Stupid: Atheist group wants to be included in Democrats’ … interfaith service
posted at 9:01 pm on August 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m always at risk of overreacting to stories like this because as an atheist myself I hate the fact that tools like this purport to speak for me. That caveat aside, here’s possibly the single dumbest example of atheist identity politics we’ve seen yet, and we’ve seen some doozies. The sheer efficiency of its loathsomeness is amazing: In one fell swoop it reduces skepticism to a quasi-faith, trades “free thinking” for a pathetic need to feel “included,” and of course embraces the hallmark prostrate grievance posture of the victimized group. I’m not surprised that Dawkins sits on their Advisory Board, but to know that Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Salman Rushdie do too is depressing.
The chief executive officer of the Democratic National Convention Committee, the Rev. Leah Daughtry, has planned an interfaith gathering as the opening event of the Democratic National Convention on August 24, 2008. While it is designed to showcase the “diversity” and “shared values” of the party and achieve a “spirit of unity,” it will, in fact, marginalize those Democrats who do not practice religion…
Tens of millions of American voters are nontheists with no god belief, and millions more who practice some religion bring secular values to their political choices. Based as it is on the premise that all values are necessarily derived from religion, this year’s Democratic convention leaves atheists, agnostics, humanists and other secular voters feeling increasingly isolated and voiceless. By accepting Brown’s offer, the Democratic Party can signal to this constituency that it is serious about being inclusive and tolerant.
In other words, celebrating your religion is “marginalizing” to people who choose not to celebrate religion. Or, as one independent-minded skeptic now reveling in the comfort of faux-discrimination put it, “By reaching out to people of faith, they have shown the back of their hand to those who do not believe.” Exit question one: By that logic, does reaching out to gays or blacks constitute showing the back of one’s hand to straights and whites? And exit question two: Allahpundit, self-hating atheist?
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 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »
I’m sure that [mysterious] some do think that. We can all get charted somewhere along a continuum.
CyberCipher on August 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Works for me.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Yes, that is politically correct
What religion is politically incorrect?
Answer: The religion that holds it represents the absolute truth
Logically agnostics should be the most politically correct, but since they have no articles of faith, their feeling scould be hurt if they were invited to a faith convention.
That would be like inviting a muslim to a pig eating contest
On the other hand, atheists are the most faithful believers in no God and they happily share their faith with all. However, believers in God band together like bullies in the schoolyard against atheists so an interfaith atheist and non atheist gathering would be like inviting a pig to a pig eating contest
What the heck, this is democrats we are talking about. Let them at it. when they are over they will all be worshipping the State anyway
entagor on August 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Wouldn’t you agree that the most common doubt of any believer in God would be “How could this happen if there is a God?”
“This” being any traumatic event at any level. It could be something horribly mundane and petty, as not all Christians are immune from narcissism, but more often it’s such things as serious tragedies. Don’t tell me a lot of New Yorkers didn’t question the existence of God seven years ago.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Still, I question how, if you believe in absolute free will, how any intervention with any free will takes place, regardless of the reason. One exception defies absolute condition.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 12:49 AM
If you ask for his help that is free will is it not? Even if He interferes you still have free will to deny HIS help. And if he interferes and changes someone else’s life they still have freewill to except the changes or revert back. Nothing is set in stone.
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Religion and faith are NOT the same thing.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 16, 2008 at 12:53 AM
I’d say ignore or reject is a different term than deny.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 12:53 AM
If, by your comments, you’re implying my being a Darwinist, then you are further confirming your absolute ignorance of who I am. I said to please stop bothering. I ask again, as you are showing me more that you are a person who bases his knowledge on your own assumptions and nothing more.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Ding! Ab Fab!
Branch Rickey on August 16, 2008 at 12:56 AM
And that’s what I like about you Cyber. I totally believe you when you say this.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 12:57 AM
What I am saying is that if God forces a decision to be made one way by one person, absolute free will is invalid. It doesn’t matter how that person reacts to the change, because the change itself occurred against their will and according to God’s design. I have a feeling we’re going to continue to be going in circles here, but do you see what I’m saying?
I didn’t say ignore or reject. I said question the existence of.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Okay, Madison. Tell me. What do you believe then.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Atheism is most definitely a faith, because it presumes to know something that cannot be proven.
If the question is whether it is a religion, I again present the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It is an organization made up of atheists, who work to eliminate all other beliefs.
How is that not a religion?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:00 AM
The answer to both of these is the same. We are not talking about a religion, we are talking about an odious political agenda of shaming/coercing religion out of the public square; of shamelessly pasting on the filthy mask of victimhood and calling it the shining halo of unity.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Charles Darwin began to doubt the Bible and started thinking the earth is millions and millions of years old.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 12:51 AM
And howe is believing the world is billions of years old doubting the bible? what’s a day to God? i don’t know and neither does anyone else. Therefore in the realm of possibility the earth could be billions of years old and the bible could be correct. again the two are not mutally exclusive. And why would evolution and God be mutally exclusive. evolution could be the means that god created us with. The basic building blocks that He choose to use. I find it funny that the Theory of evolution and Genisis outline the same steps in the formation of life. From the formation of the Sun to the creation of life on land. Both evolution and Genisis line up exactly. The only differenc eis the timeframe and the cause. I think both difference can be explained with God’s aid and without. I choose to see God’s hand in it.
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 1:00 AM
You’ve lost any respect I could have had that would entreat me to grant your with for that information. If someone else asks, you’ll find out.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Religious agenda. Remember, these people are attempting to convert everyone to their viewpoint, all based on their faith.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:03 AM
For the atheist zealot, THAT IS a religious practice that is based on his/her faith.
CyberCipher on August 16, 2008 at 1:04 AM
but do you see what I’m saying?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:00 AM
I see what you are saying. however I think we are talking about two different things. Freewill to me is being able to make decsions based on the circumstances presented to you. For instance, The judge can say 6 mothns community service or 3 months in jail. You have freewill to determine which actions you want to take. The fact that those our you two options have nothing to do with the freedom of will to make the choice.
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Faith is the act of believing without knowing. So now the question is, what is knowing?
Religion is going to church, more or less.
RightOFLeft on August 16, 2008 at 1:07 AM
I think I see the problem with that.
Look, forget about the whole idea or calvinism and it’s misguided perception of a cruel God….calvinsim is false and un-Biblical. To believe in calvinsim is to ignore the vast majority of Scripture that says we have to choose.
It’s a new doctrine invented a couple hundred years ago and it is invalidated by a huge amount of scripture and church tradition in the pre Bible era.
The fall of man was a choice that Adam chose…yes, he ended up blaming God for it BTW but it was Adam who made the decision. God is not a cruel being who said I will kill you bc of it…He said “you will surely die”, not “I will kill you”.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 1:08 AM
+1
Branch Rickey on August 16, 2008 at 1:11 AM
That definition is far too narrow. Religion includes ritual, tradition, law, collectivism, accepted social practices and many other things.
CyberCipher on August 16, 2008 at 1:12 AM
nor exclusion of religion….
>:)
Branch Rickey on August 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Definite point to you. That actually makes a lot of sense, and gives me pause to consider it. I guess my idea of free will differs in that I consider free will to be only absolute if the circumstances that one encounters are only a result of the free will of others. In other words, having God put a rock in your path is creating his own will to lead you in a direction. To me, that is not free will. Free will would be if that rock got there by the chain of events caused by a decision another entity makes, who is not God.
If I may, my version means that God is out of the game altogether. That from the first instant that an entity existed, God sat back and was no longer playing. I guess that means I, as a component of this view, do not accept that prayers are answered unless the free will of non-God entities leads to it. In other words, they’re not answered by God. That’s my view, at least. Not an argument, just a clarification.
As I said, though, you really made me stop and think. I do appreciate that, and I respect your paradigm. Fun to compare and contrast.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:14 AM
We agree except for the last word you used, “faith”. Atheism is defined as the lack of faith.
No, it is a POLITICAL practice based on manipulating society, based on philosophical teachings that I reject with all my atheist little heart.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Heh. Like I said, more or less.
RightOFLeft on August 16, 2008 at 1:14 AM
I’m not saying he’s cruel. I’m saying he’s not necessarily benevolent. If anything, I’m arguing that he is neutral. I repeat, Adam made the choice, but God made the apple, and he made the two logic gates of whether he ate the apple or not, and their consequences.
Also, no offense, but you have to remember that I view the Bible as a book full of claims backed up only by faith, which is incapable of actually invalidating anything. For me to believe otherwise would require faith in the God that the book addresses, and I do not have that faith.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:17 AM
I’m sorry, but again you are wrong. Atheists claim the knowledge that there is no God. That is an unprovable claim. Theists claim the knowledge that there is a God. That is an unprovable claim.
The lack of faith would be agnosticism, which is the refusal to accept either as fact due to the lack of proof.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Free will is always constrained. I have the will to fly - but I don’t have any wings. All sentient beings have free will (and maybe even non-sentient material entities). Those wills clash and compete.
God’s will is constrained as well. He may wish to flood the earth with a giant tsunami. He won’t - because He already made a promise that He would never do that again. He keeps His promises. That’s in His nature. That’s a constraint.
CyberCipher on August 16, 2008 at 1:20 AM
I, as a component of this view, do not accept that prayers are answered unless the free will of non-God entities leads to it. In other words, they’re not answered by God. That’s my view, at least. Not an argument, just a clarification.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:14 AM
I think all prayers are answered. Just most times the answer is NO.
And if god placed a rock in your path that does not mean He is denying you free will. You can break the rock, move the rock, step around the rock, carry the rock home, melt the rock etc. The fact that He changed the circumstances does not mean He took your freewill away IMO. It means He has just given you more options. you can choose to walk over the rock and continue on the path you have choosen. Or you can turn from the path you have selected and adventure down another. One that will give you different choices but still allows you to choose.
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 1:22 AM
You may reject it, but it is still a religion. Christians can reject Catholicism, but it is still a religion.
In both cases, you retain your faiths even if you are not part of any religion. Christianity is technically not a religion, which would mean Atheism is not a religion. However, there are both religion Christians and Atheists.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:22 AM
well its been fun but the bed is calling.
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 1:25 AM
I figured someone would challenge me on that, and that’s OK. I think it’s a perfect demonstration of why these threads get so contentious. Even among friends, we can’t agree on the definition of the terms we are using.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:25 AM
I mean absolutely no offense, but for some reason this statement just made me laugh very loudly. It puts an image in my mind of a parent dealing with a kid who asks for stuff all the time, who eventually gets smarmy when they ask.
“Can I have…?”
“Now let me think about this real hard…uhhhh….ermmmm….ehhhh…NO!”
I’m so going to hell.
Yes, that was intended as a pun.
But did he not take away an option? Not dealing with the rock at all and passing through unhindered?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Good night, my friend. I have enjoyed this conversation a great deal.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:26 AM
What was my inaccuracy, in your view?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Perfect illustration of my point at 1:25. I mean. I assumed that Christianity is technically a religion.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:28 AM
I think that answers the “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it” question.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:28 AM
I think there’s hope for synchronicity yet. You can see, then, that one can be Christian and not be part of any organization, but have determined it entirely on their own with no influence, save for the Bible?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Gotta’ turn in. The wife is calling.
CyberCipher on August 16, 2008 at 1:32 AM
Tell her you’re busy discussing religious perspectives with strangers on a comments section of a website.
And keep a straight face.
Dare ya.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:33 AM
But did he not take away an option? Not dealing with the rock at all and passing through unhindered?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:26 AM
And if He did take an option away? How does that change your freewill to deal with the new circumstance. God can lay the paths weather you choose to take them or not is freewill in action.
As far as the answer being NO. I think it has to be NO most times or it would interfer in freewill. Thus when people say “if there is a God how can he let this happen” I have may answer because to not let this happen would be to deprive the world of free will.
If people did not die of Cancer, virus, old age, accidents would humans strive to learn about genes, DNA, medicine, how the body could be repaired. etc. If there were no wars would people try to bring about a peaceful carrying society that respects others beliefs. etc… how can we grow if all the prayers were answered and there was not harm in the world. How could we continue on our journey to be more like HIM?
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Oh, lol …give me a break. I provided you with several articles that clearly explained free-will for you. I politely offered you the links. You rejected them okay. You didn’t want them. So there ya go. That there was a perfect example of the free-will God gave you. Not only that, but after all your whining and insults towards me, I ask you to explain for us what you believed. Nope. You use some lame excuse to get out of it instead of going head to head with me. Your verbal maneuvers are disingenuous. Read your Bible Madison and you’ll realize it is God’s will that none should perish:
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9
Therefore, it must be somebody’s choice that separates them from God. Look, I am more than happy to help you if you have genuine questions Madison, but I haven’t sensed that from you yet. However, this is one time where I would be very pleased to be wrong.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 1:35 AM
and with that I really am going to bed. night all
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 1:35 AM
I did not accuse you of inaccuracy. That is to say, I did not intend to sound accusatory. It’s just that in my day to day life I have discovered that, at the root of some pointless and profitless misunderstandings, is a difference in defining a single word.
Religion. Blue. Red. White. Black. Free. Fascist. Climate. Sex.
I have discovered that words do not always have a literal meaning. I guess it’s all part of growing up.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:37 AM
I have questions. If I’m going to be answered with clever talking points dreamed up to pander to the sound bite crowd, I’m not asking them.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:37 AM
I can’t believe you’re not a Randian. You’ve got too much good sense to be otherwise.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:38 AM
God is NOT neutral.
What is God’s plan in willing all to be saved?
What is His purpose in sending forth His Divine Energies/Divine Grace upon us? Does He want us to receive Him or not?
You could say it’s His “plan”, but I would say it’s His nature to bless, to love.. He is Love,Truth and Life.
It is His nature to bless as they proceed from Him.
The Holy Trinity is the great mystery of existence…if you want to get discuss that I will gladly try.
Otherwise, seek Him and you will find Him, knock and He will answer.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 1:44 AM
You know what’s funny? When I read your comment, my imagination immediately produced an image of Tom Hanks in Castaway talking to his soccer ball. Only in this case, substitute the Bible. I daresay that, upon his “rescue”, his brand of Christianity would be unrecognizable to the Christian community.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:45 AM
Then why did he tempt the only two humans in existence into doing something he didn’t want them to do? I repeat, he made Adam and Eve, he made the apple, and he made their minds. They made a decision based on the design for their brains he came up with. How can that possibly be considered benevolent?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:47 AM
You know what else is funny? I just bought a copy of Return of the Primitive, the Anti-Industrial Revolution.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:48 AM
WILLLLLSONNNNNNN!!!!!!
I’m lost. The Bible is a book that said Christian did not write. They read it through and conclude that some or all parts of it are true.
Wilson was a volleyball that Hanks modified into a companion, which he projected himself onto in order to prevent him going insane from loneliness. While I loved the movie, where’s the parallel? What conclusions about existence did he pontificate in the film?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:49 AM
Then READ.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:50 AM
Who tempted them?
God also made the Satan and gave him free will.
It was the satans pride that led him to rebel and storm the throne to take over..
When we pay attention we see that it is our pride(stemming from the fear of death) that leads us all to separation from God.
Of course when the sons of God(or angels) choose evil they choose pure evil.
Man is led by whispers of both good and evil, and when he chooses it is more distorted.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 1:54 AM
It’s a bit of both (that Zen contradiction thing again). I think there’s a master plan that encompasses all possible outcomes, and there’s plans for each of us as individuals.
This isn’t a great analogy, but one way I imagine it (in my finite-brained way) is a corporation as the all-encompassing entity, and each employee also as an individual entity within the whole. If God’s the CEO, his business plan is solid, but not all of his employees are. Some will be superstars, some will be solid but uninspired workers, and some will be stealing office supplies or selling company secrets to the competition (call it Hell Inc). He knows all of his employees, he knows the length of their contract (though they don’t), he issues the company guidelines (scripture) and offers (voluntary) seminars on How to Succeed (from prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors, etc.) He knows that some departments are shabbily run, some are ruled by tyrannical pointy-haired bosses, that some departments are actively fighting each other. he knows it all, but doesn’t get in the way. He may provide the occasional warning or give you some hints as to how you’re doing if you ask, but generally speaking you are given free rein to do your work in your own way, create what you will, pick your friends and enemies, learn what you can, and so on, until your contract comes up.
When that time comes, he gives you your performance review, and based on that he gives you the pension you’ve earned and sends you to retire somewhere you will fit in beautifully and your pension will never run out. using the “glory of the stars, moon, sun” analogy, some will retire to an island paradise where they don’t need much money to live happily; some will retire to “middle class” paradise where they’ve got a nice house, no mortgage, and great neighbors; and some will get the penthouse life, the country club and a spot on the board of directors.
In the corporate sense, I’m pretty middle class; I’m on friendly terms with the cleaning crew and the upper brass, but I’d much rather hang out with my fellow IT staff - not too humble, not too swanky. I’m uncomfortable every year at the upscale company
Christmasholiday party, and can’t wait to get back to where things are more my speed.Everyone who applies, eventually gets hired, in their turn. Eventually the entire applicant pool is exhausted, and the CEO is done. His company’s mission (to hire everyone who applies, let them complete their contract, then hand them their pension, whatever it may be) is complete. He loves all his employees, but he stays out of their way for the most part, letting them discover and embrace as much of the vast potential their employment offers as they choose.
The grand plan is to give everyone a chance to work and show what they’ve got. The CEO knows what each employee is capable of, and sets his expectations accordingly. Some are extremely talented, and he thus expects a lot from them. Some might be best suited for the mail room during their contract - but if they are the Best Mailroom Guy Ever, they could end up on the Board of Directors as well.
If you recall Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man, during their lives the rich man had everything he could ask for, while Lazarus had it miserable. But when they died, it was Lazarus who was taken to Abraham’s bosom while the rich man was roasting on a brimstone hibachi.
the employees, generally, haven’t got a clue how they’re doing, much less how the guy in the next cubicle is faring. Which is one reason why we’re urged not to judge “unrighteously”, jumping to conclusions based only on what we observe. Is that guy on God’s good side because he got a big bonus? Not necessarily. the CEO lets the employees handle the departmental and team budgets. Sometimes during the contract the wrong people get bonuses, raises, company cars, etc…a lot of the day to day in the company is just plain unjust…but everyone is dealt with fairly by the omniscient CEO on their Retirement day.
every employee shines more or less brightly than others, from earth’s perspective. in the “star” class you could have bare pinpricks of light, and some that shine through even the night sky of Los Angeles. Some moons, likewise, are much brighter than others, but nobody would mistake a moon for a star in size or brightness (again, from the fixed perspective). And in the Sun class, you’ve got variations of intensity, but the darkest Sun still far outshines the brightest Moon.
(in Hollywood terms, you could think of it in terms of The Star, the Character Actor, and the Crowd Extra. the best character actor never quite makes the jump to Star, though he never hurts for work. he gets his name in the credits at the end of the movie. The Extras get on screen, but only their family and friends - if that - will ever see. Meanwhile the Star gets the red carpet treatment.)
Tortured analogies perhaps, but it’s the best I can come up with on as little sleep as I’ve had this week. :)
As far as “karma” and that goes, I’m not entirely versed in the term, but it’s probably ballpark. Everything we think, say, do - that affects us, for better or worse, in the eternal scheme of things. It may not show in our bodies immediately, or at all…but in our now-invisible soul dwells our own private Portrait of Dorian Gray. When we die we see the portrait our lives painted, and we’ll know exactly where we belong in the afterlife.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Well, I’m sorry if my answers are not to your liking, but if you read back there is often truth in most things I post. You know, you didn’t like it when I said that in the Book of Life, the answers aren’t in the back. You didn’t like that. Well, fine. But, really there was some truth to what I said. I mean, your not going to answer the questions of free will by reading the next newspaper you pickup, although this would be a good example of free-will because you are choosing the paper you want to read. Look, I see it all the time. Very often people cannot find answers for the same reason that a thief cannot find a policeman. They don’t want real answers. Now, I’m sorry if I offended you before because that is not my intention. I’m here to help. Anyways, it’s getting late and the subject of free will and predestination are not usually good subjects to debate on when sleepy. My prayers are for you.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM
The parallel is exquisitely and excruciatingly clear to me.
Honestly, I don’t recall. I have one of those short-term memories that sadly but reliably self-shreds within a couple of weeks.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 2:01 AM
why not? some people will see the rock and change their path. Some will see the rock and find a way to climb over it. Some will see the rock and blast a tunnel through it.
The existence of the rock is not interfering with our will. we still have the choice of how to respond to it.
re Adam and Eve: I believe the tree of Life and the tree of Knowledge were both placed there, for Adam and Eve to have a choice. That they were told of the consequence of eating from the tree of Knowledge. That Satan tried to get them to eat of it so (he thought) he would thwart God’s plan…but in fact, he was enabling it.
If Adam and Eve were innocent, being told “don’t eat that” without a contrary voice saying “go ahead, it’s tasty” they would have had no drive to touch the fruit. He’d also told them “be fruitful and multiply,” but in their state of innocence they didn’t know how and weren’t curious to find out - “naked and not ashamed.” Satan gave them an option, and they found themselves with a choice. Opposition is crucial to choice.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Oh yeah, back to the humanists, uh, well, according to the Humanist Manifesto number 1 …now they actually have two Manifestos one written in 1930 and one written in 1973. Now I believe there’s now a third one. I think there was… well, the humanists got together and decided we need to tell what we believe. The Humanist Manifesto 1 says:
“Humanists regard the Universe as self-existing and not created.” Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933) (Notice the capital “U” to deify the universe).
Actually, if you look at the actual Manifesto in the upper right hand corner they have the different planks of Humanist Manifesto. It says at the beginning:
“RELIGIOUS humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”
They admit, and have always admitted as far as I know that humanism is a religion. Folks, atheism is a religion. You would have to believe there is no God. That’s something you believe, you take that on faith. It’s about atheists they own up to this and admit it.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Individual beliefs do not equal a religion. Dufus atheist bunches like the ones pointed out in AP’s post are influence peddlers at best and power grabbers at worst. They’re still not “a religion”.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 2:18 AM
Who put the apple there to tempt them from the beginning? Why the hell would he even put the tree there if he didn’t want them touching it?
Pleased to meet my twin.
I really do like the corporate analogy, except for the fact that if the CEO of any company refused to intervene if the place is burning down, I hope I don’t have stock with them. That fits very closely with karma, in fact. Karma, as I understand it, involves needing to learn a great truth in order to ascend to the higher plane, and you basically have to work on figuring it out with the life you have. If you don’t manage to figure it out, you’re brought back to earth in another form, based on the way you lived your previous life. Overall, your analogy is clear, concise, and clever.
Then please, don’t hesitate to share. No offense, but you’re being obtuse.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 2:19 AM
Hell of a euphemism, really. Still means a group of people trying to convert someone to their view. That’s religion.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 2:21 AM
I for one also believe that their is not a green unicorn standing behind me, nor a Klingon implant in my head, both of which are far less fantastic than the existence of an all powerful invisible God, and neither of those really requires taking anything on faith either.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:23 AM
On that note, I’m off to the subconscious. I’ll talk to you all tomorrow!
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 2:25 AM
If there was no tree there would be no choice and therefore it’s a dictatorship…that does not fit the character of God (i.e. Father Son model).
Would you treat your son like a dictator would treat his masses?
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 2:28 AM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:29 AM
Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
- Robert A. Heinlein
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:31 AM
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man’s compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these
things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man’s heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would
recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God — a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell — except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven — the kind described in the world’s Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
– Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:34 AM
Oh, yeah, the other thing:
“Humanists regard the Universe as self existing and not created.” Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933) Tenent #1
Well, universe comes from two Latin words. Uni, which means single, and Verse is a spoken sentence.
Uni = single
verse = spoken sentence
That’s interesting. God said, “Let there be light…” Genesis 1:3
You live in a single spoken sentence. God actually spoke the universe into existence. That’s a powerful thought. Several times in Genesis God says, “Let there be .. Let there be… Let there be,” so the word universe means a spoken sentence and we actually live in a spoken sentence. This is it. You’re living in the middle of it. Think on that for a while.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:35 AM
He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:37 AM
One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat.
The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any damn interest in it.
I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious, unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind and keep them shut by force.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:41 AM
Jesus died to save men, a small thing for an immortal to do, and didn’t save many, anyway; but if he had been damned for the race that would have been act of a size proper to a god, and would have saved the whole race. However, why should anybody want to save the human race, or damn it either? Does God want its society? Does Satan?
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:42 AM
Leaving out the gamblers, the burglars, and the plumbers, perhaps we do put our trust in God after a fashion. But, after all, it is an overstatement. If the cholera or black plague should come to these shores, perhaps the bulk of the nation would pray to be delivered from it, but the rest would put their trust in The Health Board.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:43 AM
A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell — mouths mercy, and invented hell — mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:45 AM
Sorry, Rush. How can you possibly know there’s no God? That’s something you believe, you take that on faith. I gotta disagree with ya there. They are both religious, the only difference is their religion is tax supported. That is the difference. Most of em’ believe we evolved from a rock and get paid to teach that fairytale to our kids.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:49 AM
Epicurus…Dead
Bob Heinlein…Dead
Mark Twain….Dead
How about some quotes from someone who in historical fact did not die?
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 3:08 AM
Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 1882
God, August 25, 1900
carbon_footprint on August 16, 2008 at 3:54 AM
Likewise.
heh - good point. In my analogy the corporate Home Office is the size of a planet, so even the biggest fires are (relatively) localized and involve a small percentage of the whole. (on a much smaller scale, think Apple Computer; they had a building burn this week, but it’s a miniscule part of the whole company…except to those who were directly impacted, for whom it was a big deal.)
I imagine I could have a fun expanding on this idea for a book or article, though if I’m not careful it could turn into a right mess. It’s in the idea pile, at any rate.
Thanks for the compliment. I’ll have to look further into karma; thanks for the thought!
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 4:23 AM
Hey guys, can we debate the existance of extra-terrestial life too?
On one hand, some people believe in the existance of aliens, but can’t prove they exist because there is no concrete evidence.
On the other hand, some people believe aliens don’t exist, but can’t prove they don’t exist because that would mean proving a negative with unabtainable evidence.
Hollowpoint on August 16, 2008 at 4:24 AM
Yes. Yes. And saying “I’m an Atheist” is just another way of saying “I am the ultimate victim”. Because no matter what happens in the short time we all play on Earth, the atheist is f*cked in the end.
AZCON on August 16, 2008 at 5:05 AM
I’m in.
I’m pretty sure that my unprovable belief founded on no concrete evidence is vastly superior to your unprovable contrary belief founded on no obtainable evidence. And I have this here Appeal to Authority to back me up.
And if you have the temerity to challenge this patently obvious truth, then you sir are no better than Hitler.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 5:08 AM
Is buttsecks part of Atheism?
Count me out.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 5:09 AM
Atheists who were formerly Christians know what not to believe (as well as still get invited to Christmas parties and such). Try being an atheist when you were raised with no religion– that takes some independent thought. Or maybe an atheist raised as a Buddhist.
When AP once discussed his Christmas presents, I was profoundly shocked. Until then, I didn’t know about Christian atheism.
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2008 at 6:20 AM
Why not? When one includes alla in a religious service, false god, no god…it’s all the same. Without Jesus, there is nothing but eternal damnation anyway.
saved on August 16, 2008 at 7:18 AM
I guess one has to repeat over and over that one cannot prove a negative like the proposition ‘There is no god’ (god being some supernatural entity which created the universe and has continuing interest in homo sapiens on both the group and individual levels.) On the other hand if there were such a god it could make its existence so manifest that no sentient creature could deny it.
Most of those who adopt a religion, wether they admit it or not, do so on the basis of faith. On the other hand some take a more reasoned approach by using philosophy and convincing themselves that the perceived design of the universe argues in favor of the existence of a god (or gods).
Atheists use the processes available to all, observation, science and logic applied to the realm in which we exist and conclude that god almost certainly does not exist and the probability that there is a deity of any kind is so small as to be insignificant which, for all practical purposes is the same as the non existence of god. The atheist decides on the basis of this reasoning to live his life without a god.
I think Allah is a little to hard on the Secular Coalition for America which is not a DNC group. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it stays on the defensive and provides answers to attacks by religious fanatics on non theists and the prevention of the introduction of religion into public science education by means of idiocy like creationism and intelligent design.
Annar on August 16, 2008 at 7:34 AM
Well said.
carbon_footprint on August 16, 2008 at 7:52 AM
“Thou art God”
Valentine Michael Smith
Stranger in a Strange Land
by Robert A Heinlein
mrfixit on August 16, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Exactly as the atheist does. If the atheist does not come to his position via faith then it must be through knowledge.
So evidently, you have ALL KNOWLEDGE of everything that is in the universe and beyond, otherwise you could never say that there is no God. That’s pretty profound Annar…all along we’ve been worshipping God, who would of thought that we were wrong and that it is you Annar that we should have been worshipping…considering that you have ALL KNOWLEDGE and are omnipotent and created the universe…
Question: Is it the atheists disproportionately gigantic pride and hugely inflated ego’s that prevent them from knowing God?
Answer: Obviously yes!
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Annar on August 16, 2008 at 7:34 AM
That was one of the most egotistical posts I have read. An educated reasoned person would state their is no way of knowing if God is real or not.
Atheists use the very same processes that believers use to come to the exact opposite conclusion. Trying to say atheists are more intelligent then believers is beyond stupid. Each belief ( there is a God or Not) is based on faith since neither can be proved. Therefore Aetheists go on faith just like christians, or muslims or Jews etc. they are neither smarter, more intelligent or more wordly then the person in the Pews on a sunday. they just believe something different.
while I have no idea who is right, I would think the atheists be they right or wrong are the ones more likely to be the poorer for their beliefs.
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Why not? Atheism is faith that there is no God.
jgapinoy on August 16, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Question: Is it the atheists disproportionately gigantic pride and hugely inflated ego’s that prevent them from knowing God?
Answer: Obviously yes!
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM
You may have a point there. God did not really come into my life until I understood humility.
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Hey guys, can we debate the existance of extra-terrestial life too?
On one hand, some people believe in the existance of aliens, but can’t prove they exist because there is no concrete evidence.
On the other hand, some people believe aliens don’t exist, but can’t prove they don’t exist because that would mean proving a negative with unabtainable evidence.
Hollowpoint on August 16, 2008 at 4:24 AM
If you believe in infinity, then you must believe in alien life. In an infinite universe there must be other forms of life.
Now have they visited and do they fly in saucers? I seriously doubt it but I would not be surprised if there were other forms of life and have visited. Just like I would not be surprised if they hadn’t.
That life may be intelligent, and it may not be. I’m sure both can be and neither can be. since neither is able to be proven beyond doubt at the moment then the believe in aliens is a matter of faith. But a resoned person would admit that both possibilites are entirely possible.
unseen on August 16, 2008 at 9:13 AM
If you believe that God created man and you’ve read the Bible then you should recognize that man does not need to believe in God to be intelligent. There are some amazingly smart people in the world who don’t believe in God. That does not mean they lack intelligence. They lack wisdom. (Sorry Allah) Adam (from Genesis) was pobably the smartest man to ever walk the face of the earth because he could ask God himself for the answer to any question. Solomon was the wisest man to ever live. The Apostle Paul was extremely intelligent and wise.
There were a bunch of smart people in the bible who didn’t believe in God. Herod, Pilate, Sennacharib, Nebbi-k, and more.
jdog on August 16, 2008 at 9:15 AM
This is Democrat stupidity 101 at its peak.
Only Dems would think that the spirit of “inclusiveness” means that an “interfaith” group should include people who believe those with faith are stupid, idiots or mentally defective for their beliefs.
Let’s start with Hitchens. Are they kidding? Including this guy in a religious grouping is like putting the fox in charge of the henhose; putting head of NAMBLA in charge of a child services department; or (dare I raise the level of comparison further?) putting Adolph Hitler in charge of B’nai Brith.
To Dems, everything is the same as everything else… There are no distinctions… there are no values… as a consequence, nothing means anything.
seanrobins on August 16, 2008 at 9:20 AM
>>>Why not? Atheism is faith that there is no God.
Good try, but…..ehhh, NO!
Faith is not simply “faith” because one is believing in something for which they have no evidence. In fact, the religious are not simply believing in something they cannot prove: The religious do have proof in the existence of God, their faith.
The athiest does not have faith in something, they have ignorance supported by narrow-mindedness in which they believe that they are smarter than everyone else, and that they know everything. An honest athiest (if there is such a thing) would have to admit that they can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, and therefore relent that it must remain an open question. But they are not honest.
seanrobins on August 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Mobius strip, sort of.
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Tired last night, not intentionally obtuse :) Here’s our exchange:
First let me clarify why I don’t think someone can become a Christian, in a manner recognizable to the Christian religion, by reading the bible alone and in isolation: Our castaway could believe the content of the book, but Christianity is taught by a long process of socialization and conditioning through interpretation of the content of the bible, sermons, heavy use of visual symbols, repetitive rituals, and a long list of prescribed and proscribed behaviours. Our castaway would lack all of this tangential knowledge, so he would be a Christian only to the extent that I could read a book about medicine and claim to be a doctor.
As to the parallel. Leaving aside for the sake of simplicity the aspects of redemption and rewards in an afterlife, religion is a social organization, and people participate in it because of a desire to belong. The alternative, of not belonging, carries with it the dreadful consequence of loneliness, outcast status, possibly even insanity for the individual for whom belonging is an elemental need.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM
“The fool has said in his heart “There is no God”. PS 14.
The actual meaning is closer to madman than fool. Reasonable men doubt; even saints from Augustine to John Paul The Great. Atheism though requires non-rational thought as does faith. There is a psychological content beyond reason.
With all due respect Allahpundit’s moniker betrays the contemptousness motivating his atheism. Simple courtesy would prevent a reasonable citizen from taking the name of God as his nom de plume in a public forum. Allah’s got a problem and he deals with it in this way. Unlike Dawkins or Hitchens he is a “moderate” fanatic; sort of a Unitarian Atheist with tolerance for “unbelievers”.
Atheists are enemies of faith. At their core they stand in defiance of God and contempt of those who believe. They have no place in any convene of the faithful. Of course, most orthodox believers would have nothing to do with the Democrat convention so I’d imagine this assault on God will play well with the phony religious that are organizing the event. They will make some accommodation with their enemies not unlike their foreign policy strategies.
rcl on August 16, 2008 at 10:38 AM
That’s a big jump there, rcl. Do you feel it inappropriate to mock those that use religion to justify the horrors that Islamic terrorists have brought to the forefront of our world?
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Why are atheists even concerned with politics? After all, if one’s time on earth is all there is, why bother with such concerns? Far better to simply live for the moment than worry about such things as global warming, killing unborn life, or stopping illegals from ruining the nation. Those issues are for those with long-term vision.
highhopes on August 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »