ABC may have set a loathsome new MSM low in insulting traditional Christians. On today's "Good Morning America," the network lumped the "Christan right" with the 9-11 Islamic terrorists as driving people to atheism.
Keying off an atheists convention being held this weekend, GMA ran a segment on the "Rise in Atheism." Seeking to explain the phenomenon, as images rolled first of the WTC in flames and then of a man placidly holding a sign that simply read "One Nation Under God" and of a display at a demonstration of the Ten Commandments, ABC's Liz Marlantes stated:
Some are reacting to religious extremism, like the Islamic fundamentalism behind the terrorist attacks of 9-11, but also the rise of the Christian right in the U.S.
So there it is. To ABC, traditional Christians are as responsible for making people doubt God as the 9-11 terrorists. People peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights by displaying the Ten Commandments or a sign containing an excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance as faith-shattering as terrorists who murder thousands by flying airplanes into buildings.
Does MSM anti-Christian bias get any worse than this? ABC owes an apology.
NOTE: In making the case that atheism is growing, Marlantes mentioned that "Congress now has its first self-proclaimed atheist." But while displaying his image [shown here], ABC didn't in any way identify him. He is Pete Stark (D-Calif.)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Just when you think they're
September 30, 2007 - 10:28 ET by motherbeltJust when you think they've reached the bottom of the barrel, they drill through it and start digging underneath....this is a new low, even for GMA.
but also the rise of the Christian right in the U.S.
That is, as they say, a "steaming pile" on a country road....if there is any group in the US that is denigrated, insulted and demeaned more than "the Christian right", I don't know who it is.
<sarc> Update: Oh, I know what they mean....it's the violence.. You know, remember how Christians went around setting cars on fire and shooting people when the Museum in NY had that Virgin Mary painting with the elephant dung and female genitalia? And how about the violent riots over that "Piss Christ"? An remember the big riot that blocked Broadway for days when they ran that play about the homosexual Jesus and His "merry men"?
You don't remember? That's odd.
Every time those radical
September 30, 2007 - 10:14 ET by sublight68Every time those radical Christians hold up a sign, thousands of people die. Yep, they're just like the Islamofacists.
September 30, 2007 - 10:14
September 30, 2007 - 10:37 ET by AtheistRepublicanSeptember 30, 2007 - 10:14 ET by sublight68
Every time those radical Christians hold up a sign, thousands of people die. Yep, they're just like the Islamofacists.
Haha, I know people who think like that..
Seriously though, even though lumping Christian sign holders with Muslim terrorists is wrong, they do have a point, the rise of the christian right has created atheists out of agnostics and agnostics out of atheists, I've met a couple of people like that. I guess they feel alienated by it or something, I don't really completely understand their reasons, I've always been an Atheist so I'm not in that boat, but thats what I gathered from talking with certain people
I'm pretty sure the number of Atheists has been consistantly rising for years, 9-11 might have pushed that number up, but I bet it created more christians then Atheists...
In all seriousness...
September 30, 2007 - 10:44 ET by sublight68...where is this "rise" of the Christian Right? It makes it sound like we're on the road to some sort of theocracy, with the God Squad out rounding up non-believers. I just don't see it.
Heh, I never really thought
September 30, 2007 - 11:43 ET by AtheistRepublicanHeh, I never really thought about the phrasing. There probably is a better way to put it...
It's not "phrasing", it's
September 30, 2007 - 12:25 ET by robert108It's not "phrasing", it's intentional propaganda. Wake up.
Since Iraq has pretty much gone away for the lefties as a wedge issue, expect more and more personal attack/smear from them as the election approaches. They have nothing else; they certainly have no issues.
Christianity, in any of its iterations, has nothing whatsoever in common with radical Islam. The closer parallel is Marxism. It's a total ideology, covering personal, economic, social and religious values. They are also both totalitarian.
If you really are an
September 30, 2007 - 19:01 ET by motherbeltIf you really are an atheist, did you stop believing in God because you thought the Christian right was amassing too much power?
Atheist
September 30, 2007 - 10:53 ET bymight we consider that the current culture has arisen in a Christian nation? Would such a thing happen in an Islamic one? A core value in Christianity is tolerance (in the true not the PC sense) which is not shared by Islam.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Yah, the modern culture is
September 30, 2007 - 11:50 ET by AtheistRepublicanYah, the modern culture is influenced by Christians, and its been a positive influence. I am just saying that the story does have a valid point, I know people who abbandoned christianity because of Christian activists, at least thats what they've told me, I don't understand it, but I'm not going to question their reasoning. I was just pointing out the story, despite its lumping of Christians and terrorists together, does have a legitimate point.
Atheist
September 30, 2007 - 12:00 ET bycould be 'any port in a storm' justification also, who knows? Gandi did say he would consider Christianity if it were not for the Christians he had met. Yes bad representatives are present in all groups so the wise person explores the reality of the position and not some superficials. Do the representatives correctly reflect the ideology?
The article incorrectly draws an equivalancy in the ideologies, not in the ability to 'cherry pick' 'examples' (valid or not)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I think it all comes back
October 3, 2007 - 12:48 ET by BinxlyI think it all comes back to personal responsibility to make up one's own mind based off of faith and facts. For example, I'm a christian who would argue that, going by the current standard, and much of what Jesus preached, that a moral person who is attracted emotionally and physically to the same gender, ie a homosexual, would not be left out of the kingdom of heaven merely because of their preference. Now, it may be different for someone who is out there sleeping around and spreading disease and being all kinds of permiscuous but that in itself is also not a trait owned solely by the homosexual community. ALOT of heterosexual males and females are guilty too of such acts.
That said, all this 'you must fit into this box to make it to heaven' talk I hear from the so called soldiers of Christ could make me alienated from the church and resent the teachings because in my mind, such an assinine and closed minded view is not one of any God I wish to follow. However, again, faith and facts.
As far as facts go, the stories of the bible are often contradictory and even many learned bible scholars will say that often times the stories were not meant to be taken in a literal sense and also perhaps some was 'lost in translation' again since many passages seem to be contradicting of themselves. That leads me to believe in the next part, my faith.
I am not one to try and convince atheists or agnostics of the existance of God. I will share my views when the opportunity arises, but again, I am not one to ty and convert someone when I hear they are not interested. For me, however, I have FELT His presence, in times of dire need, I have FELT him there. He is compassion and love personified. And to me, to think God is the type to judge someone merely based on their preference, well, then we're all damned. I understand the necessity of a man and a woman for procreation means, but do we deny love felt between a man and a woman? To think two men or two women could not feel such love merely because the 'piece doesn't fit' is not only foolish, but tragic that many would hide behind a religion for the sake of hiding their own ugly prejudices.
binxly
October 3, 2007 - 20:37 ET byYou do seem to hold to faith, it's your 'facts' that concern me.
the stories of the bible are often contradictory
name the top 10 contradictions, perhaps in a forum? I only ask to answer your assertion but believe this is not the place for the conversation, so i will place a topic in the woodshed.
Pete Stark
September 30, 2007 - 11:39 ET by ToddonCapeCodPete Stark is positively one of the worst people in Congress today. Look at what is listed about him in his Wikipedia entry: Along with John Conyers, in April 2006 Stark brought an action against George W. Bush and others alleging violations of the Constitution in the passing of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005[4]. The case (Conyers v. Bush) was ultimately dismissed[5].
A staunch opponent of the War in Iraq, Stark voted against authorizing the war and has opposed every funding bill for the war while the Republicans controlled Congress. However, he chose not to stand against the Democratic legislation to continue funding the war on March 23, 2007, despite other liberal Democrats voting against the bill. In a statement posted on his website he stated, "Despite my utmost respect for my colleagues who crafted this bill, I can’t in good conscience vote to continue this war. Nor, however, can I vote ‘No’ and join those who think today’s legislation goes too far toward withdrawal. That’s why I’m making the difficult decision to vote ‘present.’"
Stark has occasionally faced criticism for his remarks about opponents. In 1990 Stark drew controversy for calling United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan, an African American, "a disgrace to his race." He later apologized for the remark.[6]
According to a San Francisco Chronicle editorial published July 23, 2003, Stark has also called fellow Congressman Scott McInnis a “little wimp” and a “little fruitcake” and challenged him to a fight during a Ways and Means Committee meeting. The editorial goes on to say that this “was reminiscent of the 2001 debate when Stark made a reference to the children of Rep. J.C. Watts all being ‘born out of wedlock."
Stark has also accused Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., of being a "whore for the insurance industry” and suggested that her knowledge of health care came solely from "pillow talk" with her husband, who is a physician. In addition, Stark attacked former conservative California state welfare director Eloise Anderson in 1999 as a baby-killer, complaining at a public forum that she would "kill children if she had her way" simply because she opposed particular policy proposals.
The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized, "Only a politician who assumes he has a job for life could behave so badly on a semi-regular basis by spewing personalized invective that might get him punched in certain East Bay taverns…Surely there must be someone along the shoreline between Alameda and Fremont who could represent the good citizens of the district with class and dignity. It's not the case now."
In recent times Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington brought to attention that Stark paid his wife Deborah $176,800 over three election cycles for her work as a campaign treasurer. He defended this action by stating she was qualified for the job, but she has since retired from the position.[7]
If ABC is trying to convince us that Pete Stark, as an atheist, is someone to be admired or emulated, then I'll stick with the Christians, thank you!]
Someone needs a wake-up call...
September 30, 2007 - 10:21 ET by Cortillaen"the rise of the Christian right in the U.S"? Excuse me, WE'VE BEEN HERE THE WHOLE BLASTED TIME, MORON! I'm sick of idiots with an axe to grind pretending like Christianity is some sort of new event, pretending that it wasn't the foundation of the whole nation. If that twit was any more biased, she'd be blaming the 9/11 attacks on Christians. On second thought, someone probably has...
http://www.rhjunior.... Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
With this story
September 30, 2007 - 10:37 ET by c5thenABC along with CNN (with the God's Warriors series) have firmly sided themselves with the islamo-fascists. They would rather equate mass-murder with freedom of speech sign holding then actually delve into the real problem and risk angering those who are trying to kill all who disagree with them. They would rather equate all religion as equally bizzarre than admit that their might be one that is correct and all the others wrong.
They would rather psudo-justify their own atheism than admit that there is a GOD who offers a choice to all who want it. Better for them to demean and belittle those who have taken the gift and exhort others to accept it, than to admit that they have rejected the most valuable gift ever, simply because they can not believe that it was offered in the first place.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Atheism is just a
September 30, 2007 - 11:15 ET by MidAmericaAtheism is just a religion without a reference to the existence of a God. If I go over to an atheist’s house, rape his wife, kill his kid’s and then burn his house down I suspect he will think it 'wrong'. He will probably think I am a bad person but that is a moral judgment and on what basis would that moral judgment be made?
Atheism cannot exist except in reaction to a preexisting religion.
Society has to have an agreed upon moral code in order to function. If atheists suddenly had their own country they would codify a set of moral understandings on which to base their laws. That's just a religion with no God as author. What they can't explain is why are they are and want to be moral decent people. They refuse to take the next step and say they were created in the image of a moral God.
Your wrong about atheism
September 30, 2007 - 12:49 ET by AtheistRepublicanYour wrong about atheism needing religion to exist, it needs religion to be defined, but not to exist.
Morality is from both instinct and upper-level reasoning, instinctually we know whats right and wrong, evolution created instinctual morality. Reason dictates that your personal hapiness is not anymore meaningful then someone elses, so creating a net gain in hapiness is optimal, which in itself makes us happy, so morality is just the best way to create hapiness.
evolution created
September 30, 2007 - 14:44 ET byevolution created instinctual morality ---- an article of faith? or a creation myth?
how does a purely physical process create a non-physical reality?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
We don't know for sure, of
September 30, 2007 - 22:49 ET by cleverpigWe don't know for sure, of course, because you never can with evolution, but it is not a purely physical process. Natural selection can act on behavior, and morality is basically just rules of behavior, so I think it is perfectly plausible.
any ideas; any at all on
September 30, 2007 - 22:58 ET byany ideas; any at all on the probability of a single amino acid forming via natural processes? How about enough of them all at the same time in the same location and the right kinds to form a protein? Wow how about enough to form a dna molecule? and all the right proteins for the dna to operate? and a cell membrane? and a mitochrondria? etc etc etc all at the same time and in the same place?
now we can move on to the non-physical . . . .
what part of evolution is non-physical?
where does the information come from?
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
I can answer those
October 6, 2007 - 18:05 ET by cleverpigI can answer those questions but it isn't going to interest anybody here!
As for non-physical processes, I think you misunderstood my meaning: genes affect behavior, so does environment. Evolution of behavior (in a non-neo-Darwinian sense) can occur through learning that is passed down between generations as well as direct genetic effects on behavior. In it's most basic sense, evolution just means "change over time."
I don't want to start a discussion about the truth of evolution by natural selection, since that doesn't seem to be a popular topic with our moderators.
Instead, I think it is interesting to look at religion as arising out of a kind of cultural evolution. Human survival is based strongly on sociality, which carries both benefits and costs. In that environment, I would think that traditions and customs which increase social cohesiveness would be "selected for" in the population. Religion is an excellent tool for enforcing customs, taboos, etc.
Indeed cleverpig
October 6, 2007 - 18:12 ET byyou would find it more interesting to indulge in unfalseafiable fairy-tales, which you will no doubt substantiate with 'just-so' examples
Support our Troops
I've studied evolutionary
October 7, 2007 - 13:39 ET by cleverpigI've studied evolutionary biology for 12 years, if you really want to go at it, I'll keep an eye on the woodshed!
cleverpig
October 7, 2007 - 16:48 ET bywhich side Stephen J Gould or Richard Dawkins?
Support our Troops
I guess I'd have to go more
October 7, 2007 - 17:07 ET by cleverpigI guess I'd have to go more with Gould than Dawkins. However, I don't think it's that easy to just pick sides! They were/are both men with interesting ideas and slightly megalomaniacal tendencies!
just looking at the
October 7, 2007 - 17:30 ET byjust looking at the overall, the fossil record either supports punctuated equilibrium or gradualism; i realize this is a broadbrush
Support our Troops
Atheism is a religion.
September 30, 2007 - 13:46 ET by MidAmericaAtheism is a religion. It's focus is to understand and develope the human 'spirit' outside of a God centric interpretation of the world.
AtheistRepublican says: Morality is from both instinct and upper-level reasoning, instinctually we know whats right and wrong, evolution created instinctual morality.
That is exactly what religion teaches us. We should look inward to understand what's moral. When you make your understanding a guide for your life that's a religion. You don't need a belief in God to be religeous.
Thats a moral code, not
September 30, 2007 - 14:23 ET by AtheistRepublicanThats a moral code, not religion, but I'm not going to bother arguing semantics.
Oh it's not semantics at
September 30, 2007 - 15:12 ET by MidAmericaOh it's not semantics at all. Arriving at a moral code by 'upper-level reasoning' is no different than following 'The words of the Prophets'. It's an interpretation of inner wisdom. Unless of course, you hear voices that are telling you what is 'The Way'.
I think we define religion
September 30, 2007 - 16:16 ET by AtheistRepublicanI think we define religion differently. I see religion as involving some kind of mystic force.
Religion is the outward
September 30, 2007 - 16:47 ET by MidAmericaReligion is the outward manifestation of faith. Faith is personal. Religion is a community expression by believers of a similar faith. Sometimes religion becomes too rigid and stifles faith.
This is where atheists come in. They point out the shortcomings of the current practices of the religious. If the criticisms are valid then more 'atheists' will develop. The communities of the faithful will then reevaluate themselves and attempt to reestablish their role as nurturers of the longings by the human soul.
One of the most notable 'atheists' was Martin Luther. Sure he wasn't an atheist in the usual sense but the Catholic Church of that day thought so.
Atheism is always a transitional state. It can't stand on it's own without taking on the trappings of a religion. The need for a religion is part of the human condition.
Wow this is getting too deep. : ) Going back outside now. I'm putting new brakes on my wifes car.
I completely agree. One of
October 1, 2007 - 22:33 ET by CortillaenI completely agree. One of my high school teachers spent half a semester teaching logical analysis, specifically its application to faith, religion, and morality. One of the interesting conclusions that got drawn is that, without exception, morality cannot be "created" through logic or reasoning. Rather, it must be based on faith in some Absolute law or code. Anything else is actually ethics, not morality. There was also a discussion about faith in general and how everyone, again with no exception, holds an illogical faith in something. Now, if you have to place your faith in something, wouldn't it behoove you to choose that which claims to save your soul? Hence me being a Christian; take logic to it's inevitable end, then pick the Infinite Absolute that makes the most sense to you. It never ceases to amaze me how many people get stuck trying to create said Absolute with logic.
http://www.rhjunior.... Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
"Reason dictates that your
September 30, 2007 - 14:22 ET by robert108"Reason dictates that your personal hapiness is not anymore meaningful then someone elses..."
I would like to hear that reasoning, because it appears to be an entirely false premise.
Your blazing ignorance
September 30, 2007 - 15:41 ET by KeithAtheism DOES need religion to exist, not merely to be "defined". If religion did not exist what would an atheist "not" believe IN? Your statement that "Morality is from both instinct and upper-level reasoning, instinctually we know whats right and wrong, evolution created instinctual morality." Is stupid on it's face. Are you truly that dumb? There are countries where they kill the wife of a man who has recently died, or expect her to kill herself by diving on his funeral pyre. There are cannibals that EAT people you unbelievable idiot and there are cultures like Islam where screwing a NINE YEAR OLD is not only a good thing, but is the foundation for a RELIGION (see Mohammed's six yr old wife A'isha!). Only a complete and utter IDIOT would look at the various barbarisms that have existed on earth and declare morality to be "innate". This is the type of being who, bereft of a relationship with God, imagines those who claim such a relationship, to be deluded. Never does it occur to this "genius" that he is the one who has the problem. Perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, looked into the feculant cesspool that is the heart of a liberal and remained SILENT towards said individual. The fault dear liberal, lies not in the stars but in YOU.
Atheism is not a religion.
September 30, 2007 - 16:32 ET by OIFveteranAtheists don't congregate once a week to talk about who didn't show up and compare clothes.
Atheists have never fought or killed because their god told them make war on other countires or people.
Atheists don't have a holy book that was assembled by power seeking megalomaniacs. Which other power hungry megalomaniacs then twisted and perverted for their own ends.
Atheists don't try to scare people into believing that they will rot in hell unless they give a tithe to the church.
Atheists don't have a creation myth, a flood myth, nor any myth involving gods impregnating women.
How exactly is atheism a religion again? Oh, and the ad hominems against someone who thinks differently than you is great. I mean it guys, stay classy.
<insert something clever>
OIF
September 30, 2007 - 16:39 ET byyour implications are absurd i will address one:
Atheists have never fought or killed because their god told them make war on other countires or people.
Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Khan; your implied 'history' is imaginary
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
I think the coordinating
September 30, 2007 - 16:47 ET by JasonCI think the coordinating conjunction 'because' and its resultant dependent clause render the debate on that one a bit problematic.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
jason
September 30, 2007 - 18:13 ET byeverybody has a 'god' it may be materialism, power, sex, Zeus, or Yahweh. What or who is yours? (my guess is self)
the point is that every one of OIFs assertions implied a 'strawman' of theists which are easily debunked
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, I think your
September 30, 2007 - 18:49 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I think your attempt to extend the definition of "god", in the way you suggest, is problematic.
Aside from undermining the traditional definition of "god" (supernatural agent of some sort), your definition blurs the line between religion and philosophy.
hydro, why would you
September 30, 2007 - 18:53 ET bybelieve that? There's a line between religion and philosophy? Where? I haven't seen it.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Someone once told me that
September 30, 2007 - 18:59 ET by balboaSomeone once told me that philosophy is the talk on a cereal box, and that religion is a smile on a dog.
philosophy of music?
September 30, 2007 - 19:13 ET bysee your bohemian and raise you a Dylan
"We all must serve somebody"
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, Granted, the line
September 30, 2007 - 19:05 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Granted, the line hasn't always clear in the past (Thomas Aquinas comes to mind). But I think in modern times, a more clear distinction has been made - philosophy takes a naturalistic approach while theology takes a supernatural one.
I know that is a pretty general (and overly simplistic) categorization, but my original point was that if you extend the word "god" to include non-supernatural forces, then I think you undermine its traditional meaning and cheapen it.
hydro
September 30, 2007 - 19:12 ET byphilosophy has had (incorrectly imo) a naturalistic approach imposed on it.
I would say God exists. Theology is the study of God and therefore religion and philosophy are over-lapping sub-catagories of theology
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, Who has "imposed"
September 30, 2007 - 19:18 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Who has "imposed" this naturalistic approach on philosophy?
Philosophy has, in more recent times (by that, I mean the last couple hundred years), taken an approach which mimics science - no doubt because of the success science has had during that time.
If you want to categorize philosophy as a part of theology, ok. I think most philosophers would disagree since they don't use supernatural agents in their work.
But I think I get your point - if God exists, philosophers (and scientists for that matter) are actually studying him, in some sense, whether they know it or not.
Who imposed it indeed?
September 30, 2007 - 19:28 ET byWho imposed it indeed? What makes a naturalistic approach essential? There is no need for it, now as a branch of philosophy fine. There are many philosophical studies into supernatural agents. Try the (Kalam) cosmological argument, ontological argument etc.
You are close in your understanding of my position. God exists and is therefore the ultimate basis for all knowledge.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, Nothing makes the
September 30, 2007 - 19:44 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Nothing makes the naturalistic approach "essential". However, some folks have decided that they would like to try to explain things without invoking supernatural agents. There are sound reasons for that (we discussed this once before). But ultimately, it isn't necessary.
So if you want to study the world and you want to avoid the use of supernatural causes, you look into science or philosophy. If you want to include those types of causes, you look into theology.
As an aside, I am aware of first cause arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas came up with a version. And I think it was Bertrand Russell who pointed out their major flaw - they assume that the rule of "cause and effect" is an indisputable fact of reality - it isn't.
hydro
September 30, 2007 - 20:01 ET byas you say: Nothing makes the naturalistic approach "essential". Therefore it is imposed (or assumed). The essence of Russell is in "Who caused God?" where he argued that if God is uncaused then the universe could also be which makes God unnecessary. It is basically a false argument since the universe is material/temporal and God is not. He is comparing apples to oranges!
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, Yes, a naturalistic
September 30, 2007 - 20:15 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Yes, a naturalistic approach entails certain assumptions. I guess you can say that they are "imposed" on the ones who accept that approach. I'd say they are "accepted". But then, doesn't a theistic approach entail certain assumptions as well? Would you say that the idea of "God" is "imposed" on those who accept that approach?
I think I get what you mean about apples and oranges in terms of what caused "God" vs what caused the universe. But my point was that the idea that something had to "cause" the universe to exist because every effect has to have a cause is flawed. It assumes that the idea or law (or whatever you want to call it) of "cause and effect" is an indisputable truth of reality. It isn't.
but hydro
September 30, 2007 - 20:22 ET bythat is the essence of Russells 'proof'
if you wish to accept that cause and effect is not valid you also eliminate scientific investigation as having any validity
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, I'm not sure what
September 30, 2007 - 20:36 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I'm not sure what the "that" is in "that is the essence of Russells 'proof'", but either way, I only referenced him since I thought he was the guy who pointed out the problem with first cause 'proofs' for the existence of God. I'm not going to speak for Russell (it's been years since I read any of this stuff), so if you comment on my take on the argument, I can respond to that.
Cause and effect seems to hold on the macroscopic scale, but not necessarily on the microscopic scale. That's been known about for decades via Quantum Mechanics. If, as Big Bang (or Inflationary) Theories suggest, the universe started off very small, then it would seem that Quantum Mechanics (or Quantum Field Theory or some off shoot) would properly describe the situation.
If you want to look into examples of violations of causality, look into "EPR Paradox" for starters. It's an older topic, but it's typically where you start with this stuff.
The essence of Russell is
September 30, 2007 - 20:46 ET byThe essence of Russell is in "Who caused God?" where he argued that if God is uncaused then the universe could also be which makes God unnecessary. It is basically a false argument since the universe is material/temporal and God is not. He is comparing apples to oranges!
Is what i meant by 'that'
Quantum mechanics and Relativity are in a seeming contradiction, lets look at the unification theory before we throw away causal agents (and the basis of science!)
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, Got it. Now back
September 30, 2007 - 20:59 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Got it.
Now back to MY argument about cause and effect. Look into something called Bell's Inequality and the experiments done in the 1980's by A. Aspect.
Bell's work and the experiment that tested it shows that whatever theory comes along to replace QM (or more properly Relativistic Quantum Field Theory) - be it Grand Unified Theory or Superstring or something else - will have to account for certain non-causal aspects of empirical reality (verified by the Aspect experiment) which QM currently does incorporate.
I'm not suggesting that causality seems to be violated on the microscopic scale because some theory says so. I'm saying that it does because it's been verified empirically.
Although, to be fair, you can interpret the results in different ways that don't necessarily imply violation of cause and effect. It's just the alternate interpretations tend to either violate Relativity or suggest odd things about how microscopic objects possess their own properties.
so hydro
September 30, 2007 - 21:12 ET byperhaps we need to wait on the cosmological, so we only have the teliological, ontological, moral, etc arguments. I still believe Kalam cosmological is a valid argument
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, Well, as I pointed
September 30, 2007 - 21:26 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Well, as I pointed out in my last post, we have more than philosophy to suggest that cause and effect doesn't necessarily apply to all situations.
If you accept that the Aspect experiments can be interpreted in that way, then that points to a possible flaw in all "first cause" proofs for the existence of God.
Just sayin'.
Reading comprehension FTL
September 30, 2007 - 18:25 ET by OIFveteranTheir is a prepositional phrase in their, that is important. What god told Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Khan to commit their atrocities?
<insert something clever>
OIF
September 30, 2007 - 18:31 ET bysee post directly above yours, your question is already answered
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
the point is OIF
September 30, 2007 - 18:37 ET bythat more atrocities have been commited by 'atheists' than theists.
Also your implication that theists do all the things you list is absurd and rather intolerant. You obviously are not an atheist as you are way too pissed off at God to be a non-believer.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
OIF, botg FTW.
September 30, 2007 - 18:41 ET by bretzysdudeOIF,
botg FTW.
"Well, we aren't perceived
September 30, 2007 - 17:56 ET by bretzysdude"Well, we aren't perceived as a stereotype to do this, and we aren't as perceived as a stereotype to do that. So nyah, nyah, nyah."
So Christians don't appear to be as self-righteous as your whole stupid post is.
Oh, yeah, one more
September 30, 2007 - 18:19 ET by bretzysdudeOh, yeah, one more thing:
Atheists don't have a holy book that was assembled by power seeking megalomaniacs. Which other power hungry megalomaniacs then twisted and perverted for their own ends.
Hmm, I don't know. I'll bet you anything Dawkins is laughing all the way to the bank for getting such a following. Too bad that he has some of his detractors who believe the same way. Oh, well, a house divided...
He might be if I bought his
September 30, 2007 - 18:33 ET by OIFveteranHe might be if I bought his book. I don't need to read Dawkins work to influence my views on religion. The only book I needed to read to become an atheist was the bible.
<insert something clever>
Re: Holy Book, etc. Less
September 30, 2007 - 19:01 ET by tracheostomyRe: Holy Book, etc.
Less tangible faith objects equals more faith on the part of the individual, no?
You going to share the gospel of non-deleterious mutations and the super-hero second coming?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Oh, you mean the skeptic's
September 30, 2007 - 19:10 ET by tracheostomyThe only book I needed to read to become an atheist was the bible.
Oh, you mean the skeptic's annotated Bible? That's the translation where they assume there is no context to anything.
Yeah, Cain married his sister and theologians can deal with that. Throw me another one. C'mon. Any of 'em smartass.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No
September 30, 2007 - 23:24 ET by cleverpigAtheism doesn't need religion. If there were no religions, we would still believe exactly what we believe now about the nature of the universe. We just wouldn't be aware that there was another possibility we were simultaneously not believing.
I think there are some instictive moral tendencies based on our ability to empathise. Empathy (very different from sympathy, though often confused) causes us to feel one another's pain, thus driving us to avoid hurting others. On top of that, however, we have built a whole mountain of bizarre customs and beliefs, many of which go directly against that fundamental connection with one another.
The point is not to say that natural selection on it's own can explain any human behavior you throw at it, but simply to point out that it is possible to have a moral sense without having it dictated by an outside force. In fact, those of us who don't believe in any god think that religious morality is also created by humans! It is a different perspective-- much as believers will always see atheism as a response to religion, atheists will always see religion as a mortal enterprise.
And I'd also like to echo the call for a little more civility and respect in this discussion. None of us here are idiots, delusional, or have cesspools for hearts.
AtheistRepublican, I
September 30, 2007 - 18:57 ET by hydrodynDMAtheistRepublican,
I would say that atheism simply needs the idea of a supernatural agent to exist (since it rejects these as existing in reality). I don't think an accompanying religion is necessary.
As for origin of morality, I think the debate here is pointless until a clear definition of "morality" is outlined and agreed upon. From the comments to you, I think many here include the idea of "God" within their definition of morality (as a necessary presupposition) and so arguments about the origin of morality for them are just arguments about the existence of God. And, of course, since your definition differs from theirs, there can't be any resolution on the subject of where morality comes from.
Just my two cents.
Last I looked the Crusades
September 30, 2007 - 11:18 ET by danboLast I looked the Crusades and Inquisitions have been over for a while. As an athiest I may disagree with my christian friends on religion. But I agree with them on a lot of things.
But who has been beheading little girls for not believing in their religion, lately? Who is it that bombs train stations? Or planes? It's not the christians.
I think I hear an absurd prejudice here; pretending to be enlightenment.
As an athiest I also have to question using folks at a convention to speak for us. At that comvention you have people with agendas. And a lot of people whose atheism I question. They may be angry theist rather than true atheist.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Danbo
September 30, 2007 - 11:28 ET bygood point, as many 'atheists' are just pissed-off theists
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Weeelllllll......
September 30, 2007 - 11:50 ET by LibraryLadyI grew up around fundamentalist/evangelical families. It truly did "frighten" me away from religion for over 20 years. I consider myself to have a strong faith now although I still am uncomfortable in Church.
The only thing
September 30, 2007 - 12:58 ET by NewsbusterbrownThe only thing hyper-evangelists/fundamentalists have done to me is "frighten" me away from them, not from religion or Christianity. I suspect that's the case with almost everybody else bothered by them, too.
The reason you were frightened
September 30, 2007 - 15:59 ET by KeithYou were frightened because of something in YOU that was MISSING. It is called FAITH. There is no Christianity apart from "Fundamentalism", and those who think there is, are fooling themselves. If you're "uncomfortable" in church perhaps it's your tolerance of homosexuality or abortion or some other area where you are at odds with the Scriptures. See, Church is there to convict you of sin. Church is NOT there to "make you feel good", it's there to make you REPENT, which we all have need of. The bible says that if we say we have no sin, we lie and the truth is not IN us. Therefore it is the job of the church to preach against sin and give you the specific uncomfortable feeling that you are running away from. I would take you to the second chapter of Acts, after Peter has given the first Holy Ghost filled message on the day of Pentecost. The Bible says that the men that Peter was speaking to were "cut in their hearts" or "made to feel uncomfortable with how they've been living their lives". This prompted them to ask what they might do to "relieve" this condition whereupon Peter told them to REPENT and be baptized in a way that most so-called Christian churches ignore...i.e. in Jesus' NAME as opposed to the empty titles of "father son and Holy Ghost. Remember Peter has just told them that the One that they killed a couple of weeks ago (Jesus) was in fact the Messiah and that He Is Risen.
ACTS 2:36-39
36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
Contrary to popular opinon and teaching, Christianity is not a club that anyone can "join" by raising their hands and citing some "sinners prayer". You have to be CALLED to this salvation. One of the ways in which you know that you have heard the TRUE word of God, is the VERY FEELING YOU DESCRIBE! Since it is this uncomfortable feeling that leads directly to Repentance. Think about it, the only reason for us to feel "uncomfortable" in Church is because of the filth we have allowed into our hearts and our lives. Believe me, I've been there! Repent and be baptized CORRECTLY according to scripture (acts 2:38) and you will see a change in how you "feel", upon hearing the Word.
Because I can
September 30, 2007 - 11:58 ET by third eyeI pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
"Under God" was added in the
September 30, 2007 - 23:12 ET by cleverpig"Under God" was added in the fifties. As originally written in 1892 it read: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
is this the 1940s
September 30, 2007 - 23:21 ET byam i missing something?
prayer in schools was removed in the 60s, and your point is?
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Ignorance of Christianity
September 30, 2007 - 12:22 ET by nkviking75It probably has nothing to do with the relentless effort to keep kids from being exposed to anything even remotely Christian in school, or the distorted images of Christians in the media, or gay activists portraying Christians as hate-filled bigots. </sarcasm> I'd wager a great many of those atheists don't know nearly as much about Christianity as they think they do.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Again I'm surprised that so
September 30, 2007 - 13:02 ET by Sonny LykosAgain I'm surprised that so many of you are shocked. You actually think you're living in an America of the past. It's gone, folks, never to return.
Remember this from the Communist Goals 1963
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture."
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
They succeeded pretty good, eh?
Brilliantly put together my
September 30, 2007 - 16:04 ET by KeithBrilliantly put together my friend, simply brilliant.
Keith... You can find the
September 30, 2007 - 16:12 ET by Clear thinkerKeith...
You can find the list by doing a Google search. Look for "45 communist goals for America".
The list just starts to get interesting at #15. Print the whole list and show it to as many people as you can.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Atheist Convention lol
September 30, 2007 - 13:06 ET by Lame CherryI started laughing when I read of an atheist convention.........they must stand around and all say "I don't believe in anything." Must make for an interesting gathering of boring talk.
In reality these people gather like ABC together to lie to themselves that there is no God as they are fools and try to comfort themselves that all is well until they day they die and they have to face Jesus the Christ.
ABC hates Christians because Christians remind their lying souls exactly what they are, how flawed they are and how they are going to Sheol to await Judgment.
God help them and praise God for Christians being attacked again as it means they are doing their job in pointing out the lies these liberals exist in.
agtG
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Witches & Dems in Maine
September 30, 2007 - 13:31 ET by NortoBeliever
Another first? The chair of the party of the Democrats in Kennebec County in Central Maine is a witch and the head of the party in Maine applauds her courage and openness.
Coulter is right on, except that these people are not godless, but worship the fallen one.
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO "GETS"
September 30, 2007 - 16:10 ET by KeithFINALLY SOMEONE WHO "GETS" IT. You want to know why they hate Christians more than they hate even the Islamoterrorists? It's because Jesus is real and "allah" was a just something that Satan whispered to Mohammed and inside where it counts, they know it. Jesus said that if the world hates you it is because they hated Him. Jesus also said in Matt 13 in the parable of the "Wheat and the Tares" that there are two groups of people present on earth. Those that were given to Him by the Father and those who were planted by the Enemy. He said that He allows those plante by the Enemy to flourish along with those that are His, for the protection of those that are His, but that in the last day the Reapers will cut down those sown by the Enemy and throw them in the fire. What side did you think homosexual supporting, abortion providing, America hating, nutbags are on in the first place?
I'm gonna guess you're of
September 30, 2007 - 16:22 ET by JasonCI'm gonna guess you're of the Pentecostal persuasion.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
No Pentecostal
September 30, 2007 - 17:53 ET by CurtI'n not of the "Pentecostal Persuasion," but I do agree with Keith. The devil is just as real as we are. He can't win, but he'll still try to reach us, hurt us, and destroy nations. Reminds me of Japanese soldiers who continued fighting in jungles for years after WWII had ended. It was over, but they fought on - in a lost effort.
Curt
Who were they actually
September 30, 2007 - 18:06 ET by JasonCWho were they actually fighting at that point?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
better yet Jason
September 30, 2007 - 18:16 ET bywho were they fighting for?
Answer: They were fighting for their 'god' --- the emperor
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Who or what?
September 30, 2007 - 19:13 ET by CurtA lot of Filipino cows died for the glory of the emperor - and a few farmers, as well.
Curt
ABC = Anybody But Christians.
September 30, 2007 - 14:47 ET by Dave ROr it's About Bashing Chrisians.
Either way, all they really are is a horde of bigots pretending to embrace tolerance.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Well 99 equates ABC to
September 30, 2007 - 14:56 ET by well99Well 99 equates ABC to Pravda(Soviet Union days) as driveing people to the Republican party.I really have no use for ABC anymore.I not religious but I do believe.That isnt something anyone else could push you away from.You can have doubts but that is only human.As far as ABC they have become a propagada machine for the left.They just keep pushing their agenda of disinformation and false allegations.I dont push my beliefs on others.Maybe ABC should try that.
Are Christians going to lay down for this yet again?
September 30, 2007 - 14:58 ET by Kirk TurnerWhy is it that we hear the term "Christian right but NEVER "atheist left"? Because, according to the MSM, the atheist left is "the mainstream." Also, the atheists left has legions of special interest groups that tilt the view of the elites and keep their interests on the front burner
If you look at all the murderous ideologies in history, religious followers run a distant second to the atheist intellectual ideolgies of the twentieth century.
What is truly amazing is that Christian have been so docile during the past forty years of withering attacks by the establishment in this country and around the world. If all the Christians in this country marched on Washington demanding fair treatment and set up a REAL interest group (not the made-up Moral Majority type but a type of CAIR group), this unfair treatment would end overnight.
Truthfully, I am an agnostic, but I never cease to be amazed at how much the religious people in this country will stomach from the media establishment. I have watched it in amazement for all my life (I'm 51)--when are you going to become activists, organize and say "no more" in a politically astute manner? What are you afraid of?
Athiests are not
September 30, 2007 - 23:06 ET by cleverpigAthiests are not mainstream, even if liberals are. Only a very small percentage of Americans are actually atheist. And if you are looking for a group that gets vilified, try listening to the way right-wing media (Try Hannity sometime) talks about atheists.
To give you some perspective, the news piece that started this discussion introduced us to the one and only openly atheist senator (who appears to be a big jerk, unfortunately!) How many senators do you think are openly Christian? Do you know why there is such a big difference? Because atheists have a very hard time getting elected to public office. I think that is a good sign that we are not, and will not be for a long time, mainstream in this country.
cleverpig
September 30, 2007 - 23:25 ET bywell we agree, i think it is a good sign too. :^)
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
I'm sticking my tongue out
October 1, 2007 - 00:11 ET by cleverpigI'm sticking my tongue out at you right now! :P
what a joke
September 30, 2007 - 16:03 ET by kdizzydazeJust so I have this article straight - there are people who decide if God exists because of what others say in a public forum.
I wonder if any of these people have ever read any part of the bible on their own.
Because there is nothing
September 30, 2007 - 16:14 ET by AtheistRepublicanBecause there is nothing that makes your hapiness more important then anyone elses, so its a fairly safe assumption.
Not necessarily sure about a "rise" in numbers
October 1, 2007 - 02:24 ET by fastfoodbut it does seem that more and more we are being recognised as equally red-blooded Americans with a sense of patriatism and morals, too. And while appearantly many would prefer to look the other way, we too stand up for and spill our blood for what is right.
And it's about time!