PDA

View Full Version : What's so Great about Christianity?



MrsSmith
09-12-2009, 09:43 AM
What's so great about Christianity? (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1596985178/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books)

Is Christianity obsolete? Can an intelligent, educated person really believe the Bible? Or do the atheists have it right? Has Christianity been disproven by science, debunked as a force for good, and discredited as a guide to morality?
Bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza (What's So Great About America) looks at Christianity with a questioning eye, but treats atheists with equal skepticism. The result is a book that will challenge the assumptions of both believers and doubters and affirm that there really is, indeed, something great about Christianity. D'Souza reveals:

*Why Christianity explains what modern science tells us about the universe and our origins--that matter was created out of nothing, that light preceded the sun--better than atheism does
*How Christianity created the framework for modern science, so that Christianity and science are not irreconcilable, but science and atheism might be
*Why the alleged sins of Christianity--the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair ("an atheist's fable")--are vastly overblown
*Why atheist regimes are responsible for the greatest mass murders of history
*Why evolution does not threaten Christian belief, but actually supports the "argument from design"
*Why atheists fear the Big Bang theory and the "anthropic principle" of the universe, which are keystones of modern astronomy and physics
*How Christianity explains consciousness and free will, which atheists have to deny
*Why ultimately you can't have Western civilization--and all we value from it--without the Christianity that gave it birth.

Provocative, enlightening, a twenty-first-century successor to C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity is the perfect book for the seeker, the skeptic, and the believer who wants to defend his faith.



Looks like a great book.

The Night Owl
09-12-2009, 11:02 AM
What's so great about Christianity? (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1596985178/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books)

Looks like a great book.

If you like Dinesh D'Souza, I recommend searching YouTube for video of various debates between him and Christopher Hitchens. D'Souza is very sharp and makes about the best argument which can be made in defense of faith and religion... which is to say that he resorts to trying to pass off agnosticism as faith.

Gingersnap
09-12-2009, 11:09 AM
What's so great about Christianity? (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1596985178/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books)


Looks like a great book.

I'll look for it - thanks! :)

FlaGator
09-12-2009, 01:25 PM
If you like Dinesh D'Souza, I recommend searching YouTube for video of various debates between him and Christopher Hitchens. D'Souza is very sharp and makes about the best argument which can be made in defense of faith and religion... which is to say that he resorts to trying to pass off agnosticism as faith.

Hitchens is entertaining but his arguments are old and weak. He has merely repackaged them with a level of hate and that was not used by previous atheistic debators.

wilbur
09-12-2009, 04:45 PM
If you like Dinesh D'Souza, I recommend searching YouTube for video of various debates between him and Christopher Hitchens. D'Souza is very sharp and makes about the best argument which can be made in defense of faith and religion... which is to say that he resorts to trying to pass off agnosticism as faith.

I'd actually have to disagree... Hitchens is good for a laugh, but I can't help but think that watching those two debate is like a contest to see who can talk the longest without addressing the topic, or who can commit the biggest and most fallacies. Hitchens isnt as bad, since he generally steers clear of rigorous logic and usually just argues against the aesthetics of religion (especially Christianity - that its not beautiful or good, that it "offends our deepest integrity, etc"), but Dinesh tries to play pretend at making logically rigorous cases for Christianity using piss poor design arguments and the like. He embarrasses himself in the process. The guy really is dumb.

Even Christians should cringe when watching the guy debate.... its bad.

FlaGator
09-12-2009, 05:16 PM
I'd actually have to disagree... Hitchens is good for a laugh, but I can't help but think that watching those two debate is like a contest to see who can talk the longest without addressing the topic, or who can commit the biggest and most fallacies. Hitchens isnt as bad, since he generally steers clear of rigorous logic and usually just argues against the aesthetics of religion (especially Christianity - that its not beautiful or good, that it "offends our deepest integrity, etc"), but Dinesh tries to play pretend at making logically rigorous cases for Christianity using piss poor design arguments and the like. He embarrasses himself in the process. The guy really is dumb.

Even Christians should cringe when watching the guy debate.... its bad.

You have addressed the real problem I have with Hitchens while watching him debate. He seems to not really answer direct questions but instead gives long speeches on topics he is comfortable with. I would really like to see debates against theologians like N.T. Wright or Ravi Zacharias. I find Hitchens entertaining but I don't see him as quality debater to represent the atheist point of view.

hampshirebrit
09-12-2009, 05:31 PM
Hitchens is entertaining but his arguments are old and weak. He has merely repackaged them with a level of hate and that was not used by previous atheistic debators.

Gotta disagree there... obviously partly based on our differing belief (or in my case, lack thereof).

But also I don't think Teh Hitch is arguing from a position of hate... at worst, he's coming from a position of contempt, contempt not so much for religion, but for the excessively religious, contempt being not quite the same thing as hate.

You're right, though, he is entertaining, very much so. Someone on CU once described Hitchens as "a guilty pleasure", can't remember who that was now. But no guilt for me ... mostly because I share the same viewpoints for the most part, and a lot to do with the way he makes his case. Almost makes me feel a bit proud to be a Brit.

As I recall, he more or less handed D'Souza a big can of whoopass in that debate.

Rockntractor
09-12-2009, 05:32 PM
I have listened to a lot of Ravi Zacharias he is excellent. There is a website you can download his stuff on mp3 free. I don't remember the site right now but I'll think of it.

hampshirebrit
09-12-2009, 06:21 PM
Not the D'Souza debate, but this one is vintage and my favourite. Hitchens on the subject of freedom of speech and where that freedom bumps up against religion.

Best to go here (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8785D5DA44499A8&search_query=hitchens+freedom+of+speach), and click "play all videos', and that way you will then get YT's spiffy nearly-seemless segment transition for this 4 parter,

Otherwise the one below will get you to pt.1 pix and clicks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bathe87kNFU&feature=PlayList&p=B8785D5DA44499A8&index=0&playnext=1

It's good stuff. About 20 minutes, well worth your attention.

Bubba Dawg
09-12-2009, 06:32 PM
I have listened to a lot of Ravi Zacharias he is excellent. There is a website you can download his stuff on mp3 free. I don't remember the site right now but I'll think of it.

I love sitar music. He was at Woodstock.

Bubba Dawg
09-12-2009, 06:34 PM
Kidding. As an apologist Zacharias is very engaging and is willing to answer, point for point, objections to religion in general and Christianity in particular.

wilbur
09-12-2009, 06:38 PM
This guy really nails it about D'Souza, I think. It might be tempting to dismiss this guy as just another raving atheist, but he certainly is not. I've followed his blog for a long time, and he's one of the most patient and fair minded persons I have seen, on either side of the fence - so its actually shocking to see him write like this; but Dinesh really is that crazy.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2004



One of the most vomit-inducing passages of DíSouzaís Whatís So Great About Christianity is this:



In sum, the death of Christianity must also mean the gradual extinction of values such as human dignity, the right against torture, and the rights of equal treatment asserted by women, minorities, and the poor. Do we want to give these up also? If we cherish the distinctive ideals of Western civilization, and believe as I do that they have enormously benefited our civilization and our world, then whatever our religious convictions, and even if we have none, we will not rashly try to hack at the religious roots from which they spring.


Dinesh thinks that only Western Christian culture has values of human dignity, a right against torture, and equal rights for women, minorities, and the poor. In one debate, Dinesh also said that Jesus invented the concept of compassion. Woah.

I see two possible explanations for this.

Perhaps Dinesh is just astonishingly ignorant and bigoted. Perhaps he has no knowledge whatever of other cultures. Perhaps he has no idea that human dignity, an aversion to torture, equal rights, and of course compassion can be found in many cultures around the world, including many that preceded Christianity (Jainism, Buddhism, etc.).

The Night Owl
09-12-2009, 06:43 PM
I'd actually have to disagree... Hitchens is good for a laugh, but I can't help but think that watching those two debate is like a contest to see who can talk the longest without addressing the topic, or who can commit the biggest and most fallacies. Hitchens isnt as bad, since he generally steers clear of rigorous logic and usually just argues against the aesthetics of religion (especially Christianity - that its not beautiful or good, that it "offends our deepest integrity, etc"), but Dinesh tries to play pretend at making logically rigorous cases for Christianity using piss poor design arguments and the like. He embarrasses himself in the process. The guy really is dumb.

Even Christians should cringe when watching the guy debate.... its bad.

Have you seen Dinesh D'Souza in more recent debates against Christopher Hitchens? He has gotten much better over the years. If he seems dumb to you it's probably because he has taken on the task of trying to make the unreasonable seem reasonable.

MrsSmith
09-12-2009, 09:53 PM
I'll look for it - thanks! :)

I haven't gotten very far reading it...we're babysitting our 2 month old granddaughter this weekend...but I've enjoyed it immensely so far. D'Souza seems to totally understand all the aspects of Christianity that have been lost on so many of our "educated" populace...and also the mindset of those that have been "educated" into total ignorance. If anyone judges him as "dumb," it would have to be simply due to their own complete lack of knowledge about this subject.

FlaGator
09-12-2009, 10:04 PM
Gotta disagree there... obviously partly based on our differing belief (or in my case, lack thereof).

But also I don't think Teh Hitch is arguing from a position of hate... at worst, he's coming from a position of contempt, contempt not so much for religion, but for the excessively religious, contempt being not quite the same thing as hate.

You're right, though, he is entertaining, very much so. Someone on CU once described Hitchens as "a guilty pleasure", can't remember who that was now. But no guilt for me ... mostly because I share the same viewpoints for the most part, and a lot to do with the way he makes his case. Almost makes me feel a bit proud to be a Brit.

As I recall, he more or less handed D'Souza a big can of whoopass in that debate.

He has a lot of hate in his sarcasm. Being on the receiving end of his "humor" makes me a bit more sensitive to it I guess. Also, I don't see where he actually addressed many of the questions D'Souza prompted him with. The same can be said of D'Souza so I wouldn't declare either one a winner. Both just orated on aspects of the subject they were most comfortable with and avoided those area's where they felt weak.

AmPat
09-12-2009, 11:46 PM
I have listened to a lot of Ravi Zacharias he is excellent. There is a website you can download his stuff on mp3 free. I don't remember the site right now but I'll think of it.

http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.aspx#563

djones520
09-12-2009, 11:54 PM
"Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."
Dinesh D'Souza in What's So Great About Christianity

Fuck you Dinesh.

That is all.

The Night Owl
09-13-2009, 11:57 AM
I haven't gotten very far reading it...we're babysitting our 2 month old granddaughter this weekend...but I've enjoyed it immensely so far. D'Souza seems to totally understand all the aspects of Christianity that have been lost on so many of our "educated" populace...and also the mindset of those that have been "educated" into total ignorance. If anyone judges him as "dumb," it would have to be simply due to their own complete lack of knowledge about this subject.

Hey, if you like Dinesh D'Souza, you'll probably love Jay Richards and Douglas Wilson...

http://www.neutralunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60322

http://www.collisionmovie.com

The Night Owl
09-13-2009, 12:03 PM
Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism.

Hmm. So, believing in Zeus is motivated by reason?

wilbur
09-13-2009, 02:35 PM
He has a lot of hate in his sarcasm. Being on the receiving end of his "humor" makes me a bit more sensitive to it I guess. Also, I don't see where he actually addressed many of the questions D'Souza prompted him with. The same can be said of D'Souza so I wouldn't declare either one a winner. Both just orated on aspects of the subject they were most comfortable with and avoided those area's where they felt weak.

I'm not really sure if I would characterize it as "Hate" as it is usually used today... but he certainly makes no bones about describing religion as something for which we should be thankful is not true.... that's where Hitchens is the strongest; when he explains with wit and eloquence why we should celebrate the fact that our eternal fate isn't determined by the brutal immature tyrant, the ravenous and insatiable glutton for praise and worship, that is Yahweh... or even worse, Allah... or any other god man has invented - its something most are afraid to say, but Hitchens does it forcefully, and eloquently.

But obviously, one isn't going to like it much if one disagrees.

MrsSmith
09-13-2009, 03:21 PM
But obviously, one isn't going to like it much if one disagrees.

One can only "like it" for a few years. Then one meets Him...one way or the other.

wilbur
09-13-2009, 03:48 PM
One can only "like it" for a few years. Then one meets Him...one way or the other.

Doubtful.

AmPat
09-13-2009, 05:22 PM
Doubtful.

Over 500 eye witnesses would disagree with you.

movie buff
09-13-2009, 05:48 PM
Sounds like a great read. I'll need to look for it.

Rockntractor
09-13-2009, 09:05 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/thesignanimated_2.gif?t=1252890277

Goldwater
09-13-2009, 09:13 PM
Over 500 eye witnesses would disagree with you.

Are we talking about Jesus? Eye witnesses... really?

Theres lots of people who claim they've been anal probed by aliens too, doesn't mean thats evidence.

AmPat
09-13-2009, 09:17 PM
Are we talking about Jesus? Eye witnesses... really?

Theres lots of people who claim they've been anal probed by aliens too, doesn't mean thats evidence.

Yep, it's in a little know publication called the Bible. Sounds like you are one of those betting your eternity on it. I'll pray for you.

Goldwater
09-13-2009, 09:21 PM
Yep, it's in a little know publication called the Bible. Sounds like you are one of those betting your eternity on it. I'll pray for you.

Remember to take your opium so you see him for me then.

wilbur
09-13-2009, 09:22 PM
Yep, it's in a little know publication called the Bible. Sounds like you are one of those betting your eternity on it. I'll pray for you.

Actually, you have the testimony of one man... not 500.... or do you have a list of names?

Too bad none of those other 500 bothered to write any of it down. Its almost like it never happened.

Goldwater
09-13-2009, 09:25 PM
Actually, you have the testimony of one man... not 500.... or do you have a list of names?

Too bad none of those other 500 bothered to write any of it down. Its almost like it never happened.

I didn't realize he was referencing The Bible, I thought he meant eye witnesses all over the world who claim to have seen Jesus or something, I do not believe in anything at this time, God or no God.

AmPat
09-13-2009, 09:37 PM
Actually, you have the testimony of one man... not 500.... or do you have a list of names?

Too bad none of those other 500 bothered to write any of it down. Its almost like it never happened.

Have you been published? Apparently the ones who saw this were supposed to commission a scribe to record their memoirs? Remember that reading and writing wasn't pervasive then. Even now, I suspect that a smaller percentage of people publish and there are certainly more literate people nw than then.

The Bible references these witnesses," some of them still living" at the time Paul was preaching. None of them refuted Paul's written testimony even though they could have made a public spectacle and fool of him. None of the established, PREDOMINANT religion questioned it at the time. Why not? Where was the ridicule? Where were his detractors? Why didn't one (1), just one of the 500 challenge Paul?

I realize I won't change your beliefs, that's not my job. Why don't you dig into it deeper. CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, and many others started out as entrenched atheists intent on proving Jesus Christ wrong. They came away convinced that Jesus was in fact who he claimed he was, the Messiah. Don't be scared, it could be an eternal blessing to you.

wilbur
09-13-2009, 09:50 PM
The Bible references these witnesses," some of them still living" at the time Paul was preaching. None of them refuted Paul's written testimony even though they could have made a public spectacle and fool of him. None of the established, PREDOMINANT religion questioned it at the time. Why not? Where was the ridicule? Where were his detractors? Why didn't one (1), just one of the 500 challenge Paul?


The obvious answer is that if 500 witnesses did not exist, then there would be no one to challenge him, would there? As for detractors... well.. you have heard of the Jews havent you?



I realize I won't change your beliefs, that's not my job. Why don't you dig into it deeper. CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, and many others started out as entrenched atheists intent on proving Jesus Christ wrong. They came away convinced that Jesus was in fact who he claimed he was, the Messiah. Don't be scared, it could be an eternal blessing to you.

I've read Lewis, and Strobel... While Lewis writes as a master of the writing craft should... he's hardly presented any seriously challenging arguments. As for Strobel... well... he's a joke. If I want a challenge... I'll read Craig, Plantinga or Swinburne.

The Night Owl
09-13-2009, 10:57 PM
I've read Lewis, and Strobel... While Lewis writes as a master of the writing craft should... he's hardly presented any seriously challenging arguments. As for Strobel... well... he's a joke. If I want a challenge... I'll read Craig, Plantinga or Swinburne.

Speaking of C.S. Lewis, here is Christopher Hitchens at his very finest talking about Lewis at what could have been his very finest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlhgFILnDRw

wilbur
09-13-2009, 11:23 PM
Speaking of C.S. Lewis, here is Christopher Hitchens at his very finest talking about Lewis at what could have been his very finest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlhgFILnDRw

Ahh, thats good. When the Hitch is on, he's on....

Rockntractor
09-13-2009, 11:27 PM
Have you been published? Apparently the ones who saw this were supposed to commission a scribe to record their memoirs? Remember that reading and writing wasn't pervasive then. Even now, I suspect that a smaller percentage of people publish and there are certainly more literate people nw than then.

The Bible references these witnesses," some of them still living" at the time Paul was preaching. None of them refuted Paul's written testimony even though they could have made a public spectacle and fool of him. None of the established, PREDOMINANT religion questioned it at the time. Why not? Where was the ridicule? Where were his detractors? Why didn't one (1), just one of the 500 challenge Paul?

I realize I won't change your beliefs, that's not my job. Why don't you dig into it deeper. CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, and many others started out as entrenched atheists intent on proving Jesus Christ wrong. They came away convinced that Jesus was in fact who he claimed he was, the Messiah. Don't be scared, it could be an eternal blessing to you.
If Wilbur went to Heaven he would put God to sleep and the Universe would fall apart!

hampshirebrit
09-18-2009, 02:46 PM
Fuck you Dinesh.

That is all.
Now that's hate for ya ... But given what D'Souza said and the ignorance in which he said it, nothing but deserved.

hampshirebrit
09-18-2009, 03:13 PM
Fuck you Dinesh.

That is all.


Over 500 eye witnesses would disagree with you.

A dead eyewitness who forgot to write his sightings down is as much use as someone who leaves you his fortune but forgot to include you in his will ... more useless than a chocolate teapot, in fact, since there is still some enjoyment to be had from the latter.

No less so for there being 500 of them.

MrsSmith
09-18-2009, 11:18 PM
It almost looks as though our "open-minded" atheists are afraid to read this book...just like they seemed to be afraid of the Josh McDowell book, "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict." I guess I don't blame you, guys...it would be pretty scary to figure out how wrong you are. :cool:

wilbur
09-19-2009, 12:08 AM
It almost looks as though our "open-minded" atheists are afraid to read this book...just like they seemed to be afraid of the Josh McDowell book, "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict." I guess I don't blame you, guys...it would be pretty scary to figure out how wrong you are. :cool:

Project much? When have you ever read a piece of philosophy or literature from an atheist perspective? I actually read apologetics all the time... which is why I can tell you Dinesh doesn't even qualify to be included in the bargain basement of Christian apologetics.

AmPat
09-19-2009, 12:10 AM
A dead eyewitness who forgot to write his sightings down is as much use as someone who leaves you his fortune but forgot to include you in his will ... more useless than a chocolate teapot, in fact, since there is still some enjoyment to be had from the latter.

No less so for there being 500 of them.

You meatheads still don't get it. The eyewitnesses were still alive when Paul was preaching IN THE SYNAGOGUES! Get it? Or is that too nuanced for your superior minds? These people could have refuted Paul's testimony first hand----------They did not. To answer that because they didn't write it down is proof it isn't true is absurd. Many things were recorded later that we don't question. Why even your religion, you know, the one were you swear that we came from monkeys which came from slimy ooze which came from nothing? Who recorded that? Oh, somebody millions of years later.:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
09-19-2009, 12:20 AM
Project much? When have you ever read a piece of philosophy or literature from an atheist perspective? I actually read apologetics all the time... which is why I can tell you Dinesh doesn't even qualify to be included in the bargain basement of Christian apologetics.

She asked you to read Josh McDowell Wilbur. JOSH McDOWELL!

djones520
09-19-2009, 12:27 AM
It almost looks as though our "open-minded" atheists are afraid to read this book...just like they seemed to be afraid of the Josh McDowell book, "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict." I guess I don't blame you, guys...it would be pretty scary to figure out how wrong you are. :cool:

Why should I read a book written by an asshole, who is quick to label me offensively, but obviously has no clue what he's talking about? If you agree with that qoute you've got in your sig, then apply my previous post to yourself as well.

wilbur
09-19-2009, 06:00 PM
You meatheads still don't get it. The eyewitnesses were still alive when Paul was preaching IN THE SYNAGOGUES! Get it? Or is that too nuanced for your superior minds? These people could have refuted Paul's testimony first hand----------They did not. To answer that because they didn't write it down is proof it isn't true is absurd.


I find it a little contradictory that on one hand you say the silence of the "500 eye witnesses" should not lead one to believe that they never existed... then on the other hand, you point to the alleged silence of detractors as evidence that they didn't exist or couldn't refute Paul. Sort it out.

With that in mind, its pretty clear the explanation you (and Strobel) offer is nothing more than a just-so story... an imaginative hypothesis for which there is no evidence... in the end, the existence of the 500 is just as historically questionable and uncertain as the resurrection itself. Appealing to the 500 helps the case for Christianity... not at all.

Then consider the fact that we could probably scrounge up 500 eye witnesses who would testify that they saw Elvis after his death... and you'll see its still likely to be insufficient even if you can reasonably prove they existed.



Many things were recorded later that we don't question. Why even your religion, you know, the one were you swear that we came from monkeys which came from slimy ooze which came from nothing? Who recorded that? Oh, somebody millions of years later.:rolleyes:

"People" didn't record the evidence for evolution... people observed it. Its tangible stuff that exists - fossils, genes, etc - not like the phantom 500.

The Night Owl
09-19-2009, 08:42 PM
The most recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza...

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheWorldAlign#play/uploads

MrsSmith
09-19-2009, 08:52 PM
Project much? When have you ever read a piece of philosophy or literature from an atheist perspective? I actually read apologetics all the time... which is why I can tell you Dinesh doesn't even qualify to be included in the bargain basement of Christian apologetics.

Until 8 years ago, that was all I had read. Then I educated myself. :D

Seriously, I don't blame you guys for not reading it. It's very uncomfortable to read things that poke holes in your faith...when they actually poke holes, that is. Atheist stuff is kind of fun, now, because they are so often completely blind to the amount of faith it takes to believe there is no God. :D

MrsSmith
09-19-2009, 08:59 PM
You meatheads still don't get it. The eyewitnesses were still alive when Paul was preaching IN THE SYNAGOGUES! Get it? Or is that too nuanced for your superior minds? These people could have refuted Paul's testimony first hand----------They did not. To answer that because they didn't write it down is proof it isn't true is absurd. Many things were recorded later that we don't question. Why even your religion, you know, the one were you swear that we came from monkeys which came from slimy ooze which came from nothing? Who recorded that? Oh, somebody millions of years later.:rolleyes:

There were WAY more than 500 witnesses to Christ. The 500 were only the ones that actually saw Him ascend. There were thousands and thousands of witnesses that saw Christ...many that believed in Him, and many that did not.


I really loved wilbur's "educated" statement about ONE eyewitness. Even if you only count the ones preserved in the New Testament, there are seven published (and peer reviewed) witnesses...and they name far more than that.

It's quite funny that no one in Jesus time tried to deny He existed. The most they managed was to lie about the body being stolen. Why would anyone steal - or lie - about some nonexistant body? :D

wilbur
09-19-2009, 09:15 PM
Until 8 years ago, that was all I had read. Then I educated myself. :D

Seriously, I don't blame you guys for not reading it.

First off, I never said I haven't read it, or said I would never read it - in fact, as inept as Dinesh seems to be, his books are on my list to read (though down a ways). If for no other reason, because he is one of the more popular Christian advocates and authors out there, and it would be best to be familiar with what he writes - but as open as I try to keep my mind about such things.... based on his debates, and op-ed pieces, I don't suspect it will that worthwhile an endeavor.




It's very uncomfortable to read things that poke holes in your faith...when they actually poke holes, that is. Atheist stuff is kind of fun, now, because they are so often completely blind to the amount of faith it takes to believe there is no God. :D

On the contrary, I get exhilarated when I find new challenging arguments to examine, no matter what the subject - I actually like seeing challenging arguments for Christianity - but there are very few. And in every attempt I have seen Dinesh make to argue for Christianity, or even the mere existence of God, he has been a severe disappointment.

fellfromgrace
09-19-2009, 09:34 PM
Thought this was the Conservative Underground... but I have been flamed by a moderator, and he/she closed a topic after personal allegations against me. I was hoping this was a soapbox and discussion for true Conservative thought... a' la Buckley, Rand, and Goldwater. But every time I post a comment that defends personal liberty, I get flamed by the Christian Coalition coming out of the woodwork. I presume my last sin, was stating that federal officials, including the President, take an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"... not the people of the United States... under the presumption that if our officials defend my rights, I am more than capable of defending myself. And suggesting that the patriot act, and other actions after 9/11 (namely the NSA wiretap) are actually contrary to true conservatism. When did true conservatives start turning against limited government and control... and turn toward activism toward the inverse of progressivism? Flip-side of the same coin? Perhaps it should be the Neo-Con Underground.

Rockntractor
09-19-2009, 09:35 PM
Thought this was the Conservative Underground... but I have been flamed by a moderator, and he/she closed a topic after personal allegations against me. I was hoping this was a soapbox and discussion for true Conservative thought... a' la Buckley, Rand, and Goldwater. But every time I post a comment that defends personal liberty, I get flamed by the Christian Coalition coming out of the woodwork. I presume my last sin, was stating that federal officials, including the President, take an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"... not the people of the United States... under the presumption that if our officials defend my rights, I am more than capable of defending myself. And suggesting that the patriot act, and other actions after 9/11 (namely the NSA wiretap) are actually contrary to true conservatism. When did true conservatives start turning against limited government and control... and turn toward activism toward the inverse of progressivism? Flip-side of the same coin? Perhaps it should be the Neo-Con Underground.
Get over yourself!

djones520
09-19-2009, 09:41 PM
Thought this was the Conservative Underground... but I have been flamed by a moderator, and he/she closed a topic after personal allegations against me. I was hoping this was a soapbox and discussion for true Conservative thought... a' la Buckley, Rand, and Goldwater. But every time I post a comment that defends personal liberty, I get flamed by the Christian Coalition coming out of the woodwork. I presume my last sin, was stating that federal officials, including the President, take an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"... not the people of the United States... under the presumption that if our officials defend my rights, I am more than capable of defending myself. And suggesting that the patriot act, and other actions after 9/11 (namely the NSA wiretap) are actually contrary to true conservatism. When did true conservatives start turning against limited government and control... and turn toward activism toward the inverse of progressivism? Flip-side of the same coin? Perhaps it should be the Neo-Con Underground.

You have two posts. What the hell are you talking about?

Rockntractor
09-19-2009, 09:42 PM
You have two posts. What the hell are you talking about?

This is obviously another one of our reincarnations!

fellfromgrace
09-19-2009, 09:43 PM
Hmmm... intelligent reply.. Thanks for the clarification. Simply confirms my thoughts. Was sincerely hoping for an intelligent discussion of true Conservative thought. Indeed, if that is the best we get here. I truly am in the wrong place.

Rockntractor
09-19-2009, 09:44 PM
Hmmm... intelligent reply.. Thanks for the clarification. Simply confirms my thoughts. Was sincerely hoping for an intelligent discussion of true Conservative thought. Indeed, if that is the best we get here. I truly am in the wrong place.

Bye! Pick up some more scotch on your way home!

djones520
09-19-2009, 09:45 PM
Hmmm... intelligent reply.. Thanks for the clarification. Simply confirms my thoughts. Was sincerely hoping for an intelligent discussion of true Conservative thought. Indeed, if that is the best we get here. I truly am in the wrong place.

You're right.

http://hiapr.org/yabb/Attachments/whiner.jpg

fellfromgrace
09-19-2009, 09:47 PM
Actually I don't drink, thank you. I have two posts, I have posted six. And if one could direct me to a real discussion of where we feel we are going as an ideology, as opposed to a theology, I would be most appreciative.

Rockntractor
09-19-2009, 09:48 PM
Actually I don't drink, thank you. I have two posts, I have posted six. And if one could direct me to a real discussion of where we feel we are going as an ideology, as opposed to a theology, I would be most appreciative.

Go to DU they have a pizza with your name on it waiting for you!

fellfromgrace
09-19-2009, 09:51 PM
Thank you for your insights... I presume this humble and intellectual thought process explains why we are losing power and our country at each election.

SarasotaRepub
09-19-2009, 09:51 PM
Thought this was the Conservative Underground... but I have been flamed by a moderator, and he/she closed a topic after personal allegations against me. I was hoping this was a soapbox and discussion for true Conservative thought... a' la Buckley, Rand, and Goldwater. But every time I post a comment that defends personal liberty, I get flamed by the Christian Coalition coming out of the woodwork. I presume my last sin, was stating that federal officials, including the President, take an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"... not the people of the United States... under the presumption that if our officials defend my rights, I am more than capable of defending myself. And suggesting that the patriot act, and other actions after 9/11 (namely the NSA wiretap) are actually contrary to true conservatism. When did true conservatives start turning against limited government and control... and turn toward activism toward the inverse of progressivism? Flip-side of the same coin? Perhaps it should be the Neo-Con Underground.


Good night CW. :D

Rockntractor
09-19-2009, 09:54 PM
I'm just a mean ole hick!

SaintLouieWoman
09-19-2009, 10:04 PM
I'm just a mean ole hick!

Hicks are nice people, salt of the earth, a badge of honor. :p

The Night Owl
09-19-2009, 10:09 PM
There were WAY more than 500 witnesses to Christ. The 500 were only the ones that actually saw Him ascend. There were thousands and thousands of witnesses that saw Christ...many that believed in Him, and many that did not.

Testimony is a kind of evidence but what it's evidence of is sometimes difficult to know. For instance, thousands of people claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrial visitors to Earth. Is their testimony evidence of extraterrestrial visitation or is it evidence of delusional thinking? We don't really know but I think the more likely possibility is obvious.

SarasotaRepub
09-19-2009, 10:20 PM
Testimony is a kind of evidence but what it's evidence of is sometimes difficult to know. For instance, thousands of people claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrial visitors to Earth. Is their testimony evidence of extraterrestrial visitation or is it evidence of delusional thinking? We don't really know but I think the more likely possibility is obvious.


Hey you racist...watch it. Stop dissing Aliens. :p:D

The Night Owl
09-19-2009, 10:42 PM
Hey you racist...watch it. Stop dissing Aliens. :p:D

It's not a race thing. I just can't abide the rectal probing the aliens insist on.

FlaGator
09-19-2009, 10:55 PM
It's not a race thing. I just can't abide the the rectal probing the aliens insist on.

Looking for love in all the wrong places

hampshirebrit
09-20-2009, 11:51 AM
Until 8 years ago, that was all I had read. Then I educated myself. :D

Seriously, I don't blame you guys for not reading it. It's very uncomfortable to read things that poke holes in your faith...when they actually poke holes, that is. Atheist stuff is kind of fun, now, because they are so often completely blind to the amount of faith it takes to believe there is no God. :D

Firstly, you're trying (as the more religiously inclined often do), to represent as "fact" that atheism is a faith. Here you're getting very confused over the amount of effort it would take you not to believe with the amount of effort it might take me.

Atheism is the lack of faith, not a faith in itself. It takes no effort at all for me to be atheist. I was not made so as to believe, so for me it would take a huge amount of effort to start believing.

I shall read your book choice, and have seen D'Souza debate Hitch as well as reading some of his on-line shorter works. Based on what I have seen so far, although obviously a smart guy, he will have to do better than that to change my view.

Secondly, you yourself are an atheist, since you do not believe in Thor, Zeus, Lord Krishna or Lord Ganesh, the last two being still worshipped by one billion people, probably more.

How much effort does your atheism cost you, regarding these four deities? I'm guessing not a great deal. Am I right here?

The difference between our atheism is that we disagree on the number of gods that exist ... I believe in exactly one less than you do.

The Night Owl
09-20-2009, 01:04 PM
How much effort does your atheism cost you, regarding these four deities? I'm guessing not a great deal. Am I right here?



A more interesting question for Mrs. Smith is... how much does her theism cost her? My guess is very little.

I suspect that most believers are more like agnostics. They say they believe only because doing so has no real cost associated with it... but they don't really believe. If believing were a risky proposition, in the same way it was for Francis of Assisi when he travelled to Egypt, then believers would be as scarce as atheists.

hampshirebrit
09-20-2009, 02:07 PM
A more interesting question for Mrs. Smith is... how much does her theism cost her? My guess is very little.

I suspect that most believers are more like agnostics. They say they believe only because doing so has no real cost associated with it... but they don't really believe. If believing were a risky proposition, in the same way it was for Francis of Assisi when he travelled to Egypt, then believers would be as scarce as atheists.

Well, you could rework that to say that most atheists are more like agnostics as well. It's apparently quite a long curve from agnostic to atheist for some folks.

Anyway, I am certain that Mrs Smith is no agnostic. She is completely sure in her beliefs.

And I respect her for that, at least in the strength of her belief in, many ways, and now and then, I even find myself feeling a bit of envy for someone who habitually has that kind of certainty, that complete surety of a good outcome at the end.

I wish it was so, wish life was like that, but I just cannot accept intellectually that it is so.