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 »
This claim is repeated in just about all these threads about religion. I flatly disagree. Religion is based on a belief in the supernatural. Atheism is rejection of belief in the supernatural. The coercive aspects of organized atheism are vile, but their roots are in politics and philosophy. To label it a religion is projection.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM
And, what will the atheist do, if confronted by the one thing that has control of his eternal destiny?
Talk about an awkward moment.
franksalterego on August 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Wouldn’t that be true for all mortal men and women? With so many different religions, each with their different sects, ultimately a lot of people might have their earthly beliefs tweaked in the afterlife.
dedalus on August 16, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Didn’t a judge, not too long ago, declare that Atheism is a religion; as in, a Christian, for instance, must have faith in the existence of God even with out proof that he exists. Likewise, the Atheist must have faith in the nonexistence of God, lacking proof that he doesn’t exist.
Frozen Tex on August 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Well said, however I’m curious. Would you consider Confucism, for ex., a religion?
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I am not aware of a judge declaring that, but I have no reason to doubt that one did. Lots and lots of people have that opinion.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
That’s in interesting thought. However, sans the politics for discussion purposes, do you not think religion is based in philosophy? It is a manner of seeking truth, or love of wisdom.
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I have zero knowledge about Confucianism (heck, had to look it up to spell it) therefore no grounds to categorize it.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Sorry. Don’t know all that much either. Was just trying to consider one of the non-theistic “religions.” These too govern social behavior in a wide variety of arenas, (as would some sort of institutionalized atheism as we saw in 20th C. Russia and China) but seem to be generally recognized as religion.
I won’t look up the definition, but the walks like a duck thing might apply.
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Yes, I would certainly acknowledge that religion is based in philosophy.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:13 PM
If they have the same roots, then why is it unfair to categorize them the same?
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I think we’re on the same page here. How religion, non-thiestic religions, and organized atheism seek to govern social behaviour is what interests me. In these matters, my point of view is distinctly Laissez-faire.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Because of the additional ingredient of the supernatural.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:28 PM
The vast majority of “in your face” atheists DO act as though they’re in some kind of cult. Given the vehemence of their supposed non-belief, and their excessive interest in the spiritual habits of other people, they should probably just drop the pretence and start passing out literature at airports.
Good rule for evangelicals of all persuasions: whistle in the dark if you must, but try not to annoy other people.
Infidoll on August 16, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Actually we have already defined that atheists use faith..either it is faith or they are claiming to know ALL things in the universe, to say definitively that there is no God.
But let me ask you a few questions that you have probably never thought about according to your world view…
1. WHAT IS REALITY?
2. WHAT IS PERCEPTION?
3. WHAT IS ATTENTION?
4. WHAT IS TRUTH?
Have you ever considered the fact that our perception of reality changes according to our attention?
i.e. if your attention is focused on, we could use atheism, but let’s say VW beetles…everything you see or everything you process will lead you to consistently point them out to yourself..they will become so blatantly obvious to you..you will wonder how you could of possibly ever missed how many there are on the road.
It’s the same thing whether it be women or a religious world view such as secularism or atheism especially..everything comes in through your perception and immediately gets filtered through your atheist goggles and it all makes so much sense to you.
Does your attention and perception in any way change the nature of reality? To you it does.
Does your perception of reality in any way change the miraculous nature of the REAL reality or Truth?
Not at all.
How does this relate to Christianity and how is Christianity the Truth?
The Holy Trinity is the essence of reality. The Father emanates the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, align with each other and in doing so, align with the Father.
Reality.
This is where the idea of God’s “plan” and free will come in.
It is God’s plan for us to align with His Divine Energies.
It is God’s plan for us to be sons of the Father.
If we do not do so, will He allow us to construct our own reality, which is just an imaginary reality?
Yes. Free will. God loves us because that is His nature.
The sun shines on both the good and the evil, though the evil man will not recognize it’s true nature and it will become something else to him.
It doesn’t change the nature of God though.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I follow. So people who want to make this argument (I presume for the purpose of undermining an argument against faith) should just refer to them both as a belief system. Problem solved, no?
I don’t like atheism being referred to as a religion myself, so I’d be happy enough if that stopped.
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 12:32 PM
There has been a lot of overlap between the two during the past 2,500 years, but it’s likely that religious ritual and worship of greater powers predates philosophy, and the written word.
dedalus on August 16, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Can we please keep this in mind for the next time Pat Robertson (or similar) says something stupid.
John on August 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Yes, I think that would be fair, if everyone could actually agree that a belief system is distinct from faith.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Could be. I have only my imagination to consult on that, and any opinion I formed would be based solely on speculation.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I apologize for keep asking you questions, I’m not trying to nitpick, just to get your framework. But how is the one distinct from the other (sorry if you said upthread and I missed it)?
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 12:51 PM
It’s quite alright, I cherish clarity. A belief system may or may not include belief in the supernatural. Faith includes belief in the supernatural by definition.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 12:57 PM
InterFAITH.
Atheists profess no god based upon the absence of faith.
They wish to TAKE what they lack not to gain it, not to appreciate it in others, but to destroy what others possess and to destroy what others enjoy.
They be takers, abusers, oppressors, and manipulative destroyers in this instance.
maverick muse on August 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Yes, precision is my friend. I see your distinction, that makes sense to me. If a Christian takes the definition of faith and religion as expressed in the Bible, atheism meets neither there as well.
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 1:03 PM
…that’s quite a lot of rigamorale to merely come to the conclusion that there is a supernatural creator to all things, and that there was a guy 2000 years ago who came to Earth and turned out to be his son. How does that knowledge necessitate anything other than the reading of the New Testament? For someone with a tabula rasa, it’s quite easy to accept in the scheme of things.
So you’re saying he longed to belong to the church that Wilson belonged to in order to avoid the insanity of loneliness (and we’re talking actual loneliness, not the philosophical loneliness one could feel without the belief in the presence of a creator), and therefore it was a religion?
I can’t agree with that. A person who joins a religion likely already has family, friends, or others they can use to counteract the basic, primal need for companionship. In the movie, you had someone who was utterly cut off from all companionship. He did not turn to Wilson for the sake of spiritual fulfillment, but for primal fulfillment. When he returned to civilization, Wilson’s place would be taken not by faith, but by the re-entering of others into his life. Quite different, in my opinion.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Sigh…
I hate to do this. to step back into this really.
Adam And Eve.
its easy really.
they were given conflicting commandments.
be fruitful and multiply AND Don’t eat the fruit and gain the knowledge of how to multiply. (thats simplifying it a bit.)
for them to learn of good and evil they had to step away from God evil cannot dwell in his presence so for Adam and Eve to encounter evil (to be able to have the choice in the first place) they needed to step away from God therefore to keep the be fruitful commandment they broke the other eating from the tree of knowledge) and in doing so were able to experience evil and its consequences as at that point they were cast out of Gods presence.
yeesh.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM
…in other words how are you to gain a knowledge of evil if you are with God in the garden where you will never encounter it?
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 16, 2008 at 1:07 PM
We have already established that atheism is either faith or a declaration of supreme knowledge of all that exists in the universe.
Even so, the model for atheists is evolution and big bang…which both require tremendous faith in the “supernatural”…i.e. non “natural” and unduplicable processes.
Have you created something out of nothing lately?
I didn’t think so.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I knew someone would bring that up. Sorry, Spirit. You can’t cut infinity and create a beginning and end. Point to you for bringing up the best example, though!
So you don’t believe that there is no such thing as the supernatural? That’s a belief, unverifiable by humans. Agnosticism would be the true “rejectors” because they don’t have any evidence to believe either way. You deny the existence of the supernatural, and that is a faith.
And once again, the minute a group of you get together, or organize, give yourselves a name, and set out with the goal of making everyone else in the world think your way, you are a religion. That is a perfect parallel. Now, remember Rushbaby, I’m not saying you are part of that religion, any more than I am saying a Christian I meet is part of the Catholic religion. You both have your faiths, both unverifiable within human comprehension, but that doesn’t make you religious.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM
That is a separate point, imho. The cut is to create the model. The point is that there is a possible construction of such a model that has no end or beginning. The model, and the construction of the model are not the same.
I think the better dissent is whether it is really infinity if you are covering the same ground. Though with the dimension of time, the ground is no longer really the same. So I think the model holds some water.
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 1:13 PM
You’re projecting something into that..No where does God say that they did not know how to multiply.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM
MadCon,
I think I will decline to type up any more “rigamorale” on the subject today. Good day.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Other “open questions” - According to your definition.
Leprechauns
Fairies
Unicorns
Hobbits
Purple People Eaters
Chupacabra
Zeus
Osiris
Shiva
Krishna
Buddha
Donald Duck
Corn Woman
Coatlicue
Poseidon
The Green Lantern
If you are honest, then you will admit this.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I said I was oversimplifying it a bit Olaf, jeez read the WHOLE post.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM
…and if they did know how to procreate then why didn’t they get onto that commandment about be fruitful and multiply right away and not wait till they got kicked out of the garden to start having kids hmmmm?
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Oooh so sinister and dramatic! Clearly you are a noble warrior engaged in a great and epic struggle to save the United States from those oppressive Atheists and becoming only 97% Christian. LOL!
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM
It seems still a step short of a religion. Ignoring for a moment how many atheists are actually agnostics or are taking a position that there isn’t an anthropomorphic God close at hand, if one focused just on fervent believers that there is no divine creator you would still have a divergence of belief systems within that group far wider than within Christianity, Islam or other religions. Atheists might be nihlists or, with a very different belief structure, humanists.
Atheism might be comparable to montheism as a belief, but not a religion with a moral system like Judaism or Hinduism.
dedalus on August 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM
jp on August 16, 2008 at 1:33 PM
By definition, it doesn’t take any faith to not believe in something. Belief is an essential element of faith. If faith is defined to include disbelief, the word loses any functional meaning. I don’t take it on faith that leprechauns don’t exist. I reasonably assume that they don’t exist unless there is some evidence they do.
If god can’t be disproved, it’s only because god can’t be observed, and can’t be inferred. In fact, all the attributes that make the concept of a god impossible to disprove would form a pretty good definition of non-existence. Invisibility, etc…
RightOFLeft on August 16, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Meh. Sez you. I guess Capitalism and the Rolling Stones are a religion. As well Democracy and the Home Shopping Channel.
Once again God Worshipers are reduced to grandiose and ridiculous statements in a desperate attempt to prop up the patently absurd.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 1:37 PM
read some pressupositional apologetics, its very intellectual.
Youtube has a famous debate: Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein “Does God Exist”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw
he gets into the intellectual stuff here, like Laws of Logic and points like CF has made here about the mere ability to Reason as proof of the supernatural.
the “Myth of Neutrality” on youtube should be watched by all, brilliant IMO
jp on August 16, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I don’t now (or ever really) intend to be inflammatory, but I will add to Washington, Lincoln. Despite MB4’s occasional attempts to paint him as an atheist. [I edit for brevity]
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2008 at 1:41 PM
and what US patent # is that?
Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on August 16, 2008 at 1:43 PM
ROTFLMAO………No allahpundit is not a self hating atheist, he just hasn’t accepted the reality that atheism is a religion yet.
doriangrey on August 16, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Patent# 1 The Arcane Superstition.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Stoopid is as stoopid does. This is like homosexuals wanting to be ‘normal’ by being able to get ‘married’.
Atheism (for me) is one of the mysteries of life and after coming up with some possible reasons, (bad childhood/parenting), I have to concede that there are things that we can’t explain or understand, like the presence of a higher order and a Creator. Despite their stubborn solipsism, I feel sorry for them. Life must be extremely hard without faith of some kind.
Christine on August 16, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Come on Christian Warriors! These are the last days, and there’s still so much we’ve yet to do! United we stand, divided we fall. It can’t be any clearer than that. Here me. Listen my….
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Boy, I’m sure glad I don’t worship the god your trying to fit in your head (name). I mean, if I could fit the infinite God in my 3 pound brain, He would not be worth worshipping, that’s for certain. Your question about free will and predestination assumes …obviously displays that you’re thinking of the wrong god because you’ve placed limits on God and that’s your first mistake. The God of the Bible is not limited like you and I. God is not effected by time, space, or matter. God made time and space, thus is He outside time and space. He is not governed by the laws that exist on Earth. It is not the year 2008 in heaven right now. If He’s effected by time, space, or matter, He’s not God. The God that created them has to be outside of them. Um, the guy who created your computer is not in the computer. He’s not running around in there changing the numbers on the screen, okay. The God who created this universe is outside of the universe. He’s above it, beyond it, in it, through it. He’s unneffected by it. I guess you’d have to explain to me things like emotions and love, and hatred, and envy, and jealosy, and rationality. I mean the fact that you’re FINITE mind cannot comprehend the simultaneous operation of divine election and human responsibilty is assuming a limited God. Scripture and human experience demonstrates both to be true. We must both rest in that fact, and act in light of it. So you have a very flawed concept because uh, well, it sets up basically a straw man argument which really doesn’t exist because it completely ignores the possibilty that God has a reason for doing things the way He’s done them. The God that I worship is not limited by time, space, or matter, nor by your understanding of Him. The Bible says, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it” (Psalm 139:6). Psalm 139:6 stresses the foolishness of men who would try to comprehend the mysteries of God’s omniscience. This surely includes the attempt to understand the mystery of the paradoxical relation between divine sovereignty and human liberty. Like I said, If I could fit the infinite God in my 3 pound brain, He would not be worth worshipping that’s for certain. So that’s the God I worship. Thank you.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Homosexuals wanting to be accepted as members of a local or national community wouldn’t be stupid on their part. It would be highly rational.
It’s likely that some atheists and Christians alike have bad childhood experiences that shape their adult worldview. It doesn’t add to or diminish the quality of their argument.
dedalus on August 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Quite true. However, true atheists do believe in something: The non-existence of God. No faith would be the position that you don’t have enough evidence either way. That is an utter lack of faith. Believing that there can be no God requires faith.
No, not “sez me”. Sez the “Freedom From Religion” Foundation, who wants to see a world where no one believes differently than they. Don’t take it up with me. I didn’t organize people in an attempt to make them all think like I do.
I’m not a God Worshiper. Great job of making a wrong assumption about me, though, even though I’ve clearly claimed otherwise in this thread.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Me too. I’d rather not have a God that impels me to spout catchphrases.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The above was my template. I forgot to insert your name MadisonConservative.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:36 PM
You’re doing a fine job at them.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM
“Once again God Worshipers are reduced to grandiose and ridiculous statements in a desperate attempt to prop up the patently absurd.”
I don’t “worship God” at any church, but I have respect for those who do. More importantly, how is the certainty that there is order in the universe and in nature “patently absurd”? Belief in a higher power is not superstition, ron. Even scientists now concede that God must exist. Just because our eyes cannot see IT doesn’t mean it does not exist.
The movie: “What The Bleep Do We Know?” might be a good place for atheists to start seeing the bigger picture…
Christine on August 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM
He might be affecting the computer’s behavior from a software design standpoint. Additionally, if the computer is plugged into the Internet, he might be interceding, for better or worse, with the functioning of my computer.
If the Son of God came to earth and cured the sick, built a church, died for our sins, if God answers prayers, if God punishes the wicked he has the equivalent of our IP addresses and intercedes in an ad hoc manner as well as from a design standpoint.
dedalus on August 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM
The screwed up state of the world is because of unintelligent design.
- Darwin
The screwed up state of the world is because of devolution.
- God
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Sadly, many use these issues that they don’t quite understand as a reason to reject God. When in truth it’s a very real reason to accept Him because the Bible gives the rational explanation to many of these difficult questions. Yes, there are some things that are hard to comprehend, but as I pointed out, if we could fit the infinite God in our 3 pound brains, He would not be worth worshipping that’s for certain. The Scriptures tell us we live in a fallen creation. “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). We live in a fallen creation and the Bible says, “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth” (Romans 8:22). It devours itself and it’s (we’re) waiting for “a new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13). God promses a brand new body for all those who trust him. A body like Jesus had when He rose from the dead. A body not subject to disease, death, decay or dandruff …and you can find this to be true simply by obeying the gospel. This is what Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest (reveal) myself to him”. You can find the truth of what the Scripture says by obeying the Scriptures and God will supernaturally reveal Himself to you.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Yes, I understand what you’re saying dedalus, true, however, the Bible stresses the foolishness of men who would try to comprehend the mysteries of God’s infinite wisdom. Which surely includes the attempt to understand the mystery of the freee will in relation to predestination.
“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.” Psalm 139:6
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Call me when the atheists start demanding that our currency read, “In God We Trust Not”.
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
And, I’m still wondering what this means. Faith in basic supernatural firmaments?? What does that mean? You sound like a new age hippie trying to sell me something from the back of a bus.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM
In “the end” all animals, including those of the human variety, will be dead, just dead, as in DEAD, for the rest of eternity. That’s why it is called dead. There is no magical “soul”. If I, hypothetically now, lived for the rest of eternity, and then another 6 days, I could think of no more irrational and clinging belief than the belief in this profoundly absurd fairy tale called a “soul”.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM
How about a compromise?
“In Enligtenment we trust”.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I don’t care how I sound to you, because you have repeatedly made false presumptions about me, out of sheer arrogance and utter ignorance. Stop responding to me, for the last time.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
“Homosexuals wanting to be accepted as members of a local or national community wouldn’t be stupid on their part. It would be highly rational.
It’s likely that some atheists and Christians alike have bad childhood experiences that shape their adult worldview. It doesn’t add to or diminish the quality of their argument.
dedalus”
My objection with gay ‘marriage’ is that the radical faction of the gay community is attempting to force society to accept them and their (often CHOSEN) lifestyle. Force does not work, especially when it runs contrary to nature and logic. (This is what turns me off to holy-rollers and wacko atheists who want to force me to accept their ideology.)
The ’self-help 101′ solution is for them to accept and love themselves as whole people and not depend on the opinions of others–which reminds me of another divisive aspect of this issue. The radical faction of the gay community, (not the gay/lesbian people I know) want to define themselves as homosexuals first, not as Americans or human beings.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word ‘normal’ because what’s normal to you may not be normal to me. ‘Accepted’ would have been better. My bad.
As to you other statement, I agree…a person’s childhood experiences only help to find possible sources of adult belief systems. But again, ‘quality’ is in the eye of the beholder.
Christine on August 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Why do some religious people, I really doubt a very large percentage, feel compelled to make the claim that atheism is a religion, when the very definition of atheism is the opposite?
Is it one of those, “OK, I may be one, but your one too! So there!” things? That’s about the only reasonable theory that I can come up with.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM
On topic, the eventual outcome played out.
Perhaps you see things differently. But this would appear to be akin to the ACLU arching beyond what is reasonable merely to attain the power to crush liberty.
maverick muse on August 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Too European sounding, and it would be a tight fit on some smaller coins :-)
In any event, that sentiment takes just as much faith, just of a different type. Who says that the universe has to be a rational place?
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Yes I feel sorry for them too, but I think the reason they fall into that trap is because of their MASSIVE PRIDE.
Ronsfi for instance, is a tragic example of how a man remains dead spiritually due to massive pride.
The Ultimate Reality is “patently absurd” to him, but nethertheless, he is the first to be the judge of what is the absolute definition of what is real or not…pretty arrogant for a guy who doesn’t even understand even the concept of reality to begin with! Human emotion,experience and 99.999% of all human understanding is immediately thrown out as absurd.
While most atheists would admit to being agnostics at worst, someone who declares themselves atheist…you will usually find there is much bigger problem being hidden.
Yes some agnostics are even curious about God and it’s important to make that distinction, but there are certain atheists (like Ronsfi), who I believe, just need a good exorcism.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
OK, you stick-in-the-mud, how ’bout, especially considering our current options for President, “We’re scroomed!” ?
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I’d rather have money that reads “AMERICA! F*** YEAH!”
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
One goes to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I could go with that.
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Right now, although it would probably only fit on paper bills, I am rather partial to, “We don’t trust the all out sons-of-#itches, barbarians, and chronic drunks with no regard for human life, otherwise known as the Russians”. Maybe on coins we could just have “In Patton we trust”.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I was going to say you are a also a tragic example of a man with an inordinate and undeserved sense of pride.. due to your constant atheistic prosletyzing…my money says you’re jealous of him for that honor.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Actually, the ACLU is patently absurd to a conservative, as is Progressive Marxism. Their oppressive nature stimulates fear of their encroachment in private matters. The Atheist aggression toward the Interfaith community, because it is aggression, is not to be ignored, but duly noted. If faith is a living entity that requires care in keeping, corrupting its environment is no one’s “right”. Take it or leave it. And in the leaving, don’t molest those who appreciate it.
I don’t care one way or the other what a person does or does not believe. Why would I care if you do or do not agree with me? Think as you will. Be as you are.
There are those, however, who have experience things that you have not. That you choose to ridicule that which you lack is your own mark.
Regarding mannerisms, refresh yourself from the John Bolton thread to note his quote regarding the use of ridicule to destroy one’s opponent.
maverick muse on August 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Heh. But you know, one thing that’s going to inject a healthy dose of religion into the hearts of atheists is the coming nuclear brinksmanship, that they have been woefully ill-prepared to deal with.
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Massive Pride? You are the one who claims to have all the answers.
That’s good to hear MC. So you wouldn’t mind if we rotated the motto on our money to say In Buddha We Trust and then In Krishna We Trust then In Allah We Trust right. Because you are for Freedom of Religion right? Or are you, as I suspect, only for maintaining the privileged status of your own faith?
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM
No that is “Your God” who is jealous, a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM
SaintOlaf says he speaks to God every day, and he loves himself for it. If SaintOlaf said he spoke to God through his hair dryer, people would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer would make it any more absurd.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For my nuclear weapons art with me; The B-1s and the Tridents, they comfort me.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
you think christianity has a privleged position? what planet are you living on?
right4life on August 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I’d buy that for a dollar…
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM
yes He is jealous, His glory He will not give to any other. but unlike any man, He deserves it.
right4life on August 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Ha! I know. Here he is judging others as “tragic” and “prideful” all based on nothing but that they don’t worship as he does. Truly one of the creepiest commenters on HA. But a shining example of a supremely hypocritical bible thumping delusional crank. Met a ton of ‘em.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Earth. Every been?
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM
I’m not saying that it will be good or bad, or right or wrong, but it seems to me as if it IS going to happen. The closer death comes, the more scrutiny ones attitude about it comes under. John Von Neumann, one of the most intelligent humans in all of recorded history, could not come to grips with death - from reports of those around him. When one has to contemplate true, complete nothingness (which is impossible to even imagine, by definition), it causes a deep chill in most people.
progressoverpeace on August 16, 2008 at 4:01 PM
This new “emotional” line of attack you are trying to use on me is cute. These kind of accusations, with no regards to being honest. Where are these repeated false presumptions I’ve made about you? You’re building your straw man and tearing it down again, just to try to win an argument. And as far as me responding to you, uh, give your head a shake daytime emmy …lol … re-read this thread. YOU responded to me first, not the other way around! I didn’t message you. YOU sent me a message! And now that you don’t like what you hear you cry like a little baby. So you gets this threads cry baby award. Look, I don’t wanna hurt your feelings, but, y’know (shrugs shoulders) fine with me if you don’t message me, okay. I have other things to do …lol .. I’d rather go talk to somebody who wants to hear the truth and I’m suspecting from the little bit I’ve read you don’t really want to hear the truth. Just remember it works both ways. Don’t respond to me either. Done deal. Thanks.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM
This new “emotional” line of attack you are trying to use on me is cute. These kind of accusations, with no regards to being honest. Where are these repeated false presumptions I’ve made about you? You’re building your straw man and tearing it down again, just to try to win an argument. And as far as me responding to you, uh, give your head a shake daytime emmy …lol … re-read this thread. YOU responded to me first, not the other way around! I didn’t message you. YOU sent me a message! And now that you don’t like what you hear you cry like a little baby. So you gets this threads cry baby award. Look, I don’t wanna hurt your feelings, but, y’know (shrugs shoulders) fine with me if you don’t message me, okay. I have other things to do …lol .. I’d rather go talk to somebody who wants to hear the truth and I’m suspecting from the little bit I’ve read you don’t really want to hear the truth. Just remember it works both ways. Don’t respond to me either. Done deal. Thanks.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Gee. I’m pretty sure you completely ignored the fact that you were entirely wrong about my faith. How about you show that you have a clue about what mine is before you discuss it, instead of being arrogant to a fault and trying to pigeonhole me?
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:06 PM
You claimed to know me, and classify me as the above. You were absolutely wrong, and I have said nothing to lend credence to that false accusation.
So shut the hell up, and return to your sphere of egregious sanctimonius delusions of grandeur.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Atheism is a religion. I’m glad the “free thinkers” are coming to terms with their religion.
apacalyps on August 16, 2008 at 4:10 PM
My bad. 1000 pardons.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Weeding through these threads sometimes can be confusing. Truly MC. I am sorry.
ronsfi on August 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Accepted. To answer your question, I am for the first amendment, which protects the right of American citizens to recognize and practice any religion they want. However, the phrase “In God We Trust” was a phrase that was imposed by the Christian founders of this nation. As the founders, and as Muslims, Buddhists, and Hari Krishnas didn’t found this nation, I think the phrase doesn’t necessarily fall under subjection to religious equity, being that any such action today would be state sanction of religion.
Atheists getting bent out of shape over “In God We Trust” is about as silly as Muslims demanding Labor Day being Eid. The founders got exceptions. They’re dead, and there will be no more founders of this nation. If you’re going to demand change to fit your faith, make your own nation, frankly. Or, better yet, go try asserting such demands in nations like Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:19 PM
SO nice to see you back with your inimitable brand of reasoned debate and compassion.
Yeesh.
sulla on August 16, 2008 at 4:21 PM
By the way, I don’t mean to come off as sounding aggressive, but conservatives in this day and age are really getting tired of people demanding America change to suit them rather than becoming part of the melting pot.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM
He should recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and should place the whole responsibility where it should of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He should not be a jealous God — a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He should not boast.
He should keep private His admirations of Himself; He should regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He should 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 should spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
– Mark Twain
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Absolutely not! Atheists are simply spiteful and arrogant people who think they know everything, they are so arrogant as to think that they have all knowledge in the universe and that is how they know there is no God..their only purpose in this service is to destroy!
Atheism is a despicable religion, far worse than islam, in terms of suffering and death that it has incurred…and in it’s ideology and effect on human behaviour.
Any thinking atheist would have to declare that they are agnostic at worst..but they don’t..they are too prideful and arrogant to admit it.
SaintOlaf on August 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM
There you go again.
- Ronald Reagan
Atheism is the absence of religion, that’s what it is, and all you are doing is illogically crying out, “I may be one, but so are you damn it, so there!!!”.
So sad.
MB4 on August 16, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Your new name is Captain Irony.
MadisonConservative on August 16, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »