What is with all the anti-religious bigotry?

[nate895]

For the purpose of this thread I will first start out with the undeniable definition of athiest:


–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless

I am sick of it on this forum. Somehow, because some ministers pervert the bible, all religious people are morons and statists.

For one thing, most atheists are statists as well. All totalitarian communist regimes of the twentieth century adopted official state atheism. Now, since an atheist believes in no power greater than any man made power, in a society with a government, that higher power is the government instead of God. The government no answers to nobody but its whims, and its whim is to oppress the people. Now, as libertarians, we agree on the non-aggression principle, but since you are an atheist you have absolutely no right to tell that to the government because the non-aggression principle is your belief, and unless if you are going to assert that you are somehow superior than your fellow humans beings (which would elevate you to a sort of demi-god status), you have no basis to attack that government. That government is supreme in all that it does. A religious person (depending on their faith), on the other hand, can justify the non-aggression principle using the argument that under their faith that God is superior to all, and that God advocates (which he does in the New Testament) that human beings should be non-aggressive and that all must answer to the Lord on Judgment Day for their horrible crimes they have committed on humanity.

But, let's argue, that we live in a libertarian society with little to no government at all. In this society, everyone is atheist and believes in no higher power but their own urges are. Who are we, in this society, to tell someone that they cannot rob, cheat, murder, and steal their way through life? If there is no higher power, how can anyone have rights? How can these "rights" even develop in the first place? Sure, one can argue, that they were an evolutionary trait, but someone is not following them and doesn't recognize them. Who are we to tell that man that he is wrong and we are superior to him? For all we know, he could be superior to us and that could be the right way of doing things, after all, there is no God who tells us not to, the government is a shell if it exists at all. Sure, we could use force to protect ourselves from this madman, but that would violate our beliefs that there is no higher power than ourselves and to not be aggressive. The only solution to this problem is to admit that there is a higher power, and he has endowed us with rights, and we (and the government, if there is one) have a right to protect those rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

Every aspect of this is so flawed, it's not even worth my time to counter it. Maybe someone with more time will come along and help you.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5269/facepalm8bu0ph9.jpg

[nate895]

Now, if this was a Debate, I'd win. No one has even tried to even explain why this logic is flawed. All my arguments go undefeated.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Oh the world outside my church is so bright and scary. However did human beings survive and cooperate for thousands upon thousands of years without the frankenstein's monster of pagan myth that the roman war machine created?

And why does jesus have long hair like a ******?

[youngbuck]

Every aspect of this is so flawed,

One day, hopefully, you'll realize it isn't. Ever read the Declaration of Independence? I see a few parallels between what nate mentioned, and what the DoI espouses.

[RonPaulNewbee]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't believe you have to believe in God to have common law. Common Law is so-called "un-written law" that recognizes the two basic rights of Don't harm me, and Don't encroach on my property. How can I know objectively that these rights came from God?

[nate895]

Oh the world outside my church is so bright and scary. However did human beings survive and cooperate for thousands upon thousands of years without the frankenstein's monster of pagan myth that the roman war machine created?

And why does jesus have long hair like a ******?

Now since you are saying that all those rights would develop, and everyone would believe in them, without religion, and I am saying they wouldn't, how do you prove that that would happen? Since atheism has no central belief beyond the non-existence of God, how would an atheist justify, using undeniable facts (not unprovable assertions) the existence of any right?

[nate895]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't believe you have to believe in God to have common law. Common Law is so-called "un-written law" that recognizes the two basic rights of Don't harm me, and Don't encroach on my property. How can I know objectively that these rights came from God?

How can these rights have developed without God or a government to enforce them? How are we to determine who is right and who is wrong in this case. Without a moral code that is considered absolute fact (i.e., the New Testament, and basic ten commandments), how are we to determine what is moral and what is not?

[Brassmouth]

What's with all the pro-fairytale bigotry?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

What's with all the pro-fairytale bigotry?

+1

[dannno]

Since atheism has no central belief beyond the non-existence of God, how would an atheist justify, using undeniable facts (not unprovable assertions) the existence of any right?

I don't know, how DO they?

I kinda agree with some of your original points, though. I'm agnostic. Religion and non-religion, science based on a central "authority" that cannot be questioned.. both be powerful tools of control.

[RonPaulNewbee]

How can these rights have developed without God or a government to enforce them? How are we to determine who is right and who is wrong in this case. Without a moral code that is considered absolute fact (i.e., the New Testament, and basic ten commandments), how are we to determine what is moral and what is not?
Doesn't seem like you can "prove" anything one way or the other because history was not in a vacuum as you put it. Some cultures believed in some gods and others didn't. I don't see how not eating pork or observing sabbath had anything to do with pre-Columbian Mayans for example. Or how did Zoroastrianism affect the Iroquois? Or did the Uighurs affect the laws of the Mesopotamians? And that is just the last 5 Thousand years! What about the last 5 Million years? Did dreams have an effect on rights? Or vision-quests? What about the effect of the dream language of Sanskrit on Norse Mythology? Can you accept that different people have different views on just what is God or a god?

[Andrew-Austin]

Since atheism has no central belief beyond the non-existence of God, how would an atheist justify, using undeniable facts (not unprovable assertions) the existence of any right?

Uhhhh... So atheists are suddenly not allowed to hold any beliefs or philosophies now? (yeah I know that is not what you meant)

Why don't you go read up on natural law theory or something instead of asking people to spoon feed you with an hours worth of typing. Perhaps people post "anti-religious" stuff here because people like you try and imply atheists are immoral and other such nonsense. But really I see hate going both ways b/w theists and atheists, don't try and categorize theists as some poor oppressed minority because thats crap.

I'll be for your religious freedom so long as you don't force theocracy on me.

[Deborah K]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't believe you have to believe in God to have common law. Common Law is so-called "un-written law" that recognizes the two basic rights of Don't harm me, and Don't encroach on my property. How can I know objectively that these rights came from God?

Because if you believe these rights come from the government, then you have to believe that what the gov't giveth, the gov't can taketh away. If they are unalienable rights, endowed by our creator, then the gov't can never take them away - unless the people (sleeple) allow it.....which is what is happening....because a majority of people think like you do.

[Andrew-Austin]

Because if you believe these rights come from the government, then you have to believe that what the gov't giveth, the gov't can taketh away. If they are unalienable rights, then the gov't can never take them away - unless the people (sleeple) allow it.....which is what is happening....because a majority of people think like you do.

It does not have to be one way or the other, -that is rights either coming from God or government.

Obviously the government can "taketh away" rights no matter if we all agree that rights come from God or not. Governments based on religious / divine authority can take away rights all the same as a secular government.

"which is what is happening because of people like you"

Fucking nonsense.

[heavenlyboy34]

Uhhhh... So atheists are suddenly not allowed to hold any beliefs or philosophies now? (yeah I know that is not what you meant)

Why don't you go read up on natural law theory or something instead of asking people to spoon feed you with an hours worth of typing. Perhaps people post "anti-religious" stuff here because people like you try and imply atheists are immoral and other such nonsense. But really I see hate going both ways b/w theists and atheists, don't try and categorize theists as some poor oppressed minority because thats crap.

I'll be for your religious freedom so long as you don't force theocracy on me.

+1000

It seems atheists (at least around here) are more pro-freedom than the theists. :( I wish we could just get along without having to govern each other's lives all the time.

[youngbuck]

What's with all the pro-fairytale bigotry?

I didn't see any bigotry. Are you trying to cover up one of your own flaws or something? Perhaps you're the bigot?



Because if you believe these rights come from the government, then you have to believe that what the gov't giveth, the gov't can taketh away. If they are unalienable rights, endowed by our creator, then the gov't can never take them away - unless the people (sleeple) allow it.....which is what is happening....because a majority of people think like you do.

Sooo... coommmplex... can't.. compuute..

[youngbuck]

+1000

It seems atheists (at least around here) are more pro-freedom than the theists. :( I wish we could just get along without having to govern each other's lives all the time.

I doubt any of us here are trying to govern your life, and any other Atheists life. I sure as heck am not. It appears you're basing your statement on wild generalizations which are usually espoused by anti-God dogma.

[Andrew-Austin]

I doubt any of us here are trying to govern your life, and any other Atheists life. I sure as heck am not. It appears you're basing your statement on wild generalizations which are usually espoused by anti-God dogma.

Sorry, but it seems the majority of those who would like to set up a "religiously based government" or whatever, would like to micromanage peoples lives by outlawing drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other such victimless crimes based on their own religion's whims. I'm not saying its like that with all religious people because I know there are exceptions on this board, but there are some here who see it that way, and outside of the forum its the majority view.

[Deborah K]

It does not have to be one way or the other, -that is rights either coming from God or government.

Obviously the government can "taketh away" rights no matter if we all agree that rights come from God or not. Governments based on religious / divine authority can take away rights all the same as a secular government.

"which is what is happening because of people like you"

Fucking nonsense.

First of all, get my quote right!!! Second of all, get the point right!! The point being, that the gov't can't take shit away from the people unless the people ALLOW it!!!!!

[LibertyEagle]

+1000

It seems atheists (at least around here) are more pro-freedom than the theists. :( I wish we could just get along without having to govern each other's lives all the time.

Sorry, don't think so. I have rarely seen someone denounce atheism or agnosticism or a different religion other than Christianity on here. I am not saying it has never happened, but it hasn't happened often. On the other hand, I have seen absolutely rabid anti-Christianity on this board. I personally have found it rather peculiar too, since many of the atheists and agnostics I have known, claim to only want to be allowed to have their beliefs without being discriminated against. But, on this forum at least, I see self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics who refuse to give Christians the same benefit. I've seen insult after insult of God, Christianity and those who believe in God. I guess for these people doing the insulting, liberty is a word that only comes into play when it suits them. Come to think of it, their behavior reminds me a lot of the neocons and some of the religious right.



My 2 cents.

[Deborah K]

Sorry, don't think so. I have rarely seen someone denounce atheism or agnosticism or a different religion other than Christianity on here. I am not saying it has never happened, but it hasn't happened often. On the other hand, I have seen absolutely rabid anti-Christianity on this board. I personally have found it rather peculiar too, since many of the atheists and agnostics I have known, claim to only want to be allowed to have their beliefs without being discriminated against. But, on this forum at least, I see self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics who refuse to give Christians the same benefit. I've seen insult after insult of God, Christianity and those who believe in God. I guess for these people doing the insulting, liberty is a word that only comes into play when it suits them. Come to think of it, their behavior reminds me a lot of the neocons and some of the religious right.



My 2 cents.

Agreed. I'm getting really tired of all the Christianity slamming that goes on in these forums. It's shameful. Not to mention hypocritical.

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry, but it seems the majority of those who would like to set up a "religiously based government" or whatever, would like to micromanage peoples lives by outlawing drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other such victimless crimes based on their own religion's whims. I'm not saying its like that with all religious people because I know there are exceptions on this board, but there are some here who see it that way, and outside of the forum its the majority view.

Well bud, the MAJORITY voted for Obama. The people on this board are here because they want liberty. So why the hell do some of you have to go out of your way insulting Christians and God? If it's not what you believe, FINE, but must you insult others who do believe? Or does freedom of religion only matter to you, if the person believes what YOU do?

Are you sure you guys aren't neocons? Because the thinking is remarkably similar. Can't you see that? It's either liberty for EVERYONE, even people who do not have your same beliefs, or it is liberty for none.

[tonesforjonesbones]

These atheists are more concerned that someone is going to take away their porn, prostitution, drugs and gambling than ANY OTHER ISSUE. Which brings me to this:

Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Find Common Ground?

Ronald Reagan As the standard bearer for American conservatism for two decades, Ronald Reagan effortlessly embodied fusionism by uniting Mont Pelerin style libertarians, populist Christians, Burkean conservatives, and national security voters into a devastatingly successful electoral bloc. Today, it is nearly impossible to imagine a candidate winning both New York and Texas, but Reagan and that group of fellow travelers did.

In the meantime, the coalition has begun to show strain as the forces pushing outward exceed those holding it together. The Soviet Union, once so great a threat that Whittaker Chambers felt certain he was switching to the losing side when he began to inform on fellow Communist agents working within the United States, evaporated in what seemed like a period of days in the early 1990s. Suddenly, the ultimate threat of despotic big government eased and companions in arms had the occasion to re-assess their relationship. The review of competing priorities has left former friends moving apart. Perhaps nowhere is the tension greater and more consequential than between the socially conservative elements of the group and devotees of libertarianism.

The two groups have little natural tendency to trust each other when not confronted by a common enemy as in the case of the Cold War. Libertarians simply want to minimize the role of government as much as possible. For them, questions of maintaining strong traditional family units and preserving sexual and/or bioethical mores fall into an unessential realm as far as government is concerned. The government, echoing the thought of John Locke, should primarily occupy itself with providing for physical safety of the person while allowing for the maximum freedom possible for pursuit of self-interest.

Social conservatives similarly view the government as having a primary mission of providing safety, but they also look to the law as a source of moral authority. Man-made law, for them, should seek to be in accord to some degree with divine and natural law. Rifts open wide when social conservatives pursue a public policy agenda designed to prevent divorce, encourage marriage over cohabitation, prevent new understandings of marriage from emerging (e.g. gay marriage or polygamous marriage), prevent avant garde developments in biological experimentation, and a variety of other issues outside (from the libertarian perspective) the true mandate of government that cannot seek to define the good, the right, and the beautiful for a community of individuals. To the degree social conservatives seek to achieve some kind of collective excellence along the lines suggested by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, libertarians see a mirror image of the threat posed by big-government leftists.

Equally intense suspicions exist on the socially conservative side of the relationship. Libertarians can appear to be obsessed with money and a desire to be left alone, unencumbered by any obligation to their fellows other than not to interfere with their lives. The tension inherent in the relationship erupted during the American presidential primaries when the libertarian-oriented Club for Growth clashed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Christian conservative. Club for Growth seemed to single out Huckabee for the most uncharitable view possible of his free-market bonafides. Rather than attempt conciliation, Huckabee apparently relished the attack and labeled the small government group "The Club for Greed."


U.S. Capitol building, Washington DC The question, borrowed from the longest running feature in women's magazine history, is "Can this marriage be saved?" Do libertarians and social conservatives with religious concerns have a relationship worth preserving? As a Christian with strong sympathies toward social conservatism, I can help address part of that question. My answer is that libertarians and social conservatives have a strong interest in seeing each other persist in the American polity. Perhaps a libertarian analyst can address the issue from the other side.

So, why should libertarians see value in what social and religious conservatives hope to achieve? The answer lies in the concept at the core of the American experiment. America is not about unfettered freedom. America is about a particular type of liberty that has been the glory of the Western heritage, ordered liberty. Freedom without a strong moral basis ends up being an empty promise. The American founding generation understood the problem very clearly. The solution that appealed to a great many of them was to encourage religion among the American people. In their view, the Christian religion helped make citizens fit for a republican style of government. Meaningful freedom required the exercise of virtue on behalf of citizens. The connection between religion and virtue was easy to make. After all, even Voltaire hid his skeptical conversations about religion from his servants for fear they'd steal the silver if released from fear of divine punishment.


Milton Friedman Put very simply, the travail of freedom is this: Immoral actors take advantage of moral ones. If everyone has to rationally suspect others of immoral behavior in order to protect themselves, then the value of exchange is severely undercut by the cost of self-protective action. Eventually, in an attempt to ease the expense of self-protection, participants petition the government for regulation. Regulation undercuts the entire libertarian idea. The key, of course, to breaking the cycle of advantage-taking and regulation-building is to change the nature of the actors. The more virtuous the actors, the less opportunistic behavior, and the more confidence all actors can have at the outset of exchange. What is needed is trust. With trust, the costs of transaction rapidly decline and the need for government regulation and enforcement moves downward, as well. Social conservatives press for public policies that tend to increase social capital by improving citizens.

Just as an example, consider the social conservative push toward policies that encourage marriage rather than cohabitation and discourage divorce. Social statistics from the last twenty years establish in a fairly uncontroversial fashion that children from intact, two-parent families will, on average, perform better in school, be less likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, be less likely to do drugs or abuse alcohol, and are substantially less likely to spend time in prison. If there are policies that can actually increase the likelihood that children can be raised in intact families, then it makes sense to pursue those policies (within reason) because they will become, on average, more virtuous citizens less likely to impose costs on others through moral failures. If the logic here is sound, then libertarians have an incentive to consider at least some policy activities of social conservatives as potentially justifiable and beneficial even within a libertarian framework.

The crux of the matter is social capital. Social capital is the name we give the value generated by the virtuous actions and attitudes of the people. A society with a libertarian style government is a near impossibility without substantial social capital. No trust, no virtue, no small government. This formula is virtually axiomatic.


Signing of the Constitution of the United States Another point of connection between libertarians and social/religious conservatives occurs because of theology. Social conservatives tend to believe human beings are tainted by a sinful nature. If we are all sinful, then how sound a policy is it to place a great deal of power in a government of one person or of many persons? Though the Christian revelation, for example, does not aim its canon specifically against monarchy or any other kind of high-powered government, the practical outworking of a doctrine of original sin is that power should be restricted, checked, and divided. The American constitutional regime set up by the founding generation should surprise no one. It was a likely outcome not only of a group of thinkers influenced by Locke, but also by the Calvinism that had long been prominent in the new world as the faith of the Puritans.

This suspicion of power continues to unite social conservatives and libertarians. While libertarians might protest that social conservatives seek to expand the government's interest in "private" matters of sex, reproduction, and marriage, the reality is that they have primarily fought a rearguard action in which they attempt to preserve laws under attack by an activist judiciary. Social conservatives have not fought for some new regime of moral authority at the expense of freedom. Rather, they have tried to save the old one because of the educational effect of law.

When it comes to new ideas about expanding government, social conservatives are largely still quite reserved exactly because of their desire not to feed a bureaucratic beast likely to develop an agenda independent of its intended purpose. As a group, they would far prefer to see mediating institutions take on the great social reforms of the day, just as they would prefer to see the church return to a much more prominent role in addressing both the needs and root causes of poverty. Another issue that offers great promise for the relationship between social/religious conservatives and libertarians is school choice. Prior to September 11, the movement for school choice was gaining steam very rapidly. It was the rare initiative that seemed to fit libertarian purposes easily while simultaneously addressing the question of social justice. After September 11, the war on terror sucked all the air out of the room for creative social policy advances, and school choice moved well down the national agenda.

School choice hasn't gone away, though. It is a matter that promises to re-emerge powerfully when domestic policy again moves to center focus. A great many evangelicals probably came to know of Milton Friedman because of his work in school choice rather than because of his justly famous broader work in economic theory. For libertarians the interest comes from harnessing the power of competition to improve the entire educational system and to take a step toward privatizing a massive public undertaking. Social conservatives perceive those virtues, but are more interested in the protection school choice offers for their right to control the education of their children and to insulate them from what they view as the indoctrination of left-wing ideology.

So, can the marriage be saved? Are libertarians and social conservatives destined to grow further apart or can they unite around these points of connection involving social capital, suspicion of government power, and the privatization of public education? I submit the points of connection, notwithstanding messy public blow-ups like the Huckabee/Club for Growth affair, are much stronger than the forces pulling the two groups apart. This survey demonstrates how much they have in common and how fruitful conversation between the two can be.

Hunter Baker, J.D./Ph.D. is an assistant professor of political science and special assistant to the president at Houston Baptist University.

[Andrew-Austin]

These atheists

We don't take kindly to people who don't take kindly round' here.



Sorry, don't think so. I have rarely seen someone denounce atheism or agnosticism or a different religion other than Christianity on here. I am not saying it has never happened, but it hasn't happened often. On the other hand, I have seen absolutely rabid anti-Christianity on this board. I personally have found it rather peculiar too, since many of the atheists and agnostics I have known, claim to only want to be allowed to have their beliefs without being discriminated against. But, on this forum at least, I see self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics who refuse to give Christians the same benefit. I've seen insult after insult of God, Christianity and those who believe in God. I guess for these people doing the insulting, liberty is a word that only comes into play when it suits them. Come to think of it, their behavior reminds me a lot of the neocons and some of the religious right.



My 2 cents.

I think you're overreacting just a wii bit. So what if some atheists call God a fairy tale, do you expect them to endlessly amuse the possibility of a God for the sake of not offending others? No their just going to give their opinion like anybody else.

There is no "discrimination" when people are just giving their opinions on concepts. If I call God a fairy tale, that is not discriminating against you just because its contrary to what you think. If I called you incompetent just because you believe in a God, that however can be called discrimination. I don't think that though nor do I believe many atheists think that... Sure you could find some JosephtheTotalitarian quotes directly bashing people because of their Christian faith, but come on people like him are the exception. There are a lot of religious people on this board whom I'd consider to be very intelligent, disagreeing with them on one of the most debated philosophical questions ever does not make me think less of them.

[newyearsrevolution08]

How can these rights have developed without God or a government to enforce them? How are we to determine who is right and who is wrong in this case. Without a moral code that is considered absolute fact (i.e., the New Testament, and basic ten commandments), how are we to determine what is moral and what is not?

Well human rights?

Maybe compassion perhaps...

Maybe realizing that you can't go around killing people just because there is no god or government..

Maybe humans can THINK FOR THEMSELVES and realize when something is right or wrong. Like killing, raping, and whatever else you tossed in there previously.

If you harm someone else, it doesn't take a god or government to see what is wrong in that.

I still don't get what your atheist church going theory has to do with the government and why without god, atheists must have meant government.

Now are you talking about in America, other countries or just a broad assumption of the whole thing because there are still people being stoned to death in other countries right now odds are and odds are people being put to death for stupid things as well.

I think this theory would depend on what continent you are on as well. What we consider wrong in the states others consider normal. So is god more cool in one country to the next as far as "Their morals" go? Since some sins, crimes and actions don't carry the same consequences if any at all in other countries.

I don't think it would take any god or government for a person to realize that babies for instance are weaker and more fragile and should not be harmed, should be protected and taken care of. You don't need any god to realize that, human nature, the same way dogs and cats have their own instincts I think we do as well.

Do you truly believe that without a god or government to micro manage our lives we would just walk around killing people all day? Do you really think that is something that must be told to a person to realize that it is wrong?

Come on...

[LibertyEagle]

Well Tones, as I have told you before, in my opinion, the term "social conservatives" is a complete and utter misnomer. There is not differing kinds of conservatives... fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, paleoconservatives. THERE IS ONE KIND.

Let me be REAL CLEAR. Social conservatives, who appear to want to use big government to force their views on everyone else, ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES AT ALL. They have the most in common, with their big government brethren on the other side of the aisle.

Barry Goldwater would kick them in the butt, just like he wanted to kick Falwell.

And I really do not understand why you are trying to divide libertarians and conservatives. As traditional conservatism is also known as libertarian-conservatism.

Here's what I REALLY don't get. I don't agree with those who seem to live for porn and drugs, but you know what, I don't have to. As long as their actions do not infringe on my own liberty, it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Unless the Republican party gets past believing that they need to live other people's lives for them, they will never recover. And if those who keep leading with the pitch of drugs and porn, keep on doing so, this movement will never go anywhere. Just like the Libertarian party.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Agreed. I'm getting really tired of all the Christianity slamming that goes on in these forums. It's shameful. Not to mention hypocritical.

Yes but what does it have to do with POLITICS?

[newyearsrevolution08]

Doesn't seem like you can "prove" anything one way or the other because history was not in a vacuum as you put it. Some cultures believed in some gods and others didn't. I don't see how not eating pork or observing sabbath had anything to do with pre-Columbian Mayans for example. Or how did Zoroastrianism affect the Iroquois? Or did the Uighurs affect the laws of the Mesopotamians? And that is just the last 5 Thousand years! What about the last 5 Million years? Did dreams have an effect on rights? Or vision-quests? What about the effect of the dream language of Sanskrit on Norse Mythology? Can you accept that different people have different views on just what is God or a god?

I put a phrase in bold in your quote. I don't think christians believe in the 5 million old earth theory though. I don't think the bible goes back that far.....

[LibertyEagle]

I think you're overreacting just a wii bit. So what if some atheists call God a fairy tale, do you expect them to endlessly amuse the possibility of a God for the sake of not offending others? No their just going to give their opinion like anybody else.
Actually, many don't miss a chance to "give their opinion" in threads that are clearly pro-God. They aren't threads that those who do not believe in God would be interested in, but nooooooooooooooo, they can't miss a chance to go in there and start slinging mud. It's rude, it's disgusting and it is not affording Christians the same benefit as you would like to see offered to you, for your own beliefs. Be fair.



There is no "discrimination" when people are just giving their opinions on concepts. If I call God a fairy tale, that is not discriminating against you just because its contrary to what you think. If I called you incompetent just because you believe in a God, that however can be called discrimination. I don't think that though nor do I believe many atheists think that... Sure you could find some JosephtheTotalitarian quotes directly bashing people because of their Christian faith, but come on people like him are the exception.

Christians should be able to start a thread, without having those who don't believe in God come in there bashing God. If you want respect yourself, you must give it to others too.


There are a lot of religious people on this board whom I'd consider to be very intelligent, disagreeing with them on one of the most debated philosophical questions ever does not make me think less of them.


Look, it's one thing if there is an intelligent discussion about religion, or the existence of God. It's another thing entirely when people flock to any mention of God or Christianity and start the mocking of both God and anyone who believes in Him.

Treat people how you want to be treated and respect liberty for even the Christians that so many on this board act like they hate. Those who cannot manage to do this, are nothing but hypocrites.

Just my opinion.

[Andrew-Austin]

Christians should be able to start a thread, without having those who don't believe in God come in there bashing God. If you want respect yourself, you must give it to others too.

Yeah I agree.

I'd only interject in the thread if I saw one of these fairly typical, paraphrased quotes:
"America has lost its way due to secularism"
"America must get back to its 'Christian roots' or forever be damned"
"True morality can only come from God"

Stuff like that.

[Deborah K]

Yes but what does it have to do with POLITICS?

I don't get your question? What does what have to do with politics?

[heavenlyboy34]

I doubt any of us here are trying to govern your life, and any other Atheists life. I sure as heck am not. It appears you're basing your statement on wild generalizations which are usually espoused by anti-God dogma.


Sorry...I meant to qualify that with "some". My typo, my bad. I plead for thy forgiveness! :(

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah I agree.

I'd only interject in the thread if I saw one of these fairly typical, paraphrased quotes:
"America has lost its way due to secularism"
"America must get back to its 'Christian roots' or forever be damned"
"True morality can only come from God"

Stuff like that.

Well Andrew, some of those topics might be interesting to intelligently discuss, IMO, in threads started for that purpose. It would be interesting to see what all viewpoints had to say. I wonder if it would be possible without it degenerating into pure mindless mudslinging.

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry...I meant to qualify that with "some". My typo, my bad. I plead for thy forgiveness! :(

No. :p:)

[James Madison]

Don't waist your time on most athiests. Most of them decry Christians for being intolerant and bigoted and yet their behavior promotes the same thing. To all the athiests here, grow up. It's your right to believe what you want and my right to believe what I want, and if I want to believe God exists then who are you to say that I'm wrong? Ok? It's not cute or funny to mock people because they're religious.

[strapko]

Because christian zealots come ramping in posts claiming that Christianity was what made America prosperous you would understand. /endthread.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ahhh but it is trendy..so was ron paul and so was barak obama...they go wherever the wind blows...or where ever they may be deemed to be with the "in crowd"..(old sixties term).

Liberty Eagle, did you bother to read the essay? i subject you did not. What I am asking is

CAN THERE BE CoMMON GROUND BETWEEN SOCIAL CONSErVATIVES AND LIBERTARIANS??

There is a divide and it is growing..and it is considered to be problematic. Will we be able to meet in the middle somewhere?

tones

[hypnagogue]

These atheists are more concerned that someone is going to take away their porn, prostitution, drugs and gambling than ANY OTHER ISSUE. The only response warranted by this kind of bullshit is a hearty [Redacted by Moderator]

Wasn't someone trying to say in this very thread that almost all the bashing goes towards the christians? You've got to be kidding.

Can we stop posting about religion now? Please? Really please? I thought this was a political forum. Maybe we shouldn't have a quarter of the threads degenerate into religious bickering and maybe we shouldn't have threads like this being nothing but religious flamebait. Are you all familiar with the term flamebait? Go look it up.

[LibertyEagle]

Liberty Eagle, did you bother to read the essay? i subject you did not. What I am asking is

CAN THERE BE CoMMON GROUND BETWEEN SOCIAL CONSErVATIVES AND LIBERTARIANS??
I read it.


There is a divide and it is growing..and it is considered to be problematic. Will we be able to meet in the middle somewhere?

Did you read what I wrote? The real question should be, can there be common ground between social conservatives and REAL conservatives. And my answer for that is... I don't know. Since social conservatives are really nothing but big government leftists, frankly, I don't see what they have in common with real conservatives.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Social conservatives are not leftists. I wonder if you understood the essay? tones

[LibertyEagle]

Social conservatives are not leftists. I wonder if you understood the essay? tones

Maybe not. Here's what I see....

"Social conservatives" want to use big government to force their views down everyone's throats. In my opinion, if you want big government, then you are a leftist.

Real conservatives believe in a limited constitutional government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, personal privacy (even in someone's bedroom :eek:) and states' rights.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Liberty Eagle. This is the point i have been trying to make for awhile...there MUST be a moral society in order to have no government. or self government i should say. or even LIMITED government. every time some wanker screws up..we get another law..know what I mean? tones

So, why should libertarians see value in what social and religious conservatives hope to achieve? The answer lies in the concept at the core of the American experiment. America is not about unfettered freedom. America is about a particular type of liberty that has been the glory of the Western heritage, ordered liberty. Freedom without a strong moral basis ends up being an empty promise. The American founding generation understood the problem very clearly. The solution that appealed to a great many of them was to encourage religion among the American people. In their view, the Christian religion helped make citizens fit for a republican style of government. Meaningful freedom required the exercise of virtue on behalf of citizens. The connection between religion and virtue was easy to make. After all, even Voltaire hid his skeptical conversations about religion from his servants for fear they'd steal the silver if released from fear of divine punishment.


Tones

[nate895]

Uhhhh... So atheists are suddenly not allowed to hold any beliefs or philosophies now? (yeah I know that is not what you meant)

Why don't you go read up on natural law theory or something instead of asking people to spoon feed you with an hours worth of typing. Perhaps people post "anti-religious" stuff here because people like you try and imply atheists are immoral and other such nonsense. But really I see hate going both ways b/w theists and atheists, don't try and categorize theists as some poor oppressed minority because thats crap.

I'll be for your religious freedom so long as you don't force theocracy on me.

I never have, and never will advocate for theocracy. All I ask in return is that atheists respect the undeniable fact that the majority of America is Christian (and most who aren't Christian claim some other religion) and that they have a right to celebrate their faith in front of all. You can try to "convert" or whatever it is atheist/agnostics/secular humanists do when trying to convince people to join their faith, but do not try to force our faith out of the public square, or to insult Christianity as statism which persecute others' beliefs. It is a total lie, and I take offense to being slandered and being considered a moron.

[nate895]

Well human rights?

Maybe compassion perhaps...

Maybe realizing that you can't go around killing people just because there is no god or government..

Maybe humans can THINK FOR THEMSELVES and realize when something is right or wrong. Like killing, raping, and whatever else you tossed in there previously.

If you harm someone else, it doesn't take a god or government to see what is wrong in that.

I still don't get what your atheist church going theory has to do with the government and why without god, atheists must have meant government.

Now are you talking about in America, other countries or just a broad assumption of the whole thing because there are still people being stoned to death in other countries right now odds are and odds are people being put to death for stupid things as well.

I think this theory would depend on what continent you are on as well. What we consider wrong in the states others consider normal. So is god more cool in one country to the next as far as "Their morals" go? Since some sins, crimes and actions don't carry the same consequences if any at all in other countries.

I don't think it would take any god or government for a person to realize that babies for instance are weaker and more fragile and should not be harmed, should be protected and taken care of. You don't need any god to realize that, human nature, the same way dogs and cats have their own instincts I think we do as well.

Do you truly believe that without a god or government to micro manage our lives we would just walk around killing people all day? Do you really think that is something that must be told to a person to realize that it is wrong?

Come on...

It is true that violent offenses most to consider abnormal and seek to punish those who participate in them, but if we are atheists that, since there is no fact, only one group's philosophy, who are we to determine that it is perverted to kill and steal? Maybe we are the perverts and the natural order of life is to kill and steal. With God, I can say, God will punish those who participate in those activities, and therefore they are a perversion, given he is a master of the universe and all, and violent people ought to be dealt with on this Earth (the New Testament releases you from the laws of the Old Testament).

[LibertyEagle]

Liberty Eagle. This is the point i have been trying to make for awhile...there MUST be a moral society in order to have no government. or self government i should say. or even LIMITED government. every time some wanker screws up..we get another law..know what I mean? tones

So, why should libertarians see value in what social and religious conservatives hope to achieve? The answer lies in the concept at the core of the American experiment. America is not about unfettered freedom. America is about a particular type of liberty that has been the glory of the Western heritage, ordered liberty. Freedom without a strong moral basis ends up being an empty promise. The American founding generation understood the problem very clearly. The solution that appealed to a great many of them was to encourage religion among the American people. In their view, the Christian religion helped make citizens fit for a republican style of government. Meaningful freedom required the exercise of virtue on behalf of citizens. The connection between religion and virtue was easy to make. After all, even Voltaire hid his skeptical conversations about religion from his servants for fear they'd steal the silver if released from fear of divine punishment.


Tones

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, but we can't use government force to dictate religious beliefs. Yes, many of our early laws had moral roots. Such as the concept of personal property, not killing another, not stealing, etc. These are things that DO infringe on other people's liberty, so they need to be legislated. However, I don't believe we should use the force of big government to cram our ideas about how people should live, upon everyone else, as long as they are not infringing upon someone else's liberty. When they do, that is what makes societies fall apart and when law should come into action.

Anything other than that, we must convince others by persuasion. Not force.

[nate895]

Liberty Eagle. This is the point i have been trying to make for awhile...there MUST be a moral society in order to have no government. or self government i should say. or even LIMITED government. every time some wanker screws up..we get another law..know what I mean? tones

So, why should libertarians see value in what social and religious conservatives hope to achieve? The answer lies in the concept at the core of the American experiment. America is not about unfettered freedom. America is about a particular type of liberty that has been the glory of the Western heritage, ordered liberty. Freedom without a strong moral basis ends up being an empty promise. The American founding generation understood the problem very clearly. The solution that appealed to a great many of them was to encourage religion among the American people. In their view, the Christian religion helped make citizens fit for a republican style of government. Meaningful freedom required the exercise of virtue on behalf of citizens. The connection between religion and virtue was easy to make. After all, even Voltaire hid his skeptical conversations about religion from his servants for fear they'd steal the silver if released from fear of divine punishment.


Tones

Do I have to keep telling you that the moral order they are talking about is kindness, honesty, and vigilance against tyranny. Sure, God is going to punish those who behave immorally and do not seek forgiveness and change their ways from the immoral activities they participate in, but that has nothing to do with liberty. The New Testament releases us from the laws of the Old Testament in that we aren't to be punished for doing anything immoral beyond aggression towards others. We are to seek forgiveness through our savior, not lock away all immoral people. We might as well lock up everyone for we all have sinned.

[tonesforjonesbones]

yes that is exactly right..human nature is to steal and kill and rape and lie etc...The reason atheists have any morals at all is that , thankfully, Christianity is embedded in this society...if you lived in a jungle , with no rules whatsoever, i guarantee you ..you would NOT know better than to kill someone for their food, or rape someone, etc etc..whether you like it or not...you are living Christian morals and values because it is ingrained in our society. So is europe..there must be moral ORDEr...you just can not run amok doing whatever you please. or there would be mass chaos. tones

[LibertyEagle]

yes that is exactly right..human nature is to steal and kill and rape and lie etc...The reason atheists have any morals at all is that , thankfully, Christianity is embedded in this society...if you lived in a jungle , with no rules whatsoever, i guarantee you ..you would NOT know better than to kill someone for their food, or rape someone, etc etc..whether you like it or not...you are living Christian morals and values because it is ingrained in our society. So is europe..there must be moral ORDEr...you just can not run amok doing whatever you please. or there would be mass chaos. tones

Biblical PRINCIPLES, Tones. Our Founding Fathers did not dictate a religion.

And I guess I might take issue with your comment about running amok doing whatever you please. Why not? People should be able to do whatever they please, as long as they don't infringe on someone else's liberty. Do you agree? If you do not, why is it that you want to tell everyone else how to live?

[nate895]

yes that is exactly right..human nature is to steal and kill and rape and lie etc...The reason atheists have any morals at all is that , thankfully, Christianity is embedded in this society...if you lived in a jungle , with no rules whatsoever, i guarantee you ..you would NOT know better than to kill someone for their food, or rape someone, etc etc..whether you like it or not...you are living Christian morals and values because it is ingrained in our society. So is europe..there must be moral ORDEr...you just can not run amok doing whatever you please. or there would be mass chaos. tones

I believe most would have the basic instinct (for God's laws are written in our heart and in our mind) to not do most immoral behavior, but I believe the size of the criminal element would be larger. It wouldn't be some wild jungle, it would probably be more like 2x or 3x as bad as New York when it was the murder capital of the world.

[tonesforjonesbones]

No we have freedom of religion..but still and all, if there is no government, there must be a moral society..even limited government, and yes the founders encouraged Christianity..the Teachings of jesus, as jefferson said he would leave it to the states and the churches. Do you think that legalized prostitution wouldn't hurt others? families? children...and drugs wouldn't hurt others...gambling...porn..these things are BAD for the family unit..and families make for a strong society. We have to live together without having to worry about people running amok. Unfortunately, there has been an agenda to demoralize this country for at least 40 years..maybe longer..and it has worked famously. I can remember the days when it was a huge embarrassment to get a divorce. Have those 'sins" always been around? sure...but they were not blatant...things were done clandistinely...not that it makes it right..but I would say television ruins our youth. i remember when even married couples on sitcoms slept separately in twin beds. Now, anything goes, and we wonder why there is so much teen pregnancy etc. smh. i don't know why people can't see this. tones

[LibertyEagle]

No we have freedom of religion..but still and all, if there is no government, there must be a moral society..even limited government, and yes the founders encouraged Christianity..the Teachings of jesus, as jefferson said he would leave it to the states and the churches. Do you think that legalized prostitution wouldn't hurt others? families? children...and drugs wouldn't hurt others...gambling...porn..these things are BAD for the family unit..and families make for a strong society. We have to live together without having to worry about people running amok. Unfortunately, there has been an agenda to demoralize this country for at least 40 years..maybe longer..and it has worked famously. I can remember the days when it was a huge embarrassment to get a divorce. Have those 'sins" always been around? sure...but they were not blatant...things were done clandistinely...not that it makes it right..but I would say television ruins our youth. i remember when even married couples on sitcoms slept separately in twin beds. Now, anything goes, and we wonder why there is so much teen pregnancy etc. smh. i don't know why people can't see this. tones

We have laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling and porn NOW. How's it going for you? Not too well, from what I can see.

No, I don't agree with the War on Drugs. One, because I personally believe the biggest drug runners there are, is our government; two, because it is the cause of a number of people being thrown in prison for something as minor as smoking pot; three, what someone does to their own body is none of my business, nor of the government. It only becomes my business if they proceed to some ACTION that endangers ME, such as piloting an airplane, driving a bus, etc.

If you think drugs should be illegal, what about liquor? Using your same logic, is that somehow GOOD for the family unit? Where do you draw the line? How about cigarettes, eating fast food, skydiving, etc.? Hey, maybe we should have a "Fast food Czar".

How about prostitution? What business is it of mine? None. It should be between the person who is seeing the prostitute and their own family. If they have one. NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

Gambling? What business is it of mine, how someone chooses to spend their OWN money? NONE. Nor is it my business to judge that it is harmful to "the family". What if that person is good at it? Is that harmful? How is "gambling" different than day trading in stocks?

None of these things should be handled by the federal government. It is unconstitutional to do so. Something that the "social conservatives" don't seem to care about. Which is why they are not conservatives, at all.

[tonesforjonesbones]

You are not going to get it. This country has become BABYLON...and it will not stand. There is immorality from the top down. look at the mess with the federal reserve. The best we can do is try to hold it back...tones

[LibertyEagle]

Tones,

Many of these things, such as prostitution, used to be handled by local ordinances, if a community really didn't want it in their area. Even with alcohol, there are still some dry counties out there. Not everything has to be done with federal government. We seem to have forgotten that.

[LibertyEagle]

You are not going to get it. This country has become BABYLON...and it will not stand. There is immorality from the top down. look at the mess with the federal reserve. The best we can do is try to hold it back...tones

I get it, Tones. I think it has become close to Babylon too. What we disagree about is how to fix it.

Note: Why didn't you answer any of the questions I asked you? I mean, seriously, think about them. Where do you draw the line? Our federal government was never supposed to be involved in these things. You either believe in the Constitution or you don't. You can't say you do and then be willing to go against it to use big government when it suits you.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

there MUST be a moral society in order to have no government. or self government i should say. or even LIMITED government.Wait a second.

You're suggesting we impose a strong, state-driven theocracy before moving forward to a stateless society?

That does sound a bit familiar.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well no ...i'm not talking about federal government..i believe we have to stick to the constitution..leave the other stuff to the states and to the people to decide. I'm not implying that the Federal Government should expand..no not at all. States can also do too much legislating. i am for limited government , do you know how many times gambling has been on the ballot in florida and how many times the people keep knocking it down. lOL...i don't dislike gambling and that could be legal....but it brings in those mafia types ..you know...all those guys who run around in the black suits? I really have no issue with gambling. some do and it keeps getting knocked down, I always vote FOR it..eh...but it ain't happening, and i m not mad. tones

[LibertyEagle]

The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES

* Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
* Property should be owned by people, not government.
* All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
* The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
* Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
* The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am for the 10th amendment..leave what isn't in the constitution to the states and to the people..trouble is, look at california. 2 times the people spoke..and the supreme court there is going to hear cases against that proposition 8 again. The people are going to have to be vigilent. i swear, if the supreme court goes against the will of the people, and legislates from the bench again, the people should press for RECALL of the bastards or impeachment..get lawyers and PUSH the hell out of it. tones

[LibertyEagle]

Well no ...i'm not talking about federal government..i believe we have to stick to the constitution..leave the other stuff to the states and to the people to decide. I'm not implying that the Federal Government should expand..no not at all. States can also do too much legislating. i am for limited government , do you know how many times gambling has been on the ballot in florida and how many times the people keep knocking it down. lOL...i don't dislike gambling and that could be legal....but it brings in those mafia types ..you know...all those guys who run around in the black suits? I really have no issue with gambling. some do and it keeps getting knocked down, I always vote FOR it..eh...but it ain't happening, and i m not mad. tones

Ok, I'm confused. Here, you mentioned gambling, but above you sound like you are FOR it. Which is it?


Do you think that legalized prostitution wouldn't hurt others? families? children...and drugs wouldn't hurt others...gambling...porn..these things are BAD for the family unit..and families make for a strong society.

Then you say that you don't think the federal government should expand. :confused:

Are you wanting the federal government to legislate these things, or not? If not, then you stand apart from the social conservatives. Because they do.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Once you justify taking away one right, you open the door to take away more.

I have no problems with anyone's beliefs, but Social Conservatives' tendency to use the govt. to enforce morality on people scare me.

And, I think their insistence on speaking for Christians has led to a lot of blowback against the religion.

[Original_Intent]

The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES

* Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
* Property should be owned by people, not government.
* All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
* The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
* Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
* The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

Yep, if people will stand with me to defend the principle, I don't care whether it is belief in God that motivates them or not. I don't care if their belief is correct or not, as long as they will stand with me on principle. This is the miracle that Ron Paul caused and we better find a way back to it or we are going to keep losing this country while we squabble over unprovable positions. (both atheist and believer positions are not provable, so why argue?)

As the OP was trying to point out, we need to be more respectful both directions. If someone says something that you feel is foolish, just be glad that he is another body fighting the same fight. And I realize that there are justifiable concerns if it appears that someone else is trying to force their beliefs or supports legislating their beliefs. But even in the rare instance when someone says something like that, there is still a correct way to explain that doing so is not really promoting a liberty message, but ridiculing someone's beliefs is just stupid, it's stuff like that whcih will keep us from ever accomplishing anything.

[LibertyEagle]

We have to live together without having to worry about people running amok.

Please explain your definition of "running amok".

[RP4EVER]

But in California the will of the majority has spoken....if you ignore the fact that a majority of people have spoken against a law...then what are you saying?

That elections dont matter that the voice of the majority doesnt matter? If so why bother having elections?

Im confused....can someone explain this mentality to me

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well, I haven't heard the social conservatives say they wanted to legislate those things..or for the federal government to do so...maybe they are pushing for an amendment one man one woman, or abortion..no i say leave it to the states and let the people vote on it..WITHOUT the supreme courts legislating from the bench after the people have spoken. if i came off that way...i didn't mean to. I just think those things can and should be handled at the state levels. tones

California folks voted for one man one woman twice, to amend their state constitution to reflect that....now the supreme court is going to hear 2 cases against the people's vote.."all men are created equal". how many times are those people going to have to say no? This is fabian crap,...the gays are going to wear them down with lawsuits until they give up or run out of dough. The people should start lawsuits to recall the judges or impeach them. KICK them out. tones

[LibertyEagle]

Tones,

If we can all agree on a set of common principles at the federal level, well, I think we can get back on track and start moving forward again.

I think it's going to be much more difficult at the state and local levels. Because the state and local governments are not constrained by Constitutional enumerated powers. The bottom line is that many of us are going to disagree about these smaller issues and that is what they are to me. If we do not get our government constrained, AT ALL LEVELS, then we are really going to have many more problems than whether gay marriage is legalized or whether someone smokes a joint in their house.

[Theocrat]

For the purpose of this thread I will first start out with the undeniable definition of athiest:



I am sick of it on this forum. Somehow, because some ministers pervert the bible, all religious people are morons and statists.

For one thing, most atheists are statists as well. All totalitarian communist regimes of the twentieth century adopted official state atheism. Now, since an atheist believes in no power greater than any man made power, in a society with a government, that higher power is the government instead of God. The government no answers to nobody but its whims, and its whim is to oppress the people. Now, as libertarians, we agree on the non-aggression principle, but since you are an atheist you have absolutely no right to tell that to the government because the non-aggression principle is your belief, and unless if you are going to assert that you are somehow superior than your fellow humans beings (which would elevate you to a sort of demi-god status), you have no basis to attack that government. That government is supreme in all that it does. A religious person (depending on their faith), on the other hand, can justify the non-aggression principle using the argument that under their faith that God is superior to all, and that God advocates (which he does in the New Testament) that human beings should be non-aggressive and that all must answer to the Lord on Judgment Day for their horrible crimes they have committed on humanity.

But, let's argue, that we live in a libertarian society with little to no government at all. In this society, everyone is atheist and believes in no higher power but their own urges are. Who are we, in this society, to tell someone that they cannot rob, cheat, murder, and steal their way through life? If there is no higher power, how can anyone have rights? How can these "rights" even develop in the first place? Sure, one can argue, that they were an evolutionary trait, but someone is not following them and doesn't recognize them. Who are we to tell that man that he is wrong and we are superior to him? For all we know, he could be superior to us and that could be the right way of doing things, after all, there is no God who tells us not to, the government is a shell if it exists at all. Sure, we could use force to protect ourselves from this madman, but that would violate our beliefs that there is no higher power than ourselves and to not be aggressive. The only solution to this problem is to admit that there is a higher power, and he has endowed us with rights, and we (and the government, if there is one) have a right to protect those rights.

That is a great post.

[nickcoons]

yes that is exactly right..human nature is to steal and kill and rape and lie etc...The reason atheists have any morals at all is that , thankfully, Christianity is embedded in this society.

As an atheist, I would consider this an extremely offensive statement. But since it's clear that you don't understand the existence of morals outside of god, I won't take offense to it and instead try to explain. This should also help answer some of the original poster's questions. I don't intend to speak for all atheists, only for myself.

My moral philosophy is based on Objectivism (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-408-FAQ_is_Objectivism.aspx), which can be summed up thusly:


Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others. Politically, Objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, a strictly limited government protects each person's rights to life, liberty, and property and forbids that anyone initiate force against anyone else. The heroes of Objectivism are achievers who build businesses, invent technologies, and create art and ideas, depending on their own talents and on trade with other independent people to reach their goals.

In essence, my morals are this. I can take any action that I want, as long as I don't initiate force or fraud against anyone else. Any action that fits into that description is considered moral. However, not all moral actions are actions that should be taken. For instance, I don't use nor have I ever used drugs. Even though I don't consider it to be an immoral action (because I'm not infringing on anyone else's rights), but because drugs cause all sorts of nasty consequences that I have no interest in.

The claim that morals cannot exist without god begs the question, "Where did god and his morals come from?" The common answer is that god has simply always existed. But if that's possible, then it's no less rational to claim that the principles that allow my moral philosophy to exist have also always existed. The counter to that might be that my philosophy is man-made, and could not have always existed because man has not always existed. But what I am suggesting is that man merely discovered the principles; he didn't create them.

I am not Christian, and I am not ingrained with Christianity or Christian morals. I behave morally and interact with my fellow man peacefully because it is consistent with my moral philosophy which is reached objectively by reason, not by faith.

[nate895]

As an atheist, I would consider this an extremely offensive statement. But since it's clear that you don't understand the existence of morals outside of god, I won't take offense to it and instead try to explain. This should also help answer some of the original poster's questions. I don't intend to speak for all atheists, only for myself.

My moral philosophy is based on Objectivism (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-408-FAQ_is_Objectivism.aspx), which can be summed up thusly:



In essence, my morals are this. I can take any action that I want, as long as I don't initiate force or fraud against anyone else. Any action that fits into that description is considered moral. However, not all moral actions are actions that should be taken. For instance, I don't use nor have I ever used drugs. Even though I don't consider it to be an immoral action (because I'm not infringing on anyone else's rights), but because drugs cause all sorts of nasty consequences that I have no interest in.

The claim that morals cannot exist without god begs the question, "Where did god and his morals come from?" The common answer is that god has simply always existed. But if that's possible, then it's no less rational to claim that the principles that allow my moral philosophy to exist have also always existed. The counter to that might be that my philosophy is man-made, and could not have always existed because man has not always existed. But what I am suggesting is that man merely discovered the principles; he didn't create them.

I am not Christian, and I am not ingrained with Christianity or Christian morals. I behave morally and interact with my fellow man peacefully because it is consistent with my moral philosophy which is reached objectively by reason, not by faith.

While I agree that the world wouldn't be some sort of wild jungle of rapists and murderers, I would also argue that that is because God's laws are written in our heart and in our mind. However, I would also argue that without threat of punishment in the afterlife, there would be more crime. I am also arguing that you would have no right to impose Objectivism unless if you are suggesting that you are superior to your fellow man, which would then eliminate your stance that there is nothing higher than our own whims, for you are claiming Objectivists are superior and therefore their philosophy should rule.

[nickcoons]

While I agree that the world wouldn't be some sort of wild jungle of rapists and murderers, I would also argue that that is because God's laws are written in our heart and in our mind.

I can only say that I disagree because it's not true for me, but I have no way to prove that to you.


However, I would also argue that without threat of punishment in the afterlife, there would be more crime.

I'm not sure if that's true or not. But if it is, that's a depressing point of view; that people only present the illusion of "goodness" because they're afraid of punishment.

My perspective is that, because I don't believe in an afterlife, that I should make the most of my time here. There are no do-overs and no second chances.


I am also arguing that you would have no right to impose Objectivism unless if you are suggesting that you are superior to your fellow man, which would then eliminate your stance that there is nothing higher than our own whims, for you are claiming Objectivists are superior and therefore their philosophy should rule.

I think you're misinterpreting this though. I don't have to impose Objectivism on anyone, just as I don't think anyone should impose Christianity on me. If you're saying that protecting myself from those that may want to harm me is equal to imposing a moral philosophy on them, then I would disagree with that. Protecting myself and my rights is not an imposition on anyone else.

[RonPaulNewbee]

This thread has gotten predictably silly. Deborah, thanks for clarifying your statement to me because I have not yet revealed anything about my religious beliefs. It sounded to me like the original poster wanted to engage in honest intellectual debate and I only intended to give some food for thought. To that end I would suggest looking up the subject: Pre-Socratic Philosophy.

And Nate, "good" did not begin with the Hebrew god. Some even suggest there was a struggle between the Greek and Hebrew religions that took the form of Kane and Abel. But that even has little to do with the whole of human civilization, just Western civilization. I just have to laugh when I hear fairy tales like "morals are written on your heart by Yahweh" or whatever.

I believe in G*D, but I tend to like atheists (or objectivists) or whatever! I like people who reason and don't go off into some preachy rant. You'll notice that Nick Coons never got preachy and coerced anybody into anything! Thanks for that Nick! That said, those of you who think ALL emanates from any particular local god are just uneducated. To them, I would suggested reading for knowledge and not faith (if I was at all preachy).

And Tones, it's material nature that is to steal and kill and rape and lie not human nature. You have a particularly dark outlook that doesn't even qualify for libertarianism, (God I hope your real initials aren't TJ). I know it's not jingoistic and evangelistic enough for you but try studying the Greek philosophers just a bit ... they'll surprise you!

[newyearsrevolution08]

It is true that violent offenses most to consider abnormal and seek to punish those who participate in them, but if we are atheists that, since there is no fact, only one group's philosophy, who are we to determine that it is perverted to kill and steal? Maybe we are the perverts and the natural order of life is to kill and steal. With God, I can say, God will punish those who participate in those activities, and therefore they are a perversion, given he is a master of the universe and all, and violent people ought to be dealt with on this Earth (the New Testament releases you from the laws of the Old Testament).

Why assume it would simply be one state or group of people dictating for ALL? We have multiple cultures, multiple languages and multiple laws currently so what is to say that people without a god or government couldn't figure that out for themselves?

You are trying to quote the bible when talking about LAWS AND GOVERNMENT. I see that making zero sense.

If anything Christianity is a dictatorship which I personally think is even worse than a socialistic society that we currently live in BUT I am not getting the correlation between government and religion.

Should ALL governments of the world either break down or 100% follow God's law and if that is the case then WHICH god is the one with the laws to follow? I mean really, it depends on what continent you grew up on to determine which god you believe in and if you don't at least partly agree with that then I have no clue why I am even trying.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I don't get your question? What does what have to do with politics?

religion and Christianity in general.

Why can't people believe as they want SEPARATE of a SINGLE country, state or localities LAWS AND RULES being put together and meshed together?

A belief in something, someone, higher power or whatever should not regulate OTHER people and how they live.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Christians should be able to start a thread, without having those who don't believe in God come in there bashing God. If you want respect yourself, you must give it to others too.


And that goes the other way as well. Anytime someone brings up something that goes against the bible, someone jumps in trying to state "facts" from a book made before they, their parents, their grandparents and so on were born.

I agree in the respect but why can't there be both sides in the debate instead of some atheist or christian love fest?

This is a political forum.... and we are IN general politics

Why not simply setup a religious rant section so those who feel the power of god speaking to them or those who feel they need to talk about Scientology can do so and leave the political threads POLITICAL.

[AutoDas]

Stop posting about your religion on a politics forum if you don't want people to assume that you support a theocracy and have the atheists criticize you for believing in a fairy tale.

[yongrel]

http://glaadorg.nexcess.net/cine*****/BruceVilanch.jpg

[Truth Warrior]

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Hmmm, and politics is a sociopathic cult. Ergo ..... ? :D

Together, they just constitute the one, two punch in divide and conquer, power and control. ;)

"The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle." -- Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin

[nate895]

I can only say that I disagree because it's not true for me, but I have no way to prove that to you.



I'm not sure if that's true or not. But if it is, that's a depressing point of view; that people only present the illusion of "goodness" because they're afraid of punishment.

My perspective is that, because I don't believe in an afterlife, that I should make the most of my time here. There are no do-overs and no second chances.



I think you're misinterpreting this though. I don't have to impose Objectivism on anyone, just as I don't think anyone should impose Christianity on me. If you're saying that protecting myself from those that may want to harm me is equal to imposing a moral philosophy on them, then I would disagree with that. Protecting myself and my rights is not an imposition on anyone else.

Why are they your rights? What made them your rights besides either government (which is bad because then they can take them from you), God, or your own thoughts? If it is your own thoughts, how are we to know if they are correct or not?

Edit: What I am getting at here is that, even though in a libertarian atheist society you would have the ability to defend your rights as you saw them, you would not, however, be able to justify those rights and protect them through government or other agent of coercion.

[nate895]

This thread has gotten predictably silly. Deborah, thanks for clarifying your statement to me because I have not yet revealed anything about my religious beliefs. It sounded to me like the original poster wanted to engage in honest intellectual debate and I only intended to give some food for thought. To that end I would suggest looking up the subject: Pre-Socratic Philosophy.

And Nate, "good" did not begin with the Hebrew god. Some even suggest there was a struggle between the Greek and Hebrew religions that took the form of Kane and Abel. But that even has little to do with the whole of human civilization, just Western civilization. I just have to laugh when I hear fairy tales like "morals are written on your heart by Yahweh" or whatever.

I believe in G*D, but I tend to like atheists (or objectivists) or whatever! I like people who reason and don't go off into some preachy rant. You'll notice that Nick Coons never got preachy and coerced anybody into anything! Thanks for that Nick! That said, those of you who think ALL emanates from any particular local god are just uneducated. To them, I would suggested reading for knowledge and not faith (if I was at all preachy).

And Tones, it's material nature that is to steal and kill and rape and lie not human nature. You have a particularly dark outlook that doesn't even qualify for libertarianism, (God I hope your real initials aren't TJ). I know it's not jingoistic and evangelistic enough for you but try studying the Greek philosophers just a bit ... they'll surprise you!

Have you ever heard of the "conscious"? Christian theology explains this by stating that our "conscious" is the Holy Spirit inside of us telling what is right and what is wrong. The Holy Spirit, unless if someone is so reprobate that they are beyond all repair, will remain inside all, no matter their philosophy. That is why, in our theology, all people have developed almost identical moral standards. Throughout almost the entire world, it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, and other widely considered moral values. It is only through corruption by Satan (which is inherent, to one degree or another, in all of us) that we are led astray into immoral lifestyles. Not all of these immoral lifestyles should be illegal, but it does provide justification from the viewpoint of almost all religions (surely all the major ones) to ban practices that harm others. Through Christian Theology, and most religious doctrines, it is reprobate and perverted to commit these acts, and therefore they should be punished. An atheist might claim that they are also his moral values, but unless if he wishes to claim that he and his group want to claim superiority, then they have no basis to enact any of their moral values, including harming others.

[heavenlyboy34]

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Hmmm, and politics is a sociopathic cult. Ergo ..... ? :D

Together, they just constitute the one, two punch in divide and conquer, power and control. ;)

"The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle." -- Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin


QFT!! :D:) ~applause~

[nate895]

Why assume it would simply be one state or group of people dictating for ALL? We have multiple cultures, multiple languages and multiple laws currently so what is to say that people without a god or government couldn't figure that out for themselves?

You are trying to quote the bible when talking about LAWS AND GOVERNMENT. I see that making zero sense.

If anything Christianity is a dictatorship which I personally think is even worse than a socialistic society that we currently live in BUT I am not getting the correlation between government and religion.

Should ALL governments of the world either break down or 100% follow God's law and if that is the case then WHICH god is the one with the laws to follow? I mean really, it depends on what continent you grew up on to determine which god you believe in and if you don't at least partly agree with that then I have no clue why I am even trying.

I am would use two arguments: one as a person who practices any faith anywhere, another as a Christian.

As a person of genuine faith, I can justify my rights because most theologies (including all major ones) assert that certain things are immoral, and the ones that specifically harm others should be banned. God, or Gods, or whatever superior super natural being created it, has said, unequivocally that certain things are immoral, and certain things among those immoral things are to be banned.

As a Christian, I justify punishing those who commit aggression by stating that the Lord has forbidden those acts, and they directly harm another individual, and therefore that practice should be punished by society. However, since we all have sinned, we cannot ban all immoral acts, such as adultery or lying (unless if it is perjury, for that harms another). As a Christian, I believe the reason all men have a basic moral compass when they are born is because the Holy Spirit tells us through our conscious that certain things are wrong, and only by becoming totally reprobate can we lose that moral compass.

[Truth Warrior]

Here you will find 10 sayings of Jesus that I have collected together. Finding quotable passages from Jesus was not that easy, as most of what is recorded of what he said (in the gospel books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are either metaphorical stories, or Jesus responding to particular questions that had been put to him. Neither work very well when taken out of context.
Of the more direct teachings of Jesus, most of them are contained in what is known as the sermon on the mount (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205;&version=51;), which is a veritable goldmine of counter-cultural wisdom.
1. Love Your Enemies!
OK, you have to admit this is a pretty radical concept...
“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? (Matthew 5:43-47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-47;&version=51;))
2. Don't Worry About The Future

Sometimes insightful sayings seem obvious once you hear them - I think that is the case here. Live in the moment you're in! “So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today. (Matthew 6:34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:34;&version=51;))
3. How To Treat Others
“Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12;&version=51;))
4. The Most Important Commandment
“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40;&version=51;))
5. Spiritual Greatness
In the topsy-turvy world of the Kingdom of God it seems the usual understanding of things is reversed. Here is yet another example:
“You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:42-45;&version=51;))
6. Gaining The World, Losing Your Soul
Here Jesus highlights that the eternal and spiritual dimension is more important than the temporal physical one. Those who choose to follow His teaching will make physical sacrifices for spiritual rewards.
Then, calling the crowd to join his disciples, he said, “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it. And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:34-38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:34-38;&version=51;))
7. The Kingdom Of God Is Not Physical
Christian faith should not be militant, things like the crusades were not in line with what Jesus taught, or even the concept of christendom. He also taught that the Kingdom of God was in the hearts of men.
The statement below was said in response to questioning in his trial before the roman govenor.
“My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:36;&version=51;))
8. God Loves Everyone
This very well known passage is actually a quote from Jesus.
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. (John 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16-17;&version=51;))
9. Ask, Seek, Knock
“And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2011:9-10;&version=51;))
10. His Claim To Be God
While it seems Jesus didn't make a point of telling everyone that he was God, he did make it clear on a few recorded occasions. This quote is taken from Jesus' court trial, from which the resulting conviction of 'blasphemy' led to his crucifixion.
I include this quote, not because it's a great teaching, but because it affects how one perceives his teaching. It's hard to think of Jesus as [just] a good moral teacher when you know that he thought himself to be God. Either he is a weirdo, or he is God!
Then the high priest said to him, “I demand in the name of the living God—tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
Jesus replied, “You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:63-64 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-64;&version=51;))

http://rosskendall.com/blog/faith/10-great-quotes-from-jesus-of-nazareth (http://rosskendall.com/blog/faith/10-great-quotes-from-jesus-of-nazareth)

[SeanEdwards]

but since you are an atheist you have absolutely no right to tell that to the government because the non-aggression principle is your belief, and unless if you are going to assert that you are somehow superior than your fellow humans beings (which would elevate you to a sort of demi-god status), you have no basis to attack that government.


The only legitimate government is one which governs with the consent of the governed.



That government is supreme in all that it does. A religious person (depending on their faith), on the other hand, can justify the non-aggression principle using the argument that under their faith that God is superior to all, and that God advocates (which he does in the New Testament) that human beings should be non-aggressive and that all must answer to the Lord on Judgment Day for their horrible crimes they have committed on humanity.


But you're describing the judgment of your invisible sky friend. Just because you believe that the flying spaghetti monster will punish trangressors in the afterlife, does not give you the moral right to punish their transgression in this life.



But, let's argue, that we live in a libertarian society with little to no government at all. In this society, everyone is atheist and believes in no higher power but their own urges are.Who are we, in this society, to tell someone that they cannot rob, cheat, murder, and steal their way through life? If there is no higher power, how can anyone have rights? How can these "rights" even develop in the first place? Sure, one can argue, that they were an evolutionary trait, but someone is not following them and doesn't recognize them. Who are we to tell that man that he is wrong and we are superior to him? For all we know, he could be superior to us and that could be the right way of doing things, after all, there is no God who tells us not to, the government is a shell if it exists at all. Sure, we could use force to protect ourselves from this madman, but that would violate our beliefs that there is no higher power than ourselves and to not be aggressive. The only solution to this problem is to admit that there is a higher power, and he has endowed us with rights, and we (and the government, if there is one) have a right to protect those rights.

For me, the basis of atheist morality arises from the concept of self-ownership. I demand that inalienable right for myself, and so I recognize that I have to extend that same inalienable right to everyone else. I don't need to believe in an invisible friend in the sky to arrive at this conclusion. It is a natural consequence of my perception of my self, and of the environment around me.

As such I do not need to resort to a fallacious appeal to authority in order to explain why murder is wrong, as religious believer's do. I merely have to base my arguments in defense of moral behavior on pure rational logic. I recomend viewing:

The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM)

[tonesforjonesbones]

I enjoyed reading that. Christians believe that our reward is not in the physical world. The jehovah's witnesses don't even vote or get involved with politics because they know this is not the endgame. tones

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

http://jesusandmo.net/strips/2008-06-20.jpg

[tonesforjonesbones]

you should just call yourself the grim reaper. tones

[heavenlyboy34]

http://jesusandmo.net/strips/2008-06-20.jpg


lol!!!:d

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

you should just call yourself the grim reaper. tonesphail

[nate895]

The only legitimate government is one which governs with the consent of the governed.



But you're describing the judgment of your invisible sky friend. Just because you believe that the flying spaghetti monster will punish trangressors in the afterlife, does not give you the moral right to punish their transgression in this life.



For me, the basis of atheist morality arises from the concept of self-ownership. I demand that inalienable right for myself, and so I recognize that I have to extend that same inalienable right to everyone else. I don't need to believe in an invisible friend in the sky to arrive at this conclusion. It is a natural consequence of my perception of my self, and of the environment around me.

As such I do not need to resort to a fallacious appeal to authority in order to explain why murder is wrong, as religious believer's do. I merely have to base my arguments in defense of moral behavior on pure rational logic. I recomend viewing:

The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM)

By what logic do you come to the fact that your philosophy is correct. I could, legitimately believe that the fittest survive, and so therefore I am going to make myself fit for survival by taking from others'. Sure, you can defend your rights by yourself, but with no one to help you, and no one to punish me if I carry out the deed I seek to accomplish, except possibly vengeful family members, I would be free as soon as I commit the deed and leave the area you are willing to hunt me down in (or possibly, if I have committed the ultimate crime, as soon as the deed is done).

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

You rest entirely on the notion that 100% of christians are going to adhere to 100% of their beliefs 100% of the time.

Thou shalt not kill or steal don't seem to be very big priorities for them, I guess.

[hypnagogue]

So much neck/chin.... isn't he supposed to be a comedian? His visage makes me sad.

[steph3n]

For the purpose of this thread I will first start out with the undeniable definition of athiest:



I am sick of it on this forum. Somehow, because some ministers pervert the bible, all religious people are morons and statists.

For one thing, most atheists are statists as well. All totalitarian communist regimes of the twentieth century adopted official state atheism. Now, since an atheist believes in no power greater than any man made power, in a society with a government, that higher power is the government instead of God. The government no answers to nobody but its whims, and its whim is to oppress the people. Now, as libertarians, we agree on the non-aggression principle, but since you are an atheist you have absolutely no right to tell that to the government because the non-aggression principle is your belief, and unless if you are going to assert that you are somehow superior than your fellow humans beings (which would elevate you to a sort of demi-god status), you have no basis to attack that government. That government is supreme in all that it does. A religious person (depending on their faith), on the other hand, can justify the non-aggression principle using the argument that under their faith that God is superior to all, and that God advocates (which he does in the New Testament) that human beings should be non-aggressive and that all must answer to the Lord on Judgment Day for their horrible crimes they have committed on humanity.

But, let's argue, that we live in a libertarian society with little to no government at all. In this society, everyone is atheist and believes in no higher power but their own urges are. Who are we, in this society, to tell someone that they cannot rob, cheat, murder, and steal their way through life? If there is no higher power, how can anyone have rights? How can these "rights" even develop in the first place? Sure, one can argue, that they were an evolutionary trait, but someone is not following them and doesn't recognize them. Who are we to tell that man that he is wrong and we are superior to him? For all we know, he could be superior to us and that could be the right way of doing things, after all, there is no God who tells us not to, the government is a shell if it exists at all. Sure, we could use force to protect ourselves from this madman, but that would violate our beliefs that there is no higher power than ourselves and to not be aggressive. The only solution to this problem is to admit that there is a higher power, and he has endowed us with rights, and we (and the government, if there is one) have a right to protect those rights.

the internet overall is having a high number of atheist and agnostics, learn to live with it. Have a solid foundation of your own and don't worry about them they know our side and reject it, no need to try to force them into believing. I wish they'd respect the same for me but really they group me collectively because so many around them keep trying to tell them they are wrong and going to hell etc, they'd heard it they reject it, move on. They know and one day may come back to it if they are so inclined. They have a free will do choose.

[tonesforjonesbones]

oh i totally agree steph...I have not tried to convert ONE person on here. I think they know the story...I can't force anyone to believe ...that's on them. I WILL defend though..that's the way it usually ends up. It is beyond being atheists...it is to the point of downright hate of God and particularly christians...i think they need medication. tones

[nickcoons]

Why are they your rights? What made them your rights besides either government (which is bad because then they can take them from you), God, or your own thoughts? If it is your own thoughts, how are we to know if they are correct or not?

That's why I provided a URL for you. I didn't think there was any point in taking the time to type out what others have already done. I thought it more efficient to link to it.


Have you ever heard of the "conscious"? Christian theology explains this by stating that our "conscious" is the Holy Spirit inside of us telling what is right and what is wrong. The Holy Spirit, unless if someone is so reprobate that they are beyond all repair, will remain inside all, no matter their philosophy. That is why, in our theology, all people have developed almost identical moral standards.

That's certainly one possibility. But to go so far as to say that that therefore must be the reason is taking a leap without evidence. There are dozens of possibilities, both simple (because people have realized the pragmatic reality of assuming these morals) and complex (because attached particles at the quantum layer exist within all matter and provide it similar properties). The common theist characteristic of latching on to supernatural explanations without evidence is the concept of faith (the opposite of reason), and it's this concept that atheists oppose.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I don't know about that...the founders were very good at rational thinking...and it went like this

God's Law-------------> common law -----------civil law

tones

[steph3n]

I don't know about that...the founders were very good at rational thinking...and it went like this

God's Law-------------> common law -----------civil law

tones

State your proof.

[Truth Warrior]

The World's Most Dangerous Book
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1716356#post1716356 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1716356#post1716356)

[tonesforjonesbones]

The most commonly used formula for reasoning is called Modus Ponens: If A and B both exist, it's probable that C exists if it is a combination of A and B.

For example: (A) 1 + (B) 1 = (C) 2.

Or: If (A) I live in a country where everyone is free under God's laws, and (B) you live in my country, then (C) we're both free under God's laws.



In 1889 the British Fabian Society-London School of Economics created Socialist Clubs across America and worked with Oxford, Harvard, Columbia, and Yale to infiltrate the Marxist's more socially evolved ecomonic theories of Maynard Keynes, using the Hegelian dialectic to describe the conflict between Marxism and the un-American "capitalist" theories of Adam Smith. The definative authors of American political and economic practices, such as Locke, Hamilton, List, Paine and Bastiat were somehow relieved of their former influence and position in the "debate." By the time Dr. Etzioni "introduced" the academic world to the Hegelian communitarian synthesis, re-educated American students were well-prepared to accept any new Hegelian based theory without ever hearing the real and valid American arguments against global imperialism and free trade. Hegel's formula has been so successful that in 2003 all U.S. domestic and foreign policy is dominated by "communitarian thinking," the whole country is living under the new laws, and yet Americans most affected by "impenetrable" Hegelian laws have never once heard the term used.

[tonesforjonesbones]

C. The Third Way: Elitist Social Justice by Sacrificing Individual Rights. (unprovable theory)
Human Rights is the new preferred term used by all politically correct goverment bodies. It is the result of the communitarian's balancing act between man's natural rights and the collective good. The modern communitarian philosophy used by Americans today was founded by Dr. Amitai Etzioni, a Zionist-Fabian scholar who emmigrated from Israel to the U.S. in 1958. Active in the World Order projects since the early 60's, Etzioni's rise to American power is a lesson in itself. As an adviser to Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr., Etzioni's involvements include new Character Education, Americorps, Faith-based initiatives, community governments, community cops, limiting individual's privacy, and total elimination of individual's right to bear arms. His lectures on his "more moral" dialogues are the basis for all new communitarian laws.

[tonesforjonesbones]

you can go read about communism/communitarianism here:

http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html

And how it infiltrated our country and took over. tones

[Andrew-Austin]

"If you give the State power to do something for you, you give it an exact equivalent of power to do something to you."


http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn53/Diebold89/sparta5.gif

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn53/Diebold89/sparta4.gif


http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn53/Diebold89/sparta1.gif

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

you can go read about communism/communitarianism here:

http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html

And how it infiltrated our country and took over. tonesWait wait wait, communitarianism is something that transcends economics altogether. And its qualities are personified in the Christian right.

Tones, based one everything you've said so far, you are a communitarian.

[SeanEdwards]

By what logic do you come to the fact that your philosophy is correct.


By what logic do I arrive at a theory of self-ownership? Well, my hands obey my will and type out this text that I'm writing now. My hands are not obeying your will, or anyone else's will as far as I can perceive. That is the basic justification for my belief in self-ownership. My hands are mine, they are not yours, or anyone else's.



I could, legitimately believe that the fittest survive, and so therefore I am going to make myself fit for survival by taking from others'. Sure, you can defend your rights by yourself, but with no one to help you, and no one to punish me if I carry out the deed I seek to accomplish, except possibly vengeful family members, I would be free as soon as I commit the deed and leave the area you are willing to hunt me down in (or possibly, if I have committed the ultimate crime, as soon as the deed is done).

You can live within whatever crazy worldview you want, as you apparently do since it appears you believe in the literal existence of supernatural beings. However, your failure to arrive at a logical basis for ethical behavior is not my failure, it's yours. Just because you need to depend on a logical fallacy of argument by authority in order to stop yourself from robbing and murdering does not mean other people do as well.

A significant problem with religion is that believers have no rational basis for morality. Rather than think about such issues for themselves they instead rest their entire belief system on following the directives of a mythical authority figure. That is not morality, it's subservience. If god told you to make a burnt offering of the babies of unbelievers, you would be compelled to obey, because you have no independent basis of thought that allows you to recognize ethical behavior.

[roho76]

In my opinion, I don't need anybody, including GOD, to tell me that you better keep your hands off of me and my shit. This whole attributing God as the reason I have rights is bullshit. I know personally in my heart that I have rights. If you need someone to tell you that, then your not just a slave to the Government but also a slave to some invisible non tangible superpower. Nobody LETS me have anything not even "GOD".

Don't take this as a hit on your religion because that is not my bag. Just as you feel the need to protect your religion I feel the need to protect my views as well as the views of many other members of this forum. The best policy that we can have as a movement, since we are a well diverse group of individuals, is to follow our political beliefs and separate politics and religion. If you want to bitch about religion I would suggest another outlet.

Just as race continues to be a problem in this country, because people will just not drop the subject and the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton keep the fire alive, religion will continue in the same manner on this forum and across the country if you don't just ignore it.

[Theocrat]

In my opinion, I don't need anybody, including GOD, to tell me that you better keep your hands off of me and my shit. This whole attributing God as the reason I have rights is bullshit. I know personally in my heart that I have rights. If you need someone to tell you that, then your not just a slave to the Government but also a slave to some invisible non tangible superpower. Nobody LETS me have anything not even "GOD".

Don't take this as a hit on your religion because that is not my bag. Just as you feel the need to protect your religion I feel the need to protect my views as well as the views of many other members of this forum. The best policy that we can have as a movement, since we are a well diverse group of individuals, is to follow our political beliefs and separate politics and religion. If you want to bitch about religion I would suggest another outlet.

Just as race continues to be a problem in this country, because people will just not drop the subject and the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton keep the fire alive, religion will continue in the same manner on this forum and across the country if you don't just ignore it.

You've just made the point that you don't need anyone to tell you what to do about your personal beliefs, but then you turn around and tell others that they need to ignore their religion. This is the type of hypocritcal statements which most "non-religious" people make when they try to assert their own views. Who are you to tell me that my religion should be ignored?

[heavenlyboy34]

You've just made the point that you don't need anyone to tell you what to do about your personal beliefs, but then you turn around and tell others that they need to ignore their religion. This is the type of hypocritcal statements which most "non-religious" people make when they try to assert their own views. Who are you to tell me that my religion should be ignored?

He said "The best policy that we can have as a movement, since we are a well diverse group of individuals, is to follow our political beliefs and separate politics and religion." This sounds like he wants to allow individuals to believe what they want and keep to themselves. From where do you draw your conclusion, Theocrat? :confused:

[Banky]

NOt to get too crazy in this debate but morality is not exclusive to religion. religion is not exclusive to morality.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Morality is intrinsic to humans. I truly believe that. Some people may be bad, whether from environmental stuff, or the way they were raised or chemical imbalances. but i truly do believe that morality is inherent in all of us.

[Pennsylvania]

//

[heavenlyboy34]

NOt to get too crazy in this debate but morality is not exclusive to religion. religion is not exclusive to morality.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Morality is intrinsic to humans. I truly believe that. Some people may be bad, whether from environmental stuff, or the way they were raised or chemical imbalances. but i truly do believe that morality is inherent in all of us.

I totally agree. The Golden Rule FTW! :D

[Theocrat]

He said "The best policy that we can have as a movement, since we are a well diverse group of individuals, is to follow our political beliefs and separate politics and religion." This sounds like he wants to allow individuals to believe what they want and keep to themselves. From where do you draw your conclusion, Theocrat? :confused:

My political beliefs maintain that religion and politics are impossible to be separated, whereas I can ignore my religious views on the one hand, and promote my political views on the other. That's where I draw my conclusion.

[Wendi]

What I will never understand is why certain atheists and agnostics (not all, by any means) seem to feel that they have a right to their beliefs, but Christians don't. I'm a Christian, and I think there's enough room for both of us in the world.

[heavenlyboy34]

What I will never understand is why certain atheists and agnostics (not all, by any means) seem to feel that they have a right to their beliefs, but Christians don't. I'm a Christian, and I think there's enough room for both of us in the world.

I'm sure some atheists feel that way, but the atheists I've encountered feel oppressed and are simply lashing back against the militant Christians.

[James Madison]

militant Christians.

This is an oxymoron. True Christians are not militant. :p

[Truth Warrior]

The Triumph of Imperial Christianity (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance155.html)

[Theocrat]

The Triumph of Imperial Christianity (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance155.html)

Great article. Thanks.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is an oxymoron. True Christians are not militant. :p

exactly. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Great article. Thanks. You're welcome. I was hoping that you would see it. :D It's a thread I posted around here somewhere. ;)

[roho76]

My political beliefs maintain that religion and politics are impossible to be separated, whereas I can ignore my religious views on the one hand, and promote my political views on the other. That's where I draw my conclusion.

All I'm saying is stop bitching about religion like your being persecuted for your beliefs. This is not the year 1500 and you are not a witch. This is a place to talk about constitutional political issues. And in the Constitution it makes the case for separation of church and state. Now you can make the case that the Constitution is based on Christian beliefs but you would be misreading the document hence the word "Creator" and not "God". Maybe you would be better suited over at Mike Huckabee's forum.

[Truth Warrior]

All I'm saying is stop bitching about religion like your being persecuted for your beliefs. This is not the year 1500 and you are not a witch. This is a place to talk about constitutional political issues. And in the Constitution it makes the case for separation of church and state. Now you can make the case that the Constitution is based on Christian beliefs but you would be misreading the document hence the word "Creator" and not "God". Maybe you would be better suited over at Mike Huckabee's forum.

Actually not, the Federalists only begrudgingly caved on the Bill of Rights in order to pass THEIR illegal and unauthorized coup Constitution ( so called ) "fabrication". Without the BoR, the church/state issue is not even addressed nor mentioned.

[Deborah K]

religion and Christianity in general.

Why can't people believe as they want SEPARATE of a SINGLE country, state or localities LAWS AND RULES being put together and meshed together?

A belief in something, someone, higher power or whatever should not regulate OTHER people and how they live.


I for one, do not believe that this gov't was founded as a Christian gov't. I do however, believe (based on a preponderance of the evidence) that the founding of this country was influenced by Judeo-Christian principles. Therefore I believe this country was founded on Christian principles. There is no denying it. I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to accept, and I reject the whole history revision that is taking place regarding this issue.

If you're asking why bring it up? Why talk about Christianity on a political forum? The better question is, why not?

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I do however, believe (based on a preponderance of the evidence) that the founding of this country was influenced by Judeo-Christian principles.Hey, I'm one of the angriest atheists out there, and you'll get no argument from me on this. The evidence abounds.

The more pressing problem is that so many seem to arrogantly think that if we were influenced by christian principles, it therefore logically follows that the founding could have come about only with the influence of christian principles. This ignores A) the numerous other philosophies they were influenced by that added things Christianity never came up with and often even stood in the way of, and B) the fact that in such a cultural melting pot as ours, any public policy needs a non-religious explanation in order to be valid.

For comparison, look at how Muslims invented algebra. Am I to believe that algebra requires the Islamic element? Absolutely not, because algebra is a deeper, universal truth that transcends any form of religious belief or lack thereof.

And let's say Thomas Jefferson's name had actually been Hadeem al-Maliki, all of the conservative Christians on this forum would be pushing the idea that liberty principles rest squarely on the shoulders of Muhammad.

In both cases, the presence of any sort of religion is merely accidental.

So whenever someone feels the need to stress the number of Christians involved in the founding, as if it matters, I must point out the number of non-christians who stood right beside them. This is due to the truth that lies in the philosophy of liberty, that as with advanced mathematics, laizess faire capitalism, and non-aggression based ethics, is fundamentally universal, and transcends all forms of culture and religion.

[Deborah K]

This thread has gotten predictably silly. Deborah, thanks for clarifying your statement to me because I have not yet revealed anything about my religious beliefs. It sounded to me like the original poster wanted to engage in honest intellectual debate and I only intended to give some food for thought. To that end I would suggest looking up the subject: Pre-Socratic Philosophy.

Okay, I shall do that.

[LibertyEagle]

And in the Constitution it makes the case for separation of church and state.
Where? Please point it out.


Now you can make the case that the Constitution is based on Christian beliefs but you would be misreading the document hence the word "Creator" and not "God".
Are you sure it's not you who is misreading?


Maybe you would be better suited over at Mike Huckabee's forum.
He has broken no forum guidelines and is a valued forum member.

[Truth Warrior]

I for one, do not believe that this gov't was founded as a Christian gov't. I do however, believe (based on a preponderance of the evidence) that the founding of this country was influenced by Judeo-Christian principles. Therefore I believe this country was founded on Christian principles. There is no denying it. I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to accept, and I reject the whole history revision that is taking place regarding this issue.

If you're asking why bring it up? Why talk about Christianity on a political forum? The better question is, why not?

Perhaps because Christianity and Freemasonry are inherently incompatible, to put it very nicely. ;) Maybe I should rather say Freemasonry and Jesus are incompatible.

http://www.ephesians5-11.org/ (http://www.ephesians5-11.org/)

[Deborah K]

Perhaps because Christianity and Freemasonry are inherently incompatible, to put it very nicely. ;)

http://www.ephesians5-11.org/ (http://www.ephesians5-11.org/)

TW, you're probably going to think less of me but........I'm not concerned about Freemasonry the way you are. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

TW, you're probably going to think less of me but........I'm not concerned about Freemasonry the way you are. ;)

:eek:

[Truth Warrior]

TW, you're probably going to think less of me but........I'm not concerned about Freemasonry the way you are. ;) Actually, I updated my post while you were replying. Most "Christians" aren't concerned, that is the problem.<IMHO>

Are you concerned about the NAU and/or the NWO? Ron seems to be. ;)

[Deborah K]

The more pressing problem is that so many seem to arrogantly think that if we were influenced by christian principles, it therefore logically follows that the founding could have come about only with the influence of christian principles. This ignores A) the numerous other philosophies they were influenced by that added things Christianity never came up with and often even stood in the way of, and B) the fact that in such a cultural melting pot as ours, any public policy needs a non-religious explanation in order to be valid .


I haven't noticed anyone being arrogant in this way, but if they have, that wouldn't be fair or right. I agree with your point (A) but not with point (B). Public policy should be inclusive and should apply equally to all individuals. To that extent, it shouldn't matter if it is based on religious principles or not. To deliberately exclude public policy because it is religious based, is unconstitutional. Take for example, a small town in the south with a mixture of black and white christians who want the creche set up at town hall every Christmas (public policy) and the ACLU finds out about it and threatens expensive law suits claiming the ridiculous out of context clause: separation of church and state. It's happened before.


For comparison, look at how Muslims invented algebra. Am I to believe that algebra requires the Islamic element? Absolutely not, because algebra is a deeper, universal truth that transcends any form of religious belief or lack thereof.

This is apples and oranges. Algebra is an exact science. Religion, on the other hand, has to do with morality.


And let's say Thomas Jefferson's name had actually been Hadeem al-Maliki, all of the conservative Christians on this forum would be pushing the idea that liberty principles rest squarely on the shoulders of Muhammad.

In both cases, the presence of any sort of religion is merely accidental.

I don't agree with your last statement that the presence of any sort of religion is merely accidental. If it is influencing the founding of a nation, then clearly it isn't by accident. It is by choice.

[Deborah K]

Actually, I updated my post while you were replying. Most "Christians" aren't concerned, that is the problem.<IMHO>

Are you concerned about the NAU and/or the NWO? Ron seems to be. ;)


I think you know that I am VERY concerned about the NAU/NWO. Don't know what that has to do with freemasonry being incompatible with Christ though. :confused:

[Truth Warrior]

I think you know that I am VERY concerned about the NAU/NWO. Don't know what that has to do with freemasonry being incompatible with Christ though. :confused: Well I thought you were. Just checking. ;)

I gave you a link. Here it is again. :)

http://www.ephesians5-11.org/ (http://www.ephesians5-11.org/)

Maybe that will clarify the issue some. ;) If not please let me know.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Am I too late to join the thread?

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/George_Washington.html

President George Washington was an Episcopalian. He was a member of the Episcopal Church, the American province of the Anglican Communion, which is a branch of Christianity, and which is usually classified as Protestant. Washington and the family he was raised in were originally Anglicans. The Episcopal Church was not officially founded as a separate province within Anglicanism until 1789, after the American colonies proclaimed independence from Great Britain. Prior to the American Revolutionary War, the Episcopal Church was part of the Church of England, so Washington was originally a member of the Church of England.
While he was President, Washington attended Christ Church (an Anglican/Episcopalian congregation) in Philadelphia.
George Washington has frequently been described as a "Deist." Washington is not known to have described himself using this word, nor is he known to have been been a member of any Deist organizations. Some writings by George Washington indicate Deist beliefs; other writings indicate non-Deist beliefs.
Although he was an Anglican and an Episcopalian, Washington reportedly did not take communion and was not considered an official "communicant" (full-fledged adult church member).
It is generally agreed upon that Washington's beliefs could be described as "deist" during at least part of his life. Deism for Washington, as with most historical figueres classifed as deists, was never an actual religious affiliation, but was a classification of theological belief. As nearly all major political figures from Washington's era can be described as "deists" if a sufficiently broad definition is used an if the correct quotations are selected, classifying Washington as a Deist may not by particularly useful or distinctive.
Although the Episcopal Church is the only denomination Washington ever attended with any regularlity, he was not particularly dedicated to the denomination nor did he have a strong Anglican or Episcopalian self-identity. During Washington's era there was no real notion that he was a "non-Christian," and his denominational affiliation certainly placed him well within "mainstream" Christianity at the time. But Washington's religious beliefs could be classified as relatively broad and non-specific. His disinterest or disbelief in some mainstream Protestant Christian beliefs have led later (usually partisan) commentators to label Washington as "non-Christian."
George Washington was identified as an Episcopalian by the 1995 Information Please Almanac; the Library of Congress; and A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution by M. E. Bradford. Memoirs & Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson, IV, page 512 was cited as the source stating that Washington was a "theist." (Source: Ian Dorion, "Table of the Religious Affiliations of American Founders", 1997).
From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), pages 214-218:

Peerless military leader of the War for Independence, able chairman of the Constitutional Convention, brilliant first President, and wise statesman, Washington more than any other man launched our Republic on its course to greatness. For these reasons, he clearly deserves the epithet "Father of His Country." Washington enjoyed only a few years of retirement at Mount Vernon... He died at the age of 67 in 1799. In his will, he emancipatd his slaves.
From: Rick Shenkman, "An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?", posted 20 December 2004 on History News Network website (http://hnn.us/articles/9144.html; viewed 30 November 2005):
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People (Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, "Myth America," which aired several years ago... [I]Let's go through some of [the Founding Fathers]. George Washington?
[Jon Butler:] George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
...The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.

[heavenlyboy34]

Am I too late to join the thread?

Come on in, the water's fine! :):D

[JK/SEA]

Original Posters thread title say's...What is with all the anti-religious bigotry?

Are we equating religion=christianity?

seems to me there are other RELIGIONS floating around 'out there'...

which is it?

Seems everyones ASSUMING christians...

carry on.

[nate895]

Original Posters thread title say's...What is with all the anti-religious bigotry?

Are we equating religion=christianity?

seems to me there are other RELIGIONS floating around 'out there'...

which is it?

Seems everyones ASSUMING christians...

carry on.

I said religion because they attack God. We talk about Christianity because 85% of the American populace profess it, and a full 1/3 of the Earth claims adherence. It is the largest religion, and the vast majority of religious people in our country follow it, so therefore most of us are the most knowledgeable on that religion. If someone were to be debating Hinduism, since I have little knowledge beyond the very basics, I would be just an ignorant dope arguing with someone.

[DirtMcGirt]

If you look hard enough you'll find it

[JK/SEA]

I said religion because they attack God. We talk about Christianity because 85% of the American populace profess it, and a full 1/3 of the Earth claims adherence. It is the largest religion, and the vast majority of religious people in our country follow it, so therefore most of us are the most knowledgeable on that religion. If someone were to be debating Hinduism, since I have little knowledge beyond the very basics, I would be just an ignorant dope arguing with someone.

OK, however there is more than just one definition of religion.

Your thread title should say ANTI CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY...

just trying to help..

[raiha]

Hello its the resident Buddhist. I guess Buddhism is a-theistic because there is no creator God or Supreme Being. However Reality with a capital R is another thing. Or the Unconditioned.

What gets me is how polarized everyone gets on these issues. Theists tend to feel they have the monopoly on goodness, ethics and wisdom. A-theists become impatient with the lack of logic and not being able to get any further than "the Good Book says"
And then you all polarize. But i think that's an American thing...you're feisty mob. Why y'all find it so difficult to be respectful of one another's views....remains a mystery....

[LibertyEagle]

A-theists become impatient with the lack of logic and not being able to get any further than "the Good Book says"

You think YOU are being respectful with comments like these? :rolleyes:

[Ozwest]

You think YOU are being respectful with comments like these? :rolleyes:

Atheists fall in love, we settle down, and we commit our lives to one another and our community. We raise our children. We protect them. We try to be good citizens.

As people of faith do...

I happen to believe in the "Separation of Church and State."

Some zealots continue to make righteous plans for others. They should live in a Theocracy.

[Kludge]

Atheism requires faith ;)

[Ozwest]

Atheism requires faith ;)

I don't go to church to re-enforce a Ideology.

[Ozwest]

I don't seek "like minded" people to re-enforce my non-belief.

[Kludge]

http://dictionary.weather.net/dictionary/faith

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

[Ozwest]

http://dictionary.weather.net/dictionary/faith

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

But hey...

I love my family and friends, and they are Christian.

Guess we can all get along.

One thing...

Gotta love those Catholic girls (universal)! Lol

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

http://dictionary.weather.net/dictionary/faith

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

I don't understand why it is so hard for people of "faith" to comprehend people with no faith.

Atheist don't have faith that there is nothing there. The question of faith is irrelevant. It is a lack of faith.

faith = "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
Atheism = no belief in something for which there is no proof

[Truth Warrior]

"Many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with a passionate need for external authority and guidance, pretending not to trust their own judgment." -- Alan Watts

[Ozwest]

I don't understand why it is so hard for people of "faith" to comprehend people with no faith.

Atheist don't have faith that there is nothing there. The question of faith is irrelevant. It is a lack of faith.

faith = "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
Atheism = no belief in something for which there is no proof

I agree. It is possible to be human without giving yourself to a spiritual being.

Power to those who choose to do so, but I prefer to be self-reliant.

[tonesforjonesbones]

It seems that ya'll care more that someone is a christian than the christians care that you choose to be atheists. tones

[Kludge]

I don't understand why it is so hard for people of "faith" to comprehend people with no faith.

Atheist don't have faith that there is nothing there. The question of faith is irrelevant. It is a lack of faith.

faith = "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
Atheism = no belief in something for which there is no proof

Atheism is not to be confused with Agnosticism. Agnosticism is faithlessness. Atheism is faith in no deities existing, whereas Theism is faith in some deity existing. Neither Atheism nor Theism have irrefutable proof -- well, some militant Theists will claim they do, but...

[Ozwest]

Atheism is not to be confused with Agnosticism. Agnosticism is faithlessness. Atheism is faith in no deities existing, whereas Theism is faith in some deity existing. Neither Atheism nor Theism have irrefutable proof -- well, some militant Theists will claim they do, but...

That's a bit rich!

Irrefutable proof --- is a two way street.

I was raised in a family steeped in Religion, with several Ministers and much Bible study.

I chose atheism not because of some cataclysmic event, or life-scarring Religious abuse, but rather through careful thought and study.

My decision was an informed one, not easily achieved in a prejudiced environment.

[Truth Warrior]

It seems that ya'll care more that someone is a christian than the christians care that you choose to be atheists. tones Perhaps if the atheists ran the governments, instead of the "Christians", you'd feel and think somewhat differently about the matter. ;)

[RockEnds]

But i think that's an American thing...you're feisty mob.

I think you're right. I don't believe we were established upon one particular religious belief, but I do believe religious dissent certainly was a founding principle. And we just keep on dissenting. Heck, dissent against dissenters is as American as apple pie. :)

[Truth Warrior]

I think you're right. I don't believe we were established upon one particular religious belief, but I do believe religious dissent certainly was a founding principle. And we just keep on dissenting. Heck, dissent against dissenters is as American as apple pie. :) I disagree with that. :D

[RockEnds]

I disagree with that. :D

:D

[Theocrat]

That's a bit rich!

Irrefutable proof --- is a two way street.

I was raised in a family steeped in Religion, with several Ministers and much Bible study.

I chose atheism not because of some cataclysmic event, or life-scarring Religious abuse, but rather through careful thought and study.

My decision was an informed one, not easily achieved in a prejudiced environment.

What "irrefutable proof" do you have for the nonexistence of God? After all, you're making the positive claim that God does not exist, so I want to know what proof lead you to that conclusion. Or is it just that you don't believe God exists?

[bojo68]

What "irrefutable proof" do you have for the nonexistence of God? After all, you're making the positive claim that God does not exist, so I want to know what proof lead you to that conclusion. Or is it just that you don't believe God exists?

Theocrat, I'll tell ya what I believe. I believe that if one is going to insist on believing in fairy tales, the least they could do is look to some of the brighter people aflicted with the same dementia. You'll find that the bright fairy tale believe don't even attempt to pawn off their stuff to a crowd that knows better, because they know it can't be done.
So, you, in addition to being willing to swallow that stuff in the first place, are lacking the sense of the better educated of the tribe your in.

[Pennsylvania]

//

[Ozwest]

What "irrefutable proof" do you have for the nonexistence of God? After all, you're making the positive claim that God does not exist, so I want to know what proof lead you to that conclusion. Or is it just that you don't believe God exists?

You hit the nail on the head.

Religion is "faith based." I can't argue that point.

But... I wish certain fundamentalists would refrain from using the "Bully Pulpit" to smother others who disagree with their point of view.

Read early American history, and the reasons why colonials settled the country.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I have an idea! I will continue to have my faith and ya'll continue to absent of it..and we can all see what happens at the finish line! tones

[Pennsylvania]

//

[Kludge]

I have an idea! I will continue to have my faith and ya'll continue to absent of it..and we can all see what happens at the finish line! tones

Was that in response to something in particular?

[Truth Warrior]

"Prove there are no aliens from another dimension plotting to kill you."

"Crap. I can't."

"Obviously your 'faith' in the absence of interdimensional aliens demonstrates how flawed your philosophy on them is."

":(" Hey, I resemble that remark. Ooops, never mind. :o

:)

[newyearsrevolution08]

I have an idea! I will continue to have my faith and ya'll continue to absent of it..and we can all see what happens at the finish line! tones

That is pretty much what I said a ways back into this thread as well.

I doubt christians are going to be up in heaven looking at all us non believers and sinners and saying "I told you so!!!". As well as IF nothing happens, there is no "winner" or "I was right" in this whole thing.

Live your lives and deaths as you want and that odds are includes your after lives as well.

[tonesforjonesbones]

How many times do we have to go over this? how much history and evidence do you need? They came to escape religious persecution...they didnt want to be forced by the king to go to the Church of England. They wanted to form their own religions. The Founders intent was there would be no established Christian denomination mandated by CONGRESS...it was left to the states and the several churches. Why do you argue this when the evidence is all recorded? I guess because it suits your agenda to twist the facts until they are unrecognizable..and it justifies your lack of faith. What are you trying to do ? absolve your guilt? absolve yourselves from having to answer to a higher power? justify that you want no moral compass...so you can participate in your immorality guilt free? Protest against your parents? i'm not supposed to be talkin about morality...but it just defies reasoning..all this circular logic.. tones

[worl]

Something I don't understand about atheist. They are here on the Ron Paul forums & I suppose most support him, but I don't understand why, when there is so much hate toward christians. Ron Paul is a christian & has fought in congress against the "so called" separation of church & state. He also said christianity has been atacked for years in court by the secular left to remove christianity from public view. He also confesses to seek the guidance of Jesus Christ in all that he does. I know some here just chose not to believe but some do hate christians & support's removing what they refer to as the christian right. Would this include Ron Paul & if not what is the differance.

[Ozwest]

I have an idea! I will continue to have my faith and ya'll continue to absent of it..and we can all see what happens at the finish line! tones

Good... During the meantime, could you stop getting bastards like George Bush elected for two terms!

He couldn't have done it without the pious, fundamentalist, self righteous, moral thought brigade.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I find it to be just typical rebellion...youthful rebellion. Besides, athesim is trendy..Ron Paul is trendy, Barak Obama is trendy...eh...tones

[newyearsrevolution08]

It seems that ya'll care more that someone is a christian than the christians care that you choose to be atheists. tones

Which is actually sad, isn't up to christians to lead us to God? I can only speak for what I have personally lived and that was 10+ years in the church growing up where most people cared more about making sure to be IN church at all the required events versus going out and actually LOCATING sinners and leading them to christ.

I have issues with the "believers" who don't practice what someone is preaching at them. I understand surrounding yourself with like-minded people who share your belief, faith, religion or whatever but the one thing I always thought would make sense would be to go out and canvass the city all the time versus sitting in a church listening to an outdated story being told over and over again.

---------

I am not an atheist, I grew up in the church but the "blind faith" that was pushed on me could only go so far. Just like I don't have blind faith in our government, how could anyone expect someone to have that for a God and a specific way of life when there are so many other people in this world who believe in DIFFERENT gods and ALL believe whole heartedly that their belief is right and others is wrong.

------

How can a religion, belief, faith simply be based on the location of your birth? How many catholics are in iran? How many muslims are in Mississippi?

If there was one God then why isn't that believed by the many religions and faiths that ALL have varying views on god, laws, and what happens after you leave this earth.

It isn't that I don't believe in GOD, but rather confused as to how so many can believe in so many DIFFERENT gods and all spout out how THEY are correct in their faith versus others.

I do believe it is the personal experiences that lead you through life and that can also deter you from religion, faith, a belief and so on especially when there are those within the churches that you have been apart of that look down on non believers versus trying to "save them" or lead them to the lord.

--------

[Truth Warrior]

How many times do we have to go over this? how much history and evidence do you need? They came to escape religious persecution...they didnt want to be forced by the king to go to the Church of England. They wanted to form their own religions. The Founders intent was there would be no established Christian denomination mandated by CONGRESS...it was left to the states and the several churches. Why do you argue this when the evidence is all recorded? I guess because it suits your agenda to twist the facts until they are unrecognizable..and it justifies your lack of faith. What are you trying to do ? absolve your guilt? absolve yourselves from having to answer to a higher power? justify that you want no moral compass...so you can participate in your immorality guilt free? Protest against your parents? i'm not supposed to be talkin about morality...but it just defies reasoning..all this circular logic.. tones Start with Constantine, emperor of the Roman Empire, ( I love that part ) and just walk us all forward through time. ;) :D

[bojo68]

Something I don't understand about atheist. They are here on the Ron Paul forums & I suppose most support him, but I don't understand why, when there is so much hate toward christians. Ron Paul is a christian & has fought in congress against the "so called" separation of church & state. He also said christianity has been atacked for years in court by the secular left to remove christianity from public view. He also confesses to seek the guidance of Jesus Christ in all that he does. I know some here just chose not to believe but some do hate christians & support's removing what they refer to as the christian right. Would this include Ron Paul & if not what is the differance.

Actually, when it became apparent that RP couldn't separate his belief from reality is when I started backing away. He is far better than most similarly afflicted, he knows enough to not trot it out to others, like Huckabee.(a REAL IDIOT)

[Ozwest]

I find it to be just typical rebellion...youthful rebellion. Besides, athesim is trendy..Ron Paul is trendy, Barak Obama is trendy...eh...tones

Be rebellious.

Liberty is for everyone!

[newyearsrevolution08]

I find it to be just typical rebellion...youthful rebellion. Besides, athesim is trendy..Ron Paul is trendy, Barak Obama is trendy...eh...tones

Religion is trendy as well, if it wasn't trendy then there odds are would only be ONE religion but MAN is there a ton of money in churches these days. All you need to do is add a camera to the building and the money can come on in.

We have a church or two here in Fresno that have their own tv show. I applaud this effort to help those or lead those to christ who cannot make it to church or who might simply click to the station and watch for a bit. I think this is a great way to reach those who might be looking for someone or something to help them through a troubled time in life.

Then you have the "lay hands on people and remove cancer" preachers who are pulling in millions each year...... What are your thoughts on these preachers? Does anyone actually believe that they are completely removing the ailment from the people, wait rephrase that....

Do you believe God is actually removing the pain, ache, cancer, blindness FROM the person on tv as the preacher lays hands on them? HONESTLY believe it?

Do you believe God can allow a preacher to be able to accomplish this? and if so would that be considered a miracle? Now if this actually did work then why don't we have preachers in kids cancer wards healing them?

Just too many things add up to ZERO.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...ok. I am rebelling against the anti christian sentiments on this forum. I REVOLT! tones

[LibertyEagle]

How many times do we have to go over this? how much history and evidence do you need? They came to escape religious persecution...they didnt want to be forced by the king to go to the Church of England. They wanted to form their own religions. The Founders intent was there would be no established Christian denomination mandated by CONGRESS...it was left to the states and the several churches.

Yes, this is my understanding too.

[Kludge]

I attend a large Methodist church near my house every few weeks. Attending church is essential to becoming known in your community.

[Truth Warrior]

Well...ok. I am rebelling against the anti christian sentiments on this forum. I REVOLT! tones Aww, c'mon, I'll even help to get you started.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm (http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm)

[newyearsrevolution08]

Well...ok. I am rebelling against the anti christian sentiments on this forum. I REVOLT! tones

whatever works for you and more power you to!

Revolt away!

/revolt started

[LibertyEagle]

Actually, when it became apparent that RP couldn't separate his belief from reality is when I started backing away. He is far better than most similarly afflicted, he knows enough to not trot it out to others, like Huckabee.(a REAL IDIOT)

:rolleyes:

His belief IS his reality. Yours is apparently something different.

Why is it that so many of those who call themselves Libertarians, have such a difficult time allowing others to have that same liberty that they themselves are demanding? Hypocrisy anyone?

[Pennsylvania]

//

[Kludge]

Why is it that so many of those who call themselves Libertarians, have such a difficult time allowing others to have that same liberty that they themselves are demanding?

Emotions, faith, delusion. "Many" Libertarians are unthinking dogmatic faithfuls, "many" are not.

[WRellim]

I find it to be just typical rebellion...youthful rebellion. Besides, athesim is trendy..Ron Paul is trendy, Barak Obama is trendy...eh...tones

And the vast majority of the current crop of rabid anti-christians (which is a much more accurate description than atheist for this little subgroup) -- have learned virtually everything that they "know" from recent propaganda videos like "ZeitGeist" -- most of these anti-christians will heartily regurgitate that entire film (or other like it) as if it were fact rather than poorly contrived and easily refuted nonsense.

It's yet another "fad" that serves the agenda of the CFR type organizations, much like the popularity of the eastern "guru" religions of the hippie generation in the 60's and early 70's, or the "new age" malarky (crystals etc) of the late 70's and early 80's -- the same "stream of consciousness" and anti-tradition basis, all in service of advancing socialism (and wholly Marxist at its roots).

IMO, it serves as a "fifth column" inside of the Liberty movement, and will eventually destroy whatever we manage to accomplish; or more likely cause a split long before that happens (much of the "split" and the pushing of Bob Barr was, ironically, focused on this).

[newyearsrevolution08]

And the vast majority of the current crop of rabid anti-christians (which is a much more accurate description than atheist for this little subgroup) -- have learned virtually everything that they "know" from recent propaganda videos like "ZeitGeist" -- most of these anti-christians will heartily regurgitate that entire film (or other like it) as if it were fact rather than poorly contrived and easily refuted nonsense.


At least it is MORE recent than what christians are using to regurgitate to others...

The same arguement could be used with the bible, name any other book that actually goes WITH what the bible has in its pages?

There MUST have been MORE religious and non religious writers during those times talking about the son of God who was performing miracles on earth right? He would have been in the biblical times guinness book of world records...

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am a Bible believer. I don't go to any church because they can become as corrupted as any other institution. Churches have become big business because the only way that the church can be sustained is through the donations of it's congregants....thus , pushing the collection plate in your face all the time. Churches form heirarchies..and expect collectivism also. I have not found a church so far, that doesn't do it. There is nothing in the New Testament that mandates that you go to a church building. The church is the Body of Christ, whether you go to some building and listen to a minister tell you HIS interpretation of the holy scripture or not. The only references that I recall from scripture is Jesus said "Where two or more are gathered to gether in my name , I am there also." and several references to the groups who came together to talk about His teachings. There was not requirement written. I do my bible study with Arnold Murray , www.shepherdschapel.org and the reason I like this minister is because he goes chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and frequently criticizes the "bible thumpers"..as he calls them. He also says "give if you can". No tithe, no guilt...and I think that's more the spirit of Christ ...AND he is the only minister I have ever heard talk about the New World Order..and relate it to the Book of Revelation. He is the only minister I have heard who admits the earth is millions of years old..and agrees with science. You guys might be able to relate to him. Tones

[heavenlyboy34]

At least it is MORE recent than what christians are using to regurgitate to others...

The same arguement could be used with the bible, name any other book that actually goes WITH what the bible has in its pages?

There MUST have been MORE religious and non religious writers during those times talking about the son of God who was performing miracles on earth right? He would have been in the biblical times guinness book of world records...

Look up the nostic gospels and the Kabbala and drive your Christian friends cRaZy! :D

[heavenlyboy34]

This is by far the best post I've seen you make on this topic. Good work, Tones! :D I'll check out your link ASAP.


I am a Bible believer. I don't go to any church because they can become as corrupted as any other institution. Churches have become big business because the only way that the church can be sustained is through the donations of it's congregants....thus , pushing the collection plate in your face all the time. Churches form heirarchies..and expect collectivism also. I have not found a church so far, that doesn't do it. There is nothing in the New Testament that mandates that you go to a church building. The church is the Body of Christ, whether you go to some building and listen to a minister tell you HIS interpretation of the holy scripture or not. The only references that I recall from scripture is Jesus said "Where two or more are gathered to gether in my name , I am there also." and several references to the groups who came together to talk about His teachings. There was not requirement written. I do my bible study with Arnold Murray , www.shepherdschapel.org (http://www.shepherdschapel.org) and the reason I like this minister is because he goes chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and frequently criticizes the "bible thumpers"..as he calls them. He also says "give if you can". No tithe, no guilt...and I think that's more the spirit of Christ ...AND he is the only minister I have ever heard talk about the New World Order..and relate it to the Book of Revelation. He is the only minister I have heard who admits the earth is millions of years old..and agrees with science. You guys might be able to relate to him. Tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

LOLLLL Wrellim..seems you struck a nerve! lol...per newyearsrevolution's response. G. Edward Griffin says Zeitgeist is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. Tones

[Ozwest]

And the vast majority of the current crop of rabid anti-christians (which is a much more accurate description than atheist for this little subgroup) -- have learned virtually everything that they "know" from recent propaganda videos like "ZeitGeist" -- most of these anti-christians will heartily regurgitate that entire film (or other like it) as if it were fact rather than poorly contrived and easily refuted nonsense.

It's yet another "fad" that serves the agenda of the CFR type organizations, much like the popularity of the eastern "guru" religions of the hippie generation in the 60's and early 70's, or the "new age" malarky (crystals etc) of the late 70's and early 80's -- the same "stream of consciousness" and anti-tradition basis, all in service of advancing socialism (and wholly Marxist at its roots).

IMO, it serves as a "fifth column" inside of the Liberty movement, and will eventually destroy whatever we manage to accomplish; or more likely cause a split long before that happens (much of the "split" and the pushing of Bob Barr was, ironically, focused on this).

Why is it necessary to define myself by affiliation with a set pattern of belief based upon subjective teachings appropriate to social orientation?

The great mystery of Universal Intelligence is beyond my comprehension.

Guess you got it figured...

Or maybe the Jew, Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, Fundamentilist, Church of England, Seventh-Day Adventist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Muslim, has it figured?

[worl]

Actually, when it became apparent that RP couldn't separate his belief from reality is when I started backing away. He is far better than most similarly afflicted, he knows enough to not trot it out to others, like Huckabee.(a REAL IDIOT)

Actually paul said he does'nt talk about his religion in the political arena & I respect him for that because there are lots of politicians who use religion to get votes. I believe a lot of people may be refering to those who use religion for gain & I consider huck. as one & he will get the christian vote unless someone exposes him.

[Ozwest]

actually paul said he does'nt talk about his religion in the political arena & i respect him for that because there are lots of politicians who use religion to get votes. I believe a lot of people may be refering to those who use religion for gain & i consider huck. As one & he will get the christian vote unless someone exposes him.

qft

[tonesforjonesbones]

Thanks heavenly boy..tones isn't so bad...lol. Any of you can hit that site and send for Arnold Murray's cd "mark of the beast"...it's free and no shipping. It was the BEST interpretation of that very complicated Book I've ever heard. he says the 7 heads of the beast are the 7 continents..and goes on , through referencing other scripture, to show it's all about the New World Order. It's worth a listen anyway for free. tones

[heavenlyboy34]

And the vast majority of the current crop of rabid anti-christians (which is a much more accurate description than atheist for this little subgroup) -- have learned virtually everything that they "know" from recent propaganda videos like "ZeitGeist" -- most of these anti-christians will heartily regurgitate that entire film (or other like it) as if it were fact rather than poorly contrived and easily refuted nonsense.

It's yet another "fad" that serves the agenda of the CFR type organizations, much like the popularity of the eastern "guru" religions of the hippie generation in the 60's and early 70's, or the "new age" malarky (crystals etc) of the late 70's and early 80's -- the same "stream of consciousness" and anti-tradition basis, all in service of advancing socialism (and wholly Marxist at its roots).

IMO, it serves as a "fifth column" inside of the Liberty movement, and will eventually destroy whatever we manage to accomplish; or more likely cause a split long before that happens (much of the "split" and the pushing of Bob Barr was, ironically, focused on this).

I would say that the "anti-christians" in this group are often well-read on the subject, and only cite movies like "Zeitgeist" as starting points for further research. Further, I get the sense that the RPFers you speak of are only addressing the modern, corrupted forms of Christianity from their writings.

The "stream of consciousness" is Freudian and in reality very interesting-the new agers and leftists hijacked it, sadly. :( So I'd agree with ya there.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Look up the nostic gospels and the Kabbala and drive your Christian friends cRaZy! :D

I gave my mom the Quran which I actually found (of all places) in the trash. Odds are it was in a hotel room or something and someone tossed it in a trashcan I happen to notice it.... anyways.....

She didn't have much to say about it except that it was interesting. I talked with my sister one time about WHAT IF there was no God.. She actually asked me to stop talking because she didn't want to hear about it anymore. She was more scared of the possibility and would rather NOT talk about it. Stay in that pretty bubble of happiness I guess lol.

I guess my personal experiences with those who go to church, believe in God and so on has led me to at least ASK what if... Most around me won't do it simply because if you denounce your faith then what are you? If God is so strict that you can't even look into the possibility of there being no God then how can you grow personally and spiritually?

I am not out to convince anyone that there is no God or to tell them christianity is wrong or anything like that. I respect most christians that I do know as well as those who believe in other gods or beliefs all together.

All I want is for people to actually STOP the blind faith and research some of the stuff that they were raised into and see where truth ends and religious agendas begin.

Too much money is made with churches and religions these days. Why should they get tax breaks at all? Where does all that money even go?

I swear, my church(es) that I went to for the 10-15 years were always doing a fund drive, a donation plate or SOMETHING to raise money but I never once saw anything being done to lead anyone to christ or anything. I did see new cars for those who worked there, I did see nicer clothes for the deacons but STILL always collecting more and more money.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I would say that the "anti-christians" in this group are often well-read on the subject, and only cite movies like "Zeitgeist" as starting points for further research. Further, I get the sense that the RPFers you speak of are only addressing the modern, corrupted forms of Christianity from their writings.

The "stream of consciousness" is Freudian and in reality very interesting-the new agers and leftists hijacked it, sadly. :( So I'd agree with ya there.

I found the beginning of the zeitgeist to be funny personally. The thing that irritates me is that christians or any religion for that matter should look at videos like that and actually debate them versus denouncing them as false.

I would love to see a debate between the heads of churches, religions and faiths and then those who want to debate scientific and FACTUAL proof during those times as well and see what we come up with.

If someone is willing to lose their entire faith based on the zeitgeist then odds are they were not very "faith based" to begin with but rather "follower" motivated to belong to something or believe in someone or something.

I think TRUE BELIEVERS will stick to their guns til the day they die and I applaud that. More power to them and who am I to judge, I will leave that up to their god.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...gnostic christianity was born from the kaballah, which was a mystical babylonian religion formulated by the pharisees that were run out of the holy land. In order to survive in babylon, they adapetd some of the egyptian beliefs into the TALMUD.. gnostic christianity has been melded into christianity...not in the new testiment scripture but through certain early church doctrine. the pharisees were actually the kenites...who were the descendents of Cain. The 'rapture theory" didn't even come about until the 1800's...that is certainly not scriptural. This is how things get twisted. tones

[newyearsrevolution08]

Well...gnostic christianity was born from the kaballah, which was a mystical babylonian religion formulated by the pharisees that were run out of the holy land. In order to survive in babylon, they adapetd some of the egyptian beliefs into the TALMUD.. gnostic christianity has been melded into christianity...not in the new testiment scripture but through certain early church doctrine. the pharisees were actually the kenites...who were the descendents of Cain. The 'rapture theory" didn't even come about until the 1800's...that is certainly not scriptural. This is how things get twisted. tones

These are the things I would want debated, ESPECIALLY the rapture.......

which FORM of Christianity or religion gets to go up to heaven again?

I didn't read about the rapture not coming up until the 1800's but odds are plenty of things just like that didn't "come up" until they needed them to. So how much IN the bible actually started there versus being added to it?...

wait...

you can't add or take away from the bible so was the rapture passages put in later and if so that itself would be against God right?

maybe we will someday have

old testament
new testament
newer testament

the latest can clear up any issues we had with the first 2.

I just wish there were other writings that actually went inline with the bible. Or some of the stories from the bible being told in other writings or drawings or something. Are there?

[Ozwest]

I'm still trying to get my head around...

Dinosaurs and humans living together on a planet several thousand years old.

[Ozwest]

And...

How all the animals walked onto the Ark.

[Ozwest]

And...

How did Jonah survive ?

[newyearsrevolution08]

And...

How did Jonah survive ?

Like you have never lived in a whale,

pssh you are so outdated,

it was the in thing to do back then my man.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well no, the rapture theory wasn't put in the bible ..but it was a mis interpretation of scripture that was already in the bible. Jesus spoke in parables...it was code ...to hide his meaning from the pharisees...he was flying under the radar so to speak. The old testament is history of the hebrews, jewish law and prophecy of the coming of Jesus. tones

[Deborah K]

Theocrat, I'll tell ya what I believe. I believe that if one is going to insist on believing in fairy tales, the least they could do is look to some of the brighter people aflicted with the same dementia. You'll find that the bright fairy tale believe don't even attempt to pawn off their stuff to a crowd that knows better, because they know it can't be done.
So, you, in addition to being willing to swallow that stuff in the first place, are lacking the sense of the better educated of the tribe your in.

The above is a classic example of anti-religious bigotry!

[Ozwest]

The above is a classic example of anti-religious bigotry!

Theocrat can get on your nerves, and he is a prime example of over zealousness.

As a proud man, I refuse to kneel down or prostrate myself before someone whose existence never can be proved.

I prefer self-reliance.

[newyearsrevolution08]

The above is a classic example of anti-religious bigotry!

Looks more like an opinion than bigotry. Not saying that it didn't have "rude" sprinkled within the text BUT an opinion that is different than many here.

The one thing that I get irritated by personally is that MOST atheists, non believers, whatever you want to try and "classify" people as are at least MORE tolerating of a persons right to "believe what they want" far more than most christians I know.

Simple way to find out and I have done this myself is simple.

Go to a christian and ask this simple question.,

"I personally do not believe in God, heaven and so on but respect your views of christianity and religion in general and wanted to ask your thoughts on something."

Do you believe that I would go to hell if I were to die right now? and if so why is that?

---------

Who's right is it to tell others (simply based on their personal beliefs) that they WILL go to hell simply based on THEIR belief.

Most of the same people, smoke weed, drink, go to church, ask for forgiveness, rinse and repeat. Only difference is their proclaiming god as their lord and savior BUT not living any different than most people.

I guess I have just seen too much holier than thou b.s. locally and it pushed me from religion, christianity and faith all together.

I just feel I can do better for myself being a good person because I want to live that way versus trying to do it, ask for forgiveness and hoping I will be NOT going to hell once I die.


I think true christians should be out and about canvassing and leading people to christ ALL THE TIME. If they really believe that hell is around the corner for billions of people then why would they simply go to church 3 times a week and NOT help save our soul?

I would assume they would be where the sinners are at versus congregating with others every wednesday and sunday. Go to strip clubs, bars, and locate these sinners and help them NOT go to hell.

But who am I to judge others for not following their own convictions either? We all procrastinate but my belief system does not have anything in it where those who do not believe like me can go to hell for eternity and if so why would I simply sit around and not help others NOT go to hell?

I would love to see a poll on faith based believers and how often they canvass, lead people to the lord, or at least help others see their faith and why it is the Way" to live.

I think it would be a huge responsibility. In your heart you have the ability to help others not burn for an eternity in hell so why would you NOT spend your days and nights helping others not go there.

Maybe my personal experiences did infact burn me on this whole issue BUT odds are there are MORE faith based believers NOT doing what they are supposed to be doing day in and day out BUT still telling others how they would odds are go to hell once they die because they didn't ask jesus into their heart to be their lord and savior.
--------

[Ozwest]

The above is a classic example of anti-religious bigotry!

Many Christians derive a sense of superiority from believing that they are members of an elite group superior to others.

Why don't "so called" healers leave their Churches and frequent childrens' cancer wards, where they could perform some "real healing."

[heavenlyboy34]

I think true christians should be out and about canvassing and leading people to christ ALL THE TIME. If they really believe that hell is around the corner for billions of people then why would they simply go to church 3 times a week and NOT help save our soul?


I submit to you that true Christians would do better to serve as "a presence of Christ in the world" (as baptists often say) and lead by example.

[Ozwest]

I submit to you that true Christians would do better to serve as "a presence of Christ in the world" (as baptists often say) and lead by example.

Thank God for the Baptists! Lol

Most Christians including my family and friends, are to be admired.

It is the fundamentalist moral "holier than thou" brigade that require adjusting.

[JK/SEA]

Many Christians derive a sense of superiority from believing that they are members of an elite group superior to others.

Why don't "so called" healers leave their Churches and frequent childrens' cancer wards, where they could perform some "real healing."

Because they would rather come onto political disussion forums and whine about how they are persecuted, and maligned, and tell everyone how non-CHRISTIANS inflict bigotry towards them, imagined or perceived, real or not.

For myself, i have no use for ORGANIZED RELIGION of any kind. My spitituality is personal, and nobodies business, and i never ever resort to telling strangers how to live their lives.

Freedom.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Thank God for the Baptists! Lol

Most Christians including my family and friends, are to be admired.

It is the fundamentalist moral "holier than thou" brigade that require adjusting.

It was actually that southern baptist type of people that turned me off on religion, god, church all together. THEY were the holier than thou that I have many issues with locally.

[Truth Warrior]

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -- Mahatma Gandhi

[heavenlyboy34]

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -- Mahatma Gandhi

Thanks for quoting from my sig, TW. I'm flattered. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Thanks for quoting from my sig, TW. I'm flattered. :D You misspelled Gandhi. ;) :D

[Ozwest]

It was actually that southern baptist type of people that turned me off on religion, god, church all together. THEY were the holier than thou that I have many issues with locally.

Sorry about that.

It was a strict Seventh-Day-Adventist up-bringing that got me to questioning...

[newyearsrevolution08]

Thanks for quoting from my sig, TW. I'm flattered. :D

Yup, it is almost like it was you who made the quote. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

You misspelled Gandhi. ;) :D

:eek:~slaps self in forehead~ :( doh! Isn't Gandhi just an phonetic spelling from the original name મોહનદાસ કરમચંદ ગાંધી? If so, such words are subject to multiple spellings in English. (For example, the Russian word Привет is commonly transliterated as privet, privyet, etc.)

[heavenlyboy34]

Yup, it is almost like it was you who made the quote. :rolleyes:

lol...thanks, I needed a laugh. :D (FYI, I was just being a wiseass.)

[Truth Warrior]

:eek:~slaps self in forehead~ :( doh! Isn't Gandhi just an phonetic spelling from the original name મોહનદાસ કરમચંદ ગાંધી? If so, such words are subject to multiple spellings in English. (For example, the Russian word Привет is commonly transliterated as privet, privyet, etc.) Try a google lookup with both, first your spelling and then mine. ;)

[newyearsrevolution08]

lol...thanks, I needed a laugh. :D (FYI, I was just being a wiseass.)

and if you didn't notice, so was I :eek:

[SeanEdwards]

If the bible included a statement attributed to Jesus that said "Black people are not human and are to be burned alive", would christians be obligated to do so? What would that mean for their concept of morality?

The big three religions do not promote ethical behavior in people, they merely create little drones obsessed with following orders. They're a great social tool for those who desire to control their fellow human beings, and that's all they are good for.

[Truth Warrior]

If the bible included a statement attributed to Jesus that said "Black people are not human and are to be burned alive", would christians be obligated to do so? What would that mean for their concept of morality?

The big three religions do not promote ethical behavior in people, they merely create little drones obsessed with following orders. They're a great social tool for those who desire to control their fellow human beings, and that's all they are good for. No, but apparently slavery is acceptable. ;)

[newyearsrevolution08]

If the bible included a statement attributed to Jesus that said "Black people are not human and are to be burned alive", would christians be obligated to do so? What would that mean for their concept of morality?

The big three religions do not promote ethical behavior in people, they merely create little drones obsessed with following orders. They're a great social tool for those who desire to control their fellow human beings, and that's all they are good for.

good question.

I think that was proven with bible thumping anti-gay activists trying to preach the bible as their basis for objecting to it. Isn't there a verse about not lying down with another man or something and that is where they are getting their p.o.v. from? or am I incorrect on that?

I have also read up on nazis and KKK members trying to quote the bible as far as other races being like "2 legged animals working in fields" and b.s. like that as well.

great question indeed.

What would a person do if the book that they read and learned from did have hateful things in it?

I know what others are doing?

Like suicide bombers, dying for their religion, assuming us as evil western this and that. I wouldn't put "actions" passed anyone if they fully believed in it and felt like they were doing gods will in one form or another.

[newyearsrevolution08]

No, but apparently slavery is acceptable. ;)

of lower class people though not based on race back then right? Wasn't it more social stature than color?

Not that, that really is important either way because it is still a way to classify and attempt to downgrade one person based on an attribute of theirs that is different from them.

[Truth Warrior]

of lower class people though not based on race back then right? Wasn't it more social stature than color?

Not that, that really is important either way because it is still a way to classify and attempt to downgrade one person based on an attribute of theirs that is different from them. Well somebody needed to pick the cotton. I still just blame it on the Brits. :p

[newyearsrevolution08]

Well somebody needed to pick the cotton. I still just blame it on the Brits. :p

I would blame it on them as well. Blame is easier when put on others anyways.

My grandpa actually picked cotton as well, he had a cotton farm and was a ton of fun. Not trying to make light of the correlation at all but the "cotton farm" remark brought back good memories for me. Odds are those feelings are few and far between.

[Truth Warrior]

I would blame it on them as well. Blame is easier when put on others anyways.

My grandpa actually picked cotton as well, he had a cotton farm and was a ton of fun. Not trying to make light of the correlation at all but the "cotton farm" remark brought back good memories for me. Odds are those feelings are few and far between. Well I know my folks never had any slaves, so it had to just be others. ;)

[newyearsrevolution08]

Well I know my folks never had any slaves, so it had to just be others. ;)

I am still mad at the white man for taking our land (that is my 1/64th Cherokee speaking).

If anyone should be mad it should be us indians. Sure we like casinos, gambling and drinking BUT we should put the white man on the reservations and allow us to roam free

HOW!

[Conservative Christian]

The big three religions do not promote ethical behavior in people, they merely create little drones obsessed with following orders. They're a great social tool for those who desire to control their fellow human beings, and that's all they are good for.

Dr. Ron Paul easily refutes your bogus statement:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."

--Dr. Ron Paul

[Truth Warrior]

I am still mad at the white man for taking our land (that is my 1/64th Cherokee speaking).

If anyone should be mad it should be us indians. Sure we like casinos, gambling and drinking BUT we should put the white man on the reservations and allow us to roam free

HOW! Yep, the government screwed over the blacks, Indians and the Mexicans. Talk about equal opportunity. :D

[newyearsrevolution08]

Dr. Ron Paul easily refutes your bogus statement:

Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

I can see how states wouldn't care for religions coming in and having people live by their faith or religion versus what their state says. I can also see religions not liking atheists or those who believe that THEY are in control of their own destiny because it goes against THEM as well.

What does religion have to do with state rights though? Even if the country was found on christian beliefs or those who believed IN christian values. If they wanted it to rule the country then wouldn't the constitution be more like the 10 commandments?

[A. Havnes]

Personally, I believe that there should be separation of religious extremism (that goes for both sides) and forum. It is so much harder to fight for liberty when you've got atheists coming on what is very plainly a Christian thread and belittling people, and then you've got all-out flame wars starting.

Seriously, I don't mind debating scripture every once in a while (you know, end times stuff), but only in relation to our cause for limited government, and I hate having to read through pages of arguing between atheists who probably shouldn't even be posting on a thread that doesn't pertain to them, and Christians just to find some interesting posts.

Keep the posts about the Bible limited to end time prophesy and our current political system (I'm sure even the most narrow-minded atheists would take an interest in that) and stop trying to put everyone down. At least, that's what I think we should do.

How can we take back our country if we're busy dividing ourselves up over who believes in God or doesn't believe in God? Not all of us Christians are out to ban gay marriage at the federal level, etc. and not all atheists are for excluding the nativity from public viewing. There is common ground!

Rant over.

[WRellim]

And the vast majority of the current crop of rabid anti-christians (which is a much more accurate description than atheist for this little subgroup) -- have learned virtually everything that they "know" from recent propaganda videos like "ZeitGeist" -- most of these anti-christians will heartily regurgitate that entire film (or other like it) as if it were fact rather than poorly contrived and easily refuted nonsense.

It's yet another "fad" that serves the agenda of the CFR type organizations, much like the popularity of the eastern "guru" religions of the hippie generation in the 60's and early 70's, or the "new age" malarky (crystals etc) of the late 70's and early 80's -- the same "stream of consciousness" and anti-tradition basis, all in service of advancing socialism (and wholly Marxist at its roots).

IMO, it serves as a "fifth column" inside of the Liberty movement, and will eventually destroy whatever we manage to accomplish; or more likely cause a split long before that happens (much of the "split" and the pushing of Bob Barr was, ironically, focused on this).

LOLLLL Wrellim..seems you struck a nerve! lol...per newyearsrevolution's response. G. Edward Griffin says Zeitgeist is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. Tones

Well, I meant it seriously, and as you noted, most of the responses are unable to refute (and instead confirm) that their rabid anti-christianism view is almost (if not) entirely constructed upon the basis of "received" evidence (purportedly revealing "secret" knowledge) from ridiculously fraudulent propaganda videos like ZetiGeist.

Why I say it is a "fifth column" is that nearly identical anti-religion indoctrination methods were used by many of the Marx-based totalitarian regimes within the past century, whether it was the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia and eastern Europe, the Maoists in China, or the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia -- all had virulent anti-religion propaganda and agenda, and all of it followed Herr Goebbels technique of the "Big Lie" (followed by and including a thousand other "little lies").

Now had any of those "followers" bothered to actually be rational and a bit skeptical and do an independent "verification" of virtually ANY of the "information" they were being fed then the lies would have been "exposed" (I have no doubt that a small number *did* do so -- and were, at a minimum, ostracized or vilified as a result, with some suffering far worse consequences for daring to question the lies) but the vast majority of those so indoctrinated became instantly convinced of their new "superiority" and militantly attacked their new objects of "hate" (just like the Zeitgeist devotees). They were in no mood for any actual facts and were certainly not open to new information (except that which serves to validate their superiority and hatred) much less were they likely to change course and suddenly find "reason".

In fact the vast majority have simply (and alas, rather easily) been manipulated "once again" by using their predisposition to accept any and all "rumors" and "secret knowledge" (think the "billionaire RP supporter" or the whole "SGP/delegates" or half a dozen other such foolish things, unsupported by any real data, and in the end revealed to be frauds) which are then used to play upon their inherent bias against the several "hated" target group(s) and as a basis for programmed group "actions" and tests of loyalty.

This type of manipulation is rather easily done because of years of prior indoctrination in the "public" school system, or other venues via similar means. Once this type of indoctrination is completed, then it is simply a matter of "tugging their strings" every so slightly and directing them against a newly selected "enemy" -- for the "fifth column" types this is preferably one that is a key "base pillar" underlying their own movement (which they have only a superficial understanding of) -- and they will take care of the rest as programmed automaton -- in essence cutting their own legs off.

Like all "mindless mobs" they are completely unaware of this manipulation, and think they are being very "modern", "sophisticated", "rational" and "superior" -- even though there is little difference between themselves and hundreds of other previous such mobs (of various flavors). The eventual outcome is virtually predestined -- they will accept some new "savior" (ala Obama from the left, or "Bob Barr" for many of the quasi-libertarians, or some yet unknown "hero" yet to come from the right) -- and in the end will erect this new person as yet another "Napoleon" by the French mobs (or similar to the way GWB was placed beyond question by the so called "Christian Right" mobs -- the techniques are the same; religion (including its negation) are simple the "lever" used as the fulcrum for the propaganda to work upon).

Alas, human beings do not become true THINKING individuals except by their own diligent efforts -- you cannot "spoon feed" truth to the masses, because they are much more accepting of "lies" and will eventually follow the most charismatic "liar" they can find at any given time. Only a small remnant will have either the guts OR the brains to avoid such traps and pitfalls.

The "anti-christianistas" have fallen directly into one such age-old trap, and there is little hope that the vast majority of them will ever find their way out. Alas, such is the history of all populations and movements, they are so easily undermined by a dash of hate, a target or scapegoat, and a few targeted, candy-coated lies.
:(

How this "suceptability" is put in place at an early age in nearly all children in our "modern" American society is pretty fully detailed in Ayn Rand's essay entitled "The Comprachicos" (contained the her book "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Left-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011256)) -- which references the Victor Hugo work, "L'Homme qui rit" and then expounds how our modern "educational" system cripples the intellect and prepares it for precisely these types of things, in order to create cadres of automatons.

Side Note: Rand herself grew up within the Soviet system and (unsurprisingly) ended up being an atheist for her whole life (although NOT in the hate-filled rabid "anti-christianisa" way as modern "zeitgeisters" [who would have disgusted her with their socialist leanings/agenda] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GS6vxb4H3M#t=3m30s)) -- but she came to her understanding on a "rational" basis argument versus religion (but in the end her reason relies on a variant of the ad hoc fallacious "No True Scotsman" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)argument about man's intellect). There are even some indications in her last interviews with Tom Snyder (cited, along with other similar indications in Barbara Brandon's later biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand) that in her later years, after the passing of her husband Frank O'Connor, she became even less "militant" in her atheism (and she certainly understood that many "atheists" were just as mislead by indoctrination and propaganda as those who accept various "religions").

[heavenlyboy34]

I am still mad at the white man for taking our land (that is my 1/64th Cherokee speaking).

If anyone should be mad it should be us indians. Sure we like casinos, gambling and drinking BUT we should put the white man on the reservations and allow us to roam free

HOW!

THE SPANIARDS STARTED IT! BEWARE THE SPANISH INQUISITION!:eek:

[heavenlyboy34]

Personally, I believe that there should be separation of religious extremism (that goes for both sides) and forum. It is so much harder to fight for liberty when you've got atheists coming on what is very plainly a Christian thread and belittling people, and then you've got all-out flame wars starting.

Seriously, I don't mind debating scripture every once in a while (you know, end times stuff), but only in relation to our cause for limited government, and I hate having to read through pages of arguing between atheists who probably shouldn't even be posting on a thread that doesn't pertain to them, and Christians just to find some interesting posts.

Keep the posts about the Bible limited to end time prophesy and our current political system (I'm sure even the most narrow-minded atheists would take an interest in that) and stop trying to put everyone down. At least, that's what I think we should do.

How can we take back our country if we're busy dividing ourselves up over who believes in God or doesn't believe in God? Not all of us Christians are out to ban gay marriage at the federal level, etc. and not all atheists are for excluding the nativity from public viewing. There is common ground!

Rant over.

Blame the OP for starting this mess. That usually works pretty well. ;)

[tonesforjonesbones]

Way to go rellim..great post. tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

If ya'll look into communism...getting rid of religion (christianity being the dominant faith in the usa) was an agenda...part of tearing down traditions and demoralizing the country. Allowing all the immigrants in here en mass , demonizing christianity and christmas, easter and thanksgiving, etc....all part of it. It was to ensure the USA has no identity. What better way to have a one world government than to erase the identity of a sovereign nation ...that's why they have re written history..that's part of the plan. tones

[newyearsrevolution08]

If ya'll look into communism...getting rid of religion (christianity being the dominant faith in the usa) was an agenda...part of tearing down traditions and demoralizing the country. Allowing all the immigrants in here en mass , demonizing christianity and christmas, easter and thanksgiving, etc....all part of it. It was to ensure the USA has no identity. What better way to have a one world government than to erase the identity of a sovereign nation ...that's why they have re written history..that's part of the plan. tones

Once I got to easter you lost me lol....

[heavenlyboy34]

If ya'll look into communism...getting rid of religion (christianity being the dominant faith in the usa) was an agenda...part of tearing down traditions and demoralizing the country. Allowing all the immigrants in here en mass , demonizing christianity and christmas, easter and thanksgiving, etc....all part of it. It was to ensure the USA has no identity. What better way to have a one world government than to erase the identity of a sovereign nation ...that's why they have re written history..that's part of the plan. tones

A relatively small part of it, IMHO. The bigger parts were hijacking education and government. :mad: The USA would have an identity if it didn't endorse religion-the bigger problem is destroying the minds of youths so they cannot critically think through history and religious books to decide for themselves. (I've been reading "Dumbing Down of America and The Grand Deception...can ya tell? ;))

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...christmas and easter only became popular in the last 100 years or so..at least christmas as we know it today...the spending money of material stuff type christmas. tones

[heavenlyboy34]

Well...christmas and easter only became popular in the last 100 years or so..at least christmas as we know it today...the spending money of material stuff type christmas. tones

Exactly right. In fact, it took many centuries before Christmas was celebrated at all in the West, because in early Europe they were more concerned with the deaths of important people than their births (art history 101 :)).

[tonesforjonesbones]

I think the jewish merchants came up with the idea of christmas hehe. tones

[heavenlyboy34]

I think the jewish merchants came up with the idea of christmas hehe. tones

Really? I was under the impression that it was the Germans. :confused:

[Theocrat]

"Prove there are no aliens from another dimension plotting to kill you."

"Crap. I can't."

"Obviously your 'faith' in the absence of interdimensional aliens demonstrates how flawed your philosophy on them is."

":("

Your futile attempts to mock my argument still misses the whole challenge that I've laid before you as one who denies the existence of God. Those who do not believe in God make appeals to evidentiary claims as standards of truth, except for their own claim that there is no God. What evidence exists which proves "irrefutably" and universally that God is not real? I've not heard one evidence coming from any of the so-called "rational" thinkers in this thread.

Another thing you fail to realize that both the theist as well as the "atheist" are making positive claims about the existence or nonexistence of God, respectively. We both have the burden of proof for our positions. All I want to know is how can any "atheist" know absolutely and objectively that there is no God, with sufficient evidence to back up that claim. If you don't have the evidence, then just say so and move on, but don't continue on in personal attacks and ridicule of the opposing position when you yourself have not proven the truth or validity of your own beliefs that there is no God.


Well, I meant it seriously, and as you noted, most of the responses are unable to refute (and instead confirm) that their rabid anti-christianism view is almost (if not) entirely constructed upon the basis of "received" evidence (purportedly revealing "secret" knowledge) from ridiculously fraudulent propaganda videos like ZetiGeist.

Why I say it is a "fifth column" is that nearly identical anti-religion indoctrination methods were used by many of the Marx-based totalitarian regimes within the past century, whether it was the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia and eastern Europe, the Maoists in China, or the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia -- all had virulent anti-religion propaganda and agenda, and all of it followed Herr Goebbels technique of the "Big Lie" (followed by and including a thousand other "little lies").

Now had any of those "followers" bothered to actually be rational and a bit skeptical and do an independent "verification" of virtually ANY of the "information" they were being fed then the lies would have been "exposed" (I have no doubt that a small number *did* do so -- and were, at a minimum, ostracized or vilified as a result, with some suffering far worse consequences for daring to question the lies) but the vast majority of those so indoctrinated became instantly convinced of their new "superiority" and militantly attacked their new objects of "hate" (just like the Zeitgeist devotees). They were in no mood for any actual facts and were certainly not open to new information (except that which serves to validate their superiority and hatred) much less were they likely to change course and suddenly find "reason".

In fact the vast majority have simply (and alas, rather easily) been manipulated "once again" by using their predisposition to accept any and all "rumors" and "secret knowledge" (think the "billionaire RP supporter" or the whole "SGP/delegates" or half a dozen other such foolish things, unsupported by any real data, and in the end revealed to be frauds) which are then used to play upon their inherent bias against the several "hated" target group(s) and as a basis for programmed group "actions" and tests of loyalty.

This type of manipulation is rather easily done because of years of prior indoctrination in the "public" school system, or other venues via similar means. Once this type of indoctrination is completed, then it is simply a matter of "tugging their strings" every so slightly and directing them against a newly selected "enemy" -- for the "fifth column" types this is preferably one that is a key "base pillar" underlying their own movement (which they have only a superficial understanding of) -- and they will take care of the rest as programmed automaton -- in essence cutting their own legs off.

Like all "mindless mobs" they are completely unaware of this manipulation, and think they are being very "modern", "sophisticated", "rational" and "superior" -- even though there is little difference between themselves and hundreds of other previous such mobs (of various flavors). The eventual outcome is virtually predestined -- they will accept some new "savior" (ala Obama from the left, or "Bob Barr" for many of the quasi-libertarians, or some yet unknown "hero" yet to come from the right) -- and in the end will erect this new person as yet another "Napoleon" by the French mobs (or similar to the way GWB was placed beyond question by the so called "Christian Right" mobs -- the techniques are the same; religion (including its negation) are simple the "lever" used as the fulcrum for the propaganda to work upon).

Alas, human beings do not become true THINKING individuals except by their own diligent efforts -- you cannot "spoon feed" truth to the masses, because they are much more accepting of "lies" and will eventually follow the most charismatic "liar" they can find at any given time. Only a small remnant will have either the guts OR the brains to avoid such traps and pitfalls.

The "anti-christianistas" have fallen directly into one such age-old trap, and there is little hope that the vast majority of them will ever find their way out. Alas, such is the history of all populations and movements, they are so easily undermined by a dash of hate, a target or scapegoat, and a few targeted, candy-coated lies.
:(

How this "suceptability" is put in place at an early age in nearly all children in our "modern" American society is pretty fully detailed in Ayn Rand's essay entitled "The Comprachicos" (contained the her book "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Left-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011256)) -- which references the Victor Hugo work, "L'Homme qui rit" and then expounds how our modern "educational" system cripples the intellect and prepares it for precisely these types of things, in order to create cadres of automatons.

Side Note: Rand herself grew up within the Soviet system and (unsurprisingly) ended up being an atheist for her whole life (although NOT in the hate-filled rabid "anti-christianisa" way as modern "zeitgeisters" [who would have disgusted her with their socialist leanings/agenda] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GS6vxb4H3M#t=3m30s)) -- but she came to her understanding on a "rational" basis argument versus religion (but in the end her reason relies on a variant of the ad hoc fallacious "No True Scotsman" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)argument about man's intellect). There are even some indications in her last interviews with Tom Snyder (cited, along with other similar indications in Barbara Brandon's later biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand) that in her later years, after the passing of her husband Frank O'Connor, she became even less "militant" in her atheism (and she certainly understood that many "atheists" were just as mislead by indoctrination and propaganda as those who accept various "religions").

Excellent perspective, and thank you for the post, WRellim.

[Pennsylvania]

//

[Theocrat]

Yes they are and I have no disagreement there. That wasn't what was at the heart of my post, but rather that this issue of proving things either way is a distraction. In my last post, my implication was that by calling for proof against the existence of interdimensional aliens, we move the conversation out of the realm of reasoning where it belongs.

Yes, and I would add that it is unreasonable for anyone to conclude that God does not exist on three accounts: general evidence from God's creation, specific evidence from God's word, and personal evidence from human conscience to know God's moral law which establishes that there is right and wrong.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, and I would add that it is unreasonable for anyone to conclude that God does not exist on three accounts: general evidence from God's creation, specific evidence from God's word, and personal evidence from human conscience to know God's moral law which establishes that there is right and wrong.


But you've claimed the most disputed aspects of this debate as "truth".

1) general evidence from God's creation-simply saying matter is God's creation does not make it so. Plus, "general evidence" is too vague to derive a conclusion from.

2) "specific evidence from God's word"-this is hotly contested, even among different sects of similar faiths-due to a multiplicity of interpretations of vague languages and varying translations of the text.

3) "personal evidence from human conscience to know God's moral law which establishes that there is right and wrong."-This is also extremely controversial among those on every side of the issue. For example, some insist on keeping the Sabbath and the dietary laws, etc., and some don't care.

Understanding these, you'll have to elaborate on your assertion "Yes, and I would add that it is unreasonable for anyone to conclude that God does not exist on three accounts:" and show some reasoning on your behalf. It appears to be lacking. (JMHO)

[Truth Warrior]

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson



Well I guess that would have to include both religious as well as anti-religious tyranny also. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama."
(1959), quoted by James Gleick in Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

[worl]

Yes they are and I have no disagreement there. That wasn't what was at the heart of my post, but rather that this issue of proving things either way is a distraction. In my last post, my implication was that by calling for proof against the existence of interdimensional aliens, we move the conversation out of the realm of reasoning where it belongs.

I agree that this has become a distraction, & only because there are those who want it to be a distraction. The athiest actually can't resist attacking a christian & it's not enough to use what we are here to limit, "the gov." I haven'nt seen anyone here trying to push religion on anyone, only a ? of something like end times & it turnes to insulting peoples beliefs. No way will this ever work out & this is a wast of my time.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I will make the positive claim that there is a DVD collection of the television show Good Times buried under the surface of the newly discovered planet Fomalhaut B, 25 light years away.

I will now claim that the burden of proof is on you to positively disprove it, or else your belief that the DVD collection does not exist is based purely on faith.