Quotes of the day
posted at 10:43 pm on June 29, 2010 by Allahpundit
I would not go so far as to argue that there’s a “new agnosticism” on the rise. But I think it’s time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as “a theism”—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.
Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)…
Why has agnosticism fallen out of favor? New Atheism offers the glamour of fraudulent rebelliousness, while agnosticism has only the less eye-catching attractions of humility. The willingness to say “I don’t know” is less attention-getting than “I know, I know. I know it all.”
***
Click the image and skip ahead to 6:24.










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 »
That god doesn’t exist and the recognition of that should never fool atheists into thinking they can convince believers otherwise. Not only is it futile, it’s also annoying. Also, when 9 out of 10 disagree it’s possible we’re wrong. We’re not, but still, don’t be a d-bag.
elcapt on June 30, 2010 at 12:02 AM
God Created the Universe and all sentient life.
God adapts reality to Sentient Life.
All Sentient Life proclaims God never existed.
Therefore, the Universe ceases to exist the moment it was created and perhaps God goes away to.
Holger on June 30, 2010 at 12:02 AM
200 pounds more and she’d be Allah’s dream girl.
bw222 on June 30, 2010 at 12:04 AM
Obama believes in God. He just thinks that God was his opening act.
Good Solid B-Plus on June 30, 2010 at 12:08 AM
You were dead for most all of the previous part of eternity and it did not inconvenience you in the least and you will be dead for most all of the rest of eternity and it will also not inconvenience you in the least. As with all others, your life is but a brief candle.
So my best advice to you is to have all the sex you can until you croak.
Tav on June 30, 2010 at 12:10 AM
not bad advice!
blatantblue on June 30, 2010 at 12:11 AM
I’m not sure that God views it so charitably. The one who says they don’t know is in fact supressing the truth they do know. This is a hostile act as is an atheistic declaration.
AnotherOpinion on June 30, 2010 at 12:11 AM
Which, lo! was 50 dollars an hour to pick in those salad days.
profitsbeard on June 30, 2010 at 12:11 AM
i should clarify
i dont wanna plop-be dead now
i mean when i do die
i dont wanna wake up and live forever
imagining it gives me a headache
blatantblue on June 30, 2010 at 12:12 AM
A brand new kissin cousin for Obama. But can she ruin Austrailia as fast as Obama ruins America? Spend that money,missy.
mobydutch on June 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM
I can’t remember what movie I heard it in, or exactly how the quote went but it went something like:
“I don’t mind those that are atheists, agnostic or whatever. I have had trouble believing there is some supreme being pulling the strings. But then I stop and think: Wouldn’t it really suck to be wrong?”
heh
exsanguine on June 30, 2010 at 12:18 AM
Yes, she can!
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 12:18 AM
Here’s a simple logic puzzle:
Put a christian priest, a rabbi, and muslim cleric in a room. Tell them all will be settled in the world when all three agree on which of the 3 religions is the one true faith.
For the rest of us, we must agree to one simple fact: Two of those individuals are wrong; even before the debate begins.
I say there is even more to the argument; since all three of them cannot be correct, who’s to say that any one of them is correct?
Maybe the Incas had it right.
BobMbx on June 30, 2010 at 12:21 AM
Good for her. As a Christian I always vote for the most qualified person, not just because they claim to have faith. So many make that claim and they turn out later to be real pigs. I’d vote for someone like her because she’s real, truthful, and (I suppose) politically competent, if we mostly agreed politically, that is.
Pilgrimsarbour on June 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM
Or the Hindus. Or Zoroastians. Or Greeks. Or Norse. Or the Celts. Maybe even the Shintoists.
Holger on June 30, 2010 at 12:26 AM
For one who does not have any faith in any god, that doesn’t mean much.
Why not just say “all agnostics are lying theists” so that we can ignore your belligerent nonsense?
So now being either agnostic or atheist is hostile to theists? Awesome. Do you plan to retaliate over our hostile gestures of having different theological beliefs than you?
MadisonConservative on June 30, 2010 at 12:27 AM
Exactly. And, at least she’s honest about her true, core beliefs.
Shiny_Tiara on June 30, 2010 at 12:27 AM
That is how I started out in my determination of reality.
Other factors led me to the inevitable conclusion that all are wrong – including the incas.
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 12:28 AM
If a creator were a productive means of investigating those questions about the universe, it would be worth considering the possibility. Since it’s not, agnosticism is still just a more polite way of being an atheist.
RightOFLeft on June 30, 2010 at 12:34 AM
Yes, she can!
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 12:18 AM
Good one. That is such an inspiring phrase, especially when used as a chant.
mobydutch on June 30, 2010 at 12:35 AM
I wonder when she will get with the program and boycott Arizona?
Dire Straits on June 30, 2010 at 12:39 AM
Or wanting a quid each way.
As the dying mafioso said, whilst receiving the Last Rites, it can’t hurt.
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 12:43 AM
Trade war. I like it. With a staunch ally no less. Smart Power strikes again.
BobMbx on June 30, 2010 at 12:43 AM
A friend from a different site wrote this a few years ago in response to a debate between her and an atheist. I think it’s interesting:
The difference between Christians and non-Christians, with the exclusion of Jews……………is, yes, we see what we want……..a Christian still is apt to want what is evil……..he may even give in to the temptation…..but he knows evil when he sees it. If he can kid himself evil is good….then he is no longer Christian.
A non-Christian tries to make evil seem good, wants to change the rules.The reason Liberalism even comes up is that it is the mechanism used to rename Evil as Good. If that can’t quite be managed then let us blame it on genetics……..there is Evil, but the person has no responsibility, since they were born that way. Thus the Sociopath. Invented so the obvious evil of rape and murder could be held as an unaccountable act. No one is evil, only sick. Thus the perpetrator of dangerous Evil can be incarcerated and still excused. We now have a litany of acronyms rather than sins.
The servant of Liberalism is Relativism……..Psychology is a superb tool of relativism and Situational Ethics. Einstein and Freud, two Atheists looking for a scapegoat……..One the father of Relativism and the other the father of psychoanalysis, a way to explain evil, without having to admit culpability. If there is no God…….then there are no rules of behaviour, and yet there IS destructive behaviour, and we are not like other animals, so we judge it as destructive and proscribe it…..so how do we explain this?
Liberalism is trying it’s best to get rid of God, still keep ourselves safe from Murder, Rape, Robbery…..and yet not admit any culpability in breaking rules, given to Man by a higher authority. It’s quite a balancing act…but sheep are lead over cliffs all the time.
beachgirlusa on June 30, 2010 at 12:44 AM
Indeed! Living in Australia, her attitude towards illegal immigrants bothers me, too.
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 12:45 AM
Lady, I’m not going to pretend a respect I don’t feel.
sandee on June 30, 2010 at 12:55 AM
There is only one right answer to the question of religions and which one is right. The common thought is that only one of them can be right, but most people miss out on the third possibility which is that they’re ALL wrong and no one has it right when it comes to the answer of god. Don’t take that as me saying that I know one way or the other but I’m damn sure, after much introspection and thought on the subject over my 41 years, that the idea that a god would create the entire universe and come to THIS planet alone to make himself known is the biggest bunch of malarky I’ve ever heard. Knowing the size of the universe, and how many stars there are out there (and the planets that surround them), there has GOT to be life elsewhere because we KNOW that life exists here… All that’s needed is the right conditions for life to flourish on those other planets.
the implication of that is that since god came down to the earth and sacrificed himself so that WE could join him in heaven… Doesn’t that by extension mean that he’d have to go down to all the other planets that had intelligent life on them and sacrifice himself so that THEY could make it to heaven as well?
I can’t be happier than to hear that the leader of a western nation doesn’t follow one religion over another. That she doesn’t believe in gods as defined by each of the religions that we find being practiced on this planet. That the common belief that gods create us and watch over us and play with us like a boy does his toy soldiers, or a girl does her dolls.
SauerKraut537 on June 30, 2010 at 12:57 AM
I somewhat disagree
The concept of physical pain is quite instrumental in the formation of childhood understanding of right and wrong.
blatantblue on June 30, 2010 at 12:57 AM
This is news why? There are people who don’t believe in God, so what? Why does Allah think every story about some idiot who proclaims themselves to be same warrants attention? I don’t care.
echosyst on June 30, 2010 at 1:07 AM
At least she’s honest about her lack of faith. I don’t see Obama coming clean about his (true) religious views.
As for the how the Christian vote will be affected. I don’t know. The majority of Christians live in conservative held electorates anyway. It may affect a few marginals.
Crux Australis on June 30, 2010 at 1:12 AM
The default position of humans before Judaism was that people outside their tribe were less human that they were, and so their pain mattered no more than the pig they killed last night for dinner.
pedestrian on June 30, 2010 at 1:18 AM
Pastor John Macarthur cites evidence to support the Bible, Jesus and God the Father. Lee Strobel, author of The Case for Christ, debunks Darwin here.
Terrie on June 30, 2010 at 1:21 AM
All I gotta do is look at the concept of God in a religion to conclude it is wrong.
God created everything. Think about that for one second. Black Holes, Quasars, Pulsars, strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, electromagnetic radiation, right versus wrong, pain versus pleasure, 2+2=4, artistic qualities.
Then he created man. Thinking, flawed, but generally leaning toward good. God endowed him with reason, gave him a choice.
But in many religions, if you don’t give this God your Saccharine adoration and abdicate your mind for Him, he has this special place where it is torture. This place of torture isn’t for the real bad people, its for the people who aren’t with God…
He shown infinite wisdom in Creation according to most Religions but has shown Tyrannical leanings in interpersonal relations…
In Christianity, it gets a teensy weensy bit more unbelievable. God created the Tree and the Serpent, said don’t touch, and was omniscient enough to know that We’d eat the fruit. And he also knows he’d have to Punish man for Sin which He allowed. And in order to absolve Man of his Sin (or perhaps to absolve God of His) he either created an innocent life to be tortured brutally or gave himself flesh to suffer that fate. And again, if you don’t believe and so forth, its an eternity of torture for you just for not being on His Side.
Holger on June 30, 2010 at 1:22 AM
You correctly understand the problem with the concept of free will. Good thing the Bible says there is no such thing.
pedestrian on June 30, 2010 at 1:33 AM
You’re kidding, right?
One of the themes of the entire Bible is free will.
Jenfidel on June 30, 2010 at 1:36 AM
The Bible talks about making correct choices, but it is very clear that it is God that predetermines those choices, such that in the fullness of time his glory and mercy will be seen.
pedestrian on June 30, 2010 at 1:40 AM
He said nothing about it being a hostile act against theists. If anything, both are signs of a certain hostility to God, or to the idea of God.
Agnosticism and atheism are both reactions against the knowledge of God that everyone is born with. Agnosticism has the advantage of being willing to admit that it’s impossible to prove that God does not exist, but is mostly equivalent to atheism in that it rejects the idea of God.
And yes, I’ve heard the usual arguments against God. They sound compelling at first, and I was swayed in my younger years, but I came out the other side.
It’s very interesting that many of us have very different reactions to the thought of God. For some, the very idea of God makes them uncomfortable. The cynic would say it’s because admitting the existence of God implies God should be on the throne of our lives, rather than whatever we feel like.
Of course, one problem for the atheist/agnostic is that if there is no God, then the Christian who claims a firm belief in God must not know what he’s talking about. He has to be deluded, ignorant, or lying. Maybe that’s why so many atheists/agnostics are a bit … evangelistic about their lack of faith?
There Goes The Neighborhood on June 30, 2010 at 1:41 AM
She definitely looks like an atheist.
logis on June 30, 2010 at 1:48 AM
You must be a Presbyterian.
Actually, we aren’t allowed to know if the choices are pre-determined.
They very well could not be.
This, too, shall be revealed in the fullness of time.
What matters (to God and to your own life) is which choice you make! :-)
Jenfidel on June 30, 2010 at 1:50 AM
Sorry OldEnglish i left my sarc/ tag off. that was meant as a joke. i will do better in the future. :)
Dire Straits on June 30, 2010 at 2:02 AM
saw a bumper sticker once that I really liked. It said:
God does not believe in atheists
ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 2:16 AM
I really can’t get excited about Julia Gillard.
The only positive thing I can say is that she is a formidible debater and parliamentary performer. Looking forward to the leaders debates with Tony Abbott leading up to the election.
Crux Australis on June 30, 2010 at 2:45 AM
Oh God!
hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:48 AM
Interesting question.
Mormons have a responses to your question:
President John Taylor, the third Prophet of the LDS Church, maintained that Jesus Christ was the “Creator of worlds” and that he held “the keys of the government of other worlds.” President Taylor also professed that, “He holds the keys of salvation” where those other worlds are concerned. (See Mediation and Atonement, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1882, pp. 76–77.)
An apostle of the LDS Church, Elder Marion G. Romney explained it this way:
“Jesus Christ, in the sense of being its Creator and Redeemer, is the Lord of the whole universe. Except for his mortal ministry accomplished on this earth, his service and relationship to other worlds and their inhabitants are the same as his service and relationship to this earth and its inhabitants” (“Jesus Christ Lord of the Universe,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1968, p. 46).
Conservative Samizdat on June 30, 2010 at 2:56 AM
Fair enough on her part, I think. Let us hope we don`t catch her dumping on religion in a mic-on moment. I would like to believe she actually respects religious beliefs of others. By the way, what is the “other path” she has found? I would like to hear more about that . . . .
Otherwise I continue to be more concerned with what`s going on here than there.
Allahpundit is endulging his pet avocation. Hotair is his blog more or less.
Bet “Boss Emeritus” is religious.
Not sure, tho.
Sherman1864 on June 30, 2010 at 3:13 AM
Good for her.
Agnosticism does not mean you cannot take a position. I can’t say for sure no gods exist but I don’t believe any do. I also can’t say for sure no unicorns exist but I don’t believe any do. I can’t say for sure no aliens are visiting our planet but I don’t believe they are.
If there is a god who created everything can he really be stupid enough to fall for the old Pascal’s wager scam? Don’t you think he would know spiritual masturbation when he sees it?
deewhybee on June 30, 2010 at 3:21 AM
She’s asking for a savior.
As in, “save me, save me, rescue me, make it stop.”
People who go on about how badly they feel about their lack of faith and about the faith that they perceive badly are simply expressing their need to be rescued. As in, they expect that someone will come after them and save them.
In fact, what Christ has already done for them. Statements like this woman’s are literally just patent belligerance, a sort of passive-aggressive threat: “I won’t, I won’t, you can’t make me, you’re not my father, no.”
One day, they’ll realize that it’s a problem they have with themselves, their own will. They’re refusing faith.
Lourdes on June 30, 2010 at 3:26 AM
.
So you’re saying that the only statement not requiring faith, is the one that claims that God both does, and does not exist? Logical impossibilty. That is religion. Where is your evidence for this impirical fact? Yeesh.
ronsfi on June 30, 2010 at 3:39 AM
Entirely my fault for having a bee in my bonnet over illegals – and for not switching my humour button on. =)
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 3:59 AM
That is absolute, condescending rubbish!
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 4:05 AM
I am an observant, yet non-practicing, Jew. This seems to be a contradiction, but I see it as being practical. Judaism, as practiced to day, has changed little over the past 1,000 years. Catholicism has changed little over hundreds of year. Most christian imagery has changed little since the Renaissance. This is the problem with most organized religion: the imagery, the rites, the services, as opposed by the basic tenets of the faith, are archaic and irrelevant!
I have no qualms with the teachings of the Torah, and feel I have a good personal relationship with G-d. I simply cannot stomach the services, which are composed mainly of chanting the same tired prayers and lauding our creator of His greatness. Almost nothing from the services are foundational in the religion, nor has any of what we do any close relationship to our lives.
This is the key problem to orthodoxy in organized religion. The orthodoxy is an adherence to out-of-date irrelevancies, not to the bases of the faith itself.
I attended services in Scottsdale, AZ once about a decade ago, where they mixed in modern concepts with the old traditions in services. This made the services nearly tolerable, but still it was an uncomfortable mix. I would love to see a new synagogue with the traditional aspects reduced to a more tolerable, yet respectful, 25% of the time spent, while stressing modern situations and challenges as addressed by the faith.
stonemeister on June 30, 2010 at 4:43 AM
I am an Atheist, but I do not conform to that definition of Atheism. I say that there is no evidence for the supernatural, therefore I do not believe in it. That is quite different from your characterization of an Atheist as necessarily being certain of his belief the way a theist claims. To call my stance Agnostic is to stretch a point beyond breaking. I see the possibility of a Jewish or Christian god, for example, to be as likely as Odin or whatever the Scientologists call their alien thingies.
Like most Atheists, I do not proselytize. I don’t give a rip what you believe. The douche bags are those Atheists and Theists alike who do. Unfortunately, it is a religious duty of certain faiths to do so. So some people think that being a douche bag is “god’s will.” Nothing about Atheism suggests that we ought to try to convince others. It is simply that some Atheists choose to be douche bags.
MJBrutus on June 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM
And here we have the nub of the Theists’ problem. To a great many, not to believe in their fantasy is a “hostile act.” I’ve known many who consider belief to be a “virtue” and to not believe to be a “sin.” Such thinking is the root of intolerance that most of us who don’t believe in any gods resent and resist. Believe what you want, even believe that we Atheists are “evil” or whatever, but don’t expect us to sit down and shut up when you insult us or when you treat us as hostile simply because we won’t go along with your metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
MJBrutus on June 30, 2010 at 6:27 AM
Could you mean the atheists on You Tube who comment vociferously on harmless Christian videos? Those nice atheists? /s
Grace_is_sufficient on June 30, 2010 at 6:29 AM
Hey, feelings come and go. I might wake up feeling like I’m rich one day but that doesn’t mean I can go writing checks. I might feel like I can fly but that isn’t proof. That’s why they call it faith.
Believing in the Bible is a decision. It’s not based on feelings, but based on the promises of God found in the Bible centered around the birth, life and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It’s a decision. I’ve made mine. I believe the Bible and I believe in Jesus. That He was and Is Who He said He Is!
JellyToast on June 30, 2010 at 6:33 AM
I haven’t watched any Christian vids so I can’t say. Most likely though, yes, those Atheists.
MJBrutus on June 30, 2010 at 6:37 AM
I believe in a god but not the church. I’m a doubting Tomas and think people even on the lowest level use the word of god for their own purposes. I would have to be very literal. I believe I have a personal relationship.
tomas on June 30, 2010 at 7:11 AM
Science wants to disprove God……so Science can become God.
Atheism, Agnosticism, Progessivism, Darwinism, Communism, all the other “isms”. Everyone must have something to fill that “God Hole”. The fact that she is at least not lying is refreshing.
Which would explain her willingness to be a Fabian Socialist.
Oh, that everyone in national positions of power would be so open about their true “faith”.
PappyD61 on June 30, 2010 at 7:16 AM
AP,
Have you considered going to the Hitchens vs. White debate?
shick on June 30, 2010 at 7:20 AM
Agnostic = Voting “Present”
VelvetElvis on June 30, 2010 at 7:29 AM
No harm and no foul friend. :)
Dire Straits on June 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM
From Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England, 1220-1230 with revisions in 1250:
From this we do understand that there is the Law of Nature, that thing which exists around us and all things in the Universe. Natural Law is self-evident in that it exists, functions and continues without our help, oversight or reason. We cannot change Natural Law but must understand it and come to terms with it. And like all good laws it is applied equally, without favor, without prejudice, and constantly obeyed as there is no choice in that matter. Even if we change the form of ourselves in outward appearance, so long as we partake of the Natural Law we are ruled by it.
After Natural Law comes the first Law we make as rational beings as part of Nature. It is, not surprisingly, not civil law at all:
Thus Nations do not arise from towns and villages, nor does civil law they all rest upon jus gentium: the Law of Nations. That source of law comes out of the Natural Law and abides by it and creates space within it for us to experience liberty. Liberty gives us definition to its positive and negative aspects of things when we apply rational thought to it. Thus we have positive and negative liberty in all things we can do as natural beings, and by reason we can then decide on which is best to exercise and which we must not exercise to maintain relationships with others. It is the act of setting aside certain negative liberties and overseeing them amongst ourselves that allow our positive liberties to flourish, to nurture us and to give us insight into our nature and the Natural Law.
The Law of Nations is universal in that wherever man comes to woman to form family, it instantly appears when they no longer exercise their liberties in full but use reason to decide which is best for them both and their family to prosper using their liberty. Any Nation, State or other higher form of governance rests upon this platform and any attempt to disregard it, corrode it or otherwise put it in jeopardy does not enhance our reason or our liberty, but denigrates it and pushes us more towards Natural Law.
Law of Nations does not need to be written for it to be mandatory and universally understood. Societies will partake in it differntly, as is their wont, and their right to defend themselves is absolute not only due to the Natural Law but from the Law of Nations. To understand the universality of Law of Nations find any text describing how one Nation or State then communicates with another and you will find ambassadores, understandings about delineations of territory, of reciprocity of actions, of agreements that can be entered into and that cannot be entered into: this happens from the oldest texts in China and Korea through the Incans and Mayans through the Ancient Bronze Age through to this very day as we still create families. There is common and unspoken law that exists universally because not only of who we are, creatures of Nature, but what we do, utilize rational thought to define our liberties and use the creative ones and relegate the destructive ones to common oversight. We create government because we must ensure our negative liberties are not used to our common ill.
When individuals partake of their negative liberties against us, when they partake in Private War, we can refer to them as reverting to a state of savagery as they now reclaim all their natural liberties to themselves. Thus any terrorist or pirate is not just a common criminal, but a criminal against all mankind by Law of Nations. They endanger the very structure and fabric we create to protect our families, our neighbors and our Nations. Abolish the top and the rest fractures into chaos and yet can be reborn by the simple act of marriage, of reaching out to our fellow man and woman to abide by utilizing our positive liberties to our benefit and keeping a wary eye upon our negative ones in common.
Some day we will remember this lesson.
As it is we argue ignoring it and thus lose contact with the Law of Nations and find our squabblings decending to the Law of Nature and savagery. No good can come of this.
ajacksonian on June 30, 2010 at 7:49 AM
Don’t confuse “religious” faith with pure knowing of God. All religions have doctrine which may or may not be Truth. Knowing God at a personal level (sans doctrine) is True faith. So, the answer is none of them if it encompasses doctrine and all of them in their assurance of a deity.
Nalea on June 30, 2010 at 7:50 AM
Hitchens is intelligent and witty, but clearly out of his league when it comes to debating William Lane Craig, for example. I would say the same for his debates with Dr. Frank Turek.
Hitchens relies on a sympathetic audience who laughs as his anti-religion rhetoric even when it’s a complete non-sequitur. Ironically, he berates Bill Maher’s audience for the same thing, calling them “stupid” for laughing at George Bush jokes night after night. Yet that’s his schtick among the anti-religion crowd: “Religion commits wrong acts, religion has done evil,” etc. When gently brought ’round to the fact that Christians agree with that sentiment, Hitchens has very little left.
It’s uncomfortable to watch such an intelligent person confront his own unquestioned dogma. He gets sweaty and squirmy in the face of it. Sad.
Grace_is_sufficient on June 30, 2010 at 7:51 AM
Would it be better if she was a Muslim?
albill on June 30, 2010 at 7:53 AM
Almighty GOD will have the last word.You can count on that fact.
thmcbb on June 30, 2010 at 7:54 AM
Is it “I think therefore I am” or vice versa? Descartes got it backwards (typical).
Fuquay Steve on June 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM
Keep drinking the punch grace.
SauerKraut537 on June 30, 2010 at 7:59 AM
Nice that somebody else finally recognized the truth of the Atheist Religion.
J in STL on June 30, 2010 at 8:01 AM
Roger that. Craig wiped the floor with him. This is why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig. I think Craig has really brought new life in to classical apologetics (along with Sproul). Many were ready to discard classical apologetics in favor of evidentialism and presupppositionalism, but Craig has brought it back with a vengence with the force of his incredible grasp of logic and metaphysics. Plantinga has done much the same except Plantinga is bit complex for most to grasp.
tommyboy on June 30, 2010 at 8:02 AM
True Christians don’t believe this. God does not discard us when he gets bored in His play. I commend to you Hebrews 12, and the notion that for the atheist, this world is as good as it gets, but for the Christian, this world is as bad as it gets. Even if we Christians are wrong, how has it hurt to lead a life guided by some pretty cool principles?
College Prof on June 30, 2010 at 8:03 AM
It doesn’t hurt a bit, which is why this astute observation is the backbone of Pascal’s wager.
tommyboy on June 30, 2010 at 8:06 AM
Look at the earth, ecosystem, sun proximity, moon gravitational effects on sealife, tilted axis, rotation, etc. All happen chance? The Bible lays it out but not all. God wants faith demonstrated. Man rebelled against God, the earth was cursed and all you have to do is look around to see the consequences of our rebellion. Do we need help? A way out? A righteous leader who can govern without corruption? You better believe it. He is coming. And it isn’t “The Won!”
wepeople on June 30, 2010 at 8:22 AM
The “Big Bang” is pretty much creation. Without it, there is no time or space… no where or when. To use the phrase “Before the Big Bang” has no mean because there is no “before”. All that “is” came from a point defined as having infinite mass and consuming no space, a singularity. How it came about is something we cannot even conceive. That is all within the realm of what some people refer to as spiritual. Just like that realm of no time or space, it cannot be inspected, analyzed and quantified and never will be.
Science and religion end up in the same place… no physical explanation for where it all came from. There was a fairly young, non-religious, retired Microsoft engineer helping with the genome project. As he progressed in his work of analyzing how DNA worked, he came to the sudden realization that the “DNA database” was designed.
As for me, well, I don’t know anything for certain (with “know” being something you can physically prove). I believe scientific evidence supports the Big Bang theory. Once I accept that, I must conclude that something else exists that is beyond my ability (and the ability of “science”) to comprehend or explain. I think that’s God.
CC
CapedConservative on June 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM
Funny how you only show up at HA when your pet ideology is mentioned, Kraut. *sigh* One-track mind much?
Grace_is_sufficient on June 30, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Yes…this is what started my scientific, philosophical, and historical inquiry into the existence of God. That inquiry led me to accept Christ as my personal Savior.
Now everyone watch Kraut’s head explode. 5-4-3….
Grace_is_sufficient on June 30, 2010 at 8:52 AM
With over a hundred billion stars in a over a hundred billion galaxies, the odds would have be extremely long for there not to be life in another place or time.
dedalus on June 30, 2010 at 8:54 AM
Even better: “May you live as long as you wish and love as long as you live.” –R. Heinlein
riverrat10k on June 30, 2010 at 9:04 AM
“With over a hundred billion stars in a over a hundred billion galaxies, the odds would have be extremely long for there not to be life in another place or time.” Not really. Scientists have isolated at least 24 finely tuned variables present on earth and absolutely necessary to sustain life. The probablility of even 15 of these complex variables occuring by chance in another planet, in the sequence necessary to sustain life, is a number 100 times greater than the current estimate of the total stars and planets in the galaxy. Something like 10 to the -124th. power.
tommyboy on June 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM
I’m shocked SHOCKED that this airhead is, however, all in with regards to global warming, and the power of poly sci tards to change the weather.
MNHawk on June 30, 2010 at 9:12 AM
What a hollow person she thinks she is. Almost Spock like. Is she ruled by morals, laws or an innate sense of what is right? What is her guiding compass, or should I ask Who?
Kissmygrits on June 30, 2010 at 9:13 AM
I’m reminded of a verse in a song: “What human intellect can’t sway must be explained away — Earth religions of man. Search without end to fill the spirit house within. Simplicity of God somehow escapes man.”
In other words, God’s wisdom is not intended for nor can it be explained by man. It requires belief and faith. I can’t argue you into belief, nor can you argue me into disbelief.
All the while, the God of this universe is and will ever be, loving his children and wishing they would come home.
NRN
Tennman on June 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Thanks partly to the Dalai Lama, Buddhism and compassion and mindfulness (particularly in psychotherapy and other self-help genres) are all on the rise. Buddhists don’t necessarily believe in God. But, they advocate spiritual practices such as meditation, an intense awareness turned inward, which produces a spiritual experience. Do atheists have any such practice, to discover the “inner” atheist? Atheism is just silly, isn’t it?
Paul-Cincy on June 30, 2010 at 9:32 AM
This isn’t new, for goodness sakes. I was raised by an agnostic, and he dutifully took us to church because he didn’t want to unduly influence his kids.
Atheists? Whoa* They were just as rabid as any fundamentalist Christian who demanded their daughter wear nerdy clothes and never cut their hair.
Two of a kind.
AnninCA on June 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM
What’s it all about, Alfie?
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 9:53 AM
Scratch an agnostic and underneath you will invariably find some sort of panthiesm.
tommyboy on June 30, 2010 at 9:55 AM
How can one be hostile to something they don’t believe exists? You’re simply trying to demonize people who don’t believe the same way as you do. That’s zealotry.
MadisonConservative on June 30, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Oh look. A zealous atheist misinterpreting agnosticism. Shocka.
Agnosticism claims neither that God exists, nor that he doesn’t exist. Agnosticism is open to either idea if it can be proven to them. Theists claim that God can and will answer all questions. Atheists claim that natural sciences can and will answer all questions. Both are products of faith.
MadisonConservative on June 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM
It’s an interesting admission by Gillard; that she outright does not believe in God; that she’s essentially a committed atheist.
I’m sure that many on the left will adore her for comments like these. Yet I’m not so sure that it’s the right thing to do politically, but I can’t know for sure because I don’t know Australian politics.
Yet, in the interview, they do discuss how previous Australian prime ministers have actively courted people of religion. That she so early on essentially concedes that constituency might not have been the smartest thing to do, in my opinion.
And concede that constituency I think is exactly what she’s done. She’s labeled herself an atheist. She’s described her quite deliberate abandonment of Christianity. Basically I think she’s alienated the people she was once a part of, and she did it quite quickly and early on. Don’t know if that was necessary.
Again, the left will love her for this. Not so sure about many voters. It will be interesting to see how her style of politics plays out. My observation has been that doing things differently usually doesn’t pan out. We’ll see.
Dennis_Second_Thots on June 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Isn’t that special :)
Dr Evil on June 30, 2010 at 10:03 AM
This is always the case:
People believing in what they feel not feel not by what is true.
“it can’t be wrong, cause it feels so right” is wrong in the absence of truth
maynila on June 30, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Who’s that woman, who’s Ron Rosenbaum, and who cares?
Agnostic is Greek for ignoramus.
Akzed on June 30, 2010 at 10:07 AM
She’ll have the thuggish Left on her side, no matter what. She may be trying to court the Greens, who were not happy with Rudd.
OldEnglish on June 30, 2010 at 10:16 AM
I’d be interested in seeing how they built their model. Considering that we are uncertain about whether the next planet over ever had life, it seems like the conditions for biological life might be replicated in some galaxy at some point in time.
Either way, humans will likely create artificial life forms here on earth this century or next. I wonder what they’ll think of their creators?
dedalus on June 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM
I don’t think it would have the same effect as it would in the US. Australians usually don’t like overt displays of religion. Christians usually don’t vote Labor as much as other parties anyway.
Today Gillard also came out against equal treatment of homosexual partnerships so she lost that constituency as well.
Crux Australis on June 30, 2010 at 10:20 AM
Kevin Rudd = “amazing new chapters in Australian history”:
“Good stable government” is her catch phrase. How would you feel if Biden took over for Obama among talk that he was unstable?
Regarding her non belief in God, “strong principle and values” but no mention of morals. Which I think is why she (and greenie eco-terrorists) easily try to transform their influence and power into the homes and lives of everyone through AGW. (Just don’t ask Kagan to confirm if the govt can regulate what we eat.)
How convenient to her political ideology to not believe in God so her labor party can assume that role for the state’s children (their nightmares of global doom from school/govt propaganda will be over) and claim Mother Nature tamed as a new chapter in Aussie history.
FeFe on June 30, 2010 at 10:32 AM
That’s interesting, AP. I wasn’t offended by Guillard’s manner in her discussion of faith. Maybe she was just being politic, but I didn’t sense a know-it-all-ness coming through. She seems willing to live and let live.
Christopher Hitchens, with whom I do have other points of strong agreement, is much more of an “I know, dammit!” type about God, at least from my perspective. Talks about it being stupid and damaging to believe in God, the only reasonable position is that there is no God, etc, etc. Guillard just affirms her belief that there’s not one and doesn’t immediately launch into a canned riff on the stupidity of believing there is one; the latter tendency is what I find to be atheistic know-it-all-ness.
J.E. Dyer on June 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM
tommyboy is making a different point, that the universe is fine tuned for life. Since life exists here, it is likely that it can exist elsewhere, that is a different point could it exist in a universe with some random values for the physical constants.
The latest theories are different. They imagine a quantum fluctuation inside a planck length sized cell of spacetime undergoing inflation to become as large as the known universe. So there is a before the big bang, but space expanded so fast during inflation that we cannot see any space outside of our neighborhood, which all came from within that planck size area.
pedestrian on June 30, 2010 at 11:09 AM
I don’t know how you can be so sure of that. While we can certainly modify existing life forms I don’t believe we have a clue where to start in the process of turning inert elements into biological life. After Stanlely Miller’s experiments were disproved science was left in the dark as to where to begin.
tommyboy on June 30, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Can you please provide an example of an atheist claiming that
It’s you fairy tale types that claim your big cheese answers all.
deewhybee on June 30, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »