So Phil Robertson Is Yammering Again

I'm not a fan.

I find Nolte's apologetics on Robertson's behalf here faulty, but that's not the real fault I find with the defense.

Rather, the fault I find is with the automatic springing to this guy's defense, like he's An Hero of Christendom, when first of all, he's just a Reality TV Goon, not a Philosopher King, and second of all, don't we always criticize The Left for springing to Defend Their Own without thought?

Here then the words which apparently must be defended to the full:

"I'll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist's home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don't have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?'
Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.'
If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right.'

What Robertson says here is his own belief and he's welcome to them. I don't really care all that much about his thick-witted, chauvanistic belief system which he seems to have confused with Christianity. (A chauvanistic belief system is one which primarily tells the believer that Everything He Thinks Is Right and Good, like many idolatrous fake philosophies on the left.)

It's not that what he says is sooo terrible, but if you say he's not doing some "fantasizing" here you're lying, either to me or yourself, because this is in perfect accord with the various "When you're being tortured in Hell, you'll know I was right and you were stupid" sort of Salvation Baiting which most Christians know enough to avoid, but which some occasionally lapse into when they're not looking.

I mean, this is such a childishly indulgent fantasy: "Well I can't wait until X happens and then God proves I was right all along..."

Intelligent, mature people do not speak this way. Oh, they think this way, to be sure: I'll cop to having these kind of childish indulgent fantasies -- "And then they'll all know I was right!" -- several times a month.

But adults try not to let them get on the outside of one's brain, because, honestly, these Vindication Fantasies are just embarrassing as shit for anyone but a nine-year-old.

And his ideation here is all wrong and ignorant. No, atheists do not believe, as he lays out, that there actually is a God, but we shall choose to actively disbelieve in him so as to avoid "being judged."

This is such a foolish notion of being godless that I doubt Robertson's thoughts on God can be much deeper. I don't know if one can really be a good atheist without having at least an appreciation for religion, and I don't think someone can really, truly believe in God, and have that Faith mean anything, unless he sort of understands the reasons for Doubt.

In Robertson's ignorant telling, everyone knows God exists, really -- there is no Doubt, you see -- but then some Wicked Children decide "We don't wanna be judged!" and so we spit in His face.

This is absurd. If anyone knew for a fact that there was a God abroad in the Heavens who intended to Condemn him to Hellish Torment for Eternity for the sin of not Believing in Him, then that person would of course believe in God.

In other words, if you Believe in God, then yes, you Believe in God.

People do not believe in God because they want to "sin without judgment." They don't believe in God because, get this, they just don't believe in God. The existence, or nonexistence, of God is the first and only step in this process; no one reasons backwards to it after deciding "I'd like to be judged by a Deity, so I believe in God" or "You know, I'd rather not be judged by a Deity, so I shall deny His existence."

This is crude, puerile crap. It is not really "offensive," except to the extent that all stupid, ignorant, crude and puerile things ought to vaguely offend anyone of taste and intellect and self-respect.

Again, I'm not really offended in the way the left says "I'm offended!" His words do not hurt me at all; nor his stupid, beefwitted ideas, or his crude conception of Christianity as a Fat Book Telling Me I'm Just Perfect. I don't want him fired, or disciplined, or boycotted.

But he is wrong, wrong and juvenile and puerile and self-indulgent, and I'll tell him that, including to his face, if he likes.

And I won't say "Everything Phil Robertson says is just perfect because 1, he's a Christian, 2, he's vaguely on my side, and 3, he's famous and on Television!"

I don't care that he's on TV. I don't care that he's famous.

I don't care that many people are going to inform me that Phil Robertson is higher on the Conservatively Correct Pecking Order, and that he is "important' whereas I am not.

Someone's "importance" has no bearing on whether what they say is true or not.

I don't care about any of that, or teams, or any of this tribalistic bullshit.

He said something stupid.

Someone should say it's stupid.

There, I just did.

Posted by: Ace at 06:38 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 It is stupid and slanted.

Posted by: pilot141 at March 25, 2015 06:39 PM (9XHSw)

2 Ace, closing tag.

Ur doing it wrong.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at March 25, 2015 06:40 PM (0HooB)

3 Well that's just lovely. Thanks for starting this latest media controversy/discussion where progressives get to gloat about ignorant, cray-cray Christians.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 06:41 PM (TLTHv)

4 Closed?
Now?

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 06:42 PM (TLTHv)

5 Wow, you Italianized the whole front page. That's impressive.

Posted by: rickl at March 25, 2015 06:42 PM (sdi6R)

6 Huh?

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 25, 2015 06:42 PM (FAV2W)

7 "If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right."

Especially if the two guys were dressed like two of the Banana Splits!!!

Posted by: Bruce Jenner's Plastic Vag at March 25, 2015 06:42 PM (z3CKW)

8 This will not end well.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 25, 2015 06:43 PM (MMC8r)

9 Yeah that's pretty ckufing stupid, especially the part about no right or wrong.

Wha?

Maybe I'm missing something, but when did atheists in the main believe there's no right or wrong?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 25, 2015 06:44 PM (oFCZn)

10 It's stupid and I've never seen that show in my life.

Posted by: steevy at March 25, 2015 06:44 PM (KETbL)

11 So...what point was he making - that without religion (or specifically, the 10 Commandments) you have no source/common basis for defining right and wrong?

There are so many better ways of attempting to make *that* point, Mr. Robertson, without violent fantasies about killing an atheist and his family.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 06:44 PM (TLTHv)

12 Sure they tend to think the concepts of right and wrong don't come from a deity, but I've never heard them saying there's no right or wrong.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 25, 2015 06:45 PM (oFCZn)

13 So one benefit of being agnostic is that you don't give a shit when some guy on tv trashes atheists.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 25, 2015 06:45 PM (3a584)

14 Warhol was right. How many minutes in is he?

Posted by: tu3031 at March 25, 2015 06:45 PM (S0A/C)

15 Phil Robertson has a bully pulpit. He speaks for himself and doesn't need me to defend him. If anyone has a problem with what he said they should take it up with Phil Robertson.

Posted by: myiq2xu at March 25, 2015 06:45 PM (5fSr7)

16 ... on the other hand..... anything that annoys the baying hounds on the left.... is a good thing.

So, to coin a phrase, I may not agree with him, but I defend his right to express himself. Go Phil!

Posted by: goatexchange at March 25, 2015 06:46 PM (C+vOU)

17 >>Maybe I'm missing something, but when did atheists in the main believe there's no right or wrong?

never, obviously.

In the Doctor Sheppard Murder case, he claimed hippies broke into his home and killed his wife, while saying things like (seriously) "Acid is groovy."

Police were a bit suspicious about that. That didn't sound like somehting a hippie would say. that sounded like someone who only saw hippies on TV shows would think hippies would say.

Robertson's attempt to channel the thought system of athetists is on par with Sheppard's claiming that Hippies go around killing women while saying "Acid is groovy."

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 06:46 PM (PA7DS)

18 Was in the car with some friends one day, they were talking about Duck Dynasty. One guy asked if I watched the show, and I said, "No, it's not my speed." They looked at me like I said "I'm going to beat your mom to death with your dog."

Posted by: M. Murcek at March 25, 2015 06:46 PM (GJUgF)

19
Alternate post title:

I Don't Like The Way Phil Robertson Thinks

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 06:46 PM (ko4zy)

20 >>Maybe I'm missing something, but when did atheists in the main believe there's no right or wrong?

Not that there's no right or wrong, that there is no shared basis/source for right and wrong (sorta like Obama defininng sin as being "out of alignment with HIS values). Dennis Prager has made this point but without stooping to this kind of rhetoric. I'll see if I can find the video....

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 06:47 PM (TLTHv)

21 who is Phil Robertson?

Posted by: woodford at March 25, 2015 06:47 PM (qAr3W)

22 Shorter version, "There are no atheists in foxholes"

Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 06:47 PM (/2E+M)

23 re: what atheists thnk about right and wrong

as many have noticed, atheists are an exceedingly loud and self-talky bunch. if robertson really wanted to know what atheists thought about right and wrong, he could just ask one.

instead, he garbles an argument he heard from other people and says Acid is Groovy man.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 06:48 PM (PA7DS)

24 When liberals sing in harmony to alert us all to existental threat these backwater yahoos present, they perform a national service.

Halle-falujah!

Posted by: Devil's Islet at March 25, 2015 06:48 PM (jT+gh)

25 Is Breitbart not just terrible since its namesake passed? It is a shell of its former self, and very hard to even take seriously, in my opinion. I have to think he is rolling over in his grave. Maybe the stuff about gamergate that the guy from Britain did was OK, but for the most part- I roll my eyes at that site.

Posted by: exhippie at March 25, 2015 06:48 PM (urGox)

26 I got nothing.

Posted by: Ahura Mazda at March 25, 2015 06:49 PM (8ZskC)

27
"There are no atheists in foxholes."

"OMG!! Your cruel sadistic fantasy of wanting atheists to shoved into holes with foxes!"

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 06:49 PM (kdS6q)

28 >In Robertson's ignorant telling, everyone knows God exists, really -- there is no Doubt, you see -- but then some Wicked Children decide "We don't wanna be judged!" and so we spit in His face.

No, in Robertson's telling, everyone has a sense of right and wrong, and that sense - in his view - does not get explained adequately on an atheistic-materialist understanding of the world. And the atheist-materialist happens to be far and away the most popular version of atheism out there.

He's highlighting it in a particularly obnoxious way, but frankly, it's no more obnoxious than most scenarios people bring out to advance their agenda. LGBT activists always talk about teenage gays beaten to death by people 'just because of who they love', pro-lifers talk about partial birth abortion, pro-abortionists talk about scared 12 year olds who are pregnant due to being raped by their stepfathers, etc.

Posted by: Crude at March 25, 2015 06:49 PM (/IrCS)

29 who is Phil Robertson?

One of the Back Bay Robertsons.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (8ZskC)

30 Maybe I'm missing something, but when did atheists in the main believe there's no right or wrong?

How do you get from "survival of the fittest" to "right/wrong?"

Pretty much every atheist does believe in right and wrong - the problem is that that in most cases they just hold to parts of a system of morality inherited from religion instead of being derived from their own formal beliefs.

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (FAV2W)

31 I content myself with the happy thought that any person who thinks that, by the virtue of his/her life and works, is guaranteed admittance to Heaven, is very likely mistaken.

The essence of humanity is fallibility. If you arrogate infallibility to your person, you are putting yourself in the place of God. Most faiths consider this to be an extremely stupid thing to do.

The Pope should probably heed this, actually.

(Why yes, I am a Protestant . . . Lutheran, to be exact--well, by upbringing, actually. I'm a practicing disdainer of organized religion in general for the most part.)

(I also think religion is important and good when it serves as a check on one's own behavior, and dangerous and borderline evil when someone uses it as a check on somebody else's behavior. I am aware of the curious razor's edge of theology this places me upon.)

Posted by: filbert at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (h6Mpm)

32
There's coming a time when we no longer have any Phil Robertsons in this country. Yeah, his logic is a bit simplistic, but his kind is a dying breed.

Progress? Hardly.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (ko4zy)

33 Looks like somebody had a Val-U-Rite and Haterade cocktail at happy hour...

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (mx5oN)

34 I'll be at the Owl Cam.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (FsuaD)

35 Who's Phil Robertson?

Posted by: jammer - HappyFunCamper at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (V0NdD)

36 >>>This is absurd. If anyone knew for a fact that there was a God abroad in the Heavens who intended to Condemn him to Hellish Torment for Eternity for the sin of not Believing in Him, then that person would of course believe in God.

of course, no one knows. That's why it's called faith.

I'm not going to tackle your theology though because it doesn't seem like you have much of an education in that dept.

Posted by: Lea at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (vmMMi)

37 Oh, I forgot to close with:

Thus endeth the lesson.

Posted by: filbert at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (h6Mpm)

38 Phil Robertson IMO is a good man. America 2015 is a hive of shit swirling the toilet bowl. (culturally speaking)

Putting that to the side for a moment, Robertson has "fuck you money" and hes not running for office. He can say whatever he likes.

Posted by: Casual Indifference at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (kf36l)

39 I'll be at the Owl Cam.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (FsuaD)

Send regular reports.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (8ZskC)

40 Please stop Capitalizing All The Things.

Posted by: thanks at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (olRSa)

41 Who is Phil Robertson and why should I care about any of this? Because I dont.

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (JO9+V)

42 39 I'll be at the Owl Cam.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (FsuaD)

Send regular reports.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (8ZskC)

Who?

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2015 06:52 PM (mx5oN)

43 I don't go to ex-Quarterbacks for wisdom and philosophical truths......

... I grew up with Bob Avellini, so.........

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 06:52 PM (yFqY+)

44 FWIW, here's Dennis Prager on moral absolutes vs. secular values - which *may* be the line of thinking that Robertson was alluding to (but who knows):

http://www.dennisprager.com/ moral-absolutes-judeo-christian-values-part-xi/

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 06:52 PM (TLTHv)

45 This diatribe coming from a guy (Ace) who recently admitted he has lied to his readers again and again in order to advance the GOPe agenda is unimpressive.

I don't have any particular love for Phil Robertson (have never seen the show), but bear in mind that Ace is an admitted atheist AND liar.

I won't be losing much sleep over his angst.

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 06:52 PM (lDDN7)

46 Yep; Take it up with Phil Robertson, Ace. Believe it or not, Ace, some of us who are Christians here don't watch and have never watched "Duck Dynasty"and the only thing we know about Robertson is the initial comment way back when he apparently said something that was politically incorrect about gays and was the first person threatened with firing.

I find fantasizing about other people's death a most unpleasant thing whether it's done by some Christians, militant Atheists or part of the Gaystopo.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 25, 2015 06:52 PM (DXzRD)

47 Even stoned college freshmen know about Kant's categorical imperative. What is wrong with Robertson?

Posted by: wooga at March 25, 2015 06:53 PM (nllJH)

48 Very very interesting

So today I heard two speakers from the Westboro Baptist Church

At the beginning of their talk, they showed a video of the WBC in action.

They were the granddaughters of the founder of the church and they had left the church. They left the church when they started heckling a fairly well known Jewish blogger on Twitter. Initially if was angry put downs, but then he changed his tone. He asked them questions, that they could not answer. Eventually they left the church.

Which was a huge deal. They had 13 siblings. Their cousins are all from huge familys. Everyone they knew they were related to.

The girls were, to my suprise, extremely intelligent and well spoken. And very well educated. Their mother was one of 13 children and all of them were lawyers. Even so, the only people they hated were gays and jews. They don't hate blacks or Hispanics because they can't help they were born black or Hispanic. You can chose to be gay or a jew by their reasoning. If your flaw was a choice, they hate you. Their grandfather was a civil rights Attoney in fact

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 06:53 PM (zOTsN)

49 In the Doctor Sheppard Murder case, he claimed hippies broke into his home and killed his wife, while saying things like (seriously) "Acid is groovy."

Police were a bit suspicious about that. That didn't sound like somehting a hippie would say. that sounded like someone who only saw hippies on TV shows would think hippies would say.

Robertson's attempt to channel the thought system of athetists is on par with Sheppard's claiming that Hippies go around killing women while saying "Acid is groovy."

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 06:46 PM (PA7DS)

That was Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, the green beret guy in North Carolina.

Ehh, I'm a true crime nut.

Back to this guy though it's not very Christian to cook up a kool murder/torture fantasy just because you don't like what they're advocating.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 25, 2015 06:53 PM (oFCZn)

50 27
"There are no atheists in foxholes."

"OMG!! Your cruel sadistic fantasy of wanting atheists to shoved into holes with foxes!"
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 06:49 PM (kdS6q)

and if one of those foxes was Kate Upton, would they then believe in G*d?

Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 06:53 PM (/2E+M)

51 39
I'll be at the Owl Cam.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:50 PM (FsuaD)

Send regular reports.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM (8ZskC)

*slitty eyes*

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:53 PM (FsuaD)

52 I don't disagree with anything you said about Phil, the guy's no Christian scholar or priest, but I wonder if you, ace, would have wrote this post before you went politically agnostic?

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 25, 2015 06:53 PM (i55o+)

53 Ace...I'll bet you are wrong.

Posted by: Blaise Pascal at March 25, 2015 06:53 PM (Zu3d9)

54
Ace! That was Dr. Jeff MacDonald and it happened in 1970. Sam Shepard happened in the 50s and smelly hippies hadnt been invented yet.

Posted by: Bruce J. at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (iQIUe)

55 "But adults try not to let them get on the outside of one's brain, because, honestly, these Vindication Fantasies are just embarrassing as shit for anyone but a nine-year-old."

I agree with the sentiment but I think it's a lot more common than you think, like half the adult population common. Just try to tell a liberal you don't want socialized gubmint run healthcare and the first thing they'll say is I can't wait for you to get terminal cancer while your kids have cerebral palsy and your wife becomes a quadraplegic.
No wait that's the second thing they'll say after calling you a racist

Posted by: hookedonteledildonics at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (WxRrV)

56
Maybe he's lumping atheists in with anarchists and commies because of his age and their common overlap.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (ko4zy)

57 The Pope should probably heed this, actually.

He should poll the electorate, upon which the seed of man has fallen upon rock hard abs to create a universal church

Posted by: Devil's Islet at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (jT+gh)

58 >as many have noticed, atheists are an exceedingly loud and self-talky bunch. if robertson really wanted to know what atheists thought about right and wrong, he could just ask one.

Atheists rejecting the idea of moral right and wrong in any meaningful way isn't exactly new, nor is it exceedingly fringe.

In fact, there are parallels here with Islam. Far and away most muslims don't do all that much that's offensive, but you'd probably be the first guy who gets outraged at someone talking about how that's just some weird fringe element that has little to do with Islam, and how people who say Islam has a problem with this sort of shit 'really have to read the Koran and educate themselves before they talk'.

Atheists as a group have more baggage than being loud and obnoxious. So do Christians, but the Christians fucking admit it.

Posted by: Crude at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (/IrCS)

59 This thread will not end well.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (FsuaD)

60 Who's Phil Robertson?

Posted by: jammer - HappyFunCamper at March 25, 2015 06:51 PM

Ah, got it. See, I accidentally read the post first.

Posted by: jammer - HappyFunCamper at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (V0NdD)

61 Believe it or not, Ace, some of us who are Christians here don't watch and have never watched "Duck Dynasty"

Pretty much. Never seen it.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 06:55 PM (yFqY+)

62 "The Old Guard dies but does not surrender!"

Posted by: Sergeant Nicolas Chauvin at March 25, 2015 06:55 PM (3L7fF)

63 All the smart people agree with Ace. Unfortunately that's a tiny minority. When Phil Robertson farts more people hear it than read Ace in a year.

Posted by: Huh at March 25, 2015 06:55 PM (PGh+Q)

64 Faith = trust

Faith mouth breathing ignorance

That's true everywhere in the bible. The fact that people of faith use that word as a bludgeon meaning "because shut up" he reasoned is my biggest pet peeve.

Oh and also greedy loudmouth shills like Robertson talking. That is also my biggest pet peeve. He doesn't speak for Christians, evangelicals, conservatives... He speaks for hisself and no one else.

Posted by: James at March 25, 2015 06:55 PM (LtdTA)

65 Not that there's no right or wrong, that there is no shared basis/source for right and wrong

Actually, its more like "there is no punishment for right or wrong, so I can do as I damn well please".

I think all Libertarians are atheist.

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 06:55 PM (lDDN7)

66 Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 06:52 PM (lDDN7)

Whose bitch this is?

Posted by: Buzzion at March 25, 2015 06:56 PM (z/Ubi)

67 I'm a Christian. I support Christianity. I defend Christianity.

BUT... for some people, and like anything else, it gets used as an excuse to behave like an ass.

I just unfriended someone at FB because I'm sick of her (what I call) "cartoon Christianity." NOTHING she does or says can ever be used against her, because she's convinced herself she's going to heaven no matter what. BUT, nothing else anyone does is ever good enough for her, so they're going to hell. She also just loves to crow about how quickly the Rapture is going to come, but DON'T YOU DARE try to pin her down on a timeframe!! Then she cries that she's being persecuted for her faith.

And needless to say, she's downright absurd about it. I recently found out that she believes being gay should be a *felony.*

I hate to agree with the angry atheists about anything, but let's face it: long before they got here, Christianity (like marriage) already had given itself two big swollen black eyes, many many times before, thanks to the downright stupid and hyperjudgmental behavior of too many closed-minded people.

Posted by: qdpsteve at March 25, 2015 06:56 PM (elbY7)

68 59 This thread will not end well.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (FsuaD)

*giggles at monitor while trying to keep beer upright*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 06:56 PM (yFqY+)

69 Ace has some stalkers.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 25, 2015 06:56 PM (MMC8r)

70 Who the fuck cares? The entire Robertson family is going to die rich. They found a cultural niche and exploited it- even backed their network off in a way Clarkson never did to The Beeb.

Good for them. Don't care.

Posted by: SGT Dan's Cat at March 25, 2015 06:56 PM (tjRMO)

71 But he is wrong, wrong and juvenile and puerile and self-indulgent, and I'll tell him that, including to his face, if he likes.

Ace, do you disagree with this conclusion?

If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right.'

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 06:56 PM (0NdlF)

72 Atheists rejecting the idea of moral right and wrong in any meaningful way isn't exactly new, nor is it exceedingly fringe.
Posted by: Crude

Right...Wrong...I'm the guy with the gun.

Posted by: Uncle Joe Stalin at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (GuwT9)

73 This thread will not end well.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (FsuaD)

I say we burn a witch and be done with it.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (8ZskC)

74
Pretty much every atheist does believe in right and wrong....
Posted by: Grey Fox

"Pretty much every" is a bit of a stretch.

There's certainly a subset of "moral atheists", but balanced out with the nihilists and the militants who go out of their way to actively scorn the conventions of morality -- the fornicators in the graveyards and such.

Probably polls somewhere with the breakdown.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (kdS6q)

75 *faith /= ignorance

I tried the other symbol for "does not equal" but I'm guessing it tried to do some web code.

I'm trying to do math sentences here web comment thingy!

Posted by: James at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (LtdTA)

76 +1 on Grey Fox's comment.

Overall though, file this post under "Whatever, Ace."

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (Coygu)

77
Please stop Capitalizing All The Things.

I know, right. It's like reading the Federalist Papers.
He's even got me doing it now!

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (ko4zy)

78 59 This thread will not end well.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (FsuaD)

Nope. I see this going as well as the UVA/Scott Walker outreach director thread. So, a fond temporary farewell.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (mx5oN)

79 as an Eastern Orthodox Christian (Serbian), I don't get the evangelical bent on atheists. ok, so you don't believe in God. how is that a personal affront to me? I don't dine on hobo during Great Lent, but I don't hold it against Ace if he indulges himself. sheesh.

Posted by: the Butcher at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (fUjxW)

80 If you think this is a super rare thought "You know, I'd rather not be judged by a Deity, so I shall deny His existence." you probably avoid the Reddit Athiest boards. Puerile etc. covers the contingency of course.

There are different kinds of doubters, just as there are different kinds of believers.

Posted by: Agnostic person at March 25, 2015 06:58 PM (lv2k0)

81
This thread will not end well.
Posted by: Jane D'oh

Oh -- it will be a disaster. They always are.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 06:58 PM (kdS6q)

82 If Phil Robertson was a black rapper would anyone care what he said?

If only we could get rid of those bigoted frat boys and Phil Robertson....

Posted by: Casual Indifference at March 25, 2015 06:58 PM (kf36l)

83 "And I won't say "Everything Phil Robertson says is just perfect because
1, he's a Christian, 2, he's vaguely on my side, and 3, he's famous and
on Television!""

You are leaping to the conclusion that those who defended him the last time around, and, I guess this time, were saying these three things.

I defended him, and will continue to defend him and I don't give a rat's ass about those three points.

I defended him because I believe in the concept of free speech, and dislike hysterical mobs with pitchforks and torches going after people like Robertson.

And I'll bet that many...perhaps most of his defenders around here would agree with me.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2015 06:58 PM (Zu3d9)

84 I just unfriended someone at FB because I'm sick of her (what I call) "cartoon Christianity." NOTHING she does or says can ever be used against her, because she's convinced herself she's going to heaven no matter what.

*nods knowingly at monitor and rolls eyes so hard they're stuck staring at the ceiling*

Damn it.......

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 06:58 PM (yFqY+)

85 I don't know if it was a fantasy necessarily. The description wounded like that awful case in Connecticut where two home invaders went into a doctors home and raped and murdered his wife and two daughters

Robertson's reasoning sounds an awful lot like the WBC

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 06:59 PM (zOTsN)

86 If an Atheist is the author of his own morality, can he ever be a hypocrite?

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 25, 2015 06:59 PM (MMC8r)

87 Please stop Capitalizing All The Things.

I think it's hilarious and find myself doing it here and elsewhere.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 25, 2015 06:59 PM (oFCZn)

88 81
This thread will not end well.
Posted by: Jane D'oh

Oh -- it will be a disaster. They always are.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 06:58 PM (kdS6q)

It's like watching NASCAR, you hope no one crashes but you *KNOW* it's gonna happen

Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 06:59 PM (/2E+M)

89 He should poll the electorate, upon which the seed of man has fallen upon rock hard abs to create a universal church
Posted by: Devil's Islet at March 25, 2015 06:54 PM (jT+gh)

Papal infallibility is not a Biblical teaching, as far as I know. It is a Catholic dogma.

Human fallibility definitely is in the Bible.

Posted by: filbert at March 25, 2015 06:59 PM (h6Mpm)

90 Ace, I also don't get the Duck Dynasty worship. It's so dumb. They're a (very fake) reality show.

A bunch of clean-cut, preppy rich kids went full stereotypical redneck and now we have to defend grandpa. Yeah, ok.

Posted by: Doug at March 25, 2015 07:00 PM (yNjgJ)

91 >>>Ace, do you disagree with this conclusion?

If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right.'

...

look, i'm sorry, some of you just know Atheists as "The Other," and you project your Acid Is Groovy Man sort of dark fantasies of the Other on to them.

You seem to conflate atheism with moral nihilism.

And you do so despite the fact that many of the biggest philosophers were atheists (or not Christians -- Plato et al predated Christ) and yet spent all their waking hours puzzling out ethics and morality.

This is such an obvious point, and it's been made so many times, that there really is no sense to making it any further. Those of you who are going to insist that "Atheist = Moral Nihilist" will keep on insisting that until your deathbed, because apparently it's very important for you to believe that, and it just doesn't matter how many times you're told those are actually two different categories of things.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:00 PM (PA7DS)

92
Please stop Capitalizing All The Things.

yes please

Posted by: e e cummings at March 25, 2015 07:00 PM (MMC8r)

93 Also not a fan. That is all.

Posted by: Comrade Moron April at March 25, 2015 07:00 PM (FjIA5)

94 I say we burn a witch and be done with it.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2015 06:57 PM (8ZskC)

Which witch gets the switch?

Posted by: filbert at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (h6Mpm)

95 I'm a Christian.

Posted by: qdpsteve at March 25, 2015 06:56 PM (elbY7)

Prove it!

Show us your circumcision.

Posted by: LIV at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (Zu3d9)

96 I defended him because I believe in the concept of free speech, and dislike hysterical mobs with pitchforks and torches going after people like Robertson.

And I'll bet that many...perhaps most of his defenders around here would agree with me.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2015 06:58 PM (Zu3d9)

+100 - it's free speech, not religion issue to me

Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (/2E+M)

97 I defended him because I believe in the concept of free speech, and dislike hysterical mobs with pitchforks and torches going after people like Robertson.

Absolutely. Just, don't browbeat me. Say whatever you believe, but........

Leave me, THE FUCK, alone.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (yFqY+)

98 >>>55 "But adults try not to let them get on the outside of one's brain, because, honestly, these Vindication Fantasies are just embarrassing as shit for anyone but a nine-year-old."

As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. If you have the same thoughts are you a better person for keeping them there? You may think you are a wiser person and that's enough.

For the record, I don't like this grisly fantasizing either but I don't see it much different from the 'if your wife was raped would you still support this bill' stuff we've heard from mainstream politicians many times.

Posted by: Lea at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (vmMMi)

99 If an Atheist is the author of his own morality, can he ever be a hypocrite?

I would guess ... not? Except that the lesson is always Be True to Yourself.

So I guess some standards are better than others, with the Yourself Standard being the best.

Also makes curious the accusation of conservative hypocrisy - any belief is fine, yes?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (0NdlF)

100 ThunderB, did the WBC sisters leave because they couldn't answer theological questions or because they couldn't defend the church's bizarre activism against Jews and homosexuals? Do they actually do anything churchy like hold Sunday service and read the bible? I've always just assumed it was a front for their activism, that they weren't actually religious people.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (TLTHv)

101 And there are plenty of atheists in "foxholes."

Son served with a few. They had a chaplain who would do a "Gather 'Round the Hood" before they mounted their vehicles and went outside the wire on convoys.

The Christian/Jewish/Other believers always gathered. A few didn't.

Our son *never* missed the prayer/blessing.

But when they engaged the enemy, and mortar rounds were landing (and son was blown sky high by one), a few atheists prayed out loud for God to save them. Funny, that.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (FsuaD)

102 Lets face it, most atheists seen to be terrible people, maybe that was what Phil was getting at.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (i55o+)

103 98ZJUSMC, hope I haven't hit too sensitive a nerve. ;-)

I guess my point is, hyperjudgmental Christians and screaming atheists are just about two sides of the same coin.

"Sinner!!"
"Rube!!"
"Sinner!!!!"
"Rube!!!!"
"Sinner!!!!!!"
"Rube!!!!!!"

...sigh...

Posted by: qdpsteve at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (elbY7)

104 Phil Robertson is immensly successful. Is everyone saying he should shut up and let Ashly Judd talk?

Posted by: theTruth at March 25, 2015 07:02 PM (PGh+Q)

105 >>>I defended him, and will continue to defend him and I don't give a rat's ass about those three points.

I defended him because I believe in the concept of free speech, and dislike hysterical mobs with pitchforks and torches going after people like Robertson.

And I'll bet that many...perhaps most of his defenders around here would agree with me.

...

well let's make a distinction here: I would defend him in the way you suggest you defended him, that you do not want him punished for speech.

I agree.

But there is another kind of defense, that asserting that what he said is true.

That is the kind of defense I reject where we have to Play the Fool because some ignorant dope said stupid shit that we now are all on the hook for.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:02 PM (PA7DS)

106 Hmm.

Robertson said a much more visceral and intentionally provocative version of one of the two primary reasons why I believe in God.

The less provocative version of what he said is: What, ultimately, is the means by which accountability for one's actions in this life is administered if there is no higher power to administer it?

What is the basis for morality and judgment if ultimately, once we die, we face no judgment from a higher being for our own actions?

My understanding is that the atheists rely on pure reason and objectivity as a substitute for divine-inspired morality.

I've always found that insufficient, as does Robertson, obviously. I still can't process how we would remain accountable without some mechanism of securing rewards or punishments for behavior in whatever world comes after we die. Said mechanism would naturally need to be more powerful than us so as to ensure compliance. Call it a deity, call it cosmic energy, call it something else, but it would have to be something. It couldn't be called nonexistent.

Assuming, of course, that we persist after death. That is the other reason I believe in God, because I do not want to consider a reality where we're just gone when we die. Horrible things can happen to us, we can die terribly, and that's it.

Obviously I'll find out which way it is when the time comes.

Not to be in the Duck fanboy club, but I take no issue with what Robertson said.

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at March 25, 2015 07:02 PM (qD5ZX)

107 >>>104 Phil Robertson is immensly successful. Is everyone saying he should shut up and let Ashly Judd talk?

exactly, that's exactly what I'm saying

nailed it

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:02 PM (PA7DS)

108 Whittaker Chambers said, in the introduction to Witness, something to the effect that the modern age is the battle for superiority between God and Man. Obviously Phil read Witness and is just elaborating on that.

Posted by: Frank Underwood (D-SC) at March 25, 2015 07:02 PM (hxTXe)

109 Ace, you mentioned a book a few years ago...basically a Rapscallion's Handbook ( for lack of a better description).

If you are here, I'd like to know the actual title and author. Thanks.

Posted by: Garrett at March 25, 2015 07:02 PM (SRUk5)

110 Prove it!

Show us your circumcision.
Posted by: LIV at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (Zu3d9)

*turns on monitor wipers*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 07:02 PM (yFqY+)

111 And you do so despite the fact that many of the biggest philosophers were atheists (or not Christians -- Plato et al predated Christ) and yet spent all their waking hours puzzling out ethics and morality.

Much of Christian theology/philosophy is based on Platonic thought, actually.

It's probably inconvenient for purposes of spittle-flecked argument to mention this, but there ya go.

Posted by: filbert at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (h6Mpm)

112 Prove it!

Show us your circumcision.
Posted by: LIV at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (Zu3d9)

umm, most European Christians don't circumcise, I know this from the "Battle of the Bugle" movie when they made German infiltrators drop trou...

Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (/2E+M)

113 Whose bitch this is?

Posted by: Buzzion

Apparently Ace's, just like you.

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (lDDN7)

114 But when they engaged the enemy, and mortar rounds were landing (and son was blown sky high by one), a

few atheists prayed out loud for God to save them.

Why?

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (Bk0oe)

115 maybe a single sentence explain who your talking about next time BIG NEWS is about some tv character?

Posted by: jammer - HappyFunCamper at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (V0NdD)

116 ummmm...

Robertson is right...Im not a Christian...but if you dont believe in God...or a higher moral authority...you dont believe that people will be "judged".

And no...you cant really say you have a "morality"...since, your "source" for morality...is your own thoughts...which means its entirely subjective...which means...your morality is as valid, as the guy who raped and killed. Thats because his "morality" comes from his own mind as well....it is just as valid as yours.

This is not debatable...this is philosophy 101 on morality.

If morality is subjective....then there is no morality. Sorry...atheists, you lose this argument...every time.

Posted by: Sorry Ace you're wrong at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (4Tu30)

117 "Pretty much every" is a bit of a stretch.

There's certainly a subset of "moral atheists", but balanced out with the nihilists and the militants who go out of their way to actively scorn the conventions of morality -- the fornicators in the graveyards and such.

Probably polls somewhere with the breakdown.

I think pretty much every atheist would consider the scenario that Robertson outlined as wrong, in the sense that it violated justice, in practice if not in theory. I think that is Robertson's point, that the idea that there is some kind of right and wrong transcending mere utilitarianism inherent in human nature.

Folks might also want to look up the first chapter or two of the book of Romans.

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (FAV2W)

118 Religion went off the rails when everyone forgot about Zeus bukkaking mortals with his eternal goo of wisdom and kindness.

Posted by: Devil's Islet at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (jT+gh)

119 Much of Christian theology/philosophy is based on Platonic thought, actually.

It's probably inconvenient for purposes of spittle-flecked argument to mention this, but there ya go.
Posted by: filbert at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (h6Mpm)

Aristotle thru Aquinas

Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (/2E+M)

120 Show us your circumcision.

Love to but ah geez, look at the time. That red-pump-pool-girl commercial is just about to come on TV Land...

;-)

Posted by: qdpsteve at March 25, 2015 07:04 PM (elbY7)

121 I love it when Ace lectures on Proper Christianity. It's like Sally Kohn on guns. Doesn't understand the fundamentals, so gets all the details wrong.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:04 PM (2cS/G)

122 >>>Robertson said a much more visceral and intentionally provocative version of one of the two primary reasons why I believe in God.

The less provocative version of what he said is: What, ultimately, is the means by which accountability for one's actions in this life is administered if there is no higher power to administer it?

What is the basis for morality and judgment if ultimately, once we die, we face no judgment from a higher being for our own actions?

My understanding is that the atheists rely on pure reason and objectivity as a substitute for divine-inspired morality.

...

so you believe in God, for which there is no tangible on-the-ground evidence for, and yet you do not believe that atheists can care about an ethical belief system external to them, despite literally thousands of atheist philosophers and writers writing and pondering such a system for 2000 years.

the one exists, because there's no evidence of him; the thing that there's lots of evidence for, must not exist.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:04 PM (PA7DS)

123 *sigh*

I know what it looks like from a Christian perspective. From inside the church- this is a warning. It's using an extreme situation to evoke a reaction because (it seems to those within the church) nonbelievers tend to not like thinking about God or the afterlife or judgment or anything that seems very imminent and real to a believer.

I also see where you're coming from, Ace. And I can see how you would think this is some sort of fantasizing. Though, I'd note, if it *was* fantasizing, it's not very Christ-like.

Anyway, I really wish that Christians wouldn't use this sort of tactic to explain their beliefs or to "make people think." Or if they did- I wish they were more skilled at it.

I'm not going to excuse it. It's just unfortunate.

Posted by: Book at March 25, 2015 07:04 PM (AlkUj)

124 That's the dumbest thing I've read today. And I read the gay sweater link.

Going to read the rest of the post now.

Posted by: kartoffel at March 25, 2015 07:04 PM (sGRH7)

125 >And you do so despite the fact that many of the biggest philosophers were atheists (or not Christians -- Plato et al predated Christ) and yet spent all their waking hours puzzling out ethics and morality.

Since when is Plato an atheist? And Plato was absolutely not a materialist - he was a non-naturalist who believed in the pre-existence of souls, reincarnation, and more.

In fact, you're going to have a rough time finding many atheists among the greek philosophers, and of the ones you can say gave a philosophy compatible with atheism, you're going to have trouble finding ones who aren't materialists. And it's the materialists in particular who have a problem with moral rights and wrongs.

They're also far and away the most common form of atheists around, especially among the ones who won't shut up.

Posted by: Crude at March 25, 2015 07:04 PM (/IrCS)

126 You seem to conflate atheism with moral nihilism.

What's wrong with moral nihilism from an atheistic framework?

And you do so despite the fact that many of the biggest philosophers were atheists (or not Christians -- Plato et al predated Christ) and yet spent all their waking hours puzzling out ethics and morality.

Are you using the definition of atheist as "lack of belief in god", rather than "belief in non-existence of god"?

Because AFAIK, most of the ancient philosophers believed in various gods and an Order of Things.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 07:05 PM (0NdlF)

127 exactly, that's exactly what I'm saying

nailed it
Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:02 PM (PA7DS)

Not my takeaway, but I'm a little slow on that after Beer# 19.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 07:05 PM (yFqY+)

128 For some reason, I kept reading "beefwitted" as bee-fwitted and couldn't figure out what insects had to do with this and what exactly fwitting was.

It's cool, though, because you're going to hell for using this obscure word.

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:05 PM (4nR9/)

129
Do you really want to live in a world where we do not judge others based on our own personal beliefs?

There's nothing more I hate than the stupid expression "don't judge me!"

I'll use my goddam brain however the fuck I want.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:05 PM (ko4zy)

130 Fuck me...

Grab ya a filtered Lucky Strike and take a big old drag, Ace.

You really do come across as an idiot sometimes.

Posted by: butternut at March 25, 2015 07:05 PM (F6ceQ)

131 Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:00 PM (PA7DS)

Conflating atheism with moral nihilism isn't logical, but the Venn diagram is instructive.

I think you have lost sight of the large body of commentary about atheism that demonstrates rather well that without the underpinnings of religion, that morality is an entirely too flexible thing for a civilized society.

Posted by: LIV at March 25, 2015 07:05 PM (Zu3d9)

132 I personally believe (and I admit hope) that what we know about religion, accepting Christ, etc. etc., is still in the embryonic stages.

The idea of someone as great IMHO as Dennis Prager for instance, being condemned to hell, is just plain disturbing to me. There's also numerous what I would call "moral atheists" out there, such as S.E. Cupp, who I would hope could meet in the next life, if not in this one.

Posted by: qdpsteve at March 25, 2015 07:06 PM (elbY7)

133 >>>Ace, you mentioned a book a few years ago...basically a Rapscallion's Handbook ( for lack of a better description).

i assume you mean Gamesmanship (and sequels, like Lifemanship and Oneupsmanshp) by Steven potter but I have no idea why you're bringing that up.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:06 PM (PA7DS)

134
Plato the atheist.....

Gonna let those with a better education in the classics handle that one, but the P-Man's perfect Truth. with a capital T, of which the world is a corrupted shadow, seems pretty close to the notion of God, at least in principle.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 07:07 PM (kdS6q)

135
its not atheism so much as its humanism.if humans are the center of the universe then we become our own gods and nothing is sinful

Posted by: kj at March 25, 2015 07:07 PM (lKyWE)

136 Lizzy from they way they described it, they were more like a cult. Constant prayer and study. Could only marry other sect members. Non family member worshipers would join but would never stay very long. They start questioning the philosophical underpinnings, and then rejected the thinking about gays and jews. They are still religiously questioning, but they don't trust any religion that claims it is the only way or that "otherizes" non believers

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:07 PM (zOTsN)

137 Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (/2E+M)

LIV = Low Info Voter = sock

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 07:07 PM (0NdlF)

138 Phil Robertson could have used the story of the atheist and her family who were killed by their hired (felon) help for their gold coins. The felons stored the coins in a rented storage facility where they were again stolen. One of the felons was killed, had his head and hands chopped off, and his body thrown into a river. I think the other two must have thought he stole the coins from them. But the story didn't say. They did say that the gold coins were spent on alcohol and hookers,

Posted by: theTruth at March 25, 2015 07:07 PM (PGh+Q)

139 Religion is far more of a natural human condition than Government. History and Anthropology bear that out quite convincingly.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:07 PM (2cS/G)

140 I love it when Ace lectures on Proper Christianity. It's like Sally Kohn
on ~~guns~~ penis. Doesn't understand the fundamentals, so gets all the details
wrong.

FIFY.

Posted by: e e cummings at March 25, 2015 07:08 PM (MMC8r)

141 without the underpinnings of religion, that morality is an entirely too flexible thing for a civilized society.

Posted by: LIV

Feature, not a bug.

Posted by: Uncle Joe Stalin at March 25, 2015 07:08 PM (GuwT9)

142 This is such an obvious point, and it's been made so many times, that
there really is no sense to making it any further. Those of you who are
going to insist that "Atheist = Moral Nihilist" will keep on insisting
that until your deathbed, because apparently it's very important for you
to believe that, and it just doesn't matter how many times you're told
those are actually two different categories of things.

"Shut up!" he said. "You are STUPID", he said.

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 07:08 PM (lDDN7)

143
type, delete several times.

No comment, have a nice evening.

Posted by: irongrampa at March 25, 2015 07:08 PM (jeCnD)

144 By strict definition an atheist is

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."

there isn't any implied moral system.

Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 07:08 PM (/2E+M)

145 oops.

Posted by: e e cummings at March 25, 2015 07:08 PM (MMC8r)

146 Jane, you are the wisest of us all.

Posted by: LizLem at March 25, 2015 07:08 PM (yRwC8)

147 I love it when Ace lectures on Proper Christianity. It's like Sally Kohn on guns.

Or Dan Savage on cunnilingus?

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at March 25, 2015 07:09 PM (/kI1Q)

148 If morality is subjective....then there is no morality. Sorry...atheists, you lose this argument...every time.

Posted by: Sorry Ace you're wrong at March 25, 2015 07:03 PM (4Tu30)
---
Where is the evidence that god - assuming he exists - is objective or good or moral?

And just because there are many claims to what is moral, doesnt mean that they are all equally false or right.

Posted by: Elize Nayden, Prophetess of Delicious Doom at March 25, 2015 07:09 PM (fK/2i)

149 There is most certainly a belief among the left that there is no "good" and "evil". It's moral relativism, and Obama personified it with his "sin is being out of alignment with my beliefs" comments.

This is to say nothing of Robertson, but as to the charge that no one disagrees with the ideas of good and evil , well that's just not remotely true.

Posted by: Lauren at March 25, 2015 07:10 PM (upbPV)

150 "Maybe I'm missing something, but when did atheists in the main believe there's no right or wrong?"

Hi, we must be neighbors! My name is Nihilism.

Posted by: Thor's feather duster at March 25, 2015 07:10 PM (JgC5a)

151 I love it when Ace lectures on Proper Christianity. It's like Sally Kohn on guns.

Or Dan Savage on cunnilingus?

Or Andrew Sullivan on pregnancy.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 25, 2015 07:10 PM (MMC8r)

152 I love it when Ace lectures on Proper Christianity. It's like Sally Kohn on guns. Doesn't understand the fundamentals, so gets all the details wrong.
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:04 PM (2cS/G)

So, kind of like Robertson on atheists, then?

Yeah, I tire of this sport as well.

If you're bent out of shape about a) the Robertson comment, b) Nolte's post, or c) Ace's post, you need to go spend a long, long, long, long time looking at yourself in the mirror. There is something wrong with you.

And I'm outta this thread.

Posted by: filbert at March 25, 2015 07:10 PM (h6Mpm)

153 139 Religion is far more of a natural human condition than Government. History and Anthropology bear that out quite convincingly.
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:07 PM (2cS/G)

We were fine, until government became a religion.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 07:10 PM (yFqY+)

154 To add.

I'm not saying all atheists are horrible people or whatever. But materialist atheism? Yeah, it does have a problem account for morality in anything beyond a 'it's whatever I say it is' way, and atheism's moral history isn't particularly great. Neither is Christianity's - the difference is that Christians generally cop to that, and are also made aware of it over and over and over again.

It's similar to saying 'white people have done a lot of wrong' and 'black people have done a lot of wrong'. Everyone will cop to the former. The latter? They'll go out of their way to never admit it and attack anyone who says as much, facts be damned.

Posted by: Crude at March 25, 2015 07:10 PM (/IrCS)

155 They did say that the gold coins were spent on alcohol and hookers,

The rest were just wasted.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at March 25, 2015 07:10 PM (/kI1Q)

156 As this has the potential of turning into an Atheist/Christian slugfest in which Ace slugs some of his readers yet again. I think I'll head out. I like your writing, Ace. I think you're a dean clever, amusing, intelligent man. However, as annoyed as I can get about some political things I can't take more time tonight to witness the perpetual outrage machine-this time about a man I do not know, who doesn't represent me and quite frankly whose Christianity I know little about.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 25, 2015 07:11 PM (DXzRD)

157 I take it on faith that society's healthy interest in the fellowship of man jam will heal the rift. A balm to soothe, a bond to form, a crust beyond that of any teenage boy's underwear, this fixation will unite and, dare I say, save humanity.

Posted by: Devil's Islet at March 25, 2015 07:11 PM (jT+gh)

158 >>Lizzy from they way they described it, they were more like a cult. Constant prayer and study.

Thanks, didn't realize Westboro Baptist Church was a cult.
Glad those two broke away.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 07:11 PM (TLTHv)

159 The girls were, to my suprise, extremely intelligent and well spoken. And very well educated. Their mother was one of 13 children and all of them were lawyers.

And they say correlation is not causation.

Even so, the only people they hated were gays and jews. They don't hate blacks or Hispanics because they can't help they were born black or Hispanic. You can chose to be gay or a jew by their reasoning. If your flaw was a choice, they hate you.

Funny. Since you can choose to be a lawyer.

Have they never read Luke 11:46?

Their grandfather was a civil rights Attoney in fact

Meh, how is Fred Phelps fundamentally different from most practicing civil rights attorneys today?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (b4b5c)

160 "25 Is Breitbart not just terrible since its namesake passed? It is a shell of its former self, and very hard to even take seriously, in my opinion. I have to think he is rolling over in his grave. Maybe the stuff about gamergate that the guy from Britain did was OK, but for the most part- I roll my eyes at that site.
Posted by: exhippie at March 25, 2015 06:48 PM (urGox)"

Pretty much. I've been saying for about a year now that those who are looking for the website most closely continuing Andrew Breitbart's legacy should be reading the Washington Free Beacon, not Breitbart.

Posted by: holygoat at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (O1sGn)

161 Make that "darn" clever., not "dean". You haven't gotten an Academic Chair yet. :^)

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (DXzRD)

162 For some reason, I kept reading "beefwitted" as bee-fwitted and couldn't figure out what insects had to do with this and what exactly fwitting was.

Posted by: pep

My first thought was,"That's not a word."
My second thought was, "Moo."
My 3rd, "Moo-Moo."
My 4th, "Mr. Moo-Moo"

Verdict: CROMULENT

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (JBzwC)

163 >>>As this has the potential of turning into an Atheist/Christian slugfest in which Ace slugs some of his readers yet again. I think I'll head out. I like your writing, Ace. I think you're a dean clever, amusing, intelligent man. However, as annoyed as I can get about some political things I can't take more time tonight to witness the perpetual outrage machine-this time about a man I do not know, who doesn't represent me and quite frankly whose Christianity I know little about.

I believe all those things you say at the end which is why I'm having trouble understanding why you're borthered by any of this.

Robertson doesn't represent you, but somehow my criticism of someone who doesn't represent you bothers you on some level.

if you can figure out what level that is, let me know.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (PA7DS)

164 I take it on faith that society's healthy interest in the fellowship of man jam will heal the rift. A balm to soothe, a bond to form, a crust beyond that of any teenage boy's underwear, this fixation will unite and, dare I say, save humanity.
Posted by: Devil's Islet

Cut. Jib. Newsletter.

Posted by: Harry Reid at March 25, 2015 07:13 PM (GuwT9)

165 Meh, how is Fred Phelps fundamentally different from most practicing civil rights attorneys today?
Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (b4b5c)

He's much better - he's dead, Jim

Posted by: MikeH at March 25, 2015 07:13 PM (/2E+M)

166 how is Fred Phelps fundamentally different from most practicing civil rights attorneys today?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (b4b5c)

He's probably more honest.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2015 07:13 PM (Zu3d9)

167 The Archbishop of the Episcopal Church tells me that I'm immoral because I don't accept manmade global warming. She represents a major thread of Christianity. Should I accept her assertion and believe so as to avoid moral peril?

No, I reject her and all her works because I think for myself. I choose whether or not to accept Christianity. How is that different than designing your own moral framework?

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:13 PM (4nR9/)

168 What Phil Robertson is doing is referred to as a straw-man. It is weak, philosophically speaking, because he sets the rules by which the participants of his example play, these rule may differ from reality in the broadest or smallest aspect and thus are not valid when discussing anything.

However,

His statement has NOTHING to do with God in any meaningful sense. It has everything to do with rejecting moral relativism. Most people object to such relativism through God because there are very few who bother to formulate proofs or theories in a non-theistic system. Note that this is not suggest that such a feat is impossible, notables are: Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Ayn Rand, etc.

His argument is weak, not his position.

Posted by: NormanIllad at March 25, 2015 07:14 PM (qjn7q)

169 Imagine defending someone whose views don't directly correspond with your own. The Horror!

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:14 PM (2cS/G)

170 I think this is a great post by the Ace. Let's face it, Phil is trolling for dollars. I am not God so I can't say whether Phil is right or wrong. However, if he is wrong, there is some special place in Hell reserved for him.

^..^(____)~~~

Posted by: Cheshirecat at March 25, 2015 07:14 PM (e8vZc)

171 I've always suspected that WBC was a Dem-funded false flag operation.

Given that Phred was a longtime Dem operative.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 25, 2015 07:14 PM (MMC8r)

172 BBL I don't even know what is going on.

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 25, 2015 07:15 PM (JO9+V)

173 Good Lord. Is ace getting paid by the word today?

Posted by: Timon at March 25, 2015 07:15 PM (ZDJwC)

174 What's weird is that Robertsons take on religion sounds very much like WBC in some ways

And the granddaughters I heard today were very much like Ace in perspective in some ways

They had some very good advice. They said if you want to engage someone with extremist beliefs in hopes of changing their thinking, you should approach them gently and with kindness

Which works unless they want to cut your head off

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:15 PM (zOTsN)

175 >>> I can't take more time tonight to witness the
perpetual outrage machine-this time about a man I do not know, who
doesn't represent me and quite frankly whose Christianity I know little
about.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 25, 2015 07:11 PM

Hold the door please!

Posted by: jammer at March 25, 2015 07:15 PM (V0NdD)

176
I love it when Ace lectures on Proper Christianity. It's like Sally Kohn on penis. Doesn't understand the fundamentals, so gets all the details wrong.
Posted by: e e cummings

Like you wouldn't sit in front of the TV for an hour to watch her do just that.

If only to see the awkward fidgeting in her chair, and the wistful longing look in her eyes....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 07:15 PM (kdS6q)

177 Phil Robertson could have used the story of the atheist and her family who were killed by their hired (felon) help for their gold coins. The felons stored the coins in a rented storage facility where they were again stolen.

Madeleine Murray O'Hare?

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2015 07:15 PM (Bk0oe)

178 >But materialist atheism? Yeah, it does have a problem account for morality in anything beyond a 'it's whatever I say it is' way

Evo-psych. Morality is necessary for human social interaction, especially in the hunter-gatherer tribes we spent most of our formative years in. It's not a matter of the concepts "right" and "wrong" having an objective meaning set in stone, but it's very adaptive of you to think of them that way.

Posted by: kartoffel at March 25, 2015 07:16 PM (sGRH7)

179 >>>What's wrong with moral nihilism from an atheistic framework?

i'm not interested in pursuing this, as I said. You have a vested interest in asserting, forever, that the two are the same, so you can direct the slurs about Moral Nihilism at atheists.

It is pretty obvious that the two are not one (was Plato a Moral Nihilist) but you will keep on insisting they are because that's your bag.

Again, I have no interest in arguing about something that 1, should be obvious, or 2, which has been established to any fair reader's satisfaction 3000 times before. Your insistence here is just your ax-grinding of which you cannot be disauaded.

So: Pass.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:16 PM (PA7DS)

180
Incidentally, after Senator Cruz made his announcement, CNN's idiotic Carol Costello hit the airwaves with a piece about how Cruz is anti-science.

Behold the bullshit:

COSTELLO: Ok. But let's talk about Independent voters because one of the things Ted Cruz said during his speech is our rights come from God, not man. If you head to Twitter this morning, you'll find that some people weren't so pleased with that. You'll also find tweets that read quote -- going to just going to just give you one.

"Science, we don't need no stinking science. #TedCruzCampaignSlogan.

Here's another tweet from this morning. "I'll make government small enough to fit into your bedroom or a woman's uterus. #TedCruzCampaignSlogan."

Yeah, so let's talk about Independent voters. Wait, what? Are Independent voters all atheists or something? And is she implying that atheists are super pissed off that Cruz said rights come from God??

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:17 PM (ko4zy)

181
Atheists, question:

Where Do You Think Our Rights Come From?

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:17 PM (ko4zy)

182 Meh, how is Fred Phelps fundamentally different from most practicing civil rights attorneys today?
Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (b4b5c)

He's probably more honest.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2015 07:13 PM (Zu3d9)

*tips beer at monitor*

Nailed.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 07:17 PM (yFqY+)

183 re 132: You say someone-as-great-as. How do you rate eternal beings? Islam and lots of Christianity seems to be paganism and idolatry wrapped in a thin veneer of dogma. Buy your Jesus candles at the grocery store. Worship an Imam.

Posted by: Surprised at March 25, 2015 07:18 PM (PGh+Q)

184 Good for you, Ace!

And I should know!

Posted by: Supreme Being at March 25, 2015 07:18 PM (SJ184)

185 Evo-psych. Morality is necessary for human social interaction, especially in the hunter-gatherer tribes we spent most of our formative years in. It's not a matter of the concepts "right" and "wrong" having an objective meaning set in stone, but it's very adaptive of you to think of them that way.

But of course, in that paradigm, morality is simply a useful delusion.

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 25, 2015 07:18 PM (FAV2W)

186 ace:

I think you misunderstand what he's saying here. If you watch the clip, it's actually the old "atheists can't believe in right and wrong; there is no morality without God" argument. Not "when you wake up in Hell you'll be sorry and know I was right."

You may still find it stupid but at least be offended by his actual point. It's more Dostoyevsky's "If there is no God, then everything is permissible."

His point is that when an atheist has something sufficiently bad happen, he feels a sense of injustice. For some, it might require something extremely bad, but at some point everyone will throw off the idea that "nothing is immoral" and admit, yeah, what happened to me wasn't right / fair / just.

It was evil.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at March 25, 2015 07:19 PM (1qAJ1)

187
I kept reading "beefwitted" as bee-fwitted and couldn't figure out what insects had to do with this and what exactly fwitting was.when i read that it was liily von schtupp's voice i heard in my head

Posted by: kj at March 25, 2015 07:19 PM (lKyWE)

188
Fred Phelps is dead. I think it's now run by his loony daughter. Thankfully, most of the third generation cult members have escaped.

Posted by: Bruce J. at March 25, 2015 07:19 PM (iQIUe)

189 *peeks in*

Yep, it's one of ace's "disagree with or challenge me and you're stupid" threads.

*backs away*

Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2015 07:19 PM (mx5oN)

190 Who got raped?

Posted by: People Corp at March 25, 2015 07:19 PM (TzeLs)

191 Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (PA7DS)

No, it doesn't bother me, Ace because Roberston has nothing to do with me. It tires me out. I am tired of being tired.. It's your website; Say whatever you like about Robertson..

Have a good evening.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 25, 2015 07:19 PM (DXzRD)

192 I've watched Duck Dynasty a couple times. It's entertaining enough. I've laughed my ass off at some Will Farrell movies. I can listen to Dead Kennedys or Rollins Band or RATM or whoever. Since when is it required to agree with every belief of an athlete, entertainer, or the guy who makes duck calls? Why is it even required to comment? Jenny McCarthy is crazy on vaccines, but she still looked good nekkid.

I mean shit Snorky just honks, like a fucking madman, obnoxiously!! But that don't mean he doesn't have a sweet BananaBuggie!

Posted by: Bruce Jenner's Plastic Vag at March 25, 2015 07:20 PM (z3CKW)

193 Phil Robertson could have used the story of the atheist and her family who were killed by their hired (felon) help for their gold coins. The felons stored the coins in a rented storage facility where they were again stolen.

Madeleine Murray O'Hare?
Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2015 07:15 PM (Bk0oe)

Gold? GOLD?

Posted by: Luop Nor at March 25, 2015 07:20 PM (h6Mpm)

194 I don't believe ace is lecturing us on "proper Christianity", he's just calling a clown a clown, just as he's called atheists who have to seemed to form their own religion, the religion of not believing in God and lecturing others for doing so, clowns. Sometimes people strike a nerve and you vent.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 25, 2015 07:20 PM (i55o+)

195 Robertson doesn't represent you, but somehow my criticism of someone who doesn't represent you bothers you on some level.

I agree with him, which is why I find your response interesting.

Accusing him of having sick fantasies misses the point and imagines hatred where there is none.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 07:20 PM (0NdlF)

196 I have a delicious meatloaf in the oven.

*smell-o-monitor*

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 07:20 PM (FsuaD)

197 And you do so despite the fact that many of the biggest philosophers were atheists (or not Christians -- Plato et al predated Christ) and yet spent all their waking hours puzzling out ethics and morality.

But that's kinda the point. The morality and ethics of a philosopher and educator in his 60s isn't really relevant. If you think about ethics, you don't need them.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:20 PM (b4b5c)

198 But of course, in that paradigm, morality is simply a useful delusion.

Posted by: Grey Fox

I'm fairly well convinced that much of the support for Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is a fear that the lower orders will run riot without some kind of moral compass, because they aren't very good at thinking for themselves.

I'm not saying they're wrong.

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:20 PM (4nR9/)

199 >>The Archbishop of the Episcopal Church tells me that I'm immoral because I don't accept manmade global warming.

And she likes to make references to "Mother Jesus" whatever that means. I like my Episcopal church and I ignore Katherine Jefferts Shori.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 07:20 PM (TLTHv)

200 >>>Where Do You Think Our Rights Come From?

we don't have rights, we just have the Darwinian Law of the Jungle and we commit murders and do Gaysex because we don't want to be judged

or whatever

I know you will say our rights come from "God" but what does that mean? Did we have those rights before we decided as a society that each should have them? Do they ahve these rights in Iraq, today?

No they don't. Because the rights don't come from "God," except, perhaps, very indirectly.

In reality, we have as many rights as our government lets us have, which is why it's important to keep government in check -- after all, if "God" is the author and guarantor of these rights, why fear an overpowerful governemnt? God will just be there to sort things out, right?

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:21 PM (PA7DS)

201 "so you believe in God, for which there is no tangible on-the-ground evidence for, and yet you do not believe that atheists can care about an ethical belief system external to them, despite literally thousands of atheist philosophers and writers writing and pondering such a system for 2000 years.

the one exists, because there's no evidence of him; the thing that there's lots of evidence for, must not exist."

So this ethical belief system -- that we sane people were born with -- is man-made, an invention? As such, we can change it whenever we wish?

Posted by: Dick Poulin at March 25, 2015 07:21 PM (sMt7r)

202 Phil's analogy is a very crude analogy with gruesome imagery. Not defending it it any way. When you have a large platform due to a popular show you should be more careful in how you word things, but if Phil has proven one thing it's that he cares not a whit what you or I think about how he words things. However, I'm not going to gleefully skewer him for THOUGHTCRIMES OMG! either.

When my sister left the Mormon church, one of the things I told her is that it is fine if she does not adhere to a Mormon code of morality anymore. However, she has to find SOME code, needs to make up her own version of right and wrong. Ten commandments, Hammurabi's Code, Harry's Code from Dexter...you need a code.

(She was agnostic at the time, has since converted to Episcopal.)

It is easier to have a society where everyone has a set understanding of what the moral code for society is; for a long time in the West that has been a Judeo Christian code of ethics. As our society changes and shifts from this standard, and even from the rules found in the Constitution, at some point we are going to need to decide what the new Code should be. Or we as a society are lost.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think that is the gist of what Phil is trying to get across? Poorly, granted. But that's my take on it.

Every religious person believes their religion is the truest religion out there...why else follow it otherwise? Thus I find the South Park clip where everyone in Hell finds out the Mormon religion was the correct one hysterical. But that does not give you the right to be a massive jerk about it either, since all religions have pieces of the one universal truth, as Tolkien put it. Phil is veering into massive jerk mode and that irks me. Though I have watched and like Duck Dynasty, I prefer it when Phil is in crotchety but lovable grandpa mode and not bible thumping preacher mode.

So I guess I agree *and* disagree with you Ace, hah.

Posted by: LizLem at March 25, 2015 07:21 PM (yRwC8)

203
Do you even believe that man is born with rights...certain and inalienable rights? Of course you do.

So where do these rights come from, in your view?

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:21 PM (ko4zy)

204 >>>
I'm fairly well convinced that much of the support for Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is a fear that the lower orders will run riot without some kind of moral compass, because they aren't very good at thinking for themselves.

I'm not saying they're wrong.

...

i agree (along with the "i'm not sure they're wrong.")

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:21 PM (PA7DS)

205 Judging an entire creed by the worst or most embarrassing of its adherents.
Sounds like collectivism to me.

Posted by: Thor's feather duster at March 25, 2015 07:21 PM (JgC5a)

206 The third generation is leaving because there is no one they can marry. Yet they still have the poisonous beliefs. Which would fit in very well with the Taliban

The girls that left would rather they change their minds than just leave the church

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:22 PM (zOTsN)

207 *backs away*
Posted by: Insomniac at March 25, 2015 07:19 PM (mx5oN)

*snicker*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at March 25, 2015 07:22 PM (yFqY+)

208 Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:12 PM (PA7DS)

Why does Robertson bother you? He's just a reality star like you said. He's not trying to ban you from any atheist activities. Same can't be said about your atheist buddies in regard to Christianity. And yes, his story is not so dissimilar to Madelyn OHara's demise.

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 07:23 PM (e8nnW)

209 so you believe in God, for which there is no tangible on-the-ground evidence for, and yet you do not believe that atheists can care about an ethical belief system external to them, despite literally thousands of atheist philosophers and writers writing and pondering such a system for 2000 years.

the one exists, because there's no evidence of him; the thing that there's lots of evidence for, must not exist.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:04 PM (PA7DS)

No. You've yet again read something that was not in my post. Sorry to say dude, that's a huge blind spot to how you debate.

I said nothing of atheist morality or lack thereof. I frankly don't think Robertson did either.

The question remains, if there is an external moral framework, what forms the enforcement of said framework?

That question has always led me to conclude that if such a framework exists, it can only be administered by something that has the power to do so. In other words, a power higher than us.

Atheists can be perfectly fine and moral people. I just ultimately have never been able to square the circle like they can of maintaining the basis for morality without the external judgment for said morality.

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at March 25, 2015 07:23 PM (qD5ZX)

210
I don't care about any of that, or teams, or any of this tribalistic bullshit.
He said something stupid.
Someone should say it's stupid.
There, I just did.

It is.

Posted by: eleven at March 25, 2015 07:23 PM (MDgS8)

211 >>>Phil's analogy is a very crude analogy with gruesome imagery. Not defending it it any way. When you have a large platform due to a popular show you should be more careful in how you word things, but if Phil has proven one thing it's that he cares not a whit what you or I think about how he words things. However, I'm not going to gleefully skewer him for THOUGHTCRIMES OMG! either.

i don't even want him to be "more careful"! It's his right to be casually dumb.

Just as it's my right to say he is dumb.

Again, I'm not offended, at all,, and I do not think he should suffer consequence for this, but I have to object to those who claim "And everything Phil said is totally true and right!"

Nonsense. We're better than that. Even fucking John Ekdahl is better than that, if barely.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:23 PM (PA7DS)

212 Everything is a gift from God. You pray your way into heaven (or hell,, or out of hell).

Posted by: Gifts from God at March 25, 2015 07:23 PM (PGh+Q)

213 We've seen Atheists slaughter and enslave hundreds of millions of individuals in the last century, their phiosophy gets a FAIL.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:24 PM (2cS/G)

214 Even fucking John Ekdahl is better than that, if barely.

Then stop fucking him.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 25, 2015 07:25 PM (MMC8r)

215 As long time church goer..........I will have to disagree with you Ace that people don't stop believing because they want to sin. I have seen so many people leave the church because they want to sleep with their gf or bf or they want to get drunk every weekend. That's what I have personally experience.

Posted by: tao at March 25, 2015 07:25 PM (HGQES)

216 There is no Archbishop in the Episcopal Church. What Rev. Schori is, is the Presiding Bishop and yes, she's extremely leftist and has no problem with suing the church that want to leave the Episcopal Fold.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 25, 2015 07:25 PM (DXzRD)

217 It is easier to have a society where everyone has a set understanding of what the moral code for society is; for a long time in the West that has been a Judeo Christian code of ethics.

As our society changes and shifts from this standard,
and even from the rules found in the Constitution, at some point we are going to need to decide what the new Code should be. Or we as a society are lost.

We are lost.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 25, 2015 07:25 PM (Bk0oe)

218 In reality, we have as many rights as our government lets us have, which is why it's important to keep government in check

Yep. Try telling an atheist government that you have God-given rights and see how far that takes you.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 25, 2015 07:25 PM (8ZskC)

219 "Big things have small beginnings."

The science of splooge began when it's apostle, Peter O'toole, discovered the wisdom of Turkish prisons. Don't deny that knowing the true path of wayward spunk guarantees righteousness in the eye of the beholder whence it landed.

Posted by: Devil's Islet at March 25, 2015 07:25 PM (jT+gh)

220 Atheism has done so much for humanity.

/s

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 07:26 PM (FsuaD)

221 Brilliant post Ace!!!
O.T. Why don't we have pictures of the 6 lost Crew members of 4U 9525, or at least all of their full names - under 24 hours later? What is the (cover) hold up with this KEY Flight 4U 9525 info?

Posted by: MoJoTee at March 25, 2015 07:26 PM (aR8Ih)

222
The science of splooge began when it's apostle, Peter O'toole, discovered the wisdom of Turkish prisons. Don't deny that knowing the true path of wayward spunk guarantees righteousness in the eye of the beholder whence it landed.

wut

Posted by: eleven at March 25, 2015 07:26 PM (MDgS8)

223 So Will Farrell, Phil Robertson and Bibi Netanyahu all walk into a bar together.......

Posted by: Bossy Conservative.....after 5 pm at March 25, 2015 07:26 PM (RFeQD)

224 216
There is no Archbishop in the Episcopal Church. What Rev. Schori is, is
the Presiding Bishop and yes, she's extremely leftist and has no problem
with suing the church that want to leave the Episcopal Fold.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke

Correct on all counts, save one. She isn't suing churches that leave the Episcopal fold. She's suing churches who want to stay with the church and reject her.

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:26 PM (4nR9/)

225 "I know you will say our rights come from "God" but what does that mean? Did we have those rights before we decided as a society that each should have them? Do they ahve these rights in Iraq, today?

No they don't. Because the rights don't come from "God," except, perhaps, very indirectly.

In reality, we have as many rights as our government lets us have, which is why it's important to keep government in check -- after all, if "God" is the author and guarantor of these rights, why fear an overpowerful governemnt? God will just be there to sort things out, right? "

Dude. This is so far removed from the ideals our country was founded upon I barely know where to start. I'm a bit flabbergasted to be honest.

Our rights come from God precisely because we can trust no government to safe guard them. The fact that the Iraqi citizen does not have freedom is not indicative that he is without God given rights, but rather that his rights are being infringed upon and that there is a moral obligation for fight for men to be free.

An atheist can agree that rights come from a higher power, though it's a more complex argument, by delving into some Kantian ethics about universality ect.

Regardless, our rights do not come from our government. That thinking is the road to destruction and subservience.

Posted by: Lauren at March 25, 2015 07:27 PM (upbPV)

226 This argument he made is actually better for gun control advocates

Posted by: trump at March 25, 2015 07:27 PM (mctSY)

227 Wow hysterically stereotypical reaction. To something that should be just piffle to you. But it isn't.

Maybe he's got a point.

Posted by: simplemind at March 25, 2015 07:27 PM (hTeQK)

228 So Zombie Pol Pot, Mao, and Obama walk into a bar....

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 07:27 PM (FsuaD)

229 Exhaustipated = too tired to give a shit

Posted by: seamrog at March 25, 2015 07:27 PM (d5Lrp)

230 >>> Nonsense. We're better than that. Even fucking John Ekdahl is better than that, if barely.

Oooooh, shade! I love it.

Posted by: LizLem at March 25, 2015 07:27 PM (yRwC8)

231 >But of course, in that paradigm, morality is simply a useful delusion.

Sure, but there are lots of useful delusions. I would prefer to live in a world with lots of usefully deluded people. One of the downsides about life since agriculture is that people can afford to be assholes without having to worry about getting shanked in the back during the next wooly mammoth hunt.

Posted by: kartoffel at March 25, 2015 07:27 PM (sGRH7)

232 I dunno. You know how people say they are "bi curious"? I think Ace is "religiously curious".

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:28 PM (zOTsN)

233 Morality is incompatible with pure reason.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:28 PM (b4b5c)

234 Robertson doesn't just get atheism wrong, he gets its moral weakness wrong.

The problem with atheists isn't that they are going to say "if God is absent, everything is permitted" (paraphrasing some Russian book I haven't read). The problem with atheists is that they haven't lost their moral compass. So they'll seek out other frameworks of piety - in too many cases, frameworks that promise to make them better than Christians and Jews.

And if more than one person accepts this new framework, we end up with Cultural Revolutions: http://tinyurl.com/pmmwhyv

Robertson needs to lay off the Pascal and start reading more Voegelin and Burke.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:28 PM (AVEe1)

235 Ace,

If you listened to the whole sermon, you would not be up in arms about it. It is a sermon. An old timey sermon. One with vivid terminology designed to get you out of the doldroms. One to make you think and understand and go beyond yourself.

Atheists don't believe in God. What he talked about was so mean as to point it out to you. Sorry it hurt your sensibilities. I didn't know you had any.

Would you rather he had spoon fed it to you like pablum? Make it easy to go down?

Posted by: Joel at March 25, 2015 07:28 PM (7x/KZ)

236
morality is what seperates us from animals

Posted by: kj at March 25, 2015 07:28 PM (lKyWE)

237 So, Stalin, Putin, and Obama walk into a bar....

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 07:28 PM (FsuaD)

238 "In reality, we have as many rights as our government
lets us have, which is why it's important to keep government in check.."

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:21 PM (PA7DS)

No...we will always have those rights, but an over-weaning government will violate those rights with its coercion via the threat of, or actual violence.

As for your "God will just be there to sort things out, right?" Uh...free will? Do you honestly believe that religious people expect God to bail them out of every bad situation?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2015 07:29 PM (Zu3d9)

239 "I love it when Ace lectures on Proper Christianity. It's like Sally Kohn on penis. Doesn't understand the fundamentals, so gets all the details wrong.
Posted by: e e cummings"

Or Phil Robertson on Atheism.

Posted by: holygoat at March 25, 2015 07:29 PM (O1sGn)

240
Morality is incompatible with pure reason.

Gotta disagree with you there.

Posted by: eleven at March 25, 2015 07:29 PM (MDgS8)

241 i'm not interested in pursuing this, as I said. You have a vested interest in asserting, forever, that the two are the same, so you can direct the slurs about Moral Nihilism at atheists.

I am looking for the atheist who can show me how atheism stands against moral nihilism and evil. Evil has been observed. Evil is something worth fighting against - so what is the basis for the atheist to do so?

That you avoid the question and malign my intentions is not surprising, but a little sad.

It is pretty obvious that the two are not one (was Plato a Moral Nihilist) but you will keep on insisting they are because that's your bag.

Plato was not an atheist AFAIK - hence the question about the definition you're using.

Is he the atheist philosopher who you think answers my question? If not, who?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 07:29 PM (0NdlF)

242 It is weird. Why haven't they released the crew members info. Are they.......moooslim?

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:29 PM (zOTsN)

243 A belief in God isn't goig to keep those things from happening to someone. Those things are being done to Christians right now by ISIS.

Posted by: Caunotaucarius at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (aruDZ)

244 Wait what? When I tell a gun-grabber about the rise of "hot robberies" in England, where the perps rob you while you are at home and then help themselves to your wife and daughters, I'm fantasizing about raping them?

I think Ace is trying to hard to be "one of those sensible people".

Posted by: Fen at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (zhb21)

245 So this is God-bothering Wednesday, then?

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (I8YZX)

246 >> ....I have to object to those who claim "And everything Phil said is totally true and right!"

I totes agree with you there! Not a Duck Dynasty viewer or a Robertson fan.
So I'm just going to ignore the MSM if they get into their "OMG can you believe what that craaazy Christian said??!??" mode over this.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (TLTHv)

247 >>>Atheists can be perfectly fine and moral people. I just ultimately have never been able to square the circle like they can of maintaining the basis for morality without the external judgment for said morality.

okay. then never trust an atheist with money -- or your children -- because he just might decide that he will Profit More from theft or murder.

I guess one would expect the Islamic world to be particularly virtuous, given the real, palpable belief not just in a god but in an angry god who puts sinners into hell and the virtuous into pedophile brothels.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (PA7DS)

248 If our rights come from our government we might as well all pack it in and lay back and think of Obama. We fight because we all believe, even without realizing it, in a set of rights and ideals that are unbending.

Posted by: Lauren at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (upbPV)

249 We don't have to defend everyone who identifies as conservative. If some prig brings him up as "one of yours" then just cite to the many fine humans who populate their ranks. It's not like there's a deficit albeit they don't publicize their failures anywhere near as much as ours. So it'll come as a surprise. SURPRISE! Hillary Clinton is a vile woman-hating, serial-lying, money-humping power monger who doesn't care about YOU. SURPRISE! Such and such celebrity screws children and/or is a foul racist. (Take your pick.) SURPRISE! Sean Penn is nowhere near as bright as Spicoli who at least grasped the basic concept of the Constitution ("cool rules" necessitated in order to avoid "being bogus") by the end of Fast Times.

Have a couple of examples in the chamber at all times.

Posted by: audreyasmith@sbcglobal.net at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (WWgnZ)

250 >>assume you mean Gamesmanship (and sequels, like Lifemanship and Oneupsmanshp) by Steven potter

That's it. Thanks.

And no reason why I am bringing it up, here. I just figured that you would actually be reading the comments!on this thread.

Posted by: Garrett at March 25, 2015 07:31 PM (SRUk5)

251 If rights come from government, then there is no injustice when government takes them back.

The phrase 'endowed by their Creator,' even if you want to believe that Man is the result of Evolution, mean that they are inherent to the individual, and though other men may try to deny those rights, they are not voided, but only denied.

Posted by: Zap Rowsdower at March 25, 2015 07:31 PM (MMC8r)

252 Atheists opining on Christianity have about the same credibility as Michael Moore does on dieting.

Posted by: Gotta love the atheists, they try so hard at March 25, 2015 07:31 PM (UHJpJ)

253
after all, if "God" is the author and guarantor of these rights, why fear an overpowerful governemnt? God will just be there to sort things out, right? "

That's not how it works. No where in the Bible does it even come close to hinting that. The Bible more or less teaches us that life sucks most of the time, so bear with it, and stay close to God because your lifetime is but a blink of an eye compared to eternity.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:32 PM (ko4zy)

254 But what Bishop Schori may be referring in the concept of Jesus Christ as mother is this:

"Our Savior is our true Mother in whom we are endlessly born and out of whom we shall never come."

This is a quote by Julian of Norwich who was-for those that don't know of her- an English medieval mystic. She is fascinating person of faith but is often misappropriated by leftists who think that all Catholic mystics who often speak of "feminine aspects of God" were some prototype of type modern feminism, They simply weren't

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 25, 2015 07:32 PM (DXzRD)

255 Is it cocktail hour? Can I buy any body a drink?

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:32 PM (zOTsN)

256 But that's cool Ace. You can sell us out to look "moderate and enlightened and stuff". We're used to it.

I just hope you traded us for something more useful than a better table at Martha's Vineyard or somesuch. Maybe at least a bottle of Jack?

Posted by: Fen at March 25, 2015 07:32 PM (zhb21)

257 >>> Robertson doesn't just get atheism wrong, he gets its moral weakness wrong.

The problem with atheists isn't that they are going to say "if God is absent, everything is permitted" (paraphrasing some Russian book I haven't read). The problem with atheists is that they haven't lost their moral compass. So they'll seek out other frameworks of piety - in too many cases, frameworks that promise to make them better than Christians and Jews.

And if more than one person accepts this new framework, we end up with Cultural Revolutions: http://tinyurl.com/pmmwhyv

Robertson needs to lay off the Pascal and start reading more Voegelin and Burke.

...

this is certainly an argument that I personally am more enamored of.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:32 PM (PA7DS)

258 Christianity=Islamic Brutality= Become an Atheist. The Idiot's road to enlightenment.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (2cS/G)

259 Mmmm....what? I just don't see Robertson making the claim you prescribe to him.

He was just stating an obvious problem with Atheism, which is lack of all encompassing retribution and justice. People are just wired to have a sense of justice, and therefore he claims that a sense of "celestial misjustice" is indeed very religious.

You can answer his claim by stating biological and social reasons for us even having a concept of morality and fear of retribution. But his claim is still pretty strong, and you are dead wrong strawmenning him.

Posted by: Juicer at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (xvk8k)

260 Posted by: holygoat at March 25, 2015 07:29 PM (O1sGn)

So atheism is a religion. Finally you admit it.

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (e8nnW)

261
Hey, somebody won Mega Million Tues nite. No one told me. Another New Yorker, too.

Posted by: Bruce J. at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (iQIUe)

262 >>> So this is God-bothering Wednesday, then?

bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother bother

Posted by: Harry Potter Puppet Pals, the lot's bother Snape sketch at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (yRwC8)

263 Atheists opining on Christianity have about the same credibility as Michael Moore does on dieting.

That argument is ... uh, terrible. I guess all of us who write about Islam despite not being Muslims should just quit?

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (AVEe1)

264
From the profound, to the profane -

So Hugh Hewitt was just verbalizing a tingly feeling down below in response to the "historic" "bipartisan" "entitlement reform" represented by ...... (drum roll) ..... another "doc fix" for Medicare.

Uh, this one is "permanent" - how that works I'm not sure.

Anyway, the nth in a series of adjustments to prevent Medicare reimbursement schedules from essentially shutting down medical care for most elderly/retirees now qualifies as "entitlement reform", usually understood to mean long-term resources more congruent with long-term liabilities and commitments. Not increasing reimbursements to avoid a catastrophe.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (afQnV)

265 >Evil has been observed

And lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Of course people will react to destroy it, because they've been conditioned for millions of years to react to people like Jimmy Saville by tying a rock to their legs and dropping them in a lake. That evil is apparent to you is the best possible evidence that moral judgement is an adaptive behavior in tribal life.

Posted by: kartoffel at March 25, 2015 07:34 PM (sGRH7)

266
morality is what separates us from animals
Posted by: kj

And our inability to lick our own crotches.

Wait a second

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Nnnnnnope. I was wrong. Apparently that's not it.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 07:34 PM (kdS6q)

267 "Atheists, question:

Where Do You Think Our Rights Come From?"

Can I ask the inverse? In all seriousness, is there some scriptural basis for believing that, say, 2nd or 4th Amendment rights are God-given?

I'm not baiting anyone here; I'm ignorant and genuinely curious about the answer.

Posted by: AndrewR at March 25, 2015 07:34 PM (DcUSU)

268 People say a lot of stuff ... why get mad if it doesn't impact your world?

Posted by: Crowley at March 25, 2015 07:34 PM (I67bW)

269
btw, I finally sussed out Bill Maher's major problem with Christians. He hates Christians, chiefly, because they believe in an afterlife.

Maher thinks Christians have a Devil-may-care attitude about everything (especially the environment) because when we die they go to Heaven..or they believe the Rapture is coming.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:34 PM (ko4zy)

270 re 211 What he said is ineffectual. Bill Clinton said vote for me or black churches get burned down. Robertson's story isn't likely to be effective at converting people to Christianity. Atheism is a belief of the rich. Poor people who are atheist would die quickly from lack of hope.

Posted by: analysis at March 25, 2015 07:35 PM (PGh+Q)

271 Sure, but there are lots of useful delusions. I would prefer to live in a world with lots of usefully deluded people. One of the downsides about life since agriculture is that people can afford to be assholes without having to worry about getting shanked in the back during the next wooly mammoth hunt.

In other words, you agree atheism doesn't give the foundation for belief in absolute morality - at best, it allows for utilitarianism that (oddly) mimics the morality derived from religion but is subject to change if someone thinks that they have a better idea, like communism or something...

Y'all making this argument need to go one step further and ask yourselves why civilization/human life/whatever needs to be preserved.

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 25, 2015 07:35 PM (FAV2W)

272 okay. then never trust an atheist with money -- or your children -- because he just might decide that he will Profit More from theft or murder.

I guess one would expect the Islamic world to be particularly virtuous, given the real, palpable belief not just in a god but in an angry god who puts sinners into hell and the virtuous into pedophile brothels.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (PA7DS)

Hmm.

Is it time for a "you mad, bro?"

Equating the Christian God with the Muslim God in a game of rhetorical gotcha with someone because you are upset over perceived insults to your belief system...well.

You're upset. Unfortunate. Not my intent.

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at March 25, 2015 07:36 PM (qD5ZX)

273 Shit man, I'm not wading into this..noo noooo.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at March 25, 2015 07:36 PM (FMbng)

274 Drinks? No one?

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:36 PM (zOTsN)

275 Hmm.

Is it time for a "you mad, bro?"

Equating the Christian God with the Muslim God in a game of
rhetorical gotcha with someone because you are upset over perceived
insults to your belief system...well.

You're upset. Unfortunate. Not my intent.

Posted by: Hawkins1701

Answer the question.

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:37 PM (4nR9/)

276 Well this sucks

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:37 PM (zOTsN)

277 You know why dogs lick their own Johnson's don't you?

Posted by: Genghis Cohen at March 25, 2015 07:37 PM (fLKzW)

278 And we wonder why we can't win elections

Posted by: NativeNH at March 25, 2015 07:38 PM (+k6Wu)

279 >>morality is what seperates us from animals

Also, condoms.

Posted by: Horse Fucker at March 25, 2015 07:38 PM (SRUk5)

280 Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:36 PM (zOTsN)

Several please.

I would like to start with an Old-Fashioned.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2015 07:38 PM (Zu3d9)

281 276
Well this sucks

Agreed. Enough about the eternal verities. Let's talk about Jen Psaki's tsits.

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:38 PM (4nR9/)

282 Comin up Dildo

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:39 PM (zOTsN)

283
You know why dogs lick their own Johnson's don't you?

Cause they're atheist?

Posted by: eleven at March 25, 2015 07:39 PM (MDgS8)

284 274 Drinks? No one?
Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:36 PM (zOTsN)

*holds glass under USB port*

Posted by: rickl at March 25, 2015 07:39 PM (sdi6R)

285 >at best, it allows for utilitarianism

I don't even think it allows for that. I have yet to see a consequentialist whose arguments don't dissolve into insanity or end at "just because" when they're pushed to connect is and ought.

>Y'all making this argument need to go one step further and ask yourselves why civilization/human life/whatever needs to be preserved

Human civilization is necessary for human life of any appreciable quality, and most people are driven to reproduce their DNA. The show must go on. If you're looking for a deeper reason than that, I don't have one for you.

Posted by: kartoffel at March 25, 2015 07:39 PM (sGRH7)

286 Psaki's saks are huuuge

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:39 PM (zOTsN)

287 I'm fairly well convinced that much of the support for Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is a fear that the lower orders will run riot without some kind of moral compass, because they aren't very good at thinking for themselves.

I think in the American tradition, the fear is that the higher orders will run riot.

Which is all the more likely. It's the church that was the bulwark against tyrannical medieval kings.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:39 PM (b4b5c)

288 Does Phil's stupid counterbalance Bill Maher's stupid, or do they add together exponentially?

Posted by: Roy at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (fWLrt)

289 More important than this Duck Dynasty guy:

Breaking News: One Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France
http://nyti.ms/1NhojPO

Posted by: Y-not at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (9BRsg)

290 If your morality comes from religion, that's fine. But that doesn't make the religion true. A very large group of people have signed on to an agreed upon moral code that happens to work pretty well. But again, consider the possibility that the utility of a post death judgment does not make it true. It doesn't HAVE to be true for it to work.

Posted by: Todd at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (lrkg9)

291 Agreed. Enough about the eternal verities. Let's talk about Jen Psaki's tsits.

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:38 PM (4nR9/)

I wonder how they would look in a tube top.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (FMbng)

292 "252 Atheists opining on Christianity have about the same credibility as Michael Moore does on dieting.
Posted by: Gotta love the atheists, they try so hard at March 25, 2015 07:31 PM (UHJpJ)"

Or Christians opining on Atheists.

Posted by: holygoat at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (O1sGn)

293 Here rickl

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (zOTsN)

294 #186

You're arguing a distinction without a difference. There is plainly no retribution from supernatural entities in life for the most loathsome behavior. The Manson Family wasn't imprisoned by God or a host of angels. They were prosecuted and imprisoned by a secular entity, the State of California.

Thus, any morality derived from fear of supernatural retribution also relies on belief in an afterlife where that retribution would take place. The wording may differ but the effect is the same.

Robertson's argument is invalid regardless of how he approaches it. History is filled with stunningly awful behavior by people of all sorts of beliefs, including the claim of disbelief. (So many of the officially atheistic communist regimes made Marx their god and the dictator du jour his prophet.) How many murderers and rapists are in prison right now who had prominent tattoos of their religion on display when they committed their crimes? Religious indoctrination can very effectively instill a belief in the supernatural while still failing to imbue any functioning conscience in the individual. The problem is you can lead a man to religion but you can't make him think.

Not a problem likely to be solved any time soon.

Posted by: Epobirs at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (IdCqF)

295 I just heard Saudi Arabia is launching military attacks in Yemem & ten countries are involved.

Posted by: Carol at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (sj3Ax)

296 This is crude, puerile crap. It is not really "offensive," except to the
extent that all stupid, ignorant, crude and puerile things ought to
vaguely offend anyone of taste and intellect and self-respect.

Not offensive but stupid.

Is that the new fake but accurate?

Posted by: rocks at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (Q1lie)

297 It does sound like Phil Robertson was setting strawmen alight.

Posted by: rickl at March 25, 2015 07:40 PM (sdi6R)

298 If we are gonna brawl it may as well be a drunken brawl

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (zOTsN)

299 274
Drinks? No one?

Posted by: ThunderB, Cruzader at March 25, 2015 07:36 PM (zOTsN)

*holds large glass under USB port*

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (FsuaD)

300 I guess one would expect the Islamic world to be particularly virtuous, given the real, palpable belief not just in a god but in an angry god who puts sinners into hell and the virtuous into pedophile brothels.

Well, given that Islam rails against public nudity and little girls that forgot their headscarves running out of a burning building gotten thrown back in to get them, then yes ... the Islamic world is very virtuous to the virtues that it espouses.

Posted by: Adriane the Practical ... at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (nSOh+)

301 In other words, you agree atheism doesn't give the foundation for belief in absolute morality

Atheism alone can't. It's just an axiom.

Specific atheist philosophies can offer such a foundation, but as I'd already posted - when they do, those foundations are usually awful.

As far as I know only the Buddha has figured out an atheist philosophy that was at the same time self-sustaining and not a total disaster. Even his philosophy rests on some shaky foundations - migration of souls, for instance, which brings us back to magic.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (AVEe1)

302 For those of you who need a distraction, I will point out fellow 'Ette Polliwog's beautiful handiwork from previous thread:

https://www.etsy.com/listing/227608102/luxurious-handspun-lace-scarf?ref=shop_home_active_1

Posted by: LizLem at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (yRwC8)

303 Somehow I find that hurting the feelings of some fedora-sportin' neckbeard atheist Dawkins fanboy doesn't make the needle on my Acme Givafuck-O-Meter budge at all.

Posted by: Pillars of Rancor at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (76HNm)

304 okay. then never trust an atheist with money -- or your children -- because he just might decide that he will Profit More from theft or murder.

I guess one would expect the Islamic world to be particularly virtuous, given the real, palpable belief not just in a god but in an angry god who puts sinners into hell and the virtuous into pedophile brothels.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:30 PM (PA7DS)

Aren't you parroting Robertson himself? He said Atheists aren't *really* disbelieving and they CAN be trusted with your money and whatnot, since they do feel that "something is wrong" even when their logic does not include the factor of divine retribution.

Posted by: Juicer at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (xvk8k)

305 re 267 Anything that you could ignore and not be immediately killed, or could ignore for a long time and not die of hunger, thirst, or exposure is a belief. Everyone is created equal because they all must poop. That is why when someone says their shit-don't-stink it's a lie.

Posted by: analysis at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (PGh+Q)

306 Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:39 PM (zOTsN)

What'll you have?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (Zu3d9)

307 Thanks for the clarification on Shori's mother Jesus bit, FenelonSpoke. I've never heard of Julian of Norwich, but I was raised in a fairly Lefty Congregationalist church where that kind of stuff wasn't discussed..

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (TLTHv)

308 There are only six more days to Rapey Tuesday.

Posted by: Bright Side at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (SRUk5)

309
Breaking News: One Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France
http://nyti.ms/1NhojPO

/the dun-dun-DUNNNnnn! music

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (ko4zy)

310 "260 Posted by: holygoat at March 25, 2015 07:29 PM (O1sGn)

So atheism is a religion. Finally you admit it.
Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (e8nnW)"

So only Christians are allowed to judge. Finally you admit it.

Posted by: holygoat at March 25, 2015 07:42 PM (O1sGn)

311 OT : GermanwingsPilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France

http://tinyurl.com/p3gymd6

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 25, 2015 07:42 PM (i55o+)

312
I just heard Saudi Arabia is launching military attacks in Yemem ten countries are involved.

Holy crap.

Posted by: eleven at March 25, 2015 07:42 PM (MDgS8)

313 Jihadi

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:42 PM (zOTsN)

314 Oh, please, I've listened to Atheists for years, and it's all the same garbage. My belief system of No God is superior to your belief in A God, now give me your money/lives/country.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:42 PM (2cS/G)

315 A senior military official involved in the investigation described very smooth, very cool conversation between the pilots during the early part of the flight from Barcelona to Düsseldorf. Then the audio indicated that one of the pilots left the cockpit and could not re-enter.

The guy outside is knocking lightly on the door and there is no answer, the investigator said. And then he hits the door stronger and no answer. There is never an answer.

He said, You can hear he is trying to smash the door down.

Posted by: Y-not at March 25, 2015 07:42 PM (9BRsg)

316 >>>But that's cool Ace. You can sell us out to look "moderate and enlightened and stuff". We're used to it.

I just hope you traded us for something more useful than a better table at Martha's Vineyard or somesuch. Maybe at least a bottle of Jack?

...

i love the Darlings who claim, automatically, that any time you disagree with them, geeze, it must be because you're trying to Suck Up to the Important People.

It's never that some people actually just disagree with them! No, some darlings are just sure that their mode of thinking is so clearly the Only Way to Think that any deviation from it must be due to bribery or blandishment!

it's such a delightful argument! And I've only heard it 60000 times!

And dude, you're a hypocrite for making it: Because if I DARED to suggest you had hidden motives for the things you claim, you'd FLIP OUT.

But yeah you can always postulate that anyone who says something you don't like is Just Lying to Get Paid Off somehow.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:42 PM (PA7DS)

317 He killed them. Awful

Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:43 PM (zOTsN)

318 I think in the American tradition, the fear is that the higher orders will run riot.

Which is all the more likely. It's the church that was the bulwark against tyrannical medieval kings.

Posted by: AmishDude

Would you, perhaps, be thinking of some particular component of the higher orders. Not mathematicians, to be sure, but, oh, I don't know, LAWYERS?

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:43 PM (4nR9/)

319 298 If we are gonna brawl it may as well be a drunken brawl
Posted by: ThunderB, Shapeshifter at March 25, 2015 07:41 PM (zOTsN)

That's the spirit. Spoken like a true 'ette.

Posted by: rickl at March 25, 2015 07:43 PM (sdi6R)

320 who the f*** is Phil Robertson and what the f*** is this post about? I admit that I've got a day off and I've been drinking a bit but either I have not drunk enough for I have drunk too much I can't make a single goddamn sense out of this. seriously what am I f****** missing here? Also f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f****** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f****** f****** f****** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f*** f***. I love the word f***.

Posted by: OG CELTIC-AMERICAN at March 25, 2015 07:43 PM (vssei)

321 >>> A senior military official involved in the investigation described very smooth, very cool conversation between the pilots during the early part of the flight from Barcelona to Dusseldorf. Then the audio indicated that one of the pilots left the cockpit and could not re-enter.

The guy outside is knocking lightly on the door and there is no answer, the investigator said. And then he hits the door stronger and no answer. There is never an answer.

He said, You can hear he is trying to smash the door down.

wow

where are you getting this

holy shit

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:43 PM (PA7DS)

322 Worse thing about Nolte's article is his assertion Robertson is typical person in the south. lol I don't think average southern conjures up scenarios in which a man's testicles are cut off and heads are cut off.

Posted by: High Diving Horse at March 25, 2015 07:43 PM (Y3CVR)

323 Answer the question.
Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:37 PM (4nR9/)

Certainly. I already have. (Not that that was a question, but I get the deal here.)

I would trust an atheist the same as I would trust a Christian. Wouldn't even occur to me to ask their religion.

Should l have bothered explaining that atheists can be moral people? Guess not.

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at March 25, 2015 07:44 PM (qD5ZX)

324 "263 Atheists opining on Christianity have about the same credibility as Michael Moore does on dieting.

That argument is ... uh, terrible. I guess all of us who write about Islam despite not being Muslims should just quit?
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:33 PM (AVEe1)"

Exactly.

Posted by: holygoat at March 25, 2015 07:44 PM (O1sGn)

325

Someone here wisely surmised that perfectly good planes rarely ditch themselves at full tilt into the ground.

Oh wait. That was me.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:44 PM (ko4zy)

326 "There is more faith in honest doubt believe me than in half your creeds." Alfred Lord Tennyson

Posted by: rrpjr at March 25, 2015 07:44 PM (s/yC1)

327 >>I just heard Saudi Arabia is launching military attacks in Yemem ten countries are involved.

Whoa. And the co-pilot was locked out of the cockpit in the plane crash?

Shts gettin real or just another week in the age of ISIS/Boko Haram/AQ and a neutered America?

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 07:44 PM (TLTHv)

328 His point is that when an atheist has something sufficiently bad happen, he feels a sense of injustice. For some, it might require something extremely bad, but at some point everyone will throw off the idea that "nothing is immoral" and admit, yeah, what happened to me wasn't right / fair / just.

----------
You're arguing a distinction without a difference. There is plainly no retribution from supernatural entities in life for the most loathsome behavior. The Manson Family wasn't imprisoned by God or a host of angels. They were prosecuted and imprisoned by a secular entity, the State of California.

There is a difference. The intellectual foundation on why to prosecute evil and correct injustice with an imperfect (and thus unjust) Justice system.

"It just makes life easier to do it this way" is a non-answer to "Why should we bother?"

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 07:45 PM (0NdlF)

329 But claiming Amanda Knox is innocent and Italian government just wanted to railroad her because she's a slutty American is about as dumb as Robertson's comment.

Posted by: High Diving Horse at March 25, 2015 07:45 PM (Y3CVR)

330 Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:42 PM (PA7DS)

Rao's called. They have a table for you.....

[Just kidding. Really. It's a joke. I swear.]

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 25, 2015 07:45 PM (Zu3d9)

331 CNN showed a map of the countries the victims on the plane were on ... one was Iran

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:45 PM (AVEe1)

332 Christianity allows for doubt, Atheism doesn't. That's one major distinction.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 25, 2015 07:45 PM (2cS/G)

333 FOX is reporting that one pilot locked the other out of the Cockpit. What are the odds that the Flying pilots name was Mohammed or a variant thereof?

Posted by: Genghis Cohen at March 25, 2015 07:45 PM (fLKzW)

334 Could it be that the pilots were incapacitated by the cockpit failing and that was why he couldn't get in?They can only be opened from the insid now right?

Posted by: steevy at March 25, 2015 07:45 PM (KETbL)

335 I think Ace is being very reasonable here and I sometimes am a devout Catholic when I feel like trying.

Also, Ace, it seems that a good way to get new readers or lurkers to delurk is to write a critical post about religious people. This thread is full of new nics.

Posted by: L, Elle at March 25, 2015 07:46 PM (2x3L+)

336
john kerry said what a few weeks ago?

oh right; we've never been safer

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:46 PM (ko4zy)

337 Christians don't try to educate Muslims on how the Koran should be interpreted or what it really should mean to them. They criticize the results of those beliefs.

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 07:46 PM (e8nnW)

338 As far as I know only the Buddha has figured out an atheist philosophy that was at the same time self-sustaining and not a total disaster. Even his philosophy rests on some shaky foundations - migration of souls, for instance, which brings us back to magic.

I've never understood why Buddhism is considered a philosophy and not a religion. The only reason I can think of is that Americans are mostly only familiar with Zen, which I gather is pretty far from mainstream Buddhism.

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 25, 2015 07:46 PM (FAV2W)

339 301 Why is a belief in an eternal life any different than a belief in one life? They are personally proven or disproved. Could be you are the main character in the movie Truman.

Posted by: analysis at March 25, 2015 07:46 PM (PGh+Q)

340 where are you getting this

holy shit

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:43 PM (PA7DS)

Found it on nytimes.

http://tinyurl.com/nosz2k3

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 07:47 PM (0NdlF)

341 Ace,
I just heard same thing on Greta Show.
I usually don't have television on & listen to radio.
I don't know why I put it on

Posted by: Carol at March 25, 2015 07:47 PM (sj3Ax)

342 239 wrong Phil used to be a atheist.

Posted by: simplemind at March 25, 2015 07:47 PM (hTeQK)

343 Iranian journalists on the flight:
http://tinyurl.com/q3k7rq9

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:48 PM (AVEe1)

344 >Christianity allows for doubt, Atheism doesn't. That's one major distinction.

Eventually a kid with a neckbeard and a room-temperature IQ is going to stumble into the thread, and you'll have yourself an argument. Give your fellow morons some credit.

Posted by: kartoffel at March 25, 2015 07:48 PM (sGRH7)

345 ... maybe they were the TARGET?

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:48 PM (AVEe1)

346 My sister believes in God, but not Jesus. Believes Jesus was a living, historical figure, and that he was insane.

Her life is a hot, socialist, mess. I don't know what to say to her.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 07:48 PM (FsuaD)

347
I reckon Ace is makin nood..

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:49 PM (ko4zy)

348 okay. then never trust an atheist with money -- or your children -- because he just might decide that he will Profit More from theft or murder.

One thing you learn quickly is that self-professed Christians can either be lying or simply preening.

I guess one would expect the Islamic world to be particularly virtuous, given the real, palpable belief not just in a god but in an angry god who puts sinners into hell and the virtuous into pedophile brothels.

No. They are tribal. In Islam there is no independent morality. A Jew who gives to the poor is a sinner. A Muslim who fails to give alms (one of the 5 pillars) is not nearly as sinful.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:49 PM (b4b5c)

349
I have an important point to make, but I'll wait...

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:49 PM (ko4zy)

350 I reckon Ace is makin nood..

Will there be pancakes?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 07:49 PM (0NdlF)

351 Oh, and we are also acting as Iran's Air Force as they try and take Tikrit. G-d Damn do I ever hate Teh JEF and the insane left.... BIRM.

Posted by: Genghis Cohen at March 25, 2015 07:49 PM (fLKzW)

352 Would people bother to worship God if they didn't think there was anything in it for them, that they would go to heaven? I doubt it.

Posted by: High Diving Horse at March 25, 2015 07:49 PM (Y3CVR)

353 >>Christians don't try to educate Muslims on how the Koran should be interpreted or what it really should mean to them.

Well, Obama and Kerry (and other Islam apologists) do this all the freakin' time lately. It's their whole IS isn't really Islamic because they're misinterpreting their own religion blah, blah, blah shtick.

Of course it's likely more to keep *us* in line and prevent people from noticing there's an obvious worldwide Islamic terrorism problem goin' on.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 25, 2015 07:50 PM (TLTHv)

354 post up

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:50 PM (PA7DS)

355 Christians don't try to educate Muslims on how the Koran should be interpreted or what it really should mean to them. They criticize the results of those beliefs.

Well... some Christians argue that the Koran is interpolated and contains an embedded Christian message

*passes you the raisin-bowl*

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:50 PM (AVEe1)

356 Do we worship God, or the notion of eternal life?

Posted by: High Diving Horse at March 25, 2015 07:50 PM (Y3CVR)

357
Would people bother to worship God if they didn't think there was anything in it for them, that they would go to heaven? I doubt it.

Jews?

Posted by: eleven at March 25, 2015 07:51 PM (MDgS8)

358
There is plainly no retribution from supernatural entities in life for the most loathsome behavior.
Posted by: Epobirs

Hmmm...depends. There is the concept of karma, in the immediate sense, or it's cognomen "bad things happen to bad people" or "cheaters never prosper".

Of course, not everyone get their comeuppance and you have the issue of synchronicity*, but some observe a balancing of the scales in this world.

*of a dark -- Scottish lake

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 07:51 PM (kdS6q)

359
I just noticed that Erin Burnett is a full figured gal.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:51 PM (ko4zy)

360 Jews don't believe in a heaven?

Posted by: High Diving Horse at March 25, 2015 07:51 PM (Y3CVR)

361 nood.

Plane crash.

(irony)

Posted by: filbert at March 25, 2015 07:51 PM (h6Mpm)

362
I like her face, though. I like that cute Irish girl look.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 07:51 PM (ko4zy)

363 You can answer his claim by stating biological and social reasons for us even having a concept of morality and fear of retribution.

I've always found the biological justification profoundly stupid.

We're capable of reason. If morality is "natural" or "evolutionary" we can simply work against our nature.

Lots of people do that. Some of them are in prison.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:52 PM (b4b5c)

364 I read speculation earlier today that the windshield failed.

That could still be the case if one of the pilots was outside the cockpit and the other one was incapacitated and couldn't let him back in.

But I still haven't heard the names of the pilots, and that could be what is known as a "clue".

Posted by: rickl at March 25, 2015 07:52 PM (sdi6R)

365 Woman convicted of firing gun into MCDONALD'S drive-thru window over missing bacon on burger...

Lady takes her bacon seriously...

Posted by: Bruce J. at March 25, 2015 07:52 PM (iQIUe)

366 Jews don't believe in a heaven?

Oh, now the argument can REALLY start.

The "World To Come" is I think the compromise formula . . .

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at March 25, 2015 07:52 PM (AVEe1)

367 ThunderB,
Sheew, I'll slide my glass under the USB port, please to fill with one large ice cube and a good bourbon. Thank you very kindly. Been a hell of a day.

Posted by: Fourth Horseman looking for my saddle at March 25, 2015 07:53 PM (A7LEa)

368 @323
No, you didn't answer the question (you are correct, it begged the question, it didn't state it explicitly). All you did was cast aspersions on Ace's argument. I have no idea what you said earlier. I addressed what you said in this post.

Ace said:
"I guess one would expect the Islamic world to be particularly virtuous,
given the real, palpable belief not just in a god but in an angry god
who puts sinners into hell and the virtuous into pedophile brothels."

"Hmm.

Is it time for a "you mad, bro?"

Equating the Christian God with the Muslim God in a game of
rhetorical gotcha with someone because you are upset over perceived
insults to your belief system...well.

You're upset. Unfortunate. Not my intent. "

Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:53 PM (4nR9/)

369 That doesn't seem very christiany Phil.

Posted by: Yet Another South Park Quip at March 25, 2015 07:54 PM (DL2i+)

370 I see god as more of a mechanical engineer who designed life and part of that design is the product can manufacture more of the same product. We are basically robots, or artificial intelligence.

Posted by: High Diving Horse at March 25, 2015 07:54 PM (Y3CVR)

371
nood.
Posted by: filbert

Well, we made it thru a religion thread without anyone being banned, told to gtfo or any pained declarations that they were done with this place forever.

Good work everyone. Take $100 out of petty cash and order pizza for the office.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 07:55 PM (kdS6q)

372 Happy Easter. Hope that didn't make anyone uncomfortable. I will be having ham. Oops did that upset somebody. Sorry.

Posted by: simplemind at March 25, 2015 07:57 PM (hTeQK)

373 His point:

Criminals fool themselves in their own relative safety from other criminals. They think "the risk of being judged when I die is too preposterous. Ergo, a life of immorality has zero consequences in the afterlife. So I'll rob the bank."

But were they to suffer brutality at the hands of other criminals, their consciences might awaken to the absurdity of a universe there is only meaningless suffering and strife ending in a humiliating death.

Posted by: Tron at March 25, 2015 07:58 PM (0mKzZ)

374 his is such an obvious point, and it's been made so many times, that there really is no sense to making it any further. Those of you who are going to insist that "Atheist = Moral Nihilist" will keep on insisting that until your deathbed, because apparently it's very important for you to believe that, and it just doesn't matter how many times you're told those are actually two different categories of things.

Posted by: ace at March 25, 2015 07:00 PM (PA7DS)

True, but the idea of atheist = moral nihilist was given a massive boost by an atheist, Nietzsche. Nietzsche mocked atheists like George Elliot who thought society could hang on to Christian values without believing in the Christian faith. Bullshit, said Nietzsche, get rid of Christianity and the moral edifice of Western civ will crumble.(And old crazy Nietzsche welcomed that.)

Now, Nietzsche isn't the last word on atheism. There are other atheists with other theories and their own reasons for disbelief. Dostoyevsky did think atheism was a revolt against God, so that idea's not completely whack. I certainly don't think that's true of all or most atheists just as I don't think that all atheists are immoral nihilists.

But there is a precedent for that sort of thinking, ace, and it wasn't a Christian who pushed the idea.

Posted by: Donna &&&&&& V. (brandishing ampersands) at March 25, 2015 07:59 PM (+XMAD)

375 Would you, perhaps, be thinking of some particular component of the higher orders. Not mathematicians, to be sure, but, oh, I don't know, LAWYERS?

How do mathematicians rate as "higher orders"?

Did I miss where mathematicians are the president, half the Senate, a huge plurality of the House and the entire Judiciary, top to bottom?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 25, 2015 07:59 PM (b4b5c)

376 Never commented here but I do follow Ace on Twitter, which is enjoyable for the very most part. I would like to add a cent or two, which has probably already been said, but here goes.

For the life of me, I don't know how the Robertsons wound up in the movie God Isn't Dead. This little outburst is simply indefensible for me as a Christian, though after staring at it for several minutes and attempting to make sense of it, I think it is meant to be a sort of Pascal's Wager, though modified by the Trivago guy after a 96-hour coke binge.

I don't know why Robertson is a spokesman or salesman for
Christianity, other than what the TV show presents. But I will say that Robertson is the tip of the "for the love of God, literally, the love of God, why are these people in the limelight" Iceberg of Pablum that plagues American Evangelicalism (pretty much the wide swatch of Protestantism to the right of the mainstream denominations). It is a galling experience to walk into a Christian Bookstore and see what's for sale there. Evangelicalism has chosen a double-edged sword: on one hand, choosing to follow the biggest and loudest will indeed get peoples' attention, but it means that if someone goes and steps on the proverbial rake like Robertson, the entire country sees it, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. Then again, Robertson is a big boy and can defend himself if he is so inclined. Quite frankly, there is a huge lack of discernment and wisdom among Evangelicals about Who Gets The Megaphone.

But they are hardly the best salesmen, and certainly not the only 'salesmen' of sorts. Robertson is nothing compared to the genius of a G.K. Chesterton, and certainly not a speaker like a Lewis. Right now I'm reading through several works by a French philosopher named Etienne Gilson, and for the most part it is a treat: his God and Philosophy is quite enjoyable. Sure, Chesterton and Lewis are popular authors, but they've more than earned that status; Gilson and those like him will never have popularity but they have far, far more to share than....this.

Last point (I think...I hope): ultimately, whether a luminary or an average Joe, the ultimate goal of life in the Body of Christ is to be transformed into the image of Christ. Simple question: Does Robertson's comments adhere to that? To comment on the point made about demands that Christianity places on us, this is the demand: become like Christ. Be holy, as He is holy. I would say it's a terrifying demand, but He has promised us the aid and comfort of the Holy Spirit in becoming like Him. Still terrifying, though. But worth it.

Well, I think I will make one last point: that wishful thinking is just as possible by atheists as theists. People believe God exists for bad reasons as well as good; I have simply seen too many people leave not only the church but Christian theism itself, for the simple reason that the human will governs the intellect and gets the final say over it unless the will is made to conform to the intellect. Romans 1 is about this very thing. (There's some good old-fashioned Thomism right there.)

I've typed too much so I'll shut up now.

Posted by: Rayado at March 25, 2015 08:00 PM (mt1v5)

377 368 @323
No, you didn't answer the question (you are correct, it begged the question, it didn't state it explicitly). All you did was cast aspersions on Ace's argument. I have no idea what you said earlier. I addressed what you said in this post.

------

Well then. I've now made my answer explicit twice.

I had also previously stated that the "question" was projecting an opinion onto me about atheists that was not stated, and is not there.

FWIW, I can understand being upset at the scenario Phil painted. Not that I expect that to be worth any more than my explicitly not casting aspersions on atheist morality was.

Post quote I'm too lazy to delete using my phone follows.

-------------------

Ace said:
"I guess one would expect the Islamic world to be particularly virtuous,
given the real, palpable belief not just in a god but in an angry god
who puts sinners into hell and the virtuous into pedophile brothels."

"Hmm.

Is it time for a "you mad, bro?"

Equating the Christian God with the Muslim God in a game of
rhetorical gotcha with someone because you are upset over perceived
insults to your belief system...well.

You're upset. Unfortunate. Not my intent. "
Posted by: pep at March 25, 2015 07:53 PM (4nR9/)

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at March 25, 2015 08:01 PM (qD5ZX)

378 I have no doubt that there is a God.

I know, because he's a sadistic monster who never, ever misses and opportunity to kick me in the balls. Ever.

Today, for example.

Posted by: Null at March 25, 2015 08:01 PM (xjpRj)

379 ace doing the corgi-call. This is a weird day.

Posted by: chiefjaybob at March 25, 2015 08:02 PM (cgH9o)

380 ----------------

Those of you who are going to insist that "Atheist = Moral Nihilist" will keep on insisting that until your deathbed, because apparently it's very important for you to believe that...

-----------

Hmmm. A bit like insisting people are insisting that. ;-)

Posted by: Hawkins1701 at March 25, 2015 08:03 PM (qD5ZX)

381 Posted by: Rayado at March 25, 2015 08:00 PM (mt1v5)

Very good post Rayado.

Posted by: Donna &&&&&& V. (brandishing ampersands) at March 25, 2015 08:04 PM (+XMAD)

382 So about this bet; what was wagered and at what point do I win? Do I win before or after the removal of the manhood?

Something about this beefwitted wager just ain't right.

Posted by: Fritz at March 25, 2015 08:06 PM (ty633)

383 nobody decides for anybody who has the megaphone. that is the point of freedom of speech, everybody can talk on their own megaphone.

Posted by: High Diving Horse at March 25, 2015 08:06 PM (Y3CVR)

384 Hey ace,
If someone hasn't pointed out up thread-- It was Jeffrey McDonald, the Green Beret doctor at Ft. Bragg who killed his wife and children who spouted the "acid is groovy" crap.

Posted by: Alamo at March 25, 2015 08:06 PM (ceIDk)

385 Posted by: Rayado at March 25, 2015 08:00 PM (mt1v5)

Nice!

Posted by: LizLem at March 25, 2015 08:07 PM (yRwC8)

386 You took the bait, Ace. Phil wins, you don't.

Posted by: Michael Haz at March 25, 2015 08:07 PM (APCKW)

387 This thread goes great with tequila. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Badda Bing at March 25, 2015 08:10 PM (o2yvE)

388 Simply existing gives you all of your rights. A lot of them get taken away pretty quickly after you are conceived though.

Posted by: freaked at March 25, 2015 08:10 PM (JdEZJ)

389 It's funny how nobody talks about God as much as those who claim not to believe in him.

Posted by: Foul Harold at March 25, 2015 08:16 PM (D8fDd)

390 To be precise: atheists OUGHT TO BE moral nihilists. That they are not is the subject of the last half of Romans chapter 1 which, ace, you reject as valid and true, although I do believe that's ultimately the reasoning of whomever originated the thought processes that have created your current state re: "does God exist?" Read: Francis Schaeffer's "The God Who Is There."

What Phil Robertson said was impolitic. It was also Biblically true and logically defensible.

Posted by: Doctor Cynic at March 25, 2015 08:23 PM (rzggC)

391 Posted by: Rayado at March 25, 2015 08:00 PM (mt1v5)

Clearly Robertson is not as good a Christian as you. How dare they cast him in a Christian movie.

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 08:26 PM (e8nnW)

392

A constant, stable 26 Degree descent.

Posted by: Soothsayer's imaginary twitter feed at March 25, 2015 08:28 PM (ko4zy)

393 Right and wrong should have an external index. Religion or a generally-shared philosophy. But it has a requirement. You must be required, under some circumstances, to do what you would rather not, and to refrain from that whichyou would like.
I believe it was Bertrand Russell who mused that it made him uncomfortable to insist something was wrong simply because he didn't approve of it.
In Robertson's hypo, then, the atheist objects because he doesn't like the things going on. The perps do like the things going on. It's a moral wash. Who's the tiebreaker and on what is that third judgment based?
It would have to be a generally-shared philosophy. The problem with that is, without a divine commandment, a generally shared philosophy is the result of tradition, habit, inertia, and whatever equivalent of democracy might be extant. And some of those things we might not approve of, here, across the ocean. But who are we to judge? Simply because we don't approve doesn't mean it's WRONG. It just means it's wrong for us. At this time. Under these circumstances. Until...it becomes okay for us. Gored oxen and suchlike.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at March 25, 2015 08:36 PM (Q/3mX)

394 Before Christians and in countries that didn't have Christians; there was never any morality... Morality can only come from God, and of course only the right god, the wrong god couldn't possibly have ream morality.

Really?

Well that's Nucking Futs now isn't it?

Is something good because god says it's good, or did god say it was good because it is good?

One of the early philosophy class questions.
And a useful one to consider.

"To be precise: atheists OUGHT TO BE moral nihilists.
Posted by: Doctor Cynic at March 25, 2015 08:23 PM (rzggC)
"

So something is only good because god says it's good; and to have that power it must be the TRUE god who exists...

So no other religion should have any morality either; as morality flows only from the one true god to his chosen people?

And only those with the correct god could ever have found morality; which could not exist outside of god's teachings, as only god could tell them what goodness was.

Good luck with that argument; as I recall it fell apart every time I've seen someone try to make it.

Posted by: gekkobear at March 25, 2015 08:37 PM (v9FkB)

395 I reckon it's the internet (non-physical interactions) that mess this sort of discussion up.

People of good faith with different opinions have no problem talking about this sort of thing over a beer but in a comment thread it's all worthless. No one is persuadable so what's the point?

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 08:37 PM (kQ364)

396 Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 08:37 PM (kQ36

This discussion did not start in good faith. Check the headline.

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 08:40 PM (e8nnW)

397 Ace, like you I am a conservative atheist. But you lack the apologetic preparation to understand the argument. Please listen to a few debates by William Lane Craig. He usually brings up a moral argument for God's existence which I believe is what Robertson is doing here.
They claim atheism gives no ground for objective morality & I agree. I disagree that it proves God. But I think you misconstrue the intent here.

And since the left has been so wildly successful marching in lockstep, why not emulate them by not criticizing our conservative brethren?

Posted by: Dawkins Dynasty at March 25, 2015 08:45 PM (3F6F8)

398 Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 08:40 PM (e8nnW)

Well, the headline did spring forth from arguing on Twitter and takes place on the internet so I figure it's part of the same dynamic.

I think half the reason that Ace seems like a super pissed off dude lately is that he's using Twitter as a source of writing prompts and that's where infuriating people infuriate one another. I get it but I don't think it's particularly worthwhile outside of people occasionally poisoning the well in a new and creative manner.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 08:45 PM (kQ364)

399 Atheists never name their sons Judas, have you noticed?

Posted by: Michael Haz at March 25, 2015 08:53 PM (APCKW)

400 Yeah, what 397 said. He was just illustrating that objective morality (redundant, as "subjective morality" is an oxymoron), is impossible without a superior being and an afterlife.

"The whole management and direction of human life depends upon the question whether or not there is a God and a future state of human existence. If there is a God, but no future state, God is nothing to us. If there is a future state, but no God, we can form no rational guess about the future state." J. F. Stephen.

Posted by: Early Cuyler at March 25, 2015 08:57 PM (Rb3t4)

401 Clearly Robertson is not as good a Christian as you. How dare they cast him in a Christian movie.
Posted by: Ted Cruz

Beg pardon? God's Not Dead was an apologetics movie. Apologetics. The rational defense of the faith. Not "duck hunters who wound up on the national stage." Ever since The Case for Christ book came out, there's about two or three dozen very high profile Christians running around the country, well within a day's drive of Louisiana, that are far more qualified than Robertson and won't do crazy stuff like this.

I did not say I'm a better Christian than him. I said it was an idiotic thing to say and that he strikes me as shallow when it comes to presenting the Christian faith winsomely. That's a standard I don't fear to be held to.

Posted by: Rayado at March 25, 2015 08:57 PM (7qyhD)

402 "So no other religion should have any morality either; as morality flows only from the one true god to his chosen people?

And only those with the correct god could ever have found morality; which could not exist outside of god's teachings, as only god could tell them what goodness was."

Again, read Romans 1. Throw in Genesis 3 - "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and all that. But, yes, that "morality flows only from the one true God to his chosen people" is precisely the proposition of Christianity (and any other religion that claims exclusivity on divine truth, which is rather most of them). That this is vitally important information is why Christians have endeavored for two millennia to bring the Bible to literally everyone across the globe. Is all of this really news to you?

The only reason the argument "falls apart" to you is that you obviously reject its axiom. That's on you, not on the argument itself, which is perfectly valid.

Posted by: Doctor Cynic at March 25, 2015 09:00 PM (rzggC)

403 Ace: "i love the Darlings who claim, automatically, that any time you disagree with them, geeze, it must be because you're trying to Suck Up to the Important People."

Little darlings eh? Looks like I struck a nerve. Hey, if you want to pull an O'Reilly and tack to center to garner some moderate cred, that's fine by me.

I just wish you would be honest about it. Or at least explain how you got these cool new telepathic powers that allow you to read that Roberston is fantasizing about rape.

Posted by: Fen at March 25, 2015 09:05 PM (zhb21)

404 As an envangelical, I guess I'm supposed to be disavowing the words of this person I wouldn't recognize if he knocked on my door. Ok, he's disavowed. There are plenty of people on this Earth that like to preach that there's no wrong or right, most of them would probably describe themselves as atheist. I'm one those guys that won't automatically assume anything about anybody, even an atheist. I had a lot of friends when I was in the military that would self identify as atheist who clearly knew the difference between good and evil, which is one of the reasons we enlisted in the first place. If your concern is that he's suggesting people might change there beliefs under intense pressure, then he's actually telling the truth. I've met a lot of them. The main thing is Phil Robertson's views are Phil Robertson's views. It's ok for Christians to disagree with each other as long as we don't disagree with the Bible. One of the beliefs that the Bible tells us is that we should warn people that Jesus is coming back and when he does come back he's coming to destroy what's left of us who aren't counted as his own. Some people just aren't good at explaining that in a loving manner and there are plenty of self professed "Christians" that pushing their personal beliefs over God's beliefs, some do it without even realize it.

BTW, Oklahoma is getting raped with storms and tornadoes tonight, so if there are Christians out there we could use your prayers.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at March 25, 2015 09:06 PM (IbjZr)

405 181
Atheists, question:

Where Do You Think Our Rights Come From?

Good question. My answer: They don't "come from" anywhere. They are rights precisely because they are the basic state of being human.

Freedom of speech is a right, because it's the basic state unless someone prevents you - and it doesn't prevent anyone else exercising their rights.

Freedom of religion is a right the same way - though if your religion teaches that you should take those rights away from followers of other creeds, you don't have freedom to exercise those beliefs.

Freedom of assembly, the same.

Right to bear arms, the same.

This is where the Bill of Rights gets it right and the UN Declaration on Human Rights goes horribly, horribly wrong.

Whether you believe that humans were created by a deity or evolved ultimately from chemicals sloshing about in a primordial ocean, rights arise from simply being human.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 09:15 PM (2yngH)

406 Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 09:15 PM (2yngH)

Might makes right in the atheist world.

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 09:16 PM (e8nnW)

407 406 Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 09:15 PM (2yngH)

Might makes right in the atheist world.

Even the hamsters don't think much of your opinion. And they're drunk right now.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 09:21 PM (2yngH)

408 Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 09:21 PM (2yngH)

Wow you got me. So witty.

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 09:22 PM (e8nnW)

409 Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 09:21 PM (2yngH)

Wow you got me. So witty.

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 25, 2015 09:22 PM (e8nnW)

410 Rights come with duties. Obligations from others and obligations to others.

Saying, "cause human" doesn't cut it. What are the rights of a dog, or a cat, or a fish?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 09:22 PM (0NdlF)

411 I would be curious to see a poll regarding infanticide and Peter Singer's views on the issue. I imagine him to be an atheist, although I don't know. Think more atheists than Christians I must knock for their backwards beliefs would be good with the murder of children who are handicapped? If yes, why? What is it about their belief system that would make this easier to rationalize.

Posted by: ejo at March 25, 2015 09:25 PM (VjEDk)

412 I think that you make the same mistake that you are accusing Robertson of -- you are assuming a mindset and position on someone without knowing them. The basic premise of Robertson's talk is straightforward -- any atheistic moral code is arbitrary, and any atheist who doesn't accept that is being self-deceptive.

Robertson then goes on and uses hyperbole to demonstrate it. That's not a vindication fantasy. It's hyperbole. Something that's used extensively at this blog, in fact.

Posted by: billo at March 25, 2015 09:31 PM (WUK1X)

413 410 Rights come with duties. Obligations from others and obligations to others.

The things we recognise as rights are precisely those that you have without others. The obligations are social; the rights are innate.

Saying, "cause human" doesn't cut it. What are the rights of a dog, or a cat, or a fish?

It's a good question. They can't argue for their rights, because they don't understand the concept. If they could, they'd no longer be dogs, or cats, or fish. So we must argue their rights for them.

I don't have a simple answer. Animals have no freedom of speech, because they can't talk. Animals have no freedom of religion, because they have no religion.

Do animals have a right to be free from unnecessary harm from those who do understand the concept of rights - that is, us? I'd say that they do, that this is similarly a negative right.

But I'm not going to go vegan. My diet is restricted enough with celiac disease to cope with.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 09:31 PM (2yngH)

414 411 Yeah, Singer is an atheist.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 09:36 PM (2yngH)

415 Always love good Ol' Ace.

"Phil Robertson is a silly reality person not worth mentioning, so I'm gonna write extensively about how not important he is and how much I disagree with him. I'm especially gonna focus on how Phil thinks only his way is right and how arrogant that is shortly before explaining how I think is what's really right and Im the smart one".

Something tells me Phil could really not give less of a shit about what an atheist blogger who frequently threatens to take his ball and go home and quit thinks.

Grow Pajama Ace.

Posted by: Malcolm Tent at March 25, 2015 09:50 PM (rJ4+i)

416 I agree with you, Ace, that what Phil Robertson said was stupid, and quite frankly weird in the I'm secretly a serial killer kind of weird. That said, I do believe in a God that will eventually judge us. I will gently convey my beliefs in a situation that is appropriate. We are called upon to give our witness and to spread the Good News. What Phil Robertson is doing is using his fame to aggrandize himself and I assume he thinks the more outrageous he is the more attention he gets. He's certainly not doing us Christians (or God) any favors.

Posted by: Funeral guy at March 25, 2015 09:50 PM (p0zHt)

417 The things we recognise as rights are precisely those that you have without others. The obligations are social; the rights are innate.

There's no such thing as a human existing without others.

Everyone starts off with parents, and there is a duty of the parents to take care of their offspring, and a corresponding duty of the offspring to respect and obey the parents.

It's a good question. They can't argue for their rights, because they don't understand the concept. If they could, they'd no longer be dogs, or cats, or fish. So we must argue their rights for them.

Yet we observe human obligations to animals and natural environments. Laws against animal cruelty, and the like.

When it comes to rights - they're intrinsically tied to morality and "oughts" - that is, obligations. To say they just exist is to claim that morality "just exists".

That doesn't create a binding reason to observe them.

Theistic frameworks provide such a reason (creator -> created: as parent -> child).

Secularist ones, have not. They should, if they are to be considered superior.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 09:50 PM (0NdlF)

418 I so love it when atheists lecture to Christians what the acceptable boundaries o f their beliefs are. I also love it when they run screaming from any he'll talk.

No, I don't think Robertson was fantasizing. I think you find it necessary to believe that, to perpetuate your fantasies, which happen to also enable whatever sins you may be particularly attached to.

While inelegant, Robertson's argument was actually a cogent attack on one of modern atheism's great conceits, proven false by so many horrors of history, especially recent. The error is that moral standards can be maintained outside any absolute truth, which truth can only come from a supreme, omnipotent deity. The severe moral decay into a literal new barbarism we see all around us is due to abandonment, en masse, of acceptance of those moral certainties. Man is inherently a religious creature. We were made to be that way (and yes, there is s true and right religion. Sadly Robertson does not profess it). And history continues to amass more and more evidence that societies decoupled from revealed truth are much more inherently immoral. All the other philosophies that have been floated to replace religion, and especially Christianity, whether they be materialism, sensuality, leftism, whatever, always fail to uphold moral standards and the decline has been as fast as it has been inevitable. So Robertson was simply making a rather brutish and ugly point along those lines.

Sorry you found it so upsetting. Perhaps it cut too closely. After all, atheist or no, you were still created by and for God and have His Law written on your heart.

Posted by: Tantumblogo at March 25, 2015 09:54 PM (lADRM)

419 Dennis Prager brings up the fact that every Atheist thinker he has ever debated admits that without a God there is no basis for a belief in right or wrong beyond personal opinion.

Posted by: Funeral guy at March 25, 2015 10:01 PM (p0zHt)

420 Posted by: Funeral guy at March 25, 2015 10:01 PM (p0zHt)

I'd love to hear a response to that.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 25, 2015 10:03 PM (R5HRU)

421 If belief in a greater power is a requirement for morality then how God doing it?

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:05 PM (kQ364)

422 Ace: you're confusing Dr. Sam Shepherd with Dr. Jeffrey McDonald. Dr. Shepherd was accused of murdering his wife (no kids) in a Cleveland suburb in the 50's.

Posted by: Funeral guy at March 25, 2015 10:05 PM (p0zHt)

423 Phil Robertson talks about atheists, Ace blogs.

Atheist kills 3 Muslims, Ace...well, nothing.

Posted by: Malcolm Tent at March 25, 2015 10:06 PM (rJ4+i)

424 Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:05 PM (kQ364)

God is the supreme being. As a believer there is nothing greater than Him.

I understand that for non-believers it's a stretch but that's what faith is about.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 25, 2015 10:08 PM (R5HRU)

425 If belief in a greater power is a requirement for morality then how God doing it?

It's more that humans aren't qualified to set the standards, vs. all beings needing a higher order being to set the standards.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 10:10 PM (0NdlF)

426 Dennis Prager brings up the fact that every Atheist thinker he has ever debated admits that without a God there is no basis for a belief in right or wrong beyond personal opinion.

This.

Also doesn't help that every freakin' atheist I've ever known personally has been an insufferable douchebag.

Of course, that's anecdotal evidence, but still.

Posted by: GMan at March 25, 2015 10:10 PM (nPdsm)

427 I understand what you're saying thathalfrican but all I'm expressing here is how the faith is based on a Being doing exactly what the believers say isn't possible.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:12 PM (kQ364)

428 Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:12 PM (kQ364)

But it is possible for God because He is God. He created everything.

I mean at some point we're just gonna have to go separate ways. Which is fine, I respect that.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 25, 2015 10:18 PM (R5HRU)

429 I don't mean to be a jerk here and maybe I'm tiptoeing up to the line by posing these thoughts as little snippets but they did actually occur to me.

Another is how a creation needs a creator but the Creator didn't.

What it seems like to me from time to time is that we take the unsolvable eternal mysteries and fold them all together into a Being who isn't held to the logical standards we hold for ourselves and then say we can't take a hard look at that Being because, well, faith.

Which, fair enough. In my opinion Christianity specifically has been a great blessing to this country and I'm Burkean enough to not look a gift horse in the mouth.

You just gotta see why various (friendly) atheists occasionally spout off from time to time after a bit too much insult.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:19 PM (kQ364)

430 "I mean at some point we're just gonna have to go separate ways. Which is fine, I respect that."

That's fair and a very nice way to put it, Thathalfrican. Cheers.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:21 PM (kQ364)

431 Likewise, it should go without saying that every single non-believer should immediately understand why friendly Christians will occasionally give a hard elbow in the paint because they're so often being insulted and denigrated all the time.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:24 PM (kQ364)

432
I don't know a lot about Robertson but he strikes me as an Old Testament / John Brown kind of guy.

Those guys can be impressive, but they're not big on subtlety or irony. His point is that without God (an unspecified God) there can be no morality.

Atheists have a problem with morality and free will. They can't be derived from reason.

And because they can't explain free will they also have a problem with fatalism. If there's no free will, then everything is fated.

Quite the conundrum.

"Good is better than bad because it's nicer". - Dudley Do-Right

Posted by: Frankly at March 25, 2015 10:25 PM (KHZml)

433 basic,

Your point of the Creator not needing a creator Himself is something that I've thought about often. I really believe God knew we would struggle with Him, His way and everything.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 25, 2015 10:32 PM (R5HRU)

434 Another is how a creation needs a creator but the Creator didn't.

If we were eternal and uncreated, we'd know it. But we're mortal.

If the universe naturally creates life - we'd observe it - but it doesn't.

One does not need to know the precise nature of God to recognize that we live in an ordered world that points at a creator.

When you take that evidence from the natural world and match it to the Christian revelation - most of the important bits click into place. It doesn't answer every single question - but it answers all the important ones. I've yet to find anything that works better to satisfy the intellectual, spiritual, and emotional needs of man.

If you have, please do tell. I'm interested.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 10:34 PM (0NdlF)

435 I'm guessing you aren't happy with the analogy that Robertson is making (one in poor taste for my money but still it's an extreme example of something he's explaining) because it has an atheist as the prime object.

And he's making a point about atheism that put in more tasteful words is still disturbing for a whole lot of other reasons and it's one atheists spend a lot of time claiming that atheism isn't like that.

No atheism is EXACTLY like that. No God, No punishment, No reason to feel guilt or remorse over destructive acts.

When we're dead we're dead and we won't be around to bear the brunt of any repercussions so what difference does it make? Except if society catches you in a particularly illegal act and puts you to death but the death penalty is going away also. So what is left to inspire people to be moral and have integrity? Their inner desire to lose to those who don't?

Atheism is not a rejection of God, it's rejection of His rules. It's why Atheists are so vehement about claiming He doesn't exist. Because in the middle of the night when it's dark and cold out, the atheist wonders; "is it true?".

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at March 25, 2015 10:43 PM (zRby/)

436 Ace, this is your best post in two weeks. If you must jab at your own side, THIS is the way to do it. This coming from a pretty serious Catholic.

Posted by: Mister Magic at March 25, 2015 10:44 PM (nbgPm)

437 Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 10:34 PM (0NdlF)

Haven't found anything that better serves intellectual, spiritual and emotional needs, conmon.

Not even a little. There are good moments here and there but it's a fairly bleak thing in the whole.

The problem you have when you've lost your faith is how it doesn't seem like a choice to regain belief. Whatever is actually the case actually is the case whether any of us believe it or not. So then it becomes a matter of the likelihood of magic in the absence of divine revelation.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:47 PM (kQ364)

438 basic if you don't mind me asking, how do you reconcile the universe and how everything came to be?

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 25, 2015 10:49 PM (R5HRU)

439 "Another is how a creation needs a creator but the Creator didn't."

Yet you can believe that its all some kind of cosmic accident?

Look around.....does this look like an accident?

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 10:54 PM (lDDN7)

440 I don't mind at all, halfrican. Suppose I could spout off some half-remembered and quarter-understood physics about the big bang and all of that but the honest answer is that I have no real idea whatsoever.

There might be a perfectly good materialist explanation for the whole thing but I'm not exactly sure how the much smaller materialist explanation goes for the computer I'm using right now to type this comment.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:55 PM (kQ364)

441 "Look around.....does this look like an accident?"

Sometimes no, sometimes yes.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:56 PM (kQ364)

442 Just in case it hadn't been said, no one but atheists and low information believers (if there is such a thing) thinks that anyone gets into heaven for 'believing in God.' Demons believe but are doomed regardless of that. Legitimate Christianity teaches that accepting God's terms, namely Christ's sacrifice on your behalf, is the only way in.

Some folks think works can get you in. Some folks think everyone's getting in just because. But no one believes 'not an atheist' gets you into heaven.

Posted by: Methos at March 25, 2015 10:57 PM (ZbV+0)

443 Haven't found anything that better serves intellectual, spiritual and emotional needs, conmon.

Not even a little. There are good moments here and there but it's a fairly bleak thing in the whole.

And yet we're here. Why?

Why can we see evil and judge it wrong? Why do we do evil despite knowing better? Why do we hunger for good and justice in a world that often lacks it?

That bleakness is precisely why the Gospel of Jesus Christ is such an amazing thing - and why I have yet to find anything better. It's the only thing that gives strength to stand and do good in an absurd world where a SCOAMF gets elected twice and evil men do as they wish.

The problem you have when you've lost your faith is how it doesn't seem like a choice to regain belief.

I didn't have a choice to not believe. Atheism requires way too much handwaving. The only choice I had was to obey - repent, and sin no more.

Ask for and seek God's grace, and you will find it. If you're not familiar with the four Gospels, I'd suggest reading them thoroughly.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 25, 2015 11:00 PM (0NdlF)

444 Sometimes no, sometimes yes.

Then I pity you and I mean that in the most sincere way.

I don't pretend to have all the answers in terms of Christianity.....I struggle mightily (as I honestly think most Christians do) to NOT be judgemental but at the same time call sin what it is---sin. I sin in many ways. The difference is that I recognize my sin for what it is and try to do better, knowing that God's grace forgives me either way. BUT, the struggle to do what is right IS important.

Other than that, I truly grieve for people who cannot see the beauty and intelligent design that creation is.

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 11:04 PM (lDDN7)

445 Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 10:55 PM (kQ364)

I feel that to an extent. Only reason is I have a very hard time accepting "Because Science" as an answer. Mainly because every time an atheist claims science, big bang and etc. that science changes. For example the big bang is going through it's own scientific once over. The big bang violates the first law of thermodynamics so the next question is; where do we go from here.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 25, 2015 11:06 PM (R5HRU)

446 I appreciate that conmon. I really do.

At the end of the day, this is why non-believers shouldn't get too bent out of shape if a Christian throws an elbow in the paint from time to time. The heartfelt intent normally isn't a tribal "I'm better than you" message that Ace is seeing. (For the record, I do see that tribal "I'm better than you" message occasionally but that's just how humans roll sometimes.)

If someone is asking me to read the Gospels to find some comfort and redemption I don't know how to take that as anything but a very kind and nice gesture.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 11:09 PM (kQ364)

447 What I like about Phil is that he doesn't care what YOU think, Ace. You are as irrelevant to him as you are to most of the rest of the universe. There, I said it.

Posted by: Don at March 25, 2015 11:11 PM (lT8lH)

448 Atheism is not a rejection of God, it's rejection of His rules.

This is the truth that shall go unspoken.

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 11:14 PM (lDDN7)

449 Heh, I hear you halfrican.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 11:16 PM (kQ364)

450 okay. so. ace is not voting republican anymore. and now he thinks phil robertson gets off on rape murder fantasies, is stupid, and should shut up, and don't give him that "we're all one team crap", HOWEVER phil is putting our team on the hook with his dumbass christian chainsaw massacre leering psychobilly act.

Dear whoever-is-mad-dogging-my-tilt-a-whirl: i'd like to place a reservation for an ambulance with two redheads and some extra morphine on board for my ride out of here before the communists round us all up for our holiday in cambodia kthxbye

Posted by: Deputy Director Higgins at March 25, 2015 11:18 PM (IxEWc)

451 People do not believe in God because they want to "sin without judgment." They don't believe in God because, get this, they just don't believe in God. The existence, or nonexistence, of God is the first and only step in this process; no one reasons backwards to it after deciding "I'd like to be judged by a Deity, so I believe in God" or "You know, I'd rather not be judged by a Deity, so I shall deny His existence."

Dude, gotta completely disagree with you here. People do this sort of backwards logic all the time especially with things that they cannot prove one way or the other. All. The. Time. Belief or disbelief in God is no different. I understand you want to believe that no one would be foolish enough to judge such an important question in such a silly way, but such creatures exist in large quantities. Your premise is false on the general level.

The thing is the Bible itself has such people. There are many, many examples in both the Old and New Testaments who having seen God's power - personally seen God's power first-hand and how awesome and horrible it can be - and if they didn't stop believing in a judging God they sure as hell (ha) acted like they didn't believe. Front and center are the Israelites who witness 10 plagues on Egypt bringing an ancient superpower to its knees, the destruction of pharaoh's army at the Red Sea, and a variety of other miracles, and the moment Moses is out of communication for a few days they immediately bail and start worshiping a golden calf. Example #2: King Solomon was personally visited by God and granted wisdom, knows more or less everything relevant, and bails out late in life to worship the pagan gods and whine about how life is meaningless. Example #3: Judas Iscariot. OK, technically these people still believed in a higher power of some sort, but to the Israelites worshiping an idol - a piece of wood or metal - was on par with worshiping nothing at all. And Judas's actions are so, frankly, silly given what he knew that people keep trying to come up with alternate character interpretations (Jesus asked him to it, he was compelled to do it, etc.)

Reconsider your argument.

But, yeah, Phil's analogy was terrible.

Posted by: WhosItWhatsIt at March 25, 2015 11:20 PM (2CEhC)

452 417 There's no such thing as a human existing without others.

In principle there is, and with rights, we are talking about principles. If you want to talk about practice, that's a whole 'nother discussion.

Theistic frameworks provide such a reason (creator -> created: as parent -> child).

Yes, but if they simply assume that reason, they're not logically sound. It may be a valid syllogism, but the premises must be demonstrated to be true.

Secularist ones, have not.

Some of them do, by assuming other reasons. Again, they're not logically sound.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:22 PM (2yngH)

453 "Then I pity you and I mean that in the most sincere way."

"Other than that, I truly grieve for people who cannot see the beauty and intelligent design that creation is."

Heh. Again, there is a way to take offense to this phrasing but for the life of me I don't understand why I should.

All y'all would make good neighbors.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 11:23 PM (kQ364)

454 432 Atheists have a problem with morality and free will. They can't be derived from reason.

That's more of a problem for morality and free will than for atheism, I would say. If you can't reason your way to a position, what value can that position possibly have?

And you're right about free will; so-called "libertarian" free will is impossible. "Compatibilist" free will, on the other hand, demonstrably exists.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:26 PM (2yngH)

455 439 Yet you can believe that its all some kind of cosmic accident?

Look around.....does this look like an accident?

If by accident you mean 13 billion years of processes acting according to the laws of physics, then, yes, that's precisely what it looks like.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:30 PM (2yngH)

456 435 And he's making a point about atheism that put in more tasteful words is still disturbing for a whole lot of other reasons and it's one atheists spend a lot of time claiming that atheism isn't like that.

No atheism is EXACTLY like that. No God, No punishment, No reason to feel guilt or remorse over destructive acts.

The point is, this is not merely utter nonsense, it deliberately dehumanises and demonises atheists.

Atheists are humans. Atheists feel guilt and remorse. Atheists are punished for doing things society judges as wrong. All of this is obviously and undeniably true.

They just don't believe they'll be judged by a deity after they're dead.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:34 PM (2yngH)

457 Pixy, what about the Big Bang? It violates the first law of thermodynamics.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 25, 2015 11:37 PM (R5HRU)

458 451 Dude, gotta completely disagree with you here. People do this sort of backwards logic all the time especially with things that they cannot prove one way or the other.

Yeah, I have to agree with you and disagree with Ace on this point. There are many atheists and agnostics who came to their point of view from sound reasoning.

But there are also many atheists who didn't, or who, at best, are unable to articulate their reasoning.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:39 PM (2yngH)

459 Heh. Again, there is a way to take offense to this phrasing but for the life of me I don't understand why I should.

Maybe there is a way you could but, like you, I don't see why you would. It seems we all seek to find offense these days rather than look for a heartfelt desire to communicate on the part of the other (I am very guilty of this myself, I admit). Sometimes, I think that this is the bigger point that Ace himself is trying to make, but then he just becomes such an unmitigated ass when it comes to Religeon/Christians that I think he is just letting his Libertarian _ Hate GodSquad_ impulses get the better of him.

The bottom line is, as a Christian, I wish you folks would read the Bible and go to Church and actually learn what the vast majority of Christians are all about BEFORE you listen to what is said pop culture, TV, Movies etc and pass judgement.

As a lifelong Repub, I am having a serious problem justifying my vote for people who hate me and do not want to represent me. I feel as though I am being forced to choose between my Government and my God.

You will lose EVERY time.

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 11:40 PM (lDDN7)

460 f by accident you mean 13 billion years of processes acting according to the laws of physics, then, yes, that's precisely what it looks like.

As you atheists like to say :

Prove it.

Furthermore, prove that it wasn't an "accident" generated by "God".

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 11:42 PM (lDDN7)

461 Atheists are punished for doing things society judges as wrong

"IF" they get caught.

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 11:44 PM (lDDN7)

462 Atheists are humans. Atheists feel guilt and remorse. Atheists are punished for doing things society judges as wrong. All of this is obviously and undeniably true.

They just don't believe they'll be judged by a deity after they're dead.Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:34 PM (2yngH)

How many SJWs, and their ilk are practicing Christians?

Posted by: Ralph at March 25, 2015 11:44 PM (MqV0V)

463 Agree or not, Robertson is not some "reality TV freak," he's an inventor and businessman whose company is now worth a reported $400 million or more.

You, sir, are the nobody.

Posted by: Adjoran at March 25, 2015 11:46 PM (QIQ6j)

464 f by accident you mean 13 billion years of processes acting according to
the laws of physics, then, yes, that's precisely what it looks like.

Where did the material to begin those processes come from?

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 11:47 PM (lDDN7)

465 Agree or not, Robertson is not some "reality TV freak," he's an inventor
and businessman whose company is now worth a reported $400 million or
more.

And that just burns you ass, doesn't it?

Posted by: FITP at March 25, 2015 11:48 PM (lDDN7)

466 "As a lifelong Repub, I am having a serious problem justifying my vote for people who hate me and do not want to represent me. I feel as though I am being forced to choose between my Government and my God.

You will lose EVERY time."

For what it's worth, this is the very sort of fracture I think that loose internet shit talk creates while it serves no one but the progressives. I'm very much against this sort of finding a problem where none should exist.

Conservative non-believers should read their Burke as much if not more than the Bible. What we were doing was working. Now? Not so much.

Posted by: basicbv at March 25, 2015 11:51 PM (kQ364)

467 I'm not sure that is what Robertson was ineptly saying. When you get down to brass tacks, the only reason that any action can be right or wrong is if there is a standard against which all actions are judged - and the standard must be something not up for debate. Let's stay away from the awful and keep it small - it is wrong for me to stamp on your foot. Now, you can say that it is wrong for me to do that because it hurts you and that isn't right - and I then ask, "why?". Other than, presumptively, because you'll pound me into the dirt for stamping on your foot, I mean. Why is it wrong for me to stamp on your foot? Even if you can't pound me into the ground?

Because we should all treat each other decently?

Why?

Because society tends to work better if we do that.

Ok. But suppose I get pleasure out of foot stamping and I can do it to you with little or no cost to myself?

Well, you still shouldn't do that, because I have a right not to have my foot stamped.

Why?

You can keep this going for a while, but after a while you're going to be forced back into a corner where you're really just saying, "because...". A believer finishes the statement by saying, "because God endowed me with a right and you can't violate it, period. And if you do, even if there's no way for me to retaliate, it is still wrong." The objective standard for what is right and wrong comes from God - He decrees it. And if He hadn't we'd be in a real world of trouble because we'd have no Authority to refer to when we want to stop someone from foot stomping - or even worse things.

I think - think, mind you: I don't know - that is what Robertson was trying to get to. That if there is no God, where is your defense? Of course, Robertson's way of putting it was horrible and put him in the wrong - and if he meant something else, then he might have gone off into something really bad on his own part. But if you don't have God, you have no safety - all that you are and all that you have is contingent merely upon everyone agreeing you should have it.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 25, 2015 11:51 PM (tKzEw)

468 457 Pixy, what about the Big Bang? It violates the first law of thermodynamics.

That depends on what the Big Bang was. We know for certain it happened, but we don't know exactly what it was.

If it was a true singularity, then we live in a causally closed cosmos, and the laws of thermodynamics are the laws that apply within this cosmos. In that case, we don't know and can by definition never know what laws apply "outside" our universe.

If it wasn't a true singularity, just a condensation of incredibly hot, dense matter, then we live in a bubble within some much larger universe. In that case the laws of thermodynamics would apparently apply outside our universe as well as inside it - but our universe wasn't created from nothing, it's part of something that already existed, and which may be infinite in scope.

And in that case, we might be able to detect signs of the greater universe beyond ours.

There's also the possibility that the Universe has a net energy of zero - that it wasn't created so much as borrowed, in a quantum fluctuation much like the ones that cause the Casimir effect. (Quantum fluctuations are real, though nothing like they are in most sci-fi.)

If this were true, the Universe would be "flat" on four dimensions. And as far as we can tell - to the precision of our best telescopes - the Universe is flat. Which doesn't prove that theory, but means that we cannot rule it out.

In short, we don't know, and possibly will never know. But we have several hypotheses as to how it could have happened.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:53 PM (2yngH)

469 462 How many SJWs, and their ilk are practicing Christians?

No idea. I avoid them as assiduously as you probably do. Some, I expect, but a minority.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:56 PM (2yngH)

470 465 Agree or not, Robertson is not some "reality TV freak," he's an inventor and businessman whose company is now worth a reported $400 million or more.

And that just burns you ass, doesn't it?

Don't know who that was directed to, but I think it's wonderful. And if it provokes wailing and gnashing of teeth among the left, that makes it all the sweeter.

I just think he happens to be wrong on this particular subject.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:58 PM (2yngH)

471 Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 25, 2015 11:53 PM (2yngH)

*scratches head trying to comprehend*

Ok I totally understand!

Seriously though, I appreciate the response even if I don't quite fully grasp it.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 25, 2015 11:59 PM (R5HRU)

472 The point is, this is not merely utter nonsense, it deliberately dehumanises and demonises atheists.

It's not dehumanizing or demonizing to take atheist philosophy and reason out where it leads to.

That atheists are incapable of refuting the line of reasoning reflects atheism's intellectual bankruptcy in building its own moral foundation. They can only crudely borrow from the existing foundations that various theologies have established.

Unfortunately, those moral foundations don't work when divorced from their theological basis.

I mean, look what you just said here - you think there's something innately valuable to having humanity - but how do you obligate anyone to recognize a human being as more than an accidental bag of meat?

How does one demonize when demons don't exist? What's wrong with that? "Cause it makes me feel bad" is way too weak to create a binding obligation on someone else.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 26, 2015 12:03 AM (0NdlF)

473 467 But that argument runs headlong into Plato's Euthyphro dilemma.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 12:04 AM (2yngH)

474 Conservative non-believers should read their Burke as much if not more
than the Bible. What we were doing was working. Now? Not so much

The real problem is that Conservative non-believers have been non believers on fiscal policy as well in the past 20 years.

Can they not see that I might be willing to accept first trimester abortions as long as they were outlawed after that AND no Fed money to pay for it : Can they not see that Gay "marriage" might be acceptable if you don't force people with religeous convictions to participate.....can't they see immigration reform might be acceptable with a good economy where people are working real, full time jobe and our boreder is secure?

these ALL seem like compromises from where "I" would like policy to be, but it seems that unless I'm willing to completely capitulate, I have no seat at the table..

I WANT 3/4 Loaf, I'l; settle for 1/2 Loaf, the GOPe if offering me .00000016588 Loaf

Posted by: FITP at March 26, 2015 12:09 AM (lDDN7)

475 Best discussion the Horde has had in a while.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at March 26, 2015 12:10 AM (laMCB)

476 472 It's not dehumanizing or demonizing to take atheist philosophy and reason out where it leads to.

No, it's not. It's saying that if you take the deity out of religious morality, you are left with nihilism.

Since atheists don't adhere to religious morality, that doesn't apply.

Atheists are humans. Atheists feel guilt and remorse. Atheists are punished for doing things society judges as wrong. All of this is obviously and undeniably true.

They just don't believe they'll be judged by a deity after they're dead.

Atheists don't believe in punishment in the afterlife, because they don't believe in an afterlife. But they believe in punishment in this world; they believe in right and wrong.

And they demonstrably act as moral human beings.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 12:12 AM (2yngH)

477 And they demonstrably act as moral human beings.

No offense Pixy, but can you back this up or just talking shit?

Posted by: FITP at March 26, 2015 12:13 AM (lDDN7)

478 I forgot to add something Pixy, while you lean on science for your answers to what you said is something we may never know I lean on God.

And there is the great divide.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 26, 2015 12:14 AM (R5HRU)

479 Btw - I also tend to think God is the ultimate scientist. So, no, I'm not some "ANTI-SCIENCE!" guy.

Posted by: thathalfrican at March 26, 2015 12:15 AM (R5HRU)

480 Posted by: FITP at March 26, 2015 12:09 AM (lDDN7)

Don't disagree with any of that.

Reasonable compromise isn't available in the GOP. They won't even admit there is a difference of opinion on these matters. They just say they agree across the board before elections and then sell us out across the board afterwards.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 12:19 AM (kQ364)

481 477 You can't be serious.

16% of people in the US are not religious. Canada and Australia, both around 24%. New Zealand, 36%. Japan, 57%.

If 57% of the population of Japan were not acting as moral human beings, you would thing someone would have noticed.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 12:20 AM (2yngH)

482 478 thathalfrican

But I don't lean on science for something we may never know. Science doesn't work like that. On questions to which we may never know the answer, I say, we may never know.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 12:22 AM (2yngH)

483 I absolutely am serious and asked (respectfully. I might add) for some additional information. As far as I know, I din not attack you in any way....merely asked a question.

When you say "non religious", in those stats does that mean "non religious" or "non Christian"?

Also, I don't see your reply to the other questions I posed. Please elaborate.

Posted by: FITP at March 26, 2015 12:24 AM (lDDN7)

484 "No offense Pixy, but can you back this up or just talking shit?"

Anecdotal but you can give me your house keys when you're away on vacation. People do it all the time.

Likewise, I've never murdered or raped anyone. Never even got close. And, to be perfectly honest, I find it scary when people tell me that only a belief in God keeps people from doing so. I don't need that. (Neither do believers. I don't think any of you are natural monsters either.)

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 12:26 AM (kQ364)

485 "Agree or not, Robertson is not some "reality TV freak," he's an inventor

and businessman whose company is now worth a reported $400 million or

more."

Correct!

Now type another tantrum Pajama Ace!

Posted by: Malcolm Tent at March 26, 2015 12:31 AM (rJ4+i)

486 Anecdotal but you can give me your house keys when you're away on vacation. People do it all the time.

It may surprise you and Pixy, but I have been known to associate and <gasp> be friends with both agnostics and atheists back in the day when politics/religion weren't so polarizing. (Also blacks, gays, Chinese, and Red Indians)

I am happy to report that noone burst into flames...... I agree that people are people, some good, some assholes. I'm just saying that the Judeo Christian laws have been working to the good for society for an awfully long time and probably for good reason. So to say that Christian values is a drain on society is demonstrably bullshit.

As an aside, Robertson's comments had NOTHING to do with an atheist value...they had EVERYTHING to do with who an atheist calls on when the shit hits the fan.

Posted by: FITP at March 26, 2015 12:38 AM (lDDN7)

487 In the end, how people believe and what they think about the transcendent is between them and God, not us and them.

I know that the Bible is true and there is a future eternal we all must one day face and stand before the judgment seat. But when we get there, I think the first thing we're going to notice is how wrong we were, what we got wrong and were so sure about.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 26, 2015 12:44 AM (39g3+)

488 As an aside, Robertson's comments had NOTHING to do with an atheist value...they had EVERYTHING to do with who an atheist calls on when the shit hits the fan.Posted by: FITP at March 26, 2015 12:38 AM (lDDN7)

It had a lot to do with the shit is hitting the fan and why.

Posted by: Ralph at March 26, 2015 12:45 AM (MqV0V)

489 Likewise, I very much agree that Judeo Christian ethics have worked exceedingly well and I don't like the idea of changing things that work, FITP. That's why I've invoked Burke.

Is Pixy saying something otherwise? It's entirely possible but I don't think that's been the thrust of the argument.

The way I've been reading it is more that non-believers seem to act in ways functionally equivalent to believers all the time without any real problem.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 12:46 AM (kQ364)

490 483 FITP

Sorry, I should have taken it as a question in good faith, and answered it that way.

For the statistics - it's specifically no religion / unaffiliated, from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country

You need to scout around Wikipedia to find details by country, and the census or survey questions and statistical breakdowns vary from one country to another.

For the US, some figures are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Statistics

So 19.6% total "unaffiliated" (separate from "other"), and of that, 2.4% atheist, 3.3% agnostic, and 13.9% "nothing in particular".

Japan is a bit complex; only about 40% of the population is religious, mostly Buddhist, but Shinto is culturally significant far beyond the scope of the relatively small number of religious believers. (Kind of like Judaism; there are many non-practising Jews, but they still regard themselves as Jewish.)

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 12:46 AM (2yngH)

491 6% of people in the US are not religious. Canada and Australia, both around 24%. New Zealand, 36%. Japan, 57%.

You DO realize,of course that that means 84% of the people in US, 76% of the people in Canada and Australia and New Zealand 64% and who gives a fuck about Japan ARE religious, right?

Posted by: FITP at March 26, 2015 12:48 AM (lDDN7)

492 Ok Pixy, I'll back off the snark myself and go to bed. Sorry for the tone of the last comment.

Thanks for the interesting conversation....have a good night.

Posted by: FITP at March 26, 2015 12:50 AM (lDDN7)

493 For the fun of it we should consider the possibility that a certain percentage of religious people create herd immunity for the whole populace. As in, the licentiousness of 13% non-believers doesn't get out of hand because it never really creates an outbreak.

Also, for the fun of it, we should consider the possibility that Japan doesn't procreate anymore as a consequence of their current lack of belief.

We should have fun with these topics. Undercut our own points and all of that for shits and giggles.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 12:52 AM (kQ364)

494 489 basicbv

The way I've been reading it is more that non-believers seem to act in ways functionally equivalent to believers all the time without any real problem.

Yes.

We might ask, why is it wrong to (for example) harm an innocent child?

Most of us - almost all of us - have an instinctive reaction that it is wrong. Answering the question whether it is wrong is easy. But articulating why it is wrong, in a sound argument based solely on evidence and logic, is unexpectedly difficult.

Robertson argues that atheists have no basis for their morality. And yet, we know for a fact that atheists act morally. So someone is wrong here. And there are as many philosophical issues with Robertson's position as there are with any purely secular morality.

I don't claim to have an answer. But even without an answer, if I see someone harming an innocent child, I'll react the same way anyone else would.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 12:55 AM (2yngH)

495 No, it's not. It's saying that if you take the deity out of religious morality, you are left with nihilism.

What's atheist morality? What atheist principle compels moral standards in atheists that other atheists can hold them to? What about atheism says, "no nihilism allowed"?

That is something Ace never did explain in his entire rant, even as he railed against Phil for being such a stupid Christian thinking stupid things about atheists.

Since it's such a stupid thing to think of atheists, there should be an simple answer to the question that can be easily provided - so where is it?

Atheists are humans. Atheists feel guilt and remorse. Atheists are
punished for doing things society judges as wrong. All of this is
obviously and undeniably true.

You don't even understand the point. It's not about if atheists can behave good. It's about the intellectual foundation for why they should behave good.

It's not about you, and the constant appeals to how human you are tells me nothing I don't know already.

What's sad about these sort of discussions is that plenty of atheists are ready to tell me how much they love reason and knowledge - yet fail to understand the opposing arguments. You can't refute what you don't understand, but there's a consistent failure to seek proper understanding of the opposing argument so as to refute it.

Posted by: ConserativeMonster at March 26, 2015 12:57 AM (+2//H)

496 493
For the fun of it we should consider the possibility that a certain
percentage of religious people create herd immunity for the whole
populace. As in, the licentiousness of 13% non-believers doesn't get
out of hand because it never really creates an outbreak. ...
Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 12:52 AM (kQ364)

That's the rub, as the number of practicing Christians is diminishing and the licentious percentage is increasing we are losing that herd immunity. Or as some would observe, His hands of protection are being lifted.

Posted by: Ralph at March 26, 2015 12:59 AM (MqV0V)

497 493 basicbv

Well, Japan is weird. (Says someone named after an anime character.)

But population growth is trending downwards in almost every country. And a good thing too, because while human ingenuity has kept the Malthusian wolf from the door thus far, you can't fight an exponential curve forever.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 01:00 AM (2yngH)

498 What a trope.

Posted by: Ralph at March 26, 2015 01:03 AM (MqV0V)

499 Robertson argues that atheists have no basis for their morality.
And yet, we know for a fact that atheists act morally. So someone is
wrong here.

Wrong. SOME atheists act morally. Some do not.

If atheists have a basis for their morality, an atheist should be able to articulate it. Yet they observably do not - and will incorrectly throw ad hominem attacks at those who point it at - as observed in ace's rant against Phil, and his responses to several in this thread.

This suggests that the observation is correct and they do not have a basis for morality, as they will not or cannot provide an answer when challenged.

However, atheists do not live in a vaccuum - and most live in post-Christian societies formed with Christian moral foundations. As far as such atheists continue to act morally according to their society's Christian traidtions, they are copying the morality of Christians.

Thus, there is no contradiction at all in what Phil says and what you think you are observing. And IMO, you should have figured this out without me spelling it out.

Now, I'm saying this as a Christian, and obviously am opposed to atheism. So I could be wrong due to bias. If I'm wrong about atheist morality, then there should be a basis - so what it is it?!

Don't tell me that atheists act moral, that's completely irrelevant. Start from atheism.

Posted by: ConserativeMonster at March 26, 2015 01:08 AM (+2//H)

500 "Well, Japan is weird."

We can all agree with this. Wonderfully weird.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 01:09 AM (kQ364)

501 "Don't tell me that atheists act moral, that's completely irrelevant. Start from atheism."

The problem here is that I don't think moral action starts from atheism or any sort of worldview. I think it starts from mothers and fathers making you do your chores or punishing you for being impolite to your elders.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 01:13 AM (kQ364)

502 If I had to hazard a guess I'll say that children taught to murder one another will have violent tendencies into adulthood and children taught to honor their elders will notice when an old lady can't reach something on the top shelf at the grocery store.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 01:15 AM (kQ364)

503 I agree with ConservativeMonster. Just look around the world: lots of folks think there's nothing wrong with fucking children, or burning people alive in cages. People who live in Christendom tend to hew to the prevailing line on morality whether they are Christians or not, but I still don't hear anyone saying how you get a moral code ex nihilo.

Peace out, homies.

Posted by: Beverly at March 26, 2015 01:29 AM (C/Pcr)

504 Really Ace, Phil Robertson said something and this is news??? I had to look up the name and wonder why all the little lib a holes of the world were yammering on about this like they were severely butt-hurt.

If there is no God and this is all a mistake what difference what Phil says. We are just a conscious collections of cells attempting to replicates ourselves. You make your own rules and morality based on your ability to force them on others. If you have enough power, rules and morality don't apply to you. Just ask the Clintons.

Posted by: Africanus at March 26, 2015 01:34 AM (oZQ76)

505 499 Wrong. SOME atheists act morally. Some do not.

Some religious folk act morally; some do not. And the proportions... Well, it's hard to judge. Atheists are proportionally under-represented in US prisons, but that's only indicative, not real evidence. But there's certainly no secular crime wave taking over western civilisation.

If atheists have a basis for their morality, an atheist should be able to articulate it.

Perhaps so, but thus far no-one has done that. We've been arguing about it for all of recorded history, and we still don't have a satisfactory answer.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 01:40 AM (2yngH)

506 I don't think it's fair to ask theistic people for a shared, empirical morality.

We should stop demanding it of them.

For instance, I'm sick and tired of how we're always trying to split the Jews and Christians over the divinity of Jesus rather than just accepting Judeo-Christian as a term.

(But, why would I snark like this in a forum when we're all mainly here because we agree across a broad swath of political issues. Why are we doing this? Seriously, why? Who are we helping here?)

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 01:51 AM (kQ364)

507 I know that all I really want to do is make sure that Catholics and Protestants work out their differences in detail.

I want to make sure that all Protestant factions work out all their issues. Right now. In this very thread. I mean, let's work through the philosophies from first principles.

So, let's play fair. Everyone here should lay their sect on the table and let's get sectarian with this.

Or... hey, let's not. Let's not do this. That's a terrible, terrible idea.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 01:59 AM (kQ364)

508 @501 The problem here is that I don't think moral action starts from atheism or any sort of worldview. I think it starts from mothers and fathers making you do your chores or punishing you for being impolite to your elders.
*****************
You are confusing how morality is *taught* or ingrained, or known, with the question of whether or not there can be objective moral values *if* atheism were true.

The Christian would say to the atheist, yes of course you feel certain moral inuitions and obligations, you can train your kids to believe them, but if your worldview is correct, they are an illusion, a trick placed in our minds by evolution, since *most of the time* following such behavior is advantageous for the survival of communities.

But there is nothing binding in that. If an individual can safely get away with, say, harming the innocent, there is nothing in the atheist worldview to demonstrate that he is *wrong* to do so. He is merely behaving in a way that others find distasteful or inconvenient. That is Robertson's point.

As an atheist, I find it unpleasant to live with the fact of moral non-reality, but I cannot deny the force of this point. What I do deny, however, is that this proves God's existence. Just because moral nihilism is unpleasant doesn't automatically make the alternative true. Again, Bill Craig, whether you agree or disagee with him, is very good at clarfying the issues at stake in a pithy way.

And most atheists are militant marxist douchebags. I'm so scared by them I actually am at the point where I enjoy it when people like Robertson say things like this which cause the prog zombie thugs at freethoughtblogs and pointofinquiry to shit their pants. Makes me want to buy him a drink and say, "Preach it, brother!"

Posted by: Dawkins Dynasty at March 26, 2015 02:30 AM (cIoI4)

509 Two NOODs below sea level, but there's life in this thread yet.

Posted by: Dawkins Dynasty at March 26, 2015 02:33 AM (XrHO0)

510 508 Dawkins Dynasty

As an atheist, I find it unpleasant to live with the fact of moral non-reality, but I cannot deny the force of this point.

But Robertson's argument leads straight into the Euthyphro dilemma; it's more of a problem for him than it is for atheists.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 03:11 AM (2yngH)

511 Some religious folk act morally; some do not. And the proportions...

You claimed atheists act morally. That's not true. This is independent of the claim that theists act morally, which as you note is not true either - except that no one here is using that as an argument for theism.

Perhaps so, but thus far no-one has done that. We've been arguing about it for all of recorded history, and we still don't have a satisfactory answer.

Don't be ridiculous. Most theistic religions have identified a simple and rational basis for morality. God made the world, god makes the rules of the world, humanity has an obligation to live accordingly.

That is why it's such an indictment against atheism that they can't answer that question after thousands of years of effort.

Moral truths are a reality, and atheism can't even begin to explain why they exist and why we need to identify and follow them.

Posted by: ConserativeMonster at March 26, 2015 03:46 AM (+2//H)

512 "OMG!! Your cruel sadistic fantasy of wanting atheists to shoved into holes with foxes!"
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 25, 2015 06:49 PM (kdS6q)
You'd be on a roll, there.

Posted by: m at March 26, 2015 05:18 AM (WIUGG)

513 511 You claimed atheists act morally.

I did. They do.

Most theistic religions have identified a simple and rational basis for morality.

They have asserted a basis for morality. Some atheists have done the same.

That is why it's such an indictment against atheism that they can't answer that question after thousands of years of effort.

It's no indictment at all, because no-one else can do so either. Religion has so far failed to answer the questions raised by Plato and Epicurus in the 4th century BC.

Atheists have done no better - but they have done no worse.

Moral truths are a reality

And that's precisely what the 5000-year-old argument is about. Almost everyone believes this. No-one has ever proved it.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 05:34 AM (2yngH)

514 101 And there are plenty of atheists in "foxholes." . . .
But when they engaged the enemy, and mortar rounds were landing (and son was blown sky high by one), a few atheists prayed out loud for God to save them.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 25, 2015 07:01 PM (FsuaD)
That's the point of the aphorism "There are no atheists in foxholes," Jane; that when you're in a foxhole, and mortar rounds are landing, you "discover" God.

Posted by: m at March 26, 2015 06:18 AM (WIUGG)

515 I am glad I got to read this thread, but gladder still that I didn't participate when it was active...

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at March 26, 2015 06:43 AM (jZokl)

516 Atheists act in accordance, largely, with the moral strictures of the society in which they were raised. It's habit, inertia. This brings us to the question of where the moral strictures came from.
Robertson's point is that his atheist is going to discover (or insist that his assailant believe in) an independent moral index when under stress which he would otherwise not. IOW, an atheist is a hypocrite.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at March 26, 2015 07:59 AM (Q/3mX)

517 A crime like this could only be performed by blacks, and all blacks are Christians, so this makes no sense at all.

Posted by: Mikey at March 26, 2015 08:34 AM (Uff7i)

518 516 Richard Aubrey

Except that this is all Robertson's personal fantasy, not a representation of anything that has actually happened, or could happen.

And if an atheist did believe in an independent, objective morality - as some do - that wouldn't make them hypocritical. Objective morality doesn't require a deity; it just requires odd definitions.

Personally, I'm with the non-cognitivists on this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism)

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 08:52 AM (2yngH)

519 I don't like ANY televangelist. I believe they are all in it for the $$ and fame and are probably mostly hypocrites.

And, what Robertson said here was poorly said. (although, it is similar to the question asked Dukakis during the debate with regard to the death penalty, so it isn't quite as out-of-line as Ace makes it out to be.

But, it does address a point in philosophy that is troubling. Where do atheists believe morality comes from - if not from a higher power?

In other words, why is killing someone else "wrong"? I understand that atheists will argue that killing is "wrong" because you don't want to be killed, so there becomes a societal agreement that nobody kills anybody else so that you yourself don't have to worry about being killed.

But, that doesn't address morality. It only addresses survival, and really only addresses murder as being "wrong" to the extent you are caught.

Where does morality (the idea that there is an objective set of rules for things that are right and wrong regardless of whether or not you get caught and/or punished for doing them) come from?

Why is murder "wrong" if there is no god and no afterlife? Assuming you can get away with a murder in this life, how can there be a "right" and a "wrong" if there is no afterlife, no punishment, no accountability?

I think that is a fair question and a fair point. Atheists will argue that you can have morality without religion, but how? Sure, this particular atheist can say he believes that murder is immoral, but how does that apply to a different atheist? Where does this first atheist's idea that murder is immoral come from?

Posted by: monkeytoe at March 26, 2015 08:59 AM (3ZtZW)

520 Posted by: monkeytoe at March 26, 2015 08:59 AM (3ZtZW)

To put it another way, if you are an atheist and you believe that life is merely an accident of the universe, and nobody has a soul, then why would you have any guilt at ending a life? Guilt comes from morality - believing in your heart that something you did is objectively wrong.

But if you hold life as merely random chance in the universe, that there is no soul, then what difference does it make to you to end one life in furtherance of your own desires/needs?

Posted by: monkeytoe at March 26, 2015 09:02 AM (3ZtZW)

521 If I truly, deeply believed that there was no judgement for what I did on earth, I would lead a very different life.

If the only thing that threatened me was the Law, then I'd deal with the Law.

And I wouldn't be alone, which is why the thought of this is so terrifying.

Gangs and Organized Crime are what happen when godless people live amongst God Fearing people. If there were no God Fearing people, then there would be no need for restraint.

We would end up in a pure Might Makes Right society. As seen in Sicily and many other similar places, the Laws of Man and those that fight to uphold them would merely become an appendage for the Might Makes Right society.

"Who controls the police?" would be the question, not "Are the police upholding the law?"

Phil is no philosopher, but this is his point and he is correct. Without God there is no Wrong. Can ethics exist amongst the godless? Only as a manipulative tool, and not as an actual entity. Ethics would be the PsyOps of Might Makes Right.

Nothing more.

Full Disclosure: I am a Christian.

Posted by: RobM1981 at March 26, 2015 09:12 AM (zurJC)

522 The trouble with atheists is , they hate Me for believing in God. They say I am stupid etc.. for doing so. As for me I don't care about them or their souls. I am not called upon, like Mr Robertson , to try and bring them to faith. And remember there are no atheists in foxholes.... The left hates God because they want Government to give us our rights. Not God. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by: marine43 at March 26, 2015 09:15 AM (YYVwb)

523 "Someone should say it's stupid.

There, I just did."

I will. Your post is stupid. You get to this being a "fantasy" by argument by incredulity. And simply not liking Robertson. Sometimes Ace, you argue no better than a liberal.

Posted by: Axeman at March 26, 2015 09:36 AM (2mC6G)

524 The mode of an atheist is that people go around believing there is this thing in their head called a "god", but there is no proof that there is a god. The mode of a atheist moralist seems to be that if enough people go around believing that there is this thing in their head called "right and a wrong", then we should act as if that's the case, and it seems to work. And then when people say that God works for a grounding for morality, then arguing that we don't have any proof that we can't vacuum all the God out of society and still have the exact same thing--except we cannot have "inalienable rights". We can *call* things, "inalienable rights" and we can believe that nobody should abridge them, but if I push you off a cliff (ooohh Theist **fantasy** trigger warning, Ace!! Locate the nearest fainting couch to your LEFT!) and we look at your body at the base, where did those "rights" go?

My joke: 30 kids in a class room, and the teacher asks "Raise your hand if you believe in God." And 27 hands go up, some shoot up, some wander there. Then the teacher asks "Raise your hand if you believe there is right and wrong" this time most of the hands shoot up, but this time there are 28 hands. The 29th kid looks around the room and thinks "if this many find truth it in it's got to have a basis" and raises his hand.

Or take the One Less God argument: we have all sorts of moral system that we have rejected, why isn't it "simpler" and "more consistent" to believe in one less?

Posted by: Axeman at March 26, 2015 09:51 AM (2mC6G)

525 Frankly, I'm amazed at just how judgemental "Christians" are.

I'm pretty much agnostic, but when I went to Sunday School, I was taught that vengeance belonged to God. I assume that to mean that if He isn't happy with homosexuality, for example, he'll deal with it on His schedule. In other words, if I were a Christian, I have enough on my plate worrying about my own sin that I wouldn't have time to worry about those of someone else.

Posted by: douger at March 26, 2015 11:09 AM (eM6QK)

526 This sounds like Phil Robertson's crude way of stating the moral argument for God's existence.

https://youtu.be/HSLxh4FpmW8

Posted by: Mozam at March 26, 2015 11:32 AM (A5oSi)

527 It's hyperbole. Lighten up. Phil is good.

But his point is... there is a right and a wrong. And that right and wrong is not based on an opinion. Right and Wrong is based on God. When you say there is no God you say there is no right and no wrong... that is not true.

No human being's opinion can be used to determine right and wrong. Not even a consensus, because that slippery slope leads to people getting fired because they believe in God's word.

Phil is fine, but he is just a reality TV guy. He talks like your basic everyday Louisiana redneck... there is really no reason to get all upset over what your next door neighbor says either.

Phil being Phil. And he's correct in this instance. There is a right and wrong that exists outside of any explanation offered by an atheist.

Posted by: petunia at March 26, 2015 11:38 AM (VoCyE)

528 I did. They do.

Then you'll explain to me how the various atheist Communistic experiments which butchered people world wide were performed by moral atheists, seeing how atheists are moral, and thus all atheists act morally.

They have asserted a basis for morality. Some atheists have done the same.

They have provided a coherent claim. This is the difference between answering a test question with an answer, versus leaving the question blank.

Unless blank is the right answer, you already know that the blank answer is wrong.

If you think some atheists have asserted a basis for morality, please provide an example.

Religion has so far failed to answer the questions raised by Plato and Epicurus in the 4th century BC.

You're welcome to bring up said questions, rather than just asserting that religion fails to answer them.

You'll note that I believe in a religion centered around a guy who came after 400 BC. You're going to have to explain how he fails to answer those question, since he came after said philosophers.

Moral truths are a reality

And that's precisely what the 5000-year-old argument is about. Almost everyone believes this. No-one has ever proved it.

Dude, that's what Phil's example *is*. Reduction to absurdity. If you're unwilling to say that his example of cruel murderers is not wrong, you've acknowledged that moral truths are an objective reality to all men.

Are you going to claim that absurd position to demonstrate that "no one has proved it"? Because if you're unwilling to claim the mantle of moral monster - you've proved Phil's point, and refuted yourself.

That you're willing to say this in light of the opening post is why I have zero respect for atheism as a philosophy. Either you're utterly incompetent in handling ideas, or you're lying to escape uncomfortable conclusions.

You're certainly proving out the Biblical claim about the man who says there is no god.

Posted by: ConserativeMonster at March 26, 2015 12:36 PM (+2//H)

529 Posted by: douger at March 26, 2015 11:09 AM (eM6QK)

If you noticed a friend had melanoma, would you tell them to see a doctor before it got out of control? Or would you stay quiet about it because you don't want to judge him about what you see? Perhaps he likes his melanoma, or maybe he thinks it's not a big deal. He might think it looks good on him. Who are you to judge? What if he gets angry at you for judging his health without asking your opinion? I'd rather make a friend into a living enemy that make an enemy into a dead friend. God hates sin. God loves the sinner. He's created a situation where the only way to spend eternity in his presence is by turning away from sin. Unfortunately that gives many people who claim to be Christians an opportunity to indulge their hatred for people that consider evil when instead they are supposed to convince the sinner to repent so that they can spend eternity with God as well. This isn't God's mistake, it's man's mistake for allowing their personal prejudices to invade their decision making. As Christians we have to pray for our enemies. It's a big part of being a Christian. If God forgives my myriad of sins, then I have to forgive other people for their sins as well. That's not the same as encouraging them to sin though. A true friend doesn't lie to you. A true friend will share the truth with you even if it ends your friendship.

I'm no saint, I've got plenty of my own defects to pray about, but that doesn't give me permission to not pray about the sins of others as well. He's a big God, He can handle every prayer at the same time and He actually orders us to teach the Gospel to everybody even if it turns them against us. If I see a friend or an enemy doing something that leads to an eternity bound into Hell I will warn them even if it costs our friendship. I wouldn't encourage cancer that destroys our temporary bodies, so why would I encourage something that does even more damage that lasts for an eternity? God knows we aren't perfect, He'll forgive any sin if you ask for forgiveness, but if we cling to our sins and turn our backs on God he's not going to force you to accept Him. That choice is completely on you.

I teach an adult Bible study. Most of them are beyond retirement age and I use the points I've stated here to remind them that being a Christian isn't easy, loving your enemies isn't easy, following God's commandments will sometimes hurt, but we still have to do it because the one thing God really expects from Christians is obedience. Don't let fear of rejection stand in the way of sharing the Gospel. People will believe you're being judgemental when in reality you're trying to love them by leading them back to God instead of encouraging them to wander away from the path. Remember, what kind of friend would encourage you to do something that will eventually lead you to eternal damnation.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at March 26, 2015 12:44 PM (IbjZr)

530
Frankly, I'm amazed at just how judgemental "Christians" are.

Did you know that Jesus tells those who follow him to be perfect, as God is perfect?

Because to be perfect, one has to recognize what is perfect, and what is not. To be Christian is to continuously judge things - ideas, actions, results. Rendering judgement on people is reserved for God, but evaluating whether their actions and ideas are right or wrong is fair game.

Posted by: ConserativeMonster at March 26, 2015 01:05 PM (+2//H)

531 Ace, and the rest of you, I'm a Southerner and a Rebel and if that, or anything else about my people leaves a bad taste in your mouth, we can just call this whole thing off any time you want. We get enough shit outta SF and LA and NY, we don't need it from "our side."

This isn't about parsing the cosmic mysteries of philosophy, or public image of prominent figures, or the foundations of moral reason.

Some of ya'll just hate rednecks. Suits me. Ya'll burned our cities down before and we survived it. That part doesn't scare me.

When GLAAD tried to take down Phil Robertson, look how his audience responded, and shoved that shit right up their asses with a candle on it. But instead of wanting to harness that kind of energy and unity, you want to show us all how dumb we are for admiring him. Terrific. Have you *watched* the show? WATCH THE SHOW. It's better than 99% of the swill on TV now, I'll tell you that. IT HAS ***SANE PEOPLE*** IN IT. Try it you might like it.

I mean, was your sunday school teacher a horrible bitch, ace, is that it? Did you have a christian girlfriend who did you over? is there not one single christian chick in america who's willing to deepthroat ace and get him back in a good mood? pass the hat take up a collection sheesh

There have been four cons who have been helping me keep that pistol out of my mouth the past six years: Ace, Greg Gutfeld, Mark Steyn and Bill Whittle. What the fuck man. Don't you have a bartender to talk to? i gotta open up ace.mu.nu and see this bullshit about phil?

i don't wanna get all markety demographicy on you but if ace of spades is gonna keep moving in the "GOP are shit, Christians are shit" direction, fuck that I can get that kind of stuff from huffpo and msnbc and the rest of the copromedia geyserfarms

SOLUTIONS JIMBO SOLUTIONS tell me about the frikkin solutions

- 30 -

Posted by: Deputy Director Higgins at March 26, 2015 01:34 PM (IxEWc)

532 "I believe all those things you say at the end which is why I'm having trouble understanding why you're borthered by any of this.

Robertson doesn't represent you, but somehow my criticism of someone who doesn't represent you bothers you on some level.

if you can figure out what level that is, let me know."

Except . . .

There ARE Atheists who are moral nihilists.
Quite a few of them in fact; particularly among Marxists and their ilk ("progressives" and other disreputable types).

But since those morally nihilistic Atheists don't represent you, somehow you are bothered on some level by the criticism of others, such as Phil Robertson, that is directed at them.

That levels seems to be that you will be associated with those morally nihilistic Atheists as part of criticism.

Could it possibly be that other believers then have grounds to be bothered that they will be associated with Phil Robertson by your rather generic criticism directed at believers?

Hmmm . . .

Gee, it is too bad there isn't some sort of rule about treating others the way you want to be treated and not treating them the way you don't want to be treated and stuff. Why that would be almost golden. If only one could find that in some treatise on philosophy, whether it be secular or religious.
But I guess being outraged and telling other people they have no standing to be outraged in turn is easier, so whatever. Of course that isn't morally nihilistic. It is something though.

Posted by: Sam at March 26, 2015 02:39 PM (mkv9z)

533

454 "And you're right about free will; so-called "libertarian" free will is
impossible. "Compatibilist" free will, on the other hand, demonstrably exists."

Then you will have to demonstrate it. I find compatibilism nonsensical.

But possibly you have to believe in it, as you have no free will.

Posted by: Frankly at March 26, 2015 03:04 PM (H5Hd8)

534 Ace, you missed the point. An atheist, by his/her rejection of God, has already been judged and will be forever separate from God. When you add this to the mix, the story may be a bit less provocative to you. I realize, you consider yourself an atheist, and the truly Christian among us respects your choice. But all choices have consequences, atheists believe by rejecting God they also eliminate consequences. Not really good odds on that.

Posted by: Jus some guy at March 26, 2015 08:16 PM (MdO4Z)

535 So, if Phil was yammering, what were you doing, Ace?

Posted by: butternut at March 26, 2015 08:28 PM (F6ceQ)

536 Like, you know, in statement form.

Posted by: butternut at March 26, 2015 08:29 PM (F6ceQ)

537 520 To put it another way, if you are an atheist and you believe that life is merely an accident of the universe, and nobody has a soul, then why would you have any guilt at ending a life?

Because that's how we've evolved. And we evolved that way because creatures that tend to kill other members of their own species for no good reason tend to go extinct.

So there's a fundamental, biological, even mathematical reason why we feel guilt.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 08:42 PM (2yngH)

538 519 Why is murder "wrong" if there is no god and no afterlife?

Because you ended a life; because you decreased the sum of human reasoning and understanding. And if there's no God, and no afterlife, we need to value life all the more.

Which is why we view killing certain individuals as a good act. If you kill a brutal dictator and free an oppressed people, you've increased the sum of human happiness.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 08:47 PM (2yngH)

539 521 If I truly, deeply believed that there was no judgement for what I did on earth, I would lead a very different life.

If the only thing that threatened me was the Law, then I'd deal with the Law.

And I wouldn't be alone, which is why the thought of this is so terrifying.

Many atheists find this reasoning... Odd, shall we say. Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) who is an outspoken atheist (and outspoken in general) has pointed out that he's already committed all the murders and rapes he ever wants to commit. (That is, of course, zero.)

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 08:51 PM (2yngH)

540 522 marine43

The trouble with atheists is , they hate Me for believing in God.

No. Really, they don't.

That is to say... Yeah, if you run into the perpetually indignant SJW type, yeah, they will find a reason to hate you, because that is what they do.

But don't mistake disagreement for hate.

And remember there are no atheists in foxholes....

Of course there are. That is a lie, plain and simple.

The left hates God because they want Government to give us our rights.

The left are deeply confused about many things. But atheism and leftism are not the same thing

And atheists don't hate God. They don't believe in God..

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 08:56 PM (2yngH)

541 527 petunia

It's hyperbole. Lighten up. Phil is good.

But his point is... there is a right and a wrong. And that right and wrong is not based on an opinion. Right and Wrong is based on God.

The point is, that is Phil's opinion, and there are unanswered questions thousands of years old that make it problematic (from the standpoint of philosophy and theology) even as an opinion.

And when you use opinion, rather than fact, to attack another group - which is exactly what Phil Robertson is doing - then that reflects upon you, not them.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 08:59 PM (2yngH)

542 529 digitalbrownshirt

If you noticed a friend had melanoma, would you tell them to see a doctor before it got out of control? Or would you stay quiet about it because you don't want to judge him about what you see? Perhaps he likes his melanoma, or maybe he thinks it's not a big deal. He might think it looks good on him. Who are you to judge? What if he gets angry at you for judging his health without asking your opinion? I'd rather make a friend into a living enemy that make an enemy into a dead friend. God hates sin.

Right. If you believe your friend has melanoma, and could die if he leaves it untreated, and you don't at least speak out, you have failed as a friend.

But melanomas are objectively demonstrable and testable and treatable. God - well, obviously faiths vary, but certainly God is not an experimentally verified fact, or there would be no need for faith. So there's a line between being true to your beliefs and loyal to your friends, and driving people crazy with proselytising.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 09:06 PM (2yngH)

543 533 Frankly

Then you will have to demonstrate it. I find compatibilism nonsensical.

Can you make decisions? Yes? That's compatibilist free will. That's all.

There are neurological conditions where the sufferer cannot - literally cannot - make decisions. They are responsive and alert, but faced with a choice they will remain frozen indefinitely.

So compatibilist free will is a function of a brain working in a particular way, and not innate or universal, but it is certainly real.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 09:11 PM (2yngH)

544 Just for imagine being in a non-believers shoes for a second, guys.

We're asked for proof or certainty that we don't pretend to have but are then given magic and faith as a rock-solid alternative.

Guess what? God isn't exactly handing out autographs at the mall between 3 to 8 and we all have tons and tons of photos of Him.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 09:11 PM (kQ364)

545 Just for imagine being in a non-believers shoes for a second, guys.

We're asked for proof or certainty that we don't pretend to have but are then given magic and faith as a rock-solid alternative.

Guess what? God isn't exactly handing out autographs at the mall between 3 to 8 and we all have tons and tons of photos of Him.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 09:11 PM (kQ364)

546 534 Jus some guy

Ace, you missed the point. An atheist, by his/her rejection of God, has already been judged and will be forever separate from God. ... But all choices have consequences, atheists believe by rejecting God they also eliminate consequences.

Atheists don't reject God (well, some do, not all people are the same); they don't believe in God. They don't believe that God exists. And, logically, there are no consequences from something that does not exist.

Now if they're wrong, sure, then they have a problem. But their position is entirely self-consistent.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 09:14 PM (2yngH)

547 "Just for imagine", that's a saying. It's a thing.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 09:15 PM (kQ364)

548 528 ConserativeMonster

Then you'll explain to me how the various atheist Communistic experiments which butchered people world wide were performed by moral atheists

Short answer: Because they were communists.

Before I provide the long answer, could you please account for every bad thing ever done by anyone who followed any religion ever, and also provide a strictly evidence-based resolution for the Problem of Evil?

Thanks.

seeing how atheists are moral, and thus all atheists act morally.

Did I say that all atheists act morally all the time? Did I imply that? No, I did not.

They have provided a coherent claim.

They have provided a claim, yes. Coherent, less so, or there wouldn't be so much argument.

This is the difference between answering a test question with an answer, versus leaving the question blank.

Or is it the difference between making up an answer and admitting you don't know?

Unless blank is the right answer, you already know that the blank answer is wrong.

Blank is not an answer.

To some questions, we don't know the answer. Anything other than admitting we don't know is dishonest.

And to some questions, there is no answer.

If you think some atheists have asserted a basis for morality, please provide an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality

Peter Singer came up earlier in the thread. You may not agree with him - I don't - and you may not like him - I don't - but he is an atheist and he has asserted a basis for morality.

You're welcome to bring up said questions, rather than just asserting that religion fails to answer them.

Specifically I'm referring to the Euthyphro dilemma (Plato) and the Problem of Evil (Epicurus). Both questions pre-date Christianity. I've mentioned both before in this thread.

You'll note that I believe in a religion centered around a guy who came after 400 BC.

Precisely.

You're going to have to explain how he fails to answer those question, since he came after said philosophers.

Well, the Cathars (Albigensians) had a good answer for the Problem of Evil, but the Catholics decided they were heretics (which, admittedly, they were) and exterminated them.

Apart from that, there's just a whole lot of special pleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Dude, that's what Phil's example *is*. Reduction to absurdity.

But it's not a logically sound argument. To present a reductio ad absurdum - proof by contradiction - you have to rigorously demonstrate a logical contradiction, not just assert that someone would do something in a hypothetical and then assert that this would be absurd.

Phil Robertson did not present an argument, just a diatribe.

Or, as Ace succinctly put it, he said something stupid.

If you're unwilling to say that his example of cruel murderers is not wrong, you've acknowledged that moral truths are an objective reality to all men.

Nonsense.

Complete and utter nonsense.

The only thing that I would have acknowledged is that this particular moral truth is a subjective reality to me, personally.

If you want to show that moral truths are objective, then you need objective evidence.

All Robertson has presented is a strawman argument. It's not even valid on its own terms, let alone objectively true.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 09:32 PM (2yngH)

549 547 basicbv

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 09:33 PM (2yngH)

550 Quite often it seems that everyone forgot that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or that you can't prove a negative.

I understand a demand that atheists give a strong basis for their morality but I don't understand why believers have an ace in the hole here. They don't. If they did, there wouldn't be any concept of faith. Yet, that's a cornerstone of religious belief.

Posted by: basicbv at March 26, 2015 09:44 PM (kQ364)

551

543 Then you will have to demonstrate it. I find compatibilism nonsensical.

Can you make decisions? Yes? That's compatibilist free will. That's all.

Semantics. If your decisions are predetermined you do not have free will.

"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it."

Vaclav Havel

====================

"I foresee a sorrowful procession of events in which the triumph of the Darwinians may ultimately lead to the extinction of the human race. Evolution to destruction, or self-destruction, is part of the Darwinian concept, but if the theory itself should bring it about, that indeed would be a singularity. Not inconceivable, though."

Paul Johnson in "The Spectator" April 2005

Posted by: Frankly at March 26, 2015 10:45 PM (H5Hd8)

552 551 Frankly

Semantics. If your decisions are predetermined you do not have free will.

Sure it's semantics. But semantics matter.

In any case, we demonstrably have compatibilist free will, while libertarian free will is an impossibility. It's simply a fact, and we have to deal with it.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Philip K Dick

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 26, 2015 11:57 PM (2yngH)

553 A problem here again is this strange notion that free will or any of the related notions are in any way affected by our thoughts on the matter.

What is true just is. Doesn't matter what we think about it. We can't have debates on what the outcomes of such truths might be as if our decisions can somehow change that reality with magic. What we'd prefer simply doesn't matter.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 01:02 AM (kQ364)

554 Short answer: Because they were communists.

Who are a subset of atheists, who you say are moral, except that they weren't.

Before I provide the long answer, could you please account for every
bad thing ever done by anyone who followed any religion ever, and also
provide a strictly evidence-based resolution for the Problem of Evil?

I don't need a longer answer. You made a general claim that is false. Now you can either accept the correction or dig a deeper hole.

As for your counter-challenge - I haven't claimed that religious people are moral.

You're doing this a lot. "Sure, atheists X ... but religious people X too!" This isn't a comparison between atheists and theists. Quit going off topic.

Did I say that all atheists act morally all the time? Did I imply that? No, I did not.

I'm a moral person. I only shot someone to watch him die, once!

How dare you suggest that one action in my past is enough to undermine my claim to being a moral person! What kind of monster are you to demand that a person act morally all the time just to be moral!?

Part time moral behavior is enough to be moral. So atheists are moral as long as they keep their immorality limited to once every 7 years like Pom Farr or something.

They have provided a claim, yes. Coherent, less so, or there wouldn't be so much argument.

The existence of opposing claims does not make a claim incoherent.

To some questions, we don't know the answer. Anything other than admitting we don't know is dishonest.

So are you willing to argue that we cannot know if Phil's example of the sadistic murderers acted wrongly?

but he is an atheist and he has asserted a basis for morality.

Which involves killing the weak and defenseless. Beautiful example of how atheist moralities are not moral. Would you like to mulligan?

Euthyphro dilemma (Plato) and the Problem of Evil (Epicurus)

From Christian perspective, God is good. Man doesn't know how to isolate one from the other. Utterly irrelevant to whether there is such a thing as Good, and whether mankind is obligated to do Good.

Problem of Evil - for Christianity, read Genesis - man rebels against God, aka sinning, resulting in the Fall. The Christian account also answers the Problem of Good - why should life be Good, and why should we care? Why do we desire Good but do Evil?

Coherently answered. Now, tell me what the atheist perspective that provides a coherent explanation for the human condition, and why we still have an obligation to do Good, or tell Truth when we are but a cosmic accident.

But it's not a logically sound argument. To present a reductio ad
absurdum - proof by contradiction - you have to rigorously demonstrate a
logical contradiction, not just assert that someone would do something
in a hypothetical and then assert that this would be absurd.

Yet you didn't answer the question. Because you know you can't.

Either you agree that it is wrong to do some evil thing, and thus acknowledge that there is such a thing as moral truth; or you disagree that it is evil - and reveal the moral bankruptcy of atheism.

So what you'll do instead is cowardishly evade the question and call Phil stupid, and then try to change the topic to anything else.

Because you can't handle the Truth. And that in of itself is enough to demonstrate that atheists aren't moral. That you claimed they were when they plainly are not is a lie.

If you want to show that moral truths are objective, then you need objective evidence.

If moral truths cannot be subjective, it proves that moral truths are objective.

All you have to do to demonstrate that moral truths are subjective is to answer that sometimes it's not evil to rape, torture, and murder people for no reason.

All you have to do is to say that Phil is WRONG. Yet you cannot, because what he described is evil. Rather than concede that point, you'd rather say Phil is STUPID. Which does not make him WRONG. One can be STUPID and RIGHT, and that is far preferable to being SMART and WRONG. The resort to ad hominem is surrendering the point - and you'll note that Ace surrendered from the very opening post.

Atheists trip over an elementary moral truth that even a child can understand. And you'll try to confuse all knowledge rather than see that clearly.

Posted by: ConserativeMonster at March 27, 2015 01:10 AM (+2//H)

555 We're asked for proof or certainty that we don't pretend to have but are then given magic and faith as a rock-solid alternative.

Magic? What magic? Come on.

You've been offered reason. If that does not sway you, look to grace. If that does not move your heart, see the beauty.

And if you reject all of that, then there is nothing more to add. All that is left is despair and darkness. Why not set the autopilot to 100 m altitude and plunge from the heavens to Earth, raging against the Void amidst innocent screams?

Hope.

Posted by: ConserativeMonster at March 27, 2015 01:18 AM (+2//H)

556 I still don't understand how a belief in magic solves any of these problems, conmon.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 01:19 AM (kQ364)

557 I still don't understand how a belief in magic solves any of these problems, conmon.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 01:19 AM (kQ364)

558 Apparently I will continue to comment twice in this thread for no reason at all.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 01:20 AM (kQ364)

559 I don't mean to be a dick about it, conmon, but, yeah, God is supernatural. He's outside of physical laws.

Like ghosts or magic.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 01:22 AM (kQ364)

560 That's why I don't understand people requiring atheists to get super strict about things they are possibly humble enough to not propose an explanation for.

I can understand that.

You can't hit people on not knowing what's going on though if your alternative is a supernatural being.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 01:24 AM (kQ364)

561 "And if you reject all of that, then there is nothing more to add. All that is left is despair and darkness."

The problem here is that it doesn't matter what I reject or not.

What is, is. My belief or lack doesn't change anything. Neither does yours.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 01:29 AM (kQ364)

562 The problem here is that it doesn't matter what I reject or not.

What is, is. My belief or lack doesn't change anything. Neither does yours.

Since nothing matters, why is anything a problem? Why tell me how meaningless belief and life is when it changes nothing?

You can assert that, but my experience is that belief changes everything.

It is belief that makes men do monstrous acts - and it is belief that drives other men to oppose them. Right belief is the central purpose to man's existence. I cannot say I know all there is to know on this matter, but I think I have found enough - and no hostile idea I've encountered has managed to budge it one iota.

If truth didn't matter to you, you wouldn't even be a part of this discussion. Yet you are curious and engaged. Maybe you haven't grasped why - but keep grasping.

Posted by: ConserativeMonster at March 27, 2015 03:12 AM (+2//H)

563 554 ConserativeMonster

Who are a subset of atheists

No. Try again.

The existence of opposing claims does not make a claim incoherent.

Correct. It's the incoherence of the claims that brings about the opposing claims.

So are you willing to argue that we cannot know if Phil's example of the sadistic murderers acted wrongly?

I'm flat-out saying that no-one has ever demonstrated anything about "right" and "wrong" based on evidence and reason rather than emotional appeals.

As I said, this argument has been going on for 5000 years. The best answer I know of is non-cognitivism, which basically says that you're asking the wrong questions.

From Christian perspective, God is good. Man doesn't know how to isolate one from the other. Utterly irrelevant to whether there is such a thing as Good, and whether mankind is obligated to do Good.

So your answer is that the question is unanswerable?

Problem of Evil - for Christianity, read Genesis - man rebels against God, aka sinning, resulting in the Fall.

Which doesn't answer the question, or even address it. Read up on Epicurus; he went over all this more than 2300 years ago.

Yet you didn't answer the question. Because you know you can't.

What question? Atheists don't deny morality; they just don't believe in God. Robertson's little fantasy is, as I said, and as Ace said, stupid.

There isn't anything to answer, because it's all based on a false premise.

Either you agree that it is wrong to do some evil thing, and thus acknowledge that there is such a thing as moral truth; or you disagree that it is evil - and reveal the moral bankruptcy of atheism.

As I said, if the atheist in this fantasy of Robertson's said that the act was wrong - as almost any atheist would - the only thing that would demonstrate was that that particular atheist held a particular subjective believe about a particular point of morality... At that point in time.

It is literally impossible to get from there to any objective system of morality.

If moral truths cannot be subjective, it proves that moral truths are objective.

Well, that's quite an "if", isn't it?

All you have to do to demonstrate that moral truths are subjective is to answer that sometimes it's not evil to rape, torture, and murder people for no reason.

But if I don't argue that, it does nothing at all to establish the contrapositive.

That's the point.

We have a shared sense of morality because we have a shared genetic and social heritage. You'd expect most people to answer the more straightforward moral questions the same way.

It doesn't matter how many subjective opinions you collate, you cannot deductively arrive from them at an objective fact. That's not logically possible.

To argue for an objective morality, you must start from objective evidence. (And non-cognitivism would say that there isn't any, by definition.)

(As an aside, there's never no reason for a human action; there's a causal chain to everything except for individual quantum events. So the question is meaningless in any case.)

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 27, 2015 03:58 AM (2yngH)

564 562 ConserativeMonster

Since nothing matters, why is anything a problem?

I didn't say nothing matters. basicbv didn't say nothing matters. Ace certainly didn't. You'd have a hard time finding anyone not in the depths of clinical depression who sincerely believes that. And it can't be logically inferred from anything any of us have said.

So why are you bringing it up?

As I've noted, atheists don't believe in God. Most of them don't believe in an afterlife. (Some believe in an afterlife, but not a god of any sort - arguably, this is the case with Jainism.)

The lack of belief in an afterlife doesn't make life worthless. It makes it unutterably precious. If there's no afterlife, this life is all we have. One all too brief moment in this brilliant, beautiful, fantastical universe before our spark runs out and we're nothing but memories.

That's so very, very far from the idea that nothing matters that it seems impossible to reconcile the two notions.

Posted by: Pixy and the Hamsters at March 27, 2015 04:09 AM (2yngH)

565 Who are a subset of atheists

No. Try again.

I wasn't precise enough in my wording, but you should have known what I meant from context.

Atheist communists are a subset of atheists. If you want to argue atheists are moral, you have to include them.

And it's not limited to communists; they're just a conveniently large group of atheists known for their evil ways.

Correct. It's the incoherence of the claims that brings about the opposing claims.

There is such a thing as two coherent opposing claims. Pointing out the existence of opposing claims is insufficient evidence to demonstrate incoherence of the original claim.

You demonstrate incoherence by pointing out contradicting premises within a claim, not by pointing out the existence of a different argument.

If you believe otherwise, the existence of this discussion demonstrates that atheism is incoherent. QED, acknowledge the truth already.

I'm flat-out saying that no-one has ever demonstrated anything about "right" and "wrong" based on evidence and reason rather than emotional appeals.

So we can't know whether it is wrong to rape and murder little girls, because one needs thousands of years of philosophy and careful discussion by TOP MEN to figure out if that may or may not be wrong.

And then you wonder why people have a problem with atheists. It's as if you're arguing 1+1 = 2 is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that addition is a valid concept.

So your answer is that the question is unanswerable?

The answer from the Christian POV is that we cannot separate God from good and say one causes the other.

Which is an independent issue of whether moral truths exist.

What question? Atheists don't deny morality; they just don't believe in God. Robertson's little fantasy is, as I said, and as Ace said, stupid.

"Are you going to claim that absurd position to demonstrate that "no one has proved it"?"

As I said, if the atheist in this fantasy of Robertson's said that the act was wrong - as almost any atheist would - the only thing that would demonstrate was that that particular atheist held a particular subjective believe about a particular point of morality... At that point in time.

If every atheist always answers the question in the same way - "that is wrong" - that is 100% consistent with it being an objective moral truth.

If it wasn't an objective moral truth - you'd expect to see a lot more atheists answer it differently - "Nah, that's not wrong". "Hard to say, it's a difficult moral quandary whether or not it is impermissible to rape and murder a man's family".

That people consistently answer it a certain way is evidence for the claim that moral truths exist.

Which puts the lie to your above claim that there is NO EVIDENCE OR REASON to believe in moral truth.

You trip over the simplest moral scenario. Ask a first grader if it's wrong to do such a thing. Most will answer that it's wrong. If you can't simply acknowledge that it's wrong in the same way, you have less moral reasoning than that first grader.

But if I don't argue that, it does nothing at all to establish the contrapositive.

That's why I called it reduction ad absurdum. The person who argues that point destroys his credibility - meaning no one can successfully argue that point.

Which demonstrates that the point is not true.

If it were debatable, atheists would be able to argue it, distasteful as it may be. You don't, because you can't. That you can't is evidence of the truth of the other claim.

Also:
We have a shared sense of morality because we have a shared genetic and social heritage.

Begging the question.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 27, 2015 12:51 PM (0NdlF)

566 I didn't say nothing matters. basicbv didn't say nothing matters. Ace certainly didn't. You'd have a hard time finding anyone not in the depths of clinical depression who sincerely believes that. And it can't be logically inferred from anything any of us have said.

Pixy, stick to your own discussion.

basicbv, feel free to raise his points if you want my answer.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 27, 2015 12:54 PM (0NdlF)

567 Also, apologies for inconsistent bold/italics.

Quick response to a long post.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 27, 2015 12:55 PM (0NdlF)

568 Just for imagine being in a non-believers shoes for a second, guys.

We're asked for proof or certainty that we don't pretend to have but are then given magic and faith as a rock-solid alternative.
****
Guess what? You're not even beginning to comprehend the argument. Nothing about morality is "magic". Mages and shaman through the ages have not created the structure by which we call things good and call things bad.

Faith however is an entirely different thing from magic. Let's say no one could ever convincingly prove that there is a right and a wrong. Faith is how you move on, insisting in a moral order.

Rock solid isn't the standard of a person of faith. So your ironic hyperbole fails. That' s the standard that you've fooled yourself into believing that you hold to, until you encounter a not totally explicable situation. Even Pinky's evolutionary explanation of guilt has holes.

We've evolved a sense of guilt, okay. But is it the case that that sense never misfires? Do people feel overly guilty? Do they feel not guilty enough? If guilt is simply a reflex by evolution, then we can probably recognize a *distribution* of guilt reflex. Thus each person has the guilt they have. Guilt has, de facto, saved our species, and our species has been through some horrible shit, but the species has been preserved by the level of guilt that is distributed in former ages. There's no way to say whether somebody should feel more or less guilty about something, because guilt saves us by being what it is, so the presence or lack of guilt in an individual contributes to the community to the extent that it does, and we see no cause to cite the destruction of all of humanity because some guy decapitates his neighbor.

The emotional response is not logical, but probably an aggregate response based on the moral outrage levels of the people involved. But that's what we could see owing our legal system to.

But, if we really have a critical faculty, we could call this genetic fallacy to say that because guilt arose in us, we have to heed our sense of guilt. It gives a reason for the *characteristic* action, but not *intentional* action. But bucking the guilt and moral outrage levels of our contemporaries might find us in jeopardy to their wills to enforce their preferred levels of guilt and moral outrage, so we have to temper our rationale to fit the sea of social emotion.

Thus the only rational action has to do with navigating the swamp of communal reaction. However, at the same time if all this reaction is evolutionary positive, then we would have to temper a true assessment of the *positive* roles that moral outrage and a public expression of guilt is. But, if we lynch a heretic, and society feels good about having lynched a heretic, these were all pooled behaviors in the first place. Society can stand the ridding of many marginal people and not threaten the species itself.

In contrast, I put the convictions of men, who were not so much believers in miracles, but believers in a design. A design, a purpose is not *magic*, so save lib-ified irony and simplification. But part of this plan, was the value of individuals, and *rights* inherent from the design.

None of this is "magic" if you can get your mind around that. But it is *faith*.

So, I commonly put myself in a non-believers shoes. None of what I wrote, requires faith to understand it. It requires an understanding of what "magic" implies, but it simply shows a function of faith that exists and has provided dividends, that cannot be reduced to modern skeptical bedrock. And you have to get over your incredulity in the face of empirical results that something you can't prove is true can yield results.

On the other hand, you can face the swamp and say somewhere in the bog of human reaction, and natural instincts, is a rational purpose for moral behavior, you just can't find it yet--and even though your standard is bedrock, you're going to believe what makes sense to you.

I don't blame you. I do no less.

Posted by: Axeman at March 27, 2015 10:47 PM (aLe9v)

569 Just read through the latest comments and I suppose I have a couple different thoughts. The first is that I don't particularly mind either suggestion that a materialist worldview is alternately beautiful and absurd. If that's a critique of the position then I don't think it's a mean or out of bounds thing to say. If I might sneak in a subversive thought here it's simply to say that's just the universe as I perceive it. I'd be the first one to jump off the non-believer boat if I thought there was alternative as I'd much prefer a longer life that I'd receive by doing what I'm doing anyways. That just doesn't seem to be in the cards for us though.

The second thought is that at the end of the day I think we've done pretty well here as no one has told anyone else to fuck off and die. Seriously. That's a good thing. Some elbows were thrown but it didn't turn into a series of FUs.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 11:11 PM (kQ364)

570 Didn't read that comment of yours before posting mine, Axeman.

The quickest response is that I'm not being ironic or the like when I mention magic.

Perhaps that word is too provocative. Supernatural might work better. The thrust is the same.

The longer response is that I'll think about what you're saying and so can't respond immediately.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 11:17 PM (kQ364)

571 Axeman, the reason why I can't immediately respond to your comment comes from this: "Let's say no one could ever convincingly prove that there is a right and a wrong. Faith is how you move on, insisting in a moral order."

I hold the exact same position but I've been labeling the impulse as Burkean.

Posted by: basicbv at March 27, 2015 11:23 PM (kQ364)

Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.074 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0238 seconds, 580 records returned.
Page size 374 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.