian spirit.
Signed, Angry Douche.
ronsfi on October 29, 2007 at 11:56 AM
P.S. My Militancy sends it’s regards.
ronsfi on October 29, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I don’t have a side. I’m an individual with unalienable rights. I don’t have to petition you for my rights to love my wife or prove that my attraction for a woman who is tall and brunette is scientific. If a man loves a woman of another race, even with “one drop” of another race, it has been considered unnatural, against God’s design and illegal in some states until 1967.
If your opinion on interracial marriage doesn’t matter. Why should your opinion on two other adults living their life matter? They pay their taxes and are entitled to liberty.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 11:58 AM
That couldn’t be further from the truth. The idea that there is life on other planets exists ONLY because the theory of evolution is assumed (despite out truly ridiculous it is). But there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest there is life anywhere else. NONE. Yes, every 6 months or so they claim to have discovered “evidence” for “water”, which in an evolutionist’s mind instantly means “life evolved!” Not that it’s true, but even if one were to buy in to evolution, it takes A LOT more than just the existence of water. But almost every article on these “evidences of liquid water on Mars”, etc. that we always see, neglects to mention that the very existence of water is far from showing that you’re going to get life from non-life without any intelligent intervention. That said, you don’t ever hear about these “evidences” being tossed a few months after they were hyped, do you? I promise you, they almost always are flushed a relatively short time after they spend a week dominating headlines, but we never hear about it.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 11:59 AM
You’re pathetically predictable. I was tempted to pre-write your response for you, almost word for word, exactly what you said, because I knew you’d have no reaction to anything I actually said. Just more diversion.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Does all that empty space argue for an intelligent design? It seems unlike any engineer I’ve worked with.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Wow, speaking of diversion… Boy, you really wanna take this off topic don’t you. Look, I can’t bottom line it for you people enough: Male and female and their unique reproductive parts that work together ARE NOT just a coincidence, therefore using “when do you choose to be straight” and “why would a person ever choose to be gay” or “they say they’re gay, so they must be”, are never arguments for people naturally being gay. You can believe it all you want, and you spend your time being concerned with making sure people abandon common sense, but that doesn’t mean you’ve shown it.
(FYI, I’m not responding to your “interracial” thing, because it was beyond idiotic and has nothing to do with anything. I don’t care what “some states” think… States also allow abortion, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Some states give licenses to illegals. That doesn’t make it right. That interracial diversion is about as liberal a tactic as one could ever use, and you should be embarrassed. We’re all one human race, but we are male and female, and sex and it’s purpose are not “coincidence”.)
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:05 PM
That sounds like a great idea. You just write both sides and that way you always win.
You would be better served spending your energy reconciling your history with your fantasy.
ronsfi on October 29, 2007 at 12:07 PM
As yet science has not been able to copy existing life using non living materials. Apparently they are getting close though. If that happens sound science would conclude that life is a natural process based on physical properties of matter and not some kind of supernatural “magic”.
One can argue the probabilities of intelligent intervention, and those same calculations are part of SETI, but once it is shown that life is a natural physical process it most certainly can happen by accident anywhere.
boris on October 29, 2007 at 12:07 PM
sorry I’m late getting back to this thread. I can only speak personally as anyone else can. But I take VERY SERIOUSLY the concept that people should not judge other people. It is not man’s place to judge. Judgment is God’s domain alone. While I believe Jesus is Lord and the path to heaven. I don’t know what God has in store for those who don’t believe. The foundation to Christianity and salvation is ‘Who do you believe Jesus IS?’
ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 12:08 PM
One could make an argument that it does, by talking about our unique spot in the void, or perhaps the fact that it allows us to study, etc. etc. But none of that really matters, and is yet another diversion from you. I never claimed that “empty space” argued for intelligent design. I didn’t even come close to doing that. I simply responded to someone else’s SPECIFIC comment, that there is “sound science” suggesting there would be life elsewhere, when this is simply untrue.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Riiiiiiight, so the most intelligent scientists in the world, with billions of dollars and high tech equipment at their disposal can’t create life from non-life (though they promise they’re close), and yet somehow (even if they do), their INTELLIGENT DESIGN that went in to CREATING said life, will suggest that billions of years ago “nothing” once “evolved” the same thing they just struggled to create, with all of their wisdom and resources? Lol.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Thanks, but you’ve exceeded your diversion limits for the day. See ya.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM
LOL!
ronsfi on October 29, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Of course sound science suggests there is life elsewhere in the universe. There is no sound science against the observation that life exists here and that it happened without intelligent intervention.
If you wish to claim that observation is “unsound” based on probability, that is a very premature POV given current state of life-science.
boris on October 29, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Glad you feel that way. A long time ago, not everyone agreed with you. I’m glad they changed their minds. In other countries at other times people have been persecuted because of what the “choose” to religiously believe. Obviously, that is wrong.
Not interested in taking it off topic since “the existence of God” is a more interesting conversation to me than “gay rights”. However, you brought it up before I did and I’m going to respond since I’ve been helped in business by some exceptional gay people and because I think being free to marry the person we love is fundamental to the proposition of liberty.
Common sense too often is diluted with conventional wisdom. I don’t think we are bound by nature in our exercise of morals, love or charity.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:20 PM
with all of their wisdom and resources
Even with all his wisdom and resources it would have been impossible for Leonardo Da Vinci to design, let alone build, a laptop computer.
Guess that proves they don’t exist.
boris on October 29, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Do you agree that limiting and restricting ‘actual truth’ to “what can be verified empirically” constrains and rules out in principle a whole host of things which we do know about reality? Your unrealistic criterion above makes a lot of things we know impossible.
This is correct, referring to the fallacy of universal negation.
The Christian theist argues from the impossibility of the contrary. This is just an application of Modus Tollens.
(A) If atheism is true, (B) then the laws of logic must be material or are rooted in convention.
Not (B)
Therefore, Not A.
That is the Christian position.
Atheism cannot account for the laws of logic.
Christian theism is the only coherent worldview that can account (rationally justify) the immaterial laws of logic.
Epistemological relativism is bad and should be avoided regardless of the source.
ColtsFan on October 29, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Nope. We observe life. We (well, actually not most of us, but “mainstream science”) ASSUMES that this life evolved. Then it is assumed that life exists elsewhere, based on the original assumption. Yet their pathetic, repeated failed attempts with the “signs of liquid water!” have turned out to be wishful thinking (which isn’t science, even if it’s published in science journals), continue to fall flat. Sure, the general public is slowly being swayed with the “signs of life on Mars” LIES in the headlines, but it is still not science, and again, often these “science” are later proven to be not what they first assumed… it just doesn’t get the coverage.
Well, I’m not talking about “conventional wisdom”. Conventional wisdom now says that I’m supposed to accept gays and that they’re normal. FYI, I don’t treat them any differently, but in an anonymous venue such as this, I will certainly not allow the secularized “anything goes” culture force me to accept something that is clearly wrong.
I can only hope that you don’t get “helped in business” by pedophiles at some point.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM
It is an interesting question, and not at all a diversion in a thread on atheism. The emptiness of the universe is bothersome from a design standpoint. It is also bothersome from a evolutionary standpoint in that the size and age of the universe is large enough that randomness should have created life elsewhere.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM
You must be missing the point, because that makes absolutely no sense, and is in no way an argument to what I said.. Perhaps you worded it wrong? No one claims laptops evolved, dude. They are CLEARLY built by intelligent design, and no one would deny this. And while you brought it up, life is INFINITELY more complex than a laptop, by the way. Seriously though, rethink your comment… First of all, Da Vinci preceded laptops. Second, no one claims laptops “arose” from nothing, etc. etc. That isn’t even “apples and oranges”… It’s “apples and….. control top pantyhose”
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Question:
If the above is correct, what should we do when the philosophy of science crumbles to the ground, after the adoption of the above rigid, strong empiricist methodology?
Much of what we know and learn in science does not come from empirical observation.
ColtsFan on October 29, 2007 at 12:33 PM
A pedophile commits a crime directly against victim. Who is the criminal victim of a gay relationship?
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM
You’re right on that, it’s not a diversion at all, in general… but as a specific reply to my comment (which was a specific reply to someone else’s comment) it didn’t make sense, and diverted, without actually reacting to what I said. It’s not an unimportant point, I just was bothered that it was supposed to be a reply to me, when it is it’s own topic, not tied to what I had said.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Chiming in as a Christian who believes in evolution. (not as the source of life but as a part of the procreation process)
Christians who deny evolution would do well to clearly state what it is they are denying.
also
That made me laugh.
1- Are you sayiing the engineers you know would design a better universe than God?
2- If there were human beings literally stacked on top of each other filling the entire universe guess what the universe would still be? Mostly empty space.
If you can’t even understand the basics of what humans have been able to observe about the physical univese, how do you suppose to understand the reason God does what He must do?
12thman on October 29, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I have been helped tremendously by gay people as well in business. However it is a leap to go from that to saying – well they should be allowed to ‘marry’ (a religious institution) whoever they love.
You mean numbers of wives? You mean ONLY persons? I’m sure that people ‘love’ certain animals too.
I don’t say that gay people should be punished. But I think that there needs to be a standard set up in the government that promotes a stable and secure family. That is the only way to create a successful society. If family means nothing then society is in trouble.
ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Sorry dedalus, box ya in:
For starters, the simple “attraction” isn’t a crime, but that doesn’t excuse sickos.
Anyway, on to the real point…
It is a type of conventional wisdom that has decided “18 is an adult” (of course age of consent is 16 and 17 in many states)… But plenty of 12-15 year olds are certainly capable of being part of 2 people creating a child, and do in some cultures, and did in the past in many others. It is just a recent societal phenomenon or a “conventional wisdom” sort of thing that makes people of this age “children” and off limits. There are plenty of pedophiles that would say EXACTLY what gays do. That they are born attracted to who they claim to be attracted to. At least in the case of straight pedophiles, they’d have more of a case than gay adults.
That said, I don’t by any means condone the behavior. But I can foresee a time in the very near future where “pedophile rights” become the debate. The only reason they are different is because of what the age of consent is, as dictated by “conventional wisdom” about maturity.
None of that really matters though… The point was that you claim to defend gays, simply because they helped you in business… not because there is any evidence that they are really gay. So, my point stands, I hope that you don’t have some nice pedophiles help you in business some day, because if they’re nice guys, and you haven’t seen them do anything harmful, but they tell you that they’re born this way, etc. etc. then you’ll be forced to defend them too.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Sorry, I assumed you could follow the train of your own thoughts …
Here is a more complete quote for your benefit:
See the point was not about “evolve”, it was about “create”.
Make sense now? Even Leonardo could not create a laptop. Does that prove they don’t exist?
boris on October 29, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Sure. I know engineers who use their intellects to think about what they’d do. I also know religious people who use their intellects to comprehend the intention of God. Both seem challenging.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Again, you’re still not making any sense.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Anyway, have fun guys… I haven’t eaten anything all day and I’m getting light headed…. My leftover Chinese is beckoning me!
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Social conventions are important and must be continually argued over (e.g., a woman’s place is in the home or 21 is the right drinking age). To me “conventional wisdom” is a shared opinion based on observation but not examined scientifically–however, it isn’t a defined term.
You didn’t address my point which is pedophilia takes away the rights of another person in a way that gay relationships among adults do not.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Well speaking as a Christian and an engineer, dedalus, I know that I couldn’t create this Universe.
I doubt I could even create a drop of water, starting from scratch. The engineers you know must be brilliant.
12thman on October 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Again, I don’t condone the behavior, I am speaking for the sake of argument… but I did address it, you just missed it. These “children” are only “children” because of (modern) “conventional wisdom”, which is what makes them incapable of “consenting”. If the “child” label is gone, they can consent, therefore a “pedophile” is no longer “taking away” anyone’s rights. Are you mixing up “pedophile” and “child molestor”? A pedophile might just claim to be attracted to adolescent girls, and might have never done anything physically with them without them consenting… which again, isn’t possible under law, which is dictated by “conventional wisdom” and common sense.
(For anyone who tries to jump in and pull some drive-by BS, please don’t read this as an individual comment, it requires that you’ first read this one:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/28/quote-of-the-day-137/#comment-756521
Okay, now it’s lunch time.
RightWinged on October 29, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Some scientist decided that they were gonna challenge God in a man creating contest. Being gratious, they allowed God to go first. So, God scooped up some dirt, molded it and breathed life in to man. Now it was the scientists turn. They scooped up some dirt and God said, “Hey, wait a minute. Make your own dirt.”
Have a nice day :-)
Ordinary1 on October 29, 2007 at 1:03 PM
No, but since the time of the Enlightenment we separated science from natural philosophy, and within the scientific method the use of the metaphysical is a cheat.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 1:10 PM
OK. Some agreement. I’m saying consenting adults and you are saying what if an adult is, say, 12. Then there is no crime. Certainly, in earlier civilizations adulthood was recognized at the same time as reproductive capacity. But if you are saying that it is by convention that we determine what age constitutes statutory rape, and therefore anything else we do we can justify by saying its “conventional wisdom” I don’t think you have a society that scales.
Defining adulthood is something that is probably more difficult today than ever before. In most places you can drive when you are 17, vote when you are 18, drink when you are 21. Consent to sex at…you’d have to read 50 different state interpretations of that. However, once you are an adult you are entitled to the liberty that the Constitution promises.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 1:26 PM
No, not this one. But you could probably create a different universe–or at least a software tool that played chess better than me.
My point is that it is less presumptuous to act as God-like creators of medicine and machines than it is too use our minds to comprehend the intention of the Creator of all things in the universe. But we believe that the former is really hard and the latter can be broken down to 10 rules or a single book.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Arguendo the Covenant aliens in the Halo virtual reality discuss their religion among themselves. Most worship the “Forerunners” but the “gods” who created their universe actually work for Microsoft.
Are atheist Covenamt aliens right that the “Forerunners” are not their gods, or are they wrong in claiming their universe has no creator[s]?
boris on October 29, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Have to confess that I know nothing about Halo, other than it seems to generate a lot of revenue for MSFT. You’ve done a good job of explaining the scenario though. To express certainty that there is no creator strikes me as an obvious fallacy. I don’t know if the creator of the universe also authored the Bible, but I do hope he’s not a latte-sipping software developer who left his screen saver on overnight.
dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 2:23 PM
If these are Christians, then if Christ were alive today he would not be a Christian.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Jesus chose everyday people for his disciples. To say somehow that MB4 knows Jesus would be fussy about who could be his followers seems … well … stupid.
boris on October 29, 2007 at 2:50 PM
You missed the whole point.
Do you not understand irony?
There must be something in the water.
For someone to get their panties all in a wad and start calling me, or any one else, names for saying “insensitive” things about a subject (in this case religion) when most of the comments on this site (and I pretty much think web sites in general) are “insensitive” and in a lot of cases down right nasty and often a whole lot worse than nasty is so totally absurd. On the subject at hand, religion, just look through the comments and you will find all manner of “insensitive” things being said about atheists and by people who probably claim to be Christians. In fact way beyond insensitive. Some people sound almost like they would like to kill them.
HELLO!!! Saving “nasty” things about one thing or another is pretty much what this and most web sites are mainly about. In fact at times like this when there is not much solid news, it is pretty much all this and others are about. Just take a look at the various threads. Pretty much all of them are slams on somebody or other. Yup, pretty much all of them.
I along with probably most people commenting on this site have said many “nasty” things about Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Murtha, etc., etc., etc and no one has ever called me a mean nasty jerk for doing so. I guess it all comes down to whose “ox is being gored”.
That anyone can not see the profound irony is truly amazing.
People are so strange. If there be a God, he must be laughing his a$$ off. Maybe it was even fatal for him and that’s why we never hear from him.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Do you?
aengus on October 29, 2007 at 5:08 PM
There’s no such thing.
boris on October 29, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3