Video: Atheismania!
posted at 9:00 am on February 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Last week’s Paula Zahn roundtable was comprised entirely of believers; inexplicably, some atheists cared enough to complain. So CNN atoned last night with a twofer — a quickie interview with the atheist pope and a new roundtable with a Christian, an atheist, and an Air America host who believes in the Constitution, baby.
I share his non-faith but am not, I confess, a great admirer of Dawkins. INDC Bill finished his book not long ago and told me that for every point scored on the merits, there’s a hamhanded derogation of the Chimperor and his crusader expedition into the heart of Araby to bring about the Rapture. He gets off a howler here too about how peaceful his tribe is, which isn’t a claim that’ll win him any converts among an audience of Reagan admirers.
The roundtable’s fun, though. Next time, they should scrap Maddow and have this guy on instead. He’s a bridge builder!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I couldn’t even finish it, which was quite disappointing. It’s one of my favorite subjects (yes, even the Christian that I am), but couldn’t take the constant Bush-bashing–which started in the preface.
Bob's Kid on February 13, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Wow, Dawkins really tones his stuff down in that interview with Zahn. Having read a bunch of his stuff and his interviews in science magazines and being aware of his normal schtick I was mildly amused watching that video.
Dwilkers on February 13, 2007 at 9:16 AM
I saw part of this. One of the guests tried to make the point that while people of faith routinely proselytize, when atheists do the same thing, they are derided.
How does an atheist proselytize? And I guess more to the point, to what end??
honora on February 13, 2007 at 9:20 AM
HOw dare that moron compare American religous with the Muslim extremeists.
bloggless on February 13, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Athiests remind me of Libertarians. They are always so academic, they try to be so logic…as if faith in their belief is any different from my belief. The problem they have is if they admit in faith,if opens the door to…the dark side of man—religion.
The interesting part, unlike most everything even science now, conservatives and liberals can both be athiests (like Libertarians).
right2bright on February 13, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Dawkins says that because theists expect another life after this one, they don’t live their lives to the fullest. That is a non-sequitur.
aunursa on February 13, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Dawkins is a traveling evangelist for atheism. His goal is to bring religious people out of the dark ages into the marvelous light of atheism, hedonism and moral relativism.
jdpaz on February 13, 2007 at 9:49 AM
I agree aunursa. Dawkins doesn’t get it. We Christians live our lives to the fullest specifically because of our hope for eterity. What does an aethiest have to look forward to? Atomization?
Mojave Mark on February 13, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Why isn’t she wearing a head covering?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on February 13, 2007 at 10:14 AM
As the resident Athiest, I have to ask.. WTF?
Any religeous believe system, including Athiesm, is a personal choice. Unlike organized religeon though, their can be no organized athiest churches. Seriously, what would we do? go to a non church and talk about non beliefes?
I get sick of idjits like Dawkins talking like he is the head of some sort of group. As for proselytizing… Well, an athiest can try to convert a believer into non-belief. But he won’t succeed. Man needs faith in something. If a person is happy and fullfilled thinking that their is a God then that is their right. I think these “evangelical” athiest are closet chrstians. They feel betrayed by God, so they try to discredit all religeons. Kinda liek a person who quits smoking may start a crusade to force others to quit.
Bottom line is, we are all the masters of our soul. We might decide their is no soul, or that we need help, or that we are alone. But WE decide that. People will talk about their own views and what they beleive in, but we choose to believe in what we want. As Americans though we need to just grn at the person and accept it as their right, in this great county, to speak their mind, and they have to agree that it is our right to speak ours.
GAH! I just hate people attacking another for what they believe in, I’ll stop this inchorent rant now and debate switching to de-cafe.
(Oh yeah, and Christians are light years better then the islmic fascist and their version of Islam)
Wyrd on February 13, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Living life to it’s fullest sounds pretty good, but it often is an excuse to grab everything for oneself. If this life is the reward and if you don’t get all of it, you’ve been cheated. Too easy to fall into this trap – and it explains why so many hard Lefties are so bitter. They aren’t getting all and they know it.
naliaka on February 13, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Hey, did anyone notice how reasonable Dawkins comes off in that clip? It’s almost as if atheists are normal, decent people.
I read the book, and there are a couple of hamhanded derogations of Bush (which I would argue are warranted) but there are several less hamhanded derogations of militant Islam. His gratuitious shots at Bush are pretty few and far between. Dawkins does make the point that religiosity in America is at a dangerous level, which I doubt most Americans would agree with. But he’s an outsider looking in – to him, the fact that there are any school boards in America that want to teach Intelligent Design signifies Taliban-type theocracy on the march.
So while The God Delusion might be a bit alarmist on the state of religion in America, it’s very tough on Islam as well, which I think many HA readers would agree with. Notice how Dawkins cleverly refers to flying planes into buildings and suicide bombers in this Zahn clip. He knows his audience.
