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
Friday, June 08, 2007
Mike Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hitchens? No Way
by Mike Gallagher
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?


Isn’t it odd how there is a vicious, slimy pundit who has managed to figure out a way to sell a lot of books by somehow becoming endearing or interesting to other pundits of opposite ideologies?

Christopher Hitchens is the poster boy for horrific behavior earning a seat at many tables. This creep makes Michael Moore look like a dignified elder statesman, and yet there seems to be no shortage of conservative radio and TV hosts who enjoy giving him a platform to spew his foul venom in the direction of any God-fearing, Bible-believing individual in his way.

I see that Hitchen’s new book, a hateful attack on God, religion and any of us dopes who are believers, now sits perched atop the esteemed New York Times bestseller list.

What a nasty indictment of the culture and character of the United States in 2007.

The producer of my radio show is practically frantic in his attempts to get me to interview Hitchens. “This guy is a great interviewee”, he keeps saying. “Look at all the other shows that have him on”, he pleads. “C’mon, it’ll be great radio.”

Great radio? Perhaps. I guess that if I were to have him on my radio show (and believe me, he’d appear – this snake oil salesman would attend the opening of an envelope) and ask him why he doesn’t seem to have a single DNA strand of decency, he’d babble on about religious frauds and how God doesn’t exist and how stupid the vast majority of Americans are to believe in Him.

If that would make for great radio, I’ll have to pass.

Since I have become accustomed to turning the channel when I see or hear him or skipping past any of his articles or just attempting to avoid this reptile in general, I’m not as familiar with his most recent works as much as his “fans” must be.

But there are only three things that tell me everything I need to know about Christopher Hitchens: 1) after Mother Teresa died, he called her a “fanatic” and a “fraud”; after Rev. Jerry Falwell died, he crowed about people “finding his carcass” on the floor of his office and proudly complained that it’s a shame that there’s no Hell for that “ugly toad” to go to; and he has now produced a book called, “God is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything.”

Real sweet guy, eh?

Listen, not everyone appreciates the work that Mother Teresa or Jerry Falwell did during their time here on Earth, although it seems particularly evil to attack a woman who did saintly work. You don’t have to agree with anything that Rev. Falwell said or did.

But when this British pseudo-intellectual inflicts pain upon the grieving families and followers of religious icons with his rage-filled personal attacks, he shows the world what it means to be a human being without a soul.

No, I won’t be interviewing Christopher Hitchens on my radio show. And for the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone in their right mind would want to. Maybe it’s because of his support of the War on Terror and people are a bit confused about where this lunatic is coming from. But heck, even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day.

I’d like to believe that no one listening to my show would be inclined to buy his awful book, but if my refusing to promote him keeps him from selling one additional book and padding his already well-lined pockets, that’s a good thing.

I will never forget the smirk I saw on his face when he said that it was too bad that Rev. Jerry Falwell, who did more good for America in one day than Hitchens could do in two lifetimes, wouldn’t be going to Hell since it didn’t exist.

If I manage to be around when Christopher Hitchens dies, I would never dream of saying any of the vile things about him that he has managed to say about others. Nobody with a shred of humanity would.

But I’ll admit to having some degree of satisfaction over the knowledge that when it comes to that place called Hell that he claims doesn’t exist, he’s going to have an eternity to become quite familiar with it.

Do you suppose Satan will put Christopher Hitchens on Hell’s bestseller list when he welcomes him?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mike Gallagher is a nationally syndicated radio host, Fox News Channel contributor and guest host and author of Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.

Be the first to read Mike Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Not Having Mr. Hitchens On
Mike, I think it's very good that you will not give this guy a platform to indulge his snobbery! I heard him on Dennis Prager's show, and that's what it comes down to: snobbery.

He's too smart to believe in God (while the rest of us are too stupid not to); okay, now what? He wants a war on theocracy. Well, he's picking on the wrong religion! Let him go to Saudi Arabia and say he wants a war on theocracy. Let's see if anyone there is willing to die there for his right to say those things. We have our war on theocracy, and it's called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! And let me tell you, the theocrats aren't winning, not by a long shot.

K_O_Wahabi Clocked Out & KO'd
.
A wasted first response, KOB!

Anyone following this knows I've been more than patient with you. Can't let this go forever, some of us have things to do, you've got your Dungeons & Dragons to play. You had your chance to prove your points on at least 8 posts to me - you dropped the ball on every single occasion ( talk about terrified of logic ) So...

Intolerant (Knight_of_WAHABI) Atheist,


YOU LOSE! :)


But wait! We have a prize for the loser...free education on how to debate using logic!!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html (click on INDEX at bottom to refer to other fallacies)

God Bless, my friend. Catch up with you on another thread. Don't forget the link.

Happy Reading!

K_o_B: u have 7 days! Clock's ticking!
Repasting a post without debating the points won't cut it here on TH, Wahabi. Giving up?

Your very first post to me was:

"We have the fact that "god" is a meaningless utterance."


PROVE IT


Tommy: "We have no idea (let alone proof) of how the origin of all cosmoses came into being."

Wahabi: "Sure we do: it didn't come into being. It cannot come into or go out of being."


PROVE IT


Tommy: "Einstein & Newton both think your claim 'there is no god' is absurd."

KOB: "Fallacious appeal to authority."


PROVE IT


KOB: "Lovely strawmen Tom. How about you point out where all atheists believe what you say they do, Tommy."

What did I say they believe? Be specific. Then PROVE the "strawmen".


Wahabi, you now have 1 (ONE) post to come up with the proof ( that's right, for all of them!)If you cannot deliver, I will take victory. Time running out, Wahabi! You have 7 days from now - more than generous, given you've had already about 3! But we'll give you 10 - it should have only taken you 1 given all the practice you've had. Some people need a little extra time than others ). If you can't come up with the goods by then, no problem, that of course doesn't mean you are wrong, it could just be that you're a lousy debater?

If it's not submitted on time, then Good_Night_WAHABI! Make it a good one!

God be with you!


K_o_B relapses into repasting
Don't give up now, Wahabi

I agree with the website's article (that you offered up as proof). But a website is no proof that I committed a "fallacious appeal to authority".

It does indeed explain very clearly & specifically WHY a given argument is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Read it, learn from it & then prove your point, just like your website does.

Should be a relatively quick & simple thing to do.

Point out why my argument was a "fallacious appeal to authority".

We're waiting, Wahabi!

In the meantime, instead of "Oh come all ye faithful", let's sing "Oh why are we waiting?"

You'd like that one, Wahabi. It's ecumenical(alright then, universal!).






Say it K_o_Wahabi
KOB: "If you cannot (prove that all atheists claim you say what they do) necessarily you've strawmanned."

"Necessarily"? So you are "100% sure" of that - correct? I want to read that you are 100% certain.

Over to you, Wahabi


K_o_Wahabi on the improve!
Oops. Tommy has missed not 1, but 2 attempts by KOB to provide proof of the strawman.

How did he do that? Tardy indeed from Tommy. My defence: Among all that rubbish that KOB has posted lo these past few days, I do believe I skimmed but did in fact fail to see Wahabi's very very tiny attempt at debate. I was expecting something a little (a lot?) more rigorous & explicit. Wahabi's poor grammar also threw me. But it's a start from Wahabi.

KOB: "prove that all atheists claim you say what they do. If you cannot, necessarily you've strawmanned."

Read what you have written. It's terribly unwieldy and the grammar is all over the place. I didn't really want to correct you, but given ANOTHER of your hypotheses is:

"Tommy is stupid" This one is looking decidedly shaky too (but maybe one of us fits that description).

Getting back to my alleged "straw man". Point out specifically what I claim that all atheists say (is what I think you are trying to say). Then we'll proceed (my word you can be incoherent at times)

KOBs quote of the night: "I dunno". Has the K-Man turned agnostic?

Wahabi: twice now you've written: can you hear me? ..... Wahabi, are we communicating verbally? Is this another of your hypotheses?

K_o_B: 4 posts & no proof?
KOB, I feel for you.

You are suffering at this stage now. You are losing face big time.

You have invested a great deal of time arguing the atheist position on other articles on TH. You have not come up against anyone so far who has given you a challenge. Anytime anyone has contradicted the laws of logic, you have been very thorough in pointing out their error & EXPLAINING that error. If you could have done so with me, you would have by now. It would have been easy to do if you had a leg to stand on. But you have failed to do it even ONCE in at least 4 posts to me.

Not even Dawkins is a strong atheist. Not even he supports your position. MSJ2, who I have seen argue the atheist position very persuasively in the past, was not aware that you guys (strong atheists) even existed. That's how far on the fringe you are.

Before you once again incorrectly use the "fallacious appeal to authority", this time read carefully what I have written.

You can do it!

K_o_B: still hiding from logic
Tommy: "PROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT I USED A STRAW MAN & FALLACIOUS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY."

Knighty Wighty: "Already did."

Everyone can see you are hiding, Wahabi.

Provide your proof. Or wear the label terrified irrational atheist.

God speed! (oops)







Knight_of_BAAWAaaahh, you're here now?
I've had the opportunity to scan some of your posts responding to MG's article... I'm IMPRESSED! You're evidently educated and probably quite articulate.

Please answer, why do you care so much about people who are deceived into believing fairy tales about a God in Heaven? Is it compassion on some level; or is it hatred for them and their beliefs? If there's no God, we don't have to worry about the twits who believe in Him.

I suspect you're truly a bit confused as to what you really believe. You're probably scared there really is a God and somehow He WILL hold you accountable for your thoughts and actions. And every time someone expresses their belief in Him, it dredges up this innate fear within you and you lash out EMOTIONALLY.

If you responded LOGICALLY, you wouldn't respond at all...


K_O_B: "strongest atheist debater"??
KOB: "Actually, I'm the strongest (atheist arguer) so far."

*laugh* (courtesy of KOB)

There was a time and place for that aside after all! At first I didn't see any logic to it, but.....Sorry, I digress.

"They're laughing at how childish you are and how stupid you are."

....It's really simple. Prove your assertions.

Until then, Good_Night_Wahabi




More Madness from KOB
"It's funny how I terrify you so much that you have to lie your butt off and act macho in order to cover for your terror."

Yes, that's true you do "terrify" me, and that's why I'm "lieing" and "acting macho". Is that another KOB causal link? I'm picturing a terrified person in a concentration camp under Nazi rule right now, and my hypothesis is that person will now be "lieing their butt off" (OK maybe) and "acting macho".

Back to your play:

Nazi guard: "ACHTUNG! HAENDE HOCH!! SONST SCHIESSEN WIR DICH!!!"

Prisoner: "Hey buddy boy!.....who you think you're talkin to? I'm really a piece of paper ("lieing his butt off"). I'm gonna kick your butt in a mo ("acting macho")."

Typical logic from that most rational one....KOB.

"It lets me know how terrified you are"

Yes, yes I am terrified. Stop it, KOB. What did I do to you? It's so unfair how you treat me. I mean pick on someone your own size. I didn't deserve it. Pick on someone else. Please stop it. YOURE KILLING ME! If you don't, I'm telling on you. (A KOB trademark aside: *sobbing uncontrollably*)

Wahabi, your lack of logic is really scary coming from someone who prides themselves on being 'rational'. I mean I was just about to convert to atheism because I thought they really were rational. You have scared me...off.

Wahabi, all you have to do is to prove your assertions ("strawman" "fallacious appeal to authority" It should be really easy. Why are you waiting?

When you can do that, then prove your atheistic assertions while you are at it.

Knight_ of_Wahabi
"Poor childish Tommy"

Hey Knighty Wighty, how's my fwendy wendy doing today? I missed the real you. I was reading your post and you didn't have any more giggly cues anymore. No more angry swear words, I thought, wherefore art thou Knight_of_Wahabi? Didn't you find my response to you just a little teeny bit funny wunny? Was it weally upsetting?

All I'm trying to do is to get down to your level to communicate better with you. You know what they say, it's important for rapport to get to the level of the receiver. You replied - it worked -they were right.

But OK, if you find my previous post too immature & "macho", I'll try (for the umpteenth time) to get YOU to focus back on logic & get back to the points YOU made.

So, here we go again:

PROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT I USED A STRAW MAN & FALLACIOUS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Can you do that?

WHEN DAWKINS, A LAWYER or ANYONE ELSE I KNOW WANTS TO WIN A DEBATE, THEY DONT REFER THE OPPONENT TO A.....WEBSITE (even though I have nothing personal against the website per se. I'm sure that the people who wrote it ar are perfectly nice people. And I'm guessing the logic set out therein is correct. But I am digressing now).

I AM NOT QUESTIONING THE WEBSITE, I WANT YOU TO PROVE YOUR POINT. Can you do that?

YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM - YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO PROVE IT.

YOUR LACK OF PROOF SO FAR TELLS ANYONE READING THAT YOU HAVE MOST DEFINITELY LOST THIS DEBATE.
You might be a good debater, but it's just the wrong topic for you. Or it's the right topic and....(moving on rapidly)

Come on, Wahabi, reading atheist literature is fine, but the key is to learn from it. You need to walk the talk, internalise their arguments, because the longer this goes on, the more credibility you are losing. You can't argue the atheist stance & not abide by the rules of logic at the same time. Look I'm on your side here. Just look upon me as your helper. Someone who cares for you. OK you dont want to follow my advice, fine. But please please follow the advice of the skilled atheists themselves. A good one I can recommend to you is Dawkins. That's Richard Dawkins. You'll find him (well not him personally, but his books) in any leading book store. (see, I am your friend. And a friend in need...Sorry I'm not suggesting you're a needy character. All I'm saying is when the chips are down, look up, and you will find someone there for you. At this point in time, I am that person. God bless....KOB, I think I am in love with you....Sorry, I just made that last part up)

You need to prove the "straw man" and the "fallacious appeal to authority". The key word being YOU (you are not a "meaningless" concept & I don't want you thinking that you are).

Non-argument
What's the pretence? Please elaborate.

Pretense
Tom continues.....

MSJ2 dissembling again
Running from the field?

You were the one who said bye bye.
I return your bye bye out of pure politeness.
You then keep addressing me (kind of like the bye bye of a door-to-door salesman)
And you persist in running from explaining and proving any of your assertions.

Is that atheist logic or just MSJ2 logic?

Love it!
Run from the field and proclaim victory! Way to go, Tom.

Disappointing, MSJ2
I didn't figure you were someone to run from your own assertions.

You've inspired me. My new hypothesis is 'atheists are just as cowardly (if not more so) as the theists you guys claim them to be'.

Bye Bye. 1 down...many to go.

Actually, Tom....
No one really cares what you believe.

But if you wish to participate, you could be less cowardly about what you do believe.

Bye bye

DA
DA writes:

"Tom For the sake of argument, I am an atheist towards the personal gods and agnostic towards the deist version of god. How about you?"

To be fair you are entitled to an answer as you answered my question. But I've decided to hold off. Here's why:

You guys already know what I believe and what I am (look back over your own posts). So why do you need clarification? What does that say about your assumptions so far? And if those are wrong, what other assumptions have you got wrong?

Remember, I am not the one making any claim. As the atheists constantly remind us all, it's not up to the one not making the claim to prove their point. It's up to the ones MAKING the claim. I have challenged their assumptions & through their evasion that tells me that those assumptions are not strong, OR they are strong, but those making them are not skilled debaters.

I'm sure it's the former (with most) & that's why I am persisting. Of course if they want to give up, that's fine. But at the end of the day, they will have lost the debate if they can't provide evidence for their assertions based on their assumptions (all their implicit ones I've listed as well as the explicit ones)

Atheists, prove it
MSJ2 writes:

"Not clever Instead of playing Twenty Questions, Tom, Tell us what you believe. And watch us demolish it."

If you don't want me to play 20 questions, stop making unsupportable assumptions (with no attempt to support those assumptions) or they will continue to be questioned. As to my beliefs, I think I'll hang off a little longer, maybe indefinitely. I want to see you guys prove your assertions. So far you've made no attempt. And yet you demand proof from theists.

KnightofB, Let's try again...
KOB: "Get an education." "Lovely strawmen"

Well I'd love to get an education, KOB. How about you point out to me exactly how this is a straw man. I then benefit from learning. And you benefit from showing me up (as I'm sure you would if you could). A lame - 'get an education' reply is extraordinarily tardy (a worrying trend there with you).

So explain the straw man.

KOB: "(God) has no meaning. You can say that a married bachelor is an unmarried man with a wife, but that doesn't mean anything, does it? Same with god."

That's lame. Is that the best you've got?

KOB: "nothing" isn't a separate type of existence. It isn't existence at all. Therefore, only existence can exist. It necessarily must exist, and cannot not-exist."

Who said "nothing" was a 'separate type of existence'? But you are seriously waffling here.

KOB: "You used a texbook example of a fallacious appeal to authority."

Prove it...if you can.

KOB: *laughs*. Go back to school, little one. You used a texbook example of a fallacious appeal to authority."

Prove it...if you can. If not, play the broken record all day long - others are observing your unwillingness to try to substantiate a simple claim. They will deduce you havn't a leg to stand on. They will then ask: what else has KOB got wrong?

To KnightofB only. Everyone else ignore.
KOB you are by far the weakest atheist arguer so far with your lame asides & unsubstanitated 'logic': eg "god is not a concept" "*laugh*" (& the many other illogical claims that I have pointed out above).

This is not a play we are writing here! Is that a cue for the audience, or when someone is reading this, they are supposed to laugh with you, or at you or are you telling us you are laughing? What at? Paging KOB: you are supposed to debate, not giggle. I don't see Dawkins or Hitchens doing that when they debate. Don't recall reading that in the Bible or in Dawkins' writings ). You should take a chapter out of their book. I mean do others need to know that this is the funny part coming up or can they detect that it is funny all on their own? KOB - can you elaborate?

You were getting a bit serious with Solver though, weren't you? You called him a naughty word! How did you go all the way from laughter to getting upset? And so quickly? You know what they say about those whose moods change rapidly. A bit unstable. Interesting given you like to see yourself as way more intelligent than those 'stupid theists'.

Look you're trying hard, and that's a good thing. With practice you will improve. You just need to remember to formulate your arguments a little better. Hmmmmm? Have faith in yourself.

I'm sure no-one is reading this but you, so why worry? (not suggesting you are, just want to make sure you're OK) And after all, it's not like anyone knows who you are (I am talking about on the forum , not in real life...I'm sure you've got lots of friends out there). So relax.

KOB - in all seriousness, look - people are reading your posts & laughing at you. Is that what you want? Do you want to be the complete laughing stock at TH? Of course not (unless your aim here is to be a comedian, then sure...) Do you want to be giving atheists a bad name? Instead of the pathetic asides, & the unsubstantiated, irrational labels, all I am asking for you to do is be more....rational. How? By using the rules of logic. Is that too much to ask? Just start debating the issues sensibly. Come on, you're a human so therefore we assume you have brains, we're just saying 'use them'. If you can counter others' points, do so to the best of your ability. Hmmmmm?

Don't lose heart. Just go back to the assumptions you were making and try to substantiate them (yes, that's right, all of them! ). Like I say, you don't want to be sending out the image of someone who claims to be 'rational' and then hide from your own irrationality, now do you. Friends again? I just want the best for you, KOB. I'm here to lend you a helping hand. It's all right, KOB....It's all right....

(don't wake him, folks)

Tom
For the sake of argument, I am an atheist towards the personal gods and agnostic towards the deist version of god. How about you?

BAAWA
Hey Knight,

You said it.

Can you believe anyone would be so stupid as to say:
"There is overwhelming evidence in the Bible for the existence of God." It's shocking that these people are allowed to vote.

There should be a test.




A waste of time?
All this arguing back and forth seems to me to be a great waste of time. The man is in great need of finding the Lord Jesus Christ. Until he does, he will lambaste God with all his energy.

It is so sad that there are millions of people out there that know nothing whatsoever about God, they think He is a myth, they have never given anyone the opportunity to introduce God and Jesus to them. There is overwhelming evidence in the Bible for the existence of God. But until they find it they will remain doubters.

They are to be greatly pitied. Many were taught that there is no God. taught by the teachers they had mistakenly learned to trust.

Not clever
Instead of playing Twenty Questions, Tom, Tell us what you believe.

And watch us demolish it.

Get a clue
“translation: I hope you people (who believe in God) become extinct.”

No translation needed, yes I hope your kind become extinct so we can move forward with intelligence, reason, logic and science and your type stop believing in the supernatural and destroying societies.

Your quotes are all you have to attempt to substantiate your claims. Speak as you will of Darwin, who cares, those that can prove claims through science will continue to do so to the dismay of your ignorant offspring.

It’s the evidence that is laid out for the entire world to view, which seeks its own transparency and needs nothing from within to rationalize the absence of evidence (faith and delusion). Either it's there or it isn't.

Facts are facts. Religion is merely an opinion of things that have been handed down for generations but have no more validity to them then the story of Santa Claus flying around with 8 tiny reindeer. With the exception that Santa is much more kind, loving and generous that any god that exists.

Again, yes, if you are speaking to someone who doesn’t exist, we have claimed those people as schizophrenics in our society who need help.

Anyone who doesn’t believe in god has nothing to prove, you can’t prove a negative, another observation that science class must have been something you skipped while going to school if it can be esteemed that you even attended it at all.

Those that make the claim have all the proving to show. Attempting to distract by comparison of scientific ideas of which have not yet been proven as evidence that your god exists, is white noise not worth contemplating. “you can’t see an electron but you have faith it exists…” blah, blah, blah. Who cares about that, I’m not discussing electrons, photons, or anything else other than YOUR PERSONAL CLAIM THAT GOD EXISTS. We’re sticking to that subject, that topic, that particular item for which you have made such fantastical claims.

Either you believe god exists or you don’t. If you do, then it is up to you to prove that god exists. If you say it’s a personal experience, fine, but it lends no credibility to your statement as many people think they have a personal experience of god, strap a bomb to themselves and kill other people. Their experience is no greater than your own with just as much fervor, intent, and devotion.

Morality is garnered through the evolving consciousness raising that has happened throughout history. You don’t get your morality and the means by which to resolve the immoralities from your bible, if you make this claim then you are a fraud; a liar and contempt should befall you for making such absurd claims.

correction
Should read:

"Incorrect (& tardy) application of 'Fallacious appeal to authority"

Hard-atheist KOB?
KOB: "Lovely strawmen"

Only if you've come to the debate late. Lateness is no excuse for tardiness.

KOB: "Wrong. We have the fact that "god" is a meaningless utterance."

Wrong. We have the fact that "god" has many meanings (meaninlgess = without meaning). You should use a thesaurus (& dictionary) more regularly (there's that tardiness again). It is a concept with all sorts of connotations. But for many, creator is a term that is synonymous.

And "The fact"? So KOB seems to be a hard atheist. MSJ2 - see I told you these people existed. Not even Dawkins goes that far.

Tom: "We have no idea (let alone proof) of how the origin of all cosmoses came into being."

KOB: "Sure we do: it didn't come into being. It cannot come into or go out of being."

Prove it.

Tom: "Einstein & Newton both think your claim 'there is no god' is absurd."

KOB: "Fallacious appeal to authority."

Incorrect (& tardy) application of 'Fallacious appeal to logic'.

DA
"Einstein's naturalistic god is a far cry from the cruel and jealous god of the bible and does not support your position in any way."

What's my position?

And you still haven't entirely told me yours. Although sounds like you are either agnostic, deist, weak atheist or even undecided.




MellorSJ2
"Atheists do not make ANY claims. We simply assert that your "evidence" is (kindly) underwhelming."

Firstly, what's my evidence?

Secondly, nice try. Weak atheists claim: I believe there is no god. Strong atheists claim: There is no god.

Either way, this begs the question:

What reason do you have to believe there is no creator? To believe there is no god subsumes a belief that there were other causes leading to the rise of the origins of all cosmoses. There is now a choice: you have an opinion on what those causes were OR you have no opinion (no idea) on those causes.

If you have an opinion, let's hear it.

If no opinion / no idea, then your position vis a vis the theists becomes weaker in practice. If you don't believe me, try using that argument against theists. Say, 'this is what I believe: i believe there is no god & that I have no opinion on the cause of the origin of all the cosmoses.'

If on the other hand you KNOW (strong atheist stance) that the initial cause of all cosmoses was not due to a creator, then you ipso facto know what the real cause was. Let's hear it.

"Until you're clear on (the fact that atheists do not make any claims), there's no point in going on."

Leaving aside for the moment that atheists are not a homogenous group, as I have pointed out above they are making the following claims:

By default they are at the very least claiming that even though they believe there is no creator, they either have no idea on how the origin of all cosmoses came into being, OR that they do have alternative ideas on what those causes were.

At the very boldest, when they claim there is no creator, by default they are making the claim that they know what that first cause is.

"Do you believe in Zeus? Probably not. Are you an a-zeusist? Very probably yes. Will you go about saying "I don't belive in Zeus"? Quite probably."

Agree. But your equivalence between a god and zeus is fallacious. The existence of a specific god is far more problematic than simply 'a' god.

"In the same way that an atheist might say "I don't believe in god." That is not the same the proposition "There is no god." "

This is the weak v hard atheist stance.

"As you should know, you can't prove a negative."

Then you are saying that the hard atheist stance is untenable (there's another claim). You are then a soft atheist.

"And atheists do do not attempt it."

Yes they do. Google 'weak and strong atheism'

"We simply believe in one (or is it three?) fewer gods than you."

How do you know that?

tom
--So Einstein believed in the possibility of creation. I'm quite sure HE has taken A LOT of science. And at the same time you advise me to read Einstein. Why?--

Einstein's naturalistic god is a far cry from the cruel and jealous god of the bible and does not support your position in any way.

--As a matter of interest, are you atheist or agnostic?--

It depends on the specific definition of atheist and on the god. I would say that I am a positive atheist towards the christian, islamic, judaic, hindu, greek gods and all other gods that make particular and falsifiable claims.

imagine no liberals
--And finally, the OT is in no way based in polytheism. Have you never heard of the tri-unity of God?--

I wasn't really referring to the trinity [father,son,holyghost] but the references in the OT to multiple gods. The early Israelites believed that there were several gods, which is why there are several times where the OT states that 'they have become as one of us.'

Proving a negative
Tome writes: "Way to go MSJ2. I love your argument: We propose the there is no god, & all we have is....nothing to back that up. We have no idea (let alone proof) of how the origin of all cosmoses came into being. And that's why we know that there is no god.

Great logic. Of course, if you have something, we are waiting.

"When you respond: Where's the evidence? they say "well, you can't disprove it!" Well, no. We're not the ones making absurd claims.""

Atheists do not make ANY claims. We simply assert that your "evidence" is (kindly) underwhelming.

Until you're clear on that, there's no point in going on.

Do you believe in Zeus? Probably not. Are you an a-zeusist? Very probably yes. Will you go about saying "I don't belive in Zeus"? Quite probably. In the same way that an atheist might say "I don't believe in god." That is not the same the proposition "There is no god."

As you should know, you can't prove a negative. And atheists do do not attempt it. We simply believe in one or is it three?) fewer gods than you.

More hard-atheist arrogance
MSJ2 writes:

"Way to go, Scooter! I love their argument: We propose the existence of a god, and all we have is a book written by a bunch of middle-eastern cultists to "prove" it. "

Way to go MSJ2. I love your argument: We propose the there is no god, & all we have is....nothing to back that up. We have no idea (let alone proof) of how the origin of all cosmoses came into being. And that's why we know that there is no god.

Great logic. Of course, if you have something, we are waiting.

"When you respond: Where's the evidence? they say "well, you can't disprove it!" Well, no. We're not the ones making absurd claims."

Einstein & Newton both think your claim 'there is no god' is absurd.

"Then, in a monstrous act of theory equivalence, they ask what proof you have for the Big Bang, as if that were relevant to the proposition that their god exists."

Who claimed that?

"They seem to think that if you say "I have evidence that points towards the Big Bang as the best explanation," this is iron-cast evidence for their god. WTF?"

You said it best at the end. So...who thinks that?

"Of course, when you invoke science, the next trope they roll out is that Einstein (say) believed in god. Nope. He did not believe in the personal god of the christians."

Who said he did?

"He just called the physical laws themselves "god" (a proposition I could accept, though it seems unnecessary.)"

Did he really say that? Prove it.

"Hitler was a christian"

Prove it.

"Stalin went to an orthodox seminary"

So what? If the fact that he went there (at some point in time) is proof for you that he was a Christian, then you must be a toilet, because I'm sure you went there one time. In your vernacular, WTF?

"But more than that, it ignores causation. OK, so let's say they were atheists. Did that cause them to kill people? Or was that they had silly moustaches?"

But when all Christians of yore killed, that is prima facie evidence that it was due to their Christianity?

Prove it.

"When that fails, they fall back on "atheism gives no meaning to life." So? Make your own damn meaning. Still no imaginary friend."

Who fell back on that? Who's they?

"And the last refuge is that it "gives me comfort." Fine. So does belief in Santa Claus. Doesn't make it true. I can hear it now: "But St Nicholas existed and we have secular evidence to that fact!"

Who believes that?

"Still doesn't mean he spends 364 days at the North Pole. "But it's a miracle that he can deliver to millions of children in one night!" etc"

Who believes that?

"At that point, it is difficult not to fall back on invective."

Not difficult...and not intelligent.

"And you do have a fine line in invective, scooter. If you overdo it though, they'll move on to "you're intolerant and you insult me." "

Do you think Scooter needs your advice?

"Only insofar as I am intolerant of someone who insists 1+1=3."

Who insists that?

"It's a wonder you can be so kind to them."

Can't you read? Check out some of his posts. If that's your definition of kind, no wonder deciphering the logic in some of your posts is a tad confusing.

DA
DA writes:

"Tom, have you ever taken ANY science? There are vast amounts of empirical evidence that supports the scientific explanations of how the earth, solar system and universe began."

And yet, as you yourself say, "(Einstein) believed that there may have been a power that helped form the natural laws."

helped form = helped create

So Einstein believed in the possibility of creation. I'm quite sure HE has taken A LOT of science. And at the same time you advise me to read Einstein. Why? He's making my point & appears to be contradicting yours. As a matter of interest, are you atheist or agnostic?

Way to go, Scooter!
I love their argument: We propose the existence of a god, and all we have is a book written by a bunch of middle-eastern cultists to "prove" it.

When you respond: Where's the evidence? they say "well, you can't disprove it!" Well, no. We're not the ones making absurd claims.

Then, in a monstrous act of theory equivalence, they ask what proof you have for the Big Bang, as if that were relevant to the proposition that their god exists. They seem to think that if you say "I have evidence that points towards the Big Bang as the best explanation," this is iron-cast evidence for their god. WTF?

Of course, when you invoke science, the next trope they roll out is that Einstein (say) believed in god. Nope. He did not believe in the personal god of the christians. He just called the physical laws themselves "god" (a proposition I could accept, though it seems unnecessary.)

Then we have arguments like "It's pretty self-evident that atheists (Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Pol Pot, et al) have "ruined" a lot more than Christians." (from Carol). This ignores the fact that Hitler was a christian, and Stalin went to an orthodox seminary. But more than that, it ignores causation. OK, so let's say they were atheists. Did that cause them to kill people? Or was that they had silly moustaches?

When that fails, they fall back on "atheism gives no meaning to life." So? Make your own damn meaning. Still no imaginary friend.

And the last refuge is that it "gives me comfort." Fine. So does belief in Santa Claus. Doesn't make it true. I can hear it now: "But St Nicholas existed and we have secular evidence to that fact!" Still doesn't mean he spends 364 days at the North Pole. "But it's a miracle that he can deliver to millions of children in one night!" etc

At that point, it is difficult not to fall back on invective. And you do have a fine line in invective, scooter. If you overdo it though, they'll move on to "you're intolerant and you insult me." Only insofar as I am intolerant of someone who insists 1+1=3. Over and over, with silly irrelevant arguments. It's only my pride, they say, that prevents me from seeing the truth of their faulty arithmetic. Etc.

It's a wonder you can be so kind to them.



DA
DA, I appreciate your response. And I also appreciate the fact that you refrain from personal insults, unlike that vile scooternyc. But you always come up with "look at all the injustices committed in the Bible, by God" argument. I don't know what possible answer I could give you, that you haven't heard before on other threads, which you will not reject. The only thing I will do at this point, without wasting too much of my time, is refer you to the 5:38 PM post by inkling_revival who touches on this point.

And finally, the OT is in no way based in polytheism. Have you never heard of the tri-unity of God?

TRI-UNITY -- The teaching of the Bible concerning the Trinity might be summarized thus. God is a Tri-unity, with each Person of the Godhead equally and fully and eternally God. Each is necessary, and each is distinct, and yet all are one. The three Persons appear in a logical, causal order. The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. With reference to God's creation, the Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html

P.S.--I am not trying to convince you to believe in God. Because belief in God can not be forced upon an unwilling person.
Have a nice evening.

imagine no liberals
--your progeny will continue the ignorance, "the sins of the father" through the millennia--

You've just touched on one of the largest injustices in the bible; the punishment of all persons, throughout all time, for the infraction of two. The bible mythology of the fall of man starts with the story of Adam and Eve. Eve, tempted by a snake, fed Adam the fruit from the tree. God, angered by this infraction, sentenced ALL PEOPLE FOR ALL ETERNITY TO SUFFER. Of course, this is really on a story that was written to explain away suffering, disease and violence. This is only one of many problems with the bible and morality [or lack there of].

There are many stories that demonstrate a lack of morality in the bible; the slaughter of innocent egyptian children, mass genocide, offering up of virgin daughters for gang rape, the slaughter of children for making fun of a bald head, god killing the israelites because they complain of starving and more.

I also find it amusing that christians ignore that the old testament is based in polytheism and that yahweh was just one of many gods. That is why the OT makes frequent references to 'us' when god is talking. Also, god is frequently portrayed as a man [riding along side during battle or looking, but unable to find, abraham].

scooter
Let's see; every post this vile creature puts up, he/she/it labels us Christians with gracious words like stupid, deluded, ignorant, twit, schizophrenic; all because we believe in God. Then he/she goes on to call us intolerant. Can someone say IRONY!

And ofcourse, when I made the mistake of blaspheming the name of his/her god, Darwin, this fine specimen of tolerance comes back with this:

"It's true, most species are evolving, you are clear evidence that YOU are NOT evolving - congratulations - your progeny will continue the ignorance, "the sins of the father" through the millennia. We can only hope that your children or their children or somewhere in the lineage that they are unable to propagate or choose not to have children so as to stop the string of ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and bigotry."

translation: I hope you people (who believe in God) become extinct.

What do you know, even atheists have hopes and dreams.

And finally, my fellow schizophrenics, I want to say: Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matthew 7:6.




Tom
Einstein was spiritual but he did not believe in a personal god that acted in our affairs. He believed that there may have been a power that helped form the natural laws.

DA
"I would suggest you pick up some books on cosmology, astronomy and physics and read up on relativity, Einstein and Hawkins and their theories and evidences."

Sure. In the meantime, why was Einstein religious?

Tom
--But neither do atheists have ANY empirical evidence to back up their theory of how the world (not talking Earth, not even universe) came into being. The moment you prove it was the big bang & then this & then that, there are still a multitude of causes going ever further back. In other words, you'll never be able to prove the INITIAL cause, because there may be no ititial cause for all intents & purposes.--

Tom, have you ever taken ANY science? There are vast amounts of empirical evidence that supports the scientific explanations of how the earth, solar system and universe began. Is everything known? Of course not, that is why science is an ongoing process. I would suggest you pick up some books on cosmology, astronomy and physics and read up on relativity, Einstein and Hawkins and their theories and evidences.

Scooter
Scooter writes:

"But at the end of it all and the end of the day religious people have NOTHING to provide toward ANY emperical evidence that the god they claim, actually exists."

True. But neither do atheists have ANY empirical evidence to back up their theory of how the world (not talking Earth, not even universe) came into being. The moment you prove it was the big bang & then this & then that, there are still a multitude of causes going ever further back. In other words, you'll never be able to prove the INITIAL cause, because there may be no ititial cause for all intents & purposes. It's extremely arrogant of the human animal to think they know that cause (which is effectively the stance of the fundy atheist & theist). Because of this perennial void, it will always be filled by religion for many people forever, IMO. And that does not make them stupid. On the contrary, it's entirely rational. Whatever gives their life meaning. Once again, it's only the blinkered fundy (of any cause) who says 'I know The Truth (& You Don't).'

"(religion is) all hearsay, rhetoric, manipulation and control tactics."

Do you think atheists (by way of their atheism) are exempt from these all-too-human failings?

"Keep your religion, enjoy it at home and at your church, keep it out of our rule of law."

Why keep my beliefs? They evolve as I do. But if you 'know The Truth', then I'm sure you'll keep yours.

Keep it out of the rule of law? Well now, that's something we can agree on.

"If that god did exist and they had proof, then their work hasn't yet begun because you'd then have to prove that YOUR BIBLE is the ACTUAL WORD of that god."

Are you sure that all your assumptions here are valid? If you got that simple thing wrong, why should your atheistic hypothesis be a slam dunk, given the latter is a vastly more complex topic?

More rhetoric

” liberal tolerance and compassion in your many posts above”

Yes, because Christians, as we all know, have been the most tolerant and compassionate people in our history. Get thee to a history lesson immediately – onward Christian soldiers. LOL!

Your arrogance lies within the attitude that you actually KNOW for a fact, based on some historical text you’ve read, what is RIGHT and what is WRONG, you don’t. These concepts are man made, such is your god, and are purely subjective and based on opinion only, nothing more.

There is nothing to forgive because there is no such thing as sin except in your mind. If you choose to believe such tosh then you’re subjugated to such stupidity, as though one man and one woman have caused all the suffering throughout history because they couldn’t keep themselves under control and thereby you and everyone else are responsible for such acts. How does it feel to be responsible for other people’s choices? Enjoying that, are you.

Tell you what, the next time someone murders someone else, we’ll come to you for the accountability factor and have you serve the sentence for the chap who actually committed the crime.

Certainly if your god was so smart, wouldn’t he have known that this chap Adam was already going to make the worst mistake ever for which eternity will NEVER be able to subjugate itself enough, no person, no action will ever be able to seek redemption. Even your fictional Jesus didn’t do a good enough job here on earth because you keep thinking he’s got to return at some point to make up for it all over again, as though the first time wasn’t good enough.

If your god was so smart you’d think he’d have made man a little more intelligent than to just eat an apple that’s that. Oh, that’s right, free will. Well, see my post on that one Einstein.


You would only seek to flag my posts so as to not allow others the intelligence and honesty with which I speak. I'm sure I'm not the only reasonable voice you would seek to silence.

"And if you did cut down all the laws of England and the devil came face to face with you, who would you turn to then".

Your god?

LOL! The insane nature of your attempted arguments make the intelligent of our world laugh out loud with the greatest of fervor as we watch you waste your potential on that which you have nothing but a book and someone else's "word". Good for you, the statement is true, there is a sucker born every minute and you happen to be the one at the minute of your birth who kept the statistic going.

photogbill
--Thanks for sharing your Atheistic 'love'! And thanks for giving us religious loons another glaring example of liberal tolerance and compassion in your many posts above. It's refreshing to see the depths of your 'innate' sense of right and wrong in action (apart from God of course).--

Who said that scooternyc is a liberal? Are all atheists liberal? I don't think so, google 'conservative atheist' and see how many sites pop up. Also, who says that atheists have to be fully tolerant? By this I mean relativist. Most atheists, that I know, are not relativists. We find reason to be wary of islam and christianity because of their actions in undermining society based on silly superstitions.

A request to my fellow loons...
Please....please....please do not flag any of the above posts of scooternyc. It would be a travesty to deprive the blogosphere world of the depths of his/her sincere and heartfelt nuggets of wisdom and enlightenment.

Thank you so much scooternyc for helping us see the advantages of a Godless life!

scooternyc
Thanks for sharing your Atheistic 'love'! And thanks for giving us religious loons another glaring example of liberal tolerance and compassion in your many posts above. It's refreshing to see the depths of your 'innate' sense of right and wrong in action (apart from God of course).

How silly and ignorant of us loons to not be able to recognize the sublime superiority of becoming an atheist ......like yourself!

We can clearly see that the world would be a much nicer place with more atheists like you telling all of us how to live.

I just have one question for you..... If we were to 'repent' of our foolish ways and convert to atheism .....would you 'forgive' us for our prior 'sins' and allow us to enter into your 'kingdom of enlightenment'!?


Creation with you in mind
Those of you that think there is a god and that all this was created with "you" in mind, that he might look after your well being, care about what food you eat, with whom you sleep, that he is tallying up your transgressions and good deeds for punishment or reward later are delusional, in the very least.

Additionally, you can add egocentric, histrionic, along with schizophrenic.

Tony Snow on Fox this morning talking about the power of prayer – give me a break. If prayer was so strong then why did his cancer come back, or was that just an act of a scientific nature to be explained by emperical evidence of how the body works, how disease develops and returns.

If prayer was so valid then perhaps Snow revealed how unworthy he is through his actions, deeds, and words in life that god chose not to answer his prayers.

On the other hand, perhaps his prayers weren’t sincere enough.

Perhaps his prayers weren’t as important as Judy’s in Finance who prayed and got the promotion she’s been hoping for.

Listen, once you loons bring out some valid empirical evidence that a god, ANY GOD, actually exists, then we’ll start attempting to explore whether or not any of these other supernatural fantastical claims you make, actually have any validity to them and that YOUR BIBLE is THE WORD by which to live.

In the meantime, why don’t you keep your lunacy in your pants, stop spreading your diseased seed throughout mankind so we can evolve to higher levels of intellect as an entire species.

Keep your god toys at home and stop trying to convert everyone else like Islam is trying to do. Your beliefs are irrelevant.

imagine no liberals
--Hey DA, you keep hanging on to that fairytale called Darwinian evolution, and we Christians will follow the truth, Jesus Christ, and let the chips fall where they may.--

What truth? The evidence has been coming in for centuries that you are merely following an old fairy tale. For instance, the sun is no longer believed to rotate around the earth. We know that all animals were not made at one single point in time.

Why are you a christian? Is it because you were indoctrinated, it certainly seems to work for islam? Or is it because you need a parent figure, someone to father? Or maybe because you cannot come to grips with your own mortality? Or maybe it is arrogance, you have to be special. You need to believe that these hundreds of billions of universes and trillions of stars, must have be created just so that you could someday be purged from between your mothers legs into a world of ignorance, starvation, disease and violence.

My favorite silly argument
Aunt Phrony (among, sadly) many others that "The evidence of, and for creation is unending and only a deliberate choice to accept something contrary, lacks the credible power of reason."

No one is saying creation didn't happen. We're here, aren't we? But what evidence do you have for saying that a creator did it? (And if so, who created the creator?)

How ever you wriggle around those questions, what evidence do you have that your christian god did it, rather than, say, Thor?



imagine no liberals
You probably don't even know what Darwin contributed toward science.

You probably don't even know what Origin of the Species is talking about.

You probably never read a science book in your life or barely got by in high school science.

It's true, most species are evolving, you are clear evidence that YOU are NOT evolving - congratulations - your progeny will continue the ignorance, "the sins of the father" through the millennia. We can only hope that your children or their children or somewhere in the lineage that they are unable to propagate or choose not to have children so as to stop the string of ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and bigotry.

Tom
Quotes, text, non-fiction books, opinion, etc. all of it is interesting, sparks conversation.

But at the end of it all and the end of the day religious people have NOTHING to provide toward ANY emperical evidence that the god they claim, actually exists.

If that god did exist and they had proof, then their work hasn't yet begun because you'd then have to prove that YOUR BIBLE is the ACTUAL WORD of that god.

It's all hearsay, rhetoric, manipulation and control tactics.

Keep your religion, enjoy it at home and at your church, keep it out of our rule of law.

21. What is true faith?
21. What is true faith?

"Faith is believing in something when COMMON SENSE tells you not to" - Maureen O'Hara, Miracle on 34th Street

When COMMON SENSE

DA
Hey DA, you keep hanging on to that fairytale called Darwinian evolution, and we Christians will follow the truth, Jesus Christ, and let the chips fall where they may.

Deal?

tchh tchh
Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus anamensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo rudolfensis, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Paranthropus boisei, Paranthropus robustus, Praeanthropus africanus or Adam & Eve? Give it up, all of you christians. Zeus didn't rule from mount olympus and jesus didn't give his life in order to achieve forgiveness for the fall of man.

Atheists have more faith---
---than us christians. I can't imagine the more
percentage of energy it would take to exercise my will, to believe (faith) in evolution vrs
creation. The evidence of, and for creation is unending and only a deliberate choice to accept
something contrary, lacks the credible power of reason.

---Scooter---

To deny the concept of "free will" also denys the
"power of choice". In my limited experience I
intertain the observation that most people who
believe in the power of choice, willingly allow
others the same liberty. Those who do not, do not. Think about it---


What is True Faith?
I'm probably a little late, but to answer JeffRob and his question to me that faith equals imagination I'll just quote part of the Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 21 "What is True Faith?"

The answer: "True faith is not only a certain knowledge..." I'll stop there. True faith is not only a certain knowledge, that is to say knowledge that is CERTAIN. It's certain because it's based on the infallible Word of God. You don't get more certain than that. So, no, faith does not equal imagination.

21. What is true faith?

It is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word; but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Ghost works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, for the sake of Christ's merits.

Gary Gordon


Another know-it-all
Lucifer writes:

"You redneck Yanks would be the laughing stock of the whole world, were it not for the even crazier Muslims. god simply does not exist. Anyone with half a brain would tell you that."

Really? That great Britain, Sir Isaac Newton, world's greatest scientist, was a most devout Christian. And Einstein's famous line: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". I guess that counts for nothing to a 21st Century enlightened European - enough said. About that half a brain.....

"Read,"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and you'll see it all makes sense."

Ahhh, another person with all the answers. It's been said that the difference between the godless and the theists is one of kind. You seem to worship Dick Dorkins (apologies to Richard, I couldn't resist). Substitute 'Bible' in your sentence and it would be indistinguishable from a fundamentalist Christian's quip.

" "God-fearing". No one in Europe or anywhere else in the civilised world uses such biblical language any more, but then you're so stupid that you don't realise that most of die from eating too much. You're so dumb that you don't even realise that you've already eaten. Meanwhile millions starve."

I'll leave it to others to point out the supreme irony in this paragraph.

"Tossers!"

And the correlation between certainty & contempt grows ever stronger....

Christopher Hitchens
You redneck Yanks would be the laughing stock of the whole world, were it not for the even crazier Muslims. god simply does not exist. Anyone with half a brain would tell you that. Read,"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and you'll see it all makes sense. "God-fearing". No one in Europe or anywhere else in the civilised world uses such biblical language any more, but then you're so stupid that you don't realise that most of die from eating too much. You're so dumb that you don't even realise that you've already eaten. Meanwhile millions starve.

Oh sorry, mustn't disagree with you or Draft Dodger Dubya will deem that I m not with you, therefore "against you" and place me on his "axis of evil" and post a bomb through ny window.

As the polar ice caps melt, there you go in your 5-litre cars, worrying whether poor Paris Hilton will make it through gaol.

Tossers!

Know-it-alls
Beware the loud, self-promoting fanatic. The fanatical Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, vegan, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, animal rights activist, Nazi, communist, conservationist, anything....including Hitchens.

Like all fanatics, you can be sure they will be very convincing to many (at least at first glance). I've hardly met or read about one that is not. They all use hard sell tactics in their 'sermons' - great fear of the thing being decried, & promise of 'salvation' for the path being preached. They are all intolerant of other ways. But more often than than not, the fanatic (including Hitchens) is full of ****.

Their message can summarised thus: I know The Truth (& You Don't).

And they all have their sheep. Just look at a sample of posters above.

Hitchens the great debater? The great thinker? Just saw him debate Hannity on youtube & was far from impressed. H piddled on him. Even Colmes made him look amateurish. But his confrontational style makes him interesting to watch, like Rosie. Entertainment value only, as someone said above.

Has anyone else noticed a correlation between how certain someone is & how contemptuous they become? Inkling & Scooter are the flipside of each other. Cant we lock them in a glass cage & throw away the key? Now that would be entertaining.


Phil Canyon, I am WAY further than you..
You say you base your answer on the bible. That this book is:

"... the breath of God. It answers our questions and gives us the way."

My response is that this is fine for you. It may be true from your perspective. However, you cannot show it to be "absolutely" true for all people everywhere.

I make the following statement and will prove it to you:

THE BIBLE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE ONLY VALID MORAL AUTHORITY.

I will prove the above statement theoretically, and with a practical example. This does not mean that you cannot use the bible as ONE of many possible sources for moral advice. It just means that it is just as relative as any other supposed "authoritative source."

I have no clue as to why you think the bible is the "breath of god." It is just a book, produced and published by men, interpreted and reinterpreted man times by men in many different ways. You have no evidence to show otherwise.

When you use they bible to make a moral judgment about a particular act, you yourself must interpret it and apply it to a particular circumstance. Another reasonable man or woman may interpret it differently. So you cannot claim the bible is an unerring moral compass.

THE FALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE

Let me give a couple of examples. First one on the need for interpretation. For many years people interpreted genesis to mean that the earth (and entire universe) were created in 6 literal days. Today no one with any common sense believes that and the generally accepted age of the universe is 13 billion years, give or take a few billion. So anyone who believes the bible is the word of god has to go through considerable gyrations to come up with a reasonable interpretation of the genesis myth and explanation for why god would "tell" it to us. This is pure interpretation, whatever the explanation.

Once you allow interpretation is necessary for the understanding the central creation story in the bible (god existed before the universe, was external to the physical universe, and created it from nothing in six "days") you have to allow for interpretation of everything else it contains.
Fundamentally, when you find the bible erroneous when discussing phenomena that can be checked and verified with our own observations, you have to allow it is reasonable to doubt about its ABSOLUTE authority on moral matters as well.

It is also easy to come up with practical examples that show that reliance on the bible is far more problematical than using well thought out principals to govern your life to make decisions.

A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF THE NEED FOR HUMAN INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE'S MORAL ADVICE

Lets take telling the truth or telling a lie. Most Christians would agree with me that in most cases one should not lie, and this can be grounded in scripture. One should either tell the truth or say nothing at all. However, in some circumstances it may be more harmful to tell the truth than to lie or say nothing.

Suppose a person I know to be evil asks me a question. If I answer the question truthfully I know he will use the information to carry out some horrible crime. If I refuse to answer, he claims he will kill my wife and torture me. I believe that he in fact will do both of these things. I know an artful story I can convincingly tell. He cannot detect is a lie that will result in him not being able to commit the crime successfully and will also give me and my wife a good chance to escape unharmed.

In that case I will tell the lie. I don't need the bible to tell me that. And if it told me something different I would not follow its advice. I expect any reasonable person, including you, would do the same.

You can see I do not access to the bible to figure this out. I just need common sense and recourse to the principals I laid out in my previous append. In fact if I live in a culture that has never been exposed to the bible, I will come to the same conclusions as someone who reads it cover to cover.

I do not think you will find it easy to find clear unambiguous guidelines for the decision above in the bible. But if you do, I doubt it will give you a different answer than my principals. In effect than, your bible offers no superior value to well thought out principals for guiding your life. What can we decide from this?

Obviously, you will now agree that the bible cannot be considered THE one and only authoritative moral source.

GallaGas the chickenhawk at it again ...
I love my local Conservative talk radio and can abide every one of the commentators (Savage, O'Reilley, Hannity, Ingraham, Bennet, et. al. That is just about everyone, EXCEPT for Gallagher. He simply comes across as a self-righteous, unthinking, bullying blowhard, so his cowardice in the face of Hitchen's brilliant onslaught is to be expected.

Any time I feel myself silently nodding in agreement while GallaGas talks about illegals, Hollywood limolibs, and the media, I have to remind myself that at any minute he'll be going on and on about his beloved Muffin the stricken wonder dog while bellowing from a Christian fundamentalist perspective. His loudmouth, unthinking intolerance of other PoVs that differ from the fables he chooses to accept are simply too much to bear.

GallaGas can go on and on about the greatness of Christian televangelical charlatans: people NOT like you and me, who've found that there's EZ money in exploiting the credulity of others and who are all too willing to take their money to support their pet projects (and being praised for it to boot). How is that any different from Hillary taking my money to buy everyone else's vote?

Gallagas has a serious lack of an irony meter:

I'm all for US energy independence and in theory Gallagas eviscerating the environmentalist whackos who forbid drilling in ANWR should be music to my ears. He'll start by belittling Shamu, Bambi, the snail darter, or some other endangered species of the day, etc.; not bad for a start but all I can come up with by way of an analogous vision of this guy's PoV is that two days previous to that this was the same person who went on and on about his beloved Muffin the wonder dog and his pathetic illness, it was Mother Theresa in a coat of fur being martyred for us all.

So in the same breath that this nimrod is ridiculing the grandeur of a Canadian moose or a Polar bear while going on about Muffin; I'm thinking to myself, I'll take the moose or the bear ... or the ambergis of the wild whales any day of the week over Gallagas' beast of a mutt that is no doubt c*ap*ing in my yard as I type.

This is invariably happening while GallaGas is walking with some other sheep-like ditto-headed intolerant know-nothing that he would keep for a friend to avoid being exposed to different views. He's invariably looking the other way when Muffin is doing his nasty deeds (don't want to compare Muff to the snail darter) with no pooper scooper anywhere near him ... (and that will be the one time GallaGas says he supports organic gardening).

Taking on the Islamists and environmental Fundies by replacing one holy war crowd with another is a recipe for disaster. It's easy to get taken in when the likes of GallaGas ridicules Mohammed and the XX virgins that will await JihadJoe but be careful what you wish for, because in the next breath GallaGas will be loading up his skow with all the animals two-by-two (with Muffin in the prow no doubt) and preparing for Armageddon. Replacing one fable with another is not what we need at the moment and it is unhelpful to the overall debate.

His defense is always the fact that Christian charitable acts are (currently) always ones of kindness rather than the evils of Jihad. He has no conception of PoV and the fact that even Hamas and Hezbollah have their charitable wings and that human nature still has the Crusades and other religious acts of ignominy to apologise for as paradigms of religious behaviour.

If you read between the lines you can see that GallaGas' message is invariably one of intolerance for anyone who begs to differ with him regarding which fables are permissible and which are not. Hitchens positions have a logical consistency and cogency and so debate follows carefully reasoned and rational lines of thought where the gears shift seamlessly; while it quickly becomes obvious that GallaGas has no 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gears to be used in debate. The concept of reasoned debate beyond simply bullying and browbeating his axiomatic faith-based PoV into his opponents is completely foreign to him.

Phil Canyon
You said:
"Seems to me that this is exactly what the Constitution guarantees -- that people of all religions are entitled to the same access to power and respect, regardless of their beliefs. We're all entitled to vote, to write, to campaign, to hold office. No religious test is permitted. Government ignores which religion you're from. Seems to work remarkably well."

Again, stop deliberately misinterpreting what I say. People of all religions are entitled to those rights. Their religions are not. Catholics should not mandate the nation's abortion rights, and Muslims should not write our dietary laws. Once you make religious tenets the basis for legislation, you either have to say which God's set of rules apply, or you have to say all Gods are equal, and everyone gets to pitch in their interpretation of some holy book usually handed invisibly to a self-declared prophet who either likes lots of wives, lots of gold, or just lots of blood.

What if your next door neighbor thinks, "Live For Me" is the way to live. Why would he be wrong? On what does he base his decision?

You later write:
"So, it's very simple...You have to have an authority on which to base your moral choices. Truth is not hard to find."

After acknowledging that a simple reciprocity test can guide "moral" decisions, you again say it needs to come from a higher power. Why do you so desperately cling to a supernatural ubermensch? Are you that afraid of the dark and the unknown? Do you have to live forever, or isn't it enough to live decently here on Earth and leave behind a legacy of love and generous acts?

What no one has addressed on this post is that religion is and always has been the product of human terror in the face of eternity, and the thinking mind's inability to grasp the end of its own sentience. Once you make the liberating break and accept that this go-round is all you get, you become free to live as you please, and accept the reality that some humans will act kindly to their fellows, and others won't, and the role of civilization is to punish those who bring harm to others.

So, to all the believers who have constructed their intellectual lives around a kernel of a supernatural, extraterrestrial ultimate father looking after you and your for eternity, I say God Bless You. If you're right, you get forever to give me the razz. I'm sure the Creator will cut me some slack for only believing what the eyes and ears he gave me could sense. If not, I sure hope you're having as much good, clean fun as you can right now, because the void is creeping up on all of us, and it most often wears a high collar or a head wrap of some sort, burns incense and incants some eerie chants as it slays the heathen in the name of magick and the fantastic.

"Will" made
"Will writes: Friday, June, 08, 2007 8:25 PM
Musings
Secular (non-religious) thinking has given us: democracy, science, medicine, mathematics, art & music, civilization & its creature comforts, reasoned debate, Plato's "Symposium".

Religious thinking has given us: guilt over sex & masturbation, radical Islam, intolerance, the Inquisition & the iron maiden, jihad & myths such as the "2nd Coming" - events believers prepare their entire lives for, that will never ever come."


Beautifully written; extraordinary clarity.

Interesting read
"Way to go to all of you tackling these atheists."

The word was "tackling" not attacking, guess it was just my version of "the word".

"You mean it says, "celebrate" not celibate".

Truth, Phil C.?
If you want truth try learning mathematics.


"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." - Steven Weinburg

Phil C. you supercilious little twit
“Question: On what do you base your morality? What is your authority for knowing what is right and wrong?”

Responsibility

Accountability

There is a zeitgeist of ethics that has evolved over time for which people have adopted with the understanding that we all wish to live in a society that is in order and security.

Don’t believe in an evolutionary process? I suggest you take off all your clothes then, devoid yourself of all money and possessions since all of these things only evolved to create comfort as we sought to discover more over time through science and invention, clearly they are of no use to you.

We create laws, not to stop actions, but to relegate consequences for actions that transgress our socially accepted behaviors, which seek to infringe on the personal rights of others with regard to freedom to live the individual life with personal integrity, however personally defined.

I need no authority for right/wrong since there is no such thing as right/wrong, merely action/reaction understanding, along with knowing my personal responsibility and accountability in life toward self and mankind. Try it sometime, you might find yourself acting with more integrity than you’ve ever known.

Your inefficiency by granting value upon aspects of your personal experiences in life is subjective and existential on all levels.

You cannot prove in any capacity that nature in and of itself provides a “right” and “wrong”, these are your personal concepts, which seek to discriminate those aspects of life, which do not suit your comfort. Everything you "believe" is your opinion if any value is placed upon it.

That’s fine, you just don’t have the privilege to impose such concepts on others to the extent that those concepts are infringing on the rights of others.

Have your “religious morality” all you want; live by your confluence of the ten commandments; just stop trying to impose it on our government and it’s people who do not share your delusion. Keep it out of our schools, which seek to create more ignorance and blind subjugation of our children’s minds.

aunt phrony
You’re joking right? Aunt Phony is more like it.

The power of choice? What about your free will? Are you so convinced you have free will?


Humans are composed of physical matter. This physical matter follows all the laws of physics. There are no components of human consciousness or decision-making abilities in addition to physical matter. The terms mind and soul are spiritual wishful thinking and mystical explanations for the unknown.

Looking at a general overview of physical laws gives a better understanding of human free will. Our brain is composed of chemical and electronic circuitry. This circuitry is a system of cause and effect. An internal or environmental stimulus results in a predictable effect. If one were to know every stimulus a newborn would experience and the exact physical arrangement of the newborn’s anatomy, then one would be able to predict every choice the newborn would make until death.

We can see the existence of cause and effect throughout life on planet Earth. We do not question that a plant does what it was destined to do. If the sun is to the East, then the plant will bend due to a phototropic response to the East. At no point do we contemplate that the plant has a choice to bend to the West. If a charge is introduced to one end of a neuron, then the charge will propagate to the other end of the neuron. The animal that possesses the neuron has no choice in whether the neuron transmits or not. Everything the human animal thinks or decides is output generated by the physical brain supported by all its other physical organ systems.

With this in mind, one can only conclude that free will as defined by many religions is a fallacy. How can we hold a person accountable if there is no choice? How can there be a heaven and hell if there is no soul? Both of these questions are rooted in a religious morality. The succinct answer is that nature does not have judgment. Nature does produce outcomes, effects and consequences. We humans want to feel superior to all other living organisms. We want to be validated by the love and acceptance of a creator. We have fabricated a soul, a mind and gods in order to substantiate the existence of free will.

So, why have laws? We humans have evolved into a very complex organism. In order to maximize our ability to survive and reproduce, we have developed societies, civilizations, cultures, ethics and mores. We are wired to desire order. We are wired to desire a peaceful existence. Ultimately, this can only be accomplished through law creation and enforcement. Any omniscient being would have seen this development long before the beginning of time and why take so long to make it so, why not instantly? Why go through years of slavery? Women's suffrage? All for a lesson? Are there no easier and more efficient ways of conveying such "lessons"?

You presuppose the idea that miracles happen and defy the laws of physics. Great, show us the proof and how a “miracle” has defied the laws of physics? A creator that would defy all laws of physics and science must be somethin’ else, so you would think that such evidence would be of the most astounding nature by which science could examine it and determine that indeed there must be a god.

Again, your arrogance that since science can’t explain something as of yet, is relegated to god.

So what happens to all these miracles and “god outside of science” over time as science DOES come to explain more and more? Do you then recind these ideas, walk away with your tail between your legs with all the shame and humiliation that ought to be bestowed upon you for creating situations by which suffering was at your doing? For which you are responsible and accountable?

What of the leaps and bounds made by science in just the last 200 years, whereby your Christianity held onto some ignorant belief about “race” and “slavery”.

Ignorance is a commodity for which religion has cornered the market. I’m okay that you enjoy your gluttony of consumption of it at home, just keep it out of the government and our schools attempting to poison the minds of those who have little choice in childhood toward assimilation of education and seek the trust of adults and their wisdom.

And to the idotic statement about "seeing an electron", there have been many things we couldn't see for eons that we are now only able to see with the advances in science, it's not to say that we won't "see it" in our future discoveries. What a stupid statement to make.

Science isn't arrogant enough to say there couldn't be a god because that's not the basis of science, but at this time there has been no credible emperical evidence of ANY kind by which this claim has been convincing and at this time one can only conclude there is not. You'd think after 2000 years this god would give just a little hint of it; a tidbit wouldn't kill would it?

Please!

golfnut
This isn't about anything else in the universe other than the existence of god and people like you thinking you "know" the mind of god. To presuppose that because science can’t answer a particular question at this time in our evolution that religion possibly could, is absurd.

Why would I believe anything a Christian would say, aren’t you the people that 100 years after Galileo still believed the sun revolved around the earth? Aren’t you the ones who denounced Galileo for his discoveries? Yes, you are and not until recently was this recounted. How disgraceful. And you think yourselves intellectually sound to the extent that we should even consider your opinions relevant to the complexities of the universe? Oh please.

If you had any evidence at all you would have presented it long ago and faith would be a relic tossed into the garbage heap of other useless gods and religions throughout the millennia.

All religion and belief in god is a person's will to turn over personal responsibility and accountability to something for which they can relegate any "bad" situations towards god's will and only allow the "good" things as god's benevolence.

It’s all hearsay and rhetoric.

I love the statement from someone saying, “good for you all attacking these atheists”. Well, that’s awfully Christian of you, isn’t it?

No one attacks religion, we merely point out the obvious with regard to scientific evidence, reason and logic. Traits long ago abandoned by the religious.

If you really believed that prayer would heal then why have insurance of any kind? Why go to the doctor? Why opt for surgery? If your chances are merely 50/50 with god, then what are the criteria for not answering your prayer of health?

Further, if god answers your prayer and not someone else’s then what arrogance and superiority is placed upon you for favor. It’s assumed that the other person’s prayers were not strong enough, or of enough pure mindedness. Again, where are the criteria so that ALL prayers are answered? How strong must the intent be? With whom do we award the task of creating such criteria?

Your credulity and contempt prior to investigation is astounding.

Are your “personal experiences” of god valid? If so, then ALL personal experiences of god must be valid, therefore Islam is acting with great personal integrity by attempting to kill Americans since their personal experience of god tells them this is their mission.

If not all “personal experiences” of god are valid; well then to what criteria have you decided this? Why your criteria? Who died and left you in charge?

The arrogance of religion is laughable.

Your credulous nature of assimilation of it is disgusting and abhorrent.

You're a disgrace to the evolution of mankind by spewing this swill.

Power of choice---
is a gift from God---Whether I am an atheist or
a God-fearing believer, there is one basic
thing in common---the choice, activated by my will, to believe.

(A)Christianity is a "system of belief" propelled by the "power of choice".
(B) Atheism is a "system of belief" propelled by
the "power of choice".

In my humble opinion, "the power of choice" is the key to this debate. No one is forced to make a decision beyond his will.

However, where does this "power of choice"
originate? Think about it----

Mike ONYC wrote....
"This is too simple. Just apply the golden rule. Would you want me to kill you and your entire family? Steal your savings? Rape your daughter? Force you not to seek medical treatment? Insist you bear a child you don't want and then abandon it to a stranger?"

Mike, I am not asking you how you decide on your behavior or actions. "Use the Golden Rule", you say. That makes sense to me. It's the right way to live!

QUESTION: Why do you think "Use the Golden Rule" is the right way to live, Mike? On what do you base your decision?

What if your next door neighbor thinks, "Live For Me" is the way to live. Why would he be wrong? On what does he base his decision?

So, it's very simple...You have to have an authority on which to base your moral choices. Truth is not hard to find.

Mike ONYC...You're almost there!!

I ask my question again.
I have read the littany of atheist and agnostics responses and have not received an answer yet that did not include some kind of "because, that' why!" response.

Question: On what do you base your morality? What is your authority for knowing what is right and wrong?

Christian answer: We are people of the book. The book is the breath of God. It answers our questions and gives us the way.

Atheist Answer so far: I can figure it out on my own. Or, use the golden rule. Or, over thousands of years we have evolved our morality to where it is today. Or, it is what it is.

SUMMARY: Atheist, You cannot have it both ways. You cannot know what is right and not be able to say someone is wrong for thinking exactly the opposite. Either there is Truth, or there is not. So, tell me....What is the Truth and what do you base your decision on? If you cannot quote an authoritative source for your truth, then you cannot question anyone else's truth. THEN...By definition, everything is Truth. THEN...That arguement is self-defeating!!

Come on Atheists....You can get to the answer if you keep trying! Go Deep!

To Scooternyc
You have never seen an electron but I'm sure you believe in it's existence. You have never seen a black hole, dark matter or dark energy. You can never see evolution in action but I'm sure you believe the theory is fact. Quantum mechanics is a physical and philosophical mystery but it is universally accepted by the scientific community. You may even believe in the innate goodness of mankind when we are surrounded and enveloped by evil deeds by supposedly 'goodly' humans.

Faith is exhibited by seculars every day, they just mask their faith until their hoped for physical proof is reached. Why must you disparage simple people who seek hope an mean though exactly the same type of faith you choose to excercise?


way to go
Way to go to all of you tackling these atheists. Haven't had time to follow this thread.

Gonna take some time to thoroughly read the Wilson/Hitchens debate. I've only done a cursory read myself but glad to see this debate is making a mark.




This is why I don't listen to Gallagher
I find him to be the stereotype that liberals find so easy to attack. He does not debate well and, after this article, it is obvious why. He appparently is not equipped to fight this kind of battle and, quite honestly, almost no one else who shares my religious convictions is either.
Mark D. Roberts was embarrassingly unprepared to deal with the likes of Hitchens and I am growing weary of Christians who are seemingly surprised by Hitchens type arguments. It tells me that they rarely, if ever, step out of the comfortable confines of their church and deal with these ideas, or are just not prepared to get into a bloody intellectual battle. The one exception to this is Dennis Prager, he had Hitchens on his show, and is the one person who could go toe-to-toe with him. He is one of the rare conservatives that I have ever heard debate these issues who has a balance of rational and faith-based arguments.
My advice to people like Gallagher is to try to engage in debates with people like Hitchens. Study Prager if you need some help, and please, please, please stop smiling in condescention when you should be serious. It isn't a good debating technique and some of us are tired of conservatives who won't get in the dirt to take on ugly ideas and the people who promote them.

Deluded
"And you guys ACTUALLY BELIEVE you're SMARTER than people who believe in God."

No, we just know that we're not delusional.

We have suspended all reason, logic and science to believe in a supernatural being for which no evidence has EVER been given.

Christians, on the other hand, and you probably, think yourselves superior in life because you have the "secret" that others don't know, won't know or won't accept. Thereby you hold all the cards in your mind because you have the audacity of thinking you know what or how the mind of god is actually creating a thought with you in mind.

How egocentrentic and histrionic.

You're joking, right?

"And the irony is that absolutely no one can prove either side"

If you make such outrageous claims then it befalls you to prove it. If you claim such arrogant claims that a god exists, and if one does, that he even cares about you and whom you sleep with, what you eat, what you do, then you have to prove it. Otherwise you're irrelevant and nothing more than a fraud of the highest order that makes unsubstantiated claims of the supernatural that borders on the schizophrenic

Insecurity thy name is Mike
I like Mike but he’s got issues. Anyone who makes this statement, “But when this British pseudo-intellectual” is himself an uneducated man who carries much in the way of insecurity.

Additionally, Hitchens has it right, religion does poison everything it touches. Furthermore, it’s all made up opinions and hearsay, nothing more for which no empirical evidence has ever been shown to be valid.

The impious act of feigning solemn attitude toward anyone’s death for which you in opposition of say, Islamic fundies, is not better in it’s ideas. You claim one death is more okay than another – instead of seeing all death as unfortunate. What a fraud.

If Mike had any b*lls he’s debate Hitchens and watch himself get wiped up on the mat.

inkling
I know the feeling.

Truth
The amazing thing about the debate over Mr. Hitchens' is that his thesis is either wrong, or it is right. And the irony is that absolutely no one can prove either side. God exists outside of space and time and his existence is unprovable by mere mortals. So we must believe or not believe based on faith in our perceptions and experiences.

Faith is required on both sides of the debate. If you cannot prove God does not exist you must have faith that you are correct. How does that differ from having faith that God does exist without proof.

It is so much easier to believe that God is a myth because there are no imutable obligations from that belief. On the other hand, the hard road in life is believe in God and be obligated to behave in a universally moral manner.

People of faith should welcome Mr. Hitchens' challenge. If you have ever heard him debate a person of faith, and I did for three hours recently, you will clearly understand why the better path to goodness in ones life is to choose the road which does not lead to mankind being the center of the universe.

Mr. Hitchens sees everything bad that has been done in the name human religion as an indictment against God, not against obviously falible humans . Yet, he never proposes where or when his philosophy has ever produced better results. He simply critizes. His argument is as hollow and empty as he seems to be personally.

Bring him on!!

will, oh, good GOD!
"In order for me to think & rationalize from the POV of a christian, I'd have to be able to have "faith" in an omnipotent being"

You just flunked the FIRST DAY of Logic 101.

A man makes an argument beginning from a major premise. You're saying you can't assess the logic of his proceding argument unless you ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE PREMISE?????????????

Go home, son, you're not ready for reasoned discourse with adult. (And you guys ACTUALLY BELIEVE you're SMARTER than people who believe in God. You're not even capable of engaging in the FIRST F**KING DAY of the SIMPLEST LOGIC COURSE.)

What a waste of time...

will, just too silly for words
will wrote, just incredibly, "Secular (non-religious) thinking has given us: democracy, science, medicine, mathematics, art & music, civilization & its creature comforts, reasoned debate, Plato's "Symposium"."

I don't even know where to start. Have you even read a single work describing the history of western civilization?

Western civilization wasn't even REMOTELY secular until the Renaissance, which produced nothing comparable to the architecture, music, or learning produced by the Church in the middle ages. All the major institutions of learning in Europe were established by the Church. All the major forms of business and commerce were created by the Church. All the forms of debate, all the scientific inquiry, all the learning, was Church-driven and Church-sponsored.

Mathematics wasn't even even primarily western; we borrowed from the Muslim world in that department, but the building on top of it was primarily accomplished by Christians.

Please go get yourself an education; the American public schools clearly failed you.

Reading the Hitchens/Wilson debate
The best line so far:

"On your terms, you are just a random collection of protoplasm, noisier than most, but no more authoritative than any—which is to say, not at all."

Round goes to Wilson.

MikeONYC
I didn't put any words in your mouth; I didn't say you claimed religion caused all wars. I claimed you wanted to draw attention to the wars caused in the name of religion. And my reply was, in short, that that's baseline human behavior, and not sufficient to identify religion as a positive or negative influence, in itself. I then went on to explain the remarkable, positive influence of Christianity.

THIS claim of yours is interesting: "once you make religion a part of public policy and allow it's burghers input into making the laws of the land, you either have to choose your sides and your God, or you have to take the preposterous stand that all religions are entitled to the same access to power and respect (you know, the purgatory or PC'ness.)"

Seems to me that this is exactly what the Constitution guarantees -- that people of all religions are entitled to the same access to power and respect, regardless of their beliefs. We're all entitled to vote, to write, to campaign, to hold office. No religious test is permitted. Government ignores which religion you're from. Seems to work remarkably well.

You also wrote: "We have come far enough as a civilization to recognize and respect the traditions and mores of the Judeo-Christian culture without specificity in crediting them to God."

Atheists always say things like this; Christians would not regard what you describe as progress. ("We've seen such progress in an egg; we call it 'going bad' in Narnia." from The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by CS Lewis.)

You and will both seem to make much of the fact that men wrote the Bible. I know no Christian who would say otherwise. OF COURSE men wrote the Bible. But as I mentioned to will, you're criticizing what you don't understand; theology is not so simplistic as to claim that God somehow made words appear on a page without the help of men. We live in a world where the work of God is done by the hands of men. That's part of the design. So if you want to rebut the claims of Christianity, you have to do better than simply reciting, "Men wrote the Bible."

Do yourself a favor, and learn some theology if you're going to attempt to rebut it. Nothing more clearly identifies you as a fool than claiming you've rebutted someone, when you haven't even lifted a finger to understand what they're arguing.

will
"I meant that the Flood story was immoral to teach to young impressionable children in the same way were you to teach your kids that Hitler was loving & virtuous as he, too, liquidated a population wholesale"

Since you keep repeating the same interpretation, and keep ignoring my attempts to engage you in understanding the point of view from which the story is written, I'm afraid we have nothing more to say to each other. But please don't try to represent yourself as "tolerant;" you're completely incapable of seeing from other peoples' points of view, entirely stuck in your own worldview.

Have a great evening.

phil canyon
"If you say that you are capable of determining what is moral without a need for another authority...THEN, do we all have our own ability to do the same thing...AND, who are you to say I am not right and moral...EVEN, if I am a mass murderer.
On what do you base your decisions?"


This is too simple. Just apply the golden rule. Would you want me to kill you and your entire family? Steal your savings? Rape your daughter? Force you not to seek medical treatment? Insist you bear a child you don't want and then abandon it to a stranger? Refuse to follow promising medical research with zygotes because some zealot would rather your children or grandchildren suffer possibly curable diseases to which your family had a genetic predisposition?

Not all morality comes from a higher being. Most can simply be derived from self-interest. Mankind generally does the right thing when doing the wrong thing will get repaid in kind and in spades.

There is a Book. It's title is "Don't Do It, Lest Someone Else Do It To You Even Worse."

Good Lord!
inkling_revival

Now, stop putting words in my mouth. Only the supreme one can do that!

I would never say all wars were caused by religion, just a lot of them. I would never say that religion has not often been a force for good in the world, there are many instances in which good people have used it positively.

What I am saying, and ALL I am saying is that once you make religion a part of public policy and allow it's burghers input into making the laws of the land, you either have to choose your sides and your God, or you have to take the preposterous stand that all religions are entitled to the same access to power and respect (you know, the purgatory or PC'ness.)

I am not dredging up the old "Church and State" rubric... the founders were largely religious men, and their insistence on separation was based on bad experience. I know that you would say (and I would agree) that most devout Christians are probably people to whom I would entrust my state and my children. Most Scientologists are not. Religion is a drug, and some forms are more destructive in their addictive contraindications than others.

We have come far enough as a civilization to recognize and respect the traditions and mores of the Judeo-Christian culture without specificity in crediting them to God. Man wrote the bible, the ten commandments, the book of Mormon, the Qu'ran. (All props to the last, which is by far the most transcendantly beautiful poetry of all, even as it calls for slaughter and promises eternal bliss in exchange for carnage.)He wrote every psalm, hymn, poem and text.

So, we should continue to adapt that great tradition without insisting on acceptance of a higher power or seeking to impose our own interpretations of quotidian issues based on having the baddest God of all. After all, God doesn't care if you take drugs -- he invented wine and consecrated it as Jesus' blood, right? He doesn't care if children die -- hundreds of thousands do in Africa every quarter, even without man's intervention or a D&C. He doesn't even care if we befoul the Earth with our effluents and excresence -- otherwise, why would it happen?

God is a fantasy, and you are entitled to Him just as anyone is entitled to deny his existence. MAN's rules teach tolerance, not God's. I don't care to convert you to atheism, and couldn't care less if you worship 10,000 idols or one. You, however, seem to need me to believe in your supernatural power, and will patronize me straight to Hell if I don't. After all, does a sinner earn absolution if he accepts Allah as his personal savior, not Jesus? Again, it's not about GOD, it's about YOUR God. Which is what makes it all so absolutely funny.

A classic from the moral relativists...


God was immoral for flooding the earth.


Do All Atheists Have Their Own Book?
If you say that you are capable of determining what is moral without a need for another authority...THEN, do we all have our own ability to do the same thing...AND, who are you to say I am not right and moral...EVEN, if I am a mass murderer.

On what do you base your decisions?

Good Try But You're Only Halfway There
Very good comments by several of the atheists.

Slacker got close. He went as deep as an Agnosti can go.

But, they all fell short of answering my question with anything that could withstand scrutiny.

Christians base their moral decisions on a book that claims moral authority and has written answers.

Agnostics and Atheists: Yes, you make good moral choices. I agree completely! But, you make them based on what?

If you say its based on some evolutionary or innate "reasonable of what's best for mankind" type of authority then what about tomorrow or 100 years from now when that decision is further evolved and completely different. If "doing what is right and best and just for mankind" can change or evolve, THEN why is it good now? How can you say the evil men do is evil? Maybe it is for you but not for your atheist friend?

I ask the same question again: On what do you base your morals? What is your "book"?

To be so afraid of something that doesn'
Exist. You got it. You even put the Ha !!! afterwards just Like Charlie Brown when he finally figured something out. What is a belief? Is it physical? No. Now ask yourself again what would make you fearful of a belief????? Could you fear someone else's beliefs? Why? Why Not? Live long and Prosper Chuck Out!!!

Mr. Gordon...

Thanks for the your Kingdom comments...the Kingdom has come with the coming of Christ, is coming in the gospel age and will come at the consummation.

MikeONYC and persistent ignorance
Mike, you need to read some different sources.

Discussions with atheists always lead to the mythical "all the wars caused by religion" trope. But the truth is, the activity of religion that involves war is no different or worse than the non-religious type of conquest, and there are enormous positives produced by religion that are unique in human history.

Mind you, I don't think all religions are equal. I'm a Christian. Moreover, I think the contributions of Christianity to the world are consistently more positive than the contributions of other religions (Buddhists didn't practice slavery, but neither did they abolish it. Buddhists aren't engaged in this world.) However, you should at least regard this observation by atheist historians Will and Ariel Durant: "There exists no instance in history until this time of a civilization maintaining moral behavior without the aid of religion."

We acknowledge that brutality is the baseline of human behavior. And yet, the history of Christianity is largely the history of remarkable men and women taking a completely different direction, and doing remarkable things with them. Yes, the Pope's armies were par for the course in human history. But the evangelization of Europe was not accomplished by armies, nor was the settling of North America. I suggest you read Cahill's "How the Irish Saved Civilization" for an instance; it's a great read, and illustrates my point nicely.

You want to emphasize science? Freedom? Universal education? Those are all the product of Christianity specifically. There would have been no Western science without the presupposition that the universe was created by a rational, law-giving God; the myriad cultures who posited arbitrary or angry gods had no reason to expect investigation of the universe to yield consistent results. There can be no concept of human freedom without God to grant men inherent dignity, and an objective moral law to which rulers and ruled are alike beholden. And the argument that historically provided the peasant with a reason to learn reading and writing was the argument that every man is responsible to God for his actions, and needs to read God's instructions for himself.

I'm VERY aware of the history of man's brutality to other men, and aware also of the fact that some Christian institutions have been part of that. But Christians acting just like other humans is easy to explain; Christians are human. What's difficult to explain is the remarkable, positive achievements of Christians that have NOT been achieved by other humans -- the personal sacrifices, the selfless missionary work, and the cultural institutions that have been adopted all over the world, liberating all humans from their misery. And on this, I rest my defense of Christianity as a positive force in human history.

As to the proof of the existence of God, I think there are half a dozen different approaches that are persuasive, if not positive proof. The one I mention most often here is the simple fact that we're conscious of meaning, of justice, of good and evil, of purpose. None of those things are even plausible in a godless universe.

To quote CS Lewis: "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out it has not meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefor no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

Woffy has an idea
You ask but don't hear. "My first question for you is why do you need to believe in a supernatural entity to do what we already know that natural gravity does (i.e. make the earth spin, making the sun "rise" and "fall")?"
First off for you to want to bang your head against the wall you had to have the idea to do so. This idea came from within you and can't be quantified, yet we know it had it's origin from something, that being you, and didn't just happen on it's own. So the laws that govern the sun and earth also came from and idea, that of God. For you or anyone else to discover that the idea has form it would first have to have originated from something. Just as you can't prove by physical means that your idea to "bang your head against the wall" originated in your own mind, we can conclude that it did because you acted upon it and said so. In doing this you only described in words, to explain to others what is. God does this with nature and only a poor soul in need of much grace refuses to see what plainly visible.
God Bless

phil canyon
OK, I'll bite. Its a reasonable question: On what do you base your moral decisions? I'll give you an honest answer.

I base the moral decisions I make on several considerations. First, lets assume there is disagreement among reasonable people whether it is a right or wrong thing to do and I need to make a decision.

In general when deciding questions like this, I consider in roughly this order:

1) Would I prefer to live in a society where everyone would make that choice or in a society where everyone would choose not to act that way.

2) What have other people said about the act in question. I include religious as well as secular authorities. Which arguments are the most persuasive to me. Am I persuaded one way or the other.

3) Who will the act benefit and who will it harm?

4) What are the consequences to me of performing the act? Am I willing to stand before the world to admit that I took the action and explain why? Can I justify why I took the action to someone it might harm? If society disapproves of the act and reasonable people would want to punish me for performing it, am I willing to fully accept the consequences?

I will, in the interest of full disclosure point out that I am not really an atheist. I am an agnostic. I do not agree that any religion has a concept of a god or gods that I can accept. On the other hand I believe there is much that we don't understand about the nature of the universe and I can't rule out the possibility there is some sort of intelligence or will underlying it. If there is, though, I do not believe there is a possibility that any established religion understands or speaks for that intelligence.

Thus all moral principals - in my opinion - are creations of men. Some are just less well justified than others.

will
I'm having some difficulty understanding why it's so hard for you guys to view an argument from a different point of view than your own.

I can understand why, beginning from the premise "There is no god," you would think the story of Noah is fantastic imagination on the order of the most bizarre Phillip Dick story. No problem there. I disagree with your premise, but at least I can understand your conclusions, given your premise.

So, why can't you understand why, beginning from the premise "God created the universe", a story emphasizing His sovereign right to do with His creation as He pleases, and showing that He chooses to act on the basis of righteousness, is perfectly sensible WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK? I unde