Violence Against Innocents Should Be Renounced

"Thanks, Chuck! I suggest you reread your own words to discover this real truth for yourself."

And what exactly is the truth? I'll offer an example of a true story that ocurred in 1946 ...

Two great philosophers met in a public hall, face to face, for a hotly contentious debate. A number of scholars and renowned philosophers were in the audience. At one point there was a brief, acrimonious exchange. At that point, one of the debaters picked up a poker from the lit fireplace and waved it around. Shortly after that, he left the room and did not return.

Within a short time, rumors of the encounter went literally around the world. To this day; however, the great minds present cannot agree on what precisely happened. Everybody disagrees on the precise details, but nobody doubts that the meeting took place.

It is commonplace among lawyers that eyewitnesses disagree but that this doesn't mean nothing happened.

"With this column, Chuck has provided unassailable proof that religious "truths" are not truth at all. They're pure conjecture/opinion/fantasy."

"Unassailable proof only" to those who don't understand words like proof or how proofs are inferred through logical processes.

Mr Colson explicitly addressed "truth claims," not truth. And where, as he observed, mutually contradictory truth claims cannot all be actually true, it is not legitimate to infer that all are therefore necessarily false. If a number of people variously claim that 2 + 2 = 4, or 7, or 11,or 9 and 6/13; their mutually exclusive disagreement does not automatically make 2+2=4 false.

"This is a point echoed by Sam Harris--we're all atheists when it comes to someone else's religion"

Sam's confused attempt to equate not believing in God, and not believing in somebody else's particular god, is a disingenuous muddling of meaning in service of an argument. If you have to twist word meanings to arrive at your conclusion, your conclusion is indefensible.

Amen, Mr. Colson.

You were given a very misleading question to answer; Rev. Parsley has never called for the destruction of Islam. So your comments along those lines, while accurate and commendable, in no way apply to his comments.

Rev. Parsley writes in his book, "Silent No More," as you write in your post, that Christians should seek to win the Muslim people to Christianity, not to destroy them.

Gary Scott,

I haven't heard of Mr. Parsley either. Mr. Colson, whose ministry probably keeps him very busy, probably hasn't much time for television (which is a prequisite for having time for televangelists).

I don't have a ministry, but I do have a life, and so I have little time for TV or televangelists. Somehow, as a Christian, I seem to have managed OK without his help.

Now, what was the question or point that we "theists" (a funny name) were supposed to respond to? If you clarify for me, I'll try.

yours,
Ryan Haber

I'm surprised that GaryD and others haven't remarked that Mr Kuznetsov's problem comes down to a lack of faith. After all, it isn't even May yet! The world may still end as he predicted.

I wonder if there's a religious term for those who lose faith a mere month before a prophecy comes true? Lutherans, perhaps?

With this column, Chuck has provided unassailable proof that religious "truths" are not truth at all. They're pure conjecture/opinion/fantasy.

Thanks, Chuck! I suggest you reread your own words to discover this real truth for yourself.

This is a point echoed by Sam Harris--we're all atheists when it comes to someone else's religion.

The next step is to realize that some of us have concluded, generally after a lifetime of experience and careful study and thought, that we believe in exactly one less god than you do.

Thanks for the post.

Why? There are a good many Christian Myself among them who avoid blow dried televaglelist like the plague they are.

Chuck, thank you. Thank you from an atheist who has been trying to get theists to understand his point of view for so frickin' long. I shall point this to my believer friends, and perhaps a better dialog will emerge. No clearer could it be said.

In the end, the real question is, "Where's the beef?"

Still no word from y'all theists on that one. But at least you recognize the correct question, Chuck!

Chuck, thank you. Thank you from an atheist who has been trying to get theists to understand his point of view for so frickin' long. I shall point this to my believer friends, and perhaps a better dialog will emerge. No clearer could it be said.

I find it difficult to believe that Chuck Colson, leader of one of the biggest ministries in the nation, has never heard of Rod Parsley, one of the biggest televangelists in the nation.