Here’s a guy who looks at the lunacy that is militant Islam and sees the potential for the same type of lunacy in any ideology that expects people to surrender reason for faith. All monotheistic religions are the same on this point, which is why he believes all religions are flawed. And I certainly agree with that point.
Anyway, The God Delusion is worth reading moreso than a lot of lefty books. I wouldn’t wish an Al Franken book on my worst enemy, but I think the Dawkins book isn’t so much invective as it is a blunt assessment of how and why one man decided leave faith behind.
If you’re an American conservative who is questioning your faith, I recommend reading The God Delusion because it will make you feel like it’s okay. And it is okay.
Enrique on February 13, 2007 at 10:34 AM
This guy is full of shit. I’m an atheist and I’ve never even been harassed or so much as asked about it, and I’m surrounded by very conservative people at times.
Nuts to this guy. The discrimination and intollerance is only percieved by elitists who crave victimhood.
Verbal Abuse on February 13, 2007 at 10:36 AM
If there isn’t a “shred of evidence” for the Judeo-Christian belief system. There certainly isn’t a “shred of evidence” for the atheistic belief system.
I wish I was as happy as Dawkins!
jjjen on February 13, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Enrique, I have read the God Delusion as well and your summation of it is on-point. I would argue that those who are questioning their faith should probably stay away from the book.
It is a very easy task to “prove” to someone that something they can not see does not exist. In that regard, if your faith is weak, the book will surely advance Dawkin’s agenda on you.
When people finally realize that science is about “how” and religion is about “why”, this world will be a much less argumentative place.
I have no problem listening to Darwin’s or Einsten’s or Georges Lemaître’s (a Roman Catholic Priest, by the way) theories about “how” we got here. As for the “why” of the matter: I’ll trust God, thank you very much.
12thman on February 13, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Heh. Atheists…
I guess everyone deserves a spot at the greivance table. Especially when
“Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.”
People simply do not trust them. Comments like this: “Next time, they should scrap Maddow and have this guy on instead. He’s a bridge builder!” do not help atheists cause.
Theworldisnotenough on February 13, 2007 at 11:41 AM
From the movie “Contact” when the atheist Foster played said about the existence of God…” there is no data either way”..” there is no proof” and the pastor asked, “Did you love your dad?” when she answered yes, he asked her to “PROVE IT”.
Take away the headlines, look at your neighborhood and it’s people. The ubiquitous love and mind and thought on this earth and in Heaven is way beyond human comprehension.
But it exists.
shooter on February 13, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Not everything I say is meant to help atheists’ cause, any more than everything a Christian says is meant to advance Christianity. Besides — he is a bridge builder.
Allahpundit on February 13, 2007 at 12:11 PM
What these people fail to understand is that the state constitutions of every single one of the original 13 states mentions explicitly either God, the Bible or a particular religion. Furthermore, the very concept of self-governance is a uniquely Christian idea and the creation of the United States is a direct product of the Protestant Reformation. In fact, the term “federal” comes from the latin “feodus” meaning “covenant”, a concept expounded by Calvinism. The reason that atheists do not see God in the Constitution is because they don’t know what they are looking for. They are not educated in the language of the Constitution. If they were they wouldn’t say ludicrous things like “freedom FROM religion”.
For one, the Constitution was written at a time when they knew that every state’s Constitution espoused belief in God and sometimes even a particular religion. Also, the Constitution was written with the understanding that the states would retain the right to govern religious issues. The reason mention of God is ambiguous in the Constitution is because the Constitution was trying to tie all these states together and allow each to have their own religious atmosphere. So, in a sense, the Federal government was non-theistic (not atheistic). The first amendment was a constraint on the Federal government’s establishment of a national religion. The Constitution is only suited to governing a righteous, religious people and is wholly inadequate for doing otherwise.
I could go on forever, and I already have gone on too long… if you are interested in getting more information on this, feel free to email me: decoy256 at gmail dot com.
Decoy256 on February 13, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Decoy256,
Your claim is false. A quick search for the term god in the Vriginia state constitution (my state) reveals only one result and that is in regards to the oath or affirmation of office. The bible – no hits. Belief – Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.
No where in the xian bible is the idea of self rule by man made laws. Our legal system is based upon English common law and it’s root go back to the pagan Vikings.
If it were known generally that I was an atheist, my children would suffer by association. They are theist (for now) as is my wife and several organizations they belong to would not hesitate to kick them out.
As far as threats go, debating theists of any ideology will result in them. Go to PalTalk any night and look for the pro or anti religious rooms in the social issues area for examples.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 12:30 PM
How so?
Reminds me of one of my favorite movie lines, Hannah and Her Sisters, Woody Allen musing on the various religions as he is shopping for one that will make him feel better about dying: “The Hindus believe we will live our lives over and over again as we strive to perfect ourselves. Great, that means I’ll have to sit through the Icecapades again…”
honora on February 13, 2007 at 12:30 PM
From a Supreme Court decision, Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), after having cited various documents:
INC on February 13, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Decoy256:
This is exactly WHY athiest like me are tempted to equate Christians to Islamo-Facists. You have the same seeds of that absolute moral authority in your heart. Atheism does not mean “moral relativism”, as jdpaz says above, any more than RELIGION = “moral facisim”. But you illustrate that the potential is always there.
peski on February 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Gene Splicer,
If you have been threatened or discriminated against, that is wrong, and any true Christians who have done so are acting in grevious disobedience. My deepest apologies.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Pennsylvania a Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4:
“No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.
Comments: Apparently anyone who denies the existence of God OR who denies the existence of heaven and hell can be held ineligible to hold office or be a member of the PA civil service.”
Pennsylvania had an unconstitutional religious litmus test.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Gene Splicer:
I’m in the same boat, although it’s more about my wife’s need to see me in heaven than potential ostracization. And actually, many of my closest friends are folks I met at churche. Episcopalians are noted for their “openness”, and they probably suspect my apostasy. So far I’ve resisted the temptation to come out, mostly because of the pain it would cause my wife.
peski on February 13, 2007 at 12:45 PM
INC
I do not nor would I label all theists as hate filled, but the proof is there. The cited opinion poll for one. The castigation of atheist here even. The claim that any use of the term faith is religious or that atheism is just another religion.
For those theists who fall back on the claim that this is a xian nation by sheer numbers, I would warn you about the pendulum effect. When it swing to the point that you are in the minority, should you be treated as you have and now treat non-theists or non-xians?
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Sure, Gene, I wouldn’t mind being treated as I currently do and have treated non-theists or non-Christians.
I don’t say that arrogantly, but because with God’s help, I desire to follow and obey the Lord Jesus. It doesn’t mean I am perfect, but it does mean I desire to adhere to God’s standard; which summarized means to love God and to love my neighbor as myself.
You obviously don’t know me and you can’t know my life for the almost 37 years I’ve been a Christian, but you are welcome to watch what I write and how I write it and call me on it, if I denigrate you or someone else.
That doesn’t mean I won’t state what I believe, and it doesn’t mean I will back down on issues, but it does mean I will strive to treat you and others with dignity.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 12:56 PM
I don’t know about Paula, but I am not threatened by atheism at all and I don’t think the vast majority of believers are as well. It seems to me that more atheists feel threatened by religion than the opposite. How may people have you heard describing the threat of religion as opposed to the threat of atheism? For me, the vast majority has been atheists worried about the negative effects of a religious belief, like Dawkins believes.
RedinBlueCounty on February 13, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Allah says,
You don’t believe in yourself?
Shocked. Shocked, I say.
dinasour on February 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Hmm…that would make a great T-shirt. “God is an Atheist”
lol
SnakeintheGrass on February 13, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I wish every Christian who comments on the web would read and heed Francis Schaeffer’s wonderful short book (which was originally a chapter in a longer book), The Mark of the Christian:
He closes with this poem Lament by Evangeline Paterson.
Weep, weep for those
Who do the work of the Lord
With a high look
And a proud heart.
Their voice is lifted up
In the streets, and their cry is heard.
The bruised reed they break
By their great strength, and the smoking flax
They trample.
Weep not for the quenched
(For their God will hear their cry
And the Lord will come to save them)
But weep, weep for the quenchers
For when the Day of the Lord
Is come, and the vales sing
And the hills clap their hands
And the light shines
Then their eyes shall be opened
On a waste place,
Smouldering,
The smoke of the flax bitter
In their nostrils,
Their feet pierced
By broken reed-stems . . .
Wood, hay, and stubble,
And no grass springing.
And all the birds flown.
Weep, weep for those
Who have made a desert
In the name of the Lord.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Hmm…that would make a great T-shirt. “
GodAllah is an Atheist”lol
SnakeintheGrass on February 13, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Entelechy on February 13, 2007 at 1:27 PM
INC
I didn’t mean to imply that you were in that group. Your response to me is proof that you are not.
Earnest debate is just that and I would hope you would respond in accordance with your principles rather than sugar-coat them, but what I tend not to like to see is the reactionary manner that many “debate” with. And that goes for both side of the ideological camp.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Does my comment lead you to believe I think you are advancing the atheists cause? How so. I’m only pointing out that undue sarcasm doesn’t win atheists any freinds or acceptance. I agree he is a bridge builder. Your use of the exclamation point lead me to believe you were being sarcastic.
Theworldisnotenough on February 13, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Gene Splicer:
A quick search suggests that the Sec 16 of the Virginia constitution has been amended. The original seems to be
SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
(See http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/va05.htm)
The current version starts out the same but is watered down by additional clauses. “The duty we owe our creator” is affirmed, but the manner in which it is carried out is left to our own consciences. The duty is not removed, but it is our own individual responsibility to carry out. The idea of formal individual responsibility I think is why the American Revolution succeeded and the French failed, since the French were more focused on equality and not on responsibility.
I am more familiar with the original Massachusetts constitution, which is far stronger in its requirements for religious observation. That no doubt traces back to its history as a Puritan colony and Great Awakening that was still a recent event at that time. Virginia by that time had large areas that were no longer observant so we should expect its constitution to reflect that.
Regarding your comment
that is partly true. The Bible is quite clear that all authority is from God, but the New Testament does not provide laws that would work in a general society. Not letting the sun set on your anger is not a law that we can successfully obey (hence the need for God’s grace). The practicality of having laws based on Christianity had to wait for several hundred years.
I’m sorry to hear there you are apparently surrounded by ersatz Christians. I was an atheist for most of my life, and only became open to being Christian when I read enough of the Bible to see that what it teaches is quite different from the way that many so-called Christians behave.
pedestrian on February 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Forget it. I reread my comment. I do think athesists have a cause per se. But the common distrust of atheists isn’t helped by sarcasm.
Theworldisnotenough on February 13, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Still, where is the bible or god mentioned? Creator has been and still is debated about, but the “original” article still states “and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience;”.
Considering that many of the founders were Diests and saw little if any need for the religious establishments, lack of a religion would be the fullest form of the expression of religion.
Is it incorrect that the Virginia constitution was used as the foundation or framework for the U.S. Constitution in regards to aspects of the Bill of Rights?
But that is just the point. The laws often cited by many Christians as originating from the bible are the common sensical laws you find in most societies including those that predate the Christian religion.
And what of the legal system we now have? Is there any such premise in the bible of not guilty until proven innocent? In the history of theist run institutions, this is not the case. Accusation is assumed guilt.
You forget that Virginia has a city named Churchland (for obvious reasons) and Pat Robertson. Just to add insult to injury, we also have P.E.T.A. Oh joy.
I became and atheist once I read the bible. I like many of my generation were raised as Christians. For me, it was my questioning (and the authoritative rebuttal of being a sinner for asking them) that started it all.
For any theists that feel threatened by atheists, I would offer this. If you are secure in what you believe, then nothing I say or do should shake or threaten that faith. If however, you yourself have doubts, then perhaps your anger is misplaced.
While they do exist, I would be the last person to seek to remove to limit one’s freedom of religion. I fear that I might be in the minority of atheists, or at least the more vocal ones.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 2:25 PM
When an atheists starts preaching their belief system, simply tell them they are full of sh*t and merely regurgitating an anti-religious quasi-religion of their own.
I say this as an atheist, because I realize, by meeting other atheists, that very few are actual atheists, most are merely reactionary anti-religious nutcases who want to supplant a God-construct religion with a me-based one. That is not atheism, that’s narcissism.
The first sign to tell you an atheist is full of shit, is when they start to preach or prostelyze it, when they do, walk away, because they are merely deceiving you about their purpose, beliefs and objectives.
I’ve yet to see an actual atheist interviewed by the MSM on the subject of atheism. I’ve seen plenty interviewed about other topics, but for some reason when the MSM wants to interview an “atheist” they find simply reactionary anti-religionist wannabes who make us all look bad.
–Jason
Jason Coleman on February 13, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Amen.
Jason, will you answer a question for me as a true atheist: Does your belief system make life seem more a) important to live fully or b) ultimately futile?
12thman on February 13, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Definately A.
Not much more elaboration is needed.
–Jason
Jason Coleman on February 13, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Maddow takes the typical lib line that this means freedom FROM religion. The founding fathers wrote this amendment in the context of the Church of England being the official government church of England, which allowed discrimination of other denominations and religions. The FF wanted this country to have the freedom of choice in excercising religious beliefs without the government sanctioning a particular Chritian denomination or other beliefs. If citizens wanted to be Methodists, or Lutherans, or Unitarians, or Jews, or Muslims, they would have the freedom without the government forcing them into a state-sponsored church.
I don’t see the abolishment of religion in the public sphere in that amendment. To have a creche or the ten commandments in an historical display in a public arena that happens to a community space such as a park or courthose, is not a violation of the Constitution. Having the word “God” in the pledge is not the government establishing an official church.
Face it atheists, you are a significant minority in this country and world. Why do you need to have your way at the expense of everybody else? I am left-handed. I don’t demand that the world conform to me. I deal with it, accept it (grudgingly at times), and move on.
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Gene Splicer:
Originally (i.e. circa John Locke) deism simply meant the believe that God created the world and then left it to run on its own, as opposed to those who believed that God intervened continually. So the fact that they may have been called deist is a fairly narrow theological point of disagreement. Their suspicion of religious institutions probably had to do more with the corruption of anything of man rather than a diminished view of God.
Deuteronomy 16:18-19
Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality.
19:15: One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
pedestrian on February 13, 2007 at 3:07 PM
One thing most Christians know is that on the death bed their are few atheists. And the old saying of their are no atheists in foxholes is probably more true than false. For a few years I did hospital vistits for people with incurable deseases, usually in the last weeks of life. Many were agnostics, and many were atheists. They were wonderful times (strange statement I know) never met anyone who did not appreciate a kind word or a prayer. Even the most ardent atheist knows love. My calling was to the unchurched, not the religious. In every heart is the latent image of Christ, and how that is developed and when, is not any Christians doing, it is God’s grace. And sometimes that Grace is in the last moment of the last breath of a precious life. And that person realizes that it is not the Christian, or Muslim, or Mormon, or Jew that makes that decision or defines that moment, but it is the relationship between God and that person, and it takes but a breath of acknowledgement. In a moment, by Gods grace, you can be forever saved. It is the desire of every Christian to pray for that grace upon every soul, every critiques is the desire for you to be in grace…it is an act of love. You don’t have to believe it, but please accept it. Like any gift you don’t have to unwrap it or use it…until you need it.
right2bright on February 13, 2007 at 3:13 PM
But wasn’t this added due to the reasoning that communists were atheists and visa-versa? Considering the original pledge was created by a man of the cloth, why wasn’t the distinctly xian god with the big G included in the first place?
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I would never claim they had a diminished view of god, but Jefferson did have a problem with the bible. After all, he did created the edited version of the bible that bears his name. How many of the faith would be pleased if a president or prominent public figure took a blade to the bible to create anew version?
Yes, but you ignored the history of theistic institutions who ruled by god’s law. Again, guilt was assigned by simply being accused. And again, common sense law pre-date the Christian faith. So the claims that without the Christian religion, we would not have laws are not valid ones. That also goes for the claims that one cannot be moral or possess character without theism in general.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 3:24 PM
There is no support for “theistic institutions who ruled by god’s law” in the New Testament. Agreed there were in the Old Testament, but those are viewed as defining the Israelite people as a nation in their world, and Christ’s arrival as the last priest signaled and end to that.
“Common sense law pre-date the Christian faith” and so does the code of Hammurabai. The claim is not that Christians or Jews invented the laws, but that God did and gave them to us. Same with morality. Morality does not come naturally to beings that evolved out of mud, otherwise history of Earth would not be what it is. It was not until Christ lifted us from “an eye for an eye” to “love your enemies” that life on Earth began to be less hellish.
pedestrian on February 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I would describe myself as, at best, a “born again agnostic”. I’m willing to believe there is a God, I just don’t think he cares much about us day to day. I have zero faith in any of the human created formalized churches. In my opinion, there are mostly human constructs for the maintaining power of the clergy more than they are structures for helping people to an afterlife.
However, I do not go around trying to convince others of my “beliefs” (or non-beliefs I guess). I am also not a moral relativist. I don’t equate radically different systems. I don’t need religion to tell me that killing another person is wrong unless it is in self defense or that child molesters are evil, sick twisted people.
Does my non-belief make my life fulfilled? You wouldn’t believe how much so. Once I got over the issue of trying to figure out how I was going to possibly keep myself out of eternal damnation and would, in the end, just be dead, I was able to alter my life and start things NOW about trying to make what little part of the world I can effect better.
So, I’ve served in the military to defend it and do my little part to make it safe. I’ve done humanitarian relief missions both in the military (Goma, Zaire July 1994) and as part of the Peace Corps and later with USAID (Leland Initiative) in various African nations. I’ve been to Indonesia to help with tsunami relief and to NO for Katrina rescue operations. I actually know what it’s like to see and smell a pile of 10,000 dead bodies is like. I’ve watched as hundreds of people died in hours from cholera and doing what I could to make their last hours as comfortable as possible and doing what I could to keep others from the same fate.
I quit sitting around thinking that if I just went to Church or “opened my heart” or declared this religious entity my “one true path” I was able to escape the false belief that I was having any real impact. So, I got up off my knees and went out to actually DO something to help others.
Does that make me superior to your average religious person? No. Not in the least. It is MY personal experience and it isn’t for everyone. I don’t go around trying to recruit others into it. It is each person’s choice as to what they want to do. I’ve also done some pretty crappy things in my life I wish I could take back, but I can’t, so I move on. I’m no better than the next guy. I just don’t concern myself with what the next person is doing. If it making them happy so be it. I don’t view religion as some sort of “disease” that people need to be cured from. It’s their choice.
I mention it to show that a person can live a very fulfilling life, really get out and help others and not need a prayer service, revival or belief in the afterlife to do so. I am not wandering around aimlessly wondering what I am going to do. I know exactly what I am doing and will continue to do and if I died today I’d know I went out having done what I could in the small part of this planet I’ve been able to reach.
Faith1 on February 13, 2007 at 4:18 PM
The Pledge has been revised at least three times since it first was created in 1892. It was originally written for a children’s magazine, and the author was a socialist author and Baptist pastor, Francis Bellamy. The Pledge was not made official by Congress until 1945.
In the 50s, the Knights of Columbus added the words “under God” for their own recitation of the pledge. These words were, arguably, taken from a draft of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. It was felt that without “under God,” the pledge could be applied to any country. By added those words, the pledge would become uniquely American and reflect the true heritage of America’s founding fathers. In 1954, with promotion from President Eisenhower, the words “under God” were offically added to the pledge. To quote Ike:
These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.
Those words do not constitute the establishment of a church or religion, even though that is the argument from recent attempts to have “under God” excised. Monotheism, as the argument claims” is not a church or specific religion.
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I don’t know who “xians” are. If you are going to discuss religion, at least show a modicum of respect by stating the name correctly:Christian.
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I would offer that the reason you know that these acts are wrong is precisely because of religious and moral values that have been established in our culture for centuries. Your life has been affected for the good by religion and moral goods much more than you realize.
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I think I meant to say “moral codes”…..
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 4:43 PM
This is just a resort to the simplistic “god did it” and a total rejection of man’s capabilities. Your comment place mankind as more of a unthinking and irrational animal than anything I have heard supporters of evolution to state.
Mankind is fully capable of creating laws and having moral without any sort of deity. After the “lift” of Christ, people who were arguable early scientist were persecuted and even executed for disclosing fact of our existence that proved claims of the xian bible in error.
Unless you are going got provide some sort of proof that the Judeo-Christian god gave such laws to mankind, then this is just simply wishful thinking. These laws were created by mankind.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 5:10 PM
On the contrary, they do. Again, specifically the xian god with the big G in tact, and monotheistic to boot.
Your history is remarkable missing some very important details. One is the protest from one of the daughter of the creator of the original pledge. Second, was the Knights of Columbus’ involvement and stated purpose in getting god placed into it.
Also not mentioned:
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 5:19 PM
It is always interesting to hear athiests speak (or write), they always have their understanding of the church…but it never involves all of the relief efforts, helping the poor get back on their feet, feeding and clothing the hungry. I have never met one athiest who claims not to be a great humanantarian, each one greater than the other. Yet where are the hospitals or schools or programs to help the people who are “set back”. They use the hospitals and schools that the church have built, and they never acknowledge those gifts. Athiests consume what the religious build and create, and return very little. Of course, each one, when asked, makes Mother Teresa look like she was selfish. You won’t, but if you were ever truly involved in a church you would have seen the gifts. No offense to your great service, but every church of any size has hundreds that do what you say you did, and on do a daily basis…but then the bible tell us some are blind, but they will see.
I am glad that many of the things that keep you alive and have schooled so many are gifts from the Christian Church. Given for all to reap and benefit.
right2bright on February 13, 2007 at 5:19 PM
And if you want to entertain a rational debate, please do not post reactionary comments over a common abbreviation (as in xmas) and assume lack of respect. I guess you missed the instances where I did spell the word out.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I would offer that the reason you know that these acts are wrong is precisely because of religious and moral values
And again, since these common sense moral codes existed prior to the xian, oops, CHRISTian faith and were created regardless to any religion and were firmly established in the pagan originated common law system, religion had little to do with them.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 5:24 PM
You forget, many of were raised as theists and know the religion well.
Considering that religious organizations often reach those in need in time of disasters, It would be foolish to dismiss the good the churches and similar organizations do. That is not the issue here I don’t think.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 5:28 PM
and…
That’s like getting into a debate with someone named Richard and feigning innocence when you get called on emphatically referring to him as Dick for the second half of the debate.
At least if you’re going to poke at someone, be adult enough to own up to it.
12thman on February 13, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Don’t be so easily offended. The letter X in Latin is taken from the Etruscans, and in turn from the Greek letter Χ (Chi), via the Western Greek assignment of Χ=/ks/. Meanwhile, the Eastern Greek spelling assigned that sound to Ξ (Xi), and gave Χ the sound /kh/ as in Χριστός (Christ). It is not uncommon to see ΧΡ (Chi-Rho) as a symbol in Christian art.
The use of Χ or X to represent the syllable Χριστ does not inherently mock or denigrate Christ any more than calling you by the initials M. T. does. Well, maybe that’s a bad example….
The Monster on February 13, 2007 at 5:52 PM
You mean like assuming that someone is intentional trying to insult you from reading one word in one post but overlooking all the other posts? I noticed no comment about my “proper” use of the term.
Yes it was a poke and yes the second comment was intentional, but it was also to be in jest.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Relax, I’m not going to call for riots because you won’t refer to Christianity by name. I am just pointing out to you that it is slightly offensive to see Christian written as “xtian.” I don’t know a single Christian who uses the word “xmas.” It is definately a secular reference. Since every single ethnic group and religion gets to define how they are referred to, I am pointing out to you, and others, that “xtians” is disrespetful. You can do with that information what you’d like.
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 5:56 PM
You’re right, I didn’t notice your proper use of the term, Christian. If you did, then good for you. You get credit.
;-)
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 6:01 PM
That’s actually pretty good. The use of ellipses tells me you are making a jest. It is hard to be satrical in print, without it being misinterpreted unless you are very broad or using a smiley or some other device.
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Okay, I’ll try to make sure I spell it out in the future.
Something I made based upon the fear of militants taking the “separation of church and state” to an extreme.
http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/shows/2184%20headlines%20arlington%20virginia.mp3
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 6:06 PM
I think the more you study history the less likely you will be to believe that.
The fact that wrong-headed people have entered the Church doesn’t mean that what the Bible says is wrong.
I recommend the book “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark for an discription of how non-Christian beliefs throughout history have held back human progress.
pedestrian on February 13, 2007 at 6:06 PM
There are not very many atheists on death row I would guess.
gary on February 13, 2007 at 6:10 PM
C’mon, we’re the only people that don’t get to use it? UNFAIR.
I would think that the great thing about being an atheist on your death bed is that you’re not worried about how well you did.
Enrique on February 13, 2007 at 6:47 PM
It isn’t a secular reference at all. Chi-Rhos are found all over Christian artwork, writings, buildings (churches, that is). It’s not meant to be a Latin X (with its “variable goes here” algebraic connotations), it’s meant to be a Greek Chi, which has long stood as a symbol for Christ.
It’s not an insult any more than “WWJD” is an insult to Jesus’ name.
Mark Jaquith on February 13, 2007 at 7:17 PM
You missed my point. I didn’t claim religious people don’t do good things. My point was that you don’t need a church or religion to do so. It isn’t the sole privy of any religious sect to determine right from wrong or good from bad. Those are constructs of ma–no deity need be involved.
Also, concepts as murder being wrong etc are not creations of the Christian Church. Also, don’t assume I am not familiar with churchs or religions. I’m not out to convince anyone their beliefs are wrong. They are just your beliefs.
My point was one can be an atheist and still do good in the world. “Being religious” and “doing good” aren’t always the same and being non-religious and “doing good” aren’t mutually exclusive.
As to the comment:
Thanks for holding your nose so high you didn’t read my words. I said the exact opposite of what you claim I meant. I’ve done some good things, done some bad things. Neither was from any particularly religious connotation.
Oh please, that is so over the top in self-righteousness as to be beyond hyperbole. It is exactly that “only the religious do good things” that I was showing is simply put–crap. Yes, there are people in churches who do good things. I never said otherwise. I maintained that they weren’t holding a monopoly on doing good things.
Or perhaps the religious culture adopted common moral structures already in place and created by man. You really want to maintain that wrongful killing or abusing children has only been a “bad thing” for the last few centuries?
Faith1 on February 13, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Looks like we’ve got another orthodox Presbyterian here. I’d like to add “Every Thought Captive” to that list.
PRCalDude on February 13, 2007 at 7:47 PM
I have studied history and have seen the history of mankind with and without religions. I prefer without. Pagan empires such as Rome and Greece had a healthier outlook towards religions that we do today.
It is odd how when something evil is done in the name of god, those who inflict such evil are labeled as corrupt or not “true” theist yet when anything secular is in the spotlight for equally evil actions, the blanket castigation of atheism begins.
What the bible says is contradictory and a work of man. I place much more worth in the goals set by most who generically label themselves as a Christian yet do so without the adherence to the bible. These motivations and ideals seem much more noble to me.
The premise and claims of this book is directly contradicted by the reality of the fate of Bruno and others who dare to use reason and empirical evidence to show that what is claimed in the bible and by the church was false. He can also claim the dark ages never happened, but he would be also in error.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 8:36 PM
My my aren’t we testy. If you don’t need a religion to do so, then why aren’t they done? You missed my point, it is religion that gets it done, athiests (sorry to insult) haven’t. Step it up. “Nose so high”, c’mon I was talking in general, look at the posts, never has a athiest blogged and said they have not done anything to help humanity. But in comparison to Christians, they have done very little, not being “self-righteousness”, show me where I am wrong. Point to the hospitals that athiests have built. As Ali once said “it ain’t braggin if you can do it”. Funny when I point out good things done you name call. And don’t put words in my mouth, I never said monopoly…I said point me to where the athiests have built schools, hospitals, relief programs, etc. Show them to me and humble me. Other words…put up or shut up. That is like saying you can outplay Kobe Bryant, ok, show me. . This isn’t a high horse, it is a challenge. You debate and then when faced with facts you name call. Just show me where I am wrong and knock me off my “high horse”. Here is the challenge: Show me the monuments of good that athiests have built and maintain, and compare that to what the Christians have builts and maintained. Let me start. Most of the higher education universities, Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, Loyola, etc. Hospitals, oh man, too many but several in every major city, St. Jude, Hoag,
right2bright on February 13, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Any of the books by Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel will also provide a good introduction to Christian Apologetics. C.S. Lewis is also strong. Both Strobel and Lewis are reformed atheists who accepted Christ as their savior.
Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 8:39 PM
They have some useful evidentiary arguments, but as a whole, they try to appeal to the logic of the unbeliever to see the light of Christianity. Also, they make their outside evidences the authority that the Bible as true, rather than use the Bible as the sole authority. It’s funny, McDowell will quote Van Til yet never use his apologetic method. See my post above.
PRCalDude on February 13, 2007 at 8:59 PM
My experience is exactly the opposite. I was raised as a “Christian” but consciously rejected Christ to live on my own terms. I rejected the bible and its teachings because they did not suite the lifestyle I wanted. I tried to disprove the bible to easy my conscience and ended up giving my life to Jesus instead.
It’s amazing that we looked at the same book and came to opposite conclusions.
In my case, some of the contradictions I tried to use to debunk the Bible stemmed from taking things out of context. This was especially true when comparing the God of the old testament and the God of the new without understanding that each was a different side of the same coin so to speak.
I am wondering what contradictions you cite turned you away?
jman on February 13, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Honora, this post is not directed at you, I am merely using your quote as a reference because I did not see the program or hear the atheist’s complaint that they are derided.
In my lifetime I have never seen an atheist derided for expressing their non-belief. As a Christian I’ve been told I was silly to believe the Bible, so I suppose I have been derided for expressing my beliefs. So if some atheist are derided for expressing their non-belief, that’s the price we pay for living in a free speech society and their grievance is not exclusive. Learn to love it, it’s called freedom. None of us should expect to express unpopular opinions without receiving rebuttal.
While the left constantly derides Christianity as intolerant, the opposite is true, Christianity is a wellspring of tolerance. American was indeed founded as a Christian nation and it still is a Christian nation. Every theism in the world can be found here and we all reside together in relative harmony. You can be an atheist, or any religion for that matter and live well in America. You don’t need to be concerned about a loud knock in the middle of the night and being imprisoned or killed for your particular belief.
That is not true where atheist are the majority and atheism has become the state’s religion. Where the state has become God, there is no room for competition. China is one example of this today, but there are many. And looking to history, we find this:
Maxx on February 13, 2007 at 11:16 PM
I am wondering what contradictions you cite turned you away?
I really don’t want to turn this into a scripture discussion. If you want a quick run down, you can start here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Believe it or not religion doesn’t play a major role in societal and technological advances. Sure, many advances come from religions people simply because there are more of them, but it does not mean that they made their advances because of their religion. Arguing otherwise would be a fallacy.
You are being self-righteous because this has nothing to do with the argument about religion vs. atheism; it has to do with you placing yourself and your religion on a pedestal so you can look down at atheists (and everyone else) saying “I’m better than you.” You’re arguing in fallacy.
The debate isn’t about how many hospitals your religion has built or how many bake sales you’ve been to or which is “better”. The debate is about a belief in a deity (of any kind, not just the Christian one) vs. the belief that a deity doesn’t exist and which one is, at least, more logical.
Nonfactor on February 14, 2007 at 12:05 AM
But Stark makes a compelling claim that Greek religion and philosophy are what caused Islam to become stagnated. Because Europe was cut off from it, western science was able to evolve out of the logical thought used to study God through the Bible.
Bruno was burned at the stake for going against Aristotle not against Christ. Of course his execution was an abomination, was they were not acting as they had been taught to from the Bible.
I knew that was coming. I believe in Christ, not in Christians. No matter what Christians may do, I can still follow Christ through scripture and whatever few true Christians I can find.
I also read “The Fall of Rome” by Ward-Perkins, and while he makes some important observations, he loses the debate to the broader range of evidence of Stark. Of course the economy suffers under war and economic chaos, but the fall of Rome opened the door to the slow formation of capitalism.
pedestrian on February 14, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Thanks for the reference. I am familiar with many of these arguments as I was once there myself.
jman on February 14, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Please expand on this. This makes no sense to me considering that Greek and Roman philosophers were doing quite well without the presence of the Christian religion.
No offence, but this is a cop-out. They took the word of the bible to be true and literal and that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Bruno was not burned alive because he disagreed with Aristotle alone. Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s claims were accepted as fact and backed by the church simply because it reflected the bible’s claim of a geocentric universe.
While capitalism is considered to have heen “institutionalized” in Europe in the late 16th century, it would not be possible to claim that capitalism did not originate or was not practiced in ancient times. Granted, without the region or state institutionalizing the idea, you could find your product summarily seized, but the practices of and principles of capitalism were in use long before the 16th century.
Gene Splicer on February 14, 2007 at 9:10 AM
Regardless of what people inferred, where does the bible actually say the earth is the center of the universe?
jman on February 14, 2007 at 10:15 AM
The teaching of Jesus Christ as shown in the New Testament are honorable: helping the poor, abandoning all possessions, supporting equality for all. But to pretend like modern day Christians have lived up to those teachings would be a joke.
Nonfactor on February 14, 2007 at 11:36 AM
I’ve seen some new Christian apologists trying to claim the bible has no such claims, but and simple search is all you need to find the passages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism#Biblical_references
There are still people who support the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe or the Earth is flat and do so from a biblical POV. There are other passages that support the biblical claim. The one listed were just one sample.
Gene Splicer on February 14, 2007 at 1:25 PM