Richard Dawkins evil twin
..is Mary Grabar, who spews the usual Christianist cant in this hit piece at Townhall.com entitiled "Atheistic Democracy: An oxymoron". I'll spare you a lengthty excerpt, as a few lowlights will suffice to give you a hint about the quality of her argumentative skills:
If any of my theist friends can read the full article and find one scintilla of original thought or redeeming argumenation, please point it out to me. Her caricatures are too stiff even to be strawmen.
This of course presupposes the notion of sin, or if you don’t like that old-fashioned word, imperfection. Christianity acknowledges the universality of human sin in addition to the universality of dignity. Therefore the Christian recognizes the limits of government because of the limitations of the (fallen) people who make up the government. The ultimate arbiter is God, not man the Scientist. Who is the ultimate arbiter for the atheist? Sam Harris? Richard Dawkins? Adolf Hitler? To whom will they appeal when they cannot decide their infernal debates?
...
This is where the idea of forgiveness comes in. The atheistic world view, since it does not allow for sin, does not allow for forgiveness.
...
But atheists believe in the Power of Their Own Minds and reforming society to bring about a utopia. Their Own Minds have come up with affirmative action, as well as forced euthanasia to “alleviate suffering,” concentration camps, and communism.
...
I’ve had a student tell me about pagan rituals involving the drinking of human blood. Indeed, stupid atheists are responsible for taking away the spiritual bulwarks against internal jihad in our schools.
...
But as I stated in my previous column, atheists are stupid. .. Well, the atheists are smart in a limited way. They can function at their technical jobs. But they cannot see or think outside of that box. They cannot do philosophy.
If any of my theist friends can read the full article and find one scintilla of original thought or redeeming argumenation, please point it out to me. Her caricatures are too stiff even to be strawmen.
6 Comments:
I liked the bit about atheists not doing philosophy. Clearly she has a deep grounding in the classics.
Ah,yes, the famous Xtian concept of forgiveness, in which, after you admit you were wrong, all your property is seized by the priests, you are thrown into a dungeon for life and your wife and children starve.
Christianity acknowledges the universality of human sin in addition to the universality of dignity. Therefore the Christian recognizes the limits of government because of the limitations of the (fallen) people who make up the government. The ultimate arbiter is God, not man the Scientist.
Anyone with even a glancing familiarity with history, and untainted by religious belief, would quickly draw the lesson of universal, bloody minded, human buffoonery.
Therefore, the Dunnoist is perfectly well acquainted with the limitations of humans in government.
And the Dunnoist also happens, thanks to Darwin, to be perfectly comfortable with the time bound resistance of human nature to change, and the absolute impossibility of its perfection.
I could go on, but I would be stating the glaringly apparent.
What is also apparent is that her argument, unlike Dawkins', rests primarily on ad hominem attack.
Orrin likes that "universality of dignity" stuff too.
I have to say, I don't quite get what they're trying to convey with that phrase.
They're all just platitudes.
'the young flocking to the despot Louis Farrakhan' may be a sign of trouble, but it is not atheistical trouble.
I think the lady doctor has some serious boundary problems.
A little later in the piece, she carries on a bit about the days 'when women could be stoned to death.'
Those days are not so distant, are they?
But I never heard of atheists stoning women to death. Only the faithful do that.
Post a Comment
<< Home