Ace of Spades HQ

February 27, 2014

Atheism and Conservatism, Continued
— Ace

Three good pieces. I would say these three pieces essentially agree with one another:

Cooke: Atheism and conservatism are perfectly compatible.

A.J. Delgado: This particular group, American Atheists, should have been disinvited.

Goldberg: Both Cooke and Delgado are right.

Note, by the way, that Cooke concedes, early in the piece, that he's not defending this particular atheist group, which is, as I've termed it, particularly obnoxious, not "conservative" at all, and in fact rather partisan-seeming, as the only political targets they go after just happen to be on the right.

Delgado's piece reports this of this particular crew of zealous evangelical atheists:

Speaking of its CPAC sponsorship, the groupÂ’s president, David Silverman, said on CNN: Â“I am not worried about making the Christian Right angry. The Christian Right should be angry that we are going in to enlighten conservatives. The Christian Right should be threatened by us.Â”
These remarks triggered the revocation of the groupÂ’s sponsorship.

People do have the right to dissent, and to try to persuade other people, and I wouldn't fault an atheist, generally, for preaching atheism to the converted. But these guys, as I said, are especially obnoxious, and are, it seems, pre-announcing their dickishness and combativeness.

In my previous post on this matter I said CPAC could not be faulted for disinviting this crew of obnoxious people, but that I thought it would have been better to be more generous towards the principle of free expression than is necessary. That is, they had every reason to disinvite American Atheists, and every justification, but that it would have been better to bend over backwards to accommodate these guys.

Commenters objected: But they're just there to make trouble, and no one would consider inviting determined troublemakers to a convention of any sort.

After sober reflection, I now say: Commenters were, as they often are, right.

My bend-over-backwards advisory has limits; while I would still urge a bend-over-backwards policy with other atheist groups (including those who wish to preach atheism; everyone wants to preach their religion, after all), these guys have done more and more to make me look foolish for my argument in favor of heroic accommodation with those who disagree.

These guys did not plan to come to CPAC to inform, engage, and persuade convention-goers; they came to pick a fight, and a convention, and its conventioneers, have every right in the book to say, "No, I didn't spend $1500 to get here to be pestered by assholes."

If you read Cooke's piece, or my pieces, you'll note that we're both respectful towards those with whom we disagree over matters religious.*

At the end of the day, persuasion only happens in a climate of respect. No one's going to even listen to someone outright insulting them.

So if these guys were coming in with a disrespectful, we're-gonna-get-them kind of attitude, their efforts at "persuasion" would have been failures anyway, and they would have just been, as commenters said, Trolls With A Leaflet Booth.

Mea culpa.

I still think there is good sense in trying to think of reasons to include dissenting, oddball, or unpopular voices in any group, rather than defaulting to the standard human (not conservative, human) reflex of excluding them.

But when you're announcing as loudly as you can "I intend to Make Grief," you know, at that point I have to stop arguing for the inclusion of dissenting voices.

I'm pro-dissent, not pro-grief.

* You'll also notice that many atheists don't even attempt to persuade anyone that he's wrong about God, because, frankly, we 1, don't care, 2, don't think it's weird to believe in God (belief in God is as old as mankind itself), and 3, do not object particularly strongly to the pro-social effects of a restraining moral code.

One commenter, who was an atheist, told me two things in rapid succession:

1. I'm an atheist.

2. I'm pro-Christianity.

His reason for point 2 is that Christianity has generally served as a powerful force for social cohesion, morality (slavery was extinguished by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs), and freedom, given that Christianity is a religion that does tend to suggest a distinction between Caesar and God.

So his reasons for being "pro-Christianity" have nothing to do with metaphysics, and thus could be said to be "cynical" reasons. He wanted people to believe in things he personally did not believe in, because he saw positive social effects flowing from that (erroneous, in his mind) belief.

But in any event, there are a lot of atheists who really don't care very much what you believe.

In fact, most atheists don't care about these issues because they lack much of an interest in metaphysics whatsoever.

Oh: Another atheist friend and I frequently talk about Tim Tebow-- to praise him, and to knock his detractors.

Our point comes down to this: At the end of the day, it's not us secularists who are devoting our summers to assisting surgeons operating on the poor of the Philippines.

It's Christians (and other religiously-motivated people) who do that. We secularists use our off hours to please ourselves, not others.

So we can pat ourselves on the back all we like for being smart enough to see through this Mystical Hokum, but at the end of the day, we ain't the ones working hard on behalf of others. It's the people who believe who are doing that.

So what's our big claim to superiority? That we've intuited that we should devote ourselves to more Me Time?

Posted by: Ace at 08:03 AM | Comments (605)
Post contains 928 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Cooke is wrong on one crucial point. The origin of our civil rights.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:05 AM (tVTLU)

2 Delgado is ok, right on her article, but she is not really a conservative.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:06 AM (tVTLU)

3 Once again, inviting these people in to CPAC is kinda like asking an atheist to take over the pulpit on Sunday's 11am Mass. Stupid.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 27, 2014 08:06 AM (Z7PrM)

4 Goldberg is great for puppy pictures, but it's his kind of "thinking" that makes us lose over and over again. Same with George Will.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:06 AM (tVTLU)

5 >>>Delgado is ok, right on her article, but she is not really a conservative. well I didn't really say she was (but admittedly I know little about this writer). does it matter that she is not a conservative?

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:07 AM (/FnUH)

6 The issue should not be who we are or how we identify ourselves; it should be what do we collectively stand for and what are we fighting against and why?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 27, 2014 08:07 AM (olDqf)

7 One final point: Aside from Ace and some other fantastic bloggers mentioned, the list of "mainstream" "conservative" atheists is pretty much the who's who of what's wrong with the so-called "conservative intelligentsia". These people are why we lose every fucking time.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:07 AM (tVTLU)

8 >>> Goldberg is great for puppy pictures, but it's his kind of "thinking" that makes us lose over and over again. Same with George Will. this again? dog with a bone.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:08 AM (/FnUH)

9 Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. At least, it is when Republicans are in charge.

Posted by: NC Ref at February 27, 2014 08:08 AM (mNQxA)

10 >>> One final point: Aside from Ace and some other fantastic bloggers mentioned, the list of "mainstream" "conservative" atheists is pretty much the who's who of what's wrong with the so-called "conservative intelligentsia". These people are why we lose every fucking time. identity politics is awesomesauce.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:08 AM (/FnUH)

11 YESSSSSSS! We were right!!!!

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 27, 2014 08:08 AM (jlm/B)

What American Atheists was essentially saying was, "We're going to go protelytize to the masses, and we're going to use the captive audience of CPAC to spread the word about how Atheism kicks organized religion's ASS."

No one wants that. I wouldn't go to an event like CPAC featuring a religious group that was promising to disrespect my beliefs and try to convert me. That's not what the event is about. If they want to get up there and make the case for their group's mission and why I should support that and how it can work harmoniously with mine, great. If it's going to be confrontation for the sake of confrontation, forget it.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:09 AM (4df7R)

13 I have no problem with CPAC inviting true conservative atheists. I also have no problem with true conservative homosexuals being invited. Especially the one who quoted you Ace in attacking the ones who are making lawfare on the bakers and florists.

But this group is not a conservative group. I also don't think CPAC should invite RINOs like Graham and Christie either. RINOs have a right to their opinions, just as atheists do. But CPAC is supposed to be a venue for advancing conservatism.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 08:09 AM (T2V/1)

14 upon sober reflection Am unfamiliar with the concept.

Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at February 27, 2014 08:09 AM (CnA98)

15 No, not at all. That's just a head's up that Delgado is one that describes herself as conservative, so just wanted to front it for the readers where she's really at.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:09 AM (tVTLU)

16 Is there anywhere we can go to get away from these people? Somewhere they won't follow us?

Posted by: Frank Franklin Jr. at February 27, 2014 08:09 AM (hRrjh)

17 The Christian Right should be angry that we are going in to enlighten conservatives Scream all you want. Not me. But, I'm not the Christian Right. Just a believer.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 27, 2014 08:09 AM (UuQyC)

18 Didn't the atheists come with the express goal of trolling CPAC and the guests?

If so, then yeah, CPAC was absolutely within their right to toss them.

Posted by: EC at February 27, 2014 08:09 AM (GQ8sn)

19 I argue in favor of Christians' right to religious conscience, as do virtually all conservative-tilting atheists/agnostics, and yet, at the end of the day: We still get told, by a certain few, day in day out, you're not really *of* us, you don't really belong, you're not really part of this movement, you're f***ing everything up.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:10 AM (/FnUH)

20 Does anyone discussing this topic make the distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism? In my experience, and in my opinion, Agnosticism is a lack of belief.. Atheism is Militant disbelief. The one is tolerable, the other is not.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:10 AM (bb5+k)

21 does it matter that she is not a conservative? ---- Well, is she a Shark or a Jet?

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 27, 2014 08:10 AM (AQMFK)

"Identity politics". What? This is simple empirical observation. Review the list of those who consider themselves atheists and conservatives.

Their thinking/strategy/analysis is why we lose every time. George Will, Krauthammer, the list goes on...

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:10 AM (tVTLU)

23 >>>YESSSSSSS! We were right!!!! Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod ... it does hurt to say You Were Right And I Was Wrong. But, yeppers, you were.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:11 AM (/FnUH)

24 I'm sure the Netroots folks will welcome anybody who's aim is to start a ruckus.

Posted by: Frank Underwood at February 27, 2014 08:11 AM (e8kgV)

25 YESSSSSSS! We were right!!!! It's just how we roll....

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 08:11 AM (xZxMD)

26 It's like when Ace banhammered "Love Life" just a couple of days ago. He gave him a chance to speak his mind and argue his point, but his entire commenting was little more than "why are all of you so racist?" Nothing else to offer except to throw the race card early and often.

Posted by: EC at February 27, 2014 08:11 AM (GQ8sn)

27 Fret not, Ace. The Horde can usually see things coming from a long ways off. And it's not like we're anti-atheists or anything, but you knew that already, too.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (0HooB)

At the end of the day, persuasion only happens in a climate of respect. No one's going to even listen to someone outright insulting them.

Bingo.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (BAS5M)

29 Yeah, the problem isn't inviting atheists, it's inviting leftists.

Posted by: warden at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (bmp0d)

30 "I intend to Make Grief," In many ways, isn't this also the story of Barack Obama?

Posted by: Citizen X at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (7ObY1)

31 Nice post.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (gBnkX)

32 I think that I agree with Ace in that he is basically saying tolerance, debater, diversity and such are perfectly good so long as they are done in good faith. The problem is that with our enemies, they have no good faith.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (Hx5uv)

33 >>>In my experience, and in my opinion, Agnosticism is a lack of belief.. Atheism is Militant disbelief. wrong. I know why you think this -- because the Atheists you typically see shouting about atheism are militant -- but there are in fact lots of atheists (including on this site) who are not particularly loud nor militant about it.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (/FnUH)

34 Is there anywhere we can go to get away from these people? Somewhere they won't follow us?

A new life awaits you in the Off-World colonies!

Posted by: Shimato Dominguez Corporation at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (t8ySh)

35
Of course you can have conservative atheists.

** points at Ayn Rand

Unfortunatley.... most American atheists and atheist groups are decidedly liberal, and actively hostile.... if not virulently allergic .... to conservatism.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2014 08:12 AM (nELVU)

36 Personally, I stopped paying a great deal of attention to Bozell a long time ago because of his over-the-top (pun intended) attacks on professional wrestling, and I happen to be a fan. At least I was. I just don't have the time to watch it much any more. Bozell had this list of moral panic complaints about the (then) WWF, with its violence and sex and hints of lesbianism. God forbid I should work all day and pay my taxes and want to have a beer and watch some entertainment. Because children, apparently. Whatever. There are certain social cons -- not all of them, certainly, but it's undeniable that there are a few of them out there -- who have that urge to censor, just so long as they are the ones who get to decide what gets censored.

Posted by: Brewdog at February 27, 2014 08:13 AM (ZgUuK)

37 Get in their faces!

Posted by: Barack Obama, to his minions at February 27, 2014 08:13 AM (FcR7P)

Lack of conservatism is no bar to participation in CPAC. Just look at the fat fuck, Medved, etc., etc.

But I fully support the limiting of douchebaggery. Let them set up a botth and prosletyze. But once they start getting mugs faces, they're just another leftist who isn't wanted.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 27, 2014 08:13 AM (OJn3e)

39 As I read what Goldberg said: I think it was Bill Buckley who said Â— amidst a discussion of Ayn Rand Â— that one didnÂ’t need to be religious or a believer to be conservative, but one needed to have respect for the religious or Â“the transcendent.Â” ... it leaves plenty of room for people like Charlie, I think. I know plenty of good conservatives who are atheists or agnostics. But because they are conservatives, they understand that simply throwing the bleach of militant atheism on culture, custom and tradition to dissolve any hint of God or religion would be folly. And because they are liberty-lovers they understand that everyone has the right to their own faith. I thought of Ace when I read that. As a practicing Catholic, I feel quite welcome here. I don't need anyone to agree with me in order to have a productive discussion. That's why people like Penn Jillette and Camille Paglia (and Ace!) get my respect. They don't agree with what I believe, but would sincerely defend my right to believe it. As opposed the lip service that almost all liberals give to that concept.

Posted by: duke at February 27, 2014 08:13 AM (d3clc)

40 Is there anywhere we can go to get away from these people? Somewhere they won't follow us?
Posted by: Frank Franklin Jr.
..........
Kinda like the Jesus Freaks when I was in college...

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 27, 2014 08:13 AM (Z7PrM)

41 Is there anywhere we can go to get away from these people? Somewhere they won't follow us?

Posted by: Frank Franklin Jr. at February 27, 2014 12:09 PM (hRrjh)

Try my house.

Posted by: I AM at February 27, 2014 08:13 AM (BAS5M)

42 Okay, I looked up "mea culpa" in my old high school Latin dictionary, and it says "originally meant: 'but first, you will blow me' before morphing into the late Roman Empire usage of: 'my bad'." Those Romans sure became pussies after letting their gardening and maid help (the Huns) move in.

Posted by: Sharkman at February 27, 2014 08:13 AM (TM1p8)

43 In my experience, and in my opinion, Agnosticism is a lack of belief.. Atheism is Militant disbelief.

The one is tolerable, the other is not.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 12:10 PM (bb5+k)

I disagree. Agnosticism, to me, is indecision about belief. Atheism is the decision that you do NOT believe.

MILITANT atheism is what you get when atheists decide that they don't believe in anything, and therefore there should be no expression of belief by anyone else because it offends them and/or is a parochial kind of anachronistic pseudoscience. THOSE are the atheists who can go piss up a rope and hang themselves with it, for all I care.

Regular atheists -- like ace, for example -- have come to their own decision and I respect that. I don't agree, but I'm not trying to convert them, and I don't expect (or want) them to convert me.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:13 AM (4df7R)

44 I have always thought of atheists as being people who sat "there is no God" whereas an agnostic is one who says "I don't know whether there is or not".

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 08:14 AM (T2V/1)

45 Atheists are the only religious group in America legally allowed to use Government to force their belief system on others.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 27, 2014 08:14 AM (+5bkH)

46 Maybe they could share a booth w/ Phelps' bunch.

Posted by: BignJames at February 27, 2014 08:14 AM (j7iSn)

47 CABINET Holder hospitalized after experiencing 'faintness and shortness of breath' FYI

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 27, 2014 08:14 AM (t3UFN)

48 There is a huge difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist." One is personal opinion, the other is Dogma.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 27, 2014 08:15 AM (+5bkH)

49 I further wish to express the opinion that Atheists only exist in our society due to the tolerance created by the ocean of Judeo-Christian principles in which they float. I am also of the opinion that Atheism is incapable of governing a society, and any society so constituted would collapse in less than a single generation. I have this example to which I can point. http://www.wholereason.com/2011/02/liberal-mo-a-failed-atheist-social-experiment.html

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:15 AM (bb5+k)

50 Glad you came around to it Ace. I have zero issue with an athiest group boothing at CPAC in good faith. But this crew...nothing but a bunch of rabble-rousers up to no good.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 27, 2014 08:15 AM (qBtUE)

16: "Is there anywhere we can go to get away from these people? Somewhere they won't follow us?"

A church that still adheres to the Bible?

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 27, 2014 08:15 AM (f6ZLT)

52 No you can persuade at swordpoint as well...ask Air France and the atheist flight attendant who converted to Islam in Morocco at gunpoint. The left wields swords. I don't think it is my place to hard-sell persuade for Godl pity the evangelical atheist can't adopt the same bent. All respect Ace, unless something's changed I'm still fairly certain you're agnostic. When I was agnotic during my renounced days I got pretty angry about evangelical atheists. I did not try to shake others' faith I just asked my Christian friends to accept mine was.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 27, 2014 08:16 AM (TE35l)

53 "but there are in fact lots of atheists (including on this site) who are not particularly loud nor militant about it.

Posted by: ace"

And there are plenty of agnostics who are.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 27, 2014 08:16 AM (fk1A8)

54 So, once they say "There is no God and you're a bunch of hicks for thinking there is " exactly what does the "enlightening" consist of? Because that sales pitch hasn't sold me.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 27, 2014 08:16 AM (0Ng0w)

55 I find your lack of belief in otherworldly powers to be....disturbing.

brb, gotta run some dwarves off the property.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2014 08:16 AM (Q9qpj)

What does a "right to religious conscience" mean though?

I was an atheist. I don't care what anyone believes in. But I do care about flawed analysis. Which is what Cooke performs at the core of his article.

This debate should be over. It happened over 100 yrs ago. Without some type of absolute morals, there is horror, misery, and chaos. We've all witnessed the results in the last century.

Our rights as human beings do not come from some utilitarian principle, do not come from Gaia, as Cooke seems to imply what Jefferson was saying, which is laughable, do not come from men, do not come from reason, do not come from logic.

Reason and logic can be used to justify anything. Even Buddha and Confuscius recognized this.

Our rights come from our God given human souls, which are individual and priceless. This fact, or belief if you will, is what our country is based on. If we deny that, in law, then the whole structure comes crashing down. Which is why the left attacks it mercilessly.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:16 AM (tVTLU)

57 Yeah, if these guys were Atheists Against Amnesty, or Non-Believers for a Strong Defense or Agnostics Against Obamacare ... then, yeah, invite them in and give them a booth. But these guys were clearly just Atheists Who Think Conservative Christians are Scum. There whole platform is just to abuse, dehumanize, and Otherize a major segment of the conservative coalition.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 08:16 AM (ZPrif)

58 45 Atheists are the only religious group in America legally allowed to use Government to force their belief system on others. Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 27, 2014 12:14 PM (+5bkH) I've often thought shit could get real interesting real fast if you could get SCOTUS to declare secularism a religion...because it is one.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 27, 2014 08:17 AM (oFCZn)

59 44 Yeah, that's my understanding to. The words themselves suggest it. Atheists are the ones who believe there isn't a God, and agnostics don't know or believe that the answer to the question "is there a God" is itself unknowable.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 27, 2014 08:17 AM (AQMFK)

19: "We still get told, by a certain few, day in day out, you're not really *of* us, you don't really belong, you're not really part of this movement, you're f***ing everything up."

Funny. We feel the same way what with all the "Shutup SoCon and suck the dick" type stuff we seem to hear regularly from our "betters".

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 27, 2014 08:17 AM (LJpVo)

61
The 'Activist Gay' movement model that not only demands equality (whatever that term means now), but also requires the vanquished renounce all convictions and beliefs to the contrary.

Well oiled machine.

(And I could give a shit less if anyone is gay)

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 08:17 AM (BZAd3)

62 Okay, I looked up "mea culpa" in my old high school Latin dictionary, and it says "originally meant: 'but first, you will blow me' before morphing into the late Roman Empire usage of: 'my bad'." Those Romans sure became pussies after letting their gardening and maid help (the Huns) move in.

Posted by: Sharkman at February 27, 2014 12:13 PM (TM1p

Nice.

Posted by: EC at February 27, 2014 08:18 AM (GQ8sn)

63 Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 12:10 PM (/FnUH) Meh, sometimes in our zeal we confuse thin political communities with thick moral communities ace. You want smaller government, more personal responsibility: you're in my political circle. I'll probably even call you friend. Having said that, you're really not a member of my thick moral community. Which is fine as long as pluralism exists there will be differing communities. But IMHO, we should not confuse the two for a variety of reasons.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 27, 2014 08:18 AM (hq5sb)

64 It's almost like installing John Shelby Spong as an Episcopal Bishop..., oh..., wait...

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 27, 2014 08:18 AM (aDwsi)

65 "But when you're announcing as loudly as you can "I intend to Make Grief," you know, at that point I have to stop arguing for the inclusion of dissenting voices." About covers it for me. And with a little online research, groups will often telegraph exactly what they hope to do at an event.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 27, 2014 08:18 AM (A98Xu)

66 I'm kind of over CPAC. Maybe it's just the way the attendees talk about it on social media, but this year it seems like it's just another nerdprom for the connected.

No offense, reigning Blogger of the Year.

Posted by: HR at February 27, 2014 08:18 AM (ZKzrr)

67 Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Rodney King at February 27, 2014 08:19 AM (R5UOB)

68 Making grief is the highest form of patriotism!

Posted by: American Atheists at February 27, 2014 08:19 AM (1Rgee)

69 Posted by: Rodney King at February 27, 2014 12:19 PM (R5UOB) You forgot the zombie qualifier!

Posted by: Adam at February 27, 2014 08:19 AM (Aif/5)

70 Without some type of absolute morals, there is horror, misery,and chaos. Just pick and choose the morals you'd like to follow and it's all good.

Posted by: Eric Holder at February 27, 2014 08:19 AM (FcR7P)

71 that one didnÂ’t need to be religious or a believer to be conservative, but one needed to have respect for the religious or Â“the transcendent.Â” Yeah, that's me. Not particularly religious, but respectful of the religious of any stripe. I hate to see the leftist boots stomping on the faces of the faithful. This morning I was comparing it to painting the Star of David on Jewish establishments and the signs, 'Kauf nicht bei Juden'. We've all seen what happens when society heads down that road.

Posted by: SE Pa Moron [/i] at February 27, 2014 08:20 AM (CnA98)

Maybe they could share a booth w/ Phelps' bunch.

Meh. We're Democrats anyway.

Posted by: Westboro Baptist Church at February 27, 2014 08:20 AM (5iuEW)

73 wrong. I know why you think this -- because the Atheists you typically see shouting about atheism are militant -- but there are in fact lots of atheists (including on this site) who are not particularly loud nor militant about it. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 12:12 PM (/FnUH) Perhaps so, but a belief that there is *NOT* a higher power is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is. In my opinion, Agnosticism is the only rational alternative to religion. Those who prefer to identify themselves as "Atheist" eschew objectivity in favor of feeling smug and superior. At least that is my experience from arguing with many such in the past. I'm agnostic.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:20 AM (bb5+k)

74 Atheists, militant or not, don't bother me in the slightest. 1. If I'm wrong, I've wasted nothing but some of my time. If they are wrong........ 2. Keep pushing me & you will find out if there is a God.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 08:21 AM (xZxMD)

75 Conservatism, as most western ideologies are, is heavily based on Christian morality. As such, Atheism actually is at odds with conservatism .

However, American conservatism allows room for people to follow their own beliefs. So, individual atheists should be welcomed into conservative circles if they accept the basic ideology of conservatism....

Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 08:21 AM (P3U0f)

76 I was always under the impression that morality is impossible apart from the existence of God (Who establishes and determines that morality in His perfect Law), and that conservatism seeks to conserve the foundations of this morality. In my opinion, the two are inseparable. Thoughts?

Posted by: RedWhiteAndTrue at February 27, 2014 08:21 AM (RHyYH)

77 Posted by: HR at February 27, 2014 12:18 PM (ZKzrr) I've been to their road show trimmed down version, and even there it was basically that. I feel bad for the people who paid like $200 to get in actually. It was sorta like a tent revival, we cheer, we shout, we listen to speeches. Meanwhile all around us connected people are discussing and plotting their next moves. But don't expect them to even acknowledge you, you're too small.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 27, 2014 08:21 AM (hq5sb)

78 This debateshould beover. It happened over 100 yrs ago. Without some type of absolute morals, there is horror, misery,and chaos. We've all witnessed the results in the last century.
.............
The Muslims have a very nice code of absolute morals.. even more stringent than ours. We should perhaps adopt Sharia?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 27, 2014 08:22 AM (Z7PrM)

79 How many of you Morons know that if you are an atheist or an agnostic you can not be a member of the Moose Club or the Masons?

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 08:22 AM (T2V/1)

80 Looks like Holder is vopor locking. In the hospital? We can only hope for the best possible outcome.......

Posted by: maddogg at February 27, 2014 08:22 AM (xWW96)

81 I will also point out that religion is the ultimate "Chesterton's Fence". Atheists are always wanting to remove it without really understanding what it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:22 AM (bb5+k)

82 I wish cpac would get rid of that dishonet conservatives against the death penalty. I have no doubt there are conservatives that object to the dp. However, this group just promulgates dishonest arguments and is finally supported by a Soros group.

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (6Nj7A)

83 Would you care to make a little wager?

Posted by: Blaise Pascal at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (Q9qpj)

84 these particular "conservative atheists" strike me as Concern Weigels.

Posted by: X at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (KHo8t)

85 >>>And with a little online research, groups will often telegraph exactly what they hope to do at an event. yeah part of the problem, which I didn't discuss, was this: CPAC apparently invited this group (or agreed to invite them, after being asked if they could come) without doing proper research. So part of my argument (which was actually entirely unexpressed) was: "You effed up, now what is your best play to get out of this mess? You've not made this a story (CNN wrote about the invitation), how do you escape with minimum damage?" I didn't really discuss that though. But I was thinking that, in background.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (/FnUH)

One other thing: The trick bag about First Amendment rights is that the Civil Rights Act absolutely violated the First Amendment and is unconstitutional.

So how do we deal with that. Of course, the way it should have been dealt with in the first place, which is to pass a Constitutional Amendment that states what the Civil Rights Act says. As a country, even though in the normal course racism may be protected in the First Amendment, i.e., freedom of association (which implies and asserts the negative), we have all agreed that discrimination against a person based on sex, religion, color or creed, race, is normally unacceptable in a public business.

For other things like gay sex or abortificent drugs, no fucking way. The line is drawn right there. I will never accept that restriction on our First Amendment rights, and frankly, no one else should either. The response is simple.

Fuck you. War.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (tVTLU)

87 58 Dack Thrombosis, Yup, AGW is an evangelical faith... It's interesting of all the liberty being whinged over this decade the ONE no court degends is economic liberty. Al Gore Pope of Gaia gets to control your economy.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (TE35l)

David Silverman is no Mal Reynolds.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (BAS5M)

89 CPAC is a private shindig that you pay to get in. They can disinvite anyone they want. That group got a problem with that, maybe they should sue. I hear that's how minds and hearts are won these days.

Posted by: votermom at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (QeeYP)

90 I call those people Ace, "actual atheists". Most combative atheists I've encountered believe in atheism as a wedge point to wage combat, because that is what they want to do.

Posted by: djq at February 27, 2014 08:23 AM (rYmoh)

91 I still want to know just why it was that no one at CPAC worked the google on the internet machine prior to saying sure you can have a booth. Also, I cannot believe the Horde has been ignoring the utter hilarity of where it is that CPAC is being held, given various other CPAC kerfuffles. It's like I don't even know you anymore!

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 27, 2014 08:24 AM (VtjlW)

92 79 How many of you Morons know that if you are an atheist or an agnostic you can not be a member of the Moose Club or the Masons? Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2014 12:22 PM (T2V/1) How about the Mickey Mouse Club?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 27, 2014 08:24 AM (oFCZn)

93 Once again, inviting these people in to CPAC is kinda like asking an atheist to take over the pulpit on Sunday's 11am Mass. - There is a funny movie from the 60s entitled Little Murders in which a raging feminist marries a milquetoast (Elliot Gould). She is an atheist although she goes to some new age church where they don't believe in God and never mention him. Her father is upset that there will be no mention of God at the wedding so he bribes the reverend, Donald Sutherland, to mention God. He takes the money. He begins the wedding with these inspiring thoughts: Why does one decide to marry? Social pressure? Boredom? Loneliness? Sexual appeasement? Love? I won't put any of these reasons down. Each in its own way is adequate, each is all right. Last year, I married a musician who wanted to get married in order to stop masturbating. Please, don't be startled, I'm not putting him down. That marriage did not work. But the man tried. He is now separated, still masturbating, but he is at peace with himself because he tried society's way. Now, just last month, I married a novelist to a painter. Everyone at the wedding ceremony was under the influence of an hallucinogenic drug. The drug quickened our mental responses, slowed our physical responses, and the whole ceremony took two days to perform. Never have the words had such meaning! He then says that he is taking the money but won't mention the Deity because betrayal is a part of life too.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 27, 2014 08:24 AM (Hx5uv)

94 At the end of the day, persuasion only happens in a climate of respect. No one's going to even listen to someone outright insulting them.

Well if you've never said to yourself "Huh, that SOB was right I was being an asshole about X" you're a better man than me. Or you have politer friends.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:24 AM (DL2i+)

95 32 I think that I agree with Ace in that he is basically saying tolerance, debater, diversity and such are perfectly good so long as they are done in good faith. The problem is that with our enemies, they have no good faith. Posted by: WalrusRex at February 27, 2014 12:12 PM (Hx5uv) "The left does not accept laws it doesn't like. They just don't." --Rush Limbaugh-- http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/25/media_soap_opera_turns_to_jan_brewer

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:25 AM (bb5+k)

96 79 Vic, I mentioned it a few days ago. God comes first, the Document second. America honors neither.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 27, 2014 08:25 AM (TE35l)

97 OT: Just saw that Eric Scolder was hospitalized earlier for faintness/shortness of breath. (vayr ge hargit, momzer)

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 27, 2014 08:25 AM (olDqf)

98 Having never been to CPAC, is it really a 'conservative' get together? I have to be honest - it's really hard to determine based on what you read.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 27, 2014 08:25 AM (R5UOB)

99 Looks like Holder is vopor locking. In the hospital? We can only hope for the best possible outcome.......

Posted by: maddogg at February 27, 2014 12:22 PM (xWW96)

At the very least we can hope he gets an antibiotic-resistant Staph infection. MRSA, baby.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:25 AM (4df7R)

100 80 Looks like Holder is vopor locking. In the hospital? We can only hope for the best possible outcome.......

Posted by: maddogg at February 27, 2014 12:22 PM (xWW96)

My father repeatedly counseled me growing up, he said, "Don't be a jackass. I'll make you sick."

He was a very wise man.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 08:25 AM (BZAd3)

101 "Does anyone discussing this topic make the distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism?" I do. I'm agnostic, but I have very little use for people who get together and have meetings to talk obsessively about their atheism. There may be lots of conservative atheists out there but I have serious doubts that conservative atheist groups exist.

Posted by: Crazy Bald Guy at February 27, 2014 08:25 AM (fUROf)

102 Without some type of absolute morals, there is horror, misery,and chaos.
***
Modern western political history has been a consistent replay of leftists taking over a society and knocking out the underlying Christian moral structure to "free" people...and then seeing society devolve into a brutal nightmare - see Revolutionary France, National Socialist Germany, the USSR, etc...

One would have thought the lesson in the first case would have been definitive...France almost destroyed itself to replace a largely ineffectual despot (Louis XIV) with a warmongering and bloodthirsty one (Napoleon). Yet the left will not stop trying the same thing over and over again.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 08:26 AM (P3U0f)

103 "Perhaps so, but a belief that there is *NOT* a higher power is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is." For argument's sake: Failure to hold a belief because of an absence of evidence for that belief is not a matter of faith.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 27, 2014 08:26 AM (gBnkX)

104 The GOP does need to be a place where secular people feel comfortable, and you can't tell me with a straight face that someone who doesn't go to Church is going to feel comfortable with a political party that wants to regulate birth control, outlaw sodomy, and talk about the blessings of rape babies.

Is this the mainstream position of conservatives? No, but we just lost in VA with a Gubernatorial candidate that pushed all of those issues, so it is out there. We need to shoot these people down, if they want to wade into those issues, join a Ministry.

Most of these are dumb issues anyway that no politician is ever going to be able to regulate, so drop it. We're losing voters en masse for nothing.

Posted by: Uniden at February 27, 2014 08:26 AM (13G+x)

105 I was always under the impression that morality is impossible apart from the existence of God (Who establishes and determines that morality in His perfect Law), and that conservatism seeks to conserve the foundations of this morality. In my opinion, the two are inseparable. Thoughts?
..........
Which God?

For the sake of argument, let's pick the Judeo-Christian God..

His Perfect Law? Is that the Southern Baptist version? The Roman Catholic version? Lutheran?

If it is so perfect, why can't even the fervent believers agree on what the law is?

In the end, society is ruled by people agreeing what the laws should be.. some of those people are influenced by their religious beliefs, some not.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 27, 2014 08:26 AM (Z7PrM)

106 I think Holder should be airlifted to Havana and then he can get an asshole transplant from Tom Harkin.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 27, 2014 08:26 AM (olDqf)

107 89 CPAC is a private shindig that you pay to get in.
They can disinvite anyone they want.
That group got a problem with that, maybe they should sue. I hear that's how minds and hearts are won these days.

Posted by: votermom at February 27, 2014 12:23 PM (QeeYP)

Under our "new jurisprudence" there is no such thing as a "private event or private property" if you deny the latest fad in PC,

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 08:26 AM (T2V/1)

108 Looks like Holder is vopor locking. In the hospital? We can only hope for the best possible outcome....... - Slow, lingering, painful, and expensive death?

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 27, 2014 08:26 AM (Hx5uv)

109 Tell me what you are in favor of, and I'll tell you who you are. Tell me what you are against and I'll tell you who you think you are...

Posted by: M. Murcek at February 27, 2014 08:26 AM (GJUgF)

110 Err..ah...I am no longer an atheist. It's hot down here.

Posted by: Zombie Uncle Ted Kennedy at February 27, 2014 08:27 AM (Dwehj)

111 I don't know ... this all seems kinda racist.

Posted by: Humorless Prude Looking to Take Offense at February 27, 2014 08:27 AM (ZPrif)

112 Just saw that Eric Scolder was hospitalized earlier for faintness/shortness of breath.

-----

Cue the MFM screaming.... "SEE WHAT YOU RETHUGLICANS HAVE DONE!!!!"..... in 5...4...3....2

Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2014 08:27 AM (nELVU)

113 I do. I'm agnostic, but I have very little use for people who get together and have meetings to talk obsessively about their atheism. - Me too.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 27, 2014 08:28 AM (Hx5uv)

114 92 How about the Mickey Mouse Club?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 27, 2014 12:24 PM (oFCZn)

Do they still even have that. Is Zombie Annette Funiccello there?

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 08:28 AM (T2V/1)

115

94: "Or you have politer friends."

I was told I would be getting those #twoweeks.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 27, 2014 08:28 AM (LJpVo)

116 107 Exactly. Let them sue. Might as well do the slalom down this slippery slope.

Posted by: votermom at February 27, 2014 08:28 AM (bIdl2)

117

Shall we hold a candlelight vigil for good old Erik? Leftards fucking love meaningless gestures.

Posted by: maddogg at February 27, 2014 08:28 AM (xWW96)

118 After sober reflection, I now say: Commenters were, as they often are, right. Damn. There'll be no living with us now.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at February 27, 2014 08:29 AM (da5Wo)

119
In my ignorant opinion; not much good can come from arguing something that is unknowable - from any perspective. (Which itself is not an argument for or against faith)

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 08:29 AM (BZAd3)

120 I call those people Ace, "actual atheists". Most combative atheists I've encountered believe in atheism as a wedge point to wage combat, because that is what they want to do.

Posted by: djq at February 27, 2014 12:23 PM (rYmoh)

I think that militant or combative atheists (nice term) are not actually atheist so much as they are anti-Christian. They HATE Christianity with such a passion that it's a religion unto itself for them. Sure, they dislike Judaism, too, but not so much as Christianity, and I doubt they give a thought to Islam. Militant atheism is all about destroying everything that Christianity stands for, all outward expression of it, until there is nothing left. Their belief in anti-Christianity is as strong as any Southern Baptist preacher's belief in the Almighty. THEY will be the ones worshipping the Antichrist when he arrives.

They're terrible, terrible people.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:29 AM (4df7R)

121 Meh. If Holder croaks, they've got a very deep bench of freaks and tyrants to take his place. And that's the problem.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 27, 2014 08:29 AM (olDqf)

122 I'm guessing Mr. Holder's heart issues are as convenient as my "stroke"

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at February 27, 2014 08:29 AM (Q6pxP)

123 Thank you Ace for writing about this again. I know the other day you responded to one of my posts in a negative way. And to be honest I felt somewhat bad about it. I'm somewhat confused about the founding fathers and that our rights come from a "higher power", "deity". Any way, I guess what I am saying is that you can be a conservative, libertarian or anything you want to be whether religious or not. I know several atheists, wish they weren't. I've told them what I believe and left it that. Its the militant anything that I have a hard time with, whether it's the Westboro Baptists, The Gaystapo, The Freedom From Religion/Ann Gaylor Group, etc. Once again, thanks for bringing it back up and thank you for letting me comment.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2014 08:29 AM (HVff2)

124 I think humanitarian (?) atheism borrows a lot from Christian morals. I don't think atheism can stand on its own promoting any sort of morals. Not that there are no moral atheists. I'm sure there are quite a few who live much better lives than some fervently religious folks. But that's a different issue. Of course, atheists can be conservatives. There are many examples. It's another question whether it is a completely coherent combination of viewpoints. Just my 2 c.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 08:29 AM (r+7wo)

125 FWIW, I still stand by what I said originally. CPAC is an intentionally charged event. And at this event you're going to have a chunk of very committed and vocal religious folks. And it's going be under a media microscope. As such, it's probably generally a bad idea to let in a group that might cause a scene accordingly. FWIW, I think there are several different issues where this is going to be true. These people are a chunk your base and they're going to be fired up and looking for a fight, because that's the purpose of CPAC. choose your booth groups accordingly.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 27, 2014 08:29 AM (hq5sb)

126

Chi-Town Jerry:

We were talking about atheistic religions and what they do to THEIR OWN PEOPLE. I've never known a muslim country to sacrifice fellow similar thinking muslims to thoughtless genocide.

Muslims/Christians, etc., all people and all religions have done bad things. Granted.

But societies based on a revolt from ANY religious belief, that is very recent, and there is no golden age. There is only genocide/slaughter.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:30 AM (tVTLU)

127 Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was taken to MedStar Washington Hospital Center on Thursday morning after experiencing faintness and shortness of breath.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said Holder, 63, had complained of the symptoms during his regular morning meeting with senior staff.

... let's all say a prayer ... but keep our intentions between ourselves and God

Posted by: Frank Underwood at February 27, 2014 08:30 AM (e8kgV)

128 -
66. "nerdprom for the connected"

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

Heh. Is nerdprom yours? Don't really care, I'm stealing it anyway.

Posted by: irright at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (pMGkg)

129 106 I think Holder should be airlifted to Havana and then he can get an asshole transplant from Tom Harkin.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 27, 2014 12:26 PM (olDqf)

Seconded.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (BZAd3)

130 Holder hospitalized after experiencing 'faintness and shortness of breath' Does that buy him as much time as a concussion?

Posted by: Hillary at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (FcR7P)

131 "Having never been to CPAC, is it really a 'conservative' get together?"

As far as I can tell it isn't about promoting conservatism, it's about exposure for pundits and politicians. At the end of the day it doesn't accomplish shit.

Posted by: lowandslow at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (IV4od)

132 Thanks to Pixy or whomever for fixing whatever it was on the main page that was taking so long to load.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (0HooB)

133 Chi-Town, the key point should be on His grace and not human interpretations of doctrine. One is quite perfect. The other is not.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (0Ng0w)

134 The Muslims have a very nice code of absolute morals.. even more stringent than ours. We should perhaps adopt Sharia?
***
Islam is preferable to atheism - there is no serious question...and that is why under Islam the scattered Arab tribes united into one of the most successful empires of all time.

As a bastardized version of Christianity, Judaism, and Arab trial beliefs it is inferior to the first two, but compare the Caliphate at its worst to Communism at its best...

To the point someone else mentioned, the reason organized religion exists is to allow the formation of a society based on something other then blood ties or terror. Islam provides a way for that...atheism, ultimately, does not.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (P3U0f)

135 Regular atheists -- like ace, for example -- have come to their own decision and I respect that. I don't agree, but I'm not trying to convert them, and I don't expect (or want) them to convert me. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 27, 2014 12:13 PM (4df7R) I'm not trying to convert them either, i'm merely pointing out that Atheism seems to share the trait of communism in so far as they want to include everyone else in it. I personally think it was the influence of Christianity which advanced technology and brought Western Civilization to greatness. http://www.bede.org.uk/ I think Atheism is like Islamism. A recipe for societal stagnation and/or collapse. I am a Pro-Theist agnostic, if that makes any sense.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (bb5+k)

136 Holder hospitalized? Hmmm. I was saddened to hear this morning that comedian Little Timmy Wilson passed away last night. He was funny. RIP

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (HVff2)

137 I love Jonah Goldberg's stuff.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 08:31 AM (r+7wo)

138 I hope he gets him somma that good Zerocare.

Posted by: maddogg at February 27, 2014 08:32 AM (xWW96)

139 "In fact, most atheists don't care about these issues because they lack much of an interest in metaphysics whatsoever." I don't know if this is true or not, and you don't either. The problem is that 99.9% of the vocal atheists are also anti-theists, including American Atheists. And because of that Cooke's article is a straw man. Early on he concedes he wont be talking about American Atheists specifically and then proceeds to argue against something Bozell never said. He attacked American Atheists correctly describing what they are, and rightly so.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 27, 2014 08:32 AM (rsudF)

140 Without a shaman, how do atheists keep their tribe together?

Posted by: Fritz at February 27, 2014 08:32 AM (UzPAd)

141 Everyone ought to believe in something.

I believe I will have another drink.

Posted by: Zombie W. C. Fields at February 27, 2014 08:32 AM (V70Uh)

142 48 There is a huge difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist." One is personal opinion, the other is Dogma. Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 27, 2014 12:15 PM (+5bkH) Exactly how I see it.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:32 AM (bb5+k)

143 Sounds like Mr. Holder should stick to anal and not try oral. Remember, sucking and swallowing at the same time are not advised.

Posted by: Hints from Heloise at February 27, 2014 08:32 AM (R5UOB)

144 O/T... Lois Lerner may very well testify before congress if given immunity... Eric Holder Hospitalized 'as a precaution'... Hmmmm... Eric Retires for 'health reasons' and Big O gives him a Pardon 'to stop the partisan witch hunt'?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 08:32 AM (84gbM)

145

Evangelical atheists always throw a big huffy fit when someone says "Merry Christmas" or "God bless you", yet the rest of us are supposed to be called rubes and idiots without saying boo. Fuck that noise.

I'm a mediocre Catholic, and have always been a little uncomfortable when Evangelicals talk a lot about religion. But you know what, that's my problem, not theirs. They mean well, and I would never mock or belitte them for doing what they believe God wants them to. So this angry little bunch of Jesus-haters can fuck right off; they don't have the right to sit at a place and mock believers.

Posted by: UGAdawg at February 27, 2014 08:33 AM (osx1V)

146 Holder hospitalized after experiencing 'faintness and shortness of breath' - Don't get your hopes up. Remember Reid's car accident? There was scarcely a pause in his lying.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 27, 2014 08:33 AM (Hx5uv)

147 I believe I will have another drink.

Posted by: Zombie W. C. Fields at February 27, 2014 12:32 PM (V70Uh)

rotfl

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 08:33 AM (BZAd3)

148 Posted by: Uniden at February 27, 2014 12:26 PM (13G+x) I lol'd.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 27, 2014 08:33 AM (A98Xu)

149 Without a shaman, how do atheists keep their tribe together?

Posted by: Fritz at February 27, 2014 12:32 PM (UzPAd)

----

"Othering" is a strong, social glue....

Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2014 08:34 AM (nELVU)

150 Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was taken to MedStar Washington Hospital Center Suck it, proles! No waiting in Obamacare chat rooms for me!

Posted by: Eric Holder at February 27, 2014 08:34 AM (FcR7P)

151 In my experience, evangelical athiests don't disbelieve in God so much as they are angry with him. These are deeply unhappy and dissatisfied people who brim with rage at their inability to gain control over their lives. Things should be different, see? They deserve more success and respect t then they've been able to obtain. SOMEONE is to blame and it sure as shit isn't them.

Posted by: warden at February 27, 2014 08:34 AM (bmp0d)

152

Wait until Holder gets his ObamaCare bills for this medical emergency.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 27, 2014 08:34 AM (BAS5M)

153 Just saw that Eric Scolder was hospitalized earlier for faintness/shortness of breath.

I guess the 1st circuit finally got around to empaneling a grand jury for his criminal contempt charge.

Maybe they'll bring him to the Columbia Federal Court next month while I am on jury duty. I will BEG to be pulled for the jury and I will pinky swear to be fair and balanced in my justice (just like him under my breath).

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 08:34 AM (T2V/1)

154 120 MWR, It's a lot like the Democrats thinking allying with ValJar's MB buddies is smart 'cause "we hate the GOP too".... The West will miss Christianity when Islam gets Sharia here. Louis Fairy Can was pushing for it this week.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 27, 2014 08:34 AM (TE35l)

155 You know, those Meerkat houses don't have the best circulation.

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 08:34 AM (5p3Fk)

156 140 Without a shaman, how do atheists keep their tribe together?

Posted by: Fritz at February 27, 2014 12:32 PM (UzPAd)

I get paid quite well to be a sham-man

Posted by: Al Gore at February 27, 2014 08:34 AM (Q6pxP)

157 140. 140 Without a shaman, how do atheists keep their tribe together? Duct tape

Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 27, 2014 08:35 AM (71nnc)

158 Many of the true-believer atheists I have encountered have been ex-Christians of one stripe or another who have reacted violently to the bad behavior of current Christians of one stripe or another. Primarily, it boils down to: I don't wanna stop doing what I'm doing just because you and God say so, and I don't want shame attached to my own bad behavior, so I'm getting rid of God and telling all of you to go to hell, too.

The sane atheists I meet just don't care one way or another, which is the much more reasonable position, IMO.

Either way, it's sort of sad to me (but probably not to them) that they miss out on all the love and peace that Christianity can bring. But, nobody is forcing any of them one way or another.

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 08:35 AM (fwcEs)

159

@ Chi-Town Jerry - greeting from a fellow Chi-Berian. :-)

the question of "which God" presupposes the existence of God, which then presupposes the existence of His absolute morality codified in His Law. If you concede these points, we are simply discussing the differences in individual, human (flawed) interpretation of the perfect Law, which, I would guess, is not the discussion you're wishing to have?

Thanks for responding.

Posted by: RedWhiteAndTrue at February 27, 2014 08:35 AM (RHyYH)

160 "19 I argue in favor of Christians' right to religious conscience, as do virtually all conservative-tilting atheists/agnostics, and yet, at the end of the day: We still get told, by a certain few, day in day out, you're not really *of* us, you don't really belong, you're not really part of this movement, you're f***ing everything up. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 12:10 PM (/FnUH) " I don't find that to be true myself when interacting with so called conservative atheists. Many are very vocal anti-theists. My experience is that you and Cooke and AP (for the most part) are the exception, not the rule.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 27, 2014 08:35 AM (rsudF)

161 I believe I will have another drink.

Posted by: Zombie W. C. Fields at February 27, 2014 12:32 PM (V70Uh)

Really?

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 08:36 AM (BZAd3)

162 So what's our big claim to superiority? That we've intuited that we should devote ourselves to more Me Time? Ah materialism. Such a sad state of existence.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 27, 2014 08:36 AM (hq5sb)

163 There's often a nexus of positions that comes with atheism that I have noted. Say on social media, but it's a meat world phenomenon as well, you see someone has a pro -atheist post, you will likely find at least a few of these other topics on their timeline over the years, Ron Paul, Global Warming, GMO's, anti-Zionism, Vegetarianism, WalMart, all a bunch of anti-traditional/establishment/corporate trends and views that come in waves and seem to attract a personality type more than a philosophical bent.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 27, 2014 08:36 AM (ZshNr)

164 Ok. Where's the barrel? I'm voluntarily submitting myself for well deserved punishment.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 08:37 AM (BZAd3)

165 Without a shaman, how do atheists keep their tribe together?

Posted by: Fritz at February 27, 2014 12:32 PM (UzPAd)

Easy. By pointing at all the God-bothering bubbas and laughing. Oh, and, knit caps-optional, but recommended.

Posted by: Pope Urkel the Smug at February 27, 2014 08:37 AM (Q9qpj)

166 What was the cause of his 'faintness and shortness of breath'? Hillary's pointy elbows?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 27, 2014 08:37 AM (R5UOB)

167

18-1:

You could not be more accurate. It's maddening that atheists use "science" to try and justify their non-belief, but when empirical data is placed in front of them about the results (which should be obvious) to any thinking person, they keep saying "we'll get it right next time." hahaha. What's the definition of insanity.

Someone mentioned Chesterton's: The Wall parable/analogy. Every GOP pol should memorize that.

No society, ever, has accepted gay marriage as an idea or concept or practice. Why. Because marriage is for the fucking purpose of having children between two people the man and the woman. Polygamy was ok because they could have CHILDREN with these additional wives.

We all buttfuck and the human race is over in 40 years. Or we go into Huxley's A Brave New World where we have baby farms, which I'm sure Ace still hasn't read.

And Ace's underlying thought is exactly right, who in the fuck at CPAC invited these guys w/o doing some research on the clowns?

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:37 AM (tVTLU)

168 Regarding Holder, I always pray that God's will be done. I pray for Holder and Obama's souls. It is my opinion, supported by Scripture that there is no redemption without repentance.

Reminds me of and old joke: The golfer sees a vision of an angel. He asks the angel if there are golf courses in heaven.

The angel replies "Why certainly. Oh. And you are teeing off at 2:00 pm."

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 27, 2014 08:38 AM (V70Uh)

169 52 No you can persuade at swordpoint as well...ask Air France and the atheist flight attendant who converted to Islam in Morocco at gunpoint. Posted by: sven10077 at February 27, 2014 12:16 PM (TE35l) And I laugh to myself every time I consider that this is exactly what will happen to atheists in the future if they are successful in driving out a benevolent Religion. They will end up replacing it with an inimical one. What Atheists are too dumb to realize (actually too clever by half) is that Islam will fill the vacuum, and you will not be able to reason with it. There is something in the human spirit that wants to believe in a higher power, and by creating a vacuum you are just begging for bad consequences. Just as Anarchy is a temporary social condition before a strong man steps in to fill the vacuum, so too is atheism, should it ever successfully displace religion in a society. It will likewise be a temporary condition, and the subsequent upheaval will likely be deadly.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:38 AM (bb5+k)

170 It's a lot like the Democrats thinking allying with ValJar's MB buddies is smart 'cause "we hate the GOP too"....
***
I give credit to the Islamists here. The modern left sees Islamism as a primitive anti-colonial movement that will lead to leftism eventually.

Islamists, conversely, see that the left weakens the west, and if given enough sway will allow them to grow stronger until they can deal with the west as they did a millennium ago...

In this the Islamists are generally correct, and the left completely wrong.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 08:38 AM (P3U0f)

171 166 What was the cause of his 'faintness and shortness of breath'? Hillary's pointy elbows?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 27, 2014 12:37 PM (R5UOB)

Surely you jest. Hillary not only has skankles, she also has the dullest elbows in government.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 08:38 AM (T2V/1)

172 What a truly odd topic, considering any political topic or religion by a known conservative or Republican is shouted down.

I defer to C.K. Chesterton, who said this:
"Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it."

For if you do mention it you are labeled as a religious nut in some liberal circles. You believe in life. You are anti-abortion, especially the late-term Gosnell variety. You are a cave-dweller who believes in an ancient book's teachings and faith!

Chesterton once said, "The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice." It is far cooler to be a liberal and a Democrat. This alone shows you are intelligent, right?

"When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything".
Â—G. K. Chesterton, 1936

Cooke made no sense to me. That is all.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Judge of Raciss Morons at February 27, 2014 08:39 AM (baL2B)

173

What was the cause of his 'faintness and shortness of breath'? Hillary's pointy elbows?

Reggie's elbows, actually.

Posted by: Eric Holder at February 27, 2014 08:39 AM (5iuEW)

174 Why am I thinking the guy in charge of researching these groups at CPAC is 89 years old and doesn't take to those new fangled machine box thingies?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 27, 2014 08:39 AM (oFCZn)

175 Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said Holder, 63, had complained of the symptoms during his regular morning meeting with senior staff. ... let's all say a prayer ... but keep our intentions between ourselves and God Posted by: Frank Underwood Can atheists & agnostics share theirs?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 08:39 AM (xZxMD)

176

I think humanitarian (?) atheism borrows a lot from Christian morals. I don't think atheism can stand on its own promoting any sort of morals. Not that there are no moral atheists. I'm sure there are quite a few who live much better lives than some fervently religious folks.

Hi, twin!

The way I see it, atheism doesn't have to mean "no morals." There's a difference from having a sense of morality, and having a sense of morality that you believe was endowed by a Higher Power. Accepting the former does mean you must automatically accept the latter.

all you have to do is look at history to see that civilizations which have lived by moralistic principles have done better in terms of economy, technology, health, etc, than more barbaric civilizations. Whether or not those societies believed in a Supreme Being is secondary to how they expressed that faith, through following certain moral principles. You can follow those same principles without having to go to church every Sunday and believe in God. You can say, "Societies where children are raised in a nuclear family with two married parents -- one woman, one man -- tend to do better than ones without those guiding principles," without having to add any references to the Bible.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:39 AM (4df7R)

177 Our rights come from our God given human souls, which are individual and priceless. This fact, or belief if you will,is what our country is based on. If we deny that, in law, then the whole structure comes crashing down. Which is why the left attacks it mercilessly. Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 12:16 PM (tVTLU) And I think this is correct.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:40 AM (bb5+k)

178 On the one hand...I have no problem accepting allies with differing views on the divine (or lack of same) so long as they're legit allies. On the other hand...why is it every time I'm told I have to do more to make others more comfortable, it always seems to wind up with me getting made to feel like I don't belong? On the gripping hand...folks still care about CPAC?

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 27, 2014 08:40 AM (naUcP)

179 171... Rule #17: Never try to figure out what turns a liberal on. You may not like the result.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 27, 2014 08:40 AM (R5UOB)

180 Agnosticism and Atheism are the same damn thing. Since religious belief is predicated on faith, and agnostics do not have faith, they are atheistic. Calling yourself an agnostic is a way of calling yourself an atheist in a way that is less upsetting to some believers.

Speaking on behalf of myself, I don't care what people believe. I have a list of non-beliefs that go far beyond the divinity of Jesus, (For instance, I do not believe acupuncture is anything but an elaborate placebo) and none of them bother me UNTIL someone tries to justify a secular policy based on one of them. That is not a stance that is limited to atheists or agnostics. It's just a stance. There are self described atheists who are quite tolerant of religious justifications. There are self described agnostics who are not. It's simply semantics. Of course no one can be 100% sure there is no God. Just like we can't be 100% sure there's no Loch Ness Monster. We're 99.999% sure there's no Loch Ness Monster and that's about all we can say. Does that make me atheistic or agnostic towards the Loch Ness Monster? What does that matter? I don't believe it and additionally, would be frustrated if someone used their unjustifiable belief in the Loch Ness Monster to justify some policy or law.

As others have pointed out, the very idea of being identified by something you don't believe is silly. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in alchemy. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in human contact with aliens. Why must we have a word for people who don't believe in God?

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2014 08:40 AM (mCz8+)

181 I consider conservatives to be logical and altruistic . I also consider it illogical for an atheist to do anything other than what is in his or hers self interest. So just as the atheist commenter is thankful for Christianity , I am thankful for illogical altruistic atheists.

Posted by: Wayne Storm at February 27, 2014 08:41 AM (DAevm)

182

169: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 12:38 PM

Damn. That was well put.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) Est. 1836 at February 27, 2014 08:41 AM (OJn3e)

183 Posted by: NotCoach at February 27, 2014 12:35 PM (rsudF) Please explain how you would KNOW someone is an Atheist... unless they told you. Ergo, all the Atheists you can identify as a group, are the Vocal ones... Its like the Gay community... unless they self identify through Mannerism or verbally.... how would you ever know they were Gay? I know Gays, and Atheists (not to equate the two) who you would never guess they were of that persuasion... Which then makes it very very easy NOT to discriminate... Its the militant part of both groups, that turn people off.... those who purposefully self segregate via words and mannerisms...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 08:41 AM (84gbM)

184 Cooke's defense relies on an appeal to tradition. He says that one can rely on Locke, Cooke and Bacon rather than religion. He says that Locke, Cooke, and Bacon all base their theories on reason, but ultimately, he's hiding their appeal to a God at root of the natural law and the origin of the rights of man.

John Locke wrote that every man has a property right in his own person. So far so good, the atheist case holds. But he further went on to argue that a man doesn't have a right to destroy his own person because his life belongs to God and as God's creature he is bound by commandment against doing such.

Francis Bacon wrote that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's mind about to religion.

Cooke also does disservice to the mind of Jefferson by quoting him very much out of context in a very thoughtful letter on religion. Cooke's quote: Â“Of the nature of this being,Â” Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, Â“we know nothing.Â” Cooke uses that quote to basically say that Jefferson doesn't appeal to God's law to formulate his ideas. But Jefferson absolutely appeals to the existence of a God as the root of man's rights.

From the same letter, "So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis."

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:41 AM (4QSOR)

185 We are in an era of heresies and witch hunts. As ace has often observed, traits applied to religion are just natural human traits. Witch hunts happen even among people who don't believe in witches. People have to believe things, firmly and with faith, whether they're metaphysical or not. If we questioned whether we'd fall through the second floor everytime we went upstairs, we wouldn't be able to function. So we have to have faith in the way the world works, society, infrastructure, etc. We have to have faith in things we can't prove. And this leads to the problems one sees in religion. And so we have the situation today. Don't believe in gay marriage? Heresy. Don't believe in global warming? Heresy. Question gay marriage in any aspect? Heresy, you're a tool of the devil. Question global warming in any aspect? Heresy, you're a tool of the devil. Everything today is a religious test.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 08:42 AM (T0NGe)

186 175 Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said Holder, 63, had complained of the symptoms during his regular morning meeting with senior staff. ... let's all say a prayer ... but keep our intentions between ourselves and God Posted by: Frank Underwood Can atheists & agnostics share theirs? Posted by: rickb223 I'm gonna pray for him by peeing on a shrub.

Posted by: Druid (reformed) at February 27, 2014 08:42 AM (R5UOB)

187 Why must we have a word for people who don't believe in God? Because they insist on it?

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 27, 2014 08:42 AM (rSIYI)

188 What if an atheist or agnostic doesn't tell anyone? It's like they must tell someone to be legitimized. Evangelicals must go and tell. Atheists, not so much.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 27, 2014 08:43 AM (A98Xu)

189 75 Conservatism, as most western ideologies are, is heavily based on Christian morality. As such, Atheism actually is at odds with conservatism . Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 12:21 PM (P3U0f) This is my take as well.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:43 AM (bb5+k)

190 I'm a mediocre Catholic, and have always been a little uncomfortable when Evangelicals talk a lot about religion. Posted by: UGAdawg at February 27, 2014 12:33 PM (osx1V) FYI, they do this because of Christ's great commission to spread the gospel. Christians have been doing it for millennia, which is why Christianity spread from being a Jewish sect in and around Jerusalem to being a faith practiced all over the world.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 08:43 AM (r+7wo)

191 I suppose it's necessary to infect every discussion even remotely related to morality with the subject of slavery, because we've all been programmed to judge 19th Century society by 21st century sensibilities, but this one doesn't really hold water:

"slavery was extinguished by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs"

Slavery was established as a fundamental, sanctioned facet of our (former) Republic by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs.

Slavery was tacitly or actively supported by every State that later ratified the Constitution (until 1865) by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs.

Slavery was defended in war, per its sanction in the Constitution, by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 08:43 AM (oGez1)

192 Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said Holder, 63, had complained of the symptoms during his regular morning meeting with senior staff. - I just like to point out that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the voodoo doll in my desk.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 27, 2014 08:43 AM (Hx5uv)

193 Islam is preferable to atheism

Let's look at the record.

100+ million dead, 70+ years of misery for the Red.

250+ million dead, 1400+ years for the Green.

We got the bomb 1st may be the only thing that saves us and them so God is indeed merciful.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:43 AM (DL2i+)

194 Agnosticism and Atheism are the same damn thing. -- Most agnostics I know come from a place of humility - they know there's stuff they don't know. While too many atheists I know are arrogant - they KNOW there's no God.

Posted by: votermom at February 27, 2014 08:43 AM (dOiOQ)

195 Relativism has not made the world better.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 27, 2014 08:44 AM (V70Uh)

196 Everything today is a religious test.

Posted by: AmishDude

But I'm being constantly tested on things that are not part of my beliefs. And I don't want them to be, either.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 27, 2014 08:44 AM (fk1A8)

197 175 Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said Holder, 63, had complained of the symptoms during his regular morning meeting with senior staff. ------ So they must have read the Constitution during his staff meeting?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 27, 2014 08:44 AM (R5UOB)

198 But what if our ancients' "gods" were really visiting Ancient Aliens...

Watch this Friday on H2 Channel

Posted by: Giorgio Tsoukalos at February 27, 2014 08:44 AM (Q6pxP)

199 "Please explain how you would KNOW someone is an Atheist... unless they told you. Ergo, all the Atheists you can identify as a group, are the Vocal ones... Its like the Gay community... unless they self identify through Mannerism or verbally.... how would you ever know they were Gay? I know Gays, and Atheists (not to equate the two) who you would never guess they were of that persuasion... Which then makes it very very easy NOT to discriminate... Its the militant part of both groups, that turn people off.... those who purposefully self segregate via words and mannerisms... Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 12:41 PM (84gbM) " By the way they hold their mouth? As I posted, 'My experience'. I don't know whether the majority of atheists are represented by the anti-theists or not.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 27, 2014 08:44 AM (rsudF)

200 Atheism actually is at odds with conservatism . No. Some atheists are. There's a marked difference.

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 08:44 AM (/lb53)

201

Cooke makes a material error though. His tenor is great throughout the article. And his purpose is right, we should include all people, whether agnostic, atheistic, etc. Math is still math and we need to do something about the debt.

But Cooke's crucial error, where I think he intentionally misleads, is as to the origination of our rights and founding documents.

That is frankly a lie and it poisons what is otherwise a great article. I cannot believe he said that about Jefferson. I've read the man's diaries. Cooke is so off it's not even funny.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:45 AM (tVTLU)

202 Off topic but fits well what several folks on here have noted about discovery and the Michael Mann lawsuit circus: He's refused several times in trials to produce evidence and data the court ordered him to and the courts threw out his lawsuits as a result.
The fact Mann refused to disclose his Â‘hockey stickÂ’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State." In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so BallÂ’s assessment stands as fair comment.
http://tinyurl.com/ljfm37l

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 08:45 AM (zfY+H)

203 the question of "which God" presupposes the existence of God, which then presupposes the existence of His absolute morality codified in His Law.If you concede these points, we are simply discussing the differences in individual, human (flawed) interpretation of the perfect Law, which, I would guess, is not the discussion you're wishing to have?

Thanks for responding. Posted by: RedWhiteandTrue
..........
*waves and yells "Yo!" from the burbs!*

Your personal code is different than the code we agree on to make secular law.

All secular laws are man-made. They may be based on His law to some degree, but they are very simply agreements of conduct and punishment.

I may choose to live to a higher standard, perhaps choosing to adhere to Divine Law more closely. But that doesn't change man-made laws.

Personally, I have no idea what His Law is.. does it still include stoning adulterers? Burn to death homosexuals? Or, do we do away with Old Testament Law and just use the New Testament?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 27, 2014 08:45 AM (Z7PrM)

204 The Secular Left hasn't abandoned religion. And they aren't secular. Mostly they have abandoned Christianity and embraced the nature cult of Environmentalism. You know it's a cult because the eco-nazis deny it's a cult while still trying to impose their ever more stringent food and purity rituals on the unbelievers.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 08:45 AM (ZPrif)

205 Ace sez: One commenter, who was an atheist, told me two things in rapid succession: 1. I'm an atheist. 2. I'm pro-Christianity. His reason for point 2 is that Christianity has generally served as a powerful force for social cohesion, morality (slavery was extinguished by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs), and freedom, given that Christianity is a religion that does tend to suggest a distinction between Caesar and God. So his reasons for being "pro-Christianity" have nothing to do with metaphysics, and thus could be said to be "cynical" reasons. He wanted people to believe in things he personally did not believe in, because he saw positive social effects flowing from that (erroneous, in his mind) belief. Back when I was a stupid liberal, I found myself using this exact same argument to justify my support (or at least tolerance) of The Nation of Islam (i.e. "Black Muslims," Farrakhan's group). My argument went thus: I may not agree with their beliefs, but blacks who join the Nation of Islam get off drugs, leave the street gangs, become self-suffient, develop a sense of self-pride, and stop victimizing other members of the community." Sounded like a good argument at the time. And in theory, it is a good argument, but it depends entirely of the specifics of the religion involved. One has to weigh the trade-offs. When I found out more about the Nation of Islam -- the insane anti-semitism, the hate-filled conspiracy theories, the ignorance-based pseudo-theology, and so forth, my argument began to weaken inside me. The tipping point came when the Black Muslim group in Oakland murdered a journalist who criticized them, and then during the trial it was revealed that the entire religion was a criminal organization not much different from the gangs it was purporting to erase. The same tipping point applies to real Islam as well, frankly. The social benefits it produces are outweighed by the noxiousness of the ideology. On the flipside are other religions, such as Christianity, Mormonism, and even Buddhism, where the details of their metaphysical beliefs are not really noxious at all, and so don't in any way outweigh or negate the benefits of the social improvements they bring. I'm an agnostic (not an atheist), but count me as one of those generally (not always, but generally) pro-Christian even though I am not a Christian myself. I'm also pro-Mormon and pro-Buddhist too.

Posted by: zombie at February 27, 2014 08:45 AM (mizYg)

206 Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2014 12:40 PM (mCz8+) Hmmm.. as an agnostic... I take exception to YOU saying what I believe. Agnostic... I don't know... I feel there is something out there... but don't think any of the major religions have a CLUE about what the Universe wants.. I'm not an atheist.. because I do think something IS out there... but your religious arrogance of telling me what I believe is part of why I don't subscribe to any of the major religions...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 08:45 AM (84gbM)

207 Islam is preferable to atheism Hahahaha

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 08:46 AM (/lb53)

208 Well as any euphoric, self-important atheist neckbeard will tell you, Christians only do charity work to get to heaven, so it's actually selfish of them.

Posted by: brak at February 27, 2014 08:46 AM (iEoiA)

209 >>>What a truly odd topic, considering any political topic or religion by a known conservative or Republican is shouted down. i think you're conflating two things. You're talking about "freedom of religion," but you rapidly conflate that idea with "freedom to inject whatever political goal I like into the national debate." You have both freedoms, but what you're talking about is people like me objecting to various ideas tossed about (not necessarily by you) that include: 1. That gay sex should either be forbidden by law or strongly socially stigmatized; 2. that women should be held to a fairly strict standard of sexual morality, and criticized, publicly, for failure to abide by this standard; 3. That various forms of birth control should either be made illegal or, again, stigmatized (Rick Santorum's statement that he would speak up for birth control NOT "being all right"); 4. That the pro-life cause should be extended to actual cases of provable rape, because the pro-life philsophy permits of no disagreement, and 5. That the theory that God created the world by supernatural, divine -- magical -- means is in fact a valid form of "science" which can and should be taught in science class as another competing "scientific" theory. and so on and so forth. You can say what you want, but no one is required to agree with you on these various claims. We can also tell you the fact that is only committed Christians who believe these things, something like 35% of the population, and the rest of the country does NOT believe them, and in fact is pretty sure these things are actually wrong, and that this is therefore not only a losing political proposition as a primary matter, but is also losing matter as far as *secondary* effects, because people just don't disagree, they wonder about the priorities and thinking of people who, for example, are still objecting to birth control in the year 2014. You have the right to your religion, and I won't say boo about it, but when your religion is offered (by Christians) as part of the political plan of action they seek, that takes it out of the realm of a private matter of conscience and itno the realm of live public debate.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:46 AM (/FnUH)

210 Agnosticism and Atheism are the same damn thing. No. Atheism has come to be synonymous with "anti-theism". That is, a militant evangelistic anti-religious (actually, only anti-Christian) view. Because some people have the false consciousness that the world would be a better place if everybody were atheist. That's what the commenter above was remarking against.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 08:46 AM (T0NGe)

211
As far as I know, the idea of G-d has always existed. That - the idea of G-d - is enough to bring me comfort. It's enough to allow me to be skeptical and comfortable with my hypocrisy.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 08:46 AM (BZAd3)

212 I just like to point out that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the voodoo doll in my desk. Posted by: WalrusRex Pee on it. See if he breaks out in sweats.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 08:47 AM (xZxMD)

213 virtually all conservative-tilting atheists/agnostics, and yet, at the end of the day: We still get told, by a certain few, day in day out, you're not really *of* us,
***
If someone believes the general underpinnings of conservative thought I don't care if they believe in God, gods, or not...I want to work with him or her to roll back Leviathan.

But...how do you justify your belief in conservative thought if you don't believe in the deeper framework it is built on?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 08:47 AM (P3U0f)

214 Wasn't an atheist simply someone who had not seen combat duty?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 27, 2014 08:47 AM (R5UOB)

215 Human beings are, by nature, superstitious and cultish. There is a small subset, mostly nerdy men, who seem to not be born without the genes for it. But they will always be a small minority.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 08:47 AM (ZPrif)

216 I think it has more to do with why someone is atheist and how they behave than their actual atheism that determines their fit with conservatism.
If you are an atheist because you think God is a rotten bastard for having rules and that nobody should tell you anything you do is wrong... you're going to be no part of conservatism.
If you're an atheist because you just can't find any evidence of God and its a philosophical choice, well you could be fine with conservatism.
If you're the kind of atheist that demands everyone agrees with you about God and consider religious people the source of all evil in the world, you're going to be in the far left camp. If you're a live and let live "hey, I think God doesn't exist, but you go ahead and think what you want" type, you'll probably be fine.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 08:48 AM (zfY+H)

217 Libertarian on the federal level, tenther on the state

Posted by: Avi at February 27, 2014 08:48 AM (5q3p/)

218 >>>But...how do you justify your belief in conservative thought if you don't believe in the deeper framework it is built on? See, YOUR framework for conservatism is built, foundationally, upon God. Mine isn't. It's built on simple reason (and also in-built preferences of humans for moral behavior, such as caring, respect, etc. -- things you might say are God's spirit, but which I would call a matter of evolutionary biology). Even if you disagree with my foundations, I think you would and should find it helpful that I am arguing for many of the same things but based upon a DIFFERENT set of initial assumptions. There are multiple ways to skin a cat.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:49 AM (/FnUH)

219 Well done, Ace!

Posted by: baldilocks filipova at February 27, 2014 08:49 AM (36Rjy)

220

I think it has more to do with why someone is atheist and how they behave than their actual atheism that determines their fit with conservatism.

In other words, conservatism is about the individual, not the group.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:49 AM (4df7R)

221

Bonhomme and D-Lamp you guys are fantastic!!!

How many brilliant commenters are on here??

Indeed. A real intellectual already has addressed the issue and come out on the other side. You can be an atheist, but you can't have a moral structure nor impose it on me. And therein lies the problem. Logic and reason lead to madness.

All great thinkers, of every age, have arrive at the same conclusion. Or gone mad.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:49 AM (tVTLU)

222 FYI, they do this because of Christ's great commission to spread the gospel.

Also because it's the truth and you deserve to hear it before you die.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:50 AM (DL2i+)

223 209 ace: Just make sure the role of government should be to have no role in these things. None.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 27, 2014 08:50 AM (R5UOB)

224 Frankly I'm bored with arguing with atheists. The unwarranted air of assumed superiorty so many wear is irritating, they're virtually never there for an honest dialogue, and too many of them are simply there to express their personal rage without any regard for what the other side is saying. Although I have to admit, I find the latter useful. I'm all in favor of atheists being able to put up their anti-creches and signs at Christian public events: they're Christianity's best recruiting officers. "Mommy, who are those scary assholes?"

In the end what it boils down to is, if I believe in God and I'm wrong, I'll never know it. If you disbelieve in God and you're wrong... oops. Best hope He's the forgiving God we talk about and didn't get up on the Calvinist side of the bed that morning,

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at February 27, 2014 08:50 AM (XO6WW)

225 Atheism is silly in my opinion, it is ridiculous and displays a lack of critical examination of the world and basic denial of truth. I can buy agnostics; the argument that you haven't seen enough evidence to buy in completely is fine. But to insist there is absolutely no theistic creator flies in the face of logic, science, and common sense. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 08:50 AM (zfY+H)

226 I'm somewhat confused about the founding fathers and that our rights come from a "higher power", "deity". Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2014 12:29 PM (HVff2) I think they mentioned this. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 08:51 AM (bb5+k)

227 Everything today is a religious test. It's beginning to appear that way, which would comport with a certain section of the Bible concerning the End Times. IMO, we're increasingly being asked what we believe in. The world seems to be inventing more outrages each day to test our beliefs. And if, as you pointed out, you don't agree with each new assault on common sense, you're considered "bad."

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:51 AM (0HooB)

228 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 27, 2014 12:39 PM (4df7R) Hi twin! Completely agree with what you wrote. I just don't see a *rational* justification of a particular set of morals with atheism, there being no higher power and arbiter of goodness and all. (Not just utilitarian, as even a utilitarian rationale assumes that a particular state is better than another.) Of course, being a Christian, I would love all people to come to know Christ and His salvation, which no man can attain on His own. But I'm very happy that there are atheists who are moral and I'm glad to have them in the conservative movement.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 08:51 AM (r+7wo)

229 I am, as usual, late to this show.

Ace said, "Mea Culpa."

I don't think you should feel this way, Ace. You staked out your position and explained it quite well. The morons made a counter-argument and you changed your mind. It certainly doesn't mean you made a mistake for which you should apologize.

This was probably already covered, by someone smarter and more articulate than I. And Ace probably doesn't read this deep into the comments. And I am probably talking to myself.

Posted by: chiefjaybob at February 27, 2014 08:52 AM (79/y3)

230 177 Our rights come from our God given human souls, which are individual and priceless. This fact, or belief if you will,is what our country is based on. If we deny that, in law, then the whole structure comes crashing down. Which is why the left attacks it mercilessly. Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 12:16 PM (tVTLU) the flip side that many of us, including some of the Founding Fathers subscribe to?? "Natural Rights"... those granted by the very fact that we are Human... that we are how God or Nature made us... and that those Rights help Mankind as a whole, prosper.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 08:52 AM (84gbM)

231 it's not us secularists who are devoting our summers to assisting surgeons operating on the poor of the Philippines. No shit? Well, out-fucking-standing Tim Tebow. I did not know that.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 27, 2014 08:52 AM (zShYM)

232 Atheists believe in evolution . Atheists also believe they have this esoteric thing we call a conscience which no other animal has. The evolution of a conscience is something that never has been viably explained. Again I'm glad it's present in atheists.

Posted by: Wayne Storm at February 27, 2014 08:53 AM (DAevm)

233

Of course, being a Christian, I would love all people to come to know Christ and His salvation, which no man can attain on His own.

But I'm very happy that there are atheists who are moral and I'm glad to have them in the conservative movement.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 12:51 PM (r+7wo)

EXACTLY.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:53 AM (4df7R)

234 Here's my quick opinion: if someone believes in the basis of smaller government and fiscal responsibility, I don't really give a shit how they got there...we are on the same team. Whether his beliefs come from God, science, philosophy or the alien race Xpltlmac, we are on the same damn team and let's try to fight this fight together.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 27, 2014 08:53 AM (rSIYI)

235 ThereÂ’s Â“not a scintilla of evidenceÂ” to support the notion that the best evidence the White House had on the Sunday following the attack was the it was the result of a Â“spontaneous demonstration,Â” he told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren. That was the story presented by Rice, who was then-Ambassador to the U.N. when she appeared on five Sunday talk shows.

Â“She was fabulously wrong when she said it the first time,Â” he said. Â“And stunningly arrogant in her refusal to express any regret for lying to our fellow citizens.Â”

Referring to NBC host David GregoryÂ’s interview with Rice on SundayÂ’s Â“Meet the Press,Â” the outspoken Congressman said, Â“I get tougher questions in the Bojangles drive-thru than he asked her.Â”

Posted by: Frank Underwood at February 27, 2014 08:53 AM (e8kgV)

236 Traditionally accepted conservatism is intellectually tangible and conclusive. It's largely based on experience that culminates in factual substantiation.

So I would believe that in some case it is compatible with Atheism. The essential question being- what gives you the "right" to not believe in God? Follow that and it generally leads to conservative thinking.

Notwithstanding religious substation of God in works like St Thomas' Summa, those conversations (existence of God and life philosophy/conservatism) can be debated separately are mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 27, 2014 08:54 AM (GGCsk)

237 You have the right to your religion, and I won't say boo about it, but when your religion is offered (by Christians) as part of the political plan of action they seek, that takes it out of the realm of a private matter of conscience and itno the realm of live public debate.

Posted by: ace
............
Well said, Ace. I have been trying to say the same thing along those lines, but have never been able to get it out just right.

Just because the GOP doesn't make something part of their platform, doesn't mean it doesn't matter, or is being dismissed. (<-- see? I did it again)

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 27, 2014 08:54 AM (Z7PrM)

238 I do not consider Islam a religion. It is a violent political philosophy that REQUIRES its adherents to engage in abberent and repulsive behavior. The entire mess grew out of a 6th century warlord who became insane as a means to inspire his troops.

It hasn't progressed much since that time.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 08:54 AM (T2V/1)

239 "I was saddened to hear this morning that comedian Little Timmy Wilson passed away last night."

Well shit.

Posted by: lowandslow at February 27, 2014 08:54 AM (IV4od)

240 >>>This was probably already covered, by someone smarter and more articulate than I. And Ace probably doesn't read this deep into the comments. And I am probably talking to myself. i'm readin'. thanks.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:54 AM (/FnUH)

241
I suspect these atheist leftists will be right outside the door at CPAC, just happening to get alot of media attention.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 27, 2014 08:54 AM (n0DEs)

242 DangerGirl Johnson is right!

Posted by: garrett Johnson at February 27, 2014 08:55 AM (/lb53)

243 In some ways, its good that most people do not live an examined life. Its good that they've never really thought through the whys and consequences of their beliefs and behaviors. Because then the people who really do believe there is no absolute, objective authority on ethics or truth, beauty, or reality still live as if there is. Their lack of consistency benefits us all.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 08:55 AM (zfY+H)

244 Slavery was established as a fundamental, sanctioned facet of our (former) Republic by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs
***
Slavery appears to be as old as human history, and was accepted broadly before the rise of monotheism.

And it was, as repeatedly noted, Christians, and "right wing fundamentalists" by modern standards, who ended slavery in the western world.

So arguing that it is a fault of Christianity that it did not extinguish slavery before it did, instead of praising it for what it did in fact do, is odd. Is Christianity also to blame that it has not yet ended violent crime? Heart disease?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 08:55 AM (P3U0f)

245 The way I see it, atheism doesn't have to mean "no morals." Absolutely, but (a) it doesn't really help you when you're a kid trying to figure out the world. Maybe you grow up and develop a rigid set of intellectually-coherent morals. However, (b) when push comes to shove, it's really easy to give yourself dispensation when you're the pope of the church you created.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 08:55 AM (T0NGe)

246 It's built on simple reason

Eugenics is perfectly reasonable.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:55 AM (4QSOR)

247

Goy:

Give me a break. Slavery is more natural of a human condition then buttsex. It existed since human civilization started, well before Christianity.

Do you know what ended it: Christianity.

Although it took some time, human beings being set in their ways and all, the Christian faith finally ended the practice. No other religion could come close to doing it.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:55 AM (tVTLU)

248 In other words, conservatism is about the individual, not the group. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 27, 2014 12:49 PM (4df7R) Well noted. Here. Have this as reward. http://bit.ly/1mHuGQU

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 27, 2014 08:55 AM (VtjlW)

249 But the OFA booth is still a go, right?

Posted by: mrp at February 27, 2014 08:55 AM (JBggj)

250 Whether his beliefs come from God, science, philosophy or the alien race Xpltlmac, we are on the same damn team and let's try to fight this fight together.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 27, 2014 12:53 PM (rSIYI)

The Xpltlmac make AMAZING nachos.

But don't order their jalapeno poppers. Totally lame.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:56 AM (4df7R)

251 Yeah Tim Wilson was such a funny man. So very hilarious, insightful and winsome, to use an old term. He was the kind of guy that just was fun to listen to and you never heard something that made you mad, even if it might have from someone else.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 08:56 AM (zfY+H)

252 Speaking of gods, I'm sure this will shock absolutely nobody but here is how our president remembers Grand Canyon Park's anniversary. http://tinyurl.com/lj2fa72

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 27, 2014 08:56 AM (Hx5uv)

253 244 Slavery was established as a fundamental, sanctioned facet of our (former) Republic by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs Wrong. Slavery was established as an exercise in multiculturalism to please an African who argued that owning slaves was part of his culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 08:56 AM (T0NGe)

254 Absolutely, but (a) it doesn't really help you when you're a kid trying to figure out the world. -------- Da, Seminary did much for me!

Posted by: Josef Stalin, just trollin at February 27, 2014 08:57 AM (Aif/5)

255 I was saddened to hear this morning that comedian Little Timmy Wilson passed away last night. He was funny. RIP ---- Damn!

Posted by: Y-not at February 27, 2014 08:57 AM (zDsvJ)

256 >>>However, (b) when push comes to shove, it's really easy to give yourself dispensation when you're the pope of the church you created. I'd have to ask how many Christians also find it relatively easy to self-justify in a pinch.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 08:57 AM (/FnUH)

257 I think it's strange to have group thought (American Atheists) on something you DON'T believe.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 27, 2014 08:58 AM (A98Xu)

258 >>The way I see it, atheism doesn't have to mean "no morals." <<

That's a conflation often made as a surfeited, intellectually prejudiced criticism.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 27, 2014 08:58 AM (GGCsk)

259 In many ways, the story of a big hole-in-the-ground is the story of Obama

Posted by: Bill Ayers at February 27, 2014 08:58 AM (Q6pxP)

260 Well noted. Here. Have this as reward.

http://bit.ly/1mHuGQU

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 27, 2014 12:55 PM (VtjlW)

*swoon*

FWIW, Karl Urban's gorgeous self is proof to me that there is a God.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 08:58 AM (4df7R)

261
No we're fascists, you probably mean the Xpltlcruz for the conservatives.

It happens. Now die!

Posted by: the alien race Xpltlmac at February 27, 2014 08:58 AM (n0DEs)

262 I think too many atheists/agnostics think that the best notion of "God" that religious people have is the guy with the beard on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Faith allows me to to ponder that what we're invested in is still a great mystery, interpreted and transmitted sporadically by fallible humans throughout time, told in parables, filled with countless strata of meaning. The "something" that agnostics are looking for and consider possible could just be the Christian God without the beard and robes.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 27, 2014 08:58 AM (ZshNr)

263 No shit? Well, out-fucking-standing Tim Tebow. I did not know that. Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Is that you Sgt. Hartmann?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 08:58 AM (xZxMD)

264 Traditionally accepted conservatism is intellectually tangible and conclusive. It's largely based on experience that culminates in factual substantiation. That unassailable (and it is) fact , drives the Progtards absolutely retarded. Though few would ever admit it. I know that I'm living proof of it.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 27, 2014 08:58 AM (zShYM)

265 Hey ace! New "Elementary" on tonight.

Posted by: EC at February 27, 2014 08:59 AM (GQ8sn)

266

Ace,

You're constructing a straw man. I care nothing of this. I want to live my life, run my business, and refuse to bake a cake at a gay wedding, or provide employees at my fucking business abortificent drugs, because they violate my deeply held religious beliefs.

As a society, we have all accepted that certain exercise of the First Amendment shall be restricted, a la race, religion, creed, etc.

I will never accept babykilling or what I consider immoral sexual relationships.

Are we free men or not? You are witnessing the final cornerstones being removed before your very eyes. Fuck the gay Nazis and baby killers. War.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 08:59 AM (tVTLU)

267 @244 - [18-1]- "So arguing that it is a fault of Christianity..."

Eh... where did I argue that it was the FAULT of Christianity?? Nice straw man, but I'll pass on it, thanks.

My point, very clearly made, is that slavery shouldn't even be a facet of this discussion. Various Christians have alternately promoted it, supported it, attacked it and abolished it - each in good faith.

The problem I'm pointing out is Americans' knee-jerk obession with infecting every moral discussion with a reference to slavery.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 08:59 AM (oGez1)

268 There are multiple ways to skin a cat. True. "If our situations were reversed..." = The Golden Rule Both of these personal guideposts result in a minimalist government, which our Founders sought to establish.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 08:59 AM (0HooB)

269 You guys can always make me giggle. Thanks.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 27, 2014 08:59 AM (rSIYI)

270 Finding homosexuality repulsive and sexual restraint in women attractive is hardly unique to Christianity. In fact, it's so universal that I submit it's hard-wired into us. I think humans, especially women, are hard-wired to find "sluts" gross. I also think they are hard-wired to find gay sex gross. I think these can be overcome with cultural training. But every generation of 13 years olds, unless they are trained not to, will just naturally start calling some girls sluts and some dudes wusses.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 08:59 AM (ZPrif)

271 But...how do you justify your belief in conservative thought if you don't believe in the deeper framework it is built on? Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 12:47 PM (P3U0f) For myself? It boils down to the Premise that the Survival of Mankind is a good thing... me and mine being part of said Race. Thus, things which support Race survival are good.... things that don't are bad... Premise 2, that a free society Advances faster, as shown by the last 200 years of the US... we have made it possible for many many to live, who would not have otherwise... and its a by product of our being a free Society... so based on that Premise, Freedom is a GOOD thing... We need to get off this rock as a species... and we are only going to do that through advancement in science... which is HELPED by being Free... Being Free also allows us, as a Race, to experiment with other ways of thought... to experiment with other societies.... so I do not wish to put 'this' societal experiment on all other countries.... But sure see the advantage that the US Constitution has brought us.... so am Conservative. You CAN be a Conservative thorough Rational Self Interest...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 08:59 AM (84gbM)

272 Slavery was established here long before we were a Republic.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 09:00 AM (T2V/1)

273 Karl Urban is welcome anywhere. Every single time I've seen him on screen he's been great. I think my favorite role of his was in RED.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:00 AM (zfY+H)

274 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 12:50 PM (zfY+H) Being me, I may have put this in a softer way, but I essentially agree. God not existing makes no intellectual, philosophical, etc. sense to me. It's not just about faith. Then again, that's not the topic of the post. I would rather have an atheist conservative by my side than a Christian leftist when it comes to government and related issues.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:00 AM (r+7wo)

275 AtC,

Why is National Harbor funny? And does anyone need fishing tips for there cause I know a guy in the MD ProBass?

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:00 AM (DL2i+)

276 A group thought on stuff we don't believe? Those exist on the Right, too. Gates Of Vienna shares a disbelief in Islam. Of course, GoV doesn't demand a booth at the CAIR / WTF conferences

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 27, 2014 09:00 AM (WaedO)

277 I believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand. That should be enough.

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 09:01 AM (/lb53)

278 "I think these can be overcome with cultural training. " No thank you.

Posted by: Seems legit at February 27, 2014 09:01 AM (A98Xu)

279 Absolutely, but (a) it doesn't really help you when you're a kid trying to figure out the world. Maybe you grow up and develop a rigid set of intellectually-coherent morals. However, (b) when push comes to shove, it's really easy to give yourself dispensation when you're the pope of the church you created.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 12:55 PM (T0NGe)

Yes, but my point wasn't about the ease or lack of ease of atheism. My point was that it's entirely possible to be a moral person but still be an atheist. Self-control vs. self-indulgence is inherent in society, regardless of religious belief. The smart ones know how to balance the two for maximum happiness.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 09:01 AM (4df7R)

280
On "morality' and atheism... random thoughts.

Part of my faith recognizes that the reason for faith and moral codes isnt so much for here.... but what comes "after".

Call "after" whatever fits your reference.... heaven/hell, enlightenment, karma etc. (Im trying to frame my thoughts as free of dogma as I can.)

If there is no "after", what we do, how we live, how we treat each other.... really does not matter is a cosmic sense. When we die.... the light goes out. The End. No personal consequence whatsoever for the way I live. If there is no "after" and no consequence for onces choices and behaviors, right and wrong is truly a construct of man, for only the here and now.

IF that is the case..... people, thru societies are free to construct whatever moral paradigms they choose.

That path always ends badly.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2014 09:01 AM (nELVU)

281 >>Slavery was established here long before we were a Republic.<<

Yes. Where there are Viking rune-stones there was sure to be slavery...

Posted by: Marcus T at February 27, 2014 09:01 AM (GGCsk)

282 "If our situations were reversed..." = The Golden Rule Both of these personal guideposts result in a minimalist government, which our Founders sought to establish The Categorical Imperative is sufficient.

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 09:02 AM (/lb53)

283

Anyone who shares my economic and constitutional outlook is free to fight with me. Where I am seeing a disconnect is that certain people on the 'right' hold the following as non-contradictory:

A Quaker or Amish who will not pick up a gun when drafted due to conscience is ok, and meanwhile a baker who will not bake a cake for a same-sex couple that is an abomination in their religion can be sued out of existence.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 27, 2014 09:02 AM (ZkzmI)

284 Is that you Sgt. Hartmann? Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 12:58 PM (xZxMD) Heh......he got that from me. ;-) In Mother Green, fuck can be any article of speech in existence. I became fluent by third phase of boot camp.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 27, 2014 09:02 AM (zShYM)

285
2 more cents - Whether or not G-d exists, the striving towards achieving a godlike character is perhaps what is important, which potentially led man's inquisitiveness towards imputing morality to, and as coming from G-d.

Unless your god is allah in which case all bets are off.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 09:02 AM (BZAd3)

286 As an atheist who definitely tries to pleasure himself in his off hours I endorse Ace's comments here which are pretty smart for a chick. Other atheists whom don't know when to STFU are more annoying then a newly converted baptists at Thanksgiving dinner. While the Baptists can be put off by bring out the wild turkey and taking off your pants a fucking atheist will keep yammering while you move onto autoerotic asphysiation and huffing poppers. Seriously how do you get rid of these guys once they get on a roll? Do I have to bring out Jesus and start talking about sin? I don't even think that will work.

Posted by: bestie21 at February 27, 2014 09:02 AM (AzO5R)

287 274 Then again, that's not the topic of the post. I would rather have an atheist conservative by my side than a Christian leftist when it comes to government and related issues.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 01:00 PM (r+7wo)

Here-here

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 09:02 AM (T2V/1)

288 @272 [Vic] - Slavery was established here long before we were a Republic.

No kidding.

My point, which I guess some folks here would rather ignore, is that it was established AS A FACET of the Republic, and explicitly sanctioned in the Constitution, by men... blah, blah, blah.

Nowhere did I state that the Constitution BEGAN the practice of slavery.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (oGez1)

289 I don't know how many atheists I have spurned to greatness by simply saying-- "You're not going to solve this God thang--why don't you work on something else?" Dude went on to Princeton labs and is now a molecular biologist. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Scott Walker Of Wisconsin at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (RJMhd)

290 I'd have to ask how many Christians also find it relatively easy to self-justify in a pinch. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 12:57 PM (/FnUH) Well, it's part of human nature. But if morality is generated from an external source, then there are extra layers of guilt to push through. The push point ends up being much later.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (T0NGe)

291 Christianity begat Western Culture, which begat the freedoms which allow atheists to speak their minds.

Posted by: --- at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (MMC8r)

292 Is there a human society on the planet where 13 year old girls won't call another 13 year old a slut (or the equivalent) if they think she is spending too much time with too many boys? Or if they just don't like her?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (ZPrif)

293 Count me among the pro-Christianity agnostics. Christian morality is, for the most part, Good and Beneficial for the improvement of the human race. I'd prefer everyone came to the same conclusions regarding what is moral as I have, but I understand that that is not going to happen, not in this lifetime or the next. So I'm pleased that a culture of morality exists, and while I'm skeptical about its source, I'm sanguine with its results.

Posted by: jwpaine @PirateBallerina at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (2oU2+)

294 194 Agnosticism and Atheism are the same damn thing.

--

Most agnostics I know come from a place of humility - they know there's stuff they don't know.
While too many atheists I know are arrogant - they KNOW there's no God.

Posted by: votermom at February 27, 2014 12:43 PM (dOiOQ)

Yet, in the last conscious moment, prior to crashing or falling off a cliff, you either shout, "Oh, God" or "Mommy!" Or a bad word. Note to self: do stop saying bad words so your future great-grands won't talk about their Grandmere screeching bad words when she throws bowls of cream spinach when wanting a martini.

I do hope my last conscious thought is of God. We are all on this iceberg alone, y'all, except those of us who believe in God, who never leaves us. As the saying goes, there are no agnostics/atheists when your ship is sinking.

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6

All I can tell you is without faith I would be a mess, when dealing with daily things or health crisis, or the many sad losses of my brother and Dad. Without faith I would be afraid of the future. Without faith I would be afraid of death. I am thankful to have been raised by parents of faith, to marry a man of faith, and to have friends of faith. And it is a quiet and personal faith, not a faith that knocks you on the head to believe the same. There is a difference, and people either learn from your character of your faith and not judging others for their choice...or they are put off by your wearing a banner and forcing the issue.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Judge of Raciss Morons at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (baL2B)

295 You have the right to your religion, and I won't say boo about it, but when your religion is offered (by Christians) as part of the political plan of action they seek, that takes it out of the realm of a private matter of conscience and itno the realm of live public debate. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 12:46 PM (/FnUH) Oh, here we go again, the chicken or the egg. Ace, I think you are generalizing Christians/Christian values here. Many of the basic laws of this country are founded on Judeo/Christian beliefs. Those include but are not limited to theft, murder, slander, etc. Yes, there are some Christians who want to interject certain social beliefs into law (birth control, abortion, ie) Just as there are atheists who want to interject their social beliefs into the law as well. Let's not even get into Sharia (banks would be non-existent, etc) There is a fine line between private beliefs and what should be kept private and what should be advocated.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (HVff2)

296 Even if you disagree with my foundations, I think you would and should find it helpful that I am arguing for many of the same things but based upon a DIFFERENT set of initial assumptions.

As I said in the post you responded to, if you embrace conservative principles and wish to act on them then let's do so together. I'm not sure how I could have stated this position more clearly...

I like to talk about principle, but we need to make progress on a societal level.

Mine isn't. It's built on simple reason (and also in-built preferences of humans for moral behavior, such as caring, respect, etc. -- things you might say are God's spirit, but which I would call a matter of evolutionary biology).

"Simple reason"? We have 200 years of leftist thought based on exactly that. For example...people should not die from preventable disease. Therefore someone should pay to treat said disease. Therefore the government as a collective someone should take money from you at gunpoint to pay for said healthcare. Simple reason...no?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 09:03 AM (P3U0f)

297 I agree with both MWR and Vic's definitions of Agnostic. Personally, as one who considers himself one, it is the belief in a greater power, but necessarily one that we can understand.

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:04 AM (/Mxso)

298 Does it bother any atheist that the monsters of our world worked only in their self interest and were rewarded mostly with riches and decadence and according to atheism will never suffer the consequences. They played the game and won.

Posted by: Wayne Storm at February 27, 2014 09:04 AM (DAevm)

299

The shit is getting real in the Ukraine. See Drudge.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 27, 2014 09:04 AM (BAS5M)

300 There is a God, I tells ya!

Posted by: Kate Upton's Bra at February 27, 2014 09:04 AM (Dwehj)

301 You can be an Atheist and still understand that actions such as murder or abortion are wrong and destructive to our society.

It is simple the reasoning by which you make that conclusion which is different.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 27, 2014 09:04 AM (GGCsk)

302 Christianity begat Western Culture Hey, buddy. There's a line, here.

Posted by: Judaism at February 27, 2014 09:05 AM (/lb53)

303 I'd have to ask how many Christians also find it relatively easy to self-justify in a pinch. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 12:57 PM (/FnUH) I've done it (more than once). But always in the back of my mind, I know I'm wrong and God is not deceived and I invariably found my may back to Him. Rather, He's led me back to Himself.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:05 AM (r+7wo)

304 Finding homosexuality repulsive and sexual restraint in women attractive is hardly unique to Christianity. The West has been both dominant and Christian for so long, we (or at least the ignorantly educated) don't appreciate what non-Christian-influenced cultures are like. Even east Asian societies are swimming in Western culture.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 09:05 AM (T0NGe)

305 "Yes. Where there are Viking rune-stones there was sure to be slavery..."
Native Americans enslaved each other; slavery is not some mysterious white man disease.
Regarding atheism and morality; you can be a moral atheist, that's never under argument. I know its an easy red herring to attack, but that isn't what people mean when they ask an atheist about morality.
Unless you have an absolute, objective standard of morality, then you're simply making it up as you go along. You have no foundation for it, no source. That's the point being made.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:05 AM (zfY+H)

306 For myself? It boils down to the Premise that the Survival of Mankind is a good thing... me and mine being part of said Race.

Thus, things which support Race survival are good.... things that don't are bad...

As I said, Eugenics is perfectly reasonable.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:05 AM (4QSOR)

307 I don't wear bow ties. I don't spend any time telling other people to not wear bow ties. I don't wear panty hose. I don't spend any time telling other people to not wear panty hose. I don't eat beets. I don't spend any time telling other people to not eat beets. I don't shave with a wet razor (ingrown hair issues) I don't spend any time telling other people to not to shave with a wet razor. You may or may not begin to see the pattern...

Posted by: M. Murcek at February 27, 2014 09:05 AM (GJUgF)

308

>>>There are multiple ways to skin a cat.

Put that cat down, you fiend!

Posted by: Bigby's Waving Hands at February 27, 2014 09:06 AM (3ZtZW)

309 Count me as an agnostic who is an advocate for protections of religious freedoms. The phoney outrage over "separation of church and state" galls me to no end.

Posted by: flounder at February 27, 2014 09:06 AM (Kkt/i)

310 299 The shit is getting real in the Ukraine. See Drudge. Posted by: Count de Monet at February 27, 2014 01:04 PM (BAS5M) ********* Shit--off to go look. If you all would just play the nice-nice with Putin--this shit wouldn't be happening.

Posted by: Scott Walker Of Wisconsin at February 27, 2014 09:06 AM (RJMhd)

311

Buddha figured out that reason could justify anything, murder, chaos, etc., in 500 B.C. roughly.

Confuscius figured out that reason could justify anything, even unimagineable horrors, 1,000 yrs later in China.

German, Russian, and French philosophers figured out that reason could justify anything, even the rape of a child, in the 18th-19th century.

But some of those philosophers thought that they could triumph. They didn't need silly old God. They had their wits, their reason, they had their system.

They put their system of thinking and government into practice in the last century. And what followed is a scale of mass horror of governments against their own people which has never been seen in the history of humanity. World wide wars, famines, genocide, repression.

How fucking hard is this?? Atheism is fine. You're free to believe whatever. It has no place in the foundation of a society nor in the law. We've been down that road. Horrors abound.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:06 AM (tVTLU)

312 300 There is a God, I tells ya!

Posted by: Kate Upton's Bra at February 27, 2014 01:04 PM (Dwehj)

Thread winner!

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 09:06 AM (T2V/1)

313 In fact, it's so universal that I submit it's hard-wired into us. God, I loathe the argument-by-biology. No. Just no. Biology doesn't speak to social organization.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 09:07 AM (T0NGe)

314 shit is getting real in the Ukraine. See Drudge. ------ It's the joo controlled reptilian shape shifters who are trying to foment war between the east and west so they can cleanse the planet of humans and take over.

Posted by: Alex Jones at February 27, 2014 09:07 AM (Aif/5)

315 Mine isn't. It's built on simple reason. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 12:49 PM (/FnUH) And so is eugenics.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:07 AM (bb5+k)

316 299 The shit is getting real in the Ukraine. See Drudge.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 27, 2014 01:04 PM (BAS5M)

Obama is observing. Sternly observing.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2014 09:07 AM (BZAd3)

317 God, I loathe the argument-by-biology. No. Just no. Biology doesn't speak to social organization. Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 01:07 PM (T0NGe) Huh?

Posted by: Seems legit at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (A98Xu)

318 It takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 12:50 PM (zfY+H) I do believe, I believe that.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (zShYM)

319 *swoon* FWIW, Karl Urban's gorgeous self is proof to me that there is a God. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 27, 2014 12:58 PM (4df7R) Yup. I'm not being facetious with that actually. There is such beauty and grace in the Universe that there must be something more. There must be. This sums up my feelings on the topic nicely: http://youtu.be/n4cqujPMXLI

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (VtjlW)

320
OT: some racists more equal than others.

(CBSNewYork) Â— Spike Lee had some harsh words for whites moving into predominantly black neighborhoods in New York City while speaking at a Black History Month lecture at Pratt Institute on Tuesday.
Lee told the audience that while heÂ’s all for democracy, he doesnÂ’t like that whites are trying to impose their standards and wealthy ideas on everyone and everything, DÂ’Auria reported.
According to Lee, with white gentrification comes disruption. The entire rant was transcribed by New York magazine.

Posted by: the alien race Xpltlmac at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (n0DEs)

321 Late to the party, but thank you Ace. As a Christian (not a very good one) Libertarian (sometimes an inconsistent one) life is difficult enough as it is without being subjected to a lot of gratuitous judgements by people over my orthodoxy. On the Christian side of this, I think of it as being badgered by the "fruit inspectors". So thank you again Ace for being fair-minded. That is something I can always count on from you.

Posted by: tubal at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (plNej)

322 Christianity begat Western Culture

Hey, buddy. There's a line, here.

Posted by: Judaism at February 27, 2014 01:05 PM (/lb53)

Yes, and Christianity extends out from a Jewish basis. There's also the beginnings of Western thought in Greek/Roman culture, but since that turned over to Christian, the growth of Western Civ has been via Christianity.

Posted by: --- at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (MMC8r)

323 Thus, things which support Race survival are good.... things that don't are bad...

----

So.... Im free to come to your house, club you with an ox jaw, drag your spouse and doughters off to my cave for the sole purpose of bearing offspring??

Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (nELVU)

324 Whut!? The Russians are docking in Havana!? omg--and who do we call? Biden, Hagel and Kerry...

Posted by: tasker at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (RJMhd)

325
Do you know what ended it: Christianity.

Although it took some time, human beings being set in their ways and all, the Christian faith finally ended the practice. No other religion could come close to doing it.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 12:55 PM (tVTLU)

As I seem to recall, slavery is still rampant among the Islamicists. There is not way, whatsoever, that Islam could rid itself of slavery. They enslave their wives, for "heaven's sake."

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 09:08 AM (fwcEs)

326 Heh......he got that from me. ;-) In Mother Green, fuck can be any article of speech in existence. I became fluent by third phase of boot camp. I heard that in his voice as I was reading it. LOL.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 09:09 AM (xZxMD)

327 Slavery was the norm for most people for most of human history. It was just what happened to you, if you were lucky, when you lost to a bigger tribe. The only large region where slavery can be argued not to have been widely practiced is East Asia. But it seems like the Chinese Emperors had plenty of slaves.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 09:09 AM (ZPrif)

328 KIEV (REUTERS) - Ukraine's new prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk on Thursday accused the government of ousted President Viktor Yanukovich of stripping state coffers bare and said US$37 billion (S$47 billion) of credit it had received had disappeared.

Speaking in parliament before he was appointed head of a national unity government, Mr Yatsenyuk said that in the past three years "the sum of 70 billion dollars was paid out of Ukraine's financial system into off-shore accounts".

Posted by: Frank Underwood at February 27, 2014 09:09 AM (e8kgV)

329 221 Bonhomme and D-Lamp you guys are fantastic!!! How many brilliant commenters are onhere?? Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 12:49 PM (tVTLU) Thank you. I have given much thought to this topic over the years. It is good to see that some of it is appreciated.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:09 AM (bb5+k)

330 Speaking of Drudge:

ERIC HOLDER HOSPITALIZED...

Chest pains...

Posted by: flounder at February 27, 2014 09:09 AM (Kkt/i)

331 As my final post before moving back to my book; I prefer long bows to crossbows.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 27, 2014 09:09 AM (T2V/1)

332 290 I'd have to ask how many Christians also find it relatively easy to self-justify in a pinch. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 12:57 PM ( None. If you are a Christian is impossible to retro justify. It will sit in the pit of your stomach like an I undigested guilt steak.

Posted by: Wayne Storm at February 27, 2014 09:09 AM (DAevm)

333 In Havana? Send lawyers, guns and money!

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 27, 2014 09:09 AM (ZshNr)

334 180 Agnosticism and Atheism are the same damn thing. Posted by: seattle slough Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Not only are atheism and agnosticism fundamentally different, but there are distinct types of atheism and agnosticism that are completely unlike each other even though they share the same label. This should help clarify things: Personal Atheism "I affirmatively believe, and think I "know," that God does not exist, no matter how you define or conceive of him. This is my personal belief, and I resist any attempt to force me to believe otherwise." Militant Atheism "Not only do I personally know that God does not exist, but I want to convince others to join me in this knowledge, and will strive vigorously to erase belief in God throughout society because I think that such a belief is hurtful to society in general." Personal Agnosticism "I personally don't know whether God exists or not. Maybe, maybe not: I see no evidence conclusively proving either contention. Since I have not personally perceived or experienced God, I'll just have to shrug and leave this question unanswered." Universal Agnosticism "Not only do I personally not know whether or not God exists, but I have come to the logical conclusion that it is not possible for anyone to know whether God exists, because human apprehension is limited. It is the height of hubris to declare that God either does exist (as religious people state) or does not exist (as atheists claim). Both are equally delusional, because even if God did exist, he/she/it would be utterly beyond the ability of humans to perceive. I therefore condemn atheism and religions alike." Those are just four "variations" of atheist and agnostic belief. There are others as well. Me? I'm #3, the "personal agnostic."

Posted by: zombie at February 27, 2014 09:10 AM (mizYg)

335 There's nothing wrong with reason, you just have to understand its limits. For example, reason does not help you understand love. And reason is only as good as the data you have to work with: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Reason is a perfectly fine, admirable tool, when used properly, but you can't pretend it is the ultimate tool usable everywhere equally. Sometimes that leatherman multitool just isn't good for the job.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:10 AM (zfY+H)

336 121 Meh. If Holder croaks, they've got a very deep bench of freaks and tyrants to take his place.

And that's the problem.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 27, 2014 12:29 PM (olDqf)

Soon.

Posted by: Satan at February 27, 2014 09:10 AM (Kkt/i)

337 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6 Heh. Even with faith, I can't seem to please Him.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:10 AM (0HooB)

338 Lee told the audience that while heÂ’s all for democracy, he doesnÂ’t like that whites are trying to impose their standards and wealthy ideas on everyone and everything, DÂ’Auria reported. According to Lee, with white gentrification comes disruption. The entire rant was transcribed by New York magazine.

Posted by: the alien race Xpltlmac at February 27, 2014 01:08 PM (n0DEs)

Yes, how dare those nasty white folk impose their standards of wealth when us darkies are so damned fond of dealing drugs and shooting each other to death here in abject poverty and misery. How DARE they?

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 09:10 AM (fwcEs)

339 Whew. Too much purple drank this mornin'.

Posted by: Spike Flea at February 27, 2014 09:10 AM (Dwehj)

340

Speaking of Drudge:

ERIC HOLDER HOSPITALIZED...

Chest pains...

I would think it would be lightning.

Posted by: --- at February 27, 2014 09:11 AM (MMC8r)

341 >>>No, not at all. That's just a head's up that Delgado is one that describes herself as conservative, so just wanted to front it for the readers where she's really at.

For the record, based on this poster's history, my assumption is that A.J. Delgado is a typically cromulent conservative who happens to disagree with "prescient11" on one issue or another and is therefore CAST OUT OF THE TRIBE.

Just a bet.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 27, 2014 09:11 AM (ewYO6)

342 But ours goes to '11'.

Posted by: Some of the Christians in this Thread at February 27, 2014 09:11 AM (/lb53)

343

I'm not being facetious with that actually. There is such beauty and grace in the Universe that there must be something more. There must be.

Absolutely. I mean, I'm sorry, but if you don't think the miracle of a perfectly formed human being growing inside its mother, built from the unique genetic codes of his/her mother and father, and then growing up to be someone entirely unique in their own right signifies there is a God, then I feel very sorry for you. Everything is more beautiful when you can view it through that prism of miracles and faith.

Just because something can be explained doesn't mean it's not a miracle.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 09:11 AM (4df7R)

344 Biology does relate to social organization. Dog's social structure evolved. So did beavers. And elephants. And humans. When you see an animal engage in a certain behavior over and over. Odds are high there is a genetic basis for that behavior.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 09:11 AM (ZPrif)

345 "Reason" alone tells me that if I can lie, cheat and steal for no other reason than I get off on it, and I can escape whatever consequences the state may attempt to impose, then why not?

Posted by: early cuyler at February 27, 2014 09:11 AM (PUyWA)

346 "the sum of 70 billion dollars was paid out of Ukraine's financial system into off-shore accounts". ********** Wow. 70 billion that would almost be a Krugman Obama Second Stimulus.

Posted by: tasker at February 27, 2014 09:11 AM (RJMhd)

347

To go back to the very first post, I think we can all agree however that Cooke's article was centered around a lie, or at least a very serious misrepresentation, to wit, that our founding documents are not God/theist centric. Of course they are.

I find this misrepresentation very troubling.

I harbor no ill will towards any person who is agnostic, atheistic, gay, straight, or just likes him some anal.

But the second one needs to lie, dissemble or manipulate, then one obviously has lost the debate.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:11 AM (tVTLU)

348 Oh wow, we put our house up for sale Monday, and sold it for asking price by the very first person who came through yesterday. Now packing and moving panic is setting in. Why do I feel woefully unprepared?

/off topic

Posted by: Lady in Black at February 27, 2014 09:12 AM (22bm2)

349 It's beginning to appear that way, which would comport with a certain section of the Bible concerning the End Times. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 27, 2014 12:51 PM (0HooB) If anything is going to convince me to get out from behind the 8-ball, it is the confirmation of predictions I heard in church many decades ago. The accuracy with which they predicted our current society is spooky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Thief_in_the_Night_%28film%29

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:12 AM (bb5+k)

350 A Quaker or Amish who will not pick up a gun when drafted due to conscience is ok, and meanwhile a baker who will not bake a cake for a same-sex couple that is an abomination in their religion can be sued out of existence.

Oh, that's excellent. I'm stealing that one.

Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at February 27, 2014 09:13 AM (DLu2s)

351 Posted by: zombie at February 27, 2014 01:10 PM (mizYg) Thanks for that zombie. There've been a few eyeroll-worthy characterizations and mischaracterizations of agnosticism sprinkled in the thread and you addressed one of the more egregious.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 27, 2014 09:13 AM (gBnkX)

352 18-1, I did not intend to imply that your rejected me as a political ally. My point was that you should find it helpful to your own cause if I argue for mostly the same things via a different set of initial assumptions. Not everyone shares your starting Christians assumptions, as you well know. So your arguments, proceeding from those assumptions, will fail to convince non-Christians (or non -evangelicals). Before getting to any propositions you wish to prove, you have to get someone to agree to your initial assumptions. Mine being different from yours, I can, possibly, persuade other people than you can. (Conversely, you can persuade people I cannot.)

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 09:13 AM (/FnUH)

353 Joe vs the Volcano is a highly underrated, very thoughtful movie, and that scene with the moon is one of my all time favorites in any film.
Plus, Meg Ryan was at her dewy cutest in that film. Just breathtaking.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:13 AM (zfY+H)

354 @337..you still please Him, you dope.

Just read that Holder is in hospital with fast and furious chest pains. May he be well again soon to have some more Congressional meetings with Issa.

With the Russian ship docking in Cuba, should I duck and cover yet in Floriduh? Yehaw.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Judge of Raciss Morons at February 27, 2014 09:14 AM (baL2B)

355 When you see an animal engage in a certain behavior over and over. Odds are high there is a genetic basis for that behavior.

*watches cat staring at nothing, ponders*

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:14 AM (4QSOR)

356 The social structure of bees and ants is due to genetics. The social structure of wolves is due to genetics. And, yes, the social structure of humans is due to genetics. Our large brain means we are built with more plastic, general guidelines than rigid rules like bees and ants. Our natural aversion to incest -- genetic. Our natural aversion to homosexuality -- also genetic. Our natural aversion to female promiscuity - I strongly suspect genetic. Behaviors around sexuality are more likely to be naturally selected than others. These are important behaviors.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 09:14 AM (ZPrif)

357 Posted by: Lady in Black at February 27, 2014 01:12 PM (22bm2) Well that was quick. Congrats.

Posted by: RWC at February 27, 2014 09:14 AM (MtC8f)

358 But I'm very happy that there are atheists who are moral and I'm glad to have them in the conservative movement. Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 12:51 PM (r+7wo) One of my long argued points is that modern Atheists are only moral because they grew up floating in an ocean of Judeo-Christian moral principles. Had they grown up in an "Atheist" environment, they would not be what we consider "moral" at all.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:14 AM (bb5+k)

359 Heh. Even with faith, I can't seem to please Him. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 27, 2014 01:10 PM (0HooB) If you have faith in Christ and are following Him, He's pleased with you. One thing that has become more and more clear to me the older I get in this Christian walk is how loving God is, that He IS love. Funny enough (but not really funny if you think about it), it really started dawning on me when I decided to study the Old Testament for reals.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:15 AM (r+7wo)

360 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 01:10 PM (zfY+H) I'm trying to square this comment with your one at 225.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 27, 2014 09:15 AM (gBnkX)

361 Human female hypergamy -- preference for a mate who is bigger, stronger, taller, more successful and higher status -- genetic. Human male preference for youth and fecundity in a female -- genetic.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 09:15 AM (ZPrif)

362 348 Oh wow, we put our house up for sale Monday, and sold it for asking price by the very first person who came through yesterday. Now packing and moving panic is setting in. Why do I feel woefully unprepared?

/off topic

Posted by: Lady in Black at February 27, 2014 01:12 PM (22bm2)

Congratulations! I hope some of this magic rubs off on us in a couple of years.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Judge of Raciss Morons at February 27, 2014 09:15 AM (baL2B)

363 Modern Atheists are tainted with Christianity. The pure form would likely be virulent.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:15 AM (bb5+k)

364 Buddha figured out that reason could justify anything, murder, chaos, etc.,in 500 B.C. roughly. Confuscius figured out that reason could justify anything, even unimagineable horrors, 1,000 yrs later in China. German, Russian, and French philosophers figured out that reason could justify anything, even the rape of a child, in the 18th-19th century. Don't forget Machiavelli (pbuh).

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 09:15 AM (T0NGe)

365 324 Whut!? The Russians are docking in Havana!? omg--and who do we call? Biden, Hagel and Kerry... Posted by: tasker at February 27, 2014 01:08 PM (RJMhd) Kerry announced the Monroe Doctrine dead a couple months ago... And Russian ships have been there before... Is this a Spy ship??? Yup.... just like any Aegis Cruisers of Burke Destroyers we have deployed for Radar Coverage of Europe...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 09:15 AM (84gbM)

366

Jeff B,

And what is my history?

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:16 AM (tVTLU)

367 Had they grown up in an "Atheist" environment, they would not be what we consider "moral" at all. Second look at the Skinner Box?

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 09:16 AM (/lb53)

368 While Thomas Jefferson was theistic in his philosophy, he was no Christian. His rewrite of the Bible taking out all the bits he didn't like (anything supernatural) is evidence of this. But all of them were basically theistic, because that was the dominant worldview of the entire planet at the time: God exists, but what you do about it or how you reacts varied.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:16 AM (zfY+H)

369 Congrats, Lady in Black, never hear things like that these days. Usually it takes forever.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 27, 2014 09:16 AM (ZshNr)

370 One of my long argued points is that modern Atheists are only moral because they grew up floating in an ocean of Judeo-Christian moral principles. Had they grown up in an "Atheist" environment, they would not be what we consider "moral" at all. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 01:14 PM (bb5+k) Yep, I alluded to that in one of my earlier posts, just not as eloquently.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:17 AM (r+7wo)

371 Posted by: --- at February 27, 2014 01:08 PM (MMC8r) That's why I prefer Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian as the proper adjective.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 09:17 AM (T0NGe)

372 Social structures are just a set of behaviors. They are just as subject to natural selection as any other set of behaviors. The different way that men and women socialize and form friendships -- is due to genetics.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 09:17 AM (ZPrif)

373 Congrats, Lady in Black! That's a blessing. Happy moving!

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:17 AM (r+7wo)

374 Chique, you are right on the money. Why would the God of the OT have left even a remnant? We remain a very stiff-necked people. But, He takes us back, over and over and over. No human could do this, only God. So I thank God, every moment, for my continued existence and blessings. No man could sustain, but only God.

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 09:18 AM (fwcEs)

375 I'm way late to the thread, but thanks for your thoughtful post Ace.

Posted by: AE at February 27, 2014 09:18 AM (sSKe8)

376 Our natural aversion to incest -- genetic. Our natural aversion to homosexuality -- also genetic. Our natural aversion to female promiscuity - I strongly suspect genetic. Behaviors around sexuality are more likely to be naturally selected than others. These are important behaviors. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 01:14 PM (ZPrif) Sadly, I also think there is a Genetic predisposition component to Racism... as every culture of Man has had it... And until we figure out that these feelings are natural, but need to be fought... we will not overcome Racism (IMO).

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 09:18 AM (84gbM)

377 The different way that men and women socialize and form friendships -- is due to genetics.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 01:17 PM (ZPrif)

So, somehow, is genetics not something that God could have created? Just askin'.

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 09:18 AM (fwcEs)

378 Genetics are important, Flatbush.

Posted by: tubal at February 27, 2014 09:18 AM (plNej)

379 Eugenics is perfectly reasonable. Posted by: bonhomme at February 27, 2014 12:55 PM (4QSOR) Damn, that is damn near absofuckinglutely my same response to that same comment.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:18 AM (bb5+k)

380 "I'm trying to square this comment with your one at 225."
There's no conflict. You can act in ways that are inconsistent with your worldview. You can hold to something which, if examined, you would realize is at odds with your stated beliefs. We all do it.
But I do think the need to reduce everything to genetics is... cute. As if chemistry and biology explains everything. I'm reminded of the Norse who thought thunder was Thor's hammer being thrown.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:19 AM (zfY+H)

381 Ace, please put up some nonsense?

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 09:20 AM (/lb53)

382 But all of them were basically theistic, because that was the dominant worldview of the entire planet at the time: God exists, but what you do about it or how you reacts varied.

Look up a guy named Benjamin Rush. Hugely influential in the formation of the American experiment, very religious, and largely ignored by popular culture.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:20 AM (4QSOR)

383 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6 Heh. Even with faith, I can't seem to please Him. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Quit fapping.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 09:20 AM (xZxMD)

384 Your point is taken, but the biological view of humanity is an easy out and is widely overblown. I take back my more definitive statement, though. However, Human male preference for youth and fecundity in a female -- genetic. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 27, 2014 01:15 PM (ZPrif) So the presence of homosexuality disproves evolution?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 09:21 AM (T0NGe)

385 I'm atheist/agnostic (not sure yet, doesn't hurt not to disavow God just in case) and pro-Christian as well. I also think Tebow got the shaft, probably because of the PSA with his mom IMHO. Everything in moderation.

Posted by: aka.john at February 27, 2014 09:21 AM (dG6mV)

386 Congrats, Lady in Black, never hear things like that these days. Usually it takes forever.

--

Thanks, all, for the congrats. :-)

Exactly! I was actually hoping it would sell in the next 2-3 months. Never dreamed it would go this fast. Though, after only 2 days on the market, I was already tired of keeping it in pristine, model home condition. What a drag that is. Of course, my house cleaning OCD didn't help.

Posted by: Lady in Black at February 27, 2014 09:21 AM (22bm2)

387 Sadly, I also think there is a Genetic predisposition component to Racism... as every culture of Man has had it... Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 01:18 PM (84gbM) This is an aspect of what the NT calls the flesh or sinful nature in later versions. As Christians, we are exhorted not to be slaves to the sinful nature. Apostle Paul's statement that in Christ there are no Jews or Greeks, male or female, slave or free must have been radical in that time.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:21 AM (r+7wo)

388 Atheists and agnostics need to spend a lot more time outdoors. You want proof of G-d? Get out there and look at, wonder at and enjoy the world He made. You won't discover Him while eating Cheetos in a basement or drinking hot cocoa in your jammies.

Posted by: Citizen X at February 27, 2014 09:21 AM (7ObY1)

389 I'm reminded of the Norse who thought thunder was Thor's hammer being thrown.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 01:19 PM (zfY+H)

Wait, you mean it ISN'T? I'll have to revisit my whole system of beliefs now.....

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 09:21 AM (fwcEs)

390 His rewrite of the Bible taking out all the bits he didn't like (anything supernatural) is evidence of this.

I don't know if he removed this one (probably), but his philosophy would have had a HUGE problem with it.

Amos 3:7
For the Lord God does nothing
without revealing his secret
to his servants the prophets.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:21 AM (4QSOR)

391

One of my long argued points is that modern Atheists are only moral because they grew up floating in an ocean of Judeo-Christian moral principles.

Yes. But as I said earlier, understanding that these principles lead to personal and social well-being is different from believing that these principles were given to man by a Creator.

Wanting to live in a happy, kind, respectful, helpful society while you're alive doesn't mean you have to expect that there's something waiting for you on the other side of death, too.

Had they grown up in an "Atheist" environment, they would not be what we consider "moral" at all.

That's because those are not atheists. They are ANTI-theists. They are against anything that has religious underpinnings, because they believe such things are false constructs placed upon humanity by people long dead. Society as currently structured, around Judeo-Christian principles, is not mankind's natural state to an anti-theist. It doesn't matter that society functions better under those principles because morality is an illusion.

God save us from anti-theists.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 09:22 AM (4df7R)

392 Joe vs the Volcano is a highly underrated, very thoughtful movie, and that scene with the moon is one of my all time favorites in any film. Plus, Meg Ryan was at her dewy cutest in that film. Just breathtaking. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 01:13 PM (zfY+H) I love Joe vs. the Volcano. It has in common with Groundhog Day that you're watching and laughing and it's hilarious and then it hits you what is going on underneath it all. The entire subplot regarding Joe's sacrifice is fantastic. Plus it has one of the all time best declarations of love ever. Patricia's line that "My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement." is right up there with the life'a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death line in Auntie Mame. There have been many times when the 3:00 a.m. blues strike that I pull up that scene with the moon to remind myself that my very existence is a miracle and a gift and a blessing and maybe, just possibly, I should get the hell over myself and be grateful for my life.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 27, 2014 09:22 AM (VtjlW)

393 One of my long argued points is that modern Atheists are only moral because they grew up floating in an ocean of Judeo-Christian moral principles.

Had they grown up in an "Atheist" environment, they would not be what we consider "moral" at all.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 01:14 PM (bb5+k)

It's an interesting theory, but leaves me wondering how you can assert that all morality comes from religion? Someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, or has never been exposed to it, thus has presumably not been told in book form to avoid shooting their brother in the face .. would just go ahead and do it otherwise?

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:22 AM (/Mxso)

394 "Look up a guy named Benjamin Rush. Hugely influential in the formation of the American experiment, very religious, and largely ignored by popular culture."
Well I didn't say none of the founders were Christian. The Adams brothers, Patrick Henry, many of them were very, very deeply committed and Christian. I was simply noting that all of them - Christian or not - were still theistic in their worldview.
Its just interesting that Thomas Jefferson is probably the only honesty non-Christian president we've ever had. We have had non-Christian presidents before (such as the present one) but they all pretend to be Christian for the votes.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:22 AM (zfY+H)

395 Atheists and agnostics need to spend a lot more time outdoors. I'll do that.

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 09:22 AM (/lb53)

396 Wait, I thought thunder was the angels in Heaven bowling. You mean gramma LIED?

Posted by: Citizen X at February 27, 2014 09:22 AM (7ObY1)

397 Ace, please put up some nonsense?
I'm betting the next post will have puppies.

Posted by: fluffy at February 27, 2014 09:23 AM (Ua6T/)

398 291 Christianity begat Western Culture, which begat the freedoms which allow atheists to speak their minds. Posted by: --- at February 27, 2014 01:03 PM (MMC8r) Exactly what i've been saying, though condensed to a succinct essence.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:23 AM (bb5+k)

399 Heh. Even with faith, I can't seem to please Him. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Quit fapping. Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 01:20 PM (xZxMD) A bridge too far, Rick....

Posted by: tubal at February 27, 2014 09:23 AM (plNej)

400 >>>The social structure of bees and ants is due to genetics. The social structure of wolves is due to genetics. And, yes, the social structure of humans is due to genetics. Our large brain means we are built with more plastic, general guidelines than rigid rules like bees and ants. Our natural aversion to incest -- genetic. Our natural aversion to homosexuality -- also genetic. Our natural aversion to female promiscuity - I strongly suspect genetic. Behaviors around sexuality are more likely to be naturally selected than others. These are important behaviors. ... To rape and murder people who do not look like yourself is also genetically-selected behavior. You can ask the Neanderthals about that. You can ask the entire history of the world, in which people have been slaughtered over animus that originated over the fact that they weren't quite like us. Not everything "genetic" is holy. Selfishness is genetic; judging people for their promiscuity is genetic, and so is the completely hypocritical urge to be promiscuous oneself genetic; homosexuality is probably not genetic per se, but pre-natal, and so is the male revulsion to gay sex genetic. Speaking of "scientism," you're essentially postulating that any bit of ugly coding in our brains is "good" and justified simply because it is our brains. Other things in our brains counsel against the ugliness in our brains. The desire to kill those who upset us is genetic; but so is the urge for mercy and peace. You are very selective about which things you want to say are justified by genetics.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 09:23 AM (/FnUH)

401 @247 [prescient11] - Give me a break. Slavery is more natural of a human condition then buttsex. It existed since human civilization started, well before Christianity.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Now please go back and read my comment again, which doesn't have ANYTHING to do with how long slavery has existed.

Fact: slavery has, at various times through history, been promoted, supported, attacked, defended, abolished, pursued, statutorily sanctioned and statutorily eliminated... ALL by Chrisitans and/or Deists who were acting in good faith.

As such, the question of slavery should be eliminated from the calculus used to determine whether or not Chrisitanity has been a force for morality through history. Taken in sum over time with respect to that institution, it's a wash.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 09:23 AM (oGez1)

402 Someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, or has never been exposed to it, thus has presumably not been told in book form toavoid shooting their brother in the face .. would just go ahead and do it otherwise?

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:22 PM (/Mxso)

Lord of the Flies. Of course they would, if it met their self-interest.

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 09:24 AM (fwcEs)

403 365 324 Whut!? The Russians are docking in Havana!? omg--and who do we call? Biden, Hagel and Kerry... Posted by: tasker at February 27, 2014 01:08 PM (RJMhd) Kerry announced the Monroe Doctrine dead a couple months ago... And Russian ships have been there before... Is this a Spy ship??? Yup.... just like any Aegis Cruisers of Burke Destroyers we have deployed for Radar Coverage of Europe... Posted by: Romeo13 at February 27, 2014 01:15 PM (84gbM) ********* Ya looks like an Intel ship. Thing is Russians had three vessels docked in Havana on December 2008. The destroyer Admiral Chabanenko (?) and two others. Still given the environment of everything else the Russians are "moving"....

Posted by: tasker at February 27, 2014 09:24 AM (RJMhd)

404 Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:22 PM (/Mxso) The Bible talks about how non-believers have a conscience.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:24 AM (r+7wo)

405 379 DLamp, Eugenics is gorgeous in its mechanical logic. Evil often is.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 27, 2014 09:24 AM (TE35l)

406 Joe Vs. the Volcano was bullshit. Erupting volcanos do not spit you out when you jump into them. And they certainly don't spit you out into a raft filled with a big trunk full of supplies and a ready-made hot blonde traveling companion. How many innocent people died because of that movie after they jumped into a volcano? Meg Ryan is now a Botox'd, stretch-faced freak, and THAT is reality. Joe probably threw her overboard.

Posted by: Citizen X at February 27, 2014 09:25 AM (7ObY1)

407 It doesn't bother me that there are atheists and agnostics in the conservative movement. Why should it bother me? They're the ones going to Hell.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 27, 2014 09:25 AM (SY2Kh)

408 395 Atheists and agnostics need to spend a lot more time outdoors. I'll do that. Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 01:22 PM (/lb53) ********* Ha! Atheists just need to watch more hockey--damn it.

Posted by: tasker at February 27, 2014 09:25 AM (RJMhd)

409

This is a great thread, a great debate. Amish dude, my bad on the Prince!!

My biggest problem, as a formed atheist, is that I've accepted all these arguments. This debate has already occurred. These people have run entire empires. And everything that was warned about by philosophers from before Christ's birth CAME TO PASS. In spades.

Further, all the science and math is moving away from an atheist position. From chaos theory, fractal patterns, black swan theory, to weather, to our natural environment, to math, to microbiology all shows an intensely complex structure of order and purpose.

In other words, the atheists always relied on science to show that there is no God and God/a designer is not necessary. That is being refuted constantly, by atheistic scientists no less.

You speak of genetics. Do you even understand exactly how complicated the chain is? 4B years can produce that, at random? We were chucking spears for 100MM yrs or so, and then, just out of the blue we developed speech and landed on the fucking moon!!??

These are quite the coincidences. Finally reason. Gays are bad for society because they contribute to STDs and weaken the race. Let's kill them all. Tell me why I'm wrong and you're right if you oppose it. My reasons are sound, and utilitarian.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:26 AM (tVTLU)

410 "I'm betting the next post will have puppies." Yes, but they will be Godless, satanic puppies.

Posted by: jwest at February 27, 2014 09:26 AM (u2a4R)

411 Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 01:23 PM (/FnUH) Well put, ace. The whole arguing everything from evolution irritates me and strikes me as silly. But it's an easy way to get "cool" headlines in the paper about your "science."

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:26 AM (r+7wo)

412 "A Quaker or Amish who will not pick up a gun when drafted due to
conscience is ok, and meanwhile a baker who will not bake a cake for a
same-sex couple that is an abomination in their religion can be sued out
of existence."

And that's what pisses me off about Obamacare. Amish, Muslims, etc. get exclusions to accommodate their religious objections. More then just being forced to pay for contraceptive coverage, they get to opt out of the whole thing. At same time the Obama Administration will fight Christian churches tooth and nail over their religious objections.

Posted by: lowandslow at February 27, 2014 09:26 AM (IV4od)

413 There is a fine line between private beliefs and what should be kept private and what should be advocated. Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2014 01:03 PM (HVff2) I have a moral belief that people should not get the benefits of other people's labors. And Yes, I want to IMPOSE this moral belief on the rest of our society.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:26 AM (bb5+k)

414 You people do know that Lord of the Flies was a work of Fiction, right?

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 09:26 AM (/lb53)

415

Hollowpoint:

Brilliant!!! hahaha.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:26 AM (tVTLU)

416

I cannot begin to comprehend why what I perceive to be ace's combo of positions - non-religious but clear-headed about the correctness and value of religious freedom - is the least bit controversial. Don't have to have a smidgen of religious impulse (me) to consider freedom of conscience a keystone of civilized governance in a free society. Likewise, not exactly quantum physics to understand/support that the US was founded by religious people in a religious time in a way that nonetheless provides maximum liberty to all flavors of theism and atheism as well.

Well, until now, I guess. Of course social realities - how people behave outside the government/legal sphere - have sometimes and may still create less free space for people to practice different religious beliefs/lack of belief (think urban atheist moving to a small traditional religiously active community). That's different. But now the state is imposing beliefs/marginalizing beliefs (CO came-maker, etc.). Using the truncheon handed to it when freedom of association was virtually abolished in favor of mob/state-sanctioned correct behaviors during the "civil rights" struggle.

Posted by: non-purist at February 27, 2014 09:27 AM (afQnV)

417 Ace, please put up some nonsense? I'm betting the next post will have puppies. In sweaters?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 09:27 AM (xZxMD)

418 "Lord of the Flies. Of course they would, if it met their self-interest."
You don't even have to go to fiction. There are isolated little tribes around the world that have horrific, ghastly cultural patterns that are completely accepted and thought wonderful.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:27 AM (zfY+H)

419 ...pushing the envelope of topic relevance by way of a friend's question: Why "need" God in order to "be" good? Empathy and Compassion, for instance? Emergency Room link: The patient is large. Very large. At more than 600 pounds, he is a mountain of flesh. Â“My stomach hurts,Â” he says. We try a chest X-ray, turning up the power to the maximum setting. All we see is white: The patientÂ’s body is just too thick to allow standard X-rays to penetrate to the bones; he is a walking lead shield. Â“The Americans with Disabilities Act says that they should have the proper equipment to handle me, the same as they do for anyone else,Â” he says indignantly. Â“IÂ’m entitled to that. IÂ’ll probably have to sue to get the care I really need.Â” Later on in my shift, still feeling traces of the patientÂ’s presence, I sit and stare at my 700-calorie dinner, all appetite gone, wondering where empathy ends and compassion begins. http://tinyurl.com/l5g523o WTF distinction that one must finish before the other begins? Go figure which is which below. the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this : sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do they ever coexist, or must one END the chicken in order to pass into the egg?

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 09:27 AM (MhA4j)

420 >>>Had they grown up in an "Atheist" environment, they would not be what we consider "moral" at all. That's because those are not atheists. They are ANTI-theists. They are against anything that has religious underpinnings, because they believe such things are false constructs placed upon humanity by people long dead. That isn't untrue, but the point still stands. The atheistic cultures that last are either highly repressive (Russia) or rigidly traditional shame cultures (east Asia). Why is the former undesirable? Well, it actually comes from western values that spring from Judaism, Christianity and the Reformation. But it is perfectly easy to believe in a moral code that says repression is preferable so that people don't act in the socially wrong way. The latter seems much less undesirable, but it tends to require a unified culture in order to function. The tolerance and polyglot society doesn't survive in it.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 09:27 AM (T0NGe)

421 283 Vashta Narada, Quite. Once I lose everything if wife gets forced out worst case I fully intend to get my moonbat good civic virtue on. Lawfare, rent-seeking the sky I the limit. Become so burdensome we force the issue.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 27, 2014 09:28 AM (TE35l)

422

Enough of the mixed signals already. Does this mean I DON'T have to provide my political enemies a forum with which to attack me ?

'Cause if so ... this entire bullshit drama episode has put my knee-capping schedule about twelve hours behind.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 27, 2014 09:28 AM (F2BKh)

423 Hey, buddy. There's a line, here. Posted by: Judaism at February 27, 2014 01:05 PM (/lb53) I agree. Judaism is like Windows 95. It got us moving in the right direction, but there were subsequent releases.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:28 AM (bb5+k)

424 You people do know that Lord of the Flies was a work of Fiction, right?

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 01:26 PM (/lb53)

And you do know that human nature, by definition, is likely to go in that direction unhindered? What's your point?

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 09:28 AM (fwcEs)

425 404 Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:22 PM (/Mxso) The Bible talks about how non-believers have a conscience. Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 01:24 PM (r+7wo) Which a lot of people work very hard to overcome, one method being to enlist others to their personal points of view, Chique. I see it a lot. I give you - mass communications.

Posted by: tubal at February 27, 2014 09:28 AM (kNjG7)

426 "There's no conflict. You can act in ways that are inconsistent with your worldview. You can hold to something which, if examined, you would realize is at odds with your stated beliefs. We all do it." Well sure there is conflict. Everything you typed after "conflict" admits this fact. You declared that atheism (which I personally don't subscribe to) flies in the face of reason, logic, and common sense. Something a non-militant, perfectly reasonable atheist could turn right back around and say to you. Then you say that reason is limited. I agree that reason is limited, but disagree strongly with the proposition that theism is based upon it. You seem to think that an atheist (and perhaps an agnostic) lives an unexamined life or holds an unexamined worldview simply because their conclusions differ from yours. But the lack of belief for which someone does not observe any evidence is not a matter of faith.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 27, 2014 09:28 AM (gBnkX)

427 414You people do know that Lord of the Flies was a work of Fiction, right?

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 01:26 PM (/lb53)

Shit, that was a close one, man. I was just about to crush a fat kid's head with a rock.

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:29 AM (/Mxso)

428 Well put, ace. The whole arguing everything from evolution irritates me and strikes me as silly. But it's an easy way to get "cool" headlines in the paper about your "science." Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 01:26 PM (r+7wo) It's even easier if you just come up with a computer program to randomly generate your "science" in the first place.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 27, 2014 09:29 AM (VtjlW)

429 "CO cake maker", duh

Posted by: non-purist at February 27, 2014 09:29 AM (afQnV)

430 How many innocent people died because of that movie after they jumped into a volcano?

Uh oh, who let the People Against Joe vs the Volcano for Incorrectly Portraying Volcano Suicide group in?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:29 AM (4QSOR)

431

Goy:

Your response is not rational. The only religion that has served to end slavery worlwide is Christianity.

You know slavery, a universal human condition was eventually overcome pretty much worldwide due to Christian thought and Christian thought alone.

That's a wash with what exactly?? It took a while to get there, admittedly, but great ideas usually do take some time. Also took a while to end polygamy. Are you joking?

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:29 AM (tVTLU)

432 I'm really enjoying this conversation, 'rons and 'ettes. Keeping it civil, with some really great points on both (all?) sides. You guys are really smart and I've learned a lot from y'all.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:29 AM (r+7wo)

433 From the University of Delaware a press release I just canÂ’t stop laughing about. Of course, they have no real-world tests of this claim, only Â“their sophisticated climate-weather modelÂ”. No numbers were given on turbine Â“mortalityÂ”, so one wonders how many would survive.

New research by the University of Delaware and Stanford University shows that an army of offshore wind turbines could reduce hurricanesÂ’ wind speeds, wave heights and flood-causing storm surge.

The findings, published online this week in Nature Climate Change, demonstrate for the first time that wind turbines can buffer damage to coastal cities during hurricanes.

Â“The little turbines can fight back the beast,Â” said study co-author Cristina Archer, associate professor in the University of DelawareÂ’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCRoN2NGLYI

Posted by: Claire Underwood at February 27, 2014 09:29 AM (e8kgV)

434 It's even easier if you just come up with a computer program to randomly generate your "science" in the first place. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 27, 2014 01:29 PM (VtjlW) ************ I think that explains Noam Chomsky and Obama's speeches-- SCIgen.

Posted by: tasker at February 27, 2014 09:30 AM (RJMhd)

435 Would anyone like to share my earworm of "No More Lonely Nights" by Paul McCartney? You're welcome.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 27, 2014 09:30 AM (L2I78)

436 It's even easier if you just come up with a computer program to randomly generate your "science" in the first place. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 27, 2014 01:29 PM (VtjlW) LOL, my Queen. I am really bummed I missed that post when it first went up.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:30 AM (r+7wo)

437 Someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, or has never been exposed to it, thus has presumably not been told in book form toavoid shooting their brother in the face .. would just go ahead and do it otherwise? Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:22 PM (/Mxso) They should. If they know what's good for them.

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at February 27, 2014 09:30 AM (T0NGe)

438 What I am going to take away from this thread : If not for Jesus, The Swiss Family Robinson would be a very different book.

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 09:31 AM (/lb53)

439 The Bible talks about how non-believers have a conscience.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 01:24 PM (r+7wo)

I'm not being pedantic, I'm actually asking: how does a conscience work when untethered from morals?

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:31 AM (/Mxso)

440 Joe vs. the Volcano was a fantastic movie.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:31 AM (tVTLU)

441

"Would anyone like to share my earworm of "No More Lonely Nights" by Paul McCartney?"

Gah!

*desparately hums Happy Birthday*

Posted by: Pug Mahon, Ready to get Liquored Up at February 27, 2014 09:32 AM (K+mtQ)

442 The times we're facing right now are not an example of a society trying to shake free of religious dogmas toward freedom, but rather a different religion attempting to achieve dominance and crush its competition. The only difference between this and all the previous instances in history is that this faith pretends it is not religious at all.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:32 AM (zfY+H)

443 'Cause if so ... this entire bullshit drama episode has put my knee-capping schedule about twelve hours behind. Just say it was because they cut you off in traffic. Folks seem to have less issue with that these days.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 27, 2014 09:32 AM (naUcP)

444 I agree. Judaism is like Windows 95. It got us moving in the right direction, but there were subsequent releases. So Jonestown was Vista?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 09:32 AM (xZxMD)

445 The little turbines can fight back the beast,Â” said study co-author Cristina Archer, associate professor in the University of DelawareÂ’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment. Please tell me this is an onion article

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 27, 2014 09:32 AM (R8hU8)

446 New research by the University of Delaware and Stanford University shows that an army of offshore wind turbines could reduce hurricanesÂ’ wind speeds, wave heights and flood-causing storm surge.

The findings, published online this week in Nature Climate Change, demonstrate for the first time that wind turbines can buffer damage to coastal cities during hurricanes.

Â“The little turbines can fight back the beast,Â” said study co-author Cristina Archer, associate professor in the University of DelawareÂ’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment.

Broken Wind Turbine Fallacy

They will be able to mitigate a hurricane's destructive wind speed....

...once.

Posted by: EC at February 27, 2014 09:33 AM (GQ8sn)

447 TV Show idea : Parody of the 'Swiss Family...', only it's the Robertson Family and we strand them on Ibiza or Fire Island.

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 09:33 AM (/lb53)

448 shows that an army of offshore wind turbines could reduce hurricanesÂ’ wind speeds, wave heights and flood-causing storm surge.

How could you argue against this? Their argument would be: "Hey, our turbine plan worked...that hurricane would have been a LOT worse without them."

Posted by: GMan at February 27, 2014 09:33 AM (sxq57)

449 I'm not being pedantic, I'm actually asking: how does a conscience work when untethered from morals?

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:31 PM (/Mxso)

Look at any supporter of abortion.

This is why the Church insists on a "properly formed conscience." Not just "whatever I feel like doing is good."

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 09:33 AM (fwcEs)

450 So Jonestown was Vista?

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 01:32 PM (xZxMD)

I shouldn't have laughed so hard at that. Nice one.

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:33 AM (/Mxso)

451 438 What I am going to take away from this thread : If not for Jesus, The Swiss Family Robinson would be a very different book. Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 01:31 PM (/lb53) ****** Ya--the first line would be--"Dear Penthouse".

Posted by: tasker at February 27, 2014 09:33 AM (RJMhd)

452 Taking a class in Developmental Biology solidified my faith and subsequently also my pro-life stance. Something that incredible...the development of a baby, be it human, dog, chicken, did not just spontaneously come about.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 27, 2014 09:33 AM (L2I78)

453 So Jonestown was Vista? Windows ME

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 27, 2014 09:33 AM (SY2Kh)

454 Nood.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 27, 2014 09:34 AM (xZxMD)

455 In other words, the atheists always relied on science to show that there is no God and God/a designer is not necessary. That is being refuted constantly, by atheistic scientistsno less. You're wildly overstating the case. Yes theoretical physics has gotten into metaphysics, but it isn't disproving anything.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 09:34 AM (T0NGe)

456 98 Having never been to CPAC, is it really a 'conservative' get together? I have to be honest - it's really hard to determine based on what you read. Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at February 27, 2014 12:25 PM (R5UOB) It's fun and one gets to meet the bloggoerati! But I haven't been since Breitbart was there. He died less that a month afterward I think.

Posted by: baldilocks filipova at February 27, 2014 09:34 AM (36Rjy)

457 You people do know that Lord of the Flies was a work of Fiction, right?

Posted by: garrett at February 27, 2014 01:26 PM (/lb53)

Furthermore, a work of fiction centered on the actions of children. By their very nature children are fungible and self-centered. It's what happens when you believe the world revolves around you.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 27, 2014 09:34 AM (4df7R)

458 An army of turbines will be awesome for shipping/boating. Especially in storms where you can only influence, not direct, which way you go.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 27, 2014 09:34 AM (ZshNr)

459 I'm really enjoying this conversation, 'rons and 'ettes. Keeping it civil, with some really great points on both (all?) sides. Yeah, me too. It's these types of posts that really make me appreciate this place and you guys. It's like a Mensa meeting in a biker bar.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:34 AM (0HooB)

460 @431 [prescient11] - Your response is not rational.

I beg to differ.

First, it's not a "response".

Second, my point is perfectly rational. Far more rational than cherry-picking SOME actions by SOME Christians through history while intentionally ignoring OTHER actions by OTHERS that don't fit the pre-fab notion that support for or opposition to slavery has always been a some sort of benchmark for morality. That is simply not true.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 09:35 AM (oGez1)

461 444 I agree. Judaism is like Windows 95. It got us moving in the right direction, but there were subsequent releases.

So Jonestown was Vista?

Windows ME was the Spanish Inquistion

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 27, 2014 09:35 AM (e8kgV)

462 This is why the Church insists on a "properly formed conscience." Not just "whatever I feel like doing is good."

Posted by: tcn at February 27, 2014 01:33 PM (fwcEs)

Maybe my question is better phrased as: If the argument is that a non-believer is amoral, not knowing the difference between right or wrong, what is their conscience going to tell them on the matter? You would have to know something is wrong to feel bad about it, wouldn't you?

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:36 AM (/Mxso)

463 Then you say that reason is limited. I agree that reason is limited, but disagree strongly with the proposition that theism is based upon it.
So do I. I didn't argue that theism is based upon it. I noted that the existence of a theistic creator is demonstrable using reason, as well as common sense, and science. I didn't make any statement to that being the exclusive way to faith or any statement about faith whatsoever.
The existence of a theistic creator is absolutely reasonable and scientifically supportable. That does not somehow negate faith, because it only shows the bare existence of a creator, not what the nature of that creator is like nor how we ought respond.
You seem to think that an atheist (and perhaps an agnostic) lives an unexamined life or holds an unexamined worldview simply because their conclusions differ from yours.
NO, I think they live an unexamined life because they are living a life that is at odds with their philosophy.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:36 AM (zfY+H)

464 So the presence of homosexuality disproves evolution? Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 01:21 PM (T0NGe) It sure throws a kink into the theory. A lot of people have been working to explain how to consolidate evolution and homosexuality. Some people have taken pretty good stabs at reconciling the two.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:37 AM (bb5+k)

465 I'm not being pedantic, I'm actually asking: how does a conscience work when untethered from morals? Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:31 PM (/Mxso) Let me try, but I'm not sure how great of an answer I'll give. I think the statement implies an innate set of (some) moral code that the conscience informs the person is being violated. Romans 2: 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Here, the law refers to the Jewish law found in the Old Testament. So Paul is saying just because people aren't Jewish (or Christian - by extension in the context of the passage) doesn't mean there's no internal law within them.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:37 AM (r+7wo)

466 "Â“The little turbines can fight back the beast,Â” said study co-author Cristina Archer, associate professor in the University of DelawareÂ’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment."

The little turbines will provide the storm with a swirling cloud of cutting blades along its leading edge to savage humanity: HURRICHOPPER!

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at February 27, 2014 09:37 AM (XO6WW)

467 Swiss Family Robinson would have worked out much the same because of the Godlike father character who knew everything and could do everything. Not my favorite book.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 09:38 AM (zfY+H)

468 Yes theoretical physics has gotten into metaphysics Posted by: AmishDude at February 27, 2014 01:34 PM (T0NGe) How is this even possible to do successfully? 2 different spheres - physical world and metaphysical realm?

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:39 AM (r+7wo)

469

Goy:

Your "point" was what, some Christians had slaves and fought for slavery??

And again, what was your point? No shit, some ________ did a lot of things.

My actual point was only one faith ended the practice. So don't try and act like all faiths and belief systems are equal. They're not. Those are the facts. The only reason that there is no more slavery, that gays aren't hanging from cranes, that atheists and whomever can speak their minds, is the Christian faith.

I don't care if you believe in it or not. Our individual freedoms have one source: Christianity. That's an undeniable fact. Next question.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:40 AM (tVTLU)

470 414. Fiction is as fiction does. Sometimes fiction goes on vacation. Metaphors [representative characters] are not meant as "fiction" in the materialist manner that denies metaphor meaning, "it isn't really real," and only good as entertainment. Civilization vs. Savagery having evolved now to Civilization AS Savagery, 2014... Run, Piggy! Run!

Posted by: Mrs. Gump at February 27, 2014 09:40 AM (MhA4j)

471 Love this place

Posted by: thunderb at February 27, 2014 09:40 AM (KLzEm)

472 Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 01:37 PM (r+7wo)

Thanks for sharing that. So internal law means a conscience, but not necessarily morality? I see the two as inseparably linked.

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:40 AM (/Mxso)

473

Chique:

True, but the Gentiles law was still based on god or gods. Refer to the Code of Hammurabi, for example.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:41 AM (tVTLU)

474 It's an interesting theory, but leaves me wondering how you can assert that all morality comes from religion? Someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, or has never been exposed to it, thus has presumably not been told in book form toavoid shooting their brother in the face .. would just go ahead and do it otherwise? Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:22 PM (/Mxso) Wish I had the time to explain my perception of it. Here's a quick assessment. Humans have an instinctive pecking order. This is reinforced by having the father as the alpha dog of the family. It is quickly noticed that there are other and higher alpha dogs. The Ultimate Alpha Dog is God.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:41 AM (bb5+k)

475 It takes a big man to admit he's wrong, Ace. Now, if you'll only admit your theory about "True Detective" is wrong.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 27, 2014 09:41 AM (0cMkb)

476 468. quantum and it's old hat at this point

Posted by: Mrs. Gump at February 27, 2014 09:42 AM (MhA4j)

477 Its just interesting that Thomas Jefferson is probably the only honesty non-Christian president we've ever had. We have had non-Christian presidents before (such as the present one) but they all pretend to be Christian for the votes. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 27, 2014 01:22 PM (zfY+H) It's my recollection that Jefferson denied being "non-Christian."

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:42 AM (bb5+k)

478 >>>Now, if you'll only admit your theory about "True Detective" is wrong. i did, but it's more "rightwrong" than wrong. I have nailed the motive. The motive is mercy killing and putting these abused women into Carcosa, a state of blessed unconsciousness.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 09:42 AM (/FnUH)

479 As a bastardized version of Christianity, Judaism, and Arab trial beliefs it is inferior to the first two, but compare the Caliphate at its worst to Communism at its best... Posted by: 18-1 at February 27, 2014 12:31 PM (P3U0f) The Caliphate committed genocide on the African continent. I'd say they are about equal.

Posted by: baldilocks filipova at February 27, 2014 09:43 AM (36Rjy)

480 SLASHERCANE?

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at February 27, 2014 09:43 AM (XO6WW)

481 The Ultimate Alpha Dog is God. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 01:41 PM (bb5+k) teh funny because dog spelled backwards is

Posted by: Michele Bachmann at February 27, 2014 09:43 AM (MhA4j)

482 I realize that this thread is old, but Blaise Pascal had some choice words about atheists: They cannot be trusted. They don't believe that they will be punished in Hell for their crimes here.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at February 27, 2014 09:43 AM (V70Uh)

483 How is this even possible to do successfully? 2 different spheres - physical world and metaphysical realm? CERN is where they're trying. From what I know about their research, they're right on the edge of the line of existence, seeking what they refer to as the "God particle," the building block of the Universe. I'll bet, though, that they find something even smaller, as they have always done.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at February 27, 2014 09:44 AM (0HooB)

484 Zombie, are you agnostic about the existence of Sasquatches? I'm not. I don't believe in them. Full stop. Is that hubris? No.

Now, bear in mind that a belief in a heretofore unidentified great ape is far more likely than the existence of an immortal self creating creator. But nonetheless you and I and most thinking people treat such beliefs (bigfoot, that is) as ridiculous. I feel the same way about the Christian Bible. It's far less reliable than the reports of Bigfoot. There's less evidence, it's less logical, and it's less contemporaneous. You can actually meet and talk with people who claim to have encountered Bigfoot.

Does that make me militantly anti Bigfoot? It's a pointless distinction. Though I don't believe in Bigfoot, I'm as open as any other reasonable person is to the idea. If I saw compelling evidence of Bigfoot, I would change my opinion.

And the idea that I'm a moral person because, Bible, is silly. I'm moral because I have empathy. I'm moral because I was raised to be so. I have a dog (and kids), and like all dogs, my dog has no sense of an afterlife, or God, or souls or anything like that. Yet he's a good dog. Why? Obviously it's not because of the Ten Commandments. It's because I raised him to be good. As I, myself, was raised to be good. As I am currently raising my sons to be good.

People talk about the inherent goodness of humans. Bullshit. Humans are born biting and stealing and lying and kicking and we that raised out of us. It's not because of Heaven or Hell. It's because our parents (hopefully) modeled and reinforced that behavior.

The Ten Commandments are a joke. Out of ten rules, only two (and a half if you count perjury) of them are even crimes. The first four aren't even morality based. It's a joke. No one gets the golden rule out of the Ten Commandments. The Golden Rule predates the bible anyway. Christians like to suggest that we only have morality because of Christianity. That's a utility argument for irrational belief.

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2014 09:44 AM (mCz8+)

485 Thanks for sharing that. So internal law means a conscience, but not necessarily morality? I see the two as inseparably linked. Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:40 PM (/Mxso) I see it as meaning everyone does have some type of internal moral code (i.e., internal law) regardless of whether they claim to or not (my addition). I do suggest that a moral code logically does not (cannot) proceed from an atheistic belief system, which is different from stating that atheists have no morals. This explains why world religions share some aspects of morality, because we are all imbued with a "law" or moral code that is within us. (Which of course can be suppressed - the NT also talks about the searing of conscience.) Which has nothing to do with whether they contain *the* truth or not.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:45 AM (r+7wo)

486 You are very selective about which things you want to say are justified by genetics. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 01:23 PM (/FnUH) Ace, this dichotomy of purpose is not restricted to our brains, it goes all the way down to our chromosomes. Male DNA contains instructions to make a fetus grow large and fast, while Female DNA contains instructions to hold down the growth level of a fetus. It's a war all the way down.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:45 AM (bb5+k)

487 "slavery was extinguished by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs"

In America, at least, the driving force was mostly Christian. Deism was more widespread in the 18th century. It was influential among the Founding Fathers, but they, of course, did not eradicate slavery. The abolitionist movement of the 19th century was spearheaded by Protestant churches.

Posted by: sauropod at February 27, 2014 09:45 AM (G/vW6)

488 The Ultimate Alpha Dog is God.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 01:41 PM (bb5+k)

That is a good way of explaining it actually. So it is that there is someone to answer to for everyone, even the human who thinks he is on top.

Even in an environment lacking this, however, can you say that a man couldn't believe on his own, that he musn't commit murder, or succumb to greed, or commit adultery? The benefit of having these beliefs and this code of behavior of course being that it creates a more harmonious society. Can this not occur without it being outlined by a supreme being?

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:45 AM (/Mxso)

489 seattle slough, do you believe in an eternal self-existing universe?

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:46 AM (r+7wo)

490 @465 Well put. All humans are created equal, with knowledge of God and His Law. Those who keep the Law do so out of love and faith, but no one keeps it perfectly, and the mystery of God's sovereignty unravels through our sinfulness. As our sinfulness is the reason for the Law, every human is subject to the Law, being born into sin, and establishes the need for a Savior.

Posted by: RedWhiteAndTrue at February 27, 2014 09:47 AM (UFR/o)

491 477. That's right. But try getting a revisionist today to actually read Jefferson's writings. Or to research ANY original sources. Nah, the revisionist regurgitates the dumbest propaganda heard most recently as the ultimate truth. "Everybody knows" blah blah blah...

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 09:47 AM (MhA4j)

492 So what is the true detective theory? Does it involve the clergy and the cops. Is there a gay prostitute who happens to be victim #1 in the works here? So far I get a strong feeling that they were heavily influenced by Red Riding which is fantastic even if you can't understand a word they say. There are major differences in the plot but something just smells the same. Maybe its the smoking?

Posted by: bestie21 at February 27, 2014 09:47 AM (AzO5R)

493 Eugenics is gorgeous in its mechanical logic. Evil often is. Posted by: sven10077 at February 27, 2014 01:24 PM (TE35l) Yup. The Atheists very much want to ignore the fact that the Nazis used reason and were very logical, but their "reasoning" led them down an ugly path. If you accept their premises, then Killing off the undesirables is a very reasonable thing to do.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:48 AM (bb5+k)

494

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 01:45 PM (r+7wo)

Definitely food for thought. Thanks for taking the time to explain!

Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 09:49 AM (/Mxso)

495 @469 [prescient11] - "some Christians had slaves and fought for slavery??"

Precisely. So, quite obviously, either their Christian belief system didn't make them moral OR support for or opposition to slavery, per se, has not been a reliably a benchmark of moral behavior over time. I contend the latter.

"My actual point was only one faith ended the practice. "

And your point doesn't hold up to actual, documented history. See above: Christian faith did not prevent Christians from supporting, promoting and even dying for slavery at one time or another. Christian (or Deist) faith did not prevent slavery from being sanctioned in the Constitution.

You want to cherry-pick the endgame of slavery and ignore all that preceding history. Sorry, THAT is not rational response.

Given the above-mentioned facts, there is no evidence that Christian faith, per se, ended the practice of slavery. What ended it was something else.

Here's the point, because you persist in trying to beat me with a straw man, apparently thinking I'm attacking Christianity here. I'm not...

What I'm asserting is that opposition to or support for slavery, throughout history, needs to be eliminated from the calculus used to define morality. It's not a reliable measure.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 09:49 AM (oGez1)

496 >>>48 There is a huge difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist." One is personal opinion, the other is Dogma<<<
.
I would agree with one minor change. "I don't believe in God" is an act of faith and "There is no God" a statement of fact that, in my view, requires proof. There is , of course, no way to prove there is or is not a God. Lacking faith, agnosticism seems to be a reasonable position. Cripes, we can't even decide on how many dimensions there are.

Posted by: Javems at February 27, 2014 09:49 AM (nTgAI)

497 >>>In America, at least, the driving force was mostly Christian. Deism was more widespread in the 18th century. It was influential among the Founding Fathers, but they, of course, did not eradicate slavery. The abolitionist movement of the 19th century was spearheaded by Protestant churches. but Lincoln was a Deist. Many more of the founders were Deists, who believed in the transcendent but not the literal truth of Christianity (though all would agree Christianity is sound moral philosophy) than Christians admit in these discussions. I never have pushed the point before, because it seems such a cherished belief, but yeah, Deism was far more widespread especially at the time of the Founding Fathers than Christians usually admit. I strongly suspect that Deism became fashionable through Freemasonry (and of course the Bavarian Illuminati) but I do not know that, and don't want to jump into a Dan Brown-esque Secret History of the World conspiracy argument about it.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 09:50 AM (/FnUH)

498 If you accept their premises, then Killing off the undesirables is a very reasonable thing to do. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 01:48 PM (bb5+k) Which is actually practiced in many societies or was practiced in the past until Christianity got rid of the practice. E.g., in the part of deepest darkest Africa where my beloved dad grew up, they used to kill twins (I guess their superstitions minds believed it was a manifestation of evil spirits or some such nonsense since most babies are born singly). A Scottish nurse missionary type, Mary Slessor, put an end to that. My mom's people also used to throw people suffering from mysterious illnesses into the evil forest. They don't do that any more.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:51 AM (r+7wo)

499

Ace makes a brilliant observation re geneticism. He said:

"The desire to kill those who upset us is genetic; but so is the urge for mercy and peace."

I would love to know under which evolutionary theory or natural selection modality that "mercy" and "peace" appear as a genetic trait.

No, you kill your enemy, you kill all of them. Wasn't that the entire lesson of Ender's Game. There is no model for mercy and peace. Neither makes sense from a self preservation or a utilitarian point of view. A conscience exists because of a law. Law has always derived from some divine source. Regardless of race, culture, time. When law is based on nothing other than reason, madness and horrors follow.

Because my reason may differ from yours, and yet be completely logical and justifiable. This begets a government that rules by the boot, rather than a people that rules themselves. Religious people are all that stand in the void between freedom and a boot stomping a human face forever.

By necessity this construct must exist.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:52 AM (tVTLU)

500 You're welcome, Heralder!

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:52 AM (r+7wo)

501 Slavery was established as a fundamental, sanctioned facet of our (former) Republic by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs. Slavery was tacitly or actively supported by every State that later ratified the Constitution (until 1865) by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs. Slavery was defended in war, per its sanction in the Constitution, by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs. Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 12:43 PM (oGez1) And who both misquoted and misinterpreted the Bible to justify lifetime slavery--which, by the way, is not sanctioned therein.

Posted by: baldilocks filipova at February 27, 2014 09:53 AM (36Rjy)

502

Goy, you should read more and learn the facts. I have not time nor the energy to educate the uneducated but I'll leave you with this.

Christianity was absolutely the driving force behind ending slavery. That's an undeniable fact and if you say otherwise you would be lying.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:54 AM (tVTLU)

503 >>>I would love to know under which evolutionary theory or natural selection modality that "mercy" and "peace" appear as a genetic trait. there's so much research in evolutionary biology about the evolutionary benefits of cooperation. "Trial by Fury," by Douglas Preston, is a $2 kindle single about 40 pages long about one aspect the evolutionary biological foundation of one type of morality ("altruistic punishment").

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 09:54 AM (/FnUH)

504 By the way, just FYI, I don't think any of those practices were still going on during my parents' lifetimes. IIRC from primary school, twin killing stopped in the 1800s.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 09:55 AM (r+7wo)

505 How is this even possible to do successfully? 2 different spheres - physical world and metaphysical realm? Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 01:39 PM (r+7wo) God does not play dice!

Posted by: Al Einstein at February 27, 2014 09:55 AM (bb5+k)

506

Fun history fact:

In Jefferson's original version of the Declaration, he included an express section going after the King for forcing slavery on his subjects. This was removed from final version b/c they needed southern colonies to win.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 09:55 AM (tVTLU)

507 one christian I had in mind, who was critical in ending slavery, wasn't an American, but the British anti-slavery crusader, William Wilberforce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 09:56 AM (/FnUH)

508 I don't care if you believe in it or not. Our individual freedoms have one source: Christianity. That's an undeniable fact. Next question. Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 01:40 PM (tVTLU) The concept of "equality" is inherently Christian. Other religions teach that some people are better than others. Christianity teaches that we are all children of God.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:56 AM (bb5+k)

509 truth be told, I was quite the agnostic...until I saw the Hendricks bikini shots in 0g.

Posted by: cu'chulainn at February 27, 2014 09:57 AM (Vk2CC)

510 teh funny because dog spelled backwards is Posted by: Michele Bachmann at February 27, 2014 01:43 PM (MhA4j) Did you hear the one about the philosophical dyslexic insomniac? He lies awake at night contemplating the existence of "Dog."

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 09:59 AM (bb5+k)

511 @502 [prescient11] - Christianity was absolutely the driving force behind ending slavery. That's an undeniable fact and if you say otherwise you would be lying.

I hear precisely this sort of "argument" in support of the Anthropogenic Global Warming lie all the time.

Huh.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 10:00 AM (oGez1)

512

Thanks Ace, I don't have a kindle but I'll check it out.

One parting thought, "evolutionary theory". Doesn't it strike you as an awful lot like global warming "theory." How is this science? It's just postulations about what might have occurred. You've got all these models with unknowable inputs and then boom: hockey stick.

I'll read your cite, but I almost always side with Michael Crichton. It ain't science until you can prove it and replicate it.

Aristotle was ridiculed, by modern scientists, for his theory of spontaneous generation. Yet that is exactly what random evolutionary theory is.

In my view, the only reason that spontaneous special evolution in 4B years is considered "science" is b/c the leftists achieved total victory before the internet. Too bad for them not so with global warming....

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 10:00 AM (tVTLU)

513 487. The Founders included nonconformist Christians, each believing His own version of God and his own selection of scriptures from the Bible. For a 21st Century atheist with no scholarly study either in Christianity or in depth readings of the correspondences from our nation's Founders to presume to project his own limited understanding as the consensus during our American Revolution is really the height of foolish vanity. Divine Providence -- count how many times George Washington wrote of Divine Providence, spoke of Divine Providence, and prayed to and for Divine Providence for the Grand Cause of American Liberty, calling on his troops to join together in prayer with him. Our Founding Fathers incorporated PRAYER into Congressional Protocol. Go figure. Point is, they didn't force their personal experience on to you to see as they saw. Liberty Matters. So do likewise for them. Mutual Respect. As for slavery? Hell. Every tribe on earth has endured slavery at one point or another by those more powerful. No one holds the monopoly on having suffered more during American slavery than any other slaves who've EVER been.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 10:00 AM (MhA4j)

514
>>>It's like a Mensa meeting in a biker bar.

YES YES YES!!! Thank you so much for that description of the blog's zeitgeist. I have often thought that this place has the strangest combination of the thoughtful, the profane and the outrageous that I have seen.

Intelligent chaos.

Posted by: typo dynamofo at February 27, 2014 10:02 AM (IVgIK)

515 i did, but it's more "rightwrong" than wrong. I have nailed the motive. The motive is mercy killing and putting these abused women into Carcosa, a state of blessed unconsciousness. Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 01:42 PM (/FnUH) I'll disagree with your theory of the motive. The King in Yellow is part of an apocalyptic cult hoping to bring about the rise of the "Black Star" or "Dark Star". As per the ranting of the tattooed guy before he was shot in the head. RW Chambers is probably being referenced again. In this case, his novel "The Dark Star" which begins with this fake quote: "The dying star grew dark; the last light faded from it; went out. Prince Erlik laughed. "And suddenly the old order of things began to pass away more swiftly. "Between earth and outer space-between Creator and created, confusing and confounding their identities,-a rushing darkness grew-the hurrying wrack of immemorial storms heralding whirlwinds through which Truth alone survives. "Awaiting the inevitable reÃ«stablishment of such temporary conventions as render the incident of human existence possible, the brooding Demon which men call Truth stares steadily at Tengri under the high stars which are passing too, and which at last shall pass away and leave the Demon watching all alone amid the ruins of eternity." It's all about losing your mind(humanity) to gain secret knowledge. The 1st victim is poised peering into the framed hole in a Tree. The later victim is poised above because she sees even farther. The King in Yellow himself will pretty much come out of left field. My best guess currently is the grounds keeper Cohle talked to at the abandoned school. If I remember correctly, he said(more or less) "I take care of five properties." Anywho, there are 3 or 4 separate things going on, probably their connection is tangential with the determinism provided by Cohle's obsession.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 27, 2014 10:03 AM (0cMkb)

516 The benefit of having these beliefs and this code of behavior of course being that it creates a more harmonious society. Can this not occur without it being outlined by a supreme being? Posted by: Heralder at February 27, 2014 01:45 PM (/Mxso) I wish I could go into my perception of this human social dynamic, but because I don't know what you already know, i'm not sure where to start in putting together this mosaic. I will say this though, the supernatural punishment aspect is very important in getting the individual to control his own behavior. http://io9.com/5919873/belief-in-an-angry-god-is-the-strongest-predictor-of-a-countrys-crime-rate To answer your question, in a word, "no."

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 10:04 AM (bb5+k)

517 It's always helpful if you want to have an actual dialogue as opposed to "sloughing" off their point of view entirely is is probably not to suggest that beliefs in God are "ridiculous" within the first five sentences of a post.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 10:04 AM (XyM/Y)

518

Goy:

Ok, I didn't read your post slow enough the first time, my apologies. I'm not using "slavery" per se as a guide post.

What I'm saying is that there is only one religion that finally ended the practice.

To me that makes it stand out. What about said religion allows it to arrive at such a moral stand when slavery was common place among all men?

That's the distinction I was trying to make.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 10:04 AM (tVTLU)

519 Atheists may be more responsible for greater "me time" as you say, but we're not threatening children that they're gonna burn in hell for all eternity, either.

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 10:06 AM (oAAzd)

520 And who both misquoted and misinterpreted the Bible to justify lifetime slavery--which, by the way, is not sanctioned therein. Posted by: baldilocks filipova at February 27, 2014 01:53 PM (36Rjy) And this is what I think too. People have a way of rationalizing what they wish to believe to coincide with their own economic interests.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 10:07 AM (bb5+k)

521

>>>Our point comes down to this: At the end of the day, it's not us secularists who are devoting our summers to assisting surgeons operating on the poor of the Philippines.

This thread might be dead, but Ace have you seen this Onion article:

"Local Church Full Of Brainwashed Idiots Feeds TownÂ’s Poor Every Week"

http://tinyurl.com/nr7nfab

Posted by: dan-O at February 27, 2014 10:08 AM (D0bIN)

522 Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 01:56 PM (/FnUH Yes, William Wilberforce was not only Christian he was unapologetically evangelical and he wasn't just critical of slavery-he was the primary voice in the ending of the British slave trade

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 10:08 AM (XyM/Y)

523 507 one christian I had in mind, who was critical in ending slavery, wasn't an American, but the British anti-slavery crusader, William Wilberforce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 01:56 PM (/FnUH) What am I? Some sort of Piker?

Posted by: Harriet Beecher Stowe at February 27, 2014 10:09 AM (bb5+k)

524

I love this fucking blog.

I am now reading a ridiculous set of volumes about the history of the world. Interesting thought: every savage people all over the world derived their customs and laws from some type of god.

Without exception. The Japanese islands were formed by a dripping spear of a god. Etc., etc.

One other interesting fact: Buddhism is fucking depressing. It's about the most nihilistic philosophy out there. It is no religion. What we know about it currently is bastardized bullshit snuck in there by the Brahmans and the Chinese.

But the essence of the thought, is pure ego, materialism, nihilism, and self destruction. It believes in nothing supernatural, except in reincarnation and transmigration, so you know it's screwed up at the foundation. But all in all very instructive as to the inward focus that's appropriate at times.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 10:10 AM (tVTLU)

525 Oh, as far as getting rid of slavery, the French experience was different. The French (who do not admit to their students that France supported and legally blessed slavery in their overseas holding) ended slavery at the beginning of the Revolution. The French ringleaders of the revolution were a mix of people, but they were largely either anti-theist, atheist, anti-Christian, Deist (Freemasons again), as well as Christian. Napoleon, who REINSTATED slavery in the overseas colonies, was himself an atheist who was pro-Christian (for the same reason my friend is-- he thought it was socially beneficial). It's a bit complicated.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 10:10 AM (/FnUH)

526 @518 [prescient11] - Ok, I didn't read your post slow enough the first time, my apologies.

Accepted. Perhaps it could have been worded more clearly, sorry.

"I'm not using "slavery" per se as a guide post."

I know that. My initial comment was reference to the text in Ace's post, which discusses a commenter who cites the end of slavery as a benchmark for morality. I strongly disagree with this assumption, for the reasons stated.

Again, that is NOT a criticism of Christianity. It's a criticism of the knee-jerk response we're all programmed with, which tells us it's valid to judge 19th Century practices based on 21st Century sensibilities.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 10:10 AM (oGez1)

527

dan-O, yeah he linked it earlier I think. Awesome piece.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 10:11 AM (tVTLU)

528 >>>Yes, William Wilberforce was not only Christian he was unapologetically evangelical and he wasn't just critical of slavery-he was the primary voice in the ending of the British slave trade I didn't say he was critical of slavery, I said he was critical to ending it (that is, indispensable).

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 10:12 AM (/FnUH)

529 ace, great thread by the way.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 10:13 AM (r+7wo)

530 Thanks for the correction.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 10:13 AM (XyM/Y)

531 I have never threatened children with burning in hell in almost 20 years of ordained ministry.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 10:15 AM (XyM/Y)

532 One other interesting fact: Buddhism is fucking depressing. It's about the most nihilistic philosophy out there. It is no religion. What we know about it currently is bastardized bullshit snuck in there by the Brahmans and the Chinese. But the essence of the thought, is pure ego, materialism, nihilism, and self destruction. It believes in nothing supernatural, except in reincarnation and transmigration, so you know it's screwed up at the foundation. But all in all very instructive as to the inward focus that's appropriate at times. Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 02:10 PM (tVTLU) The novel, "Creation" by Gore Vidal has a really interesting portrait of Buddha that's in line with your observation. Check it out, plus it's actually a fun read.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 27, 2014 10:16 AM (0cMkb)

533

Goy, ah, so really no disagreement at all.

I can't wait to read about Napolean in depth. Ironically French atheism w/ German awesomeness mingled an entire century of darkness.

Some cool structures, but as w/ Buddhism, etc., they all suffer from the same fatal flaw.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 10:16 AM (tVTLU)

534 But the essence of the thought, is pure ego, materialism, nihilism, and self destruction. It believes in nothing supernatural, except in reincarnation and transmigration, so you know it's screwed up at the foundation. But all in all very instructive as to the inward focus that's appropriate at times. Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 02:10 PM (tVTLU) I believe the technological advancement of a society is linked to their overall belief system. And look where Buddhist dominated cultures ended up.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 10:18 AM (bb5+k)

535 At the risk of starting a pillow-fight with Ace...

Lincoln is often labeled a Deist. Not sure there's any hard evidence to support that, however.

Also, Lincoln was clearly a raging racist and white supremacist. His commentary in the debates with Douglas confirms this, and his vocal endorsement during the first inaugural addresss for statutory protection of slavery in perpetuity doesn't make him much more than an opportunist where the issue of slavery was concerned.

If anyone had "economic" interests related to slavery, it was Lincoln, i.e., political and financial backing from Northern industrialists who sought tariff protection that was inherently damaging to Southern interests, and northerners in general who didn't want to compete with cheap black labor that would have spread to the territories if slavery had been allowed there (or, in the case of IL, IN and OH, even within their own States).

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 10:18 AM (oGez1)

536 I didn't say he was critical of slavery, I said he was critical to ending it (that is, indispensable). Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 02:12 PM (/FnUH) Again, what am I? Chopped Liver?

Posted by: Harriet Beecher Stowe at February 27, 2014 10:19 AM (bb5+k)

537 531 I have never threatened children with burning in hell in almost 20 years of ordained ministry. Guess you're not the ministers/Christian teachers of my youth. Cheers!

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 10:20 AM (oAAzd)

538 Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 02:18 PM (oGez1) Over the years I have come to realize there is a lot more to the story of Civil War and Slavery than first meets the eye.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 10:22 AM (bb5+k)

539 @539 [D-Lamp] - ...I have come to realize there is a lot more to the story of Civil War and Slavery than first meets the eye.

Absolutely.

In fact, a pretty huge chunk of the victor-written history used to program Americans, generation after generation, is aimed at legitimizing our current, open-loop, out-of-control, unaccountable, federal government, which has been left to judge the limits of its own authority since 1865.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 10:25 AM (oGez1)

540 Ok, once again I am coming into the tail-end of this post, and then I took the time to read it. I am puzzled over something (and please forgive me if this had already been mentioned, I read the post, but not the comments): If the Founding Fathers believed that all men were "created" with certain unalienable rights, and that these Freedoms are God-given (and not man made)- then where would Atheists (who do not believe in God, and therefore would (could) not believe that these Freedoms (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, among others) would come from God, then where do they believe they came from? I am not trying to be obtuse here. If an atheist, who by definition does not believe in God, then (to carry on that belief to conclusion) conversely the rights granted by God would either not exist, or be granted by someone else. And, if these rights are granted by someone else (a human) then logically these same rights and freedoms can then be taken away by someone else of a higher secular authority, or another representative of whatever man made power granted those freedoms and rights in the first place.

Posted by: DaveinNC at February 27, 2014 10:25 AM (boNGU)

541 Saying that Christian ministers/teachers/parents "threaten" children with hellfire is like saying that dentists and parents threaten children with tooth decay if they don't brush or that doctors threaten smokers with emphysema. Ridiculous. Clergymen, dentists, doctors and parents warn parishioners, patients and children about the possible consequences of their choices. That's love, not threats.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 27, 2014 10:27 AM (AQMFK)

542 "No one holds the monopoly on having suffered more during American slavery than any other slaves who've EVER been." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the inherited institution of slavery on the American Continent, specifically in the USA, was among the shortest lived national institutions of slavery in human history.* I could be wrong. But consider that every empire which ever was always exercised slavery and dominion. And go visit African regions of civil unrest today to see if there are not yet "tribes" making slaves of others. Consider how vicious class warfare really was. No need to say, "Ah, but Britain made slavery illegal before the US, as did France." Consider the plight of Alfred Dreyfus, unjustly condemned to slave labor on Devil's Island. Consider how the French treated Egyptians and even their own Algerians, supposed to be French Citizens, but always second class if that "equality". Whatever facade from making slavery illegal in Europe hardly looked pretty. It failed to prevent Europeans from denying human rights to their colonies, their own estate servants, and to their political opponents at home. European nations of people may have made slavery illegal but in turn invaded, stole and slaughtered each others possessions, each nation attempting to dominate all others. British the worst of all, WWI concentration camps in Africa kidnapping farming families of Dutch descent, starving to death and beating mercilessly the political prisoners who had conducted peaceful protest (Winston Churchill in India), etc. Ah, but nice manners or an eloquent face cover the most grotesque practices. Reference Dorian Gray's portrait [fiction, metaphor], or NAZI gentility charade of chivalry at their gala events. *Being relatively young, our nation has eschewed slavery longer than it ever allowed slavery. And given economics, the industrial revolution would have finished the heinous practice without the War Between the States. (Just as the technological revolution is currently transferring "jobs" from people employees to robotics sooner than later.)

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 10:28 AM (MhA4j)

543

D-Lamp, it's tough to tell. I would actually argue that while Buddhism was in its purest form, it ripped the heart right out of the country.

This is why India was so easy to conquer. First Alexander, then the Muslim hordes.

Over the centuries the Brahman's brought back the actual religion and it was in this somewhat bastardized form that it made its way over to China, got even more hinky, then to Japan.

Pure Buddhism, I contend, destroys the drive of mankind to do anything but kill himself and his essence. That was its purpose and teaching. Pretty depressing stuff.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 10:32 AM (tVTLU)

544 Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College and one favorite writers on various religious topics including the existence of God, heaven and hell: http://www.peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 10:34 AM (XyM/Y)

545

DaveinNC wins the prize.

What I think gets Ace defensive is that he assumes we are all flame-throwing Bible thumping troglodytes.

I am a former atheist and current lover of sodomy for fuck's sake.

But I will not buy the lie that one person's construct or religion is just the same as or equal to the other. Or that atheism is a good way to structure a government. Just as in art, literature, drama, sculpture, architecture, etc., there are absolutely in beauty and good. There also are absolute truths, and these are truths that do not derive from, nor originate, in the minds of mortals.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 10:37 AM (tVTLU)

546 @489

Do I believe in an eternal self-existing Universe?

Does it matter? I'm not an astrophysicist. I also don't feel the need to consider these questions as they are irrelevant to life on this planet. I believe in the big bang. Was that the beginning of space/time? Was that a reboot? I don't know. To my little ape-brain, the thing that makes the most sense is to assume the laws of thermodynamics hold and that the universe simply has always existed and always will in some form or another. The very nature of a big bang (whether it's cyclical or singular) is that you don't get to watch it happen, so again, who cares?

Christians claim to know the beginning, but of course their beginning needs its own beginning. Where did God come from? When did he come into existence? Did God create himself before he created everything else? God decided to make light (and saw that it was good). Does that mean that God existed in a conscious manner before light? What was he doing? For how long? Was that less good than after he created light? It's a juvenile explanation that doesn't explain anything.

I'm fine with the idea that for all human intents and purposes, the Universe is eternal enough. I'm also comfortable with the idea that some bronze age writers had even less of a clue about all of this than I do and I freely admit I don't know much about it. That's humility. Christians claim atheists are presumptive in claiming to know there is no God. No. It's the very definition of hubris to claim you are in communication with a creator that you cannot verify even exists. I'm not the one claiming to know the answer to everything. Christians are.

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2014 10:37 AM (mCz8+)

547 @542 [panzernashorn] - "...our nation has eschewed slavery longer than it ever allowed slavery."

Exactly.

Out of the U.S.' 220+ years, only the first 75 saw slavery as a constitutionally-sanction institution, and even during most of that there was widespread disagreement on its validity (albeit, based on various motivations, not many of which had to do with morality).

So one is left to wonder why this drum continues to be beaten.

I've become convinced that there's much more to it than opportunistic, political support for a particular victim group.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 10:38 AM (oGez1)

548 541. Yes. Jenny Hates Her Phone. Accountability. But then, post constitutional political hacks (ex: Republican former State Attorney General social-conservative neoconservative like John Cornyn) whine and hand wring as if THAT were effective opposition to halt Marxist agenda. Asking "at what point will we do something" while perpetually giving way is squat.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 10:38 AM (MhA4j)

549 Pure Buddhism, I contend, destroys the drive of mankind to do anything but kill himself and his essence. That was its purpose and teaching. Pretty depressing stuff. Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 02:32 PM (tVTLU) This is why I have been leaning towards Christianity as the evolved winner of the societal advancement contest. A couple of decades ago I got into an argument with an Atheist who explained to me that Christianity was holding back science. That's when I realized the most scientifically advanced parts of the world were the ones that had Christianity as their dominant religion. (Especially some form of Protestantism.) I then sought to understand what made the difference. China was an example of what happens when Christianity (or some similar religion) doesn't evolve in their society.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 27, 2014 10:41 AM (bb5+k)

550

Panzernashorn:

Very true. People often forget that serfdom in Russia was abolished at the same time. When's the last time anyone ever heard of Russian slavery when it involved serfs rather than hookers?

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 10:42 AM (tVTLU)

551 511 @502 [prescient11] - Christianity was absolutely the driving force behind ending slavery. That's an undeniable fact and if you say otherwise you would be lying. I hear precisely this sort of "argument" in support of the Anthropogenic Global Warming lie all the time. Huh. Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 02:00 PM (oGez1) It's good that you put the word 'argument' in quotes, because there is no argument that protestant Christians spearheaded the end of slavery in England and in the USA. They did this be *actually reading* what is in the Bible and following suit.

Posted by: baldilocks filipova at February 27, 2014 10:44 AM (36Rjy)

552 I don't claim to know the answer to everything and I've been everything from an Agnostic to a Atheist (in the past) as well as a practicing Chrsistian What I know is that I find Jesus Christ to be the most loving, generous, luminous, self sacrificing awe inspiring person I have ever encountered in the written world (and from experiencing his presence in my own life) I believe what he says and I want to transformed into his image. His very nature humbles me and I have no need to try to prove his existence to anyone.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 10:45 AM (XyM/Y)

553 Atheist Conservatism Conserving or saving what from becoming discarded? (If there is no god, then why bother troubling to save nothing from being abused or discarded?) The Marxist political ideology preaches atheism. People hear "Marxist" and immediately "atheist" is part of what comes to mind. To disassociate from Socialism while advancing atheist "conservancy" requires another Manifesto. Clarification of Morality platform. I'm not surprised it's merely a divisive ploy to "get in their faces" and hate on people who believe in a god, even if that god were one's higher Self. Constitutional Conservative IS the level playing field as we are all equal under the Supreme Law of the Land.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 10:55 AM (MhA4j)

554 552. Yes. But for the sharing. Let your light so shine that others witness the glory of God that is within each life.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 10:59 AM (MhA4j)

555 541 Saying that Christian ministers/teachers/parents "threaten" children with hellfire is like saying that dentists and parents threaten children with tooth decay if they don't brush or that doctors threaten smokers with emphysema. Ridiculous. Clergymen, dentists, doctors and parents warn parishioners, patients and children about the possible consequences of their choices. That's love, not threats. I respectfully disagree, Jenny. I think religion keeps people in a state of servitude and oppression, enforced by a threat of hell. You're free to practice in the USA (that's what we're here for), but I'd rather not. That said, I wish Christian conservatives could see that they can still think unbelievers as "fools" and still join forces with us to lower our tax burden, enhance our individual freedoms, and build a better country together

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 10:59 AM (oAAzd)

556 seattle slough is probably gone, but it's either a self-existing eternal universe or a self-existing eternal God. Something can't come from nothing. So it is actually an important question, especially for someone claiming that belief in a deity is dumb.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 11:01 AM (r+7wo)

557 atheism is just another religious belief.

Posted by: redc1c4 at February 27, 2014 11:01 AM (q+fqH)

558

D-Lamp:

So true. Thanks to all for a fantastic discussion.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 11:06 AM (tVTLU)

559 @551 [baldilocks] - "It's good that you put the word 'argument' in quotes..."

I used the quotes because the statement wasn't an argument. It was an assertion, identical to the one(s) used by the warming hysterics.

"They did this be *actually reading* what is in the Bible and following suit."

No one living today can possibly know what these people were thinking, but I believe I understand your point.

If I do understand it, then my question is: how does that square with the actions of those who - in good faith - included statutory support for slavery in the Constitution? How does it square with the actions of those who fought and died demanding those constitutional obligations be met? Lots of those folks were Christians, yes? Some Deists, yes? Were they relying on a bible reference at all in lending their support to this sanction? I don't believe they were. Most of what I read in the debate on the Constitution relative to slavery takes the institution itself for granted; what was debated was the slave trade and how to treat slaves with respect to apportioining representation in Congress.

This is why I don't see support for or opposition to slavery as a reliable benchmark of morality through history.

It seems far more likely that what motivated people in 1790 was a century+ of commerce, legal precedent, tradition and general acceptance of slavery extant up to that time. The same holds true for those Christians and Deists living in the South who expected Northern States to abide by their constitutional obligations regarding fugitive slaves. I don't recall them citing scripture in that regard but, rather, the language of the Constitution itself.

So... who "spearheaded" the end of slavery? Well, that question is only significant if you take it as the only significant act Christians have ever performed relative to the institution. In order to do that, one must cherry-pick that act out of all that preceded it, which isn't logically sound. Again, this isn't a criticism of Christianity, or any given individual's reading of the Bible. It's a comment on the inherently unreliable use of slavery as a benchmark for morality over time.

Posted by: goy at February 27, 2014 11:14 AM (oGez1)

560 You see, j169, there is where I would disagree with you. Religion is nothing; relationship is everything. Jesus came to earth in the fulness of time, and he brought freedom with him. The "religious" leaders of the day did keep the people in bondage, with their rules and requirements. Jesus, the fullfilment of the Scripture, brought that to an end. Moses gave the people 10 commandments from God; the pharisees and religious leaders, through the Talmud and other writings, turned 10 into over 200. But Jesus, God Incarnate, reduced all that to just 2: Love God with all your heart, soul and strength Love your neighbor as you love yourself. You see, if you do those 2 everything else falls into place. Yes, there are abusive and sadistic ministers and church leaders in the world. The same as there are abusive and sadistice political leaders in the world. But blaming God for this is similar to blaming a firearm when someone uses it in the commission of a crime.

Posted by: DaveinNC at February 27, 2014 11:17 AM (boNGU)

561 501. the Bible to justify lifetime slavery--which, by the way, is not sanctioned therein. Posted by: baldilocks filipova That's contestable given all the Bibles books and eras in tow. KJV translated Greek "slave" into English "servant", many instances. Slave, serf, peon, peasant, servant -- today we make fine distinctions that did not necessarily apply back in whatever day. And placing the example of Moses aside as the prime exception against "lifetime" (generational) slavery, the Old Testament is replete with accounts of slaves (aka servants), even higher-ups like "handmaidens" bought-and-paid-for concubines like Hagar of Egypt who 'forgot her place' getting in Sarah's face, Daniel taken into bondage to serve in Babylonian court for life (thrown into the lion's den), Joseph thrown into a pit and then sold by his brothers into bondage via merchants to Egypt managing as another dream interpreter (like Daniel) to rise in the ranks of service-for-life. The old testament god often condemned peoples into captivity for far longer than just "lifetime". Even Jesus advised people to be content in their current social caste (Beatitudes), to focus on developing the inner Life, Unity in the Holy Spirit, liberation through internalization of love. (The kingdom of God is within. My kingdom is not of this earth.)

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 11:21 AM (MhA4j)

562 _______________________________
Ace,

There are lots of agnostics who misidentify themselves as atheists.

The fundamental question is: Does God exist?

Theists answer yes.
Atheists answer no.
Agnostics answer neither yes nor no because they do not feel they have enough information to have confidence in either answer.

To clarify, let the letter E symbolize the proposition that: Â“It is the case that God exists.Â”

Theists assign the truth-value of E as being true.
Atheists assign the truth-value of E as being false.
Agnostics assign no truth-value to E.

It is fair to point out that the evidence that theists cite for justification in asserting that E is true is poor. There arguments for doubting that E is true that are extremely formidable. But such evidence for justification in belief that E is true Â– however weak Â– can at least be considered by those who are skeptical that E is true.

Mere severe doubt is the province of the agnostic. That province is entirely compatible with statements such as, Â“I simply find it impossible to be certain that God existsÂ”, or Â“I strongly doubt that God existsÂ”, or Â“We simply cannot know whether God existsÂ”.

However, insisting that one KNOWS that God does not exist Â– that he can rule out GodÂ’s existence as a matter of fact Â– is the province of the atheist.

Severe doubt in a proposition is not the same thing as claiming to know that the proposition is false. Atheists, however, are making a claim of knowledge Â– not a claim of doubt.

There are steadfast atheists who insist they are justified in their claim that they know God does not exist.
Just as I claim that I know that unicorns do not exist. And just as I claim that I know that I will not win the next lottery drawing and that I know that the sun will not start revolving around the earth in a hundred yearÂ’s time.

Still, highlighting the difference between claims of doubt versus claims of certainty has caused some agnostics to realize theyÂ’re not really atheists.
But likewise, it has also caused some agnostics to realize theyÂ’re not really theists! Â– They sure want to believe God exists, but theyÂ’re not "absolutely certain" that He does.

Anyway, as a God-fearing Christian who in fact knows that God exists, I warmly welcome the commonsense notion of embracing atheists, agnostics, and polytheists into the conservative movement.

If you favor a sharply reduced and restricted Federal government and are in favor of letting the population within any State democratically enact legislation that reflects the values of that population (so long as such State law does not run afoul of the Constitution, most especially the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment) then you are a conservative no matter how spot-on or misguided your metaphysical beliefs may be.

Posted by: _Dave_ at February 27, 2014 11:26 AM (07UzX)

563 blaming a firearm when someone uses it in the commission of a crime. Posted by: DaveinNC at February 27, 2014 03:17 PM (boNGU) Yesterday headline story featured at HuffPo of a drunk nearly 40-year-old boyfriend (and father of three children) "teaching gun safety to his girlfriend" by playing Russian Roulette. Oops. Third time's the charm, he killed himself "accidentally".

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 27, 2014 11:26 AM (MhA4j)

564 panzernashorn: Ouch. I worked an accidental shooting once were the guy would always scare his wife by dropping the mag from his weapon, rack it, then put it to his head and pull the trigger. This final time, he racked it before dropping the mag.

Posted by: DaveinNC at February 27, 2014 11:30 AM (boNGU)

565 If you folks believe that these atheists planned on sitting in their booth and handing out informative tracts to the unwashed, you probably should think again. Liberals, whether atheists or not have too big a reputation for hurting other people whenever they get the opportunity. These folks, I absolutely believe, planned to be as disruptive to the CPAC folks as was possible. I envisioned them being forcefully ejected from meetings where they were obnoxious and trying to show down the speakers with their agenda.

Posted by: TimothyJ at February 27, 2014 11:31 AM (ep2io)

566 @556

I'm still here.

And I'm not the guy to ask. Our best and brightest (no, not the authors of the Bible, I'm afraid) have many theories and not all of them require anything eternal. I'm a lawyer, not a physicist, so I don't even understand basic quantum mechanics, to say nothing of string theory.

Again, my best (completely unqualified) guess is the cyclical repeated big bang model as described by Neil Turok and Paul J. Steinhardt. But, again, I'm a not even in that field, so who cares what I think?

redc1c4:

Wrong. A religious belief is the belief in supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Atheists do not hold such beliefs. I don't believe in anything supernatural. Thus, I am not religious.

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2014 11:41 AM (mCz8+)

567 seattle slough, so you claim not to understand it but still hold people who believe in a deity to be foolish/stupid. Got it.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at February 27, 2014 12:01 PM (r+7wo)

568 There is no evidence that the Bible is true. There is ample evidence that it is false. Despite this, you believe it.

There is lots of evidence to support every cosmological model of the universe. I don't feel compelled to throw my weight behind any of them.

See the difference? You worship a bronze aged deity for which there is no rational basis to believe. I choose not to accept, as gospel, any of a number of incredibly complex theories for something that I have no need nor reason to believe.

Let me ask you:
Do you believe the Earth is less than 20,000 years old?
Do you believe in a world-wide flood?
Do you deny the theory of evolution?

If the answer to any of these is "yes" you are a fool. If the answer is "no" you deny the Bible as divine truth.

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2014 12:13 PM (mCz8+)

569 Dear Seattle Slough-Sewage-Sludge,

This is an old and boring argument and I, for one,do not care what you believe or when you cut your toenails and derive, by the fungal rings, how old you are or where you spored from. I would no more argue about my faith or the Bible with you than stab my eye with a burning torch. You bore me. There is nothing worse I can say to you: bore.

xoxo,
ChristyBlinky aka Southern Redneck Queen
Honey Badger Team

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Judge of Raciss Morons at February 27, 2014 12:19 PM (baL2B)

570 Do you believe that all Christians believe exactly the same thing about evolution and the age of the earth or that a belief in evolution is not compatible with a belied in God? If so, you may be a fool.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 12:25 PM (XyM/Y)

571 And without feeling a need to answer any of your questions, "Yes, I'm a fool. I'm a food for Christ" and darn glad about it. :^) Have a great day!

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 12:27 PM (XyM/Y)

572 I don't know that atheists can't be "moral". I just know they aren't, ever, moral absolutists the way Christians are.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 27, 2014 12:29 PM (5xmd7)

573 What is an Atheist Fundamentalist: Fundamentalist atheist is defined as an atheist with a rigid, intolerant, and dogmatic adherence to atheism or an atheistic ideology. The theory behind this definition is that there exists a fundamentalism which is atheistic and which atheists adhere to much like some Christians adhere their own fundamentalist Christianity. The label fundamentalist atheist tends to be used interchangeably with militant atheist, new atheist, and antitheist.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 12:30 PM (XyM/Y)

574 This might be an appropriate time to thank the Atheists on here who do not feel a need to tell the Theists that their belief in God and/or Jesus is equivalent to a belief in a flying Spaghetti Monster, or have indicated when faux Messiah Obama comes to take us to the camps, ;^) they'll be standing beside us. I would particularly like to thanks AmishDude whom gives every indication of being an Atheist but has a problem with some of the more militant brethren and eman who said he'd be standing beside us in the camps.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 12:39 PM (XyM/Y)

575 574 This might be an appropriate time to thank the Atheists on here who do not feel a need to tell the Theists that their belief in God and/or Jesus is equivalent to a belief in a flying Spaghetti Monster, or have indicated when faux Messiah Obama comes to take us to the camps, ;^) This is what I'm talking about. Some goddam Christian who believes that only his tribe can belong to the greater struggle. All those of us who have been hurt and abused by his/her religion, and therefore do not practice it or believe it to be true, can't be one of them. Get used to losing elections.

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 12:59 PM (oAAzd)

576 Heh. Even with faith, I can't seem to please Him. Dear Backwards Boy, You have faith in God. You please him even if you feel that despite the circumstances in your life

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 01:01 PM (XyM/Y)

577 Me? I feel anyone can belong to conservatism-Atheist, Agnostic, My posts did not addtress that. I understand that people feel abused by religion. My argument was simply with people who insist on telling me that I'm stupid and foolish and believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster because of my belief in God. So, if your post was directed to me it's off target IMO.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 01:05 PM (XyM/Y)

578 Fenelon:

I don't know what a belief in God entails. There are many Gods. I would assume there are as many imagined Gods as there are believers in an imagined God. I do know that evolution and a 4 billion year old Earth are incompatible with the Holy Bible.

So, if you purport to be a worshipper of the God of the Bible and if you further believe the Bible is His word, yes, I believe you must deny an old earth and that human beings evolved from sludge like the rest of the animals on this planet.

This belief of mine is not limited to non-believers. Ken Ham and his ilk share my sentiments. You either take the Bible as a interesting book of stories or you accept it all as the word of God. If it's the word of God, then humans did not evolve from lesser creatures.

Posted by: seattle slough at February 27, 2014 01:06 PM (mCz8+)

579 Some goddam Christian who believes that only his tribe can belong to the greater struggle. As I noted anyone can belong to the greater struggle. There was nothing in my post to suggest that I didn't.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 01:07 PM (XyM/Y)

580 Not interested in debate on this, Seattle Slough.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 01:07 PM (XyM/Y)

581 "slavery was extinguished by men with Christian, or at least Deist, beliefs" -- Well, most people were Christians, so it makes sense that both slavery supporters and opposers were Christian. So, it's just a coincidence.

Posted by: Bob at February 27, 2014 01:12 PM (2Y6Hc)

582 >>> Let me ask you: Do you believe the Earth is less than 20,000 years old? Do you believe in a world-wide flood? Do you deny the theory of evolution? If the answer to any of these is "yes" you are a fool. If the answer is "no" you deny the Bible as divine truth. ... Seattle, being a non-believer myself, I agree with you that these things are not true. Here is where I depart from you: Calling someone who does believe them a fool. Was Blaise Pascal a fool? Before you answer, you should look him up on Wikipedia. Was Isaac Newton a fool? I trust you know enough about him to know he was no fool. Was William Wilberforce a fool? If you have to Wiki him, do so. What you are doing is taking your lack of inquisitiveness (which I share) for some explanation as to What It All Means (I don't know that it means much of anything, and I suspect you feel similarly) as your demarcation between "fool" and, I guess, a wise man such as yourself. There are a lot of brilliant men -- far more brilliant than thou -- in history, who not only believed in God (and Jesus), and not only were not "fools," but were in fact smarter than you (or, even I, though it's a closer call) could ever hope to be.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 01:22 PM (/FnUH)

583 Seattle, You are guilty not of atheism (which is not a crime) but the great sin of our age, the great Vanity, that of Tribalism. You believe that your membership in a tribe makes you superior to others; I think your devotion to a tribe makes you inferior. Like you, I am an atheist (or, agnostic/Deist/atheist depending on the day). Like you, I do not believe anything in the Bible, except for some small things like I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus lived and caused a bit of stir. But to me, this is about as much evidence of my superiority over my fellow man as my interest in True Detective. You are establishing, in your mind, a hierarchy of persons, from wise to fool, based upon your own idiosyncratic What's Hot/What's Not list. Here is an eye-opener for you: Some people wonder more about the First Mover than you or I do. Some people find scientific explanations implausible or unsatisfying. This does not make them fools; it makes them of a different personality type than you or I. You are essentially doing the same thing a gay-hater does when he knocks him for being gay. The religious were born with a quixotic nature, a need to look beyond the tangible and mundane. You and I weren't. We should no more be "proud" of this than we're proud of our sexualities or our eye color.

Posted by: ace at February 27, 2014 01:27 PM (/FnUH)

584 Thanks, Ace.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 01:29 PM (XyM/Y)

585

Who in the hell DOESN'T believe in the flood??

There is so much evidence about this across civilizations at that time it's staggering.

Ace may be up on the French, but anyone who denies that there was a flood that affected all existing human civilization sometime around 4000 BC is a fucking idiot.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 01:32 PM (tVTLU)

586 Jesus Christ, Ace. How is rejecting lies the same as saying we're superior to those who wish to live in willful ignorance? Why suck up to people who would kick you to the curb if they had enough numbers and didn't need you?

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 01:35 PM (oAAzd)

587 "anyone who denies that there was a flood that affected all existing human civilizationsometime around 4000 BCis a fucking idiot." So you believe the human race and the animal kingdom all came out of incest?

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 01:37 PM (oAAzd)

588 I would kick nobody to the curb based on their belief/lack of belief in God. I haven't yet heard one person here say that you couldn't be a conservative and be an Atheist. They may have strong feelings about their religion but not that you couldn't adhere to conservative principles. In fact, the guy above Dave said he welcomed everybody too.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 01:38 PM (XyM/Y)

589 But as we seem to be started a debate on the Bible rather than agreeing that all people can be conservatives-whether they are Theist, Atheist or Agnostic I'm outta here. I have no interest in such a debate. Carry on. Let's all slam each other for our belief/lack of and completely forget what unites us. Obama would be gleeful. They "great uniter" cheers

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 01:42 PM (XyM/Y)

590

The biggest problem is that Seattle's point is self-defeating. Logic is madness is logic.

Case in point: Dostoevsky said that the best way to torture a man and drive him insane was to make him do a meaningless task over and over and over again.

Not to be outdone, the Nazis put the theory into practice. At a Hungarian (I think) concentration camp, Jewish workers used to build munitions. This need ended and the SS forced them to dig a pile of sand and move it to one corner of the camp. Then they forced them to load the sand back up and move it back to the corner. They forced the Jews to do this for weeks, day after day after day, a task that obviously had no purpose.

What happened? The Jews went mad. They began committing suicide by rushing the guards or throwing themselves on the electrified fence. The SS commander wrily commented that they wouldn't have to use the crematorium anymore.

If there is no afterlife. If we are all dirt. If the immediate existence is the only existence. If there is no soul. Then all we are doing is moving sand.

We may hide this from our own conscience by doing what we want, indulging sensual pleasures of all sorts. But an atheist who is truly awake and understands this, eventually goes insane. What do you think happened to Nietzsche?

If an atheist is right. All is permitted. You have no authority to tell me that raping a child is wrong. You may have power to punish such a person. But the only wrong is getting caught, not the act.

And therein lies the entire problem w/ no belief in something higher, more absolute than human reason.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 01:42 PM (tVTLU)

591 Lies is a deliberate telling of something you know to be an untruth. No Theist is doing that here. Good evening.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 27, 2014 01:43 PM (XyM/Y)

592

j169:

Do you believe that all of humanity came out of an amoeba??

It is hilarious that somehow it's crazy that humankind could have begun out of incest. Oooooohhhhhh shocker.

But somehow a lightning strike and some walking fish, we're all good with that theory. LOL.

In ancient times brother-sister marriages were common, prized by Egyptians, so yes, I think it's more than possible.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 01:46 PM (tVTLU)

593

j169:

As a matter of fact, even if you believe in bullshit evolutionary "theory" or random MANBEARPIG postulations of throwing shit at a wall - which is more like the "science" of evolution, wouldn't incest have been required under evolutionary theory as well?

Or, was this crazy process of simultaneous random mutations able to change two daffodils or sparrows or apes into male and female humanoids right at the time. Maybe the girl was ovulating.

Now that's some fucking good coincidences. LOL. Why materialists view themselves as superior, it's like Slate thinking they know how to write.

The real craziness that needs to be addressed, is the mind fuck that allowed super intelligent people to buy into this crackpot bullshit. Peer pressure is a mother fucker.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 01:55 PM (tVTLU)

594 prescient11: the effects of inbreeding are well-documented. If the human race was begat from Noah and his children (who were all a couple hundred years old, if I know my Bible) then there is not enough genetic diversity to sustain what are now. Same with animals. Evolution works.

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 01:58 PM (oAAzd)

595 "Peer pressure"? Kind of like telling kids to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or they will burn forever in hell?

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 01:59 PM (oAAzd)

596 In regards to your comment that without some holy writ from your invisible god we can't say that child rape is wrong...the Old Testament allows child rape. Actually, it orders it. Deuteronomy 20:10-14... As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 02:02 PM (oAAzd)

597 This one really hits it home (re: child rape) Numbers 31:7-18 NLT They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings Â– Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba Â– died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 02:04 PM (oAAzd)

598

j169:

Walking fish - he's cool with that.

Inbreeding - no way man, no way.

LOL

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 02:06 PM (tVTLU)

599 that sums me up pretty good, yeah.

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 02:09 PM (oAAzd)

600

j169:

It's difficult to debate a lunatic. Good luck w/ all that. Nothing you have cited has anything to do with the topic. Cheers.

Posted by: prescient11 at February 27, 2014 02:09 PM (tVTLU)

601 Have fun playing Noah's Ark in the bathtub.

Posted by: j169 at February 27, 2014 02:20 PM (oAAzd)

602 Ace, not sure you are monitoring this thread anymore, but.... So what is your position and what do you say when a judicial nominee is appearing to be confirmed states the following: I don't believe in any god or higher being/power. With that said rights don't come from this being. Therefore, the second amendment is a man made right and can be removed. I believe that our constitution can be adapted by using foreign law any majority rule.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2014 02:43 PM (HVff2)

603 I lack definitive proof of god, gods or God, and I lack proof of the big bang, atoms becoming man by chance and the like. I cannot stand in front of anyone and tell them with absolute certainty that belief in God nor belief in pure naturalism is true. I have studied the issue of origin a great deal, and I see design, intricate design, and I have never seen anything designed without a designer. But that is my conclusion and not yours. Later in the day you discuss tribalism. Constitutional America is a tribe.The Constitution is open to all. I believe a creator has endowed rights, and an atheist may believe that man's rights are a natural outcome of the DNA of humanity, or it may simply be the agreed upon by the tribe. It could simply be that the teachings written in the Bible from Jesus are the best teachings for law and order. Unless I am god myself I really don't know what the reality is. I do know that there is truth, and the closer I get to that truth the farther away it becomes.

Posted by: Mekan at February 27, 2014 06:20 PM (zG16+)

604 Constitutional, conservatively based politics shouldn't be about religion (or lack thereof) but the ability to respectfully talk amongst each other about how to promote the general welfare, secure the nation, and liberty for ourselves and our posterity, without respect to any particular religion.

Or so it seems by any reasonable reading of the first amendment...

Those who feel otherwise have left the path...

Posted by: Seipherd at February 27, 2014 07:49 PM (1etLu)

605 Prescient11- I don't know if you are still monitoring this thread, but if you do not mind, I am going to "borrow" your post at #590 to use in a future Bible Study class. What you wrote is way too well written and meaningful to just let it lie farrow here on a dead thread.

Posted by: DaveinNC at February 28, 2014 04:50 AM (boNGU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

487kb generated in CPU 0.1928, elapsed 0.3932 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3198 seconds, 733 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.