<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Response to Richard Dawkins</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-response-to-richard-dawkins</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:57:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Johnsen</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5292750</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Johnsen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5292750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sometime the system posts before I am done. Pardon me.
For example, I am no defender of the Roman Catholic Church when it place Galileo under house arrest. But they were not doing so, even with one or two biblical quotes they twisted for the purpose, because of the Christian faith or biblical doctrine. They were defending Aristotle who insisted that the earth did not move. Last time I looked Aristotle was not a Christian or a Jew. And in fact it was the new Lutheran university in Wittenberg that sent their natural philosphy professor to Kopernik. Reticus brought the theory that the earth revolved around the sun to Europe. In fact all of the founders of science were Christians or Jews. Yes, some early Greeks were very good but most of that sound science was suppressed by, not the Christians, but the Platonist and the Gnostics you seem to admire.
I could go on and on with examples of how someone has lied to you about our history. But one fact stands out without contradiction: Science, and the freedom of inquiry and speech that makes it possible, arose only in Western Europe and then America. No Muslim (accept the knowledge the stole from the library of Alexandria when they burned it), no Hindu (even with a wonderful art and great wisdom), no Shinto, no pagan, no Gnostic did this. But Newton and the two Bacons and Kepler and Kopernik (an abbot) and Galileo and on and on began science when they buried the anceint Greek philosophers and took up the words of the Torah: TOV! It is good, what He named, He called good. Without this love of nature and the physical world, without overthrowing the spiritualism of the Plato, we would have no freedom of speech, no science, no world where it is safe and welcome to be an atheist.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sometime the system posts before I am done. Pardon me.<br />
For example, I am no defender of the Roman Catholic Church when it place Galileo under house arrest. But they were not doing so, even with one or two biblical quotes they twisted for the purpose, because of the Christian faith or biblical doctrine. They were defending Aristotle who insisted that the earth did not move. Last time I looked Aristotle was not a Christian or a Jew. And in fact it was the new Lutheran university in Wittenberg that sent their natural philosphy professor to Kopernik. Reticus brought the theory that the earth revolved around the sun to Europe. In fact all of the founders of science were Christians or Jews. Yes, some early Greeks were very good but most of that sound science was suppressed by, not the Christians, but the Platonist and the Gnostics you seem to admire.<br />
I could go on and on with examples of how someone has lied to you about our history. But one fact stands out without contradiction: Science, and the freedom of inquiry and speech that makes it possible, arose only in Western Europe and then America. No Muslim (accept the knowledge the stole from the library of Alexandria when they burned it), no Hindu (even with a wonderful art and great wisdom), no Shinto, no pagan, no Gnostic did this. But Newton and the two Bacons and Kepler and Kopernik (an abbot) and Galileo and on and on began science when they buried the anceint Greek philosophers and took up the words of the Torah: TOV! It is good, what He named, He called good. Without this love of nature and the physical world, without overthrowing the spiritualism of the Plato, we would have no freedom of speech, no science, no world where it is safe and welcome to be an atheist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Johnsen</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5292729</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Johnsen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5292729</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I began an atheist from about 5th grade until about 18. I too changed by reading history, sometimes in the original Greek and Hebrew and Latin. Beside reading I came to know people of character and intelligence who were very conservative Christians. By conservative I mean biblical.
     It is clear to me that all you know of history comes from public school education and the Menonite history. I admire the the followers of Menos and decry what Rome and Saxony did to them. But I do not agree with their particular slant on a few Christian doctrines. I respect them, even love the ones I know personally, but I do not agree with everything they teach.
     But public schools have as central goal the distruction of sectarian religion. You, not I, have been brain washed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I began an atheist from about 5th grade until about 18. I too changed by reading history, sometimes in the original Greek and Hebrew and Latin. Beside reading I came to know people of character and intelligence who were very conservative Christians. By conservative I mean biblical.<br />
     It is clear to me that all you know of history comes from public school education and the Menonite history. I admire the the followers of Menos and decry what Rome and Saxony did to them. But I do not agree with their particular slant on a few Christian doctrines. I respect them, even love the ones I know personally, but I do not agree with everything they teach.<br />
     But public schools have as central goal the distruction of sectarian religion. You, not I, have been brain washed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godagesil Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5291900</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Godagesil Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5291900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Need I remind you that Christianity did its best to stamp out scientific thought, which by its very nature rebelled against the dogmatic thinking that was at its root.  The fact that you have not bothered to read up on the chaotic history of your own faith tells me all I need to know about your critical thinking.  With all respect, I was like that too, when I was 15 yo.  I chose the path of studying history first, then science.  I can tell you, yes, to research the history of the early church will shake your faith, if you are not so indoctrinated already that you won&#039;t even attempt it.  It documents simple power grabbing and control of the people&#039;s minds.  The various sects killed burned and used any other technique they could to consolidate their control.  There were numerous christian sects vying for power and Catholicism won out and their&#039;s by and large is the version all current forms have sprung from.  The Gnostic Manichaeism sect was obliterated by the Catholics and all their texts either destroyed or suppressed, there are probably copies in the Papal library in the staff only area...lol.  The fact that the catholic church burned the first man to translate the bible from latin or greek into more easily available German says volumes about control  Guttenberg almost suffered the same fate for printing it.  The muslims with their hight illiteracy rate are very similar to day as Europe was 900 years ago.  The priestly parasite class tell them what to think, who to hate, who to kill, and what god would want them to do.  Nothing has changed, just the name of the religion and the underlying motive: an imaginary god.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Need I remind you that Christianity did its best to stamp out scientific thought, which by its very nature rebelled against the dogmatic thinking that was at its root.  The fact that you have not bothered to read up on the chaotic history of your own faith tells me all I need to know about your critical thinking.  With all respect, I was like that too, when I was 15 yo.  I chose the path of studying history first, then science.  I can tell you, yes, to research the history of the early church will shake your faith, if you are not so indoctrinated already that you won&#8217;t even attempt it.  It documents simple power grabbing and control of the people&#8217;s minds.  The various sects killed burned and used any other technique they could to consolidate their control.  There were numerous christian sects vying for power and Catholicism won out and their&#8217;s by and large is the version all current forms have sprung from.  The Gnostic Manichaeism sect was obliterated by the Catholics and all their texts either destroyed or suppressed, there are probably copies in the Papal library in the staff only area&#8230;lol.  The fact that the catholic church burned the first man to translate the bible from latin or greek into more easily available German says volumes about control  Guttenberg almost suffered the same fate for printing it.  The muslims with their hight illiteracy rate are very similar to day as Europe was 900 years ago.  The priestly parasite class tell them what to think, who to hate, who to kill, and what god would want them to do.  Nothing has changed, just the name of the religion and the underlying motive: an imaginary god.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godagesil Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5331724</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Godagesil Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5331724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Seriously?  Modern Christianity might have done that,  but certainly not before the 1800&#039;s.  The bible itself, the old testament documents genocide by the Jews...it was a parochial book...we good...them bad.  It was a tribal text.  Only in the new text were others embraced.  You cannot cherry pick, which was my original point.  Catholicism is dogmatic...you got to take it all or none.  Protestantism, now thats a different thing.  Anabaptism by ancestor&#039;s religion was the first to postulate a personal relationship with god.  Even Martin Luther found the Anabaptists (forerunners of the Amish, Church of the Bretheren, Mennonites, and Hutterites, all different sects of the Anabaptists) independence too much to swallow and began burning them after they fled Catholic bonfires.  They had their own diasphora and I have encountered Mennonite carbon copies of my grandfather in Mennotite communities in such diverse places as the jungles of Bolivia, the state of Chihuahua in Mexico, prairies of N. Montana, and sw Texas.  If you really think that chistianitiy has a lock on morality, you are sadly mistaken.  Morality rose from the needs of the tribe.  You don&#039;t fool around with the other guys wife while he is out tending the flock for weeks at a time, since you don&#039;t want him to diddle yours while you&#039;re gone (golden rule).  You don&#039;t kill the other guy for obvious reasons, it doesn&#039;t just piss his family off, it reduces the available manpower for defense and for hunting.  You honor your parents, since the old people make the rules and at some age cannot keep up with the young, and everyone gets old, kind of neolithic social security legislation.  You don&#039;t steal, because its kind of hard to secure a tent if someone really wants your goods and it can lead to violation of some of the previous &quot;commandments&quot;.  Lying goes the same way.  All the others referring to god, just underpin and support the fact that the ultimate enforcement was the threat of damnation.  The priests(the tribal parasites) needed to make sure that their power was unquestioned and their word absolute.  How much better than to make the first five &quot;laws&quot; about god and a constant reminder of how you should submit to him (e.g. the priests).  That is the same nonsense that makes the Muslims like rabid dogs.  If Christians followed the literal teachings of the bible, they would be no different than the Muslims.  But they expurgate the parts they don&#039;t like...gods rules in the old testament.  I don&#039;t recall that any of the later writers of the new testament, M, M, L, &amp;J had the authority to change gods word.  They wrote their scriptures hundreds of years after Jesus died.  So that gave them a lot of literary license.  Then add on the Christian dogma wars between the Catholics, Agnostics, and other sects for who passed their version of christianity down to posterity and you don&#039;t know what kind of crap got thrown into todays version. Not to mention all the stuff that got cobbled on along the way to fill the holes, gaps and contradictions in the theology.  Take for instance, NO one I have ever met has been able to tell me the correct defintion of the idea of Emaculate Conceptions.  I&#039;d be willing to bet you don&#039;t either.  No its not about the virgin conception of Jesus by Mary.  Its about the fact that Mary was born without orginial sin.  I guess that someone asked how she, tainted by Eve&#039;s original sin, could give birth to Jesus, a diety and perfect.  So Pope XYX made up the idea of Emmaculate Conception and put it in a Papal Bull(etin) in the 1300&#039;s.  Gotta plug those holes!  That was a full 1300 years after Jesus was born.  Damn! Amazing how them Vatican guys can read god&#039;s mind.  No, they just make it up as they go along, like the Muslims do today.  They even tell the faithful which hand to wipe their asses with.  Maybe that was on the tablet Moses broke.  Commandment 11 Thou shalt use thy left hand to wipe thine ass, not the right, but the left and only the left shall be used.   Sounds funny today, but with the Muslims still eating with their fingers off of communal plates, it makes perfect sense.  Trouble is most of the stuff had an expiration date of relevance about 300 years ago when science started to nibble away at the god filling the gaps in our knowledge.  The trouble is most people are still infants intellectually when it comes to god and science.  They were taught to be that way from birth.  Its all about control.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seriously?  Modern Christianity might have done that,  but certainly not before the 1800&#8242;s.  The bible itself, the old testament documents genocide by the Jews&#8230;it was a parochial book&#8230;we good&#8230;them bad.  It was a tribal text.  Only in the new text were others embraced.  You cannot cherry pick, which was my original point.  Catholicism is dogmatic&#8230;you got to take it all or none.  Protestantism, now thats a different thing.  Anabaptism by ancestor&#8217;s religion was the first to postulate a personal relationship with god.  Even Martin Luther found the Anabaptists (forerunners of the Amish, Church of the Bretheren, Mennonites, and Hutterites, all different sects of the Anabaptists) independence too much to swallow and began burning them after they fled Catholic bonfires.  They had their own diasphora and I have encountered Mennonite carbon copies of my grandfather in Mennotite communities in such diverse places as the jungles of Bolivia, the state of Chihuahua in Mexico, prairies of N. Montana, and sw Texas.  If you really think that chistianitiy has a lock on morality, you are sadly mistaken.  Morality rose from the needs of the tribe.  You don&#8217;t fool around with the other guys wife while he is out tending the flock for weeks at a time, since you don&#8217;t want him to diddle yours while you&#8217;re gone (golden rule).  You don&#8217;t kill the other guy for obvious reasons, it doesn&#8217;t just piss his family off, it reduces the available manpower for defense and for hunting.  You honor your parents, since the old people make the rules and at some age cannot keep up with the young, and everyone gets old, kind of neolithic social security legislation.  You don&#8217;t steal, because its kind of hard to secure a tent if someone really wants your goods and it can lead to violation of some of the previous &#8220;commandments&#8221;.  Lying goes the same way.  All the others referring to god, just underpin and support the fact that the ultimate enforcement was the threat of damnation.  The priests(the tribal parasites) needed to make sure that their power was unquestioned and their word absolute.  How much better than to make the first five &#8220;laws&#8221; about god and a constant reminder of how you should submit to him (e.g. the priests).  That is the same nonsense that makes the Muslims like rabid dogs.  If Christians followed the literal teachings of the bible, they would be no different than the Muslims.  But they expurgate the parts they don&#8217;t like&#8230;gods rules in the old testament.  I don&#8217;t recall that any of the later writers of the new testament, M, M, L, &amp;J had the authority to change gods word.  They wrote their scriptures hundreds of years after Jesus died.  So that gave them a lot of literary license.  Then add on the Christian dogma wars between the Catholics, Agnostics, and other sects for who passed their version of christianity down to posterity and you don&#8217;t know what kind of crap got thrown into todays version. Not to mention all the stuff that got cobbled on along the way to fill the holes, gaps and contradictions in the theology.  Take for instance, NO one I have ever met has been able to tell me the correct defintion of the idea of Emaculate Conceptions.  I&#8217;d be willing to bet you don&#8217;t either.  No its not about the virgin conception of Jesus by Mary.  Its about the fact that Mary was born without orginial sin.  I guess that someone asked how she, tainted by Eve&#8217;s original sin, could give birth to Jesus, a diety and perfect.  So Pope XYX made up the idea of Emmaculate Conception and put it in a Papal Bull(etin) in the 1300&#8242;s.  Gotta plug those holes!  That was a full 1300 years after Jesus was born.  Damn! Amazing how them Vatican guys can read god&#8217;s mind.  No, they just make it up as they go along, like the Muslims do today.  They even tell the faithful which hand to wipe their asses with.  Maybe that was on the tablet Moses broke.  Commandment 11 Thou shalt use thy left hand to wipe thine ass, not the right, but the left and only the left shall be used.   Sounds funny today, but with the Muslims still eating with their fingers off of communal plates, it makes perfect sense.  Trouble is most of the stuff had an expiration date of relevance about 300 years ago when science started to nibble away at the god filling the gaps in our knowledge.  The trouble is most people are still infants intellectually when it comes to god and science.  They were taught to be that way from birth.  Its all about control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Johnsen</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5290926</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Johnsen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5290926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Look him up.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Look him up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Johnsen</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5290922</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Johnsen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5290922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In sixty years of listening to and delivering sermons and classes in Christian churches, I have never, ever, once heard one of us use this sort of horrible language about other faiths or other people. Did it happen in the past? Sure, in bad old Europe where kings used religion in this way. But not here. Not in America. Yes, I believe that humans are ¨hard wired´ for in and out groups. But the teachings of the Torah and the Sermon on the Mount teach against such devils. WE taught the planet that all men are created equal. Not the atheists.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In sixty years of listening to and delivering sermons and classes in Christian churches, I have never, ever, once heard one of us use this sort of horrible language about other faiths or other people. Did it happen in the past? Sure, in bad old Europe where kings used religion in this way. But not here. Not in America. Yes, I believe that humans are ¨hard wired´ for in and out groups. But the teachings of the Torah and the Sermon on the Mount teach against such devils. WE taught the planet that all men are created equal. Not the atheists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Johnsen</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5290913</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Johnsen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5290913</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I do not define religion as anything that is supernatural. I actually do not care, in secular terms, what a person&#039;s beliefs are about ghosts and gods. To me religion is that set of values and beliefs about human beings that create good or evil. Like: Does man have a nature? Do we have inalienable rights? Or are we not allowed to know what is good and evil in your world either? Or do you believe the false doctrines of the very superstitious Marx that we are explained by class, era, and deterministic zeitgeist? Marxism is fullblown supernaturalism.

I do believe that Yeshua came back from the dead but for secular purposes I call religious allies anybody who lives according to the principles and values of Western Culture, which is deeply Christian, wether they agree with me or not about Yeshua.

Your claim that you do not pray to anybody means nothing to me. You do have an ethic and a way of life and a set of beliefs (yes, I insist that &quot;There is no god.&quot; is a belief, not a fact). You have a religion. You are a human being, our brains need a set of assumptions, right or wrong, to center our explorations around. I call my center the Christian religion and you call yours atheism. Fine. But you skate close to irrational when you make such a simple and childish distinction between your wise self and everybody else who has every lived.
Am I sick and tired of academic types insulting people just because they follow the way of life that produced freedom and science. Too often, because you folks claim not to have any beliefs, you end up without any sense.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do not define religion as anything that is supernatural. I actually do not care, in secular terms, what a person&#8217;s beliefs are about ghosts and gods. To me religion is that set of values and beliefs about human beings that create good or evil. Like: Does man have a nature? Do we have inalienable rights? Or are we not allowed to know what is good and evil in your world either? Or do you believe the false doctrines of the very superstitious Marx that we are explained by class, era, and deterministic zeitgeist? Marxism is fullblown supernaturalism.</p>
<p>I do believe that Yeshua came back from the dead but for secular purposes I call religious allies anybody who lives according to the principles and values of Western Culture, which is deeply Christian, wether they agree with me or not about Yeshua.</p>
<p>Your claim that you do not pray to anybody means nothing to me. You do have an ethic and a way of life and a set of beliefs (yes, I insist that &#8220;There is no god.&#8221; is a belief, not a fact). You have a religion. You are a human being, our brains need a set of assumptions, right or wrong, to center our explorations around. I call my center the Christian religion and you call yours atheism. Fine. But you skate close to irrational when you make such a simple and childish distinction between your wise self and everybody else who has every lived.<br />
Am I sick and tired of academic types insulting people just because they follow the way of life that produced freedom and science. Too often, because you folks claim not to have any beliefs, you end up without any sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OrionJones</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5287411</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[OrionJones]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5287411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That&#039;s the sort of reply that I was expecting: continuing to try and change the subject from your bible and it&#039;s immorality. I&#039;m not surprised you want to end the discussion, and completely ignored the thought experiment: &#039;If your god ordered you to kill someone against their will, would you do it?&#039;. If you answer &#039;no&#039;, then it shows that you think you are more moral than your god, which is inconsistent with what you were arguing earlier. If you answer &#039;yes&#039;, which based on your previous arguments wouldn&#039;t be immoral, because your god sanctioned it, then you are admitting that you would murder someone. I think the fundamental problem you have is that thought experiments require thinking for yourself, something which lots of theists have little experience of in matters of morality. Really, it&#039;s the sort of thing you should have been doing all your life, to check that your moral beliefs are reasonable, and consistent. My view on this is that your answer really would be &#039;no&#039; if you would just admit it to yourself, just like any other sane person. So I believe that you really are a moral person, and more moral than your god, even though you try to deny this.

PS I still think should actually read the whole of your bible (OT and NT), from cover to cover, something that you have refused to unequivocally and unambiguously state that you have done. It looks like you have looked at the website I gave you, detailing immoral acts in your bible - yes, there&#039;s a lot of them isn&#039;t there! I&#039;m not surprised you haven&#039;t attempted to explain all those away.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s the sort of reply that I was expecting: continuing to try and change the subject from your bible and it&#8217;s immorality. I&#8217;m not surprised you want to end the discussion, and completely ignored the thought experiment: &#8216;If your god ordered you to kill someone against their will, would you do it?&#8217;. If you answer &#8216;no&#8217;, then it shows that you think you are more moral than your god, which is inconsistent with what you were arguing earlier. If you answer &#8216;yes&#8217;, which based on your previous arguments wouldn&#8217;t be immoral, because your god sanctioned it, then you are admitting that you would murder someone. I think the fundamental problem you have is that thought experiments require thinking for yourself, something which lots of theists have little experience of in matters of morality. Really, it&#8217;s the sort of thing you should have been doing all your life, to check that your moral beliefs are reasonable, and consistent. My view on this is that your answer really would be &#8216;no&#8217; if you would just admit it to yourself, just like any other sane person. So I believe that you really are a moral person, and more moral than your god, even though you try to deny this.</p>
<p>PS I still think should actually read the whole of your bible (OT and NT), from cover to cover, something that you have refused to unequivocally and unambiguously state that you have done. It looks like you have looked at the website I gave you, detailing immoral acts in your bible &#8211; yes, there&#8217;s a lot of them isn&#8217;t there! I&#8217;m not surprised you haven&#8217;t attempted to explain all those away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Paddon</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5331608</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Paddon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5331608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We will start with #4 in which you demonstrate the usual atheist tendendcy to avoid letting your views be subject to the same critical scrutiny you apply to others.      The confirmed factual record of the destructiveness of atheism and its inevitable byproducts of the French Revolution Jacobin Terror and of the legacy of Communism in the 20th century (which in that century produced more death than all the &quot;wars of religion&quot; combined) is the spot that will not out for you and for which you must give a full accounting of in order to justify your assertions of the &quot;immorality&quot; of the Judeo-Christian belief system rooted in the view of the Bible as God&#039;s law.     That you keep avoiding this merely reveals how this strikes a raw nerve for you that compels you to keep avoiding it, and given your determination to avoid answering tough questions put to you in response, there is little point continuing this discussion.     When specific verses were cited to claim the &quot;immorality&quot; of the Bible, I answered those charges and noted how they were not &quot;immoral&quot; except by the subjective standard of the arrogantly flawed human mind that looks for an excuse to avoid belief in God.      You then bandy about terms like &quot;rape&quot;, &quot;genocide&quot; etc. with no reference to specifics which is another intellectually dishonest trick and were silent when specifics were asked for.    What is your definition of &quot;Genocide&quot;?   Unlike you, I&#039;ve given you specifics of atheist genocide in action:  The Jacboin Terror and all Communist holocausts and we can by extension include the Nazi Holocaust as Nazi philosophy is derived from Social Darwinism, the same philosophy embraced by so many atheist intellectuals.      It amuses me how you keep trying to ignore this, but so long as you do, then there is little point wasting further discussion with someone too insecure in his own belief system to be able to answer challenging questions put to him by the other side.
I also answered your question about my reading the Bible and you&#039;re disappointed its not the one you were hoping for.    I have also read the works of Eusebius, C.S. Lewis and other great authors who have commented on the Bible, as well as great Biblical commentators who unlike theKKK style bigots who put up a name like &quot;Evil Bible&quot; in front of their website are ones who can be taken seriously.    Having dealt with shallow atheists who don&#039;t even believe in the reality of the existence of Jesus Christ (showing their unfamiliarity with Josephus and Tacitus in the process), the mindset of a shallow atheist is quite easy for me to spot and I thank you for giving me another example of it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We will start with #4 in which you demonstrate the usual atheist tendendcy to avoid letting your views be subject to the same critical scrutiny you apply to others.      The confirmed factual record of the destructiveness of atheism and its inevitable byproducts of the French Revolution Jacobin Terror and of the legacy of Communism in the 20th century (which in that century produced more death than all the &#8220;wars of religion&#8221; combined) is the spot that will not out for you and for which you must give a full accounting of in order to justify your assertions of the &#8220;immorality&#8221; of the Judeo-Christian belief system rooted in the view of the Bible as God&#8217;s law.     That you keep avoiding this merely reveals how this strikes a raw nerve for you that compels you to keep avoiding it, and given your determination to avoid answering tough questions put to you in response, there is little point continuing this discussion.     When specific verses were cited to claim the &#8220;immorality&#8221; of the Bible, I answered those charges and noted how they were not &#8220;immoral&#8221; except by the subjective standard of the arrogantly flawed human mind that looks for an excuse to avoid belief in God.      You then bandy about terms like &#8220;rape&#8221;, &#8220;genocide&#8221; etc. with no reference to specifics which is another intellectually dishonest trick and were silent when specifics were asked for.    What is your definition of &#8220;Genocide&#8221;?   Unlike you, I&#8217;ve given you specifics of atheist genocide in action:  The Jacboin Terror and all Communist holocausts and we can by extension include the Nazi Holocaust as Nazi philosophy is derived from Social Darwinism, the same philosophy embraced by so many atheist intellectuals.      It amuses me how you keep trying to ignore this, but so long as you do, then there is little point wasting further discussion with someone too insecure in his own belief system to be able to answer challenging questions put to him by the other side.<br />
I also answered your question about my reading the Bible and you&#8217;re disappointed its not the one you were hoping for.    I have also read the works of Eusebius, C.S. Lewis and other great authors who have commented on the Bible, as well as great Biblical commentators who unlike theKKK style bigots who put up a name like &#8220;Evil Bible&#8221; in front of their website are ones who can be taken seriously.    Having dealt with shallow atheists who don&#8217;t even believe in the reality of the existence of Jesus Christ (showing their unfamiliarity with Josephus and Tacitus in the process), the mindset of a shallow atheist is quite easy for me to spot and I thank you for giving me another example of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godagesil Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5287169</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Godagesil Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5287169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Atheism is not a religion.  I have heard this kind of relativistic argumetn before.  I don&#039;t get up and pray to nothing.  I don&#039;t put my faith in the non-existence of something.  I just don&#039;t think about it, period.  I don&#039;t understand why religionists want to bring this up over and over again.  It must be that they can&#039;t concieved of not believing in Something.  Religion IS supernaturalism.  What else would you call it.  It has and ever will be linked to the supernatural.  Name one religion that does not have events or &quot;miracles&quot; in its core history, that were used and still are to seduce the unsophisicated and ignorant into believing their diety is all powerful.  The measure is whether those &quot;miracles&quot; if reported today, would be accepted as true or would be considered the ravings of some lunatic.  Heard of any miraculous reanimation of the dead lately?  Or turning oof water into wine?  How about something as simple as parting of an ocean or walking on water?  Your second point may be debateable since I no of no primative cultures that were truly atheist, unless you are considering &quot;pagans&quot; and &quot;heathens&quot; in that definition.  As discussed  in this thread, neither Hitler nor Stalin were truly atheists.  
Third point.  To me religion is religion.  The basis of all of them is the same.  Their adherents rely on a &quot;childish&quot; need to believe in something greater than themselves to provide them an adult blankie to hold onto at night to quell their fear of the big unknown, their boogeyman, and to give their lives meaning.  Some of us adults, don&#039;t need that.  Fourth point.  Thanks you got back to my original statement about the zealotry of the true believer and how they were more to be feared than the person who did not believe.  The jihadi with his sure certainty of his cause and the backing of his god is more to be feared than the guy only waiting to get home to get a beer and get laid.  They always have and always will. The Templars and Hospitalers demonstrated that.  I also stated that while religions are bad, Islam is probably the worst excuse for a religion that exists.  Of course Christendom needed to react, the pity is that it could not put aside the petty squabbles over titles and demominational beliefs and see Islam as the true enemy.  The Church stood by and fiddled while the holdings of Christendom dwindled by half as all of North Africa, the Middle East, the Levant and the Balkans fell under the sandals of the Mohammedians.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Atheism is not a religion.  I have heard this kind of relativistic argumetn before.  I don&#8217;t get up and pray to nothing.  I don&#8217;t put my faith in the non-existence of something.  I just don&#8217;t think about it, period.  I don&#8217;t understand why religionists want to bring this up over and over again.  It must be that they can&#8217;t concieved of not believing in Something.  Religion IS supernaturalism.  What else would you call it.  It has and ever will be linked to the supernatural.  Name one religion that does not have events or &#8220;miracles&#8221; in its core history, that were used and still are to seduce the unsophisicated and ignorant into believing their diety is all powerful.  The measure is whether those &#8220;miracles&#8221; if reported today, would be accepted as true or would be considered the ravings of some lunatic.  Heard of any miraculous reanimation of the dead lately?  Or turning oof water into wine?  How about something as simple as parting of an ocean or walking on water?  Your second point may be debateable since I no of no primative cultures that were truly atheist, unless you are considering &#8220;pagans&#8221; and &#8220;heathens&#8221; in that definition.  As discussed  in this thread, neither Hitler nor Stalin were truly atheists.<br />
Third point.  To me religion is religion.  The basis of all of them is the same.  Their adherents rely on a &#8220;childish&#8221; need to believe in something greater than themselves to provide them an adult blankie to hold onto at night to quell their fear of the big unknown, their boogeyman, and to give their lives meaning.  Some of us adults, don&#8217;t need that.  Fourth point.  Thanks you got back to my original statement about the zealotry of the true believer and how they were more to be feared than the person who did not believe.  The jihadi with his sure certainty of his cause and the backing of his god is more to be feared than the guy only waiting to get home to get a beer and get laid.  They always have and always will. The Templars and Hospitalers demonstrated that.  I also stated that while religions are bad, Islam is probably the worst excuse for a religion that exists.  Of course Christendom needed to react, the pity is that it could not put aside the petty squabbles over titles and demominational beliefs and see Islam as the true enemy.  The Church stood by and fiddled while the holdings of Christendom dwindled by half as all of North Africa, the Middle East, the Levant and the Balkans fell under the sandals of the Mohammedians.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OrionJones</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5286672</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[OrionJones]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 2013 12:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5286672</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1) Words can have more than one usage, and my usage of &#039;bible&#039; is quite correct. &#039;bible: a book considered authoritative in its field e.g. &#039;the bible of French cooking&#039;; &#039;your bible is the Bible&#039;; &#039;her bible is the Koran&#039;.

2) Your last sentence in #1 attempts to explain what you do when something in your bible troubles you. You clearly found this very difficult, because the sentence is so tortuous and convoluted, that it it doesn&#039;t actually make sense, grammatically or semantically.

3) I&#039;ve asked twice if you&#039;ve read both the OT and NT from cover to cover. You eventually said &#039;I have gone through the entire Bible in my lifetime&#039;. Given your initial reluctance to answer the question, I find that sentence a bit equivocal. It&#039;s not the kind of answer you usually get when you ask someone if they&#039;ve read a book. So could you just state unequivocally and unambiguously whether you&#039;ve read both the OT and NT from cover to cover?

4) I&#039;m not surprised you try to change the subject away from immoral acts in your bible, to what you perceive as immoral acts of atheism. I could just as easily ask about the Inquisition, Crusades, Wars of Religion, or why there&#039;s proportionately more religious people in prison than there are religious people in the general population. So let&#039;s avoid cheap diversionary tricks.

5) You wanted citations of evil things your god does or commands. Try this link http://www.evilbible.com/ for example. Surely you could have found that for yourself? But I&#039;m sure you&#039;ll either argue again that when your god commands something, it can&#039;t by definition be immoral, or you&#039;ll come up with convoluted sophistry as to why they mean something else. As I&#039;ve said before, this just amounts to picking and choosing.

6) You *have* avoided the genocide of your bible. When your god orders genocide, you just redefine it as not being genocide. You argued the same before with rape and murder, performed under the instructions of your god. I gave you the opportunity to say that that&#039;s not what you meant, and you didn&#039;t take it - all you&#039;ve done is add genocide to the list. So it seems clear that you really do believe that when people rape, murder and commit genocide under the orders of your god, that the acts are not immoral. Well, that sounds totally sick to me. But let&#039;s make this really clear with a thought experiment. If your god ordered you to kill someone against their will, would you do it? And I&#039;d really, really like an answer to that question, as I think it gets to the core of the immorality of your beliefs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1) Words can have more than one usage, and my usage of &#8216;bible&#8217; is quite correct. &#8216;bible: a book considered authoritative in its field e.g. &#8216;the bible of French cooking&#8217;; &#8216;your bible is the Bible&#8217;; &#8216;her bible is the Koran&#8217;.</p>
<p>2) Your last sentence in #1 attempts to explain what you do when something in your bible troubles you. You clearly found this very difficult, because the sentence is so tortuous and convoluted, that it it doesn&#8217;t actually make sense, grammatically or semantically.</p>
<p>3) I&#8217;ve asked twice if you&#8217;ve read both the OT and NT from cover to cover. You eventually said &#8216;I have gone through the entire Bible in my lifetime&#8217;. Given your initial reluctance to answer the question, I find that sentence a bit equivocal. It&#8217;s not the kind of answer you usually get when you ask someone if they&#8217;ve read a book. So could you just state unequivocally and unambiguously whether you&#8217;ve read both the OT and NT from cover to cover?</p>
<p>4) I&#8217;m not surprised you try to change the subject away from immoral acts in your bible, to what you perceive as immoral acts of atheism. I could just as easily ask about the Inquisition, Crusades, Wars of Religion, or why there&#8217;s proportionately more religious people in prison than there are religious people in the general population. So let&#8217;s avoid cheap diversionary tricks.</p>
<p>5) You wanted citations of evil things your god does or commands. Try this link <a href="http://www.evilbible.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.evilbible.com/</a> for example. Surely you could have found that for yourself? But I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ll either argue again that when your god commands something, it can&#8217;t by definition be immoral, or you&#8217;ll come up with convoluted sophistry as to why they mean something else. As I&#8217;ve said before, this just amounts to picking and choosing.</p>
<p>6) You *have* avoided the genocide of your bible. When your god orders genocide, you just redefine it as not being genocide. You argued the same before with rape and murder, performed under the instructions of your god. I gave you the opportunity to say that that&#8217;s not what you meant, and you didn&#8217;t take it &#8211; all you&#8217;ve done is add genocide to the list. So it seems clear that you really do believe that when people rape, murder and commit genocide under the orders of your god, that the acts are not immoral. Well, that sounds totally sick to me. But let&#8217;s make this really clear with a thought experiment. If your god ordered you to kill someone against their will, would you do it? And I&#8217;d really, really like an answer to that question, as I think it gets to the core of the immorality of your beliefs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Paddon</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5286293</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Paddon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5286293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#1-I did not ignore genocide, because there is no genocide committed by God in the Bible.   You are again injecting a false premise, which is your subjective judgment of God by your imperfect 21st century human mind to depict the event in something it is not.    If this is to refer presumably to God rendering judgment of the nations who were out to destroy His chosen people, the Hebrews, with whom God established the Holy Covenant relationship, then what you are saying is that its terrible God did not break His Covenant with the Hebrews at that moment to put favor on those who followed pagan gods.    That&#039;s a very strange expectation to ask of God, and its one that i am quite comfortable in rejecting for the arrogant and context-free premise of modern man looking for an excuse to proclaim himself superior to God to justify unbelief in Him.    Because yes, I have gone through the entire Bible in my lifetime and when I see something that troubles me, it&#039;s only when I am troubled in how I have to be mindful in how I live my own life in accordance wiith God&#039;s law and live up to HIs expectations and not presume arrogance that my basic belief in Christ as my Savior is something I can be complacent about.     
#2-The word &quot;Bible&quot; when referring to the particular book is always capitalized regardless of which possessive pronoun you place before it.    If the descriptive term &quot;your koran&quot; were ever used, I think we&#039;d see a lot of people scream about how insenstive that person is given the tone of today&#039;s PC police.
#3-John Whitney&#039;s argument was to condemn God as immoral and to suggest that I as a believer was avoiding what he considered the reality of God&#039;s immorality based on two cited passages that show nothing of the kind and when I pointed that out he then chose to suggest I was &quot;picking and choosing&quot; which was untrue.   I was confronting the passages and pointing out how they do not validate his standard, but he chose to be dishonest (something atheists are often prone to be; the number of atheists who will still try to insist Jesus Christ never existed is astonishing) and characterizie it in the terms as I described it, that I avoid the &#039;reality&#039; of God as immoral by being selective about Scripture which is the falsehood I rightly objected to.    I stand by that characterization completely.
#4-The atheist by his very intellectual premise assumes his mind is superior to that of the God of the Bible beacuse that is his justification for feeling he has no need to believe in Him.    You have been, like Whitney asserting that there are passages that prove the supposed immorality of God&#039;s behavior and thus, that is supposed to be our albatross as believers.    I merely point out that this line of thinking requires an arrogant presumption on your part to judge God and render yourself superior to the judgment of God, and I have long come to view man as an imperfect being not worthy of that kind of treatment on my part. 
#5-You were asked to cite examples of God ordering rape or murder.    You haven&#039;t provided it.      This is generic soundbite nonsense in which you get to avoide the inconvenient problem of context (which Whitney was guilty of on the two passages he cited)     You have also I noticed been conveniently silent in answering the inconvenient truths of the long trail of state-sponsored atheism&#039;s genocide from the French Revolution onward.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#1-I did not ignore genocide, because there is no genocide committed by God in the Bible.   You are again injecting a false premise, which is your subjective judgment of God by your imperfect 21st century human mind to depict the event in something it is not.    If this is to refer presumably to God rendering judgment of the nations who were out to destroy His chosen people, the Hebrews, with whom God established the Holy Covenant relationship, then what you are saying is that its terrible God did not break His Covenant with the Hebrews at that moment to put favor on those who followed pagan gods.    That&#8217;s a very strange expectation to ask of God, and its one that i am quite comfortable in rejecting for the arrogant and context-free premise of modern man looking for an excuse to proclaim himself superior to God to justify unbelief in Him.    Because yes, I have gone through the entire Bible in my lifetime and when I see something that troubles me, it&#8217;s only when I am troubled in how I have to be mindful in how I live my own life in accordance wiith God&#8217;s law and live up to HIs expectations and not presume arrogance that my basic belief in Christ as my Savior is something I can be complacent about.<br />
#2-The word &#8220;Bible&#8221; when referring to the particular book is always capitalized regardless of which possessive pronoun you place before it.    If the descriptive term &#8220;your koran&#8221; were ever used, I think we&#8217;d see a lot of people scream about how insenstive that person is given the tone of today&#8217;s PC police.<br />
#3-John Whitney&#8217;s argument was to condemn God as immoral and to suggest that I as a believer was avoiding what he considered the reality of God&#8217;s immorality based on two cited passages that show nothing of the kind and when I pointed that out he then chose to suggest I was &#8220;picking and choosing&#8221; which was untrue.   I was confronting the passages and pointing out how they do not validate his standard, but he chose to be dishonest (something atheists are often prone to be; the number of atheists who will still try to insist Jesus Christ never existed is astonishing) and characterizie it in the terms as I described it, that I avoid the &#8216;reality&#8217; of God as immoral by being selective about Scripture which is the falsehood I rightly objected to.    I stand by that characterization completely.<br />
#4-The atheist by his very intellectual premise assumes his mind is superior to that of the God of the Bible beacuse that is his justification for feeling he has no need to believe in Him.    You have been, like Whitney asserting that there are passages that prove the supposed immorality of God&#8217;s behavior and thus, that is supposed to be our albatross as believers.    I merely point out that this line of thinking requires an arrogant presumption on your part to judge God and render yourself superior to the judgment of God, and I have long come to view man as an imperfect being not worthy of that kind of treatment on my part.<br />
#5-You were asked to cite examples of God ordering rape or murder.    You haven&#8217;t provided it.      This is generic soundbite nonsense in which you get to avoide the inconvenient problem of context (which Whitney was guilty of on the two passages he cited)     You have also I noticed been conveniently silent in answering the inconvenient truths of the long trail of state-sponsored atheism&#8217;s genocide from the French Revolution onward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Johnsen</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5286241</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Johnsen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5286241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Okay, the atheists did not do their killings by war. No. But both Stalin and Mao murdered their own people in numbers so vast it did indeed dwarf all of the killing in all of the wars conventional wisdom attributes to &quot;religion.&quot;
Second point. Atheism is a religion. You cannot get out of this by the rhetorical tactic of equating religion with dualism or supernaturalism. A religion is a way of life and a set of values based on some claims about humanity and the universe. Almost all the atheists I know personally actually stand in the Judeo-Christian tradition of morality and personhood. And the record of the atheist religions is far worse in murder than the Christian or Jewish religions.
Third point. You childishly lump all faiths together. Christianity is not Islam, Buddhism is not Shintoism. What we do have in common is our human natures. Both love and hate, both peace and war, both greed and generousity come with our skins. Dealing with this reality is the goal of some religions. We try to increase goodness and fight against evil. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes not. So when considering different religions judge them by what they do to the human character.
Fourth point. The differences are almost always the result of mixing &quot;church&quot; and &quot;state.&quot; Violence comes when political forces join with cultural forces. Personally, I am not afraid of the guy with the sword. I am not afraid of the guy with the book. But I am terrified of the guy with both book and sword. That is why in the American system the government is not the highest authority and the highest authority is not established but free, be that authority reason or the Christian God, or both.

That is the tragedy of the wars in Europe and the glory of the American Constitution. Until we got this straight our record as a civilization was only marginally better than others. And it was only as the Progressives took over our government that the hubris of empire came to us. The horrors of American foreign wars is not the result of Christianity but the result of the lack of Christianity.
Fifth point. When Islam invaded Europe a few centuries ago, what was Christendom supposed to do? Give up or fight back? Yes, the Christians took back the Holy Land after the Arabs took it by force. What were they supposed to do? Say, &quot;ah, well, one religion is as good as another so let them have Jerusalem.&quot;? They were brutal like everybody else in that era and there is no excuse for that. But fighting back against an aggressor is not evil.

Sixth point: Gott mit uns. Not:  Got mit uns.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, the atheists did not do their killings by war. No. But both Stalin and Mao murdered their own people in numbers so vast it did indeed dwarf all of the killing in all of the wars conventional wisdom attributes to &#8220;religion.&#8221;<br />
Second point. Atheism is a religion. You cannot get out of this by the rhetorical tactic of equating religion with dualism or supernaturalism. A religion is a way of life and a set of values based on some claims about humanity and the universe. Almost all the atheists I know personally actually stand in the Judeo-Christian tradition of morality and personhood. And the record of the atheist religions is far worse in murder than the Christian or Jewish religions.<br />
Third point. You childishly lump all faiths together. Christianity is not Islam, Buddhism is not Shintoism. What we do have in common is our human natures. Both love and hate, both peace and war, both greed and generousity come with our skins. Dealing with this reality is the goal of some religions. We try to increase goodness and fight against evil. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes not. So when considering different religions judge them by what they do to the human character.<br />
Fourth point. The differences are almost always the result of mixing &#8220;church&#8221; and &#8220;state.&#8221; Violence comes when political forces join with cultural forces. Personally, I am not afraid of the guy with the sword. I am not afraid of the guy with the book. But I am terrified of the guy with both book and sword. That is why in the American system the government is not the highest authority and the highest authority is not established but free, be that authority reason or the Christian God, or both.</p>
<p>That is the tragedy of the wars in Europe and the glory of the American Constitution. Until we got this straight our record as a civilization was only marginally better than others. And it was only as the Progressives took over our government that the hubris of empire came to us. The horrors of American foreign wars is not the result of Christianity but the result of the lack of Christianity.<br />
Fifth point. When Islam invaded Europe a few centuries ago, what was Christendom supposed to do? Give up or fight back? Yes, the Christians took back the Holy Land after the Arabs took it by force. What were they supposed to do? Say, &#8220;ah, well, one religion is as good as another so let them have Jerusalem.&#8221;? They were brutal like everybody else in that era and there is no excuse for that. But fighting back against an aggressor is not evil.</p>
<p>Sixth point: Gott mit uns. Not:  Got mit uns.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OrionJones</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5285754</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[OrionJones]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5285754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1) As I&#039;m sure you&#039;re quite aware, I have called it &#039;your bible&#039; throughout, which is quite correct, apart from where I slipped up once and called it &#039;the bible&#039; by mistake. OK, my error. 2) In a previous reply to me you claimed that John M. Whitney said you were saying &quot;Yes, God is immoral but I believe him.&quot;. Well that&#039;s just a flat out untruth on your part. (He even said that &#039;you have an innate sense of what&#039;s good&#039;). When I explained to you that I wasn&#039;t suggesting that either by saying &#039;I am not suggesting that your god is immoral, but you believe it nonetheless&#039; you twist that to say that I am now claiming that your god is not immoral. That&#039;s just disingenuous, but quite typical of the tricks that some theists use when you debate them. 3) Nowhere have I claimed my &#039;subjective definition of &quot;morality&quot; is superior to anyone elses&#039;, so the rest of that bizarre argument of yours falls apart. 4) You then seem to be arguing that if someone rapes or murders under your god&#039;s instructions, then somehow no immoral act has been committed. That&#039;s just sick. I&#039;ve read it several times, and it seems quite unambiguous. But please tell me that&#039;s not what you meant. And you completely ignored the matter of genocide. These acts are in your bible, all commanded by your god - it&#039;s not difficult to find them - google it. Prior to your last post I agreed with John M. Whitney that you had an innate sense of goodness, but now I&#039;m seriously beginning to wonder. 5) You forgot to say whether you have actually read both the OT and NT from cover to cover. Maybe you could answer that first in your next post, so that you don&#039;t forget again.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1) As I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;re quite aware, I have called it &#8216;your bible&#8217; throughout, which is quite correct, apart from where I slipped up once and called it &#8216;the bible&#8217; by mistake. OK, my error. 2) In a previous reply to me you claimed that John M. Whitney said you were saying &#8220;Yes, God is immoral but I believe him.&#8221;. Well that&#8217;s just a flat out untruth on your part. (He even said that &#8216;you have an innate sense of what&#8217;s good&#8217;). When I explained to you that I wasn&#8217;t suggesting that either by saying &#8216;I am not suggesting that your god is immoral, but you believe it nonetheless&#8217; you twist that to say that I am now claiming that your god is not immoral. That&#8217;s just disingenuous, but quite typical of the tricks that some theists use when you debate them. 3) Nowhere have I claimed my &#8216;subjective definition of &#8220;morality&#8221; is superior to anyone elses&#8217;, so the rest of that bizarre argument of yours falls apart. 4) You then seem to be arguing that if someone rapes or murders under your god&#8217;s instructions, then somehow no immoral act has been committed. That&#8217;s just sick. I&#8217;ve read it several times, and it seems quite unambiguous. But please tell me that&#8217;s not what you meant. And you completely ignored the matter of genocide. These acts are in your bible, all commanded by your god &#8211; it&#8217;s not difficult to find them &#8211; google it. Prior to your last post I agreed with John M. Whitney that you had an innate sense of goodness, but now I&#8217;m seriously beginning to wonder. 5) You forgot to say whether you have actually read both the OT and NT from cover to cover. Maybe you could answer that first in your next post, so that you don&#8217;t forget again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godagesil Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5285680</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Godagesil Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5285680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[30 million atheist Russians died fighting the Christian Germans.  What Hitler was is irrelevant.  If the German Chrstians had had the strength of their convictions they would not have followed the non-relgious Hitler.  Instead they found strengthe and security in their religion....&quot;Got mit Uns&quot; on knives and belt buckles for instance.  God is with Us.  The Polish Trawniki men manning the extermination camps at Sorbibor and Treblinka were Catholics.  The  catholics and protestants of Poland, France and other European countries occupied Jewish property before the beds were even cold after removal of the Jews.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>30 million atheist Russians died fighting the Christian Germans.  What Hitler was is irrelevant.  If the German Chrstians had had the strength of their convictions they would not have followed the non-relgious Hitler.  Instead they found strengthe and security in their religion&#8230;.&#8221;Got mit Uns&#8221; on knives and belt buckles for instance.  God is with Us.  The Polish Trawniki men manning the extermination camps at Sorbibor and Treblinka were Catholics.  The  catholics and protestants of Poland, France and other European countries occupied Jewish property before the beds were even cold after removal of the Jews.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godagesil Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5285678</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Godagesil Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5285678</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Christian, Muslim, Mithraic...religion is religion.  It simply fuels division.  We are hard wired to be members of an In-group and to view out-groups antipathetically.  Religion just gives us one more reason to see the out-group as something less...&quot;they don&#039;t believe in OUR God...they are pagan...we must save them, or kill them...&quot;  It give the believer a dangerous sense of superiority and conviction.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Christian, Muslim, Mithraic&#8230;religion is religion.  It simply fuels division.  We are hard wired to be members of an In-group and to view out-groups antipathetically.  Religion just gives us one more reason to see the out-group as something less&#8230;&#8221;they don&#8217;t believe in OUR God&#8230;they are pagan&#8230;we must save them, or kill them&#8230;&#8221;  It give the believer a dangerous sense of superiority and conviction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godagesil Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5285676</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Godagesil Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5285676</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, but there is ample evidence that the Pontif and the Catholic church knew of the Holocaust and did nothing and said nothing.  Presumably they thought the overdue bill was finally being delivered to the Christ Killers.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, but there is ample evidence that the Pontif and the Catholic church knew of the Holocaust and did nothing and said nothing.  Presumably they thought the overdue bill was finally being delivered to the Christ Killers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godagesil Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5285675</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Godagesil Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5285675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Religion has been behind a large number of the conflicts since the Catholic church and Islam was founded.  Add in the wars of the Protestant Reformation, the ongoing sectarian conflicts.  The conflicts between Islam and just about every other country and religion that it has ever encountered.  I know of no &quot;atheist wars&quot;.  While the world wars might not have been at their core secular, they were certainly not started by Atheists.  Your ignorance and hubris are showing.  Nazis were a mix of christian with an infusion of nordic superstition.  Wehrmacht belt buckles stated...Got mit uns...God is with us.   The Japanese were Shinto, a somewhat miliaristic religion that by the way was banned by MacArthur as occupational govenor of Japan after the war.  The Russians while officially not orthodox Christian, their animosity toward the Poles leading to treaties with the Nazis to invade Poland, were rooted in memory of the religion based aggression of the Christian poles in Russia in the 1400&#039;s.  All the carnage in the Balkans in the 1940&#039;s and 1990&#039;s has its roots in Christian - Muslim hatred, as does the Pakistani-Indian warfare.  Most conflicts of culture through the ages was more at its core one of religion than anything else.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Religion has been behind a large number of the conflicts since the Catholic church and Islam was founded.  Add in the wars of the Protestant Reformation, the ongoing sectarian conflicts.  The conflicts between Islam and just about every other country and religion that it has ever encountered.  I know of no &#8220;atheist wars&#8221;.  While the world wars might not have been at their core secular, they were certainly not started by Atheists.  Your ignorance and hubris are showing.  Nazis were a mix of christian with an infusion of nordic superstition.  Wehrmacht belt buckles stated&#8230;Got mit uns&#8230;God is with us.   The Japanese were Shinto, a somewhat miliaristic religion that by the way was banned by MacArthur as occupational govenor of Japan after the war.  The Russians while officially not orthodox Christian, their animosity toward the Poles leading to treaties with the Nazis to invade Poland, were rooted in memory of the religion based aggression of the Christian poles in Russia in the 1400&#8242;s.  All the carnage in the Balkans in the 1940&#8242;s and 1990&#8242;s has its roots in Christian &#8211; Muslim hatred, as does the Pakistani-Indian warfare.  Most conflicts of culture through the ages was more at its core one of religion than anything else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godagesil Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5285672</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Godagesil Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5285672</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stalin went to seminary, whether he believed anything is another matter.  I am talking about the individual fighter, not national leaders.  Given two men one with no particular beliefs, vs one who thinks god is with him and that his death means everlasting life and a hedonistic reward, who do you think will be more resolute, dangerous and viscious?  The average jihadi has more resolve than someone looking to serve his 4 years and go home for a cheeseburger and a beer.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stalin went to seminary, whether he believed anything is another matter.  I am talking about the individual fighter, not national leaders.  Given two men one with no particular beliefs, vs one who thinks god is with him and that his death means everlasting life and a hedonistic reward, who do you think will be more resolute, dangerous and viscious?  The average jihadi has more resolve than someone looking to serve his 4 years and go home for a cheeseburger and a beer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gray_man</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/a-response-to-richard-dawkins/comment-page-1/#comment-5285668</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gray_man]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205866#comment-5285668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gosh, you got me there. You are so witty. Are you a trained comedian, or just naturally a clown?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gosh, you got me there. You are so witty. Are you a trained comedian, or just naturally a clown?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 812/903 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 04:12:11 by W3 Total Cache -->