Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Will: ‘I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist’
Daily Caller ^ | 9:10 PM 05/03/2014 | Jamie Weinstein

Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai

Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]

“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”

“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: atheist; fakeconservative; georgefwill; georgewill; homosexualagenda; libertarians; rino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 581-583 next last
To: GunRunner
Whereas the believer claims not only to KNOW there's a God, but which God is the real one. Not only that, they know the mind of God; they know what he wants. They know his plan, or at least claim they know he has a plan. They know his Son, they know his books. In fact, the believer actually claims to know the Creator on a personal level.

Well, when they create God in their own image, it's pretty easy.

421 posted on 05/06/2014 2:55:42 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

Those are characterizations. That’s as intellectually dishonest as characterizing all atheists as socialistic/communistic, with all due respect.


422 posted on 05/06/2014 2:56:13 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

No, not “historical fact”. Unless the historians have time machines? It’s historical conjecture, if not outright revisionism.


423 posted on 05/06/2014 2:57:21 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

That’s funny. Nowhere in the Koran does it say that Allah and mankind share the same image or form. I thought you read the Koran?


424 posted on 05/06/2014 2:58:11 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

I wouldn’t be worried about lying to the Nazis. But a lie is a lie.


425 posted on 05/06/2014 3:07:37 PM PDT by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

“I recognize the real world reasons for acting in a moral way.”

What are they?


426 posted on 05/06/2014 3:08:42 PM PDT by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

You denigrate your own “point” now (whatever it is) with invective and argumentum ad hominem. It’s crystal clear that “boiling beef/goat in milk” is not the same as the specific act of boiling a baby goat in it’s own mother’s milk—in context, that was an act associated with idolatry of the time.

You do not become “right about” anything by asserting the absence fallacy. Never mind your being deliberately mendacious about the scriptures not saying “a word against rape” when it clearly does.

BTW, what does any of this have to do with George Will? Surely you are not presenting yourself as representative of Mr. Will’s personality.


427 posted on 05/06/2014 3:10:47 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

There is less evidence that anything is setup your way.


428 posted on 05/06/2014 3:19:29 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Do you believe that consciousness exists or not?
It’s a simple question.

<><><><>

Yes.


429 posted on 05/06/2014 3:44:11 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Nonsense. It was a list of foods that were permitted and not permitted. Which was apparently, far, far more important than squeezing in a sentence or two about rape. Why? Because that’s the Middle East. That’s them then and that’s then now. To take them as your guide is as foolish as looking to the Mayan calendar for signs as to the end of time.


430 posted on 05/06/2014 4:25:15 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
That’s funny. Nowhere in the Koran does it say that Allah and mankind share the same image or form. I thought you read the Koran?

It doesn't have to: they claim descent from Abraham, therefore what Abraham's God has already said doesn't need to be said again. But like you, they choose what they accept and what they don't accept, and interpret it to please themselves.

431 posted on 05/06/2014 4:27:26 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

Yes it does have to. Claims of descent from Abraham does not mean adhering to the same ideology that was developing from Abraham. The descendants of Esau (Abraham’s firstborn grandson from Isaac) certainly did not; nor did the descendants of Ishmael, who most Arabs claim descent from.


432 posted on 05/06/2014 4:30:20 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

That’s your opinion. Several billion Muslims already consider the matter settled. And it’s bizarre that you find arguing about the Koran not describing something already covered by the OT more important than any holy book of morals outlining clearly and specifically that raping a child, a young, unbetrothed girl, a slave, your wife, or a widow utterly unworthy of mention. But it says a great deal about you.


433 posted on 05/06/2014 4:34:51 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

Thanks for more admission of not reading the Bible. The injunction of not boiling kid goats in their own mother’s milk has nothing to do with the list of clean and unclean animals, especially since goat meat was in the list of clean animals—even to the point of a kid being an acceptable substitute for a lamb for a Passover sacrifice.

One sentence about violent rape was “squeeze(d) in”; denying the record after reading it is more mendacity, never mind the deliberate attempts at deceptive backtranslations.


434 posted on 05/06/2014 4:35:10 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

The opinion of Muslims seems more important to you than that of Christians—or possibly Jews. That seems to imply a more approving slant towards them on your part.

It’s not the Bible that describes women as “field(s)” to be “plow(ed)” at the man’s pleasure. Only the Koran proclaims this as law, in essence.


435 posted on 05/06/2014 4:40:15 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
You couldn't fix goat a certain way, you couldn't wear certain material blends, you couldn't sow certain seeds in certain fields, you should wash your face even when fasting, you should return your brother's coat if you find it on the ground, you shouldn't take a mother bird off her nest, all these thing are worth mentioning. And of course, you can't eat bacon.

Tell me again about that verse that says you shouldn't rape an unbetrothed virgin? Oh, that's right, you said there wasn't one. Apparently recipes and such took up all that extra space.

By the way, do you eat bacon? Just curious.

436 posted on 05/06/2014 4:40:37 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Genesis 3:16 makes it clear that the husband rules over the wife. The opinions of Muslims and Christians mean very little me; they are both as deluded as any Greek praying to Athena or Mayan praying to a Jaguar God. Now, I recognize that Christians at least have a better grasp of individual financial freedom, and they don't fly planes into buildings.

But little as I like any religion, modern-day Judaism irritates me the least because, unlike the others, they don't try to recruit.

437 posted on 05/06/2014 4:49:49 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: dmz

So what’s your definition of consciousness?


438 posted on 05/06/2014 6:05:16 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
1. Assumes, yes. I don't claim to know everything, nor appeal to ancient holy texts for the answers. I described my idea of non-supernatural morality in an earlier post. As of yet, I've seen no legitimate criticism.

That doesn't mean it's immutable, only that reasonable, rational people can make determinations on these sorts of things.

Please note that in my first response to you I noted that your belief in argumentation itself assumes, without justification, that there are prescriptive, abstract, universal, unchanging laws of logic and reason. I wasn't referring specifically to laws of morality, but those can certainly be included along with logic and reason as unjustified and unaccounted for in an atheistic worldview.

If I may parenthetically answer your assertions about morality, I have read all of your posts in this thread up to this point, and it seems that in #212 and #223 you offer as a justification or account of morality a utilitarian description of morality as a system for homo sapiens to live with each other, in which it is obligatory that people seek to minimize or eliminate pain and suffering as much as possible.

One criticism that could be leveled at this description of morality is that announcing a utilitarian standard of morality concerning the well being of sentient beings doesn't justify it. If simply announcing a standard justifies it then the Taliban can stipulate their own standards just as you have. Fair is fair. If you are free to stipulate your own moral standard then I am free to stipulate a different one. For example, I could include other mammals, which you exclude.

When you point out that societies based on rape, murder, torture, and slavery do not last and eventually fail, as do those who base their lives on such, the deeper problem is that evolutionary assessments of moral behavior are only descriptive of past conduct. If I ask, why should I not be selfish and you reply that when I am selfish I hurt society and I reply, why should I care about society and you point out that societies based on rape, murder, torture, and slavery do not last and eventually fail, I can ask, so what? Why should I care about societies failing? If you reply that I ought to care about societies failing then you are simply presuming some prior moral notion that I ought to care about societies failing, which is not to account for moral incumbency, but to assume the very thing in question.

The preceding is parenthetical. What I want to know is, how you can have ANY kind of abstract "laws" at all in an atheistic system, i.e., a naturalistic, materialistic, ever-changing and contingent universe governed by chance. When you say, "that doesn't mean it's (morality) immutable, only that reasonable, rational people can make determinations on these sorts of things" you are also assuming prescriptive laws of logic and rationality. So, my question is, do you mean that the "laws" of morality, as well as the "laws" of reason and rationality are subject to change? Are they universal or are they conventional?

Cordially,

439 posted on 05/06/2014 7:11:11 PM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

That is, what are the real world reasons for acting in a moral way?


440 posted on 05/06/2014 9:31:26 PM PDT by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 581-583 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson