Quote of the day
posted at 10:35 pm on February 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Atheists claim to value reason above blind faith and individuality above the lock-step certitude of religion. My own rejection of faith, I hoped, would allow me to indulge in wicked thoughts and pork-based dishes. I hoped I could, forever, avoid hallelujah get-togethers, groupthinky organizations and constraining labels.
Yet, these days, atheists are organized. They’re activists. They will probably sue you. They have become exasperatingly earnest, hopelessly serious and unnecessarily pushy.
They have, in other words, become as tedious as Joel Osteen. And there are few greater sins.”
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 »
I didn’t say I wanted to leave. I just wanted some other places to go when this site doesn’t deliver. Sorry for asking.
Ampersand on February 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM
There won’t be any asking either, you should have read the fine print when you accepted membership.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Woahza! Hyperbolize much?
terryannonline on February 18, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Whoa, easy on the bold there, buddy.
darii on February 18, 2009 at 11:55 PM
You haven’t read the Bible, have you?
radiofreevillage on February 18, 2009 at 11:58 PM
For something you don’t give a s*** about, it sure seems to irk you.
MadisonConservative on February 18, 2009 at 11:59 PM
There’s really quite a number of moral systems superior to the one involving a Good that makes mothers cook and eat their children.
radiofreevillage on February 18, 2009 at 11:53 PM
But none with a recipe as good as ours; it’s the proper blend of spices, dontcha know.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 11:59 PM
As a God fearing, hope he ain’t watching, it’s all up to me, is my mask on straight kinda Christian all I can say is Tally Ho!
Limerick on February 18, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Yes, I have.
terryannonline on February 19, 2009 at 12:00 AM
You haven’t read the Bible, have you?
radiofreevillage on February 18, 2009 at 11:58 PM
I got as far as “Go forth and multiply” which cost me a week’s salary for a high-end calculator.
Only later did I discover that taking the Bible literally wasn’t expected.
Radio Shack sucks, they wouldn’t let me do a return.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Was it bacon explosion, or baby explosion?
MadisonConservative on February 19, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Can a blind, deaf, quadraplegic be a Christian then?
Limerick on February 19, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Instapundit has a lot of varied subjects. Very interesting.
Cindy Munford on February 19, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Hi Ampersand:
Per your request, I recommend this site as well as John Piper’s blog.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Er, Eagles. No one else is monitoring the noobs?
hawkdriver on February 19, 2009 at 12:19 AM
I figured that since he was such a huge Beatles fan maybe he knew something I didn’t. :)
FloatingRock on February 19, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Ace of Spades
Blackfive
youngTXcon on February 19, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Alarms rang throughout the NSA at that text string.
Limerick on February 19, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Then you know that what I said earlier is literally true.
radiofreevillage on February 19, 2009 at 12:24 AM
What do you think of John Gill? A.W. Pink is one of my favorites. He was brilliant.
Skidd on February 19, 2009 at 12:24 AM
So long as you can ignore anything you don’t like, it’s good.
radiofreevillage on February 19, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Once again Bishop, you made me lol.
darii on February 19, 2009 at 12:25 AM
No one else is monitoring the noobs?
hawkdriver on February 19, 2009 at 12:19 AM
I monitor them wherever and whenever possible.
Oh…you said “Noobs”.
Sorry.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 12:26 AM
anyone recommend some other sites
Weekly Standard blog
Spirit of 1776 on February 19, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Maybe I’m just too tired, but could you please enlighten me as to the reference you are making?
darii on February 19, 2009 at 12:28 AM
So long as you can ignore anything you don’t like, it’s good.
radiofreevillage on February 19, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Yeah isn’t that a bummer, trying to put every Christian into a big fat group of fundamentalists and literalists and finding out that some just don’t see it that way? Spoils a good “look at the geeks and their imaginary friends” screed every time.
Stereotyping, it’s not just for breakfast anymore.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Yes, I have learned plenty from them as well as this guy.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM
By the way, I am not Presbyterian myself.
But Gordon H. Clark is a good thinker known for clarity and precision, in the midst of an awful lot of boring, tired philosophical writings of dead authors.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Your an idiot. Everyone knows that Hotel California was a Beatles hit from their 1966 album Aftermath. It was right after Sting left the band to pursue his solo career under the pseudonym The Police. WHO’S THE NOOB NOW BIOTCH!!
