My Thanksgiving post, Can Atheists Really Give Thanks apparently provoked a lot of heated discussion, some of which is still going on. But maybe what’s surprised me more than the amount of discussion the topic has generated, has been the tone.
The site’s moderator, Austin Cline, recently recapped our “exchange” in this way:
Update: Mike Duran has been posting about this in comments on this own site. He falsely claims that his “point” has been “dismissed,” even though anyone can see that his claim that “in a temporal / amoral universe, doing good, appreciating beauty, experiencing pleasure, doesn’t really matter” has been addressed more than once. Specifically, he has been challenged more than once to support it and rather than doing so, he simply refuses to continue to engage in conversation. He walks away.
By dishonestly pretending that others are simply dismissing his point, Mike Duran is implying that he made some great, insightful statement that others are afraid of. No one is afraid of it, though, and no one has ignored it. Duran, however, can’t seem to take it seriously enough to invest even a couple of minutes to defend it and if he can’t take your own points that seriously, then neither should anyone else. How often has Christians come to this site, made similarly bigoted claims, and then disappeared after being challenged? Most of them, actually. What does this say about Christians and Christianity?
I wanted to take some time to address Austin Cline’s characterization of our exchange, reiterate some of the points he feels I left unsupported, as well as comment on the “ground rules,” or lack thereof, that inflame such blog skirmishes. Whatever I say from here on out will, no doubt, be viewed by him as a perpetuation of my “bigoted claims” and cowardice. So be it. Perhaps, however, I can quell the suggestion that I’ve simply “disappeared after being challenged.”
At this writing, the thread at Austin Cline’s Agnosticism / Atheism Blog is well over 120 comments and many subsequent points have been made since I exited that conversation. Cline suggested my departure inferred that I don’t take it “seriously enough to invest even a couple of minutes to defend [my position].” I’m unsure how long Cline thinks I should remain to answer objections at his site in order to convince him I take this subject “seriously”. My three lengthy comments (#’s 3, 7 and 18), all of which required more than “a couple minutes” to compose, are apparently not enough.
As I said in my last comment there, one reason I withdrew from further involvement was the “name calling” going on. Comment #66 by marc is indicative of the tone of that “discussion”:
To Mike Duran. . . You were bested. Plain and simple. Wherever you are, I’m sure it’s safe and no one confronts you on your idiotology.
Folks like marc don’t strike me as individuals who want to dialog, but as those who look for ways to “best” their opponent. As such, whoever has the best sound bite or the wittiest comeback, has “the truth.” That such an important topic as the nature of existence can be “proven” in such short measure, with so little evidence, on an internet forum, by lay people, makes marc’s chest-thumping all the more sad. Thankfully, truth is not determined by who’s “bested.”
Even more disheartening to me is Cline’s, similarly inflammatory tone. In the above quote, he portrays me as making “false claims” and “dishonestly pretending that others are simply dismissing [my] point.” He summarizes, “How often has Christians come to this site, made similarly bigoted claims” (emphasis mine). Along those lines, Nancy referred to my “inane reasoning” (#2), Jason said it was “ridiculously stupid” (#15), and marc added that I was “delusional” (#8). I’m sure there’s been more unflattering tidbits sprinkled along the way. Perhaps it’s just me, but charges of bigotry and dishonesty, calling others delusional and inane, and labeling others’ belief systems as “idiotology” don’t do much for the spirit of healthy debate.
Frankly, this type of rhetoric is one reason I did not continue the “discussion” at Cline’s site. If this is how he and his fellow atheists defend their position in the marketplace of ideas, it’s no wonder that the vast majority of Americans still believe in God. I’ve always held that civility is one of the “rules of engagement” in debate and that once we throw that out the window, logic will surely follow. I fear that both have been breached in this skirmish.
One of Cline’s charges is that I “falsely claimed” that my point has been “dismissed.” I’d still assert that my main point has been skirted and here’s an example of why. From comment #26:
Duran: Classic atheism has, for millennia, acknowledged that the absence of God intrinsically affects one’s morals and meaning.
Cline: I never claimed that there was “no effect” it’s just that the only “effect” is that gods don’t enter into the subject. That’s all. For someone who complained so strongly about alleged mischaracterizations, you sure are quick to misrepresent others.
Please look at this carefully. Austin Cline asserts that, “the only effect” of postulating the non-existence of God “is that gods don’t enter into the subject” (emphasis mine). This is either (a) disingenuous or (b) evidence of ignorance of classic atheism.
Most serious philosophers have wrestled with the moral / ethical / existential implications of a world without God. David Hume in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, addressed the issue of ethics and morality. Morality, he taught, is not based upon reason, fact, or God, but upon feelings. Immanuel Kant spent considerable time attempting to provide rational grounds for social ethics apart from the existence of God, for instance his Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality (often referred to as “the Prize Essay”). Nietzsche is often viewed as the father of the “God is dead” movement in the early sixties. His parable, Thus Spake Zarathustra, directly addresses man’s quest for morality without God. Zarathustra, as the story goes, is a master ethicist who abandons his quest for virtue as unreasonable and false. Bertrand Russell vehemently argued against God and a moral law. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was an atheistic existentialist who in his most famous work, Being and Nothingness, concluded that there is no explanation for the brute existence of things. Because life is absurd, Sartre taught, man must authenticate himself and author his own values. And on a less scholarly note, the famous atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, in her book What on Earth Is an Atheist, said:
We need a decent, modern, sophisticated and workable set of standards by which we can get along with ourselves and with others. (pg. 39)
So while the Christian’s standards are defined outside of him (by God’s Law), the atheist must establish a “workable set of standards” to “get along with [himself] and with others.” In other words, the absence of God affects one’s existence. Is it any wonder that Will Durant, the popular historian and philosopher, categorized the greatest question of our time as “Can man live without God?”
As you can see, Austin Cline’s assertion that “the only effect” of positing the non-existence of God “is that gods don’t enter into the subject,” fails to acknowledge the long historical discussion, by theist and atheist alike, concerning the moral / ethical / existential implications of living in an amoral, godless universe. The point that I made in my original post, my comments at his site, and reiterate here is that THE ABSENCE OF GOD RADICALLY AFFECTS ONE’S MORALS AND MEANING.
However, instead of simply acknowledging the relevance of the point, the philosophical tension it creates, and its historical tethers, Cline continues in comment #26:
Duran: By way of example, I Googled “Morality without God” and found 2,010,000 results. Guess my “assertion” isn’t so “ridiculously stupid,” huh?
Cline: So, you actually believe that if lots of people think or assert something, then it can’t be “ridiculously stupid?” What do you suppose that tells others about the quality of your reasoning skills?
If Austin Cline would have taken just “a couple minutes” to peruse these links, he’d see that many (if not most) of them are atheists addressing the problem of meaning and morality without God. The Google reference is not intended to prove one cannot find meaning and morality without God, but that it’s a major issue for atheists. Instead, Cline mischaracterizes my point, makes a false assumption about my intention and questions “the quality of [my] reasoning skills.” The volume of Google hits only buttress my assertion that finding meaning apart from God is a major issue for atheists. C’mon, how hard is this?
Cline’s basic reply to my assertion that atheists cannot find meaning without God was this, from comment #26:
Duran: Once again, if you’re just an animal, an advanced collection of cells, who will dissolve into absolute nothingness along with all your good deeds and efforts, then yes: Life is ultimately of no value.
Cline: OK. Prove it.
Duran: Attempting to find meaning in a meaningless world is tantamount to madness.
Cline: OK. Prove it.
With rejoinders like this, why debate? My statements, like his, are philosophical assertions not scientific equations. “Proving” that the search for meaning is futile in a meaningless world is as nebulous as trying to “prove” it isn’t. To illustrate this point, let me invert Cline’s response in this mock exchange:
Cline: Attempting to find meaning in a meaningless world IS NOT tantamount to madness.
Duran: OK. Prove it.
