Jacques Berlinerblau is associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He's also editor of faith2008.org. Many years ago he received a doctorate in ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University. Soon after, for reasons that he himself has never fully understood, he completed another doctorate in theoretical sociology from the New School for Social Research. Feeling sufficiently credentialed to write about and research any topic under the sun, his areas of interest include the Bible, its composition, its interpretation, and in particular the way that it has been dragooned into modern political discourse. To this end his new book is called "Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics" (Westminster John Knox), described by First Things as "laugh-out-loud funny as well as astute." He also has published "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously" (Cambridge:2005). An earlier book, "Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals" (Rutgers: 1999) probed the manner in which institutions of higher education handle scholarly dissent. He has written extensively in scholarly journals on the subject of heretics, intellectuals, secularism, and Jewish civilization. This confluence of interests accounts, to a great degree, for his fascination with modern Jewish-American literature. A life-long New Yorker, he has recently moved to Washington D.C. with his family and is beguiled by the strange traffic lights that count down the seconds until they finally change colors.
Close.
Jacques Berlinerblau is program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, editor of faith2008.org and author of "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics."
Full bio »
The idea of GOP candidates bragging about how many people were executed while they were Governors is very distasteful - particularly when in the same breath they claim their faith.
Ohg. http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/07/death-penalty-politics/
Do you have a belief that fairies don't exist? How about Zeus? Do you have a belief that he doesn't exist? Perhaps you KNOW that fairies and Zeus don't exist? Or, perhaps you take a scientific approach to fairies and Zeus, which is to say, you don't see any reason to believe in either exists without there being solid evidence offered for their existence.
As far as the term atheist, it has the disadvantage of describing someone as what they are not. Are you an a-Muslim? Are you an a-Episcopal? Are people who don't collect stamps a-stamp collectors? I could probably call you all three of those, and they would all be spot-on descriptions of you in the same way that the term "atheist" describes me.
Mike - Actually, there is some merit to your comment about athists just being of faith, but it's not QUITE accurate. Atheists generally adhere to the Scientific Method. That which is, can be proven through a testable methodology.
Many theories are routinely tested, evolution, gravity etc. They pass the tests. (or have so far, they may be disproven, but they haven't been yet!)
Faith in a 'god' fails EVERY test, or are you aware of one that has actually passed a testable scenario to prove a deities existence?
The difference is, atheists accept scientific evidence one way or the other. There is an element of faith there, but only insofar as it involves the testing parameters and scenario to be free of defects. Atheists begin with the idea that god does not exists, but if he can be proven to, it would be accepted. Kind of like gravity, evolution. We start with NOTHING, and wait for SOMETHING to be proven.
Theists on the other hand, begin with the idea that god exists (faith) and are waiting for it to be disproven. This is a fallacious approach to the scientific method, and renders it useless. How to prove something doesn't exist? With the Xtian usage (or rather lack thereof) of the Scientific Method, the Flying Spaghetti Monster satisfies the criteria to be a Deity just as the Xtian god does. I dare you to disprove him!
To clarify the above, what I mean by "above it all" is we feel above the pandering of politicians vying for what they think is the religious vote NOT above religion or religious identification, as I fear I might have implied. Happy New Year to one and all!
Will secularists vengefully abandon the Democratic Party? Well, it's not as if we had expectations...much less any choice, least of all, an alternative. We were better served surely by our candidates NOT alienating those Christians who would want us to be excluded. We're used to it. No biggie. We view it as rather pathetic that some Christians need and take validation from campaigning politicians. We trust in our Constitution and our courts. We trust in Jacques! Having opted out voluntarily, we don't feel excluded. We feel above it all.
TO EACH HIS OWN... PEACE ON EARTH AND HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR ! AFTER ALL THOSE WHO CELEBRATE IT NOW ARE THE MAJORITY AND IN A DEMOCRACY,THAT IS THE ONE THAT GOVERNS... THANK GOD.
well lds mark the existence of god is fundamental to faith so how was the creator created, well theres only one candidate and that is man "man made god in his own image" had any of these hopefulls been around 2000 years ago they could have gone up to jesus and said your fathers not joseph and your mothers not a virgin your real father is up on high surrounded by people with wings sticking out of their backs, pass the trumpets we,er off to blow some walls down, and before that had a conversation with a talking snake. wake up america the white house has already been turned into an asylum.
The only people who can define or redefine atheism and themselves as what kind of atheists are atheists themselves. As you both are doing in this thread.
The self-descriptions of various types of atheists seems to be getting more varied:
.... and with everything in between the above and now, Metaphysical Naturalist.
By the way, how can you be sure that John Gray, from whose book I quoted, is not an atheist?
Darwin23: J there is nothing to 'deny'.
Moi : Of course there is for atheists - There is no God/s. Atheists call it denial of the existence of God after proof by empirical and scientific evidence.
Darwin23 : The Father of the US Constitution, James Madison in a letter to William Bradford in 1774 wrote " Religious Bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize every expanded prospect..."
Moi : Thanks for the info. Madison must be talking of the bondage by the churches of people materially for services rendered and land owned during the Dark and Middle Ages and early Enligthment period. Madison has any slaves? Jefferson and Washington did.
Darwin23 : Relying on Superstitions like Xianity to govern by priestcrafters is all that religion can amount to; which amounts to your predilection for an insurance policy in a 'hereafter' using some pomp an circumstance road map to the Rapture by the Rapture Roadies.
Moi : Pomp is not part of all Christian denominations or other faiths. The Catholic Church is the most pageantlike and grand in its religious rites. The Quakers the simplest. Rapture is the thing of what is now called by some as Christian Zionists/Evangelicals like Pat Robertson.
Darwin23: J you are not able to wrap your head around what it means to be a metaphysical naturalist. What you can't explain you must make 'leaps' for. This leaping takes you off of the level ground we call 'theories': based on knowledge and reason and puts you in the ether-straw.
Moi: I have to wrap my head with too many things already. Metaphysical naturalist is an outgrowth of or part of "naturalism" in philosphical thought, no?
And oh, so, what we can't explain, we can only speculate and call them theories until proven? As in the Theory of Relativity. So, is God a theory then until proven it existed?
Now that we know the Singularity is held by many scientists to start the Big Bang, for believers and scientists, it brings up the question of what starts that Singularity.
Darwin23 : In short i believe that religion is something you out grow, like leprechauns or tooth fairies by age 12.
Moi : The tooth fairy and leprechaun is not found or believed outside the west/US. Nor do non-Christian children outside the west/US grew up believing in Santa Claus, witches, ghosts or unicorns.
Man has not outgrown religion for thousands of years. It will still be around, and not neccessarily in it current forms. The Greek thinkers and philosophers don't actually take to their gods judging by their discourses still with us.
And yet, Christianity as a belief prevailed and thrived, with the number of adherents growing by the day all over the world. Even in China, some 300 million people stated they are belief in something. This, in spite of China officially frowning on and not encouraging beliefs among its people.
Here's something generalised and simplified to tease you further : Secular humanism, humanism, Enlightenment is Christianity without belief in God with dollops of classical Greek thought on philosophy and governance thrown in, and refined over the ages - from Descartes to Spinoza to Voltaire to Nietzsche to Bertrand Russell to alas, we have Christopher Hitchens too. You get the drift.
It is down right scary to think that these candidates represent American religious "values" and knowledge. You would think we were back on the plains of Palestine trying to justify the murder of every living thing in the village we were trying to steal! Or perhaps it would be at the bonfires of the Church to rid the faithful of the witches! Or sitting behind the curtain to write the words of that con artist, Josepth Smith!
Does it not matter what is the source of ones "faith"? Is intellectual capability to question the inanity of religious "thought" not an indicator of ones ability to bring reason to questions of national policy and actions? Is the country not exhausted by the piety of our leader who only speaks to his higher father for guidance and who is either a very bad listener or talking to the wrong Father?
I am amazed that in a nation yelling for change, the GOP would field candidates who yell "more of the same"! I guess the corporate powers think they must own all candidates and it does not matter what sort of fool has the nominal title!
OORT - right on, i appreciate your discription of of non-believer... i often refer to myself as a Metaphysical Naturalist.
and to Jahadist: "Unbelief is a move in a game whose rules are set by believers. To deny the existence of God is to accept the categories of monotheism. As these categories falls into disuse, unbelief becomes uninteresting, and soon it is meaningless. Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christians' God is still a Christian world."
J there is nothing to 'deny'.
The Father of the US Constitution, James Madison in a letter to William Bradford in 1774 wrote " Religious Bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize every expanded prospect..."
Relying on Superstitions like Xianity to govern by priestcrafters is all that religion can amount to; which amounts to your predilection for an insurance policy in a 'hereafter' using some pomp an circumstance road map to the Rapture by the Rapture Roadies.
J you are not able to wrap your head around what it means to be a metaphysical naturalist. What you can't explain you must make 'leaps' for. This leaping takes you off of the level ground we call 'theories': based on knowledge and reason and puts you in the ether-straw.
In short i believe that religion is something you out grow, like leprechauns or tooth fairies by age 12.
Mike: in my haste to post, I neglected to mention your error in simply conflating liberalism with atheism, as if atheism itself is a belief in the liberal agenda. news flash. I'm pretty conservative myself, and my lack of faith has not one thing to do with my politics, so Ann Coulter can just pound sand.
Mike: so Bill Clinton wasn't so bad after all? actually I think we need another president who isn't so partisan he or she can actually sign a bill sponsored by the other side because it's a good bill (which was the case with welfare reform) and the same with NAFTA while we're on the subject.
and I disagree that atheism is an ism or a faith. it is simply the lack of belief in theism. I don't believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy either, but don't call that a faith in the absence of those three. it's really a dangerous imprecision in the use of language that leads to no good. whatever else you want to say about atheists, fine, but don't try to make us into theists with a different choice of god. we really are the orange to the theist assortment of apples.
Liberals just kill me.
As can be seen in these posts, they excoriate those that have "faith", yet an atheist is nothing more than someone that has "faith" there is no God. Nothing more than that really no matter how they try and spin it.
As for additional acts of "faith", Liberals show it all the time. Every time they take money away from hard working individuals and give it to government bureaucrats to "fix stuff", they are showing "faith" since there is seldom any proof that government programs ever work. Heck a good example is Welfare Reform. Libs fought this tooth and nail in the face of 40 years of hard data that welfare as envisioned in the so called "Great Society" just didn't work...and it never would. It took a moderate Democratic President and a Republican Congress to show them that their "faith" just made no sense at all.
Okay...ANYBODY but New York's nasty little mayor buying the US presidency!
I mean, the jews control foreigh policy, Wall Street, congress, the media, (particularly the Post lately) everything Americans name as corrupt and thinkgs they want changed... (and they'll equate that control factor all too soon, have begun to, actually) so we should let them BUY the WH?...using the good Nebraskan, Hagel, as a beard, who ought to have more sense
You enjoyed 9/11, OBL has said it was because of the above, you'll love Bloomberg as president.
But then he and Corzine are a pair. Corzine bought the NJ senate seat, didn't like it, not enough attention, so he bought the NJ governor's seat.
Bloomberg is behind, has only bought the mayoralty so far. So American CAN be bought.
Okay...ANYBODY but New York's nasty little mayor buying the US presidency!
I mean, the jews control foreigh policy, Wall Street, congress, the media, (particularly the Post lately) everything Americans name as corrupt and thinkgs they want changed... (and they'll equate that control factor all too soon, have begun to, actually) so we should let them BUY the WH?...using the good Nebraskan, Hagel, as a beard, who ought to have more sense
You enjoyed 9/11, OBL has said it was because of the above, you'll love Bloomberg as president.
But then he and Corzine are a pair. Corzine bought the NJ senate seat, didn't like it, not enough attention, so he bought the NJ governor's seat.
Bloomberg is behind, has only bought the mayoralty so far. So American CAN be bought.
One day, if and when our species has freed itself of the infection of theisms, then atheism will disappear as well.
And you are still missing it, the definition that I and most of the atheists I know use - we don't "believe" that there is not god, we don't bother to take it that far. That is a belief, no better than any other kind of theistic belief.
I'm quite sure there aren't any gods, I live my life as if there are none, but I can't prove it any more than you can prove they exist. So why bother?
I look at human history, I see the many thousands of gods humanity has worshipped, praised, fought and died for, and assumed existed. Most if not all of these religions incorporated to manage the correct worship of these gods all insist it is the only valid religion, has the only valid god(s).
They are mutually exclusive, so they can't all be correct. If even one of them is correct, then all the others are wrong, all the other gods were man-made.
We can take from this that humanity has a propensity to invent gods and religions. Why should I believe that any of the gods invented in the last 2000-3000 years are any more or less valid than the ones which preceeded them?
In the beginning, man made god. Then man made another.
Some of us just can't buy it, it doesn't pass the baloney test. In fact it seems utterly ridiculous, it seems primitive and barbaric.
Communism uses the same methods as religion to control the human mind. Busts of Stalin and Lenin and Mao are put out for the peasants to worship, just as crucifixes and large 10 ton granite stone blocks with the 10 commandments are used to enforce control.
Both describe the terrible cost of disbelief and wrong belief. The communists will cut your throat, the religious cost is to be tortured in hell forever after death, possibly to be preceded by burning at the stake, ostracization, oppression and slavery during life.
Communism and religion are two variants of the same disease.
Saying things like, “If God Himself were to come down to earth and wreak havoc with our cherished constitutional liberties would an American president be obliged to take Him on?” -- leads to saying things like, "Religion is the great enemy of democracy."
It can't be both ways, democracy and kingdom even when the kingdom is the kingdom of God.
Isn't the "abortion issue" and other "issues of conscience" just the politicians debating dogma? Evangelicals are so dumb they don't know the Democrats are lying, (about faith) while they thank God Republicans never lie, (about anything).
Problem solved. http://www.hoax-buster.org is the great friend of democracy and equally great enemy of all kingdoms especially the kingdom of God.
Why do evangelicals insist on voting their right to vote away? When you've answered that question...
We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal except Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Joseph and Mary, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and all the saints, (angels aren't men). Oops! Almost forgot Muhammad and Joe Smith. That rules Obama and Romney in as eligible magistrates of God's treasury?
When the treasure of Jericho was taken to God's treasury where did it go?
I hope all had a really merry Christmas and will have a happy and prosperous new year.
The President swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Neochristians who would negate the First Amendment in their "war on secularists" and to "take the Nation back for Christ" are no less enemies of the US than Muslim extremists. This is what is so troublesome about Bishop Romney and Pastor Huckabee. Where are their priorities - the Bible, the Book of Mormon or the Constitution?
I wish you a Happy New Year 2008! I trust you had a Happy Hannukah. I also hope you got to share in the Christmas celebrations of some of your friends.
You : "Christianity in particular, perhaps all the abrahamic religions, tell us we are guilty from the birth, that we are worthless scum whose only hope is to beg the deity for forgiveness, oh forgive us for being alive."
Moi : All I will say to that here is, Islam is closer in belief on God to Judaism rather than Christianity. All are three faiths are classified as Abrahamic faiths and/or monotheistic religions.
Muslims don't regard Jesus as Son of God or hold to the Nicene Creed, or man is created in the image of God, or there is Original Sin, or salvation through Christ. Everyone is accountable for his actions and no one else. One is to ask for forgiveness from those one transgressed first. There's more but I'll it as that as I have not problems with it but you do on beliefs:).
You : "I speak of the implementation of these belief systems, how they occupy the mind, occupy the society, occupy the species. From this perspective religion and communism are part of the same family. Think of it as a taxonomy, the superset is "belief systems".
Moi : If we want to expand "belief systems", so is believing in our respective countries' Constitution and/or Bill of Rights stating what all citizens are entitled to. Communism as a "belief system", or more correctly ideology, was imposed by the state and non-democratic or free at all in governance or to have personal beliefs of any other political-economic systems or faiths.
You : "Communism is very much aware of this, it's why it espouses atheism. Communism "knows" who its greatest competitor is, religion. It requires worship, it knows who (what) is competing for the target of that worship - gods. It espouses atheism as a tactic in its battle with religion."
Moi : Communism has no appeal as its tactics in its battle to discredit and purge other beliefs are the same what it alleged of religous beliefs. Go to communists countries, say, the Soviet Union before it revert to Russia, and you'll see statues and busts and photos of Lenin and Stalin everywhere crowding the public places and even private residiences.
One can never question or criticise them or one will be sent off to the Gulag Archipelago among other places. This is imposition of new gods to compete with the old, and a battle, a war lost.
In China under Mao, likewise, and there's The Thoughts of Mao Zedong, a.k.a. the Little Red Book, given, read and sometime memorised by every Chinese. A favourite "thought" of Chairman Mao from that, :"Power comes from the barrel of the gun." Very telling.
You : "I tried very hard to make this point - atheism is not an ism. Those who do not understand this fact, will never understand what it is.For me, being an atheist does not describe something I am, rather it describes something I am not."
Moi : When anyone use "atheism", it is as used by scholars for decades or hundreds of years, and by atheists themselves on the doctrine or belief there is no God/gods. Perhaps we should give people credit to know the differences between communism as an ideology, and atheism as non-belief in God or gods.
If I am an atheist, and I don't like the term atheist and atheism for all the -isms connotations, I will, perhaps, call myself an agnostic or freethinker when anyone ask me on my beliefs.
You : "For me, being an atheist does not describe something I am, rather it describes something I am not."
Moi : Interesting that you should say that. Reminds me of what John Gray wrote in his book, "Straw Dogs - Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals". I pull that book out from my library to take a quote to tease you a wee bit:)
"Unbelief is a move in a game whose rules are set by believers. To deny the existence of God is to accept the categories of monotheism. As these categories falls into disuse, unbelief becomes uninteresting, and soon it is meaningless. Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christians' God is still a Christian world."
I speak of belief systems, accepted or imposed over the human mind. And worship as well, the idea that the indivdual is a piece of crap suited only to be a cypher within the belief system.
Christianity in particular, perhaps all the abrahamic religions, tell us we are guilty from the birth, that we are worthless scum whose only hope is to beg the deity for forgiveness, oh forgive us for being alive.
Communism tells you that you are only an element in the great wonderous state, that you own nothing - not even yourself, that everything you do, think, and feel must be subverted for the greater good.
I speak of the implementation of these belief systems, how they occupy the mind, occupy the society, occupy the species. From this perspective religion and communism are part of the same family. Think of it as a taxonomy, the superset is "belief systems".
I really don't care about the internal mechanisms that separate the two, these are tactical differences only.
Communism is very much aware of this, it's why it espouses atheism. Communism "knows" who its greatest competitor is, religion. It requires worship, it knows who (what) is competing for the target of that worship - gods. It espouses atheism as a tactic in its battle with religion.
I tried very hard to make this point - atheism is not an ism. Those who do not understand this fact, will never understand what it is.
For me, being an atheist does not describe something I am, rather it describes something I am not.
You : "The notion that communism is atheism is a straw man argument against atheism."
Moi: What! What? The same "straw man argument against atheism" thing, and the same counter-argument offered!:)
Of course Communism is a political ideology and atheism is not. A personal belief of non-belief was incorporatd into and became a component of the state ideology.
But for the simple fact that Karl Marx did say "Religion is the opiate of the masses". And communism and it various off-shots did somewhat impose atheism by suppressing expressions of religious belief and practice once they controlled states.
That is why some believers, as can be seen in On Faith threads, reacted rather strongly against atheists who are quite strident in stating "God is a delusion", "religion poisons everything", "religion is the root of all evil in the world", "believers are delusionists", "religion be off the public square" - off the schools, off the government etc.
Too little a variant of language from Marx, the great fallen god of communism, and a sort of a "purge" without resorting to guns by the so-called "militant atheists" in the US. And much better to focus on the positives of why seperation of church and state benefits all regardless of belief or non-belief.
You : "Communism is a religion, it uses the same kind of mind control that theistic religions use, it seeks to compete with the worship of gods by enforcing worship of the state, worship of a Dear Leader (Stalin, Mao ...).
Moi : Excuse me? Communism is a religion? So, while maintaining atheism is not a religion, you are saying religion is an ideology like communism, and therefore, communism is a religion imposed by states. Communism, a state imposed ideology, collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but atheism and faith survived among their citizens as personal choices.
Athiests live in countries from Albania to Zimbabwe, all with different political systems just as believers do.
You : "If you ask most atheists, they are as a-communistic as they are a-theist."
Moi : Well my friend, this would depend on which atheist from which country I'm asking. An American atheist is different from a Cuban, a Chinese, a Swiss atheist, a Ghanian, or an Indonesian atheist. All are shaped by their own countries' political and economic system and/or ideologies.
Actually, most Asian atheists, especially in China and Vietnam with quite a history of communist variations, are less rabid anti-theists than some western atheists are. They seem comfortable with their atheism and don't rationalise and justify them with Enlightenment thought. Nor do they know of the great thinkers and writers of Enlightenment and atheism.
As atheism is officially the majority "religion" of China and Vietnam, it is the religious minorities there who feel oppressed by prevailing atheism and the preponderance of atheists in the public square. They are fighting for their rights to believe, to assemble freely, to have and build religious related premises, and to practicce their faith not only privately, but in public.
Would an American atheist or anti-theist support that as freedom of thought, freedom to believe and freedom of expression?
Every candidate understands he or she must profess some supernatural belief as a prerequisite for running for office. I'm fairly certain a healthy percentage of political officeholders don't actually hold the religious beliefs they profess, but understand that's the price of being in the arena. Mormanism, Evangelical Christian, Muslim, Wiccan or Pagan...the particular flavor of invisible-friend-with-superpowers doesn't matter.
From a personal point of view (and I understand it's a minority point of view), only if a candidate convinces me of true belief--and would make governing decisions based on that belief (i.e., Huckabee)--is the candidate unqualified to hold office. That does usually rule out Fundamentalists of any flavor, as their faith almost always mandates they establish the rules by which others must act.
The notion that communism is atheism is a straw man argument against atheism.
Atheism is not-theism, the "ism" part of the word belongs to the "theism", not to the "a". That part of the word means "not", that's all it means.
Communism is a religion, it uses the same kind of mind control that theistic religions use, it seeks to compete with the worship of gods by enforcing worship of the state, worship of a Dear Leader (Stalin, Mao ...).
Communism declares its atheism as a means of defeating its competition, but it is communism which is the belief system, atheism is merely a description of its lack of theism.
To say that communism is atheism is like saying red is the apple.
If you ask most atheists, they are as a-communistic as they are a-theist.
"J" thanks for the responses. They are well thought-out and articulated.
I especially loved this one:
"It would seem that some American Christians have so much time on their hands don't they? War on evolution, war on Islam, war on Mormons, war on pagans, war on homosexuals, war on atheists. Why not war on poverty? War on environmental degradation?"
Yes, no cheating on partners in exams as well as no lying, no stealing, no killing etc are universal values. Only whatever punishment meted out for such are of different degree determined by culture, civil/secular laws and even by different Shariah laws if applicable in Muslim states.
Perhaps, instead of looking at religious-inspired values requiring religion to be valuable as you stated, we should look at it in another way.
If we have values based on our personal sense of right and wrong, learning by examples, by reading up on religious, philosophical and civil/secular laws, then our rabbis, monks, priests, imams would have nothing to do. They need a job, they chose the job, and by God! they will make themselves indispensible and valuable in their job by reminding us on ethics and values as per the holy texts and then some new interpretions etc.
Religion-inspired values can exist outside temples, synagogues, churches, mosques for most believers. But rabbis, monks, priests, imams cannot exist outside of "houses of faith" and without believers. They need to be regarded as "valuable" and to regard themselves as keepers of the spiritual well-being and needs of the faithful as well as faith-based ethics, values and mores.
Religion is not the primary cause but co-option by any group to differentiate them from another, to fire up feelings of "we" against the other. Being of the same faith has never stop anyone, any country from warring with one another as happened in all parts of the world regardless of faith and beliefs throughout history.
If religion is said to be prone to all manner of hatred and oppressions, particularly of the unbelievers and wrong-believers, how do we explain African-Americans being oppressed by their co-religionists?
Political, economic and social domination don't really need religion to rationalise for it, but it does help to get anyone to kill for God and country. To kill for Voltaire and country don't have the same pull and punch, but the Stalinists and Maoists prove you don't need religion to get people to hate, oppress and kill others.
It would seem that some American Christians have so much time on their hands don't they? War on evolution, war on Islam, war on Mormons, war on pagans, war on homosexuals, war on atheists. Why not war on poverty? War on environmental degradation?
As there are some 2,000 or so Christian churches and sects in the US, Christians can always do "shopping around" on the church or sect they like the best if they don't like the stance their churches are taking on some issues out of conviction and as a matter of principle if they still have faith. After all, all Christians believe in the Nicene Creed. And besides, no one got shot for leaving his church for another or to leave religion altogether if they personally find faith no longer conforting and is oppressive.
Yes, organised religion or church do use religion as a weapon to oppress others with religious-based values and mores. Any wonder why religous entities are so adamant that the state leave them alone on church affairs? If you think of them as alternate/parallel states within states, or sub-states, or non-state with adherents (like citizens) and tithe-payers (like state tax), with their own hierachies and bureaucracies and sets of rules/beliefs to be complied, and the power to excommunicate (like stripping a citizenship for treason) you will be vigilant to what organised religion is capable of doing to real states and other citizens.
But, because the US has some 2,000 competing micro-states (churches) it is highly unlikely any one would be really effective in overwhelming or undermining the real state if they don't forge a broad coalition on issues they all agree on. I see that different churches have different positions on abortion and gays. So.
Yes, it would be most helpful to our species if all have faith in ourselves. Only the ones who are most uncertain of themself, anything or everything, and fearful of others are the most prone to treating the other as an enemy, to blame them for the rain today and to wage war against the other. Even some atheists do so against believers. Not just believers against atheists. But these atheists' war against believers is like guerillas striking against the megastate of believers. An alienated, marginalised and vilified group fighting for its rights against the oppressing and self-oppressive believers eh:)
We'll have to reason with ourselves and together then.
Hello Jihadist, there certainly is nothing wrong with family values, and many of the values promoted by the various religions are valuable, even to me.
I don't covet my neighbor's wife because I don't want to get shot. And besides, if she would cheat on my neighbor, she would cheat on me as well. Just don't touch that, an easy value.
The problem with religous-inspired values are that they require religion to be valuable. These values have no outside reality, no truth other than the myth which is promoting them.
Religions are prone to to all manner of hatreds and oppressions, particularly of the unbelievers but certainly of the wrong-believers as well.
New and extra values are added to assist in this separation of the faithful from the nonfaithful or the wrong-faithful. Such as the war the christians are having on the homosexuals, and on the atheists as well. The priests find ways to interpret the myths to allow oppression to be a value.
The faithful must accept this, or they have lost their faith.
Faith can be a comfort, sure, I wouldn't want to take anybody's comfort from them. But it can be used as a weapon as well. Don't you think it might be more helpful to our species if we found ways to have faith in ourselves, without having to program the brain to suppress its reason?
We need to grow up, or we will destroy ourselves. I have faith in that.
Jeff P: " What would be an example of a "faith-inspired value" that might make life richer, and without which an atheist has a less interesting life?"
Moi : Polygamy for one. Up to four wives if you're a Muslim man!
You can have a mostg interesting life and time negotiating where and with which wife to sleep tonight. Or, to shove off your husband to the other wives tonight because you don't feel like it, you don't want to lie to him you have a headache, and you know exactgly who he is sleeping with tonight because he told you. Less of lies.
Polygamy is better than being a serial monogamist and adulterer like Guiliani, no? He made his life more complicated and costly in paying for lawyers and alimonies.
Jeff P : "Politics of late has been laced with 30 second sound bites that feed off of fear--"
Moi : You know as well as I do when politicians are wobbly in support by the public, a "bogeyman" an external threat is an effective tool to concentrate and unify people behind them. War on drugs, war on terror, war on Christmas. So many wars on so many fronts that makes Americans feel they are under constant threats, constant attacks, constant battles and wars domestically and internationally.
Like most Indonesians and Malaysians, I tend to think of terrorists (and we have homegrown ones) as irritating mosquitos to be swatted by smart targetting instead of carpet bombing. More people died in both countries due to natural disasters, diseases and road accidents every year than by terrorist attacks. Even in the US, over 85,000 people are murdered by other Americans than terrorists since 9/11.
I am not making light of terrorist attacks. We have them too in Indonesia and Malaysia. Not as spectacularly shocking as 9/11, but more of a series of attacks that if the number of victims are totaled, is more than those of 9/11. And the Indonesian and Malaysia governments never make ominous public announcements on possible attacks or threats. But, Muslims are also "in the hands of God" on life and death as to when and how.
Oh, there's the military-industrial complex, all those military related weapons, equiptment, vehicles, planes, ships etc industry to take care of as as sustainable and growing industry to be fed by constant wars and threats of wars here and there and new enemies too.
As for fear of loss of "family values", that seems to be a reaction by the more prudish, moralistic and moralising ones on "decaying morals" as would be cause of decline and fall of civilisation as we know it.
What they are really fearing is, perhaps, the loss of the social safety net or family security which the nuclear and/or extended family provide. Most helpful to go back to a family members' home to cushion the loss of a job and home. A broken or split family can't pool resources as well.
And they are not letting anyone in any company take away company money for a what! Sex change operation? Can't have that. God made us the way we are and we can't change anything. Besides, that would eat into our health benefits and pension funds too!.
I don't want to let religious fanatics and extremists (especially my fellow co-religionists in my own country whose actions may have more direct impact on me as some Christians would in the US on their country and fellow Americans) who want to push for and make laws according to their version of religion as the one and only to get the upper hand.
They have been quite manageable if we are alert on their organisations and intent. They can be and do want to be engaged. They have many, many fears. And yes, it really helps to listen to what they want and why. These fellows need a lot a assurances on their myriad insecurities manifested into aggressive public posturings and demands.
A question and observation, though: What would be an example of a "faith-inspired value" that might make life richer, and without which an atheist has a less interesting life?
Additionally: Politics of late has been laced with 30 second sound bites that feed off of fear--fear of another terrorist attack, fear of weapons of mass destruction, fear of the enemy "following us home if we leave Iraq," fear of Iran, fear of loss of "family values" if the Democratic party should prosper, fear of losing the pleasure of owning guns, fear of the "war on marriage," lots of fears that are catered to speak directly to the evangelicals and fundamentalists. So yes, I do think they operate on the politics of fear, and the politicians have recognized that very well.
I didn't get a "Merry Christmas" Christmas card from a long-time Christian friend this year (surprisingly) but did receive an e-mail from him today regarding the "threat" that Ford Motor Company has become to Americans, because they reportedly "pay for sex change operations and counseling for their employees who desire it," and his e-mail encouraged me to sign a petition to boycott Ford motor company along with nearly 800,000 others who want to punish Ford. This from the "American Family Association."
You mentioned that sometimes atheists fear believers: resoundingly, yes, I do fear this level of organized hatred and paranoia.
Mr. Mark: "Why do "faith and values" get lumped together like peanut butter and jelly? Take a look at what happened yesterday in Pakistan - a great example of faith and values being more akin to oil and water."
Moi : Values were first codified also by various faiths as stories, parables, injunctions, even proverbs. The most famous, as you know, set of values and ethics by any secular or religous standards is the Ten Commandments.
Politics is about who gets what, when and how. It is also about interpreted or held values by adherent of same or different faiths clashing. It is akin to the culture war between atheists and believers. Yes. Oil and water that are mixing in a pot with fire underneath heating up the mix.
Mr Mark: "I'll take knowledge-informed values over the faith-inspired kind any day of the week."
Moi : I find having both faith inspired values and knowledge based values not a problem to have. Much more interesting and richer. More references and sources to look into. Why deprive oneself of any good faith inspired values just because one is an atheist? Thou shalt not covet's thy neihbour's wife is good, no? Saves all the headache of lying and cheating of having an affair. Or the heartache and rejection of pining for someone who may not even want you.
Ohg Rea Tone :" Fear and faith go hand in hand. Some say they are opposites - one cannot have fear if one has faith. But it appears that evangelicals vote on fear more than on faith."
Moi : Believers are also said to have no fear because we have God on our side. Evangelicals may seem to be the most fearful believers as they not only want to save themselves for fear of God, but to save everybody else by any methods possible.
But evangelicals are really the most obsessive-aggressive-offensive Christians. It would surprise some or even many Americans that evangelicals even handed out fake, falsified copies of Qur'an to Muslims in their missionary work in Muslim countries implying Jesus as not just Messiah, but Son of God etc. to get more converts for the church. The more converts, the richer the church.
Christianity has become more of a big and important businesses in the States. Like companies selling different beliefs and Bibles instead of cars. Faith as a "commodity" marketed and commericalised with many different packaging of the Bibles even. Only in America and exported to the world like Jeep Cheerokees, Big Macs and Cokes.
Evangelicals are not voting on fear. They are voting on promoting their faith or church to be spread around freely in the world and with US government support for them as American organisations.
We all have fear of something, no? Including some atheists fearing believers.
Fred Evil,
While I appreciate and agree with your post in spirit, there's one area where I think you fall into the trap of the other side's thinking:
"Evolution is as inescapably proven as a theory can be. Anyone question the Theory of Gravity lately? There's a whole lot of theory, without much basis in provable fact there, yet it's readily accepted. "
"Theory" doesn't mean that there is no proof. A theory can never be a "fact", no matter how solid and incontrovertible the proof may be. Facts are single, discrete entities. A theory (which begins life as a hypothesis, based on observation) gathers facts into a unifying concretion. Think of facts as Word documents, and theories as the folders you put those documents into on your C drive.
Theories may have to be revamped, or even discarded if new facts come to light that don't fit, but there are few that are much stronger than the one for evolution. That evolution occurred was already widely accepted long before Darwin presented his case for the method by which it occurred. The fossil record was strong, and has become even stronger. Darwin enumerated the forces that drove it. Later, Mendel's work was rediscovered, and the genetic mechanism that natural selection acted on was shown. Still later, we discovered DNA, and the force behind genetics was made clear. Now, using DNA, we can see the relationships between living things.
Layer upon layer, the proofs have built up. Each new discovery reconfirmed the ones before it. While scientists may squabble over details, there simply aren't any worthy of the name who dispute the truth of evolution. It's the foundation of our entire science of biology.
The problem with people like Huckabee is that they don't know anything about the theory of evolution. They haven't read Darwin, or any other writer on the subject. They've *heard* (likely from someone speaking with great derision) that the theory is that humans came from "monkeys", one animal can turn into another, and that everything just came from nothing in a big bang. That is truly the extent of their knowledge (and I use the term loosely).
If you were to offer them a book that would help them understand, they would reject it as a work of the devil.
It's impossible to argue with people like this, because you don't stand on level ground. I've read their books (Bible) and been through their indoctrination (Christian family upbringing, Sunday school, church), but they haven't even read *one* of the hundreds of books and articles that I've read on the subject of evolution. Nor are they willing to. Their heads are planted firmly in the sand.
Berlinerblau is in a neverending state of denial about the size and influence of the "evangelical" voting block. Kerry didn't lose the 2004 election because he subscribed to normal secular values: he lost the election because Republican officials in Ohio found a way to keep voters out of the polling places until enough went home. The Democratic Party is not going to turn away from the separation of church and state, because it serves the purpose of protecting the rights of religious minorities (including atheists), a matter of great importance to Democrats but not Republicans. Secularists are not some minority within the party or the country, they are the majority of Americans, even Americans who practice religion. Perhaps we need some social scientists with good data to show Berlinerblau the incontrovertible facts about the essential secularity of the American public. Claiming to "believe in God" is the flavor of the moment for a public which is feels obligated to humor the occasional friend or family member who is wrapped up in the trendy new Christian thing, but they don't really mean it and they won't put up with giving up their basic life choices (like premarital sex, drinking alcohol, or being able to shop at Walmart on Sundays) if the religious fanatics push too hard...
Faith is the end of learning. It accepts no contraverting evidence, it demands the suppression of reason, it even seems to drive the victim into suppressing those who are not faithful, perhaps as a means to its own survival.
We hear time and time again from people like LDS Mark, people who make affirmative claims about what our constitution says, without ever having read it!
Who is telling them this stuff, who told LDS Mark that "we are created equal and endowed with rights by our Creator, not by the Constitution", how did this nonsense get into his head?
His pastor did, his reverend did, his priest did. And because this nonsense is spoken by those who demand his faith, he is unable to perceive how wrong it is.
Is it too much to ask that some candidate just say I am running for president, not pastor? and that if my scientific advisors tell me that the meteor shower that left the crater in AZ 6 million years ago is back and about to devastate the earth I won't tell them they must have their figures wrong because the earth is only 6000 years old, or that we can ignore the environment because the rapture is just around the corner, or whatever else faith might have me do that it should not?
You wrote: "we are created equal and endowed with rights by our Creator, not by the Constitution."
You are confusing the words of the Declaration of Independence with the words of the Constitution. Typical.
The DoI begins with the following words:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Let's look at those powerful words, shall we?
Notice that the writers of the DoI used capitals when they spoke of the "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God," and "their Creator." The phrases "laws of nature" and "nature's god" give us a clear indication of what they believed "their Creator" was, and nowhere is there any evidence that it is the Xian god. In fact, the phrases "laws of nature" and "nature's god" appear nowhere in the Bible.
And from where do we as Americans secure our rights and powers? You say, from the Creator, The Declaration of Independence says, "FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."
Could it be made any clearer?
As far as what the Constitution has to say about it - well, maybe you should actually read it (and the DoI, for that matter!) before we get into that discussion.
I'm convinced that "faith" isn't a virtue. It took me 46 years to come to this observation.
If anyone disagrees, please give me specific examples where some good done is only done contingent on "faith" as a primary driving force. This example would then necessarily exclude anyone "without faith" from doing a similar good deed.
Finally, LDS Mark, I've read the founding-fathers-documents, and as Mr Mark says, "couldn't disagree with you more."
Funny Mark, if God grants us these rights, why doesn't he enforce them? Why aren't they truly RIGHTS, and not merely guidelines? Until government came along, I didn't see anyone (especially the righteous masses) standing up for ANYONE'S rights.
The only rights God's people stand up for, are their rights to YOUR property.
I still don't understand why 'faith' is considered a desirable attribute in a President.
'Faith,' is the acceptance or belief of a thing, idea or concept as factual without any physical PROOF. In fact, Xtianity requires belief without proof, for with proof, there is no need for faith. Therefore proving that God existed would actually weaken him!(Well, weaken Xtianity actually) How in the world this moebius strip of logic is allowed to co-exist with the Scientific Method is beyond me, bu
All Comments (50)
The idea of GOP candidates bragging about how many people were executed while they were Governors is very distasteful - particularly when in the same breath they claim their faith.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/07/death-penalty-politics/
January 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on January 8, 2008 11:07
Fred Evil -
Good reply to Mike.
Mike -
Do you have a belief that fairies don't exist? How about Zeus? Do you have a belief that he doesn't exist? Perhaps you KNOW that fairies and Zeus don't exist? Or, perhaps you take a scientific approach to fairies and Zeus, which is to say, you don't see any reason to believe in either exists without there being solid evidence offered for their existence.
As far as the term atheist, it has the disadvantage of describing someone as what they are not. Are you an a-Muslim? Are you an a-Episcopal? Are people who don't collect stamps a-stamp collectors? I could probably call you all three of those, and they would all be spot-on descriptions of you in the same way that the term "atheist" describes me.
January 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on January 6, 2008 13:23
Mike - Actually, there is some merit to your comment about athists just being of faith, but it's not QUITE accurate. Atheists generally adhere to the Scientific Method. That which is, can be proven through a testable methodology.
Many theories are routinely tested, evolution, gravity etc. They pass the tests. (or have so far, they may be disproven, but they haven't been yet!)
Faith in a 'god' fails EVERY test, or are you aware of one that has actually passed a testable scenario to prove a deities existence?
The difference is, atheists accept scientific evidence one way or the other. There is an element of faith there, but only insofar as it involves the testing parameters and scenario to be free of defects. Atheists begin with the idea that god does not exists, but if he can be proven to, it would be accepted. Kind of like gravity, evolution. We start with NOTHING, and wait for SOMETHING to be proven.
Theists on the other hand, begin with the idea that god exists (faith) and are waiting for it to be disproven. This is a fallacious approach to the scientific method, and renders it useless. How to prove something doesn't exist? With the Xtian usage (or rather lack thereof) of the Scientific Method, the Flying Spaghetti Monster satisfies the criteria to be a Deity just as the Xtian god does. I dare you to disprove him!
January 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on January 4, 2008 12:55
To clarify the above, what I mean by "above it all" is we feel above the pandering of politicians vying for what they think is the religious vote NOT above religion or religious identification, as I fear I might have implied. Happy New Year to one and all!
January 2, 2008 12:05 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on January 2, 2008 12:05
Will secularists vengefully abandon the Democratic Party? Well, it's not as if we had expectations...much less any choice, least of all, an alternative. We were better served surely by our candidates NOT alienating those Christians who would want us to be excluded. We're used to it. No biggie. We view it as rather pathetic that some Christians need and take validation from campaigning politicians. We trust in our Constitution and our courts. We trust in Jacques! Having opted out voluntarily, we don't feel excluded. We feel above it all.
January 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on January 2, 2008 11:21
TO EACH HIS OWN... PEACE ON EARTH AND HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR ! AFTER ALL THOSE WHO CELEBRATE IT NOW ARE THE MAJORITY AND IN A DEMOCRACY,THAT IS THE ONE THAT GOVERNS... THANK GOD.
December 31, 2007 12:30 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 31, 2007 00:30
well lds mark the existence of god is fundamental to faith so how was the creator created, well theres only one candidate and that is man "man made god in his own image" had any of these hopefulls been around 2000 years ago they could have gone up to jesus and said your fathers not joseph and your mothers not a virgin your real father is up on high surrounded by people with wings sticking out of their backs, pass the trumpets we,er off to blow some walls down, and before that had a conversation with a talking snake. wake up america the white house has already been turned into an asylum.
December 30, 2007 11:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 23:39
I am soo sick of "Faith and values"! Faith is wishful thinking and values has come to be a code for some kind of bigotry.
How about Reason and Ethics as an alternative?
I will vote Demo, I may not agree with each ones "Faith" but at least I wont get it stuffed down my throat!!
December 30, 2007 11:05 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 23:05
I am soo sick of "Faith and values"! Faith is wishful thinking and values has come to be a code for some kind of bigotry.
How about Reason and Ethics as an alternative?
I will vote Demo, I may not agree with each ones "Faith" but at least I wont get it stuffed down my throat!!
December 30, 2007 11:05 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 23:05
Oort and Darwin26,
The only people who can define or redefine atheism and themselves as what kind of atheists are atheists themselves. As you both are doing in this thread.
The self-descriptions of various types of atheists seems to be getting more varied:
- atheist
- agnostic
- freethinker
- secular humanist
- anti-theist
- spiritual atheist
.... and with everything in between the above and now, Metaphysical Naturalist.
By the way, how can you be sure that John Gray, from whose book I quoted, is not an atheist?
Darwin23: J there is nothing to 'deny'.
Moi : Of course there is for atheists - There is no God/s. Atheists call it denial of the existence of God after proof by empirical and scientific evidence.
Darwin23 : The Father of the US Constitution, James Madison in a letter to William Bradford in 1774 wrote " Religious Bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize every expanded prospect..."
Moi : Thanks for the info. Madison must be talking of the bondage by the churches of people materially for services rendered and land owned during the Dark and Middle Ages and early Enligthment period. Madison has any slaves? Jefferson and Washington did.
Darwin23 : Relying on Superstitions like Xianity to govern by priestcrafters is all that religion can amount to; which amounts to your predilection for an insurance policy in a 'hereafter' using some pomp an circumstance road map to the Rapture by the Rapture Roadies.
Moi : Pomp is not part of all Christian denominations or other faiths. The Catholic Church is the most pageantlike and grand in its religious rites. The Quakers the simplest. Rapture is the thing of what is now called by some as Christian Zionists/Evangelicals like Pat Robertson.
Darwin23: J you are not able to wrap your head around what it means to be a metaphysical naturalist. What you can't explain you must make 'leaps' for. This leaping takes you off of the level ground we call 'theories': based on knowledge and reason and puts you in the ether-straw.
Moi: I have to wrap my head with too many things already. Metaphysical naturalist is an outgrowth of or part of "naturalism" in philosphical thought, no?
And oh, so, what we can't explain, we can only speculate and call them theories until proven? As in the Theory of Relativity. So, is God a theory then until proven it existed?
Now that we know the Singularity is held by many scientists to start the Big Bang, for believers and scientists, it brings up the question of what starts that Singularity.
Darwin23 : In short i believe that religion is something you out grow, like leprechauns or tooth fairies by age 12.
Moi : The tooth fairy and leprechaun is not found or believed outside the west/US. Nor do non-Christian children outside the west/US grew up believing in Santa Claus, witches, ghosts or unicorns.
Man has not outgrown religion for thousands of years. It will still be around, and not neccessarily in it current forms. The Greek thinkers and philosophers don't actually take to their gods judging by their discourses still with us.
And yet, Christianity as a belief prevailed and thrived, with the number of adherents growing by the day all over the world. Even in China, some 300 million people stated they are belief in something. This, in spite of China officially frowning on and not encouraging beliefs among its people.
Here's something generalised and simplified to tease you further : Secular humanism, humanism, Enlightenment is Christianity without belief in God with dollops of classical Greek thought on philosophy and governance thrown in, and refined over the ages - from Descartes to Spinoza to Voltaire to Nietzsche to Bertrand Russell to alas, we have Christopher Hitchens too. You get the drift.
Been a pleasure chatting.
Happy New Year.
Thanks and regards
"J"
December 30, 2007 7:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 19:40
It is down right scary to think that these candidates represent American religious "values" and knowledge. You would think we were back on the plains of Palestine trying to justify the murder of every living thing in the village we were trying to steal! Or perhaps it would be at the bonfires of the Church to rid the faithful of the witches! Or sitting behind the curtain to write the words of that con artist, Josepth Smith!
Does it not matter what is the source of ones "faith"? Is intellectual capability to question the inanity of religious "thought" not an indicator of ones ability to bring reason to questions of national policy and actions? Is the country not exhausted by the piety of our leader who only speaks to his higher father for guidance and who is either a very bad listener or talking to the wrong Father?
I am amazed that in a nation yelling for change, the GOP would field candidates who yell "more of the same"! I guess the corporate powers think they must own all candidates and it does not matter what sort of fool has the nominal title!
December 30, 2007 6:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 18:52
I like your article, but top ten lists usually have the numbers 1-10 in descending order.
December 30, 2007 4:34 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 16:34
OORT - right on, i appreciate your discription of of non-believer... i often refer to myself as a Metaphysical Naturalist.
and to Jahadist: "Unbelief is a move in a game whose rules are set by believers. To deny the existence of God is to accept the categories of monotheism. As these categories falls into disuse, unbelief becomes uninteresting, and soon it is meaningless. Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christians' God is still a Christian world."
J there is nothing to 'deny'.
The Father of the US Constitution, James Madison in a letter to William Bradford in 1774 wrote " Religious Bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize every expanded prospect..."
Relying on Superstitions like Xianity to govern by priestcrafters is all that religion can amount to; which amounts to your predilection for an insurance policy in a 'hereafter' using some pomp an circumstance road map to the Rapture by the Rapture Roadies.
J you are not able to wrap your head around what it means to be a metaphysical naturalist. What you can't explain you must make 'leaps' for. This leaping takes you off of the level ground we call 'theories': based on knowledge and reason and puts you in the ether-straw.
In short i believe that religion is something you out grow, like leprechauns or tooth fairies by age 12.
December 30, 2007 4:34 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 16:34
HOW nice!
We get a jewish opinion on Christians.
We've gotten so little from the Post.
So little else, actually. Do the goyem, (or however you spell that word), not write?
And why is BErlinerblau's blog called
"Georgetown" As a student there, I resent that and he's absolutely not typical nor dominent.
December 30, 2007 2:38 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 14:38
HOW nice!
We get a jewish opinion on Christians.
We've gotten so little from the Post.
So little else, actually. Do the goyem, (or however you spell that word), not write?
And why is BErlinerblau's blog called
"Georgetown" As a student there, I resent that and he's absolutely not typical nor dominent.
December 30, 2007 2:38 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 14:38
Mike: in my haste to post, I neglected to mention your error in simply conflating liberalism with atheism, as if atheism itself is a belief in the liberal agenda. news flash. I'm pretty conservative myself, and my lack of faith has not one thing to do with my politics, so Ann Coulter can just pound sand.
December 30, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 14:23
Mike: so Bill Clinton wasn't so bad after all? actually I think we need another president who isn't so partisan he or she can actually sign a bill sponsored by the other side because it's a good bill (which was the case with welfare reform) and the same with NAFTA while we're on the subject.
and I disagree that atheism is an ism or a faith. it is simply the lack of belief in theism. I don't believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy either, but don't call that a faith in the absence of those three. it's really a dangerous imprecision in the use of language that leads to no good. whatever else you want to say about atheists, fine, but don't try to make us into theists with a different choice of god. we really are the orange to the theist assortment of apples.
December 30, 2007 2:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 14:18
Liberals just kill me.
As can be seen in these posts, they excoriate those that have "faith", yet an atheist is nothing more than someone that has "faith" there is no God. Nothing more than that really no matter how they try and spin it.
As for additional acts of "faith", Liberals show it all the time. Every time they take money away from hard working individuals and give it to government bureaucrats to "fix stuff", they are showing "faith" since there is seldom any proof that government programs ever work. Heck a good example is Welfare Reform. Libs fought this tooth and nail in the face of 40 years of hard data that welfare as envisioned in the so called "Great Society" just didn't work...and it never would. It took a moderate Democratic President and a Republican Congress to show them that their "faith" just made no sense at all.
December 30, 2007 1:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 13:47
Okay...ANYBODY but New York's nasty little mayor buying the US presidency!
I mean, the jews control foreigh policy, Wall Street, congress, the media, (particularly the Post lately) everything Americans name as corrupt and thinkgs they want changed... (and they'll equate that control factor all too soon, have begun to, actually) so we should let them BUY the WH?...using the good Nebraskan, Hagel, as a beard, who ought to have more sense
You enjoyed 9/11, OBL has said it was because of the above, you'll love Bloomberg as president.
But then he and Corzine are a pair. Corzine bought the NJ senate seat, didn't like it, not enough attention, so he bought the NJ governor's seat.
Bloomberg is behind, has only bought the mayoralty so far. So American CAN be bought.
December 30, 2007 1:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 13:40
Okay...ANYBODY but New York's nasty little mayor buying the US presidency!
I mean, the jews control foreigh policy, Wall Street, congress, the media, (particularly the Post lately) everything Americans name as corrupt and thinkgs they want changed... (and they'll equate that control factor all too soon, have begun to, actually) so we should let them BUY the WH?...using the good Nebraskan, Hagel, as a beard, who ought to have more sense
You enjoyed 9/11, OBL has said it was because of the above, you'll love Bloomberg as president.
But then he and Corzine are a pair. Corzine bought the NJ senate seat, didn't like it, not enough attention, so he bought the NJ governor's seat.
Bloomberg is behind, has only bought the mayoralty so far. So American CAN be bought.
December 30, 2007 1:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 13:40
One day, if and when our species has freed itself of the infection of theisms, then atheism will disappear as well.
And you are still missing it, the definition that I and most of the atheists I know use - we don't "believe" that there is not god, we don't bother to take it that far. That is a belief, no better than any other kind of theistic belief.
I'm quite sure there aren't any gods, I live my life as if there are none, but I can't prove it any more than you can prove they exist. So why bother?
I look at human history, I see the many thousands of gods humanity has worshipped, praised, fought and died for, and assumed existed. Most if not all of these religions incorporated to manage the correct worship of these gods all insist it is the only valid religion, has the only valid god(s).
They are mutually exclusive, so they can't all be correct. If even one of them is correct, then all the others are wrong, all the other gods were man-made.
We can take from this that humanity has a propensity to invent gods and religions. Why should I believe that any of the gods invented in the last 2000-3000 years are any more or less valid than the ones which preceeded them?
In the beginning, man made god. Then man made another.
Some of us just can't buy it, it doesn't pass the baloney test. In fact it seems utterly ridiculous, it seems primitive and barbaric.
Communism uses the same methods as religion to control the human mind. Busts of Stalin and Lenin and Mao are put out for the peasants to worship, just as crucifixes and large 10 ton granite stone blocks with the 10 commandments are used to enforce control.
Both describe the terrible cost of disbelief and wrong belief. The communists will cut your throat, the religious cost is to be tortured in hell forever after death, possibly to be preceded by burning at the stake, ostracization, oppression and slavery during life.
Communism and religion are two variants of the same disease.
December 30, 2007 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 11:55
Saying things like, “If God Himself were to come down to earth and wreak havoc with our cherished constitutional liberties would an American president be obliged to take Him on?” -- leads to saying things like, "Religion is the great enemy of democracy."
It can't be both ways, democracy and kingdom even when the kingdom is the kingdom of God.
Isn't the "abortion issue" and other "issues of conscience" just the politicians debating dogma? Evangelicals are so dumb they don't know the Democrats are lying, (about faith) while they thank God Republicans never lie, (about anything).
Problem solved. http://www.hoax-buster.org is the great friend of democracy and equally great enemy of all kingdoms especially the kingdom of God.
Why do evangelicals insist on voting their right to vote away? When you've answered that question...
We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal except Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Joseph and Mary, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and all the saints, (angels aren't men). Oops! Almost forgot Muhammad and Joe Smith. That rules Obama and Romney in as eligible magistrates of God's treasury?
When the treasure of Jericho was taken to God's treasury where did it go?
I hope all had a really merry Christmas and will have a happy and prosperous new year.
December 30, 2007 10:04 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 10:04
The President swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Neochristians who would negate the First Amendment in their "war on secularists" and to "take the Nation back for Christ" are no less enemies of the US than Muslim extremists. This is what is so troublesome about Bishop Romney and Pastor Huckabee. Where are their priorities - the Bible, the Book of Mormon or the Constitution?
December 30, 2007 9:25 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 09:25
Dear Professor Berlinerblau
I wish you a Happy New Year 2008! I trust you had a Happy Hannukah. I also hope you got to share in the Christmas celebrations of some of your friends.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
December 30, 2007 4:41 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 30, 2007 04:41
Hello Oort,
You : "Christianity in particular, perhaps all the abrahamic religions, tell us we are guilty from the birth, that we are worthless scum whose only hope is to beg the deity for forgiveness, oh forgive us for being alive."
Moi : All I will say to that here is, Islam is closer in belief on God to Judaism rather than Christianity. All are three faiths are classified as Abrahamic faiths and/or monotheistic religions.
Muslims don't regard Jesus as Son of God or hold to the Nicene Creed, or man is created in the image of God, or there is Original Sin, or salvation through Christ. Everyone is accountable for his actions and no one else. One is to ask for forgiveness from those one transgressed first. There's more but I'll it as that as I have not problems with it but you do on beliefs:).
You : "I speak of the implementation of these belief systems, how they occupy the mind, occupy the society, occupy the species. From this perspective religion and communism are part of the same family. Think of it as a taxonomy, the superset is "belief systems".
Moi : If we want to expand "belief systems", so is believing in our respective countries' Constitution and/or Bill of Rights stating what all citizens are entitled to. Communism as a "belief system", or more correctly ideology, was imposed by the state and non-democratic or free at all in governance or to have personal beliefs of any other political-economic systems or faiths.
You : "Communism is very much aware of this, it's why it espouses atheism. Communism "knows" who its greatest competitor is, religion. It requires worship, it knows who (what) is competing for the target of that worship - gods. It espouses atheism as a tactic in its battle with religion."
Moi : Communism has no appeal as its tactics in its battle to discredit and purge other beliefs are the same what it alleged of religous beliefs. Go to communists countries, say, the Soviet Union before it revert to Russia, and you'll see statues and busts and photos of Lenin and Stalin everywhere crowding the public places and even private residiences.
One can never question or criticise them or one will be sent off to the Gulag Archipelago among other places. This is imposition of new gods to compete with the old, and a battle, a war lost.
In China under Mao, likewise, and there's The Thoughts of Mao Zedong, a.k.a. the Little Red Book, given, read and sometime memorised by every Chinese. A favourite "thought" of Chairman Mao from that, :"Power comes from the barrel of the gun." Very telling.
You : "I tried very hard to make this point - atheism is not an ism. Those who do not understand this fact, will never understand what it is.For me, being an atheist does not describe something I am, rather it describes something I am not."
Moi : When anyone use "atheism", it is as used by scholars for decades or hundreds of years, and by atheists themselves on the doctrine or belief there is no God/gods. Perhaps we should give people credit to know the differences between communism as an ideology, and atheism as non-belief in God or gods.
If I am an atheist, and I don't like the term atheist and atheism for all the -isms connotations, I will, perhaps, call myself an agnostic or freethinker when anyone ask me on my beliefs.
You : "For me, being an atheist does not describe something I am, rather it describes something I am not."
Moi : Interesting that you should say that. Reminds me of what John Gray wrote in his book, "Straw Dogs - Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals". I pull that book out from my library to take a quote to tease you a wee bit:)
"Unbelief is a move in a game whose rules are set by believers. To deny the existence of God is to accept the categories of monotheism. As these categories falls into disuse, unbelief becomes uninteresting, and soon it is meaningless. Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christians' God is still a Christian world."
Thanks, regards and goodnight.
"J"
December 29, 2007 11:06 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 29, 2007 23:06
I speak of belief systems, accepted or imposed over the human mind. And worship as well, the idea that the indivdual is a piece of crap suited only to be a cypher within the belief system.
Christianity in particular, perhaps all the abrahamic religions, tell us we are guilty from the birth, that we are worthless scum whose only hope is to beg the deity for forgiveness, oh forgive us for being alive.
Communism tells you that you are only an element in the great wonderous state, that you own nothing - not even yourself, that everything you do, think, and feel must be subverted for the greater good.
I speak of the implementation of these belief systems, how they occupy the mind, occupy the society, occupy the species. From this perspective religion and communism are part of the same family. Think of it as a taxonomy, the superset is "belief systems".
I really don't care about the internal mechanisms that separate the two, these are tactical differences only.
Communism is very much aware of this, it's why it espouses atheism. Communism "knows" who its greatest competitor is, religion. It requires worship, it knows who (what) is competing for the target of that worship - gods. It espouses atheism as a tactic in its battle with religion.
I tried very hard to make this point - atheism is not an ism. Those who do not understand this fact, will never understand what it is.
For me, being an atheist does not describe something I am, rather it describes something I am not.
December 29, 2007 6:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 29, 2007 18:53
Oort,
You : "The notion that communism is atheism is a straw man argument against atheism."
Moi: What! What? The same "straw man argument against atheism" thing, and the same counter-argument offered!:)
Of course Communism is a political ideology and atheism is not. A personal belief of non-belief was incorporatd into and became a component of the state ideology.
But for the simple fact that Karl Marx did say "Religion is the opiate of the masses". And communism and it various off-shots did somewhat impose atheism by suppressing expressions of religious belief and practice once they controlled states.
That is why some believers, as can be seen in On Faith threads, reacted rather strongly against atheists who are quite strident in stating "God is a delusion", "religion poisons everything", "religion is the root of all evil in the world", "believers are delusionists", "religion be off the public square" - off the schools, off the government etc.
Too little a variant of language from Marx, the great fallen god of communism, and a sort of a "purge" without resorting to guns by the so-called "militant atheists" in the US. And much better to focus on the positives of why seperation of church and state benefits all regardless of belief or non-belief.
You : "Communism is a religion, it uses the same kind of mind control that theistic religions use, it seeks to compete with the worship of gods by enforcing worship of the state, worship of a Dear Leader (Stalin, Mao ...).
Moi : Excuse me? Communism is a religion? So, while maintaining atheism is not a religion, you are saying religion is an ideology like communism, and therefore, communism is a religion imposed by states. Communism, a state imposed ideology, collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but atheism and faith survived among their citizens as personal choices.
Athiests live in countries from Albania to Zimbabwe, all with different political systems just as believers do.
You : "If you ask most atheists, they are as a-communistic as they are a-theist."
Moi : Well my friend, this would depend on which atheist from which country I'm asking. An American atheist is different from a Cuban, a Chinese, a Swiss atheist, a Ghanian, or an Indonesian atheist. All are shaped by their own countries' political and economic system and/or ideologies.
Actually, most Asian atheists, especially in China and Vietnam with quite a history of communist variations, are less rabid anti-theists than some western atheists are. They seem comfortable with their atheism and don't rationalise and justify them with Enlightenment thought. Nor do they know of the great thinkers and writers of Enlightenment and atheism.
As atheism is officially the majority "religion" of China and Vietnam, it is the religious minorities there who feel oppressed by prevailing atheism and the preponderance of atheists in the public square. They are fighting for their rights to believe, to assemble freely, to have and build religious related premises, and to practicce their faith not only privately, but in public.
Would an American atheist or anti-theist support that as freedom of thought, freedom to believe and freedom of expression?
Thanks and regards
"J"
December 29, 2007 5:34 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 29, 2007 17:34
Every candidate understands he or she must profess some supernatural belief as a prerequisite for running for office. I'm fairly certain a healthy percentage of political officeholders don't actually hold the religious beliefs they profess, but understand that's the price of being in the arena. Mormanism, Evangelical Christian, Muslim, Wiccan or Pagan...the particular flavor of invisible-friend-with-superpowers doesn't matter.
From a personal point of view (and I understand it's a minority point of view), only if a candidate convinces me of true belief--and would make governing decisions based on that belief (i.e., Huckabee)--is the candidate unqualified to hold office. That does usually rule out Fundamentalists of any flavor, as their faith almost always mandates they establish the rules by which others must act.
December 29, 2007 2:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 29, 2007 14:54
The notion that communism is atheism is a straw man argument against atheism.
Atheism is not-theism, the "ism" part of the word belongs to the "theism", not to the "a". That part of the word means "not", that's all it means.
Communism is a religion, it uses the same kind of mind control that theistic religions use, it seeks to compete with the worship of gods by enforcing worship of the state, worship of a Dear Leader (Stalin, Mao ...).
Communism declares its atheism as a means of defeating its competition, but it is communism which is the belief system, atheism is merely a description of its lack of theism.
To say that communism is atheism is like saying red is the apple.
If you ask most atheists, they are as a-communistic as they are a-theist.
December 29, 2007 12:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 29, 2007 12:17
"J" thanks for the responses. They are well thought-out and articulated.
I especially loved this one:
"It would seem that some American Christians have so much time on their hands don't they? War on evolution, war on Islam, war on Mormons, war on pagans, war on homosexuals, war on atheists. Why not war on poverty? War on environmental degradation?"
Would you consider running for a US office?
December 29, 2007 9:38 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 29, 2007 09:38
Hello Oort,
Yes, no cheating on partners in exams as well as no lying, no stealing, no killing etc are universal values. Only whatever punishment meted out for such are of different degree determined by culture, civil/secular laws and even by different Shariah laws if applicable in Muslim states.
Perhaps, instead of looking at religious-inspired values requiring religion to be valuable as you stated, we should look at it in another way.
If we have values based on our personal sense of right and wrong, learning by examples, by reading up on religious, philosophical and civil/secular laws, then our rabbis, monks, priests, imams would have nothing to do. They need a job, they chose the job, and by God! they will make themselves indispensible and valuable in their job by reminding us on ethics and values as per the holy texts and then some new interpretions etc.
Religion-inspired values can exist outside temples, synagogues, churches, mosques for most believers. But rabbis, monks, priests, imams cannot exist outside of "houses of faith" and without believers. They need to be regarded as "valuable" and to regard themselves as keepers of the spiritual well-being and needs of the faithful as well as faith-based ethics, values and mores.
Religion is not the primary cause but co-option by any group to differentiate them from another, to fire up feelings of "we" against the other. Being of the same faith has never stop anyone, any country from warring with one another as happened in all parts of the world regardless of faith and beliefs throughout history.
If religion is said to be prone to all manner of hatred and oppressions, particularly of the unbelievers and wrong-believers, how do we explain African-Americans being oppressed by their co-religionists?
Political, economic and social domination don't really need religion to rationalise for it, but it does help to get anyone to kill for God and country. To kill for Voltaire and country don't have the same pull and punch, but the Stalinists and Maoists prove you don't need religion to get people to hate, oppress and kill others.
It would seem that some American Christians have so much time on their hands don't they? War on evolution, war on Islam, war on Mormons, war on pagans, war on homosexuals, war on atheists. Why not war on poverty? War on environmental degradation?
As there are some 2,000 or so Christian churches and sects in the US, Christians can always do "shopping around" on the church or sect they like the best if they don't like the stance their churches are taking on some issues out of conviction and as a matter of principle if they still have faith. After all, all Christians believe in the Nicene Creed. And besides, no one got shot for leaving his church for another or to leave religion altogether if they personally find faith no longer conforting and is oppressive.
Yes, organised religion or church do use religion as a weapon to oppress others with religious-based values and mores. Any wonder why religous entities are so adamant that the state leave them alone on church affairs? If you think of them as alternate/parallel states within states, or sub-states, or non-state with adherents (like citizens) and tithe-payers (like state tax), with their own hierachies and bureaucracies and sets of rules/beliefs to be complied, and the power to excommunicate (like stripping a citizenship for treason) you will be vigilant to what organised religion is capable of doing to real states and other citizens.
But, because the US has some 2,000 competing micro-states (churches) it is highly unlikely any one would be really effective in overwhelming or undermining the real state if they don't forge a broad coalition on issues they all agree on. I see that different churches have different positions on abortion and gays. So.
Yes, it would be most helpful to our species if all have faith in ourselves. Only the ones who are most uncertain of themself, anything or everything, and fearful of others are the most prone to treating the other as an enemy, to blame them for the rain today and to wage war against the other. Even some atheists do so against believers. Not just believers against atheists. But these atheists' war against believers is like guerillas striking against the megastate of believers. An alienated, marginalised and vilified group fighting for its rights against the oppressing and self-oppressive believers eh:)
We'll have to reason with ourselves and together then.
Thanks and goodnight.
"J"
December 29, 2007 3:35 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 29, 2007 03:35
Hello Jihadist, there certainly is nothing wrong with family values, and many of the values promoted by the various religions are valuable, even to me.
I don't covet my neighbor's wife because I don't want to get shot. And besides, if she would cheat on my neighbor, she would cheat on me as well. Just don't touch that, an easy value.
The problem with religous-inspired values are that they require religion to be valuable. These values have no outside reality, no truth other than the myth which is promoting them.
Religions are prone to to all manner of hatreds and oppressions, particularly of the unbelievers but certainly of the wrong-believers as well.
New and extra values are added to assist in this separation of the faithful from the nonfaithful or the wrong-faithful. Such as the war the christians are having on the homosexuals, and on the atheists as well. The priests find ways to interpret the myths to allow oppression to be a value.
The faithful must accept this, or they have lost their faith.
Faith can be a comfort, sure, I wouldn't want to take anybody's comfort from them. But it can be used as a weapon as well. Don't you think it might be more helpful to our species if we found ways to have faith in ourselves, without having to program the brain to suppress its reason?
We need to grow up, or we will destroy ourselves. I have faith in that.
December 28, 2007 10:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 22:51
Jeff P: " What would be an example of a "faith-inspired value" that might make life richer, and without which an atheist has a less interesting life?"
Moi : Polygamy for one. Up to four wives if you're a Muslim man!
You can have a mostg interesting life and time negotiating where and with which wife to sleep tonight. Or, to shove off your husband to the other wives tonight because you don't feel like it, you don't want to lie to him you have a headache, and you know exactgly who he is sleeping with tonight because he told you. Less of lies.
Polygamy is better than being a serial monogamist and adulterer like Guiliani, no? He made his life more complicated and costly in paying for lawyers and alimonies.
Jeff P : "Politics of late has been laced with 30 second sound bites that feed off of fear--"
Moi : You know as well as I do when politicians are wobbly in support by the public, a "bogeyman" an external threat is an effective tool to concentrate and unify people behind them. War on drugs, war on terror, war on Christmas. So many wars on so many fronts that makes Americans feel they are under constant threats, constant attacks, constant battles and wars domestically and internationally.
Like most Indonesians and Malaysians, I tend to think of terrorists (and we have homegrown ones) as irritating mosquitos to be swatted by smart targetting instead of carpet bombing. More people died in both countries due to natural disasters, diseases and road accidents every year than by terrorist attacks. Even in the US, over 85,000 people are murdered by other Americans than terrorists since 9/11.
I am not making light of terrorist attacks. We have them too in Indonesia and Malaysia. Not as spectacularly shocking as 9/11, but more of a series of attacks that if the number of victims are totaled, is more than those of 9/11. And the Indonesian and Malaysia governments never make ominous public announcements on possible attacks or threats. But, Muslims are also "in the hands of God" on life and death as to when and how.
Oh, there's the military-industrial complex, all those military related weapons, equiptment, vehicles, planes, ships etc industry to take care of as as sustainable and growing industry to be fed by constant wars and threats of wars here and there and new enemies too.
As for fear of loss of "family values", that seems to be a reaction by the more prudish, moralistic and moralising ones on "decaying morals" as would be cause of decline and fall of civilisation as we know it.
What they are really fearing is, perhaps, the loss of the social safety net or family security which the nuclear and/or extended family provide. Most helpful to go back to a family members' home to cushion the loss of a job and home. A broken or split family can't pool resources as well.
And they are not letting anyone in any company take away company money for a what! Sex change operation? Can't have that. God made us the way we are and we can't change anything. Besides, that would eat into our health benefits and pension funds too!.
I don't want to let religious fanatics and extremists (especially my fellow co-religionists in my own country whose actions may have more direct impact on me as some Christians would in the US on their country and fellow Americans) who want to push for and make laws according to their version of religion as the one and only to get the upper hand.
They have been quite manageable if we are alert on their organisations and intent. They can be and do want to be engaged. They have many, many fears. And yes, it really helps to listen to what they want and why. These fellows need a lot a assurances on their myriad insecurities manifested into aggressive public posturings and demands.
Thanks and regards
"J"
December 28, 2007 10:28 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 22:28
To Serve Americans... IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!!!!
December 28, 2007 9:31 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 21:31
Jihadist: I enjoy your posts.
A question and observation, though: What would be an example of a "faith-inspired value" that might make life richer, and without which an atheist has a less interesting life?
Additionally: Politics of late has been laced with 30 second sound bites that feed off of fear--fear of another terrorist attack, fear of weapons of mass destruction, fear of the enemy "following us home if we leave Iraq," fear of Iran, fear of loss of "family values" if the Democratic party should prosper, fear of losing the pleasure of owning guns, fear of the "war on marriage," lots of fears that are catered to speak directly to the evangelicals and fundamentalists. So yes, I do think they operate on the politics of fear, and the politicians have recognized that very well.
I didn't get a "Merry Christmas" Christmas card from a long-time Christian friend this year (surprisingly) but did receive an e-mail from him today regarding the "threat" that Ford Motor Company has become to Americans, because they reportedly "pay for sex change operations and counseling for their employees who desire it," and his e-mail encouraged me to sign a petition to boycott Ford motor company along with nearly 800,000 others who want to punish Ford. This from the "American Family Association."
You mentioned that sometimes atheists fear believers: resoundingly, yes, I do fear this level of organized hatred and paranoia.
December 28, 2007 8:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 20:39
Mr. Mark: "Why do "faith and values" get lumped together like peanut butter and jelly? Take a look at what happened yesterday in Pakistan - a great example of faith and values being more akin to oil and water."
Moi : Values were first codified also by various faiths as stories, parables, injunctions, even proverbs. The most famous, as you know, set of values and ethics by any secular or religous standards is the Ten Commandments.
Politics is about who gets what, when and how. It is also about interpreted or held values by adherent of same or different faiths clashing. It is akin to the culture war between atheists and believers. Yes. Oil and water that are mixing in a pot with fire underneath heating up the mix.
Mr Mark: "I'll take knowledge-informed values over the faith-inspired kind any day of the week."
Moi : I find having both faith inspired values and knowledge based values not a problem to have. Much more interesting and richer. More references and sources to look into. Why deprive oneself of any good faith inspired values just because one is an atheist? Thou shalt not covet's thy neihbour's wife is good, no? Saves all the headache of lying and cheating of having an affair. Or the heartache and rejection of pining for someone who may not even want you.
Ohg Rea Tone :" Fear and faith go hand in hand. Some say they are opposites - one cannot have fear if one has faith. But it appears that evangelicals vote on fear more than on faith."
Moi : Believers are also said to have no fear because we have God on our side. Evangelicals may seem to be the most fearful believers as they not only want to save themselves for fear of God, but to save everybody else by any methods possible.
But evangelicals are really the most obsessive-aggressive-offensive Christians. It would surprise some or even many Americans that evangelicals even handed out fake, falsified copies of Qur'an to Muslims in their missionary work in Muslim countries implying Jesus as not just Messiah, but Son of God etc. to get more converts for the church. The more converts, the richer the church.
Christianity has become more of a big and important businesses in the States. Like companies selling different beliefs and Bibles instead of cars. Faith as a "commodity" marketed and commericalised with many different packaging of the Bibles even. Only in America and exported to the world like Jeep Cheerokees, Big Macs and Cokes.
Evangelicals are not voting on fear. They are voting on promoting their faith or church to be spread around freely in the world and with US government support for them as American organisations.
We all have fear of something, no? Including some atheists fearing believers.
Thanks and regards
"J"
December 28, 2007 7:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 19:58
Fred Evil,
While I appreciate and agree with your post in spirit, there's one area where I think you fall into the trap of the other side's thinking:
"Evolution is as inescapably proven as a theory can be. Anyone question the Theory of Gravity lately? There's a whole lot of theory, without much basis in provable fact there, yet it's readily accepted. "
"Theory" doesn't mean that there is no proof. A theory can never be a "fact", no matter how solid and incontrovertible the proof may be. Facts are single, discrete entities. A theory (which begins life as a hypothesis, based on observation) gathers facts into a unifying concretion. Think of facts as Word documents, and theories as the folders you put those documents into on your C drive.
Theories may have to be revamped, or even discarded if new facts come to light that don't fit, but there are few that are much stronger than the one for evolution. That evolution occurred was already widely accepted long before Darwin presented his case for the method by which it occurred. The fossil record was strong, and has become even stronger. Darwin enumerated the forces that drove it. Later, Mendel's work was rediscovered, and the genetic mechanism that natural selection acted on was shown. Still later, we discovered DNA, and the force behind genetics was made clear. Now, using DNA, we can see the relationships between living things.
Layer upon layer, the proofs have built up. Each new discovery reconfirmed the ones before it. While scientists may squabble over details, there simply aren't any worthy of the name who dispute the truth of evolution. It's the foundation of our entire science of biology.
The problem with people like Huckabee is that they don't know anything about the theory of evolution. They haven't read Darwin, or any other writer on the subject. They've *heard* (likely from someone speaking with great derision) that the theory is that humans came from "monkeys", one animal can turn into another, and that everything just came from nothing in a big bang. That is truly the extent of their knowledge (and I use the term loosely).
If you were to offer them a book that would help them understand, they would reject it as a work of the devil.
It's impossible to argue with people like this, because you don't stand on level ground. I've read their books (Bible) and been through their indoctrination (Christian family upbringing, Sunday school, church), but they haven't even read *one* of the hundreds of books and articles that I've read on the subject of evolution. Nor are they willing to. Their heads are planted firmly in the sand.
December 28, 2007 7:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 19:33
Berlinerblau is in a neverending state of denial about the size and influence of the "evangelical" voting block. Kerry didn't lose the 2004 election because he subscribed to normal secular values: he lost the election because Republican officials in Ohio found a way to keep voters out of the polling places until enough went home. The Democratic Party is not going to turn away from the separation of church and state, because it serves the purpose of protecting the rights of religious minorities (including atheists), a matter of great importance to Democrats but not Republicans. Secularists are not some minority within the party or the country, they are the majority of Americans, even Americans who practice religion. Perhaps we need some social scientists with good data to show Berlinerblau the incontrovertible facts about the essential secularity of the American public. Claiming to "believe in God" is the flavor of the moment for a public which is feels obligated to humor the occasional friend or family member who is wrapped up in the trendy new Christian thing, but they don't really mean it and they won't put up with giving up their basic life choices (like premarital sex, drinking alcohol, or being able to shop at Walmart on Sundays) if the religious fanatics push too hard...
December 28, 2007 5:32 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 17:32
Faith is the end of learning. It accepts no contraverting evidence, it demands the suppression of reason, it even seems to drive the victim into suppressing those who are not faithful, perhaps as a means to its own survival.
We hear time and time again from people like LDS Mark, people who make affirmative claims about what our constitution says, without ever having read it!
Who is telling them this stuff, who told LDS Mark that "we are created equal and endowed with rights by our Creator, not by the Constitution", how did this nonsense get into his head?
His pastor did, his reverend did, his priest did. And because this nonsense is spoken by those who demand his faith, he is unable to perceive how wrong it is.
Since he is infected with faith, he doesn't ask.
December 28, 2007 5:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 17:11
Is it too much to ask that some candidate just say I am running for president, not pastor? and that if my scientific advisors tell me that the meteor shower that left the crater in AZ 6 million years ago is back and about to devastate the earth I won't tell them they must have their figures wrong because the earth is only 6000 years old, or that we can ignore the environment because the rapture is just around the corner, or whatever else faith might have me do that it should not?
December 28, 2007 4:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 16:40
Dear LDS Mark -
You wrote: "we are created equal and endowed with rights by our Creator, not by the Constitution."
You are confusing the words of the Declaration of Independence with the words of the Constitution. Typical.
The DoI begins with the following words:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Let's look at those powerful words, shall we?
Notice that the writers of the DoI used capitals when they spoke of the "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God," and "their Creator." The phrases "laws of nature" and "nature's god" give us a clear indication of what they believed "their Creator" was, and nowhere is there any evidence that it is the Xian god. In fact, the phrases "laws of nature" and "nature's god" appear nowhere in the Bible.
And from where do we as Americans secure our rights and powers? You say, from the Creator, The Declaration of Independence says, "FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."
Could it be made any clearer?
As far as what the Constitution has to say about it - well, maybe you should actually read it (and the DoI, for that matter!) before we get into that discussion.
December 28, 2007 3:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 15:40
I'm convinced that "faith" isn't a virtue. It took me 46 years to come to this observation.
If anyone disagrees, please give me specific examples where some good done is only done contingent on "faith" as a primary driving force. This example would then necessarily exclude anyone "without faith" from doing a similar good deed.
Finally, LDS Mark, I've read the founding-fathers-documents, and as Mr Mark says, "couldn't disagree with you more."
December 28, 2007 3:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 15:39
Fear and faith go hand in hand. Some say they are opposites - one cannot have fear if one has faith. But it appears that evangelicals vote on fear more than on faith.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/12/28/fear-must-not-choose-a-president/
December 28, 2007 3:20 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 15:20
Funny Mark, if God grants us these rights, why doesn't he enforce them? Why aren't they truly RIGHTS, and not merely guidelines? Until government came along, I didn't see anyone (especially the righteous masses) standing up for ANYONE'S rights.
The only rights God's people stand up for, are their rights to YOUR property.
December 28, 2007 2:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on December 28, 2007 14:48
I still don't understand why 'faith' is considered a desirable attribute in a President.
'Faith,' is the acceptance or belief of a thing, idea or concept as factual without any physical PROOF. In fact, Xtianity requires belief without proof, for with proof, there is no need for faith. Therefore proving that God existed would actually weaken him!(Well, weaken Xtianity actually) How in the world this moebius strip of logic is allowed to co-exist with the Scientific Method is beyond me, bu