Anglican archbishop: Beware of “atheistic fundamentalism”
posted at 1:46 pm on December 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Certainly the strain of global fundamentalism of which you’d want to use your annual Christmas message to raise awareness. “Virulent,” “irrational,” intolerant of debate (except when its leading spokesmen embark on nationwide debate tours): why, it’s practically an atheist jihad.
In the archbishop’s defense, his weakness on terrorism is only following this idiot’s lead.
In his Christmas message, he said: “Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous.”
The archbishop said “atheistic fundamentalism” was a new phenomenon.
He said it advocated that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as “superstitious nonsense”.
As well as leading to Christmas being called “Winterval,” the archbishop said “virulent, almost irrational” attacks on Christianity led to hospitals removing all Christian symbols from their chapels, and schools refusing to allow children to send Christmas cards with a Christian message…
Dr Morgan said: “All of this is what I would call the new “fundamentalism” of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion…
Dr Morgan’s Christmas message comes after the general director of the Evangelical Alliance, the Rev Joel Edwards, compared militant secularists to King Herod in their intolerance of religious faith.
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:
It was an Athiest Fundamentalist who led the fight to bar the Pledge of Allegiance out west.
They exist.
hadsil on December 22, 2007 at 1:55 PM
they sure do exist.
zane on December 22, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Which leading atheist “fundamentalists” are unwilling to tolerate debate? All Hitchens and Dawkins do is go around speaking to people.
Allahpundit on December 22, 2007 at 2:01 PM
The law that put the Pledge of Allegiance into place was unconstitutional. First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Well, that law respected the establishment of religion that respects God, of which there are many. Pretty straight forward. Which is why most of the courts have sought to toss out challenges to it based on technicalities rather than on the merits.
Atheist fundamentalism is an oxymoron.
Seixon on December 22, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Sweet.
Allahpundit on December 22, 2007 at 2:06 PM
People act a lot like people, no matter where you put them.
Speakup on December 22, 2007 at 2:09 PM
So lets say Christians can be fundamentalists and Atheists cannot…
That means governor Huckersatz supporting creationism outside the classroom and evolution inside the classroom, isn’t an oxymoron.
Speakup on December 22, 2007 at 2:15 PM
True.
Anti-theist fundamentalism, however, is not.
baldilocks on December 22, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Wha?
What are we defining as fundamentalism here? I’m looking at it as a group of people who follow a strict set of rules and are intolerant, and unopen to open discussion, with those who do not share their ideas.
Half of the atheists I meet are like that. I’m somehow less intelligent because I believe in a God. Had a group come to my town called the Freedom From Religion Foundation that tried to take down our Nativity Scene. Of which there had never been a problem with until a bunch of elitists from Madison appeared. It’s still up there by the way.
When compared with Islamic Fundamentalism, I’d say yes, you have a point. Atheists aren’t going to cut off my head or blow up in front of me. When compared to Christian Fundamentalists I see the same adherence to strict doctrine and an unwillingness to compromise.
Keljeck on December 22, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Can global warming deniers be fundamentalists?
Can bigfoot deniers be fundamentalists?
Can alien abduction deniers be fundamentalists?
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Right on the money.
Thier idea of secular is repulsive, and dangerous.
Theworldisnotenough on December 22, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Fundamentalism is a reactionary movement back to the fundamentals of a certain set of beliefs after it has been “corrupted” or modernized. I guess you could have atheist fundamentalism if you see a crack down on those pesky agnostics who cling to the possibility that God could be found in the string theory or in some sub-atomic particle. Otherwise, its nonsense.
tommylotto on December 22, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I have alsways heard it referred to as “secular fundamentalism” and it’s nothing new.
If the archbishop read his Bible, he would know that Christmas ain’t Christian (fundamental).
AZ_Redneck on December 22, 2007 at 3:07 PM
What a bunch of malarkey! Whoever wrote that was obviously an atheist fundamentalist.
j/k
FloatingRock on December 22, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Mao, anyone?
There sure as Hell is atheist fundamentalism. Just because you haven’t personally had a taste of the lash doesn’t mean some poor soul in a Chinese prison hasn’t.
Call is “extremism” if you want to nitpick about what a fundamentalist is. We call Islamists “fundamentalists” even though they’re more about preventing modernization than reversing it.
Unfortunately, people are fundamentally incapable of minding their own damned business, so we constantly fight each other. Over everything. Artifact of survival instincts, probably.
Merovign on December 22, 2007 at 3:11 PM
So as long as you are willing to tolerate debate you cant be a fundamentalist?
I would consider the ACLU atheist fundamentalists. They only debate in a court room in front of a judge. They tolerate and fight for Muslims out of fear.
broker1 on December 22, 2007 at 3:19 PM
And by including the phrase “One nation, under God” in the pledge, which religion did they unconstitutionally establish as the Official State Religion?
Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 3:26 PM
You’re missing the context. At the time it was written it was universally understood that the establishment of religion meant a state church i.e. the Church of England.
This article was meant to avoid the situation of having Thomas Jefferson declaring himself Supreme Leader of the Church of America, receiving state benefits over other denominations. It was a limitation of powers not an instruction to banish all mention of God and Christmas from public life.
It would have been inconceivable to Americans living centuries ago that anyone want to do this. Indeed most regarded the subsequent French Revolution with horror. The revolutionaries were anti-theist fundamentalists. They executed nuns and priests, the whole shebang.
aengus on December 22, 2007 at 3:36 PM
He calls it fundamentalism, when what he seems to mean is bigotry; that is, “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
While I agree it’s a scourge, equating it with fundamentalism only obscures the issues.
petefrt on December 22, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Great. Another religion debate thread to coincide with Christmas. Next let’s debate the Virgin Birth! (Oh, did that one?) How about attacking people with moral reservations about capital punishment? (Oh, I see…). I know. Abortion! Let’s have at it!!!
HerrMorgenholz on December 22, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Actually, I hope the recent attention to the place of religion will be socially beneficial. While the culture war has been raging for decades, until recently, only one side was fighting. Traditional values were in danger of being stealthily purged by political correctness, before traditionalists knew what was happening to them/us. Now at least folks are waking up to the danger.
petefrt on December 22, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Adam Carolla
Stephen M on December 22, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Isn’t the Archbishop of Canterbury an atheistic fundamentalist?
BL@KBIRD on December 22, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Famous “AFs”: Atheist Fundamentalists:
( none of whom tolerated dissent )
Ulanov / Lenin
Djugashvili / Stalin
Mao
Che / Fidel ( a twofer )
Shicklgruber / Hitler
Goebbels ( although his god was Hitler )
the current CoverBoy of Time / ‘Man of the Year’
Hillary Clinton ( named after the mountain climber )
and the list / beat goes on……….
Janos Hunyadi on December 22, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Good one.
Keljeck on December 22, 2007 at 7:37 PM
“The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.”
Eric Hoffer
I’m turning into MB4
Nonfactor on December 22, 2007 at 7:48 PM
MB4 is way more unpredictable than you are.
I did like your quote, though.
Entelechy on December 22, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Some people’s prejudice is showing.
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/
http://www.counterorder.com/nihilism.html
Ernest Hemingway
James Madison
Stephen King
Thomas Edison
Galileo Galilei
Thomas Jefferson
Susan B Anthony
Thomas Paine
George Bernard Shaw
Isaac Asimov
Voltaire
Mark Twain
Speakup on December 22, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Rowan loves to tell teen magazines in UK how both God and his daughter think he’s an idiot. Please add me to that list.
Hening on December 22, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Theres a real argument. Some author that keeps crapping out horror scripts, and mentions in interviews that he thinks he’s losing his mind.
Liberal bank roll for all the bizarre socialist candidates in Maine.
Hening on December 22, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Logically speaking, the Archbishop is making about as much sense as usual. “Fundamentalism” in the sense used by leftist like the Archbishop means a total and stubborn adherence to some religion or other faith like Communism or Objectivism. But atheism is not a religion or other faith. Atheism is simply one component in a world view, as is “social justice” or “free will”. You can’t build a total world view out of atheism. You can only insert atheism into a whole bunch more of moving ideology parts to get a religion or other faith. Similarly, you can insert theism into atheist faiths to get new faiths: for instance, “liberation theology” is Catholicism injected into Communism. And atheism gets injected into Christianity rather frequently. Some schools of Christian theology seem to amount to nothing more than Christian atheism (and Christian fundamentalists strongly agree with this assertion).
Now, of course, one can be an atheist fanatic. Fanaticism isn’t a nice thing, but its scope is more limited than fundamentalism. Atheist fanaticism may be distasteful to some, but it’s doesn’t go beyond efforts against theistic religions. You can still shop at your favorite shopping mall and buy your six year old daughter skanky clothing.
thuja on December 22, 2007 at 9:27 PM
How true. Atheist fundamentalists are just as dangerous as the other kind. I still tremble at the memory of that horrid video where the bloodthirsty Christopher Hitchens mercilessly beheaded that poor… oh, wait; that was the Muslims. Still, remember when that heartless fiend Prof. Dawkins urged suicide attacks in the name of… oops, my bad– Muslims again.
morganfrost on December 22, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Atheists are some of the most illogical people: For instance the logical conclusion for a person is to have religion. That is why there is religion. It is logical. Why? think about this logic:
If there is no God what does it matter how you live your life? BUT if there is no God then at the moment of your death your memory will be gone so all the things you did in this life will be for naught.
Therefore the people that do not believe and act on all their cravings because they are “not beholden to an outdated moral system” will 1 nanosecond after death not rememeber anything and it was all useless. So in the end you have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong about God. If there is no God but still you worshipped Him during your life you lost nothing because your not going to remember anything anyhow. But if your wrong and there is a God then you lost eternity. The logical and smart bet is to live has if there is a God.
In other words if in Las Vegas you place your entire life savings of 80 years on the black on the rolutte wheel, you have a 50/50 chance of losing everything you worked for all your life. Now there are stupid people that would do that I am not one of them. However, it appears, as our education system implodes in this country, more and more people are stupid enough to place that bet.
It is no coindidence that as our education level drops the non religious rises. It takes a strong logical mind to have faith. The weak, illogical mind can not sustain the effort required for faith.
unseen on December 22, 2007 at 10:17 PM
I’m an atheist and I agree with much of what he says.
Where he’s wrong is calling this “atheist fundamentalism”. As others have pointed out, this is an oxymoron.
Since Atheism is not a religion and simply means “not believing in God”, it has no other doctrines to be fundamentalist about.
What this guy is talking about is “political correctness”.
uptight on December 22, 2007 at 10:45 PM
unseen said
I could say the same thing to you about believing in the Easter Bunny (like “God”, another man-made construct).
Look at it this way – if God exists, he gave us brains & free will to devise all sorts of theories about life. He also refused to reveal the answers.
Now if he is going to punish us for using these gifts, then he a total asshole and I don’t want to spend eternity with him. If he is forgiving, then he’ll say “well it’s partly my fault you didn’t believe…so welcome to heaven. No hard feelings”.
Ultimately, we can’t possibly “know”…so IMHO it’s pointless thinking about it. Pointless believing any theory. As such, I won’t live my life in fear of a vengeful God (created by maniacs thousands of years ago).
We aren’t supposed to know what life’s about – end of story. Get on with life and enjoy what time you have.
uptight on December 22, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Flowers don’t believe in God. Does he send them to hell?
uptight on December 22, 2007 at 10:55 PM
So you think that your all mighty god is so incredibly small and needy that it graves worship and attention like an insecure self centered child and will throw a hizzy fit and send people to hell if it does not get it.
I don’t know about any god, but even I would be very unimpressed with that view of a god and those who held it would sure not be going to the good place with that kind of attitude.
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 11:06 PM
As a plant’s rights activist, I find this question deeply disturbing. Goldenrod and sugar maples don’t belong in hell!
On the other hand, I would gladly consign Japanese knotweed to hell.
thuja on December 22, 2007 at 11:08 PM
He reincarnates those infidel flowers into dogs and puts them in the vicinity of Mike Vick or one of The High Revenend Huckster sons.
Could be.
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Unseen, this is cute, but it ignores a number of possibilities, so the 50/50 thing is wrong, right off the bat (What if there are two gods who don’t like each other? What if there is a God, but He resents being worshipped as a form of impertinence?).
Let’s assume, however, that there is a 50/50 chance. You still have to pick a manner in which to worship God– now your odds drop well below 50%, as there are hundreds (if not thousands) of different religions and sects. Many of these hold that their followers are God’s elect and the only ones doing it right. If any one of them is correct in this regard, then, in all probability, by picking the wrong manner of worship, you’d just piss God off even more than if you had just remained neutral. In such a case, it might be better to just keep a low profile and not risk attracting His attention.
Moreover, if we accept the 50/50 thing, and you are a believer and there is no God, then you might well have wasted a significant portion of your life engaged in pointless rituals and various forms of abstinence and self-denial when you could have been out having fun.
Logically, the odds are against the believers here.
morganfrost on December 22, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Believers never seem to dream up a god morally superior to man. Their god always seems to have the morals of a rotten child.
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Many, if not most believers, seem to think that “their” God is like Anthony Fremont.
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 11:20 PM
unseen said
The sorry state of education is down to societal factors and dumb liberal indulgences. It’s nothing to do with religion or lack of it.
Some of the worst excesses of human behaviour have been inspired by religion.
If I bring up the Spanish Inquisition or modern Jihadism, believers in God say “that’s not the fault of God. It’s the evil in man’s heart”.
As I don’t believe in God, I agree, but bear in mind two things
1) it is mankind that created the religions
2) if you are going to disassociate man from God for the bad stuff, then it works the same for the good stuff
Proof of point two is found in the decent societal rules and morality found in cultures that have never had anything to do with God.
But what of the evil acts perpetrated by atheists? Don’t forget – atheism is not a belief system. It just means that you don’t believe in God. Beyond that you have to look at the doctrines that people do follow.
The evil of the Nazis was a reflection of their belief in Hitler’s national socialism. Blaming his atheism is as relevant as blaming his vegetarianism or love of painting.
ie. to suspend belief in logic and believe that an omnipotent superpower (with human frailties like jealousy and anger) created the universe and and everyone in it – from scratch – in 6 days and then needed “a rest”.
And that this same super-being picked a only few people to directly communicate with (thousands of years ago) using stuff like burning bushes.
That this being got one of creations pregnant and that he allowed his human son to be tortured to death as a means to absolve us of our sins…on condition that we believe in this convoluted sin-erasing mechanism.
I’m not sure that “strength” is the right word to describe belief in this archaic claptrap, but it must be an effort.
uptight on December 22, 2007 at 11:22 PM
There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.
- Richard Lederer
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 11:27 PM
This is something I figured out at the age of around eleven or twelve and decided right then and there that I had quite enough of man’s vile religion.
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 11:34 PM
I think there are far stronger arguments and reasons that show the necessity of Christian theism in order for knowledge to be possible.
ColtsFan on December 22, 2007 at 11:45 PM
This is like a big softball thrown at about 5mph.
No challenge and besides it’s Christmas time almost.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Get on with life and enjoy what time you have.
uptight on December 22, 2007 at 10:53 PM
What’s the point you won’t remember it anyway if there is no God. Talk about a futile life.
Look at it this way – if God exists, he gave us brains & free will to devise all sorts of theories about life. He also refused to reveal the answers.
That’s not true he did reveal the answers but it requires faith. look at it this way. after 2,000 years the teachings of Jesus are still taught and still followed.
You don’t see many followers of scorates or pluto still meeting once, twice a week to discuss their teachings. Now way do you imagine that is. Both MEN figured out some universal truths and each man in his own way launched parts of present day Western civilization but no one cares.
Now with Jesus his teachings are still studied. Why is that? Fear? Truth? Superstitions? I don’t see alot of people throewing salt over their shoulders nowadays. I don’t see alot of Druids marching. the truth is that there are powerful words and truths within the Bible, and Jesus;’s teachings that to this day man find meaning in. Isn’t it funny how the exact some steps of life creation that evolution states were spelled out in Genisis?
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 12:16 AM
I think there are far stronger arguments and reasons that show the necessity of Christian theism in order for knowledge to be possible.
ColtsFan on December 22, 2007 at 11:45 PM
I agree. I was simply using an example of logic. Almost everyone would agree that it is illogical to work your entire life and then risk everything you have earned in that life on a simple bet. Now if it is illogical to do that it is equally illogical to risk all enterity on a bet based on incomplete information, childhood “feelings” etc.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 12:20 AM
So you think that your all mighty god is so incredibly small and needy that it graves worship and attention like an insecure self centered child and will throw a hizzy fit and send people to hell if it does not get it.
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 11:06pm
No I do not think that. From that post it appears that that is what you think of Him and is probably one of the reasons you can not believe in him.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Moreover, if we accept the 50/50 thing, and you are a believer and there is no God, then you might well have wasted a significant portion of your life engaged in pointless rituals and various forms of abstinence and self-denial when you could have been out having fun.
morganfrost on December 22, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Again somehow you think all this fun you are having is going to matter at the time of your death..how? remember without a God you remeber NOTHING. All that Fun you had, all those great times they will no longer exist. Poof all gone. Meaningless. your entire life a waste of energy. in 100 years even your name will be forgotten to the sands of time as your children and their children grow and die.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Don’t forget – atheism is not a belief system. It just means that you don’t believe in God
uptight on December 22, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Absent of belief is a belief. Thus atheism is a belief system. You have a belief system that there is no God. Stalin, Poe Pot, Mao, Castro all atheist. Hitler’s beliefs cost the world what 80 million lifes. Stalin’s purges and hitler’s evil made the spanish inquistions look like a Sunday stroll.
Proof of point two is found in the decent societal rules and morality found in cultures that have never had anything to do with God.
Oh I must of missed all those atheist societies throughout history which societies where these that had no religion and did not kill millions of their own citizens including the unborn?
1) it is mankind that created the religions
So you equate manmade insitutions with God. The two are not the same.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 1:05 AM
This is something I figured out at the age of around eleven or twelve and decided right then and there that I had quite enough of man’s vile religion.
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 11:34 PM
So with 12years under your belt you had all the information you needed to Know that God was a myth. I’m sure you also knew everything else at 12 and went straight away to get your PHD in science from MIT. Yeah I too have made all kinds of life decsions at 12. I decided what I was going to do, who I was going to marry, what college I was going too because you know I knew it all at 12. Of course at around 14-15 I figured out there were more things in this world than I could possibly learn in 10 lifetimes. more mysteries in the world that will never be solved, and more beauty and evil than I could possibly imagine.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 1:21 AM
created the universe and and everyone in it – from scratch – in 6 days and then needed “a rest”.
uptight on December 22, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Amazing how those six days match exactly the order of life creation on this planet that evolution theory says. So after 100 years of study using man’s greatest scientific instruments, collecting untold amount of fossil evidence, geologic records. studing dna progression, etc the scientists have proven that Genisis got the order of life creation right more than 2,000 years ago with no knowledge of science. How did that happen? a lucky guess?
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 1:31 AM
My concern here is related to the proper Biblical form of argumentation as outlined by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.
The Apostle Paul disagrees with your argument, which has Pascalian type of themes.
The Apostle Paul was no Pascalian.
ColtsFan on December 23, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Unseen, your main argument for belief in your God relied on doing so to avoid punishment, “50/50″ were your words. You’re the last person I want to hear criticising someone for 12 year-old logic.
Anyone can realize the concept of the Christian God is laughable; you were probably ingrained with your belief since birth, and if you don’t attempt to find flaws in your beliefs you’ll go right on believing in them.
You also point out the fact that Stalin was did not belief in Grecian gods or the Muslim god or the Jewish god or even the Christian god. So? Being an atheist is simply not believing in a god; as stated before it’s just as logical to blame someone’s vegetarianism.
Nonfactor on December 23, 2007 at 1:35 AM
Nonfactor,
Where have you been?
You have not been posting comments lately at HA.
I hope things are well for you.
ColtsFan on December 23, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Some things are just a whole lot easier to figure out than others.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 1:45 AM
I think the real problem is atheistic Anglicans, like this guy and the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
JimC on December 23, 2007 at 2:46 AM
Unseen, your main argument for belief in your God relied on doing so to avoid punishment, “50/50″ were your words
Nonfactor on December 23, 2007 at 1:35 AM
What is it with punishment and atheists and religon? It’s like that is why they don’t believe. Because the whole idea of punishment is the central theme on most posts by you all. Are you that afraid of punishment?
I never mentioned punishment. I mentioned a loss of eternity . I didn’t mention Hell and brimstone.
And I did not make the 50/50 my main argument for my belief. I simply stated that you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong or right. There is either a God or not. So roll the dice and make your bet. The upshot is that if your right and there is no God, you win nothing because you cease to exist at the moment of death. It seems like atheists want to gloss over this fact. Or maybe you all believe that somehow there is something else after you die. You all say live for the moment, enjoy life to the fullest etc. However. if you don’t remember anything at death, if you have no soul, than all that living is meaningless. No wonder most of the biggest human butchers of our time have been athesits. When the present is all that matters, when you have no future to look forward why not do a Stalin and kill millions?
And being an atheist or vegan is not the same thing. One shapes your worldview you human interactions, your life compass and one decides what your going to eat tonight.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 3:38 AM
Just pretty busy lately. I should be back to annoying people again full time pretty soon.
Ask the formerly religious how their life in human interaction has changed since they stopped believing in god and I’m sure the answer won’t be “I now want to become a mass murder just like fellow atheist Joseph Stalin.”
Nonfactor on December 23, 2007 at 3:42 AM
Some things are just a whole lot easier to figure out than others.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 1:45 AM
And somethings are not. I don’t know of any scientist, preacher, school teacher, president, etc that has figured that question out. In fact I know of not one human that knows what happens after death occurs. So since you figured it all out at age 12 you should have at least got a mention in the NYT as the paper of record. You may think you know like all the rest of human society but no one knows. One of us will be right and one will be wrong. The upside is if I’m wrong I end up the same as you food for the worms. I loss nothing by being wrong. I won’t remember anything from this life and neither will you. My children and grandchildren will carry on some part of me in their memories for a short period of time and then nothing. I cease to exist as if I never was. If however I’m right and your wrong then the possibilites of different outcomes arise.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 3:59 AM
With all due respect, the problem with the above is that the Apostle Paul himself disagrees with you.
Do you understand the significance of verse 19?
The Apostle Paul states that if the resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred, then Christians should be pitied above all men for their faith is futile.
Paul was not a believer in Pascal’s wager.
ColtsFan on December 23, 2007 at 4:09 AM
Ask the formerly religious how their life in human interaction has changed since they stopped believing in god and I’m sure the answer won’t be “I now want to become a mass murder just like fellow atheist Joseph Stalin.”
Nonfactor on December 23, 2007 at 3:42 AM
When next I see a former religious person with the power of a Stalin at his/her fingertips I might just do that. Oh wait a minute I think I read about a Mao Zedong and I suppose I could have asked Pol Pot.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 4:10 AM
With all due respect, the problem with the above is that the Apostle Paul himself disagrees with you.
ColtsFan on December 23, 2007 at 4:09 AM
Pascal’s wager is for one man and his beliefs. A jew has a 50/50 chance of being right as well as a Christian as well as a Muslim as well as an Atheist as well as a Buddist. Of course if Christ never arose than all the Christian faith is futile. Since Paul was a Christian he would reject the wager because his faith was absolute and he would teach the Gospel the same way.
The underlying arguement is not if Christians are right or if muslims are right or if Jews are right, The argument is that regardless of what you believe you are going to be either right or wrong. Athesits like the use of logic in their arguements they say it is illogical to believe in a higher power. When the exact opposite is true. It is illogical not to believe in a higher power. That is the reason for religion in human society. that is the reason that all human societies have some type of religion in their culture. Pascal’s wager can not prove if Christ is the answer or if Allah is the answer. It can only begin to lay the ground work of logic with respect to religion. The only premise of my arguement is that atheism is the illogical choice not religion. Now which religion is right and which is wrong is totally antoehr subject.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 4:48 AM
Speakup on December 23, 2007 at 5:26 AM
You’re not understanding percentages. Say there are 100 different religions (for simplicities sake) and each of these religions claims to be the one true religion and if people reject their religion they will suffer but if they accept it they will be rewarded. The chances of religion 44 being true can’t be 50/50 if the chances of religion 62 and 78 are also 50/50. And there is also a chance that none of the religions are correct so it wouldn’t even be a 1/100 chance.
I think you’re getting confused on the 50/50 part because “either a religion is true or it isn’t,” this is true, but it doesn’t mean the chances of said religion being true is 50/50 or a coin toss.
If you’re deciding what religion to believe in based off whether or not you’ll be rewarded with eternal life in paradise or suffer eternal torment you might as well spin a wheel. Or you could just not believe in any , a position that makes a lot of sense upon examining the stories on which human religions are based.
I’d like to point out one more thing. It may very well be logical for human beings to want to live forever or have their spirit live forever, especially given how short our lives are in comparison to the world we live on (what’s 60 years compared to 4.5 billion?), but just because it may be logical for us to believe that we’ll live forever (at least in spirit) once we die does not mean it is true.
Nonfactor on December 23, 2007 at 6:07 AM
When evil “fundamentalist atheists” start blowing people up while screaming “Darwin is great” and “Heil Hitchens”, then I’ll be worried.
Syndic Nuruodo on December 23, 2007 at 8:41 AM
That’s just plain dumb. It’s not the fundamentalist approach to a dogma that’s dangerous, but the bigotry, fanaticism, hatred, oppression, and such that may (or may not) accompany it. Or the danger may be in the dogma itself. But to spin fundamentalism per se as dangerous is a corruption of the concept of fundamentalism.
Morgan so much as acknowledges this later in the article by granting the word ‘fundamentalism’ a new meaning:
Morgan’s new formulation of fundamentalism injects the attributes of intolerance or bigotry.
And this, of course was an irresistible invitation to the BBC to advance its own agenda (atheistic bigotry) by coloring the entire article, indeed the universe of fundamentalists, with this lead:
Hmmm, nice job, BBC.
At risk with bigotry, atheistic or otherwise, is the loss of individual liberty (starting with free speech, freedom of religious expression) and the deconstruction of a free society (starting with a willful disregard for inconvenient veracity).
petefrt on December 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Good point.
petefrt on December 23, 2007 at 10:47 AM
This from a leader of the church founded by the tyrant Henry VIII? Atheist Fundamentalism. Puhleeeze! What’s next Evangelical Atheists?
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Nonfactor on December 23, 2007 at 6:07 AM
Yes I understadn the Atheist’s arguement but I also understand precentages. No matter how many times you slice it and dice it, there is a 50/50 chance of an after life. Either it exists or it doesn’t. A 50/50 chance you are right or wrong it that wager. You are confusing the side bets with the main wager. Once you place you wager on the outcome you can than place addtional side bets on what that afterlife is and how to get there, if he sent his Son down to wash away our sins, if he has 72 virgins waiting for us, etc etc with each addtional bet based on knowledge, history, ritual you can either decrease or increase your precentage but you started off with a 50/50 chance.
futhermore, no matter what religion you choose, no matter what sect, what God you pray to you have a net 50/50 chance of being right with the choice you have made. You as an individual has a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong and thus the reason that a fundementalist be he Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist can not be shaken for her beleif because to them it IS black/white with no gray.
but just because it may be logical for us to believe that we’ll live forever (at least in spirit) once we die does not mean it is true.
Nonfactor on December 23, 2007 at 6:07 AM
And since it IS logical for us to believe in an afterlive it also means that it might be true. Thus one of the basic arguments of atheistism (that it is illogical and shows a lack of education to believe in an after life) is proven false.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Then by that reasoning, there is a 50/50 chance that monkeys will will fly out of my butt in the next 5 minutes. Either they will, or they won’t right?
Exit question.
Where did god come from?
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Sorry Herikutsu. Not for you.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 12:09 PM
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Not a whole lot happens. Mostly you just decompose. That’s about it.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Exit question two. Where does God reside?
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Bet on Dennis Kucinich becoming President with Britteny Spears as his VP then. It is a lot less of a long shot to put it mildly. You could get real good odds and get very rich.
Go for it. Good luck.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 1:50 PM
From his mom?
No, that’s right God didn’t have a mom. Or a dad. Maybe that’s why he is so spoiled and mad so much of the time. Lack of parental oversight.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Well since we know that God didn’t have a mom or dad, we know that he is not still living with his parents anyway.
That should narrow the search area down a little bit.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Thanks for your response.
Here is my 2 cents.
I highly recommend the following book by Christian philosopher John S. Feinberg entitled:
“The Many Faces of Evil.”
http://www.amazon.com/Many-Faces-Evil-Theological-Problems/dp/1581345674/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198445586&sr=1-1
In that book, Dr. Feinberg argues that all probability arguments rely on very questionable and faulty variables involving vague notions of subjectivity.
I find Dr. Feinberg’s line of reasoning cogent, and sound.
My point is:
if all probability arguments, especially the probabilistic Problem of Evil argument offered by the atheists, do not work, then that entails that all hypothetical probabilistic arguments in favor of Christianity are invalid as well.
ColtsFan on December 23, 2007 at 4:40 PM
I should think an omnipotent God would certainly know the difference and anyone who in life was a 50/50 believer would likely have a 100% chance of not living an eternity along side God in heaven.
Speakup on December 23, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Wha? Where exactly is Heaven?
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Not a whole lot happens. Mostly you just decompose. That’s about it.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM
and you know that how? You may think that and you may believe that and you maybe right but that is different than knowing that is what happens.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Then by that reasoning, there is a 50/50 chance that monkeys will will fly out of my butt in the next 5 minutes. Either they will, or they won’t right?
Exit question.
Where did god come from?
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM
No there is not a 50/50 chance of that happening. You do not have a variable that is fixed. For instance in the stock market you have a 33.3% of being right because the stock can either go up, go down or stay the same price. Those are the three variables you have. In death you have two variables. You either have nothing or sometype of afterlive. Therefore you have a 50/50 chance of being right regardless of what you pick.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 7:25 PM
ColtsFan on December 23, 2007 at 4:40 PM
So basically what he is saying is: We don’t know what we don’t know? Right?
If I get a chance I might pick the book up. I like stuff like that. Thanks for the suggestion.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 7:27 PM
or prevent of the free exercise there of
Sure do seem to be a lot of attacks against those who wish to pray or otherwise invoke God. Can’t even say “Merry Christmas” without someone getting on your case.
Celebrate diversity. Hah! Since when can Christians openly and without litigation worry freely celebrate their heritage? “Holiday tree” “Winter concerts”
It’s like feminism tearing down men to promote women. You don’t need to tear down Christianity to promote your own faith or lack there of.
hadsil on December 23, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Bet on Dennis Kucinich becoming President with Britteny Spears as his VP then. It is a lot less of a long shot to put it mildly. You could get real good odds and get very rich.
Go for it. Good luck.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 1:50 PM
You have 100% certainity in your belief. That’s great. The problem is that no matter if you have 100% certainity in your belief or if you have 10% certainity in what your saying…You do not Know. So with every post you show that you are as fundenmental in your belief as a Christian or a Muslim is in theirs. So you prove that Fundemental atheistism is possible. what’s the word for someone that believes they know something that is unknowable? I think it is called faith. So you show great faith in your belief without being able to know if you are correct or incorrect.
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Where did god come from?
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Exit question two. Where does God reside?
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Wha? Where exactly is Heaven?
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 5:58 PM
You left out the most important question. What is God.
those are questions you must find the answers for yourself. Or if you think it’s a waste of ones time then don’t bother.
Exit questions for you:
How many planets are in the universe?
where is the center of the universe?
When will the universe end?
unseen on December 23, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Then you will enjoy this book. Pretty deep. But clear.
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Perspectives-Religious-Epistemology-Douglas/dp/0195073231/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198462398&sr=8-1
Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology (Hardcover)
by R. Douglas Geivett (Author)
ColtsFan on December 23, 2007 at 9:15 PM
I was deposing Pascal’s wager, which is a horrible debate subject and I really would rather get past such a base premise.
Speakup on December 23, 2007 at 10:13 PM
About 4 Trillion.
There is no center, The Universe is expanding everywhere equally.
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
ronsfi on December 24, 2007 at 2:35 AM
Comment pages: