Hitchens vs. Ken Blackwell: Is America a Christian nation?
posted at 8:00 pm on April 8, 2009 by Allahpundit
Mmmmmmm, that’s good comment bait! Not as interesting as Doug TenNapel’s recap of Hitch’s debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, but fun nonetheless. This devolves relatively quickly (and predictably) from an argument over whether America is Christian by origin into an argument over how Christian America will remain; my own feeling is that the country will become more secular as science and technology become more able to explain “magical” phenomena, but that a backlash to that progress will emerge in the form of hardening of religious attitudes among the true believers. What that will look like, I have no idea.
The jumping-off point here is Newsweek’s new poll on post-Christian America. I was most impressed while reading the data with how constant the country’s religious belief has been, but do note the results of question 17. An all-time low.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
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 »
peski,
You’ll have to fill me on this “contradictory evidence.”
greggriffith on April 8, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Why?
Did someone or something, predating God presumably, put it in the list of job requirements that if One takes it upon Himself to create the Universe and all life in it that He must agree to stick around for eternity?
MB4 on April 8, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Sure, & Newsweek says Christianity is dying.
Christianity will be around forever, & Newsweek is dying.
Voltaire predicted Christianity’s demise, but when he met his demise, they turned his house into a Bible printing & distribution center.
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 9:42 PM
FIFY.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Not mine.
baldilocks on April 8, 2009 at 9:47 PM
to continue my last point…
Nietzsche, 19th century:
“God is dead”
God, 21st century:
“Nietzsche is dead”
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Old Philosophers Proverb
“You can’t build a fence around God”
Tony Soprano on April 8, 2009 at 9:48 PM
I myself do not worry so much about Big Brother but I always try to achieve something or other at least when the Queen of Hearts is around anyway or she may say off with his head!
Cheshire Cat on April 8, 2009 at 9:49 PM
You can if it’s a virtual fence. If it’ll keep out illegal aliens, it’ll take care of that pesky god guy too.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM
You also can’t build a fence around the non-existence. Rather odd to be just a coincidence, I should say…
MB4 on April 8, 2009 at 9:52 PM
As to the core belief that Jesus was God, died a sacrificial death, rose, etc., there is not much proof either way.
But where does that belief come from? The New Testament, and the Bible in general – and that’s where the contradictions start. Unfortunately, the core document of the Christian faith, which most believers lean on as “the Word of God” (often in a most literalistic and inflexible way), is clearly a complex amalgam of inconsistent, plagiarized, redacted, edited, re-edited, self-contradictory, censored, translated, transliterated, and interpreted oral, social, religious, and political tradition, shaped over several centuries.
peski on April 8, 2009 at 9:58 PM
If God is still alive in the 21st century then He has sure been falling down on the job. You would think that with all the previous centuries He had to practice and learn from He could start to get a lot more right by now.
Oh, I know, free will and all that supposedly exculpatory razzmatazz.
MB4 on April 8, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Behold the swagger of the atheist, insulting the Ruler of the Universe (9:50pm, 9:52pm).
“Why not? I know that there is no God!”
Can you prove it?
I can’t prove the truth of his existence to you (though he has proved it to me), but it seems to be quite foolish to make such an assumption.
It’s like having several people warn you that they’ve seen a band of muggers in the alley you’re headed for, & you laugh, get out your money, & wave it around as you enter the alley walking backwards.
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM
I didn’t watch this because I like Hitchens and I’ve seen his atheist schtick enough now that it just gets silly. For the past year or two he’s been getting mighty close to jumping the shark. Seems as though he’s starting to get a little bit of the “look at me disease”. Not that he’s ever exactly been a shrinking violet.
And sometimes I think the Hitchens atheism thing is a clear case of the gentleman “doth protest too much”.
Dreadnought on April 8, 2009 at 10:03 PM
I know him to be perfect. You may have searched to entire universe simultaneously & have not seen him, but he’s here & doing quite well.
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Natural means “naturally occurring”, nothing more. It needs no further input.
OldEnglish on April 8, 2009 at 10:06 PM
But it sells a lot of books!
AP, how about putting some other atheists here instead?
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 10:06 PM
By the way, even though I don’t think it’s anything like the word of God, I do think it is an incredible document – beautiful in many ways, and certainly a fascinating peek into the minds and lives of people who lived thousands of years ago.
peski on April 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM
I’m still waiting for a non-Christian nation to emerge with anything better to offer. Tens of thousands of years of humanity and it appears the Christian countries emerged as the most successful, the most free, and the most moral. Even Europe stands on a crumbling foundation of Christian faith.
As Europe devolves from their faith I wonder are they better? Will Europe survive its move past God? Will the population remain good and moral enough to function as democratic nations or will some facist/socialist religion of the state emerge? Will the muslims that are quickly growing in numbers allow for a Godless Europe or will the Christian God simply be replaced?
Folks even if religion is just an opiate for the masses. I believe it is a necessary one. I have NO faith in man to be good and moral without God. Individuals maybe. Societies no chance.
Newagegop on April 8, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Perfect does not create imperfect.
MB4 on April 8, 2009 at 10:15 PM
peski,
If we had certitude, we wouldn’t need faith, now would we?
greggriffith on April 8, 2009 at 10:21 PM
The Bible is pretty consistent — old and new testament — on the most important thing: we are not good. God is the perfect judge and will therefore be the most just judge. There is no way a criminal can buy off a good judge. We can’t point to all the good things we have done and expect a good judge to overlook the bad.
But God is also kind. God revealed how He can be a kind God without compromising His perfect justice. The fine must be payed by an innocent party. That innocent party is Jesus.
There is no inconsistency in the Bible. God is always set apart (Holy) and man is wicked. This is where every other religion goes down the wrong path. People think that working really hard at being good will get them out of paying the fine. Sorry, a good judge does not overlook the violation of the law.
Christianity is the simplest, yet hardest religion. The faith is not that God exists — we know that God exists. The faith is that God provided a way to deal with our wickedness without us doing it ourselves. You only have to admit that we are not good — to the core. That is the hardest thing to do — ever. Then take the trust that you had in your own “good” works and transfer it to the true payer of the fine — Jesus. A Christian can’t brag about how good he is at being a Christian, because it is God that payed the fine.
To get back on topic. You *can* say that the US is a Christian nation based on how the founders setup the government. They believed that man is wicked and must have as many roadblocks put in our path as possible. A *very* Christian idea.
Have you ever noticed how many people that call themselves communists are also atheists? I believe this is because they don’t see how evil man is. They believe that if we try hard enough we can save ourselves and make an Utopia.
thule on April 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM
STALKER!
juanito on April 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM
I challenge you to find a religious man that would rather use the wording “self-evident” over “sacred”….
whiskeytango on April 8, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Right here. Depending on whether the item in question was, in fact, sacred or self-evident.
And yet you find no absurdity in the idea of a supernatural being? Oh, well.
OldEnglish on April 8, 2009 at 9:24 PM
The idea of supernatural beings is ludicrous. If you think that such are relevant to the topic at hand, you’re discussing a topic you don’t understand.
Did someone or something, predating God presumably, put it in the list of job requirements that if One takes it upon Himself to create the Universe and all life in it that He must agree to stick around for eternity?
MB4 on April 8, 2009 at 9:40 PM
God isn’t a person. Treating God as a person isn’t religion, but mere superstition. See above.
Perfect does not create imperfect.
MB4 on April 8, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Based upon what? You seem to be operating under the assumption that not only was creation both conscious and deliberate, but that the intention would be to create something perfect.
q2600 on April 8, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Allahpundit, just curious, do you have a family?
I’m a guy who was raised “secular” but taken to Sunday School when I was a kid, and now that I’m about to get married, maybe soon to start a family, I am thinking more and more about going back to church.
The thing is, I really don’t believe in the miracles (the water walking, the virgin birth, etc), but that’s not the key issue for me. When I have kids, I’m going to want them brought up according to the system of morality that our civilization has honed over two thousand years: respect for life, freedom, forgiveness, peace, and so on. The same way I was educated.
The question is, what is Christianity really? Is it a set of stories and myths, the truth of which we’ll never know for sure in this life? Or is it a philosophy of life, a way of transmitting our culture to future generations?
joe_doufu on April 8, 2009 at 10:27 PM
@ thule on April 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM
You don’t feel one bit silly when you run those thoughts through your head? Seriously it scares me sometimes that such a large segment of the population believes in things that are so obviously not real.
thphilli on April 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM
@ joe_doufu on April 8, 2009 at 10:27 PM
So why don’t you just teach them those morals? Why go through the nonsense of Christianity to get to the morality?
thphilli on April 8, 2009 at 10:30 PM
The smart ones, fo’ sure. And the beautiful ones too i guess.
You can keep the rest.
:)
Hey Juliet!
I still just love your name.
And your intelligence and your blackness and your military background.
/sigh
strangelet on April 8, 2009 at 10:33 PM
What would you say is God’s job description?
baldilocks on April 8, 2009 at 10:41 PM
YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN AND TEACH INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN A PAROCHIAL SCHOOL!
terryannonline on April 8, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Multi-tasker.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 10:49 PM
I didn’t know God had a job description. If this is true, does God have a supervisor, or does He simply report to the Board? That one is a little mind boggling.
Oh, no. Given the current climate, I certainly hope God didn’t have a retention contract. He didn’t get a bonus this year, did he? The President will have something to say about this!
Loxodonta on April 8, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Over my dead body. The only way my children will go to hell is through me. To my dying breath I will teach them to fear and love the Lord with all of their heart, soul and might.
Send_Me on April 8, 2009 at 10:56 PM
The only way for an atheist to be truly certain of the non-existence of a Deity would be if the Universe did not exist.
I’m an agnostic (~of a Taoist leaning~ since the World is clearly of mesmerizing miraculousness) because I see no way for the fallible human intelligence to determine any certainty except of our own uncertainty.
At best, we guess.
And learn to appreciate our power to discover and be in wonder of the complexity and rich ordering of the Cosmos.
Whatever it ultimately is, it is our Source, and is worth our honesty and inquiry.
Atheism’s “certainty” of Vacuity is as much a faith statement as a believer’s in Divinity.
With our kind of minds neither can be proved.
Humility and decency seem to be the best answer for our contingency.
And a sense of humor at the divine joke played upon us:
~born with a hunger for hard knowledge in a World of atomized possibilities.
profitsbeard on April 8, 2009 at 10:56 PM
We’re past that stage, or in the middle of it. The promise of immortality is too compelling for religiosity to ever fade completely in a free society. From here, I think it’s just a question of how exclusive the major religions make their clubs.
RightOFLeft on April 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM
@thphilli on April 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM
It seems to me that it is much more silly to believe that time, space, and chance can do anything. It seems silly to me that people can believe that humanity is really good, but gets sidetracked sometimes. It is much more realistic to believe that whatever we’re handed, we screw it up.
thule on April 8, 2009 at 10:59 PM
So why don’t you just teach them those morals? Why go through the nonsense of Christianity to get to the morality?
thphilli on April 8, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Because a) Christianity is only nonsense if you insist on interpreting it as such, and b) morality devoid of higher authority is without substance. As I’ve said before, if morality is defined as simply acting in according with one’s own nature, then no action can be other than moral.
q2600 on April 8, 2009 at 11:00 PM
profitsbeard on April 8, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Excellent post.
q2600 on April 8, 2009 at 11:02 PM
How do atheists presume to know anything? How can they have such certainty that their own ability to reason is infallible when, according to their own beliefs, we are nothing more than evolved dirt? If their minds came together by chance, by undirected processes, then how is it possible for atheists to assume their own thoughts can have any semblance of order?
To illustrate the point:
“You see, postmodernism plays word games with us. Postmodernism tells us there’s no such thing as truth; no such thing as meaning; no such thing as certainty. I remember lecturing at Ohio State University, one of the largest universities in this country. I was minutes away from beginning my lecture, and my host was driving me past a new building called the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts. He said, ‘This is America’s first postmodern building.’ I was startled for a moment and I said, ‘What is a postmodern building?’ He said, ‘Well, the architect said that he designed this building with no design in mind. When the architect was asked, “Why?” he said, “If life itself is capricious, why should our buildings have any design and any meaning?” So he has pillars that have no purpose. He has stairways that go nowhere. He has a senseless building built and somebody has paid for it.’ I said, ‘So his argument was that if life has no purpose and design, why should the building have any design?” He said, ‘That is correct.’ I said, ‘Did he do the same with the foundation?’ All of a sudden there was silence. You see, you and I can fool with the infrastructure as much as we would like, but we dare not fool with the foundation because it will call our bluff in a hurry.” ~Ravi Zacharias
Send_Me on April 8, 2009 at 11:15 PM
The New Testament, and the Bible in general – and that’s where the contradictions start. Unfortunately, the core document of the Christian faith, which most believers lean on as “the Word of God” (often in a most literalistic and inflexible way), is clearly a complex amalgam of inconsistent, plagiarized, redacted, edited, re-edited, self-contradictory, censored, translated, transliterated, and interpreted oral, social, religious, and political tradition, shaped over several centuries.
Please list your claims against the Bible with specifics, not generalizations. Perhaps some here could persuade you that the Bible is indeed divinely inspired scripture.
GD on April 8, 2009 at 11:19 PM
peski on April 8, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Sorry, I forgot to post the source on my previous post.
GD on April 8, 2009 at 11:25 PM
“God” didn’t say anything about Nietzsche. To think about he might be mute, unless you are alone on a mountain with him a couple thousand years ago.
Well, come to think of its about 150 years after Nietzsche’s death and you just wrote about it now so it passes your burden of proof. Hell you pass as an eyewitness.
LevStrauss on April 8, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to name the source if it’s from an earlier comment, but if you quote someone, use the “blockquotes” tab, please, so we can know where your comment starts.
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Contradiction:
Five or six times a week, a thread appears with dozens of Christian-bashing comments in each. Yet if anyone ever criticizes Mormonism in any thread, accusations of bigotry abound in response. The Book of Mormon is an Epic Fail in the archeology department, with evidence missing for described pre-Columbus
massive civilizations,
a battle with 2,000,000 casualties,
metallurgy,
temples,
writings,
horses,
cattle,
sheep,
elephants!,
wheat, &
barley in the New World. It even says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Yet archeologists use the Bible as a guide every day.
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM
All children are born Atheist.
ronsfi on April 8, 2009 at 11:50 PM
(I forgot to mention that the aforementioned battle supposedly happened in upstate New York, on a hill which is now owned by the Mormon institution. Guess why they aren’t excavating or allowing others to…?)
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Just out of idle curiosity, what is your definition of religion? You neglected to qualify your quoted post.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Thanks, Ill try to do that. I am still quite new at this.
No replies yet on the biblical errors, that many claim exist. Perhaps some reasoned debate would lead to more understanding.
GD on April 9, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Everybody is over-analyzing and over-reacting to this statement. The obvious explanation is that our inciteful friend was simply making a proposition, or pick-up line if you will, to any Hot Air readers interested in having his babies.
Loxodonta on April 9, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Bingo.
Harpazo on April 9, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Really, that’s your “feeling?” What a surprise.
Why would that be? Because that’s what you think religious people nowadays do? Look to religion to explain “magical” phenomena?
Personally, I don’t know anyone who is religious, who clings to their religion because they need it to explain “magical” phenomena. (Whether, having embraced it, they entwine it with their explanations of nature, is a completely separate issue.) Usually faith nowadays is driven by concerns of ethics, morality, meaning, purpose — distinctly non-”magical” stuff like that.
It’s been a few centuries since: “Fire coming from hole in mountain. Mountain-god angry. Must shove virgin into fire. Must please mountain-god.”
notropis on April 9, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Welcome to HA!
jgapinoy on April 9, 2009 at 12:33 AM
But they sure as hell won’t use all caps!
Yes the age of Pisces is about to end, the fisher of men, like Moses and the Ram, and the golden bull before it. I figure Aquarius will be Global Warming, we’re going to give into feudalism by centralized control of energy, cap and trade, or else “we’re going to get covered in water”. That’s why I don’t see atheism as the goal, just to get rid of these ridiculous fables. Rational behavior is not best achieved from irrational premises. Atheism, if it means no god no how, is too absolutist for me, know what you don’t know. Just admitting that one doesn’t know is good enough, but one should also not sell It so short by blaspheming him with these “old wives tales”.
LevStrauss on April 9, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Here’s some Bible errors.
MadisonConservative on April 9, 2009 at 12:35 AM
MadisonConservative on April 9, 2009 at 12:35 AM
The Bible is an error. When has a vote ever produced a good result?
LevStrauss on April 9, 2009 at 12:37 AM
I agree that looking to religion to explain magic is wrong. Magic is used to explain religion.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Actually, I heard that tomorrow, Obama will be holding a press conference to give God the next four years off.
(Barry’s got it covered…)
realitycheck on April 9, 2009 at 12:39 AM
So what are you saying, that God did his creation gig while passed out, deluding and in an extreme degraded mode?
