Poll: 56% of atheists find radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam
posted at 12:10 pm on June 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 »
Sorry, I went to bed so I didn’t see your comment until now. You ebtter inform yourself as to the big bad old world out there because it’s common. These are not “stories” but my personal experiences to display to you that it is not limited to one particular country: Nigeria has a few quite excellent films out now that dramatize this problem.
1. My supervisor in Kenya, a college-educated woman married to a lawyer husband was widowed when his “matatu” the old Kenyan bush taxi flipped with twenty people packed inside. He was coming home for the weekend after working in the city, as usual. I sat in her house, and watched the relatives come in. I paid for the casket, by the way. She was sitting in her house, explaining that she was trying to figure out how to hold on to the property because her husband’s brother was coming in, with the family to take everything. We (the other Peace Corps Volunteer) couldn’t believe our ears so we asked her to repeat that.
2. A French friend of mine told me that while she was in Zambia, she drove past a cemetery. There was a group of people to the one side, and a lone woman on the other. It was raining, to make the scene even more dismal. The driver slowed and pulled over, so the French woman asked him what was going on. He told her it was a funeral and that the woman alone was the widow. He explained that the husband’s family had come to take everything back that they could claim as belonging to the husband. He told her, “They’ll even take her dress if they want it.”
3. The head of the (local) staff association for a major international humanitarian aid agency in Nigeria unexpectedly died after being put under anethesia for bunion surgery. The man was 39 years old, well-educated, a wife and four kids in good schools. Everyone was shocked – bunion surgery? It was supposed to be a simple procedure, but he had a severe reaction to the drug. He was a co-worker, and our family circumstances were the same, age, career and children so we were shaken – can’t take life for granted. But, being aware of this cultural practice, his expat supervisor locked down the man’s car at the office, and froze the man’s pension and all death benefits so the family couldn’t take them. We had to sit on that property for six months to be sure that the widow and children would receive them, not the relatives.
While the office rallied and held on to the assets, the widow was compelled to return to the man’s home town and forced through a number of rituals to prove that she didn’t murder the man. One of the few printable ones was she was forced to drink the water they washed the corpse with.
4. The woman who worked for us had a fellow church member (LDS), a father of three who was killed in a traffic accident. The woman asked for quick leave so that she and other church members could rush to the man’s house and seize his property, including his car FOR the widow, before the relatives arrived – the news gets out and it’s a race.
There is a growing movement to improve the lot of widows by crafting new legal precedents for widows to hold on to the property. Ghana is one country that is working on this. Most Africans like the idea and state plainly that it’s superior to their old tribal customs, and they want to rewrite the laws to provide widows with legal redress.
So, you in fact DO live in a world where your husband’s death would mandate the sudden destruction of your & your childrens’ lives.
Try this one. Did you know that in India, your relatives can pay the magistrate to declare you DEAD? You are standing there with your very own death certificate in your hands while they inherit your property, and you can’t do a thing about it. There is a society of dead people in India. They ran a dead candidate for political office to dramatize their situation. One guy lobbied for over TEN years to be declared alive. He even tried to demonstrate how crazy it was by finally claiming that his wife should be able to collect widow’s pension, but the court couldn’t decide if that was valid or not. His relatives took everything he owned and threatened to kill him for real if he tried to take it back.
Now that you’ve heard some accounts, go and research it. Widows, inheritances, Africa or India, it’s documented enough to be available even on the internet.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 12:41 PM
No you were not, you were asserting that I was making an argument that in fact I was not making. It behooves you perhaps to investigate law of the excluded middle.
Again you are making a false assertion, I make no such claim nor do I make any implication of such claim.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Here’s a link to an international women’s rights group that deals directly with exactly the kind of treatment I described:
http://www.widowsrights.org/africa_propty.htm
They have a number of accounts by widows to read. All sobering, most shocking.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 1:40 PM
More links:
http://www.cfcnigeria.org/CONTENT/films/topten.htm
First film: documentary on widow rituals.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Texas Mike,
Thanks for viewing the video and responding! Out of all the people posting in this thread, I knew that you would appreciate what the young man said in that video.
I agree with everything you said in your response.
Have to run, but wanted to invite you over to my blog called Talkwisdom. Hope you will considering visiting and posting comments!
Sincerely,
Christinewjc
Christinewjc on June 17, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Another film about the degradation of widows:
Till Death do Us Part
http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/till.html
If one believes that it is wrong to abuse widows and orphans in their afflictions, one has learned it from the Judeo-Christian commandments. It is not a universally practiced compassion. It is Judeo-Christian teaching that is developing the consciences of people to improve the lot of these most vunerable of society. There are many people out there who are touched by this command and like it when they hear it, and go on to use it as their basis for bringing about change.
It is good and right to protect the weak, and no one should be ashamed to hold on to what’s good.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 1:52 PM
doriangrey,
I did not state that God does not exist, I stated that there exists no evidence that God exists. You busy trying to disprove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists yet? I see you’re good at putting things in bold, though, as if that makes the rest of what I said disappear… haha.
If you cannot disprove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, how do you propose I disprove that God exists, and if you cannot disprove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, just like I cannot disprove that God exists, doesn’t it follow, according to your logic, that the Invisible Pink Unicorn then can be assumed to exist as you assume God’s existence?
Please, do tell.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Say, Seixon, how do you feel about the commandment, Work six days and rest the seventh?
I know how you feel about the “Sabbath” part of it, but how about the “practical” part? Getting a day off once a week to rest?
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Krydor, much like theCuckoo Birdis a brood parasite I view the assertion that the scientific comunity is attempting to usurp Christianity from the PUBLIC square as a strong arm tactic. It ignores all the empirical evidence to the contrary ie: call it what you like but Thomas Jefferson was definitely inspired yea I say inundated to his core with the teachings of Jesus Christ. That my friend makes him a Christian. Hence my former post; Where is the Deist Bible?
sonnyspats1 on June 17, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Actually yes you did.
You are equivocating the lack of evidence with the lack of existence.
Nope, I’m not threatened by the Invisible Pink Unicorn’s either existence or none existence. Furthermore since any attempt to either prove or disprove the existence or none existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn would be a argumentum ad ignorantiam logic fallacy to engage in such an endeavor would be both illogical and a foolish waste of time.
I don’t, nor was it ever my intention to suggest that you should attempt such folly.
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
You continue to assert that I am attempting to prove the existence of God, I am not. I am merely insisting that a rational logical approach be taken to various assertion that have been made here.
I am well aware of the fact that no amount of arguing debating or logic is going to change your mind with regard to what you believe.
I am simply attempting to provoke you into thinking logically and critically about positions that you have taken here.
doriangrey on June 17, 2007 at 2:25 PM
community (sp)
sonnyspats1 on June 17, 2007 at 2:28 PM
sonnyspats1,
There is no deist bible because deists don’t do the “books handed down by god under mysterious circumstances and used as absolute authority”.
This usurping of Christianity via science notion is silly.
Also, Jefferson’s writings are available out there. Here’s a quote from TJ regarding Jesus
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 2:29 PM
The fact that dorian even thinks that he doesn’t need to prove that his God exists negates his entire argument on the subject of logic.
Nonfactor on June 17, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Good lord, Dorian.
The law of the excluded middle has nothing to do with the fallacy of the excluded middle. The law of the excluded middle is a declaration of the basic bivalent nature of symbolic logic. The fallacy of the excluded middle (aka the false dilemma) has to do with unsound premises in an argument. They’re unrelated.
And as for your claiming to have superior reasoning skills than (at least some) others, I remind of your following claim:
From my experience, there are plenty of atheists, agnostics, and theists who’ve all truthfully engaged in logical thought. There are also large numbers of each who have no particular affinity for logic whatsoever. It’s becoming increasingly clear that you fall in the latter camp.
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 2:29 PM I have admired Jefferson all my adult life for his leadership and accomplishments. The exchange here is a precursor to the questions. Presume scientific ideology on the scale of Dawkins becomes the basis of all thought. Then compose standards for a society without using one single biblical writting or teaching. What would the standards be if derived from science? Where in science is the line drawn between hard physical facts and the humanistic elements such as emotions and life itself. I would appreciate it if you address the questions directly and if you don’t know then please have the courage to admit it. I have studied some of the physical sciences, biology, geology and some general science. When you introduce science in an attempt to define mans thought process, and the meaning of his existance and other intangible processes is where I beleive that man has overstepped his bounderies and is in essence playing god, and is full of folly. I know of thousands of people in half way houses for alcohol and drug rehab that have gone through the very best clinics and Gucci rehabs that have had very positive results with a spiritual as opposed to scientific application. I have seen psychologists come to the testimonials of the success stories just amazed and in awe of the results produced in the form of change in their clients where they have failed. These truths are self evident.
sonnyspats1 on June 17, 2007 at 3:23 PM
naliaka,
Since I, like most people, only work five days a week (most of the time), I’m not sure I understand the purpose of your question. Working seven days a week is not good for your health, although there would be nothing wrong with working half days seven days a week, or changing which days you have free. This is how most societies now function, there are those who work on weekends, others do not, depending on what their job is and how useful it is for them to work on the chosen days.
doriangrey,
No, that’s what you’re having me do by misrepresenting what I said. The reason why is that you are trying to avoid the inconvenient fact that you have no evidence of God’s existence, thus cannot claim he exists.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Now why isn’t it illogical and a foolish waste of time for me to be attempting to disprove the existence of God?
Oh, I see, I’m glad you finally got around to admitting that.
This is precisely inverse of the truth. You are the one who believes something here, not I. No amount of logic or reason is going to change your mind on what you believe, because it is you, not I, who believes.
You’re not attempting to provoke me into thinking logically, you are attempting to get me to carry out the logical fallacy of proving a negative while rejecting the calls for you to prove what you believe.
You believe God exists. I asked you on what evidence you have based this belief. You asked me to disprove your belief without providing any evidence for said belief. I then asked you to disprove an invisible unicorn. You then saw the fallacy of what you were trying to get me to do, making you look foolish, then claimed you were not actually seriously asking me to do what you asked me to do since it made you look foolish.
So here we are back at square one. You still insist God exists and will take any steps necessary in order to avoid having to provide evidence for those beliefs. In that, you are just like a Truther, scampering around the truth whenever you are faced with reality, try as best you can to fool your way out of admitting fault.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Thanks for the links, naliaka. I knew that Africa was quite backward in many ways. This just highlights that fact. I appreciate that you’ve seen this all up-close.
I also understand that Christian missionaries have been instrumental in changing inhuman practices such as those. What I object to is your claim that it’s inherently impossible for a culture to develop into a humane one that supports the thriving of people as human beings.
On the one hand you say that the variations on the Golden Rule are written on the human heart (which I agree with, except that it was evolution that wrote it and not this God person), and that most people feel this inherently. Yet you say that societies that enshrine these rules are unable to form until someone comes in and preaches the Gospel to them. Don’t you see the contradiction here?
JennyP on June 17, 2007 at 4:20 PM
I’ll have to admit to gratuitous snark on the subject search results. It’s still more than a stretch, however, to argue that the Ten Commandments were meant to be observed in the breach, as testament to the necessity of overcoming sin by faith and not by law. I’ll stipulate to your own internal consistency, however, as the real problem here is not doctrinal.
When it comes to the putative stucturing of a godless world, you’re just flat wrong on the science. Only a complete misunderstanding of “the very nature of genetic encoding” and assorted “biological imperatives” makes the impossibility you’re asserting possible.
The presumed presence or absence of God doesn’t change the results of failing to reproduce. More on #2 follows below.
So too is the capacity for language, for the rational & abstract thought which allows us to identify more than one way to react & adapt to unique circumstance and random events, and the free will which allows us to navigate and choose among available options — including the ability to choose or reject salvation which lies at the heart of Christian doctrine. The same survivalist skill set which stimulates questions and posits answers about why corn grows taller in one place than another, and allows us to imagine that our circumstances could be radically altered to advantage, also make it quite possible to conceive of God or posit the merits of worship without extra-genetic enhancement. The idea that the capacity for voluntary submission must be a divine add-on is predicated on the false assumption that it is antithetical to survival rather than conducive to it.
This bald assertion is without basis in science, logic, philosophy or experience. Actually, the the real threat to survival would be precisely the kind of genetic dicta you erroneusly ascribe to a Godless world.
It seems more than a little obvious that the strongest are not always the smartest, that the weak are capable of reproducing, and that the variability of strengths and weaknesses between individuals makes for more complex human social interactions than your genetic reductionism can begin to encompass. “[T]he variabilities in behavior” and “our capacity for abstract thought” remain “enormous [but] not infinite” regardless of the presence or absence of God.
Patently false. Social structure, and the altruistic strictures, among others, which make it possible are a reproductive advantage.
Nonsense. Evolution itself relies on variability not concentration. Without it, the process of selection could not, in fact, take place. At a more mundane level, however, contemplate the role of worker bees, or the role of beta male gorillas in the protection and feeding of the offspring produced by their own cheatin’ wives and the nearest alpha male.
Cognizant reasoning produced the genetically altered corn we’ll be roasting on the 4th of July, and we’d have already done a lot more fiddling with our own encoding if the potential unintended results weren’t so scary.
Quite the opposite, the capacity for rational logical thought and the social organization which derives from it changes pretty much everything. One or two successful predators can supply sufficient food for an extended group which includes those with lousy predatory skills, but, for example, a real genius for shaping flint. The agricultural successes which ultimately allowed humanity to flourish and spread are not based on predation at all, but on the cognitive skills which bring imagination and predictive faculties to bear on observed phenomena.
Outside of fanciful speculation about what constitutes “primitive” — or in in this case unenlightened — existence, there is no evidence that successful reproduction has ever required that we occupy ourselves exclusively with predation and extermination 24 hours a day. Regardless of the limitations on human thought and perception, there is no reason to presume that our imaginations were ever confined to matters of survival. Nor can you find any actual basis for that presumption in evolutionary or genetic science itself.
Your description of the genetic encoding and it implications are as twisted as an anti-Christian atheist’s description of religion and the Church. Ironically, you are both really arguing that God and science are irreconcilable. Not all atheists are anti-Christian, btw, but that’s a different subject.
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 5:53 PM
doriangrey:
Don’t know why I keep shaving off the salutations, but the above is addressed to you.
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Hi.
Back again
Quite a few African tribal practices cause unnecessary suffering, but some are fine. But, Africans are not more “backward” as individuals as anyone else on the planet. It’s all what one learns, then how the conflict between the Law that is written on one’s heart and the nuturing (good or bad) that layers over it.
Lest we pick on Africans, India solved it’s widow problem in a more lethal manner, sutte. And Africa doesn’t have “untouchables” like India has, nor are Africans locked down into the rigid caste system as Indians are. Yet, the conventional wisdom is that Indians are really modern and sharp and good in school, etc etc. Unless one lives (not just travels – too brief) in India, one will only meet the higher castes, notably the Brahmins, and the merchant caste, the Gudjarats, and the warrior caste, the Sikhs.
You doubt that a culture cannot create a conscience without external prompting. India’s culture sat rigid for more than a thousand years, how long had the dynasties maintained the rigid structure of China? But, it was British-educated Ghandi who inserted the Golden Rule, which sets the basis for individual worth, lifted straight out of the Bible. Yes, a basic social contract can be created, with trade and social cooperation, but it only goes so far on undeveloped inner law. Human nature is rough and selfish – unless the Law is developed to improve the personal internal discipline and compassion, then the rough parts win all the time.
The Aztecs had a fabulous city, fantastic trade, floating flower markets, great food, lovely jewelry, etc etc. They also tore prisoners hearts out by the thousands, flayed people and danced in their skins, drowned babies, and didn’t think there was anything the matter with that – even though the neighboring tribes who were ravished by being the sources of the persons sacrificed to feed the Aztecs gods hated them for it. The Aztecs had to be conquered to stop what they were doing, they didn’t give it up easily. The Indians did not want to give up sutte, the burning of widows, the British had to threaten to hang any person who attempted to force a woman into it.
So, yeh, my personal experience has led me to the conclusion that mankind is incredibly cruel without the restraints of the commandments. I have also seen that people are HAPPIER living in a society that respects them than in a society that doesn’t. I might add that I didn’t enter into Third World societies with that understanding whatsoever, havign been more of the 18-22 atheist at the time, years ago, but I’ve come to decide, after hard experience and weighing the many,many options, that the Ten Commandments are the best hope for civil society.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Why do you talk funny things like “dictates of your religious perspective?” Sounds so remote from real life.
I went into Africa as an agnostic/athetist/dunno/everybody is is basically good and got whumped. That’s what formed my perspective. Shocked and dismayed when people died and didn’t have to. Shocked, dismayed and irate that people, usually women and children were dumped on the mean streets. Some people cared and agreed, but they had no voices that were strong enough to counter the covetousness (greed) that is the basis for the travesties. Then, to discover how widespread it was – not limited to Africa, by any means, just more obvious. Bet everyone reading this thread knows at least one case of relatives trying to grab an inheritance that they didn’t deserve, but American law is such that the rightful heirs have a fighting chance at preserving what’s lawfully theirs. Even so, justice isn’t always served. In other countries, there is no law to preserve. It was never thought of as important.
So, my basis was first experience and then Biblical. It was the only source that 1) explains the truth of human nature 2) gives hope that all is not lost.
So, that’s it. It’s just a shame that Americans think Christianity is so boring and dull, much of this ignorance can be laid at the feet of the Left which wants people to look through their glasses, with blinders. Get out in the field and it’s a wild ride, with plenty of excitement and drama.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Like inheritance laws, the day of rest has been codified into the Western culture. It’s not so simple elsewhere.
Are you aware that the French Revolutionaries after the destruction of the monarchy, decided to set the work week at 10 days? The months 1 to 10, the measurements at the metre – based on ten?
It failed. They discovered that people wore out with a ten-day work week. It quietly went back to work 6 rest 7.
Here’s an example that I am personally familiar with – an example of what humans do when they are unrestrained: When a local humanitarian aid office needed to firm up their expenses, their first decision was to order the security guards on a two week work schedule – 13 days of work, one day off. The men couldn’t afford to quit, they needed the cash income and there weren’t many work options in that palce, so they worked – and collapsed. It was only a western expat who hauled the office admin in and spelled out that they were destroying these men. Plus, the absurdity of a humanitarian aid office that was effectively making slaves out of its contractoral staff. It had been going on for months, and only the arrival of an outside oversight corrected it.
At one place we lived, we noticed that one security guard seemed to be there a lot. After comparing notes with another resident, we couldn’t come up with a time when he wasn’t there, so we finally wandered over to ask him. His boss (our landlord) hired him to work 24/7. He lived on the bench in the guard house and dragged off every now and then for a quick shower if someone covered for him, lest he lose the job. His boss thought nothing of it and there were no laws to use to defend the employee.
So, what you think is normal and common, isn’t. Our society is rich enough now to permit many people (not everyone) to work five days, have a day to do personal business and rest the seventh, whether one goes to any worship or not. Unless the conscience is pricked by a teaching that all people should have a day off, employers will fill the work to fit the time allotted to it.
I bet you can think of at least one or two such employers who would indeed demand 7 days of work if they thought they could get away with it.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 7:02 PM
naliaka:
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your contribution to this thread. In my personal opinion, Christianity’s greatest strength lies in the simple concrete principles of human interaction that it advances. The case for “Christian values” is at its weakest when its proponents try to resolve, through argument, the disconnect that salvation by faith, not works, sets up.
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Then compose standards for a society without using one single biblical writting or teaching.
Oh, ok, you got me. The only one I know of is the Bill of Rights. Composed with the direct purpose of omitting all religion, save to make sure it wasn’t a state organ.
Do I win? Awesome.
Krydor on June 17, 2007 at 7:21 PM
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Hello Naliaka, Where do you reside?
sonnyspats1 on June 17, 2007 at 7:23 PM
You definitely win the prize for not knowing squat about your American history.
Are you sure you want that?
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Thank you, those are fine words.
I hope that people have enjoyed reading and most importantly are prompted to go out and learn what our schools have failed to teach us. There’s an incredible world out there, with all sorts of fascinating circumstances that challenge the intellect and the spirit.
Installed in the US now, East Coast, but have close ties active with Africa.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM
radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam
I have to admit those Amish and Quaker vest bombers have become quite a problem recently here in South Florida.
Purple Avenger on June 17, 2007 at 7:53 PM
How are we doing?
Seixon agrees that 7 out of 10 of the Ten Commandments to be good for civil society, based on logic and reason and good sense. Is there not plenty of common ground that Judeo-Christians and many professed atheists/agnostics who appreciate logic and reason can share amicably to build and maintain that just and humane society?
4. Observe the Sabbath, work 6 days and rest the seventh
5. Honor your father and mother
6. You shall not commit murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not give faslse testimony
10. You shall not covet anything of your neighbor’s
The quibble remains with whether God wrote them or not. Christians say yes, atheists say no, agnostics aren’t sure, waiting for more evidence. Okay.
Now, just for the logic and rational debaters out there:
IF there is a omnipotent God who did create the universe and mankind and is interested in humankind (the description of the Judeo-Christian God, which is not the description of the other gods of the Earth – go somewhere else for their characteristics – no time to discuss each one), then logically wouldn’t it be fair on God’s part to desire the following? Whether you believe in God or not; is it fair enough, IF God had done all that work, THAT God would want:
1. Love God with all your soul, your heart and your mind
2. Have no other gods before Him
3. Do not use the name of God in vain
Well, personally, IF I had done all that work, I’d want the credit for it. Just sayin’.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 8:01 PM
naliaka,
I’m sorry, I thought we were speaking in the context of Western culture, not the entire globe. If we’re speaking globally, heat, shelter, clean water, and most things aren’t “common”. Silly of me to confine our discussion to a certain context.
This is ludicrous. First of all, if we’re going to speak globally as you seem to want us to do, there are employers that demand their workers work seven days a week. But since I thought we were confining our discussion to, you know, the United States for instance, this isn’t very typical.
What you’re supposing is that employers everywhere would demand their workers come to work every single day of the year if we did not have the holy Bible to tell us otherwise?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those employers who would demand their workers work seven days a week would do so regardless of whether they had read the Bible or not. I’m guessing Mr. Kenneth Lay was a Christian – did he act like a good Christian while governing Enron?
It’s downright common sense not to expect your workers to work seven days a week, and in fact, all that does is harm your company because people will get sick from doing so. No one needs a holy scripture to come to such a conclusion.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 8:04 PM
naliaka,
I don’t agree with #4 as written, but I agree with the general principle of people having time off during the week to rest. #5 is for me a conditional one. So is #6 and #9.
Ah, so God is not a selfless Creator but someone who acts like a human, wanting to get credit and recognition for his deeds? Do tell me more.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Seixon, I’m beginning to believe that you are the Type 2 Atheist that I described in my comment on June 16, 2007 at 4:39 PM. All I’ve seen are circular arguments and emotional baiting throughout this entire thread.
Joshua P. Allem on June 17, 2007 at 8:15 PM
You are GUESSING Kenneth Lay was a Christian??
Saaaay Whaaaat? Kenneth Lay?? ENRON??? The company with no apparent product, but lots of busy beavers in front of fancy computers??? I was under the impression that he was a Liberal Leftie, a free-wheeling product of the me-me-me sixties … but that’s my “impression.” It’s at least as well-researched, and maybe better, as your GUESS.
Meanwhile, read my posts. You need to expand your horizons. Were’re talking universal truths here, which MUST be true in New York, Singapore, Papua New Guinea, Sao Paulo Brazil – ANYWHERE.
It’s universal that working 7 days a week without a break STINKS. Inf act, it’s hazardous to one’s health, yet people will demand that of others if they can get away with it. And people will accept that work because they don’t want to starve to death, hoping to ride it as long as they can before they drop dead.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 8:17 PM
First things first:
1. IF YOU had done all that work, would YOU want credit for it?
2. IF YOU had done all that work, would YOU be annoyed if someone else was getting the credit for it?
3. Would YOU be annoyed if every time someone was pissed or nasty or being grotty, they snarled “SEIXON-dammit!”
Be honest.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 8:21 PM
It seems to me (despite my attempts at levity) that the meat turned out very rare and quite bloody.
TwinkietheKid on June 17, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Oh, there’s been a whole lot of that, but not from me. Look no further than doriangrey for the ultimate in circular logic.
naliaka,
The son of a Baptist preacher, friend of George Bush, with a doctorate in economics, an oil and energy guy, was a liberal lefty? Really? Really?
As I pointed out, you were not speaking as if we were talking universally, having me imagine things that happen all the time in the third world. You’re right, these are universal truths, ones that have absolutely nothing to do with God.
Yes, they will, and do. So again, what does this have to do with God? It’s a rational, reasonable, logical idea that working without breaks is not a good idea. There is no need for a Bible to tell us this, it’s common sense.
If I were the selfless Creator of the universe – no. Why would I? I’m omnipotent, why would I care about getting credit for anything? You’re thinking like a human. If God exists, the almighty omnipotent, why would he act like a self-conscious human?
Who is getting credit for what? Are you saying that God should be annoyed because humans can logically deduce that working without breaks is not good for their health? Are you insane? And again, why in the hell would God care about this at all if he has the power to do anything he wants?
If I was the omnipotent Creator, I would think it was kind of funny actually. But hey, when you proclaim yourself as the Creator of man and the controller of destiny, you’re going to have to deal with your subjects blaming you for things that you’ve taught them are sort of your fault since you are omnipotent. Ooops.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Darwinists credit chance with far too much intelligence.
Rose on June 17, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those employers who would demand their workers work seven days a week would do so regardless of whether they had read the Bible or not. I’m guessing Mr. Kenneth Lay was a Christian – did he act like a good Christian while governing Enron?It’s downright common sense not to expect your workers to work seven days a week, and in fact, all that does is harm your company because people will get sick from doing so. No one needs a holy scripture to come to such a conclusion.
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 8:04 PM
So my guess is you never encountered Blue Laws?
Yes Indeed it does take the Holy Scriptures to come to that conclusion.
sonnyspats1 on June 17, 2007 at 9:00 PM
If not for The Bible I’d think killing people was a good thing!
Nonfactor on June 17, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 8:51 PM
So how come Lay/Enron preferred to contribute to the Democrat Party?
And I could be the son of a doctor and not be one, so why does son of a Baptist preacher make one automatically a CHristian? What if he had decided that he didn’t believe in the Bible? Wouldn’t that make him either an atheist, an agnostic or possibly a Buddhist? Buddhism is chic in the Left salons these days, who’s to say?
Do not protest that the boundries of this debate are international. When one debates TRUTH, it must be valid anywhere or it’s not the TRUTH. WHen Enron was big in the news, in the US, Foday Sanko was terrorizing Sierra Leone. The soap opera of a wealthy bunch of Ponzi artists who set up during the Clinton years, wanting the plush offices before the real work of delivering a real product, didn’t make a blip on the radar of people who were having their arms chopped off.
It’s a ridiculous situation, me talking about the reality of man’s inhumanity to man and the need for restraints on unfettered human behavior and you start whinging about Enron.
I see that SEIXON-dammit appealed to your ego. I’d love to be able to run it by you a billion times in the next three hours and see how well you like it then.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 9:13 PM
You’d make a great Aztec!
Forget about history, today, right now, how about a Kali worshipper?
Radical Wahhabists preach it’s so good you go to paradise!
Hindu witchdoctors tell women they’ll get wealthy if they sacrifice their children. There are a few woman in jail right this moment, waiting to be hanged for doing in their kids for money, thanks to that pesky Bible.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 9:18 PM
naliaka,
Really? Reaaaally? You’re violating the 9th commandment, shame on you.
Ah yes, because faith and occupation are comparable. Not.
Well since I’m the omnipotent Creator, I can easily block out your annoying actions. Phew!
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Bacteria and viruses can evolve in a matter of short time, as we have observed. Animals and plants that humans have domesticated have evolved over the past few hundred years. You really think it’s a stretch that humans were able to evolve from lower life forms over the span of six billion years? Really? What of the remains of human life forms that predate the Bible’s span of history? All lies?
Seixon on June 17, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Now why are my actions annoying? Did I not answer you as best as possible, honestly and in fairness as if you truly desired a genuine debate, without resorting to ad hominem arguments? Hmm?
I treated you fair and square, as an adult and you respond with the childish “I can easily block out your annoying actions. Phew!”
Go right ahead and put your hands over your delicate ears, screw your eyes shut and start humming, mmm-mmm-mmm.
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Yes, one species evolving into another is a very big stretch, an impossible one. But I’ve already had this discussion. Nothing any evolutionist has ever said will change the improbability of what they believe.
Rose on June 17, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Hi Seixon,
Last time I saw you taking on all comers, you were getting pummeled from the left — so I guess that means you must represent the reasonable middle! I’d say carry on bravely, but I don’t think I need to. :)
JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 9:39 PM
It certainly sounds like you’ve lived an interesting life. Still, I don’t see how your experiences demonstrate that depravity is the natural state of human beings, from which they are uplifted only by education. How do you know, for instance, that human cruelty is not the thing that is taught?
Bear in mind, I tow a line somewhere down the center. Some behaviors appear to have physiological roots, and are not universal from individual to individual. Socialization on top of those physiological propensities can still have significant impact on where individuals wind up in life.
I’m still not getting the impression that you see any middle ground. Is it your position that humans are all, essentially, born cruel and nasty, and only religion serves to pull them up from the bestial muck?
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 9:52 PM
The debate about evolution should have ended when they discovered DNA. It’s a digital code for crying out loud! Codes are meaningless without a programmer.
Joshua P. Allem on June 17, 2007 at 10:03 PM
First you say it’s impossible, then you say it’s improbable. Impossible things never happen, but even wildly improbable things happen every day. So which is it?
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Well, I used to think people were basically good and that they learned evil. I had that belief because I learned it in school and from the popular culture as I was growing up.
When one is a child and is (usually) sheltered from a lot of human nefariousness by parents, then the world may well seem like that. Some kids learn otherwise at home, with abusive and unfit parents.
We all laugh, every time, when Bill Cosby points out that people who don’t have kids always tell him, “Kids are great … they’re … so honest.” Then he proceeds to describe the “innocent” 15 month-old’s attempt to help himself to cookies that he’d been told he couldn’t have, then LIE about what he’d been up to when he’s caught. Have yet to see a parent who didn’t burst out laughing when they heard that story. Even our kids howled with delight – cause they know it’s true.
Religion is a generic term, remember. It does not describe any specific belief. Since there are many “religions” one had better specify which one, before one can state that only religion serves to pull them up by from the bestial muck, because each religion has it’s rules and regulations and structure of worship. Each one forms the individual into a certain world-view, which the individual will use to determine his or her actions.
With that, I will flatly and unequivocally state that quite a few religions cater to man’s baser nature, so there’s no lifting out of the muck, just wallowing in it. Other religions do better, leading people to be less selfish. The question for the individual is, which one of these better relgions is the best? Which one calls to all people, regardless of their heritage and circumstances? Which one promotes a universal justice and dignity?
We were discussing the topic of this thread at the dinner table and the college student produced this for me:
“I told you that ‘juvenile delinquent’ is a contradiction in terms. “Delinquent’ means ‘failing in duty.’ But duty is an adult virtue – indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be a ‘juvenile delinquent.’ But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents – people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.”
from Starship Troopers, Robert L. Heinlein
naliaka on June 17, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Sorry, impossible then.
Rose on June 17, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I do not think it is possible for one species to change into another. I do believe that things undergo changes within a species, virus’s etc. But they do not change into a new species.
Rose on June 17, 2007 at 10:37 PM
*POST* *POST* *POST*
I thought I’d help Allah get just a bit closer to his 1000 post goal. Cuz I’m nice like that.
Anyway, the 56% that believe that crap are braindead morons, and I think any sensible person, Atheist or Religious will recognize that.
Bad Candy on June 17, 2007 at 11:27 PM
naliaka – because ancient Greece never existed.
Get over yourself. I’ve never seen a more morally obnoxious Christian in my life.
Nonfactor on June 17, 2007 at 11:35 PM
NO! YOU got over YOURSELF!
Got nothin’
Bad Candy on June 17, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Dammit… Got= get….
Me fale at speeling.
Bad Candy on June 17, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Well, duh. Even sensible ignostics recognize that. But why are you, like, actually talking about the original topic? That’s sooooo yesterday. Creationism and gender identity issues (or something) are totally hot.
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 11:47 PM
The various sub-threads here debating morality are interesting, but there’s a point which has been begging to be made.
EVERY person who has ever lived has the EXACT SAME source of morality embedded within them. It is called conscience. Everybody has the sense of “being of two minds” or of having “torn” feelings about a choice, an issue, etc. The very common cartoon representation of the angel on one shoulder, the devil on the other, is recognizable to us all because we all have experienced that sensation.
Now, some people, it is true, learn to completely block off the input of their conscience, and those people, for the most part, can be categorized as sociopaths, or in worse cases, psychopaths.
Well, it isn’t an angel and a devil warring over what decisions we make. It’s our natural mind, and the embedded morality provided by God.
The conscience can be likened to a radio receiver which is tuned in to God’s sovereign will. Some people’s receivers are better tuned than others, and I’m not here speaking about a difference between believers and non-believers, although that certainly would affect both clarity of reception and willingness to obey. A non-believer with a strong sense of conscience will have a more solid moral bearing than a believer who has shunned that inner voice more often than not.
Of course atheists will laugh this concept to scorn, but they also have to reconcile the otherwise schizophrenic “double-minded” behavior that we ALL exhibit, save those aforementioned sociopaths.
Freelancer on June 17, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Sounds to me like you’re simply asserting that, no matter how much an organism changes, you’re going to refuse to label the result a new species. Seems like a pretty cheap seat.
Blacklake on June 17, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Well I’ll just leave you 2 kewl 4 skool commenters to talk about what’s current.
Bad Candy on June 17, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Which is more obnoxious, trying to inform people for the purpose of encouraging people to learn more, be more curious and discover there is a world out there, full of challenges to meet, or announcing one knows everything already?
So, whatever happened to the Greek gods? Tired of making mortals’ lives miserable?
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 12:05 AM
“Psychopath” and “sociopath” are synonymous. And there is evidence suggesting that these individuals have fundamental differences in their brains–i.e., that they were literally born without the potential to ever develop conscience, no matter what environment they were raised in or what they were taught.
Upbringing and other physiological factors can still have an affect on how they exist with their condition, however; some, like Ted Bundy, fail to control themselves and turn their remorselessness into a liability that leaves them incarcerated or dead. Others, like, say, Charles Schumer, exploit their proficiency at shameless dissemblance as a strength and become attorneys, leaving them both wealthy and, potentially, even influential government figures. (Not to suggest that all attorneys or politicians are sociopaths, but merely that these are two professional arenas in which sociopathic tendencies can potentially be beneficial.)
Blacklake on June 18, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Who has claimed to know everything? Certainly not you. You simply claim to know that God exists because a book tells you so. And could you point out where you’re simply attempting to inform people as to encourage them? Because all I see when I read your posts is a profound ignorance and vapidity (i.e. your view on the history of philosophy leading up to our Constitution and Federalist papers, your view that nobody knew that murder was wrong before the 10 Commandments, et cetera). If you’re not the embodiment of being morally obnoxious then I’m married to Penelope Cruz.
You claim to know what is morally true and right and good, and yet when people challenge yourself to prove your assertion correct you simply ignore the question or demand the asker prove you wrong (fallacy ahoy!).
What does this have to do with ancient Greeks thinking murder is wrong? I used it as an example (you obviously ignored) to show that people did indeed think murder (and many other things) were right or wrong before The Bible was in existence.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Sorry Freelancer, I don’t see how likening the conscience “to a radio receiver which is tuned in to God’s sovereign will” qualifies as reconciling “the otherwise schizophrenic ‘double-minded’ behavior that we ALL exhibit, save those aforementioned sociopaths” — no matter how much fine tuning or fiddling with the volume you do.
JM Hanes on June 18, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Uh, were the Hebrews in existence when the Greeks were running around? “God of Abraham” ring any bells? Wasn’t the Greek Hippocrat a Jew? The guy who established the code of conduct for doctors … still relevant today?
Still want to slop around in history?
As far as sliding rules of what defines murder: How do you judge between the two opposing parties:
The Aztec who believes sacrificing a man is good.
The man being sacrificed who believes he’s being murdered.
Which one is in the right?
Both, neither?
It was not considered murder to kill an Untouchable even for the suspicion that he may have, even accidently, killed a sacred cow.
What’s ticking you off is that you’ve never considered this stuff before, so you are unprepared to deal with it.
Instead of saying, hmm, let me do some more research for my own edification, you sniff that I’m obnoxious.
All I’ve done is state that there are many many assumptions that we take for granted as universal are not, today, in this time, all over the world. Sorry to “burst your bubble,” but if you’d take the time to check out what I said, you’d find that I gave good advice.
What you do with that information is your business.
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Ask her what on earth she saw in Tom Cruise.
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Are you seriously holding onto the notion that people thought murder (and more) were good things before the 10 Commandments? Honest question.
Funny. My minor is in philosophy. I’ve considered “right” and “wrong” and what “knowledge” is for quite some time. You aren’t asking any novel questions. You’re supposing that morality derives itself from a god or holy spirit (and in your mind the Christian God). This belief is not based in reason or logic (as Aquinas tried, but failed, to reconcile).
What is right? It’s a rhetorical question of course because I already know your answer. What’s right is what your God says is right. If you were a Muslim it’d still be what your God says is right. If you were an existentialist it’d be what you think is right. Now which of those people is right? Another rhetorical because I know your answer again–the Christian is right. Ultimately to solve anything when dealing with morality we need something called “proof,” something none of the religions based on revelation can offer (again, Aquinas tried to reconcile revelation and reason, I recommend reading Summa Theologiae where you can note for yourself how conveniently he doesn’t prove God exists yet assumes His law is true). Without proof nobody can say what is “right” or “wrong” definitively. If there is an ultimate truth in the universe humans would be incapable of knowing it (I’d argue religion was created so humans could fool themselves into thinking there is an ultimate truth).
So what is right? Both are and none are from a logical perspective. From a personal perspective I think denying someone’s freedom is wrong (of course I cannot prove this, but it is what I believe–I can attempt to justify it, but if you ask me for unequivocal evidence as to why denying someone’s freedom is wrong I cannot provide the proof). Moral relativism (or subjectivism as the case may be) is a hard pill for the religious and nonreligious, the left and the right, just about everybody in the world. We humans would like to believe that there is something that is “good” and something that is “bad” (me included), but to be honest (and I wish the religious would be as well) we can’t give any proof at all as to what is “good” or “bad.”
You assume I haven’t done the research when I have. I’ve read The Bible many times, the Qur’an once, I’ve studied the classics, mythology, et cetera. I’ve done the research and I can still say that you are without a doubt one of the most morally obnoxious people I’ve ever met (or in this instance talked with on the internet). Even most Christians I know will admit that people are capable of morality without the help of a purported holy document, you however believe that people are complete and total immoral beings (what is immorality :)?) without the help of The Bible when this is obviously not the case (even my Christian standards), i.e. people who have never read The Bible still manage not to kill their neighbors or steal their wives. So yes, until you recognize that morality exists outside of The Bible you will remain one of the most morally obnoxious people I’ve ever had the pleasure of talking to.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 2:26 AM
So, like, if the atheists take-over, does that mean that the Islamists will lose interest in killing Christians and Jews — and that they will re-focus their jihad in the direction of killing atheists and agnostics?
If so, well okay then, I am ALL FOR IT.
CyberCipher on June 18, 2007 at 6:21 AM
Reading this article makes me all the more content that I am not an atheist. They sound like a pretty screwed up bunch…..pretty much like the Democrats.
lynnv on June 18, 2007 at 7:27 AM
Just a little thought Nonfactor, next time you or your family needs the use of a hospital…thank God that it is there. I have never seen a hospital built by atheists or agnostics, funny how they just don’t seem to put back into society what they take out. The word greedy comes to mind. Oh and your education, you can thank God for that also, seeing how our great higher education was built, the foundation created by the church.
Tell me Nonfactor, how many of you atheists and agnostics feed the hungry, house the poor. In inclimate weather you open your house to displaced families or people who are mentally ill? How many transport planes do you and your ilk own, along with warehouses, that will transport medical supplies and food around the globe in a moments notice to relieve pain and suffering from a natural disaster. How many boys and girls clubs, how many atheists participate in big brother or big sister?
Your contributions to society run rather thin…don’t they?
You see, Nonfactor, there is more to church and the bible than just some words to be read three times. There is action that follows those words. That action is what makes God real, the heart of man and the benevolence is what creates the church. While you are reading and analyzing and dissecting the word (and making sure you are right), millions are helping and serving.
As you go about your life, with your vast knowledge that you have accumulated and have told us about, be comforted that you are being taken care of by the religious…we reach out and care for those who believe and for those who do not.
Young person, rest assured that on your last days of earth, like so many, you will be faced with that decision, the decision that you are so sure about. And the great odds are that you will access all of your knowledge and come to the conclusion that most have. That there is a living God that has cared for you and loved you unconditionally your whole life. That is when your vast knowledge will be useful.
Until then, continue reading the bible three more times and the Koran another time, throw in some others and you can walk the earth saying you know…but you don’t act.
I would rather live next to an uneducated man who works beside me to help raise my barn, than an educated man who sits back and tells me how to raise my barn.
right2bright on June 18, 2007 at 9:45 AM
I figured I should post because if AP ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. Here’s to your 1k, AP.
As a Christian who is active in my faith, I can’t remember the last time I tried to kidnap anyone who blasphemed according to the Bible and tried to behead them. I am trying to get in touch with my friends who are devout, Bible believing Christians to see if they’ve tried to kidnap and behead any unbelievers.
I have an interest in flying. If I had the time and money, I’d go to flight school. One of my goals would be to avoid hitting other planes, buildings, mountains, the ground, and any other object that would involve my peril.
Here’s what’s similar between devout Christians and radical Muslims: We’re both willing to die for our faith. But in that similarity is a difference that is as polar opposite as can be: Christians will die by persecution (true martyrdom), while Muslims will kill themselves to destroy whoever disagrees with them. History shows this to be true when true Christians act like true Christians. Heck, there is nothing in the New Testament that comes even close to suggesting Christians should commit acts of terror in the name of their faith.
looking4statesmen on June 18, 2007 at 10:01 AM
I think the 56% see Christian zealots as more of an annoyance than actually threatening. I’m a Christian, and sometimes I cringe when I see or learn of some of the more devout’s tactics.
There are always a few people that are the exception, not the rule, like those who have killed abortion doctors.
natesnake on June 18, 2007 at 10:32 AM
4shoes on June 18, 2007 at 11:04 AM
You definitely win the prize for not knowing squat about your American history.
Are you sure you want that?
naliaka on June 17
That’s rich. America is unique in that it does not mention god in the Constitution. The godless Europeans have state religions. Even Canada, my little slice of pure debauched evil, has a head of a church as the head of state.
The USA does not, never had it, never will. The Thomas Jefferson despised organized religion. He was not a Christian, did not believe in the resurrection or any of the supernatural junk found in the pages of the bible.
The USA is a product of the Enlightenment, period. That there is all this garbage revisionism going on about how the Republic was founded as a christian nation annoys me to no end. This speaks of a giant gap in the assumptions and reality of American history.
The Federalist papers are available online. The various philosophers are out there, like Tom Paine. Do you know why there is a separation clause? Because the various “Christian” states of the union would hire and fire based on religion. There is no religious test for office for that very reason.
It’s also interesting, as an aside (not addressed to you, in particular), that no one will address the Christian Identity movement. Linked it twice as an example of radical Christians and I still see that stupid “Baptist Suicide Squad” crap. Radical violent Christians (in name only, but they consider peaceful Christians to be the fake ones) mucking about in the USA that will kill people for Jesus.
Krydor on June 18, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Christians don’t try and play victim like athiests and liberals!!!
DCJeff on June 18, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Amen! I came back to the church because when I got to know my husband’s family – who are very religious and spiritual – I saw all of the good they and their friends were doing. They’ve retired and they have a lot of money. They could buy several vacation homes or travel or do whatever they want but instead they have a charity that helps orphans in Kenya, instead they help missionaries in Kenya, instead they hammer in a few nails for Habitat when they have spare time. If God can work like that in peoples’ lives – I want that too. And guess what? All of their friends are Conservative and Evangelical Christian. They do more for humanity without thinking about it than my liberal friends ever did in their entire self-serving lives.
foxforce91 on June 18, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Then offer a substitute explanation for the internal mental-emotional struggles that every rational human experiences. The conscience, if heard clearly, always aims us towards the moral high ground. The times when we are most disturbed by it are when we are moving in the other direction, and wish heartily not to hear that conscience.
Nobody enjoys or appreciates feeling guilty, and our natural tendency is to “tune out” the inputs which produce feelings of guilt, even while we know that those inputs are RIGHT.
Romans 7:14-25
Freelancer on June 18, 2007 at 12:38 PM
God isn’t mentioned in the constitution…ok, and what does that mean? The fact that God is not mentioned is that it was a given fact, the argument that God is or is not part of our lives was hardly a debatable issue. And the Constitution was not a document created by the church, but by the Churched. The fact that they do not meet on Sunday is proof enough that they understood priorities. They also don’t mention incest in the constitution, that must be ok?
For all of terrible Christians, answer this…How many Palistians have caused terrorists attacks. Now, how many Christian Palistinians have cause terrorists attacks.
Be honest and you will see the peacefull nature of a Christian. Even in the most violent areas of the world, the Christians stand out as peaceful.
Still haven’t heard from all of you agnsotics and atheists about all of the good work you do for society. You use the hospitals Religous groups have built for you, and you turn your back on those who offer you health and healing. How greedy of you, just reach in and grab what you want from society, and give nothing back.
right2bright on June 18, 2007 at 1:07 PM
The Enlightenment also produced the Revolution in France and the Terror.
Therefore, there were assumptions that the Founding Fathers considered essential to the dignity of man that did not appear in the French. The most OBVIOUS one of these is this – The foundation of all American law and justice and the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights and EVERYTHING is set on the opening premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We find these truths to be self-evident: That man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The base they worked on was God gave man rights that for a government to be just should be respected. All else flows from that.
Yes, I know very well why there is a separatist clause. Because the Founding Fathers were exquisitely aware of the degraded nature of mankind and knew very very well that if ANY religion is tied to the State that the power of the State would corrupt even a benign religion and twist it to crush and diminish man’s inalienable rights. By adhering to the Judeo-CHristian understanding of how people operate, they set up a practical system of government that provides for checks and balances on the accumulation of power. They had the plain example of the loss of relevance of the Catholic Church as it became a bureaucracy, the freedom and refreshing created by the Protestant Reformation and plenty of practical experience with the problems created by the rigid and suspicious bureaucracy of the Church of England. So, they wisely put a barrier to the attachment of ANY religion to the State. The Protestant movement, the American churches have a deep seated distrust of the State, they understand the corrupting influences. They have no problem preaching to individuals (in government and in the private sector) to adhere to standards of conduct AND respect for the rights of the individuals WITHOUT having any desire to establish any formal religious state.
If you are going to use fringies and cults to argue the mainstream wants a religious state, then you are being dishonest. THe overwhelming understanding in the Judeo-CHristain population is that State establishments don’t work and in fact degrade proper worship of God. You may note that this is in 100% opposition to the Islamic drive that Islam – the religion and the State become one. It is also a premise of the Hard Left – to make everything political. The pathetic condition of our public (read government-run) education system and science is showing the degrading influences of thirty solid years of Left politization.
The French Enlightened (as in the movement) Revolutionaries threw out the corrupted church that had yoked itself foolishly to the corrupt and decadent monarchy, not making any distinction between the church as a worldly bureaucracy and the pure Word of God. They essentially threw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. THe French Constitution gives man no inalienable rights, the individual is dependent on solely the rights the State decides he or she deserves.
The American revolution ended and America went on to grow and prosper. France, basing their government of the Philosophy of “New Man” as promoted by the Enlightened intellectuals, which was a COMPLETE rejection of Judeo-Christian foundations, plunged into the Terror, followed by a wobbly series of despots, monarchs and various other Republics – still searching for that government they never seem to be able to find.
Lots of cults think they are the true revealed religions and that the boring old regular types are wrong. They ALL say that and they are wrong. What a statement: “Mucking about about the USA that will kill people for Jesus.” As an observer of cults and various religions, the first rule one must use is “call a spade a spade.” If a cult ACTUALLY has the CHEEK to claim they’ll kill for Jesus, then they aren’t Christians, are they? Even you can determine that. I’d call them Kali worshippers, who are taught to murder for their goddess. That’s in their scriptures. Where in the Christian scriptures does Jesus call for his followers to kill anyone in his name? The Beautitudes is the one source for the nature and teachings of Jesus.
You should be saving your bile and suspicions for the Wahhabists who loudly shout their intentions to make a world-wide Islamic Caliphate, and behead or enslave the infidels, but instead you fuss over straw-man Christians are light-years apart from real people who’ve given a lot to help make this country great, with 200+ years of trackrecord and no wild, oppressive religious state to show for it.
I don’t really see how you think you can live with those kind of people in charge, but maybe you think you can find some accomodation that works for you. It’s called dhimmitude.
So, guess that survey waaaaay up there at the top of the thread is showing a truth found in the atheist camp. Despite all reason and logic and evidence of proofs indicating there is no comparison, they find Christians to be a threat, on the scale of Islamic extremists.
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Oh my science
Rustyw on June 18, 2007 at 1:45 PM
You speak very flowery and with a lot of conjecture, but ultimately your points boil down to those of a third rate Christian preacher. Your points are that 1) I should be grateful to all Christians 2) I haven’t contributed at all to society (see: Your contributions to society run rather thin…don’t they? very assumptive wouldn’t you say, especially for a Christian) 3) I will eventually convert to Christianity. These three points are so full of ignorance it’s useless to reply to them individually. I could tell you about the community service work I’ve done, but I’d doubt you’d care. I could tell you about some Christians I believe have improved society, I could tell you about some who have tried to bring it down. I could tell you that I’m not like you, that I don’t need a crutch to lean on so that I’m comforted when I die that I will go on to live in paradise forever, but I’m sure you’d keep on assuming that I’d ignore logic and convert to your religion.
I think this is going to be the future of Christianity. The belief that their God wouldn’t exist or be “real” without the actions of Christians. In this small quote another view is also illuminated, the view that “benevolence” is directly associated with “the church.” Of course a Christian would believe that (of course a Muslim would believe benevolence is associated with their church). The benevolent deeds of non-Christians are inconsequential to you, they couldn’t exist. To think that your entire belief system rests on a discredited book of history, a lack of logic when discussing the existence of God, and a need to think there is an ultimate truth.
The difference between me and you that makes so many atheists feel repugnant is that you tell people what they should do or feel towards your supposed God and other Christians because of the contributions you believe your God has made and the real contributions many Christians have made whereas atheists have made tremendous contributions in the realms of science (that medicine you fill the hospitals with and more), astronomy (but understanding the universe is of no consequence to the religious), and philosophy (I happen to enjoy living in a Democracy) and we don’t preach to Christians and others telling them that they should be grateful to atheists; we understand your position, we understand that it’s illogical but you follow it anyways due to inbred faith cumulated through the generations, we understand that there are good Christians who have made great contributions in the world (that’s not the problem we have with religion), but none of those contributions logically, reasonably, factually, proves the existence of your God.
It seems that your basic attack rests on the fact that I’m “well educated” yet still won’t accept your idea of God. And because I don’t accept your God you believe I can’t be a contributor to my society (which I don’t need to establish as a load of B.S., ask AllahPundit or the other atheists on this site whether or not they’re selfish people who hate to improve society). People can act to improve their society without the use of the Christian God, remember that.
Nonfactor on June 18, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Right2Bright,
Christian Identity Movement? ADL link. Not a peaceful bunch. They think that the peaceful ones are the infidels. So, there we go. Violent Christians who are pretty well convinced they are Christians and will do bad things for Jesus.
I use hospitals built by the government of Saskatchewan, and funded at taxpayer expense. Kind of a pain in the butt, as I would prefer to go to a private one, but that’s a different debate.
God isn’t mentioned in the constitution…ok, and what does that mean? The fact that God is not mentioned is that it was a given fact, the argument that God is or is not part of our lives was hardly a debatable issue. And the Constitution was not a document created by the church, but by the Churched. The fact that they do not meet on Sunday is proof enough that they understood priorities. They also don’t mention incest in the constitution, that must be ok?
There was much to-do about the inclusion of the christian god in the Bill of Rights. The deists won out. The non-inclusion is like that for a reason.
What an odd argument to make, that incest one.
Krydor on June 18, 2007 at 1:54 PM
AH, took me a little bit, but I really don’t want to be accused by the likes of Seixon of violating the 9th commandmant.
http://www.mises.org/story/872
My assumption (stated waaay up there and laughed at by Seixon) was that Lay of Enron was not a “Christian Bush-lover” but simply a typical Leftie-me-me-me liberal is born out by this linked analysis. Lay was a member of a hard Left environmental group and steered Enron into carbon offsets, and was left out in the cold (so to speak) when Bush refused to sign the Kyoto agreement.
The business practices he supported leaned statist, monopolistic and heavily to Left environmental energy constucts.
When the MSM starts bloviating and obsessing about charts of political contributions from corporations that are trying to curry political favor from any administration in office – unsuccessfully from Bush, but successfully from Clinton (India energy deals), the statistics become smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.
For a good buddy of Bush, as the Left claims, Lay had zero influence in getting him to sign an appalling treaty designed (as admitted to by the Europeans as solely to put brakes on American production and the American economy). Enron was banking on that treaty and lobbied hard for it, for its own short term gains, to the detriment of the country and its long-term future.
Can’t say what Lay was really like, and can’t ask him, but his decisions and leadership was steering the company into Al Gore’s camp and his precious carbon offsets industry. We have all found out already that carbon offsets are bunk. Imagine a load of bunk the size of Enron. Scary.
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 2:24 PM
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 1:29 PM
The most OBVIOUS one of these is this – The foundation of all American law and justice and the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights and EVERYTHING is set on the opening premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We find these truths to be self-evident: That man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Who is that Creator? It’s the deist concept of “god”. It most certainly is not the god of the bible. It’s the uninvolved prime mover god who does not interfere with human events. This is what the majority of the founding fathers thought god was.
Yes, I know very well why there is a separatist clause. Because the Founding Fathers were exquisitely aware of the degraded nature of mankind and knew very very well that if ANY religion is tied to the State that the power of the State would corrupt even a benign religion and twist it to crush and diminish man’s inalienable rights. By adhering to the Judeo-CHristian understanding of how people operate, they set up a practical system of government that provides for checks and balances on the accumulation of power. They had the plain example of the loss of relevance of the Catholic Church as it became a bureaucracy, the freedom and refreshing created by the Protestant Reformation and plenty of practical experience with the problems created by the rigid and suspicious bureaucracy of the Church of England. So, they wisely put a barrier to the attachment of ANY religion to the State. The Protestant movement, the American churches have a deep seated distrust of the State, they understand the corrupting influences. They have no problem preaching to individuals (in government and in the private sector) to adhere to standards of conduct AND respect for the rights of the individuals WITHOUT having any desire to establish any formal religious state.
This is some revisionist history, based on what I assume is 3rd or 4th hand information. This is a problem I encounter quite a bit. I get it from the left when they talk about the “meaning” of the 2nd amendment and I get it from the right when it comes to this “founded on Judeo Christian Principles” notion. I’m just going to say that you are incorrect in the conclusions you have drawn. These conclusions are based on incomplete information.
It was not about the state screwing up religion, but religion screwing up the state. The undue influence of religion is the reason that higher powers were omitted. See “divine right of kings” for an example.
You are employing the “no true Scotsman Fallacy”, with regards to the Christian Identity Movement. They are Christians because they say they are Christians and can justify their bigotry and hatred with biblical passages. That neither one of us thinks they are Christian isn’t relevant to them, y’see. Various outliers of this movement have common cause with the Islamists.
The challenge put forth was to find a group of radical Christians. I could have gone the easy way and just said “Ireland” or gone a bit farther into eastern Europe and said “Former Yugoslavia”, or headed down to Africa and said “Rwanda”. All use/used biblical justifications to go about their violent business. Instead, I used an example found on this continent. That you refuse to accept it isn’t my problem.
I do like being the “lefty” in threads like this.
Krydor on June 18, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Thanks for the insults, that was expected.
When I was writing I was using the generic term, agnostics and atheists, how ego of you to think I was only talking to you. I am sure, as everyone who has ever posted here, have done more for society than anyone else. Whatever you say I cannont deny or confirm, but thank you for saving us. And you do not read very well, I said be thankful for the religious people who have given you so much (never mentioned Christians). The challenge still stands, what atheist or agnostic hospitals have been built? Just asking for a fact, I could name dozens perhaps hundreds with some research of hospitals built by religious groups…I am asking for one from you. How about disaster relief, how is the ATHIESTS and AGNOSTICS for hunger drive going? How about your help for the homeless, paving the way for society are you? And all of the great athiest scientists, a handful compared to the religious ones.
It is funny how Atheists always use play the Christian card when they are critized. You are assuming that Christians can’t or shouldn’t fight back, kind of that don’t cast stones mentatlity that so many non-believers fall into. Remember you are the one who through out the Christian card, not me.
Once again you brought up Christian God, as if that is what I was arguing. I am beginning to think your education is much less that what you report.
Could you show me the benevolent gifts of education and health and welfare that the atheists and agnostics have created? The few are embarrassing little compared to the compassion of the religous groups you so rail against.
My attack was not that you are well educated, you missed the dig, it is that you have spent much time trying to convince us that you are, and then you misquote me and attribute to me things I never said. Not the mark of an educated person.
Listen, I will type real slow, be thankful for what has been given you…even you should be able to understand that. The most giving society in the history of the world, the most sacrificial country in the world, the country with the best health care, education, and disaster relief systems in the world, all created and born out of religous men and women (even the helping of slaves be free) sacrificing so you can criticize them for being religous. Jews, Mormons, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc (if you ever need hospital care I hope you choose Cedar of Sinai). come together to create a better world…a world that you get to live in. And we know that people like you do not appreciate it (the price of youth) and will take it for granted, but it is worth it for us, because in the end you (the generic you) will grow and appreciate it and then participate. Most do.
You’re welcome.
right2bright on June 18, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Only odd because a few are actually trying to say our system (constitution)was not based or created from a religious point of view. The fact they left the word God out does not mean that God is not part of the foundation of our system.
If you knew Christianity, like most of the A&A’s say they do, you would never have brought up ADL. So David Duke is a republican, so all republicans are now racists? A fringe group does not define the main group. It is quite apparent, to educated people, that corruption happens in all areas. Teachers molest students, all teachers are bad. Whites commit most all of the serial killings in America, they are all capable of being serial killers by your argument.
The ADL is a fringe group, certainly you do not think any mainstream Christian church believes in only Europeon genetic dominance…if you do you are hopeless. Do you check under the bed before you go to sleep? You never know if a Billy Graham follower is waiting until you fall asleep…
right2bright on June 18, 2007 at 2:54 PM
If you don’t think they are Christians and I don’t think they are Christians, why did you bring them up as relevant to a discussion on Christians?
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Bingo
right2bright on June 18, 2007 at 3:26 PM
:P
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Right2bright
Only odd because a few are actually trying to say our system (constitution)was not based or created from a religious point of view. The fact they left the word God out does not mean that God is not part of the foundation of our system.
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. It’s a constitution devoid of religion, except to be clear that it should not be a part of the state apparatus. “Congress shall pass no law”. The document is unique in that it does is clear on the restrictions of the federal government. Most constitutions inform the citizenry of what rights they have, the US one informs the government of its limitations.
———————–
naliaka,
I bring them up because they are Radical Christians. There are Protestants who don’t consider Catholics to be Christian, and vice versa. However, each sect considers themselves Christian.
The Christian Identity movement considers themselves Christian in the same manner. They are because they say they are and can justify their religious outlook via scripture. That I consider them the antithesis of modern Christianity is utterly irrelevant to them.
Krydor on June 18, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Just cause you call yourself an atheist doesn’t mean you don’t have a religion.
Global Warming being a prime example.
Veeshir on June 18, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Then why was it written for the senate not to meet on Sunday? Because of Sunday football games?
right2bright on June 18, 2007 at 4:33 PM
But YOU and I don’t recognize them as Christians. You are an atheist (agnostic?) and I am a Christian, right? Can it be any more universal in agreement than that? Aren’t we agreeing because it’s a fundamental TRUTH that transcends what we each believe spirtually?
I have never heard of the CHristian Identity movement and whoever they are, IF they ACTUALLY believe that a bunch of Kali-like worshippers are Christian, THEN they aren’t Christian either, are they? You yourself know the basis of what a Christian is supposed to be, and you don’t think they are Christian. Sounds definitive to me. I agree with you! Don’t matter what they say, they aren’t Christians.
So, why do you keep hauling them into the discussion about Christians?
I know this will make you choke, but if YOU don’t think they are Christians and I don’t think they are Christians, because it’s a fundamental TRUTH that they don’t ACT remotely Christian, then God doesn’t think they are Christians EITHER. You and I can just step aside, sidle out of the way, and give them plenty of room to let them make their feeble case before their Creator.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evil-doers!’ Matthew 7:21-23
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Re: naliaka
Sometimes,Krydor and this is just a suggestion, it is better to say your wrong and show that you can misspeak and be corrected, than to go down a path that shows that you are a fool.
right2bright on June 18, 2007 at 4:39 PM
right2bright on June 18, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Don’t worry about it. It’s a great way for the greater audience to read the debate and decide how logical, rational and reasonable the various arguments are. :D
naliaka on June 18, 2007 at 4:53 PM
naliaka,
Back in the day, when I was a kid, I was a member of a fundamentalist church that would boggle the minds of the most steadfast believers here. We were the only true church and all the other sects of Christianity were not “real” Christians. We were especially fond of that little passage from Matthew. Most, if not all, Christian sects use that to justify their existence. One of them is wrong.
Chances are good that you would not consider those folks to be Christians, either. However, as I said before that is irrelevant. That they consider themselves to be Christians is enough for them. They crossed the line for me when they informed my mother that her mother was burning in hell because she was a Roman Catholic.
Same goes for the Christian Identity movement. I find ‘em abhorrent and they attract every type of bigot, racist and idiot out there under the guise of being “the only true faith”. Both of us can claim, and do so without issue, that they certainly are not Christian by our interpretations of what we have read, studied and interpreted to fit a modern context.
It’s the Christian interpretation of choice for the White Supremacists. They have made common cause with Islamists. They claim to be Christian (within their interpretation) they certainly are. They are radicals and are prone to violence against unbelievers.
The question was asked “who are the Radical Christians?” The answer to that question is “The Christian Identity Movement”. They are what they are, and just as dangerous in a physical sense as the radical Islamists. Once again, regardless of what we think of them, it’s how they label themselves and justify their actions that is important.
My definintion of “Christian” is probably more narrow than most, based on my religious indoctrination as a child. It’s a good bet that within my definition, most of the proclaimed Christians here would not qualify. Most of it has to with that whole 7th day of rest deal, which is Saturday.
Krydor on June 18, 2007 at 6:54 PM
naliaka,
Ah, so Lay, with his doctorate in economics, is a liberal lefty because he supported the Kyoto Accord because… it would benefit his own company. Wow, that sure sounds like a liberal to me, definitely not a capitalist!
Face it honey, Kenneth Lay was a Republican, and donated, from the looks of it, exclusively to Republicans. You claimed the exact opposite, which was entirely false. Now you’re trying quite pathetically to dig yourself out of the hole by pretending that Lay was supporting the Kyoto Accord for any other reason that benefiting his own company.
You said, “So how come Lay/Enron preferred to contribute to the Democrat Party?” This is entirely false. Can’t you stop the dishonesty and just admit that?
It shouldn’t surprise me that you read things and believe every word without questioning any of it. Bible anyone?
Monopolistic = Left environmental? Seriously, what have you been smoking lately? Lay did what was best for his own company – such as cooking the books.
Tell me again why anyone would waste time lobbying someone other than those in power unless their whole intent was putting someone else in power. Thanks.
Now you’re coming around. I think that speaks well of Bush, that he didn’t sell the nation’s economy down the river on behalf of his friend.
The only reason Lay was steering into that camp was because his company stood to make lots of money off of it. Get it? That’s what the capitalist entrepreneur does, not the lefty liberal government should control everything type.
Quit making things up and trying as best you can to find scraps of incoherent ramblings to support your false allegations. I mean that both in general terms and in the context of defending a faith that cannot be defended from reality.
Damn skippy.
Seixon on June 18, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »