if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Dickhead D’Souza
by Lee
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with Dinesh D’Souza? Yesterday I blogged on a despicable remark by Barack Obama wherein he claimed some kind of violent parity between outsourcing and the VT shootings. Today D’Souza is blaming atheism.
Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning.
The atheist writer Richard Dawkins has observed that according to the findings of modern science, the universe has all the properties of a system that is utterly devoid of meaning. The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference. Dawkins further argues that we human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules, assembled into functional units over millennia of natural selection, and as for the soul--well, that’s an illusion!
To no one’s surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it’s difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho’s shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules.
If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science.
If this is the best that Dinesh D’Souza has to offer us, he should move back to fucking India. I used to admire this man greatly. Now he’s not only urging a cultural alliance between conservatives and Islamic fascists, he’s blaming atheism for the actions of some deranged lunatic.
What an asshole.
Comments
Here’s what I don’t get. D’Souza is obviously familiar with the way a market works. In a market value is determined by demand. If there is no demand for an item it is deemed to have no value.
I believe that life does have value. I also agree with Dawkins that the universe, as it is now, is completely meaningless. The earth could explode tomorrow and, in terms of the universe, it wouldn’t matter a whit. It would mean as much as you shedding a skin cell.
The reason life has value is because, in the marketplace of our world, we have determined that it does. That’s all we need. I don’t need a mathematical formula or a magic book to look into the eyes of a baby and tell me that this is something special. It is special because we, as a species, have said it is special.
D’Souza is a fucking idiot.
I missed where Dinesh blames atheism. The universe IS a pitiless cruel place even when you put a God in it. God seems to be a barometer for good vs. evil. The Va Tech incident is to the side of evil. The guy was fucking nuts; no more, no less.
One reason I can’t be a conservative is because when I used to hang with them, all too often I, as an atheist (albeit a quiet one who had long since broken with Madalyn Murray O’Hair) I felt like a mouse at a cat show; endless chattering about “Our Lord and Savior, Jee-zuz Christ” and people’s personal relationships with him fell into the “TMI” category as far as I was concerned.
One reason I can’t be a conservative is because when I used to hang with them, all too often I, as an atheist (albeit a quiet one who had long since broken with Madalyn Murray O’Hair) I felt like a mouse at a cat show; endless chattering about “Our Lord and Savior, Jee-zuz Christ” and people’s personal relationships with him fell into the “TMI” category as far as I was concerned.
Hmmm....I find that interesting. And strange. My conservative Christian friends and I rarely bring up Jesus in our discussions. We discuss shopping, kids, golf, work, the latest movie, the neighbors (gossip), good wines, etc. Same things, I imagine, that everyone else talks about.
Hmmm....I find that interesting. And strange.
I’ve experienced both, and it seems to be the politically active ones who are obnoxious about it.
To a Christian, God creates the human and gives us free will to do what we choose. He doesn’t make people do things...nor does He make things happen to people, especially good people. Things just happen. And people are just plain evil sometimes.
I do not read anywhere in the article where D’Souza blames atheism for anything...I just think he wants to know what some atheist consider “evil”..and “why”...if we’re just a bunch of atoms who happened to conglomerate together and that humanity has no real purpose other than to occupy space and consume resources. Some atheists still have morals..but some do not. Secular Humanism is basically the LaVey brand of Satanism--the worship not of Satan, but of the self. Do whatever the hell you want and not really care about the consequences. If people are good to you, be good to them. But if they’re not, take revenge. Obviously, this Cho character had a problem and took revenge. “Evil” has lost it’s meaning in direct correlation with the loss in the meaning of life.
So I blame secular humanism for this tragedy! Not just because of what Cho was thinking, but also why not a lot was done about his behavior and needs when the red flags were appearing.
I work with an idiot that seems to think that prefacing every opinion with “as a catholic” somehow makes his statements somehow more important. Anyone that places religious emphasis on every thing they do or that happens is most likely borderline nuts at the very least.
Seriously, why do people get a pass for scooping a wad of “jesus” onto everything when we’d be rolling our eyes or reaching for a gun if it was “allah” or “bhudda”.
D’Souza is a fucking idiot.
Do any of these pundits really believe what they write? D’Souza just sees the sort of money Coulter makes, and with Coluter out of favour right now is stepping into fill the void.
Don’t blame the messenger, he is just pandering. Blame the fucking idiots who want to hear this crap and pay his wages for it.
D’Souza has lost it. There is no doubt about it. He use to be a good author and commentator on the American polity. Now… it is hard to speak of him positively.
Everyone should read this atheist professor’s response.
Oops, this should fix breaking the comments
</a>
It didn’t :-)
[/url]
Yeah, and resident professor Nikki Giovanni shat on them in her post-Cho rampage about how what happened to VATech was unfair but so is AIDS in Africa and starving children, etc.
After 30 sum people had been summarily executed for being classified as “rich kids” Nikki Giovanni insists on telling them the same, and then stoops to conquer by repeatin throughout her speech that “we are Virginia Tech.”
She makes Dinesh D’Souza look good. And, so did Bareck Obama, who claimed that there is a possibility that the sunsetting of the Assault Weapons ban allowed A-ho Cho to buy his handguns and that led to the mass murders.
OK. So, a Glock 19 and Walther P22 are now considered assault weapons. Funny, but I don’t think they fell under the old assault weapons ban. On Larry King last night, Bill Clinton said that Cho had legally purchased the guns, but now there needs to be a way of tracking people for mental disorders, as well as criminal past.
Bareck Obama. Another one who makes D’Souza look like a genius.
It is possible to believe both that the universe is a pitiless cruel place and that life and humanity and morality have meaning.
Thats the problem with atheism, you can’t have it both ways. By saying that there is no God you are saying that life has no value. Life is nothing more than a concept we created to describe entities that happen to exist within a completely arbitrary self definition. Without God in the equation “life” (whatever that even means to an atheist) is no different than non-life.
If that is true, there is no such thing as good or evil, and right or wrong. This extends to everything, even politics.
If you are an atheist that believes that the values of the libertarian party are the “correct” school of thought, as in you think they are going to lead this country to a more proporos and successful future, guess what, your wrong. That idea is based completely under the assumption that improving the stability and wealth of this country is a “good” thing, but remember that we already know that without God “good” cannot exist.
This concept extends to everything in life. Without God that means everything you feel passionate about in life is meaningless. That helping the poor and sick, feeding dieing children in Africa, all of it is pointless. If life has no value, saving people or the earth or whatever is completely unimportant.
You’re confusing atheism with nihilism, Dirk.
Is Coulter really “out of favor”? She seems to be just as popular as ever - making asinine statements is part of her PR stategy.
You’re confusing atheism with nihilism, Dirk.
No, you are making the mistake of trying to seperate the two.
How is it that God gives life meaning? And define meaning? If God gives humans meaning in life then what deity or power above God gives God meaning? These are all enigmatic ideas that may never really have an answer. Slapping the label of God on it doesn’t provide an answer. In fact, it only provides more questions since no one can prove or disprove the existence of God in the first place.
The only reason people come up with an illusion of meaning is through circular logic. Religion believes God has meaning because he created the universe and man. Man and the Universe have meaning because God created them. But step outside of this cozy circle to ask the question, and you will find it hard to come up with an answer. Take the view of God, the universe, and you personally all as one integrated system. What is the meaning of that system as a whole?
And yes, there is morality without God. It has to do with rational methods of living. I am thoroughly agnostic yet I am able to come up with a moral code. It has to do with rational expectations and cost/benefit to the things I do. I don’t steal because I could get caught. In the larger context of society stealing is wrong because it creates a chaotic system that is prone to failure which makes survival difficult or impossible. I don’t need God to tell me this, I can figure it out on my own. The same can go for most other moral issues.
The great thing about not believing in God or questioning God’s motives or existence is that you can’t have some limp dick motherfucker make you believe kool-aide is good for you. (Kool-aide here refers to the literal Jim Jones version. Also, it is symbolic of the other stupid shit throughout time that religion has made people do all because the label of God was slapped on the idea.)
Thats the problem with atheism, you can’t have it both ways. By saying that there is no God you are saying that life has no value.
What do you mean by value? Atheists claim that humans create value in things they consider of value. Value is self-derived. We decide to value human life, to value art to value anything.
You may claim that God creates value, but that is just begging the question; how is he able to create value? Why is what he says is valuable any more valuable than what humans say?
Life is nothing more than a concept we created to describe entities that happen to exist within a completely arbitrary self definition. Without God in the equation “life” (whatever that even means to an atheist) is no different than non-life.
Life is just a biological term humans have created, one that is not without controversy (are viruses alive? Are brain dead huamns alive? Is a baby born without a brain alive etc. Life has no value in itself, things only have value when we decide to give them value.
If that is true, there is no such thing as good or evil, and right or wrong. This extends to everything, even politics.
You are simply saying that atheism leads to moral relativism. I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the lack of objective moral truths, but then I don’t think that matters for the slighest. A lot of people do disagree with you though, there are a lot of moral theories out there.
Furthermore, basing morality on a religious belief results in just as many problems; again you have this issue of objectivity - what make something God say good? Could you not have a creator of the universe who is not good and does bad things e.g. the ancient greek gods. Religion does not give make the apriori ethics easy either.
If you are an atheist that believes that the values of the libertarian party are the “correct” school of thought, as in you think they are going to lead this country to a more proporos and successful future, guess what, your wrong. That idea is based completely under the assumption that improving the stability and wealth of this country is a “good” thing, but remember that we already know that without God “good” cannot exist.
Taking for given that there are no objective moral truths, what is good is what we define it to be. We get together and say that murdering people is bad, that people starving to death is bad, that people having freedom to do what they want is good. We then make arguments in a) support of these propositions and b) make political arguments about how they should come about.
Christians do exactly the same thing when they argue about homosexuality or abortion or any such thing. Sure they use the bible for guidance, but they use their own brains to try and persuade each other what is morally correct. Non religious people just do the same thing, we just don’t start our argument with “but God says ...”.
This concept extends to everything in life. Without God that means everything you feel passionate about in life is meaningless. That helping the poor and sick, feeding dieing children in Africa, all of it is pointless. If life has no value, saving people or the earth or whatever is completely unimportant.
Your lack of understanding of what motivates feelings and value in people with different epistological beliefs than you is rather unsettling. Out of interest, does life have no value for only atheists or all non Christians? Are there some rules of the religion you follow that would result in giving value to life? What if you believed in a creator of the universe who created it but dosen’t care about us, ie takes no active role in the universe and just created it because he felt like it like we might do a science experiment in a lab?
I would suggest this link from a professor at Virgina tech.
If that is true, there is no such thing as good or evil, and right or wrong. This extends to everything, even politics.
Sorry, Dirk, but this is a completely ridiculous statement. Right and wrong are standards which continually change according to numerous social factors.
Is slavery wrong? it is now, but only for the last couple hundred years. Before that slavery was an accepted institution by virtually all societies, and indeed it is still practiced in some parts of the world today.
Is it wrong for a 12 year old girl to marry a 25 year old man? Again, for most of history this was perfectly acceptable and appropriate, but now this would be against the law.
I could give you a thousand other examples but you should see my point. “Right” and “wrong” are not static binary concepts, they change as people and attitudes change. In other words, we all agree that right and wrong exist as concepts, and that these concepts are vitally necessary for the functioning of a healthy society. But we don’t all agree on what right and wrong is.
Remember. If you turn to your magic book for guidance as to right and wrong, the Muslim is going to turn to his magic book for the same thing. And the Muslim’s magic book is going to tell him that kidnapping you and sawing your head off will earn you a special place in heaven.
Now, tell me, why is his magic book less credible than your magic book?
No, you are making the mistake of trying to seperate the two.
I would agree that nearly all nihilists (if anyone actually labels themselves that) would be atheists. However, nearly all atheists are NOT nihilists because they still hold beliefs. In fact, most have a strong morality and believe their lives have meaning. So, you’re wrong...again.
I’m not sure what it is with you. It’s as if you’re afraid of people who don’t believe in God. I’m not sure what rationale you have for that. Probably none.
No, you are making the mistake of trying to seperate the two.
That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a long time.
So, are you stupid, brainwashed, or just woefully ignorant?
It has to do with rational methods of living. I am thoroughly agnostic yet I am able to come up with a moral code.
Yes but are missing the point. If you are an accident, the result of aimless direction less forces, you cannot have value. You aren’t here to do anything, and anything you do is ultimately an exercise in futility. So you are more than welcome to create your own ideas of right and wrong, but that doesn’t really make them right or wrong. The actions are still completely indifferent.
creates a chaotic system that is prone to failure which makes survival difficult or impossible.
Yes, but without a real purpose why is survival even a “good” thing to begin with.
Atheists claim that humans create value in things they consider of value.
Again, people are more than welcome to conceive their own notions of value, but if you have no value to begin with than how can you claim you know what actually does have value.
Why is what he says is valuable any more valuable than what humans say?
Because if God exists and created us for a purpose that means we actually have to accomplish something in life. That means that we are going to be held accountable for what we do and how we live. If God doesn’t exist, you can throw all that right out the window. Our actions have no deep implications, helping someone with a flat tire is an action bereft of good or evil. It’s just something that you do and as a meaningless, valueless, creature to appease your own equally meaningless and valueless self created moral code.
Life has no value in itself, things only have value when we decide to give them value.
But if the value of life is decided upon by other equally unimportant creatures, that would mean that societies that practice and encourage things like cannibalism, murder, rape etc.. aren’t actually doing anything wrong, they are merely exercising their own self-created morality, just like you. Which in turn means things that most people would consider travesties like the holocaust, aren’t actually wrong because the German society declared them right since that’s all it takes to decide right and wrong.
Out of interest, does life have no value for only atheists or all non Christians?
Who said anything about Christianity? I certainly didn’t. But to answer your question, no, this applies only to atheists.
That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a long time.
So, are you stupid, brainwashed, or just woefully ignorant?
You didn’t really refute any of my points.
However, nearly all atheists are NOT nihilists because they still hold beliefs. In fact, most have a strong morality and believe their lives have meaning. So, you’re wrong...again.
Wrong. If you read my first post again I said “Thats the problem with atheism, you can’t have it both ways.”, in refernce to the fact that alot atheists, yourself included I am assuming, think that some kind of true morality can exist without God, and I am merely pointing out why that is incorrect.
Man made morality can exist, but that has no real value or weight. Any code you live your life by is more influenced by your place of birth and who your parents are than anything else. You can only make decisions and come up with answers using the information and tools available to you. Which just goes to show how completely arbitrary and worthless anyone’s own morality really can be.
Lee, padders, et al,
You all should know that obviously there is a god and it is known as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendage). As long as you believe in a god (apparently any god will do), then it is okay. So just acknowledge the Flying Spaghetti Monster and get it over with. ;-b
Man made morality can exist, but that has no real value or weight.
What if it is God’s will that man made morality has value? Can you prove that is not his will?
Which just goes to show how completely arbitrary and worthless anyone’s own morality really can be.
Except that that is the morality that God gave them by providing them with their background, experiences, place of birth, parents, etc.
If you are an accident, the result of aimless direction less forces, you cannot have value. You aren’t here to do anything, and anything you do is ultimately an exercise in futility.
People create value based on what makes them happy. There are plenty of things that make human existence miserable and it doesn’t take a boogie man to make a person realize that it’s in their best interest to make themselves comfortable and even happy.
helping someone with a flat tire is an action bereft of good or evil. It’s just something that you do and as a meaningless, valueless, creature to appease your own equally meaningless and valueless self created moral code.
No it’s not. It’s part of a system of beliefs where if I do someone a solid, I’m more likely to have a solid done for me. Why the fuck is this so hard for you to get? Oh, you’ve never been allowed to think outside your narrow Christian world view.
Right and wrong are standards which continually change according to numerous social factors.
So you are accepting that true morality cannot exist, which is perfectly fine. That is the logical continuation of the atheist pretext. And if you are fine accepting that, be my guest.
If you turn to your magic book for guidance as to right and wrong, the Muslim is going to turn to his magic book for the same thing.
Wow, where did anyone mention a “magic book”. Lee, if you weren’t so busy feeling smug about how much smarter you are than a durn christian, you’d realize that I have yet to actually tell anyone here what the correct and true morality is. I am merely pointing out the fact that morality cannot exist without a God.
yourself included I am assuming
Don’t assume anything about me. I’m not an atheist.
It’s impossible to have a rational debate with you because you are unable to think outside of your Christian beliefs. Please believe whatever you want but I would appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that us non-believers are the major cause of the worlds problems. History refutes that.
You’re wrong, Dirk. You’re simply wrong.
Yes but are missing the point. If you are an accident, the result of aimless direction less forces, you cannot have value. You aren’t here to do anything, and anything you do is ultimately an exercise in futility.
And if you believe in an afterlife dictated by faith alone, then anything you do in this life is meaningless because it is just a means to an end.
Yes, but without a real purpose why is survival even a “good” thing to begin with.
If I believed in “Heaven”, I’d be asking myself the same thing. Why the hell am I wasting my time on Earth when there’s something better out there? But since I don’t, I enjoy the time here as best I can for as long as I can. Life itself is the purpose, and that is a good thing in and of itself. It requires no other allegedly greater meaning to be meaningful.
Because if God exists and created us for a purpose that means we actually have to accomplish something in life. That means that we are going to be held accountable for what we do and how we live. If God doesn’t exist, you can throw all that right out the window. Our actions have no deep implications, helping someone with a flat tire is an action bereft of good or evil. It’s just something that you do and as a meaningless, valueless, creature to appease your own equally meaningless and valueless self created moral code.
That’s depressing that the only reason you do good deeds or be nice to someone is because NOT doing so has consequences. For me, I am nice to people because I like being nice to people and because it is the right thing to do. I can’t comprehend needing another reason to do so. God, how depressing is your existance.
But if the value of life is decided upon by other equally unimportant creatures, that would mean that societies that practice and encourage things like cannibalism, murder, rape etc.. aren’t actually doing anything wrong, they are merely exercising their own self-created morality, just like you. Which in turn means things that most people would consider travesties like the holocaust, aren’t actually wrong because the German society declared them right since that’s all it takes to decide right and wrong.
I see your Holocost and raise you “every act done in the name of any God”. You fold.
But if the value of life is decided upon by other equally unimportant creatures
Life is intrinsicly valuable. It requires no external validation.
I am merely pointing out the fact that morality cannot exist without a God.
...a fact that you probably long ago accepted with once stepping outside of your core religious beliefs.
You keep trying to make that point on this blog, over and over and over. Hardly anyone agrees with you and you have never provided a conclusive argument.
with = without
It’s impossible to have a rational debate with you because you are unable to think outside of your Christian beliefs.
What are you talking about? I haven’t mentioned anything about Christianity. What makes you think I can’t think outside my “christian beliefs”? You tell me not to assume anything about you, but you are doing to same to me. Trust me I am not puppet of any religion and I am a very free thinker. Just because we come to two different conclusions about the same topic you arrogantly conclude that you are somehow a better thinker than me.
I would appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that us non-believers are the major cause of the worlds problems.
When the hell did I insinuate that? I think most the worlds problems are created by evil or misguided individuals that can be atheist or Christian or whatever.
And if you believe in an afterlife dictated by faith alone, then anything you do in this life is meaningless because it is just a means to an end.
Wrong. I beleive everything I do and say I am going to be held accountable for one day.
That’s depressing that the only reason you do good deeds or be nice to someone is because NOT doing so has consequences.
Again you are missing the point. If God doesn’t exist that action isn’t a “good” action. It’s merely an action that you for whatever reason have decided to yourself is “good”.
For me, I am nice to people because I like being nice to people and because it is the right thing to do.
Saying that an action is “right” or “wrong” is a declaration that someone or something is judging said action.
I see your Holocost and raise you “every act done in the name of any God”. You fold.
What does that have to do with anything? Other than the fact that you completely ignored the point I made, you are bringing up something completely out of context. Yes, people have done evil things for many reasons. Some people like the Catholic church for example, have done horrible deeds in the name of God. But what does that have to do with morality existing outside of God’s presence?
Life is intrinsicly valuable. It requires no external validation.
So says you. That’s a philosophical point that can’t be proven and many people would disagree with.
You keep trying to make that point on this blog, over and over and over.
What? I havn’t regularly posted on this blog in quite a while, and when I did certainly don’t remember ever talking about this before
You didn’t really refute any of my points.
What points? The only “points” you’ve made are demonstating a total lack of comprehension of atheism and nihilism. Since you don’t really have any rational arguments to respond to we can only comment on how fucked up your “analysis” is.
So, are you going with stupid, brainwashed, or woefully ignorant?
If “proof” is your standard, then why are you even having this discussion; There is no such thing as philosophical proof.
Which is why ultimately, philosophy is just mental masturbation (and religion is spiritual masturbation).
I beleive everything I do and say I am going to be held accountable for one day.
So says you. That’s a philosophical point that can’t be proven and many people would disagree with.
(see how stupid that sounds?)
Yeesh - at what point did you utterly fail your philosophy classes?
Did they tell you that you received an “F” because you couldn’t discriminate between reality and what Oral Roberts told you, or did you go to one of those unaccredited “colleges” run by baptists?
This debate, held long long ago:
I think therefore I am
So sayeth you. That’s a philosophical point that can’t be proven and many people would disagree with.
So, are you going with stupid, brainwashed, or woefully ignorant?
Still not actually refuting anything I say.
Did they tell you that you received an “F” because you couldn’t discriminate between reality and what Oral Roberts told you, or did you go to one of those unaccredited “colleges” run by baptists?
Ok, I am getting tired of arguing away points that have nothing to do with the discussion, so for the ease of discusion I will list several facts about myself so that you all can stop bringing them up.
1. I am not a member of any church nor do I even go to one.
2. I have never been to any kind of religious school or any kind of formal religious education.
3. Christianity and it’s past, present, and future have absolutely nothing to do with weather or morality can exist without God.
You tell me not to assume anything about you, but you are doing to same to me.
I’ve had this same debate with you before, right here on this blog. This goes back to long before Drum left and you debated him on this topic as well. Every angle you argue seems to come from a Christian viewpoint. So, tell me, are you a Christian or not?
You tend to only pop in on the debates relating to religion. That’s fine if that’s all that interests you. If you honestly don’t remember the many other religious debates (including ones on the question of whether morality can exit without God) then you might want to get you memory checked. Seriously, Dirk, this concerns me.
Anyway…
Dirk,
Is your only point that morality cannot exist without God?
If so, then you are sorely mistaken.
From Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:
Morality - a doctrine or system of moral conduct.
Of course we then need to define “moral” conduct so we turn to the definition of “moral”.
Moral - of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.
Now we turn to right and wrong. According to you, that involves turning to a god for guidance. However, cannot right and wrong be determined by the society as a whole? Cannot society come up with a code of right or wrong based upon individuals’ self-interests? Something along the lines of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Such a code may recognize a randomness in the universe and seek to have other members of society help out those in need in recognition of the fact that at some later time, those doing the helping now will need help themselves and can count on the other members of society to help out as those in need have helped others in the past.
Such a moral code is not dependent upon the existence of a deity, but rather upon lack of a deity. Helping others could be construed as a “right” thing to do, while harming others would be considered a “wrong” thing to do - completely in the absence of a belief in a deity and based rather upon a belief in the randomness of the universe. In this case, the moral code acts as insurance against “bad” things happening to each member of society, since all members agree to help other members out if they are in distress.
I’m an atheist and I have to admit we *don’t* have much to offer to grieving people. We may be quite good at handling our own grief when necessary, but what can we offer another? Companionship is about all. We can’t tell them we’ll pray for anyone; we can’t (won’t) tell them to put their faith in God and so on.
A few days ago, a good friend of mine woke up at 1:00 am to find that his 77 y.o. grandmother (who he lives with) had a stroke. What could I say? Not a whole lot. He’s been talking to my brother instead (who is a fundy; although one of the better ones).
Still not actually refuting anything I say.
That’s right, I’m dismissing it wholesale as meaningless drivel. Sort as if you stated you were going to start worshipping a head of lettuce and that the mothership was going to arrive “any day now”. Your statements are that meaningless.
According to you, that involves turning to a god for guidance. However, cannot right and wrong be determined by the society as a whole?
For years, societies have managed to determine rights and wrongs with and without guidance from a diety. I’ve read the bible, for instance, and I saw nothing about say, insider trading. There’s a percieved wrong that is akin to not being allowed to go indoors during a tornado simply because you work for the national weather service and the general public has yet to hear the warning.
Whether or not you agree that it’s wrong, it’s something society has deemed a wrong and will punish you for it.
Did the “Godless commies” lack any sense of right and wrong? We had to fight a cold war against the Soviet Union because those people were NOT wantonly slaughtering each other.
Dirk’s argument is simply not based in any sort of reality.
If that is true, there is no such thing as good or evil, and right or wrong. This extends to everything, even politics.Sorry, Dirk, but this is a completely ridiculous statement. Right and wrong are standards which continually change according to numerous social factors.
It appears that both of you are saying the same thing in different ways. If “[r]ight and wrong are standards which continually change”, then that is indeed saying that there is no absolute right and wrong, only relative. I am sure that such is what Dirk meant, there is no absolute right or wrong, only relative.
he’s blaming atheism for the actions of some deranged lunatic
I realize this has already been brought up, but exactly how is D’Souza blaming the shooting on atheism?
Next entry: New Republic, Same Old Drivel
Previous entry: The Telescreen
The thing is that both D’Souza and Dawkins by into a false dichotomy. It is possible to believe both that the universe is a pitiless cruel place and that life and humanity and morality have meaning. In fact, I would say that life, morality and have meaning BECAUSE the world is cruel and pitiless. That we are capable of creating beauty, showing compassion and mercy and struggling with the possibility of an existence beyond our six senses.