Kinky.
MB4 on April 9, 2009 at 1:15 AM
Ah, yes, what with the…
…adultery, fornication, prostition, no-fault divorce, materialism, money-lending, murders, sodomy, abortions, profiteering from drugs and gambling, dishonorable children, printed and televised blasphemy, widespread bribery and corruption in government, the institionalized theft of money from the hard-working by the lazy and the elderly, earth worship, animal worship, and the endless demand for self-satisfying entertainment.
What a brutal theocracy you labor under.
/youhaftareadthebookbeforeyouwritethebookreport
TMK on April 9, 2009 at 1:16 AM
It depends on what you mean by “religious”.
LevStrauss on April 9, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Well I would pretty much say, just not with as much flair, that it should be the same as what Mark Twain said.
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man’s compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these
things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man’s heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would
recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God — a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell — except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven — the kind described in the world’s Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
– Mark Twain
MB4 on April 9, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Many self-professed Christians can be very kinky although not that many are that kinky.
MB4 on April 9, 2009 at 1:31 AM
And to think that if AllahP had just played his cards right he could have made it with either KP or Meagan, maybe both.
MB4 on April 9, 2009 at 1:35 AM
You can buy beer from vending machines in Japan. I think that qualifies them as more successful, freer, and more moral.
In all seriousness, take a look a look at our very Christian neighbors to the south. I think Christianity is a fine personal ethos, but clearly there’s something more complex going on when you want to look at success at the state level.
RightOFLeft on April 9, 2009 at 1:44 AM
You’ve been reading the Bible again, haven’t you?
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 4:08 AM
Just out of idle curiosity, what is your definition of religion? You neglected to qualify your quoted post.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 12:00 AM
I neglected no such thing. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of defining something as absurd and then proving that it’s absurd according to your own definition. In answer to your question, I can identify things which ARE religions, but I am not aware of any definition which would adequately describe every item in that set.
I agree that looking to religion to explain magic is wrong. Magic is used to explain religion.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Magic is explained by metaphysics (or superstition). Religion is explained by mythology and parable.
So what are you saying, that God did his creation gig while passed out, deluding and in an extreme degraded mode?
Kinky.
MB4 on April 9, 2009 at 1:15 AM
No, I am saying (once again) that God is not a person, and that treating God as a person only leads to nonsense.
q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 4:48 AM
I think I see the problem, now. You seem to have some difficulty with common usage of English words.
“Being” in the context of my post could be used as a variant of “entity”, rather than some sort of physical creature. Whether said entity is ethereal or corporal in nature, is irrelevant to the concept under discussion.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 5:00 AM
*pa-chow!!!* *pa-ching!!!* *pa-clang!!!*
“It’s no use, Captain! Fact-on torpedoes can’t penetrate a defensive shield made of smug ignorance and cognitive dissonance! And this one is especially thick, thicker than even the Moveons and Pinkorans can generate!”
“Then we’ll return to earth, and pray to God that the poor bastard lowers his shields before he runs out of oxygen.”
TMK on April 9, 2009 at 5:24 AM
Like Laura Ingraham said on Fox tonight (Greta’s show), Newsweek will fade before the Christian faith does. Christianity has survived over two thousand years. Newsweek’s circulation, ad revenues and influence are in the toilet. Newsweek is on life support at the present.
Could this turn of events have any connection to Newsweek’s fawning over The One (every cover has Obama it seems) and biased BS feature stories like this one?
You betcha’!
sarahpalinfan99 on April 9, 2009 at 6:16 AM
Is it just me or does Christopher Hitchens often seem like an embittered, angry lush? I’m sorry but his eyes looked so bloodshot and glazed over in that interview. Why are do so many atheists seem miserable?
sarahpalinfan99 on April 9, 2009 at 6:19 AM
I agree. Life from non-life? Magically appearing from slime? With a fully functioning reproductive system? Ridiculous, ain’t it?
Man-made global warming? Couldn’t be sillier.
Democrats are for the “little people”? No evidence whatsoever.
Unfortunately, the list is endless.
Squiggy on April 9, 2009 at 6:52 AM
That simplistic, post modern, typical throw away, atheist (and liberal) line gave me a good chuckle. How about giving the explanation about something surrounding all of us, allah. Explain life to us, very simply as you obviously think it can be done. Not the philosophical meaning of life but simply, what is life, where can it be found in a biological entity? Where exactly is the spark located in a living thing? What color is it, allah? When will cars have it, allah? When will scientists be able to put it in a blow up doll for you, allah? Or here is another one for you, maybe a little more specific. Genetic mutations are nearly 100% fatal in the recipient. It would take about 150 mutations to make a limb (arm, leg) to become a wing. How is it that at some point these 150, almost always fatal, mutations occurred in not one but two animals, the animals survived, they happened to be of the same species and of opposite sexes? And they found each other? Should be pretty simple, eh? And how come it didn’t happen in people? Wouldn’t it have been a valuable development in humans who “evolved” in mountainous regions? They could have just flew around in the mountains and avoided all those falling deaths. One last one, how is it new yorkers, who are so much smarter than the rest of us, don’t have really huge brains and don’t live in a utopian paradise?
peacenprosperity on April 9, 2009 at 7:18 AM
So if I went through these one by one, would that change anything for you? I know you didn’t find these “errors” through any serious study, but rather through a google search for “errors bible”. I notice no one yet has answered my epistemological question above: how can an atheist presume to know anything? Now, if you truly do want me to go through these because you have a heartfelt interest in knowing that the Bible is error-free, then by all means, I’ll go through this list for you. Otherwise, don’t waste my time.
Send_Me on April 9, 2009 at 7:21 AM
No, they won’t.
jimmy2shoes on April 9, 2009 at 7:28 AM
I am against State establishment of religion (although the States can figure out their own), as it is so easily corrupted from politicians that I would really want to keep them away from having any say on religious doctrine. We already have one Congresscritter who is bending over backwards for that, and that is not a good thing. That tradition was established for us by the Winter Queen and the times she lived in, and keeping the Great Peace and its edicts allowed the greatest flourishing of religion ever witnessed by mankind. Christianity meant something far different to the Founders than it does, to us, today, and those of persecuted sects in Christendom who followed their own teachings about Christ made the Colonies and New Nation have a diversity of religion from the start, like Catholics, Unitarians, Methodists, Anglicans, Calvinists, Pilgrims, Church of the Brethren, Jews, and even Atheists. All were present at the founding and that is not even a complete listing of those here of diverse backgrounds and religions.
Sam Adams and Thomas Jefferson had little good to say about Catholics, and yet a civil government that must, perforce, have Catholics represented within the population must be done. That must have been hard to do, to create a civil system that did not embody your own, personal, biases. And yet not doing so had already had a hard, fast and lethal lesson, that was learned by the founders who saw wisdom in stepping away from espousing a single sect of a particular religion, or even one religion as that had been espoused by many who had died fighting each other, all under the banner of ‘The Prince of Peace’. Somehow asking for that trouble, again, didn’t seem like such a good idea and the churches of that era backed having government keep its nose out of religion: not for or against any religion or no religion, but each to decide for themselves under the Great Peace. Tolerance of religion is what we ask of ourselves and our government, and that we establish it in our hearts and communities and keep government from dictating to us what to believe or not to believe. I do indeed have heartburn from Atheists and various Christians, Moslems and others all trying to foist their version of what religious ‘good’ is on government, as that is not keeping with our agreement to keep the Great Peace. Of the greatest protections we offer is to have any religion, even the religion with the following of one person a safe haven to believe as they will and show toleration to others that do not hold that belief.
Morals gained from diverse beliefs allow us strength to understand how to build the common good amongst ourselves and strengthen our common system to punish based only on that common good and let us, as individuals, explore where reason and faith take us in our compact We state in the first line of the Constitution. That is for us to do, not government. We forget the lessons of history when we stray from that path. But then keeping the Great Peace is what is placed on us as individuals and Nations… and we no longer teach that and its importance in keeping us alive.
ajacksonian on April 9, 2009 at 7:37 AM
What’s the point? Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are largely fiction. However, the Book of Mormon is somewhat more imaginative in places and compares favorably to the insane rant found in the New Testament Book of Revelations.
Annar on April 9, 2009 at 7:42 AM
The Christian Faith will endure the feeble efforts of idiots. Events such as earthquakes, floods, famine, disease, war, recession and/or depression have away of bringing people to their knees and as the Liberals have been unable to do away with said events it is quite clear that many people who don’t know God today will at some point in the future get to know him pretty well.
Any idea what Christopher Hitchens would do if he was taken hostage by Islamic extremist that were threatening to behead him with a combat knife?
Broomy on April 9, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Believers and non-believers alike have been subject to natural disasters over the past many centuries.
dedalus on April 9, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Or, in other words, “I don’t understand it, so it must be insane.”
jgapinoy on April 9, 2009 at 8:22 AM
I’d be interested in knowing exactly how it explains your religion, OldEnglish…or mine.
jgapinoy on April 9, 2009 at 8:25 AM
No doubt about it: there are many absolutely brilliant atheists. Some are HA commenters. But there are lots of absolutely brilliant Christians. So we have extremely intelligent folks who have diametrically opposed beliefs. How can this be?
What causes atheism?
I believe God intentionally arranged things so that the scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence alone would be less than overwhelming to prove his existence and his authority. You have to want, to seek, to love ultimate truth, regardless of the consequences, to find it. Fortunately, God promises that those who seek him wholeheartedly will find him. Unfortunately, most folks don’t want him, because they love sin and/or they think they know best how to live their lives (pride). To illustrate:
–Sir Julian Huxley, nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog”, was asked why the scientific community quickly embraced evolution, and he candidly responded, “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”
–Jesus Christ once rebuked the religious leaders who rejected him because of their pride: “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not want the glory that comes from God?” You have to humble yourself to receive glory from God.
Who has more credibility?
The atheist scholar gathers facts to bolster his position, as does the Christian scholar. But I believe that the atheist has some credibility problems. First, he doesn’t believe in an all-seeing Judge, so he has no motivation except pure altruism to honestly search for and propagate truth, and no human is constantly altruistic. In fact, I think Christians are far more likely to act altruistically. Second, when an atheist confidently asserts that he knows there is nothing in the universe except matter and energy (as Carl Sagan did shortly before he met his Maker), he probably hasn’t inspected the entire universe to see if this is true. It’s like saying, “I’ve never met a blue-eyed African American, so there are none.” Those who have met blue-eyed African Americans, like I have, will disagree, but the doubter may keep doubting.
When the Bible says,
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
it’s not speaking of a lack of intelligence. The Hebrew word translated “fool” here has a moral connotation, as in acting or believing foolishly.
jgapinoy on April 9, 2009 at 8:28 AM
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 8:31 AM
1. God created out of nothing.
2. God’s creation is ordered.
3. Man was created by God.
4. Man, created in the image of God, with an ordered mind, can comprehend order through his given ability to reason.
This ability to reason is limited through through three things: 1) finite capacity for knowledge, 2) finite ability to process information, and 3) Man’s corrupted flesh.
In a nutshell, that’s it.
But my question from above still stands: how can an atheist presume to know anything?
Send_Me on April 9, 2009 at 8:38 AM
If you reject the idea of an infinite but personal God (a being who has unchallenged authority over your life), then you’re faced with a very uncomfortable dilemma, namely, “where did we come from?” (and by extension, “what is the meaning of life?”). Evolution offers a set of alternative “facts”, where, on the surface, the circumstantial evidence is appealing, but where, if proper use of the Scientific Method is applied, fails badly under critical evaluation, and most of the so-called “proofs” of evolution assume facts not in evidence, and so-called authorities who engage in circular reasoning and cite each other in a massive exercise in group-think.
jgapinoy on April 9, 2009 at 8:43 AM
Revelation.
jgapinoy on April 9, 2009 at 8:45 AM
You nicely sidestepped my question.
Where did you get that info from?
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 8:51 AM
I have had many revelations in my life – all based upon valid info received.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Me, too. The link at 8:45am explains my “valid info”.
jgapinoy on April 9, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Since you appear to respond to supplied Bible errors with hostility, there seems little point.
As to your question, I have no idea how either an atheist or a believer can presume to know the answers to our great questions. I think you both believe, but I know you both do not know. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true.
MadisonConservative on April 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Ditto girl, ditto. I have a ten your old that if she were Hitchens age ) with knowledge gained over that time) could easily square of with him. She knows more about the Bibe and Science and has no problem reconciling the two than most sophmore college students…hence the reason we homeschool…allows us to discuss all relative information…not jus the psuedoscince of evolution!
RedLizard64 on April 9, 2009 at 9:14 AM
You mean like, lightening struck mud and caused life? Oh wait…
Would you please name one phenonenon that American Christians believe springs from “magical” causes? Pretty please?
BTW, is Michelle an atheist?
Akzed on April 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Is Michelle an atheist? If not, why would she endure this bile?
Akzed on April 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Let me add my agreement with what Send_Me said: “I know you didn’t find these “errors” through any serious study, but rather through a google search for “errors bible”.
I’ve been discussing/debating/defending Christian faith on the internet for over 10 years.
I have been in countless arguments like this one and countless times someone has cut and pasted Biblical “errors” from some website and posted it like it was the QED of the discussion.
The problem, though, is two-fold:
1) As Send_Me stated, the information linked (or cut and pasted) is not information learned and stated by the poster. It’s SOMEONE ELSE’S conclusions based on SOMEONE ELSE’S ‘study.’ Thus, the poster can not intelligently defend the information and enter into a true back-and-forth discussion over the veracity of the information.
2) The “logic” and “understanding” behind this “gotchas” leave a whole lot to be desired and often are nothing more than a projection of what the person would LIKE to see as an error. There is typically a total lack of understanding of Biblical scholarship: text criticism, archaeology and ancient literary styles in particular. Most of the time these “errors” are written for (against?) fundamental Christians who believe that God actually wrote the Bible and that every comma and period is not only theologically true, but literally and historically (e.g. they believe in the 6 24-hour periods of creation). Unfortunately, most Biblical scholarship isn’t there. Thus these “gotchas” turn out to be tired old “discoveries” that are neither new or newsworthy.
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Allahpundit, this is the second time, recently, that I have seen you post this. I want to congratulate you. This is without a doubt the cruelest thing I have ever seen written, anywhere, ever. As you know, on the internet, that is quite a feat. Well done; you must be very proud.
The first time I saw you post it was in a thread where you admitted being a former ‘cultural’ Catholic. I suppose that means that your mother/parents were only ‘cultural’ catholics as well, if that is how you were raised. In that case, you probably aren’t breaking/didn’t break your mother’s heart.
However, as a Catholic mother of the actual believing kind, this is my worst fear. The mere thought of it evokes a visceral reaction in me. Does it delight you to know that responding to this has me in tears, because I have to think about it? Well, let me make your day. I think about it a LOT. My least favorite verse in the Bible is the one about ‘many are called, but few are chosen’. I am well aware of the forces in popular culture fighting against me at every turn. I am well aware that I can only teach my children and pray for them, but I can not force them down the right path.
I am under the impression that you are neither married, nor have children. If you don’t have children of your own, you can not understand that horrifying, gut wrenching panic that sets in instantaneously the minute you realize your child is lost. Trust me; you don’t want to experience it. But for those of us who know that God is real and that Jesus died so that we could one day find our way home, the thought of our own children losing their way and possibly being lost forever, is beyond torture. I know mothers who are living with it and my heart breaks for them. That you would revel in the possibility is simply sadistic.
I will light a candle for you, whether you appreciate it or not.
pannw on April 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Fixed it for you.
Annar on April 9, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I kinda liked them in their original and correct form. ;)
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Someone else’s study? So is your Bible, and you have no idea where the writers got their info from.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Actually we have a pretty good idea of where the writers got their information from.
I’m sorry you feel insulted by what was said, but no real insult was meant. To be honest, I would think it would be pretty obvious.
I mean, I wouldn’t think of arguing the science of gravitational fields with an astrophysicist.
Neither should theologians argue scientists over the veracity and trustworthiness of carbon dating.
So why should people who have rarely, if ever, studied the Bible and current Biblical scholarship, think that they can debate the “truthfulness” of what the scripture is reporting?
BTW – I checked out your link and had a good chuckle. I believe I’ve seen that “list” before and it’s ignorance of scripture, Biblical, literary and archaeological scholarship is breathtaking.
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 10:21 AM
No, no insult at all. There is no point in visiting a blog if one is thin-skinned.
As for studying the Bible, you can study it all you want, in as many languages as you are able, and you are still dealing with a book written by unknown humans.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM
There are several NT books that we are positive of their authorship.
As for the rest, I’m unsure of how/why known authorship really matters one way or the other.
The amount of proven historical material in the Bible is well documented.
Does that “prove” the existence of God? Of course not.
But it does give us a better indication and understanding of the people whose experiences are documented in the Bible.
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »