Techskeptic sent me a link to a great rant from an atheist explaining why she, as an atheist, is angry. She made some great and valid points. Several of the things that make her angry make me angry, as well. However, there are a few things that I disagree with. Let me start by posting what I agree with (these are pulled straight from her post).
I’m angry that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, “No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.” My President. No, I didn’t vote for him, but he was still my President, and he still said that my lack of religious belief meant that I shouldn’t be regarded as a citizen.
I’m angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry.
I’m angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it’s the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives.
I’m angry that so many believers treat prayer as a sort of cosmic shopping list for God. I’m angry that believers pray to win sporting events, poker hands, beauty pageants, and more. As if they were the center of the universe, as if God gives a shit about who wins the NCAA Final Four — and as if the other teams/ players/ contestants weren’t praying just as hard.
I’m especially angry that so many believers treat prayer as a cosmic shopping list when it comes to health and illness. I’m angry that this belief leads to the revolting conclusion that God deliberately makes people sick so they’ll pray to him to get better. And I’m angry that they foist this belief on sick and dying children — in essence teaching them that, if they don’t get better, it’s their fault. That they didn’t pray hard enough, or they didn’t pray right, or God just doesn’t love them enough.
I’m angry that children get taught by religion to hate and fear their bodies and their sexuality. And I’m especially angry that female children get taught by religion to hate and fear their femaleness, and that queer children get taught by religion to hate and fear their queerness.
I’m angry about the Muslim girl in the public school who was told — by her public-school, taxpayer-paid teacher — that the red stripes on Christmas candy canes represented Christ’s blood, that she had to believe in and be saved by Jesus Christ or she’d be condemned to hell, and that if she didn’t, there was no place for her in his classroom. And I’m angry that he told her not to come back to his class when she didn’t convert.
I’m angry — enraged — at the priests who molest children and tell them it’s God’s will. I’m enraged at the Catholic Church that consciously, deliberately, repeatedly, for years, acted to protect priests who molested children, and consciously and deliberately acted to keep it a secret, placing the Church’s reputation as a higher priority than, for fuck’s sake, children not being molested. And I’m enraged that the Church is now trying to argue, in court, that protecting child-molesting priests from prosecution, and shuffling those priests from diocese to diocese so they can molest kids in a whole new community that doesn’t yet suspect them, is a Constitutionally protected form of free religious expression.
There’s more. There’s a lot more that Greta is angry about. But those are the ones I agree with her on and am also angered by.
The post, as a whole, was hard to read. It was definitely driven by anger, but she really had no other way to get her point across.
Other things she is angry at include people trying to make abortion illegal, Americans who believe in creationism, pastors who counsel from the Bible, and Christians who try to speak up and let the world know that Christianity isn’t really what people think it is.
There’s a flip side to a lot of what Greta said - there are some things she’s angry that Christians do when Atheists do the same damn thing. But it’s okay for the atheists to be that way. They’re right. Christians are stupid and wrong.
I’m writing this from a middle perspective. It’s articles like these that feed my doubts, so I’m not writing this from a Christian perspective. I’m not sure there’s any Christian perspective left in me. But I do understand the Christian perspective and can still see where Atheism gets it wrong when talking about Christianity. But then - that was something else that made Greta angry. So I can’t win.
It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. If they’re fundamentalist, she’s angry. If they aren’t, and try to make people see the difference, she’s still angry.
What does she want?
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there? Seriously, I want to know. If the fundies are stupid, and the ones who aren’t fundies are stupid, then what’s left?
Share This
October 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Wow! she really makes some excellent points. My kind of atheist. It’s funny how she addressed quite a few of your posts and the resultant comment threads here.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
for me too, there were a few things that didnt ring completely right with me (my list of “right things she said” is far longer than yours though!)
Yeah she is angry the people still beleive in creationism (as am I) but worse, they try to foist this belief into the schools as science. For me, and I strongly suspect for her, its not that people beleive in creationism, its that so many beleive in creationism and consider it to be a scientific theory equal to evolutionary theory. Its not really their fault that much, clergy and politicians like equivocate the layman word “theory” which means hypothesis or “hunch” to that of the scientific word “theory” which is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena supported by experimental evidence and has predictive value. They are entirely different.
The key with clergy trying to counsel is not anger at their right to do that, it was anger at their doing in lieu of medical or psychological counseling (please note I didnt say psychiatric) which uses scientific methods to categorize and treat disorders such as depression, anxiety, and so forth.
On abortion, i guess we will never agree. I see it as distinctly lesser evil (and would be even lesser if we would condone the use of Plan B and ru486, which BTW are not like “taking an aspirin”) than forcing women into having 1.3 million unwanted kids in the adoption roles and/or in families that didnt want them. Not excited about the rise in single motherhood (actually i have no idea how they do it). Which is why both sides must find common ground. No pro-choice person thinks abortion is the greatest thing since the dawn of time. Everyone agrees (mostly, there are always fringe elements), that no abortion is best. Common ground must be on the causes of abortion (unwanted pregnancy) and how to lower that (like removing useless programs like AO and focusing on ones that actually help), otherwise progress will never be made. Banning abortion is like banning religion or alcohol. we already know it wont stop abortion, religion or the consumption of alcohol, why would we do things we already know wont work? So the pro-lifers have to ask themselves: do they want abortion to stop, or do they just want it swept under the rug? Information is the key. show people actual models of what their fetus looks like. Provide ultrasounds in low income neighborhoods. Strengthen teen awareness programs and explain to them all the ramification’s of having unprotected sex (with as many gross pictures as possible). Side effects will be lowering the spread of STD and AIDs too. Why would banning abortion stop the spread of STDs?
I’m not sure about the “can’t win part”. There are things christians do in the name of christianity and there are things the people do in the name of humanity. The problem is the doing it in the name of one religion or another. That immediately puts up a wall and makes communication impossible. Finding common ground in the name of humanity is the way to progress. Then Christian can be Christians, jews can be jews and atheists can be atheists. If we continue doing things in the name of one religion or another or no religion at all, we have no hope of progressing.
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there? Seriously, I want to know.
athiesm. deism. spirituality. for starters. I mentioned to you, that an incredible point was made in the comments, one that I had not realized:
religious folks are afraid that if atheists have their way, their religion, their zone of comfort and security, will be taken away from them.
Atheists are not an organized religion. We do not have a huge lobby somewhere (although it appears that some coalescence is happening) trying to prevent you from believing what you want (in fact this goes against our morals which include not oppressing free will).
Atheists, in general (again there are some loonies out there) do not want to ban religion. First off, china and russia tried that, and many times in history humans tried to ban one religion in favor of another and clearly it doesnt work. Second, what good would it do? What we want is for humanity to act and react based on evidence, real, measurable, physical evidence and not based one one groups random interpretation of one of many book of myths. Is the bible any more ‘real’ or “right” than the Koran, or hindu scripture? Critical thinking and debate without religious zealotry. No “because god said so” arguments.
The key is to agree that we want humanity to live with each other. This can only be done if we organize our societies separate from organized religion, while still embracing it, acknowledging its benefits and failures, since it comes in so many forms.
OK enough rant… sorry.
p.s. I have to say, I find this blog theme to be less warm and friendly than your old one. Its more ‘cool’. I’m getting old, the font is too small for me.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there?
I think “eradication” is kind of a bad choice of word here. I am not aware of any skeptical atheists who would try to force others to believe as they do by force. I’m aware of very few who would try to give atheism favoured status with governments - most atheists just wish govts would stay out of the whole debate.
In general, we don’t want religion to be eradicated or suppressed; we want it to be abandoned. We would like people to leave it of their own free will, because they recognise the weaknesses inherent in it and see atheism as a superior alternative.
That said, personally I think it’s healthy to have a broad variety of philosophical stances floating around (if only so I have someone to argue with :)), so I wouldn’t want religion to be completely abandoned. I do wish that it wasn’t a dominating force in quite so many countries, though.
You mentioned that Greta seemed to be complaining about moderate Christians speaking up. I don’t think that was the intent. The core message of that section is in the last sentence:
When you’re an atheist, it becomes painfully obvious that there are vast reams of theology which exist only to provide a hiding place for Christians who have seen their more concrete arguments fall apart. A classic example of the same principle is omphalos creationism, the only use of which is as a fall-back position for YECs when they’re losing a debate.
It’s not moderate Christianity that bothers us*; it’s moderate Christianity that’s basically used as a rhetorical gambit. For more info, I recommend this article on Mormon apologetics - a classic case where the sophisticated positions exists only to create a smokescreen for the unsophisticated positions.
By contrast, I really enjoy reading this blog, because the author spends just as much time disagreeing with his fellow Christians as he does disagreeing with us atheists. And he always gives a straight answer, even if it’s “I’m not sure”. And his message doesn’t miraculously shift depending on the audience.
Even though I don’t agree with him, it’s pretty damn obvious that his moderacy is more than a Rowling-esque cloak of invisibility. When you were writing primarily from a Christian perspective, I felt the same way about Imago Dei.
Sorry to be wordy, very sleepy.
* Well… not much, anyway
October 16th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there? Seriously, I want to know.
athiesm. deism. spirituality. for starters.
I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn’t asking what alternatives there are to Christianity. I was asking what it is that atheists want if it isn’t to eradicate religion. Because from what I’ve read and experienced in conversation, that’s exactly what atheists want. And I don’t see an atheistic alternative to eradicating religion. That’s the alternative I was asking for.
Which is why it’s fair for Christians to think that if atheists get their way, then Christianity will be taken away.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
oh.. sorry.
I think i misunderstood your question, but then answered it properly.
We want to humanity to acknowledge that we have one planet to live on and that we should all be able to live on it together. We want society to base its actions and reactions on data.
I dont see why you can’t have your religion while I totally disagree with any of its reality, as long as we are both demanding that our society is moving forward based on evidence and reason.
for example, its OK for a religious fanatic to suggest the we try an abstinence only program, because he thinks that what god wants. Lets try it (we did), see what happens (not good), and then expand it or throw it away based on the results. This is the opposite of what we do now, as we continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this silliness (my state just rejected federal funds for this, whew!).
Same goes for foreign policy, gay marriage, abortion or any issue you can think of. we have about 5 billion more years before the sun blows up, that’s plenty of time to refine a society. We already have the data for tons of this. But we can’t do that unless we start focusing on humanity, and talking with (not at) each other with humanity as the focus rather than one god or another.
I dont see why you can’t still beleive whatever you want to beleive within this framework. Granted, in time, religion may fade away as old mythology, but the key would be not to have it simply replaced by modern mythology (as in The Secret, any drivel that comes out of deepak chopras mouth, or anything that isn’t physics with the word ‘quantum’ in it). This can only happen if we teach and hold true to basing our understanding of the universe on evidence.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Tech is right- it’s about COEXISTING together. Religious folk should NOT pass laws based on their folklore book. If we use reason, data, and critical thinking, there’s no reason why we all can’t get along. Atheists get pissed when laws are passed based on the RELIGIOUS beliefs of others.
Think about it Amanda- you happen to be a christian, so you aren’t going to get pissed if laws are passed based on your religion. But what if we lived in some strange time where laws in the US were passed based on Islam or Scientology?? You’d be less than pleased and would fight for your right to believe what you want.
Atheists are fighting for the right to NOT believe in a higher power. If we all try to live without passing laws based on religious thought, we’d be much better off in the long run.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:31 am
I thought this was a good summary of how sometimes religion can do more harm than good.
Re Musicguy’s comments about Christian laws being enforced, I think from reading some conservative Christian US blogs that they feel that liberal i.e. ungodly laws are being forced on them and their families.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:17 am
and they should be UNGODLY. they can have god in church and in their homes
October 17th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Buffy,
I agree that this is what they think. For example, allowing two people who love each other to start the same sort of family as any other two people, with the same sense of security and the same economic benefits doesn’t sound scary, does it? but when you say that those two people can be of the same sex, then this is a case where the religious feel that liberal laws are being shoved down their throat.
However these are the same people who also thought that blacks and whites marrying were an abomination. Even Jerry Falwell recovered from that particular bit of vitriol.
The debate, must always be about humans and humanity simply because there are so many religions and the ‘real’ god has not shown herself, nor has she actually said clearly what she wants. As a christian YOU dont have to marry another woman (I presumed you are a christian woman, forgive me i that is totally wrong, its just an example). You dont even have to like it when two women get married. I don’t like rednecks spitting tobacco on the street, that doesnt make it illegal, nor should it. I can think of no way that someone else chewing tobacco affects me or anyone else, unless I accidently drink his spit cup (it happened…yuk!). Likewise, I have yet to hear how two gay people getting married destroys anything about getting married or affects a hetero married couple that don’t even know them. This is the difference between legislating based on what we should do as humans and legislating based on random interpretations of one old book of legends or another.
It doesnt have to be called marriage, call it Gay Zamblooey for all I care (although I can imagine a reason why it should be called marriage, to avoid the whole separate but equal nonsense).
Free speech is another thing that theists feel like they get rammed down their throat. Not when they use it of course, but instead, in peoples rights to have t-shirt with offensive things on it, create and distribute pornography, and so forth. But censorship based on folklore is yet another form of reducing free will. That isnt to say there shouldn’t be some moderated censorship, there should, because children dont have the same capacity or experience to filter what they see, and parents need the help.
Anyway, theists have every right to try to prevent liberalization from happening, if they like. However, it will always be a losing battle if the reasoning lies in an interpretation of one book or another, either in the form of non-progression (like the abortion issue) or increased resentment because of underhanded ways of getting what they want (closed door meetings leading to a ridiculous amount of money being spent of AO and other faith based programs).
The sooner we acknowledge that every religion is in the minority the better. Then lets separate things that one group does for religious reasons away from what everyone should do as humans.
This will do two things: First we will be able to advance better as a society because we will be doing things based on evidence and reason. Secondly people will join one religion or another due to spiritual reasons rather than reasons like power, politics, coercion, and so forth. Wouldn’t that be a more ‘pure’ scenario?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:41 am
btw, my verbage is not quite right…
when I say ‘theists’ or ‘the religious’, i mean SOME theists and SOME religious people. Please forgive me.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:47 am
And here is where we disagree, tech. Because I believe that He did, and He has.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I really hope that the “real” god is a big black woman. She’s going to be none too happy about that whole submissive thing. hehehehe
Kidding aside, the issue here is not whether or not the real god has shown him/her/it self, but rather how we can exist where everyone’s beliefs are not infringed upon. When it comes to issues of the state, this should be a no brainer- one religion should not take precendence over any other. Hence, the idea of a secular or neutral government.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am
All kidding aside, the point that tech raised is at the center of the question. The question of whether there is a God and what He expects is at the heart of the matter and makes all of the difference.
But to your point, the idea of a secular or unbiased government originated in Christian thought, but if you even toss that out, I’m not particularly against the idea in theory, but in practice it is a fairy tale. Look down through history– there’s never been a government that has been able to be secular and neutral to all religion. That’s because people are religious (with their theists, pantheists, atheists, etc).
Atheism is a religion– a religion that believes that there is no god. It’s tightly linked with humanism– the belief that we are all that there is and that human kind is all we should be concerned about.
Cloaked behind the “secular” government philosophy are religious principles that are put in place instead of Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, etc. and then protected with more fervor than all of these together.
The religion of humanism and atheism sees as guiding principles that they cannot be neutral to other religions but must attack them, while labeling themselves as something other than what they are.
People got so up in arms about Bhuddist carvings in Afghanistan being blown up when each and every year atheists are erasing people’s free religious expression. They’re suing to take down statues, they’re protesting manger scenes, etc. all in the name of their religion– and we’re somehow suppose to accept it because they worship no god.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
what is is this poker hands bot? Very annoying. soon amanda will be putting up the “type these letters” thing.
Min, as usual, could you back something up?
the idea of a secular or unbiased government originated in Christian thought
Nonsense, secular governments have been adopted on and off, to varying degrees of success since ancient greece and ancient india. Islamic societies in the middle ages also practiced it. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of it with references.
Look down through history– there’s never been a government that has been able to be secular and neutral to all religion.
Thats true. Does that mean it is impossible or something we should try for? Looking down through history, women and men have never been equal in society, should we not try for this? Looking down through history there has never been a time where slavery and oppression are eliminated, should we abandon our efforts there. Looking down through history - there has never been a time when the human population has been free of disease, should we abandon those efforts also?
Min, YOU are in the distinct minority in your religious beliefs. YOU are almost as atheist as me (I just went one god further). Not only are you Christian, a minority, but you have a set of beliefs within christianity that even pull you away even further from a majority. same is true for me, jews, hutus and zoroastrians. So, how can you possibly expect to be successful in getting everyone to pay attention to your set of rules, based on your beliefs about one of many gods with one of many interpretations of one of many books? your best bet is to find justifiable reasons for some of your quirkiness and use those to try to move your agenda forward. Using God and the Bible will continue to get you nowhere.
for example, could you justify, again, why women should submit to their husbands, regardless of the husbands actions. I never understood that.
Atheism is a religion
Cripes that is tired. you haven’t bothered to understand atheism if you are going to go on with that old tired rhetoric. Its the lack of religion. Is “not playing baseball” a sport? Nuff said.
Cloaked behind the “secular” government philosophy are religious principles that are put in place instead of Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, etc. and then protected with more fervor than all of these together.
I dont even understand what you are trying to say. The whole point of everything I wrote was that a society that uses evidence and reason does not mean you have to have your religion taken away from you.
Were men eliminated in the feminist movement? Were all the white people killed off in order to obtain civil rights for blacks?
The religion of humanism and atheism sees as guiding principles that they cannot be neutral to other religions but must attack them
This is the opposite of what I was saying. Nice work. you are simply showing phobia and mindless regurgitation of nonsense that has been spewed to you.
People got so up in arms about Bhuddist carvings in Afghanistan being blown up when each and every year atheists are erasing people’s free religious expression. They’re suing to take down statues, they’re protesting manger scenes, etc. all in the name of their religion– and we’re somehow suppose to accept it because they worship no god.
Links please. Yes, the 10 commandments do not belong in front of a courthouse. How would you feel if you were on trial with the words “the is no god but Allah, and mohamed was his prophet” flying over the head of the judge? Religious statues do not belong in our government or in our schools for the same reasons I have already gone over. Feel free to put a 20 foot jesus on your front lawn though. Wear as many I LUV JEZUZ t-shirts as you like. Apply as many “Its a child, not a choice” bumper stickers on your car as you like.
The buddhist statues were of historical significance. The new 10 commandments put in front of the courthouse had no historical significance at all. No one is asking that St. Peters cathedral in Rome be razed.
(amanda, is there any way for links to be more clear in this theme?
October 17th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Here min, I found this for you
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Your brand of christianity is but just 1 of about 34,000 different versions of Christianity. Christianity is but one of 19 major religions which are divided into about 270 major religious groups.
And you are going to tell me that your particular brand of god fearing is the one we all should be following? Give me a break. If I’m going to be forced to choose a religion its going to be buddhism.
What will followers of your brand of god fearing do when the Muslim population overtakes the Christian population later this century?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:59 am
I think what Min was saying (correct me if I’m wrong) is that atheists and humanists can be as passionate about what they believe to be right as Christians etc. Which I think is true.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:56 am
You’re right about secular governments to a degree, tech. I guess I was thinking about modern American law rather than historical, and I wasn’t thinking about the Grecian government– regardless of the fact that they had multiple gods I do believe they tried to rule on reason.
The question of whether it is possible or even desirable to have a government based on reason alone and not impacted by religion must be answered by looking at people. As long as there people are involved that have a belief structure, they are going to make judgment calls based on that structure. People make decisions based on the things that impact them.
Contrary to the atheistic model that denies a soul or an inner desire for a God, I don’t believe that man will ever not have a belief system about the spiritual world, and so to strive for something that is impossible is an exercise in futility at best.
Though I don’t have a problem striving to eliminate any of the things that you mentioned in support (slavery, hunger, disease) I believe that these too are impossible to completely cure because of what I believe about the world– and that is the true core of the problem.
The core of the problem can be identified as what your view of the world is– is it a place where people can continually get better? Is man the best there is? Can people continually strive to be good?
I don’t believe so. The world is going to continue to decay. Man is fallen, and will continue to be so. People can strive to be good, but they will fail apart from God’s grace.
And that’s why I make the leap to call atheism a religion. In it’s own right you can claim that it’s the absence of a god, but because religion can be defined by a particular worldview and applying that belief to a person’s actions– atheism has a worldview and follows a humanistic set of beliefs about it.
An atheist believes that there is no god. He’s not an agnostic who does not know, but requires an active belief to prove the very thing that he believes is untestable. It’s truly an illogical position for it requires absolute knowledge about something that is claimed to be unknowable.
As for my beliefs– since when are you an expert on what I believe? I believe that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved– all those that believe in their heart and confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus will be saved. This includes those that may not share what I believe in regards to interpretation of the Scriptures.
And even then, why would I let being a minority bother me? Christians have seldom been the majority if you look over the course of history. I also think that Christianity becomes the most pure under true persecution– and though I’m not desiring persecution I recognize that Christianity’s growth has been punctuated by it.
We can talk about individual things that I believe at another time, as it is mostly distraction from the core issue.
The problem with atheism is, again, that it is married to humanism and is not content to let people believe what they will but attempts to use the vehicle of government to indoctrinate children into adherence of its particular religion. Rather than being neutral towards religion, it tells children that religion is folly. Rather than allowing people to practice their religion, it forces it out of the classroom.
I could link to story after story of people that tried to submit homework assignments about Jesus, that wanted to give oral reports about their faith, who wanted to testify about God at their graduation activities, who wanted to pray before their ball games and instead of being able to exercise their freedom to believe what they wish, they were told they would be imprisoned.
That is the exact problem I’m stating. You can’t be both offended by Christianity and at the same time say it’s irrelevant. You can’t see it’s like believing in Santa Claus at the same time you want to erase any and all mentions of it.
Oh, and Christians have lived in countries that are not Christian– there are Christians in secular countries, Christians in Muslim countries, etc. And yet it’s not the Christians who are protesting and requiring the removal of things of cultural significance (both traditional and current).
We can certainly go down the trail of why a nation based on Christianity is superior to that which is based on atheism or islam if you want, but again, I’m not going there at this time. And my feelings about what is above a judge are irrelevant. I’m a servant of the Creator of the Universe who holds this world in the palm of my hand. What do I care what flies above a judge?
My point is that atheism isn’t neutral, it’s aggressive. It’s not irreligious, but contains a set of core beliefs about things and holds them as tightly (if not moreso) than those that worship a god. It is more aggressive in its attacks on other religions than Christianity.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:33 am
“Rather than allowing people to practice their religion, it forces it out of the classroom.”
That’s because it doesn’t belong in a classroom!!! If it were a CATHOLIC school or a CHRISTIAN school, then by all means, pray as much as your heart desires. The issue is that by allowing religion into schools, you are FORCING it on those who have a different belief system, whether that be atheism, buddhism, etc, etc.
Min, since you’re so fond of definitions, check out the definition of religion:
“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Other than the moral code part, I don’t see how atheism can be considered a religion. You’re just grasping and straws in the hopes of buttressing your ridiculous claims.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Oh, tech:
Ever hear of a spectator sport?
musicguy, first, couple of points on prayer and schools:
1. tech said that people should be free to be able to believe what they want– this includes being able to do it where they want. Granted, there has to be some order to it, but this would mean that instead of “no prayer or Bible reading in schools” there should be a time designated where it would be permissible, or even a moment of silence.
2. I can pray anywhere any time I want because I don’t have to pray audibly.
Second, since there cannot be an absence of religion– each person has a worldview which impacts what they say and do– religion cannot be removed from the classroom since there always has to be some religion in place.
You cannot prove evolution (no one was there), but you force it upon kids. You cannot select books for reading assignments without pressing a decided point of view. You cannot teach history without discussing the historic components of this nation– were the founders Christians, deists, agnostics? What you say about what they believe and what you choose to highlight reflects a worldview.
We are creatures with subtext– with a set of beliefs that we cannot “check at the door”. The question is, whose beliefs will be taught, what religion do we want as our standard, and what religions tolerate others expressing themselves and which do not.
If you compare what’s out there, countries founded on Christian principles appear the most tolerant of other points of view– at least so far as I can see.
Second, is Atheism a religion? If you read the wikipedia entry (that might be changed by the time you get there!) there are many similarities.
Plus, there’s this:
The Supreme Court considers atheism a religion. We can bandy about the term as much as you want– it seems that atheists really get enraged at the concept of defining what they really are. How about I stick to worldview rather than religion?
(Of course, given the number of books, societies, online groups, etc. it may well be that atheists may soon be more “organized” than “organized religion”. They may want to consider getting together once a week, pouring over the latest works of Hitchens, Hawking and Dawkins, and figuring out how they can apply it to their daily lives. Hey, if it’s fun, they may want to come up with some songs they can sing, maybe purchase a building they can get together in (or perhaps just a website where they can chat), and… well, you get the idea.)
October 18th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Buffy,
totally right. And I totally agree. However passion must play second fiddle to tolerance for all the reasons I mentioned, but mostly because it simply is immoral to try to foist ones religious beliefs or edicts on someone else, they must come to it willingly, otherwise you have unending conflict. So, as an example, if a fundamental Christian says “no one should eat shrimp” and wants it to be a law, they must give a reason that is compelling to those of other religions (or no religion), otherwise you are mired in conflict. I used a silly example, but the same is true for gay marriage, abortion, and any of the things that Greta was screaming about.
Min,
It’s really weird to read your comments. you’ll go from saying something totally obtuse and ridiculous to saying something totally clear and acute. Actually, it usually goes from acute to obtuse.
You are totally right that most people beleive in god or gods. I really don’t have a problem with that, I dont think they can help it. A small minority of us are missing the coding that makes us attracted only to the opposite sex , a small minority of us are missing the coding that allows us to recognize faces , a small minority of us are missing the coding that compels us to believe surpernatural sky daddies that there is no evidence for .
(total aside: while gathering links, I found this, it was VERY funny)
no, genetics are not free will limiters as many will have you beleive. They provide a statistical disposition, or lack of one, mostly because there is not one gene for any one trait. So, I fully recognize that most people have a disposition the compels them to beleive in god. It is one thing that has made our species very successful. But like many genetic traits, in the modern world, some traits that were successful in specific regions before, are no longer successful in a global society. Religion, was very protective and productive in a regional scheme, however in a global environment it causes conflict, strife, and suffering, (although it certainly isnt the only thing) while the good aspects of it, community, altruism, and compassion, are easily accomplished without it.
Contrary to the atheistic model that denies a soul or an inner desire for a God
Stop. No. You are showing your arrogant non-understanding of atheism again and setting up a straw man. Atheists ask for proof of god or a soul before believing in either of them. We also ask for proof that a medicine works before taking it, proof that someone is guilty before convicting them, and so forth. that is very differnt that outright denying it (although there are fringe elements everywhere). You say the soul exists? What color is it? how much does it weigh? Where is it located? And yes, if you can not find hard evidence for it, then there is no reason to believe it exists.
Atheism does not rail against spirituality. It rails against making actions based on no evidence. If meditating makes you feel good, go for it. If believing in a giant taco that poops ice cream makes you comfortable, go for it. Its foisting those views on people who do not share it when conflict comes. Conflict that can be avoided.
is it a place where people can continually get better? Is man the best there is? Can people continually strive to be good?
I don’t believe so.
Because there is no evidence we are capable of that? No evidence that we were in fact able to eliminate slavery in most of the world. We have not been able to in fact double the lifespan of huge portions of the world population? There has been no evidence of great strides in equality between men and women and people of different races? You think somehow we are more decayed that we were say 1000 years ago when it was common to rape and kill your own citizens to force your mandates, when women were owned like cattle. we have decayed further than when we used to smear mercury into wounds to heal people, not wash hands before surgery?
you must be the most hopeless pessimist on the planet. Despite all the great strides we have made in economy, technology, longevity. The amazing work in architecture, literature, music and science we are falling?!? We live in a freer society than ever in the history of man and we are falling. What makes you say that? Becuase a tiny minority makes money by getting naked in films? Because less than 0.3% of our countries population has done something wrong enough to end up in jail? What could possibly compel you to make a statement like that?
In it’s own right you can claim that it’s the absence of a god, but because religion can be defined by a particular worldview and applying that belief to a person’s actions– atheism has a worldview and follows a humanistic set of beliefs about it
OK then call it a worldview and compare it to a christian worldview (but try to understand that worldview before you make the comparisons). A way of interacting with the world around you is very different that believing in things without evidence and making an organization out of it.
n atheist believes that there is no god. He’s not an agnostic who does not know, but requires an active belief to prove the very thing that he believes is untestable. It’s truly an illogical position for it requires absolute knowledge about something that is claimed to be unknowable
See? Acute. but its old school. The great majority of atheists, even Dawkins and Sagan (see dragon link above), almost all of them, are asking for evidence before action. The two words are pretty synonymous these days. We just dont beleive in something without evidence for it. With evidence, our model of the world will become more accurate, just like everything else in science. There is plenty of hard evidence tha thte sun will rise tomorrow, in fact it have strong predictive value. There is no such evidence for any of the thousands of deities out there.
since when are you an expert on what I believe?
I never said I was. I only know a few of your weird beliefs, not all of them.
I also think that Christianity becomes the most pure under true persecution
Wow the Jews must have a monopoly on purity then.
that it is married to humanism and is not content to let people believe what they will but attempts to use the vehicle of government to indoctrinate children into adherence of its particular religion
LOL what?!? I suppose repeated attempts to get prayer in schools, creationism in school, prayer in congress, posting the 10 commandments in government buildings, (oh i could go forever here) is not attmepts at indoctrination?
Min, you really have it wrong here. The key is to make it so that the population of the country is free to practice their religion or lack of religion (in fact, while you may dislike them, this is one of the main goals of the ACLU). you can not do this if you favor one religion over another. That is why science must remain science. Religious studies must include most religions (I think its safe to say that not covering some tiny cargo cult in new guinea wont hurt anyone), and ethics and morality must be based on the good of humans and not the good of one religion or another. If aftere that, you want to beleive that God strangely demands compulsory love (as if that is possible), then so be it.
I could link to story after story of people that tried to submit homework assignments about Jesus…
Please do, lets talk about the merits of it. However, why do you blame atheists for it? Why wouldnt Muslims be equally appalled? Or Zoroastrianists?
You can’t be both offended by Christianity and at the same time say it’s irrelevant.
Strawman. I’m not offended by christian beliefs. have fun. I’m offended by presumptuous actions in the name of one religion over another. this is clearly laid out by Greta in her article. No one says religion is irrelevant, quite the opposite. Its very relevant, in that all the things about religion that Greta rightly points out are acts of limiting free will and its immoral.
Oh, and Christians have lived in countries that are not Christian– there are Christians in secular countries, Christians in Muslim countries,
No shit.
it’s not the Christians who are protesting and requiring the removal of things of cultural significance
Gimme a break, Christians are constantly railing against things they don’t like that don’t even harm them. Like this, and this, and this, and this… obviously I can go forever.
oooh but you mean in those countries where they are minority? Well there are two good reasons for your perception of that. First: These societies you are talking about are far less free than ours. Putting up a fuss can land you in jail or dead. so people here tend to be more vocal about inequalities simply because they can. Second, our media is one of the most nationalistically focused in the world. Even if it happened you wouldn’t hear about it. I would expect only muslim news sources to report it, wouldnt you?
What do I care what flies above a judge?
then you seem to be incapable of empathy. If you can not understand how a mulsim or a gay man may be treated differently than a white christian man, when the judge clearly has a religious overtone to his decision making, then your religion has failed in giving you what is totally natural to most of the human race.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
“The Supreme Court considers atheism a religion”
Yeah, and as it stands, the same supreme court ruled that abortion be legal and accessible in this country. I love how you hate the court in comment thread, but love them in the next. The inconsistency is mind boggling.
Secondly, although I can’t prove evolution, there is a shit load of scientific evidence saying it happened. I’m talking about fossil records and other real data and evidence, not some mystical book with any number of translation errors.
“So, as an example, if a fundamental Christian says “no one should eat shrimp” and wants it to be a law, they must give a reason that is compelling to those of other religions (or no religion), otherwise you are mired in conflict.”
yes, but said reasons must be grouded in CRITICAL THOUGHT, REASON, AND SCIENCE, not “…because my sky daddy said no!!!!” And with gay marriage, that’s pretty much the reason! SCIENCE cannot give you any good reason why gay marriage would be a detriment to society, so these pseudo-scientists make phony claims based on NOTHING, that CANNOT be peer-reviewed, that are SHUNNED by main-stream scientists, and expect the rest of the world to swallow it without question or pause. Time to post my favorite link, from wingnuts daily– eating soybeans makes you gay– or as i like to call it, BULLSHIT SCIENCE!
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
Yeah, not gonna happen!
October 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
min,
1) how do you do those cool quotes?
2) a spectator sport is a sport which has lots of viewers, unlike say, hunting or hiking. A spectator sport refers to something that is still a sport. Are you playing baseball if you are watching it? How is that the same thing as athiesm not being a religion. Are the atheists sitting on the side watching a religion participating in the religion? I dont get it.
ranted, there has to be some order to it, but this would mean that instead of “no prayer or Bible reading in schools” there should be a time designated where it would be permissible, or even a moment of silence.
Guess what? you are right. the only thing that prevents that are slippery slope arguments. but why have it at all? what compelling reason is there to have something like this? What is its purpose? You can have plenty of moments of silence at home, on the way to school or work. free periods. etc What compelling reason is there to have a moment of silence at school? There are plenty of schools that do have them, or have had them. Did grades improve? Did violence drop? This is the type of thing that is required to adopt a practice like this. Why not propose it as a study. If it helps, lets do it, if it doesnt do anything or makes things worse, lets not.
You cannot prove evolution (no one was there), but you force it upon kids.
Oh my word, Min, that is truly idiotic. You cant prove King Henry the 8th either then, or the civil war, or any historical event or person. Please, Please, Please brush up on evolution and more importantly the reasons why evolution is such a strong science before making more unbelievably ridiculous statements like that. If you need links to primers, I will happily provide them.
We are creatures with subtext– with a set of beliefs that we cannot “check at the door”.
THAT is totally true. Which is why if you foist one beleif over another, you will always end in conflict and suffering.
If you compare what’s out there, countries founded on Christian principles appear the most tolerant of other points of view– at least so far as I can see.
There are literally hundreds of religions and sub religions in India. I don’t think you have seen very far. here look
ow about I stick to worldview rather than religion?
Hey we got to the same place!
it may well be that atheists may soon be more “organized” than “organized religion”.
we may have to in order to get true equality and reduce conflict and suffering. It will still be an organization based on evidence rather than on based on faith and interpration.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Hence why I like to try to stick to single trains of thoughts because to possibly try to answer everything would be exhausting and unclear.
First– tech, put what you want quoted inbetween blockquote tags. ≶blockquote>This is quoted text≶/blockquote> will turn out like this:
(or at least it should have.
It definitely makes comments easier to follow.
Tech, contrary to what you’re saying, I may be no more guilty than you are about what we’re saying. So, I suggest a truce on the “you don’t know what you’re talking about my faith” back and forth. We’re not experts on what each other believes, and I believe that we’re both accurate when it comes to the group to which we are referring.
Check out the article on atheism on wiki. It turns out that Atheism is an amorphous blob (almost as much as Christianity) that either positively affirms the non-existence of a god (which would easily be classified a religion) or rejects theism (which seems to be more along the lines of what you’re claiming to believe.
The problem that we’ve gotten into is talking about the generalities instead of the specifics– a lot of “fun”, if you will, but it does nothing but to aggravate the other person because of the inaccuracies.
So, I suggest talking about what you believe and what I believe instead of what the general group believes. Or, perhaps just follow one line of debate or walk away. Because I see nothing but exponential growth in each successive reply, and, frankly, the question is does that really benefit anyone?
October 18th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Actually that is a pretty good entry in wiki about it. sadly, here is no demographic analysis of types of atheism. But if you bother to read any of the dawkins or harris stuff, (i have not read hitchens or dennet, so I cant say anything about those). you will see that they are confirming implicit atheism, not an outright rejection of any god, because it is not rejectable )nor affirmable). They both even affirm the benefits and positive features of deism and spirituality.
so the most popular authors do not subscribe to the “There is definitiely no god” thinking, so assigning explicit atheism to people who say they are atheists just isnt really rational.
I dont mind at all talking on a personal level. That is fine with me. Sadly, personal beliefs are not really at issue. What is at issue, and why atheists are frustrated (as greta indicates) is because of the actions of groups of the religious on to people who are not of that religion (not specifically atheists). for example, you may want all abortion stopped, an I may want it to be obsolete. So what? The issue is what the actual legislation is doing and how it is affecting peoples lives.
coming here, I have been provided some good insight into the theist mind that I certainly did not have before. Of course not all are the same. As not all muslims are the same, nor all pastafarians. By stumbling around and being corrected for my generalities or shall I even say predjudices, I can be corrected and get better insight. It show I understood the fear that if atheism grows that theists fear that their will have their religion taken away.
If we talk about it, then this fear can be understood and avoided. Virtually no atheist wants the end of religion by force or coersion. that is an act of limiting free will. We know that wont work. But I wonder how many other actually got this same bit of insight that I did. 65% percent of americans would not trust an atheist president. Could this be mostly out of fear that your religion would be taken away?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I just read an article that reminded me of this discussion. Illinois lawmakers have required a time of silence in public schools that is for “silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.”
October 19th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Hmm…. well I wish all laws like that had sunset clauses (like this experiment in maine should if it doesnt) to look at what benefit this provides, if any at all. If it does, keep it! If not, stop wasting peoples time.
I still don’t get why you cant silently pray or reflect on your activities of the day before you get to school.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
So, you’re upset at your own ideology and religion so you attack Christianity? Chrisianity, what the most powerful nation in the world is founded on? Ha, what a joke, I always love a good laugh, and you gave one to me. Check this website out about Muslims, let’s hear what you have to say about them: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
October 25th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I love high horse comments like that. Soon china will be the most powerful nation on the planet, sheer population, resources and technology. Then the most powerful nation on the planet will have been founded by tyrant with no religion at all besides his own.
Is most powerful=best? I would strongly disagree. i would say strongest economy would be a good indicator (EU beats us), best educational system would be a good indicator (36 other countries beat us), best healthcare (10 other countries beat us), longest living (at least 5 other countries beat us).
But you are probably right, we have more guns and missiles than anyone else. See how effective they are against terrorists?
Go read your Jefferson before you keep making nonsense comments like that one.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:10 am
tech, I agree that most powerful nation has nothing to do with it.
1. It misses the whole point of Christianity– that it’s not something bound to an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly one.
2. Sometimes God allows things to come into the life of a nation to bring it back to Him, so the nation that follows God is not always the most powerful.
Let alone the whole thing about founding vs. present time. (We can go down the whole is this a Christian nation thing some other time…)
However, tech, I’m not sure how one measures “best health care”– with the different ways you could measure it I’m not sure what way your stats measured it. I know that, from what I’ve read, you can’t beat the U.S. as far as technological means of care and quality of care. As far as coverage, that is definitely different, but I haven’t really read of many people wanting to go to some other country because it has superior forms of medicine (except for an obscure article of people going to China for stem cell treatments with little to no success…).
And believe it or not, we agree on the whole sunset clause thing. I wish more legislation had this stuff– in fact, I’d almost go so far as to say that I wish it were mandated to be on all legislation (that would keep more laws away from being written because they’d have to spend time debating old laws) because we never seem to re-evaluate our old laws.
I mean, take for example Bush’s tax cuts that are up in 2010 or the AMT. They’ll sunset, and then they’ll have to have the discussion of whether or not to make them permanent or get rid of them… It forces discussion and new ideas, which is a good thing.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am
know that, from what I’ve read, you can’t beat the U.S. as far as technological means of care and quality of care
Actually you can. If I had a brain tumor, I’d be off to japan. If I had AIDS I’d be off to france. American companies do provide a great majority of the best diagnostic equipment, there is no doubt about that, but the best medicine is something we only take part in and do not monopolize.
I think most people dont go to other countries for medicine because most people couldn’t afford such an endeavor, either due to money constraints to time, or because they simply don’t research it. Plus we are lead to believe exactly what you just said, US is Best when it comes to medicine, which brainiacs like DJ up there just fall for hook line and sinker.
I wish it were mandated to be on all legislation
Well looky here, total agreement. If we had that, I wouldn’t mind seeing states experimenting with death penalty laws (which as far as I can see right now, do nothing to stem crime), limitations on abortion (I would expect to see a lot of state border crossings), gun control expansion/contraction. the goal must be to declare what the law is trying to fix, create a measurement so you can tell if the law is working, and define what is successful and what isnt. But we must agree that if something is not working or making things worse, it must be eliminated regardless of personal preferences.
Attacking Iraq would have been a prime example. The goal that they keep blathering about is increasing security. Great! we all agree! how do you measure that?
Man, we could advance quickly that way. The serious debate would be at the start of a new law, not when the media decided to pick on it.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:33 am
[…] Why One Atheist is Angry […]
November 27th, 2007 at 4:00 am
So, you just come back ranting on the United States I see. So, what exactly is your opinion on the website I told you to check out? Don’t even think twice about attacking Christianity before looking at Islam. In many cases I agree with the basis of this dicussion, but some I do not.
1. The American Constitution was founded on Biblical principals, so for Bush Sr. to say that Atheists are unpatriotic I would have to agree with.
2. As for condom use, I use them myself, so generally I would have to agree with the article.
3. Women are NOT supposed to be beaten by their husbands. That is NOT the basis for the Christian faith, and anyone that tells you otherwise is a wacko, yes I agree 100%.
4. I also think it’s rediculous the people who pray to God for poker winnings and Super Bowl outcomes. That’s crazy.
5. This ALWAYS stirs up a debate - is God responsible for people’s illness and death are is it just life? Well, let’s remember tha God has a plan for all of us and that we have an adversary in this world, Satan.
6. I would disagree with this one - many things in the Bible are said by God just for your own good. For example, when you are young teen, experimenting with sex, you’re playing with fire. You could get pregnant and your life could go down the tubes. Gay/Lesbian relationships never accomplish anything good, especially in a “family” setting. Studies have shown it’s bad for the children, for that they only get one side of the family rasing them (either the mother or the father).
7. For this one, I believe that the teacher certainly went overboard, but considering what a lot of Muslims are doing to Christianity, I believe this is reasonably justified.
8. Every time a priest molest a child, my heart sinks. This is in NO way God’s will, and I get outraged when I hear this. Those priests who perform those acts are WACKJOBS and need serious help.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:16 am
I’m not even American, and I still know enough to say… huh??? Here is a link to the text of the Constitution of the USA (plus Bill of Rights and other amendments). Here is a link to Leviticus (which IIRC contains the bulk of Biblical law).
Let me know if you manage to find any overlap. I couldn’t.
My country (UK) has in the past suffered the effects of law founded on Biblical principles. You Americans do execute a lot of people, but not that many…
That’s some of my friends you’re talking about there. You may wish to justify or qualify your assertion.
It sounds like you’re seriously suggesting that threatening and punishing kids for not converting to your religion is acceptable behaviour. If so, I’m absolutely disgusted - shame on you.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:04 am
In regards to #1, I do not believe that you can simply look at the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the amendments and Leviticus to tell if the Constitution was based on Biblical principals. To find out how the Constitution came about you’d have to research the Federalist Papers, read up on common law and then follow along with a lot of the statements of the first Presidents.
That being said, I think that DJ would be on much firmer ground if he argued that American law is based on Biblical law than saying the Constitution itself is. Sure, the principles of limited government, freedom of religion (AKA freedom of conscience) and equality are found in the Bible– but what’s more interesting is the tort laws, the differences between premeditated and accidental murder, etc.
Most of the basics of criminal law come right out of principles from Leviticus. And then, let’s not forget that a majority of the states that ratified the Constitution had established state churches, and had many laws that (though they are now being repealed) echoed Biblical teaching: Sunday closing laws anyone?
Would I go so far as to say that Atheists are unpatriotic? I don’t know that I could say that. I know that there was a time that Atheists were held to contempt because it is part of this nation to recognize a Higher Power (swear on the Bible in court, etc) and any that would not recognize that Power would be suspect because they would (by definition) be responsible only to themselves.
So, I don’t know if I can say they are unpatriotic, but I can say that they are outside of the traditional understanding of what it means to have traditional American beliefs. Right now, however, America is in a state of flux, and what it means to be an American now is different from the traditional meaning.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:09 am
For example, when you are young teen, experimenting with sex, you’re playing with fire. You could get pregnant and your life could go down the tubes.
Why do you need god to tell you that? Or why do you need to use a God model to teach this to your kids?
Why not just explain this very thing in biological terms, or in terms of how life changes with a baby. Or better yet (and I keep condoning this), why not show kids truly disgusting pictures of advanced stages of gonorrhea or a syphilitic brain, or a severe herpes outbreak. These are things that will help to keep teenage sex, or irresponsible teenage sex down.
Gay/Lesbian relationships never accomplish anything good, especially in a “family” setting. Studies have shown it’s bad for the children, for that they only get one side of the family raising them (either the mother or the father).
This is utter nonsense. You are either just making stuff up now, or are simply taking some other devoutly religious persons word for it. There are an overwhelming number of studies that show little or no evidence of any difference (barring abuse or other negative ramifications - which also do not have higher rates in gay families) between raising kids in healthy gay families or healthy hetero ones.
Please link to your “studies” so I can evaluate your sources.
Atheists are unpatriotic I would have to agree with
Well then I would have to agree with this statement: you are an intolerant moron who doesn’t read the constitution or any washington, jefferson, or franklin.
let’s remember tha God has a plan for all of us and that we have an adversary in this world, Satan
I thought Christianity was monotheistic. Now you say there are two gods?
That is NOT the basis for the Christian faith…
This is in NO way God’s will
and every time you say something like that, there is another christian disagreeing with you.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Min,
That was one of the most cogent things I have ever read from you. I of course disagree with you many things, but nonetheless, admire your clarity.
No atheist would say there is nothing in the bible that is useful. Of course there is. In fact most of the very things you are referring to are in the Torah (OT) and Koran also. So why are the laws you are refering to “Biblical” and not “Koranical”? So there are obvious things that have made our laws, because they have always made sense in terms of help us to live with each other.
the point is we took out most of the stuff from the bible, laws that makes sense, and left the stuff that was ridiculous for god people to fawn over. It doesnt mean we did a perfect job of filtering the moral from the immoral out of that book.
Why can’t I buy beer on sunday morning?
Then I could go into all the other things that make no sense, and you will disagree with me on because you have cherry picked stuff out of the bible.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am
First off, my colleague at school just said, “Really?? But I was thinking that I need to get me one of those!”
Anyway, it’s good to know that nothing good has come from my monogomous, three year, evil, gay relationship. I know for a fact that our friends, family and neighbors would adamently disagree, but hey, the fundie is entitled to his position, right??
Perhaps he’d like to back that up that drivel with the tiniest shred of scientific, peer-reviewed evidence from somewhere other than a fundie-based website.
A healthy relationship is a healthy relationship. I’m done responding to this craptastic comment.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am
LOL Craptastic….. I have to use that more often. That is up there with asshat on my list of funny words.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
For example, when you are young teen, experimenting with sex, you’re playing with fire. You could get pregnant and your life could go down the tubes.
BTW, which is the bible story that shows that getting pregnant as a young teen is playing with fire and your life can go down the tubes? Perhaps it is in there, I just don’t know where.
The only young woman I can think of that got pregnant, blamed the adultery or rape on a made up god and then gave birth to your messiah.
oof. sorry, I couldn’t help it.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
tech, I don’t know whether to be flattered or offended. Thanks for baffling me.
Why do I call them Biblical? Which one came first? I’ll save you the research: The Old Testament scripture was written long before Koran. In fact, Mohammad borrowed many of his stories from the Bible. There was no such thing as a Muslim when Moses crossed the Red Sea and received the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law.
There is a lot of practical overlap with morality– and I think this bears toward your other comments as well. Laws in the Old Testament fall into multiple categories:
1. Administrative / Protective Law
For instance, in the Old Testament Scripture there were prohibitions on eating certain kinds of meat– but we see that in the New Testament that those restrictions were limited. Was there any moral binding in those laws? Only in the sense of obedience/disobedience and not in the substance itself.
2. Ceremonial Law
For instance, in the Old Testament a proper Hebrew would bring sacrifices for sin to be offered at the temple. In the New Testament, Christ is the ultimate sacrifice, offered once for all, and therefore there is no need to do this now.
3. Moral Law
For instance, the laws against murder, worshiping false gods, etc. These will never change.
Now, some laws fit in multiple categories– like the prohibition of fornication (sex outside of marriage including homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, etc.). These laws are both moral and protective.
Obviously, since there are differences of opinion on morality, many Christians have to stress the protective side of this law because reason is the language of the day. However, what I’ve found odd and contradictory is that when arguments are made from reason, there is still a bias in the listener that refuses to hear the reason simply because the person believes the morality.
Case in point, a month or so ago we had a discussion on abortion– namely, when does life begin and when is it a baby. I argued purely from reason, but we got bogged down in what I believed as far as my faith and what those like me practice. It was purely irrelevant to the discussion of when is the baby alive, and it took us quite a long time to have someone even admit that they were fine with killing babies to give women a choice.
You cannot have it both ways– that’s the answer to your question– you cannot say “you should avoid risky sex because of the fact that condoms can’t protect you from STDs, they are not 100% effective against AIDS or pregnancy, and that the emotional changes in relationships sometimes destroys said relationships” because the response will be “but your faith says…”
And therein is the rub. You choose the topic and the discussion (just as I do on occasion!) parameters and try to control it to protect your view, and there really is no reasonable debate going on and there’s very little chance that we’ll persuade someone one way or the other.
And yet, here I am writing a post length reply in a comment box…
November 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Why do I call them Biblical? Which one came first? I’ll save you the research: The Old Testament scripture was written long before Koran
OK, so we should be saying American law is based on Jewish scrupture, not christian scripture. Right? I mean… which one came first?
As to the rest:
1. or… there is no reason to make a law about eating meat since there is no defensible reason to outlaw it.
2. or… there is no defensible reason for a sacrifice for anything so we don’t legislate it now
3. or… there is no defensible reason to allow people to murder other people as this is already been shown to end in gang wars and petty retribution.
I didnt need to invoke any book or any deity for examining the reason for these laws or lack of laws.
Now, some laws fit in multiple categories– like the prohibition of fornication (sex outside of marriage including homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, etc.). These laws are both moral and protective.
And yet, for the most part, we dont legislate against any of that, and when we do, we dont enforce it. If we did, we would have the markings of a totalitarian state. Are you endorsing a totalitarian state?
I actually dont quite get the point you are making in the rest of your post.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Apologies in advance for the sarcasm, I’ve had a long day.
Where precisely? I must’ve missed that bit - is the section about freedom of religion before or after Exodus 22:20? Is the section about equality before or after Ephesians 6:5? And where is the section about limited government?
Some of these principles might have been found among some early American Christians. That doesn’t make them Biblical, it just means that people can revere the Bible whilst ignoring most of its actual content.
Again, the fact that Leviticus prohibits some of the same stuff as American law doesn’t mean they’re related. To demonstrate that, you’d have to show that they shared more material than (for example) US law and the Code of Hammurabi. Have you checked this, or were you just assuming that your preferred ancient text was responsible for it all?
American common law probably does have small amounts of material that’s traceable to the Bible, but only because you lot cribbed it off of us Brits. So saying “disbelief in Biblical principles means you’re denying US law” would be silly - you might just as well say “defying British sovereignty means you’re denying US law”.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Heh… Hammurabi. I wrote about those laws quite a while ago and did a short piece on them for an anthro class once upon a time. They really do have considerably more to do with modern US law than Moses’ stuff, and they predate the Moses stuff by roughly 600 years.
Thanks for the memory jog.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Holy crap… this conversation picked up again and I had no idea because I’m not getting emails on this one. Geez! Lots of stuff going on here… and of course, I have nothing useful to add.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Both are part of the modern Christian Bible. Therefore you would be correct with either answer; however, as part of the current conversation the Christian Bible and traditions would have been the framework for common law at the time.
As to eating certain types of meat– there was a reason to outlaw it in the Old Testament. Without any type of refrigeration and primitive means of preservation, certain meats would be harmful to eat.
As for murder, your definitions do not show the subtlety or nuance between the different forms of murder (1st degree vs. manslaughter, etc) that our current system has. These concepts are in the Biblical framework. If you remove a cultural framework, what is the difference between whether I killed for self defense rather than killed in cold blood? Both could have the retaliation factor you mention. (for example, if I killed the intruder who shot at my wife then the gang member killed me, and then my family killed the gang member– where does it end? Is anyone justified?)
I’m sorry if I lost you on most of this, tech, I was trying to examine the different types of laws that were in the Bible and how they applied to common law. The fact that these kinds of laws are in part of laws in states illustrates my point– regardless of whether they are enforced.
The fact that Sunday was expected to be a day of rest and that we had blue laws is not from Hammurabi. We had laws on the books against adultery (I had a post on this– that in Michigan adultery is still a felony), and other things that are directly taken from the Bible– and the funny thing is that people believed they were free. American has never been a totalitarian state.
In fact, I could argue that America is more totalitarian now than at any point in the past simply by looking at how many laws we have on the books, the way that we’re taxed in every means possible, etc. America is far more oppressive now than at any time in the past.
Lifewish, you need to look at context and can’t just take things in any order you wish. In Exodus we see laws set up for a specific country that was to be God’s ambassadors to the world. That’s why ceremonial law is not something that was ever passed into common law. That’s why we don’t have coded words like “no other gods before me”, etc. To see religious freedom, look at the New Testament.
Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. He said “whosoever will may come.” That’s not the “go and force people to convert” that is Islam. That’s not the “ridicule and belittle” of Atheism.
When Paul walked into Athens and had his speech on Mars Hill he didn’t try to get elected to public office to try to force people to be Christian. He presented “the unknown God” to the people there. He respected the people, even though he had the truth.
As for Eph 6:5- that passage isn’t a command to have slaves, but for people of each position to do their best in that position. One could easily say “employees, be obedient to your employers”– something I’m sure a lot of bosses would agree would be a good thing! And you will notice that it says “after the flesh”– a recognition that we are more than flesh, and the internal is more important than the external.
I believe that if you ever read the writings of the founders and the preachers of the day you would find the same type of sentiment– desire that all would be treated equally, that all would be able to worship as they chose, a believe that Christianity was the truth (no doubt)…
American common law comes from the Brits. And that law is not based off the Code of Hammurabi, but based on the times– where Christianity was big in the Middle Ages.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I dont have time right now….but real quick…
Without any type of refrigeration and primitive means of preservation, certain meats would be harmful to eat.
same is true for vegetables and mushrooms. They didn’t outlaw them. god could have just said “Thou shalt thoroughly cook your meat”.
Lifewish, you need to look at context and can’t just take things in any order you wish
yes he can, becuase that is the exact reason there are 30,000 forms of christianity (oh but i know…. most of those arent REAL christians), everything from relatively reasonable roman catholicism to these nice folks.
Your particular cherry picked choice of contexts is different from 300 other sects cherry picked choice of context. How about them snakes?
More later…
November 28th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Why shouldn’t we look at the OT for this? From where I’m standing, it seems like you’re kinda bouncing backwards and forwards between OT and NT - referring to the OT to support your claim that common law is Biblically-rooted, and the NT to support your claim that Biblical law has any semblance of justness or equality. How do you justify that switching?
November 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
i beleive it’s called piecing together an argument through bible quote mining. it’s a fun game, but laughable in the end.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Lifewish asks a good question– why not take any quote from any point in time and apply it to right now? I can certainly see where it might look like I’m jumping around.
The complexity of the discussion necessitates two very different arguments– one of them has to do with where common law came from and the other deals with where freedom of conscience came from.
There is no question that common law circa 1776 was based in the Bible, specifically the levitical administrative and moral law. This didn’t include not wearing clothing combining two types of material or that kind of stuff, but did acknowledge pre-meditated vs. defensive murder, etc.
Why use the OT here? Because the text in Leviticus is the set of laws that God assigned to His chosen people– the people he wanted to be an example to all the other nations. Therefore, a people that were religious and believed that God would have a pretty good idea of how a country should be formed would have looked to the way He setup His government for advice.
Now, no country other than Israel is God’s chosen people, according to the Bible. Also, if you look at the NT, you see that the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ, so a lot of the ceremonial aspects (the sacrifices, the unclean periods, etc.) were past.
It’s all a matter of timing.
In the OT there was a declared country-wide religion: Judiasm. They had to be Jewish, they had to sacrifice, they had to worship only God. Why? Because they were to be a “model country.” God was going to use them to reach the world (primarily through Christ, but secondarily through their testimony).
In the NT, Jesus said that His kingdom was not to be of this world, but of another. Paul tells the Christians in Rome in the book of Romans that they are to submit to the governing authority– not rebel, not try to take it over and push their morality on everyone…
The NT stresses that people have a choice– they can choose Christ, they can choose not to follow Christ. There’s passages that say that some will be mislead, that some will doubt, etc.
Does that help at all? It’s hard to do this in a blogging media– it’d be much easier with a back-and-forth.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:52 am
really?!?
Its totally true that mosiac law is not the same as the Code of hammurabi. It appears to be more of an evolution of the laws. Same “moral” issues addressed, 600+ laws instead of 200+, but to say american laws are based on biblical laws is simply farcical. American laws are an evolution of british laws, which we an evolution of other laws, which were an evolution of biblical laws which were and evolution of Hammurabi’s laws.
At this point, neither God nor the bible need be invoked one single time to generate a law, or a enforcement structure for immorality. Secular law can completely recognize the nuances between 1st degree and second degree murder, and the the debate on the distinguishing features, levels of punishment etc, need not invoke god at all, and shouldn’t (because debate gets thrown in the garbage).
Killing someone in self defense is obviously far better than murdering someone. Murdering someone violates all moral codes by intentional attempt to remove someone free will to live, increasing suffering, reducing happiness. Self defense killing, only removes the murderers free will, while preserving suffering and increasing happiness. Incapacitating someone in self defense is obviously even better than killing them. It preserves more life and allows for trial about their level of punishment. none of these views should be taken in terms of an individuals point of view (obviously the murderer is unhappy about violence invoked in self defense), but instead should be viewed in terms of community or society. Where was god invoked in that description of “levels” of law? When was the Bible required? The same analysis can easily be brought to the differences in premeditated murder and incidental murder. You just think that secular, reason and evidence based law isn’t good because you are not used to thinking about humanity and society in that way, and just reject it because its different. for the same reason you could reject western (new) medicine and try to cure all your ailments with acupuncture and homeopathy, but you don’t do that do you? (or do you?)
God and the Bible are never required for law or morals and they don’t guarantee morals either by any means, its time we get past the dark ages.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
American law is based on both the Bible and common law, which was rooted in the Bible. If you do a little digging you’ll find that a Sir William Blackstone and his commentaries is said to be foundational to both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States. His law books were in great demand and the critical thought about the body politic at the time (common and civil law) were heavily influenced by his writing. Indeed, next to the Bible, the commentaries were to be studied to know how one should act in the country.
Here’s one interesting passage:
Reason and logic, according to the expert of common law at the time, were to be used to find the God given laws. Far from a secular concept of law, Blackstone put forth that laws were God-given (hence the conversation in the DOI about live, liberty and property as gifts from the Creator).
Continuing from the same site:
So, a man that believed that law came from God and the Bible influenced America’s institutions.
You see, God and the Bible are essential to this very country– and you can see it in the DOI. Who gives any person “inalienable rights”? From where do you derive the “right” for anything?
You can certainly make logical arguments about how murder takes away a free will to live, but from where do you get that free will? Who is to say that you deserve that will?
The DOI made the point that England did not have the right to tax Americans and take away their life, liberty and property because the people did not belong to them– they did not derive their rights to their person from England. They derived them from a higher authority: from God.
This is the foundation of our society. The concept that law is higher than any power in the land. That government doesn’t have the ability to take away these rights because they are not the giver of these rights.
Let me try to illustrate.
I run a blog, and on that blog I alone have the rights to create content, allow comments, shape the design, etc. You can comment because I allow you to comment. You can read because I allow you to read. Your rights are because I gave you those rights.
However, I cannot block you from seeing other sites on my hosting provider. I can’t block you from seeing other sites on the Internet. All of these are outside of my rights. You can follow a train of authority all the way up to every expanding rights.
The DOI clearly states that the highest level, according to those that left England and were our founders, that they believe that God was the highest level. He has complete ownership, responsibility and authority and government derives its authority from Him. This is foundational.
You can certainly say that there are secular reasons for laws, but not secular origins. You cannot prove that the Biblical laws were in any way influenced by the code of Hammaurabi. You can do comparative analysis of the time, but similarity does not equal causation. For all we know, Moses had a copy of Hammaurabi’s law, or he wrote it with God without Hammaurabi (since Hammaurabi was nearer to modern day Iraq and Moses was in Israel/Egypt it’s more likely that if Moses borrowed anything he would have taken it from his Egyptian upbringing).
But, and I made this point over at my site as well, the point is that the Bible was core to the founding of this country and laws. It’s foundational to the rule of law in this country, and there’s no way that the founders were all sitting about how they could reason a secular means to justify premeditated murder vs. self defense.
Your argument is silly. They were impacted by the Bible, the country’s founded on the Bible.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Min,
no one is saying there isn’t biblical influence in american law. There is. The point is it isn’t the sole source for any of our laws. It has been an evolutionary process. So attributing any of it to the bible is the same as attributing much of it to Roman political structure, or hammurabian code, or any of the multitude of other influences.
Its further important, more important in fact to recognize that the bible is a totally outdated document by which to try to extract any legislative meaning out of. Science to moving far far to fast to use that tired old book. Clashes between cultures in a global society is another reason to throw away a book the promote intolerance. The only way to provide continuity and security in a world like this is to recognize what is good and make it godless. It is the only way to debate christian perspectives versus muslim ones versus hindo ones. There is no one ‘winner’ when you do this. There is only a requirement of coming up with logical reasons for why you are doing what you are doing. “becuase God said so” or “because its in this book” is useless.
If you are going to quote Blackstone, shall I quote Jefferson? I notice a lot of use of the phrase “at the time”. and I agree. at the time american society mostly interacted with other christian societies, and wher it did not conflict erupted, every single time. superior technolgy and man power lead to great wins. so what?
we now are in a place where a relatively small group muslim fundamentalists can put the greatest military force in all of human history into a deadlocked quagmire. Why in the world would we continue to try to adhere to an old book for completely new circumstances? we can’t be smart until we cast off those ropes.
I dont understand your idea about who gave people rights or freewill. you are presuming, in the face of no evidence, that the sky daddy is there.
the answer to your question is, we did. We are a community of poeple. This community has evolved over millenia to find a system that works best. One that values free will above all (and sadly recently this has been cut down). Who gave me the right to free will? you did, everyone reading this did. Who gave them the right to give that right out? You did. Everyone reading this did.
Just becuase the bible influenced some of US law doesn’t mean it should stay that way if it become counter productive. Which is what we continue to experience.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
You should stay away from absolutes, tech. Tell me, which of Hammurabi’s laws or Roman laws had Sunday blue laws? Which of them had laws against witchcraft? How
about the laws that people could not hold an office in certain states unless they confessed belief in the Old and New Testaments?
Since when do we base our laws on science? Ethics and morality are not a part of science. Science tells us how things happen, but not why. It also has no guidance into how people should live their lives. It has nothing to do with the difference between styles of murder– unless you’re saying what you actually think: that Science isn’t Science, but a religion. In that case, please differentiate Science the religion or moral entity from Science the rational, factual exposition into how the world works.
So, we should probably throw away Darwin’s Origin of the Species, since it caused the genocide of Hilter trying to create a master race? Can’t base any science or laws on that tired old thing.
And why is a book that promotes justice, gives us laws that are still in effect today, encourages love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, self-control something that’s outdated? Are any of these virtues wrong? Is it wrong to give real people hope?
Oh, because that’s worked every other time it’s been tried– Hitler’s Germany, USSR, Mao’s China. They were the epitome of liberty, they allowed everyone the privilege of believing what they wanted to, and they certainly excelled all the way around.
You mean the Jefferson that passed a bill granting freedom of religion in Virginia, not because he thought that the Anglican church was bad but because the Baptists (of which I am one) and other Protestant denominations did not want tyranny from the Anglican church?
Or the one that said this:
Maybe you speak of the Jefferson who, as the founder of the University of Virgina, a professional school of Theology and Ecclesiastical history? Or maybe the one that expected his students to attend religious services at the church that they were affiliated with? The one that sent federal funds to construct a Catholic school? Or how about the one that declared days of public fasting and thanksgiving that were punishable by monetary fine?
Again– key to the whole conversation is this. Up until the time the Protestant Christians in America demanded religious freedom– freedom of conscience to worship God how they saw fit– there was no freedom of religion. Not in Rome, not in Greece, etc. It’s totally a protestant idea (back to the opening of this comment).
Catch the news much? Even Rep. Jack Murtha (Democrat) said that the tide is changing and the war is being won. And, it was our technology that was getting in the way of winning.
The whole foundation of this country rests on the concept that “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them being life, liberty and property”– or did you miss this in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The country said God gave the rights. I’m sorry if my illustration didn’t click. I don’t know how else to explain this.
You know, I’m really beginning to think that I’m just not able to communicate effectively enough in this medium things of this depth. Perhaps we can get on IM or something of that nature that allows for a bit more back and forth because if you’re really interested in what I have to say and my point of view this just isn’t cutting it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:49 am
I’m gonna go quiet now because we’ve reached the limits of my knowledge about the origins of common law. If I can’t argue based on solid facts, I shouldn’t argue at all.
I’ll carry on reading, though, so keep up the good work.
MInTheGap: I know what you mean about forums like this not being easy to argue in. It’s too linear. What the world really needs is a hierarchical forum, so someone can respond to a given post many times, each time highlighting a particular logical error or dubious assumption.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Here are the 2 ways I could begin my response:
1) I agree with a lot of what Greta says…
or 2) I am a Christian…
Now, if choosing #2 makes one iota of difference in how you read my reply, or if #2 makes you automatically disregard any point I make before I make it, or if #2 makes you angrily reach for a pen and pad so you can frantically mark down all the stupid, illogical things I will say and then rebut them; but #1 doesn’t evoke any of these reactions, then consider whether you are reacting from a calm, reasoned position or whether your having a knee-jerk “fundamentalist” moment.
To say to a Christian (because from the posts, “religion” is really a euphemism for the Christian religion), “It’s O.K. for you to believe, but it isn’t O.K. for you to share, promote, defend, or live according to your beliefs, is to eradicate their religion.
It’s like saying to a lesbian, “It’s O.K. for you to believe you’re a lesbian, as long as you don’t say you’re a lesbian in a public forum, promote pride in being lesbian, seek out others who are lesbian, defend your right to be a lesbian, or live as a lesbian.”
Christian who do stupid things or bad things in the name of Christ are like politicians who do stupid things or bad things in the name of patriotism. They’re stupid and bad because they’re stupid and bad, not because they’re Christian anymore than the politicians are stupid or bad because they’re patriots.
We’ve passed the point of saying Black murderers are murderers because they’re Black and reached the point of saying Christian fools are fools because they’re Christian.
Fundamentalist atheism seeks official, privileged status just like fundamentalist Christianity. Each wants to be the default perspective for legal, scientific, and social decisions.
The solution isn’t to silence either or any side. The solution is to be able to argue it all out without bashing each other’s heads in.
We’ve tried trying to shut each other up (not good). Maybe we should try hearing each other out. I am a Christian. Do you really want to understand why or do you just want me eradicated?
September 24th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Do you really want to understand why or do you just want me eradicated?
Sadly, after an eloquent post, you, and most Christians, share the same old misconception about atheists. You have spoken clearly and then displayed ignorance about an atheist perspective.
We don’t want you eradicated, we don’t want to make religion illegal, we don’t want to indoctrinate your kids, we don’t want the bible on a list of banned books.
We, in general, (and I certainly don’t claim that there are no ignorant atheists who do in fact want to ban the bible, i’m sure there are one or two) want:
1) to have a level playing field where people of other religions or no religion share the same opportunities, same benefits, same rights and respect and those in the majority religion (clearly the main crux of Greta’s post), and not have one particular set of fairy tales shoved down our throats (as Greta so clearly showed happens).
2) People of all religions to critically think about their positions. People use critical thinking skills for many of their choices and decisions… why not all choices?
3) We want to have a society that bases political decisions on data, on measurement, on things that we can try, and not one particular groups interpretation of one or another particular book or their faith that something is right or will work.
This is what atheists want. Data Driven Decisions.
What will you do if Islam keeps outpacing Christianity in growth?, will you start praying facing east 5 times a day because its what the majority religion has made into law?
Isn’t a purely secular government, one that lets you practice your religion and doesn’t let other peoples faith interfere with your own, a better solution?
Atheists simply don’t care what you believe. We only care when your beliefs start affecting people who do not share the same blind faith.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The problem, tech, is that though you state sane ideas, the implementation of those ideas in real life are the opposite of your stated goals.
- Atheists push for blind faith in the realm of evolution to be taught as the only truth in schools, without a said level playing field.
- Atheists advocate removing prayer or the mention of God from high school graduations (in violation of free speech, in my opinion), which implicitly favors no religion over the presence of religion.
- Regardless of whether different municipalities could choose to reverence whom they wish, Atheists attempt to say that it’s wrong for free expression, unless free expression is inclusive, knowing full well that no one can be that inclusive and the net result is removal of all.
As for critical thinking– it’s often wrong, and often insufficient.
- What does critical thinking do when presented with the problem of the poor? Practicality would say that since the poor are a drain on society, they should be rounded up and slaughtered.
- What does critical thinking do when presented with the problem of health? Since sick people can last years on medicare, best to eradicate them.
- What does critical thinking do when presented with crime? Best to remove them from society rather than burdening the public.
Some of these you hold to, and some you hold differently because of your personal belief of justice and morality– which are not critical thinking skills, but emotional reactions either placed in you by a Creator, or evolved over time for whatever purpose you believe.
Lastly, the problem with basing decisions purely on data and measurements is that there is not data for the character of a person. How would you measure how likely Hussein or Ahmadinejad to try to attack us? Would those measurements indicate that Russia may?
How about if the death penalty proved to be effective? Euthanasia lowered the price of medicare? How would you place a value on a life?
Moral questions, by their very nature, require us to make decisions that cannot be made by scientists.
As for the rest of your questions:
- I will keep spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ and watching lives change.
- No, I won’t bow 5 times a day.
- No, a purely secular government would not be the best government because it’s impossible. Every time it’s been tried it’s proven to simply persecute and outlaw Christianity. They cannot exist together because of their root worldviews.
For someone who doesn’t care what I believe, you sure spend a lot of time combating it. If you truly didn’t care, you wouldn’t have even commented on a post that’s almost a year old.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:30 am
We want all of that, too (and I certainly don’t claim that there are no ignorant Christians who do in fact want to shove the Bible down your throats; I’m sure there are one or two).
Christianity is not a political movement (though it, like atheism is often used for political ends). Christianity is a religion which is based on a book (the Bible) and a person (Jesus Christ). During his earthly ministry, Jesus walked openly teaching, debating, questioning and being questioned. The early apostles of the church did the same thing. Paul in particular made a habit of going toe-to-toe with all of the philosophers of the time, and at the time Christianity was a marginalized, minority not the default religion of the empire.
The practical problem isn’t the levelling of the playing field, it’s getting both side to play and to play fair. If I refuse to discuss morality with you because you’re a “heathen” how I understand how you conclude the world would be better without Christianity. If you refuse to let me refer to the Bible because you reject it out of hand as a “set of fairy tales” how will you ever understand that I didn’t throw out my critical thinking skills the night I was saved.
Again, I propose letting everybody on the field to play. Instead of silencing discussion and creating religion-free zones, let’s allow, even encourage discussion about EVERY position, sect, doctrine, and approach.
Will we make better decisions with more or less data?
As far as the growth of Islam, that’s not my problem. My obligation as a Christian is to live according to the teachings of the Book and the example of the Person. I am supposed to share the Truth according to the example. God requires me to tell the Truth not to dictate how you or anyone else receive it.
A purely secular government is a religiously exclusive government. Some elite group of humanists decides what is or isn’t religious (vs. philosophical) or which practice is or isn’t an excessive display of religion and impose that system on everybody. No, that’s not better. It’s just as bad. Being jailed because you refuse to repeat the Lord’s prayer is wrong. Being fired because you wore a cross to work is wrong too.
You said, “We only care when your beliefs start affecting people who do not share the same blind faith.” Everything about everybody affects everybody else. And it’s supposed too. Insulating myself from your lack of faith is impossible. The points and questions on this site cause me to consider more closely what and why I believe. That’s good. Going back and forth with a real, live Christian I hope makes you think more critically as well.
Faith is not a discrete compartment in society or personalities. Cut it away and you cut away other influences that I doubt even the most evangelical of atheists would want to see disappear. My faith is a huge part of why I’m faithful to my wife. My faith is a huge part of why I’m honest with people. My personal faith is the reason I’m on this site. Exclude my faith and I will still be a husband, an employee, and a guy online; but I won’t be as faithful, as honest, or as civil. I know, because I’ve been me without Christ.
Again, again the solution is more discussion, not less.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Just to clarify. My post (#58) was in response to post #56 techskeptic “Do you really want to understand why or do you just want me eradicated?”
September 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am
That right there is why so many people have problems with faith/Christianity.
You are basically saying that you can’t be a good person without God in your life, which is like saying 90% of the world can’t be a good person. It’s insulting, it’s stereotypical, and it’s simply not true.
By the way - thanks for stopping by and weighing in on things!
September 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
You’re implying, Amanda, that one statement equals the other, but that’s simply a fallacy.
That a -> b does not mean that ~a -> ~b. It’s simple logic.
And he further clarifies it by not saying “I wouldn’t be a good person” but by saying “I won’t be AS faithful, AS honest, or AS civil.” Not that these things would be missing altogether, but that they would not be present in the degrees that he has now.
And lastly, he backs up his conclusion with a personal comparison, which you can’t refute.
It really was a good comment on his part.
I don’t think any Christian here is saying “you can’t do good without Christ”, but that any good you did would amount to nothing compared to the holiness of God.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
If you’re not able to be the best kind of human being that you possibly can be without God in your life… I have to wonder what kind of person you really are.
Now I’m not the best kind of human being that I can possibly be. I know that. I make choices that are selfish and hurtful to other people all the time. But I can choose to be better. I can choose to treat people better than I do.
If you can only be the best person you can possibly be because you’re being influenced by your faith or your religion, then I’m not sure that you *are* in fact being the best person you can be. You’re being the best person you think people want you to be, which is an entirely different topic of discussion.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Well, there are two trains going on here at the same time.
First, the logical one: Simply because person X states that they need A in their life to make them a good person does not mean that person Y needs that thing in their life. It’s a logical fallacy that you’re defending.
Second, the spiritual: How you treat people says nothing about a decision about character. Even the “bad” person can choose to do good things– that doesn’t make them good.
Regardless of how much good you try to do, you can never be perfect. It’s impossible. Christianity’s core states that, a relationship with Him will result in us becoming like Him in the end– achieving holiness through His Son. We don’t have to be bogged down in sin. We don’t have to lose the the flesh.
September 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Since we’re talking about me and what I said about me, here are my two cents: Amanda is right.
I am absolutely saying that I am a better person because of Jesus Christ in my life. I am actually saying that I was a worse person and would be an even worse person if I did not have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
I am not saying that I am currently perfect, I am not. But yeah, I am saying that I need this relationship with Jesus to be as good as I am and to have hope of getting better.
An alcoholic who says I need AA to stay of the bottle and be a positive part of my family is applauded for being wise enough to acknowledge that he/she has a problem and for being responsible enough to get help. We don’t take offense that he/she implies that the other whatever-percent of the world who drink didn’t join AA.
Maybe this is why: Christianity is at heart not simply a category of affiliation, it is a personal relationship with another “person,” i.e., God; so when I say I’m better because I’m a Christian, you (my atheist friends) may think I’m saying I’m better because I joined this particular club that meets on Sunday mornings.
In fact, I’m saying I’m better because I am in a spiritual relationship that brings out the best in me and empowers me to overcome the worst aspect of my nature.
Why would that offend you?
September 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
@ Rev. Graves II:
Saying that works for you is fine. Unfortunately, there are a number of people who don’t stop there.
I’ll further use your AA analogy to explain. Most people in AA don’t assume that everyone without a drinking problem are in AA, or that those outside of AA must have a drinking problem. I have seen some who became very obnoxious when they joined AA. They thought that everyone who drank, no matter the frequency or quantity, were alcoholics. Basically, it was a case of them assuming that everyone had the same problems they were dealing with.
Someone joining a group and it making them a better person does not offend me in the least. Whether that group is a support group like AA, a religious one like a church, or one of those groups who helps battered women try to improve their lives and find some confidence. Any of those is fine as long as it truly makes them a better person. However, when that person starts saying I have to belong to the same group in order to be a better person when they can’t point out where I’m a bad person or even why some of my beliefs or actions are bad other than their group “says so”, then I question whether that group truly made them a better person.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Look like Amanda beat me to the punch on one important point and Berlzebub got to another. Sadly, the fact that Berle had to explain that means the the good reverend is not listening. That was teh exact point that Greta made in the original post, its the same point that the often vilified PZ Meyers makes. WE could care less what wackaloon worldview that you have, its when you impose that world view on other that it gets offensive. If your faith were truly like knitting, as you suggest, something personal to you, something that improved yourself without affecting those around you so strongly, then yeah, hey I’m all for it. But this isnt really what happens is it?
REV Graves:
I’m perfectly happy that you found a psychological mechanism which makes you behave as a better human. Other people use The Secret in the exact same way, others still use Islam in the exact same way.
And others like, me use the fact that we can only improve ourselves through our own actions. Since no supernatural existence has ever been shown to affect our progress or behavior, there is simply no reason to believe that a supernatural force actually does so. We are here, we have to live with each other, and the great majority of us best serve ourselves individually by being kind, altruistic and compassionate for those around us.
We all believe in something, the difference between you and I is that my beliefs are based on verifiable facts as best I can, not personal anecdotes, even if they are my own. I fully accept that my fallible human brain has fuzzy memory, time and geometric dilation (with respect to memory), is prone to optical and perceptive illusions and figments of imagination. This is why controlled studies of what is and what is not are the prefered way to access reality.
I find it great that your found something that makes you a better personl. As amanda pointed out, I find it absolutely freaky that you think that without this unprovable concept you would not be a good person. If one day irrefutable evidence opposing the theory of God comes around you would immediately revert to your old ways? Or would you have learned that you are happier and more peaceful in your new ways?
Why have I never been to jail? How come PZ Meyers hasn’t been locked away for burning down churches? Why isn’t Dawkins locked up for child molestation (Why are so many pastors locked up for that exact offense?). Clearly belief in god has nothing to do with being a good person for the population as a whole and clearly disbelief in god (or your god) has nothing to do with immorality.
I wish my strong stance against religion in society was not needed. I wish the the religious of the world just kept to themselves and working on self improvements and coudl actually base their political decisions on data and not their religious beliefs, but this is not to be, at least not now.
Back to your response to my comment:
Christianity is not a political movement (though it, like atheism is often used for political ends). Christianity is a religion which is based on a book (the Bible) and a person (Jesus Christ). During his earthly ministry, Jesus walked openly teaching, debating, questioning and being questioned. The early apostles of the church did the same thing. Paul in particular made a habit of going toe-to-toe with all of the philosophers of the time, and at the time Christianity was a marginalized, minority not the default religion of the empire.
Sadly you are wildly inaccurate here. Christianity is very much a political movement. Perhaps not your personal form of it. But it is very much influencing our political structure, and defining who is in power and what decisions are being made. People are voting because of an indoctrinated beleif system and not becuase someone is actually proposing a better solution to one problem or another.
If these are what the stories of Jesus say. Then great. Sadly “Because God says so” is not really a great debating mechanism and really doesnt allow for debate. Once again, this is why government should be completely secular. If there is a rational recource to do or not do something excellent. Right now we have a vice-presidential candidate talking about how the Iraq war is God’s will.
The practical problem isn’t the levelling of the playing field, it’s getting both side to play and to play fair. If I refuse to discuss morality with you because you’re a “heathen” how I understand how you conclude the world would be better without Christianity. If you refuse to let me refer to the Bible because you reject it out of hand as a “set of fairy tales” how will you ever understand that I didn’t throw out my critical thinking skills the night I was saved.
My problem may not be with you at all. Your critical thinking skill may remain mostly in tact (except on this one thing, but perhaps we all have our hangups). My problem is that we, as a country, are losing ground on every single subject except a powerful military because of irrational decisions like not teaching evolution, thereby making our biology and medical leadership defunct. We have an economy in the trash because we voted for a president that we would like to have a beer with (TWICE!) and says he believes in the same stories you believe in. We have people opposing abortion but not adopting, instead having 5 children of their own while 500,000 kids remain in the foster care system largely doomed for jail or homelessness, a millions of kids remain hopeless around the world. This list is endless, but you get thei gist. Religion, in general (and again perhaps not for you specifically) ameliorates the need for critical thinking and people get out of practice.
Again, I propose letting everybody on the field to play. Instead of silencing discussion and creating religion-free zones, let’s allow, even encourage discussion about EVERY position, sect, doctrine, and approach.
I’m sorry, perhaps you can point me to the place where someone is promoting the idea of silencing relifgious critics. Perhaps you can point me to some religion-free zones. I can certainly point you to candidates who think atheists are not American citizens (you may be voting for one in 2 months).
Will we make better decisions with more or less data?
Well more of course. But stories about an unprovable being truly is not data by any standard. This sort of ‘data’ from the religious is at best, simply opinions. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by data here.
As far as the growth of Islam, that’s not my problem. My obligation as a Christian is to live according to the teachings of the Book and the example of the Person. I am supposed to share the Truth according to the example. God requires me to tell the Truth not to dictate how you or anyone else receive it.
Yeesh. It always happens. At some point, i find the religious person to be so self centered. So, lemme get this straight… its not your problem if your grand daughter has to submit to female circumcisions or honor killing? Its not your problem if your grandson is beaten to a pulp for drawing a cartoon of Mohammad? I don’t think you mean what you said. Rethink about the spread of Islam, these things I mention are common practice in many Islamic states. (read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali). so when you tell my its not your problerm, honestly, you come off as kind of a bastard.
A purely secular government is a religiously exclusive government. Some elite group of humanists decides what is or isn’t religious (vs. philosophical) or which practice is or isn’t an excessive display of religion and impose that system on everybody. No, that’s not better. It’s just as bad. Being jailed because you refuse to repeat the Lord’s prayer is wrong. Being fired because you wore a cross to work is wrong too.
You’ve got this completely wrong. did you read the post? The point is that the Government is secular, not the society.
You said, “We only care when your beliefs start affecting people who do not share the same blind faith.” Everything about everybody affects everybody else. And it’s supposed too. Insulating myself from your lack of faith is impossible. The points and questions on this site cause me to consider more closely what and why I believe. That’s good. Going back and forth with a real, live Christian I hope makes you think more critically as well.
That is the whole reason I am here at all. Actually I find the other site, to be a better place for going back and forth with christians. Of course everything we do affects everyone else. That is accepted. But legislating on unverifiable beliefs is something I find pretty intolerable. Forcing one religion on a group of people is pretty intolerable. This is what Greta post was about.
Faith is not a discrete compartment in society or personalities. Cut it away and you cut away other influences that I doubt even the most evangelical of atheists would want to see disappear. My faith is a huge part of why I’m faithful to my wife. My faith is a huge part of why I’m honest with people. My personal faith is the reason I’m on this site. Exclude my faith and I will still be a husband, an employee, and a guy online; but I won’t be as faithful, as honest, or as civil. I know, because I’ve been me without Christ.
Yeah, as I said in the beginning, that is freaky. I;ve heard the same thing from many christians “I was a drug user going nowhere until I was saved”, “With no god, I would feel hopeless”, “If there was no god I would rape murder and kill”. Its pretty freaky to me that faith in this unverifiable thing is the tenuous thread between kindness and altruism and utter depravity for you religious folk. I suspect it is truly not the case. I suspect that if you found a good reason to truly doubt your faith you would still see that you life has improved by treating those around you better.
There are many good reasons not to believe in god. Its freaky to me that if you decided that one of these were strong enough you would return to depravity. I have no such qualms. I love my wife and child like nothing else in the universe. I treat her with as much kindness and respect as I can concentrate into this short life I have. There is no god driving that, no beleif required. I know that these are evolutionary traits that have formed over a very long time, but that doesnt make them less real.
Again, again the solution is more discussion, not less.
Of course, but this horse has been beaten for hundreds of years. Paley have been truly debunked. None of the advantages you enjoy today are are result of “God did it” theory. Which is why that very discussion you crave ought to be on things we can resolve ourselves without the slim possibility that a daddy that we can’t see might exist.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Min:
you seem to be under the impression that I am responding to something you said. Please check the date of Rev Graves first post and you will find who I am having a discussion with.
However if you feel like you would like to discuss this post further, perhaps you could answer 4 questions for me before we continue. I invite you to make a blog entry on this if you like, but please link to it here as I will not otherwise know if you answered them. Here we go:
1) What is evolution? (please describe in as much detail as you can. Please describe the predictions and how it could be falsified). I would invite you to simply answer off the top of your head and not make a research paper of it.
2) What is the evidence that is available that makes scientists think evolution is a real process?
3) What are the human ethical and moral implications of the reality of an evolutionary process with respect to the origin of man (hint: this is a trick question)
4) What are the predictions of God Did It theory and how is it falsifiable?
September 26th, 2008 at 5:54 am
@Tech: You seem to be under the impression that you are the author of this blog, or you’re deluded into thinking that I’m somehow ignorant of who said what when. Either that, or your greatly mislead about how comments sections on blogs work.
If you want a private room to discuss topics between two people, there’s always private e-mail. When you enter a public forum to discuss matters, you waive the right to simply talk with another person about the topics, and allow for anyone else to get in on the discussion.
Again, I don’t have to answer your questions to participate in this discussion. This is not your comment thread, this is not your blog, and I don’t have to abide by your rules.
Second, thanks for demonstrating two of the “rules of winning a comment discussion without necessarily having winning ideas. That being, I’m going to write an over 1000 essay so that there are too many open fronts to actually have a discussion on any one point and half of my comment is simply repeating your comment. Good tactics both of them.
Lastly, when you actually address my logical arguments in my previous comment, then I’ll take the time to answer your questions. Until then, I don’t see them as germane to the conversation as a whole.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:50 am
@ MInTheGap:
In what part of TS’s comment did he even come close to saying that he was the author of this blog? He simply gave you some things to answer before he would include you in his conversation. Perhaps Rev. Graves may deam to talk to you, but TS (like me) might have grown tired of you.
Since our little “debate” on Christian atheism, I’ve realized that it seems pointless to try to talk to you. Your kneejerk offensiveness to TS’s response to you is a case in point. He never insinuated that you couldn’t comment, just that he wasn’t going to respond to you unless you answered his questions first.
Honestly, I’m still trying to figure out what logical arguments you’re talking about. I didn’t see any.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:17 am
@Berlzebub: He never claimed to be the author of this blog. He did layout out ground rules for discussion on this blog and on this thread, however:
This sentence states this: “If you’d like to discuss this post further, then answer these four questions.” The contrapositive would be “If you do not want to answer these questions, then you should not discuss this post further.” Hence my implication that he believes that he has the authority to regulate the debate.
And I’ll ignore the folly of “well, he’s not going to talk to you” at the same time he’s talking to me… and that was the main point. It really doesn’t matter what he says regarding ground rules, etc. If he chooses to ignore valid or strong criticism, he can go join his buddy Obama who has to have a teleprompter in order to sound coherent.
Tech insinuated that I was welcome into the discussion only if I answered his questions. Again:
And what logical arguments did I put forth?
#63:
#61:
Regardless that Rev. Graves claims in #64 that Amanda is right…
He doesn’t have grounds to make that claim, since he’s not an arbiter of logic. He can say what he meant by his statement (i.e. That he meant to say that all people cannot be good without God in their life.), but Amanda read that into what he said, and logically my analysis is correct.
And back to the primary topic of all of this, and the only reason I got involved, Rev. Graves’ primary point is that people in this debate are rejected out of hand simply because of who they are are what they claim to believe. They’re not accepted at the table. Their opinions (as illustrated by the book that tech wrote) are treated as uncritical thinking, and poor arguments are made but not acknowledged.
For example, the whole argument tech has here about taking PZ, et al and saying they’ve never been in jail, and comparing that to pedophiles that happened to be pastors is ludicrous. First, it wholly misses the whole “ideology vs. adherents” problem, but second, it takes the best of one class and compares it to the worst of the other class and tries to make conclusions off of them.
I noticed tech didn’t take Chairmen Mao and his mass killings, or take a look at any other atheist that’s eradicated Christians simply because of their beliefs. Nor did he, on his discussion of tolerance from Atheism toward Christianity, talk about why PZ decided that he had to desecrate other people’s beliefs openly.
I mean, with so much garbage passing for “critical thinking” you wonder why we can never have good discussion.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
@MInTheGap:
Or perhaps TS just didn’t clarify enough. His use of “we” could have just included you and him.
As far as your “logic”, I’m actually not sure what you’re getting at. For one, what Rev. Graves said,
is an opinion. That’s what “my two cents” means in common vernacular. At least, that’s my understanding of it. If someone can point out where his opinion is wrong, he would possibly be willing to change his opinion.
Also, you pointed out the evidence as being what he said. Which is anecdotal. Rev. Graves has no idea what kind of person he would currently be if he wasn’t a Christian. That would be like me trying to say what kind of person I would be if I was a Christian. It’s simply an exercise in futility and conjecture.
Perhaps if you would point out the “poor arguments” I might be more inclined to listen. However, you’re simply making an assertion. Not providing why what you say is true. Also, what about my previous comment @ #65? Is anything I said there untrue?
I actually somewhat agree with you, here. PZ, Dawkins, me, TS, etc. have never been convicted of a crime (at least to my knowledge with the other three), but there are also prominent clergymen and the lower congregation who have never been convicted of a crime. Personally, I believe that religion or lack thereof does not play any part in a persons ethics. It’s their actions that reflect their actual ethics.
Because Chairman Mao is an example of how atheism nor religion have any part in the discussion. Mao, Stalin, etc. were simply power hungry humans. Even if they had believed in a deity they may have commited the same attrocities. Saying that atheism led them to do so is a fallacy when you examine the rest of their actions. The same can go with various actions of the church and its clergy in the past and present.
The reason PZ put a nail through a Eucharist was, because of an incident in Florida involving Webster Cook. People were claiming that Mr. Cook was holding the wafer (Jesus) hostage, and sending threatening letters to him. When PZ put the nail through the wafer and threw it into the trash, he also tore some pages from a copy of the Quran and The God Delusion, and threw them in also.
What PZ did was just a form of free speech. Of course, several pointed out in the process that they (the ones threatening Mr. Cook and PZ) were upset about the treatment of the wafer, but they somehow ignored the ritual cannibalism they were involved in if transubstantiation were true.
You mean like believing that not only there is a deity, but that deity is the one you worship and actually has the rules that you abide by? I agree. Every time I’ve tried to have a debate with you I’ve ended up feeling that it was pointless. You expect everyone to think that we could not be good people without the existance of your deity of choice, without even being able to prove its existance.
As I’ve noted before, you aren’t interested in finding a common ground. Hell, you even criticized us non-believers who participate in Common Ground. Now, you wonder “why we can never have good discussion”? Perhaps we could if you would talk to us, and not at us.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
@Berlzebub: Good response.
Perhaps I did take Tech and read him incorrectly. Given the fact that it seemed Rev. Graves also didn’t want to address me, I may have put an assumption in there where it wasn’t warranted.
However, I assume that you can now see that, without clarification, both are equal assumptions.
Logic is separate from opinion. Opinion can change based on the person. I can say a given thing is a dog. That’s my opinion, but it could be a cat, whereas that would make it wrong.
Rev. Graves was weighing in on the topic of whether he meant to say “I believe Christianity is necessary to be a moral person” based on his statement that Christianity made him a better person. I was simply trying to prove that, like the topic of whether Tech meant I wasn’t allowed to participate in discussion or whether he meant he was just going to ignore me was up for grabs. One cannot make a logical conclusion either way without the primary source clarifying their point.
I assume that we understand ourselves now?
Not really. Only Rev. Graves knows what kind of situation he was in, and what influences his decisions. I have seen many people that were smokers “come to Christ” and cease smoking. Same with other vices at different levels. One cannot attribute this kind of wholesale change to chance.
And then there’s a level of probability and causality. What causes Rev. Graves to make the choices that he makes? It is reasonable to assume that if a given stimulus causes a given response that if that stimulus were absent the result would be the same (at best) or different (at worst).
Yes, the game of “What if” is for children, because there is no way to test and prove. However, you can also be sure that if there’s a stimulus that’s causing a separate set of responses– and that those responses are good responses– then the absence of the stimuli doesn’t mean that it’s guaranteed that he would be the same person– or better! Truth was, if his stimuli is helping him to make better decisions, without it he would probably make worse ones.
I provided one with my comment, which you agree with, at least in part. We both agree that you cannot take the actions of a human and blame that on the ideology (adherents vs. ideology)– which is something that Tech does a lot of.
I actually have no problem with what PZ did. He has his right to free speech as much as the next guy. What it did show was a hostility towards, not a tolerance of religion. Since the main thrust of Rev. Graves conversation is about communication, it would follow from that that offending a huge group of people is exactly what he’s talking about– even if I don’t find it offensive.
And this is where you’re trying to read my mind, rather than trying to talk with me. The point is that you have to nail down what is “good”– how is it defined? What does it mean? Can “good” change?
Depending on your definition depends on whether your above statement is true. I doubt we’ll find one person that would stand up and claim that they are good– and never do anything bad. And what do we do about that?
These are all the real questions.
Oh, here’s another few problems with tech’s comments, so you don’t think I could only find one:
Fallacy. Rev. Graves is right. Christianity does not just exist in America, it’s worldwide. It’s practiced in countries that are atheistic, islamic, secular, etc.
Show me one candidate for Pres. or lower who said “I am voting X because God says so.” First, it’s against the Constitution to have a religious test, so a candidate should legally be able to have the option of doing such, but this is a strawman. He’s inventing someone to rally against.
Lie at worst, misleading at best. The actual quote is:
First, this is a statement inside of a church. Second, it was asking for prayer that 1. The military would do what’s right. 2. That our leaders would carry out a plan that was God’s will. The last sentence can be read as a clarification of the second. As if she’s having a normal conversation and is clarifying what she said.
Tech is distorting her comments.
Leftist talking points– absurdity. There is no state that does not teach evolution, and most teach evolution as fact without question. There are universities that restrict entrants that don’t believe in evolution. This is just plain dumb– I’m sorry, but it is.
Research before you say stupid things, Tech. If you did, you’d see that, if there’s a governmental component to this mess that it happened in the 90’s, under Clinton. Not under Bush.
I don’t know of anyone that opposes adopting. And the idea of life beginning at conception is a medical truth, not a religious one.
That’s why the classic scientists and great thinkers throughout history were– oh, Christians. It seems that only now is it a qualification that you have to be an Atheist to have critical thinking skills. And that people of religion have decided that they don’t need to have them.
Do I need to continue? Do you understand why I say that this tactic is “victory by saying so much it’ll take you hours to reply?”
September 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hey berle,
thanks. As usual you pretty much said everything I would have said and said it calmer than I would have. I’m just talking to Rev Graves here and I am having a hard time distinguishing Min from a Poe or just a normal troll trying to score some lulz, which is why when he started in with the “Evolution is a faith” stuff I didn’t want to continue until he explained exactly what he thought evolution was. We have both seen how when you ask what a fundie thinks evolution is, it ends up being everything else but evolution. Not much point in discussing anything unless the actual topics are understood.
As for good atheists and bad pastors, sadly he once again totally missed the point. No one was comparing PZ to bad pastors, all I was saying is that atheism clearly doesn’t lead to immorality and religion clearly doesnt lead to morality. Its simply about the actions of the individuals. If you need God, like Graves seems to, to be a good person, so be it. Great. But it gets bizzare when people think that just because they need this psychological mechanism to not be a bad person, they assume that everyone else does. You know, the whole point of these recent posts.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I love you too, tech.
Fine of you to cherry pick one thing in my whole comment to complain about, and then release a “book” twice the size of my comment.
And I’m glad to see that we all are in agreement on the adherents vs. ideology, but you didn’t prove what you sought out to prove. I don’t know anyone in this discussion who was saying that atheism leads to immorality or that religion leads to morality. The statement was Rev. Graves felt that Christianity made him a better person than he would be without it. That was the only trend analysis made.
And my logical point to that was, this does not say that “If you are not a Christian, you will not do good.”
In high school math terms again…
p = “I am a Christian.”
q = “I am a good person.”
Rev Graves = p -> q
Tech/Amanda = ~ p -> ~q
The Tech/Amanda position is not defined as true. It could be true, but it might not be. The only statement that is true in the negative is…
~q -> ~p. If I’m not a good person, then I’m not a Christian.
This whole atheistic argument doesn’t conform to logic.
And, like I said to Berlzebub, we still need to define what “good” and moral means to have a basis of discussion. Otherwise we’re stuck swatting at trivialities like this one.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
argh! ack! I cant resist! I tried but I can’t!
“And the idea of life beginning at conception is a medical truth, not a religious one.”
OH noes!!! where is the outcry on the huge medical crisis we are facing? 60-80% of fertilized but unimplanted cells get naturally aborted (about 3/4s of the way down, although have found other article holding this figure at 40%, doesn’t matter is). By your standard this is the largest human medical crisis in history! Is heaven littered with embryos? Why aren’t you crying out for medical research on this subject (probably because it requires a good understanding of evolution)?( more on this). According to your definition (the one for as long as I have been reading your tripe) life starts at conception and you can link to a creationist doctor or two who have testified in congress to this effect. Sadly (for you) this is hardly a medical conclusion and most doctors don’t share this silly opinion.
As to the rest of that rant, well here is my response:
1) Non-sequitor, read my post again
2) I was going to use the Palin quote you kindly provide in…
3) which part of saying that the Iraq war is “a task that is from God” is not like “Because god says so”. that was really a stretch for you. complete red herring that she was telling people to pray, or where she said it, she was saying that the Iraq war is a “a plan and that plan is God’s will”. you are pretty good and twisting the bible to say what you want it to, I am not surprised that you are doing it here. to any rational person, she is clearly calling the Iraq War Gods Will. I can pull out hundreds of examples like this from various candidate (including Obama BTW).
4) Evolution in schools? Perhaps you have been under a rock for the last decade. when you put a sticker on a science book that essentially tell you that everything contained inside is just a theory, you arent teaching science. What arent those stickers being put on physics books, math books and chemistry books? Our hold on keeping science in the science classes are attacked every single year. Visit this for the rest of you crap. Im not one for conspiracy theories, i guess you are.
You left out the rest of the paragraph, could you please find a single significant metric that US leads the world besides pollution (actually i think china just overtook us) and military spending?
5) straw man, never said anyone opposes adopting. I said they were hypocritical oafs becuase they are NOT adopting (and not rallying about a health crisis) while maintaining a religiously based POV that life starts at conception, and trying to force that opinion on everyone. Meanwhile millions of kids around the world suffer while they add new kids of their own to the population.
6) oh another non-sequitor and strawman. I specifically said that this may not apply to him. that means that i dont think religion makes all you critical thinking skills go out the window. try to keep up. Christianity was (and is) a predominant religion in the world, its pure statistics that make some of our great thinkers christian, by heritage if not by faith. BTW, Darwin is in that same pool of great thinkers. there have been plenty of non-christian great thinkers, religion itself may have little or nothing to do with it. Of course there have been many great thinkers who were not christian, shall we just ignore them?
shall I go on? You make it so easy.
Basically, did you read Greta’s post? Which part did she get wrong?
September 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
This is where we started. Amanda wrote:
“There’s a flip side to a lot of what Greta said - there are some things she’s angry that Christians do when Atheists do the same damn thing. But it’s okay for the atheists to be that way. They’re right. Christians are stupid and wrong.
I’m writing this from a middle perspective. It’s articles like these that feed my doubts, so I’m not writing this from a Christian perspective. I’m not sure there’s any Christian perspective left in me. But I do understand the Christian perspective and can still see where Atheism gets it wrong when talking about Christianity. But then - that was something else that made Greta angry. So I can’t win.
It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. If they’re fundamentalist, she’s angry. If they aren’t, and try to make people see the difference, she’s still angry.
What does she want?”
Here is what I think now, but didn’t think when I first started reading and replying to this blog:
Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.
Some of you have said that you really just want Christianity to play fair and stop using its preferred status to stifle your point of view. However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equal time, it’s not enough.
Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists (Yeah, I’m generalizing.) because it was a Christian who said it. People must be protected from our irrational beliefs. Any historical support is discredited because it must be mythological or doctored. Any scientists who support a Christian viewpoint are discredited, not because of faults in their data , but because the fact that they support a Christian viewpoint automatically makes them bad scientists. Even a personal testament to a life changed by God is rendered freaky and insulting in your minds.
For you, the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better. We are damned in your eyes regardless (religious allusion intended).
You don’t want a level playing field. You want everybody to play with your ball and let you win; or they can shut up and go home.
But that’s cool with me.
If that’s what you want, that’s what you want.
All I’m saying is Say That’s What You Want.
Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism. Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life. Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.
All I’m saying is: Atheists should admit that they (generalizing again) are fundamentalist zealots who want to eradicate all other (yeah, I said “other”) religions.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Finally back on track.. phew!
It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry.
Where do you get this idea? What part of the text leads you to believe this? If a christian adopts 10 orphans, do you think she would have a problem with this? If a christian donates money to their own church, do you think she has a problem with that? If a christian prays every night for anything, do you think she has a problem with that? Exactly what leads you to believe this? Its completely contrary to what she and most atheists believe. If you lose your religion it should not be because it was forced, it should be because you learned what evidence is , why it is important, and how we use it.
Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.
eh? could you list the chain of comments and events that got you there from where you were. Both I and Berle (as well as if you bother to read some Dawkins) have explained virtually the opposite of this. I do totally agree that by improving this world by teaching people how to avoid pseudoscience (homeopathy, water dowsing, astrology, etc), quackery (antivaccinationism, chiropractic, reiki, etc), and simple outright scams (see medis on my blog, kineseotape, bigfoot, WMD in Iraq, and a the Tesla Pill), that these tools will very likely result in far less reliance on made up deities and fairy tales (sorry i realize that you think God is real, but to me he stopped being when Santa Claus and the tooth fairy left). This is not the intentional eradication of religion, but that may be a side effect of improvement of our societies. This side effect simply eliminates an older side effect of the way we evolved. Belief on a Christian god or Muslim god would go away just like the belief in norse gods, greek gods, cthulu or quetzlquotl. Isnt Christianity an improvment over the greek beleif system?
However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equal time, it’s not enough.
Could you give a common example of when this happens?
Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists
Could you give a common example of this.
the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better.
Could you give an example of when anyone said this?
Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism.
I can not, because what I want is secular rule, while people have the freedom to believe what they want.
Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life.
I guess I can admit this. My specific system throws out God with the tooth fairy and leprecahns. I certainly have principles of morality that do not require magic creatures or arbitrary interpretations of a book (you Christians are up to 30,000 different interpretations derived from 9 major denominations). so yeah i can certainly admit this.
Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.
No you still have it wrong. What is fair for everyone and for all future generations is for no religion to be legislated, or systemically benefited (as Greta pointed out oh so clearly). It is the only way all religions can have an equal playing ground, it is the only way to keep debate based on tangible, verifiable quantities rather than God Vs Allah vs Zeus pointless discussions.
You seem to be under the same presupposition that you came here with, atheism is a religion. So tired, so overwhelmingly debunked (just to a quick google on that very phrase) and so sadly typical. Atheism is not a religion, its no religion. Atheists are liberals, atheists are staunch conservatives, atheists are pro-choice, atheists are pro-life, atheists have no book, no set of unverifiable positive claims about unseeable entities, they do not claim to knows something that is not understandable and then in the next sentence claim that something is not understandable.
I know you cant imagine a life with religion, but I live it quite happily and successfully, with a sense of freedom you clearly will never enjoy. I stand in awe of the universe around me and as Carl Sagan said, “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring”.
I encourage you and everyone to try it or at least try to actually think about it a little harder.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Tech - He was quoting me when he said that It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry.
I wrote that in the original post. Although he did go on to agree with that idea with things he wrote later on, I just wanted to clarify that you can’t ask him what he means by that because he didn’t write it.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
@ MIn:
Thank you.
Casual conversations among more than two people are easier than debating with more than one person. Especially since all of you would be debating among yourselves. What Amanda pointed out above is a prime example. Rev. Graves quoted Amanda, and Tech assumed it was something Rev. Graves said.
Agreed. So, let’s just leave this out of the debate.
Yes we do.
And I know of current smokers who belong to a church. I also know of people who have quit by using a patch, the gum, and other means. At best, that seems to point to people needing a form of support to overcome those vices and addictions. Whether it be a group, such as a church, or some form of chemical means.
Also, in a form of the Anthropic Principle, Rev. Graves statement can only be taken at face value. Did he try other means of overcoming his vices. A study of other philosophies, having friends who intervene and point out why what he’s doing is wrong, etc. Perhaps the same outcome would have happened if he’d joined another religion instead of Christianity, or even if he chose no religion at all and instead started thinking more about how his actions affect others (philosophy). Again, Rev. Graves knows the circumstances that he was in, but he only has his current circumstances to compare them to. Which does not mean that it could only have been Christianity which changed his actions for the better.
You left out that there may be other stimuli that would have the same two effects, or even possibly give a better result. An example could be smoking. Perhaps someone with enough willpower to quit “cold turkey” would still have quit, but their resistance to starting up again wouldn’t be as good as if they had joined a support group to help them deal with the ongoing cravings.
Unless you think about the possibility of other stimuli, as I pointed out above.
Hopefully, what I said above will clarify my position.
Basically, there’s the matter of personal responsibility. Regardless of your reasoning for doing an action, you still have to take responsibility for following through with those actions. Yes, I can agree with that.
Ideology can be partially to blame, but the ideology taking the whole blame would be rare to never. The person not examining their actions, and how those actions affect others, would be where most of the problem lies.
I agree with it being free speech, and, to an extent, a hostility toward religious beliefs. Although, to refine it, I would say it was a hostility toward the dogma of religious beliefs.
PZ descrated the wafer in response to the threats that Webster Cook was receiving. To point out that the eucharist was just a symbol, PZ descrated it in a way worse than what Webster was being threatened for. However, he also included a few pages of the Quran and The God Delusion. If he had only drove a nail through the wafer, it might be possible to argue that it was hostile toward religion. However, including not only a symbol from another religion, but also something from atheism he pushed the idea that nothing is sacred. A symbol is a symbol is a symbol.
Your correct. I apologize for my assumption. I was going by previous comments and posts you’ve made, concerning why atheists perform their actions. Granted, you attributed it to Christian beliefs, but not actually to the existance of YHWH.
Concerning “good”, that is an excellent point, one that I would like to explore further. Good being a subjective term makes it difficult for two people to have the same definition, especially when they are on two sides of any debate. Both sides think their side is “good”. When examined further both sides would have to decide what “good” actually means, and then debate from there.
Very true. The best we could do is work at defining “good”. Only from there could you debate whether any action could be considered “good”.
That actually gives me an idea for a blog post.
Yes, it is practiced in many countries, with many governments, but in the U.S. it is part of the political movement. It’s currently being used to promote such political issues as Proposition 8 in California, avoiding stem cell research, and there’s even the possibility that religious belief was behind the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. So, while there is no “Christian Party” on the ballots, a large number of people seem to think that their beliefs should influence the law and the countries actions.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Dang it. I left out or included an extra [blockquote]. Hope you can understand it, MIn.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Hi. Did you miss me?
Techskeptic querried me on several points of my last post. Tech asked me to support those points, so below are those points and the support I offer in Tech’s own words.
1. I wrote “It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. “
As Amanda noted, I was quoting her. Tech’s response illustrates my point. Even when I quote another non-believer I (the Christian) have to be wrong.
2. In response to a question in Amanda’s initial post I stated, “Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.”
Tech wrote, “This is not the intentional eradication of religion, but that may be a side effect of improvement of our societies. This side effect simply eliminates an older side effect of the way we evolved.”
Stab me with a dirty knife and say, “It wasn’t the knife that killed him it was the infection.” Dude, I’m still dead!
3. I wrote, ‘However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equa”l time, it’s not enough.
In an earlier post, Tech wrote “We, in general… want: 1) to have a level playing field where people of other religions or no religion share the same opportunities, same benefits, same rights and respect and those in the majority religion…
But when I wrote back, “I propose letting everybody on the field to play. Instead of silencing discussion and creating religion-free zones, let’s allow, even encourage discussion about EVERY position, sect, doctrine, and approach.”
Tech wrote, “Religion, in general (and again perhaps not for you specifically) ameliorates the need for critical thinking and people get out of practice….
“…stories about an unprovable being truly is not data by any standard. This sort of ‘data’ from the religious is at best, simply opinions….
“Which is why that very discussion you crave ought to be on things we can resolve ourselves without the slim possibility that a daddy that we can’t see might exist.”
All of the above are quotes from different paragraphs in Tech’s post. The point is Tech ‘s own atheist words reject the offer of everybody talking unless they say only what Tech already wants to hear.
4. I said, “Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists”
Tech has said, “There are things christians do in the name of christianity and there are things the people do in the name of humanity. The problem is the doing it in the name of one religion or another.”
So, if two people do the same “good” thing, but one of them does it in the name of Christianity, the fact that he/she did it in the name of Christianity is a problem. Nevermind what was done.
5. I said that atheism (generalizing) holds that “the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better.”
See above.
6. I wrote, ” Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism.” And Tech responded, ” I can not, because what I want is secular rule, while people have the freedom to believe what they want.”
And that’s my point. The atheism put forth through these comments is a call for a form of “RULE” not dialogue, not coexistence, but dominance in which fundamentalist atheism dominates.
7. RG: Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life.
Tech: I guess I can admit this. My specific system throws out God with the tooth fairy and leprecahns. I certainly have principles of morality that do not require magic creatures or arbitrary interpretations of a book (you Christians are up to 30,000 different interpretations derived from 9 major denominations). so yeah i can certainly admit this.
Tech has also said, “Atheists are liberals, atheists are staunch conservatives, atheists are pro-choice, atheists are pro-life…”
And here’s where we return to the question of whether Atheism really want a level playing field.
If the evidence of Christians’ diverse range of beliefs demonstrates the fallacy of Christianity, how can the evidence of atheists’ diverse range of beliefs support the validity of Atheism.
Given the same evidence/ data about opposing views, a logical thinker should reach the same conclusion about both views.
8. I said, “Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.”
Tech replied, “ No you still have it wrong. What is fair for everyone and for all future generations is for no religion to be legislated, or systemically benefited (as Greta pointed out oh so clearly). It is the only way all religions can have an equal playing ground, it is the only way to keep debate based on tangible, verifiable quantities rather than God Vs Allah vs Zeus pointless discussions.”
Atheism is a religious position. Call it no religion if you like because it excludes God, but that like saying communist countries have no economy because they exclude free markets.
When Tech says, “I encourage you and everyone to try it or at least try to actually think about it a little harder.”
How is that inherently better than me saying, “ I encourage you and everyone to try prayer or at least try to actually think about the grace of God a little harder.”
I know. It’s better because Tech’s right and I’m wrong. And that is a declaration of faith.
I don’t know how much longer I can keep up with you guys. I haven’t updated my church’s blog since I started talking to you. If I drop out soon (I’ll be sure to wait for you to respond.) know that I have not renounced my faith and that God and I both love you all — whether you like it or not.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
That was a long post Reverend and I appreciate the thoughts. I’d rather not get into a exponentially growing comment so I’ll just try to sum up with a couple of point and questions. (although I did like that a pastor called me ‘Dude’!)
First off, you are not wrong on a subject because you are a Christian, ever. You may be shown to be wrong on something because you failed to supply proper evidence or facts to back up what you are saying (or right on something becuase you didnt fail to). Or becuase strong contradictory evidence is available, but not solely becuase you are a Christian, that would simply be an ad hominem. You aren’t trying to play the persecuted victim are you? (BTW its particularly weird that you think anything I say is because you are a christian, as I think Christianity is just as ludicrous as any other religion or new age crap, islam, wicca, the secret, etc)
For example, if you say that finding your faith leads you to live a better life, there is no reason to doubt you. I’m sure you perceive that to be true. Good for you! There is no reason to suggest that this is not the mechanism by which you found piece.
But just because this community you have joined makes you feel better doesn’t mean that it is better. There are plenty of people who suffer with their religion (just read a few posts here) or the religion foisted on them. Suffer from guilt, suffer from colleagues and former friends giving the crap about their beliefs, and suffer from being disadvantaged when they get out to some form of employment that requires understanding of concepts that go 100% against their dogma (i’m talking biology, geology, and astronomy here). So they suffer and then claim victimization instead of considering their beliefs vs the available evidence. Or they have decided to change their minds, become agnostic (or some other religion or even atheist) and then suffer once again because their former community outcasts them instead of respecting their beliefs.
There are plenty of other things that other people do that make them feel better but a) dont actually make them better and/or b)aren’t good or doesnt work for other people. Religion is just one example, homepathy is another, hallucinatory drugs are another. You get the drift. There are lots of people who are successful and happy in life because they operate by pure greed. Shall we formally implement a government based on pure greed?
I think i see a fundamental issue (from where I stand) with your thinking. Secularism is not atheism and you seem to be equivocating the two.
When you go grocery shopping, you are doing a purely secular activity, unless of course you are prone to Bible Dipping for banal activities like that. Seeing the doctor for a broken leg, also secular not atheism promoting. Driving your car to work, secular not atheism promoting.
Secularism and secularist activities by no means promote atheism. It seems to me you have confused the two. As long as you do so, you will not understand the power and advantage and safety and potential for prosperity that striving for a purely secular government can bring. Min is right to some degree, we may never get there, but it will be a big improvement in trying.
The US and Kuwait are the sole exceptions to the rule of highly religious countries being poor, uneducated, with little or virtually no civil rights. That rule shows itself in highly religious countries like Syria and pakistan, but also South, middle and west Africa which are mostly christian. I would look around you to see what you are wishing for. More religiosity has the potential to dramatically lower our exceptionalism with respect to the rest of the world.
Already we are only exceptional in the amount of money we spend on our military and on no other relevant statistic I can find. This only after religion has taken a stronghold within the government. I’m sure I dont need to list the examples of this.
Be well pastor. i hope you vote on evidence and not faith.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Mind if I summarise? Shared ground at this point appears to be as follows:
1) Everyone should have the freedom to discuss their religious stance (be they Christian, Moslem, atheist, etc).
2) No-one should have the freedom to impose those beliefs on others (be they Christian, Moslem, atheist, etc).
2a) That means no legislation or other government action that privileges one position over another.
3) In an ideal world, more people would hold [author]’s beliefs. [Author] reserves the right to promulgate and encourage those beliefs, as long as such action would not contradict points 1, 2 and 2a.
Points of disagreement appear to be:
A) What constitutes “privileging one position”. Is it privileging atheism to ban government employees from using government resources to promote religion? Or is that just preventing them from breaching point 2a?
B) Which religious stance is correct? (Obviously)
C) How dangerous is it to blur the lines between religion and government?
D) Which religious or atheistic groups (if any) are currently in breach of, or aiming to be in breach of, points 1, 2 and 2a above.
That a fair summary? Anyone disagree with the “shared ground” section?
October 8th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Well summarized. Any ideas how to resolve point of disagreement A?
October 8th, 2008 at 6:00 am
While I agree with the 1-3, I see a problem with #1 and 2a. Here it is.
some 30% of science teacher are young earth creationists (i’m sorry I dont remember the exact stat, but it is alarmingly high). So when you say a statement that I agree with like :
“Everyone should have the freedom to discuss their religious stance (be they Christian, Moslem, atheist, etc).”
…science class is not one of those places, and neither is when you are trying to display impartiality in a court case, or display fairness in business. So yeah, everyone should have the right to discuss their beliefs, but not when they are teaching a class of other peoples kids, not when they are determining the guilt of hundreds of people, and not when they are trying to do the best for their employees and investors. When you do this, you are teaching one religion over another, or using a religion to prejudice decision making that affects hundreds of other poeple that may or may not believe the same thing as you.
I noticed above that the Rev. felt like his religion was being taken from him when laws arise that say you can’t have, what is essentially, preaching in school. He felt that censors his right to religion.
No one says you can’t pray in school, tons of schools even have student prayer meetings and so forth before and after school. Virtually no one has a problem with this (although personally I think prayer circles are a completely wackadoo activity, and as a total aside, would you stop this if you saw it happening?). Almost every atheist on the planet would completely endorse a comparative religion course in high school. But if a public school leads in prayer, for all its students, in class or in assembly then damn right, you are breaking 2A, while the reverend thinks that if you ban this practice you are breaking #1. Note once again, no one is talking about catholic schools, no one is talking about churches or families or what you do in your own time.
One more quick example: many fanatics think that the teaching of evolution in science class breaks 2A. This shows a complete disregard for what science is, how it works, and why we need to know it and teach it, in favor of a personal worldview.
so, yeah, I agree with 1-3, but its the implementation of 1-3 that I often take issue with, and so do fundies.
A-C is why I promote a secular approach (which, as I explained above is hugely different than an atheist one) to government, teaching, and business .
We will never come to a point where one groups religious beliefs are thought to be ‘correct’ by all of the people, even if it is forced. The only way to get there is by convincing argument and debate which I completely endorse. I’d believe in God today (or a god at least) if a disembodied hand came out of the sky and shook Min around a little.
or an amputee grew a leg back without medical intervention.
are either of these so tough for god? Would he have 100% belief if this happened and he simply wrote down which book to believe? Instead we have 100,000 different religions and a small group of atheists giggling at everyone else.
D would be an interesting topic though.