Ultimate heart-ache: Michelle dumps on atheists
posted at 1:57 pm on December 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
But affectionately. Sort of. Except for her suggestion that believers treat them like “trolls.” Heh.
I think she’s referring specifically to the sort of jackassery going on at the capitol in Washington, of which neither I nor the other conservative atheist/agnostics I read are fans. But just in case not, I take comfort in knowing that I’ll always have Ayaan.
Exit question: Um, what exactly is Gretchen saying here? Christianity’s going to disappear unless we … take away atheists’ First Amendment rights?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 15 Next »
The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on December 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM
he/she/it is/was in the Rick Warren thread. he/she/it called Warren a fat homophobe. I called he/she/it a homo fatphobe.
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Indeed…but that hardly addresses my point.
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I think I could see myself being made at a god that was gay, too, though it depends on how forceful he was about the issue.
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I think there is a fundamental difference between a positive assertion and a negative assertion.
A positive assertion, in regards to faith/belief, states what a person believes IN.
A negative assertion states what a person DOESN’T believe in.
A nativity set is a positive assertion.
The
atheistanti-theist plaque was a NEGATIVE assertion.And it’s plain wrong to say that atheism is solely defined by what it DOESN’T believe in.
I’ve had enough conversations with self-described atheists to know that while we have deep disagreements, they DO believe in things – reason, order, rationality, peace, love, etc.
Thus it’s a cop-out to try and assert that the plaque was a definition of atheistic beliefs.
It wasn’t – it was an attack on faith.
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
It’d be really swell if various capitol grounds were free of any religious advertisements, pro or con.
RightOFLeft on December 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
So AP has said he’s sure there is no higher being or beings [God or Gods]?
Are sure he didn’t say he wasn’t sure about the higher being[s] thing, but does reject ancient texts [mythology] written by dudes?
Agnostics > atheists.
toliver on December 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I hear black churches have very lengthy services. Few closet atheists could endure that every Sunday, plus Jeremiah Wright, even if the singing is good.
albo on December 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I have no beef with Malkin. I pretty much agree with what she’s saying. ….but the blond is an idiot.
Signed, a concerned atheist.
ElectricPhase on December 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Considering the horrors she has experienced in the name of Allah (not Allahpundit), such as genital mutilation and the murder of her friend Theo Van Gogh, I can understand why she rejected the idea of God.
But like Oriana Fallaci, another atheist, she is respectful of Christianity, unlike many atheists who are more zealous about converting people to their lack of faith than most Christians are in converting people to theirs.
Disturb the Universe on December 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Thanks Mark. btw, was at a party the other day at a friends for someone “special” who was coming from Oregon to talk about “important” conservative issues. He was interesting and nutty. Had to control myself from asking if he was you!
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I agree with you in that I find the general spirit of Christmas, as an isolated event, to be a glorious excuse to settle the hell down and be nice to each other for a change. As I said, I like Christmas. However, to assert that the event and its symbols do not represent the religious faith that is responsible for its existence is, to my view, at worst willful ignorance and at best naivete.
Also, in my experience, non-Christians are told that if they don’t have Christ in their heart, that they are not listening to god, that they don’t know the truth, and that they are suffering without Christ. While it could easily be argued that the attitude is out of concern, it is still condescension. It’s the implication that one is resisting the truth, which would make them ignorant. Therefore, the belief makes the same assertion that the written statement by the atheists does.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Spend a few days on an all (or mostly) atheist web site and you’ll find that they do indeed claim otherwise. Not all of them, obviously, but most of the vocal ones certainly do.
Darth Executor on December 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM
AS much as I like your Twain quotes, I think this one might be off. There is a lot of intellectualism that runs through Catholicism, and the Hindu gods seem big on it too.
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Obama wasn’t listening, remember?
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Agreed. Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes up for a lot of ill will. Personal, generic, or otherwise. She’s neat-o. :o)
Tanya on December 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Atheists should just be ignored.
As for the rapper dude, I say toss him to the curb, like he tossed the white boy, as the white folks cheered..sad.
christene on December 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Strangely enough, during my eight years in Catholic school, I found the nuns to be the nicest women in the world, the priests to be the easiest people to talk to, and the liberal-leaning teachers who were the biggest hypocrites about religion.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Well I dunno, we never hear anything about a Mrs. God. Mrs Santa Claus, but never any Mrs. God. Rather suspicious. Maybe there are living in sin.
MB4 on December 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
You say that as if she knows what she’s saying. Hint: She doesn’t have a clue.
SouthernDem on December 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
JD, you are smokin’ today.
BigD on December 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM
There was just a new gay version of the bible made by somebody. It was in the news, whatever that means.
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2008 at 3:02 PM
But indeed it does.
If God were analogous to a fairy or other such mythological character, Atheists would simply brush Him and his followers off as they do with pixies and sprites.
But they don’t, they attack, challenge, and decry, and then create a competing philosophy designed to take the place of supernaturaly-gifted morals, called Secular Humanism. That, my limey chum, is a new faith. Faith in what? SELF.
TMK on December 18, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Yes, enforced cheer really grates after a while. Grr!
Rosmerta on December 18, 2008 at 3:03 PM
There was just a new gay version of the bible made by somebody. It was in the news, whatever that means.
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I think it was called My Two Gods
MDWNJ on December 18, 2008 at 3:03 PM
LOL. Bambi stole my humor after Nov. 4. I woke up with a start just the other day and was stricken with the notion that God does not like despair. Seems to have given me my mojo back.
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I don’t see it as condescension because, to me, that term indicates a difference in levels (the higher level condescends to the lower level).
Now, there ARE Christians who are condescending when they say things like that because they take great pride in thinking they are better than those “ignorant” atheists.
However, these are either Christians-in-name-only (CINO’s) or milk-fed Christians (very, very young in their faith).
Christians of deeper faith understand that we are not better than non-believers. We are just forgiven. As such, there is a bit of sadness in these deeper faith Christians toward atheists.
Now, I can certainly understand why that may be PERCEIVED as condescension, but it certainly isn’t meant that way.
That all said, dealing with anti-theists is a slightly different matter.
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Not really. She equates Catholicism with Nazism and Communism.
aengus on December 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Robert Grosseteste and St Thomas Aquinas were great intellects, although my personal preference is for Pope Urban II.
MB4 on December 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
is that a compliment? I’m not sure… most Christians seem to dislike we Agnostics more… making fun of us for not picking a team.
regardless, AP has stated a few times that he is Atheist. now that’s balls, living this life as a conservative with no reward in the afterlife as motive. kudos AP…
Kaptain Amerika on December 18, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Only the very blind don’t see this. They’d have elected him if he was ante-theist. He is their One, and they deserve him, from the left to the right, of all religions, or of none.
Clever one, our little spats from the primaries aside, I always thought you have one and appreciate your intellect.
Entelechy on December 18, 2008 at 3:06 PM
very true, and its interesting that they hate and fear Christians much more than muslims, who pose a bigger threat….ever thought about why that is?
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 3:06 PM
That probably speaks more to the kind of atheist that frequents an “atheist web site.”
FSTDT can get pretty abusive, for instance.
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
No. You’ve just gone off on a tangent. One I’ve heard before.
I was trying to get people to think about what constitutes ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ above and beyond the notion of ‘belief’.
I wouldn’t describe myself as an ‘atheist’, but many would attempt to convince me that my non-belief is itself, a belief, and that therefore I have my own religion. A very peculiar form of circular reasoning.
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM
FSTDT?
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM
After a while, I stopped trying to discern between the arrogant Christians and those who aren’t. I disagree with them, but I don’t hold any animosity towards them, any more than I hold animosity towards atheists. I will say that on average, the Christians I’ve met are more tolerable than atheists, but I also respect the basics of the Christian religion personally.
My argument is that the message on the sign was taken as condescending just as some find the attempt to convert to Christianity condescending. I already made it clear I think it was a dick move, but it’s still just an unvarnished expression of belief, and hence if there is going to be a Christmas tree allowed, under the refusal of government to endorse any one religious belief, I would see the sign as just as protected as the tree.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM
they do tend to go on and on and on…
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Not nazism. Taliban-esque, perhaps.
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Site source, please.
I am referring to Chapter 9 of The Force of Reason which begins, “I am a Christian atheist.”
Disturb the Universe on December 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Mrs. God has been missing sense before the Torah was written. There was a plaque referring to her unearthed in the Siana, but nobody has ever actually seen her.
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM
AP,despite your frequent reminders to us here that you are athiest, I don’t think you have quite been able to convince yourself as much as you seem to want others to believe.
Be all that as it may, for you and yours, Merry Christmas. You can laugh and rant if you please, but I still wish you the very best and offer my prayers that your Christmas will be as filled with wonder and blessings as those of us who are less hesitant in our belief. Shalom.
MikeA on December 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM
So next year instead of putting up a positive representation of their beliefs like a Navity scene, Christians should just post a sign saying:
Even though they don’t believe in h#ll, all non-Chritians are doomed to suffer pain and agony for eternity for their heathen ways
If people thought all beliefs were equally valid there would be no reason to hold any of them. Of course people think THEIR beliefs were right and the others are at best misguided.
katiejane on December 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
1) As you know, legally speaking the SCOTUS has declared atheism is a religion. Maybe that’s a bit different from a ‘belief’, but I think it’s in the same neighborhood.
2) If unequivocally stating that God exists is a ‘belief’, then why wouldn’t unequivocally stating that God DOESN’T exist also be a ‘belief’?
Of course, I think what we’re getting down to is how do each of us define the word ‘belief.’
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Might help if the sign says non-Christians vice non-Chritians.
katiejane on December 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Not Oriana Fallaci, Ayaan Hirsi:
aengus on December 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
A nativity scene on the capitol grounds is intended to send a different kind of message: that Christians should enjoy a privileged political status. That’s pretty offensive to me as a non-Christian who loves his country. I wouldn’t have handled the situation the same way as the atheists in IL, WA and WI, but I’ve got no sympathy for the people who put up the nativity sets.
RightOFLeft on December 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM
MadisonConservative – I’m no fundamentalist. I’m just the son of a preacher and I agree there are some Christian’s that attack those of other religions or non-religions although no where near the level that Muslim Extremist do.
You believe whatever you want. But just agree that when someone posts a sign that states “Religion only hardens hearts and enslaves minds” that it is an attack. And how the hell you can compare that to the Nativity scene which celebrates the birth of Christ is beyond belief. Seriously.
saltydogg14 on December 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM
.
.
There is a difference.
.
Atheism is not a viable philosophical system on which to base your life..
.
Atheists are not always affirming of the nonexistence of God – they basically affirm the nonexistence of God on the basis of the fact that theism has not presented itself in any defendable stance. Therefore atheism by default becomes the position that the person holds to. It is really not a logically sustainable system.
.
Atheism itself is forced to back away from its absolute negation of God’s existence is because it is a logical fallacy to make a negation in the absolute sense. The moment you affirm atheism in the absolute negative sense, you are (in effect) saying that there is no being with infinite knowledge in the world – and I know that to be infinitely so because by virtue of my own infinite knowledge, I declare the non existence of an infinite being.
.
.
It is a self-negating absolute. This is why Bertrand Russell backed away from it and was forced to concede himself an agnostic instead. An absolute negation is unsustainable.
.
.
subbottomfeeder on December 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
You sure are JxD, either “smokin’”, or smoking, but it’s always good :) Mine is not back, and will never retrun to normal, er abnormal :( America, the great lady, as we knew her, is no more. She’s slowly dying, in favor of what I despise the most.
On topic, Tanya, on the link in AP’s write up, says it best.
It’s all about tolerance, from all sides.
Entelechy on December 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
“Fundies Say The Dardist Things”
But I believe the url is http://www.fstdt.com
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I still maintain that the sign is only incendiary because it is not the opinion held by the majority…
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 2:07 PM
I don’t buy that, and I’ll tell you why. Christians (I know a passel of ‘em, all flavors) shrug off Menorahs, Buddhas, Hari Krishnas — we may bristle a little inwardly at some of the more unfamiliar displays, but we basically go about our business.
The thing that is different about the atheist plaque, and most of the other recent atheist displays (indeed, to a degree in the label “atheist” itself) is that they are not positive expressions of a belief, but negative statements about the beliefs of others — and blatantly disrespectful, to the point of being insulting, rejections at that. There is a time and a place for expression of all opinions, including ugly ones, of course; but inside the capital building I believe greater decorum is called for.
It’s true that in saying “this is the way” there is an implication that “that is not the way”; but an implication due to mutual exclusion is not the same an insult for its own sake. A positive statement — something along the lines of “The humorous thing is that the Washington plaque actually says religion makes people hostile! A bizarre adjective to apply to a nativity, IMHO.
To put it more succinctly (but less precisely): the Washington atheist plaque would be more analogous to a Christian “Hell House” than to a nativity.
RegularJoe on December 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I’m not disputing the positive nature of the tree. I’m disputing that it does not also represent Christian beliefs which are, in many ways, symmetrical to atheist beliefs.
Would I prefer atheists put up something more positive? Yes. Frankly, I think the campaign of “Just be good for goodness’ sake” was a perfectly adroit message, and I would much rather that be up than the sign. However, either way, it represents the same faith, and that faith believes what is on that sign.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I think you took that quote a bit out of context.
Disturb the Universe on December 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Militant Atheists would hate Muslims if there were mosques on every corner reminding them of what awful people they are, but since it’s gaudy office buildings with big ugly crosses everywhere, that’s the sore spot.
Basically, for a militant heathen, any buzzkill religious icon that reminds a person how far they fall short of what they know is right must be destroyed. It’s just Protestants and Catholics are the larger, and therefore easy, target.
I say militant, because most atheists are merely “practical” non-believers, meaning they are so self-centered they barely have a conscience to wound, unlike the militant variety who bleed furiously when you prick them.
TMK on December 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I already addressed this issue in my prior post about positive and negative assertions.
As it has been explained to me (and I could have misunderstood it or have been played), atheism isn’t just a non-belief in God…
…it substitutes science and reason (and some other things) for God.
Thus, the sign they put up could have easily been a positive assertion. Therein lies my own particular problem with the sign.
I have a problem with a sign that espouses no positive assertions and think it should have been refused with the understanding that they needed to come up with a sign with positive assertions.
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
She also equates Catholicism with Islam so I guess she’d agree with the second part of your statement.
aengus on December 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Really? I don’t recall that authority being handed to them in the Constitution. Ah well, just add it to the long list of unconstitutional behavior that the gawping masses accept ;)
I believe that if I let go of my apple, it will fall. Is my belief in gravity a religion too?
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I fail to see the logic in that assertion.
A nativity scene during Christmas is simply a recognition of the historical roots of the holiday.
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Allah,
I thought that after the ‘Price is Right’ yesterday, we were going to see you in church on Sunday?
Troy Rasmussen on December 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM
aengus on December 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
She seems to be answering critics who point out all the “peaceful” quotes in the Koran while ignoring the ones that call people to kill the infidel.
And she mentions Catholicism but doesn’t mention other forms of Christianity.
Disturb the Universe on December 18, 2008 at 3:21 PM
This is why it might be helpful to think, not just in terms of theist/agnostic/atheist, but theist/agnostic/atheist/antitheist. The first and last are assertions of fact, while the middle two can be seen as sympathetic to one or the other, but not declarative.
But, you are correct. Not having a god, alone, does not give one a basis for how to live.
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 3:23 PM
On this we are in agreement.
On this we are not. The only qualm I have with the sign is the assertion that atheism is not a religion, when it is. As for the nativity scene, while I like it, I’m not refusing to acknowledge what it represents: Christianity. A menorah represents Judaism. A statue of Buddha represents Buddhism. Each of those symbols represent the core beliefs of each of these faiths, and they all seem offensive to those who don’t hold their faith when the sugar is stripped away from the assertion that you’re wrong, and you’re ignorant if you don’t believe the same.
Then they are not atheists, they are agnostics. Atheism requires the faith that there is no god based on whatever rationale you choose. It does not allow for the belief that there is a god any more than Christianity allows for the belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is a position that is open to evidence from both sides, presumably in empirical form more often than not.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Hey don’t mess with
TexasChristmas! Especially since I got a 650 dollar leather jacket for 159 yesterday on sale for Christmas.sonnyspats1 on December 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
The context is whether or not she sees anything positive, good or redemptive about Islam. Her response is that the question is preposterous, like asking her if she sees anything positive about other systems of total evil like Nazism, Communism and Catholicism. How else would you interpret her statement?
Robert Spencer took exception to her assertion:
aengus on December 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I think it comes down to some practical reasons, they’re afraid of muslims, and they’re not afraid of christians, and spiritual reasons..they hate THE NAME more than anything else…
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Gretchen is a hottie but not the brightest tool in the shed.
I miss ED Hill on F&F in the mornings.
UltimateBob on December 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM
why can’t atheists ever evolve some new lines??
so you’ve proven God doesn’t exist scientifically huh?
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM
You fail to see the symbolism of literally putting Jesus in the seat of government authority?
RightOFLeft on December 18, 2008 at 3:28 PM
And that’s what you got. Perhaps you think religion requires a supernatural element, but a “system of faith” definitely does not. Capitalism & Communism are both systems of faith. Despite what you have been told about faith being blind, it most assuredly is not.
If an Atheist is trying to convert people to non-belief, through ridicule or political domination…
If an Atheist pens dozens of books challenging religions in favor of his own system…
If an Atheist creates a justification for modified traditional morality and “goodness” for the sake of “goodness…”
If an Atheist insists there is no God and the universe is self-existant without any proof…
How is that any different from what you call “religion?” The lack of the supernatural?
TMK on December 18, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Madison, I think you should read this blog post by Ace which Allah links to above. Ace makes an excellent argument that all belief systems are inherently exclusivist when it comes to their claims of representing ultimate truth. The difference is the manner in which they seek to express themselves in public displays like this Washington thing. Saying “Merry Christmas” and displaying a Nativity Scene is not an act of belligerence to other belief systems. It’s not as if they made a display depicting Dante’s inferno with a “Believe or go Hell, Sinners” banner draped over it.
The atheist display, on the other hand, was purposely hostile and openly belligerent towards all other belief systems. It was stating, “We’re the only sane people here. The rest are all delusional fools!” That’s not equivalent to “Merry Christmas and Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards all mankind!” If they had put up a display of “No Greater Virtue Than Reason; No Higher Power Than Truth” (the atheist equivalent of “Merry Christmas” that Ace came up with), then it would have and should have been welcomed right along with the Nativity scene.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I have heard it said that Americans believe six contradictory things before breakfast, and while it seems to me that we can accept a lot of things, we take offense when someone tells us to our face that we are wrong.
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 3:28 PM
aengus on December 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I have the utmost respect for Robert Spencer, and I do see your point.
Disturb the Universe on December 18, 2008 at 3:30 PM
*rimshot*
Nope. I haven’t ‘proven’ the tooth fairy doesn’t exist either.
I’m not really interested in your peculiar misunderstanding of science. All I’m talking about is ‘belief’ and ‘religion’. Why can’t you?
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I was fairly well despairing, searching for a way out that employed “reason,” as I require for all things. Hope and despair are natural, and part of human nature. I didn’t need to forgive those who are harming me by deed or stupidity; I only needed to remember that I’m insignificant enough to be subject to the rest of what man is subject to, and that I am as much subject to imbalance from time to time as anyone else. It’s my job to get back. It didn’t take any exception from the use of my reason to get there.
(Strangely enough, I had been wondering how Larry Kudlow maintains his essential good nature and bonhomie and optimism in the face of awful economic policies and news. His “mustard seed” analogy is New Testament. I was reminded that he is a devout Catholic, and that is how I was reminded not to despair, because God doesn’t like it. Thanks Larry.)
E. How did people keep hope alive in the camps, or during the decades of communism in E. Europe?
Also, my reserve of humor and affection may be lower these days–I share it now with fewer people. If we’re ever in the same re-education camp, I’ll share it with you. :)
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I’ve read it, and I just happen to disagree with it. I can only agree to do so at that point.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Unless they have “literally” put Jesus in charge of the government…
…then a nativity display is simply that – a display that shows the historical roots of the holiday that is being celebrated.
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 3:32 PM
I gotta go, but let me recommend “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis to all my HotAir atheist friends out there, it being the season and all.
It may not convince you, but you will never be able to say it was not an intellectually stimulating read.
BigD on December 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM
The problem is that there are “christians” who try to CRAM their beliefs down others’ throats.
When they should be minding their own business and actually BEING the light that they “preach” about. See, then others would be Attracted to the Peace and light and love of it.
So, I see no difference between the pissed off Atheist about the nativity and the pissed off Christian about the sign.
Same difference. No peace, no light, no love. Just judgement, confusion and quite frankly a pain, but still I comment on it here. lol~ I’m only human.
bridgetown on December 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Agreed…..and the very reason why the true atheist philosophy is so easily defeated. An absolute negation is self-defeating and unsustainable.
.
Unfortunately, most “atheists” lack the intellect to discover that they are really agnostic.
subbottomfeeder on December 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Well thank you muchly.
Primaries are fight night anyway, that’s part of the fun.
After the election ended it dawned on me though:
“Wow, there was a totally legit reason McCain was my third choice, tops, last year.”
BKennedy on December 18, 2008 at 3:35 PM
On your latter point, I will definitely agree. Perhaps it has more to do with living in the atheist capital of the country, but I have brought my share of atheists around to the understanding that they are not.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Atheism is open to evidence of God’s existence, it’s just that we believe there isn’t any.
RightOFLeft on December 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Whatever happened to ‘Peace on earth goodwill toward men’?
sonnyspats1 on December 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
No. That’s not my definition of ‘religion’ either.
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
One last point.
.
One simply can’t convert ANYONE to their belief system based soley on trashing other belief systems.
.
sbf<<<moving on.
subbottomfeeder on December 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West’s advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration.
The original figures to draw attention to this were Bishop Robert Grosseteste, early in the 13th century, the first person to imagine the experiment, and his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, the first man to imagine a secular world, a world without God directing everything. Secularism is not the same as atheism, of course, both Grosseteste and Aquinas were priests. But they helped us to escape from the overbearing medieval view that the world has meaning and pattern only in relation to God [or Allah].
MB4 on December 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM
No, it isn’t. Atheism, real atheism, asserts that there is no god, with the same fervent faith as theists assert that there is a god. Agnosticism is being open to evidence of either.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM
.
.
.
.
.
.
You knew it was coming………
.
.
.
Toooooo funny.
subbottomfeeder on December 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM
When we talk about ‘converting’ people, I think that some atheists are simply trying to remove what they perceive as a grave handicap from others’ lives.
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Struck down as sexist, and I agree. We should show goodwill to chicks, too.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
- Peter Watson
MB4 on December 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Thanks.
BTW did you notice that the interviewer Andrew Williams does not capitalise the word Communism–as in “Nazism, communism, Catholicism”? That is either very sloppy editing or, I suspect, a kind of Orwellian spelling change to reduce mental consciousness.
aengus on December 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
In most cases I agree with Michelle Malkin. I think she’s wonderful. Although I understand her point, regarding ignoring the trolls and taking the high road, in my opinion Gretchen Carlson is spot-on regarding this issue.
It’s time to express outrage against those who offend and mock our religious beliefs. Christians have offered their money, their hearts and the other cheek for entirely too long and now both cheeks are battered and bruised beyond repair.
Our places of worship are being vandalized and Jesus Christ Himself is being mocked and attacked publicly, in the most vile ways, simply because we express our faith openly and participate freely, in the political process.
Our rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution are being violated, on a daily basis. The playing field is no longer level and those who mock Christianity and encroach on our religious holidays, continue to sneakily move the goal post when we attempt to play fairly and offer a branch of kindness.
According to a World Net Daily article, “one” angry homosexual activist, Sean Thomas, is responsible for having a Salvation Army bell ringer removed from the grounds of a post office. He made it his business to see to it that future Salvation Army bell ringers were removed permanently, in spite of the fact that they have been collecting money for charitable purposes, in the Brea post office, for 25 years.
Mr. Thomas stated that he just wanted the law obeyed and he didn’t think it was appropriate. Which law, Mr. Thomas?
According to the legal organization, The Alliance Defense Fund:
Contrary to popular opinion, the term “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other founding document of this nation. Yet for decades, some organizations and individuals have spread the myth that the words “separation of church and state” are found in the U.S. Constitution. Because of this misinformation, the ACLU and its allies have used this phrase to persuade public officials to silence religious expression.
It’s time for Christians to fight back on religious and Constitutional grounds. In addition, it is time to fight for “Hate Crimes” laws for Christians, women, molested children, and the elderly, etc., in an attempt to level the playing field.
sinsing on December 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM
aengus on December 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
We are definately living in Orwellian times.
Disturb the Universe on December 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM
It could be seen as a compliment I suppose. I don’t think it’s logical to “pick a team”. I see organized religion as made-up BS, but there may be some sort of God nonetheless.
We may even be AI living in someone’s very sophisticated computer program.
toliver on December 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I haven’t even got to the stage of being able to argue that there is or isn’t a ‘god’. I don’t even have any reason to accept the very concept of ‘god’-like entities.
Might as well be trying to talk to me about unicorns.
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Running linux, of course….although, given how f’ed up the world is right now, it could be Windows ;)
*ducks*
LimeyGeek on December 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM
That is over interpreting the word. Look, a-theist just means one who is without gods. Agnostics kind of believe in god, but aren’t sure. Atheists don’t worship a god, and don’t claim a god, but need not have any certainty that there is no god (or not a particular God). Anti-theist would be a better word for what you are talking about.
But, then, we are only talking about the definition of words, not the abstract concepts themselves.
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Madisonconservative……..
.
.
\snowing there yet?
.
.
I live a few miles to the northeast – ’bout an hour south of Lambeau Field.
.
.
Enjoy your posts. Sorry you have to live in the belly of the beast down there………
.
sbf
subbottomfeeder on December 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I would imagine that Christianity would do considerably better in places where it’s persecuted, considering its beginnings as a slave religion. The Christians’ greatest hero (Christ) is presented as history’s greatest sacrificial lamb. For centuries, the church has venerated those who suffer physical and mental torment and abstain from any worldly pleasures, all in the name of their religion. The Christian ideal is a miserable and unambitious life, spent in humble service, hoping to be rewarded beyond the grave.
Why wouldn’t this appeal to someone already living in a slave state? Meanwhile, in a relatively free society such as America, it makes sense that many Christians will practice a heavily stripped-down version of the faith or give it up all together. We are free to value our lives and seek acheivement in the concrete world of the living rather than idly pray for relief in the spiritual realm.
Sign of the Dollar on December 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 15 Next »