Video: Atheists continue to win friends, influence people
posted at 6:44 pm on December 2, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Breitbart, after 200+ comments in Headlines, I figured you’d want to see the sign for yourselves. As pure an example of spite in this vein as I’ve encountered since the atheist “holiday tree.” This is why people have contempt for me. (Well, no, it’s not.)
Exit question: Can we join hands and agree that this, at least, is legally suspect? Probably not, right?
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 Next »
It is precisely this sentiment that animates them, I think.
In one breath, you lament that you aren’t allowed to express your beliefs in the public square (even though you are, as there is no law saying that you can’t).
They will burn forever if they don’t accept your beliefs? That kind of rhetoric appears as ridiculous to atheists as their challenges to the veracity of Biblical history appears to you.
Just sayin.
Good Lt on December 2, 2008 at 10:23 PM
What El Tee said.
AW1 Tim on December 2, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Heh.
Good Lt on December 2, 2008 at 10:33 PM
I don’t see what’s stopping Athiests in Kentucky from leaving so that they don’t have to run into problems that they are aware that they will probably run into in states below the mason-dixon line.
Geez, you guys are like a state away from blue states. Wouldn’t it be easier to just leave Jefferson and Fayette counties and move to Ohio rather than piss off 70% of the population?
leetpriest on December 2, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Class and intelligence +10.
Merry Christmas Gilda.
Itchee Dryback on December 2, 2008 at 10:39 PM
A perfectly good example of how to be an atheist, win friends and influence people.
Good Lt on December 2, 2008 at 10:41 PM
I am more or less atheist and think the holidays are a lot of fun. I think the KY Homeland defense thing is crock and offensive but I think the sign in question is also mean spirited and not in keeping with the general goodwill we all enjoy with winter solstice and the new year approaching.
Its fun. Sure the Christians hijacked it but at least they kept it rather than burning people for celebrating it. Like the bunnies at Easter… they can never explain what the relationship is Christianity because there isn’t any. The scam speaks for itself but who cares… at least it is still fun.
lexhamfox on December 2, 2008 at 10:54 PM
And to you the best. And you aren’t so far from the faithful as you think, you have put your trust in people who are faithful…which is better then the “faux” faithful.
I am a lifelong Christian, and I appreciate what others have done before me, and what our church is doing now.
Thanks for acknowledging that, you are the first atheist to “get it” on HotAir.
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 11:20 PM
The bunnies are not a Christian symbol…but Easter certainly is.
And surely you know the meaning of Christmas to us faithful…
right2bright on December 2, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Why is it called Easter then?
lexhamfox on December 2, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Pardon my intrusion.
Nicely said, introspective.
Speakup on December 2, 2008 at 11:24 PM
…Jesus Christ Is King of kings & Lord of lords!? Sure!! TAKE MY HAND. See — it wasn’t THAT bad. :-)
apacalyps on December 2, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Good thing I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that or else I would need a new keyboard!
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 2, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Atheists seem to have nothing else to do except ride on the coattails of Christians. They know they can’t get a crowd together for an atheist’s meeting, so they get their attention by ruining Christian holidays and taking away the rights of Christians. How pathetic.
apacalyps on December 2, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Thanks. I’ve never met anyone who self-identified as a Pagan before.
BadgerHawk on December 2, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I think you give them too much credit.
You’re free to ignore them if you want. If your faith is strong enough to withstand scientific scrutiny, hard factual evidence and endless inquiry, then what is a “pathetic” group of atheist malcontents other than the buzzing of a fly?
What rights have been “taken away from you?” What laws are preventing you from worshiping as you choose?
I don’t mean any animosity – I’m genuinely curious what you mean.
Good Lt on December 2, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Allah, you are a gluten for punishment.
Speakup on December 2, 2008 at 11:47 PM
I’ll never understand why an atheist would waste one second of his life trying to convince people that God doesn’t exist. If I was convinced that there was no such person as God I’m pretty sure I could find better things to do with my time.
dave264 on December 2, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Atheists could say the same thing about people chasing around what they see as superstitious, nonexistant beings in the sky. When they see large swaths of humanity doing this, I’m sure they wonder if their time and money could be better spent as well.
:-)
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Indeed I have, and I am convinced that my trust is well-placed. History informs my decision.
In return, I ask that the faithful give consideration to the respectful non-faithful. Like you say, we are not so far apart. Our goals may be the same even though our motivations may differ. On common principles we will find common ground, to the common benefit of all.
I guess I just made the strong argument for the “big tent,” a notion that’s become somewhat unpopular here at HA recently. Unfortunate, that.
What unites us is far greater than that which divides us. If I were a good writer I suppose I’d be able to make the case more convincingly but I’m not so there you have it.
Still, I believe it’s true.
Gilda on December 3, 2008 at 12:18 AM
I give them credit for contributing to the destruction of America.
It’s hard to ignore folks that are trying to take away your rights and destroy your country. Every Christmas this happens.
The Holy Bible has held up to all the scrutiny thrown at it. I don’t know what hard factual evidence you’re referring to? Uh, anyways, I really don’t hold animosity towards these atheists. Y’know, they’re just simply blinded. Y’know, you don’t get mad at a blind person because they can’t see. Y’know, they’re blinded. They really are willingly ignorant, so it’s something I as a Christian have to say, okay, how can I help these people see the light? Y’know, get em to see the light. I wanna win them to the Lord.
Where do I start? Well, you might want to do some reading on the atheists recent attempt to silence Christians in the Military, and go back to the year 1963 when prayer and Bible reading was taken out of the American school system. That was also done by an atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair (once president of the American Atheists who was referred to as “the most hated woman in America”). Atheists took it all the way to the Supreme Court to get the Bible out of public schools, and they succeeded. Those two are pretty good places to start. Thank you.
apacalyps on December 3, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Don’t get me wrong if they want to waste their lives proving the non-existence of God be my guest. But how does one go about proving the non-existence of God with no empirical evidence ? It seems illogical to me to try to prove something doesn’t exist without any evidence that disproves it’s existence. Try to write a book on how purple flying unicorns don’t exist.
dave264 on December 3, 2008 at 12:31 AM
I know, and that’s way too much credit for such a “pathetic” and numerically small group of people.
OK – which rights have you lost? The right to…what?
But you called them “pathetic,” blames them for “destroying the country” and asserted that they’ve “taken away your rights,” which seems to me simply like you’re agitated that they don’t accept your system of beliefs. Yes?
What if they don’t want to believe what you believe?
I read parts of the Bible in public school – as literature. I also read parts of the Torah, the Koran, the I-Ching, the Vedas, etc. As literature. If you want to delve into the spirituality of these works, there are houses of worship anywhere you look. The public schools are not houses of Christian worship, and are funded by many taxpayers who aren’t Christians. Even many Christians would that public schools are not a forum for teaching Christianity. That’s what church is, and you’re free to attend church whenever you want. Right?
Would you support the Koran being read in public schools on a daily basis? If not, then you can’t accept Bibles in their place. Either you include them all, or you include none of them.
To start what? You never had the right to turn the public schools into churches. Correct? Likewise, you’re free to attend church whenever you want without government interference. Your rights are preserved. Yes? Yes.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 12:40 AM
The burden of proof is on those claiming that God exists to prove it, not on those who ask them to prove it so disprove it. You can not be called upon to prove a negative. It is a fundamental error of logic.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the flying spaghetti monster argument by Richard Dawkins (cue hissing). Prove there is no flying spaghetti monster floating around within the infinite cosmos. You can’t? Then that’s proof of its existence.
Etc.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Gilda, you are a good writer, a fantastic artist, and a wonderfully objective person. Thank you.
Schadenfreude on December 3, 2008 at 12:59 AM
An atheist is a man with no invisible means of support.
Tav on December 3, 2008 at 1:22 AM
I believe it was Descarte who said something like: “The starry heavens above and the moral law within convince me there is a God.” God has made Himself obvious, but men go around with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut in their determination to live as their own God. They come up with rationalizations so baseless that it takes more faith to believe in them then to believe the Bible. But
Galatians 6:7
And
Psalms 14:1
And
Romams 1:20-22
Yet
Romans 5:8
.
It took me 33 years to finally open my heart up to God and that day He invaded and changed my life — all for the good. I realized that deep down I had known that God was there all along, and I suspect if they were really honest and open with themselves, the atheist would know that as well. We are all made, ie, created, with a God-shaped hole inside. Until we surrender to the One who made us that way, we “kick against the pricks” and try to drown His voice out.
Christian Conservative on December 3, 2008 at 1:39 AM
Amen
entagor on December 3, 2008 at 1:49 AM
Richard Dawkins?
That’s a demon possessed man if I’ve ever seen one.
I really don’t know why you atheists admire him so much.
Come on, you must admit he even looks like he just crawled out of the black lagoon.
Maybe vitriolic hatefulness and creepiness are admirable character traits for backwards folks like you atheists.
Besides..Dawkins is not even an atheist..he openly admits to believing that space aliens created mankind anyway.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 1:57 AM
The flying Spagetti monster is the lamest argument ever.
People do not believe in God because He is some sort of intellectual idea.
People believe in God because they HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED HIM!
IT IS REAL PROOF and it is something that you will not experience because you do not honestly seek Him and because you close yourself off from Him.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 1:58 AM
I’m sure the guy who sued to put his nativity scene on the capitol grounds just wanted to wish everybody a merry Christmas. He could’ve put it in his front yard and more people would have seen it. Why didn’t he? Why was it so urgent that the display be at the capitol? Call me cynical, I don’t think the people who ordered the plaque are the only ones who are a little short on Christmas spirit.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 2:03 AM
Olaf, as long as you keep your delusions to yourself and refrain from imposing your superstitious nonsense on the rest of us, feel free to believe any damn goofy theory you want regarding the meaning of life. Some folks do drugs, you do religion. Whatever gets you through the day.
dakine on December 3, 2008 at 2:24 AM
Your “burden of proof” argument is way too simplistic. Who has the burden of proof in an argument depends a lot on the context, and also on the amount of proof required.
Take an easy example. Suppose I told you about someone I grew up with, and you said you thought I was making it up. Your argument could well be that you never knew such a person, and I couldn’t prove that person existed. My argument would then be that I remembered the person well, knew his name, his birthday, his parents, his cousins, etc. Obviously, I would have good reason to know what I was talking about, and you would have no good reason to doubt me. The burden of proof would not be on me at all. In fact, the only way to argue I was wrong would be to argue that I was lying or delusional.
Now assume for a moment that I was a known liar. Burden of proof shifts entirely. So the reliability of the witness affects the burden of proof.
Assume for a moment that I can find 3 or 4 reliable friends that confirm what I said, even though you don’t believe me. Burden of proof shifts back.
When you assert that no one can prove God exists, you have to dismiss the claims of those who say they know God. Of necessity, you call them liars or delusional. And yet, if they do have an experience of God, then you, who have no experience of God yourself, have to deny their experience in order to claim that there is no real evidence to reject their testimony.
And according to Scripture, “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.”
These are not, of course, impenetrable barriers to your rejection of the idea of God. But it puts the lie to a superficial argument that those who believe in God bear all the burden of proving He exists.
Because in declaring God does not exist, you would necessarily bear the burden of proving that millions of people across the world who claim a personal experience with God are deluded.
And how could you really be sure of that.
To take the (rather pathetic) flying spaghetti monster argument up again, Dawkins uses the ridiculous example of a flying spaghetti monster because we instinctively know such a ludicrous thing would be unlikely to exist, and would therefore set our “burden of proof” setting much higher by comparison. Which makes it a bad example.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 3, 2008 at 2:25 AM
‘Holiday trees’ are an insult to Christians
This is a tree that has been stripped of the symbols of faith, worship, and gratitude for the Mass for Christ being celebrated.
A tree cannot be coopted, unless atheists or pagans own the tree copyright
But a Holy Day can be co opted and desecrated and that is what the ‘holiday tree’ symbolizes. The Holiday Tree stands for the banishment of any signs of the Christian Holy day to the point of removing the reason for the tree being decorated in the first place. The decoration was a celebration in preparation for reliving the advent of the Redeemer, and the crowning symbol was the star or herald angel, the lights for the Light that entered the world.
You may have a tree, but the symbols of your false and offensive faith may not touch this tree, and warning signs may be posted against the fraud of the Christian faith
If I placed a sign next to a picture of the Rev Martin Luther King stating that he was in fact not a hero, but a fraud and hypocrite how long would that free speech last?
Since ‘Holiday Trees’ stand only for a set of days without meaning, anti Christians like this turkey have decided they must protect their ‘Set of Days Without Meaning Tree’ from being coopted by Christians
Christians could switch to a Christmas Box or a Christmas Mound, but whatever they chose, this hater of Christians will be there to deny them using boxes or mounds or yo-yos, since nothing can be owned by anyone if it is made of molecules
To be correct, the pictures of MLK in most Capitols should be replaced with a portrait of the Faceless Nameless Hero who might be MLK for some, or Adolf Hitler for others. People could placed various name plates near the portrait, and all names will be treated equal.
Prophecy says in the last days that which is good will be called bad, and that which is bad will be called good
entagor on December 3, 2008 at 2:39 AM
I imagine it is one of AP’s minor dreams to see God declared unconstitutional and banned outright. Judaism will become synonymous with terrorism. Christianity will revert to it’s earliest state, secretly worshiping in hidden enclaves. Christians will be fearful of state-sponsored persecution should they slip and ever even mention God. If reeducation doesn’t work, then harsher means will be used. Once-beautiful churches and temples will become mini-malls and hair salons. Muslims will be tolerated as an oppressed minority while the enlightened laugh up their sleeves at them.
A good Christian would pray for the soul you don’t think you have, AP.
I’m not a good Christian (too little forgiveness in my heart), so pardon me if I don’t.
SKYFOX on December 3, 2008 at 5:37 AM
“Religion” doesn’t “get you through the day”. It gets you through life. True peace of mind is a rare thing.
Not to mention that it’s helped me raise some awesome, happy children who are motivated to succeed (and can handle the inevitable setbacks).
Squiggy on December 3, 2008 at 6:14 AM
Oh, by the way, by “religion” I mean Christianity and Judaism. The others seem to either have (1) no reasonable endpoint, or (2) they preach hatred of others. Kind of like (1) atheism, or (2) militant atheism.
Squiggy on December 3, 2008 at 6:18 AM
Hard to find a better way to spend one’s time and bounty than in helping those less fortunatet than themselves, which is kind of a staple of Christianity, at least for those who actually remember that part of it.
SuperCool on December 3, 2008 at 6:40 AM
Well, that explains a few things…
Kafir on December 3, 2008 at 7:15 AM
I’m sick of the Atheists trying to push their non-beliefs on me. I think we need a new law about “separation of Non-religion and State”
Bicyea on December 3, 2008 at 7:16 AM
A tree cannot be coopted, unless atheists or pagans own the tree copyright
But a Holy Day can be co opted and desecrated and that is what the ‘holiday tree’ symbolizes. The Holiday Tree stands for the banishment of any signs of the Christian Holy day to the point of removing the reason for the tree being decorated in the first place. The decoration was a celebration in preparation for reliving the advent of the Redeemer, and the crowning symbol was the star or herald angel, the lights for the Light that entered the world.
You may have a tree, but the symbols of your false and offensive faith may not touch this tree, and warning signs may be posted against the fraud of the Christian faith
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds
Except that, the tradition of decorating a tree has its start with Saturnalia, the Roman holiday celebrating Saturn. Trees were decorated with red and gold ribbons and ornaments, and a “star”, a representation of the sun was placed on the top of the tree. Many small candles were used as decorations around the domus, or house, and garlands, laurel and other greenery used to decorate windows, stair railings, door frames, etc. Small sweet cakes were given as gifts, along with small presents, on each of the 7 days of celebration, which began upon the solstice and included the 25th of december, which is dedicated to Sol Invictus, hence the star on the tree. Some cakes were also attached to the trees for the birds and small animals to have.
Saturnalia is a time of feasting, singing, and family and community celebration. As Roman influence spread, the German tribes adopted the tree decoration customs, and are credited with being the first to actually bring a tree inside the residence.
An individual would sometimes be designated to represent Saturn for large gatherings, and he appeared as a large rotund man, dressed in red and with a flowing white beard and hair. Many Romans also wore a Phrygian cap during this celebration, of red wool with the upper portion often folded to one side.
Any of this sound familiar to you? The fact that Christian and Pagan holidays overlap is no coincidence. The emperor Constantine (credited as the 1st Christian emperor) placed the holdays together to make certain both Christians and Pagans were worshiping at the same time. In the past, Christians rioted on Pagan holidays, disrupting services, burning buildings and facilities. Pagans returned the compliment on Christian holy days. Constantine figured that if both groups were in church, that would put the kibosh on much of the troubles, and that worked. Since the days of celebration were fixed by Roman law, they pretty much stayed as is, right down until today.
So, enjoy Christmas. My family will celebrate Saturnalia, and we ought to be able to get along pretty well, no?
respects,
AW1 Tim on December 3, 2008 at 8:13 AM
I don’t believe in atheists. Not because I haven’t met anyone who claimed the title, but because such a person cannot exist.
If you profess to be an atheist, here are a couple questions:
1) Do you know the combined weight of all the sand found on Florida beaches?
2) Do you know the number of hairs found on the back of a Tibetan Snow Leopard?
I am going to say “probably no” on both accounts, hence, it is reasonable to conclude there are some things that you do not know (which is important to clarify, because some people think they know everything).
Then, being reasonable, is it not possible that there might be ample evidence, among the many other things of which you do not know, to prove the existence of God?
To say “there is no God” is an absolute statement that no person can assert, unless of course they know everything (i.e., omniscient).
The professing atheist is actually an “agnostic” — one who claims he “doesn’t know” if God exists.
It’s not that a person can’t find God, but that he won’t.
The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts. Psalm 10:4
He knows in his heart that if he acknowledges that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately accountable to Him, and this is not a pleasant thought for many.
AZ_Redneck on December 3, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Hey, I messed up. Everything above “Except That…” was supposed to be a quote from entagor. Everything below that is my response.
My apologies to all for the mistake.
AW1 Tim on December 3, 2008 at 8:16 AM
If the “Christians” would examine their beliefs and read some history … you will find that “AW1 Tim” is correct regarding Saturnalia …
Note: he (AW1 Tim) is not pushing some “belief” on you … only presenting correct information regarding Christmas origin …
AZ_Redneck on December 3, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Regarding Allah’s exit question, I have a counter-question, and I’d really like somebody to answer it cogently for me:
Anybody familiar with American Revolutionary-period documents recognizes that sort of language — “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God,” etc. — as common. Why is it not immediately obvious to the casual observer that whatever the authors of the 1st Amendment meant by “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion,” statements like this clearly did not fall into it?
And a second question: given that the Constitutional clause clearly did not apply to such statements, and given the conservative endorsement of originalist interpretation of the Constitution, ought we not regard whatever changed in constitutional law, to make such statements legally suspect, a gross invasion of individual liberty?
I know there are those here who approve of removing such statements, and I think Allahpundit is one of them. How do you guys square this position with your constitutional originalism?
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 8:29 AM
There is nothing unique in denial of spirit; and the hardest hearts are possessed by those who would deny others of spirit or life.
The habit of labeling a foe with one’s own fault in order to hate the foe is self-defeating. Nonsensical repetition is boring as atheists reference those who value both virtue and empathy people with hard hearts and enslaved minds.
Yahda yahda yahda blah blah blah.
There is only one acceptable way,
the empty vacuum.
maverick muse on December 3, 2008 at 8:30 AM
I respectfully disagree. While many atheists take a “live and let live” approach, the militants are firmly in the camp of the Left politically. The despise religion because it serves as a social commentator they have failed to convert to their worldview – for the most part.
Progressive politics seeks to control all means of criticism. If they cannot control it, then a means of of destroying it must be found. The institution of marriage is a good example of this – the Church (and Synagogue, Mosque, Hindu temple, etc.) and the State agree that marriage is a social good, for many of the same reasons. That is why they work as close as they do on the issue. Change the definition to something that is unpalatable for the Church, and you drive a wedge between the two institutions. How much simpler it will be to silence the Church against something like gay marriage, adoption, etc. when there is no connection at all.
Because these groups are seeking to delegitimize religious expression and beliefs. And they are seeking to do so through State power.
It might be easier to refer you to the book Persecution by David Limbaugh, who has a laundry list of attempts to styfle legitimate religious public expression, including the right of a child in school to pray silently before meals, or the right of religious persons to express religious-based moral thought on issues of the day in the public square.
papabryant on December 3, 2008 at 8:34 AM
While I’m much more interested in the question I just posted, the sort of mindless, vicious, impertinent, infantile bigotry that AZ_Redneck’s statement here represents, deserves a good slap-down. To be frank, in a fair world, this sort of bigotry would earn banning, but fairness of this sort is rapidly fading from our world.
AZ_Redneck, you absolute fount of wilful ignorance, if I ever meet you I will insist — insist — that the two of us simultaneously take identical tests on two subjects, those being 1) general history, and 2) the rational, logically-examined basis of my own beliefs.
Since this ejaculation of yours expresses that you possess superior knowledge of both topics, after I’ve outscored you by at least 20% on the first and 100% on the second (an outcome of which I have not the slightest doubt), will you then stop your grotesquely bigoted blathering on about Christians and their ignorance?
Or, does empirical evidence have as little effect on you as does common decency?
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 8:39 AM
The term athiest is a misnomer in describing the people that hate all form of religion and are zealously evangelical about their veiws
The correct term would be anti-theist
Burgher on December 3, 2008 at 8:41 AM
In my experience, the correct term is “undiagnosed Asperger’s sufferer.”
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 8:45 AM
The Constitution specified that there will be no state religion. The separation of church from state is not in the Constitutional, only in its interpretive application which progressively eschews any religious expression at all.
The freedom of speech is not being denied.
The freedom to worship God is being denied.
Referencing the Winter Solstice is all well and good historical record. However, there is no reason to post a sign smearing religious expression as being a stupid, ignorant habit of people with hard hearts. That is an inappropriate disrespectful message that does not deserve being posted at any government building. Civilized people can share their message without condemning all those who differ. The message of Christmas as sung by the heavenly hosts was “Peace on Earth; Goodwill towards Humanity!”
maverick muse on December 3, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Atheist test:
As an atheist, I have looked for God absolutely everywhere before concluding that he does not exist.
True___
False___
I am absolutely certain that God is not simply hiding from me.
True___
False___
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM
I don’t.
Do I win something?
Jaibones on December 3, 2008 at 8:57 AM
An atheist would observe (correctly) that your “test” presupposes that God exists. That is not proven. Therefore, your “test” has no internal validity.
PS – you have not tried to falsify or disprove God exists, have you? In every way imaginable? If not, you’re not serious about discerning his existence with his nonexistence.
But God is everywhere, in everything, always and forever. He can’t hide. He can’t make rocks that he can’t lift. Or can he?
Either he’s omnipotent and ever-present, or he’s a schoolchild playing hide and seek. You can’t have it both ways.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Good for you! Now, have you read any American History? Here’s a great place to start.
I think not. Don’t confuse all Atheists with malignant Atheism.
If I recall correctly Allah once said that if he had children he would send then to Catholic school. That is hardly what someone who wants to banish all mention of God from the public square would do.
Buy Danish on December 3, 2008 at 9:09 AM
*daps*
Atheism is a religion. It should be separated from state just like any other religion. They need to come up with a holiday of their own, though, and leave mine alone. Perhaps a holiday about being smarter than everyone else…
Doppleganker on December 3, 2008 at 9:10 AM
No, it isn’t. Prove God exists. You are certain he does, so provide some objective evidence. The Bible is not objective, and therefore is not “evidence.” It is a book of stories written thousands of years ago. If the Bible is evidence of the existence of God, then the Koran is proof of the existence of Allah, etc.
That’s all well and good, but are you seriously suggesting that those who raise children outside of your set of religious beliefs (which, mind you, the kids had no choice in selecting) are somehow incapable of raising productive, intelligent children who want to accomplish things in life? Are you suggesting that people who don’t share your religious beliefs are incapable of handling life’s setbacks?
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:16 AM
If He doesn’t exist, how can you posit any of His qualities? The atheist presupposes that God doesn’t exist as a matter of faith. If He doesn’t exist, then the atheist can know nor assert nothing of His nature. Hence, He might exist in some form other than that which theists propose/believe, or in some way as yet completely unimagined. So it takes more faith to be an atheist, plus a dash of naivete.
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t. I’m arguing that they don’t have to.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Oh, dear God.
If an atheist observed that the question presupposes the existence of God, said atheist would earn an embarrassing horse-laugh from said atheist’s Logic 101 instructor with the entire class looking on and joining in the laughter.
The question presupposes only the possibility that God exists, and that one could find such a God by looking for Him/Her/It. Such is the starting presupposition of every philosophical inquiry.
What your grade-school-level error illustrates is that as an atheist, you’re not comfortable with any discussion that does not begin with “God does not exist” as a precondition. I’m sure such discussions make you feel all warm and fuzzy about your intellectual superiority, but they prove nothing about God or the universe, apart from what they prove about you.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 9:23 AM
The irony is that atheists set themselves above the faithful. They feel they can make it in life without the “faith”.
Yet they indulge themselves in everything the faithful has built and provided them. Like greedy beggars, they take and they take, never really looking up and seeing who is giving…and the giving is rarely them.
Schools, hospitals, care for the sick, the needy, abused children, abused wives and women, homeless, people surviving disaster…they say they don’t need the faith, but they do need what we have provided and created. They can’t survive without what the faithful provides…the beggars of life, fantasizing about holding the riches.
We have the faith…they have a fantasy.
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:24 AM
I’m taking believers at their word, which is supposedly “His word.”
No, they don’t. They are asking that those making the assertion of existence prove it, which is their burden.
We are biological organisms and high-mammals, that have evolved over a long period of time. Our oversized brains have been our chief means of our survival for all this time. Our emotional states are related to innate survival instincts. We can be rational, intelligent creatures. We can also be irrational. That’s just a starter for man’s nature.
You still haven’t proved he exists in the proposed way that we’re commonly told He does.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Reposting this from headlines:
I stand by that statement. The Holiest Grail of all is that of the “capital A” Atheist to the concept of Freedom From Religion.
BKennedy on December 3, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Listen, try to raise a child without using anything that the faithful has created by the will of God…you won’t have a child that can read, write, and if he becomes ill, you won’t be able to take him to a hospital…lift your head up and see what has been provided to you by the faithful…
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Can God hide in a toilet?
What if you looked for Him/Her/It there, believing that He/She/It is there? Who’s to say He/She/It is not? You?
And what you’re animated response demonstrates is that you’re intolerant of any notion that God doesn’t exist, to the point of saying things like this:
What, exactly, does my sincere questioning about religious beliefs, “prove” about me? That’ I want real answers? That I’m skeptical? That I dont “just accept things” because other people “just accept them?” It is not an insult to your intelligence if somebody questions religious beliefs and (horror of horrors) asks you – the believer – to provide some evidence so that we all may know for certain what you claim to know for certain.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:32 AM
So I need to believe your religious beliefs because you claim that everything in the world that has ever been has been created by somebody who believed in a supernatural being? Need I remind you that many scientific advances in medicine have been made in the teeth of religious opposition (ie, “you can’t play God by tampering with genetics, etc.)?
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM
1) Everything that came to be has a cause.
2) The universe came to be. (I’ll be glad to supply as much of the supporting evidence for the singular explosion that began the universe as you’d like, though this forum is not suited to such a discussion.)
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
From the characteristics of the universe that began, we can infer that this First Cause
a) Is immaterial (because matter and energy both began to exist when the universe began to exist);
b) Is eternal (because time and space both began to exist when the universe began to exist);
c) Is vastly powerful (because of the power of the singular explosion);
d) Is vastly intelligent (because of the complexity of the universe we observe);
e) Is something like what we call sentient, and has a will (because it chose to initiate the universe.)
There. God exists.
By the way, I’m not acknowledging that my believe in God rests entirely, or even partly, on such a proof. That belief is what philosophers would call “properly basic,” and arises from personal interactions with God and His people. But you asked for objective evidence, and there it is.
Nor am I saying this is the only such proof that’s possible. I know of at least 20 such proofs. This one in particular was first voiced in some form by Aristotle, and has never been rebutted cogently. The modern refutations of Aristotle (by Kant and Hume, and others), apparently err in that they mistake the meaning of the Aristotelian term “cause.”
Have a great day.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 9:39 AM
You are indeed a man of faith. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than atheism.
I don’t know what “proposed way” you want to hear. My experience is that God revealed Himself to me through the Bible. If He has not done so with you, all I can expect is that you will either believe or not believe my experience. Of course, to believe me is to admit that He has not revealed Himself to you, so the safe thing for you to do is just to call me a nut or a liar.
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Don’t make me laugh with your lies. After 30 years of atheist sneering, I know the attitude by heart. Go sell your disingenuous posturing to somebody who’s naive enough to buy it.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Lots of it. I don’t believe I’ve made any statements here about American history, though.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Let me step in here. What I believe or what I dont believe is irrelevant to anybody going to Hell or Heaven. What I know is God is just, He demands an accounting for sin. Jesus paid the sin debt. One can choose to accept the payment Jesus paid, or pay it himself. The payment that you will pay for your sin debt is eternal separation from God in Hell. God cannot allow sin to come into his presence. There is no forgiveness of sin after death. This is the unpardonable sin Jesus talked about in Matthew.
People are free to believe in God and divine justice or not. Just be aware you cannot stand before God on the Last Day and say “I didnt know.” Now you do.
abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Does Atheism exist?
If yes, then the reason it exists is because of God…if there was no God, then there would be no need for Atheism, since you logically can’t believe in something that doesn’t exist…see how strange your logic is? You believe in something that doesn’t exist…you are trying to convince people that something that doesn’t exists, exists for the purpose of arguing that it doesn’t exist.
If you truly believed God doesn’t exist, you would just move on, laugh at us, and not pay attention (since it doesn’t exist). If you pay attention, then it exists.
You aren’t against God, you are against the people who hold that conviction (since God doesn’t exist). So your problem is with people. If your neighbor shops at Target, and you shop a Wal-Mart, do you have that same problem?
Some things are unprovable…like during the day, while you are gone is your wife faithful, or do you have faith that she is…
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:42 AM
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:42 AM
You and the rest of my brothers have presented the case.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
kingsjester on December 3, 2008 at 9:44 AM
It’s not a lie, and youre obviously not psychic.
You obviously don’t, as you can’t seem to stand even rudimentary discussion and debate about
I don’t believe “in atheism.” Evolution has been observed – empirically, longitudinally and scientifically. Just because it is a slow process doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. Right?
If a detective comes to the scene of a crime after it occurs, it doesn’t meant that the crime didn’t happen. If he finds clues, he can piece together what has happened. He doesn’t declare that the crime was simply “God’s will” and best left unquestioned. Right?
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:44 AM
** You obviously don’t, as you can’t seem to stand even rudimentary discussion and debate about superstitious beliefs.
You accuse others of “lying” when they ask you to help them understand objectively what it is you believe and why. You accuse them of “sneering” at you when it is you who is doing the sneering.
Chillax, dawg. We’re just having a discussion here.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:47 AM
But those doctors were taught in a religious based school.
What I am saying is that most everything you have in your possession, is because someone of faith has provided that to you…respect it.
Like most beggars, you don’t reject the offering, you reject the goodwill that it was given to you.
You should read more history, and you will find out where this “God” you think does not exist, was real enough to provide a comfortable life for you and your family.
And just to set the record straight, I never said you needed to believe what I believe…that came our of your own insecurity (a telling statement by you).
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Between public schools and corporate hospitals I think we’ve got it covered. “Provided” is kind of an odd choice of words. At some point in my life I’m certain I’ve been to a St. something-or-other hospital. I’m also certain they billed me for it. Thanks, though.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Explain to us, preferably in syllogistic form, how insisting that you state the correct presuppositions, rather than inventing incorrect presuppositions, leads logically to this conclusion.
Clock’s ticking…
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Could you provide a link? You are stating that one species has been proven to develop into another?
I missed that evidence…link please.
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:51 AM
First, highopes, you dont sound very joyful for a person who professes to have Christ in his heart. You sound quite bitter and confrontational.
Second, you dont know all of them will burn in Hell. Continued on their present course that is the outcome. However, where there is life there is hope. Heaven will be occupied not just with those who accepted Christ early in life, but also those who accepted Christ while in the process of dying, of former atheists who recognized the Way, the Truth, and the Life. One of my instructors at the seminary I attend is a former agnostic/skeptic. He is now a strong defender of the faith – one of the best I’ve met. Jesus can radically change lives. I know, I’m one of them.
Pray for the atheist, highhopes – that’s what our Savior said to do – pray for those that hate you.
Btw – “…its savior? What “it” is in need of salvation?
abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 9:52 AM
It is impossible to either prove or disprove either the existence or non-existence of God. Why? Because proof requires incontrovertible evidence that even a skeptic cannot deny.
Since a supernatural God is by definition not of the material world, the atheist – who accepts only the existence of the material world – must automatically discount any evidence that involves the supernatural. I cannot count the times I have heard, “Well, I can’t explain it myself, but there must be a natural explanation, because there is no such thing as the supernatural.”
Since the believer already accepts the existence of the supernatural, the argument that the supernatural cannot exist fails at the start. Certainly, believers whose faith is weak, uninformed, or who have not thought through WHY they believe, can be swayed by the “god of the gaps” or other atheist arguments.
But the believer who has a first-hand experience of the supernatural, especially when it is based on a continuing personal relationship with a personal God (rather than a one-time emotional high), when it results in continuing personal transformationa and growth – that person is not going to be swayed by any materialist argument, because he or she knows something that the materialst does not.
So if someone says to me, “You say God exists. Prove it.” I reply, “No. Nothing I could say could possibly convince you that God exists. But I’ll be happy to tell you why *I* believe God exists.”
In this country, people are free to believe or not believe as they wish. And they are certainly free to try to convince others to join their worldview. But to do so by belittling or mockery is not likely to be successful.
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 9:54 AM
By whom, when? Did they find a fossil of a monkey transitioning to a man? How about a lizard transitioning to a bird? I’d like to meet the man or woman who made that remarkable discovery.
Can evolution explain origins? I think not. Until it can do that, then it’s just another false religion.
abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 9:55 AM
I’m told that it is a religion by those who hold religious beliefs.
The Gospels were written long after Jesus walked the Earth.
So we’re all going to hell because…God loves man? Question about the fable – if Adam and Eve were not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then how would they know that eating from the tree of knowledge of good an evil was the wrong thing to do? God commanded them not to know the difference between good and evil? Is that a joke? They had no knowledge of good an evil to start with, according to scripture. Somebody explain.
Color me skeptical. Willing to learn, but skeptical.
I’ll be back later (I hope) – work calls!
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 9:56 AM
There’s nothing divine or just about what you propose.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Hospitals were created out of the church, as was schools, and in particular Universities.
If you want to go to your “corporate hospitals” like King hospital be my guest. You may find a couple of hospitals in the country that are not faith based (over 1/3 are Catholic alone), but good luck.
Glad you enjoy the public schools…and what do you do when you get to the higher education? How many of those “public” schools are you going to have your kids go to?
Like I said, lift up your head from the trough and see what has been provided to you.
Without the faithful, this country would not exist…however without the atheists…
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 9:56 AM
You posited a ridiculous assertion about what somebody’s question presupposed. I corrected your error, and correctly characterized it as a grade-school-level error.
You asked for an objective proof that God exists. I provided one, and suggested 20 others.
How, exactly, do you support this claim that I can’t seem to stand discussion? Because I correctly and accurately note your pretense of sincerity? Sorry, not playing.
I’ve met every burden you’ve asked me to meet. You have yet to demonstrate that you’re even capable of correcting an error you made.
This discussion does not continue until you admit that your claim that asking “Have you looked everywhere possible for God” requires that you presuppose that God exists is an error that a Logic 101 student would make on day 1. Until you admit that, I don’t have evidence that you’re capable of assessing even simple logical syllogisms correctly, and further discussion is obviously a waste of my valuable time.
Have a great day.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 9:57 AM
First, papyrii have been found containing portions of the gospels. Date: c. AD 60. The oral tradition spread by eyewitnesses and disciples/apostles was much more gripping than the written accounts, however moving they might be. When the eyewitnesses started passing from the scene, their “memoirs” (as they were called by Justin) took precedence.
Apparently they failed to grasp the full implications of their deed.
In a world created by a just God, the knowledge of good and evil must have consequences. In fact, God warned them that they would die the day they ate of the tree. They lived another 900 years, so their death was spiritual, not physical. Without spiritual life, one cannot see God, which explains atheists. No offense intended.
Akzed on December 3, 2008 at 10:06 AM
This shows your lack of knowledge…the gospels were written by the men who were apostles, they walked with Christ.
How could they have been written “long after Jesus walked the Earth”, when they walked with him?
The compilation of the writings may have taken a long time (to confirm they were accurate)…but that is like saying that you put all the short essays together (this year) that Mark Twain has written…therefore Mark Twain wrote them after his death.
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I believe you’re talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments with Greek lettering on them. You shouldn’t assert that these are known to be portions of the gospels, because that’s not know, nor is it even the majority position. The best analysis of these that I’ve seen asserts, with some pretty good support, that they’re all from the same page of a scroll of 2nd Esdras, one of the intertestamental writings.
Don’t take this as opposition to your position; I think you’re generally correct, but you really shouldn’t be claiming those fragments as proof of early gospel authorship.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 10:11 AM
No, it is best to explain to someone sincere…This is why the bible is considered such a masterpiece:
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Fragment p52 found in Egypt, would prove you are wrong. To have this in Egypt around 130ce would mean that is was created well before 100ce, probably they estimate 90ce.
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Good Lt and abcurtis – let’s please separate the Garden of Eden story (one of two creation stories in Genesis) from the Gospels. There are some very interesting parallels between the Garden story and the Prometheus story. What sets humans apart from animals is that we use fire, and that we make moral judgements. You’ll never see a lion become a vegetarian because he thinks it’s wrong to kill for food. Genesis is a collection of very, very, very old stories, going back thousands of years, told and retold for generations before being written down.
Most (though not all) scholars agree that the Gospels were written within living memory of the events they describe, based on eyewitness testimony of the people involved. There are also good arguments to be made that Mark and John were written (or dictated) by the apostles themselves. Luke was a careful investigator and sharp observer (google “luke politarch” for an example), who traveled with Paul just a couple of decades after Jesus’ life ended.
Paul’s letters were the first New Testament documents written, within 25-30 years of Jesus’ time. Paul clearly bases his teaching on the literal, historical resurrection of Jesus. (You might recall that Paul had been vigorously opposing those who had claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death on the cross. But he had a supernatural encounter with the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and it transformed him.)
Looking at the New Testament as a collection of ancient documents, it’s clear that belief in the Resurrection as a literal event, experience by and testified to by multiple eyewitnesses at great personal cost, goes back to the very earliest days of the church. Jesus died in the year 30 CE. Paul’s letter to Corinth dates from the mid-50’s, and in it he references what he taught them at least five years earlier. In the world of folklore, 20 years is nothing.
You have to ask, how did the Resurrection story get started?
skydaddy on December 3, 2008 at 10:21 AM
By the way, I applaud your attempt to answer Good Lt’s questions, but you’re being baited.
He’s not the least interested in a robust discussion. We know this, because he asked for proof of God’s existence, I supplied it (9:38 AM), and he did not even mention the proof again — but continued to answer posts that permitted him to bait and challenge and ask “hard” questions.
I’ve encountered hundreds of guys like this on internet forums. I used to answer them, until I began to understand their game. A robust intellectual discussion is the last thing in the world they want. They want reassurance that they’re worthwhile because they’re smart. They seek this reassurance by seeking out naive Christians who will engage their questions, and then “proving” that the Christians are stupid and uneducated compared to them.
It’s a form of arrested emotional development, identical in nearly every way to the sort of bullying you see on the playground at school, where the bigger kid seeks out a smaller, weaker kid on which to demonstrate his superior strength. It’s pathetic when you see this sort of brokenness in an adult.
I understand that your Christian training suggests that you answer such people patiently. Perhaps you should, I don’t know. From where I sit, answering them in any way other than “I know what your game is, and you’re just another intellectual weakling” actually enables their attempts at control, and gives them enough reinforcement to continue the sick game.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 10:21 AM
You are absolutely right. I am a Christian, and there is absolutely NO connection between a cute bunny and colored eggs to the Risen Christ. I dont know where that malarkey came from in the first place. Easter is a corruption of a pagan name Oester the goddess of fertility. Easter Sunday should rightly be called Resurrection Sunday. Our Easter takes place at the same time the Jewish Passover takes place. That’s why the day moves. Another reason Easter occurs at Passover is Jesus was crucified at the time of Passover.
To be honest, I dont have much problem with little kids having Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, but they should be instructed as to the real meaning and the reason for these two Holy Days.
Btw – I can make a case for a December birth for Jesus.
abcurtis on December 3, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I think you’re talking about a different find, and one with which I’m not familiar.
Got a link? I’m interested. Thanks.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 10:23 AM
This is the answer you give him:
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Congratulations. You’re the first human in history to do this.
Mind taking it public – maybe holding a press conference?
I’d think that PHILWYNK PROVES EXISTENCE OF GOD would make for a good headline. No?
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM
It’s even better than that, skydaddy. Even liberal scholars admit that I Corin 15:3 and following is an early church creed, and that Paul’s claim “I pass on to you what I received” is a reference to his first visit to Jerusalem, probably within about 6 years of the crucifixion of Jesus. That it existed in credal form by then suggests that it was first committed to credal form before then, some scholars accepting dates as early as 18 months after the resurrection.
I heard a lecture by Gary Habermas a few weekends ago, and he asserted that there are three such creeds in Paul’s writings that date from the first one or two years after Jesus died. Unfortunately I came late to the lecture, and missed the references on the first two, but I think they were in Romans.
philwynk on December 3, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Look at it this way: The oldest known human remains are 200,000 years old. The oldest known primate fossil is 55 million years old. The oldest known fish fossil is 530 (phew!) million years old. The oldest known living remains – microbes called stromatolites – are believed to be around 3 billion years old.
There’s a pattern here, and it points to evolution. In fact, everything we’ve learned about biology in the last 150 years (and everything we knew about biology before that) fits the pattern. None of it fits the biblical explanation.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 10:28 AM
http://www.katapi.org.uk/BibleMSS/P52.htm
Here (probably the most informative since Hanson is such a noted scholar)
If you type in Bible, p52 you will get many more.
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »