Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism. He has worked for NBC, CNBC, PBS television, and the Fox News Channel where he currently appears on the weekly media critique show, “Fox News Watch.” Thomas has authored ten books, including Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?, A Freedom Dream, Public Persons and Private Lives, Book Burning, Liberals for Lunch, Occupied Territory, The Death of Ethics in America, Uncommon Sense and Things That Matter Most. His latest was The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas. In 1995, Thomas was honored with a Cable Ace Award nomination for Best Interview Program. Other awards include a George Foster Peabody team reporting award, and awards from both the Associated Press and United Press International. Common Ground, which Thomas writes for USA Today, offers insightful discussion of contentious social issues with his friend and political counterpart, Bob Beckel. The two are working together on a book to be published in 2007.
Close.
Cal Thomas
Syndicated political columnist
Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism.
more »
Oh, you spectacularly silly man. Just about everything you say here is wrong. Since when was it ever "en vogue," as you say to disbelieve in God? Where is the evidence for this? Certainly it's not in the numbers.
I know for my part that I don't not believe because my hippie friend told me it's the cool thing to do, I don't believe because I don't believe. Seems to me that if anything, atheists often find themselves in the closet.
If an atheist is pro-life, then it is because they base their belief that a mammal's life begins in the embryonic/fetal stage on a scientific basis. Why should religion have a monopoly on when life begins?
Then you go to imply that atheists somehow value life less, or that any such a value that they would have is misplaced because without faith or God or something, life is meaningless. Such a tenuous and tired old argument is that to make. In a word, the answer to that is philosophy. I won't rant on about that here. Life isn't meaningless if you don't believe in God - if anything, it's all the more meaningful, because it is the one shot; there is no eternal afterlife to fall back on.
This segues into your point on intellectual laziness, which is just wrong on so many levels. If anything, an atheist could hurl that epithet on the religious believer to better effect. Is it not the very, ah, steadfast believer who chucks science and intellectualism when it conflicts with what they learned long ago?
If anything, it takes more to square with oneself that there is no God, no divine retribution, but that it's good to be good for goodness sake. It takes responsibility. It takes a different kind of belief, my friend - a belief in humanity.
Of course, I know that there are religious people who understand this basic concept - the virtue of, well, virtue in and of itself. These people I truly admire. They use this as the foundation their religious belief. I know this because I have met a few such people, But for the most part, these people seem to be the exception and not the rule, and that is unfortunate. Most people, it seems, would rather have their religion conform to their own otherwise-held convictions. But that's an argument for another day.
You claim to talk to atheists all the time, but it's like you've never talked to one at all regarding these matters, otherwise you would know better than to be making these terrible arguments.
Who gave this guy, Cal Thomas, a pencil and a soap box? He quotes CBN (the let's assassinate them network) to quote in characterizing Sen. Obama.
I've seen this kind of holier than thou tactic back in the 60s, but I thought people were better now. We were in Sunday School today and someone handed out a rag with Thomas's interpretation of the Bible, and what it is to be Christian. I wonder about Thomas's motives, he looks like a pasty Goebels if you ask me.
Thomas probably thinks that any other version of the Bible than King James is herecy. I didn't like what I read in his column yesterday, but there is nothing unusual there. However, Cal's deciding to take on the mantle of what is a true Christian was very annoying.
If stocks and pillaries were still in style I'd say we hold a town meeting and vote to lock him in for a day or two. That way we can get rid of all those tainted tomatoes. He who is without sin cast the first stone is what Christ said. Christ didn't say anything about tomatoes, and Cal Thomas is a good pundit to get his own medicine and get smeared.
I really hope that Cal loses his soap box / contracts across the nation before he does real harm to this society.
I just read your column "The fall of the House of Clinton." You do know that Kennedy endorsed Obama because Hillary wants to throw out "No Child Left Behind" (his concession to the Repubs and a horrible program) and because Hillary said that LBJ was the President (and not JFK) that worked to get the Civil Rights Law passed. She of course mentioned JFK but relied more on LBJ. You must have known that. Why would you print what you did.
And how could you quote Dick Morris. He is one of the most disreputable, swarmy characters I have ever seen. I can't even stand to watch him on TV. I can now listen to you because you are mellowing in your old age and there are some things I agree with you on.
Cal, just print the truth. There is no need to malign the Clintons. Bill had a great 8 years despite Starr.
AA’s had the lowest unemployment rate EVER IN RECORDED HISTORY under Bill’s administration!!!
There was the biggest investment in education than there had been for 30 years.
There was the biggest drop in child poverty for three decades as well.
They began HeadStart
They expanded Pell grants and college help.
There was the lowest crime rate in 25 years
They gave health care to over 6 million children
There was the highest home ownership rate IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, including the highest minority home ownership rate EVER RECORDED.
It seems to me that you are missing a very major point. As an atheist (from 12 to 81 years old) I don't care to debate whether or no God exists. My concern is that we maintain separation of church and state.
I have had religion forced on me a number of times in my life and it only served to make me bitter towards religion. The incidences that bothered me most happened when I was in the Navy (WW II). I volunteered to fight for democracy and the every Sunday in boot camp I was forced to attend Catholic services - my last name being Italian, of course I had to be a Catholic. That was just the beginning.
Whatever your religion is is fine by me, I just want to be left alone and I don't want to support religion through taxes.
I am friends with a local Christian minister and with a Catholic pries both of whom are aware of my non-belief. We never have problems.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a country where all people are free from religious "missionaries."
It seems to me that you are missing a very major point. As an atheist (from 12 to 81 years old) I don't care to debate whether or no God exists. My concern is that we maintain separation of church and state.
I have had religion forced on me a number of times in my life and it only served to make me bitter towards religion. The incidences that bothered me most happened when I was in the Navy (WW II). I volunteered to fight for democracy and the every Sunday in boot camp I was forced to attend Catholic services - my last name being Italian, of course I had to be a Catholic. That was just the beginning.
Whatever your religion is is fine by me, I just want to be left alone and I don't want to support religion through taxes.
I am friends with a local Christian minister and with a Catholic pries both of whom are aware of my non-belief. We never have problems.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a country where all people are free from religious "missionaries."
Definitely not one of Cal Thomas' strongest articles.
But as far as the comments on the board go....
I'm seeing a lot of "Duh! Science shows things change, ergo evolution, therefore there is no God."
Where is the logic in that line? If our world came to be in more than 6 days, how does that preclude God? But mainly my question is, how many of you have honestly investigated the claims of Christ that you can so readily disqualify them?
[Incidentally, a magician asking somebody to force God to perform for him is setting up God to be a magic trick. What is supposed to be the person's motivation in asking God to perform--we want a kind of god who will jump through hoops? ]
I thought it was fascinating that the movie "Bruce Almighty" made such a strong point of: you cannot give someone free will, then force that person to love you.
We want free will, then we wonder at not being forced to believe by, say, God 'jumping through hoops'. True miracles happen all the time (and those manufactured for your television-viewing pleasure do not disqualify the genuine article). I personally know a man who was instantaneously healed of multiple fatal heart conditions, proven by his disbelieving (and angry) doctor performing an endoscopy. The man had walked into the church service not the least bit interested in believing God, by the way, and had not wanted to go to the service in the first place. At his next checkup, his doctor was angry because he thought his patient had been doubling up on his medication and refused to believe the man was well until he saw the results of the endoscopy.
Many people would be inclined to reject this story out-of-hand or explain it away without even looking at it objectively. Which is to say, many spiritual things are not scientifically examined, but are just dismissed. Science is not supposed to start on the premise of "It can't happen!"
As far as multiple religions: Consider the possibility of there having been one God in communication with his people, but the freewill thing means some will rebel. Some will move away and take what they knew to a faraway (and often rather isolated) place and pass along, more or less, stories of their experiences. Some have an inclination for elaboration; some don't care about history at all. The game of 'telephone' throughout centuries means there are seeds of truth mixed in with many cultures, thus many similarities in several 'religions'. This consideration is simply acknowledging human nature and foibles.
I'm wondering what Cal Thomas meant to say. This column seems to be elliptical--and suffering from the constraints of maximum allowed word count.
Maybe it would be fair to ask what all beside 'information alone; is Cal saying might bring an atheist to a belief in God? Perhaps, for one, the evidence of a difference in the theist's life because Christianity does after all claim He changes people's lives?
I doubt he would disagree with the statement that a lot of Christians are 'intellectually lazy'. Yet many have come to their faith through very vigorous examination and pursuit of truth.
Of course the statement concerning atheists and pro-lifers was objectionable. The comments on this board seem to range from those who speak in evolutionary terms--which ultimately mean there would be no surviving fittest if we harmed as we pleased--to those who think like the mathematician John Forbes Nash: we help ourselves most when we help ourselves and each other. (Loose translation of his game theory about the 'dynamics of threat and action among competitors'.)
Is he inadvertantly asking what is the origin of morals? Can there be 'right' and 'wrong' values assigned without a religious basis?
Romans
1:18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
1:19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Cal, after that beginning statement of yours, I can say, you had it coming, even though some of these remarks are sharp, these readers have you pegged. I've read you over the years and you've, as a Christian, become more nationalistic and war-like. How do you explain that, as one who claims to be born-again?
"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."
What if "your" god is the wrong god Cal? I think being a non believer will be punished less than being a believer of the "wrong" god.
Pascals wager is intellectual cowardice. He pretends that the question is whether or not god exists. The real question is, does Yahweh exist, does the great ju ju exist, is the dali lama really a being that is reincarnated, is the loch ness monster real, is Zeus, Bael, Jupiter, or Thor real?
"In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone."
Replace "athiest" with "theist" and replace "faith" with "reason", and the above sentence will become accurate.
It's fascinating that in one paragraph the author claims that we thinking people have no faith, then a moment later claims we thinking people need more faith to believe in facts than theists do to believe in mythology.
“An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences.” Cal Thomas.
I have several questions about Pascal’s wager. How do we know that the Christian or Jewish or Muslim God is the right god to worship? How do we know that it is not Satan that is the most powerful supernatural being and we will be punished for worshiping God instead of him? (After all, the Universe is consistent with what a being with a cruel sense of humor would produce. We can predict that Satan would invent death just to make us miserable; make us subject to insatiable desires for various pleasures, especially sexual ones; make us a lot uglier than we wish to be; give men back hair – I really hate that one - engage in the arbitrary cruelties of birth defects and cancer. I could go on and on.) How do we know that God even wishes us to worship him? How do we know god is a he? If god is a she or a hermaphrodite, they might be very offended.
Pascal’s wager depends upon knowing god. But we do not know god. So how can we wager?
My goodness Cal, in one sentence you state "If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe", thereby admitting that belief in deities is not reasonable and instead requires a leap of wishful thinking (aka faith). Then in the very next sentence you state "It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him." !
So which is it Cal? It would only require faith to disbelieve in gods if there were sufficient information to support the conclusion that gods exist. Without such information, it is the epitome of arrogance to believe that you have been divinely chosen to be given the correct position by an act of merely wishing it true. This same type of muddled thinking is universally considered childish in all aspects of life other than religion.
Your own holy book has this to say:
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."
Put away your childish thinking, Cal, and accept the conclusions you inadvertently admit to be appropriate. Belief in gods is a childish security blanket for those without the courage to face the reality that death is final and permanent, and that nature has no obligation to satiate our egos.
Victoria, I can tell you why I posted here - I object to any dogma or doctrine that describes humans as sinners, or otherwise attempts to define people. I have a right to voice my objections without having my worth questioned, which is what the doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation attempt to do.
Victoria, please don't dismiss all of the comments because of the bad behaviour of a few people. There are always a few idiots in any internet forum; often it's best just to ignore them.
I think if you read a little more carefully you will find that many, if not most, of the comments are quite reasonable even if rather forcefully presented. That's the nature of these kinds of forums; they don't allow for a lot of subtlety Disagreement is part of the dialogue; simply disagreeing with someone is not hateful.
Now, it may seem sad to you, but if someone lie Cal Thomas, who has a big megaphone for his ideas, publishes what I consider to be a stupid idea and I have an opportunity to tell him I think it's a stupid idea I believe I have every right, indeed an obligation, to do so. I am not here to "rip him apart", but I'm not going to sit silently and allow nonsense to pass unchallenged.
You are being rather unfair to many of the people who have come here to have a sincere conversation.
You say we were not asked to be here; I disagree. The whole purpose of a comment section like this is to invite comments from interested individuals.
If you can't handle vigorous, honest, open debate and ignore the bullies than maybe this isn't for you, but please don't dismiss all of those who may disagree with Mr. Thomas's rather sophomoric remarks as "hateful" or of having "lowly motives" or tell us we have no right to be here. I feel you are the one being hateful (in a passive-aggressive manner all too familiar to me) when you try to shut people up like this.
what an incredibly disappointing experience for me-
tosee that over 500 people-knowing in advance they will disagree with the views of the panelist-
make an appearance with only the lowly motive of ripping another human being apart for what he thinks-
he was asked to be here-
we were not-
why would 500 show up just to be hateful?
i dont understand the purpose of this- no one is edified and it reveals a deep and sad intention that -
peace
"I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."
You sir, are completely out of touch with reality. Don't feel bad, it's a common trait amongst "believers". I do not need some omnipotent sky-fairy to decide how I treat those around me. I have this little thing which many people have called "empathy". In many ways, having empathy is a more righteous and holy trait than is faith, because if I treat those around me well, it's because I care about them, when you treat someone around you well, it's evidently only because you fear divine retrubution should you not treat them well. After all, that is what you're saying condensed, is it not? That if not for the fear of Hell, then no one could possibly behave in a civil manner to those around them?
Atheists can believe in whatever the so desire, and they can do so because it FEELS right, not because they were told it was right. If an Atheist is Pro-Life, it is because they care about life. For you to say that they have an inadequate base for feeling the same way about aborition as you do simply because they had different evidence lead them to the same conclusion, I swear, I have never heard anything more ignorant, arrogant and just plain hateful as that. Imagine, someone without Dark Age superstitions making a choice about what is right and wrong. Who knew it was possible?
"In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone. If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."
How true. You can't convert a non-believer with fact, because the FACTS don't back up your belief. The facts, in actuality, DISPROVE nearly every single aspect of your faith. But every FACT that disproves your limited beliefs is a mistake or an accident or an agenda, or even a divine test, yet you people hold on for dear life anytime scientific studies prove somethin gthat coincides with your beliefs. That is the definition of hypocracy, right there.
"I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them."
And we can only hope that your limited rhetoric continues to be unable to sway those who are willing to find their own way.
Just look at all the atheist politicians shamelessly pandering to the unbelievers' vote, blasting Christianity, and calling for "In God We Trust" to be removed from our currency.
What the hell does "God" have to do with “Hell”? I am very religious but I do not believe in “Hell.” What you are saying is; if all BELIEFS other than Christianity are wrong (and that you happen to be lucky enough to be the correct type of Christian) then those in the wrong are going to the Christian concept of Hell. To hell with that! If Jesus freaks like your-self were not so “intellectually lazy” (unlike very intellectual atheists who realize their odds of winning the religion lottery are slim) then maybe you would live a more godly life and not spew this type of ignorance and ‘between the lines’ hate. Maybe you could act more moral like the majority of Atheists do.
The only advantage Cal has on me, an atheist, is that if he is right he'll be able to say "I told you so" and if I am right I won't.
Given the tone of his article, that's a rather big bummer.
If we got our morals from the Bible we would kill our neighbor for working (even gathering wood in the forest) on Sunday, kill all homosexuals and kill our own children if they do not follow our faith. Even the believers amongst you decide what it is in the Bible you think is right or moral and follow that. How do you make the distinction if you don't have the ability to decide right from wrong?
Why would you believe that a "loving" God is not a just God? I could never believe in a God so insecure that he puts faith before deeds.
I have lived a moral life and if God is loving and just he'll take me. And I'm betting I'll be looking down, saying to Cal and the others who went to church but didn't live it, "I told you so."
As they say: Don't tell my you're a Christian, let me figure it out for myself.
"I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so)."
What arrogant, arrant crap. Ever heard of the term "logical fallacy"? Somehow, the basis for *your* pro-life stance is valid, if only becasue because millions across millennia have shared your it...even if it does have the exact same validity as Dawkins' Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If your beliefs lead YOU to a better life, I'm happy for you. But don't expect your beliefs to be worthy of intellectual respect if they have all the rationality of Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus.
I've never been able to read Cal Thomas' syndicated column without tossing the paper aside in disgust. And his entry above is true to form, referring to atheists as intellectually lazy.
Here is a Thomas column that encapsulates my complaint about his approach to issues:
He basically accuses the singer's critics of being motivated solely by hatred of "traditional values," which is a politician's phrase with no real meaning. This the same rhetoric he uses with religious issues - in his eyes, anyone who criticizes Christian doctrine really hates Christians.
I cannot find it necessary to treat belief as a person. The personification of your God only makes "HIM" less believable. Actions not belief in a brutal creator make someone good or bad.
"(Pro-Life)....That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."
Yes, Cal. We treat others as we please, and it pleases us to treat others as we would like to be treated" We need no God to be kind. Why can't you get that? You have a God and yet you're being a jerk. There are robust secular Ethics studies being conducted in major universities across the world that can explain why we can be good. Pssst, hold on to your hat, much of it is explained by Evolutionary Psychology.
"If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."
Believe in what? Vishnu? Thor? Allah?
According to Cal, (paraphrase) 'It takes more faith not to believe in VISHNU than to believe in VISHNU.'
"It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."
No, intellectual laziness means you don't know your physics and biology and misuse the word 'chance' when you really mean the 'natural forces' behind snowflakes and fingerprints.
Secondly, Cal seems to believe it is not OK for the universe to "happen" without a designer but OK for the designer to just "happen". This is philosophical laziness. At lease I can say I don't have a damn clue as to how the Universe began, big bangs, inverse blackholes, and quantum foam notwithstanding. Cal seems to have certainty derived from an iron-age relic of a book.
"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right....."
Holy moly. Did Cal just use Pascal's Wager? This isn't even past the first two pages of a book on Apologetics...in the chapter titled "Arguments Debunked in Philosophy 101".
Cal, I have a much scarier God in mind. And if you refuse IT, IT will reap pain upon you 10x that of your God's Hell. I think you should accept IT just in case.
"....I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships"
Dropping God has made my life better. My friend walks the way of the Bhudda and he's just fantastic. See how this argument fails.
Cal, how you get a platform to discuss such important matters bewilders me. You haven't a clue.
Thomas's suggestion that atheists can abuse and kill fellow humans another simply for lack of divine retribution is downright perverse. Shame on him.
And the wager is about the flimsiest reason for believing in God that I've ever heard. I've got a wager for you: What if God exists, but reserves Hell for believers and Heaven for atheists?
Staks' Wager
I was talking to a Christian the other day and he said to me, "you might as well believe in a god because if your wrong you will go to hell. You have nothing to lose."
A French Mathematician, Blaise Pascal, was once asked why he believed in God. Pascal decided to take up the challenge and presented an argument that has since been called Pascal's Wager.
God either exists or he doesn't. And we either choose to believe or we don't. If God does exist and we believe in him then we get a big reward i.e. heaven. If God does exist and we do not believe in him, then we get a big punishment i.e. hell. If God does not exist and we do not believe in his existence then there is "no harm, no fowl." If God does not exist and we do believe in him then there is "no harm, no fowl." So Pascal wagers that one should just believe because it is the only chance for a positive outcome without the risk of a negative outcome.
Problems with Pascal's Wager:
1. With a choice of many Gods, some of which make it clear that one cannot believe in more than one of them, one must pick which God to follow in order to get the best of rewards and avoid the worst of the punishments.
2. Is it really, "no harm, no fowl?" I'm not so sure.
Staks' Wager:
God either exists or he doesn't and we either choose to believe or we don't. But does the God we choose to believe in have superior morality? First, If God does exist and does have superior morality, then by the logic of superior morality as best as we can understand it, it would be unjust for a just God to punish a just person. Therefore, the only criteria that God could use as grounds for entrance to Heaven would be living a moral life as best as we can. Second possibility, if God exists but does not have superior morality. In this case, God could use any criteria at all as entrance to Heaven. Some possible criteria might be but is not limited too, wearing pink pockadot socks every other Thursday, praying in a certain direction at a certain time, believing that his son is your personal Lord and savior, or maybe it is watching American Idol. In any case, Socrates once told his student Crito that it was always better to receive an injustice than it was to do an injustice. With that same logic, it would be better to be a good person in hell than be a not good person in heaven. So once more we are left to the conclusion that we ought to live a moral life to the best of our ability. And lastly we have the third possibility. God doesn’t exist. If this is the case, Aristotle makes a very good argument that the best way to be happy is to be moral. This however is too long of an argument to recount here, but the bottom line is that in all three cases, the best outcomes come when we live a moral life to the best of our ability. Therefore, as long as we do that, it really doesn’t matter if God exists and has superior morality, exists and doesn’t have superior morality, or doesn’t exist at all. Just live a moral life to the best of your ability.
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net
Staks' Wager
I was talking to a Christian the other day and he said to me, "you might as well believe in a god because if your wrong you will go to hell. You have nothing to lose."
A French Mathematician, Blaise Pascal, was once asked why he believed in God. Pascal decided to take up the challenge and presented an argument that has since been called Pascal's Wager.
God either exists or he doesn't. And we either choose to believe or we don't. If God does exist and we believe in him then we get a big reward i.e. heaven. If God does exist and we do not believe in him, then we get a big punishment i.e. hell. If God does not exist and we do not believe in his existence then there is "no harm, no fowl." If God does not exist and we do believe in him then there is "no harm, no fowl." So Pascal wagers that one should just believe because it is the only chance for a positive outcome without the risk of a negative outcome.
Problems with Pascal's Wager:
1. With a choice of many Gods, some of which make it clear that one cannot believe in more than one of them, one must pick which God to follow in order to get the best of rewards and avoid the worst of the punishments.
2. Is it really, "no harm, no fowl?" I'm not so sure.
Staks' Wager:
God either exists or he doesn't and we either choose to believe or we don't. But does the God we choose to believe in have superior morality? First, If God does exist and does have superior morality, then by the logic of superior morality as best as we can understand it, it would be unjust for a just God to punish a just person. Therefore, the only criteria that God could use as grounds for entrance to Heaven would be living a moral life as best as we can. Second possibility, if God exists but does not have superior morality. In this case, God could use any criteria at all as entrance to Heaven. Some possible criteria might be but is not limited too, wearing pink pockadot socks every other Thursday, praying in a certain direction at a certain time, believing that his son is your personal Lord and savior, or maybe it is watching American Idol. In any case, Socrates once told his student Crito that it was always better to receive an injustice than it was to do an injustice. With that same logic, it would be better to be a good person in hell than be a not good person in heaven. So once more we are left to the conclusion that we ought to live a moral life to the best of our ability. And lastly we have the third possibility. God doesn’t exist. If this is the case, Aristotle makes a very good argument that the best way to be happy is to be moral. This however is too long of an argument to recount here, but the bottom line is that in all three cases, the best outcomes come when we live a moral life to the best of our ability. Therefore, as long as we do that, it really doesn’t matter if God exists and has superior morality, exists and doesn’t have superior morality, or doesn’t exist at all. Just live a moral life to the best of your ability.
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net
Why on God's green earth would the Washington Post allow such drivel to be published?
Was the editor preparing to leave in a hurry for vacation, as the author obviously was, when he tossed off this intellectually lazy, pandering, worthless, article?
It is telling that Mr. Thomas' byline says he is "veteran" of print journalism. Evidently, jornalism and the military have one thing in common -- one only becomes a "veteran" when one quits, retires, or dies.
Does it really matter whether one believes a particular set of rules? Can we not be comfortable not knowing "the truth". I am. I gave up trying to understand once and for all this life I came into. I'd rather continue trying to be the best human I can be and enjoy each passing moment as best I can, doing what is right in the universal way. You know, the basic rules of decent humanity (so anarchy is not leading us)--"Do unto others..." etc.These rules just make sense, that's all. Now, get on with living and quit trying to be "know-it-alls". I know one thing for sure---no one human being has a corner on the market of truth. It doesn't matter. Besides, if there is a God who judges, what's to judge if you spent your life trying to be a good human being? And, if the atheists are right, what harm has been done just being a good human being?
RELAX. LIVE IN THIS MOMENT. BE GOOD for the simple reason it is the best path to follow.
Mark Eaton really says it. We know the true story that the ruler of heaven dispenses justice and serves as protector. His thunder and lightning are tokens of His wrath, representing His glorious and awful judgment on the world. His son, born to a pure girl, leads the fight against evil and defends the poor and the innocent.
Oh, wait, Mark, wrong story. I was talking about Zeus, Danae and Perseus.
A lot of us have considered and moved beyond Pascal's shallow reasoning about belief. Men and women who say they believe as insurance being better treated by a god than men and women who question belief or do not believe but live good lives says a lot about the problem, not with the men and women but with the god.
"God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."
Right. We may treat each other as we please, and that includes kindness and compassion. Even the religious admit that "god" is something they just made up (though they give it the lofty name of "faith". So even whatever kindness the religious people exhibit, they are doing so because it's what they choose to do, not what an imaginary "god" commands them to.
The only universal laws are laws which CAN'T be broken: the laws of physics. And those laws leave LOTS of room for compassion, kindness, charity, and love.
Remember, "Secular Humanism" is mainly about "humanism", which is concern for humanity.
"The Atheist Wager": it isn't a wager, it's an observation. Religion isn't observation; 'it's desperate, irrational thrashing in the face of the unknown, and it's an embarrassment to the human race.
"Gilker:
Does anyone posting here really, truly believe that the same person who wrote that column would deign to read - much less take to heart - anything that runs contrary to his conclusions?"
Thomas has been writing this exact same stuff most of his career without any updating or responding or even acknowledging critiques of his, frankly, rather amateur arguments.
So, the answer is no. But I think the commenters here, religious and non, ARE interested in having the debates and discussions that Thomas is pathologically incapable of being a part of.
"It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."
Wow, talk about intellectually lazy. I find it'd be intellectually lazy to just regurgitate strawman arguments like this for your position.
Fingerprints and snowflakes are unique.
Things that are unique were created by a Designer.
Therefore, since the universe has fingerprints and snowflakes, it also has a Designer.
So, we understand that life is complicated, and the universe is complicated. How do we understand how a complicated life form was brought to existence. We can explain in a naturalistic theory of evolution. Or we could use a nebulous, unfathomable idea of a God to explain it. So, in the idea, we'd be using the unexplainable to explain the unexplained. Perfect logic.
And way to use Pascal's Wager. That hasn't been discredited a million times over already. Why are you syndicated? Do you realize that Pascal's Wager could apply to every god invented by man and not just the Christian god?
That's why it fails.
It's not "in vogue", it's just intellectual honesty.
If the Post/Newsweek editors are going to pay Mr. Thomas for such insulting and bigoted material, then they can consider this my application for employment. I can do just the same, for less, and I'll actually use factual information and truth in my articles.
I was linked to this post from another forum, and so did not realize that the idea of atheism being "in vogue" was the premise of the moderators, not Mr. Thomas. With that realization, I can withdraw my criticism of that idea, at least as is relates to him. The rest still stands.
Another note: It looks to me like the majority of the respondents on this page (on all sides of the issue) put far more thought to their posts than Mr. Thomas did. Good job, people.
how can we atheist possible hate a god when we do know that SHE doesnt exist? as for homphobic cal if he can prove to me there is a jesus/god i buy him a new toupee/rug next xmas.
---It's inappropriate to ask WHY it's "in vogue" to be an atheist when in fact there is no evidence that it's in vogue at all. The question does nothing but set up a straw man to hack down.---
But isn't that what christian religions do, set up straw men to then have God or his appointees hack down? According to the christians we're all born with original sin. We're all evil from birth. Therefore you can only be good by accepting Jesus. What a straw man that is...
But what really gets under my skin is this idea that "athiests" are some sort of group, almost a
All Comments (555)
Oh, you spectacularly silly man. Just about everything you say here is wrong. Since when was it ever "en vogue," as you say to disbelieve in God? Where is the evidence for this? Certainly it's not in the numbers.
I know for my part that I don't not believe because my hippie friend told me it's the cool thing to do, I don't believe because I don't believe. Seems to me that if anything, atheists often find themselves in the closet.
If an atheist is pro-life, then it is because they base their belief that a mammal's life begins in the embryonic/fetal stage on a scientific basis. Why should religion have a monopoly on when life begins?
Then you go to imply that atheists somehow value life less, or that any such a value that they would have is misplaced because without faith or God or something, life is meaningless. Such a tenuous and tired old argument is that to make. In a word, the answer to that is philosophy. I won't rant on about that here. Life isn't meaningless if you don't believe in God - if anything, it's all the more meaningful, because it is the one shot; there is no eternal afterlife to fall back on.
This segues into your point on intellectual laziness, which is just wrong on so many levels. If anything, an atheist could hurl that epithet on the religious believer to better effect. Is it not the very, ah, steadfast believer who chucks science and intellectualism when it conflicts with what they learned long ago?
If anything, it takes more to square with oneself that there is no God, no divine retribution, but that it's good to be good for goodness sake. It takes responsibility. It takes a different kind of belief, my friend - a belief in humanity.
Of course, I know that there are religious people who understand this basic concept - the virtue of, well, virtue in and of itself. These people I truly admire. They use this as the foundation their religious belief. I know this because I have met a few such people, But for the most part, these people seem to be the exception and not the rule, and that is unfortunate. Most people, it seems, would rather have their religion conform to their own otherwise-held convictions. But that's an argument for another day.
You claim to talk to atheists all the time, but it's like you've never talked to one at all regarding these matters, otherwise you would know better than to be making these terrible arguments.
June 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 20, 2008 11:41
Who gave this guy, Cal Thomas, a pencil and a soap box? He quotes CBN (the let's assassinate them network) to quote in characterizing Sen. Obama.
I've seen this kind of holier than thou tactic back in the 60s, but I thought people were better now. We were in Sunday School today and someone handed out a rag with Thomas's interpretation of the Bible, and what it is to be Christian. I wonder about Thomas's motives, he looks like a pasty Goebels if you ask me.
Thomas probably thinks that any other version of the Bible than King James is herecy. I didn't like what I read in his column yesterday, but there is nothing unusual there. However, Cal's deciding to take on the mantle of what is a true Christian was very annoying.
If stocks and pillaries were still in style I'd say we hold a town meeting and vote to lock him in for a day or two. That way we can get rid of all those tainted tomatoes. He who is without sin cast the first stone is what Christ said. Christ didn't say anything about tomatoes, and Cal Thomas is a good pundit to get his own medicine and get smeared.
I really hope that Cal loses his soap box / contracts across the nation before he does real harm to this society.
June 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 15, 2008 16:03
nkahlq rnly ynaxb iphxcgq ufdcanb szyflq lartobj
May 28, 2008 8:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:10
nkahlq rnly ynaxb iphxcgq ufdcanb szyflq lartobj
May 28, 2008 8:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:09
bxgjri pwxtsbc cesr bpyzknvlj huxn letdwzmn dwbfavq
May 28, 2008 8:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:07
bxgjri pwxtsbc cesr bpyzknvlj huxn letdwzmn dwbfavq
May 28, 2008 8:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:06
mdtcybvhw mwsqo ymvhaqbs zyqxamrp mwavjg qosrgmb zkdultpx
May 28, 2008 8:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:04
mdtcybvhw mwsqo ymvhaqbs zyqxamrp mwavjg qosrgmb zkdultpx
May 28, 2008 8:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:03
blxpg jrduixb mfxwlrc tfayp gbxlcp pdivoksxc isaybc
May 28, 2008 8:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:01
blxpg jrduixb mfxwlrc tfayp gbxlcp pdivoksxc isaybc
May 28, 2008 8:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:00
blxpg jrduixb mfxwlrc tfayp gbxlcp pdivoksxc isaybc
May 28, 2008 8:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 20:00
esrzw hrgynwqda dxrnhpu vhupy cbowu kjxsfcr lysca
May 28, 2008 7:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 19:58
esrzw hrgynwqda dxrnhpu vhupy cbowu kjxsfcr lysca
May 28, 2008 7:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 19:57
esrzw hrgynwqda dxrnhpu vhupy cbowu kjxsfcr lysca
May 28, 2008 7:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2008 19:56
The Bible says " the fools says in his heart there is no God"
You are all fools
May 21, 2008 4:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 21, 2008 04:30
I just read your column "The fall of the House of Clinton." You do know that Kennedy endorsed Obama because Hillary wants to throw out "No Child Left Behind" (his concession to the Repubs and a horrible program) and because Hillary said that LBJ was the President (and not JFK) that worked to get the Civil Rights Law passed. She of course mentioned JFK but relied more on LBJ. You must have known that. Why would you print what you did.
And how could you quote Dick Morris. He is one of the most disreputable, swarmy characters I have ever seen. I can't even stand to watch him on TV. I can now listen to you because you are mellowing in your old age and there are some things I agree with you on.
Cal, just print the truth. There is no need to malign the Clintons. Bill had a great 8 years despite Starr.
AA’s had the lowest unemployment rate EVER IN RECORDED HISTORY under Bill’s administration!!!
There was the biggest investment in education than there had been for 30 years.
There was the biggest drop in child poverty for three decades as well.
They began HeadStart
They expanded Pell grants and college help.
There was the lowest crime rate in 25 years
They gave health care to over 6 million children
There was the highest home ownership rate IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, including the highest minority home ownership rate EVER RECORDED.
February 3, 2008 8:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 3, 2008 08:44
Cal,
It seems to me that you are missing a very major point. As an atheist (from 12 to 81 years old) I don't care to debate whether or no God exists. My concern is that we maintain separation of church and state.
I have had religion forced on me a number of times in my life and it only served to make me bitter towards religion. The incidences that bothered me most happened when I was in the Navy (WW II). I volunteered to fight for democracy and the every Sunday in boot camp I was forced to attend Catholic services - my last name being Italian, of course I had to be a Catholic. That was just the beginning.
Whatever your religion is is fine by me, I just want to be left alone and I don't want to support religion through taxes.
I am friends with a local Christian minister and with a Catholic pries both of whom are aware of my non-belief. We never have problems.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a country where all people are free from religious "missionaries."
August 2, 2007 5:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 2, 2007 17:22
Cal,
It seems to me that you are missing a very major point. As an atheist (from 12 to 81 years old) I don't care to debate whether or no God exists. My concern is that we maintain separation of church and state.
I have had religion forced on me a number of times in my life and it only served to make me bitter towards religion. The incidences that bothered me most happened when I was in the Navy (WW II). I volunteered to fight for democracy and the every Sunday in boot camp I was forced to attend Catholic services - my last name being Italian, of course I had to be a Catholic. That was just the beginning.
Whatever your religion is is fine by me, I just want to be left alone and I don't want to support religion through taxes.
I am friends with a local Christian minister and with a Catholic pries both of whom are aware of my non-belief. We never have problems.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a country where all people are free from religious "missionaries."
August 2, 2007 5:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 2, 2007 17:22
Google is the best search engine Google
May 18, 2007 4:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 18, 2007 04:32
Google is the best search engine Google
May 18, 2007 4:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 18, 2007 04:31
Definitely not one of Cal Thomas' strongest articles.
But as far as the comments on the board go....
I'm seeing a lot of "Duh! Science shows things change, ergo evolution, therefore there is no God."
Where is the logic in that line? If our world came to be in more than 6 days, how does that preclude God? But mainly my question is, how many of you have honestly investigated the claims of Christ that you can so readily disqualify them?
[Incidentally, a magician asking somebody to force God to perform for him is setting up God to be a magic trick. What is supposed to be the person's motivation in asking God to perform--we want a kind of god who will jump through hoops? ]
I thought it was fascinating that the movie "Bruce Almighty" made such a strong point of: you cannot give someone free will, then force that person to love you.
We want free will, then we wonder at not being forced to believe by, say, God 'jumping through hoops'. True miracles happen all the time (and those manufactured for your television-viewing pleasure do not disqualify the genuine article). I personally know a man who was instantaneously healed of multiple fatal heart conditions, proven by his disbelieving (and angry) doctor performing an endoscopy. The man had walked into the church service not the least bit interested in believing God, by the way, and had not wanted to go to the service in the first place. At his next checkup, his doctor was angry because he thought his patient had been doubling up on his medication and refused to believe the man was well until he saw the results of the endoscopy.
Many people would be inclined to reject this story out-of-hand or explain it away without even looking at it objectively. Which is to say, many spiritual things are not scientifically examined, but are just dismissed. Science is not supposed to start on the premise of "It can't happen!"
As far as multiple religions: Consider the possibility of there having been one God in communication with his people, but the freewill thing means some will rebel. Some will move away and take what they knew to a faraway (and often rather isolated) place and pass along, more or less, stories of their experiences. Some have an inclination for elaboration; some don't care about history at all. The game of 'telephone' throughout centuries means there are seeds of truth mixed in with many cultures, thus many similarities in several 'religions'. This consideration is simply acknowledging human nature and foibles.
I'm wondering what Cal Thomas meant to say. This column seems to be elliptical--and suffering from the constraints of maximum allowed word count.
Maybe it would be fair to ask what all beside 'information alone; is Cal saying might bring an atheist to a belief in God? Perhaps, for one, the evidence of a difference in the theist's life because Christianity does after all claim He changes people's lives?
I doubt he would disagree with the statement that a lot of Christians are 'intellectually lazy'. Yet many have come to their faith through very vigorous examination and pursuit of truth.
Of course the statement concerning atheists and pro-lifers was objectionable. The comments on this board seem to range from those who speak in evolutionary terms--which ultimately mean there would be no surviving fittest if we harmed as we pleased--to those who think like the mathematician John Forbes Nash: we help ourselves most when we help ourselves and each other. (Loose translation of his game theory about the 'dynamics of threat and action among competitors'.)
Is he inadvertantly asking what is the origin of morals? Can there be 'right' and 'wrong' values assigned without a religious basis?
February 7, 2007 6:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 7, 2007 18:16
The Mormons are right anyway
January 22, 2007 11:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 22, 2007 11:34
Romans
1:18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
1:19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
January 13, 2007 9:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 13, 2007 21:35
Cal, after that beginning statement of yours, I can say, you had it coming, even though some of these remarks are sharp, these readers have you pegged. I've read you over the years and you've, as a Christian, become more nationalistic and war-like. How do you explain that, as one who claims to be born-again?
January 9, 2007 1:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 13:26
"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."
What if "your" god is the wrong god Cal? I think being a non believer will be punished less than being a believer of the "wrong" god.
Pascals wager is intellectual cowardice. He pretends that the question is whether or not god exists. The real question is, does Yahweh exist, does the great ju ju exist, is the dali lama really a being that is reincarnated, is the loch ness monster real, is Zeus, Bael, Jupiter, or Thor real?
January 8, 2007 10:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 22:52
"In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone."
Replace "athiest" with "theist" and replace "faith" with "reason", and the above sentence will become accurate.
It's fascinating that in one paragraph the author claims that we thinking people have no faith, then a moment later claims we thinking people need more faith to believe in facts than theists do to believe in mythology.
January 6, 2007 9:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2007 21:03
hermit- i didnt try to shut anyone up
i didnt tell anyone what to think
being disappointed is just that
why would you call me hateful?
its just sad thats all
i fear youre projecting something on me from whatever passive agressive person you wrongly compared me to
i am anything but that
i express myself with my own conviction
what makes you take it personally?
January 5, 2007 9:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 21:11
“An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences.” Cal Thomas.
I have several questions about Pascal’s wager. How do we know that the Christian or Jewish or Muslim God is the right god to worship? How do we know that it is not Satan that is the most powerful supernatural being and we will be punished for worshiping God instead of him? (After all, the Universe is consistent with what a being with a cruel sense of humor would produce. We can predict that Satan would invent death just to make us miserable; make us subject to insatiable desires for various pleasures, especially sexual ones; make us a lot uglier than we wish to be; give men back hair – I really hate that one - engage in the arbitrary cruelties of birth defects and cancer. I could go on and on.) How do we know that God even wishes us to worship him? How do we know god is a he? If god is a she or a hermaphrodite, they might be very offended.
Pascal’s wager depends upon knowing god. But we do not know god. So how can we wager?
And no, I do not worship Satan.
January 5, 2007 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 11:55
My goodness Cal, in one sentence you state "If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe", thereby admitting that belief in deities is not reasonable and instead requires a leap of wishful thinking (aka faith). Then in the very next sentence you state "It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him." !
So which is it Cal? It would only require faith to disbelieve in gods if there were sufficient information to support the conclusion that gods exist. Without such information, it is the epitome of arrogance to believe that you have been divinely chosen to be given the correct position by an act of merely wishing it true. This same type of muddled thinking is universally considered childish in all aspects of life other than religion.
Your own holy book has this to say:
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."
Put away your childish thinking, Cal, and accept the conclusions you inadvertently admit to be appropriate. Belief in gods is a childish security blanket for those without the courage to face the reality that death is final and permanent, and that nature has no obligation to satiate our egos.
January 3, 2007 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2007 17:02
Victoria, I can tell you why I posted here - I object to any dogma or doctrine that describes humans as sinners, or otherwise attempts to define people. I have a right to voice my objections without having my worth questioned, which is what the doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation attempt to do.
January 3, 2007 3:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2007 15:56
Victoria, please don't dismiss all of the comments because of the bad behaviour of a few people. There are always a few idiots in any internet forum; often it's best just to ignore them.
I think if you read a little more carefully you will find that many, if not most, of the comments are quite reasonable even if rather forcefully presented. That's the nature of these kinds of forums; they don't allow for a lot of subtlety Disagreement is part of the dialogue; simply disagreeing with someone is not hateful.
Now, it may seem sad to you, but if someone lie Cal Thomas, who has a big megaphone for his ideas, publishes what I consider to be a stupid idea and I have an opportunity to tell him I think it's a stupid idea I believe I have every right, indeed an obligation, to do so. I am not here to "rip him apart", but I'm not going to sit silently and allow nonsense to pass unchallenged.
You are being rather unfair to many of the people who have come here to have a sincere conversation.
You say we were not asked to be here; I disagree. The whole purpose of a comment section like this is to invite comments from interested individuals.
If you can't handle vigorous, honest, open debate and ignore the bullies than maybe this isn't for you, but please don't dismiss all of those who may disagree with Mr. Thomas's rather sophomoric remarks as "hateful" or of having "lowly motives" or tell us we have no right to be here. I feel you are the one being hateful (in a passive-aggressive manner all too familiar to me) when you try to shut people up like this.
January 3, 2007 12:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2007 12:53
what an incredibly disappointing experience for me-
tosee that over 500 people-knowing in advance they will disagree with the views of the panelist-
make an appearance with only the lowly motive of ripping another human being apart for what he thinks-
he was asked to be here-
we were not-
why would 500 show up just to be hateful?
i dont understand the purpose of this- no one is edified and it reveals a deep and sad intention that -
peace
January 3, 2007 7:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2007 07:24
"I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."
You sir, are completely out of touch with reality. Don't feel bad, it's a common trait amongst "believers". I do not need some omnipotent sky-fairy to decide how I treat those around me. I have this little thing which many people have called "empathy". In many ways, having empathy is a more righteous and holy trait than is faith, because if I treat those around me well, it's because I care about them, when you treat someone around you well, it's evidently only because you fear divine retrubution should you not treat them well. After all, that is what you're saying condensed, is it not? That if not for the fear of Hell, then no one could possibly behave in a civil manner to those around them?
Atheists can believe in whatever the so desire, and they can do so because it FEELS right, not because they were told it was right. If an Atheist is Pro-Life, it is because they care about life. For you to say that they have an inadequate base for feeling the same way about aborition as you do simply because they had different evidence lead them to the same conclusion, I swear, I have never heard anything more ignorant, arrogant and just plain hateful as that. Imagine, someone without Dark Age superstitions making a choice about what is right and wrong. Who knew it was possible?
"In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone. If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."
How true. You can't convert a non-believer with fact, because the FACTS don't back up your belief. The facts, in actuality, DISPROVE nearly every single aspect of your faith. But every FACT that disproves your limited beliefs is a mistake or an accident or an agenda, or even a divine test, yet you people hold on for dear life anytime scientific studies prove somethin gthat coincides with your beliefs. That is the definition of hypocracy, right there.
"I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them."
And we can only hope that your limited rhetoric continues to be unable to sway those who are willing to find their own way.
January 2, 2007 11:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 23:15
Atheism is so very "in vogue" is right now.
Just look at all the atheist politicians shamelessly pandering to the unbelievers' vote, blasting Christianity, and calling for "In God We Trust" to be removed from our currency.
Oops, sorry, alternate universe.
January 2, 2007 2:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 14:06
What the hell does "God" have to do with “Hell”? I am very religious but I do not believe in “Hell.” What you are saying is; if all BELIEFS other than Christianity are wrong (and that you happen to be lucky enough to be the correct type of Christian) then those in the wrong are going to the Christian concept of Hell. To hell with that! If Jesus freaks like your-self were not so “intellectually lazy” (unlike very intellectual atheists who realize their odds of winning the religion lottery are slim) then maybe you would live a more godly life and not spew this type of ignorance and ‘between the lines’ hate. Maybe you could act more moral like the majority of Atheists do.
January 2, 2007 1:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 13:29
The only advantage Cal has on me, an atheist, is that if he is right he'll be able to say "I told you so" and if I am right I won't.
Given the tone of his article, that's a rather big bummer.
If we got our morals from the Bible we would kill our neighbor for working (even gathering wood in the forest) on Sunday, kill all homosexuals and kill our own children if they do not follow our faith. Even the believers amongst you decide what it is in the Bible you think is right or moral and follow that. How do you make the distinction if you don't have the ability to decide right from wrong?
Why would you believe that a "loving" God is not a just God? I could never believe in a God so insecure that he puts faith before deeds.
I have lived a moral life and if God is loving and just he'll take me. And I'm betting I'll be looking down, saying to Cal and the others who went to church but didn't live it, "I told you so."
As they say: Don't tell my you're a Christian, let me figure it out for myself.
January 2, 2007 1:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 13:12
"I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so)."
What arrogant, arrant crap. Ever heard of the term "logical fallacy"? Somehow, the basis for *your* pro-life stance is valid, if only becasue because millions across millennia have shared your it...even if it does have the exact same validity as Dawkins' Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If your beliefs lead YOU to a better life, I'm happy for you. But don't expect your beliefs to be worthy of intellectual respect if they have all the rationality of Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus.
January 2, 2007 12:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 12:13
I've never been able to read Cal Thomas' syndicated column without tossing the paper aside in disgust. And his entry above is true to form, referring to atheists as intellectually lazy.
Here is a Thomas column that encapsulates my complaint about his approach to issues:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas010405.asp
He basically accuses the singer's critics of being motivated solely by hatred of "traditional values," which is a politician's phrase with no real meaning. This the same rhetoric he uses with religious issues - in his eyes, anyone who criticizes Christian doctrine really hates Christians.
January 2, 2007 12:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 12:11
I cannot find it necessary to treat belief as a person. The personification of your God only makes "HIM" less believable. Actions not belief in a brutal creator make someone good or bad.
January 2, 2007 11:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 11:27
Cal's argument reminded me of this old story:
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php
Well worth reading...
January 2, 2007 11:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 11:07
Cal,
"(Pro-Life)....That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."
Yes, Cal. We treat others as we please, and it pleases us to treat others as we would like to be treated" We need no God to be kind. Why can't you get that? You have a God and yet you're being a jerk. There are robust secular Ethics studies being conducted in major universities across the world that can explain why we can be good. Pssst, hold on to your hat, much of it is explained by Evolutionary Psychology.
"If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."
Believe in what? Vishnu? Thor? Allah?
According to Cal, (paraphrase) 'It takes more faith not to believe in VISHNU than to believe in VISHNU.'
"It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."
No, intellectual laziness means you don't know your physics and biology and misuse the word 'chance' when you really mean the 'natural forces' behind snowflakes and fingerprints.
Secondly, Cal seems to believe it is not OK for the universe to "happen" without a designer but OK for the designer to just "happen". This is philosophical laziness. At lease I can say I don't have a damn clue as to how the Universe began, big bangs, inverse blackholes, and quantum foam notwithstanding. Cal seems to have certainty derived from an iron-age relic of a book.
"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right....."
Holy moly. Did Cal just use Pascal's Wager? This isn't even past the first two pages of a book on Apologetics...in the chapter titled "Arguments Debunked in Philosophy 101".
Cal, I have a much scarier God in mind. And if you refuse IT, IT will reap pain upon you 10x that of your God's Hell. I think you should accept IT just in case.
"....I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships"
Dropping God has made my life better. My friend walks the way of the Bhudda and he's just fantastic. See how this argument fails.
Cal, how you get a platform to discuss such important matters bewilders me. You haven't a clue.
January 2, 2007 10:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 10:56
Thomas's suggestion that atheists can abuse and kill fellow humans another simply for lack of divine retribution is downright perverse. Shame on him.
And the wager is about the flimsiest reason for believing in God that I've ever heard. I've got a wager for you: What if God exists, but reserves Hell for believers and Heaven for atheists?
January 2, 2007 1:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 01:00
Staks' Wager
I was talking to a Christian the other day and he said to me, "you might as well believe in a god because if your wrong you will go to hell. You have nothing to lose."
A French Mathematician, Blaise Pascal, was once asked why he believed in God. Pascal decided to take up the challenge and presented an argument that has since been called Pascal's Wager.
God either exists or he doesn't. And we either choose to believe or we don't. If God does exist and we believe in him then we get a big reward i.e. heaven. If God does exist and we do not believe in him, then we get a big punishment i.e. hell. If God does not exist and we do not believe in his existence then there is "no harm, no fowl." If God does not exist and we do believe in him then there is "no harm, no fowl." So Pascal wagers that one should just believe because it is the only chance for a positive outcome without the risk of a negative outcome.
Problems with Pascal's Wager:
1. With a choice of many Gods, some of which make it clear that one cannot believe in more than one of them, one must pick which God to follow in order to get the best of rewards and avoid the worst of the punishments.
2. Is it really, "no harm, no fowl?" I'm not so sure.
Staks' Wager:
God either exists or he doesn't and we either choose to believe or we don't. But does the God we choose to believe in have superior morality? First, If God does exist and does have superior morality, then by the logic of superior morality as best as we can understand it, it would be unjust for a just God to punish a just person. Therefore, the only criteria that God could use as grounds for entrance to Heaven would be living a moral life as best as we can. Second possibility, if God exists but does not have superior morality. In this case, God could use any criteria at all as entrance to Heaven. Some possible criteria might be but is not limited too, wearing pink pockadot socks every other Thursday, praying in a certain direction at a certain time, believing that his son is your personal Lord and savior, or maybe it is watching American Idol. In any case, Socrates once told his student Crito that it was always better to receive an injustice than it was to do an injustice. With that same logic, it would be better to be a good person in hell than be a not good person in heaven. So once more we are left to the conclusion that we ought to live a moral life to the best of our ability. And lastly we have the third possibility. God doesn’t exist. If this is the case, Aristotle makes a very good argument that the best way to be happy is to be moral. This however is too long of an argument to recount here, but the bottom line is that in all three cases, the best outcomes come when we live a moral life to the best of our ability. Therefore, as long as we do that, it really doesn’t matter if God exists and has superior morality, exists and doesn’t have superior morality, or doesn’t exist at all. Just live a moral life to the best of your ability.
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net
January 1, 2007 11:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 23:21
Staks' Wager
I was talking to a Christian the other day and he said to me, "you might as well believe in a god because if your wrong you will go to hell. You have nothing to lose."
A French Mathematician, Blaise Pascal, was once asked why he believed in God. Pascal decided to take up the challenge and presented an argument that has since been called Pascal's Wager.
God either exists or he doesn't. And we either choose to believe or we don't. If God does exist and we believe in him then we get a big reward i.e. heaven. If God does exist and we do not believe in him, then we get a big punishment i.e. hell. If God does not exist and we do not believe in his existence then there is "no harm, no fowl." If God does not exist and we do believe in him then there is "no harm, no fowl." So Pascal wagers that one should just believe because it is the only chance for a positive outcome without the risk of a negative outcome.
Problems with Pascal's Wager:
1. With a choice of many Gods, some of which make it clear that one cannot believe in more than one of them, one must pick which God to follow in order to get the best of rewards and avoid the worst of the punishments.
2. Is it really, "no harm, no fowl?" I'm not so sure.
Staks' Wager:
God either exists or he doesn't and we either choose to believe or we don't. But does the God we choose to believe in have superior morality? First, If God does exist and does have superior morality, then by the logic of superior morality as best as we can understand it, it would be unjust for a just God to punish a just person. Therefore, the only criteria that God could use as grounds for entrance to Heaven would be living a moral life as best as we can. Second possibility, if God exists but does not have superior morality. In this case, God could use any criteria at all as entrance to Heaven. Some possible criteria might be but is not limited too, wearing pink pockadot socks every other Thursday, praying in a certain direction at a certain time, believing that his son is your personal Lord and savior, or maybe it is watching American Idol. In any case, Socrates once told his student Crito that it was always better to receive an injustice than it was to do an injustice. With that same logic, it would be better to be a good person in hell than be a not good person in heaven. So once more we are left to the conclusion that we ought to live a moral life to the best of our ability. And lastly we have the third possibility. God doesn’t exist. If this is the case, Aristotle makes a very good argument that the best way to be happy is to be moral. This however is too long of an argument to recount here, but the bottom line is that in all three cases, the best outcomes come when we live a moral life to the best of our ability. Therefore, as long as we do that, it really doesn’t matter if God exists and has superior morality, exists and doesn’t have superior morality, or doesn’t exist at all. Just live a moral life to the best of your ability.
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net
January 1, 2007 11:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 23:20
Why on God's green earth would the Washington Post allow such drivel to be published?
Was the editor preparing to leave in a hurry for vacation, as the author obviously was, when he tossed off this intellectually lazy, pandering, worthless, article?
It is telling that Mr. Thomas' byline says he is "veteran" of print journalism. Evidently, jornalism and the military have one thing in common -- one only becomes a "veteran" when one quits, retires, or dies.
January 1, 2007 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 15:41
By the way, Pascal's Wager should always be subtitled thus; "or The Sucker's Bet"
January 1, 2007 2:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 14:43
"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy."
I assume you're talking about the Christian God.
But how much faith does it take for you not to believe in Zeus? Odin? Krishna? Ahura Mazda? Mithra?
Is your rejection of those deities due to your intellectual laziness, Cal?
I just believe in one less God than you do...
January 1, 2007 2:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 14:41
We are discussing this article on the Internet Infidels Discussion board also:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=191443
Please feel free to join us there too!
Brian
January 1, 2007 11:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 11:44
Does it really matter whether one believes a particular set of rules? Can we not be comfortable not knowing "the truth". I am. I gave up trying to understand once and for all this life I came into. I'd rather continue trying to be the best human I can be and enjoy each passing moment as best I can, doing what is right in the universal way. You know, the basic rules of decent humanity (so anarchy is not leading us)--"Do unto others..." etc.These rules just make sense, that's all. Now, get on with living and quit trying to be "know-it-alls". I know one thing for sure---no one human being has a corner on the market of truth. It doesn't matter. Besides, if there is a God who judges, what's to judge if you spent your life trying to be a good human being? And, if the atheists are right, what harm has been done just being a good human being?
RELAX. LIVE IN THIS MOMENT. BE GOOD for the simple reason it is the best path to follow.
January 1, 2007 11:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 11:01
Mark Eaton really says it. We know the true story that the ruler of heaven dispenses justice and serves as protector. His thunder and lightning are tokens of His wrath, representing His glorious and awful judgment on the world. His son, born to a pure girl, leads the fight against evil and defends the poor and the innocent.
Oh, wait, Mark, wrong story. I was talking about Zeus, Danae and Perseus.
A lot of us have considered and moved beyond Pascal's shallow reasoning about belief. Men and women who say they believe as insurance being better treated by a god than men and women who question belief or do not believe but live good lives says a lot about the problem, not with the men and women but with the god.
January 1, 2007 8:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 08:47
"God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."
Right. We may treat each other as we please, and that includes kindness and compassion. Even the religious admit that "god" is something they just made up (though they give it the lofty name of "faith". So even whatever kindness the religious people exhibit, they are doing so because it's what they choose to do, not what an imaginary "god" commands them to.
The only universal laws are laws which CAN'T be broken: the laws of physics. And those laws leave LOTS of room for compassion, kindness, charity, and love.
Remember, "Secular Humanism" is mainly about "humanism", which is concern for humanity.
January 1, 2007 7:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 07:19
"The Atheist Wager": it isn't a wager, it's an observation. Religion isn't observation; 'it's desperate, irrational thrashing in the face of the unknown, and it's an embarrassment to the human race.
January 1, 2007 7:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 07:11
"Gilker:
Does anyone posting here really, truly believe that the same person who wrote that column would deign to read - much less take to heart - anything that runs contrary to his conclusions?"
Thomas has been writing this exact same stuff most of his career without any updating or responding or even acknowledging critiques of his, frankly, rather amateur arguments.
So, the answer is no. But I think the commenters here, religious and non, ARE interested in having the debates and discussions that Thomas is pathologically incapable of being a part of.
January 1, 2007 1:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 1, 2007 01:57
"It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."
Wow, talk about intellectually lazy. I find it'd be intellectually lazy to just regurgitate strawman arguments like this for your position.
Fingerprints and snowflakes are unique.
Things that are unique were created by a Designer.
Therefore, since the universe has fingerprints and snowflakes, it also has a Designer.
So, we understand that life is complicated, and the universe is complicated. How do we understand how a complicated life form was brought to existence. We can explain in a naturalistic theory of evolution. Or we could use a nebulous, unfathomable idea of a God to explain it. So, in the idea, we'd be using the unexplainable to explain the unexplained. Perfect logic.
And way to use Pascal's Wager. That hasn't been discredited a million times over already. Why are you syndicated? Do you realize that Pascal's Wager could apply to every god invented by man and not just the Christian god?
That's why it fails.
It's not "in vogue", it's just intellectual honesty.
December 31, 2006 8:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 31, 2006 20:26
If the Post/Newsweek editors are going to pay Mr. Thomas for such insulting and bigoted material, then they can consider this my application for employment. I can do just the same, for less, and I'll actually use factual information and truth in my articles.
December 31, 2006 7:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 31, 2006 19:56
I was linked to this post from another forum, and so did not realize that the idea of atheism being "in vogue" was the premise of the moderators, not Mr. Thomas. With that realization, I can withdraw my criticism of that idea, at least as is relates to him. The rest still stands.
Another note: It looks to me like the majority of the respondents on this page (on all sides of the issue) put far more thought to their posts than Mr. Thomas did. Good job, people.
December 31, 2006 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 31, 2006 13:22
how can we atheist possible hate a god when we do know that SHE doesnt exist? as for homphobic cal if he can prove to me there is a jesus/god i buy him a new toupee/rug next xmas.
December 31, 2006 9:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 31, 2006 09:34
---It's inappropriate to ask WHY it's "in vogue" to be an atheist when in fact there is no evidence that it's in vogue at all. The question does nothing but set up a straw man to hack down.---
But isn't that what christian religions do, set up straw men to then have God or his appointees hack down? According to the christians we're all born with original sin. We're all evil from birth. Therefore you can only be good by accepting Jesus. What a straw man that is...
But what really gets under my skin is this idea that "athiests" are some sort of group, almost a