Comments on: The Faithful Go To Church, The Rest Go To Therapy

By: reverse phone number

reverse phone number — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:48:15 +0000

reverse phone number Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely useful info specially the last part I care for such info a lot. I was seeking this particular information for a long time. Thank you and best …

Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely useful info specially the last part I care for such info a lot. I was seeking this particular information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck….

By: Aquila

Aquila — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:16:23 +0000

I put this article away and didn't get around to reading it until just now.
Wow! An absolutely masterful piece of writing that I'm sharing on my site and with the inmates at the Federal prison where I minister. A big thank you to Michael McGruther.

By: Think

Think — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:54:21 +0000

The Nazis, (whom you erroneously cite), were under Hitler. Hitler was a Roman Catholic in good standing. He refered to himself as "god's messenger," and other titles like that. He said he was doing "god's work."

Stalin didn't do what he did because he was an Athiest. He did it because he felt that's what he needed to do to get the Soviet Union ahead.

And I'd like to think that my thoughts can be explained as simply that, but in actuality, humans are far more adept at thinking than any other species on Earth. I know my morals and limits.

And the difference it makes me is that I want to be remembered as a kind, giving person who made a positive difference. It won't make anything better for me, but it will make things better for others. That's what counts.

And to say that morals cannot exist without religion, and that religion invented them is dumb. Nobody needs god to tell them not to kill stuff.

By: Think

Think — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:48:47 +0000

Your point about the young scientist proves nothing. That is merely the 'god of gaps' effect. People think that whatever science can't explain, must be 'god.' Then, when science CAN explain it, they suddenly don't think so. It's like seeing a magician.

And even then, I could create ANY omnipotent entity and say "The flying spaghetti monster solves that problem, too!" How do you counter that?

By: Think

Think — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:48:34 +0000

I believe the burden of proof falls on thiests. It seems far more likely that the Univese popped into existance through the Big Bang, which there IS evidence for, and over millions of years, the Earth came into being through a series of predictable and logical occurances, than a big, mysterious, all powerful being creating it in 7 days, and then writes a big book about it, then kicks humans out of paradise for something one person did, then commits countless atrocities, WHICH HE DOCUMENTS, then dissapears so that for the next several thousand years, so that people can argue over if he exists or not.

Better yet, prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. Or any other mythical beings. You have no proof that you don't. Likewise, you have no proof the god exists. His only 'evidence' is a really old book. Does being in a book make something true? If I write a really violent book with lots of contradictions, does that make whatever happens in it true 2000 years from now?

By: Think

Think — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:32:32 +0000

The same way you can not believe in santa claus, zeus, or anything else like that.

By: MovieBob

MovieBob — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:41:43 +0000

"you stated you have greater discomfort with destroying a fetus because of its (actual and scientific given the fetus' DNA vs. chicken or tree DNA and not merely "theoretical" as you allege) potential for personhood. Why do you have greater discomfort, then?"

In a word: Sentimentality. I can't eat turtle, either – can't even watch one being prepared for eating. Because I like turtles. They're cute.

A fetus has the potential to be a full-blown human. Potential, I stress. They also kinda look like babies at certain stages. So, yes, there is DISCOMFORT for me, for sentimental reasons. It is simply a matter of my commitment's to individual freedom, liberty, the right of people to do what they wish with their own bodies, to not be "trapped" by a biological occurance that can be mitigated or even prevented outweighing my sentimentality.

I'd LIKE to do away with abortion and skip the whole mess altogether. There's research being done in the areas of time-limited chemical sterilization (a "night before" pill for men, basically) that holds tremendous promise in this regard.

By: Tim H

Tim H — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:26:45 +0000

I believe you're right about the Chesterton/Lewis quote, but Lewis was heavily influenced by Chesterton and might have repeated it later.

By: christopher wiebe

christopher wiebe — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:22:31 +0000

my buddy Atheist has a word for them, Secular Humanists. And he finds it annoying that they wants alot of the morals of the Church, but then attack the Church. Its funny really.

By: Christopher Wiebe

Christopher Wiebe — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:15:49 +0000

well then, that would be the Bible with alot of pages missing, "much like your salad bar" as Eg Chen would say. but totally agree with the Obama remark.