Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Doug Giles :: Townhall.com Columnist
Atheism: An Intellectual Revolt or Pelvic Rebellion?
by Doug Giles
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Atheists would love for everyone to believe that their motive for not believing is an intellectual one. Yes, the atheists ardently suppose that they are wise and the Christians, well, we’re the buckle-shoed buttheads.

Yes, darling, the atheists would love all of us to suppose that they cannot believe because they are so astute and rational, and we theists, heck we’re toads . . . a veritable troop of abecedarian simpletons who believe in God and Christ simply because we’re straight goofy.

I think the atheists believe in not believing, however, not because they’re intellectual little dandies but because they want to be autonomous, loose and randy.

As Dinesh D’Souza said about the atheist’s faith in no faith in his new book What’s So Great About Christianity: “Atheism is not primarily an intellectual revolt, it’s a moral one.” God, that’s got to hurt you guys because you pride yourself on being so wise . . . so sophisticated . . . and here he/we are saying that your atheism rises out of hedonism instead of intellectualism. Ouch. Need a bandaid?

Look, I’m not buying that the atheists’ altruistic self-professed pursuit of reason is what undergirds their conclusion that God does not exist; I believe it’s because they want to believe that they’ll never be called into eternal accountability for their temporal actions by a holy God. Talk about an opiate for the masses!

But to heck with what I think, eh? I’m just a hayseed, cross-eyed Christian with an IQ of 50 who believes in Jesus, loves his mama, salutes the flag and collects guns. I’m an idiot. Let’s go to the atheists and hear it from the horse’s mouth—or backside (411 taken from D’Souza’s book, What’s So Great About Christianity):

• Biologist Stephen Jay Gould: “We may yearn for a higher answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating.”

Biologist Julian Huxley, the grandson of Darwin’s buddy and ally Thomas Henry Huxley, put it this way: “The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous.”

• Julian’s brother Aldous Huxley, not to be outdone by his bro, stated, “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . For myself as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation . . . liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Bertrand Russell: “The worst feature of the Christian religion is its attitude toward sex.”

• Christopher Hitchens: “The divorce between the sexual life and fear . . . can now at last be attempted on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse.”

Sounds like these atheist apostles are simply putting a nuevo twist on an ancient bent. They appear to be humming the Marquis de Sade’s tune more than Sagan’s. Looks and sounds like a moral revolt to me. Yes, this is Epicurus all over again.

You remember Epi, don’t cha? His whole goal was to “get rid of the gods.” He and his other pre-Socratic “thinkers” like Lucretius and Democritus didn’t like all that duty and responsibility to higher powers and fellow mortals crap. It put a hitch in their get along. It brought them pain and they liked pleasure. They believed that such an obligation to men and the gods caused too much anxiety. They didn’t like the thought of being responsible and having to account for their lives in the afterlife. Such thoughts really screwed with getting their groove on, ya know what I’m sayin’?

They were the first metrosexuals. Yep, they figured that if they could just get the gods out of the way they could focus on selfishly milking this life for all it’s worth and then die without any eternal repercussions. They were living in a material world, and they were material girls. Pretty ballsy. Or stupid. But at least they were honest about their motivations.

In addition, ladies, Darwin didn’t lose his faith because he discovered natural selection; he dumped God because he couldn’t stomach the doctrine of eternal accountability and damnation. That’s what made him switch teams. I think that was about ten years after he had married his first cousin. Git-R-Done, Charlie!

Y’know, Karl Marx said religion is the “opiate of the masses.” I think the real poppy derivative is the black tar belief that tells you atheist lads and lasses that when you take the big dirt nap that’s it. Ah what peace. What a high. No God. No accountability. All our sins of commission and omission will never ever come up again. No pain. No penalty. No heaven. No hell. Imagine. Yeah, dude. Hold that hit. Let it out slowly. Ahhh. Feel better?

There’s your opium.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
WWJD?
Please don't think ALL athiests are bad people, or people who just want to be rebels...
You know, I have seen a lot of athiests that disgust me, they are down right filthy, they are heathens, they have no respect, They haven't just given up on god, they have given up on life. But not ALL athiests are like that!
I am athiest, yeah- but I have respect for people who have the faith to believe In god, and You know what? I dont think that I will just fade away when I die... But I think its up to everybody to find the truth for themselves, and that is what life is about.
Every day is a spiritual journey for me, I do the best I can, and I don't judge others, I help people who need it, and you know, sometimes I think I can feel gods presence. But something inside makes me want to know more, to be open to ideas, and opinions, and honestly, if god has given us the free will to question who we are, or where we come from, then who are we to judge those who use that free will?
OH and one more thing. Saying all christians are rifle toting close minded rednecks, and all athiests are horrible people who promote sinning and evil things is downright stupid. its on the same level as saying all blacks are gonna jump you and steal your stuff, or all Asians are smart, its just stupid and offensive.

Pelvicism
Indeed, one reason that atheism, as a movement, is targeting the youth seems to be that they are naturally rebellious and hormonal.
The atheists encourage them to commit the ultimate rebellion, rebellion against God (they tend to confuse rebellion against “religion” with rebellion against God) and as for the libido; the promulgate the consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability.
Atheism is the Valium of the people.

Immoral atheists
"Yes... those immoral atheists!
Like -
Larry Craig, Richard Curtis"

We were thinking more of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Nikolae Ceausescu, Erich Honecker, Erich Mielke, etc.

By the way, Hitler was not a Christian.

Rereading Mere Christianity
I just started and Lewis asks this question -- Why is it that there appears to be a transcendent moral code that is fairly consistent across all cultures and time? There are exceptions and variations, of course, but most cultures consider murder, stealing, rape and child molestation to be wrong. Why?

Lewis noted one argument is that we humans just know that violation of this code is unhealthy for society, so we follow the rules. Except, that we don't. We hold these laws as self-evident, but we don't actually behave as if they are. For example, the Declaration says "all men are created equal", but we denied women the vote and enslaved blacks. We believe in a high standard, but we don't live by that standard.

Lewis, being a Christian, finds that the moral code is a by-product of our creation by God. Our inability to live by the code is a legacy of our sin nature. The only way to reconcile the two is through a relationship with Jesus.

I think Lewis was familiar with the argument that atheists don't need "god" to be moral. I don't think he agreed with it. We can KNOW what's right, but history teaches us that we human beings are really bad at DOING what's right. Something appears to be missing. Could that missing piece be God? Lewis certainly thought so.

About Galileo
"pearls of wisdon from Doug Giles. Man invented God - not the other way around. People that believe this nonsense word for word are the intellectually uncurious. Religion, no matter what flavor has always been used by the ruling elite to control the masses. Just look at radical Islam compared to Radical Christianity - no difference at all. Christians used to use the bible as a way to support slavery. They used religious doctrine to imprison Gallileo for saying the world was round."

And Christians used the biblical doctrine of creation to oppose slavery. You do realise that the Church knew the world was round for about 1500 years before Columbus (the Greeks worked it out) and Galileo managed to get caught in the Protestant/Catholic divide. If he'd advanced his ideas about a Sun centered cosmology 50 years earlier or later he wouldn't have had a problem.

"Christpher Hitchens was right. I watched D'Sousa on The Daily Show. He came off looking like a complete idiot because when pressed, he could not even defend the very premise of his book. Now we have the John Hagges of the world trying to press us into attacking Iran. Radical Christianity actually scares mo more than Radical Islam because the radical Christains have an enormous amount of power in this counrty."

The love of power is the root of many kinds of evil.

For myself I'd rather Christians stopped taking cheap shots at atheists; pay attention Doug. Being civil costs nothing.

Yes... those immoral atheists!
Like -
Larry Craig, Richard Curtis, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley, Jim Bakker, Tammy Faye Bakker, Rev. Gary Aldridge, Bob Allen, Fred Phelps, Paul Crouch, Lonnie Latham, Glenn Murphy Jr., Rick Perry, Helen Chenoweth, Ken Calvert, Bob Barr, Earl Paulk, Robert Livingston, Strom Thurmond, Merrill Robert Barter, Parker J. Bena, Randall Terry, Parker J. Bena, Louis Beres, Howard L. Brooks, John Bolton, Mike Bowers,Ted Bundy, Jim Bunn, George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, Robert Bauman, Neil Bush, John Butler, Earl Kimmerling, Paul Ingram, and tens of thousands of Catholic priests,just to name a few.

Dolly 4
4. THE IMPOSSIBLE FAITH. There is a long list of reasons that Christianity should never have spread beyond the 12 disciples and their families in Palestine. If you know anything about Ancient Near East culture you might be able to guess some of them. A few:

* Women. The first to discover the empty tomb were women. That alone should have strangled Christianity in the cradle. Jewish women were not even allowed to testify in court; their testimony in court or anywhere was considered worthless, which was common in the ancient world in general. John and Peter went to the tomb verify what the women had seen to make sure they weren’t just babbling. Far worse for Christianity’s future was that the remaining 11 disciples, all men, made NO attempt to cover this fact up. If they were looking to just start a religion as a means of gaining power and influence, they most certainly would have had Peter and John discovering the empty tomb.

Note also the empty tomb stories conflict on minor points, description of angel, etc., and that illiteracy of the ANE was at least 95%, meaning an oral culture. Rather than undermine the credibility of the gospels, it suggests a legitimate effort to memorize what the women said they saw. Two eyewitnesses to an auto accident will conflict on minor or even major details but that doesn’t mean there was no accident.

Rather than persecuting the disciples, the Sanhedrin would have just laughed them out of the city because basing their most crucial claim on the testimony of women would have convinced the authorities these men were no threat to the established order. If they did anything, it would have been to hire the disciples as court jesters. “Tell Caiaphas that women-found-the-empty-tomb thing again, I never get tired of that one!”

Yet the faith spread like wildfire and frightened the authorities enough to hunt its adherents down and kill or imprison them. What overcame this insurmountable obstacle?

camanintx
"We're just tired of being miss-characterized by the likes of Doug Giles and won't stand for it anymore."

I appreciate your frustration.

I, for one, am tired of one flavor of Christian trying to claim the high moral ground over the others. It has begun to remind me of a bunch of toddlers acting-out to see who gets daddy's attention.

And I am REALLY tired of people who do not know enough to understand the difference between an atheist, a deist and an agnostic. Much less those who think they think they can pigeonhole someone neatly based on a couple of sentences posted here.

Dang. What WAS that bit about "Judge not...."?
;-)

Dolly Part 3
3. MY OWN EXPERIENCES. This is where we get to the nitty-gritty of what “faith” is all about. Contrary to popular secular opinion, it isn’t a willful suspension of belief in what you know to be true in favor of belief in things you know to be extremely unlikely as a means of escape.

Instead it is based primarily on a Christian’s direct experiences with the risen Lord. I've had more than a few of these that make it extremely difficult for me to not believe and can tell you about them if you like, but for the sake of space, I will tell you only if you actually want to know about them. Most skeptics don’t, and believe it or not, I sympathize because of the whole talk-is-cheap thing, so I leave it up to you.

Then we’re left with the harder evidence you crave…


Hello Dolly - Part 2
1. I lead off with a question for you – WHAT IF YOU’RE RIGHT? I assume from this quote:

“Remember, A GOD can exist without it being YOUR psychotic ancient tribal sky-daddy.”

…that you are not strictly speaking an atheist in the modern connotation, more like an agnostic. But either way, this question is aimed at anyone who believes it is more likely than not that nothing exists but a physical universe of atoms and dust. If you are right, then the universe and everything in it is meaningless, including you and me or anything we believe, rendering even this debate and all the raging in it purely academic. If you disagree with that statement, then tell me why, and back it up with verifiable evidence.

2. THE GOD INSTINCT. A homing device built into all of us. In all of human history, there has never been a civilization that did not worship a higher power or powers -- including right up to this very moment. And yes, I’m including Communist states.

Even though atheism was the official state religion of Communism to the exclusion of all others, and atheists are the majority of non-Communist socialists, their belief system requires the creation a God-like government, one that is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, just and merciful. Running over a ketchup packet doesn’t make the ketchup disappear, it just displaces the ketchup by rupturing the packet and squirting the ketchup out the side.

Likewise, attempting to suppress belief in a supernatural being doesn’t destroy the God Instinct -- it just squirts out and is expressed in a different way. If you don’t believe me, I’ll show you how it shows up even in your answer to this point.

Hello Dolly...
"Now, explain to me why I should kiss Jesus' @$$, and not Hank's. To wit, I am asking for you to produce credible, verifiable evidence that Jesus is anything more than a dead and/or imaginary god, that would in some meaningful way distinguish him from Hank."

I was unable to access the "Hank" site because the net filters here at work blocked it due to "Sexual Materials”. Assuming this filter is accurate in its assessment of the site, you appear to be unwittingly making Giles point for him. To wit, there are probably hundreds of other skeptic sites you could have chosen that would make your point in at least a quasi-respectful manner. You could also have distilled the point in your own words. Instead you reflexively linked me to such a site, which suggests that maybe you are part of Giles’ ‘pelvic rebellion’ after all.

And in combination with your previous posts, it also suggests you're less interested in a serious answer than in a pound of flesh. Nonetheless, in spite of all the stereotyping, we Christians are not delicate little flowers that faint dead away at the sight of X-rated prose or images. I’ve seen it before many times because this is a common response by skeptics when I make this offer, no matter how respectful I am to them. It doesn’t impress me or frighten me and it will not get a rise out of me, so don’t waste your time or mine with any more porno-sarcasm and bile or you will only make Doug Giles look smarter with every post. ENGAGE me on the topic honestly.

The above is not me changing the subject to avoid answering your question, because here we go…

END OF PART 1 (more to come)

MellorSJ2 writes: 27, 2007 11:41 PM

Atheists do not so much deny the existence of a "higher power" as they say there is no evidence for one.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Do you believe Elvis existed? Did you actually see him?

Do you believe G. Washington existed? Did you actually see him?

Do you believe Caesar existed? Did you actually see him?

Do you believe Hammurabi existed? Did you actually see him?

I suspect you accept recorded eye witness.

Here is another recorded sighting by many eye witnesses.

Exo 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Exo 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Exo 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Now after this God spoke through the prophets who got over 800+ prophecies correct without error including some in great detail such as God sending the Messiah, his circumstances of birth and city, how he’d die on a cross yet to be conceived off. How he’d be speared in the side rather than have legs broken. And His miracles were beyond imagination.

Believers in God don’t have a problem accepting other’s eye witness testimony. This requires no faith. The faith they have is in the promises of the future.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Christianity
What bothers me about the Religious Right is that they've spent so much time shoving born-again Christianity down people's throats that it's easy to understand why it's not always taken seriously.

The Christian Doctrine is based on the ideal that we are not meant to sin. Evil has existed as long as God has existed- not because evil is equally powerful, but that it simply exists because God and good exist. It's like a shadow, if you have light you will have dark.

Evil carries its own consequences. I do not believe that God causes AIDS to happen to homosexuals, I believe that a careless lifestyle is responsible. But, no doubt, in the end God WILL bring forth justice. For now, though, bad things happen on their own, not because of His divine punishment.

Sometimes people die who don't seem to deserve it. After all, many people are HIV positive because of blood transfusions, not carelessness. And it really sucks. But, we know that sin has consequences that affect others besides ourselves, and in the book of Romans it says: "No one is righteouss, no, not one." The simple truth is that we ALL have sinned, and we ALL deserve death, and that God loves us enough to give us the oppurtunity for redemption.

Another Biblical teaching is that a Christian can be identified by their words and actions. Being a saved Christian is not saying that you are perfect, it is saying that you need God's help. So not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is.

And one more thing: Logic and reason are nice, and essential to existence, but by themselves they make for a feeble defense against the trials of REALITY.

This has to be satire, right?
Please don't tell me Doug Giles is real. This has to be the most illiterate nonsense ever put on Townhall. If material like this doesn't drive people away from religion what will?

What does it say about the religious that they think the only reason to lead a moral life is fear of retribution in an afterlife? The USA is by far the most hedonistic culture on the planet, and also far and away one of the most religious. The hypocrisy of the US Christian movement is what irritates, not any moral teaching. As a country the USA produces per capita more pornography, consumes more food, buys more drugs, uses up more irreplaceable resources and has a higher murder rate than any other developed country. Compare that with countries like Norway, Switzerland, Japan etc that have basically abandoned formal religious indoctrination.

Who does believe that they'll be 'called into eternal accountability for their temporal actions by a holy God'? Ted Haggard perhaps?

continued

The main argument against the majority of organized religion is that your only proof which backs up what you say is written by you. I have a journal that says I am god. No one knows who wrote it. But it says it is true, and therefore, I must be god. Th journal provides plenty of examples why I am god, but no actual proof, except for eyewitness stories from people. oh yeah, don't try to find these people. No one knows them. I do. And I'm God. You have to believe me.
See? No proof, no evidence, just a book confirming itself. How can you argue against me?
Honestly, I don't care what you believe. But if your beliefs interfere with anyone else's life, then I care. All of you christians, who hate Muslims for the bad things they did. *cough* witchhunts, Dark Ages, Crusades *cough*

Wow.......
Geez... I just clicked the stumble button on my browser and ended up here. Holy cow....... He's kidding right? So many lies, so little time.
First off. I am an indoctrinated, baptized Catholic. That said, I am Atheist. I am a virgin, so no problems about sex here. There goes half your argument. To the dude who said atheists want to destroy the world and kill 1/3 of the population. I am sure some do. Most don't. Some christians (one of whom I know) want to kill all non christians. There are crazies of every religion.
Second. Calling Atheist a religion is like calling bald a hair color. Let me ask you, you Christian, you muslim, you shintos and hindus. Why are you right? Why are all the other thousands of gods out there all wrong? Why do you disbelieve in all these gods? When you realize why, you will realize why I believe you are wrong. After all, we're all atheists together!!! I just disbelieve in one more god than you Christians.
Third. "You christians have gay lovers on the side while you preach against them on the pulpit" Look. I hate Christianity. But this is just plain stupid. Whether the arguer is a hypocrite or not, if their argument is truthful, they have every right to it. Even If I believe 1+1=3, as long as I teach that 1+1=2, what is wrong here? If it is true, it is as true when Judas says it as it is when Jesus says it.

Dolly
"Nineteen men were willing to fly jet planes into buildings for a promise of being given seventy-two virgins in paradise; does this mean that they are deflowering virgins tonight?"

You're comparing apples to oranges. People will die for a lie, but only because they sincerely believe it to be true. Few people will die for what they KNOW is a lie.

Are you arguing that the disciples of Jesus deliberately fabricated the resurrection, and then defended it to the death? Many of these people died by crucifixion, flaying, and other horrible methods. If they were perpetrating a fraud, surely ONE of them would have cracked.

P.S. Didn't you claim that Christianity was originally a sex cult? Then, on a different post, you claimed that Jesus was an Essene. Why do I suspect that you don't know what you're talking about?

Dolly (or anyone)
My offer still stands. I am a Christian. Ask me anything you want.

Cassandra
Your attempt to draw a distinction between "The Sixties" and "what the feckless, criminally irresponsbile, vile narcissiats OF the 'Me Generation' unleashed" makes about as much sense as arguing the fine differences between yellow and white American cheese.

If you'd like to argue "broad historical trends," you would want to start your blame-laying on Rousseau and all those other nasty progressive types back in the 1880s.

I submit to you that the phenomenon is more of a pendulum-swing, and that the temporal distance between extremes is far shorter than you realize. In truth, the 1920s decade was very much like the 1960s, in terms of what you would probably call degenerate behavior.

My point is that there are deeper currents at work, and that an entire generation ought not be so summarily dismissed.

But you go ahead and think whatever makes you comfortable...

Doug Giles vs. C. S. Lewis
It may surprise some that though I don't believe in God, I admire the great Christian writer C. S. Lewis. Ultimately, I don't agree with him about God and religion, but he had a lot to say that made sense about other things. (And, perhaps becvause he was an atheist himself much of his life, he treated athiesm and atheists with respectful disagreement rather than the cheap shots reported to by Christian defenders like Doug Giles.

Lewis once wrote an essay called "Bulverism". I forget who Bulver was, but I remember his point; it is not a valid argument to say, "You only believe that because...." ie, "You only believe in capitalism becaue you're rich," or "You only believe in feminism because you're a woman"-- or "You only believe in atheism because you want to have free sex and not be held accountable for your sins.

Obviously this kind of argument can easily be turned around against Christians; "You only believe in Christianity because you're afraid of dying and want to live forever in Heaven". But Lewis's point was that even if you think someone is making a particular argument for some personal, selfish reason, *you still need to deal with the argument*. If there are rational arguments against the existence of God or against other Christian beliefs, the possible selfish motives of some of the people making those arguments do not negate the arguments. Any more than the fact that Christians *want* to believe Christianity *automatically* negates *their* arguments.

Just luuuuuv this argument
Ken writes: "True enough, but how many of them would be willing to suffer and die for their beliefs? The disciples of Jesus were willing to die for their belief in His resurrection."

Remember Jonestown? Does that make Jim Jones Christ?

I don't think so.

Atheists EXPOSED!!
A quote from Mike Adams' column on the subject seems appropriate in light of the responses by "atheists" to Doug Giles:

"It just sounds like a bunch of people trying to get out of serving God." - Martha Hamilton

Ask away...
"I wrote Giles, asking him questions
raised in the last two posts. How much do you want to bet that he blows it off? Christians like Doug Giles can't deal forthrightly with heathen objections. They are mere religious chicken-hawks."

If he does it would more than likely be due to the volume of e-mails such a column generates.

But I am a Christian -- feel free to ask me whatever you want.

Dolly Llama
"The Roman orator Fronto denounced the Christianity of his day as a libertine sex cult, which it may well have been."

What other evidence do you have to support such a claim? Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, Fronto had an axe to grind?

"My point in referencing these two is that we know that followers aren't always that honest in their portrayals of their leaders, and that we can't be too certain of their alleged altruism."

True enough, but how many of them would be willing to suffer and die for their beliefs? The disciples of Jesus were willing to die for their belief in His resurrection.

Still more problems...
Dolly,

You make some amazing assertions about people for whom we have strong evidence that there was a profit motive.

I begin by saying that I am not here to flame or bash any other religion, I refuse to sink to your level Dolly.

First, L. Ron and Mr. Smith both had a profit motive behind the expansion of their religions. The 'golden plates' of Moronism written about by a man who was a failed gold miner....just as an example.

What was the motive of the early church? Or of Christ himself?

Second, I don't believe that Christ would be upset by the springing of religion in his name, in that all of the men who followed after him and HUNDREDS of others bore witness to Christ after his ressurection.

What evidence have you to the contrary?

BKD

Problems on several counts....Cont
Mellor,

Next you said this about the spread of Christianity:"Because once the mob gets its head around something (the need to make drugs illegal, for instance), there's no reasoning with them. "

Here's where I question your study of history. If you knew history you would know that until Constantine, Christianity was a massively persecuted minority. People who believed in Christ and His message were regularly slaughtered, there was no 'mob' to push this faith, it was instead proseletized by mostly uneducated fishermen. All of whom were eventually murdered for their faith.

If this is such a great conspiracy, why would uneducated men be at the center of it? Next, what benefit did these men have in dying for something they knew was a lie? Next, what kind of a psychopath would teach people to 'love your neighbor as yourself' in order that when his followers did so, they would be persecuted until death?

I question your understanding of what the Gospel is and what it teaches, and I question your understanding of history with those comments. The 'big deal' if Christ was alive or not was that a single poor man taught a new way of life to 12 poor men, and they changed the world at the cost of their own lives. Where has your atheism produced anything of similar value?

Problems on several counts....
Mellor, your assertions do not necessarily refute anything that Strobel writes.

First you said: "Really? Which non-christian sources written within living memory of the time Jesus allegedly lived claim that he performed miracles and rose from the dead? And even if they did, how does that make Jesus' story any more credible than the similar stories told about Appolonius of Tyana, who lived a couple generatons after Jesus' alleged time?"

There are several, Josephus is only one. Including Romans from the time of Christ, especially ones who wrote about the troubles in Judea at the time of Pilate. I refer you to Strobel's book, because it is quite clear and well documented, even Jewish contemporaries of Strobel, not Christians, concur that Jesus did in fact live at the time spoken of in the Bible. Second, these sources are more credible because there is backing by non-Christian sources. Next we must also take in the fact that it is reasonable to assume that if the Bible is false it would only include evidence that would back itself up, instead the Bible contains certain obvious problems, if they were lying, the authors would not or would have hesitated to place those passages. It wouldn't have been intelligent, therefore, for the authors to put any passages in the Gospels that would cause them issues in winning people to their ideas.

You query why this is important, the simple fact of the matter is that Christ is either liar or Lord, period. There is no ambiguity in what Christ said. The Gospels, are not contemporary in the sense that they were not written while Christ was on the Earth, but they were written within a single Generation, again no time for the insertion of myth and legend without condemnation and retribution by those who would have known Christ in the flesh.

Furthermore, we have the apostles creed, in writing, from within SIX MONTHS of Christ's death and ressurection, again, no time for myth and legend.

Cont....

Heard it all before ...
Amazing how every god-botherer thinks he's landed the knockout punch with his oh-so-clever article.

Sorry to disappoint Dougie-boy, it's all been done before and done better: misrepresentation, fallacious argument, belief from incredulity, argument from authority ... the list is endless.

And there's good reason we're seeing more of these desperate articles from The Fairy In The Sky Gang - the atheists are slowly but surely winning.

Do us all a favor and educate yourself before writing another article. Here's a few of links to get you started:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n0 3_are_religious_societies_healthier.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html (read the conclusion at end of this study)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

Out of Context Quotes
Doug Giles and Dinesh D’Souza take some quotes out of context and attempt to paint all atheists as "autonomous, loose and randy." Maybe we should try the same with some famous Christians and see where we get.

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 3/18/92

""Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them." --Jerry Falwell

"What shall we Christians do now with this depraved and damned people of the Jews? ... I will give my faithful advice: First, that one should set fire to their synagogues. . . . Then that one should also break down and destroy their houses. . . . That one should drive them out the country." --Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies", 1543

"The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers--the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel." --David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, 1984

"Women were not made to run things. Men were made to run things. When women try to run things and usurp the authority from men." --Bob Enyart, Christian talk-show host

"When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. --Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments, 1986

Cassandra Vox writes:
"The rest of you "atheists" - slavish devotees to the Church of Ego - ya'll doth protest waaaaaay too much."

We're just tired of being miss-characterized by the likes of Doug Giles and won't stand for it anymore.

Intelligent Design, atheism and sex---
A careful study of the powerful writings of the growing number of ID (intelligent design) scientists would provide more than enough evidence for any honest thinker to realize the truth of the biblical statement that "the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.'"

One of the worst deceptions of atheism is that as it frees us to become potential sexual libertines we quickly realize that, far from bringing us the great happiness we envisioned, the life of a libertine actually destroys all genuine possibility of profound sexual fulfillment.

Great sex as our Creator intended it for us is only possible between a man and women committed in marriage for a lifetime who both unselfishly love each other and are as much alike as a man from Mars and a woman from Venus can be. I have never run across people like that who were not both Christians and mature Christians at that.

AA
Each and every one of your responses in your last post has the same message. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that someone else (religious people) who believes differently from you might be able to find holiness in everyday things like farming or even eating that you refer to (this is one of the reasons for Kosher laws).

This is not surprising for an atheist and to me it doesn't really matter whether you do or don't. I am not a christian. I am not going to pray for your or try to "convert" you. I say beleive whatever you want.

I just find it hypocritical that every atheist that post hear demands respect for their views while they continue to ridicule people of faith. If you want respect why not try giving some.

Mind preceded matter
Some of you have stated that there is no evidence for God yet all of the scientific evidence I am aware of points to a moment of creation of the entire universe and hence a Creator sufficient to account for its existence.

Since absolutely nothing comes from absolutely nothing, something or someone must have always existed. Time. space, matter, and energy have not always existed, therefore someone has.

When God revealed himself to Moses, he referred to himself as I AM.

Descartes wrote, "I think, therefore I am."

God would probably reply, "I AM, therefore THINK!"


Chinchilla writes
"Those to whom Christ was probably referring in this verse were those who, like modern atheists, were willing to take nothing on faith, who rejected the idea of a resurrection or afterlife, and who were willing to reject the evidence of the Old Testament prophets' prophesies regarding Christ as the Messaiah and the miracles that Christ performed in their midst in order to justify and secure their lifestyles."

To whom are you referring? Oh! The _sane_ people!

Advanced Atheist
I assume you meant to say "Christians" instead of atheists. I anticipated that response.

The harsh punishments and ceremonial law of the OT were set aside by Christ Himself. Christians did not simply toss the parts out that they did not like, Christ brought about a "New Covenant". He strongly supported the MORAL law, while fulfilling the Ceremonial law, and urging mercy when imposing punishments based on the PENAL law.

Many atheists, however, simply declare the sexual parts of the so-called "natural law" to be "outdated", on the strength of their own authority. Given the obvious conflict of interest and lack of any real codification, the "natural law" is completely useless as a concept.

Atheists and sex
Atheists essentially say that they will not believe in God without empirical evidence, in other words, "a sign." Christ said that "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign;..." (Matthew 16:4). My thought is that an adulterous person in this context is a person who desires adulterous relationships above any sense of social or moral responsibility in the area of sexual relationships, not necessarily a person who has committed adultery in a time of weakness, then sought to clean up his/her act. There are people who have committed adultery, as did David, who then tried to regain a positive relationship with God, who would therefore not be considered essentially adulterous. Those to whom Christ was probably referring in this verse were those who, like modern atheists, were willing to take nothing on faith, who rejected the idea of a resurrection or afterlife, and who were willing to reject the evidence of the Old Testament prophets' prophesies regarding Christ as the Messaiah and the miracles that Christ performed in their midst in order to justify and secure their lifestyles.

Don't you mean...?
AdvancedAtheist writes: "I feel no such "need." In fact, when I hear people mouthing off about their "spirtuality," I have no clue what they mean."

Don't you mean "[you] wonder what they've been smoking?"

The Jubilee Diet
barak writes:

>How truly rich that an atheist believes that the Jubilee year has it's sole basis in farming.

I responded to veritasamo's post, which said, "To all who love to denigrate the Old Testament, please explain how the Jews were instructed to practice hygiene in a world ignorant of germs and *soil management* before such a concept was ever thought of." It sounded like a claim about farming practices to me.

>A material endeavor that in istelf holds only the value men place in it.

Eating every day sounds like an inherently valuable activity to me, especially considering that people back then went malnourished much of their lives, when they didn't face starvation.

>The Jubilee year in fact has little to do with farming in and of itself. While the componant of letting fields go fallow is certainly true, the Jubilee year is about separating the Holy from the prfane, and about men trying to perfec themselves as humans beings.

Whatever. I've read that the Harry Potter novels really criticize the politics of Thatcherite Britain, a digression that makes about as much sense as yours.

>The jubilee year represents a state of true freedom in which, rather than just suspending the earthliness of the land, we free it of all the restraints of materiality.

I'd like to know how Jews pulled this off in practice. What happened when they had poor harvests and no grain stockpiles leading up to Jubilee? Did that give them a year of "true freedom" to starve? Did freeing themselves from "the restraints of materiality" mean that a lot of them died from starvation and became "spiritual"?


MellorSJ2 The wonderful
Thing about the Lord is that he is knowable to you right now if you just ask him he will be with you...Its a personal spiritual thang....I nor any one else will ever be able to prove it to you either philosophically or scientifically... Goodday sir.

AA
"I feel no such "need." In fact, when I hear people mouthing off about their "spirtuality," I have no clue what they mean."

Wow! I am actually kind of starting to feel sorry for you.

The complelely "unspiritual" man
chicaree writes:

>Atheists can be just as moral as religious folks. But there seems to be an inherent need for spirituality.

I feel no such "need." In fact, when I hear people mouthing off about their "spirtuality," I have no clue what they mean.

Step on a crack . . .
marxbrothers writes:

>But atheists tend to be selective about how they invoke this law. They love the parts about not killing or stealing, about bravery and altruism, but for some reason usually only reject the rules about sexual morality. Why?
If you look at the logic by which they define their morality, fidelity and chastity should still be virtues, adultery and sodomy sins.

Yeah, and atheists should also advocate capital punishment for women who lose their virginity before marriage, and for people who pick up sticks on the sabbath, and for the various other capital crimes listed in the bible. Get real. Utilitarian considerations show which parts of biblical morality make sense, and which parts derive from superstition. Many of the bible's injunctions rise to the level of, "Step on a crack, break your mother's back."

Advancedatheist
You write:

"People the world over have figured out empirically how to manage their farm land. The Egyptians didn't need a god to tell them how to predict when the Nile would flood, for example, though the Egyptian officials who coordinated the farming system probably attributed the flood forecast to the currently ascendant deity to bolster their authority."

How truly rich that an atheist believes that the Jubilee year has it's sole basis in farming. A material endeavor that in istelf holds only the value men place in it.

The Jubilee year in fact has little to do with farming in and of itself. While the componant of letting fields go fallow is certainly true, the Jubilee year is about separating the Holy from the prfane, and about men trying to perfec themselves as humans beings.

The jubilee year represents a state of true freedom in which, rather than just suspending the earthliness of the land, we free it of all the restraints of materiality.

Not surprising you miss this as your ability to connect a religious persons separating holy and profane and the importnace of this to the human experience. Because athiests really to do not make this distinction they fail to be able to truly lift themselves out of the mundane.

shocking statistic

Atheists can be just as moral as religious folks. But there seems to be an inherent need for spirituality. It was found in the earliest cultures of man/women worshiping spirits and natural phenomena. So whichever spiritual path you follow it is a personal choice and no one's business but that persons. One of the major tenets of this country is the freedom to persue the religion of your choice.

Give it a rest!


Horrible article
Lucretius a pre-Socractic? You're a few centuries off, buddy. Readers beware: Doug Giles exhibits little to no familiarity with ancient Greek and Roman philosophy in this article. If that's the way he wants to caricature competing cosmologies, he deserves all the harrassment a fool like KOB has to offer.

The lies losers tell!
Loser writes: "Then you should consider yourself an agnotic (sic) or a pretty shitty researcher."

Nope. Merriam-Webster (online) defines agnostic thus: "1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something (political agnostics)"

I think the fair-minded observer would say that I am anything but unwilling to commit to an opinion :)

BTW, how's your research into Hank coming along?

Natural Morality
Atheists have the same need as everybody else to morally justify their belief system, and often attack Christianity as being "immoral". What is the source of this transcendent moral law? According to some, it just naturally evolved.

My understanding is that through natural selection, suppressing things like stealing and murder, and encouraging bravery and honor made it more likely for a society to survive and thrive. This was apparently considered "good".

But atheists tend to be selective about how they invoke this law. They love the parts about not killing or stealing, about bravery and altruism, but for some reason usually only reject the rules about sexual morality. Why?
If you look at the logic by which they define their morality, fidelity and chastity should still be virtues, adultery and sodomy sins.

What should be frightening is that if you can rationalize your way out of one aspect of the natural law, why not others? Since morality is really just a chemical trick being played on our brains, to be abandoned once it is no longer useful, the Gulag and the gas-chamber should come as a surprise to nobody.


the lies atheists tell
MellorSJ2 writes: Sunday, October, 28, 2007 10:25 PM
And what a loser!
I, at least, have never said there is no god, swampfox. I have said there is no evidence for one, and as a result I have no reason to believe in one.
satan2loser: Then you should consider yourself an agnotic or a pretty shitty researcher.

Moreover, if a person is rejected by a church and then studies to determine the veracity of that religion, and then concludes that it is false, why is that a problem?

satan2loser: Meaningless,the apparent veracity of a religion(limited by your feeble interpretation) has no bearing on the existence of God.


Camanitx
The reality is that God punishes sin with condemnation to eternal, endless torment in the lake of fire.

That is why He must be loved.

KLnight of Baawa
God is no petty dictator; He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

He decides who receives eternal pleasure in Heaven or eternal torment in Hell.

BKD
"There is data, research and historic evidence that proves the existence, ministry, and divinity of Jesus Christ."

Please share with us any data, research and historic evidence, other than biblical writings, that support the divinity of Christ.

LNC writes:
"I have found in my conversations with atheists that it often doesn't take long for the issue of homosexuality or sexual freedom to come up."

I have to wonder then who was the first to bring it up.

And what a loser!
I, at least, have never said there is no god, swampfox. I have said there is no evidence for one, and as a result I have no reason to believe in one.

Moreover, if a person is rejected by a church and then studies to determine the veracity of that religion, and then concludes that it is false, why is that a problem?

In any event, how many of the so-called xians here came to their conclusion that a god exists through logic? And how many because their parents and their local myth-pusher told them so?

Yes indeedy. What a loser.

Subjective Morality
dbz77 writes:

"If God orders infanticide and genocide, then those become moral duties.

Morality is obedience to God.

Immorality is disobedience to God."

I thought theists were supposed to reject the idea of subjective morality?

Human Intrinsic Value
NevadaDad writes:

"Atheism, at its core, leads to the inescapable conclusion that human intrisic value is precisely equal to the contents of my septic tank."

You must have a very interesting septic tank because from my perspective, atheism leads to the inescapable conclusion that human intrinsic value is infinite.

Nope. We have a loser
And the loser is satan2liberals. And what a loser s/he is!

Not true--at least in my case.

ding ding ding we have a winner
MellorSJ2 writes: Sunday, October, 28, 2007 9:40 PM
I'm qu33r as a three dollar bill
Now, satan2liberals, what exactly does that prove?
---------------------------------------------------
Well it certainly gives you emotional motive to deny the existence of God out of convenience eh?

I mean lets face it, declaring "there is no god" is not exactly rational or logical now is it?

The reality is you came to an emotional conclusion first, reason has nothing to do with your position. It's merely an after thought of your belief in non-belief.



leaving aside for the moment
the declining sex drive as people get older...

"If sexual activity was addictive, the married couples would have sex with greater frequency the longer that they are married.

Clearly this is not the case."

If you had read what I said, you would know that
"The more sexually active we are, the more outrageous the sexual activity must be to get a satisfying "high", the same as a drug addict or alcoholic must use more and more of their drug to get a satisfying "high". "

married couples may well have sex more frequently... just not to each other.

immoral != amoral
""One should hate one's enemies until the war is over."

Why do you consider atheism your enemy that you must hate?"

I never said atheism was my enemy. I was speaking of Mr Giles.

Atheists may be my enemy, do the degree that their belief system is harming my society.

"Rational inquiry is a form of reasoning. So is syllogism but so is common sense."

I didn't say "rational inquiry". I said "rationalize." Trying to make facts fit preconceived notions.
I am capable of throwing a football; that doesn't mean it's in my nature to do so. I am capable of performing anal sex upon sheep. It's not my nature to do so. Modern people can reason... it's not in their nature to do so.

""Well, if atheists would shut up..."

You want me to shut up? If so, why?"

You encompass the entire group described as "atheist" in your own self? Did I use the word "you"? To my knowledge, Giles hasn't spoken with you. I know I haven't. The "reasonable" way to interpret my comment was in reference to the general rhetoric, the most common rhetoric put out by atheists. Which you know full well, you're just deflecting from the issue.

"I don't blame him for reasoning incorrectly. He's human like the rest of us, you, me, everyone."

What led you to the presumption that I'm human?

I'm qu33r as a three dollar bill
Now, satan2liberals, what exactly does that prove?

That your god exists? That straight atheists are closeted gays? That Dougie-do's broad-brush accusations of "pelvic rebellion" apply only to gay people?

Or that you think that it's appropriate to belong to a church that does not wish you to live a full life?

lucifer
Lucifer666 writes: Sunday, October, 28, 2007 8:59 PM
Satan2Liberals
"Well bwaa, are you homosexual or not?"

How many of you ranting atheists are not homosexuals?

I'm a homosexual but I'm not an atheist,
--------------------------------------------
Good for you, except my question was for those nut jobs on this board ranting about "imaginary friends" and railing about how off the mark giles is here.

So far nothing but cowards, proving my assertion quite probable.

bwaa evasiveness
knight_of_baawa writes: Sunday, October, 28, 2007 8:51 PM
LOL
Funny, one one think that Satan2liberals would jump at the chance to prove Dougie's assertion correct.


Your non-comittal to direct questions for verification or denial pretty much implicate giles correct.

I suspect 70% of the male atheists on this board are homosexual.
Odd how none have come forward to PROVE ME WRONG.

Satan2Liberals
"Well bwaa, are you homosexual or not?"

How many of you ranting atheists are not homosexuals?

I'm a homosexual but I'm not an atheist, however I'm also not a follower of a Abrahamic religion my "lifestyle" is incompatible with those religions.

Even though I'm not atheist, I can see why many homosexuals would turn to atheism. Which I'm sure you have your theory as to why as well. Christians, Muslims and Jewish people have express ad-nauseam that homosexuality is an abomination so why should a homosexual follow any of those faiths.

Why would any self respecting homosexual be a follower of a faith that forbids them to be who they believe the are?

FYI: No all atheist approve of homosexuality. As some see it as a biological dysfunction.

LOL
Funny bwaa one would think you would jump at the chance to prove giles assertion of pelvic rebellion false.

Filthy premodern people
veritasamo writes:

>To all who love to denigrate the Old Testament, please explain how the Jews were instructed to practice hygiene in a world ignorant of germs and soil management before such a concept was ever thought of.

Really? Where does god tell us how to make soap, wash our hands after using the latrine and before handling food or before touching other people, especially when we treat their wounds? You have to wonder how many Jewish baby boys have died or suffered permanent injury over the centuries because their penises got infected after cirumcision. (Christopher Hitchens in his book provides a really disgusting example of some Jewish circumcision practices going on in 21st Century New York.)

>And please, explain where the practice of the year of Jubilee came from? For those who don't know, the year of Jubilee was the 50th year in which all debts were to be forgiven, jewish slaves set free, and all sold land reverted back to ancestral ownership. It was the year after the seventh 'sabbath rest' for the LAND when no farming was to be done at all. Confused? Go back and read the instructions for these in the books of the law, and then explain how any human mind could have originated this. I'm eager to hear your explanations.

People the world over have figured out empirically how to manage their farm land. The Egyptians didn't need a god to tell them how to predict when the Nile would flood, for example, though the Egyptian officials who coordinated the farming system probably attributed the flood forecast to the currently ascendant deity to bolster their authority.

Satan: the American Halleluiah Chorus
Why would you care about anyone's sexual inclinations or activities? Why would you care about whether anyone was an atheist or not?

Learn the American version of the Hallelujah Chorus. Learn from it:

Whatsitoya
Whatsitoya
Whatsitoya
Whatsitoya
What is it to ya

Why don't you mind your own business

Whatsitoya
Whatsitoya
Whatsitoya
Whatistoya...

Warning: You'll never think of Handel the same way again.


bwaa
Still waiting for an answer to
"Well bwaa, are you homosexual or not?"

I'm not assuming that you are, just noting you being too evasive in confirmation or denial.

wow what a shocker there HUH?

Giles: get a clue
This is why we read your silly columns and respond:

GIs in the Pacific Theater during WWII used to listen to Tokyo Rose so they could make crude jokes about her and get some badly needed laughs.

See any similarities there?

Intolerance
It's really sad to take a look at these comments and see how people twist and misrepresent what Mr. Giles wrote. It seems to me that so many of you who wrote in to bash him don't really know what the bible says at all. You've heard bits and pieces, or read verses out of context and now you think you know it all. Read all the old testament before you smear Jehovah and cogitate a little to try and get the perspectives behind it all. The same with the new testament; it's astonishing what they all say when read together and in context. They were powerful enough to change the world and provide the liberties you all take for granted today. Believe me, your freedom of speech didn't come from atheism.

And one more thing. To all who love to denigrate the Old Testament, please explain how the Jews were instructed to practice hygiene in a world ignorant of germs and soil management before such a concept was ever thought of. And please, explain where the practice of the year of Jubilee came from? For those who don't know, the year of Jubilee was the 50th year in which all debts were to be forgiven, jewish slaves set free, and all sold land reverted back to ancestral ownership. It was the year after the seventh 'sabbath rest' for the LAND when no farming was to be done at all. Confused? Go back and read the instructions for these in the books of the law, and then explain how any human mind could have originated this. I'm eager to hear your explanations.

Allison
"As someone who does not believe in god, I find your article offensive. I pride myself on being honest and strive to live a moral life by making rational choices. I believe, as Aristotle did, that living virtuously is the only path to happiness."

D'ya suppose Giles and his fellow theist atheist-bashers are more than a tad insecure about the truth claims of their religion?

If they were truly secure, they wouldn't give a damn as to what atheists say. And they certainly wouldn't make such outright stupid statements as those inflicted upon us by Giles.

advancedatheist
Good point. The ancient Romans were notoriously superstitious, including the wealthiest and best educated. Anything coming out of Judea about a miracle-producing rabbi would've been grist for the rumor mill...and pilgrimages.

No such effects detected until much later via word of mouth and religious conversion--the normal routes by which cults spread.

"Even then, most of the population of the Roman Empire couldn't read, and even few of the ones who could read had access to libraries, the best tutoring and some exposure to critical thinking from the study of philosophy. Most Roman subjects had the sort of mentality that we see today in the people who go on pilgrimages to gawk at burnt tortillas that they think bear the image of the Virgin Mary. Just imagine the kinds of wild rumors that could have spread through that society about someone who performed miracles and rose from the dead, when they had no one educated and skeptical around to disabuse them of such beliefs."

poor lil bwaa
knight_of_baawa writes: Sunday, October, 28, 2007 7:50 PM
Satan2liberals
"God can do anything he wants independent of what you consider moral."

bwaa:Then god is nothing more than a petty dictator, immune to his own rules.

S2L: Thanks for proving my point. you wish to ASSUME your opinion is the arbiter of all things.
That is why you cannot accept the possibility of the existence of God. It makes you inconsequential, impotent and most of all it's inconvenient to your lifestyle.


weak
Seriously. It's amazing what can get published these days. Giles is pathetic. This writing would receive, at best, a D in any high school English class. Really. I hope this guy has a day job.

barak (apparently not Obama)
"In the meantime it is you who misunderstood my position. I certainly understand the process of a babies genetic makeup being developed. My wife is a Physician who worked on the Human Genome project. My point was that nothing is random. There is a plan. Even your misunderstanding my post and incorrectly congratualiting yourself was not random."

You accused the writer you were responding to of not knowing how babies were made. Perhaps you were trying to make a cutesy little joke.

If so, the joke bombed.

I see bwaa too chicken to answer
Well bwaa, are you homosexual or not?

Can any atheist on this board answer the question in a straight forward manner?


hmm, the silence will be deafening I'm sure.

Paul Kengor is back...
...with his second part of an interview with Dinesh D'Souza. I've already posted there. It's a three-part interview. Apparently the third part will pop up here in a few days.

D'Souza claims the Bible is entirely compatible with modern science. I've already answered that one there.

Have at it, folks.

Ignorant Roman subjects
TheLeftIsEvil writes;

>and even published newspapers of a certain kind--large, detailed posters on news events plastered on public buildings (where this was permitted) so that those who knew how to read could read out loud to friends who couldn't.

Even then, most of the population of the Roman Empire couldn't read, and even few of the ones who could read had access to libraries, the best tutoring and some exposure to critical thinking from the study of philosophy. Most Roman subjects had the sort of mentality that we see today in the people who go on pilgrimages to gawk at burnt tortillas that they think bear the image of the Virgin Mary. Just imagine the kinds of wild rumors that could have spread through that society about someone who performed miracles and rose from the dead, when they had no one educated and skeptical around to disabuse them of such beliefs.

get over it bwaaa
God can do anything he wants independent of what you consider moral.

I take it the position of being relatively inconsequential is part of which you rail so strongly against.

Haphazard baby-making
Barack writes:

"The fact that the human reproduction process is not perfect is hardly proof that it is random."

This belief reflects prescientific ignorance. Just because most women who get pregnant and give birth usually squeeze out one baby in the process, people automatically assumed that some god had a hand in creating that one particular baby. We didn't know about sperm cells until the invention of the microscope in the 17th Century. The fact that millions of sperm cells, each with a different haploid genome, mob an egg but just one can get in to fertilize it, shows that fertilization happens through something that looks a lot like "random chance," not because of some kind of miracle. The fact that we can fertilize viable human eggs in the laboratory should have put to rest these primitive notions about god-made babies a generation ago.

The Romans were good record keepers
and even published newspapers of a certain kind--large, detailed posters on news events plastered on public buildings (where this was permitted) so that those who knew how to read could read out loud to friends who couldn't.

No mention of Jesus and his amazing feats mentioned anywhere except in one (Josephus) history, which looked to be suspiciously altered by a subsequent pious editor.

Were Romans really all that incurious about strange doings in their provinces or do you suppose none of this stuff described in the Gospels actually happened?

Theleftisevil
It must be nice to be so certain of one's intellect.

First you insult me by fooling with my name(Obama), and then telling me I do not understand English.

In the meantime it is you who misunderstood my position. I certainly understand the process of a babies genetic makeup being developed. My wife is a Physician who worked on the Human Genome project. My point was that nothing is random. There is a plan. Even your misunderstanding my post and incorrectly congratualiting yourself was not random.

Advancedatheist
The fact that the human reproduction process is not perfect is hardly proof that it is random. You have no idea, nor do scientists know exacty WHY Downs occurs. Sure they know the HOW, but no the why. You presumabley do not think there is a reason, I think there is. IN addition to this, you are prejudging the value of this girls life. While I would agree thaton the surface her existence is likley to be painful to her and her parents, you nor I may understand her purpose in this world. It is very small thinking to assume that she cannot or will not bring something to mankind that we simply do not understand. In light of that, her existence is most cetainly not random.

BTW, part of your argument seems to be that painful things must be random as God would not inflict this on humans purposefully. While ZI do not know your story, I can tell you that manyof my family members were murdered by the Nazis in Geramany, and nearly all of my wife's family were massacred by the Ukranians or lateer by Stalin. Does this make me reject God? Absolutely not. The fact that I do not understadn his purpose does not make it less true.

barak (Obama?)
"But babies come into existence through "random chance" all the time. Every genetics textbook I've ever seen has a chapter on the application of probability theory to genetic inheritance. And what of all the humans who come into existence because somebody neglected to stop by the drugstore on the way to that hot date at the drive-in?"

"Hmmmm...so you really think like my 8 year old used to think? You believe that women simply happen to randomly get pregnant? Wow this is astonoshing I better tell my wife she better be careful she is likely to spontaniously combust with life just standing next to me!"

Barak, the writer was referring to the fact that the genetic makeup of the baby is not planned by anything or anyone in advance. Sexual cross over of strands of genes as Mommy's and Daddy's chromosomes pair up in the egg cell generates brand new genomes during each conception (except for identical twins.) That's why he referenced probability theory and genetic inheritance.

Learn to read the English. She is language beautiful.

prove giles wrong
How many of you ranting atheists are not homosexuals?

hmm?
1) you either lie, which makes you a coward
and ashamed
2) confess the truth
3) realize you are nailed fail to declare, pretty much #1 all over again.

Many religions don't have "founders."
BKD writes:

>Second, if Christ is merely a figment of our imagination, why is his life and ministry recorded in multiple non-christian sources? Including Roman, who killed him, and Jewish, who persecuted him?

Really? Which non-christian sources written within living memory of the time Jesus allegedly lived claim that he performed miracles and rose from the dead? And even if they did, how does that make Jesus' story any more credible than the similar stories told about Appolonius of Tyana, who lived a couple generatons after Jesus' alleged time? (Who? Look him up on Google.)

>Finally, one other issue exists with almost every religion except Christianity. There is a lag of time that runs hundreds to thousands of years from the time of the founder's life to the writings of that founders' life.

Many successful religions with complicated beliefs don't have "founders." Hinduism dates from ancient times and now has close to one bilion adherents (according to adherents.com). But nobody "founded" it. The same goes for other long-lasting pagan religions. So why does christianity need a "founder"? Pinning the credit for christianity on some historical guy named Jesus doesn't mean that he really started it, only that he could have gotten associated with at a critical stage in its development from pre-christian times.

Allison
Well written and civil post. I agree with you on a number is issues, but would take exception to 2 things you wrote:

"I would argue that it is more likely the religionists who want to escape the effort it takes to be truly moral--as they are the ones who think they can simply ask to be forgiven no matter what egregious crimes they may commit. And, it is the religionists who seem to require the threat of eternal damnation in order to be good."

This is simply not a factual statement. To begin with you are being subjective (this is not a crime of course) and not subjective as to be fair, both religionists and atheists are as eqaually likely to be using their beliefs as an excuse.

In addition you are mischarachterizing religious people. I know of no religious person (at least personally) who use the concept of redemption as a free pass to sin,or who avoid sin out of fear of damnation. This is a libel placed on religious people bu secular humanists that has no basis in reality.

"I strive to be moral because it is practical. It helps me survive and feel good."

This is a fair and decent statement. The problem I have with it is that it comes from you. IN other words it has no absolutes. Yur "morality" will simply follow your beliefs. If you agree with one value today you may change your mind over time hence your vlaues changes and morals change. This ability ot shift in the sand eventually get all societies into trouble. In orfer for morality to have value it must be based on absolutes.

Loose and Randy?
One of those big German families was the Looses. Of course they pronounced the name the German way.

And what did Randy ever do to you? He was a fine young man a number of years ago, a cousin of our cousins, who lived with my parents when he was going to Mankato State.

Please tell me you're joking!
BKD, I have read Lee Strobel's apologia, and it is entirely unconvincing.

Your last three posts are also utterly unconvincing. Let us begin with "First did you know that the Book of Luke is one of our most accurate historical references for ancient Jerusalem and Israel?" This, of course proves nothing about the divinity of christ. I have (somewhere) a copy of the Da Vinci Code. Some of it is clearly factual and verifiable (I worked at CERN briefly), but the body of it is fiction. Just like Luke.

The same argument applies for the existence of Jesus. So he existed... Big whoop de do. I exist too. Doesn't make me the son of god.

Then we have: "[I]f Christ did not complete the miracles that are recorded in the bible, why would the Jewish leaders of the time, who did not support him, and eventually led him to the Romans, write and prove his miracles as simply hoaxes?"

Because once the mob gets its head around something (the need to make drugs illegal, for instance), there's no reasoning with them.

Last, the gospels, like the hadith, were not written contemporaneously.

BTW, I strongly support your call to xians to bring on the evidence. But if this and Strobel is the best you've got....


Giles, foolish again...
...or did I just commit a redundancy?

"Atheists would love for everyone to believe that their motive for not believing is an intellectual one."

It is. The more I learned about the world and the scientific method, the less I believed in Christianity (I grew up Presbyterian).

"Yes, the atheists ardently suppose that they are wise and the Christians, well, we’re the buckle-shoed buttheads."

Or just plain wrong.

"I think the atheists believe in not believing, however, not because they’re intellectual little dandies but because they want to be autonomous, loose and randy."

I, a full-fledged baby-boomer, grew up in a small southeastern Minnesota town in the Fifties and Sixties, a town loaded with German Catholics and Lutherans. Some suspected that there were fertility drugs in the Catholic sauerkraut, because some of my German Catholic classmates had 12, 13, even 14 siblings.

Proof positive that you don't have to be an atheist in order to Do The Dirty Deed. :)

Less Rhetoric More Facts CONT...
For the Christians reading this, it is time to get scientifically informed. There is data, research and historic evidence that proves the existence, ministry, and divinity of Jesus Christ. It is time for Christians to stop being ignorant of the evidence that is out there and start challenging the atheist, and those who have faith but not in Christ that we have more EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST THAN ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS FIGURE PERIOD!!!! Time to know that, time to be ready to fight back with evidence, it's not just about who can eloquently say I believe or don't believe because.... It is time to let the facts convict the soul, it is time to be confident and reassured that we have not taken faith just because it is faith. We have proof. Go and research it.

Thank you for your time.
God bless and good hunting.

BKD

cmon baawa
Admit it you conveniently declare God non-existant due to non-endorsement of some behavior you value.

iow you are homothexual right?

Less Rhetoric More Facts CONT....
For the Christians reading this, it is time to get scientifically informed. There is data, research and historic evidence that proves the existence, ministry, and divinity of Jesus Christ. It is time for Christians to stop being ignorant of the evidence that is out there and start challenging the atheist, and those who have faith but not in Christ that we have more EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST THAN ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS FIGURE PERIOD!!!! Time to know that, time to be ready to fight back with evidence, it's not just about who can eloquently say I believe or don't believe because.... It is time to let the facts convict the soul, it is time to be confident and reassured that we have not taken faith just because it is faith. We have proof. Go and research it.

Thank you for your time.
God bless and good hunting.

BKD

Of course.
Barak writes:

>You believe that women simply happen to randomly get pregnant?

Last night I saw a woman with a girl afflicted with Down Syndrome. Do you think the mom choose to give her child an extra Chromosome 21 when she conceived her during sex? Or did that chromosomal transmission happen by "random chance" because natural human reproduction works pretty haphazardly?

Less Rhetoric More Facts Cont....

Second, if Christ is merely a figment of our imagination, why is his life and ministry recorded in multiple non-christian sources? Including Roman, who killed him, and Jewish, who persecuted him?

Third, if Christ did not complete the miracles that are recorded in the bible, why would the Jewish leaders of the time, who did not support him, and eventually led him to the Romans, write and prove his miracles as simply hoaxes? Instead the writings of several Jewish authors of the period confirm that Christ was conducting miracles, they just didn't know if it was 'sorcery' or not.

Finally, one other issue exists with almost every religion except Christianity. There is a lag of time that runs hundreds to thousands of years from the time of the founder's life to the writings of that founders' life. For example, the Koran was written during Mohammads lifetime, but not by his hands, instead since Mohammad was illiterate it was written by his followers. The Hadith on the other hand, which is Mohammad's biography, wasn't written until hundreds of years after his death, easily enough time for myth and legend to seep in. As for Christ and christianity, the first written accounts of Christ's life, mission, and divinty was the Apostles creed, of which we have written copies in existence that date to SIX MONTHS after his death. Ergo, no time for myth and legend to seep in. Concordantly, the Gospels were all written based upon interviews of the apostles who had walked with Jesus Christ during his brief life on this Earth, ergo, a first hand account. Therefore, any myth or legend that the Gospel writer would have placed would have been contradicted by another Gospel writer, or by other witnesses to Christ's life, mission, and divinity.

Oh shoot, facts. Now what? Please double check my assertions with Lee Strobel's book and the scientists, researchers, archiologists, chemists, and historians that he sites.

Less Rhetoric, more facts...
There are several books that our avowed atheist friends should look at reading to expand their obviously broad minds. To be easy, I'll start with just one, I wouldn't want to overload our friendly atheists with facts.

Dolly, Mellor, I'm talking to you.

I would point them to 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. Lee Strobel is a journalist for a Chicago newspaper and was an avowed atheist for most of his life. When his wife converts to Christianity he goes to interview scientists, historians, and biblical scholars with his goal being to prove Christianity as false. He is converted by the SCIENTIFIC evidence that is provided, not by being threatened or pressured.

The book itself is a bit of a dry read in that it's mostly leagalese, logic, and science, but I'd expect you broad minded atheists to easily read it without much difficulty.

There are several interesting facts that might cause your disbelief some troubles. First did you know that the Book of Luke is one of our most accurate historical references for ancient Jerusalem and Israel? In fact, every site Luke discusses in his book has been found and documented by archeologists. Archeology: that is a hard science, right? This begs the logical question, if Luke was so accurate about sites, locations etc. why would he be inaccurate about the one thing that mattered? I.E. Christ dying on the cross, rising from the dead, and his appearance to HUNDREDS afterwards? Hundreds of people is very different from one person recieving a message. I believe we might call that repeated success in a scientific test, or at least a credible source of evidence for a legal case.

Darwin, the boring Victorian husband
Giles writes,

"In addition, ladies, Darwin didn’t lose his faith because he discovered natural selection; he dumped God because he couldn’t stomach the doctrine of eternal accountability and damnation. That’s what made him switch teams. I think that was about ten years after he had married his first cousin."

People in the British upper classes regularly married their cousins to keep property in the family. You also find that practice in the Old Testament patriarchs. And on the whole, Darwin led a respectable, upper-class Victorian life, fathering numerous children with his wife Emma née Wedgwood (of the Wedgwood pottery fortune). I haven't heard of any rumors that he "sowed wild oats" before his marriage when he explored South America, for example.

dbz77 digs deeper
Quoting me initially: ""Please explain that to the people who died on 9/11."

There is no evidence that God ordered 9/11.'

The jihadists disagree with you.

And they are just as likely to be right as you.

playing the persecution complex
knight_of_baawa writes: Sunday, October, 28, 2007 6:02 PM
Satan2liberals
Of course you hate atheists. If not, you'd repudiate Dougie's infantile nonsense.
---------------------------------------

I'm sorry that's pretty damn stupid even for an atheist.
I can either agree or disagree with doug neither position compels me to hate atheists.



Advancedatheist
"But babies come into existence through "random chance" all the time. Every genetics textbook I've ever seen has a chapter on the application of probability theory to genetic inheritance. And what of all the humans who come into existence because somebody neglected to stop by the drugstore on the way to that hot date at the drive-in?"

Hmmmm...so you really think like my 8 year old used to think? You believe that women simply happen to randomly get pregnant? Wow this is astonoshing I better tell my wife she better be careful she is likely to spontaniously combust with life just standing next to me!

LOL

For johninoregon
Renny writes that an NBC poll says that 86% of the US population "believes in god."

I would like to know how many of those 86% really believe (and could identify the god in which they believe), and how many of them just have a vague sense of some higher power, not necessarily a personal god, let alone a specific xian one.

It would be revealing.

I cannot believe that 86% of the US population believe it would be OK to fly an airplane into buildings if their god said so.

MellorSJ2
"Please explain that to the people who died on 9/11."
There is no evidence that God ordered 9/11.

Atheism Doesn't Equal Immorality
As someone who does not believe in god, I find your article offensive. I pride myself on being honest and strive to live a moral life by making rational choices. I believe, as Aristotle did, that living virtuously is the only path to happiness.

To label all "atheists" as immoral is a gross generalization. To counter, I would only have to point out the "sins" of the "pious" such as pedophile priests or murderous church-goers like the "BTK Killer."

Ultimately, each person decides his own path in this life and must makes his own moral choices along the way.

I would argue that it is more likely the religionists who want to escape the effort it takes to be truly moral--as they are the ones who think they can simply ask to be forgiven no matter what egregious crimes they may commit. And, it is the religionists who seem to require the threat of eternal damnation in order to be good.

I strive to be moral because it is practical. It helps me survive and feel good.


Middle Ground
Giles says, "Yes, darling, the atheists would love all of us to suppose that they cannot believe because they are so astute and rational, and we theists, heck we’re toads . . . a veritable troop of abecedarian simpletons who believe in God and Christ simply because we’re straight goofy."

Look, there really aren't that many full-out atheists running around. There are a fair number of agnostics (i.e., just don't know for sure) as well as religious people of various stripes who do not fit the conservative-literalist definition that Mr. Giles apparently associates with authentic religion. I'm sure that a great many of those religious people are as committed to their faith as Mr. Giles, but nonetheless inclined to associate some aspects of his approach to religion as "goofy." So it really does not make sense to set this up as a black or white, "either or" equation.

Mellor
I see that you are the one not getting it. You really do not respect Nevadad's opinion at all and this is why you ridicule it. But who are you to determine that his opinion is 1+1=3? Maybe he thinks that YOUR opinion is 1+1=3. And further maybe millions of other people, not just christians, but thousands of other viewpoints all think that you r opinion is that 1+1=3. So should everyone ridicule your belief that something came from nothing? For many this belief (no science there, simply a belief no different than a belief in the existence of God)is a childish one that should be ridiculed. I do not think you should be, but hey maybe thats just me.

I never said his religious viewpont is more deserving than yours. It is you who demand respect for your faith in God's nonexistence,yet refuse to respect his faith in existence of God





Wow!
dbz77 writes, initially quoting me: ""I now see the entire sordid story. It's OK for god to demand that his subjects kill their sons, wipe out whole races, or fly airplanes into buildings."

Of course.

It is called divine perogative."

Please explain that to the people who died on 9/11.

Honestly, I cannot believe I'm actually reading this. You are pulling my leg, aren't you?

Babies get here through "random chance."
Mack writes:

>advancedatheist writes: "Better yet, what if it turns out that god came into existence through "random chance"?"

>That is so hillarious! What makes it so funny is because everybody knows that something coming into existence by "random chance" is irrational.

But babies come into existence through "random chance" all the time. Every genetics textbook I've ever seen has a chapter on the application of probability theory to genetic inheritance. And what of all the humans who come into existence because somebody neglected to stop by the drugstore on the way to that hot date at the drive-in?

Ironically, the humans who come into existence through artificial laboratory interventions have a better claim to less than "random chance" origins.


knight of baawa
So then all those devout Jews since the time of Moses were really Nazis.

MellorSJ2
"I now see the entire sordid story. It's OK for god to demand that his subjects kill their sons, wipe out whole races, or fly airplanes into buildings."

Of course.

It is called divine perogative.

dbz77 writes
"If God orders infanticide and genocide, then those become moral duties.

Morality is obedience to God.

Immorality is disobedience to God."

Oh yeah? And which god would that be? Allah?

I now see the entire sordid story. It's OK for god to demand that his subjects kill their sons, wipe out whole races, or fly airplanes into buildings.

And Dougie-do thinks that atheistic autonomy is to be deprecated? Wow.

MellorSJ2
God decides what is good and moral by virtue of His station as Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

JDW
If sexual activity was addictive, the married couples would have sex with greater frequency the longer that they are married.

Clearly this is not the case.

What a sweetie!
dbz77 writes: "Jehovah will condemn to eternal torment in the lake of fire all who refuse to worship Him."

And you think this is good and moral?

OTOH, at least you're honest. You're just afraid.

MellorSJ2
If God orders infanticide and genocide, then those become moral duties.

Morality is obedience to God.

Immorality is disobedience to God.

Prodigy
Jehovah will condemn to eternal torment in the lake of fire all who refuse to worship Him.

Unbelievable
SMellorSJ2 says, "Somehow, you think that because NevadaDad's is a religious opinion, it is automatically deserving of respect. It's not."

And this comes from someone who believes that they evolved from pond scum.

ATHEIST GARGAGE
Regarding Sex:

Most atheist idiots cannot differentiate between:

"Take out the garbage!" and "Go out with the garbage!"

An NBC poll
reported 86% of Americans believe in God (or a god) and have a faith.

So, the atheists are the same 14% that approve of Congress.

The same 14% who are uninsured motorists.

Maybe the same 14% who are priates on the seas in Asia.

We should all pray for all of them and hope for the worst.

jdw
"One should hate one's enemies until the war is over."

Why do you consider atheism your enemy that you must hate?

me "No one pursues reason, everyone uses reason, it is man's nature to reason."

you "What proof do you have for this assertion?"

Your question. You could not read and understand what I posted without reason nor think and compose and response.

"Man's nature is to rationalize, but I don't see where it's his nature to reason."

Rational inquiry is a form of reasoning. So is syllogism but so is common sense.

"Indeed, in most cases Man must overcome his nature in order to apply reason."

Then he goes against his nature and natural law.

"If it was in Man's nature to reason, we wouldn't need to worry about this election, and the entire world would be ruled by the U.S. Constitution."

Man is limited by his nature as well. In reasoning, we often presume invalid premises and draw unwarranted conclusions.

"Well, if atheists would shut up..."

You want me to shut up? If so, why?

"we wouldn't know what they think"

Don't think you do, if you agree with Doug.

"Don't blame him for making inferences from atheist rhetoric."

I don't blame him for reasoning incorrectly. He's human like the rest of us, you, me, everyone.

STILL not getting it
Barak writes: "You continue to refer to God, as an"imaginary" freind. When you do that you are demeaning and ridiculing those who do believe in God. That shows a lack of respect and is certainly no way to have a cicil debate. If you really believe Nevadadad has a right to his opinion then you wouldn't be insulting him in every single post."

NevadaDad has the right to his opinion that, say, 1+1=3. There is no requirement to respect that opinion, and, if offered up repeatedly, it may well be subject to ridicule. Liberals have the right to their opinions too, yet I see no respect for them on this site, 'libtard' being the favorite epithet on TownHall.

Somehow, you think that because NevadaDad's is a religious opinion, it is automatically deserving of respect. It's not.

Anthro 101:
Anthro 101:

George Soros and Margret Mead getting it on in Samoa!

Now that's porn worth buying

Anthro 101: what a dreadful humorless way to find out about religion, faith and spirituality.

Just listened to Beethoven's Sixth - impossible without a spiritual touch. Even Stravinsky and Shostakovich tried to bring some sense of ethereal spirituality into their music under Stalin (remember him?).

I went to religious schooling from grade school through college and never witnessed such prejudice as supposed by those of different lives. My best friend – Jerry – went to Hebrew School learning Hebrew while I was flunking Latin.

It is like the Warmies arguing that they have never been to Greenland yet they know everything about Greenland and polar bears are changing color because Bush is President.

You've got to learn to hate
"From his schoolyard antics, hardly. But, Doug, why do you have to lash out with such a mean spirit?"

In his biography, Robert Lee Scott asserted, regarding the enemy, that "...you've got to learn to hate".

One should hate one's enemies until the war is over.

"Huh" No one pursues reason, everyone uses reason, it is man's nature to reason."

What proof do you have for this assertion? Man's nature is to rationalize, but I don't see where it's his nature to reason. Indeed, in most cases Man must overcome his nature in order to apply reason. If it was in Man's nature to reason, we wouldn't need to worry about this election, and the entire world would be ruled by the U.S. Constitution.

"You don't tell us what you think, Doug, you tell us what you think atheists think."

Well, if atheists would shut up, we wouldn't know what they think. Don't blame him for making inferences from atheist rhetoric.

Morality and "poor Christian apologetic'
It's very true that morality has always played a huge role in the unwillingness of people to come to Christ. The article here is very appropriate. However another aspect is frequently ignored. Most people on these shows who defend Christianity don't even have a firm grasp of what the gospel is. The Law is usually preached over and above the fact that Christ died for our sins and guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe Him for it. Most apologists get hung up on sin- though sin IS a very essential component of the issue. Most atheists (not all) are not given the full picture, and view Christianity as another religion of working your way to God, instead of the free gift offered by a loving God. This skewed view of Christianity logically leads to a scowl of rejection of another religious view of life which stifles life. Christianity is about a relationship and a transformation which God begins with the free gift of eternal life. So, yes morality is a huge issue, but please present the gift as well. It's not your typical religious belief system.

Morality and "poor Christian apologetic'
It's very true that morality has always played a huge role in the unwillingness of people to come to Christ. The article here is very appropriate. However another aspect is frequently ignored. Most people on these shows who defend Christianity don't even have a firm grasp of what the gospel is. The Law is usually preached over and above the fact that Christ died for our sins and guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe Him for it. Most apologists get hung up on sin- though sin IS a very essential component of the issue. Most atheists (not all) are not given the full picture, and view Christianity as another religion of working your way to God, instead of the free gift offered by a loving God. This skewed view of Christianity logically leads to a scowl of rejection of another religious view of life which stifles life. Christianity is about a relationship and a transformation which God begins with the free gift of eternal life. So, yes morality is a huge issue, but please present the gift as well. It's not your typical religious belief system.

stedes, the atheists are getting...
stedes writes: Sunday, October, 28, 2007 9:26 AM
The Ignorance of Atheism
I am amazed of the ignorance and stereotyping of atheists here at TH.

First all atheists are put into some organized group looking to destroy American culture, they are amoral, contribute nothing to society and have a bad ideology. One atheist quote speaks for all atheists...

NevadaDad writes:

“As an ideology it has contributed absolutely nothing worthwhile to civilization. It has never built a country, but it is in the process of destroying many. It has never founded a charitable organization that has bettered mankind”.

What countries are atheists destroying? What is this ideology you speak? What is the source of these statements? Give some examples.

Atheism is not an ideology or religion, or a movement or anything. It is nothing.
_____________________________________________

...organized.

We don't know which other countries atheism is attempting to destroy, that is, in an organized way, but it certainly is trying to destroy the US and the UK--read Dinesh D'Souza's article "The atheist indoctrination project" of 10/22/7. It appears that the committed atheists got tired of waiting for the feminists and the homosexualists to destroy the US, wo they rolled up their sleeves and are getting to work. It's too easy to believe in view of the John Dewey, Darwin, Marx, NOW, NAMBLA nonsense, and all of the homosexualist organizations.

Well, God bless them! This is our test. And we will win.

Doug Gets It Wrong, Again
"Atheists would love for everyone to believe that their motive for not believing is an intellectual one."

No, I lack faith. Nothing intellectual.

"Yes, the atheists ardently suppose that they are wise and the Christians, well, we’re the buckle-shoed buttheads."

No, I'm not wise.

"I think the atheists believe in not believing"

No, I lack faith. But it is a fact there are more who believe in believing than who belive in God.

If Dinesh said in his book “Atheism is not primarily an intellectual revolt, it’s a moral one.” then he is correct. I lack faith but accept moral responsibility for my choices and actions.

Doug employs ad hominem and asks "Need a bandaid?"

From his schoolyard antics, hardly. But, Doug, why do you have to lash out with such a mean spirit?

"...atheists’ altruistic self-professed pursuit of reason..."

Huh" No one pursues reason, everyone uses reason, it is man's nature to reason.

"...their conclusion that God does not exist...."

I lack faith. I do not believe. That differs from believing God does not exist. Believing that is religious.

"But to heck with what I think, eh?"

You don't tell us what you think, Doug, you tell us what you think atheists think. Nice straw man. You got it all wrong, again.

Zena P
"If religions are so against sex; how come most of the 'Johns' on hooker street are from the local congregations? (And diddling children in so many churches???)"

Provide stats for your assertion.

If the statistics don't back up your assertion, you are asserting PERCEPTION, not reality.

This is why
Christianity and other religions are so hard on sex.

In anthro 101, we were taught the practicality behind some religious customs. The Hindu reverence for the cow, for example. A cow in India is pretty much the equivalent of a tractor; not fit to eat. Good, American beef cattle can't survive under the conditions of the Indian cow.

The admonition against pork serves a purpose as well. Historically, pigs eat where they crap, and they were usually fed garbage. It was a health issue.

The treatment of sex in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism has a similar, still valid, root. Maybe that's why, starting in the 50s and 60s, the weirdo religions from the far-east became so popular.

the disease they defend
What Mr. Giles doesn't point out in is column is that SEX IS AN ADDICTION. It is the first addiction, the reason for the existence of all others.

Think about it. Sex is undignified, in the wild it is dangerous, the results of it are a few seconds of bliss with the possibility of disease, 9 months of gestation, lifetime of responsibility, or even death (pretty much guaranteed if you're a praying mantis.) So why is every species with 2 sexes so obsessed with sex? To ensure that the species perpetuates. Hence the addiction to sex.

I first had this epiphany when I read an article comparing heroine addicts' "high" as releasing the same endorphins as orgasm. The rest became obvious. We are born addicts. The behavioral symptoms are identical. We'll go to ridiculous lengths for our "high". The more sexually active we are, the more outrageous the sexual activity must be to get a satisfying "high", the same as a drug addict or alcoholic must use more and more of their drug to get a satisfying "high".

Half the woes of our society can be laid at the feet of this addiction, from disease to adultery.
It can't be cured, and the only treatment is to become aware of it, and fight it. We don't all have to become celibate, but we do have to learn to say "when". We do have to use our minds to determine the proper context (time and place) for sexual pursuit.



As an agnostic
I find this column entertaining, if not enlightening.

King Liberal:
"To me Christians need to preach more tollerance of belief systems outside their own rather than to bash"

Repeat that assertion, but replace "Christians" with "Scientists". What so many people don't seem to get is that Christianity is NOT a hobby for Christians, or a theory. Asking a Christian to give credence to other belief systems is like asking a scientist to give credence to divine revelation.

Mr. Giles is right in his assertion that the big deal for atheists is to excuse their sexual appetites. But he doesn't take it far enough.


GEORGE SOROS AT FASHION WEEK
By the time I was in eighth grade I had some relevance as to sex and lust. Sex was the healthy way to procreate having children. Still being in the child age category I was naturally interested in health, childhood, and babies. Fatherhood proves the eternal value of such constraints on my gross sexual desires: “Sex – sex – sex: God I love it so!” Interesting, it is not the responsibility of any religion to "control" sexual activity. Churches form communities that welcome new life.

It is the State that makes elements of commercial sexual activity "illegal" for societal reasons. Prostitution, homosexuality, child sexploitation are rife with disease and misery. Double thick condoms won’t help stopping the spread of sexual related diseases.

Lust mixes power and control into a sexual relationships. After announcing his separation and divorce George Soros went to Bryant Park in NYC for the parade of models during Fashion Week. Combining his billions with his face, body and age = LUST! Indubitably one of the homeliest humanoids on the planet!

advancedatheist
advancedatheist writes: "Better yet, what if it turns out that god came into existence through "random chance"?"

That is so hillarious! What makes it so funny is because everybody knows that something coming into existence by "random chance" is irrational.

Dolly, it seems that way...
Dolly Llama writes: Sunday, October, 28, 2007 5:41 AM
Many Christians are closeted
LMC: "Let the atheist rants begin...
I have found in my conversations with atheists that it often doesn't take long for the issue of homosexuality or sexual freedom to come up."
---------------
Why are they even relevant to the discussion?

You Christians seem to be the ones with the issues with sexuality -- can't even seem to go a few weeks without one of you soliciting in the men's room, or having a homosexual lover on the side while preaching of its evils from the pulpit.
_________________________________________________

...but it's not. The libs/lefties, with their relativism, have most of the perverts. BUT YOU KNOW THAT.

RELIGIO-POLITICAL HISTORICISMS
Religio-Political historicisms are poor reason to argue the existence or non existence of a Higher Power. Each one of us is on a mission to find out. Boredom does not exist other than the sloth of not finding out what is there for each of us to see. Modern art is rife with messages - they tell me - when I would rather examine a Hans Holbein to understand the essence of the expression and ascertain what are the smaller images and why they are there.

Atheists proverbially have this conditional state of hubris and bullyism. It is the I got straight "A"s from University of the Numb majoring in thinkology from Professor Fuggenschiest, PhD; Harvard, Stanford, Berkley, Oxford, Sorbonne all the usual places. Do you not respect me as being intellectually superior Xian-Head.

I go back to my refrain: "SEIG HEIL GEORGE SOROS!" and wait for them to pipe down and watch the ballgame.


RED SOX NATIONS RULES

RELIGIO-POLITICAL HISTORICISMS
Religio-Political historicisms are poor reason to argue the existence or non existence of a Higher Power. Each one of us is on a mission to find out. Boredom does not exist other than the sloth of not finding out what is there for each of us to see. Modern art is rife with messages - they tell me - when I would rather examine a Hans Holbein to understand the essence of the expression and ascertain what are the smaller images and why they are there.

Atheists proverbially have this conditional state of hubris and bullyism. It is the I got straight "A"s from University of the Numb majoring in thinkology from Professor Fuggenschiest, PhD; Harvard, Stanford, Berkley, Oxford, Sorbonne all the usual places. Do you not respect me as being intellectually superior Xian-Head.

I go back to my refrain: "SEIG HEIL GEORGE SOROS!" and wait for them to pipe down and watch the ballgame.



knight_of_baawa ~ Intelligence Test
knight_of_baawa

Billionaire George Soros prefers silk nappies for nature's crud so forgetabout the Charmin and for the kisses try Revlon #442 it is just the right shade of pink, like Code Pink.

As for sex
If religions are so against sex; how come most of the 'Johns' on hooker street are from the local congregations? (And diddling children in so many churches???)

Where is this house ye have built for me
Thank GOD, I know him, so I haven't fallen into the bitter disillusionment of the Atheists, but I can understand where they are coming from. I don't believe in your man-made organized religions either. Plus the fact that when you started getting tax exemptions and gov. grants and MARRIAGE lisences; which is a civil matter, NOT religious, America effectively managed to secretly marry church and state. Now all the big religions wants to run our gov. ie; our PeOPle by their personal interpretations of scripture. I have rarely heard of any church that didn't claim to be the 'TRUE CHURCH'. And the fact of the matter is: they can't ALL be it. They have different beliefs and rituals. There used to be alot of infighting among the churches over it. Now, since they have never gotten any results, they've decided to band together and make war on people who don't believe. Judging by your attitudes and actions, I wouldn't want to know GOD either if I didn't already know him. You are all a bad advertisement of him. Personally I know that any politician that prostelizes on the podium is a bad idea to vote for. Look what it got them in the middle-east. I would like someone with morals and compassion and who isn't judging me by my characteristics or lifestyle and who is concerned with the AMERICAN people and our quality of life. (and supporting and defending our constitution and soveriegnty.)Isn't that the question, then? What do you all want? Quanity or quality???
Basically I think that if you have to talk about your religion; you have none. And what if these politicians have a religion but it's the exact OPPOSITE of yours? That's why we have civil law.

for anowrast
anowrast writes: "Why doesn't Giles focus on things that are important? Terrorism, taxes, everything else is more important that God."

The reason you're seeing a flood of these columns on religion and "Christian values" is because we're in the GOP primary campaign, and this is the red meat stuff that energizes the GOP base (which is devoutly Christian) to vote. That's important because the GOP base hasn't been enthusiastic about the party lately.

Be patient. Material that's intended for the wider electorate will have to wait till we have a GOP nominee and the general election campaign against Hillary can commence.

A god doesn't necessarily solve anything
What if it turns out that god's existence has no meaning or purpose?

Better yet, what if it turns out that god came into existence through "random chance"?

Atheism hasn't helped my sex life.
It amuses me when christians claim that men become atheists because it somehow makes it easier to get sex. I haven't found that true in my case. Your teenaged sons have probably gotten more action with girls than I've had in my nearly 48 years.

Mellor
Well to be fair I really do not know what you believe relative to having Nevadads civil rights to believe what he wants being equal to yours. What do you think about teaching creationism along side evolution in public schools. This would be a real test of any atheists strnegth of character. If you believe God does not exist and it is just Nevadasds opinion (and millions of others, more in fact than atheists), then it would follow that both opinions are valid and should be taught. The argument that evolution is "science" is bogus. I do not care to debate evolution on this thread, let's just say that modern science (not to mention simple logic) has poked so many holes in evolution that it takes great faith to accept it. No less faith than those who believe in God in fact.

BTW, if you are planning on comparing aethism to religion based on body counts (you mention 9/11) this will be a losing strategy for you. My own family and my wife's were exterminated by Hitler on one side and Stalin on the other.

Finally, I beleive there is something in your history. You continue to refer to God, as an"imaginary" freind. When you do that you are demeaning and ridiculing those who do believe in God. That shows a lack of respect and is certainly no way to have a cicil debate. If you really believe Nevadadad has a right to his opinion then you wouldn't be insulting him in every single post.





dolly
its easy to find bad apples when your looking for them. the good always overwhelms the bad the bad just gets better press because it is not the norm. You are a bad apple example of atheist i presume judgeing by your vitral hatred of everything christian. I dont have a problem with you not beleving i do have a problem with you trying to force you beliefs on people who dont want them (doing the same thing you hate the christians doing).

and for what it is worth i apologizes on behalf of christians for whatever was done to you.

Atheist to Christian -- Thanks God

Having been an atheist for 40 years, I have not only seen and heard all of your arguments, I have also used them on others.

Since God came and got me 4 years ago, I am no longer the same person. My life is infinitely better. Can my experiences as a Christian be scientifically proven? Definitely not, by definition. However, my experiences with God on a daily basis grows my faith in Him.

Do Christians fall short of Jesus’ example? Absolutely! Are there people who are not Christians that claim to be for evil purposes? Without doubt! Do non-Christians not understand or misunderstand the Bible? As the Bible is interpreted for Christians by the Holy Spirit as we read; what would be your guess? Should you look at fallible man to see God? No! None of the answers to the above questions should surprise anyone, whether Christian or atheist.

As a Christian do I try to convert people? Not my job as can clearly be seen in John 6:44 where Jesus said "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, . . .”

atheists , believers alike
Reason has absolutely nothing to do with one's disposition.
Reason supporting the belief is only secondary in either case.

Giles has it right many atheists assume their stance as a response to some supposed slight by practioners,or non endorsement of their way of life:
homosexuals
marxists
hedonists
the overly educated suffering from extreme hubris

Does He?
My question is not why do atheists not believe in God, rather it's: Does God believe in atheists? We'll all find out one day. Le'Chaim.

Free Ramos and Compean
Harry Potter is a tranny

Way too much fun.

Dougie, baby... you're a bit crude, but you hit the bulls eye "dead" center.

Pelvic rebellion... absolutely priceless.

The height of delusion... intellectuals trying to convince themselves that they are intellectuals.

And, people... haven't you yet figured out "prove it, the baawa"? Unpacked him once, and once is enough.

Later.








poor wittle dolly
Some evil chwistian hurt your feewlings now that's an excuse for atheism.


LOL

bawwaaa
I don't hate atheists. I do however enjoy ridiculing the vociferous ones, as alas their malady is entirely self inflicted.



Why Doug is pissed
The Georgia Supreme Court released Genarlo Wilson after being locked up in prison for two years.

His crime was being a 17 year old having a consensual sexual encounter with a 15 year old girl. Of course, the fact that he's black and she's white played no part in this example of Christian justice.

One can only hope that Giles has a son that ends up in prison for a couple years for violating his Christian-Judeo values regarding sex.

lucifer666
to bad i cant spell (prescious ) hehe

No room at the top Intellectual atheists
Wow...do you actually know any atheists?

chr3354
Nice responses - I could agree more.

Paucoremhominem
who said that atheist are leftest why cant i be a conservative just becasue i disagree with you on one point.

btw i consider myself a christian but dont pratice because i cant take part in a religon that punishes people because they dont think the way someone thousands of years ago thinks the should.

this is stupid
we have all the intolerent wackos out today on both sides.

i hate moronic colmums like this does Doug actually mean that if there was no God all of his prescious morals would cease to exist. is his moral code that weak he needs the constant threat of enteral damnation to do the right thing?

Navadadad Darwin basically invented Biology which formulated about a huge protion of the current medical breakthroughs so take your ignoract drival else where

Dolly
i dont know what happned to you and frackly i dont care but when you try to destroy something just because of a few bad apples how the heck are you any better than the bad apples that injured you. Like it or not Christianity has does some good in the world (ex Christian missonaries operate some of the only and best hospitals in some third world nations mostly in Africa, homeless shealters are mostly operated by churches, heck back when i was forced to church i helped prepare and deliver a warm hot meal to some of my towns homeless.)

mellor i dont detect any wrath at all from you mostly small insults just to get attention and i thank you for you maturty but i congratgualating Dolly's hatefilled statments just because your both atheist is kinda low man

DAWKINS AS SUPREME ATHEIST
Time and again one reads the same tired, specious arguments that Richard Dawkins, God of All Atheists, uses and sells, to become richer.

Dawkins' most famous quote is this: "Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked."

Lovely. "Tolerant." "Moderate," as such leftists always call themselves.

You Lefties may choose to believe that the universe created itself out of nothing. I do not.
You Lefties may pretend that energy miraculously happened, and with it, organization, and matter, and the immutable laws of physics and chemistry in the region we call our universe, but I see that as quite impossible - as impossible as the insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle.

Two Lefties made hateful, condescending, arrogant remarks calling those like me who deign to disagree with them "stupid" and worse. One was a retiring talk show host on a very well known station on the Left Coast. I e-mailed him a wager that we both take IQ tests that I would pay for. The loser would pay the winner $10,000.

The gutless Leftist declined my offer. All hat, no cattle. Then the fat boy who occasionally appears on 20/20 was given the same wager. What IS his name. Italian by descent. Black hair.
Anyway, Fat Boy also declined. He was wise to do so.

Matter is one part in about 10 to the 17th power particles. The rest is emptiness. It just "made" itself, out of nothing. (nudge, wink)

ATHEISTS TAKING BATHS
Atheism is another case of "SEIG HEIL GEORGE SOROS"!

I ask my atheist thinking friends: "Can you justify George Soros? Next thing I know I'm getting the party-line about the Open World Society and the importance of the UN replacing religiosity. Lenin built a new world society in Bolshevism and became the society’s Number One; ergo, George Soros plans to be the Number One.

Can you justify Vladimer Illich Lenin? Next thing I hear how benign he and his powers really were. You see, it was the Russian Orthodox Church and White Russian loyalists to the Tsar that caused all the conflict fighting Atheist Communism.

Can you justify Karl Marx? I remind them that Marx smelled because he never took a bourgeoisie bath and never worked one day in his life. He co-existed with the idle rich kid Engels who financed the whole project except providing for showers, diapers and flushing crappers.

Add the usual suspects; i.e., Stalin, Djenenski, Mao, Castro, etc. and not one of these tyrants becomes an evil; ergo, atheists can live with these type people.

Ask them if Sunday is a special day of the week or just an ordinary day of the week? Their answers are frightening including the desire to take control of Sunday changing its name and character to something completely different.

Here we go again
You all are slipping. It took twelve hours of blather before someone weighed in and blamed everything on "the Sixties."

The convenient thing about scapegoating people and events that occurred four decades ago is how it allows you to elude responsibility for your OWN actions in the interim.

And that's so much easier if you weren't there, so you can make up both the details and the generalities to suit your argument.

what a waste
Giles is an example of what is wrong with the American right. I love guns, low taxes, killing terrorists, cutting government programs, but it's not enough because I don't believe in your tooth fairy of a God. Jesus was not real. The burden of proof is on the religious to prove his existence.

Why doesn't Giles focus on things that are important? Terrorism, taxes, everything else is more important that God.

ROFLOL!
You mean the hedonists who deny God because His existence would interfere with their pursuit of sensual pleasure without responsibility aren't even being original?

And they're all so SURE that they're riding a fresh, new wave-of-the-future thing too. How cruel of you to burst their precious, little bubble that way.

ROFLOL!

sexual license
Giles may be right about some atheists, but this blanket simply doesn't cover the whole bed. I'm the most clean-living, drug-free, celibate atheist you'll ever see. The only 2 instances of relief I got when I finally admitted to myself that I don't believe are

1) Not worrying anymore about going to Hell because I don't believe, and

2) Not frustrated anymore about trying to make sense of the world. The world makes perfect sense if you stop trying to imagine some benevolent being is in charge.

From what I can see, believing in God is like falling in love: if it happens, you can't stop it. If it doesn't happen, you can't force it.

You're right
immorality is the the opium of the masses. Cold turkey in a fiery hell for them!

Dolly Llama