Keith Ellison bonds with atheists over 9/11 “Reichstag fire” analogy
posted at 9:32 am on July 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Captain Ed and Let Freedom Ring. He’s not saying it was an inside job, he’s merely saying that maybe the people responsible for it were scapegoated by a regime eager to arrogate Nazi powers to itself.
So don’t go accusing him of any “nut-ball” talk, you hear?
Freshman Congressman Keith Ellison was among friends Sunday — in this case, a gathering of atheists — so his support for a fistful of hot-button opinions, including the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, brought enthusiastic nods of approval and standing ovations.
As he was introduced to the eclectic gathering, which included one man wearing a black T-shirt that read “Investigate 9/11,” Ellison was told that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Muslims had joined atheists at the bottom of popular opinion polls…
On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: “It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you.”
I’d love to be able to sit here and tell you, on behalf of Hitchens and myself, that this sort of thing is an extreme outlier among atheists.
But let’s face it. We’re not good on this issue:
Ellison’s noontime speech before Atheists for Human Rights, a Minneapolis-based group, drew the largest gathering in recent memory for the organization, said Marie Castle, the group’s spokeswoman. “We’re trying to upgrade the image of atheists,” Castle said of the 350-member group. “They don’t think we have a moral compass.”
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: [1] 2 »
If they are listening and believing what Ellison says, then they don’t have a moral compass. Or maybe, it’s just pointing south.
ataloss on July 9, 2007 at 9:35 AM
What good is a compass with no magnetic pole?
Natalie on July 9, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Most atheists have a moral compass, but it doesn’t point to conspiracy all the time, Keith.
shirgall on July 9, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Yup, that’ll do it. All that logical thinking at work.
There’s a reason it’s called Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Vanquisher on July 9, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Oh brother. Don’t atheists know that to muslims they are the lowest of the kuffir?
For that matter, doesn’t Ellison know that? Pretty soon he’ll have a fatwah slapped on him for associating with atheists.
Ellen on July 9, 2007 at 9:50 AM
If atheists want to improve their standing among the masses, the first thing they need to do is lessen the offensive attitude. AP, I do not include you among the group of offenders.
Hitchens likened Christianity to mental illness, and fundamentalist Christianity to homicidal mania. Of course, you can find those who claim the name of Christ who are just as offensive. But, we hold the majority, so if you want to appeal to the masses, offending them is not the way to achieve it.
As to the Reichstag comparison, we only need to remind them that unlike Hitler’s attempt to seek irrevokable rule, President Bush will only be around for another 18 months. Of course, that means the truthers would need to be able to understand reason.
Sensei Ern on July 9, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Athiest: Someone who firmly believes there is no God.
Dark-Star on July 9, 2007 at 9:53 AM
No self respecting Atheist, Agnostic, or Deist would ever side with Islam and the head chopper bastages.
The key word is self-respecting as we know lefties are self loathing.
Their fundamental religion is Marxism.
I am a Deist and I think G. Gordon Liddy and Ted Nugent are moderates. :)
TheSitRep on July 9, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Don’t worry. These “truthers” will stand on Bush is like Hitler up until the very end. Then when the election is held and whoever wins, the truthers will go back to their parents’ basements and smoke some more weed.
And terrorism will magically disappear. Everyone will sing “Imagine” on a hilltop (except me, I hate that song).
Isn’t that how the “Bush Regime” is supposed to end.
mjk on July 9, 2007 at 10:05 AM
These are my favorite threads. =D
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 10:05 AM
We have some incredibly stupid politicians. This gets more embarrasing by the day.
bridgetown on July 9, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Heh every group has their nut job component. Some are more pronounced.
Dash on July 9, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Uh … generally speaking, here, you don’t.
And that’s probably the funniest part of the scum of Atheist Nation embracing and Islamist f*ck like Ellison. When you don’t believe in something, you’ll believe anything…
Jaibones on July 9, 2007 at 10:12 AM
… embracing an …
Jaibones on July 9, 2007 at 10:12 AM
I used to describe myself as an atheist, but Fred F. Thompson has to have come from somewhere.
saint kansas on July 9, 2007 at 10:15 AM
It’s not that atheists don’t or can’t have a moral compass, it’s that nobody can tell which way it points without personal knowledge of the person. I’m familiar with AllahPundit, so I have some idea which direction his compass points, but the next atheist I meet, I have find out all over again. If I don’t know them… I have no idea what they “believe”.
High Desert Wanderer on July 9, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Isn’t the lack of moral “standards” the biggest perk of atheism?
IF there is no God as atheists believe, then the human species is nothing more than another breed of animal that inhabits the planet. NO other species has a moral code. None. I’ve never heard anyone demanding that a mountain lion be prosecuted for the murder of an antelope for example.
On the other hand, if there IS a God, and this is His creation, then it is only logical that He gets to make the rules.
kjspeedial on July 9, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Makes me proud to call myself a Christian. A way right of right Christian (and they still let me on an aircraft – go figure).
Was he not at a church sucking up to Christians to get elected? I seem to recall footage of that somewhere.
AP, you ready to jump ship and join our side. Thank GOD your wardrobe does not include a tin foil hat (unless, of course, it was a gift).
On-my-soap-box on July 9, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels. Ellison will co-opt these atheist clowns and will probably soon be “supporting” other groups who oppose those who are not fooled by the Muslim lies. Specifically, the anti-war crowd. The environmentalist crowd. The homosexual crowd. The abortion crowd. And et al. Once he has them all under the same banner and the conservative values that are protecting this country are minimized, the vetting of those former supporters will begin. And guess what? There wont be any conservatives left to protect them.
csdeven on July 9, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Ahhh… its like the anti war marches…
or some of the marches protesting the WTO and such…
They get all of the “disenfranchised” minorities together to look larger than they actualy are….
See… I’ll parrot your beliefs if you support me in mine…
Problem is that under Islam you can lie to infidels as a strategy of war… and Atheists are at the very top of the infidel lists… not people of the book ya know…
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 10:20 AM
High Desert Wanderer on July 9, 2007 at 10:16 AM
A compass (a working one anyhow) works on the principle of a universal standard - the north and south poles of the earth. Doesn’t matter who is holding it, if it is in working condition it will always point in the proper direction.
Some atheists (and I’m pretty sure about AP even thought I don’t know him) live inherently moral lives. But that is not based on the shared moral compass of all atheists as your post points out. Each atheist is different and can reasonably be expected to adhere to their own version of morality.
kjspeedial on July 9, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Poll: 56% of atheists find radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam
Fact: 100% of GOD does not believe in atheists
Waiting: What is the definition of “radical Christianity”?
ANYBODY???
On-my-soap-box on July 9, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Ahhh… but just as magnetic north is NOT at the north pole, and so you have to adjust it depending on where you are in the world…
“Christians” really do not share an exact moral compass either. They all have a slightly different idea of right and wrong… and even the church’s teachings change over time.
Not all atheists are immoral… and not all Christians are moral…
You are playing into the lefts divisive games, by not treating people as individuals, but as groups…
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Romeo, I think the key point is that Christians and other believers acknowledge that there is an absolute standard, even if they disagree as to what it means in particular circumstances. I do believe that most atheists live moral lives, but haven’t heard any of them describe the existence of such an absolute standard.
mikeyboss on July 9, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Ummmm… YOU!
You are now speaking for GOD??? That he doesn’t “believe” in Atheists?
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Btw, sweet of you to throw us this big, juicy bone, AP.
csdeven, I think this is mostly (ahem), just one crowd.
Jaibones on July 9, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Question… Can an absolute standard change over time?
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 10:48 AM
That’s easy. Radical Christians are the ones who are building schools, fresh water wells, universities, hospitals, churches, community centers, etc. all over the world.
Regarding this Ellison idiot, clearly the spirit of the river-god Nagin is upon him.
Mojave Mark on July 9, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Hitchens likened Christianity to mental illness, and fundamentalist Christianity to homicidal mania.
Sensei Ern on July 9, 2007 at 9:52 AM
In a warped sort of way, that’s actually kind of refreshing. GENUINE believers in atheism may be full of bile, but they’re still a LOT better than practitioners of the liberal secularist religion.
Christopher Hitchens hates ALL religions - Christianity, Muslim and Buddhist alike.
But the liberal secularists hate ONLY Christianity and Judaism. Most of them will defend Islam to the death - so is it any wonder that Muslims want to help them with that?
logis on July 9, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Fixed that for you.
KelliD on July 9, 2007 at 11:03 AM
That’s a good question. And, as with many such good questions, after years of living, reading, debating, and pondering, the best I can come up with is “I don’t know.” I have learned to be comfortable with that answer.
mikeyboss on July 9, 2007 at 11:04 AM
The image of atheists is actually hurt by assoiciating with Muslims, now Muslims on the other hand can raise their image by associating with atheists.
Body counts aside
/Sorry AP couldn’t resist, I’ll go over here and stand in the corner now.
LakeRuins on July 9, 2007 at 11:06 AM
The World Trade Center and Pentagon do not equate to the Reichstag and what that symbolized…unless of course you’re an arse backwards Muslim or supporter.
Hening on July 9, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Ummmm… YOU!
You are now speaking for GOD??? That he doesn’t “believe” in Atheists?
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 10:46 AM
The BEST complement I have ever had – as I know it was meant as a dig. Thanks!
P.S. The “fact” portion is an old joke.
On-my-soap-box on July 9, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Yep… still trying to figure it out meself…
I am currently reading the texts of the Book of Mary, and Book of Thomas, from Gnosticism… they were apparently written prior to a lot of the books of the new Testament…
Not taking them as Gospel (pun intended) mind you… but they are closer to the source material than other things I’ve read.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 11:15 AM
They may be Atheists, but they certainly aren’t of the freethinking variety. They simply do not believe in god, but that doesn’t suddenly preclude them from believing in all manner of odd things.
Krydor on July 9, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Technically, technically, conventional theological archeology states that the Gospel of Thomas and Mary were actually written 200 years (or more) after the whole Jesus thing. It is basically accepted that the original Gospels were recorded between 30 to 60 years after Jesus was around. Which in ancient times is considered a news flash, considering how much everything depended on oral tradition.
mjk on July 9, 2007 at 11:21 AM
P.S. Romeo13 -
Wake me when you get to the part in the book of Thomas where it says that a woman can’t get into heaven without becoming a man. I don’t recall Jesus ever saying that in the original four.
mjk on July 9, 2007 at 11:28 AM
When is under dispute from a lot of people… as these were suppresed by what became the dominant religion… who knows whats sitting in the Vatican Library that could shed light on some of this…
Fact is that many writings in that time were either dismissed, assimilated, or rewritten… its interesting to go back and read what people were writing back then, and how they can be interpreted to mean different things.
And I’ve already seen that passage… but to me thats the whole point of reading these things… to see what OTHER people at the time thought Jesus was saying… because origionaly there were a LOT more than 4 “testaments”
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I’ll admit it, I’m still laughing about the news coverage of the first democratic presidential debate. Chris Mathews et al. described how well the condtenders tore apart their common enemy -George Bush. As if GWB was even in the running!
taznar on July 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM
I think the more interesting issue is being missed. It’s no big deal if some lefty atheists have a muslim come to speak to them. It is the same phenomenon as when Hilary type Methodists have Muslims speak. The difference in the belief systems of lefty atheists, Unitarians, and liberal Christians is pretty slim for groups so pious in their celebration of diversity.
What is interesting is for Islamophobes like myself and perhaps some other readers of Hotair to account for Ellison’s beliefs. While Islam permits Muslims to lie to the infidels, I believe Ellison is sincere in his statements to the atheists and his similarly accepting statements to gays groups. Ellison appears to be the “moderate muslim” that makes our view of Islam look paranoid.
So, should we embrace the Bush Administration view of Islam? Absolutely not!! Moderate muslims like Ellison do not challenge the fundamentalists muslims to give up their crazy beliefs of being persecuted. Instead, they tell the fundamentalist that they victims, as Ellison has done many times. And it is their imagined victimhood that creates the psychological basis for Islamic jihad.
Still, the existence of Ellison does mean that we Islamophobes will have to come up with more sophisticated justification our beliefs, but the sophistication cannot be allowed to get in the way of ease of communicability. I would suggest that Christian Islamophobes will find it better to challenge Bush Administration ideology at the core. Christians are going to have to admit that religions can be evil, and argue that Christianity happens not to be evil most of the time, but of course sometimes evil people will exploit it. And to my fellow atheist, I will suggest not inviting Muslims to talk to atheist groups.
thuja on July 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM
I guess you were in such a hurry to equivocate atheist morality to Christian morality that you missed the last sentence of my post:
You’re missing my overall point - atheists cannot have a shared moral standard because their reference point for what is moral and what is not is based solely in the individual. What may be a moral absolute to one atheist, isn’t necessarily so for another.
Refuting this argument by pointing out the hypocrisy of those who call themselves “Christians”, falls on it’s face.
Here’s a question for you: can an atheist also be a hypocrite?
kjspeedial on July 9, 2007 at 11:57 AM
This is a common straw-man argument from atheists. Christian’s don’t argue that atheists don’t have a moral compass. We argue that within the atheistic worldview, how does one ground this moral compass? All the answers I’ve heard from atheists so far don’t stand to reason on this issue. I’m genuinely curious on hearing a rational explanation by an atheist. Anyone care to answer?
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 11:59 AM
It’s also nice to know that the gospels weren’t actually written by the original twelve as is implied, some books were included in the canon assembled by MEN and some weren’t, and all of the Gospels were written at least 30 years after the death of Jesus with Mark being the first and the rest (Matthew, Luke & John) just embellishments if not outright plagiarisms. Paul was the only actual verified author and well he never actually met Christ he only claims he did after having what appears to be a seizure on a road.
I highly recommend a study on how the canon was formed. Especially since you must trust those men that decided which books would be included in The Bible with your eternal soul.
Canon Formation
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I once heard a “radical Christian” defined as someone who actually does “turn the other cheek,” forgive his brother, and obeys the Golden Rule.
taznar on July 9, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Is this ‘nutball Monday’ at Hot Air, with ’spy squirrels’ and ‘nutball’ muslim/atheist Congressmen from Minnesota?
countywolf on July 9, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Actually - to be technical about this - since they are Gnostic, and not Christian, they are not “closer to the source material.” Gnosticism was a separate belief system.
nailinmyeye on July 9, 2007 at 12:03 PM
The belief that Atheism makes someone “free thinking” is probably the craziest religious tenet of them all.
Most religions have both “inward” and “outward” components. A religion like Buddhism is focused inward, while a Islam is far more aggressive faith - focused on the destruction of other faiths. But Atheism differs from all other religions in that it has ONLY the outward component.
Don’t get me wrong, all religions have some leaps to them; that’s why they call it “faith.” But “crazy” is a relative term. The belief that your ancestors come back as cows, or that a wrongfully executed man returned from the grave in order to forgive his murderers, can be the basis for a very rich spiritual life. But accepting the Atheist faith means rejecting ALL spirituality. And that’s just flatout nuts.
Even the craziest Muslim extremist in the world at least admits that other people HAVE beliefs which differ from his own; he just thinks that we all worship an evil God. But the liberal secularist severs even that tiny little thread back to sanity — he believes that what he believes is not a “belief” at all; it simply IS. As bad as suicide bombing is, it’s just a fad in comparison to the danger posed by the kind of unmitigated poison that Atheists preach.
Failing to recognize the difference between the spiritual world and the temporal world is equivalent to not realizing that there is a difference between fantasy and reality. That’s the very definition of madness.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Excellent resource for all the books of the Bible as well as the outside historical references to Christianity such as Josephus and Papias.
Early Christian Writings
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Anyway - instead of bashing atheists, or using this as an opportunity to sound off about Christianity, or whatever -
I think it is way interesting that Ellison gives an ear to truthers, sympathizes with their stupid theories, and, RECOGNIZES that this is a “nut-ball” thing to do, but instead of listening to the voice inside that says, “don’t do nutball things because they’re stupid” he instead dismisses those who would criticize him as nut-ball for holding truther views.
Representing his constituency!
nailinmyeye on July 9, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Will Minnesota burn if the voters ever vote him out? I’m not really holding my breath for this to happen…just wonderin’!
SouthernGent on July 9, 2007 at 12:19 PM
So you are saying if there wasn’t a God to ground your moral compass there would be no holding you back from committing horrible atrocities or even just throwing a gum wrapper out the car window?
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Back to the original subject.
It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it…”
Zaire67 on July 9, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I didn’t make any claim in my post. I simply asked how, in an atheistic worldview, does one ground morality? This isn’t a positive claim on my part. I have nothing to defend at this point. As I said earlier, I’m genuinely curious and have no hidden agenda by asking this.
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 12:50 PM
logis on July 9, 2007 at 12:04 PM
My point is more along the lines of “Just because someone doesn’t believe in god, it doesn’t mean that they don’t purchase healing crystals or think Jesus was actually a space alien”. A majority of the time, people claiming to be atheists have simply transferred traditional religion for something new and hip.
They are still, nominally, atheists. That doesn’t mean they aren’t religious in their own way. I’m an atheist in the sense that I have no belief in god(s), but that would be the only thing I would share with the bunch in the article. Groupthink bothers the heck out of me.
Krydor on July 9, 2007 at 12:52 PM
of course you didn’t make that claim because that claim is absurd for you (I assume) and the majority of us which is why I question why you think it essential to have an omnipotent thought police to “ground” your moral compass.
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Instead of name calling I’d appreciate an answer. You keep putting words in my mouth and then attacking that when I’ve said nothing of the sort. Can we not have a civil discussion on the nature or morality without resorting to ad hominem’s and straw-man’s?
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Being of no religious faith whatsoever can be tough to explain to others, other than it’s not a faith in a higher being (like God). Obviously Agnostics are more “unsure” than Atheists, who tend to be adamant about God not existing.
The reason I’m being this basic is because it’s important to note that religion and morals can go together, but are not automatically tied together. Did many of us get our morals through religious teachings? Absolutely. Does it mean that you HAVE to learn that way? Not necessarily, if you’re raised properly.
The primary moral grounding of most non-religious types is the belief you have only one chance on this Earth to get it right. I have used that as my mantra, and my belief in God had nothing to do with my determination to do right by the chance I’d been given.
However, what I see among many among the radical Left, religious or not, is this religious application to their political beliefs. Perfect examples are Global Warming, Environmentalism, and Multiculturalism, to name a few.
And frankly, I think your concern about vetting us non-religious types doesn’t negate the vetting you’d have to do for people of faith.
What I mean by that is the example from my Mom’s family: All of our Agnostics/Atheists are Conservative, and all of our Christians are Liberal.
Would you have known if you hadn’t talked to ALL of them???
Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 1:34 PM
oh please that was hardly ad hominem nor was it straw man or uncivilized and exactly what name did I call you. Cliche’ sir.
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 1:39 PM
frreal,
Do you mean Touche?
Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Thanks for your response. Most atheists think that since I’m a Christian I’m out to bash them. Unfortunately, other “Christians” have made this quite easily to assume. I’m not of the sort. I have many atheist friends who appreciate the fact that I actually listen and care about what they believe or don’t believe. I’m not trying to vet the atheist/agnostic. Your views intrigue me, that’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.
What is RIGHT in an atheistic worldview? Is it merely following what was taught as a kid? Or is it following the morality I establish as an individual?
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 1:49 PM
I’m still waiting for an answer. How, in an atheistic worldview, does one ground morality?
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Miss I agree.
Df grounding for me means pursuing your own happiness without infringing on the rights of others to pursue theirs at its foundation. Life is precious and must be valued above all else. There is no need for a God to exist to determine what is right and what is wrong. This belief in particular is what lead me away from the Christian faith as I simply could not fathom a God that instructed his chosen people to kill the innocent children and babies of the conquered (1Sam 15:3), nor the kind of people that would follow a God that commanded them to kill children. I find it emotionally and intellectually apalling and since I cannot believe that a mercyful God would exist with that “moral grounding” I believe the alternate must be true that it is unlikely that particular God exists at all.
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Miss I actually meant cliche as word play but also because the strawman, ad hominen rebuttals seemed to be used far to often of late. Most likely the result of the pc movenment. But Touche’
=D
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Right is basically what frreal states - following one’s interests, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others. I guess I’d state it as a ‘Constitutional’ kind of perspective on individual freedoms coupled with the very important responsibilities that accompany said rights.
I have refused to do anything that I would later regret, which requires much forethought. Said forethought requires much information, research, and logic. I would have absolutely no hope in the regret category otherwise!
I didn’t mean to imply you were vetting us out, but you had mentioned having to spend more time to figure us out. I think that’s primarily from having to deal with Liberals more often not? Just a guess…
Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Morality does not require subscription to a religion, unless you are prepared to label any set of ideas as religious. The Miriam Webster defintion of Moral is - 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.
As an example one can follow the dictates of Hammurabi’s code without following any underlying religeous meaning.
davod on July 9, 2007 at 2:24 PM
I saw Hitchens recently talking about his latest book (can’t remember the title). Anyway, it got me to wondering why atheists get in such a lather over something that they claim doesn’t exist. Can’t they just chuckle and say “Silly Christianists”, and be done with it? I mean, it’s not like they are gonna go to Hell for not converting souls to atheism.
Barntender on July 9, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Which leads us to the definition of Moralist:
I’ve actually considered Jesus and Socrates to be the greatest Moral Philosophers around…my personal faves.
Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Looks like there are more atheists on HotAir. Someone needs to revise that “atheist takeover” post.
Because even atheists can acknowledge that the idea of a god impacting their lives. And God is not Great is the name of the book.
Socrates was a fascist.
Nonfactor on July 9, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Maybe, but Jesus sounds awfully Socialist to me. I take the moral lessons where I can, my friend. :)
Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I, for one, would risk Minnesota burning, if getting Ellison out of Congress would be achieved. I am going to be making sure I go to his local town hall meetings so that I can challenge him on the Quo’ran. Thank you Robert Spencer, by the way!! Amy Klobochar is not far behind in nuttiness.
MNDavenotPC on July 9, 2007 at 2:45 PM
or is it Qu’ran…… I never know neither do the Islamists
MNDavenotPC on July 9, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Atheism teaches its worshipers that they are somehow superior to the “superstitious folk” of the world. That’s probably the most idiotic fantasy I’ve ever heard.
OF COURSE Atheists are exactly as much a product of their environment as anyone else is.
Western Atheism (i.e., liberalism) is based on Judeo-Christian ethics with all the spirituality sucked out of it. What you’re left with is a three-year-old’s understanding of Christianity: “Everyone should share all of his toys (except me); love everyone (except the people who say I should behave); and if I’m nice to mean people, then good things will (somehow, magically) always happen.” That’s an incredibly self-destructive belief system, but at least its aggression is self-limited.
The values of the Eastern Collectivist version of Atheism are based on a corporeal interpretation of Islam’s prime directive: “Do ANYTHING it takes to gain more land, slaves and converts for the cause. It doesn’t matter whether that results in a Hellish existence for the time being, because once the last bastion of opposition to our belief has been overcome, the world will (somehow, magically) turn into a giant Paradise.”
Whether either sect of Atheism chooses to call its childish excuse for theology “moral” or “immoral” could not possibly be less relevant to anything that exists in the real world. But that doesn’t stop them from preaching it with all the zeal of any other religious fanatic.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Not so liberal though it would appear Nonfactor. Sorry to disappoint. =D
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 2:54 PM
About the dates of the Gospels, I wouldn’t trust an infidels.org link as far as I could throw it.
Here’s a quick summary of bible-confirming archeological evidence.
Here’s an examination of Gospel dating criticism. Another short one here. Here’s a Catholic take on it (I’m not Catholic, so I can’t verify).
Finally, for those who think Dan Brown is a biblical scholar and buy his whole story about the how the Bible was assembled, please know he got the story third- or fourth-hand from Voltaire and Thomas Paine. Here is an exhaustively hyperlinked treatment of what happened in the Council of Nicea.
angryoldfatman on July 9, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I’ll take a stab at it, although I’m NOT an atheist…
Good comes from things which help Race survival. Things like truth, not stealing, cooperation, and such do add to a groups ability to survive, and thus to an individuals survival.
A chaotic society is very hard to survive in. Social stability helps the individual survive through the idea that if I help someone today… they will help me tomorrow. You basicly invest in society so that when you are in trouble… others “investment” will help you.
Enlightened self interest can lead you to a moralistic set up actions, just as divine justice can IMO.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 3:06 PM
crap… above was should be pointed to:
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM]
sorry…
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 3:10 PM
And I might add, that the modern Christian idea of perpetual forgivness does NOT lead to moral behaviour…
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 3:11 PM
logis,
i think i agree with almost everything you say…maybe that’s why i don’t associate with people based on their “religion” or try to “preach” my views. (df asked, so i responded.)
i think i’d had enough people wishing “i’d just be saved” and responding “that’s my business” that i just cannot do that to others (actually didn’t when i was religious).
preaching is preaching…let your life be a light, i always believed (to quote my favorite moralist - no offense meant re: his religious influence).
that’s why being secular and conservative puts me in such a small “minority”…i’m disliked by just about everyone who is closed to the idea one can be both.
and i’m okay with that, because i’m living a moral life and i have strong family ties & wonderful, very religious friends.
my family & friends trust me like i trust them, because our morals, ethics, loyalty, dependability, and strengths are the same. and i love them for it!
Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 3:12 PM
IMHO, wouldn’t it be more constructive to refer to the teachings of Christ using the terms ” traditional and/or progressive”? The use of political terminology does nothing except obfuscate what I see here as reasonable people trying to get a handle on a Christian moral code compared to an atheistic one. Let’s not lose sight of one thing; the Islamic faith has far more questions to answer.
MNDavenotPC on July 9, 2007 at 3:12 PM
I’ll take what I can find.
Nonfactor on July 9, 2007 at 3:14 PM
I appreciate your answer although I disagree with it. What reason’s do you have for believing in this view of morality? Do you believe morality is relativistic?
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Thanks for the reply and correction. This seems more reasonable on an atheistic point of view. But I do have my problems with it. Ethics would seem to be illusory in reality. There would be no real objective right and wrong. Morality would be a sort of evolutionary trick. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction right?
On this way of thinking ethics don’t exist. There would not be any “rules” in the objective sense. Aren’t there some things that are right and some that are wrong DESPITE what societies agree on? Can racism ever be morally justified by a society? What about rape? If society deems this ok…can one not object?
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Government and our current system of law intrudes on the rights of others all the time. Why? Because they think there is a higher standard than that of people’s desires. Do you disagree with this?
df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 3:50 PM
df,
i don’t. i think there’s an absolute line one crosses.
ex: drugs. never did them, others did. it’s a personal choice, but does it affect others? absolutely, because the family & friends are emotionally hurt by the actions and attitude of the user, even if they don’t drive on drugs, steal, etc.
everything we do has consequences on others close to us, not just ourselves. we are more likely to have an absolute line when we recognize that fact. our actions and relationships show others what we tolerate.
do we cavort with criminals? i’m not saying anyone who does ‘deserves’ what they get, but that we need to stand up for ourselves to prevent the daily interaction with people who just want to take advantage.
this may not sufficiently answer for you, but i hope it gives you an idea what i mean. i’d be willing to share a more personal example with you, as painful as it is, if you prefer, that better identifies my line.
you’d be surprised.
Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 3:53 PM
If you’re not particularly religious, then you’re not particularly religious. Call yourself an “agnostic” if you want. Or better yet - don’t. Just show a tiny bit of consideration for others and keep your mouth shut about all the wonderful things you don’t believe.
But someone who publically calls himself an “atheist” is not questioning anything; he is ACTIVELY DENYING the existence of a God. In doing so, he attempts to fill a void inside himself by mindlessly attacking everything that everyone else believes.
Sure, some Jehovah’s Witnesses can be a tiny bit pushy; and some Muslims can be infinitely more so. No one is perfectly tolerant, but there is one (and only one) thing that sets Atheism apart from all other religions: it consists of absolutely nothing BESIDES intolerance and hatred. That’s why atheism is the favorite religion of liberals the world over - even above Islam and Global Warming.
And that’s also why it’s not possible for someone to be both atheist and conservative. The two belief systems are mutually exclusive.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 3:58 PM
logis on July 9, 2007 at 3:58 PM
But someone who publically calls himself an “atheist” is not questioning anything; he is ACTIVELY DENYING the existence of a God. In doing so, he attempts to fill a void inside himself by mindlessly attacking everything that everyone else believes.
Really? Had no idea I spent my time attacking everything that everyone else believes. Whatever you do, don’t let the secret organization of sneaky atheists know I’ve been shirking.
Stupid inner void, being filled with literature, art and (on occasion) beer. I’ll smarten up and begin randomly attacking religious people. I had no idea there were so many things I had to do to actively not be a church goer.
Krydor on July 9, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Well perhaps the branches of morality can be relative and debated in due course however the root requires that your pursuit of life not infringe on another.
Christian morality is relative in itself because not all Christians agree on acceptable behaviors. The Christian God certainly wasn’t crystal clear on various moral dilemmas and contradicted himself more often than not. Why would God leave his “moral grounding” up for human interpretation? If my eternal soul is at stake I would hope for better from an omnipotent being than leaving it to the multitudes of pastors, reverends, priests, and ministers all telling me why their interpretation is the best.
I believe in this view of morality because I believe most people are born with the capacity and desire to do good. I do not believe that people do good only to please God. I believe people would continue to do good without God or fear of Hell. I do not believe the Christian God’s, (particularly the Old Testament God’s) morality to be as “right” as my own. I focus on the Christian God because I have not studied the other god’s. I feel no need to research them after being so disappointed with the one I had grown up with.
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Nice wordplay there. I’m not doubting that religion may be a “wonderful thing” to you and billions of other people, but just because you like it doesn’t mean everyone else will. Some people prefer not to believe in Santa Clause; I’m sure believing in him may feel “wonderful” to the people who do, but it’s not as if I’m missing out. And then to tell people to “keep your mouth shut” about religion if they don’t believe in it is absurd. You’re not a Muslim I take it, correct? Should you then “keep your mouth shut” about the religion of Islam? Same goes for Christianity.
And stop assuming that there is a “void” inside people who don’t believe in a god (specifically your God). It seems as though you’ve created a void (that you’ve prescribed everyone to have) and then filled it with the belief in God.
Nonsense. Atheists can be very tolerant of people, and believe it or not I don’t have everybody. And a statement like yours only serves to bring up the topic of the millions (billions) of religious people (or people who simply believe in a god) who practice intolerance or hatred towards other humans.
Nonfactor on July 9, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Our government is voted by the people (somewhat). It’s intrusion is acceptable and when not laws are amended and created as the case may be, lawmakers are replaced. Other governments not so much. Those governments impose morality. Ours does so by popular opinion. The process is slow but change happens via the consensus.
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 4:13 PM
So you believe governments can impose morality on the people only if they are (somewhat) elected by the people? To what extent? The Constitution? If you had to pick between Hobbes or Locke who would you choose?
Nonfactor on July 9, 2007 at 4:17 PM
logis on July 9, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Do you evangelize?
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Glad I could be of help.
:)
logis on July 9, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Only to your mother.
logis on July 9, 2007 at 4:26 PM
logis,
in spite of your accusation, i wasn’t attacking anyone or bragging. i was responding to a question put forth by df.
until today, i did keep my mouth shut. most of my life, in fact, because i was tired of hearing the exact response i just got from you.
i had no problem with you at all, until you became a hypocrite by doing what you’re telling me not to do.
sounds to me like only religious people can talk about their beliefs? i heard all kinds of prosletyzing the first, oh, 40 years of my life. are you saying you can shout to the rooftops but i must remain mute?
if i misread, i apologize. but i don’t see your statement to ‘keep your mouth shut’ and me (implied) ‘mindlessly attacking’ as misreading you.
as long as you have a voice, i’ll have mine. i’m not afraid of your opinions. why are you afraid of mine?
p.s. - please try reading all of my posts & see if i’m committing the ’sins’ of which you accuse me. (’logis, i think i agree with almost everything you say’ sound familiar?)
df, et al -
even though i don’t shut up on demand, this is an fyi that i’m done with the thread as of this post (unless, df, you want the personal example i offered up - i’ll give you that still).
thanks for asking the questions…i thought it was a great effort at understanding each other.
Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Nonfactor on July 9, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Locke. Though I am hardly versed in either’s philosophy.
I believe in the US people impose consensus morality on themselves with the vehicle of the government. Fortunately here we can bring about slow change by winning in the “arena of ideas”. What would be nice is if we could debate in that arena without all the taboos created by the PC left. Eg.. being called a racist if you disagree with illegal immigration.
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Well… Prima Nocte (sp?) was once condoned by the Church… ie a nobleman taking the wife of any of his peasents for her first wedded night.
You’ll find racism all through the bible…
Right? Wrong?
Is the commandment “Thou shall not kill” or is it “Thou shall not commit muder”? Those are two VERY different things. Thats a MAJOR change… which is the proper “moral” code?
My problem is that what many see as bedrock universal moral principals, are nothing more than aggreed upon standards of behaviour, which do change from society to society.
or… Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God, in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son….
Universal truth? Rule? good sense? and what day is the Sabbath? Friday? Saturday? Sunday?
Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 4:34 PM
And there went all your credibility. How unfortunate.
frreal on July 9, 2007 at 4:36 PM
logis,
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. All it means, literally, is “without belief in god(s)”. Nothing more, nothing less.
I can’t be lumped in to a specific atheist category, as all atheists share (all) is a non-beleif. Technically, we have “nothing” in common.
Wrap your head around that one.
Krydor on July 9, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »