Comments on: Lonewolf Diaries: Why Atheism is a “Mental Handicap”

By: Twitter Trackbacks for Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Lonewolf Diaries: Why Atheism is a “Mental Handicap” [breitbart.com] on Topsy.com

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:24:34 +0000

[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Lonewolf Diaries: Why Atheism is a “Mental Handicap” bighollywood.breitbart.com/scrowder/2009/03/24/lonewolf-diaries-why-atheism-is-mentally-handicap – view page – cached Notice how I avoided using the word “Retarded?” I’ve seen that many conservatives have developed a sudden hyper-sensitivity for the disabled this week, so I’ve opted to tread lightly. — From the page [...]

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Together at last: Zo and Crowder on what it means to be Republican

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:50:59 +0000

[...] why that is: Because when it comes to this particular stereotype, each of our leading men is only too happy to embrace it. Ah well. After years of nonsense like this, you learn to laugh about these [...]

By: davidbowieiloveyou

davidbowieiloveyou — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:20:57 +0000

You employ the argument from consequences, a form of logical fallacy: "I don't like the implications of atheism". This has no bearing on the truth value of the proposition "there is no god" (though maybe this is a little ambiguous – I would certainly feel more comfortable saying "I do not believe christianity to be true"). That I or others may personally disagree with your opinions on the consequences of atheism is irrelevant. You haven't said "atheism is false", you have declared yourself to be an emotional infant who cannot take the possible consequences of accepting the world as it is.

By: Ronan

Ronan — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:02:41 +0000

i can deny it deborah, i can.Can one deny the PERFECTION of his word through mohammad and islam? A fairytale is a fairytale, whether its tiny or huge, and there is no-one to say one morality is better than the next, the religious won't let people enjoy their one life and live likes snobs.

By: michou

michou — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:49:32 +0000

No not because of a book. I believe the fact that there is a creation, it exists, proves a creator. Start out simply- faith is like learning to walk; I agree if you believe beause a book says so, that is really gullible!

By: deener

deener — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:22:30 +0000

The only obfuscation thats going on here is what you're doing. I'm being clear; discuss this topic with me – meaning contributing some of your own thoughts on the matter. Why does anything Rich Deem have to say compelling? thought provoking? or why is it even evidence other than the bible (even though it makes sure to be supported by the bible)? Same thing with William Lane Craig – what are points you think of his that are important? convincing? What is it about these men and their work that you think is most relevant? You claim to know everything I might say or think when it comes to this topic, so these shouldn't be too difficult to account for.

All's i'm asking you to do is tell me what _you_ think. I'm not saying linking to other people or works isn't good enough, but i'm more interested into why it is you think that these links are even worth looking at. Have you even read any of them? How do you know that they would be worth looking into? Instead alls you've done is try to weasel your way out of a conversation while trying to frame me as someone who isn't interested in what you have to say – when thats all i've been asking of you – THATS obfuscation.

Of course, if you have no thoughts of your own on the matter, than just say so, and we'll move on – but if this is the best you can do, than this is the best you can do.

As a side – I'm glad to see you've edited your post to remove that analogy. Thats the best thinking I've seen from you thus far.

By: Nick Ourso

Nick Ourso — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:43:43 +0000

By your rationale, pigs must fly. It's impossible for me to have comprehensive and complete knowledge about all pigs, at all times. As such, farmers need to begin building roofs on their pig pens, lest the pigs fly away and we lose all that delicious bacon.

See how ridiculous that is? 100% certainty is not a requirement.

I can't show (provide evidence) that God doesn't exist any more than I can't show that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. That doesn't mean the Tooth Fairy must exist.

By: dcase

dcase — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:07:07 +0000

these were not our claims; but Mr Crowders and as we said, it was meant to start debate. We do not feel we are condescending nor do we feel superior.. just comfortable in our beliefs as you should be…

By: dcase

dcase — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:05:09 +0000

where does it state that? Darwin never lost his faith; indeed it was strengthened. Evolution does not necessarily mean we are apes with higher intelligence. The trouble with absolute dogma is it has been interpreted by humans…

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:03:49 +0000

wow, the old "atheists kill people" argument. Yes, Stalin ordered millions of people to be killed and he was an atheist, gosh that must mean all atheists kill people… Nixon ordered thousands of people killed in Vietnam and he was a Quaker, does that mean all Quakers are killers? if you look at the modern world leaders who were atheists….Helen Clark, New Zealand Prime Minister, 1999 – 2008: open agnostic. Robert (Bob) James Lee Hawke, Australian Prime Minister, 1983 – 1991: open agnostic. Bill Hayden, Governor-General of Australia, 1989 – 1996: open atheist. And Winston Churchill called himself agnostic – gee, not to much material there for the "atheists are murderous killers" argument is there… people are people, good and bad, no matter what they believe in.