Are you even mildly pleased that an American President has embarked on a course of foreign policy that might – in the opinion of the Nobel Prize Committee – make the world a safer place?

Ask the Israeli's and the Afghani's if they feel safer then get back to us.

Of course Bush made Iraq safer for the Iraqi citizens but they don't count, right?

Are you even mildly pleased that an American President has embarked on a course of foreign policy that might – in the opinion of the Nobel Prize Committee – make the world a safer place?

So you're agreeing that Obama hasn't accomplished anything.

What if Obama doesn't make the world a safer place. Will he give the award back?

But are you in the least bit proud of this?

I'll be proud if he actually earns it. This was not awarded for anything Obama has done.

BTW, boatman, you should take a look around the left o sphere, because many on that side are "not proud" of the awarding either.

I see the DoJ contingent is busy in this thread and the other thread trying to spin the award of a fairly meaningless prize to our president into something a)far more important than it really is and b)a net good for all Americans. Funny that they're spending so much effort on something which really amounts to little more than a meaningless gesture in the bigger picture of the world today. There are far more pressing issues and problems both domestically and internationally that we, and Mr. Obama, should be focusing on, and yet this is what the DoJ contingent seem to have chosen as their cause celebre today. There must have been a strongly worded memo issued to make them jump so high in unison.

Anything to prop up the sagging popularity ratings of their guy, I suppose.

BTW, boatman, you should take a look around the left o sphere, because many on that side are "not proud" of the awarding either.

2009-10-09 11:36:58

If Obama fails to achieve any of his peace objectives then the award will be more of an embarrassment to both him and the Nobel committee–an embarrassment which I believe will be a certainty. It will be like a journalist winning a Pulitzer Prize for covering a local chili eating contest.

The left is putting Obama on a dangerously high pedestal, especially with Iran's open threats against Israel and their "peaceful" nuclear program.

Remember, Yasser Arafat won the award in 1984.

You forgot Reagan's contribution to cocaine distribution.

Posted by Robert_Ingersoll

2009-10-09 10:52:20

I still haven't seen Obambi's contribution to anything but his own hubris, and our national debt.

And your statement does nothing to lessen the meaning of Reagan's efforts and ACCOMPLISHMENTS, of which Obambi has NONE.

THIS JUST IN! Obama's unofficial official pre-response to receiving the Nobel Prize!

Uh, oh. There are lots of DUmmies who are not proud of Obama's win: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/dubo…

BTW, boatman, just to add something, this is not so much about Obama, who could do something to earn the Peace Prize in the future, but, about the idiocy of the Prize committee.

Well well well D-Vega, Obama has already stated that he will accept the NPP.

Yes, I knew he wouldn't reject it.

Hopefully, we can move on from this quickly. I would also advise the right not use it as a sledgehammer too much, as there could be blowback since this is symbolic. It shouldn't be a big deal whether you like him or not.

According to Ace at AOSHQ, the over/under on the use of the word "I" by BHO in his acceptance speech is 287. Take the over.

I would also advise the right not use it as a sledgehammer too much, as there could be blowback since this is symbolic. It shouldn't be a big deal whether you like him or not.

2009-10-09 12:24:28

Actually, the blowback to the left will be much more if Obama doesn't accomplish anything. Remember, many other leaders around the world have been pursuing peace as well. Why haven't they won the award?

But are you in the least bit proud of this?

Proud of what? The nominations closed two weeks after the Obamessiah took office. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for just showing up. It's like giving a kid an automatic A+ just for making it to class on the day of the test. Proud? I'm disgusted. How many people deserve recognition for years of hard work and research and dedication but never get it — and this joker just walks in and gets the Nobel Prize, like the one millionth customer or something.

I'm disgusted

Posted by CavalierX

2009-10-09 12:38:59

There was a time in this country when conservatives were proud when an AMERICAN won this award, wether liberal or conservative. Now we see that they arent proud because that AMERICAN is not a member of their political ideology, how sad conservatives have become.

The Nobel prize includes a monetary award although I don't remember the amount.

I wonder if Obama will donate 100% of the monetary award to the poor so they can purchase health care? Yeah, right!

Unfortunately, Cav is correct. It's one thing to use it politically, but this actually works against Obama politically, because logicially speaking you can't explain it.

Other than wishful thinking, which is fair in terms of Norweigans' perspective, but also unfair in terms of the rubber hitting the road.

Now we see that they arent proud because that AMERICAN is not a member of their political ideology, how sad conservatives have become.

2009-10-09 12:43:36

So you're comfortable with Obama accepting the monetary award with the prize?

It's incredible how leftists are exposed as hypocrites when their false god receives a lot of money. I thought the rich are eeeeeevil!

There was a time in this country when conservatives were proud when an AMERICAN won this award

There was a time when the award was given for accomplishing something other than just showing up.

First, you all might note that Obama was awarded the Peace Prize even though he has increased the US commitment to Afganistan and pursued the "War on Terror" with undimished ( from the Bush years) vigor. Those of you who thought he would be a weakling on that subject are already wrong.

Second, Mr. Teach, yes there are people on the left who are equally surprised, and the common question seems to be: what has he DONE to deserve this? Which misses the point. Like his policies – or disagree with them – you have to admit that Obama is an effective communicator. So effective that it's already clear that he is on the same level as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan – and like them, his way of communicating makes a difference. His effectiveness is a separate issue from the substance of what he says, of course, but – in this case, the Nobel Prize folks gave the Peace Prize to Obama for – in effect – changing the whole tone and content of the conversation around war and peace.

The more I think about it, the more I think the Nobel Prize people knew eactly what they were doing, and decided to reinforce Obama's efforts with a very public, very surprising, and very bold move.

waay too premature, boatman.

Proud of what? The nominations closed two weeks after the Obamessiah took office. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for just showing up.

Posted by CavalierX

2009-10-09 12:38:59

You confuse being "nominated" with being "awarded". In the time since he was nominated, he has been in contest with all others nominated. In the interim he was chosen the most deserving recipient.

Saddam at his worst would be working over time to hit these numbers.

Posted by Peacebewithyou

2009-10-09 12:47:17

That begs the question, Peaceofshit, do you have the Saddam body count? Of course, I have slammed that web site you linked many times for using "eyewitness" body counts and traffic accident fatalities instead of verifiable death statistics, but it's funny to see how you Leftist dogs keep going back to that particular pool of vomit.

It's incredible how leftists are exposed as hypocrites when their false god receives a lot of money. I thought the rich are eeeeeevil!

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-10-09 12:46:16

Why should anyone reject an award of money?

and pursued the "War on Terror"

You can no longer use those terms. Or terrorism, it is now "man made disasters" according to Obama's DHS secretary.

You confuse being "nominated" with being "awarded".

What part of "the nominations closed" do you not understand? Nothing Obama did after the nominations closed counts towards the award, you see. Those actions would have to be considered for next years's award. So he won the award for his first what, ten days in office. What did he do during that time worthy of a Nobel Prize? Please tell me. I'd love to know.

Saddam at his worst would be working over time to hit these numbers.

2009-10-09 12:47:17

Welcome, David Axlerod or Rohm Emanuel.

Nice try, listing a website that is registered to an individual living in Great Britain. Big frickin' deal. I guess I can start a website called "Iraqilivessaved.org" and throw unsupported numbers claiming of the number of lives saved because of Bush.

I'll be waiting for you with your new ID.

I bet 100k plus dead would say you are wrong.

Saddam killed that many on a bad day.

Posted by Peacebewithyou

2009-10-09 12:47:17

EPIC FAIL!!! LOL so when did the DOJ hire you?

What part of "the nominations closed" do you not understand?Posted by CavalierX

2009-10-09 12:55:53

I understand the phrase fully.

Second, Mr. Teach, yes there are people on the left who are equally surprised, and the common question seems to be: what has he DONE to deserve this? Which misses the point. Like his policies – or disagree with them – you have to admit that Obama is an effective communicator.

boatman, I would refer you to the standard that Alfred Noble established to win the prize. Nowhere in there is there anything about being able to speak will (with a telepromptor.)

Yawn.

Which misses the point. Like his policies – or disagree with them – you have to admit that Obama is an effective communicator.

So Obama, alone, is pursuing peace throughout the world? I guess that means that the leaders of other countries have done diddly-squat in pursuing peace. Obama is the only contributor.

So effective that it's already clear that he is on the same level as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan – and like them, his way of communicating makes a difference.

I would guess the difference is on a scale of 1.3 trillion, that is, in dollars of the deficit.

His effectiveness is a separate issue from the substance of what he says, of course, but – in this case, the Nobel Prize folks gave the Peace Prize to Obama for – in effect – changing the whole tone and content of the conversation around war and peace.

So many words, yet, so little was said.

either way its a pretty big number why do you discount this?

2009-10-09 13:01:24

OK now give us the evidence of the number of people who would have died if the US didn't invade.

You also present another problem. What's the body count under Obama's command in Afghanistan? I have not been able to find any websites that list the body count in Afghanistan. Is Obama using super-duper bombs that somehow don't explode around innocent people?

"So effective that it's already clear that he is on the same level as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan – and like them, his way of communicating makes a difference."

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA

Boatman, you should go get another login name, you have just used this one up.

We could use this number 150k to almost a million
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

Except that has been proven incorrect. However, you may want to keep using it, since it is the source of your argument.

/facepalm

So effective that it's already clear that he is on the same level as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan

How so? Obama is the only POTUS so far to make Jimmah Carter look competent. In fact, Obama makes Jimmah Carter look like George Washington.

either way its a pretty big number why do you discount this?

Well, because it's just a made-up number, not actually related to the number of civilian casualties caused by Coalition forces in any way except that they comprise only a small part of it. An honest assessment would remove people killed by traffic accidents, natural causes, terrorist attacks (which somehow get attributed to the US, go figure), medical malpractice and regular old-fashioned murders. But the web sites you link have not only included those deaths, but pumped the number up by including newspaper reports by locals answering the question "how many people did you hear got killed?" You can say it was a million people or three million, it's all the same because it's just a random number.

First off you where talking Iraq so lets stay there. No need to change the subject.

In other words, you're afraid to respond. Duly noted.

You said it was safer in Iraq because of bush. I showed your where in error.

Your "information" itself is in error.

And, for the record, pbwy, even your own links confirm that that there is no accurate body count:

What is the real death toll in Iraq?

The Americans learned one lesson from Vietnam: don't count the civilian dead. As a result, no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the five years since the invasion. Estimates put the toll at between 100,000 and one million, and now a bitter war of numbers is raging. Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg report

I guess I can start a website called "Iraqilivessaved.org"

If you do, make sure you include the fact that the UN certified that 5,000 children were dying in Iraq every month under Saddam. Bush removed Saddam 79 months ago, therefore Bush has so far saved 395,000 Iraqi children from certain death under Saddam… and counting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/183499.stm

I'm glad the Nobel committee did this, it establishes firmly what a pile of reasty trash the entire process and prize is. Everybody knows why President Obama got the prize, voted on when he was in office TWO MONTHS. They just don't want to admit it.

Mo's on a roll! More of Teh Funny with Lil' O-Bama at http://www.christmasghost.com ! Hope ya'll enjoy it!

Posted by The_Famous_Mo

2009-10-09 13:32:16

Now that actually *was* funny. LOL

"So effective that it's already clear that he is on the same level as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan – and like them, his way of communicating makes a difference."

Hmmm….

Any guesses what the diagnosis is?

I just looked at the poll results.. getting more negative. From 79.6 up to 79.9 as of 9:47 10/09/09
tom

I hear that Obama has also been awarded this year's Heisman trophy. Can an Oscar be far behind, for best performance impersonating a President?

The real surprise will be when the Catholic Church elects him Pope when Benedict XVI kicks the bucket (anybody can be elected so long as they’re consecrated by the Church).

Maybe then he can be elected Caliph of The Islamic World, knighted by the Queen of England, and awarded the Thanksgiving Turducken by John Madden.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree with Mr. Hawkins.

President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is not a good thing. I don’t think he has done anything to win a prize that is supposed to be something that affects the world.

In the long run, this is going to be something that hurts him, if he accepts it, which I don’t see him not doing.

Mike, there are some other honours you neglected to mention. I’ve heard that both NASCAR and the NHRA are going to give their top driver award to Mr. Obama, and rumour has it that the NHL is going to grant him the Stanley Cup at the end of the season, regardless of who wins the series. MLB would have done the same but they’re time-crunched and couldn’t make it happen before the WS is completed. The NFL is still negotiating the TV rights with the WH, otherwise they’d have already announced that Mr. Obama will be the winner of Super Bowl XVMLCLMXXCIIMCLVXIIXXMCLVI. I also heard that the WTA narrowly decided against having Mr. Obama announced as winner of the recent US Open.

But I think the award that Mr. Obama is most awaiting is the coveted Miss Universe title. I hear he’s in negotiations with the Trump people to make that happen.

or type (well)

Posted by Peacebewithyou

2009-10-09 13:04:03

First off you where talking Iraq so lets stay there. No need to change the subject.

You said it was safer in Iraq because of bush. I showed your where in error.

Posted by Peacebewithyou

2009-10-09 13:21:53

Hey Peace, what is that in your eye?

I understand he's being given a Golden Glove for his philosophy behind fielding. His ideas of pitching were too radical for the Cy Young award, however.

As I see it, the Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded the prize to Mr. Obama in order to address the criticism that many of their past recipients were undeserving. In the light of the current recipient, it does indeed make Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter seem much more deserving*.

But an even better upshot of the award is that it might serve to make someone outside of the American Right begin to look at the award more skeptically. The editorials in the London Times are for once, expressing outrage at the lack of qualifications of the recipient and the obviously cynical political stunt involved in the award.

*Teddy Roosevelt won the award for brokering the peace agreement that ended the colonial war between Russia and Japan. Critics noted that neither was Teddy Roosevelt a notable man of peace, nor did Russia or Japan actually gave up their Imperial ambitions in China (or elsewhere) nor cease to make war there. In fact, Japan was pretty much in China making war in some fashion until the end of WWII.

*Woodrow Wilson won the award for his attempts to bring a lasting peace to Europe in the wake of WWI. While his efforts were laudable, he actually achieved nothing of substance and Europe basically ignored him and rather quickly launched into WWII despite everything he did.

*Jimmy Carter brokered a peace deal between Egypt and Israel which so far lasts.

Sounds like an SNL skit, CT, Czech.

First off you where talking Iraq so lets stay there. No need to change the subject.

You said it was safer in Iraq because of bush. I showed your where in error.

Posted by Peacebewithyou

2009-10-09 13:21:53

Is this the best we get from someone who made a pointed grammar Nazi comment to Mr. Teach?

ROFMAO X 100

You're too funny dude – a caricature of the very thing you were slamming someone else for.

Priceless.

I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised at you, D-Vega. I was afraid you'd follow the DNC line and call anyone wondering about a Pre-Performance Peace Prize Award "pro-terrorist."

You said it was safer in Iraq because of bush. I showed your where in error.

2009-10-09 13:21:53

Funny thing is, guy, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone amongst the vast majority in Iraq to say they'd like Saddam to back.

And I doubt half the human race in Afghanistan – the female half – would like a return of the Taliban. You're on slippery moral ground when you engage in arguments the likes of Saddam fans and the Taliban heartily endorse, guy.

The major claim that I’ve been seeing is that he’s done nothing in his presidency. Which is true; however I find it hard to believe that his winning the prize was for his presidency. Clearly his presidency wasn’t the reason for him being nominated in the first place, if his name was put forth just 12 days after him being president.

What I seem to be hearing a lot is that his win is mainly due to the “climate of change” that he put forth/created. So basically all of his campaign rhetoric is what landed him the prize. As long as he makes clear that his win and his acceptance is based on what he’s achieved in the political atmosphere, it probably won’t be all that negative for him. He’ll probably accept it while stressing that it’s a win for his ideas of change/a signal that the world wants change, not for what he has(n’t) done during his presidency so far.

Ronald Reagan did more for world peace than Carter and Obambi combined, And depite what the lefties might say so did Bush. If they weren’t even nominated the Prize is a farce. The Razzberry and Darwins carry more significance.

The only thing I can say is that the Nobel committee hurt their reputation with this farce. Everybody I know who won the prize in the past was because of many, many years of dedication and sacrifice. Mother Theresa and Dali Lama are two examples, both receiving the the prize in 1979 and 1989 respectively.

Obama is inaugurated, gives a few speeches, travels in luxury and wins the award as a result. Neville Chamberlain pursued dialog and look how that helped the world.

Never mind the accomplishments, what are the signs that Obama’s speeches has accomplished anything? Has Iran embraced Israel? Did Castro and Kim suddenly decide to help their people? Has the Taliban changed their ways? Bush liberated the Iraqi’s and gets kicked around as a result.

Of course Obama will accept the award. His ego demands that.

Sounds like an SNL skit, CT, Czech.

If it wasn't President Obama, it probably would be. But here's how you can help him out!

http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/contests/theheisman…

Help Obama win the Heisman Trophy suggestion on ESPN!

Imagine, if only these stupid Norwiegians had found the Oslo ACORN office they could have satisfied their thurst to cast a vote for Obama and we'd have been spared this embarassment.

An American President wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Normally, this would be considered an enormous honor, especially considering that Obama has been given the prize more for what he will do than for what he has done. The Nobel Prize Committee is deliberately encourging Obama to continue to work for peace and to do that as he has begun.

But are you in the least bit proud of this? Are you even mildly pleased that an American President has embarked on a course of foreign policy that might – in the opinion of the Nobel Prize Committee – make the world a safer place? Are you more hopeful because the prestige of the American President has been significantly enhanced everywhere in the world?

No, you are not. Your partisanship extends so far and runs so deep that you cannot and will not see any benefit in what Obama is doing. The left wing has frequently accused the right wing of being war-mongers and of being impediments to peace. Nothing is so likely to prove the left wing right than your reaction to the award of the Peace Prize.

@bthewolf,

You forgot Reagan’s contribution to cocaine distribution.

I doubt you think "thurst" means what you think it means. Are you Norweigian(sic)?

OK now to be more serious about this, some real analysis.

I don't really think this reflects negatively on President Obama at all. Sure, if he accepts it, that makes him look even more vapid and egotistical than ever, but just being selected doesn't say anything necessarily bad about our president. It just shows what a pile of crap the Nobel peace prize is and how contemptible the committee is. Lets put it this way:

Gandhi: no prize

Arafat: prize

Yet something did occur to me. President Obama has been really hesitant to take action regarding Afghanistan. Things are getting continually worse there and his lack of action and rhetoric (especially about not being interested in victory and thinking the Taliban "have a future" in the government of the country) is emboldening the bad guys there.

What if President Obama knew this was coming and didn't want to do anything that would embarrass the committee or make it look like he wasn't Mr Peace? What if he's been delaying doing anything about Afghanistan because he was aware he'd won this prize?

Incidentally JP Freire writing at the Examiner points to something in the US Constitution which gives Obama an easy way out of accepting the prize:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

-Article 1, Section 9

In other words: he cannot take the prize while in office, unless the Nobel Prize Committee is somehow decided to be not from a foreign state.

You forgot Reagan’s contribution to cocaine distribution.
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll
2009-10-09 10:52:20

You are still upset about the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s ok. It’ll work out.

There is one downside to this event. We'll be overwhelmed with continuing coverage of Obama's acceptance of the Nobel prize 24/7.

I wonder how Chris Matthews will feel when Obama accepts the award?

unless the Nobel Prize Committee is somehow decided to be not from a foreign state.

2009-10-09 15:01:04

Maybe we bought the committee with stimulus money. :-P

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-10-09 14:54:12

congrats. you got me for a misplaced u and i. Perhaps the Norwegians can send you a Nobel Prize for Literature.

Nothing is so likely to prove the left wing right than your reaction to the award of the Peace Prize.
Posted by boatman47

So pointing out Obamateur was not deserving of the award, and your admission that he was awarded it for talking about “hope and change”, means the right is wrong in pointing out he has done nothing so far in his Presidency except ruin the dollar, run up the deficit, and enable thugs and dictators.

OK. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Now fetch your shine box, it won’t fetch itself.

You do all realize that Obama will be the first person to win multiple Nobel Peace Prizes?

In other words: he cannot take the prize while in office, unless the Nobel Prize Committee is somehow decided to be not from a foreign state.

Posted by Christopher_Taylor

2009-10-09 15:01:04

CT,

The Nobel association is a private group and would not fall under the foreign state definition.

That could be, yeah. But that section would give President Obama a good legal reason to decline without being insulting to the Nobel committee.

I'd really like him to turn it down. My respect for the man would grow quite a bit if he did. I just don't see his vast ego letting him do so.

An American President wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Normally, this would be considered an enormous honor, especially considering that Obama has been given the prize more for what he will do than for what he has done.

Like what? (Crickets chirping)

This raises a new question. Will this affect Obama’s decision to send (or not send) more troops to Afghanistan? If Obama sends more troops then that would prolong the war.

The selection of the NPP winner is left the Norwegian government. I realize that the party of ACORN has difficulty understanding how blurring that line in a partisan decision such as this is troublesome, so guess you'll just have to take our word for it.

You forgot Reagan’s contribution to cocaine distribution.
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll
2009-10-09 10:52:20

Was Obama one of the reciptients?

No, you are not. Your partisanship extends so far and runs so deep that you cannot and will not see any benefit in what Obama is doing.

Yeah, I’m sure Iran is dismantling their nuclear reactors right this minute. (/sarc)

Remember, Neville Chamberlain pursued dialog too. While he didn’t win the N.P. prize, look how dialog “helped” his country.

From the Corner:

It seems that President Obama would need the consent of Congress to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. That prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which consists of five members elected by the Norwegian parliament and is thus an agent of a "foreign State."

Under Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust [in the United States government] shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Posted by RWNReader2

2009-10-09 15:26:40

Since when has COTUS meant anything to Barack Hussien Obambi?

Posted by bthewolf

2009-10-09 15:29:20

Unfortunately, it won't even get to that, because no doubt Obama regards it as money coming from a "private group" (as Whats_Up call it), just as he did when his campaign accepted money and assistance from ACORN.

Unfortunately, it won't even get to that, because no doubt Obama regards it as money coming from a "private group" (as Whats_Up call it), just as he did when his campaign accepted money and assistance from ACORN.

Posted by RWNReader2

2009-10-09 15:33:28

He is giving the prize money to charity.

He is giving the prize money to charity.

let me guess, ACORN?

Bambi confuses COTUS with COITUS, bthewolf.

Question: Let's presume that over the next several years Obama convinces Iran to change course, disarms North Korea, and brings about world peace once and for all. What will the Nobel Committee do? Put a cherry on top of the next one?

He shouldn't accept the prize at all, since he's accomplished nothing to earn it and the other guys who were nominated have. But his ego is too gargantuan to possibly accept that possibility.

I'm surprised that Obama's speechwriters weren't awarded the Nobel prize in literature because they sure can write some whoppers.

"Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership………"

Obama

Every time this tool starts with "Let me be clear…" I know a good one is coming.

But, why no award for the Teleprompter?

Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership………

You mean……..Obama actually said something NICE about the U.S. for a change? *GASP*

Let's do try to stay on topic, shall we?

First, Obama may have been NOMINATED for the prize shortly after taking office but he was not SELECTED until much later.

Second, G K Chesterson once suggested that "greatness" should be measured by how an individual changes the world around them, and that one can measure that by words / ideas, or by deeds, but words / ideas are the more powerful. For example, who changed the world more – Jesus or his contemporaries Tiberius and Caligula ? Mohammed or Charlesmagne? Alfred Nobel the creator of the Nobel Prizes, or Alfred Nobel the inventor of dynamite?

Obama got the Peace Prize for his ideas / words – and not one of you has made a single argument that he has not already changed the world around him, or for why he does not deserve recognition for doing so.

Keep in mind that "greatness" and "goodness" are not the same. Stalin and Hitler were great but not good. You do not have to admire or agree with Obama to recognize that the Nobel Prize Committee got it right.

First, Obama may have been NOMINATED for the prize shortly after taking office but he was not SELECTED until much later.

Posted by boatman47

2009-10-09 17:33:37

There was ZERO basis(other than his race and socialism) to nominate him after 12 days in office.

I still think this is great news … simply for the precedent it sets.

My 0-12 UW Huskies last year? Just received the National Championship.

Take that Prez. Friedman.

Obama got the Peace Prize for his ideas / words

Let me reiterate

According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”

Giving a pretty speech is not actually doing anything. Martin Luther King, Jr. followed up on one of the greatest speeches ever with action. Oh, and he took action long before the speech. He was awarded the Peace Prize for his actions, to make his Dream come true.

At least Carter pushed through, if not peace, a lasting cease fire between Israel and Egypt (one which the Egyptian gov't takes enormous loads of abuse for still), and worked tirelessly with Habitat For Humanity. As Hillary said, "Obama gave a speech."

and not one of you has made a single argument that he has not already changed the world around him, or for why he does not deserve recognition for doing so.

Posted by boatman47

2009-10-09 17:33:37

he hasnt changed the world….he changed US foreign policy.

I think Obama deserves the X-Prize for being the first to successfully rocket the national deficit straight into orbit!

Second, G K Chesterson once suggested that "greatness" should be measured by how an individual changes the world around them, and that one can measure that by words / ideas, or by deeds, but words / ideas are the more powerful. For example, who changed the world more – Jesus or his contemporaries Tiberius and Caligula ? Mohammed or Charlesmagne? Alfred Nobel the creator of the Nobel Prizes, or Alfred Nobel the inventor of dynamite?

…Are you high, kid?

Do you even realize that every single one of those examples proves the OPPOSITE point you were trying to make?

All of those men, and I mean ALL of them, changed the world with ACTIONS, not simply words.

You're either supremely ignorant or dumb as shit.

Obama got the Peace Prize for his ideas / words – and not one of you has made a single argument that he has not already changed the world around him, or for why he does not deserve recognition for doing so.

Since when do we have to argue that he hasn't changed the world? Why don't YOU prove how he HAS changed the world.

If you can, that is.

Well…

Let's not laugh, people. After all, Obama – chain smoker that he is – did pocket the Men's Health Award, after all.

Remarkable man, Mr. Obama.

Frankly I'm shocked any idiot leftist has the nads to even try to defend this ridiculous event.

Obama got the Peace Prize for his ideas / words – and not one of you has made a single argument that he has not already changed the world around him, or for why he does not deserve recognition for doing so.

First of all, I have yet to hear Obama mouth a single ideaM of his own, as opposed to tired old Hyper-Left talking points.

The only change in the world I see caused by Obama involves the destruction of the dollar, breathtaking deficits, a losing war effort in Afghanistan, and horror in the American electorate over his attempted imposition of Cuban-style healthcare upon us. "Change You Can Believe In," alright.

Chinese Human Rights Activist Hu Jia – imprisoned for campaigning for human rights in the PRC, not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.

Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China's communist system. — not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama. (Not to mention the symbolic value of awarding a Chinese dissident on the 20th Anniversary of the Tianenmen Square Massacre.)

Greg Mortenson, founder of the Central Asia Institute has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years – not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.

Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a philosophy professor in Jordan who risks his life by advocating interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims, also not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.

Afghan human rights activist Sima Samar. She currently leads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and serves as the U.N. special envoy to Darfur and is apparently also not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/293463.php

Go ahead, Boatman. Explain to us why Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than any of these people.

Posted by EyeBEW77

2009-10-09 22:39:32

Actually, whatever its origins and the original intent of its founder, today the NPP is awarded by a committee appointed by the government of Norway, so you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

The Nobel Peace Prize was established by the private will and endowed by the private estate of a private individual.

Bullshit. The Committee members are elected by the Norwegian Parliament.

No one, including the committee which made the award, owes you or anyone else an explanation of why Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than others.

DOUBLE bullshit.

If the Nobel Committee wants to retain any sense of credibility at all they damn well better explain why Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. If they can't explain it then the Nobel Prize officially has NO meaning whatsoever. It's just a way for liberals to congratulate other liberals for being liberal.

Posted by EyeBEW77

2009-10-09 22:39:32

A plausible line of argument. But, if the Nobel Peace Prize is to be viewed as strictly a private matter, there's really no reason the rest of us are in any way bound or obligated to assign any moral weight or political or intellectual importance to its assignment. The local Burger King awards an employee-of-the-month. I guess we should view the Nobel Peace Prize as roughly comparable.

Sorry, but the gathering of the Nobel Peace Prize Award Commitee is a party to which you are not invited. Since the prizes given out at that party are funded by a private source, you have no say in the matter.

Oh please, talk about a pathetic cop-out.

What, you think we're trying to veto Obama's Peace Prize or something? So what if we're not on the Committee? Does that somehow abrogate our right to criticize them when they make a stupid decision?

Yet again you refuse to address the relevant issue. If the Nobel Committee is a private entity and no one else is allowed to comment on or criticize their decisions, then their decisions are completely worthless. They deserve no credibility, no prestige, and no moral or political weight. They are officially nothing more than a popularity contest, more akin to a high school prom vote than an agency that rewards actual efforts to advance world peace.

Unless asked, it is rude to meddle into the private affairs of others .

Then why do you folks on the left want to meddle with my healthcare?

You say EyeBEW77, I say hoggo.

C'mon dude we all know your strong love for your union, but EyeBEW, as in IBEW, as in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers? That's just sad, lame and lacks creativity. I guess that's a consequence of needing a new user name every six or eight weeks, and being too old to think up fresh, creative user names.

Posted by EyeBEW77

2009-10-09 23:23:53

At least you're equating the two awards, much as most of the world has now started to do.

You say EyeBEW77, I say hoggo.

Ah. Should'a seen that coming.

In a shocking turn of events, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee just awarded Neville Chamberlain a Posthumous Peace Prize for his famously inspirational "Peace in Our Time" speech.

Tell me why not?

Why do we even CARE what the hell the Norwegians think about ANYTHING? Those people don't even bother getting married anymore. An average colony of baboons will have a better grasp of their own family tree in another 30 years than those decadent weirdos.

They awarded Obama a Peace Prize for badmouthing Bush. Period.

Ronald Reagan liberated hundreds of millions of people from Communism. No Peace Prize.

George H.W. Bush liberated the nation of Kuwait. No Peace Prize.

George W. Bush liberated millions from Saddam & the Taliban. He saved millions of lives in Africa. Girls in Afghanistan have (well, now that American liberals are in charge, had) a burqa & baton free future as human beings thanks for him. No Peace Prize.

Barry "The Won" Obama does NOTHING. NOTHING. JACK SQUAT. But, he DOES badmouth George W. Bush every opportunity. And embraces and kowtows to evil regimes the world over. KA-CHING!!!! Peace Prize from the collective social degenerates knows as the Norwegians!

Gimme a break.

The Nobel Peace Prize is not a private affair, it is vastly public and filled with former acclaim. By now its tarnished to the point of being a joke after Yassr Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Barack "empty shirt" Obama has won one.

"Sorry, but the gathering of the Nobel Peace Prize Award Commitee is a party to which you are not invited. Since the prizes given out at that party are funded by a private source, you have no say in the matter."

The rest of the world may have no say in who gets the prize; that's true. We can't stop the Nobel Committee from giving it to whom they will. But that doesn't mean for an instant the rest of the world can't notice the fact that it's been given to someone who has done NOTHING to EARN it!, nor does it stop the prize from losing credibility in the eyes of people who have noticed this. As far as I'm concerned the Nobel Peace Price last all credibility when it was given to an unrepentant terrorist who went home from Oslo and promptly launched the second intifada.

But what the Nobel Committee is doing here is blatantly transparent, and blatantly political. It is attempting to use the prize a symbol to influence (i.e. interfere in) American politics. The Committee did not award Obama the prize for anything he's done (it can't, since he hasn't DONE anything, not even now, never mind when he was nominated, and had only been in office all of TWO WEEKS!), it hasn't even awarded it purely because the vote has become a popularity contest, as some are assuming.

No, the Nobel Committee has bestowed this award on Barack Obama to make a political statement in support and encouragement of his stated foreign policy goals — which are the ones which THEY think we should be pursuing. They (and Obama) don't think it is the job of the American president, or the proper function of American foreign policy to look after American interests, maintain commitments to our allies for the mutual benefit of both, use BOTH diplomacy AND the threat of harsher measures (such as military action) against nations which threaten American interests, or take proactive measures against rogue states. The Committee (and Obama) think it is the job of the American president, and the proper function of American foreign policy to be nice to the rest of the world, not be such a mean old bully, promote peace, love, and understanding, prove that you really CAN solve all the difference in the world by sitting down and honestly talking about them, and above all, admit that America is at least as much to blame (and possibly more) for any conflict between the United States and other nations.

In short, Obama got the award because the Committee wants to express its support as Obama pursues the kind of foreign policy approved of by the leftists who run the Nobel Committee.

In short, Obama got the award because the Committee wants to express its support as Obama pursues the kind of foreign policy approved of by the leftists who run the Nobel Committee.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-10 14:24:48

You failed to mention Santa Claus proves the existence of God. Like you did before.

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-10-10 19:06:30

Er – wot?

"You failed to mention Santa Claus proves the existence of God. Like you did before."

Not only are you clearly obsessed, your memory is astoundingly bad. Since you clearly can't remember accurately (or is it that you just aren't intellectually honest enough to represent your opponent's arguments honestly?), what I actually claimed was that a man can no more MAKE himself believe in God, if he finds the arguments for the existence of God unpersuasive than he could MAKE himself believe in Santa Claus. Despite what you may think, it's a VERY apt comparison — God, after all, is basically Santa Claus for adults, and just like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, that wants people to be his cheerleaders, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this constant flattery is a belief that is indoctrinated into children when they are young – too young to make rational decisions about such things themselves, and which they believe because adults that they trust have told them these things exist. Of course, theists expect that children will lose their belief in all of those entities, but retain their belief in God.

That’s not a logical stance to take, which is why atheists point it out. The arguments that most theists make towards the existence of their specific god are thought –- by the theist –- to be rational, but are really just after-the-fact justification for something they were indoctrinated in.

This is why is the religion of children so closely correlated to the religion of their parents. Children don’t grow up to be christians (jew/muslims/hindus/buddhists/zoroastrians/whatever) because they discover it on their own, or because the truth of God is so self-evident that it just becomes clear to them; they almost universally believe what their parents or their society around them believe, and taught them to believe.

And then, like you, they select out those parts of their sacred dogmas and moral injunctions those things that they don't wish to follow, and ignore them. This is why you can't resist dredging up an ancient, long past argument that has no relevance whatsoever to THIS topic, in order to throw completely unprovoked, completely gratuitous insults at someone who, ironically is actually AGREEING with you on this particular topic — that Obama does not deserve this award. In other words, Christ's injunction to love thy neighbor and return good for evil and turn the other cheek means so little to you, and you are so consumed by spite and petty hatred that you cannot put differences aside — nevermind that the God you say you believe in specifically and explicitly enjoined you not to act this way, and even more specifically, to avoid having EXACTLY the sort of argument that you are not only having with me, but which YOU are the one PROVOKING (see II Tim. 2:23-24). Thus we see how deep your faith truly runs. But as I said, theists of every religion and denomination only follow those rules they choose to, and ignore the rest. Why should you be any different?

Interesting theory, lots of assertions without any rational or evidentiary proof, but interesting. The fact that children tend to follow in their parents' ideological footsteps does not somehow mean that there is no truth or reality to religion. Any one of those religions could be true, but you're assuming that they must a priori be based on lies.

Why? Because your worldview presumes that without any rational basis. It's a presupposition: you start with atheism then each argument you make is based on that foundation without bothering to defend it.

The fact you feel compelled to even do so says volumes but it takes a great deal of self awareness to consider why that might be.

Despite what you may think, it's a VERY apt comparison — God, after all, is basically Santa Claus for adults

Dumbest. Comment. Ever. Santa Claus is make believe person whose entire existence is predicated on the active participation, and prevarication, of adult family members. As adults, no one believes in Santa Claus because they know that it is their task to fill in for the jolly old elf – one cannot be both the deceiver and the deceived on the same subject matter. With God, however, there is no one to take His place. Oh, preachers preach, but there is none who can perform the miracles only He provides.

Well, it might be a good idea to remember that Santa Claus is merely a collective folk memory of a very real St. Nicholas, ancient Anatolian bishop.

So maybe using Santa Claus as definitive proof that any religious belief is childish is… childish.

"Interesting theory, lots of assertions without any rational or evidentiary proof, but interesting. The fact that children tend to follow in their parents' ideological footsteps does not somehow mean that there is no truth or reality to religion. Any one of those religions could be true, but you're assuming that they must a priori be based on lies.

Why? Because your worldview presumes that without any rational basis. It's a presupposition: you start with atheism then each argument you make is based on that foundation without bothering to defend it."

I don't HAVE to defend it. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not the other way around. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm saying "show me some good evidence." Until you can, you can't persuade me that God exists, any more than you can persuade me that Santa exists, or that Zeus exists, or that Unicorns exist. If I tell you that I've invented an antigravity machine, it is ENTIRELY rational of you not to believe it, unless I can show you proofs in support of my claim. It is not rational for me to say "you can't prove my antigravity machine doesn't exist."

Consider, for just a moment, what you as a Christian are asking me to believe:

Christians believe in a suite of canonical miracles, including the virgin birth and literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. They believe these things, when you get down to the origin of it, because these things were written down in a series of books, later collected and edited and translated into the New Testament books that Christians know and revere today. But the problem with this is that first-hand accounts of miracles are extremely common, throughout ALL the religious literature of EVERY culture on earth that has a religious literature. In fact, such claims are still taking place today in the 21st century. Stories about yogis and mystics walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future are circulating right now, and in communities where the average levels of education, access to information, and skeptical doubt are far higher than we would expect of the inhabitants of first century Judea.

In fact, as Sam Harris pointed out, every single one of Jesus’ alleged powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by vast numbers of eyewitnesses who believe that he is a living god. The man even claims to have been born of a virgin. Christians are asking me to believe the claim that miracle stories of the sort that today surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba – and do not even merit an hour on the Discovery Channel – are somehow supposed to become far more credible when set in the pre-scientific religious context of the 1st century Roman Empire, even though they weren’t written down until decades after their supposed occurrence, and even though these written accounts are known today only thorugh translations of discrepant and fragmentary copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek manuscripts. And it is on the basis of such evidence that you are asking me to believe this.

Can’t ANYBODY see the problem with this?

And it gets even worse.

Not only do Christians apparently sincerely expect the rest of us to except evidence of such dubious provenance – and in some cases (like "Dick Nixon's," become positively belligerent when I don’t – they further assert that this incredible collection of miracle stories constitutes evidence that Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, was ritually murdered as a scapegoat for the collective sins of the human race, and then physically resurrected from death after an interval of three days. He then ascended, bodily, to heaven, where, for the past two millennia, he has listened to (and, on occasion, even answered) the simultaneous prayers of billions of beleaguered human beings. This arrangement will be maintained for an unspecified period of time (which most Christians always seem convinced is about to end quite soon), after which he will return to earth to judge humanity for its sins. In the meantime, God/Jesus may or may not intervene in our world, as He pleases, curing the occasional end-stage cancer (or not), answering an especially earnest prayer for guidance (or not), consoling the bereaved (or not), through His perfectly wise and loving agency.

And finally, to top it all off, we are asked not to believe this rather incredible collection of claims, based on evidence if highly questionable provenanve, but to accept that every member of our species, past and present, from Aristotle to Einstein, no matter what his or her terrestrial accomplishments, who honestly entertains sincere doubt that this is the single most important set truths ever revealed to humanity, will be condemned to be tortured in fire for all eternity.

And yet you seem to consider my skepticism somehow irrational. It positively boggles the mind.

"Well, it might be a good idea to remember that Santa Claus is merely a collective folk memory of a very real St. Nicholas, ancient Anatolian bishop.

So maybe using Santa Claus as definitive proof that any religious belief is childish is… childish."

And maybe misrepresenting someone's argument is… childish. Not to mention dishonest.

Since I never claimed this was "definitive proof" of anything, a misrepresentation is exactly what it is.

And yet you seem to consider my skepticism somehow irrational. It positively boggles the mind.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-10 23:25:42

It's not irrational, it's just that you ridicule those who do beleive and that's offensive. Faith is not rational, but even the strongest rational thinkers have faith. You've taken your 'rationality' to condescension, mild ridicule, and mockery, and that's what pisses us off. You question what you don't understand and dismiss those that beleive as being childish. And you wonder why we are irritated?

"It's not irrational, it's just that you ridicule those who do beleive and that's offensive. Faith is not rational, but even the strongest rational thinkers have faith. You've taken your 'rationality' to condescension, mild ridicule, and mockery, and that's what pisses us off."

Oh, but of course, the offense is all on my side, right? I myself have no reason whatever to be offended at the behavior of people here, do I? I come into a thread to express an opinion on THIS topic, and someone here immediately attacks me with something completely irrelevant, dredged up from a long-dead argument, and which he does every single time I put in an appearance on this board, and which, moreoever, was actually fairly typical of the tone of the comments directed at me back when we WERE discussing this topic, but that wouldn't, in any way, be indicative of irrational and offensive behavior coming from your side of the aisle, would it?

Luke 6:42 is very applicable here.

"You question what you don't understand and dismiss those that beleive as being childish. And you wonder why we are irritated?"

You are wrong in claiming that I don't understand it. As I said before, I was once a devout believer. And losing my faith was a long, painful process, which I fought for years. I didn't WANT to lose faith; and if you think it was easy setting myself at odds with lifelong friends and family members, guess again. And in the course of desperately trying to hang onto my faith, I encountered just about every argument on behalf of faith you can think of, and probably a few you haven't. To this day, I know many devout Christians, some of whom remain my friends despite our religious differences. And most of the people I work with are Christians; we get along quite well. And believe it or not, we can agree to disagree amicably. I disagree with what they believe, and if they ask me why, I will tell them in great detail why.

You see, I DON'T get the kind of naked hostility and condemnation from them, that I get from the Christians on this board. And if seem hostile back to some here, maybe that's part of the reason why. You do, after all, reap what you sow.

I don't HAVE to defend it.

Right. That must be why you keep dropping these multi-paragraph posts defending it.

Moron.

I don't HAVE to defend it. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not the other way around.

And YOU made the claim that God and Santa Claus are the same. I called you to task on it, and you have yet to defend.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm saying "show me some good evidence."

The Golden Rectangle. Babies. The light seen before death (which runs counter to every evolutionary theory).

They believe these things, when you get down to the origin of it, because these things were written down in a series of books, later collected and edited and translated into the New Testament books that Christians know and revere today.

Incorrect. We believe because there were multiple witnesses of the same event.

Sathya Sai Baba

Hmmm, you're going to have to point me to where he raised the dead. Or came back to life after having been killed. I'll wait…

And yet you seem to consider my skepticism somehow irrational. It positively boggles the mind.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-10 23:25:42

No, we find it irrational that you would come to a conservative website to argue against our beliefs. Do you likewise go to Mass and desecrate the host? You're an arrogant ass who has delusions of superiority which no one in the real world will allow you, so you come here knowing that you can preen all you want without fear that you'll get punched in the face for your pretentiousness. Mind you, there are atheistic conservatives, but they aren't mocking Christianity here…you are.

You do, after all, reap what you sow.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 01:04:15

Well you have been bashing Chritians and our faith from day one, acting all high mighty because YOU cannot wrap your mind around faith and belief. YOU were the first to attack us believers, and so far that'S ALL YOU'VE DONE. Except to throw a personal pity party, when those who of us who do believe don't sit down and take your attacks.

You struggled with your faith? So do we all, I guess that just means you fell down somewhere, especially since all you do is belittle. And then you have the gall to quote scripture like it means anything when YOU were the first to attack.

You seem to know scripture but you obviously found yourself able to understand it better than God. Which is nothing but arrogance, to those who are humble before Him and man. You are the man of Luke 6:49, who thought he had done well, built strong but failed. So Luke 6:42 applies just as much to you, and you have no cause to call us to task until you can answer to your own failings, Irish.

"Right. That must be why you keep dropping these multi-paragraph posts defending it.

Moron."

I keep dropping these multi-paragraph posts to explain my position. I just can't win with you people. If I take the time to write lengthy explanations to try and make my points clear, I get bashed just like you're doing here. And if I don't (or even sometimes if I do) I ALSO get bashed for supposedly not defending my position (see the post by jasamc immediately following yours)

And thank you for you're gratuitous "moron" comment. Not only does it prove you, like "Dick Nixon" talk the talk, but don't walk the walk (i.e. you fail to live up to the ideals you say you revere), but you are proving for me the point I just made to Christopher_Taylor.

"And YOU made the claim that God and Santa Claus are the same. I called you to task on it, and you have yet to defend."

No, I did NOT make that claim. If you don't even represent my arguments correctly, it is scarcely fair or honest of you to say I haven't defended them. The Santa comparison, from waaaaaaaay back when, came about to illustrate a point — that belief is not an act of will, and you can't MAKE yourself believe something your rational mind will not accept.

And as I already said, just like Santa Claus, belief in a God is something most people have because they got indoctrinated with it as a child. God, like Santa Claus, is a mythical being for whom there is no good evidence, but which people sometimes believe in anyway.

"The Golden Rectangle."

Proves God how?

"Babies."

Proves God how?

"The light seen before death (which runs counter to every evolutionary theory)."

Then why is it not everybody sees it? A recent study in Holland revealed only about 18% of patients who had a close call and survived reported any kind of near death experience, and the study suggests it is most likely an hallucination caused by anoxia.

http://evolutionezine.com/near-death-experience/

" 'They believe these things, when you get down to the origin of it, because these things were written down in a series of books, later collected and edited and translated into the New Testament books that Christians know and revere today.

Incorrect. We believe because there were multiple witnesses of the same event."

And how do you know this?

Oh, that's right, because these supposed eyewitness accounts were written down in the books of the new testament.

" Sathya Sai Baba

Hmmm, you're going to have to point me to where he raised the dead. Or came back to life after having been killed. I'll wait…"

I seriously doubt he did. I doubt that Jesus did these things either. As David Hume said: “It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors.”

"No, we find it irrational that you would come to a conservative website to argue against our beliefs. Do you likewise go to Mass and desecrate the host? You're an arrogant ass who has delusions of superiority which no one in the real world will allow you, so you come here knowing that you can preen all you want without fear that you'll get punched in the face for your pretentiousness. Mind you, there are atheistic conservatives, but they aren't mocking Christianity here…you are."

You know I really shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but it seems I do. I didn't start this argument. I came here and posted a comment on Obama getting the Nobel peace prize. ONE OF YOU attacked ME. No, I wouldn't go to mass and desecrate the host, but on the occasions I have, I haven't been attacked and reviled for my unbelief either. And I have managed to have entirely civil and friendly face to face debates with theists on their own turf, but then they don't generally end their comments by calling one names like "moron." And once again, I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but if I am more defensive and strident here than I might be, don't you think it might have just a LITTLE something to do with being relentlessly attacked, and then dogpiled by multiple opponents who don't even TRY to be civil in their arguments?

"Well you have been bashing Chritians and our faith from day one, acting all high mighty because YOU cannot wrap your mind around faith and belief. YOU were the first to attack us believers, and so far that'S ALL YOU'VE DONE. Except to throw a personal pity party, when those who of us who do believe don't sit down and take your attacks."

It's hardly a "personal pity party" to point out that 1) it wasn't I who started this argument, one of you did that, and 2) when opponents here dredge up old, dead arguments for no reason other than spite, and when they end their comments with juvenile name calling, they are failing to live up to their own stated ideals.

"You struggled with your faith? So do we all, I guess that just means you fell down somewhere, especially since all you do is belittle. And then you have the gall to quote scripture like it means anything when YOU were the first to attack."

This is an outright lie. Period. Look back at this thread. My first comment was about Obama getting the nobel. I never even mentioned the topic of religion, UNTIL "Dick Nixon" piped in with a snide attack, bringing up an argument from long ago that has no bearing on the subject of this article. That you then have the gall to accuse ME of starting this simply takes my breath away.

"You seem to know scripture but you obviously found yourself able to understand it better than God. Which is nothing but arrogance, to those who are humble before Him and man. You are the man of Luke 6:49, who thought he had done well, built strong but failed. So Luke 6:42 applies just as much to you, and you have no cause to call us to task until you can answer to your own failings, Irish."

Perhaps if I see even the SLIGHTEST evidence that some of you here will also do that, for your part, I will be inclined to reciprocate. But so far, I'm not seeing this from you.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 09:41:56

Well Mr Memory Expert, you fail to mention where I took your original 15 paragraph rant against Christianity, refuted several of your arguments, and then you left with tail between legs.

Tell Santa Claus howdy for Nixon. Please remind him Nixon wants a new Mossberg 12 Gauge Pump (stainless) with composite stock, tritium sites, and 1000 rounds of number 4 buckshot for Christmas this year. for "hunting".

But so far, I'm not seeing this from you.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 10:07:30

Maybe Santa will bring you some glasses for CHRISTmas this year. If you pray for them.

, UNTIL "Dick Nixon" piped in with a snide attack, bringing up an argument from long ago that has no bearing on the subject of this article.

Santaflatfoot

Sure it does. In that old long ago thread, Nixon dusted seven or so of your points bashing Christianity. You left without refuting them.

Tell Santa hi for Nixon.

like "Dick Nixon" talk the talk, but don't walk the walk (i.e. you fail to live up to the ideals you say you revere),

Christ said it was ok to let people lie and get away with it? Nixon missed that parable. Santaflatfoot, please, let go your hate of religion. Are you Wino under another user name? It would explain a lot.

No, I did NOT make that claim.

…God, like Santa Claus, is a mythical being for whom there is no good evidence…

Do you even take the time to read your posts? You are as disingenuous as D-Vega.

"The Golden Rectangle."

Proves God how?

"Babies."

Proves God how?

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

These above are perfect. Nature is not perfect. Therefore…

Then why is it not everybody sees it?

Why hasn't God spoken to everyone? Why does God allow bad things to happen? I don't know, but feel free to ask Him yourself.

and the study suggests it is most likely an hallucination caused by anoxia.

<a href="http://evolutionezine.com/near-death-experience/

” target=”_blank”>http://evolutionezine.com/near-death-experience/

From your article:

"For example, in the past some scientists have asserted that the NDE must be simply a hallucination brought on by the loss of oxygen to the brain [called "anoxia"] after the heart has stopped beating. This study casts doubt on that theory, in the words of its chief investigator, cardiologist Pim van Lommel, MD, “Our results show that medical factors cannot account for the occurrence of NDE.

…

According to the theory that NDE is caused by anoxia, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, but only 18% reported having an NDE… There is also a theory that NDE is caused psychologically, by the fear of death. But only a very small percentage of our patients said they had been afraid seconds before their cardiac arrest-it happened too suddenly for them to realize what was occurring. More patients than the frightened ones reported NDEs.”

You may actually want to read an article before trying to use it to bolster your argument.

And how do you know this?

Oh, that's right, because these supposed eyewitness accounts were written down in the books of the new testament.

And you have proof that they're lying? Please, share.

I seriously doubt he did.

Right, because he's still alive. Read before posting – just a friendly tip.

Oh, and I care about David Hume why?

You know I really shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but it seems I do. I didn't start this argument. I came here and posted a comment on Obama getting the Nobel peace prize. ONE OF YOU attacked ME.

Oh, so Nixon made up the Santa/God comment out of whole cloth, ascribed it to you, and you felt compelled to defend it, despite having never written anything of the sort. Yes, that makes SO much more sense than you made that point at some earlier time and Nixon won't let it alone.

No, I wouldn't go to mass and desecrate the host, but on the occasions I have, I haven't been attacked and reviled for my unbelief either.

Again…Do. You. Read. What. You. Write?

And I have managed to have entirely civil and friendly face to face debates with theists on their own turf, but then they don't generally end their comments by calling one names like "moron."

Yes, I am sure that is true.

/sarc

And once again, I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but if I am more defensive and strident here than I might be, don't you think it might have just a LITTLE something to do with being relentlessly attacked, and then dogpiled by multiple opponents who don't even TRY to be civil in their arguments?

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 10:01:52

So, let's see if I have this right? Someone goes into Yankee Stadium and yells "Yankees Suck!" For the rest of the game he is subjected to verbal abuse from all sides and he gets even more bellicose.

Whose fault is it? That's right, the person who started the whole thing by attempting to show the ignorant peons the error of their ways.

So, please, don't even try that weak shit. You came in, peed on the carpet, and dared everyone to say something. You're a jerk who likes to pretend that he is better than everyone else and gets a sandy vagina when called on it. You're no better than Vega…hmmm, come to think of it…

It's hardly a "personal pity party" to point out that 1) it wasn't I who started this argument, one of you did that, and 2) when opponents here dredge up old, dead arguments for no reason other than spite, and when they end their comments with juvenile name calling, they are failing to live up to their own stated ideals.

It's also you something you could have juat as easily gnored, "turn the other cheek" and all. But you just had to 'defend' yourself, right? Like I said, Nixon may have been out of line, but a bigger person would have ignored it and moved on.

"You struggled with your faith? So do we all, I guess that just means you fell down somewhere, especially since all you do is belittle. And then you have the gall to quote scripture like it means anything when YOU were the first to attack."

This is an outright lie. Period. Look back at this thread. My first comment was about Obama getting the nobel. I never even mentioned the topic of religion, UNTIL "Dick Nixon" piped in with a snide attack, bringing up an argument from long ago that has no bearing on the subject of this article. That you then have the gall to accuse ME of starting this simply takes my breath away.

Sorry, I guess we both failed in that exchange; I was referring back to the long ago thread where this all started. As Mighty pointed out, you came to a conservative site, where most of us are believers, and proceeded with your diatribe.

Perhaps if I see even the SLIGHTEST evidence that some of you here will also do that, for your part, I will be inclined to reciprocate. But so far, I'm not seeing this from you.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 10:07:30

Well as you can see, some of us can be civil and adults and move on, I suggest you do the same, and maybe we can work towards fighting against those things upon which we do agree.

Nixon may have been out of line,

Nah. Based on Santaflatfoots previous posts here, Nixon took it very easy on him. His incredible memory doesn't allow him to remember that Nixon posted 7 rebuttals to his 15 point cut and paste hit job on Christianity and the little fracker didn't have the guts to respond.

Like Mr T, Nixon doesn't tolerate jibber jabber from fools. Nixon will hang Sana around flatfeet's neck from now on.

Skepticism isn't irrational, your presentation is. You assert without proof or logical defense, you insist people believe you without proving your point. In short, you are doing what you accuse religious people of doing in a hilarious display of arrogant irony.

And you cannot even seem to bring yourself to consider the possibility that anything reigious could be true, proving my point that you're working from an unquestioned presupposition you have never questioned.

Maybe you should do that before you start lecturing others.

"Do you even take the time to read your posts? You are as disingenuous as D-Vega."

Wrong. I never said God and Santa are THE SAME, I said people start out believing them for similar reasons, and the two concepts have a characteristic in common — being mythical beings in whom people believe primarily because of early indoctrination. However there are numerous differences as well, and if I don't point those out, it's because I shouldn't have to point out the obvious. We're all adults here, aren't we?

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

These above are perfect. Nature is not perfect. Therefore…"

Babies are perfect? Really? How you get that I'll never know, and as for the the idea that the golden rectangle is perfect therefore God exists… I'll admit I've never heard that one before. The leap in logic is astounding. You do realize that it is a geometrical concept do you not, not a feature of the natural landscape?

"Why hasn't God spoken to everyone? Why does God allow bad things to happen? I don't know, but feel free to ask Him yourself.

From your article:

"For example, in the past some scientists have asserted that the NDE must be simply a hallucination brought on by the loss of oxygen to the brain [called "anoxia"] after the heart has stopped beating. This study casts doubt on that theory, in the words of its chief investigator, cardiologist Pim van Lommel, MD, “Our results show that medical factors cannot account for the occurrence of NDE.

…

According to the theory that NDE is caused by anoxia, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, but only 18% reported having an NDE… There is also a theory that NDE is caused psychologically, by the fear of death. But only a very small percentage of our patients said they had been afraid seconds before their cardiac arrest-it happened too suddenly for them to realize what was occurring. More patients than the frightened ones reported NDEs.”

You may actually want to read an article before trying to use it to bolster your argument."

I have. The point is that this "light" is not universal, which it ought to be if were hard evidence of something. It's not even universal among NDEs (NDEs take multiple forms). And while the article says medical evidence can't account for all NDEs, all that means is that we don't know what causes them. It doesn't prove there's a God. It may be that we will eventually find out what causes them, but that's the point — in science, when you don't know yet, YOU KEEP LOOKING. You DON'T say "Goddidit!" and stop.

"And you have proof that they're lying? Please, share."

Holy cow! Talk about reversing the burden of proof. So if someone comes to you with an extraordinary claim, you automatically believe them unless you can prove their lying? Is that what you mean? Because that's precisely the line of logic you are using. And I hope you further realize that if you truly evaluate claims that way, it means that until you have evaluated all the claims made by similar eyewitness whose accounts are written in the Koran, the Hinda Vedas, the Zoroastrian Avesta, and all the other religious texts in the world, you have no rational basis for dismissing those claims.

"Right, because he's still alive. Read before posting – just a friendly tip."

You're missing the point. Sathya Sai Baba is a man who numerous eyewitness will swear can perform miracles. Why are these eyewitnesses less credible than the ones whose accounts are written in the New Testament? In fact, you can, yourself, actually go and talk face to face with the eyewitness who support Sathya Sai Baba. You can get their accounts first hand, and the accounts in the NT are not firsthand accounts. They supposed eyewitnesses who said they saw Christ perform his miracles are not the same people who wrote the books of the NT, which means this is NOT firsthand information.

"Oh, and I care about David Hume why?"

Because his observation in that quote is absolutely 100% correct; it IS almost solely primitive peoples who accept supernatural claims and accounts of miracles.

"Oh, so Nixon made up the Santa/God comment out of whole cloth, ascribed it to you, and you felt compelled to defend it, despite having never written anything of the sort. Yes, that makes SO much more sense than you made that point at some earlier time and Nixon won't let it alone."

I never said that. However, he HAS deliberately misrepresented my arguments.

Just like you're doing right now.

"'No, I wouldn't go to mass and desecrate the host, but on the occasions I have, I haven't been attacked and reviled for my unbelief either.'

Again…Do. You. Read. What. You. Write?"

Excuse me, that was simply poor choice of words. I meant, on the occasions when I have BEEN TO MASS…"

Satisfied? Really, this is just nitpicking.

"So, let's see if I have this right? Someone goes into Yankee Stadium and yells "Yankees Suck!" For the rest of the game he is subjected to verbal abuse from all sides and he gets even more bellicose."

Again, you are misrepresenting. Frankly, it was so long ago, that I don't even remember what my very first post on the subject was. And I'll bet real money that you don't remember it either. But I doubt very very much if it was that nakedly hostile, because it is not my nature to be so rude at the start of any discussion. I always try to use politeness until people stop using it to me; then I admittedly have no qualms about flaming people right back.

"Whose fault is it? That's right, the person who started the whole thing by attempting to show the ignorant peons the error of their ways.

So, please, don't even try that weak shit. You came in, peed on the carpet, and dared everyone to say something. You're a jerk who likes to pretend that he is better than everyone else and gets a sandy vagina when called on it. You're no better than Vega…hmmm, come to think of it… "

And this would, of course, be an objective and totally unbiased version of how it went.

Don't even try that weak shit. You disagreed with someone, the argument got heated, and now you are practicing selective memory, and engaging in straw man mischaracterization of your opponent's actual arguments, and you get a sandy vagina when he won't sit still for having his position misrepresented.

I keep dropping these multi-paragraph posts to explain my position.

Maybe if you were a little more eloquent it wouldn't take five to six paragraphs to say "I don't believe in God".

I just can't win with you people.

Aw, somebody call the waaaaahmbulance. We done gone and hurt Irishflatfoot's feeeeelings.

You know, you're right. You can't win with us. Mainly because you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Seriously, listen to yourself some time. Belief in God is just something people are "indoctrinated" with during their childhoods? Really? My God man, have you even met any religious people before?

Besides, how are you any different? Didn't you once claim that you became an atheist after reading a bunch of books written by high-profile atheists? Isn't that "indoctrination"?

If I take the time to write lengthy explanations to try and make my points clear, I get bashed just like you're doing here.

Yes, that must be why I responded to. It can't possibly be that I was mocking your claim that you "don't have to defend [atheism]" after dropping multiple extra-long posts doing exactly that.

If you really believed that you don't have to defend atheism then what on Earth are you doing here?

And if I don't (or even sometimes if I do) I ALSO get bashed for supposedly not defending my position (see the post by jasamc immediately following yours)

Actually you get bashed for not reading what anyone is saying. Jasamc didn't "bash" you for trying to defend your position (although he certainly could have since you were doing such a poor job of it). He "bashed" you for coming here and mocking people's beliefs.

Seriously, what part of this do you not get? Your Santa Claus analogy is not only complete bunk, it's offensive. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do you honestly believe that most Christians only believe in God because mommy and daddy told us to believe in God?

And thank you for you're gratuitous "moron" comment. Not only does it prove you, like "Dick Nixon" talk the talk, but don't walk the walk (i.e. you fail to live up to the ideals you say you revere), but you are proving for me the point I just made to Christopher_Taylor.

What "point"? You really think responses from a series of random commentators on some random right-wing blog "proves" something? Wow, you dropped into a right-wing blog with a majority Christian audience, started making insulting and demeaning analogies about religion, and now you're acting all "offended" because people responded negatively to your condescending attitude. I suppose you'd respond calmly and politely if a Christian dropped in on an atheist blog and started condemning all the regular posters there to Hell or something, right?

And speaking of atheist blogs, are we just supposed to blindly accept your claim that atheists are more polite than us? Because if you really want to go with that argument I have a few thousand atheist blogs to point you towards where they DO respond with naked hostility and condemnation if you question and insult their beliefs.

The only "point" you've proven is that people tend to respond negatively when you compare their deepest beliefs to a childhood fantasy. Congratulations, I guess, but I doubt that was the goal you were shooting for.

The Santa comparison, from waaaaaaaay back when, came about to illustrate a point — that belief is not an act of will, and you can't MAKE yourself believe something your rational mind will not accept.

Yeah, and it's still completely wrong. You CAN make yourself believe in something. People do it all the time. Your inability to accept this fact is due to your own atheistic biases.

In fact, on that very thread from waaaaaaaaay back when, several people (including myself) refuted your puerile Santa comparison and showed why it was silly and wrong. Strangely enough, you declined to respond to the thread after that. I wonder why…

"It's also you something you could have juat as easily gnored, "turn the other cheek" and all. But you just had to 'defend' yourself, right? Like I said, Nixon may have been out of line, but a bigger person would have ignored it and moved on"

Alright, now just stop a moment here and ask yourself then why are you and I having this exchange right now. I was responding to "Dick Nixon," and if I should have been "big enough" to let it go, why do you and several others here feel compelled to put YOUR two cents in, when you weren't even involved in the exchange at all to start with?

I'm not saying this to be contrary or mean or anything like that. But if your admonition is to have ANY justice or weight to it at all, this has to be a two way street. It is scarcely just to criticize me for not being big enough to leave something alone when no one else here seems willing to leave it alone either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"Sorry, I guess we both failed in that exchange; I was referring back to the long ago thread where this all started. As Mighty pointed out, you came to a conservative site, where most of us are believers, and proceeded with your diatribe."

Again, before you characterize it as a diatribe, let me ask you to exercise what is called "the principle of charity" — basically just assuming your opponent is acting out of sincere and honest motives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Now exercising the principle of charity, what seems to you more likely, that I came here and expressed a strongly held opinion that a majority of posters here (being Christians) strongly disagreed with, and the following argument grew somewhat heated, or that I came in and deliberately goaded people into anger for the fun of it?

"Well as you can see, some of us can be civil and adults and move on, I suggest you do the same, and maybe we can work towards fighting against those things upon which we do agree."

I am perfectly willing to do this, and I am trying very sincerely to do it right now. If you are also willing to make the same effort, I will enjoy debating with you on the subjects where we disagree, and enjoy finding common ground on those areas where we agree (such as the original topic of this thread, for example). Clearly, however, I must resign myself to the fact that some people here are not willing to do this.

"Skepticism isn't irrational, your presentation is. You assert without proof or logical defense, you insist people believe you without proving your point. In short, you are doing what you accuse religious people of doing in a hilarious display of arrogant irony."

Actually, I think my presentation here has been eminently rational. I outlined VERY clearly, I believe, why the evidence that you and other Christians accept as proof of Christianity is dubious at best (and I note that you have not answered those points and explained why I am wrong, and why such evidence is good evidence) and I really would like to know what you find irrational about that.

"And you cannot even seem to bring yourself to consider the possibility that anything reigious could be true, proving my point that you're working from an unquestioned presupposition you have never questioned.'

This is where you are dead wrong. I HAVE considered that it MAY be true. To this day I will freely admit that of course there COULD be a God. I make no claim whatsoever to KNOW one way or the other. But I maintain that in the absence of good, solid, credible evidence supporting God, there is no more reason to believe in the Biblical God than there is in Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, or Zeus. You yourself have, for whatever reasons, rejected the claims of other religions, and I feel safe in doubting that you came to your Christian faith after long and exhaustive study of the world's religions, after which you picked Christianity as the most logical, best supported one. I think it far more likely that you simply followed the beliefs you were raised among, and all your argument since has been after-the-fact justification of something you were already predisposed to believe.

"Maybe you should do that before you start lecturing others."

I haven't been trying to LECTURE anyone, I have been trying to defend my arguments when challenged on them. And sorry, I don't know any other way to do that than to set my position out as clearly as I can.

Wrong. I never said God and Santa are THE SAME, I said people start out believing them for similar reasons, and the two concepts have a characteristic in common — being mythical beings in whom people believe primarily because of early indoctrination.

In that case I say we start making comparisons to atheism.

People start out believing in atheism and 9/11 Trutherism for similar reasons. In both cases their belief is rooted in a strong desire for attention and extreme gullibility.

People start out believing in atheism and Scientology for similar reasons. They do it because they think it makes them "cool" to be "non-conformist". And also because they've been duped by a bunch of half-rate writers (how's that shelf full of atheist books doing Flatfoot?).

People start out believing in atheism and Holocaust denial for similar reasons. In both cases their belief is rooted in a deep hatred for certain religious groups.

See that, Flatfoot? I can make offensive, disingenuous, and dishonest comparisons too.

"Maybe if you were a little more eloquent it wouldn't take five to six paragraphs to say "I don't believe in God"."

Here again, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. When I don't write lengthy relies, I'm accused of running away and not answering an opponent's arguments. When I do I'm accused of… Well, to be honest, I'm not sure just what you're accusing me of, but you clearly don't like it, whatever it is.

"Aw, somebody call the waaaaahmbulance. We done gone and hurt Irishflatfoot's feeeeelings."

No, merely highlighted your own unreasonableness and hypocrisy.

"You know, you're right. You can't win with us. Mainly because you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Seriously, listen to yourself some time. Belief in God is just something people are "indoctrinated" with during their childhoods? Really? My God man, have you even met any religious people before?"

Haven't you been paying attention? I WAS a religious person before.

"Besides, how are you any different? Didn't you once claim that you became an atheist after reading a bunch of books written by high-profile atheists? Isn't that "indoctrination"?"

No, and no. I became an atheist over a process of many years, and long considered myself a deist after I lost my Christian faith, but still thought there HAD to be a God to explain how the universe got here. And during this whole time I read the Bible, and numerous religious texts from St. Augustine to religious writers still alive today, as well as the rightings of skeptics. And after reading all this stuff, and talking with lots of people having many different views, I came to my own conclusions. That's not indoctrination, that's education. The difference is that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

"Seriously, what part of this do you not get? Your Santa Claus analogy is not only complete bunk, it's offensive. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do you honestly believe that most Christians only believe in God because mommy and daddy told us to believe in God?"

In a word, yes. Oh it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the basic root of it. That's how indoctrination works. You are fed certain ideas, and then told not to question them. As a matter of fact, the BIBLE tells you not to question them — it tells you SPECIFICALLY not to question what you are told, and not to listen to anyone who tries to persuade you that you may be wrong (Matt. 4:7 Rom. 9:20 Col. 2:4. I Tim. 6:20-21. II Tim. 2:23-24. Titus 3:9-10), it goes on to tell you that no matter what evidence you may hear, it's false evidence and you shouldn't listen to it (see I Cor. 2:6-7. I Cor. 2:13-14. I Cor. 1:20-21. I Cor. 1:27. I Cor. 3:18-20. I Cor. 4:10) The Bible makes entertaining honest doubt a sin, and belief without evidence a virtue, and thus seeks to deflect critical examination of its claims. This is TEXTBOOK indoctrination — and it has the effect of getting a person so emotionally invested in their beliefs, that they then come to view any attack on those beliefs as an attack on THEM. That's why you find this offensive. The indoctrination worked, and now these beliefs are so deeply ingrained in you that you are incapable of examining them dispassionately and objectively; when they are challenged, you get angry and emotional and bitter.

Alright, now just stop a moment here and ask yourself then why are you and I having this exchange right now. I was responding to "Dick Nixon," and if I should have been "big enough" to let it go, why do you and several others here feel compelled to put YOUR two cents in, when you weren't even involved in the exchange at all to start with?

Because it's a weekend and we're all terribly bored.

Seriously, YOU'RE the only one taking this debate seriously. Notice that the only one here composing multiple 500 word essays is YOU.

I'm not saying this to be contrary or mean or anything like that. But if your admonition is to have ANY justice or weight to it at all, this has to be a two way street. It is scarcely just to criticize me for not being big enough to leave something alone when no one else here seems willing to leave it alone either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sorry son, but that's not how it works. The fact that other people fail to live up to certain standards does not somehow make it okay for you to ignore them.

In other words, the fact that Dick_Nixon doesn't want to let your silly Santa comparison go does not somehow give you the ethical carte blanche to go off on a rant against him. If you really

Again, before you characterize it as a diatribe, let me ask you to exercise what is called "the principle of charity" — basically just assuming your opponent is acting out of sincere and honest motives.

I'm sorry, are you really trying to pull the "principle of charity" card on us after comparing belief in God to belief in Santa Claus?

Sweet Jesus, boy, Are. You. Even. Hearing. Yourself?

This is hilarious. And you have the gall to accuse us of hypocrisy?

Besides, how does that prove anything? Just because we think your beliefs are total nonsense doesn't mean we question the sincerity of your beliefs. I've met tons of people in my lifetime who sincerely believed all sorts of nonsense. We call them "liberals".

Now exercising the principle of charity, what seems to you more likely, that I came here and expressed a strongly held opinion that a majority of posters here (being Christians) strongly disagreed with, and the following argument grew somewhat heated, or that I came in and deliberately goaded people into anger for the fun of it?

Wow, you must be new to the internet.

Seriously, people come here all the time just to goad people into anger for the fun of it.

I am perfectly willing to do this, and I am trying very sincerely to do it right now.

Okay, NOW I'm going to question your sincerity.

If you were really so willing to move on and let this drop you would not be here arguing with us. You would just LEAVE and stop responding to this thread altogether.

But of course, you WON'T do that. You CAN'T do that. Your pride won't let you do it.

Actually, I think my presentation here has been eminently rational.

You keep telling yourself that.

I outlined VERY clearly, I believe, why the evidence that you and other Christians accept as proof of Christianity is dubious at best (and I note that you have not answered those points and explained why I am wrong, and why such evidence is good evidence) and I really would like to know what you find irrational about that.

Actually several of us did exactly that way back when you first made your silly Santa comparison. You didn't respond.

I make no claim whatsoever to KNOW one way or the other.

Oh dear, here I go again, questioning your sincerity.

If you really believed this then you wouldn't be spending so much time here defending your atheism. If you don't know whether or not God exists then the proper response is to say "I don't know whether God exists" and move on. But that isn't what you did, now is it? You launched into a series of essays explaining why, in your opinion, God does not exist.

And really, if you were really sincere about this you wouldn't be an atheist in the first place. Again, the proper response when you don't know if God exists is to say "I don't know", not "I say God doesn't exist and here's a 500 word essay explaining why".

I haven't been trying to LECTURE anyone

Oh please. That's exactly what you've been doing.

If you didn't intend to lecture anyone you wouldn't be writing 500 word essays explaining how you are right and everyone else is completely wrong.

mightysamurai, you are living proof of everything I have said. You utterly refuse to display the principle of charity, even though the religion you are so energetically defending tells you in very specific terms to do just that, and you are responding emotionally, indicating very clearly that you have been so heavily indoctrinated that you cannot think about or argue about this subject rationally, and you accuse me of some offense or other in simply stating my arguments, even as you reserve the right to do exactly that yourself.

Now given that these beliefs of yours are so deeply ingrained, it's inevitable that you will take an attack on them personally. There's nothing I can do about that. There's no way to soften the blow. I find your beliefs irrational. If I tell you so, you are so emotionally invested in these beliefs you become offended.

But let's just say, purely for the sake of argument, that I am right. I'm not expecting you to concede this, but let's just say for the sake of argument that I am right and you are wrong, and consider that possibility purely hypothetically.

With that in mind, how CAN I express sincere doubt about what you believe, and then explain these doubts in such a way that you will NOT become emotional and respond out of emotion instead of reason? Is there ANY argument that a skeptic can make that will not provoke you to anger? And how do you expect to learn anything new if you are emotionally unwilling to consider opinions and arguments that challenge your beliefs?

I know I'm probably wasting my time with you, but take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about this:

Have I attacked YOU personally? Not your beliefs, but YOU? Have I called you an asshole, made negative assertions about your ancestry, told you to go boil your head, or threatened to beat you up if I ever see you on the street, etc. etc.?

No. What I have done is criticized THINGS YOU BELIEVE, that's all. And that, all by itself, has clearly been enough to work you up a high state of anger.

Ask yourself why that is.

Now everyone has a capacity to get a little irate when their beliefs are challenged; we tend to get emotionally invested in things we believe. But if your beliefs are rational, and if you have confidence in them, shouldn't you be able to examine them critically? If you can't, if anyone questioning or doubting these beliefs provokes you to anger, then I submit to you, you are not thinking rationally. You are thinking emotionally. If you are unwilling to examine your beliefs critically, and unable to think of them without becoming emotional, you might want to at least CONSIDER the possibility that your basis for believing what you believe may not be entirely rational.

As Oliver Cromwell said: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Wrong. I never said God and Santa are THE SAME, I said people start out believing them for similar reasons, and the two concepts have a characteristic in common — being mythical beings in whom people believe primarily because of early indoctrination. However there are numerous differences as well, and if I don't point those out, it's because I shouldn't have to point out the obvious. We're all adults here, aren't we?

You are so full of crap. You have said (repeatedly) that both God and Santa Claus are fictional beings. The defining element for both, for everyone alive, is their existence. To deny that is to say they are the exact same – nonexistent.

Babies are perfect? Really? How you get that I'll never know,

That's because you aren't allowed to procreate. Your family won't allow it with outsiders and the law won't allow it with your sister. So, you're kind of stuck.

and as for the the idea that the golden rectangle is perfect therefore God exists… I'll admit I've never heard that one before. The leap in logic is astounding. You do realize that it is a geometrical concept do you not, not a feature of the natural landscape?

Did you, even before you looked it up on wikiwhatever, know what it was? Do you understand its applications? Where it's found? Do research, then post.

I have. The point is that this "light" is not universal, which it ought to be if were hard evidence of something.

Why? Because YOU say so? Maybe not everyone was going to heaven and didn't see it. Maybe the true believers didn't need to see it. I don't have all the answers, unlike you pretend.

Holy cow! Talk about reversing the burden of proof.

Let me help you here – YOU are the one who said they were lying. Prove it.

Because his observation in that quote is absolutely 100% correct; it IS almost solely primitive peoples who accept supernatural claims and accounts of miracles.

Oh, look at you being an ass.

I never said that. However, he HAS deliberately misrepresented my arguments.

You might have been able to sell that had you not just backed up everything he said.

But I doubt very very much if it was that nakedly hostile, because it is not my nature to be so rude at the start of any discussion. I always try to use politeness until people stop using it to me; then I admittedly have no qualms about flaming people right back.

Yes, because going into a place where a particular people believe a particular thing and deriding their beliefs is the height of politeness. This word, "polite", does not mean what you think it means.

Don't even try that weak shit. You disagreed with someone, the argument got heated, and now you are practicing selective memory, and engaging in straw man mischaracterization of your opponent's actual arguments, and you get a sandy vagina when he won't sit still for having his position misrepresented.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 12:36:06

Heated? You? Please, you're not worth a drop of sweat. Again, I have to downgrade my opinion of you – you aren't similar to Vega, you ARE Vega; someone caught in a lie of their own making and yet not man enough to own up to it. You'll quibble over the meaning of the word "is" and deny that you meant how we took it, but you and I both know what your intention was. ESAD.

Clarification (I wish I could edit these posts): mightysamurai, the closest I have come to insulting you personally is pointing out how your behavior is at odds with your religion's precepts, and in doing so, suggesting that you are behaving both unreasonably, and hypocritically. But I point this out because you are, and because it is necessary to point this out to show that you are thinking emotionally, not rationally.

"That's because you aren't allowed to procreate. Your family won't allow it with outsiders and the law won't allow it with your sister. So, you're kind of stuck."

I may not be here insulting people personally, but others are not so reticent, I see. So much for "Christian charity" and "love thy neighbor."

Keep talking jasamc, you are proving my point for me.

…indicating very clearly that you have been so heavily indoctrinated that you cannot think about or argue about this subject rationally…

Mighty, may I? Irish, you're now officially being a dick.

…I find your beliefs irrational. If I tell you so, you are so emotionally invested in these beliefs you become offended.

And you wonder why people hate you? Because you walk into other people's houses and say they are dumb.

With that in mind, how CAN I express sincere doubt about what you believe, and then explain these doubts in such a way that you will NOT become emotional and respond out of emotion instead of reason?

You don't. If you opinion is wanted, we'll ask for it. Otherwise, STFU.

Have I attacked YOU personally? Not your beliefs, but YOU? Have I called you an asshole, made negative assertions about your ancestry, told you to go boil your head, or threatened to beat you up if I ever see you on the street, etc. etc.?

You have obviously never talked to a Christian. A Christian's beliefs is who they are.

But if your beliefs are rational, and if you have confidence in them, shouldn't you be able to examine them critically? If you can't, if anyone questioning or doubting these beliefs provokes you to anger, then I submit to you, you are not thinking rationally. You are thinking emotionally. If you are unwilling to examine your beliefs critically, and unable to think of them without becoming emotional, you might want to at least CONSIDER the possibility that your basis for believing what you believe may not be entirely rational.

As Oliver Cromwell said: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 13:57:28

This, again, is why you're a dick – who says Christians don't question their beliefs? Mother Theresa has a book full of questions and doubts. Everyone does. But it's something done internally, and no one, NO ONE needs an arrogant prick saying "You don't question it enough, or you'd be like I am – an unbeliever. If you still believe, you are 'primitive peoples'"

Man, I would hate to be your co-worker (normally, I would have said I would hate to be married to you, but you're obviously not married) – you're one of those who spends his time in another person's area, telling them how to do their job.

I may not be here insulting people personally, but others are not so reticent, I see. So much for "Christian charity" and "love thy neighbor."

Keep talking jasamc, you are proving my point for me.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 14:02:02

Oh, I'm not insulting you – I am just presenting my case. You shouldn't take offense; I'm just trying point out that most civilized people don't actually sleep with kin. If you weren't so primitive, you would stop doing that.

I haven't been trying to LECTURE anyone,

SantaFlatFoot

Bullshit. Every post you make you lecture us on how Christianity is a mythology.

You won't change anyone's mind here. Nixon will be nice and tell you this one final time. If you hate Christians, so be it. Just skip the novels and state your message. Getting sort of old to read your drivel.

I may not be here insulting people personally, but others are not so reticent, I see. So much for "Christian charity" and "love thy neighbor."

How do you know we are all Christian? Nice of you to lump us in the same pot. You seem bigoted. Hate JOOs as well?

Here again, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Hey, it's hardly my fault that your grasp of the English language is insufficient.

I manage to get along just fine with pithy one-liners. I don't start out writing 500 word essays.

No, merely highlighted your own unreasonableness and hypocrisy.

This argument might have more weight if you hadn't just tried to pull the "principle of charity" card on us after arguing for nearly 24 hours that belief in God is nothing but a childhood fantasy, just like Santa Claus.

Haven't you been paying attention? I WAS a religious person before.

Actually according to your own logic, you weren't. You were just "indoctrinated" by your parents into believing in God, right?

No, and no.

Denial does not an argument make.

You yourself said that the reason you are an atheist is because you read a bunch of atheist books and they convinced you God doesn't exist. That's indoctrination, no matter how you slice it.

I became an atheist over a process of many years

And that proves what? That you have long-term gullibility? Again, am I supposed to simply accept this claim of yours on pure blind faith?

You know, I've met loads of people who became devout Christians "over a process of many years" and after reading a multitude of writings by various religious and non-religious authors. Does that somehow make their claims more correct?

In a word, yes.

Oh. Well, thank you for admitting what a hypocrite you are, I guess.

You are fed certain ideas, and then told not to question them.

So atheists are the only rational people in the universe? Is that what you're saying?

Christ but you're an arrogant ass.

Here's a question, where is your evidence for this argument? You claim a lack of evidence for God proves religion is false. So where is your evidence that most people only believe in God because mommy and daddy told you to?

I don't think you have any evidence. I think this is yet another piece of arrogant supposition from someone who thinks anyone who disagrees with his beliefs is intellectually inferior.

As a matter of fact, the BIBLE tells you not to question them — it tells you SPECIFICALLY not to question what you are told, and not to listen to anyone who tries to persuade you that you may be wrong (Matt. 4:7 Rom. 9:20 Col. 2:4. I Tim. 6:20-21. II Tim. 2:23-24. Titus 3:9-10)

Oh for the love of…

I'm going to break my own rule because this particular piece of bullcrap deserves a detailed response.

NONE of the passages you just cited says anything like what you claim. Let's take each one individually:

Matthew 4:7

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'

Sounds pretty bad out of context, right? Of course if you put it into context it sounds significantly different. The passage you cited is from The Temptation of Jesus where Satan attempts to tempt Jesus to doubt God. Specifically, Satan asks Jesus to jump off a cliff to see if angels swoop down to save him. Jesus refused not because it's wrong to question God but because the test that was offered was extremely foolish. It would be like testing whether you can feel pain by shoving your head in a furnace. It was a rebuke to Satan, not a command to the followers of Christ.

Romans 9:20

20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "

This one sounds pretty bad too, right? Oh wait, here comes that pesky "context" stuff:

Romans 9:14-21

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, ?   "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, ?      and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

 19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Sounds a bit different now, doesn't it? Romans 9:20 is not a command not to question God, it's an explanation. God made man, and therefore God can reserve His mercy and His compassion for whomever He wishes. That's His right and your petty desires will not sway Him.

Colossians 2:4

4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.

I don't even need to provide context for this one. Simply reading this single passage proves you completely wrong. In Colossians 2:4 God warns His followers not to be "deceived" by "fine-sounding arguments". Now I ask you, how is that bad advice? Are you saying it's wrong to think critically and not be taken in by lurid prose and fancy speeches? Is being gullible a good thing now? I called you a moron before and I stand by it. It's quite clear you haven't read ANY of the passages you just cited. You just copy/pasted them off some atheist website so you could whip 'em out in a religious debate on another forum, didn't you?

I Timothy 6:20-21

20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. ?      Grace be with you.

Another one I don't even need to provide context for. This just further illustrates how ignorant and wrong you are, Flatfoot. Basically, all this passage says is "people who don't believe in God are wrong, don't listen to them". Obviously you disagree with that statement, but just because God tells His followers that atheism is wrong doesn't mean He's forbidding us from asking questions.

II Tim. 2:23-24

23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

I haven't the faintest idea how that proves your insipid point. I rather thought being kind to others and avoiding stupid people was pretty good advice. Though to be fair, I am here talking to you so I guess I have technically violated that last part. My bad.

Titus 3:9-10

9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

Yet again, I haven't the faintest idea how this proves your point, Flatfoot. Are you saying we shouldn't avoid foolish controversies? Are you saying we should pick fights with people over pointless minutiae? Are you saying being a divisive person is okay and should be encouraged? What?

So to recap, you sextuple fail at Christianity. It's patently obvious you haven't cracked open a Bible in your entire life, contrary to your earlier claims that you've spent "many years" studying Christianity and other religions. You don't know what Christians believe, you only know what your favorite atheist authors tell you we believe.

mightysamurai, you are living proof of everything I have said.

Funny, I was just about to say the same about you.

Clearly you've been fully indoctrinated by whatever atheist claptrap authors you bought to justify your pre-conceived opinions. Your stunning inability to properly express the arguments of those authors indicates that you're not intelligent enough to understand them and have simply accepted them without question or reflection. You claim to allegedly possess vast amounts of knowledge from years of studying religion, yet when you try to cite Biblical passages proving your so-called "point" you display an amazing LACK of knowledge about what the Bible actually says.

You're a massive hypocrite who simply refuses to listen to his own words. "Principle of charity"? Yeah right. You don't care about the "principle of charity". If you did you would drop your silly Santa comparison completely because it blatantly violates that very principle.

You're also an arrogant, short-sighted ass who thinks himself superior to everyone else. Witness the condescending remark you just made to me: "you have been so heavily indoctrinated that you cannot think about or argue about this subject rationally". Yeah, I'm sure saying that makes you feel so much better about yourself. Picturing me as a drooling idiot raging against things he doesn't understand no doubt makes it much easier to simply ignore what I'm saying rather than respond to it. Of course, pretending won't make it so.

You view yourself as intelligent, but you're not. You're a petty, shallow man who mindlessly parrots the viewpoints of people you agree with without bothering to examine them critically, then you have the balls to accuse your opponents of blindly accepting whatever they're told. You're an utter fraud who couldn't debate his way out of a room full of retards.

But let's just say, purely for the sake of argument, that I am right. I'm not expecting you to concede this, but let's just say for the sake of argument that I am right and you are wrong, and consider that possibility purely hypothetically.

With that in mind, how CAN I express sincere doubt about what you believe, and then explain these doubts in such a way that you will NOT become emotional and respond out of emotion instead of reason? Is there ANY argument that a skeptic can make that will not provoke you to anger? And how do you expect to learn anything new if you are emotionally unwilling to consider opinions and arguments that challenge your beliefs?

Well Flatfoot, let's think about this for a minute. You're a skeptic, so that by definition means you think I'm wrong. So how about just saying, "I think you're wrong"? I mean, did that just not occur to you or something? Actually I'm sure that did occur to you. But if you had done that then you wouldn't have been able to spend 500 words condescending to us and pontificating on why being an atheist makes you better than everyone else.

And yet again, you display your supreme arrogance by assuming that all of us have things to "learn" from you. Frankly, I haven't learned a damn thing from you. NOTHING you've said is in any way new to me. It's all the same mindless atheist claptrap I've seen a million times before on this blog and countless others.

Have I attacked YOU personally?

I don't know, does offensive stupidity count as a personal attack?

This is actually quite fascinating. Apparently you think you've got me "riled up" or something. Well I'll admit your blatant lies about the Bible was pretty irritating, but hardly enough to get me in "a high state of anger".

I guess that's just another of your glaring personal flaws. You're unable to comprehend the difference between anger and mockery.

But if your beliefs are rational, and if you have confidence in them, shouldn't you be able to examine them critically?

Gawd that is just priceless. The guy who swallows atheist talking points whole is trying to lecture me on critical thinking. Classic.

Alright, now just stop a moment here and ask yourself then why are you and I having this exchange right now. I was responding to "Dick Nixon," and if I should have been "big enough" to let it go, why do you and several others here feel compelled to put YOUR two cents in, when you weren't even involved in the exchange at all to start with?

I'm not saying this to be contrary or mean or anything like that. But if your admonition is to have ANY justice or weight to it at all, this has to be a two way street. It is scarcely just to criticize me for not being big enough to leave something alone when no one else here seems willing to leave it alone either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 12:48:45

Becuase Irish in your 1st post in response to Nixon, you painted ALL THEISTS as essentially children for finding faith. You've done so EVERY POST you've made about believers. EVERY SINGLE POST. Are we not to defend our faith? God does instruct to do so. So when you attacked ALL THEISTS, you asked to get gang tackled, PERIOD!

So next time you post, THINK, and leave your opinions at home when it comes to religion, unless it's a thread about relgion, or you're willing to respond to every person here that is willing to defend their faith.

The rest of your post is just disingenous since you're asking for courtesy that you yourself will not provide.

"This is actually quite fascinating. Apparently you think you've got me "riled up" or something."

You're now engaging in name-calling mightysamurai, clearly I DO have you riled up. Name-calling is not a hallmark of a reasonable debater, it's a hallmark of an angry one. You're not evaluating arguments rationally. And you did not arrive at the beliefs you hold through some rational process of inquiry wherein you evaluated the competing truth-claims of the world's major religions. You're a Christian because you were raised as one, or, if you came late to your faith, because you were raised in a Christian society and you still got indoctrinated with those particular beliefs. If you had been raised in Algeria or Turkey you'd be a Muslim. If you'd been raised in India you'd likely be Hindu. And you became emotionally invested in those beliefs, and now you become angry when someone attacks your particular sacred cow, and joining in the chorus of STFU when someone does it. Well sorry, no ideas are or ought to be immune from criticism.

So to recap, you sextuple fail at Christianity.

Oh wait, scratch that. It turns out Irishflatfoot duodecuple fails at Christianity. (That's twelve fails, for those who might be wondering.)

[The Bible] goes on to tell you that no matter what evidence you may hear, it's false evidence and you shouldn't listen to it (see I Cor. 2:6-7. I Cor. 2:13-14. I Cor. 1:20-21. I Cor. 1:27. I Cor. 3:18-20. I Cor. 4:10)

*sigh* Well, here we go again. Thus begins Irishflatfoot's Flaming Fail Parade:

I Cor. 2:6-7

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

And this proves your point…how exactly? Whether read in or out of context there is nothing in this passage that admonishes Christians never to listen to anyone who disagrees. What this passage actually says is that God's Word is eternal. It existed before we came to be and will continue after we cease to be. There is NOTHING here about not listening to anyone who questions the existence of God.

I Cor. 2:13-14

13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[a] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Yet again…how exactly does this prove your point? What were you expecting the Bible to say? "Hey guy, I know I'm the Supreme Being of the Universe and everything, but those dudes over there who claim I don't exist sure make some good points. You should go listen to them instead of me!"

I Cor. 1:20-21

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Again, your problem with this passage is…? Apparently you find it strangely objectionable that God would say atheism is wrong.

I Cor. 1:27

27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Another example of Irishflatfoot deliberately taking a passage out of context to make it mean something else.

I Cor. 1:26-27

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

Translation:

Jesus did not come to save only the wise or the influential or the noble-born. He came to save everyone. ALL are equal in the eyes of the Lord. This passage admonishes Christians against exactly what you are doing, Flatfoot. You think you're smarter than everyone and you think that makes you better than everyone too. Well I'm sure there has to be someone out there who could be considered dumber than you (though you'd have a helluva time finding him) but that doesn't make you "better".

I Cor. 3:18-20

18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[a]; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

Yet another Biblical passage that says the exact OPPOSITE of what Irishflatfoot thinks it says. 1 Corinthians 3:18-20 does NOT say that Christians should never listen to anyone who disagrees with them. What it actually says is that "wisdom" is relative. A person who thinks himself wise is foolish compared to God, because God is wiser than anyone. It's an admonishment against pride and arrogance (a lesson you would do well to learn, Flatfoot) not a prohibition against listening to naysayers.

Last one, and Irishflatfoot's batting 0-12 so far:

I Cor. 4:10

10We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored!

…That's it? That's your proof that the Bible commands Christians not to listen to anyone who disagrees with them? Paul makes an ironic comment on the treatment of the Apostles, therefore Christians should never listen to anyone who disagrees?

Be honest Flatfoot. Have you EVER read a Bible before? Like, ever in your entire life?

You're now engaging in name-calling mightysamurai

Yes, that called mockery.

You know what that word means, right?

Name-calling is not a hallmark of a reasonable debater, it's a hallmark of an angry one.

It's also a hallmark of mockery. It's a quick way of telling you what we think of you and your "facts". Since you are obviously incapable of acknowledging that you have been shown as a liar, and aren't willing to own up that you've been beaten, we have no use for you. Therefore, we mock you. Buttmunch.

And you did not arrive at the beliefs you hold through some rational process of inquiry wherein you evaluated the competing truth-claims of the world's major religions. You're a Christian because you were raised as one, or, if you came late to your faith, because you were raised in a Christian society and you still got indoctrinated with those particular beliefs.

And you know this how? Pretty presumptuous of you to assume such a thing – you have no clue what people go through to become a "Christian". Moreover, since there are a multitude of Christian faiths, each with their own requirements for acceptance, you show your ass by claiming that you know all of them well enough to make the above statement.

Dork.

If you had been raised in Algeria or Turkey you'd be a Muslim. If you'd been raised in India you'd likely be Hindu.

Yes, because there are no Christians there. I mean there's only 120,000 Christians in Turkey and 340,000 Christians in Algeria.

Well sorry, no ideas are or ought to be immune from criticism.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 15:34:08

And, yet again, you show yourself to be a horse's ass. If a neighbor has her child on stage during a kindergarten chorus recital, there is no need for you to comment on whether she's any good or not. If my wife is wearing an outfit, and you say that it makes her look fat or ugly or old, I will beat the hell out of you. In polite society, most people are aware of their location and adjust commentary and attitude accordingly. Of course, as a liberal, you don't believe in politeness or society, just a bunch of lawless animals, acting on their every impulse.

Be honest Flatfoot.

An impossibility. He's too married to the Vega doctrine.

Have you EVER read a Bible before? Like, ever in your entire life?

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-10-11 15:53:25

Hard to read one while it's on fire.

"Becuase Irish in your 1st post in response to Nixon, you painted ALL THEISTS as essentially children for finding faith."

And why do you find that insulting? According to Matthew 18:3, that is PRECISELY how you are SUPPOSED to be.

That's my whole point. The Bible explicitly characterizes blind faith — a childlike quality — as not just a virtue, but the very highest of virtues, the one single most important quality you have to have to get to heaven. It then goes on to characterize honest, skeptical doubt as sinful.

If you become offended at having someone point out to you that you are displaying that very childlike quality which you are, in fact, supposed to display as a good Christian…

Well, maybe that ought to tell you something.

"You've done so EVERY POST you've made about believers. EVERY SINGLE POST. Are we not to defend our faith? God does instruct to do so. So when you attacked ALL THEISTS, you asked to get gang tackled, PERIOD!"

By all means defend it. But it matters how you defend it. You aren't doing it rationally. Think back to what I said in reference to the NT, and the fact that all the evidence of these supposed eyewitness accounts of Christ's miracles comes from translations of discrepant and fragmentary copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek manuscripts, and the claims made in those manuscripts are very similar in character to claims made by religious writers and supposed eyewitnesses all over the world, right down to the present day. I have yet to see ANYONE here write me a rational refutation of those points. This is because you are not defending your faith rationally; you're just throwing a lot of invective at me.

"So next time you post, THINK, and leave your opinions at home when it comes to religion, unless it's a thread about relgion, or you're willing to respond to every person here that is willing to defend their faith."

At the risk of repeating myself, I was quite willing to leave my opinions at home (so to speak) when it comes to religion. But when called to answer for them, I will, and make no apologies therefore. So if I pick up a gauntlet that's thrown down in front of me, you have no just call to be angered.

"The rest of your post is just disingenous since you're asking for courtesy that you yourself will not provide."

On the contrary. I remind you, it's not I who has called someone "arrogant ass", and it's not I who has suggested that someone is here posting on this forum because the law prevents him from fornicating with his sister instead, and it's not I who is openly bragging about engaging in mockery. And everyone of these things is an emotional response, not a rational argument.

"It's also a hallmark of mockery.'

And why do you choose to respond with mockery instead of reasoned counterargument?

Simple: because you're angry.

And why do you choose to respond with mockery instead of reasoned counterargument?

Because you haven't provided a reasoned argument? All you've done so far is lie and prevaricate.

Simple: because you're angry.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 16:09:52

Oh, my. I hate to be the one to break this to you, boy, since you have obviously been very protected and coddled in your life, but…

…you aren't important enough to get angry over. You're pathetic, so some might pity you. You're ignorant, so some might ignore you. Me? I teach in a low income high school – I have to help kids who have serious disadvantages in life. Those disadvantages anger me: parents who don't care, drug dealers looking to hook their next strawberry, rappers who glorify a hedonistic and dangerous lifestyle. You? You're number #1,421 on my list of things that anger me. Right after slightly breezy days.

So, short version: you don't anger me. You're not worth anger. Or my pity. You're just a fun diversion while I watch the Patriots take on the Broncos.

Simple: because you're angry.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 16:09:52

Tell us more of the mythology of Santa Claus and how you base your worldview on a fat white guy who lives with midgets and deer. Fascinating.

<blockquote cite="'And why do you choose to respond with mockery instead of reasoned counterargument?'

Because you haven't provided a reasoned argument? All you've done so far is lie and prevaricate.">

It is huh? Alright. Let's examine this claim. We can start with what I posted a while back, and what I just recently pointed out that I have yet to get a reasoned response to. And let's break it down point by point to see where the lies and prevarications are. Point 'em out when you see 'em.

<blockquote cite="Christians believe in a suite of canonical miracles, including the virgin birth and literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.">

And the lie here is…?

<blockquote cite="They believe these things, when you get down to the origin of it, because these things were written down in a series of books, later collected and edited and translated into the New Testament books that Christians know and revere today.">

Is any of this a lie? Do you dispute that you have knowledge of the claims of eyewitnesses to Jesus' supposed miracles, the words of Jesus himself, the story of his resurrection, etc. because these things have been recorded in written form, and passed down in that form to the present day? Do you dispute that? And do you dispute that is is only because you have knowledge of them that you are able to believe in them? (You can't, after all, believe in something you aren't even aware of.)

<blockquote cite="But the problem with this is that first-hand accounts of miracles are extremely common, throughout ALL the religious literature of EVERY culture on earth that has a religious literature. In fact, such claims are still taking place today in the 21st century. Stories about yogis and mystics walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future are circulating right now, and in communities where the average levels of education, access to information, and skeptical doubt are far higher than we would expect of the inhabitants of first century Judea.">

Do you dispute that claims similar to those made on behalf of Jesus are also made on behalf of other religious figures, in other religious texts? Do you dispute that other, non-Christian figures commonly have had, and still have such miracles attributed to them?

<blockquote cite="In fact, as Sam Harris pointed out, every single one of Jesus’ alleged powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by vast numbers of eyewitnesses who believe that he is a living god. The man even claims to have been born of a virgin. Christians are asking me to believe the claim that miracle stories of the sort that today surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba – and do not even merit an hour on the Discovery Channel – are somehow supposed to become far more credible when set in the pre-scientific religious context of the 1st century Roman Empire, even though they weren’t written down until decades after their supposed occurrence, and even though these written accounts are known today only thorugh translations of discrepant and fragmentary copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek manuscripts. And it is on the basis of such evidence that you are asking me to believe this.">

Do you dispute that Sathya Sai Baba has people who claim that he has miraculous powers, and that they have seen him perform miracles? I don't ask whether you believe a single one of these claims, I merely ask whether or not you dispute that he has followers who make these claims on his behalf?

And do you dispute that the New Testament that you read today is in fact a translation of a number of ancient Greek texts, no original copies of which remain from the 1st century AD?

Do you dispute that Christians believe Jesus was born of a virgin, preached and performed miracles during his life, died via crucifixion to pay for the sins of humanity, arose bodily to heaven, where he remains to this day, and that he listens to and sometimes answers human prayers? Have I in any way mischaracterized Christian beliefs here? Even to the point of just exaggerating?

<blockquote cite="In the meantime, God/Jesus may or may not intervene in our world, as He pleases, curing the occasional end-stage cancer (or not), answering an especially earnest prayer for guidance (or not), consoling the bereaved (or not), through His perfectly wise and loving agency.">

Is there any mischaracterization here? Is any of this not consistent with mainstream Christian beliefs?

<blockquote cite="And finally, to top it all off, we are asked not to believe this rather incredible collection of claims, based on evidence if highly questionable provenanve (sic), but to accept that every member of our species, past and present, from Aristotle to Einstein, no matter what his or her terrestrial accomplishments, who honestly entertains sincere doubt that this is the single most important set truths ever revealed to humanity, will be condemned to be tortured in fire for all eternity.">

Do you dispute this? Is this not what we are told in Bible verses like John 14:6, John 3:16, Romans 6:23, Romans 10:9, and many, many other verses, that only by accepting Christ as your savior can you get to heaven? Good works won't do it. Living a moral life won't do it. Being a good husband and father won't do it. Inventing a cure for cancer won't do it. You have to believe Jesus is your savior and died for your sins. That and nothing else will get you to heaven. Is that not Christian doctrine? Help me out here, because I don't want to be accused of lying about this.

So tell me jasamc, enlighten me. Where are the lies and prevarications here? Because I'm not seeing them.

What I am seeing is someone who is not characterizing my arguments fairly or honestly.

Oh dear God…

Well so much for using the block quotes feature.

And why do you find that insulting? According to Matthew 18:3, that is PRECISELY how you are SUPPOSED to be.

Again with this lie?

Seriously Flatfoot, read the Bible.

It's obvious you've never read it before. Read it now and stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

And why do you choose to respond with mockery instead of reasoned counterargument?

Because I enjoy the whiny sounds you make when you get all "offended".

Oh dear God…

The hypocrisy in your use of this statement is terrifyingly large.

He tried to type Oh dear Santa, but since they're one and the same, he went for the shorter word.

"He tried to type Oh dear Santa, but since they're one and the same, he went for the shorter word."

Posted by jasamc

2009-10-11 19:41:04

Not even an ATTEMPT to address any of the points I just raised in that admittedly screwed up post. You don't even pretend to make the effort to defend your assertion that I only lie and prevaricate. You can't actually point to any specific lie. So you just join in the little true-believer circle jerk you've got going on with Dick Nixon and mightysamurai.

Not even an ATTEMPT to address any of the points I just raised in that admittedly screwed up post. You don't even pretend to make the effort to defend your assertion that I only lie and prevaricate. You can't actually point to any specific lie. So you just join in the little true-believer circle jerk you've got going on with Dick Nixon and mightysamurai.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 19:53:09

Okay, let's go through this bit by bit, shall we?

a) I didn't even attempt to read that goat rope of a post. When it looks like someone tossed a book into a blender, I give up; your post looks like someone tossed a book into a blender, then threw up in it.

b) I've already pointed out, repeatedly, where you've been caught in lies and word games. Look up there ^^

c) As was pointed out upthread, you are making assumptions as to our religious affiliations…it would help you to stop that when trying to debate in the future

d) You're still a dick

Not even an ATTEMPT to address any of the points I just raised in that admittedly screwed up post.

Sheesh. Now you're whining because we refuse to address your fucked up nightmare of a post?

I've seen five year olds that bitch and moan less than you.

Oh and BTW, we'll take the time to "address your points" when you take the time to address ours.

See here:

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-10-11 14:33:16

And here:

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-10-11 15:53:25

In those two posts I systematically Took. You. Apart. and showed how much of a liar you really are. I also said in both of those posts that you don't know the first thing about Christianity and I stand by that assertion. I say you know NOTHING about the Bible and your claims of having intensely studied Christianity is a complete and total lie. Thus far you have stubbornly refused to address either of these posts. You haven't even taken the time to deny the accusations I made against you. Absent any sort of response, I can only assume I was precisely correct and I've caught you in a lie.

. So you just join in the little true-believer circle jerk you've got going on with Dick Nixon and mightysamurai.

Posted by Irishflatfoot

2009-10-11 19:53:09

You have yet, YET, addressed my total refutation of half of the points you made in that novel you cut and pasted here months ago. Why not? Too chicken shit to admit Nixon took the basis for your non belief and shredded them like Master Nixon did documents (peace be upon him)? Fear, it is what is for supper, although Nixon just annhilated a 20 oz T Bone cooked to perfection over charcoal. Take than, AlGOre.

Have fun, my atheist bitch, for that is what you are. Do you have an address for Nixon to mail you a INTELLECTUAL BITCH OF NIXON tag? Urinate off, you no proof hillbilly. Come back when you google up some more "facts" for Nixon to shred.

Posted by jasamc

2009-10-11 19:41:04

Thats restaurant quality right there.

/golf clap

At the risk of repeating myself, I was quite willing to leave my opinions at home (so to speak) when it comes to religion.

Santaflatfeet

Yet your first post here months ago was in an attempt to prove God was a myth, based somehow on Santa Claus' ability to deliver toys in one night to all the good boys and girls worldwide. Another lie from SantaMan.

You know Irishflatfoot, if you were really willing to leave your opinions about religion at home (so to speak) then why don't you just go away?

Seriously, the only one making sure this debate continue (and I use the term "debate" very loosely here, since you've so far been smacked up and down this thread by several people including myself) is YOU. If you really want to drop this thing and just agree to disagree, the easiest way to do that is to just leave. Go find some other thread that interests you and comment on that instead. If Dick_Nixon or somebody else follows you there, simply refuse to reiterate this topic again or refuse to respond to him entirely.

Of course, you're NOT willing to leave well enough alone, are you? You DON'T WANT to stop lecturing us about atheism. Like so many atheists you are COMPELLED to keep droning on and on about how great atheism is and how stupid we all are for not realizing it. You CAN'T STAND the fact that we simply don't agree with your religious beliefs so you're quite literally FORCED to blather on endlessly in the vain hope that somehow you'll convince us to agree with you. You might as well have someone standing over you holding a gun to your head and commanding you to keep commenting, that's how deep your compulsion goes.

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me how wrong I am by simply leaving this thread behind and discontinuing this argument.

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-10-11 21:41:08

He won't. He wants the attention.