I find it interesting that, according to Mr. Archbold, the book responds to the new atheists using fictional characters and events; obviously there is little attempt to refute the facts that Dawkins, Hitchens and others use to discredit supernatural beliefs.

But more interesting is the contention that “For too long Christians have been a punch line for militant secularists.”  Psalm 53 reads, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.”

This excerpt from the alleged word of “God” is more vile than anything Dawkins and other new atheists have ever written, and in practice, the new atheists have not killed anyone while the Catholic Church has executed many non-believers over the centuries.

I call this hypocrisy the arrogance of faith.

This book does not directly refute the new atheists because that has been done in this market already.  See: Greater Than You Think and God Is No Delusion.

I’m sure you knew that being the well informed individual you obviously are.

Also check out Answering the New Atheism by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wilker.  Of the responses, I believe this one to be the most thorough, and for the most part, cites only Dawkins’ so-called “factual” case against God, and uses his own words against himself.

“For too long Christians have been a punch line for militant secularists. It’s time somebody punched back… Christians are always at a moral disadvantage because we’re told to turn the other cheek,” said Eberstadt. “So there’s been a lot of playing defense. I’m trying to go on offense.”

Who needs that Jesus stuff anyway? Throw that hippy under the bus; Eberstadt and Archbold have a different idea of what Christianity should be like.

I caught Eberstadt’s “The Loser Letters” when they appeared in The National Review. They were so stupid it’s hard to believe someone thought they should be turned into a book.

Turning the other cheek? Is that what Christians were doing during the Inquisition?

Wow. In a post that mentioned atheists, we almost went six comments before someone mentioned The Inquisition. That’s got to be a record. Good job guys.

Neither Hitchens nor Dawkins had anything to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. FYI. 

I know lots of atheists and there’s nothing militant about any of them.  This is laughable.

And Matthew,
Don’t forget the pedophile priests, and The Crusades, The Counter Reformation, The Council of Trent, Pope Pius X, and Pope Pius XII.

Come on people -you’re slipping. Here’s some more ammo: indulgences, Marian Idolatry, the infamous Albino Priests, Monday Night Bingo, and The Knights of Columbus (they do carry swords. I mean how Christian is that?).

I mean, what kind of right wing Christians want to replace guitar masses with gaudy felt banners, dancing nuns, and mimes? Heck, if I was an athieist I would go for the pure spectacle of it.

Here’s an example of Eberstadt’s wit and intellectual depth from Loser Letter 5, where she expounds on the conversion of the elderly Antony Flew to deism a few years ago:
http://article.nationalreview.com/360560/about-those-totally-annoying-christian-convert-traitors/mary-eberstadt?page=3

“Of course in the old days, when I myself was a Dull, it would have made my skin crawl to think of stalking an older gentleman to his home and then totally exploiting that opportunity to announce to the world without fear of reproof that he was failing and didn’t know what he was talking about.”

This is in reference to an article by Mark Oppenheimer in the New York Times Magazine, in which he read the book allegedly written by Flew, and then interviewed Flew himself. Oppenheimer established quite thoroughly that Flew was unfamiliar with the arguments in “his” book. Eberstadt claims to be offended by Oppenheimer’s interview, but somehow the exploitation of Flew by Christian apologists such as Roy Varghese escapes her wrath.

Eberstadt never investigates the factual basis of Oppenheimer’s article, she is comfortable picking a side and sticking with it. Dull indeed.

Oh, the trolls are out today!  Come on!  Do you think your trotting out the long overused and the oft misunderstood list of our ‘offenses’ even offend us anymore?  Marion Idoltry, Albino Monks, come on!  Our cheeks have become as leather to your rants and they no longer offend but merely amuse.

If you don’t like us, don’t join us but in that you post your anger here (some of you quite regularly) it makes me wonder.

I just finished the book and really enjoyed it. I am amazed at the sort of people who make bizarre comments on sites and blogs like this. One would think they had better things to do, but apparently they don’t. Inquisition! Pedophiles! Hypocrisy! Please. Atheists have killed, tortured, and imprisoned more people than all the rest of the governments in world history put together, and all in one century, too. If that’s enlightenment, I’ll pass.

“Do you think your trotting out the long overused and the oft misunderstood list of our ‘offenses’ even offend us anymore?”

If you say these offenses don’t bother you, I’m willing to take you at your word. I don’t see how that works in your favor, but I’ll keep it mind the next time I see commentary to the effect that atheists cannot have any moral grounding (which happens on a regular basis).

Apparently the current pope is so little bothered by discussion of the role of the hierarchy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in covering up cases of clergy child molestation that he dismisses it as “petty gossip.” That is, when he’s not trying to blame it on the godless, the gays or anybody else but himself.

Once again, the Catholic Church proves herself to be the only Church worth attacking.

Dawkins and Hitchens are philosophical dunces. What do they know about the “esse” or existence?

I liked the Loser Letters but for a little more meaty arguments, don’t forget to read Edward Feser’s book, “The Last Superstition”.  This latter book is a devastating refutation of atheism just using metaphysics and logic (something the New Atheists don’t seem to understand…yes, philosophy is a science!).  It’s true that Feser’s impatience with Dawkin’s et al bleeds through loud and clear but sometimes the more assertive approach is necessary.

How do you refute something that just says theism is not a fact based on the evidence?  The apologetic method is to make fun of that something.

Is there some reason why theists can’t just offer strong proof for your supernatural claims?  Strong, weak or anything atheist wouldn’t exist if you could.

If someone is an adult and claims to be an atheist, perhaps they are to be pitied and hoped that their eyes will be opened someday. On the other hand, if they are “confident” in their atheism, pity is probably not appropriate. Out of curiosity and respect for atheists who are lacking but still seeking, I read Dawkin’s primary book stating his case. I was shocked to find it one of the most childish books I had ever taken time to read. It is hard to believe adults (like some who have commented here) can say the silly things they do.

I heard the related item recently:  In the 20th century, we can put forward some examples of “overachievers” of Christianity: Mother Theresa, JPII, Pope BXVI. Examples of some “overachievers” of atheism: Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. Although not an overachiever, I know which team with which I wish to be associated.

Interesting to see the ad hominems and the tu quoques come out against the book and the Church.  It seems the so-called New Atheism can’t refute it through reason, so they have to make references to either past incidents where individuals did wrong in the name of the Church (which the Church apologized for) or to rely on tired old myths long debunked.

Why is it the so-called “Brights” seem to stumble when it comes to the use of logic and reason, instead making the emotional attacks they accuse us of?

Seems to me the book (which was well done) hits a little too close to home for some…

I’m not too interested in what Eberstadt has to say, I’m more interested in what her God has said and done.  In Deuteronomy chapter 3 the Christian God commanded the Hebrews to murder every man, woman, and child in 60 cities.  In Numbers 31:15-18 Moses, after the Hebrews had killed every man in the opposing cities, told the Hebrews to kill all the captured male children and females who had known a man, and to keep the virgin females for themselves.  There are many other stories like this.  What’s more likely, that these are the perfectly moral actions of a loving God, or that its the actions of a supersticious bronze age tribe?  Some may say that God’s actions were justified because of how evil those cities were.  My question is why didn’t God choose a non-violent way to accomplish the same goal, like making those cities infertile - they’d evetually all die without having children.  Problem solved.  No, God chose the most violent action, run a Hebrew spear though women and children.

I guess Eberstadt’s wit and humor is enough to distract people from the atrocities commited by their God.  The Egyptian Pharaoh won’t let the Hebrews go?  Kill all the first borns in Egypt, most of which are too young to be involved in the slavery of the Hebrews!  Surely these are the actions of a loving God!  Why put all the Egyptians to sleep, allowing the Hebrews to leave Egypt, then erasing their memories of Hebrew slaves and waking them back up?  That’s just not bloody enough!  Who cares if the passover slaughter contradicts Ezekiel 18:20, which says that sons will not be put to death for the sins of their fathers, and that fathers will not be put to death for the sins of their sons.  Since when has this religious ideology ever been about coherency.

I see, so it’s not that the existence of God doesn’t make sense, but that His tactics aren’t to your liking.  Just so we are clear.

I guessed you missed my question - “What’s more likely, that these are the perfectly moral actions of a loving God, or that its the actions of a supersticious bronze age tribe?”  Are these the ground breaking ethics which the Bible has brought to a sinful and morally backwards world?  If so, its going to take some pretty serious verbal gymnsatics to bridge the actions in the Old Testament to those of a loving God.  While there are plenty of arguments against the existance of God, I usually start at the source for a belief in God - holy texts.

Chris:  These questions have been asked and answered in both Judaism and Christianity for quite a long time.  Maybe you ought to consult some of the commentaries and such for an answer.  Start with a good Jewish Torah scholar, and go from there.

Dave P:  I have, they all offer simplistic answers and ignore the bigger problems of these stories.  Also, most of the rebuttals are for a case by case basis.  If you take the implications of a specific rebuttal for a specific story, you’ll see it contradict another rebuttal for a different story.

One of the best scholarly refutations of the trendy new atheism is David Bentley Hart’s, Atheist Delusions. Among the many deconstructions in the book, he exposes the revisionist Christian history that the mad atheist academics rely upon for their “rational” unbelief. Or, better yet, there is GK Chesterton’s, The Everlasting Man, which doesn’t confront atheism directly, but gives perhaps the best poetic defense of the Christian worldview ever written. If our broadminded, anti-God commenters would delve into either of these books and thoughtfully refute them, I’d be mightily impressed. Dare ya.

Mark: What particular ideas would you like refuted?  You’re asking an awful lot for a total stranger to refut entire books.

Just to be clear, are the Christian apologists claiming that only atheists are misguided and deluded, or instead that all Muslims, Hindus and all non-Christians who agree with atheists that Jesus is not the son of God are also deluded?

Also, I had asked a question earlier about what has Dawkins, Hitchens, et al have said that could be more vile than Psalm 53, which reads, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.”

Chris: I think it is quite difficult to dismiss these authors (not to mention Augustine or Aquinas) on philosophical grounds. When taken in their full and thorough philosophical context, these authors make arguments for the Christian worldview that are, in my opinion, so completely in line with our human nature (gotta know that there is such a thing), that they become nearly impossible to attack with purely rational or scientific methods that atheists rely upon. The deep questions of existence have already been answered by these men and other Catholic theologians, and those answers satisfy intellectually. But perhaps only when one stops resisting and having so much fun defying, rationalizing, and attacking the Church for its human faults, will a person leave off the moral adolescence, spiritual poverty and cultural mediocrity that permeates our times. (Can’t respond until later tonight).

Mark:  I didn’t ask you to try and intimidate me by claiming that these arguments are so complete, that they hold water so well, that its nearly impossible to attack.  I asked you to provide a few of these arguments which you feel that strongly about.  I feel just as strongly about certain atheistic arguments against God, and I’d imagine muslim philosophers will feel the same way about their arguments for their particular God - this extents to just about every ideology out there.  Assuring me that your arguments are as you claim them to be doesn’t affect me in the least bit, just like my own opinion of the atheistic arguments don’t affect you.  I guess its like a card game, we can bluff all we want about how confident we are with our hands, but until we show our cards our bluffs are just bluffs.  Please, show me your cards.

GerryDantone:  Christian apologetics argues that only the Christian worldview is correct, so by default all other worldviews are incorrect.  They do seem to spend a lot of time focusing on atheism, though.  I do not mean that as an insult either.  It would seem that here in America, atheism poses a greater threat than any other ideology, so it would only seem logical that most of their time would be pointed at atheists.  Atheists, especially in America, are the same way.  Their biggest competition is Christianity, so thats what they spend most of their time on.

Chris: By claiming that those arguments “become nearly impossible to attack with purely rational or scientific methods that atheists rely upon” aren’t you really just saying reason alone won’t cut it so you have to also accept “faith” as a source of truth? And by suggesting to us atheists that we should stop “defying, rationalizing, and attacking” and accept truth as it is claimed by those Catholic Theologians aren’t you really suggesting that we stop thinking for ourselves and just submit to the authority of your god? And since your god doesn’t actually exist you are asking us to submit to the authority of other human beings, namely those Catholic Theologians. No thanks.

Paul: I’m in 100% agreement with you, I believe you have mixed up what I have said with what Mark has said.

Sorry Chris. I did mean to address Mark in that comment.

Paul: It’s alright.  You bring up a very good point about faith, though.  Many people use it as a method to obtain truth, they feel that like reason, faith can also find truth.  The processes and mechanics which reason uses to find truth is well understood.  I often feel a good question to ask theists who rely on faith, and use it as a method to obtain truth, is “through what processes and mechanics can faith find truth?”.  In other words, how can you use faith alone to determine which statements and ideas are true and which are false.  To make things more difficult, the theists should be held to the Bible’s definition of faith (Hebrews 11:1).  I’d love to see a theist, using the definition in Hebrews 11:1, explain to me through what processes and mechanics that faith can find truth. If someone could do this, in Mark’s own words, “I’d be mightily impressed. Dare ya.”

Paul:

So if I’m reading you corectly, you’re saying that Aquinas, Augustine, et. al. are not worth your time?

What the author of the book and the article fail to comprehend is that Hitchens, Dawkins, Barker and others are not converting anyone.  People are waking up.  They are coming to the realization on their own.  People are leaving the religion matrix in droves because they see now that religion (all religions) and the beliefs they are based on are made-made fantasies that one the surface seem benign or even beneficial, but all too often are used as a self-serving weapon for selfish, dangerous people.  How many priests, pastors, monks, or other religious figures abusing their power in one way or another will it take for you and all people to see that religion is about power - not about the power of a deity, but the power of men of others.  It is about the self-righteous and the power-hungry imposing their ideals, beliefs, or whims.  Casting off this false system of beliefs opens the way for a new way, a more simply way - the golden rule.  The golden rule is all anyone needs, and that is what people are coming to realize.  ... It would have happen even if Dawkins, Hitchens, and Barker had never written a single book or spoke to a single person.  They are just voicing what so many of us have come to see on our own.

Dave P: I cannot answer for Paul, but if some of their arguments are simply appeals to faith, then those specific arguments are not worth my time - until its shown to me how faith can even obtain truth.  This is all about epistemology, not wishful thinking.  I do not know all the arguments Aquinas and Augustine have put forth, but I do know that the ones I’ve seen actually have meat on them, and are not simply appeals to faith.  I think the confusion is coming from Mark’s vagueness, I’m not at all sure what arguments he’s refering too.

Dave P: No, I didn’t say they were not worth my time. I also think reading the Bible is a very valuable use of my time. I only wish more Christians would actually read the Bible so they could see how ridiculous and self-contradictory it is.

>The new atheists have pushed so hard to make people believe that all the big questions have been settled by Darwin and advanced scientific theories.

Oh nonsense, pure nonsense. You find me one scientist that says anything like that, atheist or otherwise.

It’s simple.

Atheism is the belief / knowledge that there are no such things as gods.

That’s it. It makes no comment on science, morality, origin of the species or anything else other than the very sensible idea that there are no magical sky beings playing some convoluted cosmic drama with humanity as a pool of pawns and or points.

Finally more and more people are starting to understand that maybe the !@#$% mythology of a six thousand year old tribe of desert savages is not only a bunch of apocryphal lunacy but unlikely to be fact and as such should not be taken seriously. In fact it should be mocked along with Scientology, astrology, the Boston Bruins and other examples of people putting faith before reason.

I’m sorry if this is “angry” and upsets the delicate faith of any theists reading this but then again, what do you care? Your angry god will get me when I’m dead, that’s when he throws me into hell right?

I mean if I were to torture someone because they didn’t believe as I do I’d rightly be called a monster and thrown into jail yet if a god does it he’s loving and deserves endless praise.

Gosh, why would I be a little miffed with people who believe that sort of thing?

Yup, that’s a strange mystery.

!@#$% = b@sterdized which isn’t a swearword so moderator should fix that.

Salvage:

Atheism is a statement of faith, especially as you put it:  “belief/knowledge.  I contend that for a skeptic, agnosticism is a more honest position, and ignosticism the most honest of all. 

I’d also like to ask you where reason divorced from faith has gotten us.  The first time that was tried in the Modern Age, we got the Reign of Terror.  It hasn’t gotten any better since.

“What fools we mortals be ” (Puck)

It’s fairly ironic to use the term ‘militant’ when describing secularists considering the church and its followers have been waging actual wars for millennia.

Come on. You gotta give some credit to Mao and Stalin for doing their best though to amass a huge body count in the name of atheism. Please don’t ignore them. They deserve your attention as well. Give credit where it’s due.

Perhaps we’ve confused Atheism and Communism here.
“Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society.”

-Nobody has ever burned someone at the stake because Atheism told them to.-

But whatever takes the heat off the fellows that get away with gang-raping defenseless kids right?

>Atheism is a statement of faith, especially as you put it:  “belief/knowledge.

Again nonsense. I’m an atheist because I have never seen any compelling evidence that shows that there ever was such a thing as a god. Your god in specific is easy to dismiss because as the Bible describes it it cannot be real. Your god, not to put to fine a point on it, is quite mad and I somehow doubt a creature of such unbridled insanity could create a universe.

>I contend that for a skeptic, agnosticism is a more honest position, and ignosticism the most honest of all.

Nope, that’s like being a bit pregnant believing a bit of magic. If you believe in the supernatural than you believe anything is possible and while that’s a fine message for a children’s show reality is a bit more demanding.

>I’d also like to ask you where reason divorced from faith has gotten us. 

Uh, look around you? Have you noticed that with the drop of the power of the church human beings are living longer healthier lives? When science finally asserted itself some 300 years ago the progress we’ve made has been steady and for the most part good.

That’s because instead of saying “God did it” we’ve been looking for the real answers and they have been as spectacular as they have been beneficial.

In short, how many space programs has the Vatican launched? They cure any disease in the last 2,000 years? What medical breakthrough has the Pope come up with that’s saved the lives of countless children?

Well, maybe if they pray to your god for another 2,000 years something will come along.

>The first time that was tried in the Modern Age, we got the Reign of Terror.

Ah yes, now that is an example of secularism gone wild. Cannot dispute that they were some crazy atheists that hijacked the French Revolution for a few years and murdered countless people. Heck they even tried to rename the months of the year because they were named after Roman gods.

Now shall we compare that one instance with say the 100 Years War? The 8 Wars of Religion during the Reformation? The St Bartholomew Day Massacre?  The Crusades? The Vatican’s hand in the genocide of the American Natives both North and South? The cozy relationship the Vatican had with Nazi Germany, a state like all the states in Europe, that was Christian? Lead by a man raised as a Catholic who wrote that he was being directed by your god?

And no, Stalin and Mao did not kill in the name of atheism, they were communists, the revolutions were communist, they killed people for not being communistic. Atheism was put in place because they did not want to share power with the church. Yes they were atheists but that really wasn’t their focus and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

And here’s the thing, atheism doesn’t preach any morality, it doesn’t do anything except say there are no such things as gods. Your religion on the other hand preaches be good and yet there isn’t a part of Christian history that isn’t slicked with blood.

How did Christianity come to the forefront of Roman religion? Why with a nasty civil war of course! Tell me, was that Jesus’ plan all along?

>It hasn’t gotten any better since.

LOL! You don’t know what you’re talking about, you really think life isn’t better since the French Revolution? Really? Do you have children? How many did you lose to pox? How many to starvation? Your water clean? Your food healthy? Well thank science for that, all your priests did was pray and bury the dead muttering how your god works in mysterious ways.

But hey if you really want to return to those good old days go join the Amish.

Salvage, I see that you are indeed a fundamentalist atheist.  Agnosticism acknowledges doubt on the matter of a deity (and I’m talking more of a generic Supreme Being/Prime Mover unaffiliated with any religion), and ignosticism wishes to define what God is before talking about belief, with the possibility that there is no concrete definition.  You reject both stances.  Hence, I restate that yours is based on belief and a kind of faith.

I also contend that technological advances would have occurred anyway.  Contrary to what you may believe, the Christian West is the one place where science has flourished, compared to other parts of the world.  The monasteries preserved knowledge of all kinds and even introduced some innovations.  The father of modern chemistry was Albertus Magnus, a Dominican.  Newton considered himself more a theologian than a scientist.  Pasteur’s faith did not interfere with his discoveries.  Grigor Mendel, the father of genetics, did his work in the gardens of his monastery. So much for priests just “praying and muttering”. I will even throw in Albert Einstein, who was not an observant Jew, but saw the hand of the Creator in the universe.

And where do I begin with your tired laundry list of accusations? The 30 years war may have started over religion, but just turned out to be another European turf war (which was the 100 Years’ War from the start).  The Crusades may not have been carried out well, but I think the world would have been better off had Islam been eliminated or permanently crippled.  As far as the Church and Native Americans, I will point out that the defender of the Aztecs was a Franciscan Friar, and the Jesuits did what they could in South America to protect the indigenous peoples there (see the movie “the Mission”).  And the whole Pope-Nazi thing has been refuted simply by reading the historical accounts of the day, and in the present time by many, including a good number of Jews.  I’ll even be helpful and bring up the Inquisition, which had more safeguards in it than the civil system of its time, and released to the State a rather small number of people.  The biggie was the Albigensians, who were a clear threat to the civil disorder.  And I will acknowledge that the Spanish Inquisition was a rogue operation,done against the express wishes of the Popes, and having more to do with the paranoia of the Spanish State than with the Church.

And yes, Hitler was raised Catholic, but he rejected his faith very early on. As it is, bringing that up is akin to blaming Orthodoxy for Lenin and Stalin, Buddhism for Mao and Pol Pot, and Judaism for Marx.

Soon I suppose we’ll be using the already rebutted claim that Darwin was a Christian too?

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” - Adolf Hitler

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” -Albert Einstein

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” -Albert Einstein

Dr. Palermo:

Hitler may or may not have believed in God, but he was certainly not a practicing Catholic.

And I did not claim that Einstein was a believer in a personal God.  I know that.  But he did believe in a Prime Mover, making him more of a Deist than anything.

Faith is a grace..All of the greatest minds of the world are not necessarily equipped with the presence of grace. That is the fact,,whether YOU like it, or not..! Put that in your pipe and smoke it..! Kapish..?

Dave P: Einstein believed in a prime mover? What is your source?

Whether Hitler was a practicing Catholic or not (which he was at very least for the appearance sake) the fact remains that he used Catholicism as a tool to motivate his followers.
The Holocaust for many was a religious war, persecuting the Jewish people over the alleged death of Jesus.

The stuff a lot of you are smokin’ must be good stuff..It is sure giving you some dreams..!

T(reply to Salvage, cont’)You also create a false dichotomy between science and Christianity.  I’ve already cited some examples of religious institutions and individuals contributing to modern science (keep in mind that the Church founded or was an important component to the universities in the Middle Ages). And I will restate that it is because of Christianity that the spirit of scientific inquiry could flourish.  For even as we Christians can still say, “God did it”, we can still explore the laws of nature as the Creator gave them.  Everywhere else in the world, scientific inquiry was stymied by ideology (Islam being a big reason throughout, and Confucianism stopping Chinese technological advances), or otherwise neglected.

I can hear you saying,“GALILEO!”  Yes, that could have been handled better.  But Galileo’s ego was a big factor as well.  He had a sizable number of allies in the Church, and those willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But he alienated them all.  On the other hand, Kepler, whose theories were more radical than Galileo’s (and actually right), found refuge with the Jesuits when his Protestant fellows persecuted him.

You pit technological advances against Christianity.  Again, I contend that technology would have advanced anyway.  But secularism has, on the whole, made people unhappier.  “Reason” was a tenet of the French Revolution.  It led to the Reign of Terror, Napoleon, and war and misery throughout Europe.  Darwin’s theories (and yes, I think evolution is the best explanation for certain things, and I interpret Genesis allegorically) were also the foundation for modern racism, declaring whole groups of people “inferior” based on scientific priciples.  I could just as easily blame Darwin for the actions of Cecil Rhodes and other colonialists who scorned the idea of a black man being made in God’s image, considering them no better than sophisticated apes.  Or Margaret Sanger, who wished to decimate “inferior races” with their own cooperation. 

You consider atheism to be an unimportant tenet of Communism.  On the contrary, it is an essential part of it, as there are no gods but the State and those objects appointed worthy of veneration by the same.  And in these atheistic states which worship science and technology, the environment has been ravaged, infant mortality rates are higher, lifespans are shorter, people have starved, and those who have not starved are malnourished.  The fallout still continues in many of the countries blighted by socialism.

Enough for one night on this, as it’s getting late where I am.

I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. - Albert Einstein.

@ Dave P.
“And I did not claim that Einstein was a believer in a personal God.  I know that.  But he did believe in a Prime Mover, making him more of a Deist than anything.”
Are you certain about this? Also, I would be interested to know at what point this belief came into play, because for most of his life, Einstein believed in an eternal universe, and thus one that was devoid of the ‘need’ for a prime mover.

“scientific inquiry was stymied by ideology (Islam being a big reason throughout”
Lets not be too harsh on the Muslims of old here, They saved many great works of philosophy being destroyed by the Christians, not to mention that we wouldn’t be where we are today in science or mathematics without their ancient insight.
“You consider atheism to be an unimportant tenet of Communism.  On the contrary, it is an essential part of it, as there are no gods but the State and those objects appointed worthy of veneration by the same.  And in these atheistic states which worship science and technology, the environment has been ravaged, infant mortality rates are higher, lifespans are shorter, people have starved, and those who have not starved are malnourished.  The fallout still continues in many of the countries blighted by socialism.”
The beauty of atheism is also its curse. When one is free to form their own philosophical outlook on life, there is no guarantee that they will follow any one path. So while atheism can lead to communism, n this regard it can also lead to any number of other, more desirable, outcomes.
As for worshiping science and technology, perhaps you should look into the way science was used in communist countries before you start saying they venerated it; they made a mockery out of true scientific ideals in many cases.
Also, look at countries with high percentages of atheists, such as Sweden, and then tell me that it leads directly to the ills you listed.
There is a very big difference between communism and atheism, and to link them in such a way has all the virtues of linking Christianity with dictatorships.

> I see that you are indeed a fundamentalist atheist. 

You still don’t get it do you? I need you to focus on what I’m saying, please, if you ignore everything else absorb this:

There are no such things as leprechauns.

Now, do you agree or disagree? It doesn’t matter but let’s say that you agree with me. Now what if some Irish guy pushed you and asked “Well, do you believe in them a little bit? That there is slightly a chance that there are wee magic folks who will give a pot of gold to anyone who catches them?” What would you say?

That there’s a chance there might be such a creature that does this sort of thing?

I’d like to think you’d stick to your original reply.

Now, how can there be degrees of disbelief? How can there possibly be a conservative atheist, a liberal reform atheist, an ultra orthodox or any other kind.

No gods, that’s it, it’s perfectly simple, totally binary and as such cannot be measured by anything more than a 1 or a 0.

Agnosticism is people who have not given the subject near enough thought. They of course have a right to those beliefs but I give them as much credit as I do those who think distant balls of exploding gas and gravity determine if they’ll get that job at Arby’s.

>I also contend that technological advances would have occurred anyway. 
Oh, so it’s just a complete coincidence that with the collapse and splintering of the Roman Catholic Europe that gave birth to the Enlightenment science was finally able to advance without the inconvenience of being called a witch and being burnt at the stake.

And today, the less religion a country has the better off economically and socially they are, check it out, it’s pretty clear that when Church isn’t kept out of State life can get pretty grim.

>Contrary to what you may believe, the Christian West is the one place where science has flourished, compared to other parts of the world. 

Absolute geocentric self-serving nonsense. The Arabs did amazing things with math, the Egyptians built impossible structures and invented language and Greeks figured out the world was round before anyone had even heard of the Jews and their weird one god.

The Vatican despised science because they wanted to be the alpha and omega of authority on all matters in nature and the cosmos. Anything that challenged that power was crushed. This was what held humanity back for so long and it wasn’t until that power was wrested away that we got cures for sickness rather than some fool in a goofy hat begging a sky god to help out.

To be certain there were many great minds that advanced science that were theists, so what? They didn’t know enough at the time to know better and this cannot be stressed enough, the religious establishment was powerful, crossing them dangerous.

Just ask Jesus.

>The 30 years war may have started over religion, but just turned out to be another European turf war (which was the 100 Years’ War from the start).

Well that’s a grotesque oversimplification of a great many things but let’s for the sake of argument say its true enough. So what? Your religion fractured in a civil war; say was that part of Jesus’ plan? To set his followers against each other? Which side do you think he cheered?

> The Crusades may not have been carried out well, but I think the world would have been better off had Islam been eliminated or permanently crippled.

Yes! They are evil and must be all killed! Muslims have evil DNA, so they all need to die!

And this is where I stop having any respect for you and your opinion, you are clearly a moron.

The Crusades was a war crime, it’s pretty much that simple. Europe invaded the Middle East on the stupidest of pretenses (Our god done told us to!) and the death toll incalculable and we are today still enjoying the fruits of those adventures.

Again, I ask, all part of your god’s crazy plan?

I have seen The Mission and it is one of the greatest movies ever made, in fact after this I’m going to watch it, haven’t seen it in too long.

And yes there are theists throughout history that have put their lives on the line for their faith and others and as such paid dearly. For them I have nothing but admiration and respect and I wonder if I would be so brave. But I would still think them delusional for thinking all this has to do with any sort of god. I would tell them that they are brave, no supernatural needed, all them.

And you know nothing of the history of the Inquisitions, more safeguards, oh please read more than one book.

And no, Hitler did no reject his faith early on, that is a lie, because you are a liar or because you are ignorant I don’t know or care. The Nazi oath for both soldiers and civil service:

I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Leader of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.

I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to Adolf Hitler, leader of the German state and people, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfill my official duties, so help me God.

Now, what god do you think they were talking about there? Ya think it was the Jewish one? The Buddhist one? I’m pretty sure it was the Catholic one and I say this because Germany was indeed a Catholic state, the southern parts to be sure but the whole place quite and firmly Christian.

So Hitler rejected his faith but still had his men swear to his god? And the Vatican was his ally let’s not forget, what a strange thing for them to team up if Hitler wasn’t into Jesus.

Now, I’m done with you, anyone who suggests that a whole people should have “been eliminated” is clearly either a monster or an idiot or probably both so go away.

@ salvage

While i agree in some sense that disbelief is a yes or no question, i still think you can be both agnostic and an atheist. I am an atheist, in that i lack any belief in god/gods, but i am agnostic in that i dont believe that i can say that there no god or gods with 100% certainty. Much like i cannot say with 100% certainty that i am actually a person on earth ion 2010, and not a brain floating in a jar in the year 3242, who simply think s it is 2010.

So a persons belief in a god can be a yes or no question, but their certainty of their answer is where the agnosticism lies. At least thats what i think.

And yeah, when someone talks of wishing that Islam had been eliminated, i too feel the shiver up my spine.

matt: “Come on. You gotta give some credit to Mao and Stalin for doing their best though to amass a huge body count in the name of atheism. Please don’t ignore them. They deserve your attention as well. Give credit where it’s due.”

While I was aware that both Mao and Stalin were mass murders, I was not aware that they murdered people “in the name of atheism”.  That’s a pretty big claim, do you have any evidence to back it up?  There is a difference between being a bad person who kills people and who just so happens to be an atheist, and a bad person who kills people in the name of his atheism.  Seeing how often this item is brought up, it seems the theists don’t understand this very simple concept.

Mia: “Faith is a grace..All of the greatest minds of the world are not necessarily equipped with the presence of grace. That is the fact,,whether YOU like it, or not..! Put that in your pipe and smoke it..! Kapish..?”

While there are many words I would use to describe faith, graceful isn’t one of them.  There is nothing graceful about wishful thinking.  Faith is an unreasonable belief in something.  I choose the word “unreasonable” purposefully.  For if you actually had good reason to believe in something you wouldn’t need faith.

salvage: “No gods, that’s it, it’s perfectly simple, totally binary and as such cannot be measured by anything more than a 1 or a 0.

Agnosticism is people who have not given the subject near enough thought. They of course have a right to those beliefs but I give them as much credit as I do those who think distant balls of exploding gas and gravity determine if they’ll get that job at Arby’s.”

This is incorrect, agnosticism by definition is someone who is not sure that God exists.  I am an agnostic atheist, in that I lack a belief in God (atheist) but I do not claim to know for sure that a God doesn’t exist (agnostic).  You have two different classes when it comes to religious belief, theist and atheist - which deals with *belief*, and agnostic and gnostic - which deals with *knowledge*.  Belief claims are different from knowledge claims.  Atheism (nor theism for that matter) and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms.

Mathew: “While i agree in some sense that disbelief is a yes or no question, i still think you can be both agnostic and an atheist. I am an atheist, in that i lack any belief in god/gods, but i am agnostic in that i dont believe that i can say that there no god or gods with 100% certainty.”

Bingo :)  I am an agnostic atheist as well!

Well, this sure has taken off, and mostly from those confident atheists who for some reason seek eternal vengeance upon someone who obviously doesn’t even exist. Lots of time and thought has been spent in disproving some old fantastic tale by those who, without some clever revisionist history, seem willing to sacrifice a few million unnecessary bits of humanity in order to prove the non-existence of God. Interesting. “Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.” (GKC).
Chris: No debating tactics from me. Really, things should be taken in their full context for proper understanding. That’s why Catholics do not use a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Single verses without context lead to too many problems. So Catholics do the reasonable thing and approach the Bible as any great piece of writing should be read: in an historical sense, in the literal sense, allegorically, anagogically, morally, and spiritually and always in full context with the help of an authoritative body. Good writers should also always be read in full context.
Anyway, you asked for some particular ideas that either Hart or Chesterton use in their arguments. They both expose the reality that deep faithfulness to dogmas is equally necessary for both believers and unbelievers, and that the dogmas of the materialists/pragmatists/mechanical universe adherents/freethinkers/evolutionists/determinists/atheists… are destructive, enslaving, limiting, abnormal and, in some sense, insane. 
Chesterton says that religious disbelief occurs not because a man’s free thought leads to unbelief, but rather that his very strict and dogmatic materialism demands that he not believe. Their doubts and denials require a deep and sincere faith in a fixed fate and the incurable routine of the universe:
“What the denouncer of dogma really means is not that dogma is bad; but rather that dogma is too good to be true. That is, he means that dogma is too liberal to be likely. Dogma gives man too much freedom when it permits him to fall. Dogma gives even God too much freedom when it permits him to die. That is what the intelligent sceptics ought to say; and it is not in the least my intention to deny that there is something to be said for it. They mean that the universe is itself a universal prison; that existence itself is a limitation and a control; and it is not for nothing that they call causation a chain. In a word, they mean quite simply that they cannot believe these things; not in the least that they are unworthy of belief. We say, not lightly, but very literally, that the truth has made us free. They say that it makes us so free that it cannot be the truth. To them it is like believing in fairyland to believe in such freedom as we enjoy. It is like believing in men with wings to entertain the fancy of men with wills. It is like accepting a fable about a squirrel in conversation with a mountain to believe in a man who is free to ask or a God who is free to answer. This is a manly and a rational negation for which I for one shall always show respect. But I decline to show any respect for those who first of all clip the wings and cage the squirrel, rivet the chains and refuse the freedom, close all the doors of the cosmic prison on us with a clang of eternal iron, tell us that our emancipation is a dream and our dungeon a necessity; and then calmly turn around and tell us they have a freer thought and a more liberal theology.”
In Orthodoxy, Chesterton explains that it is the not the madman who has lost his reason. “It is the madman who has lost everything except his reason.” Also, “For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than themselves. A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist. ... The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. ... But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person before mentioned is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have doubts.”
Chesterton’s approach is poetic and romantic. He says that only Christianity, among all religions, (atheism being one), has granted man a real romance to the world. This has allowed the two halves of the brain to finally touch, lest the brain of man remain cloven and double, “one lobe of it dreaming impossible dreams and the other repeating invariable calculations. The picture-makers would have remained forever painting the portrait of nobody. The sages would have remained forever adding up numerals that came to nothing. It was this abyss that nothing but an incarnation could cover.”
Finally, from Chesterton (there are volumes more):
“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas…for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”
“There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life.”
“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.”
“I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification.”
“We are fighting about God; there can be nothing so important as that.”

Now, Hart is more direct: “Materialism is not a fact of experience or a deduction of logic; it is a metaphysical prejudice, nothing more, and one that is arguably more irrational than almost any other. In general, the unalterably convinced materialist is a kind of childishly complacent fundamentalist, so fervently, unreflectively, and rapturously commited to the materialist vision of reality that if he or she should encounter any problem—logical or experiential—that might call its premises into question, or even merely encounter a limit beyond which those premises lose their explanatory power, he or she is simply unable to recognize it. Richard Dawkins is a perfect example; he does not hesitate, for one instance, to claim that ‘natural selection is the ultimate explanation for our existence.’ But this is a silly assertion and merely reveals that Dawkins does not understand the words he is using. The question of existence does not concern how it is that the present arrangement of the world came about, from causes already internal to the world, but how it is that anything (including any cause) can exist at all. This question Darwin and Wallace never addressed, nor were ever so hopelessly confused as to think they had. It is a question that no theoretical or experimental science could ever answer, for it is qualitatively different from the kind of questions that the physical sciences are competent to address. Even if theoretical physics should one day discover the most basic laws upon which the fabric of space and time is woven, or evolutionary biology the most elementary phylogenic forms of terrestrial life, or palaeontology an utterly seamless genealogy of every species, still we shall not have thereby drawn on inch nearer to a solution of the mystery of existence. No matter how fundamental or simple the level reached by scientists—protoplasm, amino acids, molecules, subatomic particles, quantum events, unified physical laws, a primordial singularity, mere logical possibilities—existence is something else altogether. Even the simplest of things, and even the most basic of principles, must first of ‘be’ and nothing within the universe of contingent things (nor even the universe itself, even if it were somehow ‘eternal’) can be intelligibly conceived of as the source or explanation of its own being.”

That will have to do for now. If you truly believe that reason and faith are incompatible, then you should honestly examine the faith required for the ‘reasonableness’ of atheism.

Also, look at countries with high percentages of atheists, such as Sweden, and then tell me that it leads directly to the ills you listed.

A high suicide rate (the highest in the world), high taxes (wealthier Swedes get the heck out to escape it), and, with the rest of Europe, a low birthrate, allowing militant Islam to gradually take over by sheer force of numbers.

Salvage:

You’re a fundamentalist atheist so wedded to your worldview that you are incapable of acknowledging any fact which runs contrary to it.  The way you dismissed agnosticism is evidence of your dogmaticism.  Or you’re extremely ignorant of the distinctions of atheism, which, as Chris mentioned, sometimes blend into agnosticism or even ignosticism.

As far as technology goes - yes, I’m aware where hindu-arabic numbers come from.  And the other examples you give are pre-Christian, all of which were adapted into Western thought early on.

And this is where I stop having any respect for you and your opinion, you are clearly a moron.

And you are young and foolish.  Think about what living under Sharia law is like for non-Muslims.  Have you any idea?  And have you actually read the entire Quran?  Judaism and Christianity don’t interpret the Bible the same way Islam interprets their book.  I don’t advocate genocide - far from it.  I could have expressed myself better, and I apologize for not doing so.  But I still contend that reducing Islam back to the Arab peninsula, or freeing the people from that scourge, would have been a far better thing. I would even settle for certain sects of Sufism to become predominant.  And as far as the behavior of some of the Crusaders - yes, I am aware of the atrocities some of them committed.  We still hear about the sack of Constantinople from the Greeks 800 years later. 

And yes, I am very aware of Christian treatment of Jews.  One big difference:  we’ve apologized.  Orthodox Islam’s very tenets prevent apologizing for anything.

I’ll pass over the Inquisition because I have read more than one book about it.  And I’ve acknowledged the Spanish version to be a rogue operation (Rome told them more than once to stop.  Rome was ignored).

And I will dismiss as nonsense the whole Vatican-Nazi axis. Anyone interested in aligning with Nazi Germany would not have written Mit Brennender Sorge,pointedly published in German instead of Latin, and containing the line “Spiritually, we are all Semites.”  Neither would they have given refuge to thousands of Jews and given them fake baptismal certificates to help protect them.  A rabbi recently wrote a book defending Pius XII - the title escapes me at the moment.

And Hitler (with the rest of the Nazis) was not known to be a friend of believing Christians.  Deitrich Bonhoeffer and Cardinal Galen were two of his foes.

@ Dave P.

“A high suicide rate (the highest in the world), high taxes (wealthier Swedes get the heck out to escape it), and, with the rest of Europe, a low birthrate, allowing militant Islam to gradually take over by sheer force of numbers.”

First of all, not the highest in the world. Indeed not much different than the United states.
High taxes, so what. Perhaps its because they pay for all the good things that Sweden has to offer. Not all people are averse to paying taxes you know, especially when it results in things like competent schooling, health care systems, and so forth.
As for low birthrate, and Islam conquest, please dont make me laugh. Not only do you assume that high birthrates are desirable (sustainability anyone?) but you go on to spout the same ‘islamification’ fear-mongering that just doesnt make sense.

If the worst you can find in such a secular country is the suicide rate, taxes,  and low birthrates then your npt doing your case much help.

Many people forget, that Hitler was an enemy of many people, including atheists.

Mark: “Chesterton says that religious disbelief occurs not because a man’s free thought leads to unbelief, but rather that his very strict and dogmatic materialism demands that he not believe. Their doubts and denials require a deep and sincere faith in a fixed fate and the incurable routine of the universe”

I’d like to address the other things you posted, but I want to clear this idea up first.  I cannot speak for all atheists but I can speak for a great many, especially after hearig and reading their conversion stories.  Just about all of the conversion stories I’ve heard are very similiar to mine.  When I was younger I was a strong Christian and I was very interested in Christian apologetics.  The older I became, the more and more I wanted to become a Christian apologetic when I got older, and my ultimate dream was to write at least one book.

I wonder, how can you think, and how can that author say, that my deconversion wasn’t because of my free thoughts lead me to unbelief?  I was raised a Christian, and I had a great interest in apologetics.  There wasn’t a speck of materialism in me, it was the weak arguments for theism that deconverted me.

I wonder where you and that author are getting these wildly inaccurate characterizations of atheists.  They remind me of what my church use to tell me about how atheists are - which turned out to be incorrect as I am now an atheists and I am nothing like what they described.  Is this one of these powerful arguments?  It’s not far from mudslinging.  It’s disrespectful, imagine if I claimed that the only reason theists held onto God so much was becaues they are weak people who cannot stand on their own and needed to invent an imaginary friend to help them out.  That’s totally uncalled for and very disrespectful.

It’s funny to see how Dave P. starts on the horrible impact atheism has on a society - which has now turned into high taxes and low birth rate.  Oh the horror…  I guess he’d choose the higher murder, rape, theft, teen pregnancy, and violent assault here in America.  God bless America!

Chris:

I won’t excuse my own country either.  Strange how the teen pregnancy rate skyrocketed after the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s.  And the crime rate is climbing in Europe.  New York is much safer than London right now, for example.

Matthew Morton:

High taxation means letting the government do the work for you.  And to sustain revenue, you need to replace at least yourself. If that doesn’t happen, you can’t sustain a welfare system.  Neither can you sustain it if more than a certain percentage are on the dole.  That’s more economics than theology.

And as far as the Islamic takeover of Europe is concerned:  remember Denmark?  the riots in France?  murder in the Netherlands?  A Norwegian court deciding that Muslim men can’t be held resposible for raping a woman?  The takeover is happening by numbers.

>This is incorrect, agnosticism by definition is someone who is not sure that God exists.

This is incorrect, agnosticism by definition is someone who is not sure that dragons exist.

This is incorrect, agnosticism by definition is someone who is not sure that UFOs fly interstellar distances to probe farmers and mutilate their cows.

This is incorrect, agnosticism by definition is someone who is not sure that the Moon is made of cheese.

And so on.

Lite beer is still beer no matter how crappy it tastes.

Now if you want to say that there is some sort of being that we know nothing about, a prime mover that’s nothing like the gods described in mythology I have to ask why you would think such a thing.

You simply cannot decide that there is something that there is no evidence for, that is the first step into theism and the next is to start describing this unknowable entity and next thing you know you’re waging a war in its name.

What puts men on Moons, cures in children and facts in our origins is science and real knowledge, not faith. We tried that for some 10,000 years and it’s only been in the last 300 that things have gotten better.

And think about this next time you’re at the doctor, you come in, he runs no tests but feels that you are diabetic and wants you to start on insulin. Do you do it? Why not? Aren’t his feelings valid? Or would you rather your blood tested, your eyes examined and facts produced?

The answers to life, same deal, let’s stick to the facts rather than the feelings, that way we know for sure if we’re right.

>For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion.

It sure is, reality is stubborn like that.

And atheism is not a religion, I find it interesting that theists insist otherwise. It’s almost like they recognize an inherit flaw in religion and want to bring its competition down to its level.

No such things as gods.

How do you make a religion out of that? Who in the history of humanity has done so?

It’s funny how nobody here is really debating the question of “existence.” No one here can answer to the fact that there exists no empirical evidence or logical proofs that there is no God. The only viable atheist argument is the “problem of evil.” All others, like “religion is myth”, materialism, the millions of theist scholars are lunatics, etc. have all been disproved by solid, logical arguments. Please, like Jesus said, if atheists refuse to listen to you, wipe the dust off your feet and go.

The religious impulse is natural and normal. Eric Vogelin (no Christian) has written volumes on how, once the atheist murders God, he still cannot shed that pesky religious impulse so he redirects it into politics. Politics then becomes one’s religion—a matter of belief and fanaticism instead of reason and debatable opinions—eventually incorporating elements of worship, penance, sacraments, etc. Perhaps the only way out of this phenomenon is to embrace nihilism in its strictest definition. Hard to build a flourishing society on that because it leaves out so many normal human yearnings. Vogelin said, “The death of the spirit is the price of progress.” Science and rationalism have ‘progressed’ enormously in recent centuries, but at what cost? It’s the cost of the soul, and normal people recognize the sterility of godlessness and the synthetic academic process required to kill God. Atheism either has religious elements found in things like politics, or, in its purest form, strict nihilism, it is totally free of religion and is thereby abnormal. Either way, it shows that mankind cannot thoroughly shed the impulse of religion without becoming a degraded animal that destroys even itself.

No one here can answer to the fact that there exists no empirical evidence or logical proofs that there is no Zeus, Odin, Allah, etc.

No one here can answer to the fact that there exists no empirical evidence or logical proofs that there are no dragons.

No one here can answer to the fact that there exists no empirical evidence or logical proofs that there are no aliens that make pretty pictures in crops.

That is because you cannot prove a negative.

In the case of the JudeoChristianMuslim god (or any god) however it’s easy to prove there’s no such thing because nothing he is said to have done makes very much sense and thus an unlikely candidate for reality.

If you make an extraordinary claim of the supernatural than you must present evidence that can support it otherwise it can be safely dismissed as poppyc@ck.

>it shows that mankind cannot thoroughly shed the impulse of religion without becoming a degraded animal that destroys even itself.

What? And you came to this conclusion how? Once again, religion has been on a slow but steady decline for the last 300 years, in the last 50 or so it’s really picked up steam and at no point in human history have more people enjoyed longer, freer and healthier lives.

Here’s a thought, let’s say the Vatican were as powerful today as it was some 500-1000 years ago when it was appointing kings and starting wars. Do you think the child sex abuse scandal would have ever come to light? Would have ever been pursued? Or would the minority of priests continue to rape children without punishment?

It was secular forces that brought the whole shameful business to light, the Vatican was quite content to keep it secret putting their reputation well ahead of the welfare of their flock so I think it would go on forever and ever if the church were the degrade animal (but with power!) they used to be.

Religion is nostrum and humanity will be not only be fine with it absent but better off without the superstitious nonsense that clouds the brains and dulls the spirit just like any other drug.

Dave P: “I won’t excuse my own country either.  Strange how the teen pregnancy rate skyrocketed after the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s.  And the crime rate is climbing in Europe.  New York is much safer than London right now, for example.”

Even though you see this, you wouldn’t dare make the connection between modern Christianity and these trends.  You probably have no problem, when it bolsters your argument, to remind others that 80ish% of the American population is Christian but seem to have no problem divorcing that fact when it comes to how American’s act.

Me too: “It’s funny how nobody here is really debating the question of “existence.” No one here can answer to the fact that there exists no empirical evidence or logical proofs that there is no God.”

Actually, the joke is on you.  You and your ilk are the ones claiming that there is a God, its your job to show evidence supporting your claims.  I don’t have to lift a finger in regards to building a “anti-God argument”, I just have to show how yours don’t hold water - which they don’t.  Now that isn’t to say that Atheists haven’t brought forward arguements against Christian theology, they have.  And a great many of them still stand, including as you mentioned: The Problem of Evil.

I read “The Loser Letters” when they were on The National Review. The best word to describe them would have to be either “silly”, or “uninformed”. Eberstadt seems to have missed that good satire must be grounded in reality in some way. How anyone could believe they are in any way representative of thoughts/beliefs of any but the most profoundly disturbed & mentally defecient atheists, I’ll never know.

Oh wait, that’s right - I forgot to factor in complete ignorance. Yes, that would certainly explain how someone could take that foolishness seriously.

Actually, there is a flip side to that coin of yours. ALL of the arguments revolve around God, whether they are theist or atheist, as an a-theist your world also revolves around God, whether you like it or not. You haven’t shown any logical arguments on how the theist’s many philosophical arguments don’t hold water. And contrary to your belief, most atheist arguments have been logically refuted, even the problem of evil. If you are an atheist, you’re making an absolute truth statement that there is no God. Well, prove it. Oh, I see, you can’t.

Me too: The problem of evil has been refuted? How? I’d love to hear it.

>If you are an atheist, you’re making an absolute truth statement that there is no God. Well, prove it. Oh, I see, you can’t.

As has been explained by myself and many others, not just in this thread, you cannot prove a negative. Are you reading these words Me too? Are you understanding them? Do they simply not register? Like they’re white noise that your sense simply ignore? If you disagree that a negative can be proven than please say so, otherwise you’re simply repeating arguments that have been refuted and that suggests you’re not interested in any sort of truth.

Once again, we don’t have to prove your silly god is not real, you do, you’re the ones making the claims of his existence. From what I can see you get the idea that your god is real from a book that is clearly based on ancient mythology and one would have to be a fool of the highest order to imagine it realistic.

But here’s something for you, your god did not create the universe in six days as it says in the Bible, I can prove that the universe is billions of years old and that is more than enough evidence to suggest your god unreal.

After all if he were true and if he really wanted us to know how he made the cosmos I’m pretty sure he’d get the math right at the very least.

The fact that the Bible is rife with errors like this makes it painfully obvious that there is nothing divine about it.

salvage: That, in eliminating Christianity, we degrade into destructive animals is something accepted and argued by Nietzche.
Chris: I think that Chesterton is saying that your ‘free thought’ that has led you away from religion is not free. It is confined, binding and limited in its scope because all it accepts is the empirical. But man is much more than a calculating, mechanical, analytical machine. Your ‘free’ thought is influenced by cultural and linguistic worlds that determine how you see reality. As is mine. Seeing beyond those horizons takes considerable effort, but it has been accomplished. Where? Largely by the great Catholic thinkers who have been thinking about thinking for 2000 years. Included in their conclusions are all the great ideas from all the great cultures and thinkers in history. Augustine is linked directly to Plato; Aquinas to Aristotle…—and all this has opened the mind of man and satisfied the spirit of man and answered the questions of man better than any approach yet tried. That science, which contains a single truth (made accessible by the Church, btw), can hold all the answers to existence is an impossibility and is laughable. The arguments of atheists are really attitudes masquerading as objective ideas. It is an antagonism that runs too deep for reasonable dispute to overcome. The type of scientific, moral or rational objections to faith work only for rhetorical purposes. They are emotional commitments disguised as intellectual honesty. Even the most sincere atheist apologist is producing nothing but rationales held up by a long list of conceptual and historical errors because their convictions are not rooted in reason but in a stronger defiance combined with a misplaced political and cultural agenda. Their arguments are largely reflexes based on the fundamental premises that they assume or deeply desire. Your ‘free’ thought has led you away from religion. Chesterton’s ‘freer’ thought has led him to the Church. It’s freer because it accepts more of what is natural, real, and complete for the mind of man. He is not half-brained. He is a complete thinker because his world is not limited to the single truths found in empiricism, science, and concrete ‘reality.’ That our thoughts have any relation to reality is really an act of faith. Reason itself is a matter of faith. Single truths, divorced from the very starting points of knowledge (here come those Greeks again) and first principles, are proven dangerous and destructive. These things have already been reckoned with—faith, reason, existence. I think they need to be examined thoroughly before God can be reasonably excluded. Maybe you’ve done that.
One more thing from Hart’s book, (I think you would benefit from reading this book, even to buttress your atheism):
“The reason that today’s cultured despisers of religion tend to employ such extraordinarily bad arguments for their prejudices, without realizing how bad those arguments are, is that they are driven by the precritical and irrational impulses of the purest kind of fideism. At the deepest level of their thoughts and desires, they are obedient to principles and promptings that rest upon no foundation but themselves. Dennet believes that all of reality consists of matter in motion not because he can reason his way to such a conclusion, and not because that is his experience of reality; rather, both his reasoning and his experience are fixed within a world picture of absolutely primordial authority for him. It would make no sense, really, to suggest that he, say, run off to Mt. Athos to explore (by practicing) the Eastern Christian hesychastic tradition, or that he reconsider whether the testimony of so many disciplined minds over the centuries regarding encounters with supernatural reality are prima facie worthless simply because they cannot be examined in the way one might examine an animal zygote, or that he immerse himself with somewhat more than a superficial resolve in the classical philosophical arguments of religious traditions (concerning which ‘Breaking the Spell’ demonstrates that he possesses practically no knowledge whatsoever, despite his philosophical training). In all likelihood, these would be impossibilities for someone of his temperament and basic vision of things; he could not do them with a good will or unclouded mind, and so they would have little power to unsettle him. And, in a far wider sense, all the manifestations of the currently fashionable forms of principled unbelief are understandable only within the context of a larger “project”; the largely preconscious (or at any rate, prerational) will of Western humanity toward the values of modernity and toward—more specifically—the modern understanding of human freedom. To understand what it is that drives certain of us not only to unbelief but to a passionate and often articulate hatred of belief in God, and to an evangelical dedication to its eradication, one must understand what it is they—and perhaps, in a larger sense, all of us—believe ‘in,’ and why it demands of us the overthrow of the faith it seeks to displace.”
The Catholic Church is the only corporate mind in the world that offers mankind the possibility of preventing minds from going wrong. Even with its human faults, the Church is armed against the big errors of the past, present and especially the future. Wisdom sees tomorrow’s consequences of today’s often unrecognizable errors. Atheism is an error in thought and is an abnormality. It leaves too much out—not just God but the fullness of reason. No condescension intended from me and hopefully not from you, either.
“The Catholic Church is the only thing that saves a man from being a child of his age.” (GKC) 
Good luck.

>That, in eliminating Christianity, we degrade into destructive animals is something accepted and argued by Nietzche.

1) Well than Nietzsche was wrong. I’m not sure why you think someone over a 100 years dead saying something you agree with makes a point. Nietzsche was stupid about a lot of things.

2) Can you then please explain to me how from the Americas to Africa to the Far East civilizations flourished without ever having read the Bible? That they seemed to have laws without Moses? You do know that Christianity wasn’t the first religion right? That it is in fact based on stuff thousands of years older?

Ah, but Christianity is your religion so it must be the right one!

Er… whichever Christian sect you’re a part of of course, the others are varying degrees of wrong.

Strange that your god can’t make itself very clear, people do seem awfully confused about what it wants. I’d imagine an actual god would be a superb communicator and thus confusion impossible.

Yet here we are, why is that?

>The Catholic Church is the only corporate mind in the world that offers mankind the possibility of preventing minds from going wrong.

Huh, Scientology says the same thing, interesting that.

Um can you explain then all the crazy evil things the Vatican has done over the last 1700 years or so? From the early days when Constantine slaughtered pagans to the recent scandal of the Pope protecting child rapists?

It seems to me y’all need to get your minds together before you can even dare to suggest you can “fix” others.

>Atheism is an error in thought and is an abnormality.

Uh huh. So the people who don’t believe in your god are the crazy ones? Because I don’t think your god sacrificed himself to himself so he wouldn’t punish his creation that he designed for acting as he must have known they would I’m “abnormal”?

I’m not sure that makes much sense, what I think is that you feel that’s it’s simpler to call atheists “crazy” than actually refute points they make.

Like why is your god such a liar? Genesis was clearly written by someone who didn’t have the slightest idea of how the universe started.

You atheists bore me. Obviously, you try to convince everyone that you have some “secret knowledge” or “higher intelligence”.....Your diatribes are not well written,or accomplished in any way. Just give up and so suffer and die alone. It’s allowable. After all..you have free choice. Figure it out,or don’t.

salvage: I didn’t say that not believing in the Christian God is abnormal, and I’ve called no one crazy. I don’t say that believing in any worthy religion, including pagan religions, is crazy or abnormal. True and honest atheism in its strictest form (nihilism) is abnormal because it breaks from the norm. Not because it is rare or unsupportable, but because it necessarily leaves out so much of what complete and satisfactory human thought yearns for. Normal people, from all cultures throughout the world, have sought understanding and it always manifests itself in religion. People recognize that godlessness is a sterile concept and it seems wrong somewhere within our nature. They recognize that killing God requires a synthetic thought process, usually achieved only in the antiseptic bubble of academia, and as such it cannot satisfy so many of our other needs. Life is not sterile, thinking is not sterile, and normal people reject a barren view of life.
I’ve had similar questions to yours and still have some. I find the Catholic world view to be the most satisfying on all levels. It is a timeless teacher and I think that my questions have indeed been answered by some great thinker, I just need to find them. The mystery of it all and the lack of communication from God only allows us the wonderful chance to be detectives and find those answers that creation has hidden. But good detective work requires using all of the mind, not limiting it to the ‘rational’ half of the brain.
Nietzche is wrong. Plato and Aristotle are wrong. Augustine and Aquinas are wrong. Chesterton and Hart are wrong. Certainly I am wrong, and the Catholic Church is wrong and evil to boot. Everyone 100 years-dead or older is wrong. Who is right? Where do you get your insight and wisdom? Who do you have to back you up? Or is it just you and your relativistic world view that are right? If that’s the case, and your claim is an absolutely agenda-free and thoroughly objective view of human existence, then you should examine how and why and where those thoughts come from. I make no such claim. I am an advocate for seeking truth, beauty, goodness and wisdom, and I find those things best kept in the Catholic Church. Again, as I said to Chris, no condescension intended. Honestly.

>You atheists bore me.

Oh dear, that’s a shame, conversely I find theists fascinating, the delusion and denial entertains to no end.

>Obviously, you try to convince everyone that you have some “secret knowledge” or “higher intelligence”.....

My goodness! Such projection! Actually what I try and do is convince people that there are no such things as gods and that’s really not a secret and it’s more than a little obvious.

>Your diatribes are not well written,or accomplished in any way.

Dang.

>Just give up and so suffer and die alone. It’s allowable.

Ha! Ha! Yes! I will suffer and die alone because I don’t believe in your god. Then of course I will suffer in Hell after I die because your loving forgiving god just can’t stand anyone not liking him.

> After all..you have free choice.

Not really. See I can’t choose to believe in your silly god anymore than I can choose to believe in Zeus or Little Green Men from Mars.

Isn’t it weird that your god made me in such a way and put me in such an environment that I would never believe in him?

Uh…..you boring atheists…more drivel about simple matters that you do not understand. God sends no one to Hell…if that is where we choose to go, we send ourselves. Is this the first time you have heard that..? tch tch..WHERE have you been..? I think that you are seeking salvation. I suggest that you talk to your local Roman Catholic priest. You need help.

“Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?” Priest: “No, not if you did not know.” Eskimo: “Then why did you tell me?””

I don’t have nearly enough faith to be an atheist.  If they can explain the fine-tuned universe (which astronomer Lee Smolin estimates the probability of to be approximately 1 out of 10 to the 229th power), the very existence of the universe) and the origin of life (remember, even a single cell is one of the more complicated structures on Earth), then I might be inclined to rethink my position.

Until then, it seems to me that they are the ones living in a fairyland.

For interested atheists, I’d recommend Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “What’s So Great About Christianity”.  Even if they disagree on the premise, they would find the debate advanced by this book.

As far as the “problem of evil”, Jesus Christ has given the only answer there really can be, by accepting an unjust death on a Cross.  God sometimes allows great evils, but He brings a greater good out of it.

One example of this is free will.  Free will opens up the possibility of evil, but also the possibility of love.

Although theism may not ultimately be able to completely “solve” the problem of evil intellectually, it at least gives it some meaning in that our sufferings can be joined with Christ’s to bring about a greater good.  In atheism, suffering has no intrinsic meaning and there is really no consolation for it.

A little question:
How can an army of ignorant secularists be more threatening than an army of ignorant christians?

Anderson Juul..I don’t know. Are they…? You might want to read G.K. Chesterton’s work…“Common Sense “....

@Mia
Nope, but I know for certain that secularism has more common sense than theism.

Anders Juul..Glad to hear that you know so much..! I still hope that you will look into G.K. Chesterton. I would expect that a person of your great
accomplishment would enjoy what he has to say..

@Dave Mueller
If you want to know how cells, or more precisely the DNA, was formed, I’d recommend you check a couple of videos featuring Dr. Jack Szostak explaining the origin of life and DNA and so on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg. Well it’s actually a series of videos, but I don’t expect you to keep the attention up for that long.

Juul..you make so many assumptions..! You need to learn how to have a friendly discussion and benefit by what you learn from it. Now you are attacking Dave Mueller. You sound like you are running pretty scared to me. What are you afraid of..? Maybe you need to find out…?

I didn’t really feel attacked…at least he attempted to reply to my assertions.  I will check out the videos to find out exactly how structures as complicated as the cell and the associated DNA originated.  I am as interested as if someone told me that they have a video showing an airplane being assembled by pure chance.

That was actually quite interesting, though it didn’t explain how we get from no information to the staggering amount of information we see in a single cell, much less a complex organism.

The other thing that was missing in the video was, assuming that everything in the video is true - isn’t it even slightly interesting to you that the laws of chemistry work such that “life” can originate easily, and even, apparently, spontaneously tend to add information? 

Even if it turns out that that the laws of chemistry dictate that life can actually originate fairly easily, then we just have another version of the anthropic principle…

Do the atheists who offer objections to this blog suggest that they know the truth? If they really believe that they know the truth, then they would be gods themselves, thereby denying themselves their status as atheists.

    A real atheist believes in no gods. Because of this, he must believe in no truth, for a truth can only come from a god. This requires that the atheist accept that he is always wrong.

    This may be difficult for these “atheists” to accept because I used the g-word, but we find this to be true when we consider the source of truth. If truth is not created, it is a god, for it is the greatest of all beings, even if other beings are equal to it. If truth is created, it must have been created by someone or something with the ability to alter the course of events related to that truth. That being is either a god or a creation of a greater being; that greater being is either a god or a creation of an even greater being. This iterative search for the source of created truth inevitably leads to a god. Either way, a truth comes from a god, even if it is directly formed by lesser beings.

    A theist, however, can claim that his gods are always right. Would the “atheists” like to convert?

Keep it up Mary, with so much hateful comments coming out of the godless bigots, you’re bound to be more popular than richard dawkins.

I don’t really CARE what atheists “think”. I just don’t want them changing laws to server their purposes..or interfering in my life.
Their ideas are all “old hat”...and they have not moved from the same old unenlightened sphere where they started, so..too boring for me..!

Mia, i would like to know what you mean by atheists ‘old unenlightened sphere’ and what laws we are wanting to change that you feel should stay the same.

“A real atheist believes in no gods. Because of this, he must believe in no truth, for a truth can only come from a god. This requires that the atheist accept that he is always wrong.”
A real atheist? You know a real Christian wouldnt say such a thing. but then again i have as much right in telling you what a real Christian would do as you do telling us atheists what ‘real’ atheists would do.

You are assuming too many things in your post. Why is it for instance that truth can only come from a god?

“If truth is not created, it is a god, for it is the greatest of all beings, even if other beings are equal to it.”
How exactly is truth a being anyhow? i think you are making a category mistake here.

Mathew Morton..I didn’tg say you want to change ANYTHING. I merely said..“DON’T change anythin..Y’uns arde TOO BORING..! You are racing into ..what..? The 12th century, I think…

Matthew you don’t have the right to tell Christians what to do, because you don’t have the background or knowledge to interpret their scriptures, since you yourself don’t find supernatural beings and their rules as relevant to your life

Christians can tell you that Atheistic philosophy is very ambigious and relative, when God as the central discerning authority is removed.  Atheists can follow quirky trends, diversions and distractions without giving any thought to social justice, or they can do social justice and mix it with benevolence or ulterior motives is as just as legitimate and acceptable as a godless pornographer or a tyrant social engineer, or a con-artist’s lifestyle and choices.  There is right and wrong, but it becomes more of a personal preference than an objective rule, in that atheists define what good and bad is…In the end who gives a damn whether you scammed people for millions or killed people in the hundreds or how committed you are to the cause of human rights when it really does not make any difference, since death is the result for everyone. this also allows godless people who made life-destroying and selfish choices to escape justice and denies closure to the ones that were murdered/scammed, since there is no judge in the afterlife, they went away scot-free.

Another thing, Matthew, atheism is malleable, People can latch on dogmas, ideas onto it that even you find reprehensible, e.g. From the denial of human rights, to sadism, to enforced fascism where the state holds supreme etc.  And still be legitimate whereas Christianity has a control feature that filters out nonsensical interpretations and calls them heresy (positive christianity, racists theology, anti-semitism) True believers rightly call practioners and propagators of these theologies as false believers, they were never part of God’s flock because they directly and wilfully violated the proper interpretation of scripture and the principle of the founder Jesus Christ, whereas no atheist philosopher, founder or school of thought never wanted to claim themselves as the ultimate authority, to do so would pander on to the ideals of absolutism, which they would never do

By the way Matthew, atheists from China and North Korea would like Christians to do what they want them to do:namely deny christ or go to jail and be tortured, so you are not the only godless kid in town who tell Christians what they should do and no don’t compare the christians to the Islamic fundies, this is about Christianity not Islam

Alvin: Christianity may well have a “control feature that filters out nonsensical interpretations” but clearly it doesn’t work very well. Rationalism has a much better “control feature” - it’s called REALITY.

I guess its people’s fault that it don’t work so well (e.g. Paul O’Donnell).
This even applies to the stubborn irrationality of secularists to paint Christianity in a bad light despite the TRUTH of its claims, thanks Paul for volunteering

“Matthew you don’t have the right to tell Christians what to do, because you
don’t have the background or knowledge to interpret their scriptures”
First of all, how do you even know this? How do you know I don’t have the background, or understanding?
And secondly, I wasn’t telling any Christians what to do, was i?
“since
you yourself don’t find supernatural beings and their rules as relevant to
your life”
Irrelevant.

“Atheists can follow quirky trends, diversions and distractions without giving any
thought to social justice, or they can do social justice and mix it with
benevolence or ulterior motives is as just as legitimate and acceptable as a
godless pornographer or a tyrant social engineer, or a con-artist’s
lifestyle and choices.”
Yes indeed. One of the main problems with atheism, is also one of its finest qualities; the freedom it presents. Atheism brings with it no philosophy, no central tenets guiding how people must think, or what they must do. So yes while I agree that it can lead to horrible people following terrible philosophies, it can also lead to exactly the opposite, precisely because of the freedom it allows someone in forming their own personal philosophical view of the world.
I don’t shy away from this, if anything I am proud of the fact. As the freedom fo atheism brings with it the ability to question someone’s philosophy, and to never take anything for granted, or to be forced to accept something as truth without warrant for doing so.

“. There is right and wrong, but it becomes more of a personal preference than an objective rule, in that atheists define what good and bad is”
Lets ignore the fact that in Christianity it is simply the Christian who defines what good and bad is for the moment. You are forgetting that not all atheists believe that they define what good or bad is, or that there is no objective rules out there governing such things. So while it may be true that many atheists do adopt this point of view, it isn’t something that is intrinsic to atheism, and thus shouldn’t be asserted as such.

“In the end who gives a damn whether you scammed people for millions or killed people in the hundreds or how committed you are to the cause of human rights when it really does not make any difference, since death is the result for everyone. this also allows godless people who made life-destroying and selfish choices to escape justice and denies closure to
the ones that were murdered/scammed, since there is no judge in the afterlife, they went away scot-free.”
Such is the nature of the universe mate, justice is something that is a purely human affair, and as such it is what we should strive to make happen here on earth.
I had a similar discussion with some of my Christian friends recently, where some of them pointed out the fact that if a person is repentant of their crimes, and accepts Jesus as their saviour etcetera, that they too can make it to heaven, and seemingly get away scot-free. Would you agree with this?
Regardless, it is beside the point. Atheism itself does not deal with concepts of justice, that is a separate philosophy, and is something which you have to form yourself. So again you are ascribing properties onto atheism which aren’t a part of it, but which can merely be chosen by an atheist further down the line. Likewise I could point out the various ways that a Christian can come to a skewed view of reality, or justice, without it being founded in their religion; but I am not.

“Another thing, Matthew, atheism is malleable, People can latch on dogmas, ideas onto it that even you find reprehensible, e.g. From the denial of human rights, to sadism, to enforced fascism where the state holds supreme etc.”
Yes you are correct, as I stated earlier.
Bare in mind that with this freedom to ‘latch onto’ such dogmas, there is also the freedom to adopt philosophies which are on the whole good for humanity. What about those atheists who feel that it is their duty to pursue human rights for all? Or those that feel compassion, and choose to risk their lives to aid others? The freedom of choice always has bad side effects, and good side effects; I don’t see how this is a criticism on atheism, any more than it is a criticism of having a brain.

“And still be legitimate whereas Christianity has a control feature that
filters out nonsensical interpretations and calls them heresy (positive
christianity, racists theology, anti-semitism)”
Yes, because Christianity and atheism are different things. One is a religion, the other isn’t. One gives the believer a set of rules, or a philosophy, to which by definition they ascribe to. Atheism doesn’t. So you are right that you can adopt horrible philosophies and still be an atheist; whats your point? It didn’t happen because one is an atheist, nor is it something intrinsic to atheism.

“True believers rightly call practioners and propagators of these theologies as false believers, they were never part of God’s flock because they directly and wilfully violated the proper interpretation of scripture and the principle of the founder Jesus Christ”
Have you heard of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy?

“whereas no atheist philosopher, founder or school of thought never wanted to claim themselves as the ultimate authority, to do so would pander on to the ideals of absolutism, which they would never do”
Utterly incorrect. Though I am willing to change my mind if you can back up this assertion with some kind of solid reasoning.
Not all atheists believe they are the ultimate authority, indeed not all atheists believe there is an ultimate authority. Some atheists do, however that doesn’t mean they believe it to be themselves.

“By the way Matthew, atheists from China and North Korea would like Christians to do what they want them to do:namely deny christ or go to jail and be tortured, so you are not the only godless kid in town who tell Christians what they should do and no don’t compare the christians to the Islamic fundies, this is about Christianity not Islam”
When was I telling Christians what to do? Perhaps if you quote the posts you are referring to when you write these, I would be able to follow the argument closer.
And yes, there are atheists in China and North Korea that do bad things. I would warrant you that there are also atheists over there who do good things, and Christians who do bad things. None of this is in debate. I am not here telling you that the one true path to harmony is atheism, and no atheists ever do anything wrong. I don’t seek to claim that my philosophy would bring peace to earth; so why are you bringing up these non sequiturs?
With regards to not comparing Christians to Muslims, perhaps I should ask you not to compare atheists to communists, as if they are the same thing.

You came back at me here with some pretty aggressive statements considering my last few posts were quite benign, and mainly inquisitive, rather than confrontational. If however you are responding to some of my older posts which I am unaware of, then I understand.
Again, in the future, reference the posts you are responding to so I can get a handle on this quicker.
Cheers mate.
MM

To Matthew Morton,


    You have not yet addressed my post. Consider if truth is.


    As for what a real Christian would say, you have demonstrated your lack of authority. You have less “right” to correct me because you are offended than I have to present you with logic.


    Perhaps we should continue this conversation via email; it could become lengthy. Considering that you have addressed other people, perhaps we should continue it here so that they can be included. What do you think?

@ Mike
“To Matthew Morton,

  You have not yet addressed my post. Consider if truth is. “

I don’t quite know what you mean by this. Didn’t I address your post with my own one? Posted by Mathew Morton on Wednesday, Jun 23, 2010 9:36 PM (EST): I believe it was.
If I didn’t, I am more than happy to, though I still don’t know what you mean by ‘consider if truth is’….

“As for what a real Christian would say, you have demonstrated your lack of authority. You have less “right” to correct me because you are offended than I have to present you with logic. “
Again I don’t know what you mean by this. The last sentence doesn’t make sense.

“Perhaps we should continue this conversation via email; it could become lengthy. Considering that you have addressed other people, perhaps we should continue it here so that they can be included. What do you think?”
You can see from my posts above to other people, I don’t mind if it gets lengthy, so keep it on here. But I am still not quite sure what posts of mine you are referring to. Can you include quotes next time?

Also, with regards to my ‘real Christian’ versus ‘real atheist’ point, I was just trying to show you that you needn’t be too hasty in defining what a true atheist is, when you add on philosophies or beliefs that aren’t intrinsic to it.

To Matthew Morton,

Thanks for the reply, I’ll try to make it brief

“Yes indeed. One of the main problems with atheism, is also one of its finest qualities; the freedom it presents”

Okay, then you just conceded to GK Chesterton’s point of a man disbelieving in a God only to believe in everything including Nothing (e,g, nihilism).  and I’ve already mentioned Atheists doing some Good out there like Camus, but it does not mean that their position is any less rational or praiseworthy than the common slob, embezzler or nihilist who wants to do the opposite. You can’t condemn them to be this way, since you don’t own their life.  also, you can’t tell the godless thug or con-men to shape up, since you have no warrant to do so, either vote for extreme anti-criminal laws or shut up about it.

Communism is a subset of godless philosophy. at its heart is something called Scientific Materialism espoused by Marx/Engels where they view people as shaped by an evolving economic system throughout time.  Darwin had an influence on these men in that they adapted his view of an ever-changing and competing closed world where species thrive or die without any divine hand into it. Marx made that famous religion is the opium of the masses quip to show us his negative views on Religion.  So there’s your connection.

Your brand of atheism namely Secular Humanism has some of its roots in the age of Enlightenment, where they believe back then that man has an innate good nature and cultivated by rational inquiry and science, he can make a difference in the world by good sense and logic through proper rules and social contracts (e.g. religious-but-not-christian thinkers contributed in here too like John Locke and Immanuel Kant)  But there was also counter enlightenment folks like De Sade (Sadism), who was extremely cynical about this optimism, saying that deep down people are outwardly good, but really selfish, cruel inside, then later on in Germany: Nietzsche jettisoned that without God, no Objective Moral values exists, it has to be created by the ubermenschen or superman whether he be cruel or kind, Schoepenhauer brought about pessism as a philosophical stance that life is one big joke, all of them have atheism as a starting point.  So that’s Atheism’s dogma for you, schizoprenic and uninhibited, with people loving and hurting people, which shows how nonsensical and directionless it really is

And yes I know about the NTS argument before, this problem can be solved by authoritative citations.  I am not relying on subjective individuated opinions on what a Christian is:  Rather I rely on Holy Writ as properly interpreted by theologians, religious scholars and apologists that a follower of Jesus Christ must profess he’s the son of God and obey his commandments the Great Commission, Love One Another, Turn the other cheek.  There have been plenty of examples in the New Testament demonstrating the dangers of abusing Gospel Implications, Paul the apostle, even John the disciple warns believers not to follow wicked teaching (e.g. commit evil more so that grace would abound; or say god bless you but do nothing to alleviate the poor) So even the New Testament is not alien to the existence of false christianities or twisted scriptural exegesis.  Its fallacious to blame the founder of Christianity, when he made his ethical pronouncements clear, its people who do not know or who know but suppress the truth that are the ones to get the axe..

yet again and again, fundy atheists simply will not accept this response, which in itself is a delusional reflex of their dogmatism rather than a reasoned response.  But what if the tables were turned and lets say people defined atheism as “a theism” meaning its followers secretly believes in a god or that Richard dawkins is a secret Christian, because he’s a fan of Jesus Christ, he said so in a news article, does it mean that Atheism is really theism in disguise of the negative? Credible sources said so… even in your own words: “precisely because of the freedom it allows someone in forming their own personal philosophical view of the world.” if this view gets adapted onto someone’s personal philosophy who are you then to critique his/her way of defining atheism, you’re going to say facts, historical references.  That’s precisely what I did with defining what true Christianity is…

life-destroying ideas, and philosophies as well as life preserving ones are just as intrinsic to atheism, they belong to the domain of godless philosophies, because atheism’s inherent nature is ambigious, they are all equal and legitimate expressions of atheism.  No one is right or wrong, just personal preferences and definitions.

“Lets ignore the fact that in Christianity it is simply the Christian who defines what good and bad is for the moment.”
It shows that you Ignore the true biblical fact of Christianity rather than “ignoring the fact” really displays how ignorant you really are

Nuff said

My grandmother devoted her life to helping others, working at battered women shelters, with children’s church groups, various charities, etc. 

Up into her 90’s, starting in her 70’s, she would walk, 3-5 miles a day at from 5 a.m. until she had to stop, picking up cans (where I live you get a nickel deposit for returning them to the store) and cashing them in for money.  She would take this money, sometimes $1,000 a month, and buy food, clothes, toys, toothpaste, soap, and other necessities for children and other people in need, i.e., people that had worse then she did. 

She did this daily, and at times even admitted when she was waking up and sometimes didn’t feel like doing this, all it took was the thought of those kids with nothing to get her out of bed and get walking. 

She used to make my grandpa, father and other relatives stop cars to pick up cans in the middle of traffic, she used to climb up and down hills 80 year old women had no business climbing, she used to dive into dumpsters, just to get one can.  And if one was out reach, and she didn’t get it, she would kick herself for it and regret that she couldn’t get it, because she felt that one nickel can make all the difference.  And it did. She was “green” before there ever was such a thing, always thinking of the future and the future generations ahead of herself, because she loved children.

She was an Atheist…She didn’t do this because of a reward she thought was waiting for her in the afterlife, she didn’t believe in one.  She did it because it was the right thing to do, because that’s what you SHOULD do, because it’s better for your community and for humanity as a whole, and because, it’s the just the right thing to do! That’s what she believed.  So when people say atheists have no moral ground or compass, I just smile and think of my Grandmother, who was more Christian, without ever being one, then any Christian I have ever met. 

Also, it seems as if people need a basic history lesson;  Hitler and the Nazi’s were NOT atheists…I don’t normally like to use wikipedia to prove my point, but this is a legit article with legit references.  All it takes is one glance at the page for Hitler’s religious beliefs, and while it’s not clear what he considered himself to be, (I get that he believed himself to be some part of some type of new Christianity) one thing is clear,  he was NO Atheist.  And that is fact. 

From Hitler’s mouth himself;

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

“There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church’s interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles.”

Both Atheist and Christian groups have used violence and warfare against their enemies.  And?  So have Pagans, Vikings, Hindus, The Huns, The French, Mayans, Inuits, Chimpanzees, The Visigoths, The squirrels-well,you see my point.  Trying to pinpoint a philosophy or belief and attach a groups acts of violence to is a slippery slope, and all it does is blame, blame, blame, without getting to the root of it all.  (Not to mention it’s a LAME a@@ strawman argument)  You can do that with ANYBODY, ANYWHERE, and at ANY given time in our planet’s history.  That’s human beings for ya!

You guys are arguing about what groups did more damage with their beliefs?  I’ve heard of the oppression Olympics, but what is this, the oppressor Olympics?  What are ya’ll competing for, last place?  LOL!  Yes, Atheistic, Marxist Russia killed people.  And Columbus used Catholicism to not only pacify, but also to justify his subjugation, enslaving, raping, stealing of land and killing The Natives.  Not to mention, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was all justified by The Bible, using the logic that Africans were descended of Ham, and were a cursed race, therefore inferior, and also part God’s will that they be enslaved.  Then there is that whole Manifest Destiny thing. 

Point is, it doesn’t matter what you believe or don’t believe.  If you believe in belittling, harming, or killing others over your little beliefs (as if we’re more special or more correct for having what we perceive to be “the right” view, since we ALL do, regardless of what you believe) then you need to seriously check yourself and your position in this universe. Get over yourself and your own beliefs, and realize that not every one is going to think/believe what you do and that your own perception and/or belief is just that, a perception and/or belief. Have some respect for humanity.  Most importantly, just keep your mouth shut and be nice to people.

Trolling Bot..
I do appreciate your story of your grandmother. I have known a number of people who shared her similarity of goodness, sweetness,sincerity and Atheism. There are also many great religions in the world that have many really good followers. However..there is ONE True Church, and that is The Catholic Church. I strongly recommend that you do all that you can in order to learn more theology from the teachers that The Catholic Church has to offer. No, I do not believe that you have done any really deep studies of Aquinas, Aristotle, St. Augustine…find a good teacher, and do that. Study..! Steubenville University has many great teachers , as do Creighton University and University of Dallas. There is only ONE Truth…! Find it.

Troll,

you said:
“Point is, it doesn’t matter what you believe or don’t believe.  If you believe in belittling, harming, or killing others over your little beliefs”

it does matter actually, can’t you see the contradiction in your own statement, if you believe in killing because of petty reasons, it will matter.  i guess, your rant was more of an emotive response then.

As a good model your grandma was.. she’s not the be all and end all of atheism, there are people who are irreligious and who work 9-5 jobs in a corporate office without giving a fig about charity and volunteerism..Needless to say, it really depends on what the “Right Thing” is for people to do, which includes conning people.. to doing what your grandma did.  you really can’t condemn them to be selfish prigs who doesn’t see atheism the way you do, since you don’t own their life. 

True christians are required to act on what they believe, by practicing charity, benevolence, patience with the preaching of the gospel.  They are commanded to be good not just simply do good for the sake of brownie points.  I am not really interested in you giving me counter examples of whether this is so, Its sad and predictable that fundy atheists don’t see True christianity from the false ones despite objectively documented evidence.

I gotta say Mia, I’m a little confused by your response.  You make two assumptions about myself, one of which has nothing to do with the what I was talking about.  Nowhere did I mention the names Aquinas, Aristotle, or St. Augustine nor do I say anything about my knowledge or lack thereof anywhere in my post.  I also nowhere in my post made any reference to my belief or non belief in God.  So I’m not sure why you made that assumption, or what sort of bearing those two particular things have to do with my post.

As far as your “one true church” comment.  That is cool for you to believe, I respect that, but why does everyone else have to believe that too?  Why can’t I find church outside, under a tree, by a stream or a river?  Why does the label matter?  If we are all made differently, why are we only given one path?  Are you saying that by not following that one true path, one will be suffer in hell for eternity?  Or do you suggest that some other kind of after life exists for those that did not believe in God or Christ, but led a good life?
 
The following was mainly my point;  All this back and forth solves nothing, nor will it change anybody’s mind.  All that you will succeed in doing is becoming more entrenched in your beliefs, rather then coming to an understanding of another person’s belief.  Nor will you build a genuine, honest, positive, fruitful dialogue with the other person.  Both sides of this argument (and every other group of human beings in our existence, for that matter) could said to be destructive, hateful, wrong, just, loving, peaceful, (depending on your world view) etc. based on the actions of others who shared that view or who were in that group.  Havoc has been wrought by Atheist, Monotheist, Polytheist and everyone in between throughout human existence, before religion, philosophy or any other “ists” or “isms” ever existed.  Why do we always have to point the finger at a certain group, and say, “Look, it’s them, not us!  We’re right, not them!”? 

Which brings me to my next point, why does everyone feel they have “get” the other side?  What’s wrong with letting people have their own beliefs, based on their own conclusions, from their own thinking and soul searching?  Just so long as you don’t aim to force others in aligning with your view point through belittling, coercion, or violence.  My biggest thing is:  RESPECT.  Believe what you want to believe, do what you want to do, what makes sense to YOU.  Just be a respectful person, to others, the planet and future generations and wish no harm unto others.  Wouldn’t we all be “right” in that regard?  Don’t you think how you treat other people would matter more to God that you what you believed?

So what if someone’s doesn’t believe in God, but they live their life like this?  What does it matter to you?  Would I be wrong in stating that whether you believe or not is between you and your Maker, so why not just leave it at that?  If someone has peace with not believing, do you not have peace with that?

Buuuuuut…that’s just me and my wacky moral relativism talking.  Peace to you.

“Point is, it doesn’t matter what you believe or don’t believe.  If you believe in belittling, harming, or killing others over your little beliefs”

it does matter actually, can’t you see the contradiction in your own statement, if you believe in killing because of petty reasons, it will matter.  i guess, your rant was more of an emotive response then.

No rant here, just giving my opinion, much like everyone else is doing.  Emotional based?  Hardly…

You know what else matters?  Reading. So actually, you should go ahead and re-read the last sentence of mine YOU quoted to prove your point, and then read the rest of I said and even my response to Mia…Please post back where I said killing “doesn’t matter”

“As a good model your grandma was.. she’s not the be all and end all of atheism”

Not sure where I said she was…It just irritates when holier then thou types act as if Atheists have no morality, which I KNOW to be complete BS…

“there are people who are irreligious and who work 9-5 jobs in a corporate office without giving a fig about charity and volunteerism..
Needless to say, it really depends on what the “Right Thing” is for people to do, which includes conning people.. to doing what your grandma did.  you really can’t condemn them to be selfish prigs who doesn’t see atheism the way you do, since you don’t own their life.”
Huh?  I’m sorry, this is just plain confusing to me.  This is where proof reading your posts before you click submit comes in handy…Trust me, there have been many times in the past where I wished I would’ve done that…Buuuuuuut…What’s all this talk about conning people?  Who am I condemning? 

“True christians are required to act on what they believe, by practicing charity, benevolence, patience with the preaching of the gospel.  They are commanded to be good not just simply do good for the sake of brownie points.”
But many do…Some don’t even do that…Some just act immorally, confess, and then think all is “forgiven” but this is besides the point really…
“I am not really interested in you giving me counter examples of whether this is so,”
Great, I’m not interested in doing so…And good for those people that do live a life true to Christian beliefs of charity, compassion, respect and helping others…Those are beautiful beliefs…

“Its sad and predictable that fundy atheists don’t see True christianity from the false ones despite objectively documented evidence.”

I do actually…That is an assumption…All I said was that (In my experience) my Grandmother was more Christian, then most Christians I’ve come across in her treatment of individuals and those less fortunate then she was…

“Its sad and predictable that fundy (sic) christians don’t see True atheism from the false ones despite objectively documented evidence.”

Basically, it’s too bad you look at an example of someone like my Grandmother and say Atheists like her are few and far between.  Then you go on to condemn Atheists for doing the same thing you are doing to them.  You see what I’m saying? 

Also, where did I state anything about me being Atheist or not, anywhere in this post, or my previous ones?

Peace to you…