Attack

[Avocado]

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Attacks Atheists at a Florida Event Using Rape, Decapitation Scenario—Listen Now!
Discuss.

 

[93JC]

This sort of claptrap isn't worth paying any attention to, let alone discussing.

 

[Beorn]

This sort of claptrap isn't worth paying any attention to, let alone discussing.

You say this not because it's absurd it's because you have no retort.

Everything he said is completely accurate.

 

[Beorn]

Seriously, I don't understand why Christians are expected to shoulder the burden of the hell that lies within their system of beliefs and yet atheists don't have to shoulder the burden of the absolute abyss that lurks beneath all their beliefs.

 

[Totenkindly]

You say this not because it's absurd it's because you have no retort.

Everything he said is completely accurate.

Good grief. It's just stupid sensationalist arguments and the guy doesn't even deserve to have a news article about it. You don't need to believe in some particular version of God to respect other people as equivalent beings and treat them the way you want to be treated yourself. It's why society works at all regardless of the religious views or absence of them in a culture.

I think it's kind of frightening that he thinks it's okay to publicly promote scenarios of butchering atheists. All it does is direct hostility at that demographic and eventually some dumbass is going to do it "to teach those atheists a lesson." If someone was promoting scenarios about butchering Christians because "it doesn't matter anyone, they're going to heaven and they should be able to suffer in this life just like Jesus did since in the end they'll be okay" or some other piece of utter stupidity, I'm sure you and other Christians would have something to say about it. As you should.

 

[Beorn]

Good grief. It's just stupid sensationalist arguments and the guy doesn't even deserve to have a news article about it. You don't need to believe in some particular version of God to respect other people as equivalent beings and treat them the way you want to be treated yourself. It's why society works at all regardless of the religious views or absence of them in a culture.

So, let me get this straight your argument is that society will meet the right end regardless of whether or not somebody believes in the right end?

Is that a fair assessment?

That's what I believe, too, at least in the long run and by the common grace of God that extends to the just and unjust.

But, you realize how absurd such an argument is coming from an atheist? You and I are presuming there is a "right function" of society. They don't. Or if they do then they're contradicting themselves.

Are you totally sure beliefs don't have some impact? Have you seen how nihilism seeps down into the underclass and what it does to them without even knowing what it is they believe?

I think it's kind of frightening that he thinks it's okay to publicly promote scenarios of butchering atheists. All it does is direct hostility at that demographic and eventually some dumbass is going to do it "to teach those atheists a lesson." If someone was promoting scenarios about butchering Christians because "it doesn't matter anyone, they're going to heaven and they should be able to suffer in this life just like Jesus did" or some other piece of utter stupidity, I'm sure you and other Christians would have something to say about it.

This isn't a serious complaint is it?

He finished with this:
"We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job. We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus—whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"

He is trying to emotionally engage people, but that seems to be the only way to get through to people even though his statements are COMPLETELY RATIONAL.

Here's the thing: You can only fault him IF HE'S RIGHT. Otherwise you just disagree with him and he may be violating some random rule of society by being offensive.

Nobody here can seriously deny the fact that Atheists do not believe in a universal right and wrong or in a final judgement.

 

[ReadingRainbows]

Where there is no love, there is no God.

It really takes a terrible human being to speak about those things though.

 

[Beorn]

Where there is no love, there is no God.

It really takes a terrible human being to speak about those things though.

It's a matter of context and purpose. I don't think he had to go as far as he did to make his point.

At least you can condemn it as a believer.
An atheist can only honestly say they prefer people not to talk like that.

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

I don't understand Phil Robertson's hypothetical comments, other than, the guy looks and acts like a hillbilly that's lacking social graces. I guess he thought he was being funny.

 

[Kullervo]

??? What bizarre logic.

Morality is not dependent on religious belief; some universals do exist. I am too tired to discuss a biological basis for morality, but breaking into somebody's house, killing their family and castrating them is not something people anywhere would consider to be appropriate.

Morals begin to diverge in situations where our security/life is not in immediate danger.

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

??? What bizarre logic.

Kullervo, are you talking to me?

- - - Updated - - -

Where there is no love, there is no God.

It really takes a terrible human being to speak about those things though.

I think he's human and a product of his upbringing.

 

[Avocado]

Seriously, I don't understand why Christians are expected to shoulder the burden of the hell that lies within their system of beliefs and yet atheists don't have to shoulder the burden of the absolute abyss that lurks beneath all their beliefs.

You accuse my demographic of not having to come to terms with the darkness which dwells on both sides of existence. I shouldered that and came to terms with it. If I must spend all eternity in a state of total nonexistence, I might as well focus on doing good in the here and now and find the rewards that come with merely existing for this limited slice of time in a universe that, over quadrillions upon quadrillions of years, will itself eventually die. I have stared into the abyss and come back more compassionate for my fellow man and more apt to make sure I leave society in a better place than I found it. I want the people who come after me to be happier and wiser than I am, and perhaps humans will one day reach a utopia on this "pale blue dot", as Sagan put it. I recognize I probably will not remember any of this after death, as all neural circuits cease, but I am happy in my time now. I will fight for a better present to ensure a more equitable and humane tomorrow.

Besides, morality was never based on a book to begin with. True morality comes from empathy, which is hardwired into each and every one of us. We can even see the buds of morality in other mammals and some social insects! Each one of us is 13.7 billion years in the making, as evidenced by rewinding the motion of the objects in our expanding universe. Our bodies are merely a temporary collection of atoms which will remain in some form long after the universe itself is dead. We are made of star stuff, and to the stars we will return.

 

[Totenkindly]

So, let me get this straight your argument is that society will meet the right end regardless of whether or not somebody believes in the right end?

Is that a fair assessment?

I don't even understand what you are suggesting. I mean, "Don't kill me and my family and I won't kill you and your family" can be a useful and sensible rule regardless of what your religion is or is not. An atheist can agree to that as much as a Christian can, and many other useful rules besides. Is that so difficult to understand?

That's what I believe, too, at least in the long run and by the common grace of God that extends to the just and unjust.

But, you realize how absurd such an argument is coming from an atheist? You and I are presuming there is a "right function" of society. They don't. Or if they do then they're contradicting themselves.

Are you totally sure beliefs don't have some impact? Have you seen how nihilism seeps down into the underclass and what it does to them without even knowing what it is they believe?

Why are you even going there? What I said above doesn't demand you go any further than the kinds of rules I suggested that can make society stable.

This isn't a serious complaint is it?

no. I'm just pulling your leg, who cares if atheists or Christians murder each other's families? What a joke, you know. It's never funny until someone loses an eye or a life.

Seriously, dude?

He finished with this:
"We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job. We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus—whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"

He is trying to emotionally engage people, but that seems to be the only way to get through to people even though his statements are COMPLETELY RATIONAL.

Read the article again. NO ONE is being "gotten through to" by this approach, no matter how logical and agreeable you are to the things he is saying. Apparently the total effect of his comments is for everyone to scan him as a total nutjob. Except, of course, the people who already think they have The Answer To God. Apparently not only is he wrong, but he's a lousy motivational speaker.

Here's the thing: You can only fault him IF HE'S RIGHT. Otherwise you just disagree with him and he may be violating some random rule of society by being offensive.

I fault him exactly for that. I disagree with him. I think he is violating not just a RANDOM rule of society but actually the kinds of rules that allow societies to exist at all -- the rules that protect you and me on a daily basis and the people we love. I really don't care what you want to believe religiously, and it doesn't even MATTER what you believe religiously, we still follow and protect certain rules that allow people to coexist in peace.

It's tiresome for you to remain incapable of seeing value in rules from a purely practical perspective unless they happen to align with your personal faith values. Apparently you think a society can only exist if everyone shares the same religious views.

Nobody here can seriously deny the fact that Atheists do not believe in a universal right and wrong or in a final judgement.

Since their objections are based on the rules of keeping as many people alive and happy and families intact as possible, they don't need to share your religious values. So yes, people will seriously deny your 'facts.' Just because you label it a fact doesn't make it so.

 

[Kullervo]

Kullervo, are you talking to me?

Nobody in particular - i am responding to the content of the OP. That is why I haven't quoted you.

 

[á´…eparted]

Seriously, I don't understand why Christians are expected to shoulder the burden of the hell that lies within their system of beliefs and yet atheists don't have to shoulder the burden of the absolute abyss that lurks beneath all their beliefs.

When you say hell are you referring to the idea of hell itself, and when you say absolute abyss do you mean the idea of total oblivion and ceasing to exist?

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

The thing is, folks, please take into consideration the guy wasn't raised like the rest of us. He's rough around the edges and hillbilly humor isn't pretty. Y'all just got a small taste of it in the article. I honestly think he was trying to do standup comedy and I imagine he thought it was pretty funny. I don't think there's anything more to it.

 

[á´…eparted]

The thing is, folks, please take into consideration the guy wasn't raised like the rest of us.

Not an excuse.

He's rough around the edges and hillbilly humor isn't pretty.

Also not an excuse.

Y'all just got a small taste of it in the article. I honestly think he was trying to do standup comedy and I imagine he thought it was pretty funny. I don't think there's anything more to it.

...I don't think anyone thinks he was doing this to be funny. Not even a little.

 

[93JC]

You say this not because it's absurd it's because you have no retort.

When the headline begins with "Duck Dynasty" it's patently absurd.

 

[violett]

Does anyone actually pay attention to "Duck Dynasty". I tried watching the show once and within five minutes I lost interest.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

So, let me get this straight your argument is that society will meet the right end regardless of whether or not somebody believes in the right end?

Is that a fair assessment?

That's what I believe, too, at least in the long run and by the common grace of God that extends to the just and unjust.

But, you realize how absurd such an argument is coming from an atheist? You and I are presuming there is a "right function" of society. They don't. Or if they do then they're contradicting themselves.

Are you totally sure beliefs don't have some impact? Have you seen how nihilism seeps down into the underclass and what it does to them without even knowing what it is they believe?

What percentage of prisoners are atheists?

This is an important question with serious implications. If the number is high, it lends support to the idea that atheists are immoral [...] If the number is low, it might provide some proof that, indeed, atheists have their own moral compass that doesn’t involve a holy book.

[...]

Of the prisoners willing to give their religious affiliations (and that’s an important caveat), atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population.

[...]

Protestants make up 28.7% of the prison population; Catholics, 24%; Muslims, 5.5%; American Indians, 3.1%[...]

What Percentage of Prisoners are Atheists? It’s a Lot Smaller Than We Ever Imagined