From a post by someone explaining why he isn’t a “friendly” atheist.
Fundamentalism cannot exist if we eliminate all religion, and to expect it to go away while moderate religiosity remains is a foolish endeavor indeed.
Doesn’t this sort of eliminationist rhetoric sound just like the mullahs of the far right? Yeah, atheists have none of the pull of the religious in the political sphere, but does that excuse them acting just like their opponents? Just a total turnoff.
I have to agree. I’m an atheist myself, and I thought that his post was angry, condescending, and dimwitted, all at the same time.
Here’s my favorite bit:
Nothing? Mr. Atheist has read all of the Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, and Christian scriptures, and found NOT ONE passage that supported the idea of salvation through any means other than belief? He must not have read very closely.
What gets me is that his position is so self-defeating. Obviously, atheists are the group that benefits most from religious tolerance. Rants like the one from the “angry” atheist may make an unpleasant person feel better for a little while, but they aren’t very smart.
Good question.
No.
If you had some context there, perhaps. Stripped of any context, it reads (to me) like a statement of fact.
I don’t see a call for a program to eliminate all religion by force there.
I couldn’t read the post because I got an error message when I tried to follow your link… but just in the limited information you posted, he’s not posting anything that’s not true. Without religion, there would be no fundamentalists (despite what pedro, dugger, and frank would have you believe about those who trust in science).
Furthermore, although individual people can be “moderate” or “mainstream” in their religious actions (e.g., Muslims who don’t blow themselves up), there are always going to be those at the extreme end. The presence of one necessarily includes the other.
As I’ve demonstrated before on this blog, outspoken atheists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and apparently this gentleman above are NOTHING like the relious nutballs Falwell, Robertson, and Co. Please stop making the analogy, it’s untrue and insulting.
This is a conundrum.
In the political arena you have repeatedly called for the left to fight back just like the wingnuts attack.
If your an atheist, you do not see a religious entity, rather a movement that has ensnared people with false promises to retain control over how they act and think. Part of religious dogma is to attack the heathens or godless.
So if viewed as attacking a political, not religious entity, would this post be that ugly? Could it be a matter perspective?
So you think the response to extreme religious fundamentalism is extreme atheistic fundamentalism? Have we learned nothing from the middle east? My answer to conservative extremism is militant moderation. Do you see me supporting liberals to be as extreme in their ideology as the right? Not I, sir. Again I use the King analogy. Virulent racists had power, MLK could have advocated militancy in order to counter them. Thankfully he didn’t and chose moderation, which was actually a harder position to hold intellectually - its easy to be a reactionary - and I think its safe to say that he won the battle and killed off the opposition in the process.
Unlike the religious side of the coin, there is no such thing as atheistic fundamentalism. Unless you think that speaking out regarding what you believe is being a fundamentalist.
Additionally, while there are shades of grey in the religious world (e.g., moderates vs. extremists), there is not in the atheistic world. You’re an atheist or you’re not. You can’t be a “moderate” atheist.
Atheists should stand up and shout at the top of their lungs. We’re an embattled few, and have relatively few allies in the overall social scene.
Note that I am NOT advocating militarism, nor the murder of Christians or any such madness. But I will reserve the right to stand up and blatantly say to religious people who provoke me, “There is no God, you’re an idiot, get your head out of your ass.” I would be more calm and collected and persuasive about it, but I’ve consistently found the very religious to be unwilling to talk about it… therefore I probably wouldn’t have time to make a full case.
I am an atheist, and I support the First Amendment right of those benighted fools who subscribe to any religion.
That said, these people have done our country a lot more harm than any atheist or group of atheists could have.
If atheists were in the majority, we would not have had to deal with any of the right-wing nuttery that we have today, because atheists do not accept statements on “faith.” Most of the right-wing religionists accept statements based on the authority of the speaker, and that has led us to trouble when the speaker is a moron and also the president.
“Doesn’t this sort of eliminationist rhetoric sound just like the mullahs of the far right?”
No. When Atheists talk about eliminating religion they talk about education. When mullahs talk about eliminating infidels, they talk about using violence, (either killing or converting under threat).
Oliver, I don’t know that I would put it the way you did but his approach is offensive. It need not be the equivalent of a violent mullah
Talking about eliminating a competing idea leads a reasonable person to ask: by what means? Eliminate in English carries some of its Latin tone: to force it outside the city walls, violently. Had he used the word “overcome” or “defeat” or “successfully challenge” instead of eliminate, the sentence would sound less bitter and more engaging.
I guess I would call myself a soft atheist (what some people colloquially call an “agnostic” by a common definition.) Dawkins to me is not a “fundamentalist” so much as a bitter academic with an axe to grind of late against any past, present or future recipient of the Templeton Prize. Harris comes off a bit better to me.
“Without religion, there would be no fundamentalists”
Mambo, maybe you haven’t been in this world all that long. Dogmatic atheism (amounts to faith there is no God)is just as fundamentalist as any dogmatic religion. And countless others ‘isms’ have their fundamentalist followers: communism, racism, enviro extremists, non religious cultists. Its hard wired into the human psyche. Religion is just one of many vehicles it uses to express itself.
I was speaking about the rather limited definition of fundamentalism as pertaining to religion, not to fundamentalism as a general principle. My bad on not making that clear.
No. When Atheists talk about eliminating religion they talk about education.
Would that education include calling people idiots, benighted fools and telling them to get their heads out of their asses?
It’s the very condescending attitude of atheists who think because somebody believes in God it somehow puts a limit on their intelligence, that keeps others from seeing the ‘truth’ (as atheists see it). Some of the stupidest people I have ever met in my life are atheists. Some are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Some of the smartest people I have met are atheists. Some are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
Besides, why would the religious want to talk about it? Faith is belief that is not based on proof. I cannot provide to you proof on a piece of paper that God exists.
But in conversations I’ve had with atheists, I ask them about faith in general. They acknowledge that faith is something they have when it comes to worldly things. This of course, makes no sense. Since proof is something atheists require to believe something than faith - in anything - goes against their core beliefs. If they don’t accept faith as a rationale for believing in God, because they don’t accept the premise of belief without proof, then how can they have faith about anything?
This is why I call myself an agnostic.
Atheism is not necessarily dogmatic, for many people it is their inferred position after making a series of realizations, namely that there are competing (read: True) explanations for how mankind came to exist, how the planets move, etc., and other explanations of how we develop our morals and social laws that dont require us to believe that Moses ever existed (there is no archaeological evidence there ever was a Moses. Jesus we can prove, but no Moses). Religion isnt necessary to give comfort and solace to people, nor is it necessary to bring people together. Religion is society’s appendix, a vestigial organ that at this point can only serve to get inflamed and infected and hurt us.
If people are hostile to religion it is because they think it necessary, not simply because they are anti-social assbags or what have you. The only reason fundamentalists (be they islamic or christian) pose any kind of threat to anyone is because Religion is taken seriously, and there is no honest, sensible reason why it should be so.
Forget The suicide bombers, forget the inquisition and the crusades, the real crime of Religion is its responsibility for submission to ineffable authority. In Dawkins’ “God Delusion” he talks about a biologist who realized that what he was studying proved that massive swaths of the bible cannot be reconciled with what has been scientifically established as fact. Ergo, he abandons science and reason in the name of the authority that the bible, a single, self-contradictory book, had over him. Dawkins’ talks about a lesser incident in the spanish inquisition, where a boy, Edgardo Mortara, born to jewish parents but taken from them because one day a babysitter, watching over him when he had a bad cold, baptised him with tap water to save his soul, meaning he was christian now, and couldnt live with his unsaved parents. Why did the church think it wouldnt do more damage to take the child from his parents? Why did they deny them visitation? Why didnt the Mortaras just splash water on each other to be legally baptised and get their child back? Why, given this potential threat from christian babysitters, was no jewish babysitter willing to work at all on sundays? The reason spans christianity and judaism alike: Because Religion is taken seriously. It should not be at all. Religion cannot be shown to have caused any positive event (I suppose the exception is if you find the bible to be a damn fine read, but thats it) is not the source of morals, provides no real explanation for anything, and only serves to legitimize hate, bigotry, tyrrany, and surrender to undeserving authority. I freely admit that I honestly do believe there is more likely than not such a thing as a God, but there has never been and will never be such a thing as a good religion. I apologize if I seem hostile, and am legitimately sorry if I cannot convince you that Religion, a vague abstraction referring to all unprovable beliefs and bizzare rituals that glorify the invisible man in the sky, is undeserving of defense.
Correction: Edgardo Mortara was taken by the italian inquisition. I forgot that detail at the time, but shouldnt’ve expected the spanish inquisition.
*waits for it…*
NOBODY EXPECTS…
Well their chief weapon is surprise after all.
Religion cannot be shown to have caused any positive event (I suppose the exception is if you find the bible to be a damn fine read, but thats it) is not the source of morals, provides no real explanation for anything, and only serves to legitimize hate, bigotry, tyrrany, and surrender to undeserving authority.
Sorry, but I take serious issue with this statement. To throw a blanket over religion and say it is not caused any positive events is just ludicrous.
Start small. Ever get involved with a church soup kitchen? Our church provided money, shelter and temporary housing for several families that were victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bigger. Habitat for Humanity and The Salvation Army are both Christian based charitable organizations.
In addition, the Bible in no way shape or form legitimize’s hate and/or bigotry. People use it as an excuse for their own pent up hatred and bigotry that already existed in their hearts.
Start small. Ever get involved with a church soup kitchen? Our church provided money, shelter and temporary housing for several families that were victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Have been, yes, and good for you. However that still does not require religion have been a part of that. You’re decent (if disagreeable) people, Jay, and we both know that you would have done what you can to help those people even if there were no religion involved at all. Your humanity compelled you to do what you can, not your belief in God. Otherwise you’d be saying “The only reason I helped those people out was because the man in the robes told me so.” This isnt the case. Religion did not cause that good deed, community and compassion did.
Bigger. Habitat for Humanity and The Salvation Army are both Christian based charitable organizations.
Goodwill though is a secular alternative to the Salvation Army (which I go to more often mostly because they’re open sundays) so clearly Religion again is not a cause of charity even on that sort of scale. You havent really proven anything, Jay. Yes, all these organizations identify themselves as religions, but we’re talking about what the Religion itself is actually responsible for. Non-religious, secular, agnostic or even atheist people and organizations are no less likely to help those in need than religious people are, so Religion isnt even part of the equation.
In addition, the Bible in no way shape or form legitimize’s hate and/or bigotry. People use it as an excuse for their own pent up hatred and bigotry that already existed in their hearts.
I might have been unclear by my use of legitimize. If a person says “I hate queers!!!” then they are a raving bigot. If the same person says “The bible tells me to hate queers.” Then they get a book deal. They get invited on talk shows as religious commentators. Their religion legitimizes their hatred in the public arena as a justification for their prejudice that exceeds their own benighted imbecilic prejudices. Have you ever seen anyone denounce homosexuality on TV or in the paper that wasnt speaking as some manner of representative of some church or other?
Lack of introspection, inability to question authority, and arbitrary disgust of social groups are all negative qualities, and yet if they are “caused” by religion, they are publically considered less negative or not at all, and if you rank high enough in your God-Club it can even be a bonus. Given that the inneffable nature of the hereafter (presuming it exists) is explicitly a matter of faith from person to person, given that there is no empirical evidence of anything, it follows that, for instance, an anglican bishop has as much right to speak about it as a Subway Sandwich Artist who’s minoring in Philosophy. Yet between the two, which is going to get on TV, and why?
*curses self for hitting Post too soon* Youre kind of trying to have it both ways actually, Jay. If youre saying Religion doesn’t directly cause bad people to do bad things, then how can it cause good people to do good things? Irrespective of faith, Jay, there are Good people and Bad people. Religion “causes” neither, nor their actions. However, in the public arena, what Religion does is give a legitimate reason behind such deeds. Good deeds and good people need no such legitimization of course, but the bad ones desperately do, and Religion provides that cover. To reiterate therefore, Religion cannot be demonstrated to directly cause a good deed (since people inclined to perform said deed would have done so anyway), is not the basis for our morals (good people would be good people anyway), does not do a better job of explaining anything natural that science does, or supernatural that any random person’s best guess could replicate, and therefore serves exclusively to grant public legitimacy (as well as self-satisfaction) to bad deeds, be they acts of willful cruelty (inquisition), of willful inaction (Catholic church’s unwillingness to object to Nazi-ism) or willful ignorance (the above mentioned biologist who’s name eludes me at the moment). This is why I am hostile to Religion.
not sure what proof has to do with faith. it’s perfectly reasonable for athiests to have faith in “worldly things.” i have faith that the cleveland cavs will beat the sacramento kings tonight. i can’t prove this will happen, but i have faith based on what i know about basketball.
Rex, I know that my faith changed me and the person that I am. While I can be a grade a jerk in this comment section, most of it is bluster designed to get a rise out of people. Although there are times when people here just get under my skin and I lash out, writing things that embarrass me when I read it later.
But prior to my walk with God, I wouldn’t have cared either way and I certainly would not have given away “my hard earned money” to people “who didn’t deserve it.”
Do I give now out of a sense of biblical duty? Sure. But I also do so because I want to do it. I never wanted to before. The Bible isn’t just a declaration of things that people must do because they just have to. But it is also a guide. I know that from reading the Bible and gaining a better understanding of it, it has helped me to become a better husband and father. Am I saying it is necessary in order to be a better parent or spouse? No. But it was in my life. It’s Christianity is often referred to as a ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ.’ I don’t think of it as a ‘religion’ per se.
I know it’s kind of off topic, but just wanted you to see it more from my perspective.
As for the issue of homosexuality, I understand what you’re saying. Believe me, it’s an issue I struggle with (in the context of how Christians discuss it) because the response to anything having to do with the issue of homosexuality by the Christian community at large has become so counter-productive that it’s impossible to engage various Christians in the discussion. But that’s another discussion and I don’t want to hijack this more than I already have.
I believe most American atheists would oppose anti-religious laws. Meanwhile, a majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president, regardless of his or her qualifications. More would vote for a woman, a black, a Muslim, and even a homosexual.
As for militant atheism, I agree that Dawkins et. al. sometimes go too far (and I’ve posted on my blog to that effect) but even so, they’re not 1/10th as dumb or mean as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
First I’d just like to thank you for being so candid about your own religious experience. I realise how intensely personal such experiences and conversions can be, and appreciate your willingness to discuss it.
However, I still think you’re contradicting yourself, and the idea that Religion directly causes positive actions. When you say you simultaneously give out of biblical duty and personal desire, I’m frankly more inclined to believe that personal desire has more of a factor to play there than duty. Arguably the “duty” existed in some abstract form before you ever wanted to, but didnt influence you at that time. You say though that you never actually “wanted” to give before, and here again I thank you for being open about this, and recognize the significance of the change that took place. However, you also acknowledge that religion was not “necessary” for other people to be good, while saying it was for you… and this really gets to the core of one of my biggest problems with Religion as a whole, Jay. It’s convinced you that you are weak. Its convinced you that you would have been incapable of introspection and self improvement without it. You acknowledge other people are good without religion in their lives, and that other people can become good without religious conversion, and yet cannot apply this to yourself.
…look I dont want to get psychoanalytical here. I dont know you, Jay, and probably never will. But I know people who’ve given in. People who’ve felt the need to surrender to a power that only serves to tear them down, be it religion, drug addiction, or devotion to a dead end job, and all for the same reason: They honestly believe that while everyone else in the world can do without, that they cannot. That they are somehow lesser than everyone else. To butcher a line from a movie I saw over the weekend, its denying those who ask you to stand, and submittind to those who ask you to kneel. It’s surrender of the mind and the spirit for the drug addict, for the dead-end worker, for people in loveless marriages, and for people who have given up on life, and only in Religion is such surrender called a virtue and mis-named “Humility.”
…I think I have to stop at this point because I have no way to argue anymore, experience has shown me my inability to argue effectively with the devout. I have no way to prove to you that, while your eyes may have been opened by the words of Christ the Philosopher and Christ the Teacher, that they would have done so without the help of Christ the Magician and Christ the Immortal. I cant demonstrate that you don’t require, as a guide for being a good father, the Bible which, for example, praises Lot who, to protect two angels, offers his virgin daughters to a mob of sodomites. I cant show you that you’d still be a good person without Religion in your life Jay, and you’d have no reason to trust me either. I cannot demonstrate that you are not lacking in whatever way it is that allows other people to become good without Religion but “prevented” you from the same. I cant prove that there’s nothing so wrong with you Jay. I do hope that you can prove it to yourself though.
Rex, I understand where you’re coming from because I used to be there myself. I consider myself one of the lucky ones because I can see it from another person’s perspective because I used to be that other person. I thought much the same way you did. “I don’t need God to help me do _____ as I can do it myself.”
But what I’ve learned is that surrendering certain things to God is not a weakness. It is merely an acknowledgment that we can’t do it all by ourselves. That sometimes relying on ourselves is futile. Now, some people take this to extremes. I know Christians that don’t vote. Why? “Oh because it’s all in God’s hands anyway” which is just laziness.
But I’ll stop it there. You see where I am coming from and vice versa. We’ll just agree to disagree.
Thanks.
as an secular atheist in today’s modern society…
i just want to see the religious volume with regard to politics turned down…just a little.
the fact is that once you have turned the religious channel on, you can’t ever turn it off. it’s not like your usual TV programming.
i will gladly begin to leave my atheism at home when religious types leave their religion at home, too.
it’s a two way street in the eyes of this particular atheist. whenever i am confronted with religious arguments in regard to the human condition, i prefer to be reasonable and honest about my atheism & my desire to see a more secular & therefore open and free-thinking society.
the problem is, people of religion tend to be more concerned with conversion of others than listening & understanding others.
reason vs. conversion = ?
-john david
Now isn’t this nice? This has got to be one of the most civilized posts on this site in a very long time.
Mutual respect, admiration for opposing points of view and no name calling. There is hope after all.
“But what I’ve learned is that surrendering certain things to God is not a weakness. It is merely an acknowledgment that we can’t do it all by ourselves.”
The ironic thing is that we actually really DO do it all by ourselves. Surrendering your rational thought processes actually short changes the true capacity that people have to survive and thrive and do good. You don’t need believe in the supernatural to do good.
revenantive : Do you suppose you have the right to demand that the volume of religion be turned down, while they — the religious — have not the right to demand that the volume of secular atheism be turned down?
Are religious institutions to be blamed because people believe in God? I was baptized a Catholic, but I don’t practice it any more.
But I am a deeply spiritual person, who believes that God exists, and that he works in my life, if I let Him.
Does that give me the right to “put atheists out of business”? Of course not!
Religion, like any other idea, has a place in the market place of ideas.
Well, the volume of religion has been turned up to 11 for a very long time.
Atheism, while it has existed for ages, has only recently come to the fore.
While I don’t think it advances the process by saying things like “all religious people are poopy heads, atheism also has a place in the “market place of ideas” and has only recently come out from the back room.
personally, I think most organized religions belong in the “Dollar Valu” bin by the checkout.
fd10801 said — Religion, like any other idea, has a place in the market place of ideas.
quick question:
what part of “separation of church & state” would you like to change?
what is the ultimate motive of YOUR specific reason for shouting your religion into the “market place” of ideas…in a forum that supposedly has “separation of church & state”
our republic was founded on that particular god-damned idea. think about it for a second or two, and perhaps you will understand why i am taking a stand on the soap box as an atheist.
i am not here to CONVERT anyone. I am here to POINT to a flawed political argument based on non-fact or unprovable allegation. everyone has there own view on the subject…including me.
so…if you would like to share with me WHY YOU THINK that religion should play a role in politics & human condition issues as we deal with them today in a multi-cultural society….let me know.
i think we need to ‘tame’ our religious differences in the public forum. that’s why i am stating my beliefs, so you can understand why i feel the way i do.
i don’t care if ANYONE ELSE gives a hoot. this is my statement. my words. my belief.
my politics…are my own. but if you are going to debate politics with me, you should provide factual arguments based on real life conditions as we face them today.
i read more than one book to find my personal sense of morality. i listen to more than one argument for my personal sense of morality.
all i have seen from many of the religious crusaders who have entered politics in the past 15 years since i have been voting age is bile & fascism tilted toward a fundamental vision that has little to do with reality or fact.
it’s a shame we have become so blind and so lost in our sense of purpose. i do not believe religion is the answer. i believe it will take a much broader view than many religious types are capable of.
i am just one voter in this country of ours. but i am one of many.
i think you are selling your religion into the wrong marketplace of ideas if you are trying to market your god to modern american voters in the coming future.
get your religion out of american politics. it’s just like the merchants in the temple of god.
i recommend “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson if you are so inclined to understand fully my viewpoint on religious marketing.
Are religious institutions to be blamed because people believe in God?
I dont think blame is the proper word, since belief in God itself is not an inherently bad thing. Also, its not the exclusive cause of belief in God either. I was never a part of any church, yet accept that some manner of God exists (a realization I came to by asking the kinds of questions religions inherently oppose, for the record). What I think it can be faulted for is the nature in which it brings some people into that faith. If you believe in God predominantly because the Bible tells you to, then is that belief sincere? If you only do a good deed because you are instructed to, are you a good person? If I program a robot to build a homeless shelter, does that make the robot a moral being because its done a “good dees”? No, on all three counts, since the actions engaged in are prompted from external forces unrelated to a desire to perform them, coming specificly from an instruction of a person in “authority.”
Religion, like any other idea, has a place in the market place of ideas.
And yet it is reluctant to be debated, criticised, challenged publically, even questioned by one of its own keen believers eager to understand.
One of the interesting things I think that is lost in much of the readings of the gospels is how anti-religion Jesus was himself. His character basically changes at some point during the editing process of the bible, but the distinction is clear if you know where to look. Consider the situation: The Pharisees controlling people by telling them that they must believe and must do it this way, at this time, with this book, and these clothes on and with this food and not that and no white after labor day and buttering this side of your toast and not the other, etc. Jesus comes along and speaks words that ring as true today as they did two millenia ago, that belief is personal, intimate, self-defining and cant be forced into a shape by others, that good deeds should be done for their own sake, that you should do unto others as they should do unto you, and countless other quotable phrases about how strict dogmatism is never a good thing. Of course, to reinforce the church structure that bit had to be lessened, so the message of christ changes basically after he’s ressurected (in the story. As I say I dont believe in Christ the Magical Man but do accept Christ the Philosopher).
“The Pharisees are wrong to tell you how to believe because belief is so personal that nobody can tell you how to do it.”
Becomes
“The Pharisees are wrong to tell you how to believe because they left out the whole bit with the pointy hats and the wine and crackers and they arent using the right book and you have to have these clothes on and with this food and not that and no white after labor day…”
revenantive : The idea behind separation of church and state was not that religion and government can not co - exist.
It was simply that the government of the United States could not sponsor a religious establishment (institution). During the Colonial period (post Constitution) there were states that had sponsored religions.
So, let’s forget the “The Founding Fathers didn’t like religion, either” argument, shall we?
Until the 1970’s, liberals were quite happy with the participation of religious (and by that, I mean priests, rabbis,nuns and ministers) in the political process, when it came to supporting civil rights and nuclear disarmament, and opposing the Vietnam War.
Now you’re unhappy with the participation of religious in government. Why?
It was OK then, why not now?
since the actions engaged in are prompted from external forces unrelated to a desire to perform them, coming specificly from an instruction of a person in “authority.”
So, in other words, people who are religious aren’t really good — they’re just doing what they’re told?
So, when you go 15 miles per hour in a School Zone, you’re just doing what you’re told? That being the case, why not go 30 or 40 miles per hour if you feel like it? Because you don’t want to run over any schoolchildren! That’s why!
As an aside, this is a great discussion.
Let’s be clear on the concept of “separation of church and state.” The Founders were anti-religious oppression, but were not anti-religion, nor did they set out to create a religion-free society. Official governing documents (including currency) are replete with godly references. What the Founders did not want, was for government to promote one religion over another. They did not want the absence of religion.
What we see today as politics becomes more polarized is the similar polarization of religion. Be it anti-Muslim, anti-Semitism or even anti-Christian, religious opposition is on the rise.
Italics Fixed
“So, in other words, people who are religious aren’t really good — they’re just doing what they’re told?”
Take it from the other side Frank. If a religious person performs a “good” action because the Bible tells them to, and a Robot performs the same exact action because the operator tells it to, are they not both equally virtuous? By merely following instructions, can we not say that the devout religious person is as much a good and moral person as the mindless automaton?
“So, when you go 15 miles per hour in a School Zone, you’re just doing what you’re told? That being the case, why not go 30 or 40 miles per hour if you feel like it? Because you don’t want to run over any schoolchildren! That’s why!”
Well yes, but your conflating laws and morals. Disobeying the law has a demonstrable negative outcome where as disobeying religious doctrine (in a free country) does not, since something like Hell cannot be proven to exist.
unfortunately, due to over-heated religious rhetoric at the time of the country’s founding much compromise in the ‘vision’ of the republic was made.
for reference read:
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
This was submitted by Thomas Jefferson, in 1786. However, a tax exempt agreement was later struck, to the dismay of Thomas Jefferson. He wanted no such deal for church institutions.
today, our fellow fundamentals are benefiting from a well publicized “faith-based” initiative courtesy our US GOVERNMENT.
so, let’s talk about this critically, can we?
how well do you know the history of “religion in the marketplace o ideas”?
how well do you know your own religion & the corresponding evolving history of your religion?
how does your religion fit into the OVERALL issues & events as they concern & affect us here in america today?
and why does the government need to ‘fund’ the overall rather fundamental vision of church institutions nationwide?
all i see is religion being set up as an unnecessary ‘middle men’ along the sales cycle.
as an american business man, i believe our corporations & institutions devoted to distribution of PRODUCTS would be better SERVED with the faith based initiative money. giving gov’t funds to a church that has no real interest in helping anyone but themselves, ultimately, is heresy & blasphemy.
Out of the other side of the mouth, these same religious types will spout the gravitas of the “marketplace of ideas”
can you see where i am going with this?
the downward spiral towards religious domination & assimilation at the expense of free market forces & basic human freedom & liberty.
i believe in close monetary environmentalism when it comes to our government resources. religion is very wasteful use of our state’s tax revenue, in my opinion.
in today’s world, religion has become BIG BUSINESS.
that’s scary.
without reason = converted vs. converted = disagreements in a more general sense, which often will lead to war
Well yes, but your conflating laws and morals
No, I’m not. Running over children is a bad thing to be avoided, is it not?
The law only makes that less likely. Most laws are designed to bring about good results, or prevent bad results.
We as Americans (and this includes our soldiers) reserve to ourselves the right to disobey laws which are “not good.” Isn’t this the same as saying that we recognize the “goodness” of laws we obey?
We can drive through a red light if the streets are empty late at night, and we can see no cars are coming, whether we fear punishment or not. We wouldn’t do such a thing in midday, in heavy traffic, because we have no desire to turn our car into scrap, OR hurt other people OR wreck their cars.
And all these things are secondary to avoiding punishment, aren’t they?
Roman Catholics believe in the idea of Temporal Punishment — the idea that we will suffer here on earth for the sins we commit, as well as in the afterlife. Also, most sins do not lead one to Hell.
In other news
Wow, shit, sorry about that.
That was totally not supposed to happen.
believe in the idea of Temporal Punishment — the idea that we will suffer here on earth for the sins we commit, as well as in the afterlife. Also, most sins do not lead one to Hell.
that concept is also known as the ‘malevolent god’.
this god likes to torture his/her constituents here on earth, unlike the ‘benevolent’ god who showers his/her constituents with love & undying affection for the afterlife.
i love god for this reason. he has many faces.
liberals were quite happy with the participation of religious (and by that, I mean priests, rabbis,nuns and ministers) in the political process, when it came to supporting civil rights and nuclear disarmament, and opposing the Vietnam War.
Because it was the right and moral thing to do.
We can drive through a red light if the streets are empty late at night, and we can see no cars are coming, whether we fear punishment or not. We wouldn’t do such a thing in midday, in heavy traffic, because we have no desire to turn our car into scrap, OR hurt other people OR wreck their cars.
And all these things are secondary to avoiding punishment, aren’t they?
Well I dunno Frank, not dying in a car crash sort of takes priority over not going to jail, since I could probably survive jail, but probably wont survive dying. But otherwise true. And in that case then there are more reasons impelling the decision not to run the light than the mere fact of the law. There are always more and better explanations behind the performing of “good” deeds (or the non-performance of “bad” deeds) than divine instruction. I have no faith in any kind of religion whatsoever, and yet I also do not want to run that red light, or run over children, or commit any “bad” deed.
The main problem is this: Not all good deeds are caused by Religion (secular charities and such). Also, Not all Religion-caused deeds are good ones (9/11 springs immediately to mind). This being the case, how is it possible to demonstrate that any good deed is caused by religion at all? Is it not more likely that a charitable act owes more to a person’s disposition than the specific diety they worship (or don’t)?
that concept is also known as the ‘malevolent god’.
You are incorrect. It is simply stating that sin carries its own consequences.
God does indeed shower us with love and affection, if we accept it, but as Jesus said, the good father disciplines his child because he loves him.
I’m not surprised you don’t understand much about theology. That helps explain why you’re an atheist.
All I wanted was this bit;
WASHINGTON - The American Humanist Association applauded Rep. Pete Stark for publicly acknowledging he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, it said, makes him the highest-ranking elected official - and first congressman - to proclaim to be an atheist.
Carry on.
I’m not surprised you don’t understand much about theology.
I am a former alter boy.
so shut your book, Mr. Religion.
i have attended more mass by the time i was in 8th grade than you have probably ever attended. assuming you only go to church on sundays.
i worked 6 days a week as a kid studying religion. how about you?
i can even spell altar correctly for you.
Frank, you’re shown to be an idiot at every turn. Why don’t you just give up? You’re outmatched. People with even a half a brain could run circles around you.
Jay and Rex, I applaud your mutual respect. I wish that it was more common in the world.
Pre-emptive strike: Although I am an atheist, I don’t consider myself an angry, intolerant one. I only get upset when religious ideals are imposed on matters of national policy, or when someone personally judges me for my atheism. That’s when I get fed up.
“I only get upset when religious ideals are imposed on matters of national policy”
Hell, I agree with that, if by ‘ideals’ you mean religious theory or doctrine. Actually, many religious ideals are quite noble (love your fellow man, etc).
Pete Stark identified himself as a ‘non-thiest’. He is a churchgoing Unitarian… Like Thomas Jefferson was.
rev F RE: If you have just changed your name from “revenantive”, then I was referring to you.
If not, I still believe that most atheists are ignorant of theology — which, of course, is not measured by attendance at Mass.
I’m an atheist. I’ve been one all my life, and have taken the label when I was 6, when I learnt the word.
I honestly don’t get this level of dogmatism.
I’ve seen something like this in folks who were once Christians or Jews and abandoned their beliefs when they found them absurd. They then get all pissed off that their parents dragged them to church every Sunday and think this was such a horrible imposition. They need to get over it. They didn’t miss much except sleep, as Sunday morning television is crap.
Don’t substitute getting up early on Sunday for an American Atheists meeting on Thursday night. (”Don’t believe in anything? Well, come join us as we talk about nothing!”) You’re liberated from stupidity — don’t ruin it by jumping back into it.
I still believe that most atheists are ignorant of theology — which, of course, is not measured by attendance at Mass.
Most of the religious folk I have met are ignorant of theology. What’s your point?
Oliver, Oliver, Oliver…
There are four knonw elected non-believers in the US.
And you call this “eliminationist”rhetocirc.
Have you no shame, sir? At long last, have you no shame?
Something about taxation without representation ringing a bell?
Here’s an amazing essay by Michael Novak.
Can you help me out with this part, Frank?
about the horrific brutalities committed in the name of “scientific atheism” during the 20th century
What is he talking about here>
an open response to Mr. Novak of AEI
here is a quick retort in response to Mr. Novak’s article, which appeared in National Review on March 19, 2007, is a review of Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett, and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
_____________
Mr. Novak,
I would like to thank you for your article. It was quite enlightening in regard to the christian condition in our shared country. Your commentary on the past history of christianity & it’s clear dominance & amalgamation over other cultures & shared philosophies was fascinating to read from my perspective, as a self-proclaimed atheist & citizen of the United States.
I would like to point out to you that your religion now has nearly 200 years of tax-exempt status that is funding & financing your viewpoint. As an american citizen, I feel this provides your views an unfair religious marketing advantage for your religious corporation and others like it nationwide. In your letter, you allude to the phrase “Marketplace of Ideas”. I hear this often, and many of your religious compatriots love to use such straw-man logic when confronted with viewpoints not shared by the dogma of the religious person in question’s respective proselytizing philosophizers. I also hear that ‘marketplace of ideas’ phrase as an american businessperson who specializes in product promotion & placement.
With this inherent business advantage, I feel it is unfair for you & your religious advocates to extemporize your religion’s marketable value over another potentially more recent & more openly dynamic viewpoint, like atheism. Atheism, as it is espoused in public forums today, is just as valid as a religious viewpoint in its most basic recognizable form as christianity in its more contemporary formats.
My point is, you should be willing, as a christian & an american tax-payer, to shut your tax-exempt religious status down. Atheists & others of non-belief in this country have no such long period of infrastructure & market based psychological manipulations in place at the current time. On the other hand, I am sure that our country needs your taxes (from your religious corporations & sales) for the ongoing religious & resource war we are currently fighting as a country right now.
We have needs for your religious company and the tax revenue it is generating, if you are going to use market forces & tax exempt status for your own religion’s ultimate benefit & marketing potential. By benefits I would like to refer to the giant church structures & organizations being built TODAY on the backs of your congregations. To add further, I will also like to remind you of more recent abuse at the expense of United States citizens tax revenue: your wonderful christian religion is also one of the primary benefactors of the “faith-based’ pork spending initiative so popular in modern christian churches nationwide.
All i see is a big racketeering & extortion scam at tax-payer expense.
Mr. Novak, you are both an american and work for an organization (AEI) that is committed to presenting american values via free-market based capitalism. You state with considerable praise how the ‘marketplace of ideas’ should determine religion’s true value in the hearts and minds of religious consumers in the United States.
If you are the true champion of old-fashioned american deterministic virtue & market integrity, then you must be willing to accept that religion should not be given state sanctioned funding via tax exempt status at the expense of other thought processes & religious virtue not considered christian in format & scope.
Let the market forces determine your religion’s market value and your religion’s ability to sustain itself as a corporation & service. Don’t suck off the state’s supple tax revenue to finance your dominion over the hearts of our citizens. If you are going to use the marketplace for your church’s benefit as an organization, then you must be willing to pay taxes on your revenues. Even if said revenues were handed over with free will by a congregation member. Often, I find that the poorest among us are giving as much as 10-25% of their income away in donations to churchly organizations like christianity in general. I believe it is time to let market forces determine religion’s true value here, and I believe in fair taxation of both individuals & corporations of all types.
Your philosophy has had over 2000 years to do business worldwide, and now has had almost 200 years of tax-free business here in the United States. Other the other hand, semi-organized atheism is just beginning as a corporate belief here in America.
You should be proud that religious market forces that you are so privy on are forcing United States citizens like myself to stand up in defense of the true american creative engineering spirit within this nation. It is my goal as atheist to end corporate fascism & conceit in the United States as best as possible. I believe that it starts with a fair taxation policy.
I will also, at a later time, respond point by point to your open letter. Hopefully soon I will have the time to properly research & formulate a more effective & robust rebuttal of your christianity’s value over non-belief & reason.
sincerely,
John David
-atheist & an american citizen
about the horrific brutalities committed in the name of “scientific atheism” during the 20th century
What is he talking about here
He’s talking about the popular misconception that the atrocities carried out by Hitler and Stalin were due to atheism. Although Stalin was reportedly an atheist and it is suggested that Hitler was, no connection can be shown between their atheism and the wrongs they committed, the same way it can’t be shown that Adolf’s Roman Catholocism (which there is more proof of than his purported Atheism) is responsible for the Holocaust. It’s a non-argument.
about the horrific brutalities committed in the name of “scientific atheism” during the 20th century
What is he talking about here
I thought he made that clear. But I will clear it up for you, if you wish: He is referring to the people killed under the Nazi regime, and the Stalinist regime, and Mao’s regime.
John David: “… Churches shouldn’t be tax exempt, blah, blah, blah; yadda, yadda, yadda…”
I will also, at a later time, respond point by point to your open letter
I can’t wait.
blah, blah, blah; yadda, yadda, yadda…
Its important to bear in mind that Frank is, of course, a bajillion times more mature than anyone who disagrees with him is. Why that semicolon alone positively exudes wisdom as he shifts, poetically, from Blahs to Yaddas.
Frank is, of course, a bajillion times more mature than anyone who disagrees with him
Actually, I never said that. I only said you were immature.
Perhaps I was mistaken. You are as mature as a 24 year old in 2007 can be.
I thought he made that clear. But I will clear it up for you, if you wish: He is referring to the people killed under the Nazi regime, and the Stalinist regime, and Mao’s regime.
He did not. And neither have you. The people killed under those regimes could hardly be classified as victims of “Scientific-atheism.” While Communism at it’s core espouses a belief in G-d, it would be a stretch to assume that it’s victims were killed because of it. Same with the Nazis. The Nazi regime did not eliminate millions of Jews (and gypsies and homosexuals) strictly for their religious beliefs; they killed them because they were regarded as “less human” than the Germans.
So, I’m still unclear about the connection between “scientific” and “atheism.”
I also agree that churches and religious organizations should not be tax-exempt. I see no reason for it, other than state-endorsed tithing.
Duros: I can’t do miracles. If you can’t see the connection, I can’t make you see it.
As for Churches being tax - exempt, that’s tied into the original concept of separation of Church and State; that it might be considered interference with the practice of religion to tax the income of churches. Payroll taxes of course are payable by churches.
I can’t change that for you, either.
I can’t do miracles. If you can’t see the connection, I can’t make you see it.
Allow me do describe the connection then. Stalin and Mao (and, it is claimed but unproven, Hitler) were Atheists. They did bad things. Therefore Atheism is responsible for those bad things.
Also all three had black hair. Therefore having black hair is a cause of Atheism.
Also all three were Male. Therefore being Male causes black hair, which causes Atheism, which is responsible for committing human atrocities.
As for Churches being tax-exempt, that’s tied into the original concept of separation of Church and State.
Doesn’t it actually defy it though by granting a special status to a building based on its religious affilition? If I say that my house is the local “Church of the Way of the Nostril,” I shouldnt be able to avoid paying taxes on it, so why should it matter? Fine, house isnt a good example, but a privately run secular community center that engages in comparable charitable activity still has to pay those taxes. Why should they have to when the church, which provides the same fundamental function, be able to avoid it? The creation of that special rule that gives religion superiority over secularism defys the church-state seperation and should not be allowed. Either the secular places should be exempt as well, or churches shouldnt be.
damn, Rex, you beat me to the punch. guess I’ll have to steal YOUR thunder, then…
Eat dick, Frank.