How exactly would Cline go about “proving” that finding “meaning in a meaningless world is not tantamount to madness”? If he said that many atheists don’t go mad, I’d say that some do. If he said that some live happy, satisfied lives, I’d say that some don’t. Judging the validity of a philosophy by its adherents is double-edged — no one perfectly embodies any single belief system and there’s always exceptions to the rule. If Cline thinks he “proves” his point because some atheists DO find meaning, I’d argue, as I have all along, that there’s no logical reason or necessity that they do so. Atheism offers no compelling argument for why one must believe or behave any way. This is why Hume and Kant and Nietzsche and Russell spent so much time trying to articulate a reason to live and be ethical — because they understood the danger of extrapolating their unbelief to its logical conclusions.
I’d also float this idea: Many Christians find happiness and meaning. No doubt, some of that “happiness” is contrived and shallow. Nevertheless, I think Cline would agree that the fact that some Christians find meaning in Christianity DOES NOT validate Christianity. Likewise, the fact that some atheists find meaning in atheism DOES NOT validate atheism. The validation of any belief system involves a fragile combination of logic, evidence, and humility.
If anything, my encounter with Austin Cline and his readers reinforces the caricature of the “angry atheist.” Atheism is not a passive unbelief in God, but a brazen assertion in his non-existence. For the most part, atheism is really anti-theism — an aggressive counterattack against religion and the religious. After my encounter with Cline, I’m wondering if this “hostility” against theists is actually what drives many atheists.
I’ve always felt that, at the heart of atheism, is a terrible, unspoken philosophical inconsistency. For only until every possible dimension and nook and cranny of the universe can be explored, can someone, with confidence, say there is no God. But no one has done this. Thus, the atheist is left to staunchly defend something he CANNOT EVER PROVE. For this reason, agnosticism has always seemed like a far more reasonable, and less hostile, stance.
Finally, if atheism is true, discussions like this don’t matter. If there’s no god, and no heaven or hell, when we nuke ourselves into oblivion, the sun burns out in a million years, or the universe contracts again, the fact that I was “bested” by a bunch of atheists won’t flippin’ matter. If, however, Christianity is true, these discussions are infinitely more important.
This post is an absolutely perfect description of every conversation I've ever had with an atheist either electronically or in person. It must be frustrating to define your beliefs solely as an opposition to other people's beliefs, and I posit this is the source of the hostility.
Konraden:
You said: “I can’t help but notice, Mike, that your characterizations of atheism are strawmen. Atheism only entails one thing: the lack of belief in gods. There is no unifying structure, no beliefs, no dogma that goes with it.”
This is incorrect on a number of fronts.
First of all, the lack of belief in gods is itself a belief.
Secondly, while atheism may have no highly detailed and formal systematic theology (At least that I’m aware of), some have tried to lay down the basic tenets, a process that mimics other religions. We see this in Humanist Manifesto’s I & II.
Thirdly, atheism (also known by some as secular humanism), has been defined as being a religion and there’s Supreme Court precedent to support this.
In 1961 in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects citizens of both theistic and non-theistic religions. In case documents the court specified secular humanism as a distinct religion that does not believe in God.
To be fair I must mention the 1994 decision by the 9th Circuit Court in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District. The court stated that as it pertains to Establishment Clause purposes, neither evolutionism nor secular humanism are “religions”.
Note the unconstitutional double-standard that this ruling created. If you want to avoid military service or gain tax-exempt status, then your secular humanism is a religion. On the other hand, if you want to proselytize students via the theory of evolution in public schools, your secular humanism is not viewed as being a religion.
By definition, a religion is simply a system of belief. I’ve heard historian Bill Federer explain that if we look up the word, “belief” in a dictionary, you’ll see that at some point in the definition it mentions thoughts or opinions upon which you base your actions. If you commit yourself to actions, and you have thoughts that inspire those actions, that collection of thoughts is your belief system which is also your religion.
This means that it doesn’t matter if a religion is theistic or not, nor does it matter if a person goes to a building once a week or more to celebrate it. Those factors are irrelevant. The point is, everyone maintains a loyalty to religious beliefs that are the basis for their worldview.
You also said: “Atheism doesn’t say anything about our meaning.”
Again, there may be no formal systematic theology of atheism that explicitly teaches it with regard to the issue of our meaning. However, because it is a worldview, it does implicitly communicate on the subject.
In one sense I can understand your “straw-man” accusation. The problem is, if that were true, and if atheism had no beliefs as you described, and if it really had nothing to say about our meaning, there’d be little reason for atheists to defend their position much less use the inflammatory tone as Mike noted concerning Austin Cline.
So why do some Christians feel the need to question atheism and why do atheists often respond with such vigor? Over time I’ve discovered that it isn’t because atheism lacks belief or doesn’t say anything about our meaning. It’s because of the arbitrary way that atheists approach belief and meaning. Atheists tend to communicate that the beliefs and meaning they do embrace are unique to and for each individual. In other words, they embrace the idea that they are autonomous.
I’m interested in your thoughts concerning atheists and autonomy.
Konraden:
In my previous post I mentioned two court cases but failed to provide a source for the information. The source I used was the book, “Today’s Conflict, Tomorrow’s Crisis” by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy (pages 211-213).
I had the unfortunate luck of running across Austin Cline’s blog and made the further error of trying to engage him on some of the points made in The God Delusion. We had a short interchange, yet when I posted a fairly coherent list of Dawkins’ fallacies for discussion, Austin clammed up and would not publish my comment. So much for intellectual honesty on his blog.
It’s unfortunate, because I think that dialogue between Christians and non believers does improve our faith as well, even if it does not convince others. That, unfortunately, is not Austin’s goal at all.
I guess changing definitions to prop up his arguments is no new thing to our friend Austine Cline
And he even thinks he’s excluded from the burden of proof for his claims as he’s an atheist, all the while proposing the existence of walking contradictions
You are lucky that Cline did not ban you from posting comments on his blog, as he did to me when I challenged him on the basic points of atheism.
One atheist commenter agreed with me that without a belief in God one has no reason to save a drowning stranger instead of a drowning puppy.
But Cline hates dissenters. He holds us in contempt, which is why he ignores our arguments with the approval of his own conscience.
By the way, Mike, I can tell from your exchange with Marc that you’ve listened to Dennis Prager on the radio. He’s definitely my favorite.
I enjoyed the dialogue of this blog article.
This video response is in no way a judgment on the author or on Cline. This is something that helps me to communicate with others in person or on blogs. I’ve had my fair share of futile blog debates, and learned that charity never faileth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2_PzNUYprw
Hope this helps. I know its by a Mormon, (and hope that doesn’t open another can of worms) but I feel it spans Christian truth.
This post is pretty funny to me, because I have a profound dislike for Humanism. Not because I am a Christian, or even a Conservative – it’s because I am an egoist and a reader of Nietzsche.
To me Austin Cline, Dawkins, et. al. are obnoxious and irrational precisely because they accept the same slave-morality and social tropes that Christianity does. They feel the need to justify themselves according to the vices (charity, hope, etc.) and are unwilling to face up to the existential nihilism that is the real world. They are driven by what is essentially a Protestant Pietism without the God; they’ve simply secularized Heaven and crowned the democratical State as God.
As a person who believes that morality is mythology, that government is a criminal gang and that charity corrupts everyone involved I could not be more disgusted by fake-skeptics like Cline and Hitchens.
As Stirner said, “Our atheists are pious people.”
Is an Atheist in his honest mind does not believe in some sort of god?
Why is an Atheist say he does not believe in God yet he is a law abiding citizen and appreciates Gods law is there a distinction between the laws and God; isn’t being a bit of a hypocrite not to believe in God or is it not admitting that the rules are not made by Him; because one cannot separate the two subjects from each other, the law is God and God is the law you cannot defy or separate one and not the other because they are bonded together at this point an atheist is defying himself. Where ever a low is being perfected or is being administered through honesty in the sight of God. That low is God’s low any other man made is devils law like few examples hanging abortion permitting prostitution and permitting once own gains for a huge percentage beyond once pocket to defend someone etc yet in this case an Atheist is a devils worshiper, he is not a Atheist.
Albert
Response to Austin Cline’s Agnosticism / Atheism Blog
Most of the Comments I read are nothing but insults and injustice to other intelligent people I believe that if one doesn’t know any better what is the use of criticising one’s believe, some are full of talents other are born no fault of their own illiterate big thanks to those school that there subjects does not include some spiritual value. The logic of this all is to teach and correct that misguided comment. The question is anything that wrong around us is in powering all mankind what I mean what is wrong is good and what is good that’s bead the whole point of it all I say it again; each of us has an empty hearth each individual has no one to turn too and that emptiness is nothing more but spirituality the body alone can’t survive on its own. It’s a shame that we spend more time on books that made their name by writing a novel or fantasy story that came in that authors mind dreams are our fevered wonders we intend to make these authors our gods even follow their footsteps. Yet the only one that showed as the past present and future, oh no His book doesn’t make sense which is the Bible yet why is it on sale till today and it baffled millions of people. Do not play with your time life one minute you are here and the next puff you’re gone.
Albert.
Sunday15 ‘April2012 John20,1923 The first day of the week the apostles were afraid from the Jewish the doors were locked Jesus entered and stood in the middle of them and said peace be with you then He showed His hands and chest, after again said peace be with you how my Father send me so will I send and blow unto them and said take the Holy Spirit. Those that you forgive their sin shall be forgiven in Haven, and those that you shall be withholding will be withheld in Haven. What does this means, it means that the apostles the Church their successors have the right and power in the name of Jesus to hear the confusion and forgive in the name of Jesus to the people.
Albert
Original Sin in the Bible.
Genesis to me it means; History of our Race. In the past humans didn’t know how to write so they left some kind of signs or told us stories through excavation we learnt a lot but it’s not enough. Through Jesus we learnt mostly during his speeches quite often He did mention the past and thanks to him we inherit most of our knowledge. My opinion the original sin incorporated in one word (disobedience) nothing more nothing less; we all know what it means, if God purely and simple was obeyed He would not have to go through all the discomfort of having to tell us what to do. Disobedience is the negative of all the wrongly doing on Earth. Let take the first disorder weather you believe it or not what was it? It was the disobedience No 1 between Lucifer and God. God wanted us which means those angles or spirits having a body, but Lucifer hated humans from the beginning. No 2 Adam and Eve to have a bit of inelegance it cost humans more negative problems then positive thinking. God knows what will happen, but the love he has for us, God gave us so many prophets and steel repeatedly dishonour and disobey him what was the results; wars famine diseases you name it and you can incorporate all of this and name it (Negativity)God even send us his own spirit in Jesus Body then what do we do, we kill Him to inherit without giving God the least of all a simple word thank you is it too hard to appreciate his gifts His love is so much for us that the still send and keep the earth fertile so we can survive. Jesus resurrection meant that He won death itself and gave the same condition to us which is life after death.
Albert.
Corruption!
The church is made of Humans and it’s very easy to penetrate in the human mind to break his vows and make any priest or anyone involved venerable with in the surroundings of each and every one of us. What amuses me is that why is it, us you and me everybody are hitting each other to proof something as we are the perfect once without sin. We say to each other in so many different ways every day of our lives the minute we read, or there is a story to tell our minds are ready to jump into conclusions instead of trying to find out who is the author behind this seen whatever it might be. Why it is God, in this case is the centre of attraction. Did not Jesus say do not point your finger to any of us, and also who is perfect in the eyes of the God? If someone whose power can give a corrupted order to his assistant say in the white house why is the President to blame? Take any religious group instead of collecting sheep like Sheppard try to find out which one of them got flees we end up more than a day or two to bring in some twenty sheep’s in the barn. Going back to where we started, we are forgetting that our enemy is the devil and his job to brake or shatter that kingdom so it want stand on its feet. When the high priests side to each other that Jesus is doing all this in the name of the devil that moment Jesus new being able to read their minds He told them straight forward if a kingdom does not sick with inn itself that kingdom will fall. Let always put in our minds that where people are involved there is some kind of corruption. One more thing why is it that the devil is always out of the picture yet again to make us think that he does not exist; he is the Joker of the living human kind.
Albert.
Marc December 27, 2007 at 2:46 AM
Marc December 28, 2007 at 12:38 AM
People that never heard of Jesus are not lost because He came to save the human race from everlasting hell. You say that you never heard about him, but Jesus know you and where your hearth is, you know very well the moment you have asked for him through this web without knowing you have knocked on his door that alone is already a revelation He said knock and the door shall be open strange enough apart from myself I am sour that more have read your comment. The New Testament is an improvement of the Old Testament the prophesy of the Messiah was written from the Old Testament; what happened was that the Jews were given a Kings and they expected a king as a Messiah infect some of the Jews wanted to proclaimed Jesus for a King. But Gods intention was to honor the Ten Commandments. These Rules are the opposite of the past which makes everyone equal in the eyes of God Having Jesus perfecting and explaining through his teaching, history turned over a lot of Jews including High priests and the old wise man by becoming Christens Now this amounted to a very large Number. In the Roman Catholic Church you find that most of the first reading at Mass is from the Old Testament second reading is Jesus own words which are from in the Gospel.
Albert
Remade December 9, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Of what I read it can’t be helped if you are wondering who is telling the truth or to believe or not if it’s a fantasy reality or fiction the world is full disillusions and betrayal there is two sides of the coin. The existence of life is a fact trough time and history many people fabricated and expanded words into stories and a legend is created. But there is a difference for instance if words are said in the open from someone who’s teaching is the reality of what is happening with inn our hearth body feeling so many time often during the day our mind try to create the Menu of the day, how are we to spend that present day. What is real; that most of the time we cannot measure the timing of what we choose for that day. All of us go through these stages at one time or another. The answer of it all is that we do not wont to except that with inn us there is an emptiness. Which is a spirit in us that we neglect although not realizing how much we are helped by it in our every day decisions? This spirit is a tool that can hold us from misbehaving or doing the wrong thing, Most of our lives we can get so carried on that we neglect that spirit and the remedy can only be helped from someone that is beyond anything on earth. No shrink can cure such power. That is why from the beginning man always wanted something or somebody to adore. We have to except that there is someone beyond our intelligence and from the beginning as I mention before in other webs that someone come to reveal to us the truth and that someone was Jesus the Messiah. Before any criticism read the Bible. And judge for yourself.
Albert.
Albert, I appreciate your commenting here, but I must ask that you to stop. You’re not adding to this conversation at all. At this point, you’re just sort of rambling. Thanks!
Mike Duran April 23, 2012 at 4:39 AM
I do apologies for my comments that keeps rambling, you see not everyone get my meanings some needs more explanation others are bright. All I know that there are those that appreciate me since I get a lot of E mail.
Albert.
Classification between people
There is no distinction between one another in the eyes of God. I would like to tell you a story, once there was three trees standing near each other and talking to each other how they love at the end of their day to be used for some useful to be remembered off one of them said I wood liked to be the front door of a Kings palace to serve because I am toll and huge not like you two you are too short and was boasting about herself, the second was short and said, I do not mind to be used as furniture for a King, now the third one was tiny and said what about me I do not mind being used for anything as long it’s for a King. Now time has come for their copping and was taken to their destination. A king was born and rested in a Major which was made from the tiny tree. The King grow up and stood on a ship that was made from the big tree, then after was crucified on a cross which was made from the other tree. What does this story teaches us that there is room for every one of us from the lowest to the highest person. The Bible is full of explanations similar to this one so please try not to under estimate the Mystery of God just learn by it.
Albert.
The Devils work.
Today I am going to preach against Christians instead. God forgive me for most of us, there is a need for explanation may be some sense clicks in their minds. I want to make it sound as if the devil is whispering in each and every one of us. Starting from now. I am seeing this little girl happy playing with a Doll, I wonder if I turn the hole seen into reality I know what to do I get her father to lose his Job with few bill here and there I get him frustrated at home and at the same time I will depress her mother by taking some of her fancy habits’ by leaving her in short of money in this way her comfort at home get frustrated and bit of quarrel won’t do any harm. In fact I get some more devils to help; I think I need to tell some of my corrupted minds to give them a hard time. It does help to stop him from finding a job and get her to start a new life by finding a hard job, I think in a super market will do temptations are great to steal won’t let her get coat for the first time or two then some policeman save her for being sorry but that policeman must be sex maniac and good looking she would prefer having sex instead of jail. Something must be done with her husband I know what to do show him some porn on his computer plus a bottle of wine I will see with inn six months no hurry that family must be mine I gave them enough to start for now in future they will begging me for anything if I introduce them to the right connections. The devils bible.
Albert.
To Mike Duran;
When I first wrote I was thinking about most of the comments which were about hate and grudge against God and Religion without knowing you were so much sarcastic at that time I cried when I see very clearly that so many haters shows in their comments what is their character is like. Take for instance the picture you sent me don’t tell me you are in the voodoo Business. As a religious person you did heart me, and I tell you why because it does not do you any good at present or in future you must remember that those people you heart are the once that might think twice before they buy your Novels. I have been over twenty four years studying the Bible and never get fed up of looking at it because I find all the answers that I need to know to survive. If to you was some sort of revenge as you stated? I feel sorry for to have such imagination and memory for revenge. I never in my mind by answering your criticism you take it personal I believe if you cannot take it you should listen love and understand the pain of others. Still I wish you best of luck for your Novels.
Albert.
“Further more, even conceding that a lawmaker exist, the leap in logic from necessity of a higher power(s) to God is massive. ”
Not at all. It obviously logically follows. It also depends on what you think ‘God’ is. A higher power is God.
As for atheism not saying anything about meaning or origing of life or etc –yes its true and that’s because atheism is an intellectual dead end, a home for people who need a philosophy that DOESN’T say anything about alot of things. That way you are free to say whatever you want about everything. Sounds good huh? I lived that philosophy for 20 years. I grew up in Russia and helped my comrades spy on churches and ‘religionists’ . We thought that they needed a crutch and that we were the strong ones. But the truth is if you have no belief in any ultimate principles then you are not strong for you have nothing to strive for that is of ultimate value. Athiesm –Its garbage. Atheism is for the weak.
To bad Mr. Cline does not at all recognize that religious people were killed by atheist regimes. Instead he continuesly asserts that “No one died in the Name of Atheism.”
Here are some quotes for Mr. Austine Cline to examine:
“Atheism is the natuaral and indespensible part of Marxism; of the Theory and Pratice of Scientific Socialism.” -Vladimir Lenin
“We Communists are atheists.” -Chou-En Lai
The struggle against religion is a struggle for Socialism.”
-main slogan for the Society of the Godless
I have got plenty more quotes where that came from…
I can’t stand Austin Cline.He copied an article from Slate on Buddhism.Most people were refuting it but he acted like a “I am smarter than you because you live in a magical fairy tale world.”
He tried to use ad hominem on me,which is ironic considering he was bitching about someone else doing the same to him.
I don’t mind atheist,but a lot of them act like jerks.I used to be an atheist and now that I look back,I was one hell of a jerk.It’s different if someone just doesn’t believe in God,and a whole other thing if they attack people’s beliefs.The other About.com religion authors didn’t write articles attacking other people’s faith.
All in all,Austin Cline’s appearance suits him.Smug.
Yeah, he acted the same to me. He was just so insufferable with all his “Prove it” and other self-righteous crap.
The Church condemns behaviours which many love and do not wish to give up. Could this be a reason for many atheists/agnostics being atheistical and agnostic?