Perfect love. Inextinguishable.

That’s way perfect Buck. Glad you weighed in. It was a long read to get to it, but it was worth it :)

Krydor!

Guys like me, hard right Christian conservative types, have always appreciated guys that think like you, free-thinking open-minded types. From my point of view, you and I have a lot in common, unyielding demands for the truth, as best we can make it out. We’d actually have more in common than many of our religious peers.

But that’s the point most of the thread misses, I think. Hitchens is religious. Man, is he. For him there is no God and he takes that on faith, and no bloody burning bush is going to make him second guess it. Athiests aren’t hateful, but Hitchens is: he honestly can’t stand me. He thinks I’m a mindless idiot.

When someone can point to a state that was founded on the principle of the destruction of any form of religion as the states primary goal, then you have an atheistic state. Everything else is a cheap shot.

Why would this be the goal of an athiest state?

Glad you are happy. I, strangely enough, am also happy. Let’s both be happy, even though we will never agree on the subject of religion.

Krydor on May 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM

I never really gave atheism or atheists much thought until HA sucked me into this thing. I was not raised in the church at all. At 21 I had a short lived marriage to a Catholic that didn’t do much for my view of that faith, (at the time). Music was my religion and I set out to be the best bassist & singer that I could be. Though Sunday mornings were for sleeping off the previous nights activities, I always had a general sense that Christianity was a good thing and glad somebody was going to church as long as it wasn’t me. As a rocker I often wondered why more “satanic” imagery was so common in rock yet you could count on one hand the popular rock songs with a direct Christian reference, (back then). One day while listening to a new CD I heard a beautiful song about Jesus Christ where I did not expect it. I was moved. I was pondering all the song-writing possibilities of a love so perfect there would be no, boy meets girl-boy looses girl, etc. No. Perfect love. Inextinguishable. Now that would be something worth singing about. As I was mulling this over in my mind, I felt a wave of emotion come over me. Like Old Yeller just got shot with a cannon. I of course did not actually hear voices, but I was thinking things that seemed strange to me, (which is saying alot). It’s hard to explain but I sensed an endorsement of my line of thinking that did not come from my own sense of self. It was a powerful moment in my life. I would like to say I jumped up a new man, but I probably had a drink, I don’t know. I went on with my life but could never get that experience completely out of my head. When I finally remarried at 38 the pastor and congregation seemed so nice we decided to get up and go on Sunday morning and see what we could learn. I learned that perfect love does exist. I believe the Spirit of that perfect love paid me a visit as I was pondering about it. And I have been the musical director of that church now for 5 years. We have built a new church building and continued to grow during my time of leadership. I believe I was called to this. You may believe I’m a nut. Something happened to me that changed my perception of religion. When I look at my daughter’s face, I’m glad I changed course.

The Nazis used age old suspicion of a minority, bolstered by the very real writings of Martin Luther and reinforced by some really crappy science.

But of course he did, which is what I have been saying. People use religion all the time to justify their actions. Like the Inquisition and the Crusades. Right, Buck?

Look at the scapegoating going on in this thread, for instance. Atheists did this, Atheists did that. It’s far too easy to reduce the horrors of the totalitarian movements in the 20th century to the point of absurdity. Stalin would have used whatever was the best way to control Russia, as Mao would have.

Indeed. People constantly misapply the term atheist to people like Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot. Their religion as it were was their belief in the state first and they were opposed to anything that would disrupt that goal. If Hitler and Stalin were in fact atheists on a common mission, why were they bitter enemies. More bitter than their hatred of the west?

These were not true atheistic states. They didn’t organize around the principle of the destruction of religion. Atheism may have been a by product in certain areas where it was useful to them but it was never a driving force. This is not the case in states like Iran or Taliban/Afghanistan or even midieval Europe.

When someone can point to a state that was founded on the principle of the destruction of any form of religion as the states primary goal, then you have an atheistic state. Everything else is a cheap shot.

Krydor on May 22, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Times change, sands shift. Today’s supermajority, today’s superpower could be nothing but historical record with time. The tables could turn, and it could be atheists in the supermajority someday. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I’m arguing in a philosophic sense more than one that takes current events in account.

My point ultimately is that people like Hitch Dawkins and Harris and other atheists are wrong in their blaming religion as the cause or exacerbator of societal ills. Its human nature they should rail against, not religion.

You aren’t finding much in the way of disagreement from me when you put the hypotheticals forward. The problem is that I think you have it backwards in this case. If anyone is in danger of being tossed into camps by a suspicious majority, it is the Atheists.

The Nazis used age old suspicion of a minority, bolstered by the very real writings of Martin Luther and reinforced by some really crappy science. They were rounding up people with little more than weak blood ties to Judaism but might never have been inside a synagogue. Heck, the German Jews thought (by some accounts) that Hitler was talking about the eastern Jews and not THEM.

Look at the scapegoating going on in this thread, for instance. Atheists did this, Atheists did that. It’s far too easy to reduce the horrors of the totalitarian movements in the 20th century to the point of absurdity. Stalin would have used whatever was the best way to control Russia, as Mao would have.

Misunderstood minorities have a more difficult time when things get crappy. In the event of something really bad happening, I don’t think Christians of whatever sect have very much to worry about, at least in the USA.

No. Christianity started well after Jesus died. Before that it was just considered a sect of judaism, and Christianity certainly didn’t exist before Jesus. I’m Christian btw.

Darth Executor on May 21, 2007 at 10:57 PM

Darth, technically Christianaty did exist before Jesus. It existed before the creation. Revelation 13:8 describes Jesus as “Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world”. Even though it may not have been called “Christianity” at that time, God had already made provision for man’s salvation.

“God is assuredly not on the side of the unbelievers, but history may yet be.”
- Allahpundit

I would rephrase that to say that the unbeliever is not on the side of God.

Dolschtoss was was a lie used to scapegoat Jews in Germany. It was pure garbage, a manufactured scare with no basis in reality, preying on stereotypes Germans believed. It was used to devastating effect to percecute Jews. Atheists engage in as much stereotyping as anyone else, and are just as susceptible to lies as anyone else.

And if you don’t think it could happen today, about a third of Democrats think 9/11 was an inside job, after all.

If I prevent one more person like you from saying Hitler was an atheist, then my work is done.
JackStraw on May 22, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Hi Jack, how are you?
Joseph Stalin.
Back to work.

I’m looking at the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 Amendments, and I might be missing the God part. The Delcaration of Independence, however, is a different kettle of fish. It doesn’t speak of God in the sense of the Trinity, but the Creator. A rhetorical flourish or an intentional rejection of the notion of a Christian God in favour of Deism? I’m going with the latter for a myriad of reasons. There’s some Federalist Papers stuff I can dredge up.

You aren’t wasting your time, Buck. There’s plenty both of us can learn.

I’m not denying or ignoring that. What I am saying is that those folks will need something beyond a simple unbelief.

“I don’t believe in God!”

“Hey, me neither!”

“Wanna go burn down some churches?”

“Yeah!”

Any growth in the movement you envision would probably stem from a definite state sponsored supression or something similar.

Hitler was anti-religion to the core.

That’s what I said. And no I’m not angry nor am I little nor am I Christian. I am a man, and I’m Jewish, actually, and I learned what I wrote about Hitler from my studies ten years ago at the Jewish Theological Seminary. They do lousy theology, but they are good on history. Everything I’ve read about Hitler today suggests that he was very mixed on religion. He was raised Catholic, he hated the church, he quoted scripture, but he wanted a “religion of blood” to be created. Can we agree that the guy was a fruitcake, so if he was religious it probably wasn’t normal?

Not all religious people are saintly, not all atheists are mass murdering maniacs. You don’t have a corner on goodliness. I have no problem having debates with people of all religions. Unlike you, I don’t make blanket judgements of people based on their faith or lack of faith.

Show me where I claim to have a corner on goodness. Who was I making a blanket statement about? Hitler? A blanket of one? Nazis? You still want to argue they weren’t anti-religion? Man are you off base. I don’t have a dog in this fight anyway. I like pale ale, my best friend likes hefe-veisse. I care as much about the fact that he doesn’t like pale as I do about whether someone else is an atheist or not. At any rate, I wasn’t speaking theologically; I meant to speak historically. Apparently there a disagreement in the historical record.

Gah, there it is again. Whose Christianity are we talking about? It’s not some all encompassing umbrella.

Krydor on May 22, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Krydor, God bless ya, I know I’m wasting my time. Your attitude toward Christianity is well understood. I’m talking about the Christianity that inspired the founding fathers to declare that You – Krydor, have inalienable rights bestowed to You by God that you should have the freedom that you do have. Wether you believe in God or not. I assume you like having freedom to the extent that you do. You are the beneficiary of people who believed God wanted you to be free. You could have done much worse, is all I’m saying.

Some of us are incapable of faith, and need proof…. Of course that is not the way that God or faith works

Google “iblp”, find the information on the “basic” siminar. Watch the first session free on line.

No one has time to actually check out everything we believe accept as reasonable so we tend to listen to the differing opinions and select our “experts” I’m just referring you to one I have listened to and selected.

Your statement reminded me of his story (toward the end of the siminar) about how they obtained the site for their headquarters.

Seventy years, One hundred years, two-three hundred, who knows?

You never assume anyone’s immune to anyhting, same logic in preserving the second amendment, you never know when things will go sour, just because it doesn’t or won’t go bad in your lifetime, doesn’t mean it won’t go to hell in the next generations lifetimes, likewise, Atheism could get nasty, just because it shows no sign of going bad now, doesn’t mean it never will.

Nonfactor on May 22, 2007 at 2:12 PM

No, my issue is the arrogance that many of Atheists carry thinking they are immune to radicalization under the banner of Atheism. And it does make sense, you just lack the neurons to wrap around it. People will organize to do ill around anything they feel they need to, its in their nature.

Ideally, Atheism doesn’t have a structure

Ideally being the operating word.

I wouldn’t assume that atheists couldn’t organize either, don’t fall into that trap. People can rationalize the most abhorrent behavior and work with people they’d like to see dead on any other day, given the right circumstance.

Bad Candy on May 22, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Your gripe with atheists is that they might one day radicalize like religion has? That makes a lot of sense…