Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on June 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
“J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a ‘god, angel, or devil’ will interfere with one’s experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.
Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.
While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world’s organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an ‘atheist absolutist,’ a ‘reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions.’”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Atheism is a mental disorder and a spiritual cancer that has no credible basis in human history.
Throughout history, no great civilization has ever existed based on atheism. Even down to the most primitive tribes, religion has existed and acknowledged as an important facet of society.
The fact that atheistic societies like Communist China and the Soviet Union were brutal dictatorships that violated human rights (which were a development from Christian theology), are proof that atheism is not the norm, but a pathology.
atheling on June 27, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Maybe you could make the point by giving an example of a self-declared Christian Darwinist and an atheists that doesn’t accept Darwinism (the second proving neither is a subset of the other).
I’m not being snarky. I’m going to start Googling…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM
It’s implications are clear to you, it seems. Ever consider that the reason humans cooperate, share, help each other, etc because there is an evolutionary reason or organisms to be favored to do so? Many atheists would say there is a evolutionary explanation for why we do not all chose to live the hedonistic livelihoods predicted for atheists by some of those of faith.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Many Christians believe that Christianity is far from a normal religion…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM
You miss my point. Religion is part and parcel of all normal societies throughout history even before Christianity.
atheling on June 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM
If Christians used those arguments to buy into Hitler’s pathology, yes.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Here’s a real winner…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Roughgarden
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM
You don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution:
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
– Pope John Paul II
MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION
Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
– Pope Benedict XVI
Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 8:45 PM
So then the same goes for a non-Christian that used say Darwinism to convince themselves that Hitler was right, correct?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Perhaps. Does this somehow automatically make atheism some illegitimate scab on society… or perhaps an evolution of thought?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 8:47 PM
A pathology? Iran as a theocracy is pretty pathological if you ask me. So were many of the old world Christian theocracies.
You probably want to goad me into saying people of faith are deranged by claiming that is true for atheists. Really, you have no basis to make such a claim and by making such a statement show your level of intolerance for people who do not believe as you do. That is a sign of fear–you must positively fear atheists to hold such views. I feel sorry for you.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Wow. That has got to be the most ridiculous statement that you have made yet bryan.
Look, first of all you’re talking about roman catholicism and protestantism..not the Orthodox church(which is the True Christianity).
Second, the fact is atheists and islam and pagans have been a even greater source of evil in this world than RC and protestants.
MaximusConfessor on June 27, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Many scientists who study biology for a living are accepting of evolution at the same time as being Christian. I don’t think every Christian scientist is a Creationist.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Sure they did. It was the materialistic philosophy that rejected the “opiate of the masses” in favor of the here-and-now. The state becomes God.
But why are you seemingly acquitting atheists on the basis of “morality”, saying something which seems like “atheists are more Christ-like than Christians”? What is this “brutality” of which you speak? What’s your standard?
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Actually, I don’t recall him singling out the Catholics
All the more reason for Orthodox Christians to persecute Muslims more than Protestants while siding with Hezbollah.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Agreed. I even gave a very outrageous example with Joan Roughgarden.
Now, are their atheists that don’t accept Darwinism?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 8:52 PM
their = there
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM
“Old world Christianity” meaning what, exactly? The teachings of Paul? Reading his epistles, I don’t feel the urge to commit genocide or rape, honestly.
Pol Pot probably didn’t know much about Christianity, Old World or Modern. He didn’t have many problems in being evil.
Whatever “evil” might be.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 8:56 PM
I would say yes, if the majority of atheists convinced themselves Hitler was an awesome guy as happened to the German population, then I would say that is serious evidence of a flaw in atheism. But evolution doesn’t prove the lack of a god. I see nothing within evolution that would make one conclude there is no god. Where does it say that in the theory of evolution?
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM
It means they are separate spheres. Which is to refute the quote of the day that is the topic of this thread.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Wow, that has got to be the most dishonest distortion of words to ever occur on a blog. I never wrote those words. My reply was specifically about old world Christianity as the source of antisemitism. I still stand by that. As I stand by the following statement that said modern Christianity has mostly grown past that.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Is antisemitism part of Christian doctrine, or is it, like slavery, one of those human evils that doesn’t really need any specific religion or state system to justify?
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Well, in all fairness, since you are taking into account what supposedly most German Christians supported, you should only take into account Hitlers appeal amongst German atheists. So, how many German atheists disagreed with Hitler?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:06 PM
In other words, are there non-Christian or even atheistic antisemites? And if so, what is the motivation of these non-Christian antisemites?
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Mao and Lenin justified their brutality in the name of providing for the common man–the worker. I’m not sure I follow your “atheists are more Christ-like than Christians” question. Don’t see where I said that. The difference between communism’s relationship to atheism and say Islam to Iran’s government is the basis in authority. Communism never asserted atheism gave them the authority to oppress people. Islam gives Iran’s leaders authority to oppress their people. As would Christianity give authority to a European king to oppress its people.
Atheism does not imply lack of evil. Mao and Lenin were very evil people–and they were atheists.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Heidegger was a Nazi. Bonhoeffer wasn’t.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Come on, I heard Constantine I er uh I mean Saint Constantine thought the Juice were swell…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:08 PM
At the moment, it would seem Atheists +1 Christians -1…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Can’t think of any off hand. In fact, I doubt there are very many. The science is pretty convincing. But even if every atheist accepts evolution, that does not imply that evolution is atheistic.That would be like arguing that since virtually 100% of atheists are opposed to murder, opposition to murder is a uniquely atheistic belief.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:10 PM
No no, you didn’t say that specifically. It’s the tone of “acquittal” that I have heard from a lot of atheists, disavowing any connection between say Stalin and Mao with unbelief — while being pretty enthusiastic about associating Hitler with Christianity. Atheists according to atheists are simply more “moral” and far less culpable, as a whole. Thus the contortions to “prove” that Hitler was a good, devout Catholic.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM
No it doesn’t. It only means what it says–evolution does not PROVE the existence of god. An atheist may go so far as to say it disproves a particular creation story, but they would be dishonest to suggest evolution disproves god.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Nah, I’d take Bonhoeffer over Heidegger.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:14 PM
True, especially since their are self-declared Christians that are also Evolutionists. However, it should not be dismissed if in fact all atheists are evolutionists. For example, if we [actually, you] are willing to hold Christianities feet to the fire because of what some (majority???) German Christians were willing to accept with Hitler, then atheists at the very least may have to accept some of the blame that Nazi Darwinists would deserve.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Well, I was scoring in another sense… :)
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Yes it does. The quote of the day says that science is incompatible with the traditional religious view of God.
A scientist has absolutely no authority to say that.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Christianity, as practiced before say WWII and perhaps a few hundred years after Christ was very antisemitic. The common reason cited was that the “Jews killed Christ”. There are still some element in the fringe of Christianity that fell that way, but they are a very small minority. In Hitler’s day, antisemitism was alive and well. In Europe, it’s still a little less fringe than here in the US.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:17 PM
“Christianity was antisemitic”, or “professing Christians were antisemitic”? There is a difference, you know.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:18 PM
A little? A lost less fringe.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Karl Barth, who was born and made his career well before WWII, was hardly an antisemite.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 9:19 PM
lost = lot
How did that s get in there?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:19 PM
This is a hard one. There were many “Christian” Organizations that were anti-Semitic or something close. Does this mean that Christ’s message was anti-Semetic? Uh, no.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Probably. There are various crank theories of evolution, just like there are crank theories of physics or any other discipline. Presumably the cranks have attracted some atheists. Sorry for stepping in the middle of the discussion, but why do you ask?
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Why not ask?
A common theme on this thread is that atheism = darwinism and well a few Hitlerism = Christianism (or am I exaggerating?)
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:24 PM
I don’t see atheism as a cause of immorality–really a lack of a god to me does not automatically imply causation of immorality. Arguing the opposite would be arguing all atheists are immoral due to their lack of faith in a god. This is common argument I hear from people of faith. I think that there are many people of faith who are moral and lead good lives. I do not think religion is inherently evil.
Mao and Lenin were surely evil atheists. But where did they say they drew their moral grounding from the idea that god does not exist? They did not argue “hey there’s no god, so we can confiscate people’s property and kill people who disagree with us”.
As I posted earlier, Hitler very much did make religious appeals to justify what he did. Whether that continued to be Christianity I think is more doubtful. As another said very well on this site, Hitler worshipped Hitler. However the German people did buy his tripe hook line and sinker.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Singling out Christianity (Even Organized Christianity) doesn’t seem to explain this…
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/13/one-third-of-europeans-blame-the-economic-collapse-on/
Why is antisemitism “on the rise” or at best “not on the decline,” in Europe which has been moving away from even Organized Christianity… Is it the Muslims, atheists/agnostics, or something else?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:29 PM
I don’t understand what you mean by “give authority,” or what relevance it has regarding religion versus atheism. Does the source of authority or the type of ideology matter when a person, group or government is oppressing or slaughtering people? The victims are just as oppressed or dead.
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 9:29 PM
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM
The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West’s advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration.
The original figures to draw attention to this were Bishop Robert Grosseteste, early in the 13th century, the first person to imagine the experiment, and his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, the first man to imagine a secular world, a world without God directing everything. Secularism is not the same as atheism, of course, both Grosseteste and Aquinas were priests. But they helped us to escape from the overbearing medieval view that the world has meaning and pattern only in relation to God [or Allah].
- Peter Watson
MB4 on June 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM
That is absolutely ridiculous.
Christianity specifically preaches against racism.
We are aware that other religions hate us and persecute us but we do not judge a person by their race and no one could possibly say that Christianity is racist.
We are the only religion that has preached against racism.
MaximusConfessor on June 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Including German atheists as far as I know… I don’t see how this somehow automatically show the dangers of religion…
If you wanted to do that, you might have a better shot with say the Crusades…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca
MB4 on June 27, 2009 at 9:34 PM
They are not logical equivalents. Evolution does not prove god does not exist. As posted by another individual, even the Pope has accepted that evolutionary biology is not bunk–while still allowing for the Christian creation story to explain how the whole thing got started.
The quote of the day states that science is not compatible with religion. I don’t happen to agree that legitimate science cannot be performed by people of faith. The concern from the person who was the source of the QotD was that people of faith will intentionally ignore evidence out of their personal bias. I think that does happen–as is evidenced by most of Creation “science”.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Hopefully you’re exaggerating, I haven’t read the whole thread, but you’re probably not. Just to get it out of the way, I think Christianity is perfectly benign, and I know enough Christians to know that it enriches many of my friends’ lives.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Both. Early Popes were not exactly fans of the Jews.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Well, yeah… we kind of agreed. We kind of agreed that he wasn’t a Christian either. There’s evidence that he even wanted to eradicate Christianity.
My point is, if you want to show the evils of Christianity based on the wording of Hitler’s books and the support of some of his German Christian supporters, then you also have to take into account his support from the German atheists – which you (not me) say were most likely all Darwinists (and we all know Hitler used Darwin’s language to benefit the cause)
So if Christians are guilty by their association to religious symbolism, history, language, and even the support of some Christian Germans, wouldn’t atheists also share this guilt by association to their Darwinian, German atheist brethren that supported Hitler?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:37 PM
I think it’s a combination of Muslims, and yes, secular, atheist, leftist nincompoops.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Well, I’d say you’re more likely to see the atheism = darwinism claims over the other.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Well, I appreciate you acknowledging this. I’m not sure, but I don’t believe that Antisemitism is intrinsically driven by religion… In fact, I don’t know if it really is. Religion might be a tool to spread the fire, but the cause of Antisemitism? Eh…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Here is another important point to consider..
You can’t judge Christianity by anything that any member of a sect (that is not part of the Orthodox Church that Christ founded) did.
The only real Christianity is the Orthodox Church (i.e. we are the only ones who can prove that we have kept the Faith and the Holy Tradition exactly as it was handed down to us by the Apostles in a direct succession of bishops going back to the Apostles and Christ)…it is completely dishonest for you atheists to attribute bad things done by different religions,to us.
MaximusConfessor on June 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Groupism.
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Have at it Bryan… You can’t mess with it, cuz he said so.
And don’t you dare judge him on anything Saint Constantine did…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Yeah… I think that’s what it would be.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:45 PM
We do kinda agree–cant we all just get along :!)
I would say Darwinism is not a “tenet of faith” for atheism. The vast majority of atheists will accept Darwinism because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction. Acceptance of evolution is unusually high among atheists because there is not a religious barrier to accepting the evidence. Some people of faith cannot reconcile evolution with their faith. I think that if sufficient evidence popped up that changed the theory of evolution, most atheists would accept it–unless of course the evidence was that god did it all. Bet then you’d have faith issue from atheists and not christians that time.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Heh…I’m glad that he is able to prove the point that everyone other than East Orthodox Christianity are following a false faith. Then you can beat him up on his religion. Divide and conquer…oh wait, I’m not supposed to type that.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Perhaps free thinking atheists… Remember, there are atheists and then there are atheists, and this doesn’t even include the Atheists – where does this leave agnostics? Same goes for libertarians, and then Maher libertarians; conservatives, then Sullivan conservatives; and of course liberals, then progressives.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Many scientists who study biology for a living are accepting of evolution at the same time as being Christian. I don’t think every Christian scientist is a Creationist.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM
There would not be one true Christian scientist who would not believe in Creationism. Not one. One of my professors in college was a physicist on the Manhattan Project, the youngest PhD on the project. He said one time that the more he learned, the more he was convinced that God existed. He was at the time ranked as one of the top 20 most brilliant minds in the US. So, not all scientists are blinded by what really is an unprovable theory as evolution is.
Did you know that the Peking Man was found with other bones that were aged the same as he was, but they didn’t match the theory that the Peking Man was supposed to validate so they were ignored? Evolution has a lot of holes and gaps that people have allowed themselves to suspend their belief so they can continue to unquestioningly follow down the path of Darwinists.
However, as a Christian, I would never say with absolute certainty that God did not use some form of evolution as He created the world. In the Bible, it says that to God, “a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.” God is not contained by time and will never be fully understood by man. His reality cannot be conceived with the little that man uses his brain. God at one time stands in the past, present and future. God created time and cannot be contained by it.
Einstein is said to have used his brain capacity more than any other human, and even then, it is said that he only used 10% of his brain’s capacity.
God doesn’t expect to be understood. We humans are just not able to understand Him, but the day is coming when we shall see Him face to face. Some of us as a loving, merciful Father and some of us as a judge. Then we will have all the knowledge of the ages, some with grief, some with joy.
Voter from WA State on June 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM
First off, Bryan, I am impressed with your stamina on this thread and for debating mostly civily despite the passing of the hours and a few uncharitable posts hurled your way.
Your arguments don’t seem very strong, and I think that is because you are being far too general, not sufficiently precise.
What we call religions are just one class of framework for ideas. Communism, for example, is another such framework but it isn’t usually considered to be a religion. However communism and religion serve similar roles so I think it is fair to bundle them all together and just refer to them all as ideologies.
I’m not convinced that ideologies cause evil. Some times an ideology is an expression of evil and sometimes it is used as a justification for evil. But the evil itself resides inside a person’s character. Evil itself is shared out fairly evenly around the human race so there are certainly Atheists, Budddhists, Christians and others who are evil.
What I would say is that some ideologies are far better at constraining evil than others. The interesting question for me then is not whether adherents of a particular ideology are evil (I say yes), or whether they do bad things (I say yes) or whether the ideology makes them evil (I say no), but whether the ideology constrains them or discourages them from evil.
Athesitic ideologies are, I think, very bad at discouraging evil. They might not advocate selfishness or murder or rape or other undesirable activities but neither do they strongly inhibit it. By contrast the god-based ideologies have done a much better job of constraining human evil, and various flavours of Christianity have done the best job of all while still being very imperfect.
This is easily seen by simply comparing the condition of each country. The nations most strongly influenced by the puritans are at the top of the pile (the best of the bad), other flavours of Christianity without the puritan input the next level, followed closely by various oriental ideologies, perhaps something like hinduism comes next, animistic ‘tribal’ faiths after that, while Islam and atheism feature somewhere near the bottom since neither has managed to create a great nation but both have managed to destroy what they conquered.
All the people involved in all these societies were inherently evil. They all had lusts and selfish thoughts, cowardly thoughts and so on. Puritan Christian ideas constrained that evil far better than anything else, and also did a reasonably good job of stimulating the more virtuous traits.
This says nothing about which ideas are truest, only that pragmatically, some make better societies and atheism scores near the bottom in such an assessment.
As for Comrade Mao, I disagree that he was especially evil; I don’t think that is true. He was well meaning man, not really any worse than many others. However his ideology did nothing to constrain the evil that was already within him. Communism and atheism didn’t make him bad, they just offered no real resistance to that badness. When his badness was combined with power and the need to make big decisions it became devasting for those he had set out to help because there was nothing in his ideas that would stimulate, say, compassion to replace, say, zeal. Without any god, he was the final authority and became the god but without the divine wisdom or virtue. His minor-god status is still apparent in China even now. Criticism of him is still sufficient cause for a visit by officers from the public security bureau.
YiZhangZhe on June 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Just as many Christians are claiming that it is fair to judge all atheists by the fruits of atheism, I think that in the same spirit one must conclude it is only fair to judge all Orthodox Christians based on the fruits of OC societies… Oh wait. FOUL!
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Free thinking atheists
Sullivan Conservatives
Maher Libertarians
…hmmm do I detect some parallelism of false pairs? Very tricky bit of sophistry if I say so myself. Kudos :)
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 9:53 PM
The lessons of the Holocaust are simple to understand, however hard they are to live.
Never blame others for your troubles.
A society is as large as the space it makes for the stranger.
Cherish life.
Fight for the rights of others.
– Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s Chief Rabbi, 2005
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Come now, Free thinking atheists would be on the opposite side of the spectrum of Sullivan and Maher – especially Maher. Maher Libertarians would probably claim that Jon Stewart is a libertarian because he was against the man (Booosh), and he’s so kewl… Come on, I give Free thinking atheists more credit than that.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 9:55 PM
The original band of Christians were Jews. Christ was born as a Jew. True Christians do not hate Jews. In fact, they know that they must support God’s chosen people in order to have God continue to sustain and protect them. Gentile Christians are as Paul said, “grafted” to a branch of God’s chosen people. Jews and Christians come from the same root.
Now, if we could just convince our President of that fact!!
Voter from WA State on June 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Oh, oh… be careful… You might upset the True Christian (ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN IF YOU DIDN’T ALREADY KNOW!!!!!!!!!) poster…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM
The long arm isn’t infalible, but it is a powerful deterrent. It has the effect of compelling obedience for acts that are covered by religion as well as for acts that are not covered. Fear of jail is a strong motivator.
dedalus on June 27, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Oh, oh… be careful… You might upset the True Christian (ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN IF YOU DIDN’T ALREADY KNOW!!!!!!!!!) poster…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM
I know the history of the Orthodox Church. They split from the Roman Church. They have some really beautiful tradition and liturgy. Neither the Roman nor the Orthodox Church align with us Protestants. That’s okay. If they all believe in Christ and have made Him Lord, it all works whether they recognize it or not. I have a feeling that in eternity a lot of people will be surprised who made it to that Banquet.
Voter from WA State on June 27, 2009 at 10:08 PM
I would say this paragraph is the gist of your argument. I would agree that ideologies vary in their ability to constrain bad behavior. But how does one judge the virtues of an ideology? Just by its results as representative regimes in power? I would say that communism cannot be the only judge of atheism.
I think the virtue of the laws or morals of a particular religion are almost–not entirely–immaterial. You brought up Puritan New England, but that also gave us witch trials–and less than charitable treatment of native Americans. Christianity does not teach people to burn others at the stake, it did not teach Germans to hate Jews.
The power in an ideology is in its ability to make someone not think or question authority. In that regard, you might consider Christianity to have high scores on general principles and morals, but lower scores on individual thought. It has only been after nearly a couple thousand years that Christianity changed sufficiently to be slightly more accepting of criticism–i.e. you don’t get killed for disagreeing with it as would happen say with disagreeing with Islam. That wasn’t true in all its history.
Atheism at its heart encourages not accepting anything without evidence. It is as faithless as one can get.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Yeah, I don’t really get worked up about all of the official names and everything, but I did try to warn you… He’ll be back.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:13 PM
I was thinking you were asserting atheists could not be free thinking–that such a thing were ridiculous. Just as a Sullivan conservative and Maher libertarian are ridiculous contradictions in terms :)
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 10:15 PM
No, although I may have tried (and failed) to point out that many atheists are simply Atheists because it was something kewl, something rebellious, or what have you. The same goes for any other belief (or lack thereof) system. Obamanism comes to mind…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Obaminism is just vacuousness–something less than lack of belief, I think.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Well, there is one belief…
“Sit back. The adults are in charge. Everything is going to be OK and Joe Biden’s farts smell like strawberries.”
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Have you ever encountered proselytizing atheists who are zealous about their atheistic beliefs, bigoted against non-believers, ridiculing and harassing them, and narrow-minded about politics, art, science, or other subjects? I sure have.
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM
You’re struggling bryan..
Your faith of atheism has been intellectually defeated and you know it.
That’s laughable bryan. atheism by it’s very definition is a NEGATIVE, meaning you are ANTI God and believe that there is no God…not just that you don’t know if there is a God.
You must be honest with yourself.
We all know that any atheistic society inevitably morphs into a genocidal,hellhole and is quickly destroyed.
Are you the type who learns from your mistakes and changes your opinion when wrong or do you stubbornly embrace ideas even if you know they are wrong?
MaximusConfessor on June 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Yes. Your post reminded me that we all know something about your posts.
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 10:33 PM
They are as annoying I am sure as those who try to convince me that god–their conception of god at that–is the only truth. I should have said short of agnostic, atheists are as faithless as one can get. But my point I think is still true. Atheists who are annoying and insulting are simply rubbing it in that they do not accept a person’s faith as evidence that their faith is correct.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 10:33 PM
The problem with atheism is that it does not seek anything positive. There is no purpose to it. It does not fill what Pascal called a “God-shaped vacuum” in the human heart. Atheism at its core is a very inward belief and is very self-centered. Nothing is more important than “what is happening to me today.” Christianity, in its true core, is very outward because of the desire to emulate Christ who was the perfect example of selflessness.
Voter from WA State on June 27, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Even Darwin, at one point, said evolution and religion weren’t mutually exclusive. Go away nut jobs that feel they need to force their views on others.
scrubbiedude on June 27, 2009 at 10:36 PM
That we do… You are 1/2 Christian, and I’m probably 1/8…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Heh…missed this post of yours. I mean to draw the distinction for causation. Atheism does not lend itself to be referenced to as an appeal to authority. Religion is much more capable of this. The statement ” I am king. I receive my authority from god, so you must not question my judgment” could not be similarly made through an appeal to atheism.
Some people of faith argue that this absolute authority is needed to give people a firm foundation of morality, but in reality it is just as easily used by the tyrant to bolster his claim to absolute power.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Good to have another person acknowledge a point I’ve been trying to make all evening.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Even Darwin, at one point, said evolution and religion weren’t mutually exclusive. Go away nut jobs that feel they need to force their views on others.
scrubbiedude on June 27, 2009 at 10:36 PM
That isn’t exactly an example of tolerance. I don’t think anyone is forcing anything on anyone. It is a “conversation”.
Voter from WA State on June 27, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Wanna give any wild guesses who “some people” might be?
I just feel like watching a train wreck ;)
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:43 PM
I prefer sending out invitations instead of orders.
Unless you have any ice cream. In that case, I’d like to order a large cup of chocolate with chocolate chunks and chocolate sauce.
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 10:45 PM
No, but if self-identified Christians want to have an honest debate, they must admit that in the past their was some coercion from Christians against non-Christians… just as atheists should admit that some of their “brethren,” also force atheism on their comrades.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:45 PM
I somewhat address this in this post. But that ideal of what Christ stood for–as the perfect example of selflessness, the ideal example for humans to emulate themselves after–is precisely what makes religious authority so dangerous.
That Christ like ideal is subject to interpretation. A mischievous tyrant could use the unquestioned authority of religion to convince people to do immoral things.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Don’t worry. My Christian half forgives your non-Christian 7/8′s.
Drats! Now I have to have half a confession!
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Invitations are cool, and I’m generally in favor of ice cream–chocolate, especially.
I’ll say right off, there are some really pushy atheists out there, and even called king atheist Richard Dawkins obnoxious on this board this evening.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Well, it has been my experience that if you speak the truth from your heart as it pertains to you personally, it shouldn’t have to be coercion. Man cannot call another man to God. God has to do that. Christians can be the vessel to speak the truth, but unless God is in it, it is like talking to a blank wall.
I prefer “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” rather than trying to club it into someone. I will always stand for God whenever I have an opportunity, but I prefer that the door is opened rather than busting down the door.
Voter from WA State on June 27, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Huh? A mischievous tyrant could use any pretext, including the welfare of the people, the traditions of the state, security, ANYthing. In fact, I can’t name very many tyrants of the past century or so who were Jesus freaks. Maybe Jim Jones. I can name quite a few who were secularists.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 10:53 PM
;-)
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next »