Atheists have a new tactic to avoid confronting the voluminous evidence for God: When your debate opponent catches you dismissing valid scholarship, cry "Courtier' Reply!"
If you follow the debates on God's existence, you may have begun to hear atheists apply a new term: "the Courtier's Reply[1]." It usually occurs in the manner of the following imaginary dialog between an atheist and a theist:
Theist [After considerable back-and-forth has occurred] How can you dismiss thousands of years of the world's greatest thinkers examining the existence of God? Your position boils down to "God obviously doesn't exist, and all those allegedly Great Thoughts from Great Thinkers are just sophistry." But if you haven't carefully studied the arguments for God, how can you know you're right? Don't you have the obligation to familiarize yourself with at least some of the arguments before you dismiss them?
Atheist You're just giving me the Courtier's Reply, which is not valid.
Theist What's "the Courtier's Reply?"
Atheist Allow me to explain. Recall the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, in which the Emperor is actually naked but all his attendants say he's wearing exquisite clothing. Now suppose one of the courtiers of the naked Emperor responds to a clothes-skeptic by saying that until he has read the learned treatises by the learned doctors on the exquisite qualities of the Emperor's clothes, he has no right to disbelieve in those clothes. Well, you're just giving the Courtier's Reply. I don't need to read all those writings by all those "Great Minds" because [lower case!] god obviously doesn't exist.
Let's define our terminology. "The Courtier's Reply" (abbreviated CR) is the accusation that your opponent doesn't understand the arguments about the point being disputed, and therefore his position is unproved. "The Courtier's Reply Ploy" (abbreviated CRP) is the accusation that your opponent is using the CR, and that the CR is invalid. When deployed in a debate about God's existence, the CRP is fundamentally the ploy of claiming that a superficial understanding of the arguments for God is enough to show that they're all sophistry, and that God obviously doesn't exist or, at the very least, is totally unproved.
Atheists claim the Courtier's Reply is invalid. But the CR is always valid when used by theists against atheists, if the atheists are being deliberately ignorant of the arguments for God. If your opponent really is ignorant, it is not invalid to state that he is. What's always invalid is the Courtier's Reply Ploy.
And the reason is simple: In order to know that the Courtier's Reply is invalid, you must already know the truth about the point being disputed. Hearers of the fable know the truth about the Emperor's clothes, and therefore they know that the courtier is arguing invalidly when he tells the clothes-skeptic that he doesn't know what he's talking about. But those arguing about God's existence can't assume they know the truth before they examine the evidence. And the Courtier's Reply Ploy assumes God does not exist simply because His existence seems absurd to the atheist. It assumes the point under dispute. The CRP begs the question, and is therefore invalid.
If, for example, the atheist shows that he doesn't understand the ontological proof, or the teleological proof, or the various cosmological proofs, asserting his ignorance is not an invalid "Courtier's Reply." The atheist really is ignorant. But if the atheist attempts to validate his ignorance by saying "I don't need to study those arguments. They're obviously invalid because god obviously doesn't exist. You're just giving me the Courtier's Reply," then he's guilty of the invalid Courtier's Reply Ploy.
In truth, the term "Courtier's Reply" isn't used very often. Perhaps that's because it was introduced only recently[2] and has not had a chance to spread. Or, one would hope, it's because many atheists realize that the CRP is not only invalid, but positively sophomoric. But the Ploy is definitely worth understanding because it points to the number one issue in the public debate about the existence of God: Most apologists for atheism absurdly claim there's no evidence for God, and ignorantly (or arrogantly) dismiss a vast body of valid evidence.
The current public debate on God's existence occurs primarily because "evangelical atheists" (those who try to spread atheism), ignoring or misinterpreting several millennia of valid arguments for God, publicly dare theists to prove them wrong. And when the theist responds by presenting some of this evidence, even if he does a good job, the atheist responds either by declaring the argument invalid by definition ("because god is obviously absurd") or by pointing to what he falsely thinks is a flaw (the alleged flaw and the demonstration that it's not a flaw having been pointed out countless times before) and saying "Nope. Not convinced."
In my experience, the vast majority of public debate about God"s existence consists of theists trying to get atheists to acknowledge some of the evidence, and atheists refusing. And understanding the Courtier's Reply Ploy clarifies the significance of this refusal. Instead of acknowledging that they're unfamiliar with the arguments for God and the vast literature concerning them, or acknowledging that their interpretation of the evidence is not the only plausible one, atheists often resort to the CRP, even if they don't use that terminology. They say, in effect, "All your evidence is invalid. God is totally unproved."
But we're not listening to a fable about a situation whose truth we already know. We're not omniscient, and therefore we cannot know if the theist is a courtier for a Naked Emperor. And since we're not omniscient we must study the evidence, not superciliously dismiss it.
There are two real reasons why most atheists reject God. One, they hate the idea of a God who is superior to man and has authority over him. Two, they assume without proof, and usually without even acknowledging that proof is needed, that the supernatural–i.e., that which science cannot study–does not exist. Their alleged rebuttals of the evidence are entirely dependent on this unproven assumption.
But one cannot just assume that something doesn't exist. An unknown could exist. The atheist must therefore either offer proof that the supernatural cannot exist or else admit there is valid evidence for God.
The number one issue in the public debate on God's existence is the atheists (or, more generally, skeptics) perversely refusing to accept good evidence. So if you're arguing for theism, don't let them get away with it. Some skeptics, to be sure, will sometimes listen to evidence for God with genuine interest. If your interlocutor shows such interest, provide the evidence. But if, as often happens, the skeptic is hostile to valid evidence, another approach is needed. Tell the skeptic he has no good reason to reject good evidence. Point out that he is assuming–not proving–the impossibility of the supernatural, that he cannot just assume the answer he prefers, and that his objections are nullified if the supernatural is possible. Demand that he either find real rebuttals of the evidence for God or else have integrity and admit God exists.
Theist, don't accept an unnecessary burden of proving God. God exists, and has been proved. Study so that you can do a good job, and then present the evidence. From then on, the burden of disproof is on the skeptic.
[1] The linked page, while not admitting that it can be valid, does a good job of defining "Courtier's Reply."
[2] P.Z Meyers introduced it in a blog post dated 12/24/2006
Well, we are up to 150 comments. I think that must be a record. I’m not against record breaking but I’m also not accustomed to seeing this kind of response here at IC. I welcome the newcomers but I’m still puzzled about the reason for all this. I feel the same as I did when I read one of Dawkins books and at the end he made some stupid statement about his disbelief in God. Up until that last chapter I was thinking he had informed me quite well and I liked that, but then he disappointed me at the end. I thought it would have been better to start the book with this position so I could have avoided the rest.
But the other thing about this 150 comments situation is that it just gets boring reading all the silliness. It’s like those other sites where you read an article and then see 750 comments have already been posted. I just don’t bother with those because I know that most of them are inane.
Neither side can refute the other in this perennial debate because both sides will not (and I say, cannot) agree on the criteria for evidence and arguments. What counts as criteria for the atheist or the agnostic will be rejected by the theist, while the former will reject the argument and evidence offered by the theist. In the absence of common ground, no resolution of the debate is possible. Each side just sticks to its guns.
Gestell:
You are absolutely correct. I only respond insultingly to Roebuck and other apologists because of their constant misrepresenting what atheist/agnostics assert, how we come to our conclusions, and how much study and research we have done before rejecting the belief in tribal gods.
They come to a group such as this and immediately denigrate atheists, so we denigrate them in return. This is unfortunate, but the reality is that rational people who sincerely hold to religious faith are more than capable of understanding atheism and are not frightened by disbelief for doubt. For them, doubt and questioning is part and parcel of their faith. It is only those who refuse to question or doubt for whom atheists/agnostics are frightening apparitions.
Real truth does not require untruth for its defense.
Timothy:
Kudo’s to Gestell for his succinct analysis. And I even agree with Ivan Ivanovich, a theist, who, agreeing with you and Betty said in effect that we’re really wasting our time here.
I’ll take issue with Betty however on one point. She said” “Neither side has made any headway, and that won’t change.”
If fact we’ve made quite a bit of progress m’dear. There are a heck of a lot more atheists now than there were 100 years ago.
So with that in mind, I only have one more thing to say:
Goodnight, Gracie!
fs
Yeah, sure. That’s truth, camtimothy.
Except the record here is available to all. Let’s go to the transcript. The author of the article dealt with issues only. Every poster came here to discuss the issue, except for the tje athe-asses. They are the only people who haved offered insult and invective as a substitute for discussion.
Except me, of course. But then, I have not revealed what my position is. I joined the discussion to spotlight the mild autism continually displayed by athe-asses. I have continually pointed out how socially maladjusted the athe-ass posters have been.
And now camtimothy whines, keeping quite in character with his juvenile presentation. He’s the one being attacked, he’s the one who isn’t respected. Patent nonsense.
The only thing left for camtimothy to do, if he follows typical athe-ass methodology, is to stomp off, leaving a “clever” parting shot.
Oops, right call, wrong athe-ass: “So with that in mind, I only have one more thing to say:
Goodnight, Gracie!”
Don’t let the server hit you in the athe-ass as you leave, Swemson.
Mountain Man:
Obviously you never read Roebuck’s original post.
That’s ok, I put you into the “arrogant pinhead” crowd as well. You have offered nothing to the discussion, but then neither have the apologists.
A single example, please, Mr. camtimothy. Quote one time where the author, in his original post, makes a personal insult or calls an athe-ass a name.
I know that offering evidence goes against your grain, but after all, you are an athe-ass.
I think most conservatives interested in the question of God hope to be able to deliver irrefutable, authoritative pronouncements on moral and political issues from what they regard as an absolutely secure position, backed up by God. What these conservatives seek is an absolutely true and certain standard from which they can praise and blame, support and condemn, and that their enemies, the liberals, cannot touch.
The picture of the world as offered by modern science doesn’t give much of a platform to conservatives. No wonder religious conservatives would rather believe that Adam rode dinosaurs. I mean, after all, who can prove that he didn’t?
Conservatives embrace religious faith so that they have a political tool? Too cynical, Gestell.
But then, how do you account for Rangel: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/08/religion-rangel-and-debt-ceiling
Or the Randian objectivism?
“If fact we’ve made quite a bit of progress m’dear. There are a heck of a lot more atheists now than there were 100 years ago.”
***
Or maybe today’s athiests, unlike those silent ones in the past are no longer afraid of being tortured if they speak their minds. It’s astonishing how the threat of a bonfire and a stake or a rack can create any number of sincere true believers. Altho, today, with Islam, infidels (thiests & athiests on this site are together in that boat) better beware.
Mountain man:
yada yada yada.
Your boyfriend’s entire post was insulting, dishonest, and just plain wrong.
I have no interest in engaging with a pissant kid who still lives in his mother’s basement and calls himself “Mountain Man”. A sure sign of “issues”.
Your comments do not interest me. You’re an arrogant fundaloon and that about says it all. Is attempting to pun “atheist” into “a the ass” the best your tiny mind can come up with? Stick to DVRing GLEE and leave the big people talk to the big people. I owe no courtesy or respect to you or to your fundaloon idols. This site purports to be for intellectual conservatives. I think that you are at the wrong table.
Kinda fixated on the gay thing, huh? A sure sign of latent tendencies. Projecting?
Predictable. Camtimothy is offended at a taste of his own medicine, so he shows himself to be the better man, of course. Actually, not. Thing is, his infantile tirade, is comical and clumsy, probably because he isn’t allowed to unlease a flood of profanity on this website. As a result he comes of as amateurish. Quite a terror, aren’t you?
This is also true to form and entirely expected. He can dish it out but cannot take it. So he leaves one last steaming dump, never to return.
This, my friends, is the textbook example of the superior intellect of the athe-ass.
Mountain boy:
lol
laughing AT you, not with you.
May your Imaginary God bless and keep you!
Your homophobic remarks are unacceptable. I have no time for haters and bigots like you.
Gestell,
You don’t have to soar above this mess, but you do not have to swoop down into it, either.
Your last post suggests that a conservative uses scripture as a weapon against liberals, which suggests that you might think liberals are not religious, that they don’t follow the scriptures or they don’t/can’t believe in God.
Liberals are not vampires vulnerable to crosses and holy water. In greater numbers than not, they are practicing Christians, Jews and Muslims.
That said, now that hopefully everyone has exhausted their stores of insults, this debate still has a chance of getting interesting, but only if someone like yourself steps up and addresses the relevant questions of the essay and those raised afterward (they are obvious to anyone who has an interest in anything other than just being combative).
I suggest laying the groundwork for what types of evidence/proof can be explored, along with what disciplines/schools of thought are relevant, or relevant up to what point (science, for example, necessarily has to bow out early).
Swemson wrote, “Your little diatribe is absurd on its face. No proof is required.”
+++
Swemson, if you are asking for material proof for the existence of God, you are making a materialist claim. Materialism is false, and , thus, you are on the defensive. Defend or resign. It is that simple when you lose a debate.
+++
Swemson wrote, “”Material Atheism” is a term that you just made up, and it’s meaningless. Is there such a thing as “non-material atheism”?”
+++
Yes there is such a thing, sir. But, they cannot ask about flying spaghetti monsters and flying teapots because they are educated in the debate to know those pop-atheist arguments do not apply. But that would not be fun because you can no longer insult so easily!
+++
Swemson wrote, “God exists only as an idea.”
+++
Strange you would claim such a thing. Can you provide material evidence for that? (Hint: you cannot.)
+++
Swemson wrote, “If you understood the meaning of “logic” you’d understand that one can’t prove a negative.”
+++
So, you claim that I cannot prove that the equation 2=5 is false? (Hint: you are confusing material evidence with logic.) And, yes, it is possible to prove a negative. What makes you think you cannot? Perhaps then you would have to prove your material atheism, which is false.
Camtimothy wrote, “No nice way of putting this, though Swemson did make a good effort to rationally “debate” you about your made-up term: “materialist atheism”, which itself is a redundant if not meaningless term.”
+++
I will put this to you atheists out there as a warning: if you cannot engage the materialist arguments, you are unqualified to join this debate. Why? Because that is the piece de resistance of the arguments. The fact that you call materialist atheism a “redundant” term proves you do not know the basic arguments. Yes, there are non-materialist atheists, and they are the ones who generally understand the arguments.
Camtimothy wrote, “You attempt to place a burden of proof on US to disprove absurd claims?”
+++
Well, materialist atheism is false, so if you are one, then you need to prove your materialist claims. You cannot, so you stand defeated. Pretty simple.
Swemson and Camtimoty seem unqualified for this debate thus far. Anyone else dare join this fight without preparations?
Alan Roebuck wrote, “Thanks for joining the fray on the side on reason. You are of course correct to challenge the atheists to give evidence for their materialism. It is a question they cannot answer.”
+++
Indeed Alan, sorry for the delay in debating the infidels and irrational evangelical atheists. The point is quite simple. If they cannot provide proof for materialism, then they have lost the debate. They are asking for material evidence for a non-material existent, which is absurd. Thus, their next move forces them to drop out of the debate completely or try to deny the existence of non-material existents like mathematics, which is absurd. These are the bare essentials to even enter the debate, and most of these guys here are unprepared for the arguments.
Materialist atheists cannot win, but some seem to not be able to grasp that what they are saying is absurd and completely irrational.
Camtimothy wrote, “Therefore, material explanations are the most likely to explain material events.”
+++
You are unprepared for this debate. Easy example: point in space to the “material” square root of two. You cannot. It is a non-material existent. Case closed. Materialism is false. Unless you want to deny the reality of math, you have lost the debate. (It is no longer fun for you guys, right?)
Gestell wrote, “Neither side can refute the other in this perennial debate because both sides will not (and I say, cannot) agree on the criteria for evidence and arguments.”
+++
If their atheism is materialist based, it can be refuted. They ask for material evidence of a non-material existent (God) which is absurd. Thus, they are stuck in either denying the branch of mathematics (non-material numbers) or accepting the existence of non-material existents. (But, then that is no fun for them since they can no longer insult!)
Camtimothy wrote, “You are absolutely correct. I only respond insultingly to Roebuck and other apologists because of their constant misrepresenting what atheist/agnostics assert, how we come to our conclusions, and how much study and research we have done before rejecting the belief in tribal gods.”
+++
You are not finished with your research, obviously. You must prove the truth of materialism. Do you understand this? If you cannot, you have lost your debate.
Again, if you are asking for material evidence for the existence of God, you are making an irrational request, since God is usually defined as a non-material existent. Thus, you must either accept the reality of non-material existents, or deny the reality of the entire branch of mathematics, since numbers are non-material existents. Again, point in physical space to the square root of two. You cannot, thus it is non-material. So, materialism is false and the entire branch of atheism that asks for “physical, material evidence” for the existence of God.
Sorry to say it again: You have lost the debate conclusively and completely.
Swemson wrote, “I’ll take issue with Betty however on one point. She said” “Neither side has made any headway, and that won’t change.””
+++
Sorry, guy. None of you have proved the truth of materialism, and thus, materialist atheism, and, thus, you have lost. Absolutely and completely. On this forum, you have lost the debate.
Nick adams wrote, “[S]cience, for example, necessarily has to bow out early.”
+++
Indeed, it has to. It is a strange thing that some casts of mind think the scientific method for gathering material evidence to prove/disprove a theory apply to this debate. It does not and cannot.
However all the insults and diatribes out there from the “evangelical atheists” are all (pretty much) based upon this spectacular error. It is rare to non-existent to meet with any of these evangelizing atheists who can engage this exact error, let alone even understand it.
Aquinas:
You seem to think that YOU are qualified to
A. decide who should or should not engage in this “debate
and
B. be in this debate yourself.
I guess that if a delusional religious nut can be qualified to be in this debate, it is open to anyone. Even Mountain Man, by virtue of computer ownership and internet access is more or less qualified to comment.
So fine. That is the Way of the Internet.
1) Materialism:
EVERYTHING that exists inside the known Universe is either made of “material” or dependent upon the existence of “material”.
Proof: you are made of matter. Your non-material ideas spring from your functional material brain. Without material, nothing exists. Ideas, art, love, beliefs, non-beliefs, etc etc do not exist unless they are connected to something–that something MUST be made of matter. Materialism is a reflection of reality. God-belief is a reflection of superstition and wishful thinking. Materialism is therefore proven true. God-belief is demonstrably false.
Challenge: show something that demonstrably exists in this Universe that is neither made of matter nor depends upon matter in order to exist. Made up gods do not count.
2) Atheism.
Atheism is simply an unwillingness to believe in God or gods without demonstrable and VERIFIABLE evidence of the existence of such a being or beings.
Ancient claims do not count. Bunny rabbit arguments do not count.
The supposed argument:
“if God did not exist, then reality would be different.
Reality isn’t different, therefore God must exist” (I’m paraphrasing, but essence of this argument is what Roebuck offered in a much earlier post). If you cannot or will not see that this is a non sequitor and ridiculously illogical argument, then you are not qualified to cross the street on your own let alone engage in this debate.
Acuinas:
Math is a tool used by material beings in order to provide symbolic reality to a material world. If the material brain did not exist, the sqaure root of 2–or any other mathematical concept– would be meaningless. Materialist atheists do not deny the existnece of mathematics; nor do we deny that math is a concept; we simply believe that math requires material in order to be meaningful.
We do not deny spiritual experiences; we believe that in order to have a spiritual experience, material is necessary: i.e. a living organism capable of experiencing. Such living organism must be made of some form of matter; therefore the spirtual experience is a non-material thing that is itself depended upon material in order to exist. Spiritual experiences do not require supernatural causes or need to involve supernatural beings. They DO require material.
Aquinas
We’ll get the insuilts out of the way first, because as you put it, that IS the fun!
Nicknaming yourself after an early church apologists shows that you are a pretentious ass!
Of course we atheist lose this debate. YOU have set yourself up as judge and jury and YOU have decided what will constitute valid arguments and what would constitute victory.
So why should we bother except to hurl insults? You obviously do not understand what materialis is or isn’t. You haven’t a clue as to what atheism is or isn’t. So of course you decide that you have won the debate because you have decided the crtieria for winning the debate.
Ok, yeah you win. Can’t “prove” materialist atheism. Excpet of course for showing that the entire universe is made of material and that all concepts that are not material of themselves are dependent upon material.
You say that we cannot assume that something does not exist?
Ok, so what. I don’t ASSUME that God does not exist. I simply accept that such a being is highly unlikely, and that the specific claims about specific gods are most likely false. Not an assumption; a fact. If you are a fundaloon Christian, you enter this debate disputing the existence of more than 4,000 such beings, all who “existed” at one time or another in the belief systems of various human tribes. I am just refusing to believe in 4001.
In MY judgement, WE win the debate. YOU are unqualified and are disqualified from the debate on the grounds of dishonesty, illogic, and terminal ignorance of reality. Please pick up your free tube of toothpaste on your way out!
God must be by definition a perfect being.
A perfect being cannot commit imperfect acts.
In Genesis, God is reported to have regretted killing most of the earth’s population by means of a global flood. He signifies His regret by sending a rainbow as sign of His promise to never again wipe out humanity by means of flood.
A perfect being cannot regret a perfect action.
By regretting His action, God shows that His action is imperfect.
By definition therefore, God cannot exist.
This is unbassailable indisputable logic. Material atheism is therefore correct and proven. Godism is therefore incorrect and proven false.
I explained this proof to an 11 year old girl and to three adult males. All understood and accepted the logic of this proof.
Therefore, only children under the age of 11 or those who are in some way mentally handicapped are incapable of understanding and accepting this proof.
Therefore I have won the debate, destroyed all theistic arguments and hopes, and have reduced the theists to the level of simpletons. Since simpletons are not qualified to debate, the theists must now show humility and accept their ignonimous defeat.
At least by seeing that God does not exist, they can free themeselves from the horrible fear of eternal hellfires as punishment for failing to continue believing in a now-proven-to-be non-existent being.
Tim;
It’s pointless to argue with these folks. Aquinas begins today’s incoherent philippic by saying;
“Materialism is false”
I’m not even sure what that means, as nothing he says makes any sense. But it’s clear that he states it as fact, once again unsupported by any evidence, much less proof.
I love the way they (the 2 fundaloons) use words to mean whatever they’d like to think they mean. A case in point is the way they keep using the adjective “existent” as a noun.
“They are asking for material evidence for a non-material existent, which is absurd.”
The more I read of his nonsense, the more it reminds me of the words of Marx;
“Well, art is art, isn’t it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh… now you tell me what you know.”
I was referring to Groucho of course.
fs
lol. A “non-material existent”. I think they mean Caspar the Friendly Ghost, or the emperor from Star Wars. Not sure. I’ll bet it sounds good at the “home”.
What bothers me though is that this is a site that purports to be for “intellectual” conservatives. And yet, Swemson and I seem to be the only people here who see through what is really Fifth Grade level theology and illogical logic. And I’m NOT a Conservative.
And btw, this has nothing to do with belief in God. Belief in God is not of itself illogical, but one ought not pretend that this belief is rooted in logic or reason. It is not. Belief in God has alwys been a matter of personal choice to believe stories without PHYSICAL evidence or to question them and demand evidence.
Are there no actual intellectual conservatives here? Are you other folks who may be reading this so wrapped up in bashing Obama and denying health care to poor people and bowing to Sarah Palin that fundaloons like Roebuck and Acquinas have free reign to write complete nonsense at will?
One yahoo wants to have an “intelligent” discussion about the existence of God, but wants science to leave the room early. Why? Afraid of Science’s excellent BS Detector going off and shrieking at every “bunny rabbit” argument? Do you simply want science gone so that any argument and any made-up term can be offered as evidence of silly people pretending to be smart. Sounds like a party in which the kids cannot wait for the adults to leave the room so they can jump around and act like kids.
It’s 2011, folks. Not 1852. You cannot own Negroes anymore and you are no longer allowed to legally beat your wives. We now have computers and airplanes and the internet and GPS devices and cell phones and satellites and telescopes. It’s a big universe and a complex universe and the two mighty oceans are no longer that mighty or that wide. We as Americans can no longer afford to be stupid, to be scientifically ignorant, to be held back AND DOWN by superstitious, frightened men like Acquinas and Roebuck and other such loons.
If those of you who call yourselves intellectual cannot see that, then you deserve the likes of these fundaloons (fundamentalist lunatics).
Love,
Tim
Tim wrote: Are there no actual intellectual conservatives here? Are you other folks who may be reading this so wrapped up in bashing Obama and denying health care to poor people and bowing to Sarah Palin that fundaloons like Roebuck and Acquinas have free reign to write complete nonsense at will?
***
I thought the theists had already declared victory. No more discussion, the facts are fixed—rather like global warming. And didn’t some athiest also declare victory and say they were no longer qualified to participate? Whichever.
Where are you going with this? Obama? No one is denying health care to poor people. There are countless charitable hospitals and organizations from City of Hope, St. Jude’s, MacDonald’s houses, free clinics, on and on—and plenty of government programs like WIC. What we conservatives are denying is that Obamacare will improve anyone’s health care, and it will cost you a fortune in taxes and fees, and take away your free choice. It’s all a matter of the collective vs personal freedom. I bow to Palin because she’s spot-on. She’s 100% correct—try to deny it. Yes, there will be death panels, yes, there will be rationing, yes, you will wait months to see a doctor or get treatment. You are eager to be part of the collective. Obama blows his health whistle and every good little citizen quietly and obediently take his place. That’s what the Constitution is about–the collective vs personal freedom; it has nada to do with technology. In the final analysis, your computer, your car, the space shuttle are all obselete land fill–—personal freedom must remain unfettered. You’re willing to give up your personal freedom for a cell phone and a ‘free’ band-aid. I’ve made a better choice; you have yet to think it through.
For the most part, I believe I’m an ‘actual’ political conservative. Simple math, logic and history will tell you that if you tax the rich 100%, by next year we’ll still be deep in do-do. The government will simply develop new programs to spend all that revenue from people you and they deem have more than they need. As Thatcher said, ‘sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.’ Then what? Think it through.
‘Actual intellectual?’ That’s harder to define. The jury’s still out. My intellectual degrees consist of a two-year course in building construction at a local college and a summer French language immersion class in Quebec. I can contract your house addition and steer you around Paris. I’m global in my thinking—part pragmatic and part dreamer. I’ve written two books and I write a current monthly column for a magazine. They’ll soon be on Kindle. I’m smart, intelligent and probably have more life experience that you because I’m a very elderly grandmother. I’m also dippy at times, but that’s part of the delightful mix. Intellectual? Je ne sais pas.
I don’t understand much of what has been written here. WTH is a ‘material atheist?’ My 5 senses tell me that we all live in a material world, atheist or not—what more proof does one want? My 6th sense tells me that there is no non-material universe outside of one’s thoughts and beliefs. That cannot be proven. But so what? People think what they think, the good and the bad, and so long as they don’t force it on me, then go in peace.
Tim:
You wrote:
“Are there no actual intellectual conservatives here? Are you other folks who may be reading this so wrapped up in bashing Obama and denying health care to poor people and bowing to Sarah Palin that fundaloons like Roebuck and Acquinas have free reign to write complete nonsense at will?”
Speak for yourself kimosabe!
I knew you weren’t a conservative, but I didn’t know that you’re a socialist who advocates slavery!!!
The usual response when I say this to people is:
“Slavery ? What the hell are you talking about ?”
To which I reply: “What else would you call a system in which a small group of people are forced to work for the unearned benefit of others ?” (Someone much smarter than I is responsible for that line.)
A lot of my friends agree with what Dennis Miller said about being willing to “help the helpless, but not the clueless” But the fact is that our founding fathers never imagined the federal government assuming the responsibility of taking care of the people. And every time you advocate the govt spending money on any form of welfare or charity, you really need to understand the reason why it’s wrong. It’s simple: It’s not theirs to give!
I highly recommend you read a speech given to the House of Representatives about 180 years ago by a representative from Tennessee named Davy Crocket. I believe you’ll find it quite interesting:
http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html
fs
Swemson:
Davy Crockett?? My hero!!!!! Born on a mountaintop in tennessee, greenest state in the land of the free. Raised in the woods till he knew every tree, kilt him a ba’ar when he was only three.
Nah, last two parts probably false!
I think we may have socialism (which I do not believe works in the long run) confused with democracy. And slavery is probably a strong term to use when looking at socialistic programs.
While I do not believe in socilaism or communism, I do understand the historical background and reasons for those two philosphies coming into being.
Interesting though that the so-called intellectuals here give pretty much a free pass to illogical fundaloons like Roebuck and Acquinas, but I throw in one small jab at y’all’s cold dark conseervative hearts and it’s “man the barricades”.
I’m not 100% certain what all the founding fathers and writiers of the Constitution foresaw or did not foresee, but they did make the document fluid enough to conver a lot of contingencies. Seems to me that sometimes, in order to “promote the general welfare” some measures that go to the left of “me first, me only” can be both necessary and prescribed by law. If the document was meant to be final and etched in concrete, they would not have provided for the existence of a legislative branch, or an executive branch to carry out, and a judicial branch to monitor and referee.
All the rest is politics and personal desires and beliefs. I also understand YOUR point of view. It is howver difficult to explain freedom and conservatism to a man who cannot find a job and whose family is hungry.
Of course, there are always going to be the clueless and the criminal. Key is figuring out the difference between the helpless and the clueless!
Betty: death panels? Really? Are you serious? Would you like to visit a skilled nursing facility and watch as finances are drained and then medicaid kicks in to keep the elderly comfortable and active while their life runs down. Kill medicaid and then you will see how death panels work. A lot of folks will find themselves sitting in the nursing home parking lot when their own money runs out!
McDonalds houses? Huh? Those are residences set up by McDonalds Corp to be used by the FAMILIES of sick kids, a place for them to stay while their kids are being treated. A cool thing for sure, but every penny spent is deductible and has nothing to do with actual health care for the poor.
Regardless, I do understand your fears. I’m not against you; I’m more on your side than you imagine.
Tim writes: Betty: death panels? Really? Are you serious? Would you like to visit a skilled nursing facility and watch as finances are drained and then medicaid kicks in to keep the elderly comfortable and active while their life runs down. Kill medicaid and then you will see how death panels work. A lot of folks will find themselves sitting in the nursing home parking lot when their own money runs out!
McDonalds houses? Huh? Those are residences set up by McDonalds Corp to be used by the FAMILIES of sick kids, a place for them to stay while their kids are being treated. A cool thing for sure, but every penny spent is deductible and has nothing to do with actual health care for the poor.
***
Oh, I am deadly serious, dear, about death panels. You can call them cupcake panels, but the end result is the same. I am also, sadly enough, too personally familiar with long-term nursing care and the money it takes. Of course, I know about McDonald houses. Sometimes the best medical care is not in the operating room, but a child waking up to find Mommy nearby. It’s all part of the same thing.
I will also add that I much prefer a for-profit insurance company that cares about their bottom line to handle medical finances than the government whose bottom line is always ‘more taxes.’ I’ve worked in government offices in DC, etc, (still have seniority) and I know what goes on there. Trust your health care to someone who barely passed a typing test? Not in this lifetime!
‘Me first, me only,’ is your description of those who disagree with you, but it is by no means the way they/we feel. ‘General welfare’ is too broad a term, you’d have to read all the FF’s papers and notes to find out what they meant. For now, we must agree to disagree. I do not care to debate it.
I do not think a man unable to feed his family is unable to understand being conservative. But the happy well-fed man sitting on the couch waiting for his next government check understands liberalism very well.
I know you think you are not against me and understand my fears. My biggest fear is that you do not think things through to their inevitable end.
Betty;
Well said M’dear!
I can’t tell from Tim’s reply if he read the Davy Crockett speech I referred to or not. Please read it if you haven’t already. Tim’s argument for “soft” definitions of different parts of the Constitution fails because it compromises the integrity of the document and ignores history.
We easily forget that immigrants from our grandparent’s generation, came here, often penniless, as refugees from all kinds of oppression from all corners of the globe, and they survived and even prospered. Our government didn’t pay for their fare, put them up in free housing, and give them free food & medical care the way Obama did with more than $20MM of our tax money that he spent on relocating a large group of Palestinians (Hamas supporters) to the US shortly after he was elected.
Americans have always been exceptionally charitable, and our “helpless poor” were pretty well taken care of before Uncle Sam became our nanny. If American taxpayers today didn’t have such a huge chunk of their income confiscated by the politicians each year so they could buy the votes of the “have-nots”, we’d be a lot more charitable than we are even now. The idea that if the government didn’t take care of the “helpless poor” they’d be dying on our public streets is simply a lie. But what else is new? Virtually everything our government has been telling us since the end of WWII has been a lie.
In addition to the fact that our Constitution doesn’t give the government the authority to raise tax revenues for purposes of income re-distribution, it should be obvious to everyone that government is the last entity that should want to have administer any function that it’s NOT specifically tasked with in the Constitution, simply because they’re so damn bad at virtually everything they try to do. Does anyone think that the health care industry would suffer from tens of billions of dollars worth of fraud annually if government were not involved? The inherent waste and inefficiency involved with all government endeavors is obvious as is its cause. They’re not spending their own money, so they just don’t give a damn what things cost.
When you add in the corruption factor, it becomes clear that we want the federal government to have the power to do as little as possible, leaving issues like education up to the individual states. Its job isn’t to take care of us. Its job is to protect us against all threats, through its military and police powers. This includes the maintenance of a court system that is consistently true to the basic principles of our Constitution.
America is based on a foundation of individual freedoms and liberties. We’re not guaranteed happiness, merely the freedom to pursue it. But that’s a meaningless phrase if the government can confiscate from us the fruits of our labors. I think it’s clear that when the founding fathers referred to the “general welfare” of the citizens, they were thinking about things that are good for everyone, not just certain individuals or groups. Other than for protecting our lives and our property, all we should ask of the federal government is to leave us alone.
And to Tim, you’re wrong. “Slavery” is exactly the right term to use in reference to socialistic programs.
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 – 2005
fs
Swemson:
I did read the Crockett speech.
Very interesting and also had a certain fictiony smell to it.
Not to disparage Crockett’s skills as a woodsman or his personal courage or even his intellect, but he died in 1836. He served in Congress from 1826 untill 1830. Almost two hundred years ago. He was a backwoodsman from Tennessee. A good man to have next to you in a fight, but if I were writing a constitution or trying to govern a nation, I would rather have Jefferson or Adams at my side!
In any event, here is what Wikipedia (not always the most reliable source, but a good general start) had to say about the alleged speech:
“In an 1884 book written by dime novelist[16] and non-fiction author[17] Edward S. Ellis, Crockett is recorded as giving a speech (the “Not Yours to Give” speech) critical of his Congressional colleagues who were willing to spend taxpayer dollars to help a widow of a US Navy man who had lived beyond his naval service, but would not contribute their own salary for a week to the cause.[18] Ellis describes how the once popular proposal died in the Congress largely as a result of the speech. It was said that a man from Crockett’s district, Horatio Bunce, converted Crockett to such a course of action by explaining that the Constitution did not allow Congress to give charity.[18] The authenticity of this speech is questioned, however, since the Register of Debates and the Congressional Globe do not contain transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. Crockett is on record opposing a similar bill and offering personal support to the family of a General Brown in April 1828,[19] but Crockett considered applications for relief on a case by case basis and sometimes voted in favor of the applicant.[20] An article by Crockett biographer James R. Boylston debunking the “Not Yours to Give” speech was published in the November 2004 issue of The Crockett Chronicle.[21]
In 1834, his autobiography titled A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett. Written by Himself was published.[22] Crockett went east to promote the book and was narrowly defeated for re-election. He said, “I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not … you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.” Following his defeat, he did just that.”
Sorry, Betty and FS, I DO think things through, but not under the restriction of an extremist ideology or fundaloon propaganda. I am actually capable of examining an issue from all sides and then, using logic, reason, and yes science where appicable, make a decision as to what side or sides I wish to support.
The link between slavery and socialism is in my opinion thin. As thin as the claims of slavery made by NFL players during labor talks with the NFL owners (I mean massas!). Somehow I think that if Kunta Kinte had been given a 10 million dollar signing bonus, he would have changed his name to Toby in half a heartbeat.
This is of course only my opinion. I also do not think that the people of Denmark consider themselves to be slaves.
But fictional speeches by people who in fact died two hundred years ago do not constitute the best supporting arguments, especially when the speech itself does not appear anywhere in any official document, but is offered for the first time some 50 years later by a dime novelist!
And for the record, my own views lie well between those of the left and those of the right.
I am disappointed in Obama, but not surprised. He was never really qualified to be president of the United States, but Obama was begotten by the equally unqualified team of McCain/Palin, which was begotten by the barely qualified George W Bush, who would have been a car salesman but for his name.
Regardless, we may disagree on an issue, but please don’t think that I do not “think things through” or that I do not do my due diligence when researching an idea or opinion. I may come to a different conclusion than you do, but that is my right also.
Tim
Tim, Betty et al:
Interesting article today in the WSJ:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/panelist-atheists-among-us/2011/07/22/gIQA4JzoTI_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
It’s short so I’ll just copy & paste it here:
————————————–
Posted at 02:30 PM ET, 07/22/2011
Panelist: Atheists among us
By Rick Wingrove
You know that guy down the street? Nice guy, about 50, IT consultant, first guy on the block to clear his walks and mailbox after every snow, fought in Desert Storm, keeps his yard immaculate, put two daughters through college, donates for breast cancer research and puts up a flag every Fourth? That guy?
Well, that guy is an atheist. Not a communist, never been in jail and doesn’t eat babies. Just an atheist. A 21st-century atheist in America has nothing to do with the former Soviet Union. Nor is he any more likely to end up in prison than anyone else.
The new atheists bear no resemblance to the villainous monster the churches have warned us about for the past 1,500 years. Although a lot of political resistance and faith-based bigotry still exist, atheists are no longer social pariahs. But it took the advent of the Internet for nonbelievers to find each other and their voice.
As a result, America’s religious makeup is rapidly changing. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) shows the country is trending away from Christianity, falling from 86 percent of the population in 1990 to 76 percent in 2008.
Seventy-five million Americans, or one in four, are not Christians. More than 50 million of those claim no religious affiliation. ARIS refers to them as the “Nones.” So, how, exactly, is “atheist” defined? Technically, an atheist is someone who does not believe the ancient deities are real. That describes 12 to 15 percent of Americans, although only 1 to 2 percent refer to themselves as atheists.
The Nones (including non-believers and the unaffiliated) are the third-largest group in the survey, outnumbering Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Southern Baptists combined. In the District, the percentage of Nones jumped from 7 percent in 1990 to 18 percent in 2008; in Maryland, from 8 percent to 13 percent; and in Virginia, 7 percent to 15 percent.
The average atheist in America is invisible. Many choose silence because for most of the past 2,000 years, it was highly lethal to speak out.
But, atheists are everywhere. They are your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, police officers, doctors, businessmen, celebrities and the guy who fixes your computer. And they are happy to fly under the radar of the professional evangelizers. So, when you say you don’t know any atheists, what you are saying is you don’t know who they are.
fs
Interesting. Obviously, the athiest down the block would rather mow his lawn on Sunday morning than go to church and I have no fear of him. And I don’t think he much cares what other people do unless it’s a Muslim who wants to cut off his head. Yup, most fly under the radar.
It’s the dipsticks who file lawsuits to take ‘In God we Trust,’ off of our money or have a hissy-fit if some politician has a prayer meeting. They are no different than religious people who stand on a street corner or get you at the airport and push their pamphlets into your hand; or those who knock on your door and ask, ‘Are you prepared for the future?’
All those athiest lawsuits to get the Ten Commandments out of the court houses are really quite amusing. They were not placed there by any religious zealots, it was Cecile B. DeMille who offered them all over the country to advertise his movie, ‘The Ten Commandments.’
I do, however, think most humans have fear, and a need to believe in someone or something outside of themselves. And they’re taught to be guilty. I theorize that early man taught that if you do something wrong, the ‘gods’ will send fire branches to hit you or floods to drown you or open the earth to devour you, and since such fearful things are always there, it must be something you did. How else to explain it?