Ampersand on February 19, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Hit that one over the Green Monster. ;)
Got called a evangelical last night(here) because I’m so anti-abortion. They just can’t imagine anyone being against abortion who isn’t throwing the God grenade.
Limerick on February 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM
You’re a bigger idiot.
hawkdriver on February 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM
And the number shall be three. It shall not be two lest to get to three and four is right off.
hawkdriver on February 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I’m a Baptist with a boatload of reformed beliefs.
I never heard of Gordeon Clark. Was just over at Wikipedia and Theopedia and noticed there was a Van til controversy. Where would I learn about that? I’m interested.
By the way, thanks for the tip. :)
Skidd on February 19, 2009 at 12:41 AM
As an evangelical myself, I would enjoy you on the team.
:-)
But you are correct:
there are Libertarians who are pro-life.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 12:41 AM
haha what a Beatles fan you are
zbunde on February 19, 2009 at 12:41 AM
What a Beatles fan you are…
zbunde on February 19, 2009 at 12:42 AM
OMG! Correcting grammar on a message board. YOU WIN!
Seriously dude. Lighten up. It was a joke.
Ampersand on February 19, 2009 at 12:43 AM
Neal Boortz will not be happy.
hawkdriver on February 19, 2009 at 12:43 AM
You simmer down. I knew it was a joke. I was joking back. Pretty funny thread huh?
hawkdriver on February 19, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Message board???!?!?!?
I thought this was the comments section of a blog, idiot!
(j/k, just to be clear :P)
darii on February 19, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Thanks, ColtsFan. That is quite a compliment. I’m one of those shadow secularists who admire people of faith.
Shalom and Merry Christmas to you all.
Limerick on February 19, 2009 at 12:46 AM
It’s that you, Manly?
neuquenguy on February 19, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Agreed.
If I have to use a label other than “follower of Jesus Christ” to describe myself, I would be comfortable with the term, “Reformed Baptist.”
I like Gordon H. Clark because he is clear, very readable, and operates out of the American Anglo Analytic tradition, as opposed to Continental thought (i.e., Heidegger, Hegel, Sartre, etc).
Yes, there was a controversy many years ago between Cornelius Van Til and Gordon H. Clark. Personally, I wasn’t there, and I think way too much was made out of it.
This book deals with it in more detail.
Gordon H. Clark was chairman of the philosophy department at Butler University. He knows philosophy pretty well. And he is clear.
May I encourage you to pick up Clark’s books on Philosophy, especially his works on Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Science, Education, and Ancient Philosophy, and Empiricism.
Thank you for the discussion.
Take care, my friend!!
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 12:50 AM
lol
hawkdriver on February 19, 2009 at 12:52 AM
ColtsFan throws a “high-five” to Limerick.
:-)
And then he wonders to himself, “I wish Limerick and I could agree on NFL teams though….”
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 12:52 AM
And who do you support ColtsFan?
Oh. Nevermind.
darii on February 19, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Hehehehehe
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Yes, you may–I love this stuff. Thanks for the tips.
You’re welcome, of course. G’night.
Skidd on February 19, 2009 at 12:59 AM
I’m really not getting that you understand the Beatles comment was the joke… Watch more Red Eye.
And just to rap it up… You’re mamma.
Ampersand on February 19, 2009 at 1:07 AM
We’re just not cynical enough. Because we don’t believe in God, we’re not supposed to believe in anything. Not to go all Joel Osteen, but I think he wrote a pretty empty criticism.
RightOFLeft on February 19, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Two pages of commenters having to explain their humor/sarcasm to each other gives new meaning to the word “tedious.”
Whew!
platypus on February 19, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Not trying to spread rumors but Archie Manning has been seen associating with badminton players.
Limerick on February 19, 2009 at 1:11 AM
You don’t say! I’m going to go blog this immediately!
darii on February 19, 2009 at 1:12 AM
No, no, no… I know that many people don’t read it literally. I appreciate this fact, and I like it. It’s just that while you say that “you don’t see it that way”, I recognize that this isn’t because the Book somehow allows for various interpretations. The Bible is very clear on all the barbarism that it recommends. It’s because you’re secular, i.e. your morals aren’t dictated by the Bible. You use a preconceived set of morals to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will see in what way.
Again, as far as the end result, I couldn’t be more happy to see you do that. But it is intellectually dishonest to argue that your very sane and reasonable behavior is somehow compatible with the actual teachings of this ancient horrible book. So hence the idea that the Christian morals are somehow the best is ludicrous. Some of us will not say it, but we all act as if it’s true.
radiofreevillage on February 19, 2009 at 1:13 AM
You read the whole thing? Poor platypus.
I guess once the lib troll (iamblue) left the thread, everyone got bored looking for some action and ended taking it out on each other.
darii on February 19, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Herein i try to disprove “gods” existence: Most if not every major civilisation in human history has created there own variation of the same belief, that there is (A) a god or gods in many cases, a creator who looks down and oversees our existence in judgement, benevolence or both and (B) an afterlife, another plane of existence that waits for us after our death.
Both points are easily explainable as by-products of lack of scientific knowledge and a failue to comprehend the nature of death .
A: the absence of a scientific understanding of the natural world hundreds(Incas)and thousands(Romans,Vikings) of years ago inevitably leads to the belief in a creator (how else could the world exist).
B: it is impossible for the vast majority of the humanity (myself included) to comprehend that at death you simply cease to be, that your consciousness, your self awareness is simply gone into nothing. It is very much easier to believe that after you die your consciousness (soul if you like) travels to another plane of immortal existence than try to comprehend and accept complete and utter nonexistence.
The fact that so many completely different mythologys have been created throughout time by different civilisation independent of eachother with these two points central to each for me at least is proof enough that heaven, god etc is all make believe like santa if not infinitely more interesting anthropologically . To reference the great writer Oolon Colluphid “Well that about raps it up for God”.
Btw i dont mean any of this as a denegration of religious faith these are simply my beliefs and counter arguements are welcome…. oh and taking it back to the survey i was raised irish catholic(in Ireland no less) and was forced to go to church every week until i was 14, i still go Christmas and Easter for my grandmother.
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Sorry, I would like a citation of said barbarism.
darii on February 19, 2009 at 1:17 AM
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
radiofreevillage on February 19, 2009 at 1:21 AM
I will give you counterargument.
Regarding “A:”
We now have loads more scientific understanding of the natural world, but many people still belong to religions. You might respond that these people don’t understand the science. Fair enough.
However, it seems to me that your argument points out its own flaw. Modern mechanistic materialism does not eliminate the need for a prime mover. At the risk of being overly glib, I must ask: What went bang at the big bang and did it make itself explode? If you deny God’s existence, you’re probably claiming the Big Bang model. Thus you must acknowledge the eternity of matter and the eternity of motion. To claim eternity of motion without an immobile prime mover is to posit a causa sui. Which is absurd.
You’d be arguing that black is white and getting yourself killed at the next zebra crossing. :P
darii on February 19, 2009 at 1:28 AM
So I take it that you avoid anyone offering two pigs in a poke? I mean, well, any rational person would. Metaphor not withstanding.
Limerick on February 19, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Thanks for the link. I will read and respond if I stay up late enough.
darii on February 19, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 1:16 AM
No counter argument necessary. Be content in your beliefs and live life.
Now, if you continue to use language such as “proof enough that heaven, god etc is all make believe like santa” you can expect to get called on it.
You don’t compare my casual faith to a belief in a fat elf and I won’t compare your atheism to that of a godless, self-indulgent blowhard.
Cheers.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Sorry, two arbitrary premises do not make a proof. Even if your premises were accepted as truisms they would not disprove the existence of God, all they would prove is that people will tend to develop a belief in some kind of god not that it is impossible for some kind of god to exist.
neuquenguy on February 19, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Well put, my good sir!
darii on February 19, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Very thoughtful post. Are you a new poster?
I’ve been a poster for about 3 years, but rarely post. When I do, it’s almost always defending the Christian faith.
It’s too late and I’m too tired to start a conversation with you, but I hope to have the opportunity another time.
Since you posted your thoughts on faith, I’ll share with you mine. So the next time we talk, you’ll know where I start from.
I believe Chrisitanity is the only true faith, but more than that, Biblical Christianity is the only true reality of our world (cosmos included).
Christ Jesus is the I AM. Meaning, He is God Almighty in all his Power, Glory and Sovereignty.
Skidd on February 19, 2009 at 1:40 AM
I think this book and another one by Norman Geisler, here, deal adequately with those same issues raised by skeptics annotated bible.com.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Yeah i apologize for that, as i said dont wanna disrespect any person of religious faith…. poor choice of words.
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 1:40 AM
I don’t think being quadraplegic has any effect on this, but:
Tommy doesn’t know what day it is.
He doesn’t know who Jesus was or what praying is.
How can he be Saved
From the eternal grave?
malclave on February 19, 2009 at 1:40 AM
But it is intellectually dishonest to argue that your very sane and reasonable behavior is somehow compatible with the actual teachings of this ancient horrible book. So hence the idea that the Christian morals are somehow the best is ludicrous. Some of us will not say it, but we all act as if it’s true.
radiofreevillage on February 19, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Others might have argued that, but I haven’t. I have created my own moral code, some of which may comport with the Bible, some not. Regardless, I see the Bible as a large and lengthy metaphor, full of messages that can be interpreted in many way, sadly sometimes for evil.
I’m a casual Christian so I cannot debate the finer points of Biblical passages with you, but the first lesson I ever learned was that God makes allowances for my human failings. Sometimes I doubt his existence, take his name in vain, break his commandments, but that is to be expected, I’m only human.
You see the Bible as contradictory, I see it as a large code book from which can be gleaned lessons that might help make me a better person.
Besides, what is anyone supposed to gain from paragraphs that go on forever and only provide details on who begat who.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 1:42 AM
So your insulting people of faith is just a happy coincidence?
malclave on February 19, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Say forty Hail Mary’s and give yourself a good scourging in penance.
Wait…you’re an atheist…watch forty reruns of “The View” and make your face look like Pelosi’s.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 1:46 AM
god etc is all make believe like santa
Btw i dont mean any of this as a denegration of religious faith
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 1:16 AM
So your insulting people of faith is just a happy coincidence?
malclave on February 19, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Come on Bishop, that’s too cruel, I rather be in Purgatory.
neuquenguy on February 19, 2009 at 1:47 AM
That is a fair comment. I have thought about that same point often in the past. It wasn’t until I read this book and understood the importance of genealogy that it all became clear to me.
That book does a good job of showing the historical connection between son of Noah, Ham, Canaan, Nimrod, etc.
Very interesting historical read.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Whoazaaaaaa!….Just enough time to microwave some protein before Poker After Dark.
Doyle Brunson nirvana!…..later…….
Limerick on February 19, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Don’t sweat it.
But if you see one of Allah’s frequent atheism/religious threads, prepare yourself for a brawl; just last week we made it over 1,000 posts on an evolution vs. intelligent design topic.
The flame wars alone are worth the price of admission.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 1:50 AM
You gotta stay of that thar A Jezzra site…them Arabs hate us’n's.
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Nimrod? Already a book about Obama?
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 1:51 AM
I think you can ignore A in my previous post as was said above until science can formulate a proper understanding of the nature the beginning of the universe its hard to present full arguement against a “god” at least in the sense of a higher being who set the creative processes in our universe into being.
I still think my second point is valid however
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Very interesting historical read.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 1:48 AM
I’ll have to take your word for it; a begat b who begat c who begat d made my eyes glaze over. I read the Bible when I was sixteen by committing to reading ten chapters per night, every night, no matter how short or long the chapter. Those genealogy ones were tough slogging.
I’m too healthy a skeptic to ever debate someone who really knows their Bible, I’d get buried quick.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 1:55 AM
So you should try reading the bible, then you might understand it. Ever read the New Testament? I mean really read it, with maybe a study guide to help you understand?
I suspect you haven’t by your post.
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Nimrod? Already a book about Obama?
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 1:51 AM
Revelations is about Ogabe, i.e. the end of the world.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 1:57 AM
Atheism, the new religion.
YoungAmerican on February 19, 2009 at 1:58 AM
You did it the hardest way possible, chapter by chapter. The real value is reading a good study bible. The bible is so complex, and detailed, that you miss most of the nuance by just reading it, it was never meant to be a novel or a “good read”, it was meant to be studied.
That’s why people overlook the significance of a simple statement like “I am”, or the significance of the father of the prodigal son lifting up his robe to run to his son…subtle, but significant “tells”.
You can get that by reading it in the original languages, but it takes a study bible to define so much of the language of 2,000 years ago.
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 2:02 AM
I’m an atheist however i would still want my children raised at least in itially within the church ie. baptism, first communion, first confession and confirmation, obviously i wouldnt take them to church but i wouldnt be against them going until there of an age where they can make up there own minds….. Not exactly sure why i feel like this, seems hypocritical
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Wonder if this is a common sentiment for people raised catholic who subsequently lose their faith.
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 2:04 AM
The number of non believers, and Jews that send their kids to a Christian school is surprising.
It isn’t being hypocritical,it is being smart. Where else are they going to get an education? Public schools?
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Never heard of Joel Osteen, so it’s hard for me to take the “no greater sin than….” part of the quote seriously. I’ll lay money that Pol Pot’s sins were greater than Osteen’s, or those of the most egregious proselytizing atheist. But his point about the insufferable nature of this sort of holier-than-thou apostasy is well taken.
notropis on February 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM
I think you have two premises in the second part of your argument which I agree with:
1)It is extremely difficult for humans to conceive the complete end of their consciousness.
2) Different cultures at different times have come up with mythologies/theology which have striking simmilarities.
But I don’t get how these premises lead to you conclusion: “at least is proof enough that heaven, god etc is all make believe like santa if not infinitely more interesting anthropologically”. They can just as easily lead someone to the opposite conclusion. As I said before, the best you can do with this, and only if you include the questionable premise you label “A”, is to perhaps prove that it is natural for humans to develop a belief in some kind of god, not to that it is impossible that some kind of god exists.
neuquenguy on February 19, 2009 at 2:13 AM
I also don’t think it is hypocritical but smart, and not only because of the education issue, have you ever heard of Pascal’s wager? maybe it has something to do with that.
neuquenguy on February 19, 2009 at 2:16 AM
Point taken, regarding B. obviously it is impossible to completely disprove a belief in an afterlife, what i was trying to do was to layout a highly plausible reason why people might naturally come to these beliefs based on there own human natire sans any evidence to support them
I cannot nor can anyone prove that just because people seem inextricably drawn to believing in an afterlife sans any proof for its existance save the mythology created around it that it doesnt exist but i think it would be the mother of all coincidences
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Yeah this is probably part of it also i feel like i would be depriving them of a chance to develop a belief in something which many people find enriches their lives immensely, plus first confession,communion,confirmtion were seminal moments of my childhood id hate to rob my kids of those expieriences over my beliefs
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 2:41 AM
We were here first!
OldEnglish on February 19, 2009 at 2:50 AM
An understanding of whats right and wrong outside outside of issues regarding legality is i believe based on the human capacity for self awareness and empathy not religious teachings.
Equanim1ty found on February 19, 2009 at 2:59 AM
I’ve said that, and much more, over several threads. However, none so deaf ….
OldEnglish on February 19, 2009 at 3:09 AM
I would like to discuss (and respectfully, debate this point) this issue further with you at a different time.
I am really tired right now.
My point of contention with your above point is:
You or the secular humanist is trying to ground **that which is necessary** on top of or, on a foundation of **that which is logically contingent**.
You can’t make that move. It won’t work. Necessary truths are rooted in metaphysics for a reason.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 4:22 AM
“There is no God so stop worrying…” Interesting take isn’t it? We Christians aren’t the ones who are worrying. Why are you?
sabbott on February 19, 2009 at 5:20 AM
Look forward to it.
OldEnglish on February 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM
It wasn’t my intention for my last comment to sound “snarky” or anything like that.
In metaphysics, there is modal properties such as contingency, possibility, and necessity. And necessity can not be grounded (or rest upon) in a modal property that is merely contingent.
Contingent things can indeed be grounded in, or rest upon other contingent things.
Let us talk again, my friend.
ColtsFan on February 19, 2009 at 6:04 AM
Why do Christians care so much about other peoples beliefs?
iamblue on February 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Seems to be the other way around.
Itchee Dryback on February 19, 2009 at 6:20 AM
Checked where?
Imo, your claim is little more than an often repeated meme with no basis in historical fact.
The atheistic policies and ideologues of communism and socialism have killed about 100 million innocent people in the last century.
Tally up the score for Christians for me.
Itchee Dryback on February 19, 2009 at 6:25 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »