View Comments |
Print This Post
| 
by George Shadroui | January 22nd, 2008
Those who pile remorseless fact on remorseless fact in the name of rational science usually wind up constructing another idol, only one that is lifeless; that is their right and choice, but why should it surprise them that the rest of us refuse to bow down and worship with them?
What is one to make of the onslaught of atheist tracts over the past year or two – Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, all raking the countryside with their discontent with religion?
Did all those Silent Nights and Merry Christmases and Happy Hanukkahs finally get to them? Has peace on earth good will toward men driven them to madness? Does the Nativity cut to the heart of their pain?
They are an interesting lot, these men, who find faith an absurd – even abominable — idea and will not rest until they make cry uncle all of us who insist on believing. And convert us to what? One might lament the evangelical who is so persistent that he alienates people and threatens them with visions of fire, but at least such a person is trying to save a soul. What are the evangelical atheists trying to save? What are they trying to sell – other than a rationalism taken to such extremes that is ceases to be rational?
Let us concede that faith is a mystery beyond reason. Like love, hope, and charity, it has reasons that reason does not know. It can no more be understood by reason than Mozart or Shakespeare. Yet here is the irony. Though western religious tolerance, rooted in enlightenment, is upon us, the apostles of atheism are not content.
People, in this nation at least, are free to worship the sun, Satan or nothing at all. Atheists espouse their views routinely on national television, make money pedaling their books, and are, for the most part, greeted by indifference. Not good enough for people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. They want us to submit to their demand that the public square be stripped of every vestige of faith. This is not only unacceptable, it betrays the tradition of American history and a spiritual instinct as old as humanity itself.
Neverthless, evidence of this crusade can be seen across this land. In our courts, our malls and in the halls of government, the atheists (or their surrogates) aggressively seek to impose their objections to faith on the vast majority of faithful Americans. It is not enough that they are not forced to pray, they now find offensive any public display of prayer. Having been given the tolerance they claimed as their right, they are intolerant of any public affection for faith. They will not rest, so it seems, until every religious symbol is removed from any spot on which they might tread.
Hitchens is the most determined advocate of this position, his occasional blandishments about tolerance aside. Not with a scalpel but a Gatling gun does he seek to sweep away the crimes cloaked by the mask of religion. Whether it is the abuse of women, children or medical science, he is quite right to be outraged by pain inflicted on the world by moral bullies and extremists who have concluded that their dogmas justify acting as God’s judges and executioners on earth. One only has to consider the daily toll of killings each day in the name of religious faith to appreciate Hitchens’ point.
But Hitchens misfires, not because he is wrong but because he is right. Dogmatic believers – atheist or otherwise – often assume a knowledge that invites abuse. He calls his book, god is not great. It could just as easily have been named man is not great. Or nationalism is not great. Or extremism is not great.
The inquisition was insane. So was the Holocaust. Flying planes into buildings in the name of faith is every bit as pernicious and murderous as crucifying Christians in the name of Caesar. Drinking Kool Aid laced with poison makes about as much sense as dispatching millions of people to the Gulag. G. K. Chesterton observed that human beings are not rational and Hitchens acknowledges this but then fails to digest the relevant lessons.
For every case of religious-inspired violence there is an equally horrific example of violence rooted in atheistic or pagan political culture. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are relevant not because they deal with rare abnormalities in human behavior, but because they speak to failings that afflict the vast majority of flawed human beings.
Early on Hitchens writes: “The true believer cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee.” Yet, Hitchens knows that the true believer is as likely to be a Marxist as a Muslim, a Nazi as a Catholic, a nationalist as a Morman, a secular humanist as a Buddhist. And so Hitchens tries a bit of polemical gymnastics, and seeks to lump every sort of dogma, from materialism to paganism, under the heading of "religion." In doing so, he has rendered his book meaningless. If he cannot distinguish between the worship of God and the worship of man, how does one take him seriously as a critic? If the impulse to believe in dogmas is at issue, isn’t Hitchens’ belief in unbelief just another dogma?
As a faithful person, I am prepared to defend my faith, but I am not prepared to let Hitchens define what that faith is. I will defend a belief in God, but not a belief in Hitchens as the arbiter of what God is. I am prepared to defend the notion that Jesus stood in unique relationship to creation, but I am not prepared to let Hitchens equate Roman paganism with the Beatitudes. We need not submit to their circular logic, which goes something like this: religion is bad, bad things happen, thus religion is the mother of all bad things.
Hitchens’ history is sorely lacking. There is no compelling proof that Jesus existed, he claims at one point. I doubt Mr. Hitchens would deny the existence of Shakespeare, and we certainly have as much evidence to support that Jesus lived as we do that Shakespeare did. He claims that the moral instruction of the Bible and the New Testament are nothing new, but clearly he has chosen to ignore the brutalities of the pagan world.
Mr. Hitchens is not content to argue that religion, taken to radical extremes, does much harm. No, he argues that religion “poisons everything” and he does not exempt Judaism or Christianity or any other of the great world religions. Such a comprehensive claim discredits itself at the outset, for religion no more poisoned the world than the world poisoned the world.
Life is a vale of tears, an imperfect journey, however lifted it might be by the tender mercies or moments of beauty we experience. Yet religion has enriched that experience and offered glimpes of the eternal by inspiring art, literature, music, architecture, and philosophy. It has compelled men to look beyond themselves, just as it has commanded them to bend their knees. It has comforted millions in time of need, and led to shattering moral insights.
We also know, as Mr. Hitchens dutifully reminds us, that religion has been used to break men’s minds and spirits, to force men to deny their own sacred beliefs, to rip them apart from the very creation for which we give thanks to God. Yet, I am amazed at how unpersuasive the religious critics are.
Dawkins relates a claim made by some that the universe could no more come into existence by chance than a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a windstorm blowing through a salvage lot. What about the obvious question: is the universe anything like a Boeing 747? Is the universe a machine, or a mysterious blend of poetry, drama and science? We can only assume a creator, an intelligent design, if what we are today is what the creator intended us to be, right? If the wind shapes a cloud in the image of an elephant, do we assume that the wind consciously created the shape? Our existence could be an accident of moving parts, not always effectively assembled to judge by all the discarded pieces of creation.
But then maybe God isn't an engineer or an architect, but a dramatist or a comedian. Nature is sublime and brutal, efficient and wasteful, miraculous and horrifying, comical and tragic. Those who claim to have faith must concede that if God exists, all of this is part of the creation God made possible, and that we have a limited capacity to make sense of it – the child with cancer or a fissionable atom that unleashes hell. As C.S. Lewis reminded us, waste, inefficiency, loss, suffering are all part of God’s plan. It would be hard to argue otherwise.
The unbeliever likewise must answer difficult questions. Believing in a God that unleashed creation may be farfetched, but is it more farfetched than believing that our universe came from nothing? And if the object lesson of evolution is that the best is what emerges from the primordial morass of human existence, are we not forced to concede, at this juncture at least, that religious belief is the superior idea, given its dominance of virtually every culture and society known to man?
It is my own view that the journey to understanding will not be marked by arrogant preaching, but by tentative steps in the direction of self-discovery. It will not be found by a thousand theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but by a childlike wonder that finds all things possible –- snowflakes that dance in the air like fairies, a sun that melts away each evening, stars that twinkle like icicles on a winter’s day. Small mysteries that add up to universal wonder are the stuff of faith.
No, it is not the humble Christian who poses the problem, but the arrogant atheist. It is not the uncertain agnostic who threatens God’s children, but the religious who mistakes himself for God. I, for one, share Hitchens’ concerns about true believers if he means those who are incapable of entertaining doubt. I would go further. I would argue that doubt is essential to a healthy faith. And I would go even further by arguing that God would consider doubt essential to true faith.
Doubt is integral to faith precisely because faith is the triumph of hope over reason. Where there is no doubt, there can be no struggle, no search, no journey toward understanding, and no reconciliation between the material and the spiritual. Those who never question can be easily tempted to tyranny. When Jesus said that the heart of the law is mercy, when he forgave sinners as a matter of routine practice, he was speaking to the heart of the Christian mystery — those who condemn risk condemnation. The paradox is instructive. It is the possibility of error that binds our common humanity; it is the capacity to admit we might be wrong that leads us to truth. Thus are religious faith and science joined.
Where might faith be found? It can be found in countless places. In prayerful moments inside an empty church, in the joyous Masses at Christmas season, in the gestures of peace transmitted through an embrace or a handshake, in the traditions of charity and gift-giving, in the recognition of shared, irredeemable losses, in questioning moments of despair when all seems futile, in the little things that annoy us, in the still small voice that pierces the thundering winds. That these dramas are beyond the calculus of today’s zealots, faithful or not, is the root of much tragedy. It is those who demand merciless perfection who are most dangerous to imperfect humans.
No one will deny the intelligence of men such as Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens. They are provocative, but are they wise? Who sounds more dogmatic — the man who writes that “religion poisons everything,” or a believer like “silly” Malcolm Muggeridge who called his autobiography The Chronicles of Wasted Time. For all their stated objections to the abuse of religion, these atheists seem more interested in destroying any faith that violates their own sacramental unbelief. They are quick to indict the religious for every heinous crime committed in the name of faith, but in doing so they embrace the same absolutism they condemn in the religious zealot. They ask the faithful to own every sin committed in the name of God, but they will not shoulder a solitary sin committed in the name of science or atheism.
They remind me of a journalist I knew years ago, while working at the Virginian Pilot & Ledger-Star. Alan was a provocative thinker and he found me a curious character. On several occasions over drinks or dinner he would inquire about my politics and my Catholic faith. At one point, he suggested that if I truly believed, I should exert every effort to convert him. After all, he winked, his very soul was in jeopardy. I would answer today the same way I answered him then. I don’t know with certainty God’s will or even if God exists, I can only suggest that my own life has been deeply enriched by the tradition of faith into which I was born; that Jesus, more than any other thinker, teacher or prophet, has brought me face to face with shattering glimpses of truth.
Of course, I am not alone. Reynolds Price, a Duke University novelist, poet and essayist, remarks that he is overwhelmed by “the always startling degree of tolerance and compassion shown and commended by Jesus. I say startling because I’m always caught off guard by that characteristic whenever I read about him.”
Phillip Simmons, in his beautiful book, Learning to Fall: The Blessings of an Imperfect Life, explores the gospel story of Jesus entering Jerusalem. The Pharisees warned him to quiet the crowd, but Jesus answered that even if the crowd were silent, the stones would shout out. Simmons continued: “True religion is an activity of the imagination . . . and Jesus felt himself so aligned with the natural and cosmic order that the very stones would cry out his arrival. Jesus at this moment is in the state of true wildness, when we express our divine natures as naturally as animals do, when our every word and deed flows directly from our highest purposes.”
Chesterton observed: “If it were true that by leaving the temple we walked out into a world of truths, the question would be answered, but it is not true. By leaving the temple, we walk into a world of idols; and the idols of the marketplace are more perishable and passing than the gods of the temple we have left. If we wished to test rationally the case of rationalism, we should follow the career of the skeptic and ask how far he remained skeptical about the idols or the ideals of the world into which he went . . ..”
Those who pile remorseless fact on remorseless fact in the name of rational science usually wind up constructing another idol, only one that is lifeless; that is their right and choice, but why should it surprise them that the rest of us refuse to bow down and worship with them?
The stridency of the "new atheists" is, I have found, rather exaggerated. One can find snippets that sound dogmatic out of context – but then, it's not hard to do that with any work. It seems to me it's the act of questioning religion at all that is provocative to the critics who make such accusations, rather than the actual tone. A quip I've seen elsewhere: "It's a hilarious double-standard that you actually have to pick up a gun and kill somebody to be considered a 'militant' believer, but all you have to do to be considered a 'militant atheist' is write a book."
Another example of exaggeration here – I'm not familiar with any atheist anywhere that has demanded the removal of "every religious symbol is removed from any spot on which they might tread." I've seen several cases recently where atheists have asked that religious displays not be placed on public land – or at least, if they are, that such displays be open to all religions and viewpoints. But can anyone find, say, a case of an atheist suing a church or synagogue to take down their cross or Star of David?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 22, 2008
Why are "God created the universe" and "the universe came from nothing" the only two possible options? And even if they were the only options, why must one have active belief in either? Is it impossible to reserve judgement until we have more actual data?
It's a convenient stereotype to paint atheists as being just as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist of religious believers, but that stereotype does not match my experience. Atheists – more or less by definition – are reasonably certain that certain theories are not true, but that doesn't mean they are dogmatic about that, or anything else. (It's possible to be sure that both Freud and the Behaviorists were wrong without being certain about what 'theory of mind' is actually right.)
Dogmatism and religion are logically distinct axes. A "religion", to my mind, assumes something supernatural – something unknowable by humans, something fundamentally beyond human comprehension. I've discussed elsewhere the problems with this concept. Certainly one can be a "flexible" or "dogmatic" supernaturalist, or a "flexible" or "dogmatic" atheist. (It's worth pointing out that it was the specific dogma of Lysenkoism that caused the vast majority of the suffering under Stalin and Mao – the crop failures and famine that resulted are what killed most of the 'millions' in their regimes.)
While dogma and religion (certitude and supernaturalism) are, as I said, logically distinct, in my experience they seem to be highly correlated. A habit of believing things avowedly in the absence of evidence – 'faith' in the commonly-used religious sense – does seem likely to produce dogmatism.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 22, 2008
In my own experience, "a childlike wonder that finds all things possible" can be combined with a passion for finding out how things really are and rigorously testing what we think we know.
A rainbow, it turns out, is made up of billions of tiny raindrops of the right size, illuminated at the correct angle. The light is reflected and refracted a few times inside the drop and the multiple colors hidden within white light are split and leave the drops in different directions. It is not, it turns out, a guide to a pot of gold or a bridge to the realm of the gods.
But it's still beautiful. It's possible to understand something thoroughly and still find it marvelous and valuable. It doesn't have to be an idol, to be worshipped, to enrich one's life nonetheless. Indeed, real life, the real world, is more fantastic and remarkable than we humans have ever guessed before investigating. Perhaps not everyone finds this exciting or inspiring, but is it such a surprise that many do?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 22, 2008
THREE posts, Mr. Ingles? Why is it that you pop up only when the religious dogma of the anti-theists is challenged? Are you so insecure that you must beat back the forces of superstitious believers every time they manifest?
And where is paulburnett? Surely he has some smug, consdescending remark to toss out?
Comment by Mountain Man | January 22, 2008
Why, yes, Mountain Man, I made "THREE" posts – there were three different aspects of the essay that I wanted to address. As to why I 'popped up' here – I find the subject interesting, and wanted to comment. I've done so on other topics, e.g. Iraq policy. I was under the impression that this site was intended to be a forum for discussion; am I incorrect? One need not be 'insecure' to discuss something; do you believe that Mr. Shadroui is 'insecure' because he wrote an essay in response to the "new atheists"?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 22, 2008
Might I respond briefly to a couple of comments. First, atheism is a political movement, albeit a marginal one. But, in recent years, even public displays of prayer at football games have been disallowed, simply putting the TEn commandments in a courthouse has become controversial and removing references to God from the pledge have been tried. Does every atheist do this? No, but enough do it to make it a public issue of great import to those of us who believe religious faith and principles are still a cornerstone of civil society. My focus is on those who are being extreme in their disbelief, or do you not think it extreme to claim that religion poisons everything? As to my fundamentalism (I will ignore the childish play on words, which is not all that clever), actually I am a Catholic who would probably be accused by a fundamentalist as having lapsed in many ways. I have no evangelical instinct, which my article makes clear, but I do resent attempts to strip the public square of even the most decent and respectful religious displays. Our Constitution does not demand it and in fact our founders did just the opposite. I will admit some monitoring is required, but in my view we have gone too far in the anti-religion direction.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 22, 2008
However, I will concede that — at least so far — there has been no movement to disallow religious worship outside the public sphere, so if I took some license to make a general point, well, I will amend my comments as soon as Hitchens relents and acknowledeges that religion has not poisoned everything.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 22, 2008
"Let us concede that faith is a mystery beyond reason. Like love, hope, and charity, it has reasons that reason does not know. "
Arghhhh! No . . . let us NOT concede that faith is a mystery beyond reason. There is much evidence and many plausible theories that we are predisposed to faith because our evolved brains seem to need to answer things that we cannot [or do not yet] know. Like so many believers, the author starts out with some ridiculous presupposition and builds their argument on that. Just because YOU (the author and others that use the technique) cannot wrap your head around a universe with unanswered questions, doesn't mean other cannot.
There is no evidence of the supernatural (the god of Abraham or any other). Just because some are uncomfortable with that does not make the supernatural true.
As to the strident tones taken by non-believers of late … I think deeply religious president and deeply religious terrorists can be thanked for that. My entire motivation for running in these circles is to keep religion out of public policy . . . absolutely and completely.
Comment by fvthinker | January 22, 2008
Do I think it extreme to claim that "religion poisons everything"? Perhaps, but it does depend on how one defines 'religion'. Defining it as 'a belief in the unknowable and ineffable'… well, as I said, in my experience that does seem to be highly correlated with dogmatism and an unwillingness to doubt.
If you go as wide as (atheist) David Sloan Wilson and define religions as belief systems that "sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism" – that distort actual facts in order to motivate a set of useful behaviors… well, by that definition, religion would have to have at least some benefits. (Of course, Wilson explicitly states that, in his definition, the presence or absence of 'supernatural' beliefs are a detail.) And even then… the fact that a belief is useful is not necessarily proof that it's true.
I think Dennett may be onto something when he likened religion (in the sense of supernatural beliefs) to a 'nurse crop' – an annual crop that you plant in conjunction with a perennial crop to help the perennial crop get started. Religion in that sense may have been necessary to help human social organization in the past, but I'm not convinced it's needed now. As Wilson himself notes, it's not clear that we have to depart from 'factual realism' in order to satisfy 'practical realism'. One of my favorite authors, David Gerrold, put it this way: "We don't necessarily want accurate maps, we want useful ones. But accuracy is extraordinarily useful."
People like Hitchens and people like Wilson are talking about different things in different contexts. I would still recommend Wilson's book, "Evolution For Everyone", to those interested in the role of religion in society. It taught me a few things and changed my thinking on some of these topics. Others might take different lessons from it.
Hitchens is a pugnacious fellow, and no mistake. Even granting that, however, much of what he writes and says is not at all overblown. And it's funny that Dawkins and Harris and Dennett get exactly the same response from critics, and get lumped into the same mold, despite markedly less provocative tones.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 22, 2008
I don't follow sports, so I wasn't aware that "public displays of prayer at football games have been disallowed". By whom? The NFL? That's their right as a private organization, to allow or disallow as they choose… or perhaps, on the other hand, you're talking about prayers at public-school football games. It's a bit less clear that that's entirely 'private'… and even then, so far as I understand, people can indeed pray. Having an organized prayer led with school sanction, that's a bit controversial, I'll concede.
Not that I'm particularly offended by it. My parents (non-religious) sent me to a Catholic high school, just because it was the best available private school within their means. I survived with my sensibilities intact. Their school, their rules. If I'd had a problem I wouldn't have gone.
As to the "under God" in the pledge bit – removing those words, added in a flurry of anti-Communist fervor, (from a pledge written by a Socialist, irony of ironies) does not hinder religious expression. No one, to my knowledge, is trying to put "under no God" into the pledge. That would be atheistic.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 22, 2008
Mountain Man asked: "…where is paulburnett? Surely he has some smug, consdescending remark to toss out?"
You missed me! I'm honored.
Actually, I didn't notice this thread until just now. I'll be back with some smug, consdescending remarks later. For the moment, let me ask this:
In a country that has more Moslems than Presbyterians, and more Buddhists than Episcopalians (not to mention a lot of Jews), why is it that only strawman "atheists" are singled out as wanting to remove references to Christianity from public places? Should we not respect their sensibilities and wishes to raise their children in their "true faith"?
And to ask a purely hypothetical question, what would God's Annointed President Huckabee do with all those non-Christians once he "takes back America for Christ"?
Comment by PaulBurnett | January 22, 2008
I think it is appropriate to put in here a short quote from the tenth president of the United States, John Tyler (who succeeded William Henry Harrison) who wrote in 1843:
"The United States has adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent — that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the Constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political institutions… The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid… and the Aegis of the government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it."
Comment by PaulBurnett | January 22, 2008
"There is no evidence of the supernatural (the god of Abraham or any other)."
And there is no evidence that all that we see here came to be as a result of a series of happy coincidences and non-guided events.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 22, 2008
I see your John Tyler and raise you a George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.
A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Comment by Mountain Man | January 22, 2008
Mountain Main said "And there is no evidence that all that we see here came to be as a result of a series of happy coincidences and non-guided events."
I beg to differ (as would any reputable scientist). We will likely be extinct before we identify the process that created life from primordial ooze, but there is crushing amounts of evidence that we all share a common ancestor. There is crushing amounts of evidence that evolution by natural selection (ENS) works exactly as commonly described…we have seen it and replicated it in bacteria. (how is it you think we are getting these 'superbugs' that are resistant to antibiotics?)
ENS has nothing to do with "happy coincidences". We are all mutants; every single one of us. Some of might have some genetic advantage that will save them from future plague. Some might have some genetic vulnerability that will render them vulnerable to some future pandemic. You might marvel that we are here where everything seems designed for our existance. What you don't see is the billions of failed mutations that didn't fit through the keyhole.
Comment by fvthinker | January 22, 2008
Harken onto PaulBurnett…aren't sensible people like him "annoying"???…laughter
Well George, your statement, and I quote:
"I do resent attempts to strip the public square of even the most decent and respectful religious displays. Our Constitution does not demand it and in fact our founders did just the opposite. I will admit some monitoring is required, but in my view we have gone too far in the anti-religion direction."
It is a PUBLIC square George, not a CHRISTIAN square. Town Hall and Congress are PUBLIC venues George…and I can hear you squealing your FunDummie rationalizations:
"It will be a SHORT prayer"…or;
"How can a little prayer hurt?"…or
"Just a prayer for all the Christians here, OK?"
The separation of church and state means keep your church in church…I hope the government realizes this and eventually taxes everything income producing outside of that CHURCH BUILDING
Please pray in the church of your choice and please do it often every day, this keeps you folks off the PUBLIC streets and out of our children's pants.
owlafaye
Comment by owlafaye | January 22, 2008
fvthinker could carry it a little further and wonder why so many billions and billions of failures and a few million successes struggling with badly designed features could possibly be the products of an "Intelligent Designer"????? Laughter, lots and lots of laughter.
The BABBLE is the Word Of GOD you fool…let me read you a few things here and I will interpret them so you know just what HE was saying ya idjit…cain't ya reaid boy? this herea book is GODS WORD…listen up now…
Comment by owlafaye | January 22, 2008
George S. says that he speaks for all religions…Over 90% of religious belief is centered in religions that are messiah and fear based.
Their fears and beliefs, their stories and dogmas, histories and cant…pure foolishness…of course, they are offended when you mention it…but take Christianity as an example, it is no different from the other messiah/fear based religions and a summation is a good example of religion:
Christianity is the belief that an invisible, cosmic, Jewish zombie will grant you everlasting life if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically accept him as your master so that he can lift an evil force from your soul present in all humanity because a woman, created out of a man's rib, was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
MAKES PERFECT SENSE eh George?
Comment by owlafaye | January 22, 2008
George said:
"They are an interesting lot, these men, who find faith an absurd – even abominable — idea and will not rest until they make cry uncle all of us who insist on believing. And convert us to what? One might lament the evangelical who is so persistent that he alienates people and threatens them with visions of fire, but at least such a person is trying to save a soul. What are the evangelical atheists trying to save? What are they trying to sell – other than a rationalism taken to such extremes that is ceases to be rational?"
The definition of faith essentially says that "faith is the substance of nothing" and as Nietsche said: "Belief is not wanting to know what is true" Belief is the substance of nothing also George.
Belief and Faith are things that are HOPED for, that not realized.
You ask what an atheist is trying to convert you into and then say, Well, at least an evangelical is "trying to save a soul"
But but but Georgeeeeeeeee…a soul is an ephemeral creation of believers, not a reality. Just another thing taken on "faith"…laughs
You see George, atheists are trying to convert you to reality and you are trying to convert them to absurdities.
Atheists are trying to get you to accept personal responsibility for all your words, thoughts and deeds…whereas your Christ and similar concepts are the repository for all your mistakes while you roam the earth willy nilly, convinced that you are empowered by The Big Booger Booger in the Sky" to do WHATEVER is necessary not only to promulgate your faith but to SAVE all the undeclared sinners and slaves….lots and lots of laughter…
We are trying to get you to come down off your sanctimonious declarations of our sins and evangelicl energies and efforts and realize that you are hiding behind all this fervor and belief, pointing all these fingers and damning all these "perverts" because, if you are fervent enough, God will "spot you in the crowd" before we recognize you for the filthy little sinful, hypocritically little worm called "common humanity" and spit on you.
Well George, we are not here to spit on you despite all your fears…we are here to tell you that you are human and you had better perk up your ears and listen or suffer the ignominy due a noisy little coward.
owlafaye
Comment by owlafaye | January 22, 2008
That someone (owlafaye) can make 4 consecutive, and 4 increasingly angry posts blasting an opinion article is solely, truly, and completely an ACT OF GOD!
Comment by JOMamma | January 22, 2008
Mountain Man quoted George Washington's Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
Please note that Washington did not say which religion. Although like many readers here, Washington literally could not conceive of any other religion than Christianity, it is an obvious fact that there are many other religions than Christianity.
As "owlafaye" points out, "It is a PUBLIC square George, not a CHRISTIAN square." Unless you are a flaming chauvinist denominationalist, you've got to grant other religions the rights you want to enjoy for your religion. Or are you one of those religionists who wants to kill or convert all other religions?
Comment by PaulBurnett | January 22, 2008
geez louise guys, take a breath. You are reading your own prejudices or fears into my remarks. I would rather respond thoughtfully than rant about how distorted and vitriolic your responses are. And I will in due course.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 22, 2008
paulburnett,
owlafaye is a bigoted idiot whose only intent is to inflame with the spewing of hateful, anti-intellectual rhetoric. I doubt that he could reason his way out of a paper bag.
Regarding Washington, yes of course, you must be right. Washington was talking about Confucianism.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 22, 2008
"Mountain Man" sarcastically replied: "Regarding Washington, yes of course, you must be right. Washington was talking about Confucianism." You know that's not right. You're deliberately missing the point.
Don't forget, Thomas Jefferson wrote his own translation of the Bible, and his Koran was recently used in the swearing-in ceremony of an Islamic member of Congress.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" specifically prohibits the preference of one religion over another. It is not legal to display symbols or artifacts of one religion and not display symbols or artifacts of another religion or religions. The best way to do that fairly to all religions is to not display the symbols or artifacts of any religion.
This concept has nothing to with atheism, but with offending the sensibilities of every religion that is actively or passively ignored when a symbol or artifact of any particular religion is displayed.
Do you want the United States to be mono-religious, like Saudi Arabia? There is only one type of religion allowed in Saudi Arabia – there is not one Christian church, not one synagogue, not one temple of any other religion in all of Saudi Arabia. Technically and legally, there are no worship services of any other religion other than the state religion allowed in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you want here in the United States?
And I meant it when I asked what would a President Huckabee do with all those non-Christians once he “takes back America for Christ”?
Has anybody else here read Robert Heinlein's "If This Goes On–"?
Comment by PaulBurnett | January 22, 2008
Because “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”by law the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion on public property or anywhere else – save for the notion of separation of church and state as created by several fellows in robes.
Had the law been allowed to stand as clearly written, the state would perhaps be granting many different religions permits to freely exercise on public property, much the way free speech via demonstration is granted by permit.
As for the question of whether there is a God, of course there is.
And before anyone bothers to counter that, I'll do it for you: of course there isn't.
The pertinent question here isn't so much what you believe, but "what are you going to do about it?"
It's clear all the author does here is take issue with what some atheists choose to do about it. Interestingly, the behavior he questions closely resembles extreme jealousy, also evidenced by some of the remarks posted here.
I understand class envy, but is there, maybe, such a thing as faith envy?
I wonder if atheists feel like taunted children on the playground.
"You don't have a Gaw-awd, you don't have a Gaw-awd."
It would explain a lot.
Comment by nick adams | January 23, 2008
Mr. Adams, I don't think "envy" is the best term. "Resentment" seems to fit better. Nor is such resentment entirely unjustified – recall that atheism is quite possibly the least popular minority in the U.S.:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_/
And this translates to real-life effects:
http://volokh.com/posts/1125342962.shtml
Not that I'm defending rudeness here. There's a time and a place for rudeness, but it's not when people are showing a willingness to actually discuss matters. Of course, politeness needs to go both ways… I'd hesitate to compare people to schoolchildren. It's unlikely to help honest discussion… assuming that's the goal.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 23, 2008
Mr. Ingles, Feel free to substitute schoolchildren with "childlike," if it is a word you prefer (see post #4).
With regard to "resentment" being a better word, Webster defines "envy" as a "painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another… "
My post goes to the "resentment" being of the type produced by envy.
As for moving the discussion forward, the question of whether religion in public places is harmful, like with any form of speech, it depends. I would suggest that a nativity scene, and the message it carries, on a courthouse lawn is positive and harmless, while a Muslim cleric preaching death to all infidels and calling on suicide bombers to act is dangerous.
What I don’t understand is how it is the concept of separation of church and state became an exception to free speech. If the government is forbidden from prohibiting the free exercise thereof with respect to religious speech, how is it that it routinely does?
Any religion is a collection of ideas/thoughts and beliefs. In America our ideas, thoughts and beliefs may be freely expressed as long as they pass the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” test.
It is often pointed out that the Constitution provides freedom of religion, but no promise of the freedom from religion many Atheists seek. The truth of that is in the reading. In fact, since religious speech is addressed specifically in the Constitution, it would appear that the framers actually meant there to be more protection for religious speech than other forms.
Comment by nick adams | January 23, 2008
George Shadroui
The 747 remark is generally attributed to the late Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astrophysicist and winner of various scientific accolades. Hoyle liked to play mind games with the gullible followers of Charles Darwin and those true believers in what he called “chemical evolution” – he’s known for several witty quips on the odds that life formed by blind chance and evolved through a process of random events (natural selection).
For example, he scoffed at the idea that natural law and random chance could create the approximately 2,000 enzymes needed to develop simple protein chains and functioning biological structures and stated that “the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a fully functional 747 from the materials therein”. Mathematically, he was saying the chance that life forms could have been created through some random chemical process was one chance in 10 to the 40,000th power. Or, as one commentator put it, the chance of throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with a single die.
Another popular quip concerned the random formation of a functioning protein from amino acids as similar to the odds of a universe full of blind men solving a Rubik’s cube simultaneously. As a mathematician, Hoyle was unimpressed with many biologists and their adherence to the evolutionary explanations of Darwin and his philosophical descendents. In a publication within the peer-reviewed journal Nature, he expressed his exasperation with biologists and their refusal to recognize the high improbability of evolution by random chance/natural law as follows: “I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what to me seems obvious.”
Naturally, he wasn’t popular with many biologists, primarily due to his expressed skepticism but also the fact he was a highly respected scientist rather than an easily dismissed Southern Baptist fundamentalist preacher and religious nut. And, while raising doubts among gullible laymen and Darwinian true believers isn’t a job for the easily offended, it does help to be a well-known and respected scientist. To pay him back for his impertinence, several counter-arguments were offered to refute Hoyle’s calculations.
For the simpletons among the true believers, it was claimed Hoyle wasn’t a biologist, hadn’t worked in evolution research and didn’t know the secret handshake to get into the annual Darwin meeting and evolution barbecue supper. In short, he lacked the credentials to scoff at evolution. This is a variation of the famous consensus proof of evolution – in short, “evolution is supported by all reputable scientists, so what’s your problem, buddy?”
Another popular counter-argument for the simple minded was: “the mathematical odds must have been favorable to evolution or how else do you explain how we got here?” Some puzzled critics pointed this out as circular reasoning, but in the “intuitive school of evolution” that form of reasoning is perfectly acceptable and often forms the basis of legitimate arguments. Happily, as a snappy retort to Hoyle’s position, it requires no empirical evidence and has a nice beat you can dance to.
When various folks began to quote Hoyle in popular articles and within the media, a serious response was required. One mathematician attacked Hoyle’s assumptions in developing his probability estimates. This was a much more legitimate response as the starting assumptions are always the basis for subsequent calculations. Additionally, there is no way to prove either Hoyle’s or his critics’ starting assumptions since the physical events the assumptions represent can be neither empirically verified or empirically denied. However, by employing different assumptions about how life formed, the odds became somewhat more favorable to evolution. So, in the end, it had the effect of putting everything back to square one – the scientific equivalent of “oh yeah” and “sez who?” But, for some reason, Hoyle’s comments continue to surface both inside and outside the scientific community.
Hoyle was also outspoken about cosmogony and the likely origins of the universe, but his comments would require too much space to reproduce here. Your essay’s reference to Hoyle seemed to focus on the origin of the universe question rather than evolution – but the thrust of Hoyle’s 747 remark was aimed directly at evolution and its various supporting theories.
Comment by Pat Skurka | January 23, 2008
Mr. Skurka – Hoyle's only actual mathematical calculations had to do with abiogenesis – the potential initial origin of life from non-living materials. That does not have anything to do with evolution that's happened subsequently to life's start on Earth, however that may have happened. Even if Hoyle were completely right in every particular, that would have no effect whatsoever on the basic principles of common descent and natural selection.
Of course, it's been known for a while that Hoyle was not, in fact, right. Google "Hoyle's fallacy". Your presentation of the history of his ideas is… not accurate, from what I've read.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 23, 2008
With the post I see on this board I think the author has made his point. What I don't get is why someone would spend good time writing a post on a subject they declare they don't believe in. Makes me wonder just what the agenda is.
I took the time to say a little prayer for the blind people who have posted on this article. I often think about blind people and how they must have a difficult time getting around in this world. With tunnel vision and blinders on it must seem like a small place.
I wonder how many atheist are against home schooling?
Comment by fbaginski | January 23, 2008
Fbaginski – you might look at comment #27 for why people might take an interest in the subject regardless of their belief… or lack thereof. Besides which, everyone has a hobby. You, for example, disagree with evolution – indeed, apparently nearly all of modern science – but still write posts about them.
As to being against home schooling, I'm not sure how many atheists are against it, but I can provide an example of one that isn't: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/stupids.html#id
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 23, 2008
George Shadroui
Your comment #7 contained an interesting assertion that “atheism is a political movement, albeit a marginal one.” I think most intelligent observers of Western culture would agree with you on that but I had hoped you would expand on your thoughts in that regard within your subsequent comments.
Atheism is an ancient faith, there have been documented references to it down through the centuries and within every culture – even during the Catholic Church dominated “Dark Ages” every hamlet had its village idiot and its village atheist. But, you’re correct that in recent years, the atheist agenda has gotten more play within the press and through philosophical support in the Courts.
However, the core participants of this movement are difficult to pinpoint. Like other minority victim groups, atheists have emerged from their closet and, like the gays, they no longer suffer in silence – in fact, it’s hard to shut them up. Yet, there is no ecumenical council of atheists and agnostics funding and directing the activities.
Another thought along these lines is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the media frenzy over terrorist activities have pulled the atheists into the spotlight. The “people of the Book”, that is Christians and Jews wouldn’t have a cheery life under an American Islamic government, but the atheists are destined for the sword – and promptly at that. Ironically, American Christians and Jews comprise the majority of citizens charged with the defense of religious rights of atheists – or rather their right not to be religious. That can’t be a pleasant picture to contemplate.
Some Jewish scholars have recently pointed to Christian fundamentalists and their vocal support of Israel. For some Jews, this fact must be a confusing and disquieting thought – the so-called right wing Christian fundamentalists as defenders and allies of Jews while the liberal university crowd condemns Israel. Perhaps the renewed fear of religious repression is driving both the Jews and the atheists into similar political activities, although for entirely different reasons.
Another driving force may be a backlash against the wealth and cultural influence of religion in America. As a source of tax revenue, organized religion is a highly visible and vulnerable source of assets and other wealth. While privatizing religion may be the stated goal, impoverishing religion as a fiscal check on its political and cultural influence may be a hidden agenda.
Lastly, the liberal wing of the mainline Protestant denominations and the Catholic faith may be providing political support for atheist rights – albeit in an understated fashion. Students of American history know the mainline Protestants are primarily responsible for the present liberal mindset and culture within public universities and the East Coast intelligentsia. George Marsden and other authors have documented the slow but intentional conversion of religious universities into the secular bastions of liberal education so often discussed by conservative writers today.
And, the Catholics have shed crocodile tears over Roe vs. Wade in recent years, but a careful study of the politics of that earlier era has Catholic bishops supporting the Democrats and their agenda. A universal right to abortion was the bitter medicine the bishops had to swallow to achieve all the many social giveaways the Democrats of an earlier era promised. It was a package deal, however unpalatable. Even Teddy Kennedy spoke out forcefully against abortion rights at one time in a past life.
So, what is your opinion on what forces are driving the atheist political movement and what is its real agenda?
Comment by Pat Skurka | January 23, 2008
Pat Skurka wrote to George Shadroui:
"And, the Catholics have shed crocodile tears over Roe vs. Wade in recent years, but a careful study of the politics of that earlier era has Catholic bishops supporting the Democrats and their agenda. A universal right to abortion was the bitter medicine the bishops had to swallow to achieve all the many social giveaways the Democrats of an earlier era promised. It was a package deal, however unpalatable. Even Teddy Kennedy spoke out forcefully against abortion rights at one time in a past life."
George Shadroui wrote (comment # 7)
"…actually I am a Catholic…."
Woops…. :)
Comment by liwfz | January 23, 2008
From comment #25: "'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' specifically prohibits the preference of one religion over another. It is not legal to display symbols or artifacts of one religion and not display symbols or artifacts of another religion or religions."
Wrong. "Congress," Congress… shall make no law. That would be NO law. This simple sentence means it cannot prohibit anyone from making religious expressions, no matter how or when. It cannot decide to be "fair" and require a diverse display. It cannot arrest pastors who share their faith at gay pride events. It cannot prevent school children from writing reports about Jesus. It cannot prevent people from demonstrating at abortion clinics. NO law.
"Establishment of religion." A state religion, "established" and enforced by Congress. However, the accomodation of religion in any peaceable manifestion is not the same thing as establishing a state religion.
Oherwise, how could Congress have authorized the purchase of Bibles using treasury money? How could it have agreed to fund missionaries going to other nations? How is it that the Founders were, almost to a man, very religious Christians who believed that Christian morality was a requirement to be a good citizen? How else could they have believed that the Bible ought to be the primary school text?
The Supreme court is wrong. It is making law (despite the fact that Congress is the only branch of government authorized to make law). It has grossly misinterpreted the 1st Amendment, twisting it to suit the preferences of secularists. And secularists, hating religion and religious people, prefer revisionist courts and revisionist history, all the while trumpeting their superior reasoning and superior world views.
Truly sad.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 23, 2008
How could anyone be associated with an organization that rapes and abuses children?
Comment by dlsic | January 23, 2008
Ray,
Just like you miss seeing the value of faith, you also missed how I view science. No surprise there.
I have no problem with problem solving and gathering of data. I have an issue with the interpretation. We only differ on opinion.
Comment by fbaginski | January 23, 2008
dlsic,
You must be referring to the former head of the Virginia ACLU, Charles Rust-Tierney? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060101882.html
Comment by Mountain Man | January 23, 2008
"How could anyone be associated with an organization that rapes and abuses children?"
When did the conversation turn to a discussion of Bill Clinton's term in office, and the Democrat party/NOW covering for his involvement with Monica Lewinsky?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 23, 2008
In my opinion most atheists could care less if somebody wanted to display a nativity scene on their PRIVATE property. Sure, a good many of them would look askance and possibly (personally) begrudge the absurdity of it, but simply and only because they don't believe it. The town square is not private property.
Can you truly describe yourself as agnostic? As doubtful? As a freethinker? I think not. When I can safely assume you would dismiss the very notion that an historical Jesus never even existed (out of hand).
On the other hand, lay citizenry of this country…nay, the world…have been force-fed religious "dogmatism" for centuries. Can you not understand the vicissitudinous attitude of those who question the authority of the churches and the charter it stands by in it's "good books"? I think not.
You are no freethinker George.
And what of this libertarian tag-line attached to this blog? Apparently you believe it's a-okay and hunky-dory to proudly display religious symbolism within the public square and everybody else should just live with it. Sorry, that's not libertarian to me. Such displays blatantly describe the whole of the community in which they are found to be indicative and encompassing of said community. Not so. Respect the rights and beliefs of the one not the whole. That's civil liberty.
Comment by Larro | January 23, 2008
The evidence is not for evolution, but for design. Those who deny that have willingly suspended rational thinking for the sake of a preconception. Evolution is a child's fairy tale on a grand scale. To see educated adults propagating this nonsense is highly amusing — please do not stop!
Comment by denniscampbell | January 23, 2008
Why is America last in the acceptance of Evolution?
These past generations of evolutionary scientists, confirming past experiments, recording their findings in the laboratory and field,…you either believe these people and support their conclusions or you suffer confusion, delusions and severe paranoia.
"Lookeeee here, this here is one of them machines that tell you how old something is with radiation, lets see…point it at that there Budweiser can…Hmmm 11 April…seems OK, point it at that there Chevy in the yard…Hmmm 1961…Nope, thats a '58…dad gum, thing ain't working right and they tell us there ain't no Jesus because this thing says so???
Of course Evolution is a fraud, the billions of dollars spent, the millions of days studying, the millions of evolutionary scientists in the world…it is all a carefully constructed FRAUD folks…don't believe them liars.
Remember, there are more evolutionary scientists named Steve, than all the creationist "scientists" in the world.
Comment by owlafaye | January 24, 2008
Oh, silly me! Of course, it's obvious! A lightning bolt hit a glob of chemicals, something happened (no one knows what) and, voila!, life appears. And then this microscopic cell sets about to, to what? Oh, yes, it's gotta find something to eat! Well, let's just chow down on some of these here chemicals. And then, why, if the "species" is going to be perpetuated, it must reproduce. Well, golly, just strain real hard and — pop! We have another cell!
Please, please, please don't stop! You most gullible of people bring endless joy into my life. It's better than cartoons, and on a slightly (very slightly) higher intellectual plane.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 24, 2008
Well denniscampbell…obvious your reading history is grounded in comic books.
After 16 yers of higher eduction you will be qualified to comment. In the meantime, I suggest you go back and acquire your high school diploma…and remember; Majoring in smoking in the bathroom, looking down girls dresses, spitball competitions and forging your mom's signature may not qualify you for an invitation to join in and walk the halls of academia.
The student with a B+ or better average, having read outside of that required, having taken supplementary summer courses and excelled in some field(s) is still considered "semi-literate" albeit better qualified to continue in a highly acclaimed and accredited university. No No No dennis, BABBLE SCHOOL doesn't count just because you call it a college or university…all it is is a BABBLE school dennis…a school designed to mold parrots and program morons.
Comment by owlafaye | January 24, 2008
Now, that is classic: 16 years of education and still fool. I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy, as well.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 24, 2008
CHRISTIANITY
The belief that some invisible, cosmic, Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humanity because a woman, created from a man’s rib, was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Makes PERFECT sense!
Comment by owlafaye | January 24, 2008
And you believe in christianity dennis?
BwaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhhahahaaahahaha ah ha ha ah ahhahahh ahhhhha
Comment by owlafaye | January 24, 2008
Wow, guy, you're on a roll. First, you demonstrate your foolishness. Now, your ignorance. I eagerly await what comes next. I'm sure you will not disappoint.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 24, 2008
Thank you for not disappointing me. It's amazing how shallow a person can be after 16 years of indoctrination, I mean, education.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 24, 2008
If 200 million people believe a foolish thing dennis, it is still a foolish thing…you fool
Comment by owlafaye | January 24, 2008
I'll leave the fairy tales to you, thank you. I'm not ready to turn my brain off and accept explanations that are preposterous on their faces. I'll leave that to gullible folks like you.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 24, 2008
denniscampbell,
Didn't you read my comment #24? "owlafaye is a bigoted idiot whose only intent is to inflame with the spewing of hateful, anti-intellectual rhetoric. I doubt that he could reason his way out of a paper bag."
Don't waste your time debating this troll. He's not interested in a civil exchange of ideas. Completely convinced of his own superiority, he can only demean others with childish taunting. I think it might be "little man syndrome."
Comment by Mountain Man | January 24, 2008
Mr. Skurka – the fact that atheists would (and do) fare worse under an Islamic regime does not mean that they are always treated fairly in a "Judeo/Christian" one. If it's not preventing religious (or religiously-motivated) discrimination, what do you think the "agenda" of the "atheist political movement" is?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 24, 2008
Mountain Man – you ask, "how could Congress have authorized the purchase of Bibles using treasury money?" Not every action the United States' government has taken over the course of history has been in line with the Constitution – consider the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, or even the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798. There's definitely room for legitimate debate on what constitutes an 'establishment' of religion, and historical practice does have a place in that debate… but historical practice doesn't automatically ratify everything.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 24, 2008
owlafaye – You've had your fun, such as it is. I don't know what it is you expect to accomplish by starting out with derogation and contempt (as opposed to responding to it). But perhaps you can try moving on to greener pastures. There are people here who are capable of intelligent discourse, and I'd like to try that without the flaring tempers and sturm und drang.
Mountain Man, Dr. Jackson – I'm a bit surprised at you. The crack about the Catholic Church was unwarranted in this discussion, I agree. But the systemic problems there are not, so far as I can see, morally equivalent to the cases you bring up. I see no evidence in the article you linked to, Mountain Man, that the ACLU engaged in any kind of cover-up or indeed had any complicity whatsoever in what was unquestionably a disgusting crime. And Dr. Jackson, I don't know what to make of comparing the sexual abuse of minors to consensual (though certainly adulterous) acts with a 22-year-old.
I think it is possible to conduct discussion here on a bit higher level than that…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 24, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
"Not every action the United States’ government has taken over the course of history has been in line with the Constitution…" An excellent point. Well said. So the issue then becomes, was the government engaging in unconstitutional activity when it purchased Bibles? And, has the definition of constitutionality changed over time? If so, why?
These men who authorized the purchase of Bibles were among the same men who wrote the Constitution, weren't they? If there was anyone who knew what might and might not be constitutional, it would be them, don't you think?
Did the Supreme Court invalidate their action? No? Might it be that their action was not unconstitutional? Might it be that our current interpretations are the ones that are actually unconstitutional?
The Founders and the early Congresses might be themselves be unconstitutional in today's legal environment. Which suggests to me that constitutional interpretation has evolved over the years to become something the Founders never intended.
If the Constitution has become a fluid document that can be twisted to conform with contemporary culture and the whims of opinion, then I submit that it has been invalidated and is useless.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 24, 2008
Denniscampbell said "I’ll leave the fairy tales to you, thank you. I’m not ready to turn my brain off and accept explanations that are preposterous on their faces. I’ll leave that to gullible folks like you."
Even if I were to, for the sake of argument, say that evolution was preposterous, how would that make the god of Abraham et. al. any less preposterous?
It is my feeling that, through inculcation, believers have had their brain trained to believe the story in which they were raised (there are exceptions). But trying to say that your story has more credibility because you don't understand or believe another story is an argumentative failure of the highest order. At least evolution proponents can provide SOMETHING that backs up their version of things. Christianity provides nothing but bronze-age scripture that has been clearly shown to be self-conflicting in places, patently wrong in places, and immoral in other places.
For an simple example of how the brain can be absolutely sure and absolutely wrong about something, I give you the following;
When studying computer science at college I had a professor who started each lecture with a riddle or joke. One day he proposed the Monty Hall riddle (hopefully you know the premise of Monty Hall and the Let's Make A Deal game show of years back). The contestant picks (for example) door #1. Monty opens (for example) door #2 and shows that there is nothing behind it. Monty then offers the contestant the chance to switch from door #1 to door #3. The riddle is; for the best chances of winning the grand prize, should the contestant 1) switch to door #3, 2) stay with door #1, or 3) it doesn't matter?
Virtually everyone, on first contemplation of this problem, says that it would not matter whether they switched or not. Most are utterly sure that the odds of selecting the right door is 33.3% regardless and they are just as likely to win by staying as by switching.
Virtually everyone in the lecture hall (all of whom by this time had several statistics courses under their belt) comfortably and readily said that it would not matter. The odds of the prize being behind any one door is 33.33%.
The answer to the puzzle, though, is that the contestant is exactly TWICE as likely to win the grand prize if they switched doors! None of us could believe it even after the professor tried explaining why it was so. We all 'knew' that his solution could not be so! Being a computer science student, I fortunately had the option of going back to my apartment and writing a computer simulation of the problem. Indeed, the contestant won 66.666% of the time if they switched!
It was ONLY when I conclusively demonstrated to myself that I could wrest my brain away from my sure knowledge that door choice was immaterial. I offer this example, not as lesson in statistics, but as a demonstration of brain physiology. A human brain can be absolutely sure of ANYTHING; true or not. Using the Christian vernacular you can 'Know' the 'Truth' absolutely and unshakably…but it does not mean that you are right or that your explanation is true.
It was Mark Twain who said "It ain't what you don't know that get's you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so"
Comment by fvthinker | January 24, 2008
I think Al Gore got it right about global warming, he just got the source wrong. All the hot air on this thread could thaw out the ice in New York.
It's a good thing nonsense does not weigh anything or my monitor would be busted.
Atheist don't meet in a church, they meet on this site.
Comment by fbaginski | January 24, 2008
fbaginski – We may differ on 'interpretation', but I'm minded of this quote by Jules Poincare: "Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house."
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 24, 2008
What are the evangelical atheists trying to save?
The First Amendment.
I suppose there might be a dozen or so 'evangelical atheists', but there are members of many religions, not only atheists, who have no use for political publicity stunts like Roy Moore's 'Ten Commandments' rock or high school football prayers led by coaches. The US Supreme Court is not noted for its anti-religious fervor, but it has been quite consistent in keeping politicians and government officials from forcing their religious symbols on others.
As far as I can tell, Christianity is doing quite well in the United States without government support. Would it wither as it has in England if it were the state religion?
Comment by freelunch | January 24, 2008
Freelunch: My favorite quote along those lines: "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – Benjamin Franklin
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 24, 2008
Here here to Ben Franklin!! :-)
Comment by fvthinker | January 24, 2008
Ok owlafaye. We are in the same camp, but I don't think you are helping the cause. You seem to lower yourself to personal attacks quickly. Seriously…if I had the chance, I wouldn't pick you for my team.
Comment by fvthinker | January 24, 2008
fvthinker,
I am just as willing to hold people on my side accountable as you seem to want to do on your side. See my comments to Jeff Osonitsch in "reconsidering Rudy" for proof.
Kudos to you.
I'm here to have civil dialogue with people who both agree and disagree with me. owlafaye isn't interested in anything other than denigrating and mocking people of faith. Interestingly, most everything he has to say about them misses the mark. It is his view of theists that is the actual fairytale.
Most of the atheists I run into are actually anti-theists. They aren't content to let people believe what they want. They concoct all sorts of misconceptions, worry about things like "theocracy" and imposing morals and the like as if theists hide in back rooms, plotting the overthrow of government.
Anti-theists are toxic, unpleasant people. They are quick to jump in whenever someones dares utter a positive thing about religion. They are convinced that not a single good thing has ever been accomplished in the name of religion.
But a few atheists, not of the above camp, I actually enjoy. They, like I, are willing to question our assumptions, test hypotheses and make changes when it is warranted.
So, what are you?
Comment by Mountain Man | January 24, 2008
Mountain Man asks me "So, what are you?"
In a nutshell I am not an anti-theist (I have nothing against the person), but I sometimes demonstrate anti-theism (as I take issue with the mode of thought).
It is seldom that I see any non-believer descend to the level that poster 'owlafaye' does here. I will confess, though, that when I listen to the likes of Christopher Hitchens, I probably hear things differently than many believers do. It is more the exception than the rule that even Hitchens directly attacks his debate opponent (though he does when talking about awful individuals like Jerry Falwell who well deserves to have his name stripped of any dignity it might have). In general, he would say [I paraphrase] "The argument you make is ridiculous" as opposed to "You are ridiculous for making that argument". I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize the mode of thought and method of argument in a debate/discussion context. It is wrong, though, to assume that every believer is an idiot; and to be honest, those that do are quite the exception.
When presented with a poor argument, I do not hesitate to take its purveyor to task. One example seen on this thread is the "I don't believe 'A', therefore 'B' is true." Often it see this as "I don't believe in evolution, therefore my Christian narrative gains validity". This is a non sequitur. The only thing that you can infer from the first part is that they don't believe in evolution … nothing more. The argument is painfully … achingly bad. I think it is doing the person a favor to try to point out the error of their logic. If the recipient of this critique considers it mean, or feels that it demonstrates poor etiquette, then they shouldn't be entering into debates; they should learn from it.
Comment by fvthinker | January 24, 2008
Was that better folks? … Laughter
Look: George has run off…the consumate coward when the hounds bay. We have a few FunDummies here and the rest seem to be atheisticaly inclined.
They WILL NOT get down to basics in discussion…when you hit them with facts and irrefutable logic… their eyes get glassy and they start quoting the BABBLE.
I am tired of being polite to their arrogance and ignorance, their pushy ways and noisy dogma…I am mad, and I am NOT going to take it anymore.
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
owlafaye, in my opinion the religious right is scary. I think they've forgotten the whole separation of church and state. But you do them a grand favor by representing the atheist league as an anti-intellectual, hateful idiot who bases his arguments on name calling and misrepresentation of the opposing position (straw man).
Are you really a religious nutter in disguise, purposefully trying to make the atheists look like fundamentalists?
Comment by JohnScott | January 25, 2008
Mountain Man – Your reference to 'Congress purchasing Bibles with treasury money' is a bit vague. Are you referring to the Bibles published by Robert Aitken? I can honestly and wholeheartedly say that that purchase was not even slightly un-Constitutional. Of course… that purchase was by the Continental Congress in 1781, and the Constitution itself was not adopted until 1787. It's hard to be in violation of a document that hadn't yet been written.
Of course, it's entirely possible that you're referring to some other episode. Even then, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by (indeed, proposed by) many of the same men who'd had a hand in drafting the Constitution, and yet the Acts are almost universally considered un-Constitutional today, and were widely decried as such even at the time. Yes, it is entirely possible for human beings to be blind to the implications of principles and laws, even laws they hold very dear. (That's generally the explanation given for how so many Christians vehemently supported slavery, for example.)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 25, 2008
For the more reasonable atheists, or those arguing their position, what is it that make owlafaye so mad and unable to take it anymore, resulting in the kind of display we see from him here?
Owlafaye is, afterall, the subject of Mr. Shadroui's column.
Mr. Shadroui's third paragraph is worth rereading:
"They are an interesting lot, these men, who find faith an absurd – even abominable — idea and will not rest until they make cry uncle all of us who insist on believing. And convert us to what? One might lament the evangelical who is so persistent that he alienates people and threatens them with visions of fire, but at least such a person is trying to save a soul. What are the evangelical atheists trying to save? What are they trying to sell – other than a rationalism taken to such extremes that is ceases to be rational?"
I ask that Mr. owlafaye excuse me using his examples here, but his position and passion goes to the point. He may be a very reasonable and well-mannered person in other matters who, as Mr. Shadroui points out, broke under the weight of too many happy Hanukkahs.
Comment by nick adams | January 25, 2008
fvthinker,
That makes sense. Unfortunately, my experience is somewhat different than you. I have run across many atheists like owlafaye, who dishonor their cause when they toss around epithets and insult people. As I re-read his posts, I long to find a single logical argument or attempt to engage in a amiable exchange.
I am not a fundamentalist. In fact, I have yet to identify my theology in this thread. I think this illustrates the basic problem. owlafaye and his ilk find someone who disagrees with them, and jump to the conclusion that that person is a religious extremist. That is anti-intellectual and irrational.
Ok, so let's find out where you are so as to establish a basis for dialogue. In your view, how did the universe come into being?
Comment by Mountain Man | January 25, 2008
Mr. Adams – See my comment #3 regarding the difference between dogmatism and 'flexibility', and their relation to theism or atheism. It's entirely possible for atheists to be dogmatic – see, e.g. Ayn Rand and the 'Randroids' – and the dogmatic types tend to be the most visible examples of any group, including Christians, Muslims, and so forth.
I'm sure religious types tend to see more dogmatic atheists than others, they tend to have the loudest mouths. This is compounded for a minority without a visible identifying characteristic. You probably have no idea how many atheists you see every day because they don't make a habit of announcing it – not least because it does carry a stigma. There's a converse problem where atheists tend to notice the most loudmouth, dogmatic Christians simply because they are more vocal. It's a recipe for mutual mistrust and miscommunication.
As to what motivates the loudmouth atheists – presumably the same things that motivate the loudmouths of all the other stripes.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 25, 2008
Mountain Man asks me "how did the universe come into being?"
I don't know. Some physicists posit several arguments that could have some basis in reality (i.e. energy can be converted to matter, blah blah blah). This, of course, is contrasted with an intelligent, supernatural actor effecting the creation of the universe that we inhabit.
Neither of these concepts do I find deeply satisfying or, more importantly, pertinent to our fleeting time here. I expect that we, as a species, will be extinct long before we make any genuine inroads to into real knowledge of the origins of the universe. I contend that these two positions (materialistic and deistic) to be very close. Neither insinuates anything about our human nature. Neither tells us how to conduct ourselves, or what to wear or what to eat, or whom to hate. I simply picked the materialist position because there is no evidence for the supernatural in this world…so why invoke the supernatural for the origins of the universe? Just because I don't know something is not a valid reason to invent a supernatural construct to explain it.
So on the continuum of explanation for the universe; materialism and deism are very near one another let's say '0' and '1' on our imaginary scale. Theism, on the other hand is, in Spinal Tap parlance, '11' on the scale. Theism not only claims that there is a supernatural actor, but claims to know his/her/its mind/intent/activities to minute detail. Based on the available evidence, this would seem bald arrogance.
My best friend, as near as I can tell from many long philosophical discussions, is a deist. Other than that, we are both loving, concerned parents with strong ethical codes and ultimately responsible for everything we do in life. Most importantly, we behave well even in the absence of the threat of eternal punishment.
But I digress…
Comment by fvthinker | January 25, 2008
Mountain Main,
As far as owlafaye not positing "a single logical argument", I would disagree. In some of his posts, if you separate the wheat from the chaff, some of what he says is rooted in sound logic and reason. Unfortunately, it is couched in anti-social rhetoric that negates the value of anything that he says.
… but he is not on my team. :-)
Comment by fvthinker | January 25, 2008
No scott…I am real…a real mad atheist sick and tired of FunDummie inanity and NOISE.
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
Well thanks thinker…although I can't seem to miss the target when I accuse Christians of the same thing: anti-social rhetoric… eg: "You are either with us or against us boy"
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
nick adams…read my post #20…I addressed that very paragraph.
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
Spinal Tap? Now you're talking my language. I was a music major in college, and we died laughing at that movie. I have a friend who perfectly deadpans the guitarist: "Shh. Listen to the sustain."
Back to your comment. Once again I am pleasantly surprised. "Just because I don’t know something…" Are you sure you're not an agnostic?
I've had exactly the same thought as you have, that is, natualistic and deistic explanations for the origin of the universe have a lot of similarities. It sounds like you haven't really made your choice, or if you have, it isn't one that you are able to base on rational thought and logic. The reason is the topic ventures into realms of faith.
I asked the question because it presupposes everything else about our world views. Mine is deistic, yours is not (even if nominally). That's fine. However, a lot of other things descend from that. Issues of morality, purpose, truth, and how we treat our fellow man are all things that need to be fit into whatever framework we have chosen.
This may be too simplistic, but my world as a theist falls into place much easier regarding those issues. I have read in other threads as atheists have engaged in gymnastics to fit, say, morality into an atheistic worldview. I'm really still waiting for a good explanation.
I can hear owlafaye revving up about now. He's going to remind us in his unelegant way of all the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Well, that's human nature, in actual fact. Evil men doing evil things, using any convenient excuse to do their evil. Rather than bring up Pol Pot or Stalin myself, I am going to stand on the fact that people do evil things. Period. Regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
The question of morality is, how does the atheist know these things are evil? Doesn't the atheist have to borrow from religion to make his moral judgments? I would like an explanation of this that makes logical sense to me.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 25, 2008
Mr. Thinker,
"Other than that, we are both loving, concerned parents with strong ethical codes and ultimately responsible for everything we do in life. Most importantly, we behave well even in the absence of the threat of eternal punishment."
But the threat of eternal punishment is not absent and it never was in your lifetime. Nor was it absent during the lives of any ancestor you can trace.
And by what authority do you have it that you behave "well?" What ethics do you possess that are not Judeo-Christian ethics?
What I am asking is to examine the reality of the question of from whence did YOU come.
You might be a man of faith and not realize it.
Comment by nick adams | January 25, 2008
Mountain Man,
You ask me “Are you sure you’re not an agnostic?” In technical terms, I am agnostic about the god of Abraham [God], Thor, Osiris, unicorns, much everything else…but again…only on a very technical level. Even Richard Dawkins said that he is, technically, agnostic with regards to the god of Abraham. In an practical sense, though, I operate on the assumption that neither unicorns nor God, nor Osiris, nor Thor exists. And I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
Mountain Man said “I’ve had exactly the same thought as you have, that is, natualistic and deistic explanations for the origin of the universe have a lot of similarities. It sounds like you haven’t really made your choice, or if you have, it isn’t one that you are able to base on rational thought and logic. The reason is the topic ventures into realms of faith.”
My default position is naturalistic on everything else. If my car won’t start, I think of naturalistic explanations as to why that would be. If I told you my car did not start because God didn’t want me to go to Starbucks, you should rightly look at me sideways. I am not sure just when it would make sense to invoke the supernatural. Even if I cannot explain something naturalistically, I am not sure when I am supposed to give up investigating before I invoke the supernatural … I know that I have not come close to date. Invoking the supernatural seems to be the illogical thing to do.
You say that “However, a lot of other things descend from [naturalism/deism]. Issues of morality, purpose, truth, and how we treat our fellow man…”
On this I have to disagree with you strongly and I don’t think you properly describe deism or what it means. Deism is the thought that there was some higher power that got things started and plays no role in our universe. No revelations, no prophets, nothing but the philosophical position that something started things going. It is not possible to logically infer ANYthing about our behavior from deism. For all you know; that unconcerned deity wanted us to kill each other for its amusement. Now you may contemplate this deity and your place in the world and your relationship with your fellow man and sift it with our best knowledge of our species and . . . TA DA! . . . you recognize those innate, evolved behaviors and impulses and come up with a moral framework. Deism does not create that framework; contemplation does.
You say “…my world as a theist…”. ?!!? I thought you were a deist a just one paragraph ago? I would suggest that you have an innate moral framework and [your version of] a Christian narrative makes it work for you. I am very comfortable with the concept of a natural source of morals. To my mind I had to do no gymnastics to define it (I didn’t break a sweat and I can breathe through my nose.) And I have empirical evidence that is supportive of my position.
Comment by fvthinker | January 25, 2008
Well MountainMan…you mention a creator and then you throw in rational thought and logic, as if rational thought and logic will arrive at the conclusion that there is a God.
You consider Jesus and a God with agile anticipation because it is comfy and relieves you of responsibilities in life. Humans have a propensity for this type of self-delusion.
You speak as if the realms of morality and truth are arbited by your Christianity…they are not. You seem to think that an atheist gets his "spark" from these precepts of your faith…they do not.
You seem to think there is good and evil and Christians are prepared to distinguish between the two for our edification…this is not true…there is no good and evil.
The explanation is simple…it is the golden rule…Christianity did not invent the golden rule, they just co-opted it.
I stop and ask directions and I stop and give directions. I offer to people I know I can trust with my generosity. I make anonymous efforts in the creation of bright spots in people's lives that do not detract from my position to be this effective.
When I feed someone you can rest assured I am well fed…without me in the altruistic world, there is nothing…therefore I take care of myself first.
Todays Christianity is as unthinking as the oxen, grazing their way to sleep.
There is no morality, principle, family values or truth in the hatred, intolerance, arrogance and sanctimony of your typical Christian Fundamentalist in America today…scratch any of them and you reveal another Jerry Falwell.
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
To thinker: You have to realize that most Christians haven't the faintest idea of the actual significance,definitions and proper usage, regarding the terms and words they use.
They are programmed with these words and have no innate sense of how to use them in conversation.
When you speak to MountainMan you are speaking to a befuddled puppet, vainly seeking equanimity with George S. and his ilk.
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
fvthinker,
Philosophically and practically, you appear to be an agnostic. So are you the obnoxious agnostic who says, "I see no evidence god exists, and neither do you," or are you the kind that is willing to consider evidence contrary to your position?
Forgive me for mixing in the world "deist." That was accidental.
"I am very comfortable with the concept of a natural source of morals." Explain.
"And I have empirical evidence that is supportive of my position." Whoa… I can't accept that. Again, explain.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 25, 2008
owlafaye,
You almost had me going. I was almost lulled into complacency. I was reading your post, expecting the wild pot shots and childish idiocy you have become known for, but I was finding myself charmed by your uncharacteristically cogent, almost thoughtful reply.
But I was vigilant, and you did not disappoint. Your last paragraph, and then the subsequent post showed you to be the fool you truly are.
Chock full of stereotypes, preconceptions, wild generalizations, and flat-out untruths. I will waste no more time with you. You must lead a lonely life, as you seem entirely unpleasant.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 25, 2008
Thinker, re: mountain man's post, please do explain. I would be most interested in how you came to possess your morality. Assuming one is not raised by wolves, just how does one rule out the various lessons in morality that mark our development?
In fact, by your reasoning, we should be "quite comfortable" with parents who opt not to teach children right from wrong, knowing that there is a "natural source of morals" to take care of that for us.
Comment by nick adams | January 25, 2008
MountainMan … I see no evidence that God exists…thinker said the same and you offered evidence.
Lets hear it…no shilly shallying, just get off your rhetoric…No BIBLES allowed as evidence…
Lets go, be the first Christian to offer irrefutable evidence…be a hero, go down in history.
Speak son, speak speak speak
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
nick adams…wolves have impeccable morals for wolves…
You folks seem to think morals exist in a chalice and are passed out to people without black tongues.
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
There is a certain preference for the fable. The falsely dramatic brings out the truly dull.
Never underestimate the depths to which fabulous mysticism can bury rationality.
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
All I was saying was that reciprocity and sharing and caring for others in your clan are traits that were beneficial to survival of the social, thin-skinned hairless species that we are. These are arguably the core components of what we call morality and ethics. I merely state that these traits occured naturally. All the myriad religions through time took their stab at codifying those traits, but ethics came before religion.
Here is a pretty compelling example:
In a lab environment, researchers put two monkeys in a lab environment within sight of one another. If monkey 'A' pressed a lever to get a piece of food, monkey 'B' would get a piece of painful shock. Once monkey 'A' discovered the corellation, he would not press the lever and, if I recall, nearly starved.
Of course this would not define everything about our human ethics, but it is difficult to formulate an explanation that doesn't include some display of altruism.
Comment by fvthinker | January 25, 2008
I saw an orchard and some men in a tree.
When asked, they claimed they were looking for evidence of God.
I shook the fruit tree and a few examples of fanaticism fell out.
"Did you find God I asked?" and they replied "Yes" "So, where is the evidence" I asked? "How did you arrive at this conclusion?"
Since then they have denied the tree and the orchard.
But they promised a sack of fruit "sometime" in the future.
Do you think they will let us look in the sack?
Comment by owlafaye | January 25, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
Just noticed your response to the Fred Hoyle comment, but we need to break your comment into three criticisms as follows:
Hoyle confused abiogenesis with evolution.
Abiogenesis can be logically and clearly differentiated from evolution based on how the two theories are applied as well as defined.
Hoyle’s calculations were proved wrong with reference to Hoyle’s fallacy.
I’ll need three separate answers in three parts to address your comments; so, in this part, let’s start with whether Hoyle mentally confused abiogenesis with evolution. First, you need to realize that abiogenesis was once historically joined with evolution as two sides to the same coin – like Siamese twins they were separate entities but also inextricably combined. Second, you need to put Hoyle’s comments into an historical context. Hoyle was expressing his skepticism during the heyday of evolution and subsequent to development of the modern synthetic theory of evolution (also called neo-Darwinism in England). This was the period subsequent to 1959 and lasting through the early 80’s.
An overly simplistic attempt to differentiate the two theories for those unfamiliar would be as follows: abiogenesis is the development of organic life from inorganic chemicals, while evolutionary processes apply only after organic life appears. Two completely separate processes and unrelated theories, with neither theory being dependent on the other. But, is that how it was always differentiated? And, are the theories unrelated?
After the first of the Miller-Urey experiments starting in 1952, the creation of life in the lab from inorganic chemicals was considered a valid “proof” to offer the public in connection with evolution. By implication, if Stanley Miller could create amino acids in the lab using electricity and a methane, water-vapor, ammonia, and hydrogen atmosphere, then self-replicating molecules were a slam dunk. If self-replicating organic molecules were a slam dunk then purely natural evolutionary forces could continue the process of building varied and increasingly complex biological structures from the early earth until the present day (in other words: “isn’t it amazing what evolution can do?”) .
The point was that if natural laws and random chance did produce something so incredibly monumental as organic life from inorganic chemicals, then the continuing evolution of biological life guided solely by natural laws should be acceptable to any reasonable person – and, as it turned out, that was a highly successful rhetorical tactic for evolutionists.
Publishers rushed to include the Miller-Urey experiments as foundational “proofs” of evolution in textbooks ranging from introductory high school biology to graduate level evolutionary biology textbooks. The Miller-Urey experiments were always included within the chapter on evolution, usually accompanied by a smiling Stanley Miller standing next to his chemical apparatus. While the wording varied, the implication of the text’s explanation was that good ole Stanley had finally answered the question of whether life could have developed through simple and purely natural processes.
While today, evolution cheerleaders like “thepandasthumb” or “talkorigins” will emphatically insist the two theories are separate, let’s take a time machine back to the scientifically less sophisticated 60’s and see if that was always true. First, the earlier Oparin-Haldane hypothesis formed the basis for the Miller-Urey experimental protocol. Lightning bolts striking pools of chemical compounds in a newly formed earth with an atmosphere poor in free oxygen could theoretically create organic compounds and then “poof” life! Stanley Miller and Harold Urey emulated that concept in the lab and produced a few lonely amino acids and a lot of yucky tar – but the amino acids were considered confirmation that Oparin and Haldane were basically correct. Naturally, biologists wanted to tell the entire world of this amazing discovery. For readers unfamiliar with Miller-Urey, it was another tempest in a teapot; Miller never created self-replicating organic life and neither has anyone else.
And, the general public of that era was beautifully prepared psychologically for this nonsense. Scenes of Dr. Frankenstein frantically rushing about his laboratory screaming: “Life, give my creation life” was certainly a popular affirmation that if lightning strikes can theoretically reanimate the dead, then what’s so terribly difficult about creating simple, self-replicating organic molecules? The textbook writers, starting in the 60’s, had a lot of fun capitalizing on this popular movie image and, to this day, textbooks still include the Miller-Urey foolishness – but, of course, now presented as an historical anecdote rather than a foundational “proof” of evolution.
As is normal in evolution support arguments, “that was then and this is now” retroactive restatements and qualifications abound. Poor, old, brilliant but silly Fred Hoyle couldn’t tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution the explanation goes today. But, in an earlier era, it wasn’t just poor old Fred who couldn’t tell the difference, everyone from university professors to gullible high school students couldn’t tell the difference either. And why was that? Because no one wanted to see a difference.
The educational theory then was that evolution proofs were too complicated and would require high school students to grasp the technical details of zoology, paleontology, bio-chemistry, embryology, genetics, etc.. The solution was to simply teach the concept, the proofs weren’t important. In fact, better that the proofs were simple and uncomplicated to avoid confusing the student – whether they were scientifically valid wasn’t the issue. There would be time enough later to explain the intricacies of evolution’s supporting proofs should the student go on to a PhD. in evolutionary biology. And, that educational theory hasn’t changed much to this day – the experts know evolution is valid, the student’s only task is to grasp the concept, not debate the proofs.
The following are just a few of the recent textbooks referencing the Miller-Urey experiment and, in an amazing coincidence, Stanley Miller’s chemistry set always appears in the chapter on evolution and never in the chapters on photosynthesis or cellular reproduction.
“Biology”, Miller and Levine, 2000 (high school)
“Life: The Science of Biology”, Purves, Orians, et al, 1998 (college)
“Evolutionary Biology”, Futuyama, 1998, (college –graduate level)
“Biology: The Dynamics of Life”, Biggs, et al, 1998
“Biology”, Campbell, Reece, et al, 1999
“Biology”, Guttman, 1999
“Biology: The Study of Life”, Schraer & Stoltze, 1999
Prior to 1998, there were numerous currently out of print textbooks published which gave even more fawning descriptive treatments of Miller-Urey than these relatively recent books.
Fred Hoyle was very aware of what was going on with “origin of life” theories during that era and how these theories psychologically complemented and supported evolution. He even made several disparaging, but penetrating, comments regarding the stubborn adherence of scientists to foundational evolution concepts taught in the schools. Additionally, Hoyle was motivated to promote his personal theory of “directed panspermia” or the “spores from space” explanation for the origin of life and subsequent evolution. Abiogenesis has life originating initially on earth while directed panspermia has life originating initially on the planet Zog in the Dip-Ship Nebula and then sent to earth.
But it was obvious from his writing and comments that Hoyle didn’t make a simple mental error and confuse abiogenesis with evolution, he understood the political and cultural factors of that time very well – the negative spin put on Hoyle’s comments today can’t refute that. Hoyle wasn’t a creationist nut, but his particular version of evolution has the process originating and evolving organic life somewhere else in the galaxy and then being dropped off here by a cosmic UPS truck.
In my response to your next criticism (if I can find the time), an older and wiser Stanley Miller makes another appearance and we can discuss his thoughts on current origin of life research and whether Fred Hoyle was full of it.
Comment by Pat Skurka | January 26, 2008
Well Pat, Miller-Urey demonstrate than man can create life out of simple energies and elements.
Before that you denied man and embraced God.
Since your beliefs surrounding God were proved unreliable by Miller-Urey, instead of hailing this for the remarkable achievement it was…
Pat Skurka, realizing Miller-Urey were successful, simply raised the requirements threshold.
Soon we will be creating every manner of viable self-replicating life…but don't expect Pat to acknowledge these seemingly miraculous achievements…oh nooooooooooo…he will simply set a new standard out on the sands of his life and re-insert his head into same.
Comment by owlafaye | January 26, 2008
thinker, I like your #91…
It conflicts with Fundamentalist ministers who have asserted their right to do whatever is necessary to defend and enhance Christianity. I have had them tell me that lies, false rumors, stealing, cheating, denial and deliberate evasiveness are all sanctioned by God in His mandate to protect Christianity.
Seems incredible I know, but pin down any Fundamentalist and somehow twist the TRUTH out of him and this is what winds up in the up-chuck bucket.
Now how can someone like this be ethical, moral and principled?
They can't and they aren't…and the "morals" of Christianity are forever suspect.
Remember: 200 years from now, the Vatican will constantly call attention to the threat of Satan in people who, like that traumatic time in the 21st century, where enemies of the church were assaulting every diocese with false and repugnant accusations, the clergy and church faithful rose up; and in a long drawn out battle with these forces of Satan, drove out the lies, re-established the TRUTH and the glory of the spiritual mission of those dedicated to the body of Christ.
Or some such foolishness…the RCC has always lied and covered up its transgressions. The modern day apologist is simply another in a long line of apologists and flagellants in the church and will always demur to and deflect criticisms "to the very blood".
The Jesuit Oath and the Bishop's Oath…the real ones, not the oaths that the Catholic Church waters down and presents to the general public…are specific in stating that any crime whatsoever against heretics, blasphemers, the enemies of the church and the children of Satan are sanctioned by the Church. Torture and murder are the highlights of these oaths.
It is amazing that the Jesuits, the "army" of the Roman Catholic Church are so successful in censoring books, disrupting web sites containing REAL information on Catholicism, launching propaganda smear campaigns and generally covering the pile of lies that is the RCC.
One of the Jesuits roles is to develop political powers for the church at any cost to life and by any means…assasination is something taught within their ranks and has been utilized throughout history.
And people wonder why atheists claim that religions is BAD?
You folks might not realize it, but I support the mainline Christian movement in America simply because they have come to realize the doubtful nature of the historicity of Jesus yet live by the positive purported words of Jesus. They give little power to the Bible of old.
These people are very active in the community… in conversations and with much attendance at many of their churches services, I am convinced they are doing a lot of good without demanding faith, belief or adherence in return.
In my confidence they have revealed an abhorrence for the 1000's of fundamentalist sects and schisms in Christianity…this gives me great hope and support. You may think I am abrasive but I am simply reflecting the suppressed attitudes of the good Christians in America that keep quiet due to the threat of unfavorable peer review and misunderstanding.
There is a lot more to all this than George S. will cop to much less take into consideration before speaking…that is, if he has even the faintest idea of which he speaks. The man is simply a forked tongued devil, aware or not.
Comment by owlafaye | January 26, 2008
Hey Pat Skurka,
Tweeeeeet, over here son…
Tell us all about M. genitalium…thats a good boy.
My, you are the best little puppet we have raised in years…go get em boy.
Come on Pat, out from under the porch and into the limelight.
Comment by owlafaye | January 26, 2008
[...] De nye ateister. Hitchens et al. har fået vældig omtale i DK, og mange yngre libertarianske bloggere har begejstret omfavnet dem. Her er en fin kommentar af George Shadroui. [...]
Pingback by Spredt Fægtning V « Konservativkrabasks Weblog | January 27, 2008
Mr. Skurka – I'm going to need some actual quotes or references to buy your reporting of the 'prevailing zietgeist' of evolution at the time of Hoyle. Referencing Miller-Urey in "the chapters on evolution" is not proof. While abiogenesis and evolution are logically distinct, they do have some practical relation – any theory of abiogenesis will have to match the parameters of the life we've seen evolve.
But hey, let's assume you're right, and a few decades ago nobody made the distinction at all. Fine, for the purposes of this argument, we'll say you win with respect to the historical record. Now – does that mean the modern distinction is wrong? That they cannot be treated separately?
Hoyle's already been shown to be wrong about several things – he's flatly stated that "all genes in present day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invade the Earth 570 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Era, making the subsequent story of terrestrial evolution into one in which genes have been called into operation as ecological conditions permitted them to be so." However, it's been shown in the lab that new mutations – even beneficial ones – do happen, even on human timescales. More, we can actually examine large sections of the genomes of organisms now – sometimes even the entire genomes of species – and this model is simply, flatly, wrong. His harping on Haldane's Dilemma has proven to be misguided or mistaken in several key aspects. Of course, he doesn't acknowledge this – as he himself has said, "I'm totally unshiftable now because it's sort of religion with me."
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 27, 2008
Let me first thank Sukura for his Fred Hoyle gloss.
It has been entertaining to watch this debate unfold, but I would like to make a couple of clarifications.
First, one of the respondents says the atheists are trying to salvage the first amendment. Perhaps he could explain how the first amendment is in danger? We all know that Hugo Black, borrowing from Jefferson, resurrected the phrase — a wall of separation. But in fact, for nearly two centuries, our nation as a collective interpreted this separation liberally. The state shall not establish a church. The state shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. I would go further, but perhaps not as far as our courts in recent times have gone — the state should not become entangled in a determinative way in the affairs of religion. But why is this always interpreted at the expense of the majority? Why is it not intrusive on the part of the state to prohibit practices that the vast majority of citizens don't find objectionable? I want to assure all of those trying to label me a religious tyrant that I have no desire to force anyone to conform to my faith or any other belief which they do not hold. In fact, I am greatly pleased, you might be surprised to hear, that we no longer burn heretics, witches or, for that matter, faithful women who hear voices. The enlightenment was a wonderful thing that helped clear the way for tolerance. I am all for that, and I appreciate that the attempt to force faith on others is a recipe for conflict and civil disorder. I am simply objecting to atheists trying to force their views on me. There is nothing intrusive or even offensive about a public display of prayer or a nativity scene. Isn't interesting that those who don't believe in Santa Claus are not running around the country demanding that Santa Claus displays be outlawed. And if they are so sure that Christianity, for example, is a fantasy, why then do they expend so much energy trying to undercut it? I will give Hitchens this much. He sincerely believes religious faith is dangerous. He may be right. I just think lack of faith is more dangerous, as the millions and millions who lived and died under atheistic regimes might testify.
There is something right, in my view, about respecting the traditions of faith and tolerance upon which this nation was built. That is my point. That it can be a delicate balance, I agree. To the extent that faith is permitted in the public square, it can be respectful, subtle and unobtrusive. It need not be stripped away totally and even more to the point, the faithful need not impose in any intrusive way their faith on others.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 27, 2008
George Shadroui opined: "There is nothing intrusive or even offensive about a public display of prayer or a nativity scene."
Wrong! Because you are a traditional Christian, for you "There is nothing intrusive or even offensive about a public display of prayer or a nativity scene." But in your wildest imagination, can you possibly see that a Christian nativity scene might be "intrusive or even offensive" for a Jew or a Moslem or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Sikh? Or any member of the many other religions that are also constitutionally protected?
In your wildest imagination, can you possibly conceive how a Jew or a Moslem or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Sikh might feel when forced to endure such an infidel (to them) public display?
In your wildest imagination, can you possibly imagine how a Jewish or Moslem or Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh parent might feel about their children, who they want (and thus far, have the right) to raise in their religious tradition, being exposed to another religion's public display? And possibly even paid for with their tax money? Is that fair?
Try going to Saudi Arabia and publicly erecting a nativity scene. Do you know what would happen to you? Do you want that same level of religious tolerance here in the United States? Because that is what many non-Christians see and feel when Christians display their religious icons in public.
Can't you understand that this not so much an atheist issue as it is an "every other religion" issue?
Or are you the type of Christian who feels that every other religion is wrong? If that is the case, what do you want to do with the many millions of non-Christians in this country? Do you have any particular final solutions in mind?
Comment by PaulBurnett | January 27, 2008
Paul, I accept that you find such public displays offensive. Please show me where they are unconstitutional.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 27, 2008
Paul, I think you're a bit off the deep end. As an agnostic living in Japan, I am not the least bit offended by my tax yen going to support the traditional Buddhist shrines and Shinto shrines. Not in the least. I understand it's part of of history, and couldn't care less. If the Japanese gov't stopped supporting the Buddhist and Shinto shrines and endangered them, I'm be offended. The historic value of those shrines is beyond priceless.
If Americans want to celebrate Christmas or whatever they want, and those symbols happen to have religious connotations, so be it. The histrionic opposition to such celebrations only undermines the credibility of the atheist.
And it should be noted that in Japan, which is nominally a majority Buddhist nation, which is in fact in practice majority agnostic, the gov't does Christmas every year. They put up nativity scenes, Christmas trees, etc, and I've never heard a peep out of anyone. A few of my friends are Buddhist and they enjoy it just as much as the next guy.
In any case, there will always be a few nutcases who get offended when somebody does something they don't believe in. I know a lady who hates Halloween and would create laws against it if given the chance, but do suggest that we should let those nutcases near the legislation is, well, insane.
Comment by JohnScott | January 27, 2008
1. Most scientists have believed in God, including Einstein, Newton. See The Hand of God and Evidence of Design.
2,The Founders believed too. Read the great old standby, Faith of Our Fathers.
3.The Nazis and Communists didn't and in the century of scientific progress murdered tens of millions. Lenin read daily the lists of murdered priests while Hitler plotted the murder of the Pope for the crime of aiding the Jews. Atheism at its best.
4.If you want to know why you should believe read Antoine Saint Exupery's wartime classic, Flight to Arras. Short, thoughtful and filled with truth. Or better yet try the New Testament.
Comment by aettius | January 27, 2008
Thank you John Scott for bringing some common sense to the discussion. I would say to Paul, having lived in Egypt, that I fully expected to hear the call to prayer each day. It not only did not offend me, it made me reflect on my own faith and taught me tolerance precisely because of the sincerity of those Muslims I saw worship. The problem with believer and nonbelievers alike, in my view, is that they want to be God. They want to decide who is right and who is wrong. I don't feel that compulsion. I think generosity cuts both ways, however. I accept as a Christian living in a predominantly Christian nation that other faiths must be allowed and respected. I expect no less from those who are not Christian. But all of this is only partially to my larger point, which is that the atheists and critics of faith are every bit as dogmatic as the religious devotees they love to skewer.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 27, 2008
Mr. Shadroui – I'm having trouble understanding your analogy between those who believe in Santa Claus and those who believe in Jesus. Are you asserting that believers in both have equal political power, and that there are active Santa evangelists about, urging that our Constitution be rewritten to be more in accord with "The Night Before Christmas", etc.? Do you find "Santaism" and Christianity to be equivalent religions deserving of respect? Were I to open up a church of Santa, how happy would you be if it received tax-exempt status?
It's entirely possible that atheists focus more on Christianity than Santaism in the United States because they are not, in fact, equivalent religions…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 27, 2008
I stand up and applause Paul Burnett….
See his #100
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
denniscampbell: Imposition is force, dennis…
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
You want a nativity scene in your retail store's front window? You go right ahead…
You want a nativity scene in a public square? I beg to differ…
Your first mistake is alienating yourself from customers that are not interested in your beliefs and find it offensive.
Your second mistake is assuming your nativity scene is a correct representation of facts. Christianity is YOUR imperative, not mine…I was relieved of religious subjugation immediately following my ability to READ.
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
JohnScott…I can appreciate your post, especially when I understand that Japan is 80%+ agnostic/atheist/non-believers…best of all, the Japanese enjoy the distinction of having the highest percentage of believers in evolution than any other nation in the world.
Buddhist and Shinto beliefs cannot be considered "religion" in the sense that Christianity is considered religion…"never the twain shall meet"
And in accepting Dec.25th as a holiday the Japanese embrace something that to them is "fun" as you so stated…and in retrospect you might realize that "serious" never enters the picture.
I might not like Yamamoto or some other figure in Japanese history, but I will bet a bunch of yen that you have admired and respected people in your past that you set aside days for…and have fun.
Fun and stupidity are two different things.
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
George says: "The problem with believer and nonbelievers alike, in my view, is that they want to be God"
You don;t seem to understand George:
You are God
I am God
He is God
She is God
This is God
That is God
And THAT is THAT
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
Owlafaye, specific constitutional reference, please.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 27, 2008
George says: "the atheists and critics of faith are every bit as dogmatic as the religious devotees they love to skewer."
We come from demonstrable facts, irrefutable logic and copious evidence.
George comes from: "God said it, and thats that"
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
denniscampbell…stay out of my yard or I am going to punch you in the eye.
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
owlafaye, quite the intellectual response!
Comment by denniscampbell | January 27, 2008
denniscampbell
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between that which is objectionable to some, and that which others proclaim to be acceptable based on their beliefs.
This is when the state steps in…if you want to drag it to the Supreme Court, I assure you; it will become constitutional.
The populance is expected to act within a general understanding of individual rights.
When you supplement this understanding with religious belief, you have stepped over the line.
Your beliefs, magic book and faith give you no authority over me whatsoever.
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
dennisC.
You are talking to the intellectual and the pragmatic…give it up son…mockery identifies you.
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
The constitution gives me the authority to practice my religion, and I do not need your permission nor anyone
else's to do so, and it does not forbid such practice in the public sphere. It really does not matter whether you
object to that or not. And I really do not care if it offends you.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 27, 2008
dennisC. Christianity is an unsatisfactory solution to man's miseries…you may live all your life in it and yet nothing ever changes.
Change comes with taking a grip on your life, accepting the responsibility that your words, thoughts and deeds bring upon you, and correlating this data into a cohesive, positive plan that protects you and the ones you Love.
Your derision is an unsatisfactory path when you consider logic.
Can you imagine someone so caught up in God and his plan for them that they get run over by a bus?
Here comes the bus…PAY ATTENTION ! …son
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
How would you know?
Comment by denniscampbell | January 27, 2008
Exactly Dennis…well said:
"YOU DO NOT CARE"
Typical Christian smugness.
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
How could I be so SILLY?
DannisCampbell is a CHAMPION Christian…
All bend an ear (Or God is gonna GETCHA)
Laughter…mockery…derision…more laughter, lots more laughter
Comment by owlafaye | January 27, 2008
Lawdy, you are boring!
Comment by denniscampbell | January 27, 2008
Yawn…I'm sure you find yourself very clever. Perhaps your dog does as well.
Comment by denniscampbell | January 27, 2008
Mr. Ingles
Your post #105 reveals a very important fear of atheist activists when you suggest that Christians are trying to rewrite the Constitution. You may find it useful to step out of your shoes and look at things from another perspective.
Are Christians trying to rewrite the Constitution or are they trying to point out that it doesn't need rewritting? Prime examples are court interpretations that site a constitutional privacy right and an extension of that privacy being the right to abort new life in the womb. I'll say it for good Christans who can't: WTF?
Another is the topic here: religious free speech, which has been restrictd by "law" by judges despite the Constituion stating that "NO" laws with respect to to the establishment or free exercise of religion may be passed. Again: WTF?
I have no reason to suspect you are part of a movement to silence free speech, or that you are an activist atheist, but would suggest that you easily could be mistaken as such, or an ally in a war against the free speech and the Constitution.
Hoping you are still out of your shoes, consider the accomplishments of secularists (and atheist or other activists) just on these two major rewrites of the Constituion. One might be inclined to give a thumbs up to the courts for their "good" work of redefining the Constitution in a way agreeable to them, but who can argue that anoyone, Christians or otherwise, do not have a right to be concerned when they see end-runs on our Constituion via the courts?
Consider for just a moment that under the protection of the Constitution, people may say all variety of things on public property, from advocating that murderers rightly convicted be set free, to advocating communist revolution to the abolishment of free speech itself, yet bring up God and the free-speech-with-exception-of-free-religious-speech-guardians open their mouths and hiss like pod people in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."
The law of the land is simple. As long as Congress does not pass a law establishing a religion, and as long as it does not prohibit the free exercise of religion, it is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
The freedom of religious speech and its manifestations in nativity scenes, menorahs and a Muslim crescent or other religious symbols, are no more construed to be indications that Congress has passed a law "officially" establsing these as state religions than displaying signs advocating communism or Nazism are seen as government endorsed. All that's being confirmed in all cases, is that people have the freedom to speak their minds in the U.S.
Christians trying to rewrite the Constitution? Well, if you gave them a pen, just what language would they need to add to make their postion clearer? Reads to me like they wouldn't have to change a word.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Comment by nick adams | January 28, 2008
nickadams
You are still allowed to preach on a soap box and carry signs saying "The World is Coming to an End" in public…but you would like to give the impression that this is not so nick. Singing words and carrying reasonably sized signs is OK.
-Posting your religion on lamp posts, and other acts of GRAFFITI are not.
-Nativity scenes and other displays of mythological religious beliefs in public spaces is a 24 hour affront and intrusion…if you are carrying it around in your arms, that is OK. Once you leave it in public, you are infringing on the right of the general public.
-LITTERING comes to mind.
-Public displays of the 10 commandments on other than private property are an arrogant incursion and should be dealt with severely.
-If you were right and good for mankind, your church would have to turn them away at the door. But the door nick, works two ways…we will not enter and disrupt your life, so don't exit and disrupt ours.
-Beer is a great thing but I don't go door to door giving it away…I would soon be out of beer. Religion gets a door slam in most cases and a lot of you Christians have flat noses because you are so ignorantly stubborn…we don't want your "BEER"
Wake Up! PAY ATTENTION !
Comment by owlafaye | January 28, 2008
owlafaye,
You note that Public displays of the 10 commandments on other than private property are an arrogant incursion and should be dealt with severely.
My posts asks you or others to point out where in the Constituion your position (now includng for "severe" remedies) is supported.
Again, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Fre speech is guaranteed and free speech extends to symbols and displays, as not everyone uses words to express themselves. I think that is well established.
Aa for the questions of whether size matters (displays small enough to carry in your arms) and whether someone is tending their display, I really view as details that easily are handled by code once the larger issue of free religous speech on public property is resolved.
I don't think it has been, though your points about how large/intrusive a nativity or other display may be in public space (which I read to be public property) and whether it should be stipulated that someone be assigned to stay with it while on display, are well taken. If I am mistaken and you are suggesting these size and personal tending rules for people who display on their own property, within view of the public, please excuse me.
Comment by nick adams | January 28, 2008
Religious displays on taxpayer supported property is wrong. Super-simple. On a theoretical level, I could support a display of *every* theistic, deistic, and secular display *simultaneously*. This would include scientology, wiccan, mormonism and even satanism…but it would have to represent absolutely EVERYBODY for it to conform to the 1st ammendment. By excluding even ONE obscure religion, it shows favoritism and violates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Another complexity here is that every public (taxpayer supported) place that displays this comprehensive list of religions would immediately have to be updated when the next John Smith makes up some new religion.
In a similar (theoretical) vain; I could support broad, compulsory religious education. Religion certainly is important historically, but when our youth got so see all the conflicting religions, and how so may borrowed so many pieces from other religions (i.e. virgin births) it would become apparent that there are all equally footed in [lack of] reality. In the end, it would create more non-believers than anything.
Being truly comprehensive and omitting no one is impossible…so we just shouldn't touch it. Keep any and all religious displays off of taxpayer supported properties. Done. If you want an 8 foot nativity in your front yard at Christmas; assuming it meets municipal code you are free to do so. I might not believe what you do, but it is not a crime to think differently.
Oh!! And churches should pay taxes on any monies that cannot be documented as going to public, religion-free social services.
Comment by fvthinker | January 28, 2008
If your XMas displays are bright and/or noisy to the detriment of the neighborhood, they will be taken down by authority…and I am quite sure, people of your ilk will claim "religious discrimination".
You are squirmy and delight in finding little holes that you feel will help you worm into a rather common-sensical argument.
There are large parts of the word NO that you are unfamiliar with.
Your weight is 178 lbs.
Comment by owlafaye | January 28, 2008
Is anyone else having a problem with getting posts to show up? I have made 4 attempts on several occassions and they don't show up.
Comment by fvthinker | January 28, 2008
The supposedly one billion Christians worldwide…do not exist.
Even so, this would comprise only 14% of that 7 billion population.
There are 20,000 sects of Christianity in America alone…all quite sure they are the only answer to salvation…laughter.
Christians and their Christ are really not welcome in most parts of the world and this is reflected in the fact that they are really not welcome in most parts of America…'not welcome' as in: Stay the hell in your church and quit preaching on PUBLIC STREETS'
Maybe you have a legal right but then you choose to ignore your responsibility to the common man. You are a noisy little bunch running scared and no one is particularly interested in seeing you run through the streets with finger in air yelling Jesus Jesus Jesus or "He is Risen" "He is Risen"
I am sure Jesus is Coming and that Colonel Saunders will handle the food arrangements and Elvis will provide entertainment…in the meantime, stay in church and out of our children's pants.
Comment by owlafaye | January 28, 2008
owlafaye,
Your points about regulations for religous scenes in public places based on size, supervision of displays and the like exhibit common sense, at least to me. It seemed a case of skipping ahead of the debate to the particulars, but as you brought it up, I assumed they were points you were willing to discuss. Excuse my misunderstanding.
We have some common ground. Wether a display of holiday lights celebrating Christmas or a brightly lit display protesting Christmas, we have to be civil when exercising free speech.
Comment by nick adams | January 28, 2008
Mr. Adams, I'm afraid that there are Christians who don't think the Constitution goes far enough in their direction. Current Republican primary candidate Mike Huckabee, for example: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx "…what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards…" I'm really having a hard time understanding that as anything but a Christian "trying to rewrite the Constitution".
Be that as it may, I'm not familiar with any state, city, or federal government body "displaying signs advocating communism or Nazism", whereas there are quite a few examples of state, city, or federal government bodies displaying nativity scenes and menorahs. (I don't know of any case offhand of Muslim crescents, though I wouldn't be too surprised.) As I said way back in comment #1, "I’ve seen several cases recently where atheists have asked that religious displays not be placed on public land – or at least, if they are, that such displays be open to all religions and viewpoints. But can anyone find, say, a case of an atheist suing a church or synagogue to take down their cross or Star of David?"
There is a difference between people displaying nativity scenes, menorahs, or Nazi flags on their own property, and government officials doing so in their capacity as government officials and on public land. (I do not find nativity scenes as distasteful as Nazi imagery, but you brought up the comparison.) Imagine if your local city council put up a Nazi flag in front of city hall on Hitler's birthday. Would you find that an appropriate act or use of public funds? Again, I don't find nativity scenes to be viscerally repugnant like Nazi flags, but it's not the offensiveness that's at issue. It doesn't matter what the government is endorsing in such displays, it's that the government is endorsing it.
Subject to reasonable 'nuisance' ordinances, I've got no problem with private Christmas displays. One of our neighbors down the street, whose son plays with ours regularly, puts up quite the extravaganza every year, the kind people stop in front of and take pictures. Aside from the minor annoyance of having to drive carefully around the gawkers, it doesn't trouble me in the slightest. The same display in front of city hall would bother me… and I'm sorry, I just don't see how that negatively impacts religious expression.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 28, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
I agree, with respect to the governer and his desires. But Christmas lights at city hall? Why would government recognition or tribute to something important to its people bother you? It already is acknowledged as a legal holiday, for which we pay government employees for "not working."
How can paying tribute to something so historically important be any different from, say, a tribute to the Reverand Martin Luther King on the holiday honoring him?
Not everyone is a fan of MLK, but to them I would say, deal with it. Why shouldn't I say the same to anyone who is bothered by official recognition of any national holiday?
Comment by nick adams | January 28, 2008
Well thanks nick, exactly my point.
The term "captive audience" should be uppermost in your mind in relation to your desire to parade your religion in public.
"whippersnappers" comes to mind also, irritating displays, repetitive displays…taped nonsense, repeated over and over. If it isn't nonsense to you, it becomes nonsense after the 40th rendition.
A week in solitary with George S. and Jingle Bells played over and over 24 hours a day might convince you people to insert a little common sense and plain decency into your standard rants.
Comment by owlafaye | January 28, 2008
Sounds like someone is due a visit from Jacob Marley
Comment by nick adams | January 28, 2008
Actually the government does sponsor a religion. It is the religion of science. When evolution is taught as fact when it is in fact a theory then the state is making it a religion. When science says that the behavior of man will be discovered by science they are denying the soul. So we do have a state religion and I don't like it.
All of the atheist of the world live for nothing, they believe that in the end the curtain closes for good. So why do they waste their precious time argueing with people of faith. I am sure they would prefer to attend a wild orgy complete with human sacrafice. So what keeps them glued to a meaningless thread on a meaningless website. Because the truth is they are not godless, they are antigod. That alone is a statement of faith. No matter how misguided it may be. Take that fire that burns in your belly and learn about eternity. It is not a blank void. Don't wait until you are there to do your homework.
Comment by fbaginski | January 28, 2008
Mr. Adams – Mr. Huckabee is running for President. He didn't make that statement about amending the Constitution to "bring it in line with God's word" to limit his appeal to voters. Apparently he feels that there's a significant number of U.S. citizens of voting age who agree with that idea – enough worth courting. Are you of the opinion that he's wrong about that? It does seem to me that the number of Christians who'd go along with that is, well, greatly in excess of the number of "Santaists" who'd want to amend the Constitution to require chimneys in every home. That was the point I was trying to make, a point that renders Mr. Shadroui's attempted equating of the two rather absurd.
It's true that there are people who don't like Dr. King or the holiday in his name, but on the other hand nobody (to my knowledge) worships Dr. King in the sense that, say, Christians worship Jesus or Jews worship G-d. Secular-ish holiday decorations on public land are one thing (our local fire department puts lights on the fir trees in front of their main station, and it's not hard to find red, white, and blue bunting on the fourth of July, for example) but crosses and nativity scenes are a bit different – they are quite specifically religious.
In any case, it's not something that I lose a great deal of sleep over. I've only rarely been annoyed by the 'blue laws' still left in Michigan that disallow alcohol sales before noon on Sunday – we're not exactly big drinkers and we usually do our grocery shopping on Saturday or Monday anyway, so the situation doesn't come up much. I believe those are examples of government overstepping its bounds with respect to religion, though, so I'm not surprised it bugs others more.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 28, 2008
fbaginski, I'm honestly having a hard time separating your comment 137 from owlafaye's general output. If you're as interested in science as you say, accept my assurance that your 'theory of atheist motivation' has met at least one datapoint in contradiction of its predictions…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 28, 2008
baginski…evolution is a FACT…wake up!
Start reading outside of the influence of the Christian Press.
Comment by owlafaye | January 28, 2008
Laughter Mr. Ingles…
We don't believe in God therefore we are hedonistic monsters…ask baginski…
laughter
Comment by owlafaye | January 28, 2008
nickadams…Once again: It is a Public place and not a Christian place…you can have a nativity scene in your front yard and NO, you don't have to tend it.
You can't place a nativity scene in the public square and justify it by saying you are "tending" it.
Essentially you are advertising your religion, and once again: If you had a quality product they would beat a path to your door and advertising wouldn't be necessary.
If I feel I need religion I will go to a church.
The problems with America's Christians is that their heads are filled with the lies of the Christian Press to the point where they really believe that Christianity is mighty and might is right. This stupid insistence that America was founded by Christians and is a Christian nation is the prime example of "stupid thought".
You believe this and you wonder why people don't want the 10 commandments on the courthouse lawn.
Ignorant arrogance of this sort is repugnant.
Comment by owlafaye | January 28, 2008
baginski says: "Take that fire that burns in your belly and learn about eternity. It is not a blank void. Don’t wait until you are there to do your homework."
This is a typical Christian threat, an attempt to instill fear in a correspondent in hopes that he will come to your side and thus give support to your own doubted beliefs. If you are so strongly imbued with fith, why are you constantly seeking the affirmation of others?
People who believe in a life after this one, do so because they can't face death without that consolation.
Comment by owlafaye | January 28, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
Regarding Huckabee, I stated I agree with you, not the Governor. However, as I am sure you know, the Constitution may be amended and Mr. Huckabee is free to attempt it, whether he becomes president or not. I hope you or any liberty-loving American wouldn't have it any other way.
As for religious speech, you expect to be protected from the sight or sound of it originating from public property and you mention the Nativity, though I have yet to see you or anyone explain where a right to be shielded from the Nativity comes from.
The Constitution says Congress "may not" prohibit the free exercise of religion. Just what is it about the words "may not" that are so hard to understand? Yet not only do some not understand, they would have us believe that "may not" really means "may." Or worse, "must."
The big "but's" with respect to free speech in public space always revolve around concerns about maintaining certain standards – codes,civility and safety.
None of those being issues with the display of a Nativity scene, what is it that says a government may not grant such a display?
Granting, mind you, is an act of meeting a reasonable request by the people. Since the government recognizes Christmas as a national holiday, and as Christmas is a religous holiday celebrating Christ's birth, a Nativity is a perfectly logical and reasonable way of illustrating the event of that birth, is it not?
There may be people who don't believe in Christmas or are offended by it, but the fact remains that there is a Christmas every year, and the federal government, as well as every state and local government, recognizes it.
CHRISTmas is a national religious holiday the government sanctions without sanctifying.
Governments do not celebrate Christmas by taking the day off, Government gives the day off so PEOPLE may (or may not) celebrate Christmas. Governments don't sanctify Nativity scenes or present them as symbols of a state religion, but they do sanction them. Why? Because how silly is it to declare a holiday recognizing the importance of the birth of Christ, yet not recognize the scene of the birth of Christ – the purpose and meaning of the holiday?
Bottom line is the government either recognizes Christmas or it doesn't.
At present, it does, and whenever I hear the abusurd notion that government has a responsibility to protect us from the meaning of the Holiday by banning Nativity scenes in public space, I have to conclude the real agenda is to do away with Christmas as a Federal holiday. Good luck with that.
owlafaye,
Sorry if there was some confusion. Are you retracting what you wrote in post 126#? I reread it and note that you clearly stated that Nativity scenes would have to be carried when being displayed in public spaces. To be specific, you wrote,
"Nativity scenes and other displays of mythological religious beliefs in public spaces is a 24 hour affront and intrusion…if you are carrying it around in your arms, that is OK."
Comment by nick adams | January 29, 2008
Sort of a joke about carrying the nativity nick, like carrying a sign or a newborn baby, you know?………..as to the rest:
Displaying the Nativity is a "religious practice"…your practices and beliefs are a part of your religion not a part of public congress.
This belief and reverence is traditionally exhibited by the faithful within the confines of their church…to move it into the public streets is to infringe on that area controlled by government and is contrary to the Constitution. The government desires no control over what you lawfully say and do within the confines of your church.
Religion is NOT a public exercise but a privately held belief.
You seem to ignore the respect implied in the government recognizing one of your holidays (Christmas) and instead, use this as an excuse to force your agenda upon that "captive audience": the common man on the public streets.
The national holiday as you mentioned, is "RECOGNIZED" not endorsed or deemed relevant, true or compulsory.
You throw "sanction" in there as if it is officially Christian…you are totally in error.
Your problem is that you approach all these semantic tricks with that same sanctimony that belies the rational, objective view.
Like all fanatics, you are quite sincere and humorless…but your religious system is inherently non-rational, a form of insanity that is normative I grant you, but in being normative, the practical considerations related to the size of the populance under your mesmerism, demand it not be considered insane…so instead of herding you all into mental hospitals as the diagnosis indicates, government attempts control of the problem by containing you within your churches as outlined in the Constitution.
When you start parading your faith in the streets, invading government congress, demanding special rights and insisting on that treason of "God before government" you have to be rounded up and put back in your self-created little prisons.
As long as you have that chain around your neck, the one you put in place yourself, I have the right, as I pass by, to yank it as hard as I can.
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
Might I recommend:
http://iqballatif.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/29/1262772-why-low-human-development-and-inequality-is-associated-with-deeply-religious-societies
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
An excerpt for the lazy:
Why do we need to worship one particular prophet? Why do we insist in loyalty of creed when ideas and life have so many different forms and colors? Let's have all good things as part of our life and routine; let's take all human virtues as the greatest gift of mankind. The problem arises when religion enforces selectivity of one thought over another; it is that selectivity of 'ideological puritanism' that becomes a predicament for us.
Our new frontiers of knowledge have exposed mankind at large to new challenges. Decadent thought processes and non-scientific approach can only lead to confusion.
We see this happening all around us; societies that missed their renaissance earlier are going through a period of self-discovery, unfortunately, with the ferocity and violence as seen in medieval times.
Look at any country at the lowest rung of development. More often than not, you will see they are stuck in a quagmire of self-destruction. The lowest ten countries that are marred with the lowest level of human development index, which counts amongst many other factors like education and infant mortality, are also victims of religious intolerance and, as a result, acute tribalism and internecine wars.
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
Something profound in my searches:
Religion is the camel, always trying to sneak into the government tent…but it must be kept out.
Tattoo that on your forearm George.
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
George Shadroui is a snicky, smarmy, yappy lap dog of Catholicism…a Catholic "Yap Dog" who deserves every swipe upon his cold, trespassing little nose.
Unfortunately, the more you hit him the louder and more evasive he becomes.
I am sure he sits smugly confident that God's Love and Admiration shine down upon him whereas my understanding of a God would indicate that he is laughing up his sleeve.
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
Ok, ok, I'm calling "uncle." I am collapsing under the weight of owlafaye's well reasoned, relentless logic. He is clearly a thinker of the first order, a giant among men.
I am now a convert to atheism, and I want to be just like him. Now I can be snotty, coarse, and mean, too. I can now completely avoid the arguments of those dirty, evil theists and simply call them names.
I am so superior to them fundies, I don't even have to read their posts any more. I just breeze right by and go straight to insulting them.
This is so easy! Why didn't I think of it before?
Comment by Mountain Man | January 29, 2008
This is good…keep track of my posts and learn logic, common sense and the gift of presenting facts in a terse, concise and devastating manner.
No need of the hangman's knot of perpetual repentance…just keep in mind: "Thanks to the diligence, persistence and enlightening qualities of the opinions and observations of owlafaye, I am no longer a dumb schitt, cloud in the sky, goofball Christian compelled by a questionable mandate from an invisible, cosmic supernatural being in the Sky, to prove to the world that I haven't the faintest, and in fear with this ignorance, I cower in the face of reality and beseech nay, beg a nebulous entity to intercede on my behalf and render asunder the immutable laws of the universe to satisfy this one plaintiff.
"How silly of me" says MountainMan and with that he exits stage right with the applause and understanding of a class of men most forgiving and understanding (unlike MountainMan's former peers) and not apt to mention the matter again.
So keep quiet and listen up and we will let the matter rest forever.
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
George Shadroui? You listening George?
Your assignment for the week is to ferret out the brilliant truth in your copious articles and present each point for our review in 25 words or less.
Truth is simple, to the point and in great abundance.
Make it so.
I may have missed a few truths in your articles so feel free to use a second piece of paper if I have underestimated you.
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
O great owlafaye, teach me some new swear words that I too can use to pursuade those simpleton Christians.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 29, 2008
Mr. Adams – you mischaracterize my objection to religious displays on public property. I don't want to be "protected from the sight or sound of it originating from public property." I don't need to be "shielded" from it. It's not the content that's the problem, it's the fact that it's religious and specifically put there by the government as an endorsement. I've got no problem with opening up public spaces to any and all speech, religious or otherwise – I find the whole notion of "free speech zones" to be both oxymoronic and plain old moronic – where private citizens and groups can then exercise their religion or lack thereof. See, e.g., here: http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7470226
Of course, Christian tolerance can't be relied on in such cases: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/12/21/wiccan-holiday-display-stolen-christian-display-stands-alone.htm
Again, I've no problem with "holiday display areas" on public land that private groups can put displays upon, so long as they are open to all groups, and are subject to the "big buts" you mention. Paying for the displays themselves with government money bothers me rather more. I refer back to my comment 62 above.
Federal days off are no big deal, as you say, so long as Christian worship isn't mandated. There are other problems with how the federal government handles religion – see here: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2007/10/religious-comp-.html – but as it doesn't discriminate between religions or religion and non-religion, time off for Christmas doesn't bother me particularly.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 29, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
My point was that the birth of Jesus already is a religious holiday funded by government money (yours and mine). I think shutting down government and paying people not to show up on the day marking the birth of Christ is pretty serious recognition, though as you seem to agree, not an endorsement. But then, why would it be?
Likewise, recognizing the nature of this religious holiday via reasonable and tasteful ways is not an endorsement. Why would it be?
To put it simply, there is no secret that Christmas is a religious event and acknowledging that is not a crime. If it where, there would be no national holiday to start with.
There is no compulsion to put a nativity on the courthouse lawn, or to pay for it with public funds. But then there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding it, either.
The government holds up its end of the bargain by following the Constitution and passing no laws establishing or endorsing a religion, Christian or otherwise. The rows of displays a county decides to display on its courthouse lawn recognizing and respecting the various faiths are nothing more than a government acknowledging something fundamental among its people – faith. There is no endorsement.
Besides, if the panel tasked with seeing to it everyone who wants to be included should end up with 20 different faiths to display, how would anyone detect an endorsed one?
We all must be sure the government does not adopt a religion, but that is easy enough. Like all things in the U.S., it is about equal protection.
Will it mean small towns where there is only one dominant religion will have a poor representation of the world's religions 'round Christmas? Yes, but that's just the way it is.
Will it mean some anti-religion Atheists will fume? Yes, but then I suspect many already stew over the fact that the government recognizes Christmas at all.
I think what really gets under the skin of some Atheists is that they have no pageant. How does a government recognize Atheist beliefs?
That's easy. Do nothing, especially do nothing with respect to Christmas.
To set the record straight, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I am a strict Constitutionalist making an argument. As far as I know, there is no God.
Comment by nick adams | January 29, 2008
Yes nick, we have no pageant and we have no beliefs…we have no churches, no tithes to pay, no magic book and no lies to tell…we "do it" without guilt by the way…we do have what appears to be a very intricate creed for all the controversy surrounding it however…
Atheist creed: NO GOD
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
Christians could avoid all the coundrums in their lives if they simply stopped believing.
I see no reason to postulate the existence of any powers in the universe-beyond those revealed by science and rational thinking.
I have no intentions of wasting any part of my life in daydreams.
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
owlafaye,
Yes, yes, hit them again with that piercing intellect. I bow in the presence of greatness.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 29, 2008
Yes, we are living in the last days…of my sale…I have 8" X 10" photos of Jesus Christ for just $19.99 plus S & H…
Our very special color 8" X 10" photos are reduced drastically…just $79.99 plus S & H
These last days have induced me to offer my popular, spectacular 8" X 10" AUTOGRAPHED color photos of Jesus! for just $345.94 ! ! (S & H included) (Limit 3 to a customer) (genuine faux gold frame included)
These are the last days folks…
Hurry Hurry Hurry
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
Just WHEN is a little foolishness not in keeping with George's articles?
Comment by owlafaye | January 29, 2008
Mr. Adams – I note that you claim that with a nativity scene put up by the government, "there is no endorsement"… but I've not seen your reply to my question in comment 133: "Imagine if your local city council put up a Nazi flag in front of city hall on Hitler’s birthday. Would you find that an appropriate act or use of public funds?"
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 30, 2008
The President of Paraguay visits the White House.
The White Houses raises the flag of Paraguay and the United States…
They are endorsing and acknowledging the visit.
It is typical with people such as nickadams to attempt to alter the definitions or re-interpet the definitions of words…eg; the word "NO"
This is also common amongst date rapists, however it is a step up from Christians in complete denial.
A nativity scene erected in the public square is an endorsement of Christianity and in conflict with the founding fathers intent and that of the Constitution.
Declaring a holiday on Christmas Day is an acknowledgment by the government not of the Christian Faith but of the general desire of the people.
I assure you, people would not show up for work in either case so the government simply acknowledges this fact.
Comment by owlafaye | January 30, 2008
Mr. Ingles
As I stated in my last post, "reasonable" and "tasteful" displays are appropriate.
Of course you never quite get to making reasonable and tasteful decisions about how to mark an event if the thing or event being marked is not reasonable and tasteful to start.
What is reasonable or desireable is the fully baked result of various ingredients: popular opinion/will, tradition, law, western morals and common sense. Answering the question about the Nazi flag is thus difficult, as I would have to assume that Nazism in your scenario is as pouplar and accepted as Christmas.
If it was your intent to poll me on how I might read a city that errected the Nazi flag, I suppose I would have to wonder about the circumstances that led to such popular support and whether it was a rogue act. I don't know, really, as I am still not certain how I should read the actions of a city in vermont that recently passed a resolution to arrest and prosecute President Bush and Vice President Cheney for war crimes.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that I could understand your position better if you were against official recognition of Christmas. If you were to ask me what business the state has in giving credence (and our cash) to the Christ myth, there wouldn't be any question about why you object to some of that cash being used on reasonable Christmas symbols. But as it is, it is utter sillyness to mistake a simple display for more than a sign of respect and recognition for a tradition, religious or otherwise.
The founding fathers put restrictions on the government to ensure it could not establish a state religion nor interfer with the exercise of religion. That was to protect us from the tyranny of a state religion as was the case in England.
As has oft been said, the document gives us freedom of relgion, not freedom from it. That is why I would have no problem with a predominantly Muslim city recognizing the importance of Ramadan by providing its people with some official recognition (recognition, mind you, not a law establishing a religion) in the form of a display or sign.
An equivalent to a "Happy birthday, Jesus" message, if you will.
Now if the city violates the Constitution by passing a law establishing Islam as the official city religion …
Comment by nick adams | January 30, 2008
Brattlesboro Vermont, as comment columns, polls and generally recognized feelings of Americans indicate…is "spot on" in their seeking an indictment against Bush and Cheney for murder and war crimes.
Radical change in the direction of American foreign policy might, I say again MIGHT avert a future few Americans will be able to stomach.
We are in a nose dive here if no one has noticed?
This stupid policy of a religious war against the Middle East with the barely concealed oil agenda…is CRIMINAL.
Comment by owlafaye | January 31, 2008
Mr. Adams – if we imagine some small town where Nazism is, in fact, quite popular, then it would be 'reasonable' for them to put up the flag? I think governments shouldn't be in the business of endorsing such things – though they certainly shouldn't prohibit them.
I am, in fact, not exactly thrilled with official federal and state recognition of Christmas. It's not my highest priority in life – as I indicated it was 'no big deal' – but I'd rather not have it. It'd be fine with me if people had banks of general vacation days that they could apply whenever. A whole heap of people would apply them to Christmas, and that's entirely cool. Giving everyone time off is better than only giving the religious time off, of course, and it was to that extent that I 'endorsed' it. Indeed, the other link I pointed out was a federal benefit available only to the religious, which I really don't like. Priorities and all.
The other problem is the one I've mentioned a couple times – the unequal access to such 'recognition' that's inevitable – as you admit, but which doesn't seem to bother you. The fact that there is active opposition to alternate displays it what makes it clear that they are, in fact, an 'endorsement'.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 31, 2008
owlafaye, you are truly a wonder — I have kindly resisted responding to you that you might lasso yourself with your own very nasty invective. You have done it masterfully by proving the point of my article, not that faith is right, but that extreme atheism is terribly boring.
I am a Catholic, my nose runs on cold days, and for all I know you are totally right that we are carbon creatures condemned to misery, death and finally extinction. My choice of faith is an act of hope over reason. So why are you trying to reason with me? Declare victory and go home for I am obviously no match for your wit and sarcasm.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 31, 2008
Mr. Ingles, I am with you 100 percent with regard to endorsing religions, but unlike you, I can imagine that a city may extend courteousy and recognition to its contstituants without it being an "endorsement." I can't believe you do not have the capacity to make the distinction, so I will assume you have made a concious decision not to allow such a distinction for reasons yet unexplained.
To paint the picture, imagine it's Christmas and the townspeople ask if the city would be good enough to pull the Nativity scene the city purchased back in '47 out of storage to put up on the courthouse lawn for a few days.
"We can't endorse a religion," the council cries in unison.
"We didn't ask you to endorse anything, we asked you if you would set up the old Nativity."
"But townsman Ingles says it would be an endorsement," the council moans.
"Check your copy of the Constituion. All it says is you are not allowed to pass any laws establishing/endorsing a religion. As long as you don't do that, you are right by the founding fathers. Just read the damn thing once in awhile. It's right there at the top."
"But townsman Ingles says its a slippery slope and that appearance is everything and no one will be sure if it is an endorsement."
"Now we're starting to wonder why we elected you lunkheads." "Look, if despite the fact that you passed no law, resolution or even a symbolic proclomation that would indicate this is an official endorsment of a religion, and it makes you feel better, please just pass a resolution stating clearly that it isn't an endorsement. Heck, we'll even post your 'NO ENDORSEMENT' sign right next to the baby Jesus."
Also, to correct your mistake, I never "admitted" that unequal access would be inevitable. I pointed out that in a town with no Jews, the reality could be that there is no Jewish display. In my scenario, there is no lack of access, just lack of Jews.
Comment by nick adams | January 31, 2008
There you go again nick…after being told NO you say, awwwww lets just set it up anyway, wouldn't hurt.
Comment by owlafaye | January 31, 2008
George S. says: (Hitchens) "he is quite right to be outraged by pain inflicted on the world by moral bullies and extremists who have concluded that their dogmas justify acting as God’s judges and executioners on earth. One only has to consider the daily toll of killings each day in the name of religious faith to appreciate Hitchens’"
and your articles support those people Hitchens and myself are concerned about.
You are a party to the crimes George.
If you would join the effort of others attempting to get the abusive priests and brothers out of the Catholic ministry, and in the process getting the Catholic Church to admit their culpability, then you might be doing something atheists support.
Instead you are encouraging unsavory elements in the Christian movement by attempting to tear down dedicted, honest, decent moral people that have had enough of the very problem you outline above.
You are an "enabler" George.
Comment by owlafaye | January 31, 2008
owlafaye, stop with the sanctimonious act.
Do you seriously think that the religious are the only ones with blood on their hands? In the name of a science-loving, egalitarian and atheist utopia, Stalin murdered millions of religious people, because of their religiousness. Pol Pot did the same, and Mao takes the cake for killing the most religious in the name of truth and atheism.
The common mistake is to believe that atheism itself is to blame. Or that religion itself is to blame for the crimes of the religious. It isn't either. Religious people can be religious without killing those that disagree with them. Likewise atheists can be atheist without killing those that disagree with them.
The element that elevates atheism to murderous atheism and religion to murderous religion is intolerance. When Stalin knew for a fact that religion was wrong and that society would be better off without it, he was still within his rights. When he enforced a policy of murdering and imprisoning those people, he had crossed the line to intolerance.
In the early US, when the Christians knew that adultery was wrong, they were within their rights. When they flogged adulterous people, they had left those rights and embarked upon intolerance.
At the moment, Christians are opposing gay marriage. Yes, that is intolerance. But intolerance is also widely supported amongst atheists. Noteworthy is the proposed legislation supported by Dawkins to criminalize sharing of faith with one's own children, and the proposed abolition of faith schools.
http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2007/12/19/the-totalitarianism-of-atheists/
Yes, you can get off your high horse now.
Comment by JohnScott | January 31, 2008
Sharing of faith with a child is child abuse. The age of reason and free choice is denied them…programming is programming and it is highly repugnant.
You folks just love to bring up Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot as if their murdering was comparable to the murders of Christianity…hardly.
The educated among you think maybe they can slip that one by and the rest of the ignoramuses nod their heads like a bobble doll and say "Yes, take that you filthy atheist"
Contrary to your opinion, I opine that religious people cannot be religious without killing…it is the blood oath of Catholicism and by default, all other Christianity.
And thats the abolition of faith schools-supported by the government…typical debate tactics.
You apologists are nervous as a cat in a room full of rockers because you know the atheists have your number and are declaiming it out loud.
You sure as hell do need a soul because you lack a spine.
Comment by owlafaye | January 31, 2008
"I opine that religious people cannot be religious without killing"
The fact that many modern Christians have lived their lives without killing soundly defeats that hypothesis.
Comment by JohnScott | January 31, 2008
I see that the next three posts after 173 have been deleted…typical
Get these scum running and they have you banned.
Comment by owlafaye | January 31, 2008
You have banned me and That indicates I have WON!
Thanks for your acclimation
Comment by owlafaye | January 31, 2008
Who banned you?
Comment by JohnScott | January 31, 2008
I see, you now come back after deleting two of my posts and say; "Who banned you?"
Laughter…maybe it is because after a long and succinct comment on your shenanigans, you turned turtle?
banned/deleted/censorship
The last recourse of message board cowards.
Comment by owlafaye | January 31, 2008
owlafaye, are you saying that I banned or otherwise censored you? How so? I have no authority to ban you or censor you. Just like you, I can only post comments. I'm not an admin here.
Comment by JohnScott | January 31, 2008
Two posts just flew into the ether?
They were wonderful, absolutely brilliant…I was almost certain that after reading them you and George would have gone out into the backyard and shot yourselves.
Ahhhh well.
Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008
we can't shoot ourselves. our faith forbids it and other things.
all the best.
Comment by George Shadroui | February 1, 2008
Owlafaye,
Patch up the rip in your tinfoil suit and get a grip. If users on this forum could delete your posts, don't you think they would all be gone by now?
I don't condone censoring intellectual debate… but then again, doing so would mean that only a couple of your posts would remain.
You remind me of a boxer who flails his arms for 12 rounds and then raises them in victory, never grasping that you have to actually hit your target to earn points. Despite being thrilled with yourself, you should understand that in a ring like this, an intellectual debate, insults, crude remarks and personal attacks amount to blows below the belt and rightly result in points being taken away from you.
Over the course, you've done little more than tell us how you "feel" about people who believe differently than yourself.
When you do get to making points worth considering or answering, you ruin the song by throwing in off-pitch invectives. It's all beginning to make me wonder.
You may want to consider (or perhaps you have, clever boy/gril) that someone who wanted to reinforce the poor image many have of Atheists would create posts like yours as propaganda.
If you are for real, you might want to consider that you likely inspire people to hang onto their faith with greater vigor.
For your edification, many religious people worry about what type of people they may become if they were to lose their faith.
You may not realize it (or maybe you do) but anyone with even a little awareness can see you are doing the Lord's work by becoming the ideal poster boy for Atheisim.
You also may want to consider that your posts have served to establish the only real unity between the two sides in this debate. Indeed, about the only thing mutually agreed upon by the two sides here has been that the value of your offerings is nil.
I applogize to everyone for taking up space and time with this post, but as it may seem unlikely, the latest twist in owlafaye's character development (paranoia) appears a bit ham-handed to me.
I would hope those who agree with owlafaye's basic argument at least consider the possibility you are being had by a clever person with an agenda.
To owlafaye, if you are legitimate, my apologies to you. But I hope you understand that your validation of negative stereotypes of Atheists is starting to appear a little suspect.
Comment by nick adams | February 1, 2008
I am glad to see that both sides of the debate are in awe and this indicates that both sides are essentially pizzing on each other.
I have made some very good points and speaking of points, my humor comes at the cost of a sharp pointed stick and it appears that you folks and your opinions can't stand the "gaff"…you know what I mean?
Yes, you know what I mean and you all squirm admirably.
You want an example of the inane and humorless?
George S. says: "we can’t shoot ourselves. our faith forbids it and other things."
George is a 3rd rate wordsmith driven by the promise of indulgences.
You are essentially a bunch of clowns at a convention for "Clown of the year". (non-denominational)
Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008
(statistics verified by links in previous posts)
Soft pedal this George:
41,000 Catholic priests
3000 sexually abusive priests of children
This is 7%+ of all clergy
Yet the Vatican repeatedly claims "Less than 1%"
Give us your spin on this one George…
(This post was deleted, this is an approximation of the deleted post)
Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008
I see that George continues to delete my posts…what does this say gentlemen????
Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008
HAM HANDED nick?
I love it, you haven't even begun to learn have you boy?
Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008
I have submitted 6 or 7 really HARD HITTING posts of TRUTH and DEMANDS that George reply…he deleted every one of them.
What does that say folks?
Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008
WE will try again:
My posts regard the percentage of Catholic priests engaged in sexually abusing children as opposed to the Vatican's claims.
I have offered links to credible sources.
George S. keeps deleting these posts.
Comment by owlafaye | February 1, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
Relative to your Hoyle comments, this response is directed at your statement that abiogenesis is defined as: “potential initial origin of life from non-living materials”. Not sure what you mean by “potential”, unless you’re referring to doubts that life originated on this planet and possibly involved “spores from space” theories. Abiotic chemistry is the starting point historically for abiogenesis and only in recent years have “non-living materials” replaced chemicals. Specifically, Graham Cairns-Smith’s idea that life began as a mineral based entity (clay-crystal life) or Gunther Wachterhauser’s idea that iron pyrite (fool’s gold) provided the breeding ground for prebiotic life.
Going back to Stanley Miller’s time of 1952, the initial starting point for abiogenesis in the lab, the early theories and resulting experiments attempted to identify the exact steps that chemicals took from inorganic to organic molecules to self-replicating life. Various scientists and science writers refer to abiogenesis as “chemical evolution” and there are good reasons for linking the word chemical to evolution.
Within abiotic chemistry and its related theories, a step-wise progression of chemical development toward self-replicating life is thought to involve some form of evolution – opportunistic chemical forms that must have been subjected to natural selection in order to preserve the favorable structures needed to continue with the progression to the “progenote” stage – the progrenote stage is more primitive than ancient bacteria and considered the “official” baton passing point from abiogenesis to orthodox evolution.
One could argue that before the baton passing point is reached an “evolution of the gaps – presto-chango” type argument is being used to explain how inorganic chemicals mysteriously progressed up an evolutionary ladder, first achieving and then retaining levels of progress we can’t duplicate today within the lab.
But before we invoke science’s multi-syllable words of power and complex speculations disguised as knowledge, it may be worthwhile to discuss abiogenesis from a common sense viewpoint. For example, and courtesy of taxpayer funding, assume science produced a self-replicating life form in today’s lab from inorganic chemicals – how would this amazing achievement confirm how life originated unassisted over 3.5 billion years ago? There is no still consensus on what physical conditions were like on a primitive earth or how these conditions promoted chemical evolution, so what exactly would it prove? At first glance, it certainly wouldn’t confirm randomly occurring abiogenesis. Rather, it would seem to confirm intelligent design – sort of “Look Ma, I made life today in the lab with my chemistry set – isn’t it cool”.
And, scientists busy with finding an acceptable story to explain how the progenote developed seem to have forgotten to explain exactly why the process isn’t continuing to this very day. What stops life from continuously developing from inorganic chemicals – changes in physical conditions, evolution and competition from existing life, high federal income tax rates – what? Evolution and competition from existing life is the orthodox scientific answer – but exactly how does evolution work to stop new life in its tracks? In Darwin’s “warm little ponds” filled with pregnant inorganic chemicals somewhere deep in the Amazon basin is “life” still struggling to form and then being eaten by really mean bacteria, the predatory product of billions of years of evolution?
Interesting speculations, but it’s necessary to hurry back to “real” science. To set the stage, Stanley Miller continued his experiments and ruminations on abiogenesis for 40 years after his initial fame. He never did create life in the lab and no one else has either, but we should sincerely respect his dedication and limited achievements. Perhaps somewhat bitter after 40 years of failure, Miller expressed his contempt for recent “paper chemistry” computer models and whiteboard speculations on abiogenesis rather than basing the theory on experimental chemistry to “prove” chemical evolution (see “The End of Science” J. Horgan, 1996).
And since you like quotes, Stanley Miller finally admitted that “making compounds and making life are two different things” – at the University of California San Diego in an Origins of Life seminar January 19th, 1999. Another party pooper, scientist Robert Shapiro (accredited member – Church of Darwin) said: “an explanation for the first self-replicating molecule has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated but rather taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism” (see: “Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth” – Shapiro, 1986). So what are the scientific reasons for the long faces?
To start, during any discussion of abiogenesis, some lab coat with a negative attitude is sure to bring up the famous “chicken vs. egg” problem – in short, which came first, the protein or the DNA? The protein came first theory immediately ran into problems. Producing amino acids with a Frankenstein’s laboratory apparatus created equal amounts of both right and left amino acids, or what’s called a racemic mixture. But, proteins actually use only the left handed type (laevoratory or “L amino acids”), not the right handed or dextoratory (“D amino acids”). Using an “evolution of the gaps” explanation, perhaps the L and D types did originally combine and then later became solely L type through some unexplained natural selection process.
Other problems also surfaced such as how to prevent “interfering cross reactions” when forming short polypeptide chains. How did the prebiotic soup sort out the amino acids and prevent the normal cross-reactions that occur in any uncontrolled physical environment? And, what about the energy needed to drive the reactions? For the gullible, lightning strikes are certainly impressive but energy absorbed and given up during reactions is much more subtle and follows a specific sequential pattern within a temporal matrix – blasting chemicals with electricity won’t do it no matter how impressive it looks in the movies.
There are numerous other problems in postulating the “chicken first”, such as how to prevent the side chains in the polymers from combining with other chemicals into a useless mess instead of a polymer with a specific function or how the short polypeptide structures gradually grew into longer and more useful lengths and then made the longer lengths into stable re-occurrences – could it have been evolution to the rescue once again? But, eventually frustration won out and scientists turned hopefully to the egg side of the problem. But where did the blueprints come from initially which defined the structures? DNA needs protein to support it, so how could DNA occur before protein? And if it didn’t occur first then what determined the protein structure?
The obvious solution was to postulate a magical “chicken/egg” scenario occurring simultaneously. So, the RNA first theory was born – primitive RNA that could maintain a blueprint but could also create its own reactive enzymes. Great solution – except there is no physical evidence of that and no explanation as to how RNA would have formed on its own.
The problem with the “primitive RNA is like a virus” explanation is that a virus like Qbeta requires a pre-existing host cell to replicate itself. Where was the host the primitive RNA used to evolve itself? Another problem is that RNA doesn’t employ base pairing and is consequently less accurate than DNA in coding – what happens is a degrading structure rather than a progressive structure in successive Qbeta replication experiments – each generation becomes less successful at copying rather than more.
This is getting quite long so let me finish by pointing back to your original criticism – abiogenesis and evolution are two separate, independent and non-related theories, at least according to the National Academy of Sciences. But after years of failure to create life in the lab, I think science deliberately separated the Siamese twins – abiogenesis and evolution couldn’t be family anymore. Evolution was the golden child science was proud of and it kept the grant money rolling in. Abiogenesis was becoming more and more like your cousin Bob who tends to drool at the table, belches and farts in public and someone you hope strangers don’t connect with either you or your family. I’ve shown examples above of where evolution type arguments were employed to explain mysteries in abiogenesis – I conclude the separation of the two theories is more political than real.
If time permits, my next and last response addresses “Hoyle’s fallacy”. Biologists struck back at Hoyle with a critique of his reasoning, but their critique requires a critique in turn. And, a few quotes should demonstrate that Hoyle wasn’t alone in his skepticism, other scientists have also calculated astronomical odds against the random formation of life. And, finally a search for odds and probabilities that biologists will support comes up empty – why aren’t evolutionists advancing odds of their own if they won’t accept Hoyle’s numbers?
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 2, 2008
Mr. Skurka – You raise quite a few disparate points in your essay so I'm going to have to break up my response somewhat. First off, let me address one of the key misunderstandings that many people bring up with abiogenesis – "why isn't it happening now"? First off, while there is indeed no consensus on exactly what the Earth's early chemistry was like, there're quite a few things we know about the way it wasn't. For one thing, there was essentially no free oxygen in the atmosphere – look up the "oxygen catastrophe", where living things started to dramatically alter the composition of the atmosphere. For another, free organic molecules today are, indeed, scavenged quite efficiently by microorganisms; look how quickly living things decay now. These are more than "interesting speculations", these are demonstrable facts.
As to Miller's disdain for "paper chemistry" – your missive comes at a fortuitous time, as just this morning I was made aware of this remarkable article in Discover magazine – http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= – where Miller himself had completed some 25-year experiments with ice. The problem of getting RNA to form chains of significant length "on its own" may be much easier to solve in frozen environments than warm ones. (Wouldn't be the first time Darwin was wrong.)
And, indeed, the "RNA world" model is very definitely not adequately summed up by your phrase, "primitive RNA is like a virus". RNA can act as an enzyme, and this has been demonstrated in the lab. The hypothetical RNA-based life would not be parasitic on cells, it would carry out its own autocatalytic reactions.
I'm really not clear what the quotes you cited are intended to prove. Don't they demonstrate that abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics? What do you believe they establish?
As to why evolutionists "aren't… advancing odds of their own", it's not a conspiracy or a mystery. It's that there are a great number of unknowns at this point, and specific calculations are rather premature. We can be sure that the naive calculations of the odds regarding, say, cytochrome C are erroneous – I've not seen one that's taken into account the actually rather broad variety of forms it can take and still function. (Indeed, many variants in different species are over 60% different between their sequences.) Not to mention the unknown quantity of other molecules that might be suitable for the same operations that aren't taken into account in naive probability calculations. We're not sure what the probabilities are, but we can be sure that they are higher than the ones opponents of abiogenesis like to cite.
But these are side issues. I don't see, anywhere in your essay, an actual justification for what you "think", that the topics of abiogenesis and evolution were "deliberately separated". It's not surprising that evolutionary models would be used to understand how chemical systems could increase in complexity in gradual fashion – variation plus selection has been show to produce increasing complexity in many other contexts, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. Scientists frequently look for analogs to well-understood phenomena when analyzing new phenomena. That doesn't mean that there's a necessary theoretical link between, say, convection in Earth's atmosphere and convection of ultrahot, ultradense plasma in the Sun, though both are analyzed with similar theoretical tools.
Even more, I don't see a justification for supposing that – regardless of the separation being "deliberate" or not – the separation is invalid. And still further, if "evolution type arguments" were used, I also don't see a discussion of why those "type" arguments would be wrong…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 4, 2008
In post #69, Mountain Man asked fvthinker, "In your view, how did the universe come into being?" Thinker's answer was, "I don't know."
MY answer is, "It didn't. It always was and always will be."
The idea that the Universe "came into being" requires that something be created out of literally nothing. I reject that view, no matter whether it is a Big Bang or a Big Boob or whatever.
Since I hold reason as superior to faith, I will tell you how I reason that the Universe is truly eternal. Matter (and energy) change forms, but do not cease to be. Just because a planet, a sun, a galaxy have a beginning, middle and end does not mean that Everything That Is also requires a beginning, middle and end. What makes sense to me is that matter and energy are endlessly recycled.
A big bang can and does produce new entities, made up of the dust and energy of long dead other entities.
There's no need for a single scientific event to explain it just as there is no need for a god.
It is funny to me that many religions incorporate the ideas of everlasting hell & eternal damnation; yet they evade the idea that eternity works both ways.
signed,
AMAI the Happy Atheist
Comment by AMAI | March 15, 2008
AMAI,
I am familiar with the matter/energy duality and certainly feel it is a far more reasonable explanation of things than the supernatural. I simply say "I don't know" (re: the origins of the universe) because, though the theory is well founded, we don't actually know what 'existed' moments before the Big Bang. Additionally, the cognitive limitations of the human species, in my opinion, will keep the vast majority of us from being able to contemplate such ethereal concepts such as the energy/matter duality and curved space.
I confess that the cognitive limitations of my evolved mind wants to put our universe "some place". I have yet to wrap my head around circular/warped space (a universe without edges) in any satisfying way. What is important about my position, though, is that I recognize the limitations our my (and our species) cognitive abilities and don't feel compelled to make things up to explain the unknown.
Comment by fvthinker | March 15, 2008
Making things up can be fun. The danger lies in buying into your own (or other people's) b.s.to the point where you are prepared to be blinded to truth when it does appear.
True, we don't know the EXACT configuration in our quadrant/sextant/whatever of the Universe just before the Big Bang that brought our portion into being.
I fully accept that it was much like it is today – lots of suns, planets, moons, galaxies, dust, blobs, bits & pieces – the full array that we have so far identified ourselves.
I hold this view as knowledge – I've satisfied myself that the nature of matter and energy on Earth and as observed in space supports the recyclical nature of existence. There was no one single big bang; rather, big bangs happen at intervals whenever there's enough stuff to "pop." There is certainly no actual god, being, entity or thing responsible for designing our planet with the kind of specificity that religion says there is.
I do think that life happens because all the essential elements for it are present: heat source, broad spectrum of elements, correct distance from heat source, perhaps even the moon is necessary for there to be life (theory, obviously, just made it up now.)
The idea of infinity being the correct answer scares, worries, discombobulates – generally puts people on edge, for some reason. I really don't know why. I find it rather comforting, myself.
Comment by AMAI | March 15, 2008
I too feel that the yo-yo universe (untold previous big bangs) is probably the most logical…though impertinent. I fully expect that we will be extinct before we make any substantive insights into the matter. Unfortunately, there are some very religious people trying to hasten that extinction.
Comment by fvthinker | March 15, 2008
Why impertinent, fvthinker? Interesting choice of adjective. Are all galaxies the result of a big bang, perhaps? Or only some? I think as a species our cognitive abilities are quite capable of posing intelligent questions, and finding rational answers, despite the desire of some members to resort to insta-answers, whether via "God" or a single big bang. Thank you for the discussion.
Comment by AMAI | March 15, 2008
I use the term too easily and probably wrongly diminishes the value of searching for an answer. Sometimes I think trying to figure it out is a waste of time because I am confident that we will be extinct before we could possibly make inroads. Still…I very much enjoy pondering the question. I suppose I fall into the trap that some theists are in when they say addressing global warming is a waste of time because the rapture is a week from Tuesday. :-)
Comment by fvthinker | March 15, 2008
LOL. I don't think it's a waste of time at all. Once I put my mind to the issue, I came up with an answer that satisfied me. I also do not accept that the "end is nigh," so it's quite worthwhile to work these things out.
There's another trap that could happen for the global warmists (and coldists), and that is that the true effects won't be felt for thousands of years, so why worry now? My view on that is we need more energy now, so why not set things up to help ourselves in the short term AND provide the means for our descendants to help themselves as well?
Comment by AMAI | March 15, 2008
I am baffled by the moronic views of the Atheists who deny the existance of God. If God does not exist in the minds of you Atheists…why are you arguing?
I believe what I writ below, the Bible, God and that God is our Creator and the Saviour of mankind. I do not argue about this.
"Whatever evolves was first, created" – Jason Leverette, Patriot
Comment by FromTheTop | March 16, 2008
Hmmmmm…. FromTheTop writes "I am baffled by the moronic views of the Atheists…"
Thanks for demonstrating such tolerance. We discuss these things because the belief in [what we consider] a non-existent deity creates problems in this world. It is very religious people that fly planes into buildings. It is very religious people that conduct wars thinking they are being guided by God.
In broad terms, it matters not to me that you "believe" that the god of Abraham is our creator and judge. It is what you do with that beleif that concerns us. Our founding fathers saw the horribly failed attempts of the colonies with specifically religious governing bodies (some protestant, some catholic, some others) and brilliantly separated church from state.
We now have bald attempts and injecting specifically religious legislation and modifying the Constitution with religiously-motivated amendments. If you don't want to hear these arguments, then provide a little compelling evidence of a supernatural actor. That would shut a lot of people up.
So to answer your question, we argue because it is important.
Comment by fvthinker | March 16, 2008
"We discuss these things because the belief in [what we consider] a non-existent deity creates problems in this world."
Well said, fvthinker.
To say "God" created the world is as silly as saying the Tooth Fairy did. And FromTheTop calls Atheists moronic.
Fvthinker, there will never be evidence. They cannot and will not provide evidence, compelling or otherwise. The very position of those with "Faith" is that there is no proof. You do, however, have to suspend your rational faculty, the tool our species has for dealing with the world, and be willing to take that leap into the nonsensical and non-provable realm of fantasy.
Comment by AMAI | March 16, 2008
To FromThe Top: Define "God."
Comment by AMAI | March 16, 2008
Christians believe everything you say is true for you and all Atheists. This is precisely why I inquired, "Why do you argue?" I will attempt to address your concern of a non-existent deity.
Christians do not fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people and behead and slaughter innocent people to become martyrs in the name of their Allah as directed by their Quar`an. Jesus, Son of God, teaches us to "love thy neighbor as thyself."
Christians pray for peace, guidance and protection from all harm and danger to God everyday and during war. Allah teaches death and destruction of all infidels in order to bring about their caliphate for world dominion ruled by their Imam and governed by Sharia` law.
Christians believe in the sanctity of life, freedom and all other inalienable rights writ in our U.S. Constitution. Christians have and always will engage in war with the enemies of our Republic who attempt to rule Americans with a Marxist ideology.
Christians believe in separation of state and church, fvthinker! This is explicitly why the Pilgrims departed England to be free of the Crown as Head of state forever with only one religion. Perhaps you should direct your inquiries toward the Islam religion that wants to kill you instead of at Christians who want to protect you.
Christians believe amendments are required to protect our Republic, our culture, our English language, our children’s education and our inalienable rights to be a free people from the creeping Marxism, Atheism and Islam bent on abolishing our U.S. Constitution and our freedom of religion.
Christians need not provide compelling evidence of a super natural actor, au contraire, you, fxthinker and your fellow Atheists must cast your eyes toward heaven and observe your immediate surroundings and prove God is not.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 16, 2008
I am neither a Marxist nor a follower of Islam. I am an Individualist.
To simply believe is not good enough. If there is ever to be proper respect for Individual Rights (including your right to believe in a god), the idea must be held as knowledge. So far there is not a country on Earth that fully respects the rights of Individuals to their lives (women and men), to their proper freedom and to their property.
Comment by AMAI | March 16, 2008
AMAI, I said, "I am baffled by the moronic views of the Atheists who deny the existance of God. If God does not exist in the minds of you Atheists…why are you arguing"?
Your simple minded comment of comparing the "Tooth Fairy" to God and your request for me to "define God" proves you are in doubt of your beliefs.
Why do you Atheists continue to argue that God is not? Christians believe you believe God is not. Christians need not argue with Atheists. We believe God is. Period.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 16, 2008
I am not in doubt. I know I do not believe in a god, a higher power or anything that is responsible for the creation of the Universe. There is no such entity. Eternity is real. Existence exists, always has and always will. There is no "thing" that brought it into being.
I know that god is a creation of men, not the other way round. I do not hold that idea as a belief.
You're right – there's no point in discussing it. I was actually discussing the idea with fvthinker that there isn't any entity responsible for "creating" the Universe. Why did you jump into our conversation, FromTheTop?
Comment by AMAI | March 16, 2008
AMAI, excuse me. Considered me out of this discussion. Period.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 16, 2008
FromTheTop noted: "Christians do not fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people…"
American Christians dropped two nuclear weapons on two non-Christian cities in Japan in August, 1945, killing more than 100,000 innocent civilians.
FromTheTop continued: "Christians have and always will engage in war with the enemies of our Republic who attempt to rule Americans with a Marxist ideology."
Are you seriously proposing that Islam is a Marxist ideology?
FromTheTop continued: "Christians believe in separation of state and church…"
Riiight. That's why they keep trying to teach creationism, "creation science" and intelligent design creationism in public school biology classes – in spite of losing court case after court case.
FromTheTop continued: "Christians believe amendments are required to protect our Republic…"
Will these amendments protect the rights of other religions, or only Christians? Today there are more Buddhist Americans than there are Episcopalian Americans; there are more Islamic Americans than there are Presbyterian Americans. There are more Jews living in the United States than in Israel (about 5.5 million).
What do you propose doing with all these non-Christian Americans if your Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist friends "take back America for Christ"? Will you respect and maintain the constitutional protection of their religious rights as American citizens? Or will you start building gas ovens?
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 16, 2008
"American Christians dropped two nuclear weapons on two non-Christian cities in Japan in August, 1945, killing more than 100,000 innocent civilians."
What a sick, sick thing to say. What a despicable piece of human trash you must be, and an embarrassment to the intellectually aware nonbelivers.
American Christians did that? No. Democrat Harry Truman did that. It was done in the spirit of collectivism. Japanese warmongers should have been held responsible for the atrocities of WW2, like the rape of Nanking, but instead Democrat Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on civilian populations.
Christian? That's a sick thing to say. Something Stalin or Pol Pot probably said as justification for the atheist atrocities they committed. And it serves to shift blame. It was democratic collectivism that created a mentality that allowed people to be brutally punished for the crimes of their leaders.
Comment by JohnScott | March 16, 2008
FromTheTop said “Christians do not fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people…”
I never said that all religions are equally culpable in dastardly behavior. At present, I can pretty confidently say that Isalm represents the most insidious threat to civilization. These are 14th century minds with 20th century weapons and seeking 21st century weapons. But to say that Christianity is “all peace, all the time” is rather silly. Do you think if today’s weapons of war were available during the Inquisition and Crusades the numbers of dead would be a tad higher? Of course they would.
FromTheTop said: “Christians pray for peace, …”
Intercessory prayer has been empirically and rigorously demonstrated as ineffective. Sorry.
FromTheTop said: “Christians believe in the sanctity of life, …” and “Christians believe amendments are required to protect our Republic, our culture, our English language, our children’s education and our inalienable rights”
You seem totally oblivious to the ways that your position fails. Your “sanctity of life”, in your world stems from a divine soul imparted by your god at the moment that sperm meets egg. We, of course, believe no such thing and you have no evidence…not even bad evidence…to demonstrate that your position is true. In bronze-age times, they didn’t even know the microscopic egg and sperm existed. Hence, the whole idea that you can say that a soul is imparted at their meeting is, necessarily, made up by mortal, fallible man.
Again, going back to my earlier statement, it is perfectly in your rights to BELIEVE that, it is what you do with that belief where comes the rub. Your contention says that we need to NOT follow the most promising avenue of medical research. Research that could immeasurably reduce pain and suffering…all to save a cluster of cells with no nervous system and is incapable of feeling pain, much less have thoughts, hopes, dreams and desires. And you think that you are justified in passing legislation based on this…it is…er…”moronic”. Then you go on to say that you are protecting our children’s education which results in thinly disguised non-scientific, religious things taught in our children’s science class. I have no problem discussing it in philosophy class, but it is not science. Check out the NOVA episode “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial”
FromTheTop said: “Christians believe in separation of state and church, fvthinker! This is explicitly why the Pilgrims departed England to be free of the Crown as Head of state forever with only one religion
Listen to this eight minute Public Radio story that sheds some light on what really happened with religion in colonial times. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6529440
I learned some things. One being the “escaping state religion” was more motivated by being able to create their own mini-state religions in various colonies. They were horrible failures.
FromTheTop said: “… your fellow Atheists must cast your eyes toward heaven and observe your immediate surroundings and prove God is not.”
Very wrong. (I am embarrassed for you for making such a statement) Argument Theory 101 says that no one can disprove a negative. Can you disprove that I do not have a tiny unicorn in my desk drawer that is only visible to me? Of course not. Yet you wish for us to bend to your religious codes; hence you have to demonstrate their validity and truth. “Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence”
Comment by fvthinker | March 16, 2008
In response to all Atheists who are confused and demanding I…disprove what you Atheists believe. Again why do you continue arguing?? I am not attempting nor need to prove or disprove anything.
Christians BELIEVE EVERYTHING you say is true for ALL Atheists. Christians do not argue with Atheists or anyone else about their beliefs. It matters not to Christians what you believe. If you are comfortable with your beliefs then this is what should matter to you.
These few simple words will be my last statement regarding Christian beliefs of which we are comfortable with regardless of the endless cascade of arguments from Atheists who deny God is.
Please try to comprehend these few simple words:
If Christians are correct in their beliefs that God is…then our fate remains in the hands of God.
If all you Atheists are correct denying God is…then your fate remains in your own hands.
P.S. For me, this is a wrap!
Comment by FromTheTop | March 17, 2008
FromTheTop says: "Christians BELIEVE EVERYTHING you say is true for ALL Atheists."
We win! We win! We have successfully convinced (at least Christian) believers that non-believers are at least as moral and ethical as believers and that religion should not be the basis for legislation! I never thought a simple message thread could have such a profound impact!! I think I shall go out and celebrate by eating some babies and cheating on my wife. :-))
Comment by fvthinker | March 17, 2008
When it's a question of belief, it should be a strictly private and personal matter. The same applies to global warming. We don't all believe that global warming is a product of man's activities. What or indeed whether a person wishes to take action to "prevent global warming" should be a private & personal matter, not something forced on everyone thru legislation.
Comment by AMAI | March 22, 2008
"AMAI" wrote: "When it's a question of belief. it should be a strictly private and personal matter."
So if you don't believe in the clean air laws, will you take the catalytic converter off your car? If you don't believe in income tax, will you stop paying the IRS? If you don't believe in monogamy, will you marry more than one woman (simultaneously)?
Or would you admit that when your beliefs conflict with society, you should change your beliefs?
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 22, 2008
The author pictured in the original column (Christopher Hitchens) has a cogent quote on the matter of global warming (and one I agree with). [I paraphrase:] "Whether global warming is man-made or not; it is important that we act as though it is."
Comment by fvthinker | March 22, 2008