101. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34559 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 1:47 pm

SRWB said:

"Christ's death for "our" sins - what a great and convenient "get out of jail free" card! My first question, is why do any of us have to confess to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God in the first place. Wouldn't (s)he already know?! The other thing that's always confused me about this tale is why didn't God just go the extra mile and wipe out man's supposed innate predisposition to sin when we were created? Why allow sin in the first place? I know, I know, free will and all that crap. But doesn't it seem just a tad harsh to permit sin and then allow your own son to be killed as atonement, when all this bloodletting could have been avoided if it had been done correctly right from the get go?"



It all goes back to that damned apple! God had no choice, you see. They ate the apple. No more garden. No more paradise. No more nakedness. Once that sweet Fugi apple hits the lips, you better buckle up human race.

On a more serious note, why would Adam and Eve (much less the entire human race) be punished for making an entirely arbitrary decision to eat the apple? The fruit from the tree contained knowledge of good and evil; Adam and Eve had none before hand. They had no reason to think that it was bad to disobey an order from God and listen to the snake. Cosmic justice at work.

102. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34543 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Actually Rob, I'll jump in with one point on the scripture. You are missing the point of Brian's post. He put those passages up in response to a poster who claimed that the Bible does not in fact sanction slavery. While I am sure that you and Brian will debate the morality of the above passages, they pretty clearly amount to a sanction of slavery.

103. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34541 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 12:13 pm

"I think you have the wrong religion here, Brian. Islam is the one where people kill people and blow stuff up in the name of God. Christianity, on the other hand, exhorts us not to kill people and blow stuff up in the name of God, but rather to 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' (Leviticus 19:18). Oh, I'm sure you'll come up with a load of examples of 'Christians' who have carried out atrocities in the name of God. But if you have any understanding of the Bible, you will be aware that not all those who call themselves Christians are Christians, and that there are multitudes who 'wear the badge' but don't have 'the heart to go with it'."

Moderate Muslims say the exact same thing about Islam. You casually assert that Islam is the religion about violence and Christianity is not. Truth is, both holy books are full of passages that support love and support violence, and moderates on both sides want to downplay one and trump up the other.

"The problem is that your whole outlook is utterly illogical and inconsistent. 'Demon-spawned ilk'? So you refute the existence of God, but you believe in demons?"

Are you f***ing kidding me? I think you can chalk this one up to vernacular and not an actual belief in supernatural entities known as deamons.

"Is all I can say is that whilst you and your Atheist buddies are plotting the complete destruction of Christianity and the 'demon spawned ilk' within, I will pray that your eyes will be opened from the darkness and superstition in which you reside; that you will be released from the self-imposed slavery to sin in which you dwell, and that your soul (yes you do have one) will be spared the vengeance of God and will find salvation."

To save you the time next post, these kinds of comments tend to fall on deaf ears around here.

As for the scripture, I'll let Brian deal with rebuttal.

104. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34536 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 12:02 pm

God < Keanu Reeves??? Sounds worthy of a lifetime of worship and dedication to me.

105. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34517 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 10:27 am

"Exactly. Very well said. For example, God (if he existed at all) could have caused all the bullets to stop in mid-air miraculously. This would have been easy for him to do, since he is all-powerful, and would not have affected anyone's free will at all."

I'll take it several steps further. How about God designing us so that we simply are not capable of committing some of the most atrocious acts (mass murder, genocide, etc.)? To say that this would even make the mass murderer him/herself a "robot" is laughable, let alone the average person who would never have contemplated such things in the first place.

106. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34391 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 12:19 am

"So what if Hitchens supports the war? I don't think he's right either, but I'm not that much of a jackass to assume that if he doesn't agree with me he must be a fool. There are and were plenty of good reasons to support the war, that convinced a lot of intelligent people. The Republican constituency is not COMPLETELY made up of inbred retards, as much as it may sometimes seem that way. To assume they're either dupes or oil-thirsty supervillians is a comfortable simplification that allows you to avoid thinking about the real issues, in favor of something you can focus your energy and feelings on in an obvious and cathartic way."

I have seen a lot of this around here too. Glad someone pointed it out. I would add that it was not and is not just members of the Republican party.

107. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34388 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 12:09 am

Tim M.,

Never were truer words spoken.

108. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34380 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Doug wilson said:

"And if morality is just made up as we go along, two questions. What is to prevent us from regressing or veering off into anything we please, just so long as we please to?"

There is NOTHING to stop us other than ourselves. We alone take responsibility for our morality and its consequences. We alone will be held accountable, in this life. Grow up.

109. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34245 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 4:01 pm

"No - not at all. Life is complicated. The world is complicated. Some people will always seek simplistic solutions. I prefer the truth."

Of course the absence of belief in a particular thing, in and of itself, is a "simple" concept. However, I would argue that atheism is not a simplistic solution to the world's complexity as you suggest. It is not a solution at all, but rather an acknowledgment and embrace of that complexity. It is the rejection of the simplistic solution proposed by theists.

110. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34193 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 1:30 pm

"But by what a priori reason is the chimp regime considered a "functioning moral system" while that of the polar bears is not? Just because the chimps exhibit a quality that King would personally like to see more of doesn't make either of them "moral."

Or am I just supposed to know that mutual grooming is an inherent good?"

It has nothing to do with goodness or badness. I think King's point was that we observe a system of rules that are enforced by the chimps. We would also say polar bears had a "functioning system of morality" if we observed such behavior. I don't know anything about polar bears. This is not about making value judgments about the particular rules involved.

111. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34190 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 1:25 pm

"I have only two questions for the makers of this video. 1) Would God have been more loving if He had made us to be robots totally incapable of disobedience? -and- 2) Why do you blame God for the evil in this world (evil that we incidentally cause) and yet never praise Him for the good?"

First of all, an atheist doesn't attribute anything to a god he/she does not believe exists. The question is, if there is a God, why would it allow the evil that took place at VT? Even if you assumed that God is also responsible for every good thing, that does not answer the question.

As for the robot argument, one might first ask what is inherently good or bad about being a robot? One might argue that being a robot is a small price to pay for a world devoid of any and all suffering. Isn't this what heaven is supposed to be like? Furthermore, what does God's choice not to stop this particular incidence of violence have to do with everyone being a robot? I imagine an omnipotent God could come up with a clever way to thwart the attack without infringing substantially on anyone's free will.

As for humans causing evil: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent beings do not get a pass because humans make the choices. God has the power to stop it, God knows it is going to happen, God has to answer for his failure to intercede. I am waiting for a satisfactory answer from God.

112. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34177 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 12:59 pm

"And you might wanna be careful with your appeals to the animal world; things might get a little uncomfortable when you get to the "eat their young" types.."

I think King's point was that there are examples of functioning moral systems in places supposedly isolated from divine revelation. All this talk about objectivity does not necessarily have anything to do with how society actually functions.

113. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34159 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 11:53 am

"Can someone please tell me when the Great Chimp Lawgiver came down from the mountain with those stone tablets? You know, the ones that tell the chimps exactly which rules they have and how to enforce them within their social structure."

Well, obviously this comes from divine revelation of some sort. We'll just have to go in and revise our current interpretation of the bible to fit. Either that or it is the devil's way of leading us astray. Just common sense really.

114. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #34146 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 11:02 am

Thor,

Does anyone nowadays actually advocate command socialism for any society with more than 200 people? Not a rhetorical question; I am not up to date with my socialist reading. Are people still beating this dead horse?

115. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34132 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 10:18 am

Burl,

Your point is a good one, but the answer may just be that there is no morality in any objective sense. There may not be anything objectively wrong about whites lynching blacks, and whites lynching blacks appears to be wrong in hindsight because our standards have changed. You are right that the authority ball is getting kicked around, but there is no good reason why it shouldn't get kicked away from God. If it is true that there cannot be truly objective morality without God, and we see no evidence for God, then the answer is that there is no objective morality. We cannot use the presence of objective morality as evidence of god, we simply have no way to verify that.

116. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33980 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 12:19 am

Allan,

I just said I was looking for examples outside the war in Iraq and the CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. I heard all the stuff about the sex scandal and I have repeated it in every single post.

117. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33975 by krogercomplete on April 23, 2007 at 12:05 am

Allan,

Googling as we speak, but STILL looking for ANY example of conservative ideology independent of the Iraq war and the Clinton impeachment. I cannot believe how long this little post-off has gone considering that all I was ever asking for were examples of Hitchens'conservatism outside the two examples you first mentioned. If you have an ace up your sleeve, now is the time to play it. Please.

118. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33963 by krogercomplete on April 22, 2007 at 9:57 pm

ratio said:

"It's not the principles but following them that matters . . . Does anyone have any empirical evidence of ethical atheist societies? As distinct from ethical atheists?"

I think you are getting at something important here. All atheists should concede that it is difficult to know exactly how a purely atheistic society would actually function if one existed. Though fear of punishment (eternal damnation no less) is not an especially noble reason to behave morally, it probably is a powerful motivator. Theists constantly make the point that within a handful of generations, an atheistic society would begin to falter because of the lack of such motivation. I do not agree that an atheist society should necessarily fail, but it is tough to gauge exactly how well it would do.

I am reminded of a Mormon friend who once asked me why I would ever behave morally without a god; why wouldn't I just do whatever the hell I wanted? If people really think this way (and if there is anything natural about this way of thinking), it makes me doubt the viability of a godless society. It is the same with the legal system: there are those who follow the law not out of fear of punishment, but out of a sense that it is the right thing to do, but remove the laws (the fear of punishment) and there will be those that begin to behave badly. Insert God as the ultimate law and the ultimate punisher.

119. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33958 by krogercomplete on April 22, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Allen,

"Response to . . . 77" (my last post)

Another miss! I feel like my posts are just triggering an automated response from a computer terminal somewhere out there.

120. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33924 by krogercomplete on April 22, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Thor, well put.

121. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33913 by krogercomplete on April 22, 2007 at 4:12 pm

"He is definitely an enigma. A right wing attack dog on some issues, a leftist "pinko" on others."

From what I have heard and read, that appears to be an appropriate way to label Hitchens. I too look forward to the book.

122. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33893 by krogercomplete on April 22, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Allan,

I am starting to feel a bit like a broken record, but nowhere in that huge response of yours did you answer my question.

"The issue of internally logical consistency is the issue of whether or not one is principled, kroger, and whether or not one is disposed to be principled irrespective of popularity ratings. That's what the issue is about."

WTF? My question had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Hitchens was a "principled" man. As I made clear in my first post, I do not know much about him. The ONLY reason I put up that first post (again, with the broken record) was because you labeled him as a "rabid right winger," and only gave two examples of him being aligned with conservatives. Your argument that he is not internally consistent and only does what is popular may be true but it certainly does not help your argument that he is a conservative.

"Hitchens has done this to cultivate and win behind him gullible liberal intellectuals of both atheist and non-atheist bent, and it's my impression you've bought into Hitchens' scam and con."

Given the brevity of my first two posts and the fact that I emphasized my lack of familiarity with Hitchens, I am not sure how you can justify accusing me of buying into his "scam and con." No more putting thoughts into my head or words into my mouth please.

"You say you know the issues and are American, kroger. But I daresay, you offhand seem to me to at least not have been paying sufficient attention over this past, say, 12 or or so years"

Again with the putting thoughts into my head/words into my mouth. I said that I live in the United States and am familiar with the issues you referenced. That is all I said and your comments have nothing to do with the ONE question I asked.

It is obvious that you have a bone to pick with this guy, but your backlash against me is seriously misplaced.

123. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33889 by krogercomplete on April 22, 2007 at 1:14 pm

"For ****sake get a grip everyone. This magazine is obviously similar to Private Eye in Britain. Imagine getting apoplexy because of something 'reported' in Private Eye? Worse still, imagine Private Eye getting to hear about it - Dawkins would be a laughing stock for having such dopey supporters!

Do you all not think it's worthwhile giving a bit of thought to the article you're posting about before storming in and making total fools of yourselves like....er...well...braindead fundamentalists - like 'spinoza' above, for example?"

I think most people understand it' satire and the discussion has more to do with the existence of these street preachers in general. They are everywhere and they are exactly like the guy in the article (but more offensive and sometimes with much bigger signs).

124. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33802 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 10:45 pm

"What explanation could the father possibly give that would result in a court validly ordering that part may be cut off his son's penis?"

Well he already has offered such an explanation (to two courts), but that wasn't my point. I do not mean to imply that any father should force his 12 year old son to be circumcised. My point is a very general one: it is hard to get a sense for the issue without hearing both sides. Not knowing anything about this case other than what was posted by the son's attorney, I can't say much else.

125. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33800 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Allan,

When I asked for specifics, I was looking for examples of conservatism outside the War in Iraq and the Clinton Impeachment. I reacted to your first post only because it seemed odd to label him as a "rabid right winger" solely because he supported the war and Clinton's impeachment. Sure these are two things that were spearheaded by conservatives, but aligning with conservatives on two issues hardly makes you a conservative yourself, especially given that so many of his other views are pretty far left of center.

I also live in the United States and am aware of all the issues you referenced.

126. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33795 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 8:09 pm

"Back on topic, from my earlier post, everyone here does know what The Onion is, right? Just checking."

These people are real as they come, they are all over the place, and they say stuff that is far more offensive than the made up sound bites in the article.

127. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33792 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Allan,

I know very little about Hitchens, other than that he is an atheist, he supported the invasion of Iraq, and that he was no big fan of Clinton. You may have additional support for your "now he's a rabid right-winger" theory, but supporting the invasion and not rushing to Clinton's aid during the Lewinsky scandal are in no way sufficient. From what I have heard and read from Hitchens regarding religion, free speech, morality, and paternalism generally, he appears to be about as liberal as they come.

This is not necessarily a challenge, but I am curious to know what his other conservative tendencies are (as I said, I do not know much about the man). Furthermore, I can't help but notice that you sound just like the right when you say things like "he gives aid and comfort" to the religious right. I have the sound of O'Reilly/coulter/hannity chanting "if you speak out against the war, you are giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy" dug into my brain.

Anyway, I guess I just want some more specifics.

128. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33789 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 7:36 pm

"If any one lives near this park in San francisco, you should go there and challenge this guy on his views."

There is no reasoning with these people. There were two guys that used to come to my college campus a few times each year doing the same thing, but their signs were almost billboard sized (they had ten foot long polls strapped into harnesses around their wastes) and had many more categories of hell-goers (jews, "dikes on bikes," etc.). People got mad and confronted the two guys, but it only made them shout louder. They thrived on the confrontation.

129. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33786 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 7:09 pm

"I don't believe this case exists as presented. Someone recommended being slow to take any side in a messy custody dispute. Words of wisdom. Real, independent corroboration of the facts is necessary before any reaction is warranted."

True dat. Don't trust the presentation by one side's attorney in isolation. I imagine the father's explanation would put an entirely different gloss on the facts (and add some new ones).

130. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33785 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 7:02 pm

It's like a warm blanket.

131. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33748 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 2:09 pm

The Burly Gates said:

That "[Wilson] SHOULD be ashamed" is pretty strong language, what with the caps and all. Question is, who are you to impose your morality on him?

That he SHOULD be ashamed was the premise behind the original posts (none written by me), rather than that he WAS ashamed. As for me: SHOULD is rather strong language. About as strong as an endorsement of slavery. I am not sure that me making a value judgment about such an endorsement is necessarily the same thing as "imposing my morality" on Mr. Wilson, but even if it was, I feel pretty comfortable with it.

132. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33736 by krogercomplete on April 21, 2007 at 12:30 pm

"Shooting deaths are orders of magnitude lower everywhere else in the developed world. Ban guns and stop having this stupid, and now very public conversation."

While a fan of gun control, I can't help but think that guns are not the only variable here. For whatever reason, we Americans are a violent bunch, and our crime rates are astronomical for reasons that go beyond the availability of guns. Whatever the solution is, it needs to be an American solution (i.e. it needs to take into account our peculiar tendencies/culture/history/etc.). What is the best way to work within our system? Just looking to the gun bans in place in other countries seems like a superficial approach to the problem. Discussion?

133. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33647 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 9:46 pm

I just had to share this. The other day I was listening to OReilly on the radio (the "radio factor") and he explained why he believes in God. I cannot remember the exact words, but this is the basic idea (and imagine Bill's "matter-of-fact, you would have to be an idiot to not agree with this" tone of voice):

"You can never have accidental perfection. The tides go in, the tides go out. The sun goes up, the sun goes down. Our bodies work, all the habitats work. Accidental perfection. It never happens. So I throw in the deity."

Precious.

134. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33646 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 9:35 pm

"I love when people say things like "you are committing the logical fallacy of overgeneralization" instead of just saying, you are overgeneralizing."

"Sure, but it seems to drive the point a little harder don't you think?"

Not for those of us who like logical fallacies.

135. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33632 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 7:28 pm

"It also seems that you, along with the majority of your brethren on this forum, are committing the logical fallacy of overgeneralization..."

I love when people say things like "you are committing the logical fallacy of overgeneralization" instead of just saying, you are overgeneralizing. I'd contribute to the substantive argument if I could, but all I've got right now is a good ol' fashion ad hominem.

136. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33608 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 5:36 pm

"But if everyone starts carrying guns in school I can anticipate many minor disputes esculating to full blown shoot outs when hot heads got overcome by a moment's impulse. In addition there will certainly be a lot more gun related accidents."

I think the conservatives picture a society where everyone who owns a gun is perfectly well behaved and perfectly well trained. No accidents. No hot heads. Just good people striking down evil wherever it arises. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

137. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33607 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Yorker,

I am sure it is a good read. Can you glimpse for me the solution that everyone knows about.

138. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33601 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 5:15 pm

"The USA is a failing society, everyone knows what must be done to fix it, but none have the courage to do it."

Explain. And what would it actually mean for the United States to "fail."

139. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33598 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 5:09 pm

"All I'm really saying is that morality should be open ended. We should treat it the same as any other sphere of human discourse. Science, government, the legal system, education standards, etc are all open to update and revision. Why should we treat morality or ethics any different? This is not to say that we cannot develop some moral absolutes. For example, slavery, honor killing, and rape are absolutely immoral. But we simply do not need or want an objective morality that is set in stone (pun intended). A purely objective morality will forever be out of rationality's grasp (and that's a good thing)"

I think many people have trouble with this because we tend to talk about morality in objective terms. We think of certain things as being absolute (i.e. "it is just plain wrong to do X"), even if the truth is that they are not. I can't stand the way theists play on this by saying things like "deep down we all know that there are certain moral absolutes." Then they leap on the inability of most people to articulate a coherent objective standard and insert their ready-made solution (God). Check mate I guess.

In all honesty, the problem of objective morality does trouble me because I can't help but conceive of certain things as being objectively right or wrong. I am about to read Mark Hauser's "Moral Minds." Maybe it will provide some insights. Anyone else read it?

140. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33579 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 4:06 pm

"Richard strikes me has having little charm and even less sense of humour"

He charms the pants off of me, and I laugh while he is doing it!

141. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33520 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 1:21 pm

To change the subject just slightly:

Have any fellow Americans been following the conservative reaction to the VT shootings as it pertains to gun control?

Liberals will champion this as an example of what happens in a society where it is too easy to get guns. Some of the more hardcore conservatives (Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Nugent, etc.) are using this as an example of what happens when average citizens are not permitted to carry weapons for defense. As Savage so eloquently put it, "this is what happens when children are taught all their lives not to fight back"; when something like this happens, you "take your glock and you blow them away!"

Normally, I would not really care about someone like Savage, but given that the DC circuit court of appeals struck down DC's handgun ban in March as a violation of the Second Amendment, this sentiment worries me. A federal court of appeals, for the first time in recent memory, weighed in on whether the 2nd amendment grants a PRIVATE right to bear arms. It is on its way to the Supreme Court and I have a feeling it will be affirmed. Strict gun control may be in serious jeopardy.

142. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33505 by krogercomplete on April 20, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Doug Wilson said:

"The false premise that the posters above are operating on is the idea that I am ashamed of my views on this subject -- but if that were true, I wouldn't putting them into books, now, would I?"

No, the premise is that you SHOULD be ashamed. The fact that you aren't is the entire reason for the posts.

143. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33348 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 11:30 pm

"What I want to know is - where were the mathematicians?
That is just as relevant."

And every time there is a public gathering, there is never any talk of algebra or integral calculus, let alone analytic geometry. Even those who do happen to be mathematically inclined make no mention of these concepts.

144. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33341 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 10:54 pm

"He'll offer the metaphor about human brains being nothing more than a clanging around of atom-balls and then he'll be done."

"And when I have made that point, you bet I'm done, because the argument's done. Put a fork in it. And if there is no God, it is not a metaphor. Shake up two bottles of soda and put them on a table where everyone can see them. Let them both fizz over like crazy. Which one is winning the debate? Dawkins or me?"

Not sure what is going on here.

145. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33294 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 7:50 pm

"treated the whole subject as though it were self-evident with no argumentative support necessary"

As self-evident as your God?

146. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33290 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Bravo.

147. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33276 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 7:22 pm

"Christianity is injurious, you say, but I would want to inquire why it is bad to be injurious. What standard do you appeal to here . . . Okay, so I am part of a divisive, injurious and retrograde movement. Is that bad?" (LFACC, p. 10)."

Clearly, the source of objective morality has been a tricky issue for philosophers since the dawn of philosophy. How can I objectively say that you belonging to the movement described above is morally wrong? Quite frankly, I am not sure. I am still looking for some evidence for the christian god, though. The "god as the only objective source of morality" argument makes two huge assumptions: (1) there is objective morality; and (2) the ONLY possible source of objective morality is the christian god. I'd like some definitive evidence of (1) (other than the standard, "we all just know that its true", and my lack of an explanation for objective morality certainly is not proof of (2).

148. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33214 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 3:24 pm

"I realized very early that the place for God is outside the self…… Choose this day who you will serve…… not because you have the choice to serve or not to serve, but only the choice of who or what to serve . . . a little applied thought would have helped you out in your struggle with that one…… don't deny the self, embrace your uncertainty….. it is all you will ever have"

This kind of thing is all made up. I feel like I am taking crazy pills!?!

149. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33206 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Does anyone know if this is going to be an exclusive studio interview where Dawkins actually comes in and sits at that table, or will he be broadcast via satellite along with another guest (or two)?

Regardless, I have a feeling they will focus more on the effects religion has on society and whether religious people are "delusional." I doubt we see a creation v. evolution debate, or even a logical debate about the existence of god.

150. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33193 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 2:34 pm

We need a straight up debate between the two.