I used to think that this moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam was the province of just a few fanatics, a tiny minority of extremists (many of whom write to me regularly; hi guys), and was just a small and irrelevant distraction in the defense against the global jihad. However, a profusion of books published in 2006, some of which enjoyed great success, convinced me that it was more than that. These were not so much the atheist apologetics mentioned below, but books about the looming threat to the U.S. Constitution posed by "Christianism" -- most notably, Chris Hedges' American Fascists.
It became increasingly clear to me that this moral equivalence was actually an immense obstacle to the anti-jihad resistance, as it focuses attention and energies on a fantasy instead of on a real threat, and often characterizes the genuine threat as a creation of the unscrupulous Christian theocrats as part of their nefarious plan to overturn the Constitution and launch a new Christian Crusade against Islam. So I decided to write a book about it, evaluating the evidence for the threat of Christian theocracy and the threat of global jihad. Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't will be published August 13 by Regnery Publishing. This book is a realistic appraisal of the teachings, histories, and contemporary status of Christianity and Islam, an examination of the jihad threat and the "Christian theocracy" threat as imagined by Chris Hedges and others, and a call to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, secular Muslims, and everyone else who is a victim or potential victim of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism to unite together against this scourge.
Will any of these 56% take notice? Probably not. But those of whatever creed or no creed at all who are convinced of the magnitude of the jihad threat may, I hope, be able to make use of this book to respond more effectively to those who, like Rosie O'Donnell and so many others, are more concerned about Pat Robertson than about Ayman al-Zawahri.
"Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians," from the Barna Group, with thanks to Hot Air:
(Ventura, CA) - A new evangelistic movement has emerged in America. Yet this effort does not spring from those loyal to a particular faith or religious view.The new evangelists are atheists. People who have determined there is no God or who doubt his existence (a group commonly known as agnostics) are adopting a more aggressive, intentional effort to discredit the notion that God exists and to critique people of faith. Widely reviewed new books such as The God Delusion and God is Not Great represent this movement.
Beyond the bestseller lists, however, a new survey shows there is indeed a significant gap between Christians and those Americans who are in the "no-faith" camp. For instance, most atheists and agnostics (56%) agree with the idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam.
How do they justify this exactly?
This is simply because a majority of atheists are of the same mindset that readily accepts concepts like Marxism, Humanism and any other -isms that close out the notion of soul and hope and human spirituality. Atheists are so busy attempting to prove how "superior" they are to the rest of us, because of their perceived "logical reasoning", that they do not even take the time to learn the nuances of the situation with regard to Islam.
Surely most of you have noticed how atheists have one standard, overbearing trait in the majority of cases -- narcissism.
Atheists can often be looked to for making excellent argument against Islam, but they also almost never differentiate. They will use the very same arguments against ALL religion.
Perfect examples, this fellow, and this one.
The best part Foe is that Christians accept athiests as athiests. Islam looks as athiests in a worse light than Christians and Jews. An athiest could never last long an Islamic society.
With apologies to Hugh, atheism apparently causes brain damage.
I think the quoted percentage, is due to the fact that most atheists live in predominantly Christian countries where Islam is a minority. They're likely also very ignorant about the Islam problem.
Perhaps Spencer's book "Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't", will educate these people, when it is finally published ;)
Indeed. I just read the following (from our local, Leftist paper): "These are good days for theocracy...[snip j.s.] Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. Iran...Iraq and Afghanistan...[snip] The world's greatest enabler of theocracy in the United States, is led by a man who receives policy advice from God and is demonstrably against the separation of church and state."
The above quote is what I read on a daily basis from the Canadian press. All religions are alike (that means, evil and violent) but the worst threat is, of course, the Christian one (as represented by GWBush).
That's the claim. It's told and repeated over and over and over.
I really think it's a lost cause to try to change their minds. It's useless. (A few days ago someone posted some anti-biblical references, "quoting" from the first testament -- was it Kieran? Anyway, the poster was obviously a bible illiterate. he couldn't even quote the text accurately. Then the poster got up-in-arms about what he imagined the text to have stated, etc., not based on what the text stated, just based on what he believed it stated. But even if they are given an accurate translation (assuming, for example, they don't read/write Hebrew), that doesn't ensure that they'll understand what's written or why. And this is another reason why I don't bother with Hitchens (I've read excerpts from his latest book, and I suspect that many times Hitchens doesn't understand what he's reading. If you're going to critique a text, the first requirement is to understand what is written -- the vast majority of the atheists, I've found, don't meet this most basic, fundamental requirement. They are biblical illiterates -- far more prone to making up passages and interpretations as they go along.)
Worse, (imo anyway) are the Islam people. I heard a Da'wa segment recently on tv. I couldn't believe what I was hearing -- it was from another biblical illiterate, an imam. (it was actually embarrassing listening to this person misrepresent the text). But, then, I guess, "That's Islam!" anyway, I consider these "lost causes."
I can't help but think that this is a byproduct of the Westboro Baptist Church ("God Hates Fags") philosophy giving the wrong impression of Christianity to those who are ignorant of such matters...
If any religion has been hijacked by a group of fanatics, it would have to be Christianity...
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
I think I'll put this kettle on a fast boil. A lot of us are convinced that Mohammed invented Islam. The reasons for his invention are many and varied. All things considerd, especially the apparent ascendency of Islam worldwide, I must ask where is Jehova? If Mohammed could make up a religion, would it have been beyond the ability of Moses and Abraham to accomplish the same?
The godless and crowd often portrays itself as enlightened and therefore more tolerant, compassionate, and loving than say Christians.
But their treatment of the recently ascendant Jerry Falwell proves them liars. Especially the more prolific Chris Hitchens who R.I.P.ped Falwell apart on Hannity and Colmes a dew weeks back. Jamie Glazov interviewed him on his new book. During that interview, Hitchens claimed that one does not need to be religious to be good. Well, perhaps not, but what will it -if not religion- take for Hitchens to become a good person?
An editorialist for a Chicago paper chided liberal bloggers for their disrespectful treatment of Falwell (even though he agreed with them) telling them that as liberals they are supposed to be more compassionate than Christians.
I believe it is a sign of the end times: the ressurgance of islam and its unofficial alliance with the leftist-athiests.
They both engage in dissimulation and both downplay the islamic threat and attempt to create a Christian one out of nothing.
I realize all of this is destined to play itself out and that things will get worse before they ever get better.
In the grand scheme of things it is likely that Robert's new book, which I plan on buying, will do little change minds; but like all his prior books, the material contained within them is enough to make liberals and muslims alike wail and gnash their teeth and that makes it all worth while.
I suspect most atheists are afraid of having their hoped-for, strived-for secular utopia disrupted by a relgious war. The first mistake they make, from ignorance, is to assume that Islam is (primarily) a religion. The second mistake they make is to assume that all resistance to Islam must be inspired by religious bigotry; that is, one irrational lunancy getting excited about encroachments by another irrational lunacy.
Again, the atheists fear getting dragged into endless and wasteful religious war, just as the Arabs and Israelis seem to be hopelessly entangled. Indeed, as a group the atheists seem to despise the religiously inspired state of Israel, for precisely these reasons.
Looking forward to the book Robert. Thank you for the work you do.
We went to the City last night for a social engagement. One of the waiters was openly gay and was wearing a shirt that said 'Proud Infidel'. Anecdotal, but it’s a start.
Personaly, I cannot understand how anybody in their right mind can say that christianity and islam are on the same level in any aspect. I wish people would do some research BEFORE they form an opinion about anything.
People like Rosie O just keep spouting off things which make no sense and end up looking stupid in the process.
After 911 happened, I just wanted to find out the answer to "Why do they hate us?", and I did my research. From all the research I've done so far, I've never found anything that proved that christians or jews have gone around doing suicide bombings, beheading people, stoning people, etc. And they certainly cannot do those things and claim that their god told them to do it or that their holy texts condone those things. Islam is the complete opposite of christianity (Old Mo plagiarized the bible and screwed it all up, lol).
There is a great new novel on Amazon called Darwin's Dove by Juan Zanzeros that presents Christianity and Islam in the context of a computer simulation of evolution. It gives a lot of insight into the differences between the two and how evolution and computer science really explain these differences. Very thought provoking.
Why do they hate us? Thats an easy one. They hate us because when Mo first started peddling his death cult, the Jews and Christians rejected him.
If Mohammed could make up a religion, would it have been beyond the ability of Moses and Abraham to accomplish the same?
Posted by: Pelayo
Point taken.
And who's to say that Jesus wasn't exactly what He appeared to be - an itinerant carpenter who just happened to preach a message of love and brotherhood and an end to tribalism?
Christianity has been partially uprooted from its past spiritual dominance in the United States for the very same reasons that the Left hate America -- it's not 'cool' to be "good and decent" anymore. We're supposed to be sports-stars-on-steroids, indignant homosexuals, divas, spoiled heiresses, gangsta-rap stars or Michael Moore -- and if we can't actually be any of those things, then dress the part and play along.
So, plain old decent folk quietly might take their kids to church and stay out of the newspaper headlines, but the MSM focuses on the occasional nutjob clergyman or pedophile priest because it makes news. And Muslims are propped up as "enlightened barbarians" that deserve our open wallets and our even more open arms. You can't write Hollywood scripts better than the reality in America today. The nation has flipped on its head.
"This is simply because a majority of atheists are of the same mindset that readily accepts concepts like Marxism, Humanism and any other -isms that close out the notion of soul and hope and human spirituality..etc" Plus others above.
Sorry but that is just so much specious crap. Many
left wingers become atheist/agnostics because it wears better and put as little thought into it as you have, although their distrust of any religion is probably justified going by your comments.
True atheists or agnostics put a damn sight more thought into their ethics and belief systems than does the normal believer. Just becasue someone does not believe in what you do does not mark them as part of some easily criticisable and well defined group. Many people call themselves
"christians" and have the ethics of jackals. Likewise many who call themselves atheists/agnostics when put to the test suddenly find belief(a deathbed always helps)
The discussion from the muslim atheist shows a lot more intellect than I have seen here.
http://www.mideastyouth.com/2007/06/15/interview-with-an-arab-atheist-does-islam-drive-its-youth-away/
Religion is simply another excuse to kill someone
and especially so when organised as an organised religion is more political than religious.
However, while christianity has shown itself capable of corruption by mankind it has shown itself capable of returning to the ethics of its prophet and because of this I am allied with it against the barbaric ideology of Islam which poses as a religion.
Before you lot jump onto this case with a vengeance, have a look at the suicidal attitude of the leaders of MOST of the major christian churches to the Islamic problem. These people(with some exceptions) seem to consider ALL religions the same (and they should know better) and insist on maintaining their "turn the other cheek" atitude towards the "poor Palestinians" etc. This is the group which need re-educating.
Not the pseudoathiests/agnostics who have no real idea and who can do far less damage.
May I ask the jihadwatch readers to realise that not all atheists are ignorant about religious matters.
I myself am an atheist, but I am just as educated about the scourge of Islam, as any other jihadwatch regular. I even own/read Robert's book 'The truth about Muhammad', and regularly attempt to educate those around me, about the problem of Islam.
I also recognise that the only religion which is a threat to Western society (At the moment), is that of Islam.
Christianity may have had some violent history in the past, but that violence was never found to be justified, and is not commanded for all time, unlike Islam's violence, which is valid for all time, as a set of world-conquering commandments which every Muslim must follow.
When I take the tube to work in the morning, I'm not afraid of Christians - I'm afraid of Muslims!
And that's the fact of the matter.
How much of this "radical Christianity" nonsense has been inspired by two simple goals:
1. to marginalize George Bush as a leader
Anything and everything he does is painted as an attempt to institute theocracy in the US. You don't have to be an atheist to do that. Many mainline protestants feel the same way. So do some evangelicals. Just ask that great(?) Baptist - Jimmy Carter.
2. to prevent calling Islamic radicals (who really are mainstream Muslims) to account for THEIR attempts to create a worldwide Nation of Islam, which can be done only by killing their opponents? 9/11 was a stark illustration of what will be done by Islamists, but it was neutralized by its moral equivalence with "radical" Christianity.
Pelayo,
If anyone wants to be an atheist, that's OK by me.
But, let's be clear (or at least try to be (?). I think science is not religion and religion is not science. Each field is different and requires a different approach (different set of interpretative skills). With most literature one looks for internal features (the "outside" world is pretty much irrelevant..I recall reading a "critique" of Shakespeare's Othello -- the critic objected to Othello because there were no black generals in Italy at the time the play was written -- now that is to apply an empirical assessment to a piece of literature -- and, generally speaking, this does (and should) get a thumbs down. Or if in a piece of literature, a character called Ariel lifts off into space and flys away, someone can't say, "Hey, fairies and sprites don't exist!"
Sometimes I think looking at the biblical text as a work of art is far more productive than constantly looking to see if it conforms to some "objective, scientific" world-view. In other words, there are different levels to the text -- (some say 5 levels) -- and not all literal -- in fact, some could argue that the most sublime, the most beautiful levels are, in fact, metaphoric. (in a way, it's an expression of a "higher" truth). There are beautiful (brilliant) insights to be found (sparkling gems). but I don't expect everyone will either see it, or comprehend it. (none-the-less it does exist; it is there).
You are incorrect on the pseudoathiests/agnoistics that cant do real damage. European elites and politicians are made of mostly of these kind of people and look at the damage they have done. Europe will be Islamic because of them. Though you are correct that many churches are ignorant when they say Islam is the same as Christianity and Judeoism.
This stat is not surprising. Well, it is. It should be higher. People who drift towards atheism, usually do so out of ideological sympathy for human secularism, and are thus on the far left of the political spectrum.
I find that atheists tend to be on the left. There are right wing atheists, people such as Allahpundit at Hotair, but not too many of them. Generally someone who becomes an atheist, is someone who was born a Christian. If you feel that Christianity is so abhorrent that you have to intellectually and officially distance yourself from it, obviously you have issues with religion in general, but specifically, (and unlike the atypical Christopher Hitchens) and this is the salient point, with the basic tenets that underpin our Judeo-Christian society. You see the Christian world as unjust, unenlightened, imperialistic, racist, and repressive - all the far left talking points. Therefore, the enemies of our society, currently the islamists, maybe have it right. You know, the enemy of my enemy. That's the thinking. Or if they don't have it right either, it is still nice to see Judeo-Christian society take it on the chin once in awhile, a bit of schadenfreude with your morning coffee.
Count me among the more enlightened 46%.
Rogster,
I have never considered atheists to be ignorant of religious matters and I don't think too many JW readers do, either.
However, may I suggest that too many atheists consider believers to be ignorant of the world and believers of fairy tales?
A little more respect and a little less condescension on both sides would go a long way.
PMK,
If they're not fairy tales, then what are they?
@MisIslamist:
"True atheists or agnostics put a damn sight more thought into their ethics and belief systems than does the normal believer."
Since a fair portion of my own family are Catholics turned atheists, I can tell you their moral value system was not constructed by anything called "Atheism", it was formed by teachings from their Christian parents and words from the Bible and Western philosophy, most of which is founded upon the best that religion has to offer and not the worst.
An atheist bred in a Western nation is a far different breed than one bred in Communist China or the extinct U.S.S.R. Western atheists are loved by Christians despite their differences, while the juxtaposition is anything but kind in a nation like China or North Korea.
Western atheists don't generally gravitate towards ideas of world dominance or jihad because they still adhere to the social morays of Democracy, so we can get along. But atheists from regions traditionally bereft of such tolerant ideologies are colder in mindset and should be dealt with from a point of caution.
Don't attempt to put atheism on the moral high ground, in other words. That is disingenuous.
Foe, it would also depend on which type of Western athiest. You have the normal ones and then you have the ones that are Socialist/Communist in nature. Many of them are in Europe and have destroyed Europe's Judeo/Christian heritage.
Rogster,
Nice condescension. To heck with you.
Atheists call them "fairy tales".
Believers call them "tenets".
Kindly explain why I should respect anything you say from here on.
@Elric66: I don't disagree with you. There are variations on every theme. I think my main point was to show that I'd sooner trust the moral awareness of an atheist born in the USA before I would that of one from China, just an overt example.
@Foehammer
I agree with that Foe, its just harder to make that distinction nowadays. Hell, Hillary is talking about collectivism.
Another book by Robert Spencer?
And when are we supposed to have time to breathe?!
PMK: Can we at least agree that there is "right" and "wrong" and leave it at that?
Most atheists and "believers" are on the "right" side, most of the time, despite their differences. If they weren't, how could I ever get along at Christmas dinners with such a mixture and not fear for my life?
If I required to hire a babysitter, I would not ask her if she was an atheist, but I sure as hell would not hire her if she was a Muslim. That speaks volumes.
"If they're not fairy tales, then what are they?"
You want that someone should tell you what they are?? eh? What's wrong with you?
Look -- read the biblical text -- confront the text -- start at the beginning -- study it. Then, decide for yourself "what they are." you have to do this yourself. Someone else can't do it for you.
And, if you wish to write them off as "fairy-tales" -- fine, wonderful. But, just because you do so, doesn't mean that everyone is compelled to instantly walk in unison and lock-step with your assessment. (others may find far more profound truths than what's found in any fairy-tale).
As PMK noted: "A little more respect and a little less condescension on both sides would go a long way."
Both Athiests and Christians/Jews have much to lose from Islam. Lets leave it at that.
Elric66 wrote: "Hell, Hillary is talking about collectivism."
*chuckles* And this should surprise no person. Hillary is as transparent as that plastic face she wears. The woman wants to bask in the glory of power and believes she is mandated by her own ambition the seat of the U.S. Presidency. It has been her ambition since college and I saw through her pact with Bill shortly after their first year in the White House together.
Hillary Clinton, just like Barack Obama, will never be President of the United States. Breathe easy on that.
So, she can take her "collective" ideas and play them in a game of Monopoly, but that's as far as they are going to go.
Apparently the abandonment of religious faith can lead some to subscribe to other Articles of Faith, including the one that says "all religions are the same" or "all religions mean the same thing" or "all religions are equally dangerous."
Well, time for that old Gedankenexperiment, that Thought-Experiment. You normally fly, as an airline hostess or steward or, if you prefer, we can make this hypothetical one in which you are a regular passenger on a small commuter plane, NY-Nantucket).
Now over the years you have gotten friendly with the pilot (or if you are part of the crew, on a big plane, both pilot and co-pilot). Good, steady fliers. You like them. As it happens, one of them has recently gotten religion. He used to be a sometime churchgoer, but now he's really very serious about religion. On flights with layovers, he doesn't party, but goes to his room and reads his dog-eared Bible. He urges you, occasionally, to "look into it for yourself." He no longer drinks nor carouses, not that he ever did very much of it. In short, he's a little like Mitt Romney outwardly, not terribly entertaining, not the life of the party, and you think he's told you how proud he is that his son has gone off to do missionary work for a Pentecostal church in Africa, or possibly even some remote island in Indonesia.
Do you worry more about flyiing with him than you did previously? No.
Now vary the hypothetical. Same airline. Same pilot or co-pilot. Only in this case the pilot (and co-pilot) are not Christians who became even more devout, but were born into Christianity and have now discovered Islam, and become fanatical in their faith. Or perhaps -- this is, after all, a hypothetical -- were originally rather casual Muslims, possibly of Iranian background who fled Khomeini's Iran, or "secular" Muslims who came from India and went to school in the West, and who have now been seen reading the Qur'an, and re-reading it, and even -- you notice -- have grown beards.
Well, any problems with this? Anything about what these fellows read and re-read in their Qur'an, and what they may read or re-read in the Hadith and Sira that they do not carry about with them, but certainly have at home in book form, or can get on-line at a click or in a clin d'oeil, that makes you nervous, and more than nervous?
You know the answer to that.
And if you are an atheist (as i am) you should not be pretending to believe -- as the latter-day would-be successors to Bertrand Russell of "Why I Am Not a Christian" -- such people as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins with their one-size-fits-all indictment of all religions equally, would have you believe -- that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and all the other varieties of those belief-systems we call, in the case of Islam most carelessly and inaccurately, "religions."
And if you pretend there is no problem, then I insist that the next time you have a chance to fly with a Muslim pilot, on a plane full of Infidels, you jump at the chance. How can we find out? Well, let's ask the airlines. I'm sure they will be glad to tell us what Muslim pilots they employ, on which routes -- so we can be sure to take advantage of, or to carefully avoid, their flights.
I dont know Foe, there are alot of Americans today that buy into socialism. If McCain gets the nomination, she will win.
totalitarian COMMUNISTS were/are all ATHEISTS and responsible for 100,000,000 MURDERED - and so very "progressively" in less than one century - so atheists are "better" than all the rest of the world's "a-hos" ...
kill for allah, kill for G-D, kill for atheism
-hmmm, seems humanity is just full of fools who will murder for any old ideological pretext
look into the mirror atheists - perhaps you will find the answers you seek
PMK. J.S. - The problem with atheists is that they lump all of the faithful into one group of semi-intellegent people. They ask how could anyone believe that stuff, i.e., raising the dead, parting the Red Sea, and all other miracles. Atheists think they are smarter because they do not believe in those miracles that defy their version of reality.
Be grateful that Jesus came along and freed people from all the rituals of Judaism. The best thing I learned form his sermons is that humans should not judge and pronounce punishment for spiritual tansgressions.
I have heard the following cliches all my life and they tire me: "It's God's will." "God works in mysterious ways." "God has a purpose in this." These platitudes are usually given after a catastrophe or serious illness. They may help others, but not me.
This poll has one fatal flaw right off the bat. It combines atheists and agnostics together as non-believers. That is not a true assumption. Agnostics are believers who consider themselves intellectually superior to both theists and atheists. All the self proclaimed "agnostics" I have encountered on the internet in the last seven years are not non-believers at all. They are anti-religionists who love to argue with anybody in general and atheists in particular. They use their stance as being "open minded" to attack both sides as "closed minded".
Every agnostic I have ever had discussions with is really a believer. They may not believe in any one organized religion, but they do believe in a Supreme Being. They also, without fail, have a particular animosity towards one religion: Christianity. So in other words, agnostics are lapsed Christians (almost always Catholics) who have a chip on their shoulder.
True atheists are very rare. There are two types: Atheists with a capital A, and atheists with a lower case a. Atheists are politically strident jerks who, if they didn't latch on to their Atheism as a cause, would have found some other cause to latch onto. I'm an atheist, little a. I simply was not raised to believe in a religion, or a God, and the entire concept of a God is so foreign to me that it's no different than believing in the Eastern Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. People like me don't understand how anyone could believe such obvious fairy tales, but we don't care that much as long as it doesn't affect us.
Back to the poll. Most people are totally ignorant about Islam. And it's worse than ignorance, because too much false information is written about Islam. People not only do not know what Islam is, they believe the false information that is written about Islam. Coupled with the knee jerk reaction of many people to "defend the underdog", or to support someone or something that is perceived to be "under attack", many of these people: atheists, "agnostics", and the religious alike, come to Islam's defense because they simply do not know what it is. And they can't separate Islam from it's followers: Muslims. They perceive any criticizm of Islam as an attack on Muslims. So they must defend it to defend them.
They do this even in the face of proof of what Islam requires of it's followers because as adherants of more benign religions (or former adherants) they simply do not understand a religion so different than the one they know best. And in this country, that's Christianity.
So this poll is wrong on it's face. The only reason 56% say that Christianity is just as dangerous as Islam is because most people, and therefore most atheists/agnostics, don't know enough about Islam to make any determination about it, and agnostics in the United States are already hostile to Christianity to begin with and would unfavorably compare it to ANY other religion.
returning back to my mother's sleepy village, tucked away in the rolling hills of alford, england, 4 days after muslims had slaughtered 52 londoners, on their way to work. i was confronted by my mother's neighbour, the local doctor. on finding out that i was a US resident he snapped at me "america is full of religious bigots." remember that this was 4 days after the muslim bombs, women lay dismembered in hospitals across london, young commuters with faces, legs, hands blown off, they lay their dying because of islamic homegrown "british" fanatics and all this doctor could say was more anti-american rubbish.
Thats why the UK is doomed unless it changes its atitude Leon.
Hugh just painted a very important nuance: While I might find much I agree with in the views of Hitchens, I come down on the moral spectrum closer to an atheist like Fitzgerald, thus proving again that each person is a variation on a theme no matter what we might be labeled as.
Hell, I'm quite sure that I would be condemned by quite a few Christians here if the breadth of my most personal beliefs were put on the table for examination, and at the same time plenty of atheists would sputter and stammer much like my own cousin does when I deride her for what I perceive as the foolish presumption that everything we see is the summation of Chance and not some Divine Intent.
Still, I greatly admire Hitchens and if he ever wants to mentally joust with me about the Structure of the Universe, instead of someone like Hedges, my blog is always open.
And as far as Hugh Fitzgerald goes, well, I'm damn glad he's on our side. Bloody heathen or not. ;)
From my personal experience, here in England lots of Christians themselves strangely enough also say that Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous as Muslim ones. I think this is partly down to the endemic anti-Americanism, I'm afraid to say, because lots of Brits regard Christians in the USA as 'fundamentalists' though the don't seem explain which parts of the Bible they read differently to make the American Christians 'fundamentalists' whilst the British ones are 'non-fundamentalists'.
Also lots of British Christians seem infected with the same urge to draw moral equivalences just like politically correct people do, as well as thinking that the greatest virtue is tolerance.
PMK,
You can call them what you want, but what atheists will call them, is fairy tales. I believe that the definition is appropriate, considering the stories given in various holy books. These are nothing short of fairy tales, because they are often mythologically derived, usually from Pagan myths. Look at Noah's Ark, for example. Do they not realise that 2 animals would not provide enough genetic diversity to repopulate a species? Such stories must be considered nothing more than myths/fairy tales which parents tell their children before bed, because they are not fit for influencing decisions which can have worldwide consequences.
You cannot say the same about atheism, because there are no stories, there are no myths. It's very straightforward.
As with most quantitative research, the question comparing attitudes of how "threatening" Christianity is vs. Islam is extremely vague and subject to interpretation. Threatening how?
Domestic issues are often at the forefront. For many, the potential for "Christianists" to make abortion illegal is more pressing than for Islamic Jihad to impact their daily lives. Same for prayer in the schools--for someone in America who hates the idea, they're far more likely to see the New Testament in kids' hands vs. the Qur'an.
Perhaps I'm over-optimistic, but I'd bet that a more specific question, one more in line with the threat implied by Hugh's "thought exercise," would yield different results.
@Jaynie59: Some very astute observations.
Jaynie59,
Most polls are only interested in the "perceptions" of the respondents (not "the truth"). So, if you poll people and ask, "is crime going up in your area?" many people might answer, "yes" -- even though they don't know enough or don't know the reality which would contradict them (so, the crime rate is actually in decline).
Off topic -- another poster noted that "Jesus came along and freed people from all the rituals of Judaism" (i believe that was due to Paul/Saul)...(and some would even argue that being freed of rituals isn't all that great/wonderful).
Hugh l just sent your above post to my athiest conservative brother.
There are several reasons why those in the West equate all relgions equally bad or good. one main reason would be "white western guilt". Have you watched the movie "Dances With Wolves" if you did not come out of the movie hating yourself if your WASP nothing says you have a heart, and if your not WASP you know who to blame. We have been taught all and repented for all atrocities committed by WASP and as well all things the RC church did to the N.A. aboringinals, aka in Canada "First Nations People" even that name rankles me to no end. we replace one racist term with another. My brother pointed out a great article in this weekend's National Post about Europe's folly with Muslim immigrantation, particulary those in Brittain and France. The funny
thing those far leftist who so fight for special rights for the muslims will be the firt ones killed by islamists.
The reason for this high percentage of atheists who equivocate radical Christianity and radical Islam IMO is because most atheists seem to be found in the hard left and liberal side of the political spectrum. These folks don't like Christians period.
And their atheism isn't the same as say Dawkins version. The lefts atheism is a result their exposure to communism and Marxist teachers that infest our institutions of higher education.
One can see it even in the liberal blogosphere, during the last 4 years I've been reading Dailykos - a major liberal watering hole and one of the things that has stood out was the sheer hatred that many posters had towards even pro-Democrat Christians. You don't talk Christianity with these people unless you want a flamewar. Funny thing is they won't even talk about Islamic fanatics and the damage they. Its all the U.S. fault.
It's alway's difficult to explain just what it is you dont believe in. Do atheist's just reject the God of the Bible, or any and all god's. If an atheist reject's an anthropomorphic god, would he accept the idea that 'God is love', has merit?
Would he accept the idea, that some bibical quote's and idea's have value, such as the 'Golden Rule'? What do you think of the bibical I AM THAT I AM? It means 'existence is existence', or pure existence...pretty heavy stuff for a book of fairy tale's.
Would he accept the idea that it's probably not a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There are a lot of thing's in the bible and other scripture's that are not necessarily religious, they are just plain good advice. They are the result of human experience. Do atheist's miss these gem's of wisdom? How would an atheist answer C Jung, when he said,' Why argue the existence of the god's, when there are forces in the universe that act just like the god's are supposed to act'? An atheist cannot maintain true atheism, unless he study's up on the subject, so he is clear just what it is he is rejecting. If he doe's not do that he just sound's like a fool. If nothing else, organic chemistry is their god. Without it we would be nothing.
@waltc: And that is not by happenstance:
Is Russia supporting the Islamization of Europe?
So many of the things we discuss separately actually are tied to one another in insidious ways. When we uncover the Truth, there's going to be Hell to pay. I'd wager that many atheists are even going to get righteously angry with something other than Christianity for a change. Nobody likes being played for a fool.
Consider that less than 7% of Americans claim to be athiests, so therefore less than 4% subscribe to this Christianist/Islamist paradigm.
Considering today's media climate playing down the influence of Islamic theology on terrorism, and the general ignorance people have towards Islamic scripture and history, maybe this is a low number.
Posted by: Pelayo
Point taken.
And who's to say that Jesus wasn't exactly what He appeared to be - an itinerant carpenter who just happened to preach a message of love and brotherhood and an end to tribalism?
Posted by: PMK at June 17, 2007 11:19 AM
+++++++++++++++++++
for the unenlightened............. you need to read the prophecies in the Bible that are coming about today............
what was forecast thousands of years ago is happening today.
it is of no consequence to me if you believe or not........ it is of great consequence to me if you interfere with my rights to believe and the free exercise thereof..........
war is coming with islamo-fascism....... it can not be stopped..........
the questions is.......... are the atheists, agnostics, left, liberals and secularist going to be part of the solution or will they join the islamo-fascism forces for there will be no standing on the sidelines in this war...... it is to the bloody finish......
this will be a very violent time for the world and 1/3 plus of mankind will die......... over 2 billion will perish.........
nukes will be used across the world.........
America is not immune......... nukes will also go off in America. the federal government has been searching muslim sites across America for nuke signs...... and they would never tell the American people if any nukes, WMD's or weapons caches have been found in the possession of muslims in America.
prepare be armed be ready for war is nearly here......
The Texican.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.
Hi Robert and friends,
(Please excuse my English)
Atheism is a strange word these days, it funnels people who are also bitter about their religious heritage yet when you do scratch, there is no such thing as atheism for most of them, it is rather an "avoid religious issues at all cost-ism"
The French speaking canadians who maintained themselves as a distinct society in North America through language, large families and culture, mainly through its catholic adherence, was basically administered in a theocracy like manner. The church influenced and often ruled almost every aspects of life. (YET no one got killed for transgressing).
There was a genuine quiet revolution that occurred in the 60s with some tension, but over all, through political renewal and change, actions and some activism, Quebec emerged and caught up with the standard of living of the rest of North America. Yes with some unfortunate trials and terrorist like behaviors that was never condoned and finally basically ended with the October crisis of 1970. Nothing even close to the likes of North Ireland, the ETA of Spain or Red Brigades. It was also a time where the church was constantly challenged and it's power taken away.... With, and it was often, the support of members of clergy themselves who understood and transgressed the power of the ideological clergy to help create a secularized state.
This said, religion was literally put aside. It basically happened in a most unexpected way between 66 and 68. People just simply and boldly stopped church attendance like no where else in the world today.
Why all this explanation?
Quebec has the least religious attendance in the western world yet, it is also Quebec who numbers the least atheist in the world. Conradiction or paradoxe? One thing is sure, if you speak of any religion, and they are all compared on the same level. As if the theocracy-like history of what Quebec went through was the "equivalence" to Sharia administered countries. As if death sentences for transgression of the ideological "laws" were equal to guilt based repression.
There is this understanding that "Laicity" (as secularism can still be understood to favor communal-ism in French) has not been fully implemented and is the reason for the rise of islamic militancy in this province...
Wrong assessment...
This could explain why a large part of the population is often saying:
"we have taken our crosses out of schools in order to welcome people from other faiths BUT we have not taken them off to "replace" them with another religion."
The elites and it's misunderstanding and application of "relativism and equivalency" are the major cause for the current amalgamation of all religions, especially comparing the Hassidic jews's demands to equate islamic ones... What a lame comparison. (I have yet to see an Hassidic force convert anyone...or kill thy neighbors...).
This resistance to grasp and define what a religion is, is not Atheism nor agnosticism, it is low self esteem and denial of one's heritage. Only through education with persistent exemple such as Jihad and Dhimmi watch is doing will this fact bring words to power and deconstruct this suicidal tendency.
The issue of religious activism (islamic) through the use of such lame undefined laws as "Reasonable Accommodations" (which is literally defined as a law to break laws) are being now put into a Commission. a study group. This might be a very critical "North American" debate of interest. Whatever happens with this reevaluation of the notion of "accommodation" will be looked upon by the rest of Canada, Europe and maybe some players in the American political realm. One thing is sure, the elites in Quebec (anglos and Francophones) tend to look at Europe for possible solutions (rather than Australia). And we all know the level of "success" Europe has achieved in their immigration policies (cynicism).
What we are noticing is this: Quebec has never adhered to the notion of "Multiculturalism" for understandable reasons. The vast majority of people understood "Accommodations" as a means to integrated TOWARDS ASSIMILATION. Muslims use the term "integration" as a MEENS to AVOID assimilation. Apart from the Muslim reality, the over all intent of multiculturalism was actually doing OK.
This is the clash and this is why any of you out there might want to be aware of this commission called the Taylor-Bouchard Commission.
I do believe this is a Quebec thing, but the Saudi backed organizations that we know of will, through the help of their HQs based in the US, do all they can to make sure they can maintain the "integration" as a means to Auto-exclude the Muslim community and maybe one day, change the nature of the independence movement towards a Caliphate of North America ;-) (no joke, it has been worded by some islamists)
So Atheism is a big blob and is often misused by many. I would not be surprised if one day we learn that the largest "producers" of Atheists actually comes from the Islamic world... Yet, the way the UN and the European Union is turning out to be, i am not sure the Muslim world will create a favorable space to expose such a trend ;-).
Atheism is maybe like what the "romantic" Sufists (almost inexistent) were: A cloak disguised as a muslim faith to actually get out of the grips of official Islam.
Posted by: Pelayo
Point taken.
And who's to say that Jesus wasn't exactly what He appeared to be - an itinerant carpenter who just happened to preach a message of love and brotherhood and an end to tribalism?
Posted by: PMK at June 17, 2007 11:19 AM
+++++++++++++++++++
for the unenlightened............. you need to read the prophecies in the Bible that are coming about today............
what was forecast thousands of years ago is happening today.
it is of no consequence to me if you believe or not........ it is of great consequence to me if you interfere with my rights to believe and the free exercise thereof..........
war is coming with islamo-fascism....... it can not be stopped..........
the questions is.......... are the atheists, agnostics, left, liberals and secularist going to be part of the solution or will they join the islamo-fascism forces for there will be no standing on the sidelines in this war...... it is to the bloody finish......
this will be a very violent time for the world and 1/3 plus of mankind will die......... over 2 billion will perish.........
nukes will be used across the world.........
America is not immune......... nukes will also go off in America. the federal government has been searching muslim sites across America for nuke signs...... and they would never tell the American people if any nukes, WMD's or weapons caches have been found in the possession of muslims in America.
prepare be armed be ready for war is nearly here......
The Texican.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.
Posted by: Pelayo
Point taken.
And who's to say that Jesus wasn't exactly what He appeared to be - an itinerant carpenter who just happened to preach a message of love and brotherhood and an end to tribalism?
Posted by: PMK at June 17, 2007 11:19 AM
+++++++++++++++++++
for the unenlightened............. you need to read the prophecies in the Bible that are coming about today............
what was forecast thousands of years ago is happening today.
it is of no consequence to me if you believe or not........ it is of great consequence to me if you interfere with my rights to believe and the free exercise thereof..........
war is coming with islamo-fascism....... it can not be stopped..........
the questions is.......... are the atheists, agnostics, left, liberals and secularist going to be part of the solution or will they join the islamo-fascism forces for there will be no standing on the sidelines in this war...... it is to the bloody finish......
this will be a very violent time for the world and 1/3 plus of mankind will die......... over 2 billion will perish.........
nukes will be used across the world.........
America is not immune......... nukes will also go off in America. the federal government has been searching muslim sites across America for nuke signs...... and they would never tell the American people if any nukes, WMD's or weapons caches have been found in the possession of muslims in America.
prepare be armed be ready for war is nearly here......
The Texican.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.
Hi Robert and friends,
(Please excuse my English)
Atheism is a strange word these days, it funnels people who are also bitter about their religious heritage yet when you do scratch, there is no such thing as atheism for most of them, it is rather an "avoid religious issues at all cost-ism"
The French speaking canadians who maintained themselves as a distinct society in North America through language, large families and culture, mainly through its catholic adherence, was basically administered in a theocracy like manner. The church influenced and often ruled almost every aspects of life. (YET no one got killed for transgressing).
There was a genuine quiet revolution that occurred in the 60s with some tension, but over all, through political renewal and change, actions and some activism, Quebec emerged and caught up with the standard of living of the rest of North America. Yes with some unfortunate trials and terrorist like behaviors that was never condoned and finally basically ended with the October crisis of 1970. Nothing even close to the likes of North Ireland, the ETA of Spain or Red Brigades. It was also a time where the church was constantly challenged and it's power taken away.... With, and it was often, the support of members of clergy themselves who understood and transgressed the power of the ideological clergy to help create a secularized state.
This said, religion was literally put aside. It basically happened in a most unexpected way between 66 and 68. People just simply and boldly stopped church attendance like no where else in the world today.
Why all this explanation?
Quebec has the least religious attendance in the western world yet, it is also Quebec who numbers the least atheist in the world. Conradiction or paradoxe? One thing is sure, if you speak of any religion, and they are all compared on the same level. As if the theocracy-like history of what Quebec went through was the "equivalence" to Sharia administered countries. As if death sentences for transgression of the ideological "laws" were equal to guilt based repression.
There is this understanding that "Laicity" (as secularism can still be understood to favor communal-ism in French) has not been fully implemented and is the reason for the rise of islamic militancy in this province...
Wrong assessment...
This could explain why a large part of the population is often saying:
"we have taken our crosses out of schools in order to welcome people from other faiths BUT we have not taken them off to "replace" them with another religion."
The elites and it's misunderstanding and application of "relativism and equivalency" are the major cause for the current amalgamation of all religions, especially comparing the Hassidic jews's demands to equate islamic ones... What a lame comparison. (I have yet to see an Hassidic force convert anyone...or kill thy neighbors...).
This resistance to grasp and define what a religion is, is not Atheism nor agnosticism, it is low self esteem and denial of one's heritage. Only through education with persistent exemple such as Jihad and Dhimmi watch is doing will this fact bring words to power and deconstruct this suicidal tendency.
The issue of religious activism (islamic) through the use of such lame undefined laws as "Reasonable Accommodations" (which is literally defined as a law to break laws) are being now put into a Commission. a study group. This might be a very critical "North American" debate of interest. Whatever happens with this reevaluation of the notion of "accommodation" will be looked upon by the rest of Canada, Europe and maybe some players in the American political realm. One thing is sure, the elites in Quebec (anglos and Francophones) tend to look at Europe for possible solutions (rather than Australia). And we all know the level of "success" Europe has achieved in their immigration policies (cynicism).
What we are noticing is this: Quebec has never adhered to the notion of "Multiculturalism" for understandable reasons. The vast majority of people understood "Accommodations" as a means to integrated TOWARDS ASSIMILATION. Muslims use the term "integration" as a MEENS to AVOID assimilation. Apart from the Muslim reality, the over all intent of multiculturalism was actually doing OK.
This is the clash and this is why any of you out there might want to be aware of this commission called the Taylor-Bouchard Commission.
I do believe this is a Quebec thing, but the Saudi backed organizations that we know of will, through the help of their HQs based in the US, do all they can to make sure they can maintain the "integration" as a means to Auto-exclude the Muslim community and maybe one day, change the nature of the independence movement towards a Caliphate of North America ;-) (no joke, it has been worded by some islamists)
So Atheism is a big blob and is often misused by many. I would not be surprised if one day we learn that the largest "producers" of Atheists actually comes from the Islamic world... Yet, the way the UN and the European Union is turning out to be, i am not sure the Muslim world will create a favorable space to expose such a trend ;-).
Atheism is maybe like what the "romantic" Sufists (almost inexistent) were: A cloak disguised as a muslim faith to actually get out of the grips of official Islam.
"The new evangelists are atheists. People who have determined there is no God or who doubt his existence (a group commonly known as agnostics) are adopting a more aggressive, intentional effort to discredit the notion that God exists and to critique people of faith. Widely reviewed new books such as The God Delusion and God is Not Great represent this movement."
Semantics, isn't it fun. Surely they are not determined there's "no God", that makes it sound like in the face of all the evidence they are turning their faces away, and refusing to believe. An appealing notion for the purveyors of silly stories, Christians and Islamists alike. The fact of the matter is there's not one single shred of evidence, anywhere in the world, and never has been for the concept of God, the soul, ESP, fairies, or divining the future from goat's entrails. It's more rational to not believe, in the face of the overwhelming lack of evidence, than it is to believe.
As for athiests carrying the banner for communism, socialism, multi-culturalism, these are all just belief systems, the same as a religion. When tested against reality, by any objective measure, they fail. It's not being anti-religious to replace one irrationality with another.
Radical Christian ideology could be as devestating as radical Islam, a brake on progress, cruel and vicious, consigning living humans to a living hell, so they can benefit in some mythical afterlife, just look at their attitudes towards stem cell research, hybrid clones, and assisted suicide, calling on some mythical god who's purpose they divine, which is pretty pathetic.
But it has to be said, Islam is enemy number one, not Christianity, what atheists et al need to do is have one set of rules for religion, and apply them absolutely, but then again they are as factional as, well..... religions.
The evidence is clear, we're apes, creatures that evolved from some ape like creature. We live for a bit, those who beat the odds to get born in the first place, and then our atoms move on to be windows, stars, plants, whatever. It's not nice, but there it is.
I've got an open mind, if you think there's something else, this whole mystical edifice out there, hidden behind the solid layers of this world, prove it.
Since this is a religious debate, this is quite interesting, even for the non religious.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/JR/Future/ch05_comparing_the_biblical_antichrist.htm
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/JR/Future/ch18_a_summary_of_comparisons.htm
I forgot to add that on the left there has been something like a dozen books published about the Christian fundamentalist bogeyman in the 4-5 years. This has done nothing but induce fear and rage into secular liberals and prove to them that Christians are the enemy they must defeat.
@waltc: And because Judeo-Christian belief systems are a foundation of the American Republic and Western Civ, you can see where the enemies of all of us would first start chipping away....
Jaynie59,
My understanding of an agnostic is that he thinks that there might indeed be a Supreme Being, but then again there might not. Accordingly, his "belief" is that there is no way for a human being to answer this question definitively, short of (perhaps!) dying.
An example of an agnostic would be the character Slartibartfast, the custom planet designer from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, who said (paraphrased), "the odds of ever figuring out what's going on in the Universe are so microscopically small that one may as well just relax and try to keep busy."
Just a side note:
One disturbing thing I've noticed about atheists in the USA lately is that they seem to treat any questioning of their dogma as an vicious attack on their belief system (religion?). The absolute hysteria over Darwinism is an example. Believe! Or you will be excommunicated! Kind of funny, and sad. And it reminds me somewhat of the Muslim reaction to anyone's questioning their ideology.
I figure this unsettling intolerance means simply that there is human nature involved, part of the Dark Side of it, and that all men of good will, even some of the Muslims, will try to resist it.
Christianity went through its era of (un)holy wars, and no longer subscribes to that bloody distortion of Jesus's loving message in the Sermon on the Mount.
Islam, having censored all of Isa's (Jesus's) peaceful sayings from its plagiarisms of the Old and New Testament (AKA Koran), is doomed to live under the shadow of Mohammad's murderous "sword" message.
Anyone, whatever their belief or unbelief system, who can't grasp this, is simply a moron.
Failing History, Comparative Religion, Philosophy, Psychology and Logic.
Thanks for writing this article. I am so sick of them comparing Christianity to islam. I got some responses to their accusations though and use them quite often when I hear that garbage. And one of the comebacks, if I know the person spewing the nonsense is a secularist - is the fact that communism is very similar to islam and go on to point out the similarities which includes the slaughter of people. Communists are not only continuing their slaughter of people, in china and N. Korea to name a few countries, but the 20th century their slaughters even rivaled the muslims. I go into how the communists, and radical muslims, give money to the DNC.
And the 'god' of the atheists are freaks like Stalin, Mao, etc. Yeah - those are some sort of characters that I would want to follow - NOT!
totalitarian COMMUNISTS were/are all ATHEISTS and responsible for 100,000,000 MURDERED
Posted by: TINBH
What was the Holocaust but the use of extremely sophisticated technical-rationality in the service of an ethnocentric mythology? Rationality itself, in its forms of intersubjective communication and mutual recognition, does not seek domination but mutual understanding. Rationality seeking less than that is rationality shackled and in servitude to egocentric power or ethnocentric domination, forms of massive power which those structures could not themselves create, but structures that can all too readily exploit the technical powers of rationality in service of a moral response less than worldcentric - less than universal pluralism, less than mutual understanding in a discourse of tolerance and recognition: power to my ego, my tribe, my culture - using the extremely sophisticated tools of a hi-jacked rationality.
These disasters - the Holocaust will always stand as the unimaginable example - have often been blamed on reason per se, but that is a grave misinterpretation. These disasters are the depth-capacity of reason in servitude to the shallow moral designs of egocentric and ethnocentric magic and myth.
It is quite true that those disasters would not and could not have happened without rationality (which has lead confused theorists to lay the blame simply at rationality's doorstep); but those disasters were not implemented by rationality, but rather by a moral response that could not live up to rationality's worldcentric perspectivism, and therefore simply hi-jacked rationality and its know-how down to their own self-promoting, other-destroying level, in service, in servitude, in shackles to a master race, a master creed, a master ethic that seeks not world understanding but world domination, mythic-imperialism of the fatherland, of the motherland, of the chosen peoples, one way or another, and in all cases: precisely the failure of reason, not its true colors, and precisely the triumph of a will shackled to mythic-imperialism.
Count me as one atheist who can tell the difference!
I don't mean to condescend either. I respect people's faith. Who am I to say that they're wrong?
Militant atheists are an embarrassment. People should know that atheists can be decent and respectful moral citizens. You can count on this one to defend your rights to believe what you want to believe. I don't approve of those who are trying to drive nativity scenes out of public view, and rewrite all the holiday songs, etc.
I can't wait for this book to come out. I am sick and tired of how every time there's a story about how Islam inspires violence, people instantly chime in with the 'Christians are worse' trope, when they're clearly not. I wish I had the wherewithal to shut them down. They'll be singing a different tune when Islam gets a little closer to home. Will it be too late?
stendec:
There really is no such thing as an agnostic. There are three different kinds of people who call themselves agnostics: True Believers, Arguers, and Wimps.
True Believers are people who CLAIM to be agnostics but they are not. They use the ruse of being an agnostic to argue with non-believers because they are out to convince them to believe and they think saying they are agnostic makes their argument more credible. But they can't keep up the charade for very long.
Arguers just love to tell athesits they believe in a religion just as firmly as theists do. Those are, by far, the vast majority of "agnostics". They can't lose because the whole point of their argument is to not decide and to tell anyone who does that they're stupid for doing so.
The wimps are people who are so afraid of death that even though they know it's stupid, they just want to keep their options open. Just in case.
All self professed agnostics would rather agrue with an atheist then a theist because they consider themselves intellectually surperior and with atheists they know they can't lose any argument. They can't lose since they refuse to take a stand one way or the other and that becomes their argument. It's perfect. Just tell an atheist they believe in a religion, too, and they think they've won. Which is really all they care about anyway.
But in the context of the poll, agnostics would always skewer any poll against Christianity because agnostics are not non-believers. They are anti-believers.
Most atheists just want to be left alone. Agnostics like to argue.
"Look at Noah's Ark, for example. Do they not realise that 2 animals would not provide enough genetic diversity to repopulate a species?"
omg!! You mean to say Noah's ark isn't true?!! I am flabbergasted! And it isn't true because "2 animals would not provide enough genetic diversity to repopulate a species?" ...Gasp ... I am left speechless!!
Here's a joke. Read the text. there *is* a mention of taking on 7 each of certain types of animals.
but, you know what? I don't hinge my beliefs on the literal interpretation of the story of Noah's ark...You can interpret the story as a metaphor...a remnant of the world is saved (the ark is the saving vessel -- also an ark is what Moses is found in, floating on the Nile)...it's also about Why is Noah "saved"? -- because he is better than those of "his generation" (which might not be saying much). but, nonetheless, it's emphasizing the moral character of the person which acts as the salvation -- not because he can cut more throats of his enemies or is a "better warrior", etc.
The only thing radical about Christanity is only in the call or rather the command of Jesus they Christians love one another and help your neighbor. What is so radical about that?
deesine-
Your little stab at 'the chosen people' didn't get by me. Hitler Stalin Israel...all basically the same... mythical-imperial blah blah blah. The survival of the Jewish people sticks in the craw of every atheist "oh why don't those pesky Jews just...well, fade away...they mess up my perfect little world picture.
deesine-
Your little stab at 'the chosen people' didn't get by me. Hitler Stalin Israel...all basically the same... mythical-imperial blah blah blah. The survival of the Jewish people sticks in the craw of every atheist "oh why don't those pesky Jews just...well, fade away...they mess up my perfect little world picture".
I personally find the 56% low from my own experience. At my work this is a common theme and it drives me crazy.
I find many atheists and agnostics are simply brainwashed by leftist teachers and media. The socialist curse has really rooted itself deeply in the fibres of our societies and hence has brought this self loathing with it.
When pointing out that Communist regimes following atheist teaching are responsible for terrible loss of life, they always come back with the crusades and Spanish Inquisition. I guess context, and refference points are not neccessary.
When one explains the Nazi's were atheists who were deeply affected by science, no one cares. Eugenics was the undisputed science of its day, just as global warming is the indisputed science of our day. Science and socialist teachiing is our new religion, go against them at your own peril.
Eugenics of course is Darwin's theory that was taken to its logical conclusion by the Nazi's. Master race concepts that gave birth to death camps and the attempt to create a pure Arryian race.
But getting back to the original statement it shows us how much we hate ourselves and coming from western based Christian societies we must hate what made us it seems.
I'm an Atheist, I look on all religion as little more than superstitious nonsense or mind control for the masses.
All it takes is for a handy running total of lives ended vs. lives saved in the name of religion (good luck establishing the number of lives saved) then you can see why it’s a idea that we no longer need. We have science.
And don’t even get me started on knowledge or art that has been destroyed to save a theology.
I feel about your religion the way you feel about you child believing in Santa.
When you strip away all the hyper-rationalism of atheists, one can then readily see there are only two basic tenets to atheism.
Jaynie59,
Its' obvious you have some issues with agnostics, presumably based on some personal unhappy experiences.
Not to be argumentative (!), I have one observation and two rhetorical questions.
Observation: If there are three categories of agnostics, and if the first one (True Believer) is not really an agnostic, then there are only two categories of agnostics.
Questions: If agnostics can be divided into the arguers and the wimps, then where do the argumentative wimps fit? And where do the wimpy arguers fit?
My general point is that being argumentative does not seem to me to be a strong discriminator when defining a taxonomy of belief categories.
Anyhow, I have no problem with the beliefs of agnostics, atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and others, as long as they are civil in their discourse and do not force their views on others. Argumentation, with careful respect for facts and historical truth, should not be seen as threatening, but as a means of expression and analysis for purposes of gaining insight.
I do have a problem with Muslims, however, because their belief system demands that their beliefs be forced on all others, with the only named exception being the Christian and Jewish dhimmi slaves under conditions of total humiliation. The Islamic means of arguing consists of lies, bullets, bombs, and knives.
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"
"..Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.."
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:21-22
I've got an open mind, if you think there's something else, this whole mystical edifice out there, hidden behind the solid layers of this world, prove it.
Posted by: Ian
It isn't me or anyone else who does the proving: it's you. There's an injunction here; do this to see this. Don't believe in Saturn's rings? Build this looking device, and then look into it. Don't believe in Spirit? Honestly engage yourself in a contemplative practice for a period (which is usually years long), and then scientifically check your experiences against others who have done the same experiment.
The cross-cultural evidence is massive and overwhelming: it appears that human awareness and identity can span the entire spectrum of consciousness, from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. There appears to be an actual development or evolution of consciousness along that extraordinary continuum.
At each level, what we consider to be our "self" changes dramatically. When consciousness is identified with our vital body, we have the bodyego or bodyself - we are identified with our impulses, our feelings, our immediate bodily sensations. When consciousness is identified with the mind, we have the ego - the conceptual, mental, narrative sense of self, involving the taking of roles and the following of rules. When consciousness identifies with the subtle level, we have the soul - a supra-individual sense of self that begins to breathe an atmosphere beyond the conventional and mundane. And when consciousness evolves even further, and identifies with nondual reality, we have Spirit itself, the Goal and Ground of the entire Nest of Being.
The evidence for this Great Spectrum is grounded at every point in direct experience that can be confirmed or rejected by any who adequately follow the interior experiments in consciousness. These experiments, generally known as meditation or contemplation, cannot be dismissed on the ground that they are "merely subjective" or "interior" apprehensions - after all, mathematics is "merely subjective" and "interior", but we don't dismiss that as unreal or illusory or meaningless. Just so, the contemplative sciences have amassed an extraordinary amount of phenomenological data - direct experiences - relating to the subtle and causal, or soul and spirit, levels. And if you want to know if this data is real, all you have to do is follow the experiment - contemplation - and see for yourself. Of those who adequately do so, the majority report a simple conclusion: you are directly introduced to your True Self, your Real Condition, your Original Face, and it is none other than Spirit itself.
I found most of the comments on here about atheists/agnostics idiotic. It would seem that a lot of people on here imagine that they can see inside my head and know what I, or any number of unbelievers, think. Perhaps more comments on the possible reasons of those results (which there are some reasoned, intelligent comments above) would serve a better purpose.
I would like to know the context of the question that were asked because I would find a radicalised Christian (one who would kill me over a belief) just as dangerous as a radicalised Muslim. However we know a radicalised Christian isn't following any doctrine of the Bible as opposed to a Muslim who is doing exactly as they are told. The results of these surveys are, more often than not, worthless and it would be better to look at the questions posed.
poetcomic1,
Please don't construe a defense of rationality as evidence of my position being an atheist. Please see my response to Ian above.
@Abu_Lahab: So, did God give us the threat of nuclear holocaust or did Science?
I just want to know who or what to fear more.
Well Foehammer, if God is a reality then it was God who allowed us to invent nuclear weapons.
Xeno: And Free Will prevails...
Yes, because if you believe in God then you believe that God has granted you freewill. By granting you freewill then He is responsible for any choices you may make whilst exercising freewill.
Freewill is a magnificent discussion in itself in the context of religion.
Posted by Rogster
"Do they not realise that 2 animals would not provide enough genetic diversity to repopulate a species?"
"You cannot say the same about atheism, because there are no stories, there are no myths. It's very straightforward."
How about one animal with no mate. Would that provide enough genetic diversity? That's what evolutionists teach.
Christians believe in fairy tales like Jesus rising from the dead? How about dead chemicals coming together in water and somehow spring to life? The atheist Stanley Miller proved it couldn't happen in 1953 and tried for almost the next fifty years and couldn't accomplish it.
No stories in evolution, right? How about reptiles turning into birds? Or cows turning into whales? Where is the genetic diversity in that?
The earth is billions of years old, Right? Known dates of lava flows, Mt Saint Helens dated at 2.2 million years. Hawaii eruption in 1804 dated at billions of years. Sounds like another atheist fairytale. All done with current state of the art dating methods.
Every major missing link of man to ape discovery has been disproved by ATHIESTS!
How about recent discoveries of dinosaur bones with tissue and blood samples found on them that have supposed to have been extinct for 65 million years. How can this be?
What about petrified trees found passing through different layers of strata that are supposed to be tens of millions of years different in age?
Molecular biology is another area that atheistic evolutionists fail miserably.
Even if a bunch of biologists where able to get together and produce life in a test tube, which they cannot, would that not show intelligent design?
Yes atheism is so logical and straight forward I cant see why anybody doubts it. I mean how can you not believe that cold blooded creature's "reptile" evolved into warm blooded creature's then grew breasts? Except for the ones that didnt. ROFL
Its so easy to cut down Christianity but it is even easier to show that atheism is for idiots.
Shall I go on or have I proved a point here?
"A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills" - Schopenhauer
"Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions." - Einstein
"Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity" - Einstein
The book quote; from my grandpa scholar.
The Atheist- As the Atheist has no hope in a future life, he makes his goal one for this life.
All is dust and therefore before we go to the dust in death, "Enjoy this life to the full." There is no image of God to aspire to.
Well, if you really want to get into religious philosophy, just start discussing the Over-Soul.
I’m an atheist but am also culturally conservative; more so than many Christians I’ve known in my life. My atheism is simply a recognition of my perception of reality and is not based on any ideology. I’m not militant about my beliefs except when people try to superimpose their beliefs over mine. In this regard I do have issues with Christian’s of the zealot variety.
My biggest problem with Christians is that many of them consider themselves more patriotic than me, even though I’m far more patriotic than anybody I’ve ever personally met, (which isn’t much of an accomplishment these days). I came to the conclusion that I was an atheist when I was in the eighth grade. In the ninth grade, I was told that if I didn’t want to acknowledge their God, I should sit down and shut up instead of pledge allegiance to him and my flag. Sometimes this is what I would do, and the rest of the time I would pledge allegiance to the “flag” but would replace the word God with Santa or some other fictional character. The few times I was caught, I would deny it of course or mention the 1st amendment.
This exclusionary practice by Christians soured my opinion of the faith and I’ve had a fairly negative opinion of it ever since. Christians are more patriotic than me? All of the evidence I’ve seen in my life would indicate the opposite is true, generally speaking.
After 9/11, like many here at JihadWatch, I went online to learn about the ideology of our enemies, since the mainstream media didn’t seem to be interested or were afraid. I wasn’t aware of Jihad Watch for the first few years frequented WorldNetDaily to get my daily synopsis of Jihad related news. I always found WND’s headlines amusing: “Harry Potter in league with the Devil?”, “Noah’s Ark found at last?”
The most disturbing articles at WND were about the movement to prominently display the 10 commandments in courthouses. I wouldn’t mind this if they took out the “Thou shall have no God before me”, but of course that would never play with them: Christian’s are still trying to exclude me, this time instead of in the classroom, in the courtroom where it is much more dangerous.
Although I do not like exclusionary tactics and am a firm believer in separation of church and state, I am very respectful of and am grateful for my Christian heritage. In large part, Christians gave me the right for me to be who I am today. Most Christians, I think, continue to support the notion of separation of church and state. My problem is with the Zealots who would like to eliminate or at least blur that separation.
Having said all that, any atheist, (or any lax Christian for that matter), who equates Christian Zealots with the Islamic variety needs to pull their head out of the sand and examine reality for what it is.
The very notion of atheism, at least in my case, is based on a recognition of reality. Any atheist who equates the minor-inconvenience style of threat posed by a few Christian Zealots with the blood-gushing variety posed by so many adherents to Islam is either ignorant, or more likely, in thrall to a new faith that, although perhaps not based on a deity, is every bit as irrational as any other super-natural belief. The new religion of which I speak might be called nihilistic multi-culturalism; the belief that nothing matters.
Sure, nothing matters to the cosmic-winds, but we are people and to us, stuff matters.
In closing, I would like to say that in light of 9/11, (and open borders), I think it is imperative that we remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance and make it mandatory for everybody. Loyalty to the founding principles of this country should not be optional! Those who disagree with this are only doing so because they put their God before their country. If this applies to you, then I am more patriotic than you, pure and simple.
havekoranwilltravel:
Have a browse through www.talkorigins.org and use the search the archive function to research those points you bring up in your above post.
Once you understand the facts you can then adjust the above post correspondingly.
feralcat9:
Einstein has been misquoted or had his statements taken out of context on numerous occasions by supporters of Intelligent Design. Perhaps you have something a bit more to the point from Einstein. Something along the lines of 'science has been successfully used to prove the existence of the supernatural and here is my research to prove it' should suffice to place Einstein firmly in the ID camp.
You see feralcat, and this is going to be difficult for you to understand. But the beliefs of the individual are irrelevant to science. What any individual scientist says or thinks, makes no difference to reality. The only thing that does matter to science is replication of results. This is the only system we have for teasing reality out of chaos, and it seems to work.
The legacy of Einstein is the mathematical work he left, which has been shown to be replicable and subjected to mathematical rigour. His opinions on the subjects of physics and mathematics, are worthy of attention, until they are replicated or not. In everything else, his opinions are no more or less useful than anybody elses. So saying, Einstein said this, or Jesus said that, means nothing, and proves nothing.
This might be difficult for some people to comprehend, but in discussing "theories", one can point to conceptual theories versus empirical theories. Theoretical Physics is at the conceptual end of the spectrum (ditto for pure mathematics)...there are no "empirical tests" to conduct to "prove" or "disprove" a theoretical construct. Thus the existence of Black Holes were "real" objects in a mathematical universe. Only later (much later) was their existence demonstrated in an empirical fashion.
Empirical theories do require "testability" (but there are other ways to discount an empirical theory)..."testability" is not the end all and be all. And there are ways to discount conceptual theories (beyond the current scope of this note).
With respect to Einstein, the National Post on June 2, 2007 published an excerpt from a new biography of Einstein, the title of the text is "Albert Einstein: His life and universe") by Walter Isaacson. The National Post article (part of a series of excerpts) was "'My Idea of God'". I think the article may be on the Internet...it's worth reading. (Einstein did not believe in a personal deity, but did believe in "religiosity" which Einstein wrote: "consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.")
That is, however, a major reason that officially atheistic states tried to eradicate religious belief; it undermined the notion that the individual could have any higher obligation than to the state (whatever the state might desire), and thus, an identity and a meaning in life beyond service to the state.
The end result is that patriotism is built up into a religion unto itself -- for example, the Cultural Revolution in China, or North Korea's "Great Leader" and "Dear Leader" cults.
(North Korea once reportedly made a major public-relations gaffe in Arabic-translated propaganda, claiming one or the other leaders is God).
Then, there may not be much distinction between an officially atheist state and an Islamic state, in that the state owns you, whether you were born into it or joined later, and you can't leave.
This is where the "social contract" government is such a brilliant achievement, and I believe the "under God" aspect of the pledge is a reflection of the acknowledgement that the government has neither the right, nor the wisdom or good intentions (considering power's capacity to corrupt human beings), to demand "God"-like veneration.
I don't see my patriotism and religious beliefs as being in conflict with one another.
That said, it is worth noting that the Christian tradition and the social contract government have a uniquely symbiotic relationship: Christianity is content to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and focus on the transformation of the individual rather than the administration of a state, while the social contract government realizes in principle that it is an instrument of self-government of (and "for," and "by") individuals of conscience.
After 911, I did research for a paper that had the premise there was no difference between Christian and Islamic religious fanaticism. Some of my opinion was based on a world religions class I took that left out quite a few details. I remember how quickly that flew out the window after I went to objectively look at both sides.
I guess this means that 56% of atheists read the New York Times.
===========
Gotta say, this is one heck of a thread!
===========
I'll add this bit:
Most of the people characterized as atheists, are not. Even those who present themselves as such.
Atheism itself, is simply disbelief -- an absence. A disbelief specifically in God and Gods generally.
Properly speaking the word implies a disbelief in anything supernatural or mystical. But it doesn't literally mean that per se.
Most of the atheists I know personally are simply and strictly unbelievers. They are not otherwise peculiar people, nor do they necessarily harbor weird ideas about Christians. I certainly don't (or I like to think not).
============
That said, many, if not most of the people advertised as atheists are materialist mystics.
They certainly do believe in supernatural and mystical things -- but things dressed up in a great hoop skirt of secularism.
For example, utopianism. There is absolutely NO evidence that a utopian society is a possibility for man. Quite the contrary.
Yet many "atheists" are utopians, believing, if only we do this that or the other, abolish capitalism, increase school funding, eat vegetables, ... whatever, that a utopian society will come about.
It is a purely mystical belief.
=============
I believe that it is materialist mystics that are hostile to Christianity.
For them Christianity is a competing belief system.
(They are also, in my view, succeptible to the siren call of communism, and even the supposed charms of the mohammedan ummah.)
The atheist does not see Christianity ss a competing belief system, he/she simply doesn't have the belief -- doesn't see the need.
==============
Mind you, I draw a distinction between modern materialist mystics and traditional pagans in the ordinary sense -- anamists, Shintoists etc...
The philosophy and outlook are completely different.
==============
I am not a fan of religion, as I have said here before. But it cannot be denied that most of the non-mohammedan religious people I have known, were of outstanding moral character.
I simply don't know enough mohammedans to have an opinion.
In any case, although I think there is a psychological price to pay for believing anything supernatural, evidence shows that most rational people of good character can afford it.
==============
All that said, drawing moral equivalence between Christianity and mohammedanism, in today's world, is as obviously absurd as drawing a moral equivalence between mohammed and Jesus.
Jesus - "turn the other cheek"
Mohammed - "kill the infidel bum"
So:
I suggest that having drawn that equivalence the speaker gives a clue to his own irrationality.
I suspect that if you scratch that "atheist" you will find a materialist mystic underneath.
Re: Non-believers equating “radical Islam” and “radical Christianity” (the phrases as reported in the quoted article):
The 56% figure is not very meaningful unless we have the results from Christian, Muslim, and other respondents on the same question. In the western countries, with the widespread prevalence of PC, I’m not sure that the finding of 56% religious 'equivalencers' would be much lower among Christians, Jews, or others, given the same question. Unfortunately the complete results are not provided. I suspect that most westerners generally would prefer to say that one “radical” group is equally threatening as another, particularly when no specifics are given as to the respects in which the “radical” groups represent a threat (and what type of threat?, today or in the Middle Ages?, a threat to whom?, etc).
Nevertheless, anecdotally, I have encountered this type of equivalency claim from my fellow non-believers in regards to Islam and other religions, especially in regard to the most familiar theism, Christianity. I would speculate based on some limited experience in discussions with numerous atheists and skeptics that there may be a number of reasons for the equivalency claims:
-Political correctness, not wanting to single out one religion as worse than the others, not wanting to be perceived as “bigoted”; attempts at posing as “tolerant,” etc.
-It is relatively “safe” to criticize Christianity. Non-believers probably won’t get death threats, and almost certainly will not receive charges of “racism,” or be sent to any “sensitivity training workshps,” etc., for criticizing Christianity. Obviously, it is not safe to criticize Islam (Islam, not “Islamism” or “terrorism” or “fundamentalism”) publicly.
-In the west, prior to 9/11, there was a long-standing, established tradition among atheists, deists, skeptics, and agnostics in criticizing theism, especially and almost exclusively in the most familiar and popular form, namely, Christianity. Thus, these non-believers had an established knowledge base from which to work in criticizing the various flaws, or alleged flaws, of Christianity and the Bible. Moreover, the atrocities or alleged atrocities commited in the name of Christianity historically are relatively well-known among westerners. In contrast, the problems with Islam are not well-known
-Ignorance of the seriousness, large scale, and long-term nature of the Islamic sharia/jihad problem.
-Ignorance of the distinctive Islamic textual, legal, and historical origins of the present Islam problem.
-Ignorance of comparative data on the problems with Islam today as compared to other major religions.
-Widespread propaganda from the government and media (which in turn rely on academic experts who are predominantly Islamic activists or Islamic apologists) about Islam as a religion of peace, etc.
-regardless of the validity of their beliefs, people tend to be more critical of other people's beliefs than their own.
Next, the above 56% figure must be seen in light of the American general public's view of atheists.
“Americans are relatively positive about people of other faiths, but they tend to look more negatively at those without faith. Atheists, in particular, are viewed unfavorably by a 54% majority, with people in the South and Midwest taking an especially negative view.”
{Note: In contrast, only 22% of Americans, post 9/11, had an unfavorable of Muslims. That figure may have increased somewhat more recently, but it is still much less than the unfavorable sentiment toward atheists}
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=387
American General Public’s Opinions of atheists.
Fav = Favorable
Unfav = Unfavorable
Americans' view of…
_ Fav, Unfav, can’t rate
Muslim Americans 54, 22, 24
Not religious 51, 30, 19
Muslims 47, 29, 24
Atheists 34, 54, 12
-----------------------------------
The above result shows clearly that the post 9/11 (Christian majority) general public has a far more positive view of Muslims than it does of atheists.
Americans (and note that about 85% self-identify as Christians) are more intolerant toward atheists than any other group (including Blacks, women, homosexuals, Muslims).
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm
It seems that many Christians in the west endorse something like a positive but erroneous equivalency, i.e., that all religions (especially monotheistic "Abrahamic") are good.
Here are some informative sites about atheism:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html
http://atheism.about.com/
As usual, a lot of wild and unsubstantiated claims have been made about atheism and atheists. Do any of the posters above who've made empirical claims about atheists and atheism have evidence to support those claims?
J.S.: "In everything else, his opinions are no more or less useful than anybody elses. So saying, Einstein said this, or Jesus said that, means nothing, and proves nothing."
--
I always find it fascinating when someone intimates that superior intellect cannot give one a greater capacity to discern the existence of God, yet still believe it gives them the capacity to identify a Black Hole or compute an untested mathematical theory.
That, sir, is hypocrisy-in-action.
As usual, a lot of wild and unsubstantiated claims have been made about atheism and atheists. Do any of the posters above who've made empirical claims about atheists and atheism have evidence* to support those claims?
*Other than the 56% figure cited by Robert, which I've addressed above.
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence."
-Sir Issac Newton
*chuckles* and human fallibility -- sp. Isaac.
Khaybar Oasis: There's nothing wild and unsubstantiated about claims made from real-life experience.
Foehammer,
Good. Then cite me some of that real life experience.
Khaybar Oasis it depends on what claims you're talking about.
The claims that socialist atheist regimes have killed millions, and that the Nazi's were into eugenics is very easy to prove.
Atheism is not an answer to anything, science is just another religion when it's not watched carefully.
I think what is lost in this whole argument is that atheism's apparent hold on our post Christian society is what is helping embolden our enemies. They look at us as spiritually bankrupt, believing in nothing and they are clearly showing us with their actions how much they believe.
We have shown as a result of this atheist wholesale hatred of our culture that we are not willing to defend ourselves. They see as they immigrate to western countries how deep this hatred for themselves has allowed the acceptance of everyone else' culture to be dominant over ours. How did this come about? It came about relatively quick for in the past several decades we have shifted away from our spiritual beliefs to this atheist ideal, learning nothing from the lessons learned by previous Nazi and Socialist regimes.
We revise history on an almost daily basis, the crusades was one of the first topics to be revised, and this goes back even further. We believe now that every war was fought over greed and money, no one ever fought for ideals, or for their cultural preservation.
Having said all of this I do not believe being an atheist makes you evil. I do think though that the more atheist we become, the more willing we are to surrender our lands and lives to those who believe with all of their might.
stendec again:
If you notice, I said there are three types of people who "call themselves agnostics". I have never met a true agnostic yet. Common sense says that if a person really is agnostic, they wouldn't care enough to argue any point related to whatever it is they can't make up their minds about. Wouldn't it? But that's beside the point when it comes to people who prefer to call themselves agnostic when it comes to the question of religion and God.
The pretenders simply use the label of agnostic to convert others. It's not a very good ploy because they can't keep up the pretense long enough to hide their real beliefs. The wimps know how stupid a belief in a God is, but they're not willing to take chances so they say they don't know. But they do. They just don't want to admit it, so they call themselves agnostic because it makes them feel less stupid.
Everyone else who calls themselves an agnostic is a believer. This type of agnostic is actually a much more devout believer than some theists are. They consider themselves smarter than both theists, who believe in a specific religion, and atheists who have no beliefs at all, because their beliefs are of a much more philosophical nature. And therefore "deeper". To some of them, their "religion" is philosophy itself. They, for example, just love to tell atheists that atheism is just another religion. They say that because they know it annoys the true atheist, and they also say it because they don't really understand what a true atheist is.
For all their deep thinking, "agnostics" cannot comprehend lack of thought. Which is what true atheism is. Atheism is not disbelief, or rejection of belief. Atheism is a lack of any frame of reference for a thought to take hold. The concept of a God, or supreme being, to a true atheist is such a foreign one that it can't be contemplated in the same context as someone elses ideas.
That's what always will trip up anyone who calls themselves an agnostic. Compare God to The Tooth Fairy. They will always come back with a reason why God is different. And that makes them believers.
Foehammer:
As Sir Isaac Newton said; "In the absence of any other proof...."
Nowadays, with the progress made in various field of science, there is no longer a lack of proof that would lead to people believing in supernatural answers; only misunderstanding of the facts.
As an aside; why do some people (you know who you are) believe that pro evolutionists have to be atheists? I know of plenty of scientists who believe in evolution and believe in God - Christian, Muslim, Jew and any other number of theist/deist beliefs. This is yet another example of prejudice in action.
Ian - "You see feralcat, and this is going to be difficult for you to understand."
Why would you be difficult for me to understand? You are really not in the least bit hard to understand when you use a gratuitous two bit insult like that.
I quote Schopenhauer and Einstein and you react like some Muslim who feels that Mohammad has just been insulted.
You are very transparent, not hard to understand at all.
A short link here on Nazi eugenics program.
http://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit4_5.html
Ian - "So saying, Einstein said this, or Jesus said that, means nothing, and proves nothing."
Almost everything means something if ones mind is not closed.
"Nowadays, with the progress made in various field of science, there is no longer a lack of proof.."
I object to the use of the terms "science" and "proof" in the same sentence. "Science" is based on inductive logic (not deductive). Thus science is about probabilities. It approaches 100 percent but never reaches 100 percent (if it reached 100 percent certainty, then it would be beyond doubt). A hypothesis is never (strictly speaking) "proved." A hypothesis may be tentatively accepted or rejected. but "proof"? -- no.
About the belief in evolution and theism..generally speaking it has been formulated in an "either/or" manner (which, clearly, is not the only alternative. You could be both a theist and a Darwinian.) Although, hmmmm....I have heard that trying to insert "and" (that is being both a Darwinian and a theist) when you're Muslim is very difficult -- you'll be labeled an apostate (I think most Muslims are pretty strict in insisting that man did not descend from apes...Muslims tend to be fairly rigid, far less flexible on this point.)
The fanatic,
"The claims that socialist atheist regimes have killed millions,"
Yes, but in the name of communism/Marxism, not atheism as such. Even Marx said that atheism was not a necessary element in his ideology.
"and that the Nazi's were into eugenics is very easy to prove."
So were other non-Nazi countries, but what does that have to do with atheism? The Nazis were not in favor of atheism.
"Atheism is not an answer to anything, science is just another religion when it's not watched carefully."
Atheism is merely a position in regard to theism, whether or not gods exist. That's about all there is to it. Science is among other things a methodology, and this methodology is primarily what distinguishes it from religion.
"I think what is lost in this whole argument is that atheism's apparent hold on our post Christian society is what is helping embolden our enemies."
It's political correctness, not atheism, that is part of the problem. Atheism logically implies a rejection of Islam; some atheists who engage in apologetics for Islam are not doing so on account of their atheism.
"They look at us as spiritually bankrupt, believing in nothing and they are clearly showing us with their actions how much they believe."
Many of those Muslims make the same criticisms of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. Everyone who is not Muslim is considered spiritually bankrupt in their book. Note that the Koran itself refers to Christians and Jews as disbelievers.
"We have shown as a result of this atheist wholesale hatred of our culture that we are not willing to defend ourselves."
There are several prominent atheists and agnostics who are major Islamic critics. Ibn Warraq has written a book called "Defending the West". Hirsi Ali defends western concepts of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, etc.
"They see as they immigrate to western countries how deep this hatred for themselves has allowed the acceptance of everyone else' culture to be dominant over ours. How did this come about? It came about relatively quick for in the past several decades we have shifted away from our spiritual beliefs to this atheist ideal, learning nothing from the lessons learned by previous Nazi and Socialist regimes."
Atheists and agnostics are as much a part of the west as Christians.
I don't see what "atheist ideal" you're talking about. We now live in a society in which it is considered politically incorrect to criticize Islam, partly on the grounds that it is considered politically incorrect to criticize religious beliefs. We see that many predominantly Christian nations (in South America and Africa), Muslim nations, and communist dictatorships (or former communist dictatorships (Russia)), have joined at the UN to try and impose an international blasphemy law (focussed primarily on prohibiting criticism of Islam). It was primarily only the secular western nations who opposed this proposal.
"Having said all of this I do not believe being an atheist makes you evil. I do think though that the more atheist we become, the more willing we are to surrender our lands and lives to those who believe with all of their might."
I disagree that the issue primarily has to do with whether one is religious or not. The issue centers around the willingness to defend certain basic moral values and principles which mainstream Islam clearly opposes. One does not need to be religious in order to do that; indeed, atheists and agnostics have a vested interest in opposing Islamization--if only most of them knew it. Most of them, like most in the general public, do not know the nature, size, and scope of the Islam problem facing us.
For instance, most atheists and agnostics (56%) agree with the idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam.
So Jesus said something like "love one another as I have loved you" -- and this is no better than mohammad who commands his followers to lop off the heads of anyone who disagrees with him?
You really believe this?
Look, I'm no church going Chirstian but if you think these two are the same then either you are completely ignorant of reality; or stupid; or just nuts; or something.
Sorry, but I just don't buy your thesis -- because it's dumb.
Besides, when was the last time that Falwell's followers bombed a bus full of kids????
I didn't like Falwell but I would trust him and his followers before I would trust ANY follower of islam -- if Falwell and his ilk are what you mean when you say "Christians."
Khaybar Oasis - "As usual, a lot of wild and unsubstantiated claims have been made about atheism and atheists. Do any of the posters above who've made empirical claims about atheists and atheism have evidence to support those claims?"
"Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity" - Schopenhauer
I am an atheist, but a conservative like floating rock and i completely agree with the article, but the percentage seems a little low. Most atheists tend to be extremely far left self haters and are willing to ally with any enemy of Western civilization, even if it is as uncompromisingly retrogressive as Islamic terrorism. So few atheists i've met are willing to criticize Islam at all and indeed are often apologists for it, engaging in countless tu quoque arguments.
The fanatic - "Having said all of this I do not believe being an atheist makes you evil. I do think though that the more atheist we become, the more willing we are to surrender our lands and lives to those who believe with all of their might.
I take it you must have a military background of some note.
The Fanatic.
I would disagree with you simply because you think that atheism in general has some hold over modern society. I would disagree because national research that has been carried out on peoples beliefs show that (in America especially) the vast majority of people are theists/deists and far less people are agnostics/atheists.
Even a lot of scientists are believers of one sort or another however within the scientific community the ratio is reversed when compared to the general populous. However it is difficult to be 100% accurate with these studies but they do show enough to show a general trend.
Also, as far as I know, no atrocities have been carried out in the 'name' of Atheism. That doesn't mean an Atheist has not ever carried out atrocities, or that an Atheist regime has not carried out atrocities but it does mean that a 'lack of belief' (to use creationist wording) is not the driving force behind these regimes.
Khaybar
Usually, if one is asked to show any Athiest states in history, the immediate (and only) examples that come to mind are that of the Communists. Given how the toxic ideology of Communism would contaminate the data about whether an Athiestic state from the ground up can be a prosperous, low crime society with values (from a range of issues from pornography to human cloning), let's agree to not include Communist states here while discussing Athiesm (and let's not bring in Nazi Germany, since the evidence is split about whether the third Reich was a Christian or an Athiest state). With all that, here are two questions:
Belisarios - "So few atheists i've met are willing to criticize Islam at all and indeed are often apologists for it, engaging in countless tu quoque arguments.
Well you can add one more to the small side of your ledger. That should help some.
feralcat9,
My inner necessity feels like asking people who make empirical claims to provide the evidence which supports those claims, if they have it. Cute quotes don't substantiate the specific claims made about atheists, above.
As for atheists and willingness to defend, see battle of Stalingrad, and see articles with such titles as atheists in foxholes, e.g., see ebonmusings link above in my previous post.
Can you think of any non-Communist athiest societies throughout history anywhere in the world?
How successful have they been?
Although they weren't technically atheists, many European and Muslims who interacted with the Mongols and some of the other steppe tribes thought that they had no religion, in reality they just didn't make a public display of it.
THE QUESTION WHICH MUST BE CONTEMPLATED
In this war we are in, the one to conserve the best of what mankind has learned, the deepest question is one whose answer may go against us, and whose implications may be the millstone around our neck.
The question is not new. It is old. It is the question about the powerful influence of religious belief on the affairs of mankind.
Every sentient human mind necessarily considers God. Most humans, from whatever time or place, have come to a belief about God. It may be inculcated from birth, or taken after considerable open-minded thought.
In the war we are in, the way people think about the question affects the way the war is fought.
This is my opinion. Allah not only does not exist, but "he" is also a fabrication whose objective correlative was a narcissist and sociopath. The man who invented his own story about the single God, was really talking about himself, and how he, in his own mind, should be worshiped and adored.
Regardless of what the worshipers of Mohammed proclaim, they in fact do what he wanted them to do, which was and is, to worship Mohammed in a way not distinguishable, for example, from the Roman emperors who were deemed gods. Caligula is a good example, and in his own evil way a brilliant commentator, thru his artistic reality performances, on the question of humans who need to be treated as gods.
Monotheism was a means to reject superstition and idiocy. It was a philosophical advance in the life of men, not because it could explain the logic of One God, but because it rejected the patent stupidity of believing in many gods. The simple-minded devotion to individual gods who ruled over every individual aspect of human life, was a drain on the productivity of the human mind.
The belief in One God, had the philosophical advantage of coming close to the absurd reality of human existence, which is that we do not have a clue why we are here, or why we exist, other than to create children and nurture them. The belief in One God removed the mental clutter, and more sharply focused the human mind on what it is all about. Monotheism was a scientific advancement, as wrong or as right as it may be.
Before Jesus, was monotheism. Jesus has been another type of advance in human thinking, the realization that while we are all here, we should make the best of it, all for each other. Jesus could not have said what he did, without monotheism. Polytheism degraded the discussion about existence into superstitious squabbles. Monotheism pared the thinking to the starkness we have been thinking about for a couple thousand years.
The worshipers of Mohammed have taken the concept of monotheism and proven what is a sad fact about human existence, that shallow, maybe desperate, human beings, can assiduously grasp nonsense as their most fundamental organizing principal.
Infidel Pride - "1. Can you think of any non-Communist athiest societies throughout history anywhere in the world?"
I can't think of any off the top of my head.
2. How successful have they been?
Well since I can't think of any, then I guess that I would have to say, zero successful and zero unsuccessful.
Was that a trick question?
J S:
Go along to www.talkorigins.com and have a look at some of the FAQ concerning Science, evolution and proof. Whilst you are right in the main, to say that science has not proven anything 100% is not accurate. Also there is nothing objectionable to having the words science and proof in the same sentence once you understand the definition of the word proof in a scientific environment.
I also find it interesting how believers of ID - Intelligent design (I have no idea if you are one or not JS so please don't take offence if you are not) - chastise science and it's lack of 'proof' (More often than not based on their lack of understanding of what science is or based on what they have read, and been told is science, from various ID sources) whilst at the same time believing, with absolutely no scientific evidence, the existence of a supernatural entity.
Khaybar Oasis - "Cute quotes don't substantiate the specific claims made about atheists, above."
If you are referring to my "cute" quotes, then I think you may have misinterpreted their external direction.
This thread was initially about the attitude of US atheists towards radical christianity and radical islam.
I think there are several reasons for the antagonism towards radical christianity.
One is the question of creationism. Atheists are unconcerned if christians want to believe that (or anything else for that matter) and keep it to themselves. What they don't want is it being forced on their children in science lessons.
Secondly, there is a suspicion that radical christians want an imminent ammageddon to bring forward a second coming.
Thirdly, there are still lingering memories of exreme violence against clinics that were thought to have a pro-abortion doctor on the staff.
Incidentally, those who doubt atheists' knowledge of religion are seriously mistaken. You only have to check the forums on the Richard Dawkins website to see how sophisticated they are.
Also, if you have ever listened to Christopher Hitchens talking about mohammedism, you will know he is absolutely devastating. He clearly knows all the sources and could wipe the floor with any imam. But more than that, he is very forceful about the dangers. In a recent UK radio interview he effectively said it was a fight to the finish.
feralcat,
My apologies if I misunderstood your previous posts.
IP,
I guess to answer the question properly we'd have to do an experiment where a large number of societies were assigned randomly two conditions: One with theism, and one with atheism, and all other factors held constant. Beyond that, I don't think we have clear enough data because there are too many complicating factors.
What's an atheist state? What is a failed state? Are the western countries now atheist states because of secularism? I don't know. Certainly, they are not theocracies. As for communist/Marxist regimes of various kinds, these were only atheistic incidentally.
Nevertheless, one key difference between atheists and theists is that many of the latter subscribe to divine command theory, which I believe gets in the way of making moral decisions based on moral principles as such. (I think divine command is basically a fallacy of appeal to authority, or appeal to force). Theism as such doesn't necessarily require divine command, but some specific examples or interpretations do require divine command, e.g., Islam is very heavy on divine command. The communist/Marxists had blind faith in a "command" not of divine origin, but from placing blind faith in the command of the leaders and the system. There is nothing inherently atheistic in that. The communists/Marxists had many similarities to Islam, e.g., parallels to the apostasy and blasphemy laws, except that the communist/Marxists remove the deity altogether and ascribed similar powers to the charismatic human leaders--rather like a Muhammadanism/Caliphate without Allah.
"We would be so much better off if no religions ever existed. What we need to do is ban all organized religions. Then maybe the world could get along."
We tried that... and we got the following:-
Fascism - 50 million dead
Communism (Russian) - 20 million dead
Communism (Chinese) - 20? million dead
Communism (Pol Pot) - 3 million (50% population) dead
Idi Amin - ? million dead / displaced
So men install themselves as rulers and the body-count-ometer spins so fast the digits blur.
It is the Anglo-Saxon protestant traditions and values that has brought unprecedented freedoms to a vast part of the world. Not perfect by a long way, but the best so far.
Christopher Hitchens you say!
"The fact is that the objective, detached, independent-minded Washington Post publishes horoscopes.
Harmless enough, you may say. But how true is it that nonsense and pseudo-science are harmless? Astrology is widely considered to be discredited because of certain very obvious objections:
1) It gives people the impression that they are the center of the universe and that the constellations are somehow arranged with them in mind.
2) It suggests that there is a supernatural supervision of our daily lives, and that this influence can be detected and expounded by mere humans.
3) It bases itself on the idea that our character and personality are irrevocably formed at the moment of birth or even of conception.
Who does not know how to laugh at the credulity of those who fall for this ancient hoax? And why would it matter, except that religion, too, believes that the cosmos was created with us in mind, that our lives are supervised by an almighty force that priests and rabbis and imams can interpret, and that – by way of doctrines such as “original sin” – our natures have been largely determined when we are still in the womb or the cradle.
Credulity, in the sense of simple-mindedness, is often praised by those who claim to admire the “simple faith” of the devout. But the problem with credulity is that it constitutes an open invitation to the unscrupulous, who will take advantage of those who are prepared to believe things without evidence. This is why, for so many of us, the notion of anything being “faith-based” is a criticism rather than a recommendation."
Xeno,
The site you advocated doesn't load...I can't get to it (page isn't loading). So, I can't comment about notions/definitions of "proof" in terms of science... I just know that if you look at any scientific literature (virtually any empirical study - whether in medicine, education, psychology, etc.) you'll see at the end of the study a probability statement. Strictly in terms of logic, you can't get 100 percent proof.
I'm not at all happy with creationists in the classrooms. (I agree with points one, two, and three made by zoltix -- I disagree with zoltix's claim that atheists are well-informed with respect to understanding the bible (more specifically, the First Testament -- I consider many of them to be illiterates; I've heard far, far too many outlandish claims -- straw men arguments made by atheists; also, the problem with Hitchens is not his stance on Islam, it's his claim that ALL religions are equally noxious (in my opinion, a false and vicious claim).
The alway irreverent Christopher Hitchens, you have just got to love him -
"The plain fact is that the physical structure of the human being is a joke in itself: a flat, crude, unanswerable disproof of any nonsense about "intelligent design."
The reproductive and eliminating functions (the closeness of which is the origin of all obscenity) were obviously wired together in hell by some subcommittee that was giggling cruelly as it went about its work."
Well, there are ladies and men, but there are also ladymen. And here we have something completley new:
I am both "Muslim & Christian"
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/06/17/nutroot-priestess-i-am-both-muslim-and-christian/
I am both "Muslim & Christian"
Strange as it is hard to imagine two men more different than Christ and Mohammad.
Strange as it is hard to imagine two men more different than Christ and Mohammad.
Posted by: feralcat9
Didn't Mohammed consider Christ to be "just" a prophet and haven't his followers elevated Mohammed to almost a god?
Unlike Jesus, you can't have physical depictions of Mohammed. This puts him on the same level as Yahweh, whom the Jews were not allowed to depict. It was considered idolatry.
slightly off topic. Let's suppose someone nullifies "divine command" and then takes an animal (a cow? a goat?) and hacks off one leg, and allows the animal to continue to live, hobbling on three legs (the animal is in considerable pain), but said person (the atheist) says, "hey, I'm hungry, I've got no means of preserving food, and by just hacking off one leg at a time, with the animal still living, I've got at least another week of food there." A couple of days later, the atheist hacks off another leg. So, what's wrong with that? "My needs come first, my needs are paramount. I will not succumb to 'divine commands'", says the atheist.
One is the question of creationism. Atheists are unconcerned if christians want to believe that (or anything else for that matter) and keep it to themselves. What they don't want is it being forced on their children in science lessons
Then the children should not be taught about nuclear decay where a beta partical comes into being from nothing.
Literally, the electron or beta partical is created out of nothing and this is creation science. If you personally know of exactly how these come into being or what, how, and why the process takes place by all means write up a paper because there is a noble prize with YOUR name on it.
As far as evolution and fossile evidence -- it is crazy because there is NO PROOF from the fossile evidence that macro evoltion is true in the same way that there is no proof that any diety created us either.
In fact, the homologus structure arguement and DNA evidence suggests that the tree of life that your kids are taught is a crock of sh-t and the only defense in its favor is "what other choice do you have?"
Furthermore, I believe that my fairy freakin god mother waved her magic freakin wand and miricled everything into being -- there is just as much "scientific evidence" for my claim as there is for either that of the evolutionist or the creationist.
It all stacks up to a big fat ZERO -- so believe what ever the hell you want as to our origins-- there is NO PROOF for any of it!
And if you have the indisputable proof there are a lot of scientists that would like to talk to you otherwise, it is all conjecture.
Yea i suppose they are correct i mean all these constant billions and billions and billions of dollars to feed ,clothe,educate and heal ALL peoples of the world,even muslims is a bit radical.This money doesn't come from you athiests alone you know.
I suppose all those buses,planes and cars we Christians send our brainwashed suicide bombers to blow up is a bit radical.How many of these events occurred,i forget?
Oh how right they are when we video tape those beheadings of kidnapped people or prisoners of war and use the verses in the Bible to justify them,that does make us radical.Remember that one video of that christian that beheaded that one person?Me neither.
Yep all those kids we teach to hate other people and how to kill with no feeling is certainly radical.Jesus loves the children all the children of the world....i guess the subliminal messages in this song do affect thier morality.
Ooops i almost forgot the beatings we give our women,well not really beatings more like.....punching,but only to remind them of thier place in the Christian mans world.Plus all those stonings and hangings and raping that we justify through the verses of our Bible.Yep the need to cover the Christian female from head to toe to hide those beatings is our motto.
They are correct Christians are as radical as Muslims in this case.
Now if they would please POINT OUT these extremists christians we normal and moderate christians would go and take care of them and bring peace to the world just like the normal and moderate muslims are doing.
On a personal note to these athiest who feel this way ,myself being a christian would like to tell you that your pushing ,in a manner of speaking, that there is no God only proves to me more there is a God and you my friends use the greatest tool of the devil himself.For the greatest tool of the devil is to make man believe there is no God.I say this not saying you are knowingly doing the devils work.
A christian by Jesus' command was to sheath the sword,turn the other cheek and use his (Jesus')words to bring them unto him.He did say we can defend ourselves when and if it came to that.I guess when the persecution gets too severe and all reason with the enemy is gone.
I believe the true problem with athiests are with politics not necessarily religion at least as far as christians go anyway (imho).However the irony of politicians taking God out of public life is the fact that come election time or when ever it fits thier agenda they will use religion,as a tool.
The fact is i don't care what belief a person has or if they have any at all but i care immensely to this inane grouping of Christianity with the likes of Islam.It only proves that the people that do so have no idea of or an inkling of an idea of that of which they speak.............I left out the endless and useless debate of the torture used by Christians.
J.S. - "Let's suppose someone nullifies "divine command" and then takes an animal (a cow? a goat?) and hacks off one leg, and allows the animal to continue to live, hobbling on three legs (the animal is in considerable pain), but said person (the atheist) says, "hey, I'm hungry, I've got no means of preserving food, and by just hacking off one leg at a time, with the animal still living, I've got at least another week of food there." A couple of days later, the atheist hacks off another leg. So, what's wrong with that? "My needs come first, my needs are paramount. I will not succumb to 'divine commands'", says the atheist."
While you are at it, why not suppose that 2 plus 2 equals 99.
Someone said... "And this is another reason why I don't bother with Hitchens (I've read excerpts from his latest book, and I suspect that many times Hitchens doesn't understand what he's reading. If you're going to critique a text, the first requirement is to understand what is written -- the vast majority of the atheists, I've found, don't meet this most basic, fundamental requirement. They are biblical illiterates -- far more prone to making up passages and interpretations as they go along.)"
This is just like what the so called moderate muslims say... you can replace the word Hitches with Spencer and bible with quran and christianity with islam... you will not like the sound of it then.
Religion is a curse on humanity. The gay hating, global-warming denying... do I need add more.
I dont care what the bible says, but many of the the prominent faces of today's christianity seem as radical and threatening as the muslims. Worse, christians got more nukes.
Mother Teresa advocated for the bangladeshi war rape victims to have their children over abortion. Effing cruel. And she is a (or would have been a) saint????? Give me a break.
I live by my conscience and that is enough. If a God would think I am bad because I didnt believe in it... it is just as bad as satan.
witness - "it is all conjecture."
Some conjectures have a whole lot more conjecture in them than do others.
I'd like radical Christianity to appear as cool as radical Islam, with popes declaring global jihad for Christ. I am an agnostic, but this is pathetic. It's like an international conspiracy of muslims attempting to delude the existence of their vile poisonous ways.
For the intelligent person who said... "Literally, the electron or beta partical is created out of nothing and this is creation science. If you personally know of exactly how these come into being or what, how, and why the process takes place by all means write up a paper because there is a noble prize with YOUR name on it."
Please go back to your favorite physics text book. It doesn't come from nothing. It is called E=mc^2.
And as for creationism... I dont effing care who created the universe. For all I know, even the thing that created it doesn't seem to care. For all its worth, it could be satan or some kind of interdimensional alien pure energy lifeform. So the lack of answer to how the universe started is no proof for God.
As for evolution, please read Francis Collins. Someone who has made peace with the abundant evidence and his spirituality. Maybe you will not lose sleep over whether you are your brothers keeper or your keepers brother... and that goes for all primates.
And frankly... you guys demean a God... what makes you think its sole duty is to watch over us. :-)
And please... stop using the word creation along with science. You are demeaning science and your god. God is supposed to be powerful, capable of doing things like waking people from the dead, not things that scientists repeat in lab experiments. :-p
All things said and considered, I would rather have Christians following a make believe, but good God, than Muslims following a make believe, but evil God.
Jaynie59,
Wow, I didn't know there where so many agnostics lol. I'm an agnostic, and you can add me to your list, put me in a new catagory (because I don't belong in any of the ones you have mentioned), and name it whatever you want.
I don't argue with people (I could care less what they believe and no amount of arguing is going to change their mind anyway), I don't know if there is a god or not, I don't know if there is a heaven or a hell, I hope there is a real god out there somewhere (I have found no proof yet) and (I know that the real god wouldn't be the one from the bible, because that god is jealious, vengeful, greedy, spiteful, and very needy-that god is so needy for anybody to worship him, or them, that there is no way that they would just go away 2000 years ago and never be heard from since, if they where all powerful, omnpotent, etc...-these are mans traits). Sorry, but this is what I have found out from studying the bible. And I believe every word of the bible, by the way. I don't think it has anything to do with fantasy or fairy tails.
I'm not out to prove the existance or non-exisance of any diety, I do research to find the truth.
I'm new to islam, and islam is WAY worse than the bible could ever be, from what I found out so far.
Kaybar Oasis, I'm sorry bit I can see arguing this in circles foreever.
No one kills in the name of atheism, it is a belief in nothing. This is the central point to the argument, it is easier to lose one moral compass when atheist beliefs take hold. That again does not mean being an atheist is a killer or someone who cannot distinguish right from wrong.
The atheist regimes were in fact responsible for millions of deaths wether you want to believe it or not. The Nazi regime was not a Christian regime at all, Hitler was reputed to have hated Christianity as well as he felt it had weakened western culture.
Yes there were more than just the Nazis who employed eugenics, but people who used it and were proponents of it were completely against religion and were employing Darwinian principals.
To make another point here, I as a Christian am not against science nor see science as evil, but I do see many who have replaced theology with science. Many of those people seem to think that science alone can answer all questions of the human condition, and I find that difficult to believe.
The central point here of this entire thread has been that atheists and agnostics find Christian fundamentalists as dangerous as Islamic jihadis. No one needs to be a rocket scientist to see the two are light years away. But as seen here atheists are just as able to get angry and ornery as the next group when someone says something about them.
Here's another link on Nazi's and eugenics, just in case anyone wants a good read.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/planned_parenthood_and_nazi_eugenics/
Please go back to your favorite physics text book. It doesn't come from nothing. It is called E=mc^2.
You obviously do not understand what the famous formula means or implies -- that's okay; many scientists are still sorting out the implications.
And yes, the beta particles come out of NOTHING -- they are NOT in the nucleus of an atom and exactly HOW they come to be as a result nuclear decay is still the subject of debate and inquiry in the best research facilities around the world.
The Fanatic - "No one kills in the name of atheism, it is a belief in nothing. This is the central point to the argument, it is easier to lose one moral compass when atheist beliefs take hold."
By that logic Muslim countries would be even worse if they went from religion to atheism. Hard to believe they could get any worse.
The atheist regimes were in fact responsible for millions of deaths wether you want to believe it or not. The Nazi regime was not a Christian regime at all, Hitler was reputed to have hated Christianity as well as he felt it had weakened western culture.
Most Germans were then Christians, not so much now.
The Fanatic - "No one kills in the name of atheism, it is a belief in nothing. This is the central point to the argument, it is easier to lose one moral compass when atheist beliefs take hold."
By that logic Muslim countries would be even worse if they went from religion to atheism. Hard to believe they could get any worse.
The atheist regimes were in fact responsible for millions of deaths wether you want to believe it or not. The Nazi regime was not a Christian regime at all, Hitler was reputed to have hated Christianity as well as he felt it had weakened western culture.
Most Germans were then Christians, not so much now.
Rev. Sutter are you saying that Timothy McVeigh killed in the name of Jesus? I was under the impression that he was an atheist (oops).
That's what I've aslways known about that.
As for this Atheist, Christian barroom brawl were seeing it has some good arguments to say the least.
I just think at this point the fundamentalist aspect is so far on the fringe it's not worth mentioning. The abortion shootings you refer to can be broken down to very few incidents over the past two decades, and within those incidents it's only a hasndful of lunatics causing the problem. But we have to listen to the same arguments over and over, when speaking of radical Islamists who are responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths just in the last few years. The comparisons are insane.
Now I forgot to answer Kaybar Oasis on one topic earlier, political correctness and atheism are different, but they're born from the same mother. The socialist ideals that have been employed in our world have given rise to many different viewpoints, central to them is the moral equivalency we hear all the time, atheism, as part of the secular teachings which includes the rejection of our Christian heritage. This as I stated earlier is tied in with how our schools have become ultra liberal does not surprise me on why we have this belief in all religion is bad.
Anyway I've said al I need to, i respect your opinion and I'm going to dinner with my family, good night all.
Jaynie59,
Thanks for clarifying. I see your point now about how a "true agnostic" would logically not be argumentative, by nature. The rest, about no frame of reference (for thoughts about a deity) for atheists, and, as a consequence, the non-eexistence of agnostics as a legitimate class of thinkers, I'll have to ponder for a while. Peace.
Feralcat9, if you're saying the Nazi reime was Christian based I'd like to see proof. The Nazi's were clearly atheist and were the ones calling the shots. At no point did I say all Germans were atheists.
Now because atheists were responsible for millions of lives lost does not mean I say atheists are worse than the cult of Islam, but if youy chose to see it that way, you're free to do so.
The fanatic - "Now I forgot to answer Kaybar Oasis on one topic earlier, political correctness and atheism are different, but they're born from the same mother."
No they are not. Religious correctness and political correctness are a closer DNA match.
The fanatic,
"No one kills in the name of atheism, it is a belief in nothing."
No, it is at minimum a lack of belief in God; in the "strong form" it is a belief that the specific gods proposed do not exist. That's not a "belief in nothing."
"This is the central point to the argument, it is easier to lose one moral compass when atheist beliefs take hold."
Do you have evidence that that's the case?
"That again does not mean being an atheist is a killer or someone who cannot distinguish right from wrong."
How do you suppose atheists arrive at ideas of moral rights and wrongs?
"The atheist regimes were in fact responsible for millions of deaths wether you want to believe it or not."
My point is that the fact that Mao and Stalin and others were atheists is irrelevant to the millions of deaths due to them. On the other hand, present me evidence that all those millions of people were murdered because they refused to convert to atheism and you might have a case. Such a case, however, would not show anything inherent about atheism as a doctrine, because nothing in the simple doctrine--merely a denial that gods exist--demands that people be executed for refusing to convert to atheism.
"The Nazi regime was not a Christian regime at all, Hitler was reputed to have hated Christianity as well as he felt it had weakened western culture."
There's plenty of evidence that Hitler viewed himself as a Christian of some kind or other. Christianity was the official religion of the Nazi party. Hitler was not an atheist, according to the evidence, both public and private. Hitler declared himself a Christian, but never declared himself an atheist. The Nazis under Hitler sought to stamp out atheism. They also had their own idea of what Christianity was supposed to be, i.e., "German Faith," and sought to replace the existing forms of Christianity with it. Hitler had added his own theology on top of his twisted view of the Bible, and wrote his own version of the 10 commandments*, and added 2 more. Obviously, whatever that is, that's not atheism. That's some kind of theism. The anti-Semitic sentiment in Germany at that time had a lot to do with the history of anti-Semitism there, going back to such individuals as Martin Luther, and to the interpretation of certain passages in the New Testament. Other than those negative sentiments though, there are no commands to fight the Jews, etc., which are in fact found in the Koran and Hadith. Hence, the Holocaust cannot be blamed on Christian doctrine. Nor, however, can it be blamed on atheism.
*"Honor God and believe in him wholeheartedly, Seek out the peace of God, Avoid all hypocrisy, Holy is your health and life, Holy is your well-being and honor, Holy is your truth and fidelity, Honor your father and mother -- your children are your aid and your example, Maintain and multiply the heritage of your forefathers, Be ready to help and forgive and Joyously serve the people with work and sacrifice."
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/08/hitler-atheist.html
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/20060808-040837-8474r/
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php
http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nazimasterplan01.pdf
http://www.lawandreligion.com/nurinst1.shtml
There are also some quotes from some private statements attributed to Hitler where he complains about "religion" and "Christianity" and these are most likely in reference to the existing forms, which Hitler wanted to replace. Indeed, beyond mere statements, the Nazis were in the process of replacing existing forms of Christianity with their German Faith, as the Rutgers/Law and religion links above show. As twisted as Hitler's ideas were, they were some form of theism, not atheism.
"Yes there were more than just the Nazis who employed eugenics, but people who used it and were proponents of it were completely against religion and were employing Darwinian principals."
Most of the Nazis were not against religion. Most of them were Christians of one kind or another, or else believers in bizarre occult claims. Charles Darwin never proposed such principles of eugenics. However, if you believe that to be the case, quote from Darwin's works where he advocates the use of eugenics on humans. Otherwise, what is the basis for your claim? Also, even if Darwin did advocate such practices, what does that have to do with science or atheism?
The fanatic - "Feralcat9, if you're saying the Nazi reime was Christian based I'd like to see proof."
I said just what I said "Most Germans were then Christians, not so much now", nothing more and nothing less. The German leadership was a mixed bag, but those who followed them (and leaders can't get very far if they don't have followers) were mostly religious (Christians) not atheist.
csa bill - "And frankly... you guys demean a God... what makes you think its sole duty is to watch over us."
An occasional short appearance would be reassuring.
It is all about control. W H Taft said that there is nothing quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people.
My problem with Christianity is the Apostle Paul. I do not like his writings about women one bit. If I could ordain a new Bible it would stop with Acts. It would be like a NFPA code, all the later Books would be in the non-binding Appendix A.
Christian fundamentalists are notorious for finding rules from the Bible that do not exist. Where did the absolute prohibition against gambling and alcohol come from? I can't find it. One has to really pull a lot of stuff from between the lines to come up with a prohibition against contraception or even the use of a "morning after" pill.
The tactics used by the prohibitionists in the 1920s were ugly, deceitful and full of lies. Are Christian fundamentalists as dengerous as their Muslems opposites? Not one bit, but that doesn't stop people form exaggerating.
Regarding the Nazi's and Christianity;
The Nazi's were not Christian, they followed a pagan pseudo-scientific racialist cult. That said, it was 1900 years of Christian anti-semitism that led the way to the Holocaust.
The Catholic Church helped Nazi war criminals escape justice. Pope Pius never came out publicly against Nazism.
On the other hand, many Christians risked their lives to save Jews. Some even paid for their courage with their lives.
But for the most part, millions of Christians looked the other way. Deep down they believed that the Jews were guilty of the deicide, that we baked our matzot with the blood of Christian babies, and that we secretly sought to dominate the world.
Since then, Christianity has strove to repudiate its anti-semitic past, which is good.
Islam has on the other hand become more anti-semitic and hateful as the years move on.
Honestly, I am wary of Christianity but I'd rather live in a Christian country than an Islamic country. No question.
There's something a little parochial going on here, so I'll come at this from another angle ...
The Buddhists of this world do not, so far as I know, believe in any god.
Certainly not in the sense the word is used in the bible, nor even in the sense used by the Hindus.
The believing and practicing Buddhists of my acquaintance, and those Buddhist people I know who were raised Buddhist, but aren't particularly pious, are all people of fine moral character.
And they don't believe in any god.
And I will add, BTW, that they consider religious wars as have been conducted in the mohammedan and Christian parts of the world, to be incomprehensibly bizarre.
==============
And we are all, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Christians, Jews, Anamists, whatever ... the whole lot, in danger of our lives from the same jihaddist threat.
===============
The initial focus of this thread is whether or not Christian fundamentalism, as it exists in the world today, is a threat to anyone.
It is not.
The secondary question of interest is why atheists and agnostics consider it to be so.
Personally I maintain that the people who present themselves as atheists, and yet claim to feel threatened by Christianity, are actually materialist mystics who see Christianity as a competing ideology -- and not simple atheists at all.
The fanatic,
It's no bar-room brawl, just a peaceful discussion. I've been through these discussions so many times nothing much phases me any more. When it comes to discussions of Hitler and the Nazis, I like to try to present the evidence that (a) Hitler was not a Christian in any normal sense of the word, but was a theist of some kind who based his interpretations on the Bible [and in fact Hitler was opposed by some Christian groups within Germany] and (b) Hitler was not an atheist, nor were the Nazis trying to implement atheism. The atheists I talk to don't respond well to (a), and Christian theists don't like (b), though they can't present any clear evidence that Hitler was an atheist.
"Now I forgot to answer Kaybar Oasis on one topic earlier, political correctness and atheism are different, but they're born from the same mother. The socialist ideals that have been employed in our world have given rise to many different viewpoints, central to them is the moral equivalency we hear all the time, atheism, as part of the secular teachings which includes the rejection of our Christian heritage."
Actually, there is evidence that atheists existed long before either Christianity or socialism. Thus is would be hard to argue that atheism was a child of socialism. I suspect that as long as there has been theism, there has been those who just didn't believe it, i.e., atheists.
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/06/ancient-atheism.html
Atheism does not entail moral equivalency. Again, this is a product of several of the factors (which I listed in my first post in this thread), and moral relativism and the various loosely-defined aspect of political correctness which has become prominent over the last several decades, especially in the 1990s. None of this is due to atheism. Indeed, in this scheme, atheists are often considered "intolerant" because they do not accept these different religious claims.
What is political correctness? It is probably some offshoot of the basic tendency for people not to like criticism of themselves and their beliefs, and whoever is in power has the chance to implement what constitutes "blasphemy" or political incorrectness. These days in the west, it is predominantly the leftist anti-western multi-culturalist groups which try to use PC to get a stranglehold on their ideological opponents. Modern political correctness may have some basis in the techniques developed in the Soviet Union and in China during the communist era.
"This as I stated earlier is tied in with how our schools have become ultra liberal does not surprise me on why we have this belief in all religion is bad."
Schools have become leftist politically, in many areas, I would agree if that's what you mean by liberal. This is true particularly at the university level in Islamic studies/ Middle Eastern studies departments.
"Anyway I've said al I need to, i respect your opinion and I'm going to dinner with my family, good night all."
Alright, good night. Maybe we'll catch up on this some other time, if it comes up.
"And who's to say that Jesus wasn't exactly what He appeared to be - an itinerant carpenter who just happened to preach a message of love and brotherhood and an end to tribalism?"..Posted by PMK
Perhaps, although he stated he was the Son of God. No one else has made this claim, and been able to hold it.
Nobody can be born a Christian, it must be accepted as the gift it is.
Many things were done by men, who claimed to act in god's will, but if action sways from the word, it fails to act in his name.
I look forward to Robert's new book.
paradox - "I'd rather live in a Christian country than an Islamic country. No question."
Wise choice.
I will introduce you to Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Foehammer - "Surely most of you have noticed how atheists have one standard, overbearing trait in the majority of cases -- narcissism.
I have never noticed that. You must have x-ray vision or something.
Atheists can often be looked to for making excellent argument against Islam, but they also almost never differentiate. They will use the very same arguments against ALL religion.
I have never noticed that either. You must have x-ray vision with the extra power option with racing stripes.
I see that Reverend (why do you refer to yourself as reverend when the Lord specifically told us to refer to no man as reverend?) believes in "islamophobia".
Giaour is that you?
Posted by Xeno
"Once you understand the facts you can then adjust the above post correspondingly."
Xeno it seems as if you missed the whole point of my post. I already understand the "facts" as presented by evolutionists, and their theory is dead in the water along with their mythical frankencell. A point by point rebutal of atheistic evolutionary theory is not nessasary unless of course you choose to present the so called "facts" of cell to man fairytale. The theory of evolution is so shakey that when new "facts" are "discovered" the old "facts" are thrown out only to happen over and over again.
I am also confident that once Christians who beleive in evolution are shown the REAL scientific evidence they will wonder why our tax dollars are being wasted teaching such obviouly fraudulant so called science in our public school system.
But again the whole point is not how stupid athiests who believe in evolution look but that the real enemy is Islam and not Christianity.
Not all stupid atheists believe in evolution (as opposed to real smart people who believe in Unintelligent Design, I "assume") master genius havekoranwilltravel, some believe in punctuated equilibrium for example.
LOL. This thread has become a testimony to the narcissism of atheists and yet they would deny it.
"Give me proof. Give me this. Give me that."
Seriously. I'm bored with it all. Why should I "give" anything to persons that will not believe or have hope regardless.
Walk your path, and allow me to walk mine.
Not anything else to add to that except this --
I know what power I possess and it most certainly is not made of just dust and water.
If you haven't figured that out by now, you're not reading.
Deuterotomy 13
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Basically, whether brother, sister, father, mother, son, daughter, best friend etc. tries to get you to convert to another religion, it is your duty as a good Jew or Christian to kill him.
Leviticus 24
13And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
14Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
15And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
...
23And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Basically, if anyone says anything bad about Him, even someone who knows nothing about Him, say an innocent traveler who knows nothing about Christianity or Judaism and its laws, the Judean-Christian tradition demands their death.
Second Book of Samuel
9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
Here basically, what the Lord is saying is that the punishment for sleeping with a desperate housewife and murdering her husband is that you get to witness all your neighbors have a good time with your wives.
Does any of this ring a bell? These a just a few of many atrocities that the Bible contains and were the inspiration and source for Mohammed's religion. He himself was just the first Joseph Smith who twisted an earlier tale to suit his own lusts. But, why don't Judeo-Christians adhere to the word of God? How can one say they are a good Christian or a faithful Jew and ignore the laws as they are clearly laid out? The truth is that most people, using their own minds, believe that these acts are wrong. They openly defy their own religion's tenets in favor of reason and are thus closer to being agnostics then they are even willing to admit to themselves. The only thing that makes the Muslims so fanatical and dangerous to world peace is that they practice what the Bible preaches.
Tidbit. A recent survey of Americans showed that 96% considered themselves religious or believed in God. When the same poll was taken by the members of the National Academy of Sciences 98% stated they do not believe in God.
Foehammer - "This thread has become a testimony to the narcissism of atheists and yet they would deny it.
I am an atheist and am not a narcissist. No one who knows me would EVER call me that. Maybe some other things, but NEVER that. Others who seem to be atheist commenting on this thread do not seem to be narcissists either. Now you, I am not so sure about.
I think that what this thread has become a testimony to is just how name calling some non-atheists can be. Just look at the comment (the second one in this thread) that started the name calling.
"When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves." Confucius
Strange as it is hard to imagine two men more different than Christ and Mohammad.
Posted by: feralcat9
___________________
Indeed.
Mohammed shed the blood of others
Jesus the Messiah shed His own blood for others
Allah asks his followers to die for him
Jesus/God Himself died for others.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Do you still have any questions why atheists see Christians as the bigger danger? Just listen to yourselves!
havekoranwilltravel:
... showing the exact sort of "if it ain't in [my reading of] the Holy Book, it can't be true" attitude which is the threat of Islam.Most atheists know little or nothing about Islam, but they get the threat of fundamentalist Christianity in the newspaper every day. These fundamentalists, creationists, etc. practice the same sort of taqiyya, and get the same disgusted reaction.
Foehammer:
It's the same question you ask of Muslims. Why should anyone believe what you say if you won't demonstrate your bona fides? Either you've got one objective standard of proof, or you're practicing taqiyya. Either you have one standard of good faith, or you're a self-righteous SOB. The Hindus and Buddhists shouldn't have to take your word that you aren't using the excuse of Islam to act against them, and neither should the atheists.interestinconundrum:
Great way to win allies, there.Rogster is a light in the darkness:
You're absolutely correct about that. Atheists in the West are far more likely to see soi-disant Christians trying to put biblical dogma into science classes and legislation on e.g. reproductive health than Muslims having any significant effect (though the MSP cabbies may have raised consciousness somewhat).If the well is poisoned, it's because self-styled Christians have poisoned it. The Christian Renewal movement has explicitly attacked the Constitutional separation of church and state (and its prohibition on religious tests for public office). Where in the USA could anyone run for office, even dogcatcher, and get elected as an avowed atheist? Atheists are perhaps 8-16% of the US population, but are about 0.2% of persons in prison. The objective evidence says atheists are more law-abiding than Christians, and far more law-abiding than Muslims. Despite this, lots of Christian sects relentlessly attack atheists. Why? Because they're "the competition"? Because someone who doesn't believe is a bigger threat than someone who believes in Allah? Because they're a disunited minority, and safe to attack with impunity? (How very un-Christlike.)
It's hypocrisy like this which destroyed my own belief. Atheists would be right alongside you in this battle if you weren't so busy driving them away. If you want allies, SHUT YER DAMN PIE–HOLES. Quit demanding special respect or privileges for any religion; Islam will be destroyed if theocracy is criminalized, but Christianity will not. Purge religious dogma from public schools and public funding; Islam is a parasite and cannot survive without it, any more than Marxism can. And respect other people, inwardly as much as outwardly (in other words, exactly as an observant Muslim cannot do); atheists may be as mistaken as the observers of contrary sects, but that does not make them evil. If you want their support, don't treat them that way.
What athiests despise regarding Christianity are the objective truths on which our faith is based.
Secular humanists see it as an obstacle to reaching their utopian culture, where every manner of debased behavior is considered normal.
Christianity--as oppossed to Islam, requires acceptance through the free will. Christ does not demand, or teach forced conversion, Islam does.
Though yes, there were atrocities committed by Christians in history, they were antithetical to the message of Christianity... anomalies. In most cases were relevant to the barbarism of the era and not exclusive to Christianity.
Christian Missionaries brought civilization, education and a better life to formerly uncivilized peoples. Christ's message is love thy neighbor as thy self. Athiests usually refer to old testament laws to make their case, which were actually ancient jewish customs. Christ himself repudiated many of the unjust laws of the Jews.
Islam via the Qur'an is explicit in its message of forced conversion, subjugation or death to all infidels. When was the last time Christians anywhere around the globe were responsible for Suicide bombings, beheadings, kidnappings and mass murder of innocent men, women and children?
What athiests despise regarding Christianity are the objective truths on which our faith is based.
Secular humanists see it as an obstacle to reaching their utopian culture, where every manner of debased behavior is considered normal.
Christianity--as oppossed to Islam, requires acceptance through the free will. Christ does not demand, or teach forced conversion, Islam does.
Though yes, there were atrocities committed by Christians in history, they were antithetical to the message of Christianity... anomalies. In most cases were relevant to the barbarism of the era and not exclusive to Christianity.
Christian Missionaries brought civilization, education and a better life to formerly uncivilized peoples. Christ's message is love thy neighbor as thy self. Athiests usually refer to old testament laws to make their case, which were actually ancient jewish customs. Christ himself repudiated many of the unjust laws of the Jews.
Islam via the Qur'an is explicit in its message of forced conversion, subjugation or death to all infidels. When was the last time Christians anywhere around the globe were responsible for Suicide bombings, beheadings, kidnappings and mass murder of innocent men, women and children?
As an atheist I can not, of course, believe that Christ was the son of God, however that does not diminish my admiration for him, in fact it increases it as I must believe that he acted on his own and his personal sacrifice was so much greater.
P.S. What I said about Christ does not apply to all of his purported followers.
Mac55:
And which ones, out of the hundreds on which the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, myriad Protestant sects, Mormons, etc. differ, are those?Since you seem to know and I don't, would you please tell me where you sign up to this philosophy of universal decadence and debauchery when you decide that the brand of religion you were raised in is bunk? I have been searching for it for 34 years now and haven't found it.
Seriously, you people who claim to be Christians: just listen to yourselves! You are your own worst enemies!
Engineer-Poet
Thank you for that as it saved me the trouble although I was close to not bothering to answer any of the rubbish above. Amazingly, so much of it was incredibly bad that mirth not anger was the dominant emotion as I read. I just loved the concrete analyses of agnostics and atheists put out by people who really do have no idea.
What worries me is that the discussion with an arab atheist was much more sensible than any of the above. I wonder how many who post here actually understand the real threat of any religion, however (?temporarily) benign or blatantly not? Once any religion escapes the individual and becomes organised it is political and about control. Fortunately christianity has had its control teeth pulled(?for how long) while removing those of islam is why we are all here.
pelayo, you said this:
I think I'll put this kettle on a fast boil. A lot of us are convinced that Mohammed invented Islam. The reasons for his invention are many and varied. All things considerd, especially the apparent ascendency of Islam worldwide, I must ask where is Jehova? If Mohammed could make up a religion, would it have been beyond the ability of Moses and Abraham to accomplish the same?
************
Pelayo, the Bible was written by many authors, not just one. Also, you ask, "Where is Jehovah?" Well, He lets us have free will, allows us to make all the mistakes we want. That is how it works.
56% of atheists and agnostics think "radical Christianity" is just as threatening in America as "radical Islam"
Ask Christians in US if Atheism is as threatening as Islam and the figures will be at least the same. Among the Christian clergy it would be much higher, my guess – about 95%.
Khaybar Oasis, I'm back and I knew I was going to get zingged with atheism isn't new. I knew that as I was going to say it goes back to the begginning of time basically. Greek philosophers and many before them have been atheists.
Having said that, I should have explained my point was in the context of socialism being a tool for a rebirth of so many atheists.
Nevertheless in regards to Nazi's being Christian and Hitler being Christian is wrong. There is lots of evidence in his early speeches before gaining power he spoke of his catholic upbringing. But after he achieved his goal, the speeches and rhetoric became sharply anti-Christian. None of these speeches or quotes were stated until he became the leader of Germany. There's lots out there on that.
Most of the anti Christian banter that many like to throw about is from the Old testament, and entirely miss what Christianity is about. Jesus and the New Testament are exactly about removing the violence and eye for eye talk, and to reject those parts of the Old testament.
Anyhow I've been flogging a dead horse for some time now.
I really enjoyed the banter with you, I'm sure that isn't the sentiment of others out there, but I know from what you've stated above you feel no animosity towards me, and I don't hold any towards you.
Take care.
The Nazi's were as Christian as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggard are. Men have always used Christianity as a means to try to get power over other people, and that is not Christianity.
You are absolutely right that the Gospel does not speak of the eye for an eye mentality of extremists.
I am a Christian, and I am with the atheists who believe that fundamental radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical fundamentalist Muslims. The problem is, these people are neither Christians or Muslims.
Kay - "Pelayo, the Bible was written by many authors, not just one. Also, you ask, "Where is Jehovah?" Well, He lets us have free will, allows us to make all the mistakes we want. That is how it works."
If God didn't bother to create good (preferable only good) or bad, why would God have created free will?
A design flaw?
Just one of those bad days?
The Nazi's were as Christian as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggard are. Men have always used Christianity as a means to try to get power over other people, and that is not Christianity.
You are absolutely right that the Gospel does not speak of the eye for an eye mentality of extremists.
I am a Christian, and I am with the atheists who believe that fundamental radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical fundamentalist Muslims. The problem is, these people are neither Christians or Muslims.
The Nazi's were as Christian as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggard are. Men have always used Christianity as a means to try to get power over other people, and that is not Christianity.
You are absolutely right that the Gospel does not speak of the eye for an eye mentality of extremists.
I am a Christian, and I am with the atheists who believe that fundamental radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical fundamentalist Muslims. The problem is, these people are neither Christians or Muslims.
"Religion is regaded by the common as true, by the wise as false, and by the leaders as useful"
- Seneca the Younger
This explains all sorts of things, including the outward piety of George W. Bush. And it also explains why so many atheists regard the faithful as dupes.
It's time for everybody, especially Christians, to stop giving other folks (especially politicians and Muslims) a free pass because they make pious noises. Saying that you're faithful doesn't make you good.
Einstein - "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."
Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."
Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."
His belief in causal determinism was incompatible with the concept of human free will. Jewish as well as Christian theologians have generally believed that people are responsible for their actions. They are even free to choose, as happens in the Bible, to disobey God's commandments, despite the fact that this seems to conflict with a belief that God is all knowing and all powerful.
Einstein, on the other hand, believed--as did Spinoza--that a person's actions were just as determined as that of a billiard ball, planet or star. "Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions," Einstein declared in a statement to a Spinoza Society in 1932.
It was a concept he drew also from his reading of Schopenhauer. "Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity," he wrote in his famous credo. "Schopenhauer's saying, 'A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills,' has been a real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life's hardships, my own and others', and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance.
Einstein also refused to accept quantum mechanics, especially the Copenhagen interpretation thereof (which has remained standing even as Einstein's preferred "hidden variable" model has been conclusively disproven by Bell's inequality).
Einstein wasn't correct about everything, and given that one of his biggest errors involved the predestination of the universe, he was probably wrong about the religious aspects of that also. We may be constrained and directed by our genes, our society and our previous thoughts and actions, but they aren't a straitjacket.
I'm an Atheist, I look on all religion as little more than superstitious nonsense or mind control for the masses.
All it takes is for a handy running total of lives ended vs. lives saved in the name of religion (good luck establishing the number of lives saved) then you can see why it’s a idea that we no longer need.
=======================
Actually, Abu, if you really understand Christianity, you would realize that it is the last philosophy that could "mind control" anyone, or control them in any way at all.
Christianity says that someone died for the punishment of your wrong-doing. Anyone with a lick of sense will realize that this means you can do bad things and not get punished.
If someone wanted to make up a religion, in order to exert control over others, it would not be this! When there are 'get out of jail free card' available to everyone, given with no strings attached, it makes it hard to control anyone.
Kay, please look at the rigid control aspects of many sects of Christianity (I've run into them a lot in the US South, where some people can't seem to go two minutes without saying something to prove their devotion to The Lord... as if getting rid of this verbal tic will turn them into Satanists) and get back to us, okay?
Engineer-Poet, I quote Einstein for the same reason that most people quote whomever it is that they quote - because I think basically the same way and have since I was about 12 years old. On this matter anyway, not some others as I do not understand most of his work.
As Schopenhauer said - "A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills."
Is that a "straitjacket"? You decide.
Kay - "If someone wanted to make up a religion, in order to exert control over others, it would not be this! When there are 'get out of jail free card' available to everyone, given with no strings attached, it makes it hard to control anyone."
Not really. Not if you have to go threw a "gate-keeper". That is where the control resides. And there are "strings attached" with Christianity as with most other religions.
Radical Islam produces life-takers.
Radical Christianity produces life-givers.
Radical Atheists produce a void.
There are so many comments on this. I never realized that so many jihad watchers were atheists. As a born-again Christian, I am dissappointed that so many here in disbelief.
God's gift is free, but one must choose to accept it; it cannot be forced on anyone who does not want it.
The battle against islam will not be won by force alone, it is also spiritual. Without Christ as our backbone, we will not be able to stand up against the children of Ishmael. Look at how Europe has fallen to islam. This would not have happened had most of its denziens not apostasized.
champ - "Radical Christianity produces life-givers.
Radical Atheists produce a void."
Is there a formula for that?
Some counterpart to E = MC(squared)?
If you can come up with a convincing one I may just start quoting you.
senatortombstone - "Without Christ as our backbone, we will not be able to stand up against the children of Ishmael.
Without our military as our backbone we will not be able to stand up... ...
"Hence it happened that all the armed prophets conquered, all the unarmed perished." - Niccolo Machiavelli
senatortombstone:
"Get used to disappointment." -- The Man in BlackI disbelieve because of the hypocrisy and hatefulness of so many believers, and the nonsense of the belief itself. This hatefulness proves that faith, or at least outward profession of faith, does not make people good. I see a lot of this hatefulness directed at atheists (see above for quotes). If you want atheists to join you in a mutual struggle against the threat of Islam, you're going to have to actually act like a Christian (including "turn the other cheek" and Matthew 6:5-6) instead of the very ones you claim to be against.
"The truest test of character is what someone would do if they thought that no one else would ever know." I don't recall just who said that. Maybe it came to me in a revelation.
Proof, if proof were ever needed, that there is no monopoly on stupidity.
Speaking as a Loud Atheist for a few minutes, I have yet to hear any of the serious atheist intellectuals say anything like this nonsense. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, though they do not like Christianity one little bit, all know that Islam is the threat.
I think that the only real thing to be worried about is what will happen if a western city vanishes under a mushroom cloud. Then things could get very ugly, very, very quickly.
Engineer-Poet - "you're going to have to actually act like a Christian (including "turn the other cheek" and Matthew 6:5-6)"
Not to quibble, because I think that I know what you mean, but I don't think that "turn the other cheek" works all that well with Muslims. See above quote from Niccolo Machiavelli.
"Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared." Niccolo Machiavelli
Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.
Friends generally say they support her, while religious scholars are mixed: Some say that, depending on how one interprets the faiths, it is, indeed, possible to be both.
Well, tells you a lot about Christian attitude to Islam.
With apologies to Hugh, atheism apparently causes brain damage.
As soon as religion comes up the tread is full of such intellectually profound statements.
The first mistake they make, from ignorance, is to assume that Islam is (primarily) a religion.
Stendec, Islam IS a religion and strictly speaking more so then Buddhism or Hinduism. Ignorance is in ignoring it. Of cause it does not make all religions the same.
Personaly, I cannot understand how anybody in their right mind can say that christianity and islam are on the same level in any aspect.
Both have GOD, PROFET, MIRICALS AND RITUALS. Both divinely inspired. (Just a few aspects).
However, may I suggest that too many atheists consider believers to be ignorant of the world and believers of fairy tales? A little more respect and a little less condescension on both sides would go a long way.
So, you asking me to respect someone who believes in virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water, waking of the dead….? What is next… Santa?
An atheist cannot maintain true atheism, unless he study's up on the subject, so he is clear just what it is he is rejecting.
As an Atheist I am not rejecting anything. I have to be presented with something to reject it. I do not reject Dragons or Santa, though I read books about those characters. I read old testament more then ones in 3 languages, new testament and koran in 2 languages and despite of it making a terribly boring reading, I managed a few laughs.
Militant atheists are an embarrassment.
Atheist can not be militant. If he is militant – he is not an Atheist.
Atheist is not someone who believes that God does not exist.
A militant Atheist is like a militant anti-dragon.
I find many atheists and agnostics are simply brainwashed by leftist teachers and media.
I knew there was something wrong with me. I was brainwashed into Atheism by Priests and Rabies.
We tried that... and we got the following:-
Fascism - 50 million dead
Communism (Russian) - 20 million dead
Communism (Chinese) - 20? million dead
Communism (Pol Pot) - 3 million (50% population) dead
You will find a lot in common between Christianity and communism. Nuremberg’s Laws came from Martin Luther. Overwhelming majority of people in Russia and Germany were Christians, Chinese and Cambodians were Buddhists. Not atheists.
What athiests despise regarding Christianity are the objective truths on which our faith is based.
Are you talking about virgin birth, resurrection and so on?
Christ does not demand, or teach forced conversion, Islam does.
He just threatened people by denying salvation.
Christianity--as oppossed to Islam, requires acceptance through the free will.
By denying many occupations, freedom to move and live, particular cloth and many rights it was always a Free Will.
We all agree that Islam needs to be reformed. Hate should be taken out of Koran. Good. Why don’t we show a good example and remove hate from the Bible? How about getting rid of virulent anti-semetism from the new testament?
hello y'all, this is my first post here, though i have been reading the posts ere for over 4 years. i am now a newly credentialed history teacher in our highschool system. i have studied islam personaly for over four years and a fervent fan of Mr. Spencer. slowley i have brought forth the truth of the islamic threat to those around me. in my new field i find this as a lifetime personal task for the children must not fall victem to relavitism. now with that set aside i agree with Mr. spencer that this block wall of the non religious(aitheist) is a huge wall to over come for those who see tis mission of awareness as the struggle of our day. Many times that i bring up the subject of islamic imperialism many who do not define themselves as christians attack with the basic comment of "fundementilist christians are the same threat to our freedoms. Being a history major, this retoric makes my upset at the lack of comprehension. though i am an ancient europe/Asia historian i also know the history of my country, enough to know that the past fundementalist christian movements have not sought to disrupt the constitution. in fact i had a discussion with a christian today who told me Amwerica is threatened by "crazy christians", which is nonsense. Ealier in a post someone mentioned that a certain group of christians were not the real christians. these comments bother me because the apologist say the same of islam. i feel you have to accept the good with the bad.
two more points: hitler was a pagan, i do not know the name off the top of my head but way before he got power he met up with a influencial pagan woman who greatly influenced him. he hated christianity, but knew how to manipulate it. he figured that judaism was the foundation of christianity so if that was broken then christianity would follow. of course many will disagree, but i ask only that you think about it.
the othe point is this, i am a practicing polytheist, i have my faith which does not deny others faiths, i respect the teaching of christ and other great men of wisdom. i do not believe muhammad was devinely inspired and was a cruel gangster. in the end of my large rant i want to qoute Nietzche from GOOD AND EVIL, " the good that religion brought the world cannot be measured". this i belive with my heart. take care and i plan to enjoy our future discussions.
19thgenamerican
Well feralcat it was only an insult in the sense, that you obviously don't understand how science works.
"because I think basically the same way and have since I was about 12 years old"
Well, not much mental flexibility there then.
excuse my misspelling, i'm a history teacher, not english, hell, my kids help me in some spelling, also i'm still learing typeing, i prefere written, so please give me some slack' thanks
Ian - Well feralcat it was only an insult in the sense, that you obviously don't understand how science works.
There you go again. Going off on a extraneous tangent with your gratuitous insults. I never said that Einstein was the final arbitrator, nor did I say that Schopenhauer was. You may want to take a course in reading comprehension. I merely quoted them and you go bananas. I bet that they get quoted a lot more than you. Maybe you are envious of them, so you try to take it out on me. As I said before, maybe it didn't sink in with you and I guess it probably won't now either - "I quote Schopenhauer and Einstein and you react like some Muslim who feels that Mohammad has just been insulted."
"because I think basically the same way and have since I was about 12 years old"
What I said was, "because I think basically the same way [as Einstein] and have since I was about 12 years old. On this matter anyway, not some others as I do not understand most of his work."
You need to take a course in honesty too. Taking things out of context so that they look like something else is not honest.
Well, not much mental flexibility there then.
Why should I change my mind on something if there is no evidence presented to me for me to do so? You certainty have not contributed anything in this regard.
BTW, You may also benefit from taking a course in anger management.
Some fine , fine posts , Engineer-Poet
Brrrr, hold your horses:
Look at the thread above: Nothing but smoke and mirrors!
Now I've been around the block a few times, I've sailed the world and the seven seas, and I have never, never, not once come across a fundamentalist Christian who threatened me or somehow posed some kind of physical danger to me. Do you think that was just plain lucky or are they rare as hens teeth?
Now, I know there are some rather unpleasant characters out there, but they can be avoided.
Islam, however, is a completely different kettle of fish; You can't avoid it. Its in your face, whether its in a Muslim country or in our neighburhood. And I must admit that I have had some very, very hairy encounters with the soldiers of Allah.
That notwithstanding, I have come across some very intolerant, fascistic atheists who are the most bigotted, hypocritical jackasses when they try to force their totalitarian worldview on you, and I find them far more obnoxious than the weird Christians I came across in my life.
But again, all of them don't bother me, because Islam want's to kill or forcibly convert me, and that's not on. Also, as a (secular)Jew, I wouldn't risk my life going to certain places that are seriously Islam-contaminated.
I don't need the exitement, that's why I avoid it, as long as I can.
pong said: "...Islam IS a religion and strictly speaking more so then Buddhism or Hinduism."
You are wrong. Islam is primariy a fascist political ideology that carries the trappings of religion to fool its current and future victims. Under Islamic doctrine, believers "win salvation" by fighting and dying (jihad) to create a global empire for Allah. For what purpose does a supposedly divine, all powerful, and all knowing being require a temporal empire? What kind of "religion" uses as its exemplar a bloodthirsty and sex-obsessed pirate? And what kind of "religion" has a chapter in its holy book that explains how to divide up the loot from its conquests (sura 8)?
The fascist part comes to play primarily in the requirement to "purify" Islam, by exterminating any non-believers (or for some, holding them as slaves in humiliating subjugation) under its control.
Islam has no purpose other than to serve itself, killing and looting the surrounding settled populations and destroying their civilizations, like vultures consuming a carcass. In the face of these doctrines of territorial conquest and human subjugation, which are set in concrete and directive on believers for all time, there is little justification for attaching the label "religion" to this cult of death and destruction.
I am no expert on Buddhism and Hinduism, but I am reasonably sure they have no similar imperial doctrines. Christianity, of course, rejoices in life and calls on its followers to love and to serve fellow men. Christians are to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"--that is, to keep out of the empire business. The only "empire" in Christianity is the Kingdom of God, which is strictly divine and not temporal--that is to say, we are talking here about a real religion, as opposed to the phony religion called Islam.
Many atheists (and others) lump Christianity and Islam together as birds of a feather. I am sorry to say, one has to be breathtakingly ignorant (or cynically and callously agenda-driven) to make such an invidious and unthinking comparison.
Ian, I believe the "wild one" doesn't quite understand many things (and it's not just science). It's unintentionally amusing.
Although it's also discouraging reading some of these posts...it's not just the ignorance, it's the attitudes associated with the ignorance (the closed mindedness, the expressions of absolute certainty).
One of the other stunningly absurdest posts was the poster who claimed that "he didn't care what was written in the bible", yet nonetheless condemned all religions as being a "curse on humanity." The poster further alleged: "you can replace the word Hitches with Spencer and bible with quran and christianity with islam", in other words, they're all interchangeable. As I laugh. What a world this person must be living in!
But then it does go a long way to explaining how (this is through the moronic "substitutions") one arrives at Bush is the "terrorist" and Osama is the heroic defender of his peoples. It is through such mindless, jaw-droppingly stupid "substitutions" that one arrives at moral inversions/reversals. Next such lunatics will be locking up the police and freeing the inmates (believing all the while that they are acting in strict accordance with the dictates of "justice!")
Quoth feralcat9:
Lying low and keeping quiet hasn't kept the Christians from directing calumny at atheists either. Anyone in the US is far more likely to hear the latter, especially from neighbors and co-workers, than the equivalent from a Muslim.Unbelievers are going to be even less attracted to Islam than Christians are (I understand there have been quite a few Catholic converts, among others). If you want atheists as allies against Islam, you are going to have to treat them as such. This means telling your co-religionists (assuming you are religious) to shut up when they get out of line.
Atheists are not the enemy. Atheists are the Loyal Opposition. If you put down the weapons of law and social opprobrium, the worst they're going to do is talk your ear off. In this respect, you have less to worry about from them than the Jehova's Witnesses. Save the dire warnings for the real threat.
Pong sez:
"We all agree that Islam needs to be reformed. Hate should be taken out of Koran. Good. Why don’t we show a good example and remove hate from the Bible? How about getting rid of virulent anti-semetism from the new testament?"
Posted by: pong
You claim to have read Koran and both new and old testament. Could you point out where exactly in the new testament you found 'virulent anti-semitism?
"Atheists are not the enemy. Atheists are the Loyal Opposition." Have you ever encountered the term "maybe"? Or have you become so inured in "laying down the law" that you've forgotten that some might not be in lock-step agreement with every word you utter?
"I have yet to hear any of the serious atheist intellectuals say anything like this nonsense. [I'm not sure what "this nonsense" refers to] Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, though they do not like Christianity one little bit, all know that Islam is the threat."
Actually, I would disagree with the claim that all these atheists "know that Islam is the threat." Of the members of this group only Christopher Hitchens has openly recognized (and stated) that Islam poses the gravest threat. The others, such as Sam Harris, have not singled out islam as a grievous threat. Instead Harris has spent his time denouncing all religions equally...as if all posed a similar level of threat. It is this "leveling" that's problematic and counter-productive.
I think Harris may fear Islam, but rather than direct his animosity against Islam, he instead attacks all religions -- it's a classic instance of displaced aggression. Thus, not all atheists are of equal merit in countering Islamic Jihadism. Some atheists are better allies (others are not allies at all).
"How do they justify this exactly?
Posted by: Elric66 at June 17, 2007 10:32 AM"
Ignorance.
SImply challenge their views. Rationally, factually.
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights
ususally wprks wonders (not with the leftist dreamers, of course)
I am atheist myself and I keep up the work. Today I had a look at the Pummerin, by the way. (Google!)
Foehammer:
I'll quote you; "... This thread has become a testimony to the narcissism of atheists and yet they would deny it.
"Give me proof. Give me this. Give me that.""
The accusation of narcissism is something that is, sometimes, directed at atheists from believers of one variety or another. However I feel that a little thought placed towards that accusation will show you that it is unfounded and in a word - wrong.
As for your 'Give me proof' outburst I would actually say it is the believers who regularly attack the basis for most atheists belief; i.e. evolution and not the other way around. I never ask for proof of some ones belief in the supernatural because, by its very nature, that belief is unfalsifiable – it cannot be disproved. However when my belief is, wrongly, attacked using hear say arguments and incorrect 'scientific' methods or understanding then I will rightly argue my corner. I will also argue against a believer when that believer tries to prove their belief using science.
havekoranwilltravel:
I don't think I did misunderstand your post. I do agree with you that Islam is the greatest concern and that is the whole point of this website. I do not agree with your interpretation of the scientific evidence for evolution.
Go and have a look at www.talkorigins.org and research your assertions that the 'theory' of evolution is 'dead in the water'. A creationist 'scientist' may well state that evolution is wrong because of such and such but how accurate is that creationist? Also what agenda do they have? The agenda followed by all pro evolution scientists is the search for the truth; Period. In other words a creationist scientist will be trying to prove creation did happen (and in some bazaar cases that the earth is actually only 6000 years old - give or take) whereas a true scientist will believe in evolution because that is what all the evidence points to BUT they will still try to prove that evolution is wrong by testing and re-testing various assumptions.
Fanusi Kyiyal, Good post!
J.S. Sorry, I posted the link to that site incorrectly. The correct address is:
www.talkorigins.org (I marked it as .com)
The above is a good reference site for anybody wishing to research, accurately, any number of articles in relation to science and evolution, including articles on creationist science. So whatever creed you may be this is something you will want to look at if the truth is important to you. Do note however that this is NOT a creationist site and as such bear that in mind before you go there.
I believe fanatical secularists, like Lou Dobbs (out to deconstruct America’s government) and the MSM, are a big part of the problem. Then we have intellectuals in the education system so wrapped up in their own little Utopian bubble that they simply refuse to connect with the reality of things. And I do this as a devout Christian: I accuse them as the biggest believers in fantasy for their moral equivalence.
Frankly, history has shown us that when it comes down to it, leftists (of all stripes) often more than not ally themselves with Muslim nations. Indeed, Islam would be much less an issue today if it wasn’t for leftists. Why? You say. I believe it is because of the cruel machine/zombie-like nature of Muslims. Those atheists who are with us against Islam have a lot more work to do to bring rationality into their fellow so-called atheists.
You can be either Christian-like or not, and being a part of the nots makes you an automatic citizen of the non-civilized world.
sheik,
you are kidding me.
if you do not, just Google: New testement+anti-semitism.
To read:
The new testament, of cause (especially John and Paul),
Polyakov, The History of Anti-Semetism,
Helen Ellerbe, The dark side of Christian History,
Joshua Trachtenberg, The Devil and The Jews.
Not all stupid atheists believe in evolution (as opposed to real smart people who believe in Unintelligent Design, I "assume") master genius havekoranwilltravel, some believe in punctuated equilibrium for example.
Posted by: feralcat9
You don't have to be a master genius to see that punctuated equilibrium is one of the most outrageous theories of atheistic evolutionists.
Where may I ask is the disconnect between evolution and punctuated equilibrium?
Punctuated Equilibrium is one of the many myths of evolutionary theory and was proposed in response to the hilarious Hopeful Monster theory.
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in 1973.
The theory is consistent with the fossil record (which shows no evidence of gradual evolution) without resorting to hopeful monsters.
The problem with this theory is that there isn't any positive evidence to support it. It says gradual evolution happens quickly, that the chances of finding any transitional fossils is almost zero. Transitional fossils haven't been found, which is what the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium predicts. So, the fossils that haven't been found are claimed as support for the theory.
So in essence what is being said by atheistic evolutionists who believe in punctuated equilibrium is that no evidence is "proof of the fact" of evolution.
Now that would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that tax dollars are going towards teaching this garbage in our educational systems. Now that's stupid.
Now I've been around the block a few times, I've sailed the world and the seven seas, and I have never, never, not once come across a fundamentalist Christian who threatened me or somehow posed some kind of physical danger to me. Do you think that was just plain lucky or are they rare as hens teeth?
Ain't that the truth Sheik?
I've met many Christians I would call unlikable, but have never been threatened with anything other than "I'll pray for you".
One of the stark similarities that skeptics of all stripes—not just atheists—see between the more fundamentalist Christians and Muslims is the subordination of the evidence of the world to religious orthodoxy. Thank you, havekoranwilltravel, for this object lesson.
It's only outrageous if you ignore a great many things:- Crossovers, polyploidy and point mutations are known to create substantial differences between parent and offspring. This is not speculation.
- It's a fact that only the tiniest fraction of all organisms which lived are preserved as fossils. Events like mudslides and volcanic eruptions preserve a "snapshot" of one locality at one time, and for most other times and places there's nothing. The record is punctuated by its nature.
- There's also the fact that isolation drives speciation. If a geographic barrier between similar species is breached, then one may have a competitive advantage over the other. The punctuated fossil record is far more likely to catch the periods of relative stasis than the process of replacement.
What you are saying is that you, who have certainly not spent a career or even an undergraduate program studying the various lines of evidence, know more about this than the generations of scientists who've been going over all of the fossil, radioisotope, chemical, genetic and other data and throwing out every explanation which contradicts the facts. Evolution is the only thing left standing.Know what's really outrageous? You keep using the shibboleth "atheistic evolutionists", implying that the people who start with the assumption that the fossils, radioisotope concentrations, chemical properties and other evidence is true and the ultimate picture can only be understood though it, are atheists and the One Truth is only available to those who filter their observations through (your?) religious dogma.
In other words, you claim that God told the full and complete truth in your book but lied when He made the world. (Sounds like your God is a lot like the Prince of Lies. Good thing for me I don't believe in either of them any more, or this observation would make me as neurotic as some of the fundies I've met.)
And you don't see why unbelievers think you're a threat to a great many things, like proper education? There's no difference in principle between an evolution denier and a flat-earther; they have just chosen different sets of incontrovertible facts to deny. (Such denial shades imperceptibly into insanity.)
A1: It's the difference between domestic cats and Scottish folds, between a set and a proper subset.
A2: What sort of expert has to ask such a question?
I invite you to move this thread of discussion to The Panda's Thumb. It's off-topic here but very much on the agenda there, and I'd love to see how long you last while the denizens rip your claims to shreds.
Engineer-poet
A self-proclaimed master of both the arts and sciences.
Back on Topic.
The atheistic position has some validity. A universal condemnation of all religions, on the surface, when one compares the "good" and the "bad" that religion cultivates, appears to be a sane and logical opinion. Atheism however, is a belief system in itself, comparative to Islam and Christianity with an obvious central difference in a lack of faith of the existence of an unprovable deity.
The problem with the atheistic position, after reading the 200+ posts in the previous thread, is that although it is a generally acceptable and innocuous belief, it fails in an important specific area, which Hugh has aptly pointed out in another thread. To categorize all religious belief systems as more or less equally flawed is morally reprehensible when one considers the mountains of empirical evidence which suggest otherwise. Islam and Christianity couldn't be more different in that regard. The central literary figures in both faiths are diametric opposites.
Another shortcoming of the atheist position is the lack of a realization that religious belief systems, like Christianity and Islam for example, are in full vigor, with no sign of a decrease in their respective spheres of influence on the horizon, whatsoever. Religion isn't going anywhere, folks. That reality must be accepted, so to suggest the abolition of all religious belief systems as a panacea to cure the world's ills is nothing more than a utopian fantasy, and incidentally, quite valueless when viewed in that light.
56% of atheists and agnostics apply a moral equivalence between radical Islam and radical Christianity. That is over half, but certainly not what I would call "most". This error in thinking is certainly not limited to atheists or agnostics, although the percentage would most assuredly be lower amongst groups who do subscribe to a particular religious belief system. So ultimately, 56% of atheists are as clueless to this matter as everyone else. No surprise here. It is not as if atheism affords some inherent knowledge of anything.
Failure to recognize Islam for what it is can prove fatal to the infidel, more specifically, for the atheist, since not being peoples of the book (Christians, Jews), the temporary respite of the offering to be subjugated, paying the jizya, is not afforded. Devout Christians, like Muslims, do hold a disdain for those who do not prescribe to their respective beliefs, but the degree of the disdain is dissimilar. Christianity, while there is an existence of radicals who would engage in abhorrent behavior of blowing up abortion clinics, they receive no justification for their actions from the Christian texts. The same cannot be said of Islam, when one explores the canonical Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sira.
Apples and oranges, with one fruit noticeably borne of a rotten tree.
This was so deeply ironic I had to comment on it.
Atheism is a belief system in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism includes every world-view which does not postulate a diety or dieties. This arguably includes Buddhism.And those of us who've studied the matter somewhat (including a reading of Robert Spencer and Bernard Lewis) see the difference. Islam is to fundamentalist Christianity as the fast jihad is to the slow jihad. So many goals of Xtian fundies and Islamists are the same, some have been working together to promote "morality"!
And belief in something for which there's no evidence does?
I see irony like this and I can only shake my head.
It is actually funny that many people of the book think that atheists side with Islam. I see Islam as a greater threat than Christianity is; physically. But emotionally and intellectually; both are just as bad. That is what atheists generally say.
Atheism is not a belief system. It is a crime to break a rule in atheism, not a sin that leads to eternal damnation. As simple as that.
Atheism is not totalitarian. Can someone present evidence to the contrary???? If you show anybody like that, I can immediately tell you that it is not that person's lack of belief... but his other political views. E.g. neoliberals...
Engineer-Poet wrote:
"Atheism is a belief system in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism includes every world-view which does not postulate a diety or dieties. This arguably includes Buddhism."
Hogwash. Every world-view which does not postulate a deity or deities is a belief system. Stating that one chooses to believe, quite frankly, not to believe, is a belief.
lets try this definitiion from www.dictionary.com, shall we?
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Engineer-Poet wrote:
"Islam is to fundamentalist Christianity as the fast jihad is to the slow jihad."
Nonsense. You have already begun to backtrack, with labeling Islam as a stand alone tag, while continuing to precede Christianity with the qualifier, fundamentalist. That belies that you really do not equivocate the two.
Engineer-poet again:
"So many goals of Xtian fundies and Islamists are the same"
They would be??
Engineer-Poet again:
"And belief in something for which there's no evidence does?"
The statement that I made about Atheism affording no inherent knowledge on anything does not imply that I was stating the opposite for those who believe in a deity. You are simply and quite obviously trying to put words in my mouth.
When I posted "back on topic" it was intended to correct the misnomer that Christianity and Islam pose the same threat, a claim that is laughable. Even though this thread referred to a poll of atheists and agnostics it really has nothing to do with those beliefs, there I said it again, beliefs.
I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, not currently practicing, and consider myself a Christian by identification purposes only, for I see nothing wrong with Christ. My point was also not at all intended as a slight against atheists, just a slight against idiotic statements coming from the mouth of one. Statements that can and have been disproven with a plethora of empirical evidence.
I am personally indifferent to atheists, like I am with adherents to all religions, with the noted exception of Islam.
csabill wrote:
"I see Islam as a greater threat than Christianity is; physically. But emotionally and intellectually; both are just as bad. That is what atheists generally say."
Now csabill, re-read my post because that is exactly what I was saying. Your admission that Islam is worse than Christianity, physically, is in direct conflict with the esteemed Engineer-Poet. Which one of you is wrong.
I concur with Engineer-Poet that religion tends to produce more "bad" than "good", but in light of the fact that total religious abolition is impossible to achieve any time in the near-future, one must approach the different ideologies on a logical level. In doing that, one is at best, ill-informed, to suggest that Islam and Christianity presents the same degree of danger. That conclusion is simply irresponsible and disingenuine.
Awake;
I managed to understand Engineer-Poet. I think you are reading into things that aren't actually there in the first place. However I shall let EP continue this debate with you as it would be rude to butt in (anymore than I have already).
Xeno,
Engineer-Poet's first offering in this thread was;
"Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Do you still have any questions why atheists see Christians as the bigger danger? Just listen to yourselves!"
Not the same danger, but a BIGGER danger. His hyper-sensitivity in response to comments by Christians is noted, but his profession as such above, was unacceptable.
Likewise his statement;
"If you want atheists to join you in a mutual struggle against the threat of Islam, you're going to have to actually act like a Christian (including "turn the other cheek" and Matthew 6:5-6) instead of the very ones you claim to be against."
This perfectly exemplifies his missing of the point. Christians do not WANT atheists to join in the struggle against Islam, atheists should understand that they NEED to join against the threat of Islam as well. This is not a game and Engineer-Poet is not the haggler for the atheistic society as a whole in a game of "let's make a deal". Islamic domination will advwersely affect all faiths, even and especially atheists, for reasons I stated previously.
Engineer-Poet's disdain for organized Christianity is obvious, and quite valid in many areas. His points could and should be debated, just not here. Once he adulterated the discussion, reducing it to atheism versus Christianity, his contribution ceased in it's usefulness here.
There were plenty of atheists and agnostics who posted on this thread who understood clearly the difference in the degree of the threat that Islam poses over Christianity, Engineer-Poet unfortunately, was just not one of them.
The results of the poll are staggering in that it shows the ignorance of both the believers and non-believers to the ever-advancing threat of Islam against the West today.
Awake,
I agree with many of your points, but...
“So ultimately, 56% of atheists are as clueless to this matter as everyone else.”
The highly selected and incomplete results reported by Barna appear to be in reference to those who are not religious, agnostics and atheists lumped together. Only one quarter of the people in this non-religious group were atheists. Because Barna has lumped these two groups together in their report, we do not know what percentage of atheists endorse the “radical Islam”- “radical Christianity” equivalency. Thus, atheists may be lower, about the same, or higher than the 56% on this issue. We don’t know. Barna doesn’t tell us in the report. (If I can get access to more info, I'll try to post it).
It is not clear that atheists are “as clueless” as everyone else on this issue because, curiously, Barna has not provided such critically important pieces of information, the most important of which are the comparative data for various kinds of religious believers. From other survey results (e.g., from PEW, and others) we can infer that American Christians consistently view atheists much more negatively than they do Muslims and Islam, by a very wide margin. Evangelical Christians, in particular, have a more unfavourable view of Buddhism than Islam! In addition, “secularists”—a group which includes atheists-- are more likely than Christians to view Islam as more prone to violence than other religions. Although the category "secularist" is unclear, the fact that comparative data have been provided (see link below), and a more specific question asked, these results are clearer than what Barna has reported.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-08.htm
“Christianity and Islam pose the same threat, a claim that is laughable.”
I agree. However, it is not clear what the question means by “threat” (culture wars, terrorism, what?); or where this threat is supposed to be manifested, e.g., world-wide, or within America, or within one’s state, or simply based on one’s own direct life experience. Also, the question, as phrased in the Barna report, refers to “radical Christianity” and “radical Islam.” Given that mainstream Christians have a negative view of fundamentalists and evangelicals, again it is not clear that they would have responded differently than the non-religious group.
We also don’t know what the other options were in responding to the question. Perhaps, like the secularists in the study I cited above, the non-religious people in this sample were more likely than religious people to select the option that Islam is more of a threat (e.g., in terms of violence). We don’t know that, because those results, and the options, are not provided.
"In addition, “secularists”—a group which includes atheists-- are more likely than Christians to view Islam as more prone to violence than other religions"
correction: "Christians" should say "mainline Protestants"
Here is the quote from the link I posted in the previous post:
"Asked whether, in their view, the Islamic religion does not encourage violence more than other major religions, only 31 percent of evangelicals agreed, while 57 percent of mainline Protestants, 54 percent of seculars, and 43 percent of Catholics took that view."
Also note:
"Majorities of evangelicals (52 percent), mainline Protestants (53 percent), and Catholics (61 percent) said they had favourable opinions of Muslim-Americans, while seculars (49 percent) were the least favourable."
Foehammer,
You claim: “LOL. This thread has become a testimony to the narcissism of atheists and yet they would deny it.
"Give me proof. Give me this. Give me that."
I made a routine request that a fellow poster provide evidence to back up his claims. That’s not asking too much, I hope. It is, at least, a polite way to respond to unsubstantiated ad hominem. If you don’t have evidence to support the claims, then why do you believe them and, more importantly, why do you expect other posters to believe them?
“Seriously. I'm bored with it all. Why should I "give" anything to persons that will not believe or have hope regardless.”
Providing evidence is not doing any favours. Call me crazy, but I think posters should try to provide evidence for their clams.
I have lots of hopes and beliefs. I just happen to believe in one less god than Christians do.
“Walk your path, and allow me to walk mine.”
That’s a curious statement considering that you began in the second post of this thread by launching unsubstantiated ad hominem at atheists.
“Not anything else to add to that except this --I know what power I possess and it most certainly is not made of just dust and water. If you haven't figured that out by now, you're not reading.”
Not reading what? Who accused you of being nothing more than dust or water? And what does that have to do with the topic of the thread? Maybe if you’d read the relevant article carefully you would have been more cautious about making claims about what atheists believe.
Khaybar,
Points noted. The methodology and ultimate value of polls like this are usually suspect.
Percentages most assuredly based on religious beliefs will vary to a certain degree but the unwavering reality is Islam is a bigger threat than Christianity, no ifs ands or buts about it.
Anyone stating otherwise, no matter if they are Christian, atheist, Buddhist, et al, are simply incorrect, regardless if their ignorance is willful or not.
Unless they are prone to ignore the senses and the mountains of empirical evidence provided that substantiate the claim that Islam is a bigger threat than Christianity, as a whole, to the West, there is no justification in doing so.
Regards,
awake
Quoth awake:
Note that I was talking about what they see. And what they see is all of the hate I've quoted above, plus:You can say that they'd be much worse off in a Muslim country, or even with a substantial Muslim minority. You would be right. But most American unbelievers, like most Americans, have no knowledge of this. They don't read Spencer or Lewis or Fallaci or Bat Ye'or, they don't follow Gates of Vienna or Jihad Watch. What they know is what they experience every day.
The deadlier, long-term threat is stamped "Made in Saudi Arabia", but that is not what they see. Unless they follow a very few news sources which provide the analysis to connect the facts, all of this will fly under their radar.
I thought I'd made this clear above. Perhaps nuance is lost on some here.
Pot, meet kettle. And as long as you continue to denigrate, vilify and demonize them, this is Not Going To Happen. There are the rare ones like me who have thick enough skins to read through the abuse and try to get one very important idea across to you: you are doing your damnedest to alienate your natural allies. You should be reaching out to them, but the first reaction of a whole heap of you is to push them away. You may even get them to ally with the Muslims against you, because the taqiyya has been all too effective. The unbelievers are never going to listen to what you have to say about Muslims after hearing the slander they get from self-styled Christians.You better wake up to this soon. My patience is limited. My first allegiance is to truth and reason, and I suffer neither fools nor mindless dogma gladly.
I know that. You know that. Now, can you quit treating unbelievers as The Enemy so we can do something about it together? We've got this thing called the Constitution, which is a blueprint for people of different philosophies (and I'll admit that everyone, atheists included, has a philosophy) to get along peacefully. We just keep a barrier between religious tenets and civil law, so nobody is forced to obey the rules of a faith they don't hold. At least, that's how it's supposed to work; it doesn't always.What the Christians need to do is quit attacking the Constitution (the "Christian nation" talk has got to go). If you really want to preserve religious liberty against an attack by those who would institute theocracy, you are going to have to speak out whenever that liberty comes under fire—whether those shooting at it are Muslims, Marxists or Christians.
This thread started out as "atheists are the bad guys" before I ever got here (see the quotes), and it looks like you're trying to use me as the very personal bogeyman. I admit that I didn't read the entire thread. It was 170 comments when I got to it, but the tone of the first 30 or so was virulently sectarian and anti-reason. You know, like the sort of stuff Robert quotes from Muslim sources? The point that escapes you time after time after time is that this is at least partly due to your own attack rhetoric. The targets of your attacks are not going to believe what you have to say about anyone else. Attacking someone is not going to get them to work with you; it is more likely to get them to find allies, perhaps among your other targets.My message has been consistent: Choose your targets carefully! Atheists are the Loyal Opposition, loyal to the Constitution of the United States. You need them as allies, so stop calling them demons. Stop attacking science, the Constitution, and reason and they'll be right with you. I am and always have been, but your outreach needs plenty of work before you can get to the indifferent.
And the first rule is, when one of your own goes on the attack against an ally, tell them to SHUT THEIR DAMN PIE-HOLE!
This thread is a whopper. It's gone on for 3 days.
I must say though that it's been a real disappontment for me.
RS has noticed something interesting and important enough to dedicate a whole book to, yet when he raises the subject here, the crowd produces almost nothing of direct relevance.
Nearly nothing about who those alleged 56% of atheists might be.
Nearly nothing about why they draw a moral equivalence between "radical Christianity" and "radical Islam".
Nearly nothing about whether drawing that moral equivalence is unique in any way to atheists and agnostics as such, or is just a reflection of the general view of society.
And actually considerably less than I would have expected about whether drawing that moral equivalence is in any way understandable or completely irrational.
Instead it has produced a storm of declarations of faith and absence of faith, and protestation among ourselves against each other.
This will not do.
I ask my esteemed fellow posters to ask yourselves, are the matters that have been aired here really more important than the issues RS raises? And if not, what has just happened ?!?!?!?
We've been presented with a question of real weight. Can we not answer it?
==========================
Do we or do we not share common moral aspirations, ideals and goals?
That is the basis on which people join together in great causes and achieve victory.
As it was said by a better man than I many years ago, if we do not hang together we shall surely hang separately.
joeblough,
I sense and share in your frustration. If you have read my posts in this thread you will see nothing that i have said that can be viewed as an attack on atheism.
Robert made an important point, one that I echo, that even in the world of the unbleievers, the failure to recognize the obvious difference in degree of threat that Islam poses as compared to Christianity, similar to those groups subscribing to any particular religious faith.
My discussion with Engineer-Poet is a valid one, when one views his initial contribution to this thread.
Engineer-Poet,
As a self-proclaimed atheist, when you make a comment like, "Do you still have any questions why atheists see Christians as the bigger danger?", it is implied that you share that exact same view. Revisions to your statement that you now claim is "what they see", just doesn't correlate.
Is it their view alone or do you share in it? I know the answer, I just wish you would stop playing both sides of the fence and stake your claim.
I have not made a single derogatory remark towards atheists in all my posts here. Certain people have, I agree, and many posts were equally disruptive to the alarming message that Robert put forth.
I stated I was raised a Catholic and am not practicing, so I personally share no responsibility or blame for what over-zealous Christians are doing in their denigration to atheists. A problem? Yes. A bigger problem than Islam? Certainly not. Atheistic perception of discrimination by Christians, while valid, should not preclude atheists from seeing the obvious difference in the threat that the respective faiths pose to the West as a whole. To do so is illogical and to me, seems contrary to atheistic belief in general.
Simple point:
Islam will discriminate against atheists and Christians alike, actually more so the atheists, according to the Qur'an, so the intelligent would and should look past Christian extremism to realize Islamic "extremism" for what it is. You said it yourself, "The deadlier, long-term threat is stamped "Made in Saudi Arabia". I concur fully.
My problem with your "consistent message" has been that it requires a qualifier, that hundreds of million of Christians must mend fences with atheists in order to gain their support in the fight against Islam. To suggest to change the minds of all 3 billion plus Christians to accept atheism on your terms, as a precursor to fight along side Christians against the vile ideology of the 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide is a daunting task indeed. Dare I say implausible?
I might suggest a counterpoint. How about you convince the noticably lower world-wide atheistic population to put your displeasure with Christian disdain for atheism aside until the imminent threat of Islam is dealt with? For in reality, pious Christians are merely obnoxious when compared to the homicidal tendencies of the pious Muslims. That endeavor however, seems equally difficult to achieve.
Stating a potential position as an ally against Islam is absurd, for you are not solely doing Christians a favor in this struggle. You are ultimately preserving yourselves as well. That is as plain as the nose on your face, or at least it should be if your "first allegiance is to truth and reason", as you proclaim.
I do not wish to remain infintely adversarial to you on this thread. I am well aware that you are not the enemy. I understand your position and agree with it on many levels. I am merely suggesting that we find a common ground and relay to our respective communities, what it seems we both believe, what exactly is the vital task at hand...The prevention of the further spread of Islamic theocracy on the West.
Regards,
awake
I seem to recall someone asking about examples of coöperation between Christians and Muslims on social issues. I did not want to let this go without supporting my claim.
In a book review:
Also noted at answers.com:These should supply fodder for more detailed searches, if desired.