Poll: 56% of atheists find radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam
posted at 12:10 pm on June 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Don’t look at me. Don’t look at Hitchens either, for that matter. Cross-section that 56 by political ideology and all will be revealed, I suspect.
Too bad I found this story on Saturday. It would have been good for 1,000 comments during the week.
Atheists and agnostics are distinct demographically from the active-faith segment. The no-faith audience is younger, and more likely to be male and unmarried. They also earn more and are more likely to be college graduates…
One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as “active in the community” (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party.
One of the outcomes of this profile – and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults – is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500).
We’re 9% of the overall population — but 14% of 23-41-year-olds and 19% of 18-22-year-olds. And contrary to popular wisdom, those numbers don’t appear to decline significantly as people age. They’ve held relatively constant over the past 15 years. Exit question: Atheist takeover?
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
IMO the relevant thing about the Communists was that they were moral collectivists, as were the Nazis & fascists, not to mention the islamofascists today. You can get away with mass murder if you convince your followers that they are not individually responsible for their actions, but are moral automatons – mere cells in a larger moral organism (economic class/race/nation/religion).
That and the fact that the Communists had the fruits of the Industrial Revolution at their disposal, and the 100 million body count starts to make sense.
JennyP on June 16, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Exactly.
The basic tennants of the Orthodox belief is that 1) God exists 2) God has a plan 3) Humans cannot know this plan. Proof need not apply.
Nonfactor on June 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Heh. Great opener, AP…
Jaibones on June 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM
What makes you assume that illiterate village peasants are the only ones doing this?
You are stating your doubt to someone who’s been there and witnessed it and knew families personally who’ve been destroyed by this. It’s not all latte and green tea out there.
You do not know anything about this and ironically, you actually use Judeo-Christian commandments as your basis for determining that the “evicerate the widows and orphans” practice is baldly and plainly wrong. The people doing it don’t think it’s wrong. To their culture, formed by their spiritual beliefs, it’s dog eat dog, all’s fair.
Many Christians have been killed for daring to challenge this very status quo, trying to help a widow and her starving children, to convince people that it’s, in your words, “fundamentally unfair.”
So, which culture do you prefer, “strip ‘em naked when they’re vunerable” or “love your neighb or as yourself?”
Ideas do have consequences.
naliaka on June 16, 2007 at 6:42 PM
1., 2., 3. (2. and 3. being obviously irrelevant if you don’t see the need for 1.), and 4. (we seem to do OK working only 5 days a week, as with most paid jobs, or if you look at it differently, 7 days a week, if you consider both paid work and household obligations).
Also, in at least some circumstances (such as child abuse and/or addiction scenarios, or if one’s aware of other criminal activity on the part of one’s parents), 5. can and should be viewed as not universal. Typically, though, I’d agree it is beneficial.
Blacklake on June 16, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Exactly. Ideas have real-world consequences.
We here in the real world, are trying to come up with moral systems that will enhance our thriving in this real world. (That’s the function of a moral system: to provide a behavioral environment where we can thrive.)
And since we’re talking about moral systems, we’re talking about principles. Any talk of immediate-gratification is irrelevant to the question of which moral systems are better than others.
Personally, I’d hate to live in a world where my husband’s death would mandate the sudden destruction of my & my childrens’ lives. By what reasoning could someone possibly make this situation sound fair to themselves? How could any husband/father make this sound fair? How could anyone with a shred of empathy feel that this would be fair in general? This is the objective principle that forces me to reject such a moral code. The only way I can see that someone could think of this as fair, is if they weren’t a woman, and were a psychopath.
So: Which culture do I prefer? Why, “love your neighbor as yourself” is clearly preferable to “strip ‘em naked when they’re vulnerable.” I still fail to see why believing in a supernatural Father Figure is needed to justify this preference.
BTW, where did you get this story from? What specific culture in “Africa” are you talking about? I really do wonder what their rationale could be for supporting such a practice all these years. I mean, if the story is true, and this culture has followed these practices for generations, then even the women must have accepted it. The only way I can see such a barbaric rule surviving is in an isolated, ignorant culture, where nobody has ever been exposed to alternate moral systems that they could compare their own system to.
JennyP on June 16, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Ahhh…GEEEsus. Are we still talking about this?
Who CARES?
My good Christian brethren, (and sisteren ;))verily I say unto you >>>>>> RELAX.
HELL IS STILL THERE and Madalyn Murray O’Hare is STILL saving them all a seat.
:::still yawning:::
seejanemom on June 16, 2007 at 7:11 PM
To the non-believer, no proof is satisfactory; to the believer, no proof is necessary.
ZK on June 16, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Joshua P. Allem on June 16, 2007 at 4:39 PM
You are the man of the thread! I wish desperately that so many more, self included, could discuss the topics of atheirsm, religion, and other difficult ones, in this non-threatening/accusatory manner. Thank you,
Entelechy on June 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM
I respect atheists that realize their freedom to be athiests is enhanced by the biblical roots of this nation, not in spite of it.
Theworldisnotenough on June 16, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Where are those Atheists (other than a few Allahpundits)? The atheists I encounter are overwhelmingly nasty and dare I say “hateful” Leftists who not content to not believe in God and go on their merry way.
Au contraire, They seethe with rage at Christians and have nothing but contempt for this country and are thus intent on destroying our Judeo-Christian foundations and institutions.
They do see no difference between Christianity and Radical Islam. Indeed, if given a choice I dare say they’d go with Islam and would happily endorse “the rights” of segregationist groups like the Muslim Students Association. I’ve already been told that I’m a bigot not to embrace their culture.
Buy Danish on June 16, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I am a 43 yr old conservative agnostic. I don’t see christians as threatening at all. Some are annoying, but hardly threatening. What is radical Christianity anyway? Will they cut your head off for not beleiving in a dead guy in his underwear on a cross? Will they cut your head off for wrting this?
paulsur on June 16, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Buy Danish, the NYT represents them. They also wish to destroy the white-male-dominated form of government and life. See their support for open borders, multi-culti, one-world, international court, U.N., and peace-at-all-costs (not realizing their own slavery in the process), both here and in Europe.
They are our ‘intelligent’ ones. How ironic that they don’t see Chavez for what he is, even if he bars their freedom to speak/write and own (in that case a paper or station).
Entelechy on June 16, 2007 at 7:55 PM
baldilocks,
Let’s just say it’s an informed opinion and leave it at that.
Joshua,
Yet if he indeed exists, that’s exactly what he’s done. You can believe or not believe whatever you want, but that’s the harsh truth. The rest of your post is a good example of circular logic.
Keljeck,
Ah, so they did come up with the ideas that are in the Bible by themselves before they read it? So why did they need to read it in the Bible?
I have read from the Bible, I have read in the Bible, I have not read the Bible. Surely you don’t mean to say that you have to read the entire Koran in order to point out how it basically preaches hate of Jews and Christians?
Ah, but why are you assuming God’s existence? Based on what? Exactly – nothing. It’s just like a conspiracy theory. You assume that Bush was behind 9/11, and then of course you’ll have questions on how he was to have done so. This is, of course, completely backwards from logical and rational thought.
Ah yes, because the words written in the Bible aren’t arbitrary? They are, but you’ve been fooled into believing they are divine thus not arbitrary. The truth is that they were written by men, just like the Koran was, just like the book of Mormon, and so on, and so forth.
Exactly, they are based on collective logical, rational, and critical thought. You know, like science. Like math. You make things easier for yourself by being content with God’s words being absolutely right and thus you don’t have to collectively deduce what should be right or wrong. You let some dude who wrote the Bible a few thousand years ago dictate it to you.
Yes, Noah fit two of every animal on an ark and Moses parted the Red Sea. Clearly I cannot make comments on the absurdity of such things because I have not read the entire Bible!
No, because I don’t suppose something without a legitimate reason for doing so. I don’t go assuming things just because it sounds great. This is absurd. How am I blocking any though? I’m blocking illogical thought by basing my thinking on false premises of something existing that has never shown itself to exist.
Basically you’re saying that if I don’t base my world on the Easter Bunny, then I am blocking those thoughts and I’m weak because I do not ask myself why the Easter Bunny couldn’t be real. Jesus Friggin Christ that’s absurd.
Thou shalt… Yeah, that’s a question alright.
We know there is a God? And how do we know this? Didn’t you earlier state that a question Christians asked themselves is why God had not revealed his existence? So you know he exists yet question why he hasn’t revealed his existence? Can you not see the inherent logical flaw here?
Yes, like no true Muslim would, yadda yadda. The Crusades, heard about them? Truly moral people don’t kill others for the hell of it either.
And some of the smartest minds this world has ever seen have been atheists. What’s your point? That smart Christians have problems and questions about their faith due to their faith being incompatible with reality and thus forcing them to ask questions?
Trutherism is faith just like Christianity is, even though Trutherism actually builds upon more direct evidence than Christianity does.
Huh? I reject the entire Bible because I reject that there is a God due to the fact that no evidence has ever been provided that there is a God? No, there are many good lessons to be found in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean that the entire Bible is true, or false. You’re apparently appealing to monochrome thought here.
Yes, you are bickering over that because it completely undermines your religion and what you’re bickering over is how to deal with the situation. Such as, do we try to find a loophole in our holy book so that we can get ourselves out of this jam, like Intelligent Design, or do we just stick to our guns and reject science.
See, you’re not dealing with reality here, you’re dealing with how to make your faith stand the test of time. You’re spending your time defending a religion rather than finding out the origins of man.
Faith isn’t knowledge! It is belief! Hello?
How is it a Cross?
Dude, that makes no sense. That’s like saying not believing in the Easter Bunny is a crutch because you can’t conceive of the possibility of the Easter Bunny. When in reality, the Easter Bunny is a crutch for young kids to have something to be happy about during Easter. When you stop believing in the Easter Bunny, life becomes harder because you have to deal with reality.
In other words, what you’re saying here is that denying Trutherism is a crutch because you can’t conceive that Bush was behind 9/11. Does that make any sense? No, it doesn’t, it’s completely backwards. Trutherism is a crutch to people who can’t deal with reality, just like Christianity is.
You witnessed him in your own life? Wow, quickly, call up CNN, I think they’d be interested in the story, God has finally revealed himself!
Ah, so you’re content with the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative. Why aren’t I surprised?
The Bible could have been written by just about anyone, and there is no evidence or proof that a divine being had anything to do with it. Did he also dictate the Koran to Muhammed? Or are the Muslims just liars?
There is scant evidence of his existence as described by the Bible, and there is no evidence he rose from the dead.
On which basis? Every good deed by a person is through divine intervention? Why? Where’s God’s signature, other than, again, your BELIEF?
Why do you believe in something you cannot prove?
All babies are atheists because they have yet to be brainwashed with the idea of God existing. Atheism is the lack of believing in something. Atheism is pointing out to theists that there is no evidence or proof of their beliefs.
Of course I can’t disprove your claims – just like I can’t disprove that Santa Clause exists. Does that make Santa Clause real or believable? Again, this is a logical fallacy employed by the likes of Truthers and left-wing journalists.
Making a claim and then asking others to disprove it without having shown any evidence is childish and illogical.
Huh?
So what you’re saying is that you cannot comment on Scientology because you haven’t read whatever stupid book they have or whatever? Even though it’s batsh*t insane? Alrighty then.
I do have an understanding of the history of Christianity, I know why it exists, I know what’s its aims were and are, I know why people cling to it. Christianity being a crutch is not a meme, it is a harsh truth for people like you to accept. The Bible is filled with fairy tales that have never been corroborated or shown to be true. God hasn’t shown himself, thus we cannot conclude that he exists. These are all inconvenient truths that you do not wish to comment on, thus you deny me a discussion.
Hypocrisy is the word, and you are again showing your complete lack of logical thought. Anti-faith does not need to be proven because it rests on the fact that faith itself has not been proven. Just like not believing in the Tooth Fairy doesn’t need to be proven because the Tooth Fairy has never been proven to exist in the first place.
Atheists are what people would be if the idea of a God was never forced upon humanity – the lack of a belief in God because God was and is an invention of man.
The fact that you think atheists have to prove anything shows you are completely incapable of logical thought.
naliaka,
1-4 are arbitrary and useless. 5 is reasonable, although it should be conditional upon the actions of your father and mother. 6-10 are rational and useful because they prevent behavior that is harmful in a society.
So, as I have argued, the Bible has some good lessons in it, but it’s unfortunate that the whole God thing gets in the way.
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 8:08 PM
/Gonna get some of you guys for your comments…we’re watching you../
Seriously, it would be great if some of the athiests/agnostics would read some of C.S. Lewis’s writings. He started out in that same boat, but eventually became a Christian. His logic is inescapable–
“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” –
– C.S. Lewis
…that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
C. S. Lewis, from Mere Christianity(1898 – 1963)
Vanquisher on June 16, 2007 at 8:09 PM
ok, skimmed the thread, and I would love to read it more in depth, but I do not have the answer.
Who are the radical Christians and their platform? I can define a jihadist, and moderate muslims. What does a radical Christian actually do? Believe? How is a radical Christian differ from run-of-the-mill Christian?
CrimsonFisted on June 16, 2007 at 8:30 PM
If false Christianity can still be moderately important. People can still believe in this falsehood and then those same people can attempt to inforce their beliefs derived from this falsehood upon the people of the world.
And what does “importance” have anything to do with truth? That quote doesn’t prove the Christian God exists, it simply states a fallacy (either or).
It sounds like Lewis is simply restating what Pascal did years before him.
Nonfactor on June 16, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Nonfactor on June 16, 2007 at 2:26 PM
So its now 61/2 hours later any reply yet or have you conceded?
sonnyspats1 on June 16, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Is this the part where I mention that the ‘White Power’ movement claims to be Christian? I realize that the mainstream Christians utterly and completely repudiate those folks. The point is that they make the claim of being Christians and are a fairly dangerous bunch of radicals.
Krydor on June 16, 2007 at 8:55 PM
You can’t simply say “you’re wrong about the source” without proving me wrong. Are you saying that Locke (the father of Liberalism) wasn’t the main influence on Madison and Jefferson? Are you saying that Hobbes wasn’t the main influence on Locke? Have you even read any of Locke or Hobbes? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Don’t tell me our Constitution wasn’t based on the Liberal philosophy stated by Locke.
Again, Christianity wasn’t the first source to say “murder is wrong” et cetera. To believe so is ignorant. I’d be happy to debate the philosophy of our Constitution with you, sonnyspats, despite me having done so with numerous others in previous threads.
Nonfactor on June 16, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Where do you guys get the idea that Christians “force” their beliefs on non-believers?? A person talking incessently to you about God, is not the same as “forcing” his beliefs on you. It’s a ridiculous statement.
As to the Christian values in Government and Law…that’s not “FORCE” either…it’s called rule by the majority. Still different from Christians “forcing” beliefs. Making a law based on “thou shalt not kill” isn’t the same as forcing you to believe that GOD said so. It’s a logical guidline, based in Christianity…but you can believe that it’s just a guideline..without believing in God.
There is no FORCE is Christianity. Not since the middle ages…and that is not relevent to today.
tickleddragon on June 16, 2007 at 9:19 PM
OOps.. I meant…
There is NO force in Christianity.
tickleddragon on June 16, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Sorry in advance to the Atheists, including you, Allah…but I feel sorrow at those that don’t believe in anything higher than themselves.
But please don’t think of that as pity or derision…it’s just plain sadness over the question from where does comfort derive for those that believe in nothing?
tickleddragon on June 16, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Crimony, Seixon. This may not be Bill O’Reilly’s mail, but at least try to keep it pithy!
Blacklake on June 16, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I don’t know if this comports with mainstream useage of the phrase “radical Christian” in any way (in fact, I suspect strongly it doesn’t, and that to the left “radical Christian” and “Christian” are simply interchangeable). However, I tend to categorize “radical” Christians as those who genuinely believe, essentially literally (to the extent that such is possible), in the prophecies of the end times laid out in the book of Revelations, and also that those prophecies have yet to come to pass.
I’d certainly be interested in hearing challenges to that notion, however.
Blacklake on June 16, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Ok, I will go with that (since I am stumped on what “radical” Christianity” is). I think I can go with that.
Ok, taking that as a premise, then do they cut across all lines? Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, etc?
Are they of one denomination? Or all? Are they a fringe element?
I think the ones defining the term “radical Christians” ought to be clear so the topic can be properly discussed. And defended. Or debunked.
I tried to find the wonderful article by Michael Medved on this topic. Excellent, but I cannot find the link! :(
CrimsonFisted on June 16, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Keljek:
“Then I see no reason to discuss with you any further. If you had read the Bible this could go someplace. If you had an understanding of the history of Christianity, then we could talk.”
I suspect you should be counting your blessings instead. The logical arguments for faith do not derive from a direct reading of the Bible, nor is understanding the history of Christianity in any way a prerequisite for salvation or membership in a Christian congregation. Indeed, your requirements would deny most Christians the privilege of your conversation.
You’re getting a more substantive engagement from Seixon than you’d get from 99% of the chuchgoers down my way. Most would tell you that the questions in which you frame the Christian experience have been answered. You, yourself seem more to be contemplating such questions, than asking them.
JM Hanes on June 16, 2007 at 10:13 PM
In keeping with the original spirit of this thread, I propose they redo the poll. Here’s the question they should have asked…
It’s midnight. You’re walking alone in a strange town. A man walks down the street toward you. He is:
A) An Islamist wielding an AK-47 and chanting “Allahu Akbar!”
B) A Lutheran wielding a Pabst and humming a Lee Ann Rimes tune.
Which one would you rather encounter?
56/44 my azz.
wccawa on June 16, 2007 at 10:35 PM
They say nothing about radical Judaism? Damned anti-semites!
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 16, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Well, can we discuss the Christian Identity Movement? Do they fit the bill for radical Christians that I can consider slightly more than problematic?
Krydor on June 16, 2007 at 10:37 PM
The founder might promulgate this as the highest law, “You will worship God; you will serve only God.”
Kralizec on June 16, 2007 at 11:28 PM
The Methodist Martyrs Brigade does not go into all of that meta-physical stuff. Try the Popular Methodist Martyrs Corps…..splitters!
All meetings participants must be refreshed with the proper fermented grain beverage. Newbies like you must provide this beverage and bringing the wrong stuff will disqualify you in the eyes of the membership committee (that’s me). A right of initiation if you will…….
TwinkietheKid on June 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Other bits from the article which I found interesting:
“In the study, the no-faith segment was defined as anyone who openly identified themselves as an atheist, an agnostic, or who specifically said they have ‘no faith.’” Out of that group of approximately 20 million people, “only about five million adults unequivocally use the label “atheist” and, when asked to describe the nature of God, staunchly reject the existence of such a being.” So we’re essentially talking about 5 million atheists and 15 million agnostics. The article also points out that “Three-quarters of no-faith adults said they are clear about the meaning and purpose of their life and a surprising one-quarter said the phrase “deeply spiritual” accurately describes them.”
When it comes to the “cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life,” I think the article rather underplays its own demographics. I should think that almost any group which is disproportionately young, unmarried, and male would be less likely to be registered to vote, to be active in the community, to be involved in face-to-face interaction with the needy, or to make the kind of financial contributions that will be possible further down the road. Anyone charged with soliciting alumni or community giving could confirm such trendlines.
JM Hanes on June 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM
I can think of a few radical “Christian” groups through the ages (I scanned through the comments thread, so forgive me if I’m repeating a point):
- Spanish Inquisition
- Spanish Conquistadores and the accompanying missionaries
- KKK
- Much of American White Supremacy movement
- abortion clinic bombers
- That church from Oklahoma that protests military funerals
- Polygamous fundamentalists in the American West
The HUGE difference between these radical “Christian” groups and radical Islam is for one or two reasons:
a) They are ancient or at least old history OR
b) The general consensus among the rest of the Christian world is that these groups are absolutely the opposite of what a Christian is. This can not be said about Jihadism in much of the Muslim world.
Several Muslim nations in recent years and even today are run by Jihadist, Muslim fundamentalists with at least the tacit approval of the rest of the Muslim world.
The KKK never ran a country.
sweetlipsbutterhoney on June 16, 2007 at 11:41 PM
ok….. I’m not touching this one. it’s not my job to unscrew the inscrutable(sp?)
that being said, from the afore mentioned Life of Brian… “Down the hall, line on the left, one cross each”
mrfixit on June 16, 2007 at 11:51 PM
whats with this thread ? It isn’t posting my comments.
sonnyspats1 on June 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 8:08 PM
No they are not. Atheists are people in rebellion to God. Nor are there many Atheists who have ever truthfully engaged in logical thought.
Let us examine the Atheistic concept logically. In the absence of God what happens.
In the absence of God all life becomes strictly a process of evolution.
Evolution is a ruthlessly ridged and strict condition, live or die, eat or be eaten, survival is exclusively through procreation.
First and foremost those incapable of successful reproduction die, no if and or buts about it, end of story.
Second the ability to avoid being eaten or become a successful predator.
From a strictly evolutionary standpoint these two conditions predicated every single aspect of survival. They are literally coded in at the genetic level.
In the absence of God all life reverts to basic biological imperatives. Eat or be eaten reproduce or die.
In the absence of God in all human social interactions would follow these basic biological imperatives.
The strongest smartest and most capable of reproducing would dominate society.
Their domination of society would be totally lacking in any altruistic or benevolent strictures since such behavior would be self-defeating.
Any moral or ethical code developed under such conditions would be calculated to protect the position of the Alpha males prodigies so long as those prodigies continued to exhibit the most successful genetic characteristics required for survival and procreation.
That code would also by necessity dictate the swift and ruthless elimination of any such offspring that failed to exhibit the most successful genetic characteristics required for survival and procreation.
Because evolution takes enormous amounts of time to take place the hardwiring of these genetic imperatives makes it impossible for mere cognizant reasoning to supersede genetic encoding.
In the absence of God you literally become a slave to your genetic encoding. There is no escape, you are what you are genetically encoded to be.
If your genetic encoding is that of a predator, you are and always will be a predator. Your survival completely depends on your ability to kill and reproduce and no capacity for rational logical thought can or ever will change that.
The strongest survive and reproduce the weak are eaten or die off having failed to reproduce. From a strictly evolutionary genetic standpoint there are no exceptions to this rule.
The moral and ethical dictates of Judaism and Christianity have zero applicability under these conditions. The ten commandments, and that means all ten of them are completely antithetical to the moral and ethical requirements of a society predicated solely on evolutionary and biological imperatives. The very nature of genetic encoding makes them utterly and completely impossible.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Nonfactor on June 16, 2007 at 9:01 PM You are misinformed Non Factor. Jeffersons own writtings of his inaugrial address and his writings on the freedom of religion clearly mention the Almight God and the religion of the people. He even went as far as writting The Jefferson Bible which is a literal transscribed version of the new testiment. That dosen’t look like he was anything but a Christian. So your assertions were false and bogus. Can you get a refund from your college? Mabey some complimentary religion classes?
sonnyspats1 on June 17, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Doriangrey
In the absence of God you literally become a slave to your genetic encoding. There is no escape, you are what you are genetically encoded to be.
Hate to break it to you, but even with the acceptance of God, the above is true. You are a slave to your DNA. From whatever health problems you may have, to your intelligence, to your height.
Odd, that all the stuff God jammed into your DNA should also be repressed by any means necessary.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Referring to the 10 Commandants:
So, you find the commandments 6-10, dealing with one’s neighbor as rational and useful as they prevent harmful behavior in a society. Those are summed up in the “love your neighbor as yourself.” One could also argue that one’s parents might also be one’s neighbors, so let’s make it 5-10 (i.e. TRY and treat one’s parents the way they should be treated even if they don’t necessarily deserve it, because it was made very very clear that not all neighbors are delightful, but we are expected to treat them as if they were – that is, don’t cheat, steal from or malign them).
But, the majority of the world’s population has never heard of these commandments. They have never been taught to not desire anything of their neighbors. They take what they want when they see opportunity. Yet, without fail, if they hear these commandments, they always nod and agree they are good. So, for any ethnicity, “race” or creed, there is a universal acknowledgement that these commandments are superbly sensible. They are timeless, they are as good today as they were three thousand years ago and they’ll be just as solid and sensible in six hundred years, or a thousand years.
The commandments are rational and useful … and in complete opposition to base human nature.
People find the commandments to be a curb on their selfish desires. Most people appreciate the value of that, other people resent it, for they don’t want to be restrained.
So, if the commandments 5-10 are good, solid and sensible for a healthy and cooperative society, what’s so awful about acknowledging the God who claims to be the author of them?
No other god on the planet claims these commandments as their own. It’s pretty wild and woolly out there, and if one is standing between a widow and her children and the grasping relatives, one needs more than just platitudes for fortitude.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Ah… the Bible. The problem with talking about the Bible is that every Christian group seems to use it differently.
The problem with these discussions is that there are so many different Christian groups, and there have been so many over the years. Those who find fault with Christianity will use the worst of the groups to make their points. Then someone will bring up the Crusades (yawn). It’s virtually impossible to hold a discussion over the internet.
Most people do not realize the importance of 4 books of the Bible. Don’t quote Old testament God-smiting to me when discussing Chritianity. It’s all about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The New Testament represents a profound change from the Old Testament. Just like the Reformation represented a change. Then you have Vatican I and Vatican II.
I still haven’t seen what these people determine to be a radical Christian group because the question was what is as threating. Not was, but what is.
reaganaut on June 17, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Well said. Time to haul out Mark Twain on the use of statistics?
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Reaganaut,
Christian Identity
2nd time I’ve linked this. Give it a look.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 12:11 AM
However what you fail to grasp is that with the acceptance of God comes the reality that you are not simply a creature enslaved to your DNA, but a creature with the free will to make choices contrary to the dictates of your DNA.
Both Judaism and Christianity are predicated on the concept of original sin and free will. You are a slave to both sin and your DNA, But Judaism and Christianity are both also predicated on the notion that God chose to intervene and create a path by which the individual could overcome sin and their genetic encoding.
This is why the moral and ethical dictates of Judaism and Christianity are completely antithetical to the moral and ethical requirements of a society predicated solely on evolutionary and biological imperatives.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 12:24 AM
That last bit, about what constitutes base human nature, is a rather strong claim. Are you suggesting that, somehow, without religion humans lack conscience?
I know there’s evidence (if not decisive) to suggest that normal humans are inherently averse to murder, thievery, harmful deceit, and in many cases even adultery, so much so that those who don’t seem to experience those same inherent aversions get a special label: Sociopath.
The question, I suppose, is whether sociopaths lack certain innate aversions, or if they lack the ability to assimilate societal standards of behavior. I would assume you believe the latter. But on what evidence you base such a decisive ruling on the influence of nurture over nature?
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM
sonnyspats -
You said:
Seems like you might need classes. Most relevant scholars categorize him as a deist, inasmuch as it describes him as a believer in God but not Christianity.
And:
BillINDC on June 17, 2007 at 12:42 AM
I don’t know how many atheists study logic, but I daresay you could use a bit of brushing up. You speak of God and evolution as if they were equivalent to p and ~p. This is a basic logical fallacy, known most commonly as the fallacy of the excluded middle, or of the false dilemma.
Here are just a few potential conditions which you’ve excluded:
1) Evolution was itself created by God
2) Life came about by neither evolution nor Creation, but by some other mechanism we know nothing about
3) Life was indeed Created, but not by God
All of which are perfectly logical alternatives (and at least the first of which is rather widely believed to be true).
The initial mistake here, I think, is to assume that, because most atheists seem to believe in evolution, that evolution is necessarily a component of atheism. It isn’t. Atheism is simply the belief that the proposition “God exists” is false. It doesn’t logically entail anything else at all; other beliefs of atheists, no matter how common, are contingencies, not necessities.
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Doriangrey,
Well, that’s a different interpretation.
It could also be that our basic ethical tenets came about because man is an animal that needs a pack. There are certain behaviors that enhance the group and others that diminish it.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Religion as a word can be bandied about to mean different things, so let me stick to this, “You are what you believe.” I do not know how other religions address this, but the Judeo-Christian scriptures state plainly that the commandmants are the Law, and the purpose of the Law is to develop human conscience.
The scriptures also state that God’s Law is written on every person’s heart. Thus, one can find people who have not heard the Word of God preached, but do obey the Law, so this is the explanation why many people do in fact do what is acknowledged universally as decent and good.
The Biblical stance is very simple, each individual makes the choice. Thus, a line of preachers can produce a “sociopath” just as easily as a line of sociopaths can produce a preacher. Some of the world’s most selfless and wonderful people have come out of horrific situations, while some of the world’s most selfish and unpleasant people have come out of nurturing families. Yet, Biblically, people are encouraged to speak well, be self-controlled and be thoughtful of others, and teach that to their children, so nuture is important in forming people, for good or for bad. It’s just that in the end, the direction in which a man or woman chooses to go is their own, personal decision.
.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Blacklake:
I started counting fallacies too, but gave up when I ran out of fingers and toes.:)
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 12:58 AM
BillINDC on June 17, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Ha Ha what?! OH he was a Deist so where is the Deist Bible. Why is Jefferson quoting the Christian New Testament verbatum? You are delusional if you think you can use the exact words and just change the title from Christian to Deist and make it so. Really these so called scholars of yours are nothing but a bunch of horse patootie.since when did these ‘scholars’ determine that Jefferson was a Deist after the Bolshevik revolution?
sonnyspats1 on June 17, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Christinewjc
I just watched, at your suggestion, the youtube video of Disproving Islam in Three Words. I agree with everything the fellow said in such a clear. Thanks very much. Sometimes logic works and sometimes it doesn’t – often, it is a matter of the heart. I have had the privilege of helping some Muslim students pray to receive Christ. It wasn’t the result of my persuasive logic, if I had any, but by the power and authority of the words of the Bible in conjunction with an exercised human spirt.
This thread sure has been a heated religious discussion – it’s great to have the freedom to have these discussions.
I believe Isaac Newton, who studied the Bible and its prophecies as much, if not more, as his ground breaking logic of physics, optics and other scientific discoveries started out in his scientific studies from the presumption that a logical Creator created the universe. Therefore, there is logic and design in this universe which only needs to be realized and understood through close examination.
As far as foreign policy I would like to see the USA favor those nations that have and guarantee an open and free marketplace of ideas. A place where atheists, agnostics and God believers are free to promote their ideas and beliefs. May the best ideas win. Countries that currently fail this test are nearly all the Arab countries including our friends the Saudis, Iran, North Korea, China as well as many other countries that stifle the freedom to express one’s beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. What a shame.
I feel this nation has become great due to its freedom of speech and its protestant work ethic.
Texas Mike on June 17, 2007 at 1:04 AM
I apologize for the heavy editing, but I do want to focus in on what I consider the most salient bits:
From the above I’d say the biblical stance is far from simple, but quite confusing. The first and last points seem to assert nurture. The second one seems to assert nature. If morality is “written on every person’s heart,” yet some who have never heard of Christianity nevertheless make the choice to obey “The Law,” on what are they basing their decision? And, considering they are choosing correctly without religious knowledge, doesn’t this completely undermine the position that conscience is dependent on religion?
Meanwhile, I understand your perspective is biblical. But I was asking about evidence to support your (biblical) perspective that what would commonly be considered ethical human behavior is, essentially, unnatural. That would suggest that the evidence be extra-biblical, as recounting what’s said in the bible as support simply amounts to re-asserting what’s already been asserted.
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 1:10 AM
This poll is meaningless without defining what a “radical Christian” is. Was Jesus a “radical Christian” ?
Maxx on June 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM
doriangrey,
How can you rebel against something that has never been proven to exist? Am I rebelling against the invisible pink unicorn beckoning me from my living room as well? I won’t even comment on that last sentence. Sheesh.
Let’s.
Yet for some reason I am perfectly able to follow many of those ten commandments without believing in God or believing that he created those commandments. Huh. Strange. Even stranger – those who are religious and claim to follow the ten commandments often don’t. Shocker!
naliaka,
Let me just stop you right there, because this is complete nonsense. Every religion has some or all of these commandments, moral principles, and these are taught to most people around the world, whether it be through religion or simple parenting.
Ah, so every non-Christian on Earth is a thief? Go on!
Eh, only a few of those commandments would be a curb on selfish desires, namely the one against stealing and coveting your neighbor’s things, perhaps committing adultery. Yet to claim that it is human nature to steal, commit adultery, and kill… Well, that’s absurd.
God has never made this claim, as I’m sure you’re aware, he has never revealed himself and thus could not have done so. Humans wrote the Bible, and these moral principles have been around for much longer than Christianity, thus there is absolutely no reason to credit Christianity, God, or the Bible with it. Why acknowledge God as the author of ideas that are common sense and not in any way proven to be his invention?
Not the exact list in the exact form, but every religion have all or some of these commandments in another shape or form, and there is nothing to prevent any single human being from logically deducing these moral principles without believing in God.
These moral principles are older than the invention of your God.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Sorry but the logic fallacy here is yours. I did not include any of the other variable because they were not germane to the discussion. The phrase “In the absence of God” should have been your first clue.
In the absence of God negates any possibility that god played any role in evolution.
In the absence of any evidence for this and substantial evidence contradicting it this line of reasoning is likewise negated.
Tangential at best but otherwise irrelevant.
A little closer examination would have shown you that my logic does not consist of p and ~p, but simply ~p. It is a simple straight forward if/then logic tree.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Of course not.
Not sure how to say it without being offensive considering the present company – but liberalism and atheism share one common trait: most people outgrow them because they are antithetical to intellectual maturity.
See? You’re offended. But you won’t be in 20 or 30 years. One of the first signs of real maturity is a willingness to look around and admit that you don’t know everything. Atheists are uncomfortable admitting there might be more out there than what they can explain.
As for atheists fearing Christianity – well, I’ll play Devil’s advocate and say that at least in theory, they’re right. Radicalism, fanaticism, and virulent fundamentalism are always dangerous – and since in our country there are far more Christians than Muslims, in theory, it makes sense to fear Christian fundamentalism.
But as usual with liberals, even though the theory may appear sound – it has some problems when it collides with reality. In the real world, at this point in history, Christianity may have the potential to become dangerous – but Islam has embraced its zealotry with eager abandon.
Only a true fool would choose the theory over current reality and fear modern Christians over anti-modern Islamists. Its typical of liberalism: ignoring reality and fearing the theoretical. That’s so basic to liberalism, they could make their motto.
Professor Blather on June 17, 2007 at 1:18 AM
And keep in mind that Jefferson wasn’t unique. Take a glance at Hobbes’ Leviathan or Locke’s Second Treatise and the similarities are vast. It’s agreed upon by every credible political theorist that our Constitution was formed by a combination of Republican (Aristotle) and Liberal (Locke) principles, so much so that America is often called a Lockean experiment. Just read Federalist 10 and 51. A god of any kind or religion does not play a part in deciding what government America should use–it was philosophic rational that led America to become the Liberal Democracy we are today.
And a (final?) comment on the topic of this thread simply to reiterate: the question did not ask which group is more dangerous, it simply asked what people feel threatened by.
Nonfactor on June 17, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Let’s see: In this corner we’ve got a guy who has obviouly read the Jefferson Bible and knows that Big J. was cuttin’ & pastin’ like crazy from Greek, Latin, French and English versions of the New Testament. Over in the other corner we’ve got some guy on the net talking horse patootie and Bolshie revisionism. What to do? What to do?
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 1:27 AM
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Prove God doesn’t exist.
adenine guanine cytosine and thymine kind of blow your theory right out of the water.
No you are not, you aren’t actually able to uphold any of them. What you do is equivocate which is to say you rationalize that if you only violate any one of them once or twice that because you don’t violate them all the time you are not violating them.
Furthermore you carry that equivocation out to its extreme degree by rationalizing that if you don’t act on an impulse to violate one of those commandments that you have not violated that commandment.
Whereas Christ said if you lust after a woman in your heart, you have already committed adultery with her, likewise if you are angry with your brother without just cause you have already murdered him in your heart.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 1:33 AM
For the 581234th time: the burden of proof is on the people who believe in a god.
That’s just a stupid thing to say. I suppose when radical Muslims murder people it is no worse in the eyes of God than people who are angry at their brothers… But this is what you get when you have so many different sects of Christianity.
Whereas Christians are “really mature” because they truly do know that God exists and they do know that God can explain everything. You’re so contradictory it’s pathetic.
Nonfactor on June 17, 2007 at 1:39 AM
“Prove God doesn’t exist.”
Isn’t that like being the first one to bring up the Nazis?
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 1:44 AM
Nonfactor on June 17, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Logic fails you, the burden of proof is not on the people who believe in a god, but always on the first person in a debate to make an assertion.
In this case your lack of education fails you. Yes strictly speaking in the eyes of God it makes no difference, it only makes a difference to men. There is no disagreement on this in the theology of any sect of Christianity.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Sexion must have a bunch of bodies in his basement, due to his unquenchable lust for blood. If only he followed the 10 commandments, those people might be alive today.
Oh, wait, I don’t think he’s had much of a problem with the “shalt not kill” one.
At any rate, if we play this stupid 10 commandments game, then one must also be “for” punishments of the infractions. No one ever mentions that god had a plan for those that broke the law.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 1:47 AM
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 1:44 AM
p and ~p argument so no.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 1:47 AM
I thought there was no room at the inn for p.
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 1:51 AM
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 1:47 AM
So you are suggesting that Sexion or perhaps yourself have never been mad at anyone…The whole point of the ten commandments is not and never was to tell you what you cannot do. But to prove that you are completely incapable of achieving perfection, which is the only standard that God can accept.
On the contrary that gets mentioned all the time. Failure to abide 100 percent by the law results in eternal separation from God. God also has a plan that makes it possible for you to have credited to your account a 100 percent accordance with the law.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 1:54 AM
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 1:51 AM
No there was no room in the inn for Joseph and Mary…
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 1:55 AM
“The whole point of the ten commandments is not and never was to tell you what you cannot do. But to prove that you are completely incapable of achieving perfection, which is the only standard that God can accept”
I’ve got to give you points for bizarre. You sure didn’t study your Bible in any church I’ve ever been to.
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 2:02 AM
First was to inform as to what the Bible actually states, so there is no confusion. The purpose of the Law is to develop the human conscience.
Regarding the existance of a “natural law,” perhaps it should be restated to say that people have God’s Law written on their hearts, so teaching to that Law (that resides internally) develops it better than if there had been no teaching. Furthermore, some people “harden” their hearts and prefer wrongdoing to good.
Just look at a thief who believes stealing is easier and preferable to a 9-5 job, even though he may spend 40 hours in a week planning out his crime. He’s put in the work hours that he could have put into a legal job, but he chose crime instead. Wasn’t for lack of effort that does him in.
So, what do you want extra-Biblically? How many examples of human perfidity do you need? Did you examine my earlier comments about the widows and orphans? In African society, widows can be ruined, absolutely ruined, no matter what their class and education. The conscience to change this practice has come directly from Bible scriptures, it is the basis of what is being used to tweak people’s consciences that widows and orphans should be helped, not further wrecked. The standard US laws of survivorship (which are informed by the Biblical standard: “assist the widow and orphan in their affliction”) are not found in societies that practice dowries and polygamy. Yet, plenty of Africans are touched by the sense and kindness of the scriptural injunction and are working to have the old practices changed to be more compassionate.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Doriangrey,
Ah, so what you’re saying is that regardless of belief in god, the 10 commandments are impossible to follow. If these laws cannot be followed, then they are useless.
So when god says that anyone who doesn’t keep the sabbath holy should be put to death, it’s a metaphor for separation from god.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 2:03 AM
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 2:02 AM
I guess the churches you attend don’t actually read the bible then.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 2:18 AM
I don’t understand why you don’t trust ‘em.
Which charities have you took an interest in supporting?
Of those you had an interest in supporting, what caused you to not trust them?
I know several “charities” or nonprofit organizations which are involved in important, selfless, vital work, such as pro-life organizations which help women by supporting them when they are pregnant, providing education, shelter, jobs, clothing for they and their babies, and so much more.
I know of programs which provide food for the poor and needy, including the homeless.
I know of programs which provide help for after school kids in order to help them stay off the street, stay away from gangs and violence, and also help them to learn vital skills, including providing tutoring for students and help with homework, mathematics, reading, etc.
I know of programs which support new mothers, even help for breastfeeding mothers – something that is of great importance and often overlooked by an often hands-off, don’t touch your baby or you’ll spoil them, breasts are sexual organs – not for feeding children society.
Frankly,
Although I also am aware of programs which I am hesitant to support, I have been active, in time, resources, etc., in others.
What is it about people who give to charity which you don’t trust?
Of those I know who give to charity, not just money, but time and resources as well, they are wonderful, caring, helpful, selfless people who truly care about others and who dedicate much of their time and talent to helping their fellow man, whether it is the homeless, the poor, children suffering in the hospital from leukemia, hemophilia, or other forms of cancers and conditions.
What I find repulsive is people “reading the minds and intentions” of others who actually care about someone else, and judging them as suspicious, as not worth of trust, and as selfish.
It is a strange conclusion to draw.
William
William2006 on June 17, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 2:03 AM
Yes they are indeed impossible to follow, but since actually following them was never the point it does not make them useless.
Considerable more than a metaphor. It was a way of saying that failure to achieve the perfection required by these laws has devastating consequences.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM
The problem with your “slave to our DNA & immediate needs to procreate, etc. without God” argument is, humans were evolved to be generalists. That’s why we have free will – we have the kinds of minds that let us think deep, abstract thoughts, plan for the future, etc.
Whether you believe we are rational-thinking generalists because God poofed us into existence like that or because evolution selected for our ancestors to be like that, the fact remains that’s how we are.
Because that’s how we are, a society based on individual rights, capitalism, and the rule of law is more supportive of life as a human than any other kind. Whether God exists or not, or whether we were poofed or evolved, really doesn’t enter into the question.
JennyP on June 17, 2007 at 2:25 AM
Nah, we just didn’t have the technology to do word searches, then paste up a passage with a common denominator and pretend we actually made a point. Of course, if you want to argue that you go to the one true church, I certainly can’t stop you.
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 2:28 AM
naliaka, could you please do a search on “Ideas have real-world consequences” in this thread? I asked you something about the African story earlier this evening, and you probably missed it.
JennyP on June 17, 2007 at 2:28 AM
Oh my, anoter Red Meat Religious Debate on a blog
Of course this is the best forum for reasoned, well-supported discourse on this subject
Me, I’m too tired, having spent all day nailing Muslims and atheists and the occasional whining agnostic up on crosses throughout the Public Square. I’ve got the blood of Unbelievers on my hands and lotsa rust under my fingernails from the nails and spikes…..
Janos Hunyadi on June 17, 2007 at 2:32 AM
In case it wasn’t obvious, my Nah…. above was aimed at doriangrey
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 2:32 AM
100% of Christians won’t let an atheist date their kid. Print that.
pat on June 17, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Doriangrey,
You seem to have painted yourself into a corner.
Yes they are indeed impossible to follow, but since actually following them was never the point it does not make them useless.
You should really tell that to the Israelites right around the time god handed down the commandments. They were taken quite literally, I assure you.
Considerable more than a metaphor. It was a way of saying that failure to achieve the perfection required by these laws has devastating consequences.
No, it’s a literal interpretation of the actual word of god that if you do not keep the sabbath holy, you will be taken out and mashed with stones. This is what god related to Moses.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 2:38 AM
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 2:28 AM
I’ve been studying the bible for going on 25 years, the old fashioned way, by reading it, by reading commentaries on it and by comparing Greek and Hebrew interlinears and concordances with numerous versions of it.
I don’t need a word search program to know what is in the bible. And since what I posted wasn’t something that simply had a common denominator but was exactly what I told you the bible said I don’t have to pretend that I made a point.
Furthermore I have no intention of even remotely suggesting that I attend the one true church or that even such a church exists. Nor am I attempting to suggest that as rigorous a study of the bible as I have made is necessary for salvation.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 2:43 AM
It has already happened in San Francisco. Look how that turned out.
John on June 17, 2007 at 3:19 AM
JennyP on June 17, 2007 at 2:25 AM
Sorry but without God you don’t have a free will, all you have are biological codes that force you to respond to stimulus in very predictable patterns. The human genome is comprised of 3.2 billion base pairs and 30,000 genes. That makes the amount of code in the operating system on your computer insignificant by comparison.
The complexity of the genetic code in a human makes the variabilities in behavior enormous by not infinite. Even our capacity for abstract thought is limited by those variabilities.
Again the limits on our social organizations are predicated on the limitations encoded in our genes. There is absolutely nothing that you will ever do or think that the ability to do or think it isn’t already encoded in your genes.
You cannot for example experience the world around you in three dimensions, and you cannot do this because the sensory apparatus required simply isn’t encoded in your genes. You cannot see more than three (in one out of 3 million women 4) primary colors again because the ability to do so isn’t encoded in your genes.
Free will isn’t something that just evolved, it presents far to great a threat to survival for it to be a successful genetic trait. The more complex a system is the more prone it is to catastrophic failure. It took an enormous amount of time for the human genome to be worked out to its present level of complexity.
Minus god from that equation and the human race becomes like any other animal on this planet save for the complexity in the nature of its survival instinct. Greater intelligence produces more complex survival strategy’s. One need only look at the retribution aspects of Muslim or tribal cultures to see where that leads.
Retribution upon retribution as a survival strategy with a hierarchy predicated upon the strongest male delivering the greatest chance of survival for those of a specific blood line. While each procreation is closely monitored to ensure survival of the blood line.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 3:35 AM
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 2:38 AM
I think having people throw rocks at you until you are dead pretty much falls under the heading of devastating consequences.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 3:40 AM
Love thy neighbor as thyself–Do unto others as you would heve them do unto you–Turn the other cheek–and on and on.
Yeah, real dangerous stuff. Good grief.
hillbillyjim on June 17, 2007 at 5:34 AM
The assertion is “the Christian God exists.” Do I need to explain Russell’s teapot to you?
Nonfactor on June 17, 2007 at 5:53 AM
Doriangrey,
So, getting mashed with rocks because one failed to keep the sabbath holy is a justified punishment? The 10 Commandments are a preamble to god’s revealed law, and the punishments are prescribed by god himself for the failure to be perfect.
I have to say, that your interpretations of this stuff are wholly unique.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 10:31 AM
doriangrey,
I never said God doesn’t exist, I said that there’s no evidence that he does exist, so why would I have to prove a claim I never made? Besides, this is completely absurd because you are resting on your own claim that God exists without having provided any evidence. Atheists are not making any claims at all, they are simply pointing out that there exists no evidence for the claim that God exists. You should really take a class in logic since you are completely overwhelmed by the concept.
Thus revealing another reason why people are religious – to make them feel more important than the rest of the living beings on this Earth. Newsflash – we are just like any other animal on this planet save for the complexity of our brain.
Krydor,
Hmmm. I don’t have a basement, but I do have a good size storage closet… ;)
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Why does survival of the fittest generally not apply to us? Suppose I’m bigger and stronger than my neighbor. If what you said is true, why shouldn’t I take his wife and possessions for my own? That’s how it works with the other animals. Why the double standard for humans?
jman on June 17, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I for the most part agree. God is a presupposition. However, to remain logically consistent when making moral claims, there must be a God.
PRCalDude on June 17, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Seixon
You seem to be an intelligent person with a logical mind. I
believe that you are also a person that God is working on.
Many former atheists started out this way and came to the inescapable conclusion that God “found them” long ago. You
are searching whether you realize it or not. God is working in your life and you may not be aware of it. It takes far more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian. You are smarter than that. Christianity has undeniable facts on its side. The Bible is sharper than any
two edged sword that is able to cut between flesh and spirit. We have hope in the present and the future. If Christians are wrong, we have nothing to lose. If Christians are right, then non-believers have everything to lose. Eternity is a loooonnnnnngggg time even beyond time. We are here on earth an infinitesimally small amount of time. If you don’t have Jesus, “you ain’t got no future, Jack!”
Vanquisher on June 17, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Nonfactor on June 17, 2007 at 5:53 AM
You fail at logic. Your use of Russell’s teapot is a faulty analogy logic fallacy.
Russell makes his argument quite clear…
Having never made that assertion Russell’s argument bears no relevance.
No actually the assertion was..
Since we have seen how difficult it is for you to follow simple basic logic it is therefore no great surprise that more complex logic escapes you.
My employment of the statement “Prove god doe not exist” was not a request it was a rhetorical statement. Set solely for the purpose of exposing the argumentum ad ignorantiam implicit in Sexon’s assertion.
Logic dictates that the burden of proof belongs to the individual making an assertion. Having made no assertion towards either the existence or none existence of God the burden falls intractably upon the individual making the initial assertion regarding his existence or none existence.
In this case seixon for having made the assertion that gods existence has never been proven to exist.
As I pointed out seixons assertion is clearly a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Once again we return to Russell’s teapot…
seixon assertion that gods existence has never been proven to exist is a simple inversion of this statement and as such equally false.
Russell’s conclusion to his argument..
Breaks down at this point into highly subjective personal bias. It is here that faulty analogy cripples the remainder of his argument.
Affirmation in ancient texts is not equivocal to confirmation of fact, nor are sacred truths equivocal to confirmation of fact.
Hesitation to believe therefore becomes not an action worthy of the attentions of the psychiatrist or inquisitor but an act perpetrated out of preconceived personal bias.
While predicating the initial stage of his argument on the foundation of the validity of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy he compromises his own argument by committing blatant personal bias and faulty analogy logic fallacies.
In other words Russell’s own fallacies negate Russell’s argument.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM
jman,
Why should you take your neighbor’s wife when you, being a bigger stronger man, can most likely find yourself a much better wife of your own? As for possessions, if you’re smarter than your neighbor, chances are that you will have more possessions, or perhaps you don’t care about possessions because you are smart.
Survival of the fittest does apply to humans just like other animals, but in a much more complex manner due to the complexity of our brains.
Vanquisher,
I used to believe in God because when I was a child, I was forced to go to church and I was taught about God in school. Being a child, I assumed that God existed because my elders were giving me the impression that he existed, and I trusted them.
After I learned that adults are not always honest, and after searching for evidence of God actually existing, not to mention the fact that horrible things happen to wonderful people – I stopped believing. Just like I stopped believing in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. These, and God, were all things taught to me to make the world a nicer place to live in, to make me feel better about the world.
It wasn’t until the horrible thing called reality struck that I realized I had been completely fooled and it was all a sham perpetrated on me to protect me from said reality.
Because? Atheism is the lack of faith, so please explain how it takes more faith to not have faith at all.
Such as? Saying so doesn’t make it so.
So if you were to be consistent, you then approve of Al Gore’s call for taxing the hell out of fuel usage in the aims of “better safe than sorry”?
How about this: If the Scientologists are right and you are wrong, then what? If the Muslims are right and you are wrong, then what? If the Jews are right and you are wrong, then what? If Al Gore is right and you are wrong, then what?
How about I start a new religion teaching that God says everyone must wear their pants backwards, or else the entire Earth will at some point in the future cease to exist? Does that mean you will immediately convert over to my religion simply because not doing so risks the planet disappearing?
Think about it.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Ha Ha Gee today is Sunday. Can anyone direct me to a Deist church that has a Deist bible?
sonnyspats1 on June 17, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I’m not particularly interested in rhetorically sparring with you. I was simply pointing out what was, factually, the existence of a flaw in your argument. If you’re going to claim you’re possessed of superior logical reasoning abilities than others, it behooves you to actually learn about logic. So, here again is that link: The False Dilemma.
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 12:41 PM
doriangrey,
If you can’t see the difference between a question and an assertion, may God help you.
Prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. What’s that, you can’t? My, my, my, what a shame. I guess that means it exists then, according to your own “logic”.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Ha Ha Gee today is Sunday. Can anyone direct me to a Deist church that has a Deist bible?
sonnyspats1 on June 17
I’m sure that someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but Deism has nothing to do with a church. It’s not organized religion, because one of the central tenets of deism is that God/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not get involved in human affairs. The farthest one goes is the notion of a “Prime Mover”, and that’s about it.
Deists reject organized religion.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 1:01 PM
If you’re refering to criminal or otherwise unethical behavior as perfidy, I don’t need any more examples. Horrible behavior is clearly abundant. What I was looking for was evidence that such behavior is the result of, exclusively, what one has or hasn’t been taught.
Maybe to shed a little more light on the dilemma, there are clear-cut and well documented cases where brain damage has caused previously well-acclimated individuals to become ill-tempered and and even violent. And there is at least some reason to believe that the brains of true sociopaths differ in their basic functioning from those of normal humans. These are all indications that at least some aspects of personality, including those related to violent and/or unethical behavior, have at least some basis in physiology, and not in conditioning (and, by corollary, that at least some aspects of personality related to non-violent and/or ethical behavior are similarly founded).
What I’m trying to determine is if you have an extra-biblical reason for believing otherwise, or if you simply do so because of the dictates of your religious perspective.
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Better go back and re-read what I have written, I have made no such assertion.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Technically speaking, this isn’t entirely true. What you say here is true of some considered atheists, specifically those traditionally called “weak atheists.” But many other atheists, known as “strong atheists,” do claim that the proposition “God does not exist” is true.
Wikipedia’s entry on the subject isn’t exactly the greatest, but it at least touches the bases: Weak and Strong Atheism.
Meanwhile, I’m absolutely thrilled to learn that there’s actually a term for my position: Ignosticism!
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »