Dinesh D'Souza argues that reason, science, and history — the intellectual tools acclaimed by atheists — support the existence of God along with the greatness of Christianity. A review of What’s So Great About Christianity.
What’s So Great About Christianity
by Dinesh D'Souza
published by Regnery Publishing (October 16, 2007)
Hdbk., 348 pgs.
ISBN-10: 1596985178
ISBN-13: 978-1596985179
“Nietzsche’s proclamation ‘God is dead’ is now proven false. Nietzsche is dead. The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population.”
How liberating childhood initially seemed to those of us bred without religious instruction. We never had to attend catechism classes or miss a single National Football League game on Sunday. There seemed to be little more to the universe than our parents’ rules and edicts, yet gradually, after adolescence, it became more and more apparent that another world — one within and above the realm of our daily affairs — existed. One in which right and wrong were more than legal constructs.
It was at this moment that we fathomed the dimensions of our inner-void. The wisdom and guidance of the Bible are an invaluable framework within which to interpret human relationships and the rigors of life. As adults, untold numbers of the parochially deprived come to look at The Good Book with both a feeling of respect and loss.
Perhaps it was with the spiritually challenged in mind that Dinesh D’Souza penned What’s So Great About Christianity. The title of his recent release is in keeping with a previous work in which the author outlined the positive aspects of America. In these new chapters, D’Souza eloquently and convincingly defends Christianity along with religion on the whole.
That Mr. D’Souza would take up such a theme is wholly expected as he has made a career out of defending long shots. Illiberal Education, released in 1991, was one of the first works to document the politicization and ideological corruption of our universities. The End of Racism indicted race shysters and the pernicious effects of affirmative action a decade before Shelby Steele did the same thing in White Guilt. Therefore, a defense of Christianity fits well within the parameters of his oeuvre.
What’s So Great About Christianity is very much a return to past form. D’Souza has always been hated by the Left, but a work released earlier this year, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, brought about a fury of condemnation from the Right as well. Discussions of that book were fierce, but my guess is that few conservatives will have anything negative to say about his latest offering. God-fearing people of all persuasions will be receptive to his missive. D’Souza meticulously debunks all manner of anti-religious societal clichés and conventional wisdom in these timely pages.
Atheism, seemingly, has never been more popular among our elites than it is today. Several works devoted to the subject have come out over the course of the last year – such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon — and D’Souza does his utmost to deconstruct them all.
Christians may be stunned to discover that atheists, at least in the case of Dennett and Dawkins, have abandoned their previous practice of implying they are stupid. Now they are only too pleased to make their views overtly known by suggesting that they themselves be termed “brights;” which makes the rest of us dim by comparison. In this way Dennett and Dawkins have rendered self-evident the connection between elitism and atheism.
Always serious about the burden of rejoinder, D’Souza is not content to present his case while occasionally alluding to opposition positions. He devoutly analyzes their words throughout the text, and his attention to detail (and mental quickness) is quite evident in the debate he had with Hitchens last month at The King’s College.
Erudition is what’s most rewarding in What’s So Great About Christianity. A quote from H. Richard Niebuhr aptly sums up the liberal “anything goes” version of Christianity: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” How many vacuous, touchy-feely, services does that phrase resuscitate? It further explains why the “do your own thing” message of the Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches have led to the melting away of their congregations. An unserious and flighty God is a fiction, but also one of no service to humanity.
That being said, right/left distinctions are largely absent. This is not a work by Ann Coulter or Michael Savage. There is no gloating partisanship endemic to D’Souza’s narration. The discussion largely revolves around philosophy. Here the views of Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Locke, Rawls, and Mill are clarified and expounded upon.
This book will resonate with parishioners of all denominations as D’Souza never advances the notion that one should blindly follow the doctrines of a particular church. His central premise is that reason, science, and history — the intellectual tools acclaimed by atheists — support the existence of God along with the greatness of Christianity. D’Souza appeals to science and logic as a means to illustrate the rationality of belief.
Despite what Time magazine may put on its cover, there is no “God vs. Science” conundrum. The two entities are not mutually exclusive. D’Souza points out that it was within Christendom, and uniquely there, in which science first flourished. He further indicates that the supposed disharmony between the two was but a nineteenth century fabrication. The case of Galileo was a case in point. His difficulties with the church have been widely fictionalized over the years. The specifics of his trial suggest that his detention may have been for personal and religious reasons as opposed to those uniquely arising from his scientific conclusions.
Believing that God created humanity and that we evolved from there is a concept perfectly acceptable to many believers. That His hand produced “the big bang” makes perfect sense. That is why, as D’Souza notes, so many atheists prefer the “steady-state theory” as a way to explain the universe because it obviates the need for a Creator. D’Souza himself accepts evolution (“evolution remains the best and most persuasive account of our origins”) but draws a distinction between it and Darwinism.
D’Souza accomplishes much by simply restating the facts. We (rightly) celebrate the cultures and authors of ancient Greece and Rome but usually ignore the anti-democratic practices of their citizens and institutions — which differ markedly from those central to Christianity. Jesus’s affirmation of the average person — wherever they fell within the social strata — was a radical departure from the inequitable precepts of Aristotle and Plato. Only Christ held that serving others was the truest way to lead men. Christian humility does not allow for the transcendence of a “great-souled man” over the masses. Furthermore, it was not Christians who sacked Rome but barbarian hordes of Visigoths and Vandals.
What’s So Great About Christianity is most timely as atheists are on the offensive, and works like D’Souza’s are imperatively needed to combat their influence. Atheists are not content to have honest discourse on this subject. Many of them are housed in our universities and see it as their role to imbue the young with their anti-faith. Given the actions of pseudo-scholar activists, over the course of the last few decades, this is wholly expected. Indeed, Richard Rorty admitted just such a rationale when he said that it was appropriate for students who came to college as “bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists” to leave with views in keeping with those held by their professors. D’Souza makes reference to the way this slant has insinuated itself into our culture via the example of a children’s book concerning the Berenstain Bears. A propagandistic juncture instructs young minds that “Nature is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL Be.”
What’s so great about D’Souza? Well, the fact is most Christians are nothing like him. They are not “contenders” of their faith. They live their lives and that’s about it. They reside in the world but refuse to be of it. Believers tend to look at our culture as if it were a tornado which will soon pass by and hopefully leave them unscarred. I suppose tornados sometimes do that, but they also level entire communities. If American Christians fail to defend their values and their tradition, no one else will step in and do it for them. Today, the Third World alone seems excited about carrying forth Christ’s banner. If it were up to western atheists, our brights would auction off our churches and turn them into condominiums. The time to stand up for what’s right . . . is now.
What’s So Great About Christianity is available on Amazon.com.
As Mr. Chapin notes, “We (rightly) celebrate the cultures and authors of ancient Greece and Rome”, but that’s because there – and “and uniquely there, in which science first flourished.” While Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Islamic countries had discovered, translated, and preserved the Greek manuscripts and ushered in a major age of scientific advancement… until al-Ghazali came along with “The Incoherence of the Philosophers”, and Islamic countries haven’t done much of any significance with science since.
It’s true that most historically famous scientists of the last several centuries were Christian, but that appears to be a sampling artifact, since most were Western, and most Westerners were Christian. It’s true that monotheism doesn’t have to be opposed to science, and frequently isn’t, but look up the arguments in “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” to see how it can also be radically opposed to science.
The arguments for God(s) that I’ve seen in the excerpts he’s adapted on his AOL blog have been… lacking. Aquinas, Anselm, Pascal, and Kant – all have problems identified quite a while ago. Both D’Souza and Chapin are in many ways mirror images of those they decry like Hitchens and Harris, prone to sweeping and unfounded generalizations. (Imagine the uproar if one of the latter had penned a saying like “[Christians] are not content to have honest discourse on this subject.”)
A question for the above comment might help him understand D’Souza. A simple argument for God is what was before the “big bang”. Please explain nothing. Please explain eternal.
hvance: It may surprise you to know that you are not the first person to pose that question, even on this very forum. See, e.g., comment #61 here:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/22/the-church-of-darwin%e2%80%99s-war-against-%e2%80%9cuseless-eaters%e2%80%9d/
Or comments #73, #87, #119, and #125 here:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/24/the-frightening-specter-of-intelligent-design/
Indeed, you’re not the first person at all. But the fact that it has been brought up before does not relieve evolutionists from answering the question. They have all sort of dodge and weaves, but never get around to dealing with the issue of “something from nothing.”
I quote myself: “Something cannot come from nothing. There is no discovery, no fact, no extrapolation of fact, no theory, that contravenes that simple statement.”
“Science will never know, because impossibilities cannot be known. It is not a mystery waiting to be discovered. It is not an unexplainable waiting for science to discover a method to test.
“If there is no Intelligent Designer and we need a explanation called macro evolution, then we also have no Intelligent Designer at the point of origin. Without an origin, we have no primordial soup to crawl out of. I really don’t care if it’s not a discipline of evolutionary theory.”
Who cares what discipline the question properly belongs in? It needs to be dealt with, because evolutionary theory rests on the assumption that an Intelligent Designer is not necessary.
There is a lot of truth to most Christians not being of this world. But scripture tells us that we are supposed to engage this world while here and do His work. I do fine that there seems to be an awakening going on in the Christian community. I have attended many creation science events and have found that the crowds are getting bigger. Also the money going into creation research is hitting critical mass. This just means that the Christians have full time paid advocates on their side of the issue. Our tax dollars have been going into atheist universities for 100 years. So in my mind it is about time to have the other side of the issue examined.
I will have to go out and buy the book. It sounds like a good read. I just finished Dawkins book “The God Delusion” and of course thought it was trash. But I have to read the best of the “other” side to know the arguments and tactics.
Raymond Ingles: Gee Ray, I thought I had come up with something original. Too bad you couldn’t see through the simplicity of the question. You depend on science coming up with an explanation for a lack of a creator. I choose to use faith and logic to prove a creator. Faith in that there is a creator and logic in that I believe what I see every day.
Mountain Man: the big bang, biological evolution, and the existence of a ‘Creator’ are three entirely different topics. Though, of course, it’s possible to believe – as Dr. Jackson does – in all three.
But let me reflect a question onto you that’s often posed to ‘evolutionists’: “You weren’t there. How do you know that something came from nothing?” Seriously: I’ve never seen anyone actually justify that proposition, despite my requests for a justification.
Mr. Ingles,
I think I’ve been pretty clear that I do not care what discipline the question belongs in. Why do you persist in noting that they are different subjects, as that somehow that is sufficient cause to continue not to answer the question?
I guess I’m not understanding your “proposition.” Would you please restate it?
Seen any atheists marching through your neighborhood lately? I haven’t. According to polls, just under 90% of Americans believe in God. And, of this vast majority of religious believers, a vast majority of those are Christians. Each day of every year in this country, millions of Americans will think about their relation with God and reflect on the condition of their souls.
Katie Couric will never air a taped interview with a soul and Larry King will never have God as a guest on his show. Yet, religion and a sincere belief in God are as commonplace in America as burger joints and Blockbuster outlets. And, publishers know that any book with “God” in the title sells – and sells big time. Imagine the retail sales numbers if Richard Dawkins had titled his book “A Scientific Explanation for the Philosophy of Atheists” instead of “The God Delusion”. It’s primarily religious believers who buy books from Dawkins and Hitchens – they’re entertainment, they’re the sort of conflict that adds spice to otherwise humdrum lives. Picture in your mind the Indianapolis Christians versus the New England Atheists in the grudge match of the century.
The bald truth is Christians are running the show in this country. Atheists are just another group of minority victimhood claimants longing to be Insiders rather than Outsiders. And, the last thing Christians should desire is thought control over the government and the nation. As Huston Smith pointed out, religion thrives best when it opposes secular authority and secular governments perform best when they are opposed by religious believers.
Looking at the religious freedoms alive and well in our country, we can’t seriously begin to claim religious repression is winning any real battles. And, we shouldn’t try to invent an atheist boogeyman solely to reinforce our sagging faith. We do need to remain ever watchful that our government doesn’t use its monopoly on armed force to repress religion as has happened in other countries under other forms of government. But here and now, that seems highly unlikely.
Turning to atheism, that’s one grim damn philosophy devoid of love, morality and hope. What little morality atheists can lay claim to has been plagiarized from religious teachings. Chapin and D’Souza are right however that atheism is a form of elitism, although that observation should evoke pity rather than fear. Atheists take great individual pride in the fact they can face reality squarely and without the crutch of religious superstition.
They believe in evolution because the evidence is so overwhelming. But, if the hard evidence was truly so overwhelming, they wouldn’t need to “believe” in it. Try this at a gathering of your friends. Tell them straight out and with dead seriousness that you “believe” in gravity or you “believe” in electricity. Now imagine your friends’ reaction to your statement. Maybe we should take away your car keys, or is this some kind of joke, or is it time to for you to take your medication. Atheists (and some religious folks also) “believe” in evolution solely because they imagine it makes them intellectually superior to those misguided religious nuts that don’t.
From their own evolutionary-philosophical viewpoint, atheists accept that their lives are as meaningless and without purpose as a garden slug. They believe they’re merely the result of a biological accident; they’ll live for a short span of time and then return to nothingness much like a fruit fly. For this reason alone they are terrified by thoughts of death. They’ll hand over their money (after handing over yours first) to any scientist who promises them immortality through genetic engineering or embryonic stem cell research. Religious believers will grow in grace and understanding of their place in creation. Atheists will just grow old.
Christians will try to save the souls of atheists (as if they actually possessed one). And, this selfless evangelism makes atheists very suspicious of Christians and their motives; perhaps what Christians really want is just to borrow money from us. Other religions don’t try to bring atheists to God; Jews are indifferent to converting them and Muslims would prefer to slaughter every one of them. Like Elvis, atheists don’t want Christians laying any boogie-woogie on the King of Rock and Roll. So, we’ll continue to hear the sermon on the fossil mount from atheists, but that’s certainly of little consequence in America’s civic or religious life.
Our real problem is that with all our present wealth and freedom, it’s hard to live out religious teachings in our daily lives and oppose secular authority. What Huston Smith described as necessary to revitalizing religion is what happened in the former Soviet Union – religion endured underground and hidden while the old secular state perished and then metamorphosized into a new society where religious beliefs emerged stronger for having undergone the persecution.
In America, religion has historically triumphed over secularism and we care for the poor, we believe in the dignity and freedom of the individual and we don’t allow the strong to victimize the weak. Of course, we’re not perfect individually and our actualization of religious teaching is far from perfect also. But, the threat isn’t from atheists, it’s from those who confuse patriotism with religion and urge us to strike back against an imaginary enemy as a demonstration of our faith.
Re: “Galileo’s…difficulties with the church.” How about Giordano Bruno’s “difficulties” with the church that burned him at the stake for advocating (among other things) that the earth revolved around the sun?
Ray Ingles correctly observes that Christian Europe’s Dark Ages were not exactly a high point for science, while science fluorished in the Islamic world until they underwent a religious resurgence that eventually destroyed science in their civilization.
No one is defending the dark ages. Evil men do evil things, not the fault of religion per se.
Bruno was brilliant, though quite disturbed, a kook who thought there were infinite universes all inhabited. He was quite religious, though thoroughly oddball. What an odd choice for a hero for PaulBurnett.
The original point, that Christianity oversaw and encouraged some of the greatest minds in history, is entirely valid and unimpeached.
Regarding “The specifics of [Galileo's] trial suggest that his detention may have been for personal and religious reasons as opposed to those uniquely arising from his scientific conclusions,” I found it helpful to read Jerome Langford’s “Galileo, Science, and the Church.” Langford rebuts several misunderstandings of what both Galileo and church leaders did and said.
Mountain Man, you stated that “evolutionists” need to address the “issue of ‘something from nothing.’” I was pointing out that, no, ‘evolutionists’ don’t need to address that. That’s the domain of physics or cosmology; biological evolution has nothing to do with it. As evidence I pointed out people like Dr. Jackson who accept both evolution and a Divine Creator. You can have a problem with atheists in that regard, but not ‘evolutionists’ as a class.
Now, you say, “Something cannot come from nothing. There is no discovery, no fact, no extrapolation of fact, no theory, that contravenes that simple statement.” Except… well, yeah there is. Look up ‘virtual particles’ and the Uncertainty Principle sometime. At short-enough time scales, in small-enough regions – yes, so far as we can tell something comes from nothing all the time, and goes back to nothing. Indeed, such violations of conservation are vitally necessary for all kinds of physical phenomena, at least given our current understanding of quantum mechanics.
Now, it may be that our understanding is wrong. It almost certainly is in many respects. But that’s kind of my point – human intuition doesn’t work all that well outside of the range conditions where humans evolved (or, if you really hate that terminology, ‘where humans have spent the vast majority of their experiences’). Heliocentrism was a big, counterintuitive surprise. General Relativity is weird and counterintuitive and shows that our traditional, intuitive notions of time and space don’t really match up with reality. QM shows that our notions of conservation, causality, and so forth are – at best – summaries and statistical averages.
So why should we trust our intuitions in a situation so vastly far removed from our experience? Intuition without testing has never really worked, ever, in human history. So I don’t trust intuitions in areas that are far outside human experience and/or cannot yet be tested.
Mr. Skurka – Atheism is not ‘devoid of love, morality and hope’. I’ve pointed out justifications of morals on this very website, I don’t need a justification to feel love (do you?), and I’ve plenty of hopes, thank you very much. If you really believe that life must be ‘meaningless’ without god(s), I suggest you read this: http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/the-meaning-of-meaning-why-theism-cant-make-life-matter/
Oh, and it’s not true that people who actually study evolution say they ‘believe in’ it; they state something else, that seems to irritate creationists in particular – ‘evolution is both a theory and a fact’. Because there really is an overwhelming amount of evidence that evolution (massive changes in life over time) happened, and then there’s a theory to explain it. The same way that gravity’s both a theory and a fact.
Actually the converse is more true. Studies show that it’s religion that uses the words ‘I beleive’ so much, and kids notice this: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060517_religion_science.html
whats so great about christianity?
i would say that the greatest thing about christianity is that you don’t have to be a good person to get to heaven. you just have to accept jesus as your personal savior and POOF – eternal reward!
which is awesome. you can kill, torture, force your views on others, conspire against the good, and behave in absolutely abominable ways, but if you accept jesus christ as your savior…you go to heaven for ever and ever!
and in that the wholesale eternal damnation of saintly behaving heathens by a compassionate, good, god is so hard to swallow by a rational, compassionate mortal, its a damned good thing one can behave in evil, abominable ways and still go to heaven by accepting jesus as one’s personal savior! because the whole fish story is so absurd, unfair, irrational, and rotten, that over the centuries it has been imperative for good, god fearing, jesus loving christians to force others through worldly coercion, terror, torture, and barbarities to either believe their absurd crap, pretend to believe their absurd crap, or just keep quiet about their absurd crap…
Paul,
“Ray Ingles correctly observes that Christian Europe’s Dark Ages were not exactly a high point for science, while science fluorished in the Islamic world until they underwent a religious resurgence that eventually destroyed science in their civilization. ”
The Dark Ages were the collapse of society due to the fall of the weak andcorrupt Roman Empire to the Germanic savages.
Christianity is what took a broken society and reformed it, taming the savages and returning order to chaos.
In that the Dark Ages were a beginning of sorts, you’re correct that it was hardly a high point…but so what? Beginnings rarely are the high point.
I’m left shaking my head, trying to figure out your point.
Still insisting that evolutionists don’t have to deal with origins? Sir, EVERYONE has to deal with origins. The whole of existence rests on the premise.
Why do you insist on holding up a peripheral issue as the central point, anyway? Whose discipline is required to explain origins is just not relevant to our discussion.
Virtual Particles? Stanford Linear Accelerator Center says “It is meaningless to argue whether they are or are not there, as they cannot be observed. Any attempt to observe them changes the outcome of the process.”
So virtual particles might exist, but one cannot tell. Sounds like a theist arguing for the existence of God. Come on, Mr. Ingles. You can do better than that.
And anyway, whether or not there are virtual particles is really not an issue. Just one of the many facets of creation. If they exist, they had to get here somehow, just like everything else.
You have said basically that you don’t know the answer to origins. Fine. I take the next obvious step and say science will never know, because an impossibility cannot be discovered.
I think we have established that it is beyond the realm of science to answer how something can come from nothing. We also shouold be clear that science is wholly inadequate in many realms of inquiry. Yet that doesn’t stop some from handing down pronouncements from on high like some sort of Moses in a lab coat.
That’s the issue. “Scientism” is the new religion. If science say so, it must be true. Anyone who questions or disagrees or doubts is an uneducated, ignorant rube. At least, that is the vibe that you send out.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Mountain Man – by your logic, there is no discipline – anywhere, in any field – that doesn’t have to address ‘something from nothing’. Want to explain why dough rises? First, address ‘something from nothing’. Want to explain how Hitler rose to power? First, address ‘something from nothing’. Want to explain why the U.S. is so heavily dependent on oil? Not so fast – first, address ‘something from nothing’. Want to tell how old that ‘antique’ table is? First, address ‘something from nothing’…I trust I don’t need to go on. You can’t impugn ‘evolutionists’ for not addressing such questions without also berating bankers, bricklayers, doctors, and dancers.
Besides which, I will point out (yet again) that no one has established that ‘something came from nothing’. We’ve gradually pushed back our understanding further and further. We started understanding how mountains and rivers and forests formed. Then we got a handle on how the Earth formed, which tied into how the solar system formed. We then figured out roughly how galaxies and galactic clusters and so forth formed. We’ve pushed our understanding back to a few femtoseconds after the big bang, but we don’t know what happened before that. Why do you automatically assume that ‘something came from nothing’ at that point? As I’ve pointed out (repeatedly) before, overall mass/energy seems to be constant in the universe. It meets every test we can come up with for something ‘eternal’. Why can’t it go back infinitely into the past? We have no problem imagining it going infinitely into the future…
You state that “Anyone who questions or disagrees or doubts is an uneducated, ignorant rube. At least, that is the vibe that you send out.” As you yourself pointed out, the only ironclad pronouncement I’ve made is… that I’m not sure what happened before the big bang, and I’m not convinced anyone else has solid evidence, either. I’m very certain about uncertainty. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t sound like Moses handing down pronouncements. I agree with you that science doesn’t “say so” with respect to what happened before the big bang.
Where we differ is that I’m not willing to go past that point with my belief. And I’ve pointed out elsewhere that a whole lotta things that have been confidently pronounced to be ‘unquestionably’ supernatural and unexplainable have turned out not to be. I don’t have ‘faith’ that science will ultimately figure it all out; I rather doubt it will, certainly not in my lifetime. I’m just skeptical, based on the track record, of any other discipline doing so.
I’m not trying to come across as superior, or to deride you or anyone else. But if we’re going to have an honest discussion, I’m going to have to describe my points of disagreement with you, and why I disagree.
“Furthermore, it was not Christians who sacked Rome but barbarian hordes of Visigoths and Vandals.”
who were christians…followers of arrian, but christians…
but then the author also made diparaging remarks about episcopals, methodists, and presbyterians, whose god is too goody goody and not intolerant enough, so i’m sure the long defunct arrian interpretation of christianity, to which the vandals and visigoths adhered could easily be classified as “non-christian” as well…
actually whether one see’s one’s christianity as a big battle between the cosmic santa and the the cosmic boogeyman or as “believe this go to heaven, don’t and go to hell”, it has always seemed to me the refuge of morally retarded and mortal cowards.
on the one hand i have heard the argument from many self identified christians (and muslims, by the way) that without the cosmic santa/boogeyman, what would keep people from misbehaving? to which i answer…if you have to ask, i guess YOU need your cosmic santa/boogeyman religion. you are a moral retard and stay away from me. you scare me. i behave because its the right thing to do and dont need cosmic santa’s/boogetmen. perhaps many christians are in fact barely contained sociopaths…? pathetic.
now i see their hatred for the accursed atheist and wonder…what is more noble, the christian who gives his life for others expecting eternal reward in heavenly candyland, or the atheist who expects literally nothing, who gives his life for others? the first has given nothing in expectation of everything and the second has given everything in expectation of nothing…yet the fundyvangelist, evil, sadistic, selfish, stupid demiurge christian god…takes the first into heaven while damning the second to eternal hell!
so…again, no wonder literalist christians inevitably degenerate into trying to force their religion down everyone else’s throats, even if such means imprisoning, humiliating, torturing or killing. the doctrine simply can stand up to neither common sense nor any sense of decency nor justice, therefore requires doubters and critics to be drowned out or silenced one way or another.
and when those who refuse to knuckle under to these hypocrites dare fight back…oh the weeping and gnashing of teeth! then the christians, who attempted to force their religion on others, are poor, persecuted, martyrs because the others dared to fight back…and won!
what an evil, sickening religion.
A couple of things were brought up I would like to discuss. The first of these is our ability to figure out moral right and wrong without the Word of God or religion in general. I have to agree with this. As part of the creation of man we were made with a conscience and that does lead to a knowledge of right and wrong. I think that our conscience is hard to show as being derived from evolution, and by the way Dawkins made the most lame attempt to describe an evolutionary process to make it. So if we start with common ground that we have a conscience then we should fine a reason for it. I tend to believe that our curiosity and conscience were placed in us so we would seek the creator. If one does not believe in a creator then what purpose is the conscience? To say we have a moral code for some things and others don’t matter makes our conscience of little value. For instance, we may all agree that walking down the street and shooting people is wrong. Then we talk about abortion and things are not cut and dry anymore. Does this mean that the conscience is different for different people or does it mean that people listen to it differently. I tend to listen to my conscience and not block it with worldly programming. Others may say that a universal moral code does not exist. To these people I have to ask just where does the conscience work and where does it stop. I would like to get an answer to this question that does not rest on political or worldview criteria. I would think that someone who believes in evolution would lump morals, politics, and worldviews to gether. If that is the case what would be the argument in favor of this position?
The other thing I would like to discuss is the tendancy of one group of people to act out violence. I need to ask which group (Christians or atheist) are more likely to cast people to the lions? I would like to get an answer to this without using history. There should be enough in the beliefs in the two groups to form an educated projection.
Fbaginski expressed a need to ask which group (Christians or atheist) are more likely to…act out violence.
Let’s take a lok at the expressed desires of the Christian Reconstructionists, who are on record as wanting to expand a mandatory death penalty to include homosexuality, adultery, abortion, blasphemy, disobedience to one’s parents, idolatry and violation of the Sabbath, prostitution and sorcery. A church or congregation which does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry, which is punishable by death. That would include the two-thirds of the human race who are not Christian. I am not aware of any atheist organization with this grandiose an agenda. (See http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian_Reconstructionism for more details.)
Modern science as we know it was invented by Christians in Europe during the “Dark Ages,” the same Christians who created the world’s first universities. Science was not practiced in the Muslim Middle East, in ancient Greece, the Far East, or anywhere else. What passed for science in such places is more accurately understood as Natural Philosophy.
Muslims made some advancements in mathematics but did nothing useful with those innovations.
The reason science developed and thrived under Christianity goes back to the uniquely Judeo-Christian concept of a rational God in whose image man was created. Christians have always beleived there is a divine order to the universe which can be understood and explained by man. This concept is not present in Islam, which teaches God is not bound by reason, nor was it present in pre-Christian Europe where the Greek and Roman pantheons were dominated by arbitrary and capricious Gods.
Christianity does not stand in opposition to science; Christianity begot science.
Paul,
Those people who don’t read the whole Bible and believe the Old Testament Laws should still be enforced as described are in my view placing personal wants in front of scripture. I don’t believe this is a large group of people. Now I take the scripture very seriously but do not subscribe to this belief. The early Moses laws were to demonstrate that man cannot live by law alone and only through faith and a new heart can someone be righteous. The first book in the Bible, Job, made this point. Jesus with His sermon on the Mount reset the code we are supposed to live by. I have to say that most Christian churches today at least preach that judgement is reserved for the Lord. That does not mean we don’t have laws in our societies and that those laws are not enforced. For instance, I can be on a jury and find someone guilty of a DUI or murder without judging them as a soul. The behavior can be punished. In this case I am acting as a member of society and doing my civic duty. Which by the way I am told to do. But I do have a higher calling that tells me I don’t stone people for adultery. But to get back to the point, your statement about a small group does not represent the main block of Christians. So how does the general beliefs of Christians stack up with the general beliefs of atheist? Do these beliefs lead to violent behavior?
Mr. Osonitsch: It’s not quite as simple as that. The resurgence of science towards the end of the Dark Ages in Christendom coincided with the recovery of the ancient Greek manuscripts that had so inspired, and been preserved by, the Islamic countries (who had universities quite a while before Europe did). And the advancements in optics and medicine (etc.) in the ‘golden age’ of Islam were, by any reasonable measure, ‘useful’.
Indeed, much of the reason the old Greek manuscripts were lost in the first place has much to do with the rise of Christianity – look up the history of Hypatia and the Library of Alexandria for some examples.
It’s true that our modern understanding of science developed primarily in areas where Christians were predominant, but this doesn’t automatically mean Christianity is consistent with science. Astrology ‘begot’ astronomy, for example, but astrology still ‘stands in opposition to’ astronomy. (Neither does it mean that Christianity automatically opposes science, either… I’m just pointing out that I don’t think your argument establishes what you seem to be claiming.)
fbaginski: Your question as posed is unanswerable. It’s a bit like asking “how the general beliefs of Democrats stack up with the general beliefs of those with no political party affiliation”. All you know about an atheist from the term is what they don’t believe.
i apologize for the above inflamatory nature of my comments, up to a point. my dislike of christianity is limited to its less tolerant, more literalist manifestations, which in my opinion require strident opposition by those who don’t want to be proselytized, and which most represent the demiurgic and roman political aspect of the faith.
the form of christianity which coalesced first in the late roman empire, the nicean, pauline dominated version of it, did indeed include certain aspects and dogmas which would eventually directly lead its most strident, smallest minded, meanest followers to procede to for centuries treat their fellow human beings abominably.
a supposedly good god requires from his faithful not good thoughts, words, and deeds, but rather a simple declaration of faith divorced from behavior (other than attendance to all the form and ritual that outwardly assures one’s sincere faith…). saintly adherants of other faiths go to hell forever. saintly agnostics and atheists go to hell forever…but often murderous adherants of christianity go to heavan…
is it not obvious how and why this abomination of the religion of christ has proceeded to lead to so very many atrocities, persecutions, genocides, and oppresive, ignorant, wickedness?
it is not simply the wickednes of its followers who have corrupted the word. it is the word itself, as interpreted by the late roman political/ecclesiastical authorities that is wicked and directly responsible for the hateful violence of centuries of intolerant literalist christians.
kudos those versions of the faith derided by the author as not being true because they have ceased to eschew humane and compassionate reason in interpretation of evil enabling and questionable scripture. they are righteous and decent precisely because they have abandoned the suffering enabling stupidity and intolerance of literalist scriptural interpretation, faith slaved-morality devoid wickedness that turns one against another and exalts sectarian, spiritually elitest, exclusionary, stupidity over universal compassion and respect.
To the extent the Muslims had a hand in “preserving” ancient Greek learning, it was more as stewards or custodians than anything else. That learning was never lost to begin with in Eastern Christendom: the Byzantine Greeks maintained the Christian link to Athens throughout the early Middle Ages. It was after Constantinoples fall to the Muslims that that learning spread to Western Europe. I guess, in that warped sense, you could say the Muslims helped start the Rennaissance.
ibbleblibble: Your attempt at intellectualism by using fancy words rapidly bares your real agenda. Try to emulate Hemingway’s style and maybe the words won’t get in the way at your effort to express yourself.
As for Christianity, as long as you have been presented the Gospel and decided to reject it, have a good time.
“now i see their hatred for the accursed atheist and wonder…what is more noble, the christian who gives his life for others expecting eternal reward in heavenly candyland, or the atheist who expects literally nothing, who gives his life for others?”
Just curious. Why would an atheist sacrifice his life for a complete stranger? This a completely irrational act. One might make a purely pragmatic case that an atheist would step in front of a moving car to save his own child as part of some genetic-driven biological imperative to see his own family line continue, much the same way those people who focus on “kith and kin” see the world. But why do this for a complete stranger? When an atheist dies he believes that he ceases to exist like a dead plant. Why abandon his biological family and cut his own life short just to help some person he doesn’t know?
Christians (and religious people in general) can give you an answer, since they believe that life has a higher purpose that comes from the actions of a purposeful Creator, and that this existence is a precursor to another that continues after we die. Even people like myself who are not guided by religious teachings per se, but believe in God, understand this. But why would an atheist of any age (20, 30, even 80 years old in good health) sacrifice his own life for a complete stranger?
This is the problem with the arguments proposed by atheists who assert some kind of moral equivalency with people who believe in God. To assert that an atheist — who believes that only scientifically-provable statements can be true — would just as routinely die to save a complete stranger as a Christian would is nonsensical. Where is the evidence for this statement, either in actual numbers of actual events, or through the logic of atheism itself?
And notice that I didn’t have to attack atheists personally or smear their beliefs by talking about “heavenly candyland” to make my point.
Raymond 25,
As you well know the classic argument for atheist is based on naturalistic science. The argument for faith deals with science as well but viewed differently through the lens of creation. Faith also encompasses those areas rejected by naturalist as nonexisting. A general discussion of these views is meaningful to this forum because the war against religion has started by atheist activist.
I was walking in the desert the other day. I saw something in the path I was on painted blue. I picked it up and it changed color, maybe it was the heat of my hand. A lever activated and it unfolded. It also made a noise. I dropped it on the ground because I did not know what it would do next. I guessed that someone was playing a trick on me so I looked around to see if anyone was watching. I did not notice anyone. Why would someone make such an odd device like this? And then I remembered, oh silly me, it was a lizard.
Comment by hvance | November 24, 2007
sorry about the big words. my spelling is indeed retarded/dyslexic, but i’ll try to curb the reel big wurdz two…
two interesting things i’ve learned over the years and which are backed up by figures (google it if you doubt).
1. states with higher average IQ’s voted for kerry in 2004.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US-Election-IQ2004.htm
2. people with higher IQ’s tend to be less religious…
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm
again, someone above quipped that he could not concieve of how an atheist could give his life for others… well, so what? because one cannot understand the motivation of another, such motivation cannot exist? i suspect a sociopath cannot understand why one would do the right thing for any reason other than personal profit or fear of punishment/retribution. i don’t think anyone would consider a sociopath to be on a morally higher level than a non-sociopath, nor would one expect a sociopath to comprehend the motivation of a non-sociopath. so in fact i would say that a christian’s inability to understand the moral behavior/capacity of an atheist is in fact an indictment of the primitive state of the christian’s moral development. this is one reason i find many christians frightening, dangerous people, many a few stepps removed from sociopathy, if that.
but here is what makes literal interpretation of christianity (and islam, i would argue) a menace to all who don’t share…i’ll try to make this simple and avoid hard words…
believe this or go to hell forever and ever. when you boil it down, that’s the essence of both christianity and islam. yeah, sure, one can make a lifetime’s study of this, but i’m trying to be brief…
ok, so a good god sets this deal up, with no proof whatsoever, that sends buzillions of decent people to eternal hell based not on quality of character but on statement of a belief…and if you really believe this, how can you allow persuasive non-believers to exist? i mean anybody that cogently and intelligently expresses doubt or an alternative is a MORTAL DANGER TO THE LOVED ONE’S OF THE BELIEVER.
and hey! its not BAD BEHAVIOR that gets ya a one way ticket to hell, but LACK OF BELIEF…so…since god forgives and all that…
literalist christians and muslims have always been and shall aways be a deadly potential threat to those who don’t share their beliefs…
thus are non christian/muslims forced to fight back or risk oppresion/extermination at the hands of follwers of amoral christian/muslims.
ibblidiot, You have chosen atheism on your own volition and that is indeed your God given right. To try to equate John Kerry and I.Q. is indeed a stretch. You have overlooked the obvious in your attempt at trying to draw a parallel between I.Q. and voting for J.K. Common sense trumps an I.Q. score every time and it seems you are the atypical liberal, pessimistic, angry, and wrong.
“someone above quipped that he could not concieve of how an atheist could give his life for others… well, so what?”
I was the one who asked the question, not “quipped”. You make a blanket statement that is patently absurd. You said that atheists are just as likely to sacrifice their lives as Christians are. You offered no evidence to support your opinion. And by the very logic of atheism (when you’re dead, you’re dead), it makes absolutely no sense to cut your life short for any reason.
When challenged to offer substantiation for your belief, you dodge the question and attack Christians. The only way you can present a coherent thought is to provide a “candyland” version of Christianity (to quote your own words) so you can knock down a straw man argument by tagging all Christians with extreme views. And when asked to substantiate what you say about your own beliefs, you avoid the question.
One more time. Christians will sacrifice their lives for a stranger because their religion teaches them that this is a noble cause, with Christ setting the example of sacrificing his own life. Now tell me why an atheist would sacrifice his life to save a perfect stranger?
You raised the question. Now prove the answer with scientific evidence, which is the only kind of evidence you trust.
You can’t answer the question because your statement is absurd. And you won’t admit that you made an absurd statement. Which answers my question: why should anyone pay any attention to you at all since all you’re doing is just shooting off your mouth?
Note to Raymond: I’d appreciate it if you’d let ibbleblibble reply, since he raised the point. I’m curious to see how the mind that came up with all the “analysis” he produced deals with an actual issue.
Re the great IQ debate.
Did anyone actually look at the source. To do a statistically valid study you need a random selection of a defined population, usually in the 1400-1500 participant range. Here’s the “evidence” that ibbleblibble cited:
1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students “are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability.”
2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that “there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism.”
3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.
4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, “There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…”
5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding “a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together.”
6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found “little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god.”
7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone “reality of god” scores.
etc.
Did ibbleblibble even look at his own “objective” source for his conclusions? Does he even know what measuring “IQ” means in culturally-relative terms? Does he have any idea what he is talking about?
There’s something profoundly sad when a man who bases his understanding of life on science and science alone can’t even recognize the difference between a scientifically-valid study and a simple non-scientific survey.
PEJ, We should all know by now that ibble doesn’t allow logic or facts enter into the equation. He must be related to Krugman.
hvance, I agree. I haven’t seen anyone responding to his drivel condemn all atheists to hell (though I have seen people take understandable pity on someone who thinks his existence is a random accident that will end totally upon his death). In fact, the only one talking about going to hell is ibbleblibble! Contrast the comments made by Christians about atheists in this post with the venom that ibbleblibble spews whenever the subject of Christianity or God is raised. It’s quite remarkable, and more than a little ironic.
I would only point out to those looking in on this debate that there are people like Raymond Ingles and others who are self-professed atheists or complete agnostics who don’t condemn religious people for believing in God or the tenants of their faith. Which all goes to show, the truly intolerant ones in life — whether they are religious or anti-religious bigots — don’t represent the norm. I wonder how other atheists would feel if we judged the motivations and actions of every atheist by ibbleblibble’s rants?
I’m just back in from the weekend, hello.
ibbleblibble is prima facia evidence of IQ levels amongst atheists, I’m guessing. You atheists must be real proud.
Christianity is superior to all other worldviews. Its adherents are happier, more successful, have better relationships, less illness, more satisfaction in their jobs, sex lives, and marriages. They give more to charity, they are more likely to help a neighbor, they are kinder, more compassionate, and more honest.
Those who live according to the Bible are a credit to society, a positive influence, a desirable and necessary component to freedom, culture, and peace. If everyone were a Christian, there would be less crime, more freedom, more peace, and more prosperity.
The atheists I know are unhappy, bitter, unpleasant, and rude. They make it a mission to do everything they can to make people of faith miserable. They have a second-hand morality with religion as its premise.
They can’t even hear the name “Jesus” without going ballistic. Their wild-eyed, hysterical attacks on people of faith are not rational. They are quick to jump all over anyone who disagrees, anyone who dares voice support for faith or belief in God.
The atheists I know are fringe people with fringe ideas. They are zealous in their mission to convert people, but they do so by browbeating, ridiculing, and name-calling. They view themselves as martyts when no one wants to be around them after they engage in one of their frequent anti-god diatribes.
Who in their right mind would choose to be an atheist?
Mountain Man – as Dr. Jackson has pointed out, statistically valid studies haven’t been a common feature of this particular thread. Do you have some to support your contention that Christians “are happier, more successful, have better relationships, less illness”, etc.? Or is that just the Christians you personally know, like the atheists you know? My experience with atheists doesn’t support your reports, so I’m going to need a bit more support for your contentions about Christians…
I picked up the book in question and am up to page 80 or so. What a great book. Many of the arguments and history I was already aware of but the comments and flowing nature of the book is a joy. For those of you who have not read it I would highly recommend it.
“You make a blanket statement that is patently absurd. You said that atheists are just as likely to sacrifice their lives as Christians are. You offered no evidence to support your opinion. And by the very logic of atheism (when you’re dead, you’re dead), it makes absolutely no sense to cut your life short for any reason.”
actually i did not say that at all. i indeed believe that an atheist is less likely to give his life in such a matter…though i may be wrong – in truth i don’t know. what i said was what i said – hold on – let me copy/paste it…
“now i see their hatred for the accursed atheist and wonder…what is more noble, the christian who gives his life for others expecting eternal reward in heavenly candyland, or the atheist who expects literally nothing, who gives his life for others? the first has given nothing in expectation of everything and the second has given everything in expectation of nothing…yet the fundyvangelist, evil, sadistic, selfish, stupid demiurge christian god…takes the first into heaven while damning the second to eternal hell!”
read that carefully and notice how you misrepresented what i said.
in fact i find it amusing that because i defend atheists and point out discomforting truths about certain sects of religion, most people here assume i am an atheist. funny how pride (a deadly sin) along with an unhealthy dose of vanity and rage tend to dull one’s ability to percieve, especially if such is confounded by iq “issues”… lol…just kidding…sort of…
but indeed amoral atheism scares me every bit as much as barely contained-by-everything-gonna-be-alright-religion style sociopathy.
like the warmed over ayn randism of the late satanist, anton levay. the satanic bible is actually little more than a rewriting of the mantra of the elitist secular corporate right wing fascism of ms. rand so idolized by american secular conservatism. sure, he added some silly mumbo jumbo and lots of orgiastic sex, but the nihilistic “beyond good and evil” excuses for doing evil so obvious in randian objectivism are all there!
which in the context of modern american political conservatism i find utterly, absurdly, frighteningly, hilarious.
dully wicked luddite cromwellian literalist fundyvangelist christian masses get mobilized as voting power by wicked psuedo satanic nihilistic aynrander corporate elitist fascists and attempt to impose some kind of obverse democratic fascism on the US and ultimately the world.
but then history is indeed replete with bizarre alliances betwen different, and sometimes seemingly opposed forms of evil! look at the nazi-soviet pact, or how the nazis conferred “honorable aryan” status upon the japanese…
so do the cromwellian fundyvangelists either dimly fail to comprehend or ignore the iniquity of their randian masters and do our randian overmen justify the use of a pack of fundyvangelist dupes to remain in power, comfortable in the knowledge that the theocratic government such luddites envision will have little or no effect upon the satanic aynrandian corporate overlords whose wealth insulates them from silly things like morals and religion.
by the way…you guys should be grateful i’m here pissing you off. otherwise you would be doing little more than slapping each other on the back and congratulating each other about how right you are.
love thine enemy – he is surely your best friend…
Actually, fbaginski, the “classic argument” for atheism has been the ‘argument from evil’, and theodicy has been a going concern since well before “naturalistic science” came onto the scene. In any case, that still doesn’t tell you much about what ‘atheists in general’ believe, so as to make your question answerable.
As to the “war against religion”, I really don’t see one. I do see increasing discussion of religion (and atheism) in the last couple of years, but that’s not the same thing as a war. As has been noted elsewhere, to be considered a ‘militant’ believer, you have to actually pick up a gun and kill someone. However, to be considered a ‘militant’ atheist, all you have to do is write a book.
As to your slightly-recast version of Paley’s argument – we’ve discussed evolution elsewhere. I still urge you to look up my website, download the ‘minev’ program, try it out, and see if you can duplicate the results I got…
ibbleblibble
You can’t defend your point, so why not simply admit what we all know. You simply shoot off your mouth without knowing what you’re talking about.
First you say that atheists sacrifice their lives for others just like Christians do; only atheists do it with no expectation of a heavenly “candyland” reward, and do it while expecting “literally nothing”. All of which makes atheists more “noble” (your word).
When pressed, you then say that in fact you believe that “an atheist is less likely to give his life in such a matter.” At least you follow this sentence with an admission that that you don’t know what you’re actually talking about, which is some progress, though it hasn’t apparently stopped you from offering an opinion on the subject.
The fact is that Christians have a demonstrated history of personal sacrifice that stems from the very nature of their beliefs. You now admit that atheists have no such ethic, or even desire, for self-sacrifice of this magnitude. All of which now begs the question: why raise the issue in the first place if you don’t actually believe that atheism is an inherently “noble” (to use your word) self-sacrificing philosophy?
There is no point. You’re simply shooting off your mouth and mouthing your prejudices again under the guise of pretending to offer some insight on the matter under discussion.
As for this silly idea that we all should be grateful that some guy is “pissing us off” with moronic comparisons that even he doesn’t support, and from this we’re all supposed to advance our knowledge of this issue, how ridiculous an idea is this? There’s nothing approaching unanimity on this subject even from those who believe in the existence of God, as I am a perfect illustration. Several of my notions differ radically from others participating in this discussion, yet I don’t feel the need to insult or disparage their beliefs. I can even have a civil, professional debate with someone like Raymond Ingles who does not accept the fact that God exists.
Only a fool believes that by acting like a complete idiot he is somehow doing us all a service.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | November 26, 2007
ok…sigh…i’m going to try to take this point by point…
“You can’t defend your point, so why not simply admit what we all know. You simply shoot off your mouth without knowing what you’re talking about.”
what point is that, phillip? i just clarified a point YOU misinterpreted. read carefully and try to finish what you are reading before getting all in a huff and responding. not know what i’m talking about? lol…what, must i cite a reference for every little factoid i have gleaned from a lifetime of exploration, education, learned speculation, and research? indeed i express opinions (opinions are not facts of course) based on reason and a whole bunch of facts. research life for yourself and try not to stop whenever some unpleasant snippet of reality interferes with your comforting preconcieved ideo-religious certitudes. its scary and hard, i know, but…
“First you say that atheists sacrifice their lives for others just like Christians do; only atheists do it with no expectation of a heavenly “candyland” reward, and do it while expecting “literally nothing”. All of which makes atheists more “noble” (your word).”
ok…read it again…in context….you are still not getting it…
“When pressed, you then say that in fact you believe that “an atheist is less likely to give his life in such a matter.” At least you follow this sentence with an admission that that you don’t know what you’re actually talking about, which is some progress, though it hasn’t apparently stopped you from offering an opinion on the subject.”
indeed, phillip, i am proud to say that i have the humility to admit when i know the unknowable! if nobody offered an opinion on the unknowable…there would be no such thing as religion of any kind!
“The fact is that Christians have a demonstrated history of personal sacrifice that stems from the very nature of their beliefs. You now admit that atheists have no such ethic, or even desire, for self-sacrifice of this magnitude. All of which now begs the question: why raise the issue in the first place if you don’t actually believe that atheism is an inherently “noble” (to use your word) self-sacrificing philosophy?”
phillip, if YOU cannot understand something…IT must be stupid, right? since YOU cannot understand why someone might be a moral person, even a saint, sans promise of candyland reward or boogeyman punishment…perhaps YOU are an arrogant sociopath and simply incapable of understanding something quite beyond your moral grasp…? not saying this is so, phillip, but avoidance of punishment/attraction to reward is about the lowest, most primitive, least mature, form of moral motivation there is… if you are on that level, i hope you stick to your santa/boogeyman moral compass, although scarily enough, according to literalist christianity, like i have stated, thats not even much of a factor in terms of behavior. its all in the faith, not the action…
“There is no point. You’re simply shooting off your mouth and mouthing your prejudices again under the guise of pretending to offer some insight on the matter under discussion.”
i have stated point after point, over and over. you ust don’t like the points i make and/or seem incapable of rebutting them intellectually, much less correctly grasping them.
“As for this silly idea that we all should be grateful that some guy is “pissing us off” with moronic comparisons that even he doesn’t support, and from this we’re all supposed to advance our knowledge of this issue, how ridiculous an idea is this? There’s nothing approaching unanimity on this subject even from those who believe in the existence of God, as I am a perfect illustration. Several of my notions differ radically from others participating in this discussion, yet I don’t feel the need to insult or disparage their beliefs. I can even have a civil, professional debate with someone like Raymond Ingles who does not accept the fact that God exists.”
settle down, beavis! you just insulted me! you said my comparisons were “moronic”!
boohoohoo…now you hurt my feelings. har har!
but seriously, you are getting way too bent out of shape and its hurting your argument. you should control your emotions better lest you leave yourself open to effective counterthrusts.
“Only a fool believes that by acting like a complete idiot he is somehow doing us all a service.”
now thats hard to argue with…
I repeat: Only a fool believes that by acting like a complete idiot he is somehow doing us all a service.
one ancient tradition might refer to it as “crazy wisdom”, but i’m not pretending to go there…i’m just being a blessed truth spewing a-hole. you sould indeed be grateful, phillip!
That you are an self-defined a-hole I have no doubt. As for the value you contribute to humanity in general, or to the search for truth on a particular issue, what spews from an a-hole is normally avoided, not embraced. I see no reason to draw any other conclusion in your particular case.
my…rather judgemental there phillip…also not terribly receptive to self deprecating humor.
sigh…
well, just out of curiosity, how do you self identify, religiously? i guess you are a christian, based on your anger at my idiotic, pointless verbal/anal spewage…
so what does one need to do to get into heaven, in your opinion? be a good person or take jesus christ as your personal savior?
“not terribly receptive to self deprecating humor”.
** No. I just make it a practice to avoid a-holes, both the self-described ones, and the ones easily deduced by their words and actions (see “Off to the Races” in the IC archives.)
“so what does one need to do to get into heaven, in your opinion? be a good person or take jesus christ as your personal savior?”
** If you bothered to read anything I’ve written on the subject in the IC archives (“What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?”, The Jackson-Carmine debates on religion and morality, and my recent debate with Raymond Ingles on the “True Nature of Human Morality”, you’d know what I believe and wouldn’t have to ask the question.
But then again, actually knowing something about the subject you freely comment on (which includes knowing my religious beliefs which I’ve made abundantly clear on numerous occasions) isn’t your style, by your own admission.
You fancy yourself to be provocative thinker, but in reality you come off as a dufus because you won’t take the time to seriously research an issue, or put forward a real argument instead of setting up and then attacking your own straw men. You think your personal opinions have some kind of magical sui generis properties that don’t require you to do anything other than express your thoughts.
Dissenting arguments are always welcome at IC, presuming they are more than just personal prejudices and opinions. This is why Raymond Ingles was invited (by me) to publish a rebuttal to one of my essays. It’s also why I respect fbaginski, Mountain Man, Steve Sabin, Sedonaman, Katzen and dozens of others with whom I disagree at times on fundamental issues. They show the same respect for others who don’t embrace their positions by arguing to the points they make, not by making personal denunciations and casting broad aspersions against those who don’t share their beliefs. This is how grown ups debate issues.
When you have something serious to contribute, you’ll be treated seriously. Until then you’re just another self-identified a-hole who is good for a few laughs (at your expense), but little else.