A reader sent me a link to this highly entertaining debate between Alan Keyes and Alan Dershowitz on religion. You can download the mp3 and have the two Alans shouting at each other on the stereo while you fix your bowl of oatmeal in the morning, like I did. I think Dershowitz kicked butt—if nothing else, he got Keyes to admit that if he’d been president, he wouldn’t have allowed any atheists to have positions of responsibility in the government—and there’s a lot of good, healthy shouting going on. My only reservation is that, well, it’s Dershowitz, who has supported torture, vs. Keyes, who is simply insane.
I thought this was good:
In North America today, according to a recent census, there are 27 million people who are not religious and a million and a half avowed atheists. There is no evidence to suggest they are less moral than those who go to synagogue, mosque, and church everyday. Indeed, it is my contention that a truly moral person, who acts morally–not out of fear of damnation or out of promise of reward, but because it’s the right thing–if anything, is more moral. More moral. The atheist or the agnostic who throws himself in front of an oncoming bus to save a child, knowing that there is no eternal promise, that there is nothing but the grave that awaits him, is more moral than Sir Thomas More who made a cost/benefit analysis as to whether or not to face eternal damnation by disobeying the pope or face instantaneous death by disobeying the king.
Holy crap!
These are my choices?
I admire Alan Dershowitz’s ability to turn a phrase, but my willingness to quote him is severly undermined by the fact he will gleefully support all kinds of absurd shit.
On the other hand, I admire Alan Keyes’ ability to live in a world of his creation, sort of.
Perhaps admire is not the right word, but it does inspire awe.
Exactly. It actually makes for a good debate, because you can’t listen to either one without being critical.
I take it you’re not a fan of pro-wrestling.
BTW, I suspect that in practice both More and the putative atheist hero were are driven by compulsions largely beyond the rational veneer they might have applied to justify them. You can save somebody out of empathy independent of cost/benefit. You can follow a leader to your own death out of strong loyalty. While More probably considered his eternal soul to be a very real thing, I don’t think that in practice what he did was significantly different from a non-believer acting “for future generations” or just out of a desire not to back out of a loyalty oath. I.e., if you could put them all in an MRI, my bet is that you’d see about the same kind of brain activity.
I think there are way, way more than 1.5 million avowed atheists in this country.
According to the transcript, the moderator introduced the debate by saying, “…two of America’s finest minds will address these questions…”
Then he wrapped up the evening by saying, “…in my thirty-five years at the college, I have never spent a more intellectually stimulating and exciting evening…”
This country is in even worse mental condition than I had feared: no wonder Coulter’s on the best-seller list.
“Two of America’s finest minds will address these questions…” (just not tonight)
“In my thirty-five years at the college, I have never spent a more intellectually stimulating and exciting evening.” (I’m usually sleeping off the dollar margaritas by 7 or so)
Keyes: “And they understood one principle, a little bit cynical perhaps, but nonetheless verified by much of human history, that ‘power ultimately only respects a greater power.’ Isn’t that sad? Power cannot be relied upon to respect greater wisdom.”
Well, who’s the most powerful being in the universe, according to Alan Keyes’ religion?
So, whose greater power does God respect, since He cannot be relied upon to respect greater wisdom? (I can hear the grumbling now: “But God is the greatest wisdom!” But according to whom? Him? By whose authority is God God? Is He an anarchist who seized the crown? I’m speaking rhetorially, of course.)
Yes, definitely, Keyes truism is sad, and that’s why it’s a good thing that the universe is a plurality without an omnipotent center. It’s called a system of checks and balances, Mr. Keyes, you know–the Enlightenment view of nature that inspired our Constitution.
Humans indeed wrote the Bible, and humans created God and invested Him with their own power and egotism by proxy, and these same believers are now denying evolution and global warming, and screwing up the nation and the planet. Talk about pride! It is Alan Keyes and his ilk who are dangerous.
Alan Keyes is an intelligent and devious man. When asked, should he become president, if he would exclude atheists from positions of moral leadership (e.g. the Supreme Court) his answer was that he would expect people he appointed to agree with the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Of course, that includes the statement that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights…”
Devious Keyes is, all right, for why, particularly, the Declaration of Independence? We aren’t at war with England anymore. (Would that England would oppose us, for a change!) It’s the Constituion that matters, and it makes no mention of God–and that was deliberate–and that is problematic for Keyes.
Evolution is my creator, anyway. So there.
I think there are way, way more than 1.5 million avowed atheists in this country.
I wouldn’t bet on it (unless your defintion of “way way” is looser than mine). According to the last big survey, atheism and agnosticism were each claimed by maybe half a percent of US adults. Those numbers are growing, but (unless you count the “No Religion” answer, which rose from 7% to 13% between 1990 and 2001) they won’t be in the tens of millions any time soon.
According to the 2001 Canada census, 16.2 percent of the population have no religious adherence, almost 5 million. The number of Christians has gone down just under one percent per year.
“Alan Keyes is an intelligent and devious man. When asked, should he become president, if he would exclude atheists from positions of moral leadership (e.g. the Supreme Court) his answer was that he would expect people he appointed to agree with the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Of course, that includes the statement that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights…””
Posted by: tacitus
Perhaps you should compare and contrast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
They’re not the same thing. Although some parts of the Declaration are still relevant:
“But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism…”
“The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States…”
“…depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury.”
Dershowitz is an intelligent devious mind. His religion is zionism and as Norman Finkelstein revealed, he plagiarized his book which Finkelstein describes as a fraud.
In answer to your opener –haven’t seen the remarks that followed after, but later I shall;
You seem content to declare that a well-meaning atheist or agnostic is no less moral than the spiritually-awakened soul. As if a spiritual awakening is thereby neutered, irrelevant in this life.
You may not know then, that a believer in God by definition is a soul who acknowledges his sins. We take it for obvious that no man or woman, atheists not excluded, is without the need of redemption. In this belief we don’t place ourselves on some superior plane to yours; except that we have come to believe and you don’t. I believe, but I’m just as susceptible to immoral actions as you; while you may well be more moral in your actions. (As you testify for atheists.)
You’re free not to care about God or His divine Will. He gives us all free will. The notion that you need God’s forgiveness is as relevant for us as it must be for you. So far, you dismiss the notion. Nobody has to forgive you; and your life is blameless. To such ideas I’ll only say, you are one of very few perfect men I’ve had the pleasure to meet. The others were simply dead; and they made a deathbed confession before meeting their Maker.
tumbler,
I here ya. But you do realize that your arguments are really just a bunch of assumptions.
So…you’re saying you’re as dumb as Keyes?
Atheists do not claim blamelessness or perfection. What they do say is that we have to struggle to better ourselves, and that the blessings or forgiveness of a nonexistent creator are irrelevant.
Chance: –There are incorrect assumptions, and near-misses; and correct ones. You saw the incorrect one(s). Point out?
And, PZ Myers:
I say I’m not as swift as Keyes, and you’ll likely agree. As for atheists on moral issues; they may or may not better themselves. Since the God you deny is no Law-giver at all, you can struggle, but there’s no standard to say you’ve bettered yourself except your reason. In some circles, that means a man can be his own God. I know some who are their own popes, and their own gurus.
Ask yourself then, what reason is behind Stalin’s standards? The same one as yours. Why the diverse results? I know you’re no Stalin, or W. You base your morals on trial and error? Or a superior wisdom based on atheism? Can you explain?
Your entire argument is an assumption of correctness.
an example:
You assume your correct, that your God is correct, and that all the other versions are wrong. I may or may not agree it’s just a poor unsupported argument.
Is the pope not his own pope? Don’t Baptists believe in the priesthood of the believer?
No tumbler. Morals come from a long process with an evolutionary base. Your arguments bely a basic misunderstnading of, well, just about everything.
Ask yourself then, what reason is behind Joseph Kony’s standards? The same one as yours. Why the diverse results?
Chance,
If the generic god of an atheist is my example of ”your” god; I’ve assumed what needs no explanation. I never mentioned any false god.
The Pope isn’t his own version of a pope. He’s the bishop of Rome, and these bishops have legitimate claims to succession from the apostle Peter, who is acknowledged by the Church as our first pope. If Baptists harbor another belief, it’s due to a misunderstanding (another subject altogether). If you dispute the claims of the Church, you do so by an incorrect assumption. (As I assume.) One which you consider correct and can’t prove. And THEN:
”Morals come from a long process with an evolutionary base.” Hardly; because there are no universally sensed taboos. That’s why God commands. And that’s why He forgives. Otherwise, in some souls there’s just darkness. Is the basis of savage morality a different, strange phylum, now gone extinct? No– there is no painfully evolved standard. There is only the natural law, and I realize many atheists DO adhere to their morality as they see it.
If it pleases them to do so. The penitentiaries are replete with atheists who didn’t care about morality. Why say their indifference to God is evolved? They rejected Him, is all. Others in prison reform if they believe; otherwise, they just die recalcitrant. ( a form of pride similar to atheism.)
What a holier-than-thou dickwad.
I don’t reject a “Him”. I reject a bizarre, convoluted and baseless meme that folks like you promote. Should your hairy thunderer drop by with an airtight demonstration of His divinity, I’ll take accepting “Him” under advisement. But the god described in various Bible stories isn’t a moral being and I’d likely tell Mr. Thunderer to take a hike.
Thanks, BJN,
Please realize, I’m not holy at all. I am a sinful man. Possibly bizarre, and possibly I’ve taken you for granted. Here you are, a blemish on the otherwise clean domain of PZ Myers; and yet I haven’t called you anything, not even a sinner.
Your opinion of God lacks credibility. God teaches me He loves you despite the irresistible need you have to spill over on the page like the crude ass you are. And you’re going to judge His morals? Wow; teach us all about it, promote the worship of testosterone and vulgarity. Maestro.
3…2…1…
That didn’t take long.
So God has had a little conversation with you, hey? Next time you have one of your little chats, could you mention that we human beings aren’t too appreciative of holoprosencephaly and smallpox and retinoblastoma, and could he please knock it off?
Your friend set me the precedent, Mr M. No offense; we are all adults. Why are you depending on snide remarks and expletives to dispute a mere simpleton who believes in God? I should think you were in possession of marvelous talking points and devastating zingers. You maintain He has given the world only its diseases and sorrow? Why, that nasty . . . !
But Madame Curie was a believer. So was Mendel, and even Isaac Newton. Hasn’t your glorious science been established solidly upon the accomplishments of those simpletons? In my version of the truth, God created all the scientific geniuses. And some simpletons.
Why do you care, tumbler? Does it threaten your beliefs that other people find them risible? Oh ye of little faith…
But PZ you don’t understand, we all have *original* sin don’t ya know. Because Eve took a fruit she wasn’t supposed to (those wicked women again) all humans are condemmed to *death* unless they beg “Him” (a male, who would have guessed?) for forgiveness. Remember the crime was aquiring knowledge (maybe that’s why they have so much trouble with science eh?) I think the original sin is passed down via mitochondrial DNA, but they never made that clear in Catholic school. See? Horrible diseases and natural disasters that kill hundreds of thousands are all part of god’s “love”.
Here’s the question I would like the Xtians to answer, based on the two premises listed below which are basic to Xtian beliefs:
1. God is all knowing, all loving, all powerful.
2. Humans have free will.
How can both of these assertions be true?
These two concepts are logically incompatible. If God knows everything, then when he created Eve he already knew she would sin and all humans would be condemmed. But if he knew that, she couldn’t have had free will could she? So therefore God made Eve sin. Which just makes him a sadistic bastard (there goes “all loving” out the window).
The only other conclusion is that “He” is not “all knowing” after all. Maybe “He” didn’t know about the 2004 tsunami, or any of the other horrible suffering that goes on. But wait, on judgement day he knows everything I’ve ever done, so maybe he just doesn’t know the future. But wait, all those “prophecies” supposedly came true, so he *must* know the future. But then humans can’t have free will, and round and round we go. Must stop now, head exploding from logical inconsistencies.
…darth
tumbler:
And how do you know this? Thats right my priest told me so. Very convincing. As you well know Protestants don’t regard the pope as the leader or agree with their interpretation of events.
No it’s not due to a misunderstanding. They think the RCC is flat out wrong. So do all other Protestants. The RCC has many wrong stances that simply don’t wash theologically or with reality. Now I don’t want to make this a religious nut thread but your ‘incorrect assumption’ bit is flat out hilarious. You say
You accept the argument from authority without even a pause. You consider it correct an can’t prove. But alas we can all read and think.
Have you been hit with radiation recently? Of course there are universal taboos that appear in virtually all cultures. Why? Likely becasue we share ancestors that found particular behaviours beneficial to the group at large. The variation we see on these behaviours is representative of the subtle changes over time.
This doesn’t even make any sense. Savage morality? What is that? I have never seen it.
Actually atheists make up the smallest percentage of the prison population. The rest are people of various religions.
Which again shows that despite ones superstitous leanings you are who you are. Morals evolved over time from other primate behaviours.
Are you on medication?
Here you are, a blemish on the otherwise clean domain of PZ Myers; and yet I haven’t called you anything, not even a sinner.
Wow. Do you even read your own posts? You call him a blemish and then IN THE SAME SENTENCE say you haven’t called him anything.
(And then, as PZ pointed out, insult him *again* in the next paragraph.)
Way to raise the tone of discourse.
Anyway, the point is that you *can’t* distinguish your correct assumptions from your incorrect assumptions *as long as they are unexamined assumptions*. By assuming them you make them immune to examination for correctness. That is very dangerous, which is why honest scientists do it as little as possible.
How do you know that God teaches you anything? How do you know that you’re not just making it up, or believing what other people made up?
If you can successfully answer that question (with proof that is actually convincing to people who don’t already believe the same thing you believe), you’ll be the first religious person in ~5,000 years to do so.
I wish I could get rid of the “we’re all sinners” talk. There’s nothing wrong with us but the idea that there’s something wrong with us. (If you do something wrong, that’s different matter–but there’s nothing about you existing that is wrong.) The only people who believe in “our sinful nature” are the poor unfortunate believers whose tiny, petty sins are merely attempts to have a life. When others, like Keyes, say “we’re all sinners,” you can bet that he means you, and when he talks about his own “humility,” get the barf bag, because he’s worshipping himself again.
And he’ll probably start jumping around again, and “listening to voices” as a member of John McCain’s (!)campaign staff once hilariously put it.
My reason for interfering in your lively discussions of science etc, is that I noticed your scornful evaluation of Alan Keyes; and so, my feeble attempts at reducing you to absurdity. (You’re already well upon the way, I only helped.)
I’ll return when I have time to reply to the whole class of know-it-alls. None of whom are very persuasive, even though they’re caustic and ill-mannered. It takes time to cut a swath through dense material. Keyes does it, and I can try, at least. Whoever wants to stick around will find me here. And, I’ll be courteous to you all. I have no spite to post here; just good counsel.
Ok tumbler.
But the only know it all here was you there buddy. And my oh my are you persuasive.
“all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights…”
couldn’t you read “Creator” as, like, your Mom? or descent with modification? or anything else you choose? It seems like, given the normally florid Christian writing style of the time, the writer(s) took pains to avoid referring to Judeo-Christian tradition.
“I have no spite to post here; just good counsel.”
Whenever you’re ready with that “good counsel,” we’re ready to receive it. You haven’t shown us any yet.
I was a Christian once. Believed it as deeply as any other Christian. Then I started thinking and looking around, and I found:
1. That everything in the material world could be explained by natural causes.
2. That I had to figure out for myself everything about morality, regardless of whether the original moral code was handed down “from above” or developed from observation, experimentation, discussion and reason.
3. That believers were no more likely to do good, and no less likely to do evil than non-believers.
4. That everything promised by religions is readily available without them.
If you, tumbler, are meant to be the agent of my conversion, then God will put into your head a completely new argument for His existence that no one has ever made before and that is beyond any refutation.
It’s not our job to persuade you. We who are non-believers are not making a claim beyond reason. The onus is on you, and all other believers, to explain why we must postulate the existence of a god, any god, when there is nothing that would make such a thing necessary, or even possible.
Wow, so God invented people to cure disease! What a brilliant solution to a problem He created!
I’d think he could just… you know… not make diseases in the first place.
Same with sin; if it’s not something we choose, then God built it into us. Somehow the fact that He manages to forgive us for being the way he created us doesn’t fill me with warm fuzzies.
Speaking of, why should I even bother worshiping that foreign douchebag of a god?
The jackass ignores the continent for 1500 years, sending ountless people into hell through no fault of their own. Then he sends a bunch of plagues and assholes to destabilise the region and fuck people over in ways that are still with us.
It’s been 2000 years since the goofy bastard impregnated his mother and Americans STILL aren’t seeing any benefits aside from his trademark half-assed solutions to problems he created.
If he exists, he’s as much of a douchebag as the rest of us, so I’m not going to ask him to forgive me. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all.
tumbler: Please read my earlier message on this blog about the heretical nature of most “big name” scientists and philosophers. Claiming Newton as orthodox is especially funny.
DSL was out the last 24 hours here. So, a late start in the atheists’ amusement park.
Spike: Amusing himself,
”That everything in the material world could be explained by natural causes.”
I see. And you’ve explained it all? Can you explain animal instinct? (No, just give something a name. Close; no points.) Explain what a ”material world” is. They tell me it’s composed mostly of space. Every molecule of a tsunami is made of emptiness with little particles placed in orbit around a nucleus. But can you explain why tsunamis wiped out whole cities also made up of particles? God can explain it, I believe. he ctreated matter. We say He created everything ”seen and unseen.” Have you an explanation for the unseen?
”I had to figure out for myself everything about morality, regardless of whether the original moral code was handed down “from above” or developed from observation, experimentation, discussion and reason.” If you know about an original moral code, why do you think you discovered it independently? Either you follow it, or a rough approximation. I’d say you handed it down in your own heart, –same as any untutored savage. They have a form of human morality. You arent unique, Spike.
”Believers were no more likely to do good, and no less likely to do evil than non-believers.” Far out. It must be why believers in certain codes call it holy to destroy themselves committing atrocities against their own brethren. As opposed to saints like Mother Theresa in the slums of Calcutta.
”That everything promised by religions is readily available without them.” You discovered this? I know of NO religion that promised everlasting life. Jesus founded a Church, and He promised a life after this one. It’s ”readily available” and in a remarkably short time! Not that distant a future. By only having the faith you gentlemen have in a theory of natural selection, hardly more than that; faith in that promise, we’ll have life eternal. Your own blessed ancestors are there now; their souls.
”If you, tumbler, are meant to be the agent of my conversion, then God will put into your head a completely new argument for His existence that no one has ever made before,” The Church teaches no man can convert another. God does it, we may light your way, but not coerce you. You knew that.
The argument you desire is already written in your own heart. Love. We love one another. This is why: He created men in His own image, and He is Love. I don’t think PZ allows theological posts here, and this would be prolonged; so I won’t say everything on that subject today. As for that problem of yours; new proof of His existence beyond refute: Read about His SON. I did, and so became convinced He is God, and proved it.
If that’s not beyond your power to deny it, you must need something more. You’ll have it the way all men do, beyond refute. Your soul will have it and your material self will return to the earth. Ozymandias got this proof. Read Shelley for the story.
A character named christopher posted such disgusting and obscene things that I’ll ignore his post. If he wants any reply from Moi, let him post clean English. He won’t; so he can piss up a rope.
Keith Douglas is OK. He deserves a straight answer. He said: ”Please read my earlier message on this blog about the heretical nature of most “big name” scientists and philosophers. Claiming Newton as orthodox is especially funny.” Well; you’re right, Keith. But he was educated in a Catholic university. He kept all his vain and profane ideas out of circulation. Wow, a bona fide genius who fell from grace! I agree. Many good believers were unfaithful in the end. Like yourself, possibly. But genius isn’t what saves a soul.
It’s a mixed bag. Oscar Wilde received the sacraments like a good Irishman, before croaking. John F. Kennedy didn’t. Both can still be listed as believers. God alone will judge.
Speaking of heresy; instead of belittling a few scientists or philosophers who proved unfaithful, think of the self-ordained ministers who think they’re following Jesus, only they betrayed His Church? You know who: Henry VIII, John Knox, Luther, Calvin? Next to them, Newton seems just another Prodigal Son. He may well have confessed his life’s sins and gone to heaven in the end. I hope so; and I sincerely hope Keith and Christopher, PZ, Chance, et al leave this earth in God’s favor. It’s not an impossibility. (If I can do it, anyone of you can. I’m NO plaster saint, Boys.)
#1 tumbler I’m not an atheist.
#2 Your very arrogant.
#3 The Protestant reformation is the best thing that ever happened to Christianity. The fact that you see the RCC as ‘Gods church’ simply shows me how much of an indoctrinated brain you have and that any rational discource is impossible. The best religion the Earth has seen is liberal Protestantism.
#4 your screeds come across as someone who seriously needs attention from a mental health professional.
#5 I find your version of God rather Pharisee like and frankly untenable.
What a joke. These men didn’t betray his church, they helped reform it and return it to it’s original form. The church has lost it’s way. You worship this church so essentially your an idolator. Good going. One need not be loyal to a church or it’s doctrines. That is simply a construct of an organization wishing to keep the sheep in a predetermined fold.
but I’ll respond to one comment:
You are aware that more than a few people do not consider all that she did good or holy. And make a compelling case I might add.
Dear Chance:
Yes, you are endearing; just as I am arrogant. ”The Protestant reformation is the best thing that ever happened to Christianity.” Talk about untenable. Reformation? Did the ”reformers” reform Jesus Christ? He never promised the apostles He’d send reformers, long about the 16th century. He promised He would be with the ONLY Church He founded, even to the end of the world.
”The fact that you see the RCC as ‘Gods church’ simply shows me how much of an indoctrinated brain you have and that any rational discource is impossible.” But you can try. Try rationale, not flying off the handle! Yours is a fine example of what shrinks call ”projection,” Chance. OF COURSE, Catholics are indoctrinated.
It’s called doctrine, not consensus of opinions. If the doctrine is sound, we receive it. If doctrine in the Church is false, or corrupted, then Christ was UNABLE to keep the promises He made to His apostles. Which you are free to believe, but your authority to say something like that is Satan, not free-thinking, nor rationale.
”The best religion the Earth has seen is liberal Protestantism.” Shucks; that’s an opinion held by MANY people. But why? It’s a self-serving opinion, promoted precisely by the rivals and wannabees who –in fact, are almost 100% descendents of the original Catholics. Your own family tree undoubtedly is comprised of these blessed souls, because in their day there was NO OTHER Christian faith! Go back through your lineage prior to the so-called reformation. Your lines are Roman Catholic all the way back to the Catacombs of Rome and possibly to Jerusalem.
But enough about YOU. A fine apologist you are; only good for cheap shots at Mother Theresa. And they’ve called me holier-than-thou. Sure, you’ve got Mother Theresa trumped. Absolutely, Tiger.
Tumbler,
You are ill. Your ‘arguments’ are well not really arguments and I am not an apologist. In fact I find that word insulting.
this is just funny:
Ah but your thinking is filled with authority and rational. Do you not see the irony here? Doctrine is simply made up. There are many in many different faiths. And frankly many people think the RCC is Satans church so that means you may be a dupe of Satan. And you have no way to prove otherwise.
lmost forgot to add, it’s not a cheap shot on Mother Teresa to state an opinion that is out there and backed by some good evidence. It is however dishonest to ignore it just because you want to pretend she may have been something she wasn’t.
There are two trains of thought here for rational people. She did good, she did bad. She was human.
tumbler – how is it decided what is doctrine and what isn’t? Where in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary? Where does it mention the Annunciation? Where does it say that sins must be confessed to a priest, and that reciting certain phrases over and over as many times as the priest tells you to magically absolves you of your sins? Where in the Bible is Purgatory? (Oh, wait, the new Pope recently said “our bad” about that one, didn’t he?) Is the bit about paying indulgences somewhere in the Apocrypha? Protestants simply went back to what was known then as “the Bible” and divested themselves of everything else the Roman Catholic Church added on.
Dear Carlie,
All one really has to do is appeal to the Bible, in its most unambiguous of teachings; the matter of faith. We are told plainly that without faith, our soul is helpless against the world and its drag on our minds.
The Church teaches we all have to win over three main distractions: the world, the flesh and the devil. Protestants everywhere are fascinated by the prospect of, a ”rapture” and the end-times, and whatever is esoteric and ”cool” in scripture. But when they’re confronted with the very WORDS of Christ, all they do is parse and undermine them. He prophesied it all; unless you have the faith to move mountains (paraphrased) how can you be expected to believe what is even revealed directly by the lips of the Son of God? You’ll dispute His words! HIS are the teachings which the apostles were sent out into the world to preach as Good News. They are all Catholic doctriine, nobody made up anything. He gave Peter the ”keys” to the kingdom of heaven; but you’ll try any contortion to see it otherwise. Because you fail in one thing to start with: Faith. You aren’t worthy of Him, you never gave Him your faith.
Hey tumbler you haven’t answered my question about the logical inconsistency in the assertions of human free will and god’s all knowing, all loving, all powerfulness. Scroll up to view my original post.
Also I would assert that no one alive today knows what the very “words of christ” were. All we have are some books written 70-100 years later. So even if you assume he was god, you still have no way of knowing if what is credited to him in the bible is actually true. There is just as much evidence (that is, none at all) that what is in the koran is the word of god also, in which case you are an apostate and are going to burn with the rest of us anyway according to Islam.
OK, Darth:
Can we take as given that human reasoning is limited? There can be mysteries which never come to light in this lifetime?
God’s mind and his Will are unknown to our ”logical consistency” and would seem opposed to it at times. Why would He, for instance, send his only-begotten Son into the world into a severe and ungrateful society, and have Him lay down His life for men? At the least a son of God’s should’ve been rich and powerful. But He was a lamb. Led to the slaughter without opening His mouth. That’s inconsistent with everything the Pharisees expected. And who believes them today?
All men and women are born for salvation. But they’re free to choose damnation; and this life is the test of our will. Our free will. On to another objection: ”Also I would assert that no one alive today knows what the very “words of Christ” were. All we have are some books written 70-100 years later.”
You could look deeper before jumping to that conclusion. It’s apparent you haven’t given it thought at all. We have, Darth, Christ’s Church. In fact, it’s thanks to the Catholic Church all the books written in the first era are now a Bible. God inspired them, and she certified them inspired. Without the Church (which comes down from the oral teaching of the apostles) there wouldn’t be a collection of books called the canon; the Holy Bible. It didn’t just arrive on the wings of angels.
Not only that; there is the sacred Tradition guarded by the Holy Spirit IN the Church. In her Tradition is every truth taught us by the disciples and apostles of Christ without lapses or mistakes. The Koran isn’t even inspired; it’s all the heresies of a madman who poisoned the monotheistic faith of ignorant semites. Look at the evil fruits it’s bearing today: fanatical holy war and hatred.
I can lead you onward all night. But it would intrude on the rightful turf of PZ Myers. (I don’t have my own blog; I’m just a guest here.) P.Z.’s apt to kick me out of here the way Arianna Huffington’s blog did, after I dared correct a few cretins hanging with her; full of obscenity and intolerance. She tolerates indecent whores, but can’t tolerate one honest Christian. At least here we have an atheist who plays an honest game of Gotcha.
I said that I found that everything in the material world could be explained by natural causes.
tumbler responded: I see. And you’ve explained it all?
Spike says: No. That’s a logical fallacy to pretend that everything -must be- explained in order to support the claim that everything -could be- explained by natural causes. (One straw man for tumbler)
Let’s start with an easy one. Scientists have studied gravity and determined characteristics of it that apply in all cases (these are known as scientific laws). When cosmologists found instances where gravity “acted” differently than it does near Earth, the scientists scratched their heads and came up with a natural explanation for the difference, consistent with the laws of gravitational attraction.
tumbler queried: Can you explain animal instinct? (No, just give something a name. Close; no points.)
Spike says: Here is an important point regarding instinct, to quote from SparkNotes:
“Whether the behavioral response to a given key stimulus is learned, genetic [instinctual], or both is the subject of study in the field of behavioral genetics. Researchers use techniques such as inbreeding and knockout studies to attempt to separate learning and environment from genetic determination of behavioral traits.”
So what happens is that scientists use natural procedures to figure out how things work. Even if some scientists throw up their hands and say, “Goddidit!” other scientists say, “Let’s see how it really works.” And they do! Scientists continue to figure out how things work. Sometimes they learn about something completely different than what they were looking for, but still they come up with more and more natural explanations for, well, the material world.
tumbler’s invocation of “instinct” is straw man #2. tumbler pretends that because he can’t explain it, then no one can.
tumbler requests: Explain what a ”material world” is. They tell me it’s composed mostly of space. Every molecule of a tsunami is made of emptiness with little particles placed in orbit around a nucleus. But can you explain why tsunamis wiped out whole cities also made up of particles?
Spike says: Yes. I can. This is straw man #3 for tumbler. He pretends again that because he does not understand something, then no one does. The explanation is this: Elements and molecules have electromagnetic charges. The repulsion of those charges makes combinations of elements and molecules solid. The electromagnetic repulsion of elements and molecules can be overcome with heat, pressure, chemical reactions, electricity, and other forces. A wonderful example of this is when a small sliver of wood is imbedded in a telephone pole by the force of a tornado’s winds.
tumbler reminds us: God can explain it, I believe. he ctreated matter. We say He created everything ”seen and unseen.”
Spike says: If tumbler wants to quit at, “Goddidit,” he has every right. The rest of us will continue to look for and find natural explanations for things in the material world.
tumbler asks: Have you an explanation for the unseen?
Spike says: Since I have no idea what tumbler means by “the unseen,” then I do not know if I have an explanation for it or not.
tumbler asks: If you know about an original moral code, why do you think you discovered it independently?
Spike says: I never said that I thought I discovered it independently. I said that I had to figure out morality for myself. Straw man #4 for tumbler. Even if I were to choose a particular religion and pretend that its moral code was perfect, I would still have to figure for myself out how to apply that moral code in my own life.
tumbler says: Either you follow it, or a rough approximation. I’d say you handed it down in your own heart, –same as any untutored savage. They have a form of human morality.
Spike says: I don’t know what an “untutored savage” is, but if tumbler is referring to humans, then of course they have a form of human morality, since, well, they are humans.
tumbler reminds me: You arent unique, Spike.
Spike says: I never said I was. Straw man #5 for tumbler.
tumbler quotes me and then responds: ”Believers were no more likely to do good, and no less likely to do evil than non-believers.” Far out. It must be why believers in certain codes call it holy to destroy themselves committing atrocities against their own brethren. As opposed to saints like Mother Theresa in the slums of Calcutta.
Spike says: I have no idea how tumbler’s response follows from what I wrote, so there is no way I can reply.
tumbler makes another argument from ignorance: I know of NO religion that promised everlasting life.
Spike says: tumbler needs to look at Mithraism, Egyptian cosmology, reincarnation, Buddhism (not really a religion, I know, but close enough for Western minds) and Hinduism, just to name a few. So, again, just because tumbler never bothered to learn about it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Straw man #5 for tumbler.
Then tumbler preaches a little.
tumbler quotes me then responds: ”If you, tumbler, are meant to be the agent of my conversion, then God will put into your head a completely new argument for His existence that no one has ever made before,” The Church teaches no man can convert another. God does it, we may light your way, but not coerce you. You knew that.
Spike says: Then god will do it by putting into tumbler’s head a completely new argument for god’s existence that no one has ever made before.
Then tumbler preaches some more, saying the same old thing that others have said before him. So I have to conclude that either 1) god does not want to convert me, because he has not bothered to teach tumbler (or me) anything that hasn’t been claimed by billions of others of nearly all religious stripes, or, 2) there is no god and tumbler is just repeating the same old stuff.
I choose option 2, because if there was a god, I think he would want me to believe in him.
But I could be wrong. God could exist and not really care if I believe in him or not. It’s no skin off his nose, anyway. Or mine, for that matter.
Wow! That was a big post.
PZ can ban me too, if he wants, for “excess consumption of memory” or something.
And my addition was off. tumbler scored 6 straw men, not just 5.
That’s fine, Spike;
You’ve about covered it, and just because you’ve learned how not to debate isn’t proof you came out better informed or on the beam. What you call straw dogs were merely soft-balls. I pitched ’em, you whiffed. It’s as if you truly want to think you can explain everything in the material world except soft-balls, which aren’t worth your time.
This is filed usually under intellectual dishonesty. You likely have it under W, as in weasel words.
“just because you’ve learned how not to debate ”
Looks like you have, too. You haven’t answered a single question asked of you, none of which were answered in anger or spite. Even if you take every word in the Bible as sacred out of the mouth of God, even if you add on every word in the Apocrypha, most of Catholic tradition and doctrine isn’t anywhere in there. Let’s take one of the most prominent: celibacy. Peter definitely said that “it is better for men to be as I am”, but followed it right up by saying if not, it is better to marry than to burn with lust. He never put that into context of a requirement of the priesthood. It’s simply not there.
…and I meant “none of which were asked in anger or spite”…
Apologetics doesn’t simply mean to invoke mystical faith any time someone asks about tenets of your religion; it means having answers for them.
Gee, Carlie.
I’m afraid you gave Peter credit for something Paul wrote. But I get it.
”You haven’t answered a single question asked of you, none of which were answered in anger or spite. Even if you take every word in the Bible as sacred out of the mouth of God, even if you add on every word in the Apocrypha, most of Catholic tradition and doctrine isn’t anywhere in there.—”
I want you to ask questions. Let me state up front, Catholics never subscribed to Sola Scriptura, as non-Catholics insist on doing; because scripture doesn’t even mention a Bible as such. And the Church spread the gospel originally by word, orally. What’s that, if not Tradition handed down orally? Later, we had the books. But a Church which depends only upon a written list of truths is no Church.
Christ founded the church as our Teacher and guide. Her doctrines all came ONLY from the apostles; they were learned –where? –At the feet of the Master, Jesus. So every Catholic article of faith is apostolic and protected from error by God Himself. If you doubt that, you don’t believe in the Holy Spirit.
One more thing, Carlie:
Celibacy is only a discipline, which the Church can change or add. She has that authority from Christ. If tomorrow, priests were ordained married, it wouldn’t change Christ’s Gospel.
But looking into such a discipline, it’s easy to see that it’s a following of her role model, Christ, during His stay on earth. He lived a celibate life. It’s fitting then, that along with the cross carried by His followers, celibacy also ought to be accepted by a dedicated priest. Now, if it’s only a discipline, and yet Traditional, it shouldn’t need proof-texts. Only Bibliolaters insist on the text and nothing but the text.
tumbler,
But I did explain them. Did you even read my post? The straw men you set up were, like all straw men, misrepresentations of what I had said – fake arguments, easy to knock over.
Then you set up this straw man yet again,
“It’s as if you truly want to think you can explain everything in the material world except soft-balls, which aren’t worth your time.”
I never once said I could explain everything in the material world. Don’t accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when you aren’t even talking about what I wrote.
Is that your mode of dissembling? To accuse others of the logical fallacies you commit?
When I answer false beliefs such as yours, I know that you and the people like you are going to hem and haw, dissemble, side-track, an do everything you can to avoid answering the questions you are asked. I don’t really worry about that.
You’ll notice by the tone of my previous post that I was really addressing all the other readers, showing them how a conversation with a believer ends up going nowhere, since believers will work very hard to avoid actually talking about the issues addressed. You. tumbler, are exactly on target.
Hasta nunca!
Ah, the saintly Thomas More!
What a load of shit …
The hagiography by one of his descendants, and the crawling by the RTC church have obscured the fact that More quite cheerfully persecuted “heretics” and was personally present at the burning alive of the translator of the first “proper” English version of the Bible, William Tyndale.
He was just an authoritarion power-monger, who got caught in the mangle, when he didn’t trim fast enoughj, or have the sense to withdraw….
Idiot.
You lay the blame on Thomas More for a killing ordered by your own icon, Henry VIII? The heretical head of the Church of England? The Church More refused to countenance even at the cost of his head?
Tyndale was in fact not authorized to translate the scriptures. He was sentenced at the time Henry was still faithful to the Church, as was Thomas More. Henry VIII sentenced him for the crime of heresy, which in that era was a capital offense. Heresy was a CRIME. Making YOU a criminal after the fact//
Hey Tumbler, there’s questions waiting for you at the Ann Coulter thread? Want to prove your integrity and answer them?
So because the teachings of the Church as vouchsafed from error by God, we can know that they are true. How do we know that the teachings are vouchsafed by God? That’s one of the teachings of the Church, which we know to be true. And around and around we go…
Hey, tumbler, why don’t you read one of Coulter’s works and present us with a few of her quotes that you think are defensible? It’d be a lot more interesting than your very, very tired apologetics.
Hey Tumbler, there’s questions waiting for you at the Ann Coulter thread? Want to prove your integrity and answer them?
If tumbler and the other trolls would like to take a short beak, I might suggest this video of Lennon and Zappa doing Baby Please Don’t Go. (Yoko is in excellent form, as always, by the way.)
A challenge from the Pharyngula Chamber Pot:
”the teachings of the Church as vouchsafed from error by God, we can know that they are true. How do we know that the teachings are vouchsafed by God?”
In truth, Cauldron; nobody ”knows”. God asks for our faith. Only unworthy SOB’s require God to fill out their questionnaire.
But, since you insist: We have faith in Jesus Christ, who loved us enough to lay down His life. HE gave a Church to this world, and gave us His promises. They are a certainty for those who believe in His word. Those who don’t believe in Him will be damned. I hate to use that word, but bottom-line it means those who dispute His word are out of consideration, and can just bank on some other God. They have a choice. Choose salvation, or choose the devil. (The devil wants you, Cauldrino) His Church is YOUR Church, if you love Him.
take a short beak
Sorry, that should be “take a short break”. (Obviously “take a short beak” would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.) Sorry about that. Cheers!
So much silliness from tumbler it’s hard to know where to start.
Nor does it mention trinity or sacraments or many many other items you take for granted I’m sure.
So according to you what was passed orally and then recorded isn’t worth much because if one takes the time to read them then one is apparently messed up? It would seem logical all you need are the books as they are a record of what was passed down orally.
Well your version of the Holy spirit. It is very clear that all there doctrines are not protected from error. It is also clear that the church ahs vacilitted back and forth on several doctrines through the years and will continue to do so.
Only idolators insist a church(which is just people) has more authority in the religion than the text itself. Reason and the text are all you need.
Yes they placed their opinion on what they think Jesus’s words are. Simple it’s made up.
The vote on the bible was in the neighborhood of 568-563. Thats right a vote. No I guess one could argue that the 563 where possessed by the devil and the 568 controlled by God but it has the smell of a purely human enterprise.
And your right it didn’t arrive on the wings of angels. What little snippets we find are often very different from what the church has claimed and they did a very good job of suppressing other gospels. And of course we have various versions of the bible even today. Different versions and different interpretations.
You could go back a few years when the raving bands of folks where on the witchhunt and substitute the RCC in that same paragraph. In many parts of the world you could put our religion in that paragraph. It’s all a matter of perspective.
And of course you are an infidel going to hell according to the Muslim.
Apologetics is the last step before complete insanity of those who profer it’s illogical arguments. If you have faith fine but don’t pretend your church has some claim to truth that the others don’t. It’s simply pathetic.
But, since you insist: We have faith in Jesus Christ, who loved us enough to lay down His life. HE gave a Church to this world, and gave us His promises. They are a certainty for those who believe in His word. Those who don’t believe in Him will be damned. I hate to use that word, but bottom-line it means those who dispute His word are out of consideration, and can just bank on some other God. They have a choice. Choose salvation, or choose the devil. (The devil wants you, Cauldrino) His Church is YOUR Church, if you love Him.
Is Ann going to hell for advocating the murder of people who displease her, Tumbler? Why not? Because you dislike those people, too?
Tumbler:
I asked you if AC’s behavior was Christian, and you said ‘let God decide’. And yet YOU sure seem to be judging quite a lot here. You seem quite happy to say what is Christian or not. Why the double standard?
Just for you, George,
I’m posting the day after I told PZ I wuz outta here; along with some witless sarcasm (Sorry, Lord). It might be too late to answer you; he may have banned the tumbler already. If so, great. He didn’t do it to a virgin.
Yes; if it pleases you. There’s no double standard, Ann would lose her soul for advocating anyone’s muurder. Even in some private conversation, like Mafiosos plot murder. That would be a mortal sin. However –she could repent and do penance; that would avail herself of God’s mercy. Never too late. Just a few days ago I watched Father John Corapi, Catholic priest on EWTN– a wonderful preacher and champion of the faith; telling just such a story. He personally heard the confession of a Mafia don (Didn’t say which one, but says we’d immediately know him if he divulged the name. I would guess John Gotti.)
He said the man’s sins were all forgiven him, he made a very contrite confession before dying. Even received conditional Baptism! And those were a lifetime of major sins. Real murdering and drug trafficking etc.,
Now, Ann hasn’t ducked around in private. She says that atrocious stuff with relish in full view of the media and makes no bones about it. It’s obviously meant in jest and for the sake of goosing her critics. Just like Madonna jerks me & other Catholic faithful around. Having FUN!
Call it pushing the envelope, not mortal sin. I think she’s terrific at it. I also have to believe she has her serious moments (but you aren’t about to see that. She won’t let you.)
Now, Ann hasn’t ducked around in private. She says that atrocious stuff with relish in full view of the media and makes no bones about it. It’s obviously meant in jest and for the sake of goosing her critics. Just like Madonna jerks me & other Catholic faithful around. Having FUN!
‘Fun’. Snarling about murdering people you disagree with politically is your idea of fun?
I find it fascinating that rightwing Christians forgive essentially anything Coulter does. All I can assume is that your politics are much more important than your Christian ideals.
I have a hard time believing you’d dismiss this so lightly if any leftwinger ever did it.
Hey, Cauldon:
See if you can catch Father Corapi on Dishnet when there’s a chance. He speaks over EWTN, Eternal Word Television Network. Just see it for your amusement, I don’t expect any conversions. But the man’s a magnetic speaker. Good theologian and very entertaining. Furthermore, he has a fascinating personal history. Almost as fascinating as my own. Not kidding . . .
A nonanswer there, Tumbler…
Dear George:
The trials I must undergo in what’s remaining of my life do not include teaching reluctant and smarmy students like you. You’re free not to care about me or my Church.
Your mock piety is unbecoming lucky guys of your type who whore and pour, brag about their education, vote for losers on election day, write insulting essays on their private blog for me to dispute– etc., if Cool Ann is flippant about murdering people so is the Left. Only the Left snarls while murdering the unborn children of Generation X,Y and Z. And never even think of asking forgiveness. They just ask for unlimited money from the tax-payers.
Talk about chutzpah, you hate a girl who jokes about fragging a chicken-shit like Murtha; but you pander to feminists & their ”right to choose.” If you’re a rare exception, FINE. But I ought to rant about this while I have time. Soon the good professor will take drastic action & terminate me. This is not his favorite subject, I have to imagine.
Cool Ann is flippant about murdering people so is the Left.
Really? So you define and defend your morality based on what your political opponents do? ‘They’re just as bad!’ Isn’t that ‘moral relativism’, which you guys oppose?
I would invite you to point out a leftwing political figure in America who advocates the murder of their opponents. Much less one as idolized as AC.
So why doesn’t AC’s violence turn you off as a Christian? I find it incomprehensible that conservative Christians seem not to see anything wrong in AC’s sociopathic dialogue. I think they turn off their Christian principles when scoring political points is at stake.
‘A chickenshit like Murtha’? He was in the Marines and fought in Korea. Does AC have credentials like that? Do you? Why does opposing a war make him a ‘chickenshit’? Is it always ‘cowardice’ to oppose a war? Does advocating the murder of people you dislike make AC ‘brave’?
I do owe you an apology, Calderone. Up above I made this reply:
*A challenge from the Pharyngula Chamber Pot: —
”the teachings of the Church as vouchsafed from error by God, we can know that they are true. How do we know that the teachings are vouchsafed by God?”
In truth, Cauldron; nobody ”knows”. God asks for our faith. Only unworthy SOB’s require God to fill out their questionnaire.”—-BUT, I was replying to one Caledonia, and typed your name instead. I should’ve paid more attention. Sorry.
My morality isn’t being challenged.
It’s Ann Coulter’s freedom of speech you have problems with, George. Freedom of speech has never turned me off. AND, as I already stated, I truly believe Coulter is only joshing. (Liberals lack a sense of humor. Ever see the scowls on faces of guys like Sean Penn, Cher, Tim Sarandon? ) –Whereas, Cool Ann is usually smiling, or smirking at the lefties. CLASS.
”He was in the Marines and fought in Korea. Does AC have credentials like that? Do you? Why does opposing a war make him [Murtha] a ‘chickenshit’? WHY? Because those are not his principles, or a Marine’s semper fi. They are political broadsides at the President. He cops out on our G.I.’s for political motives. Plus; HE SAYS LIES ABOUT THEM.
”Is it always ‘cowardice’ to oppose a war?” Not at all. It takes guts, when your best principles demand it. I’m a Catholic, and I even disagreed with Pope John Paul II –And, for a faithful Catholic to withstand the Pope; that takes more courage than opposing a President. Yet, my principles were more important. Plus, it’s not easy, or comforting to know that Iraq is costing American lives even now. It takes GUTS not to listen to chicken-shits like Murtha. The will-power to stay the course against all public opinion polls and political expediency.
It’s Ann Coulter’s freedom of speech you have problems with, George. Freedom of speech has never turned me off. AND, as I already stated, I truly believe Coulter is only joshing. (Liberals lack a sense of humor. Ever see the scowls on faces of guys like Sean Penn, Cher, Tim Sarandon? ) –Whereas, Cool Ann is usually smiling, or smirking at the lefties. CLASS.
You’re changing the subject, again, Tumbler. And you’re avoiding several of my questions, no surprise. And I notice you can’t come up with a leftist who advocates violence as AC does, nor can you defend your claim that an ex-Marine who fought in Korea is a ‘coward’ simply by opposing the war. Murtha is in his 70’s. No one’s going to put him in combat. If he wanted to take the easy way out, wouldn’t going along with everything Bush and Congress wants to do be the way to do that? Is setting himself up to be attacked (and possibly killed) by people like you and AC ‘cowardly’?
I have no problem with freedom of speech. I have problems with the sociopathic personality she presents with her dishonesty and advocacy of violence. It’s bizarre that as a supposed Christian, you find this admirable. You do not judge her harshly for advocating murder, as long as she smirks while she does this. You call this ‘class’. You *enjoy* it. All I can surmise is that Conservative Christianity in this country has ceased to be a religious movement and is now nothing more than a political movement, which has willingly surrendered any claim it has to the moral high ground. And I find it especially amazing that you find AC to be an acceptable, even desirable spokesman for your ‘faith’.
You object to what Murtha says. By your logic, shouldn’t that mean that YOU have a ‘problem with freedom of speech’? Why is that different?
So you suggest then, an ex-Marine is untouchable and can’t be criticized? Even if he’s lying about the armed forces in Iraq? Even if he wants us to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory; all on account of his hatred for Geo W. Bush?
Do we really want, or advocate the murdering of a stupid, chicken-shit politician? Ha ha!
You must think Ann Coulter is the second coming of John Wilkes Booth! Don’t be such a fool! Above all; don’t back LOSERS like your Democrat icons. At least go independent. Murtha doesn’t deserve your loyalty. HE’s unloyal to his own country; suggesting that we’ve ”lost” in Iraq. What a clown! Want to see a gallant ex-Marine, whom we KNOW is a Democrat with BALLS? —– ZELL MILLER! Check out HIS book, on Amazon.com. ”A Great Party No More.”
I knew you are young and a know-it-all; but not that you’re crazy. That I just find out here:
”And I find it especially amazing that you find AC to be an acceptable, even desirable spokesman for your ‘faith’.–” That’s hard to believe.
”Spokesman for your faith,” and you believe that! The inmates are running the asylum at Pharyngula. Stop him, Professor Myers, before he hurts himself! George escaped from the mental ward!!!!!!!
So you suggest then, an ex-Marine is untouchable and can’t be criticized?
Or murdered, Tumbler?
Even if he’s lying about the armed forces in Iraq? Even if he wants us to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory; all on account of his hatred for Geo W. Bush?
As usual, you’re avoiding several of my questions, Tumbler. Why is it ‘cowardice’ for a Marine combat vet to oppose the war? Why are you using that word? Can you match his miltary experience? I know AC can’t. Seems to me if his comments make people like you want to murder him, he’s got a lot more balls than you do. Tho I suppose it takes a lot of guts for AC to encourage people to murder him. Seems to have impressed you a lot.
snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory;
Really? You think we would win in Iraq, if only liberals could be silenced? I would urge you to find sources other than AC to tell you what the situation is like there.
So seriously, as a supposed ‘good Christian’, how can you stomach AC’s advocacy of violence? And given your admiration for her antics, why on earth should anyone take you seriously as ANY kind of moral authority? Seems to me that anyone seeking any kind of moral compass would do very well to avoid sharing any of your values, at all. I would urge you to find a value system that consists of more than nihilism mixed with hatred of liberals.
I think you’ve taken the ”murder” of your Big Marine as literal and real. Is it paranoia, or are you just crazy?
There IS no suggestion of murdering anybody. If you choose to interpret Coulter’s idea of black humor as an actual intention to murder; you’re not George Cauldron, you’re George’s senile Grandma, who runs away from her own shadow. Idiots like yourself insist on making a political football out of any pretext they can find. WHY?
They’re just full of hatred and envy. Get medical help, Grandma.
I think you’ve taken the ”murder” of your Big Marine as literal and real. Is it paranoia, or are you just crazy?
I’m just curious WHY, since you’re a Christian who’s convinced that he’s morally superior to everyone here, Coulter’s habitual jocular advocacy of violence (in several cases, not just Murtha) doesn’t violate your Christian principles. It seems to tickle you no end. But you’ve pretty much answered the question. You approve of it when it’s someone you dislike. Fine. You’re a splendid example of a Christian for all us heathens here.
Again, can you tell me why Murtha opposing the war is ‘cowardice’? Did you see combat in the Marines? Why is opposing the government ‘cowardly’?
Oh, I’m ”avoiding” these great, important questions?
you’re avoiding several of my questions, Tumbler. Why is it ‘cowardice’ for a Marine combat vet to oppose the war?
It’s not cowardice; I don’t see it for cowardice. It’s Democrat pedagoguery. Your hero is attacking Bush by way of the G.I. presence in Iraq. For purely political gain, not concern for our soldiers. And, he’s a poor liar; eveyone sees his subterfuge and the agenda behind it.
”Can you match his miltary experience? I know AC can’t.” These non sequiturs are pointless. Of course his experience is GLORIOUS! It’s his dishonesty and craven weakness that makes Murtha pathetic as a politician. He should’ve kept his dumb mouth shut; then Cool Ann wouldn’t be making fun of him. (That’s all she’s doing.)
”Seems to me if his comments make people like you want to murder him, he’s got a lot more balls than you do.” Not ”comments” Just his LIES; –Who is murdering him? You weasels are all character assassins, but I don’t call you murderers.
”Tho I suppose it takes a lot of guts for AC to encourage people to murder him.” Coulter is a woman of guts. But she isn’t encouraging anything except CONTEMPT for a Big Weasel. You can HAVE his balls, George.
”Seems to have impressed you a lot.” You aren’t very impressive to me, George. Not your debate style, your intelligence or your obstinate dullness. Ann Coulter is VERY impressive. Buy her book and see an impressive argument. Come out of the darkness into the light of reason. Ciao– I’m getting tired of your incredible silliness.
you’re avoiding several of my questions, Tumbler. Why is it ‘cowardice’ for a Marine combat vet to oppose the war?
it’s not cowardice; I don’t see it for cowardice.
But you called him ‘chickenshit’, Tumbler!
It’s Democrat pedagoguery. Your hero is attacking Bush by way of the G.I. presence in Iraq. For purely political gain, not concern for our soldiers.
Really! Nice that you can read minds, Tumbler. He seems quite sincere to lots of people. You have any actual EVIDENCE for this? Are you sure this isn’t just that you hate anyone opposing Bush?
And, he’s a poor liar; eveyone sees his subterfuge and the agenda behind it.
Well, given that you think AC exudes ‘class’, I should defer to you as a great judge of human character.
Not ”comments” Just his LIES; –Who is murdering him? You weasels are all character assassins, but I don’t call you murderers
Indeed you should not, since we don’t advocate the murder of our political opponents. That was easy.
”Tho I suppose it takes a lot of guts for AC to encourage people to murder him.” Coulter is a woman of guts. But she isn’t encouraging anything except CONTEMPT for a Big Weasel. You can HAVE his balls, George.
Geez, Tumbler, first you say she’s just kidding, now you say she’s got ‘guts’! Which is it?
”Seems to have impressed you a lot.” You aren’t very impressive to me, George. Not your debate style, your intelligence or your obstinate dullness. Ann Coulter is VERY impressive. Buy her book and see an impressive argument. Come out of the darkness into the light of reason. Ciao– I’m getting tired of your incredible silliness.
If I read her books will I too wish for the violent deaths of Congressmen, Supreme Court judges, and the NYTimes staff? Will I too make up nonsense about evolution? Will all of this then make sense to me? Will I immediately convert to Christianity?
Oh, BTW, Tumbler, you might want to check back in on the Coulter thread. Several people there seem to have questions for you. Something about some challenge you can’t seem to answer.
”BTW, Tumbler, you might want to check back in on the Coulter thread. Several people there seem to have questions for you. Something about some challenge you can’t seem to answer.”
This isn’t the Coulter thread? How many are there? Who is my challenger? I hope he/she’s brighter than you, George. I like answering questions; and so far no one in this site has given me much of a challenge. If by challenge you mean truth vs. error; all you do is support error and expect someone like me to present the truth. Only then you skip my answer and challenge along other lines, with further BS.
For instance; over and over I explained that I do not trash the theory of evlution. I do trash junk science. Yet, they kept coming back and calling me a Creationist who doesn’t believe in science! This is called intellectual dishonesty. Certainly not ”a challenge.”
Geez, Tumbler, you keep saying you’re leaving and you keep coming back. What’s up with you?
This thread, Tumbler:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/coulter_challenge_status_day_4.php#c118354
Apparently they’ve asked several questions you’re not answering. Might want to take care of that, prove how much smarter than the liberals you are.
And Tumbler? I really don’t care what your opinion of me is, so you might want to try a different angle. Your shrieking isn’t really going anywhere.
Wait, Tumbler, I just realized. Did you get this ‘debating’ style out of that book where Ann Coulter tells you guys how to ‘argue with a liberal’?
In that case, keep going. It’s working great.
Christopher:
Are you calling God a motherfucker? I’d never looked at it that way before.