Questions for those who do not believe

[humble_in_doubt]

Would you have the same position if aborted babies are used?

probably not. That honestly shocks my conscience too much to even ponder.

Good. I am really glad that you do. More people of faith and no faith need to as well.

so then why religion?

And atheism gave us the Soviet Union, modern China, and Cuba. Sorry…

no … bad ideas gave us communism, and those bad ideas compelled atheism. I would die for your right to practice your religion … because I’m American, the best idea the world has ever had. Freedom is something worth fighting for and arguing in support of … not absurd ancient fairy tales!

Because it is not insanity. At least not true Christianity. It may not be something that you can grasp, but it is not as crazy as you want it to be.

my point is I don’t hate it, nor do I want it to be crazy (in fact just the opposite). However, I also don’t think it can fixed to the point where it won’t be mostly (or at least substantially) crazy? Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I hate you. Honestly hate, murder, envy, strife, stupidity, and all the rest are just not my nature; I just don’t need a myth to make me good.

 

[TobyLue]

Sorry, I believe in the one true God, the God above all Gods, the supreme Primary God of all. He will come to you to, you just have to have faith and pray.

My God, is clearly better than your God, as he is above your God, he is the one true and correct God. Your God is above and my God is well above that, by many miles, he was before your God and will be after your God.

You must have faith.

See how easy it is

Your response does not surprise me one bit. I have seen this type of replies before on other threads long ago and on other forums. Never was there a response to my questions on the original post #41 nor #57. But that’s OK I understand.

When unable to answer, resort to childish nonsensical games.

Non-believers consider believers to be living in a fantasy world. What is more fantasy that to believe there was a boom, out of nothing, from nothing, and poof, all of a sudden there appear suns and planets and microbes and these start coming together to form living things? Now that is fantasy.

As I said on my first post I don’t get involved in these types of threads because they all wind up the same way. So, I shall bow out from this with one last comment.

Non-believers have the same thing as believers; a free will. As I said before to a believer, no explanation is necessary. To a non-believer no explanation is satisfactory. However, if there is no God believing in God nothing is lost after death. If there is a God, refusing to believe in Him, after death everything is lost with an eternity of suffering. Your choice….

God Bless and may He be merciful.

 

[Iamnotafraid]

]Non-believers consider believers to be living in a fantasy world. What is more fantasy that to believe there was a boom, out of nothing, from nothing, and poof, all of a sudden there appear suns and planets and microbes and these start coming together to form living things? Now that is fantasy.

Contrasted to’

What is more fantastic, to believe that God had no beginning and has no end and this God that no one can see, personally cares for every single person on the planet. Not only that, this God can read everyones minds and personally answer prayers.

Or

We came about by natural means the how is still unknown. We live in a natural world, in a natural universe, absent of an invisible supernatural God.

If there is a God, refusing to believe in Him, after death everything is lost with an eternity of suffering. Your choice….

.

If God is real and does send unbelievers to hell for eternity. I would want nothing to do with such a Deity.

 

[Swan]

What does it matter to you if I do? According to your views, I am in no danger of damnation or eternal life, so why bother trying to change me? Why even try to spend the time and energy to do so? If my faith hurts no one, what is it to you that I have it?

Sad to say that the answer to your question can be found in many of the posts on CAF by believers, esp. the more fanatical believers. Because there is a tendency, even in the most well meaning, of believers to insist that non-believers are wrong and are a danger to society and should be hushed and pushed toward conversion, made to see the “error of their ways”, etc… The call to evangelize, perhaps. The more fanatical go even farther. The excuse that saving the soul is more important than choice. Remember the inquisitions - burning folks at the stake “for their own good”, conversion at the end of a sword? There are folks on CAF that I think would very much like to see a return to this practice.

These folks aren’t content to simply live and let live. No, they feel they much force their beliefs onto society at large. Yes, there are folks here who would love to see civil divorce, birth control, sex outside marriage, homosexuality, etc., made illegal. In short, they want a theocracy. They can’t just be content to live their lives according to their rules - they want to deny those who disagree with them that same right (i.e., to live their lives as they see fit). And, yes, abortion and ESCR fit in here as well.

As for atheistic totalitarian states, I think that in many ways the atheist part was in response to the centuries of rule by religious dictums that were the norm, especially in Europe, for so very long, de facto theocracies, in which human rights were often non-existent and the poor told to accept suffering in this life since they would be rewarded in the next (the old carrot and stick).

So, as someone else has said, I’m happy to let you live as you see fit as long as you grant me that same privilege.

 

[atheist1]

Non-believers consider believers to be living in a fantasy world. What is more fantasy that to believe there was a boom, out of nothing, from nothing, and poof, all of a sudden there appear suns and planets and microbes and these start coming together to form living things? Now that is fantasy.

Who believes out of nothing came something…I know christians believe this…who else? Could it be that there always was something?

If there is a God, refusing to believe in Him, after death everything is lost with an eternity of suffering. Your choice….

God Bless and may He be merciful.

It’s not that simple. Simply believing in god doesn’t do one much good unless one believes the right things about the right god.

If Muslims are right, Christians may have tuff time in the afterlife.

 

[simplynoone]

You are living in a world totally different from reality. As I said before, if a person comes in without insurance to a non-Catholic hospital and they aren’t a real emergency and the hospital has used its fund up for dealing with such patients, they do the minimum possible and push them back on the streets. My wife has seen it done. All you would have to do is talk to people that are without insurance and you will find out what it is like. Of course some of them know how to play the system and fake things that are wrong to get longer treatment (i.e. oh my chest hurts.) But if someone has no ability to pay, non-Catholic hospitals will due the minimum they can legally.

Your posts show the difference between someone who actually has cared for the sick and someone who just hears about it in the news. When was the last time you dealt with the extreme poor in a hospital, for me it was two weeks ago.

You are 100% speaking BS here. I do not doubt that there are cases that some have treated others poorly just like some who treat patients in the Catholic hospitals have done… and if it is reported, they are dealt with. Do not assume that I do NOT know what I am speaking of. You are biased… I am not. In fact, I am an advocate of reworking the system BECAUSE the patients that cannot pay and get by with it are driving up the costs of health care which in turn, drives up the costs of insurance. It is not that I am anti-poor people… heck, I am a single mother of two sons; but this system would work much better if doctors and patients could deal directly with each other and cut out insurance altogether. Costs WOULD go down. Again, do not think that I am naive and won’t catch a biased statement (and indeed, false) when I see it.

 

[ralphinal]

probably not. That honestly shocks my conscience too much to even ponder.

But that is where it will go. If they had their way. the next part would be “see how getting an abortion can save other lives.”

so then why religion?

If we assume that there is no God, religion still can give hope. Religion can still allow for social constructs and bonding. There are lots of reasons for it. If there is a God, the entire question changes. The reality of America is that religious people donate more money to charities and do more to help others than non-religious. Not all atheists/agnostics are as helpful as you.

no … bad ideas gave us communism, and those bad ideas compelled atheism. I would die for your right to practice your religion … because I’m American, the best idea the world has ever had. Freedom is something worth fighting for and arguing in support of … not absurd ancient fairy tales!

I agree about our form of government being the best thing out there. No doubt. However, you cannot dismiss the link between atheism and extreme socialism. Isn’t it funny that the two are linked? In the Bible, the earliest Christians were very communal in life. I wonder why it is so far the other way…

my point is I don’t hate it, nor do I want it to be crazy (in fact just the opposite). However, I also don’t think it can fixed to the point where it won’t be mostly (or at least substantially) crazy? Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I hate you. Honestly hate, murder, envy, strife, stupidity, and all the rest are just not my nature; I just don’t need a myth to make me good.

And I do not need a myth to make me good, either. However, we cannot establish that it is a myth. There are lots of people who would be good no matter what, and evil people will always be evil. The bigger problem are those who cannot form a decent code of morality and stick to it. I am not talking about the sociopathic typs, but those who see reletivism as valid.

 

[ralphinal]

Sad to say that the answer to your question can be found in many of the posts on CAF by believers, esp. the more fanatical believers. Because there is a tendency, even in the most well meaning, of believers to insist that non-believers are wrong and are a danger to society and should be hushed and pushed toward conversion, made to see the “error of their ways”, etc… The call to evangelize, perhaps. The more fanatical go even farther. The excuse that saving the soul is more important than choice. Remember the inquisitions - burning folks at the stake “for their own good”, conversion at the end of a sword? There are folks on CAF that I think would very much like to see a return to this practice.

And I am not arguing the validity of their point. I would say, in their defense, that they do feel it is their duty as part of their faith to try to teach others. Atheist have no such compulsion.

These folks aren’t content to simply live and let live. No, they feel they much force their beliefs onto society at large. Yes, there are folks here who would love to see civil divorce, birth control, sex outside marriage, homosexuality, etc., made illegal. In short, they want a theocracy. They can’t just be content to live their lives according to their rules - they want to deny those who disagree with them that same right (i.e., to live their lives as they see fit). And, yes, abortion and ESCR fit in here as well.

However, the other side is the same way. Why should I be forced to allow my child to be taught that it is acceptable to try out homosexuality? Or that my moral code is wrong because I think that babies have a right to live? Am I an idiot because I think that a hedonistic lifestyle is inherently self-destructive? If it is about live and let live, then both sides need a tall glass of shut the heck up.

As for atheistic totalitarian states, I think that in many ways the atheist part was in response to the centuries of rule by religious dictums that were the norm, especially in Europe, for so very long, de facto theocracies, in which human rights were often non-existent and the poor told to accept suffering in this life since they would be rewarded in the next (the old carrot and stick).

then why are none of the atheistic socialist states leaders in human rights? Why is life there so horrible for most? The earthy utopia concept is the same as selling someone on heaven. Except I can show that there has never been an earthly utopia. In other words, it does not work. No one can prove that there is no afterlife.

So, as someone else has said, I’m happy to let you live as you see fit as long as you grant me that same privilege.

And I will ask you the same question: is it acceptable for me to tell you that certain actions on this earth are dangerous or should I let you do as you please 100% of the time?

 

[Swan]

And I am not arguing the validity of their point. I would say, in their defense, that they do feel it is their duty as part of their faith to try to teach others. Atheist have no such compulsion.

However, the other side is the same way. Why should I be forced to allow my child to be taught that it is acceptable to try out homosexuality? Or that my moral code is wrong because I think that babies have a right to live? Am I an idiot because I think that a hedonistic lifestyle is inherently self-destructive? If it is about live and let live, then both sides need a tall glass of shut the heck up.

then why are none of the atheistic socialist states leaders in human rights? Why is life there so horrible for most? The earthy utopia concept is the same as selling someone on heaven. Except I can show that there has never been an earthly utopia. In other words, it does not work. No one can prove that there is no afterlife.

And I will ask you the same question: is it acceptable for me to tell you that certain actions on this earth are dangerous or should I let you do as you please 100% of the time?

First, I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. Second, we need to make some distinctions between folks doing what they want and warnings that some things are dangerous. Let’s take, for an example, cohabitation without marriage. Now, a Christian might tell me that this is a dangerous activity since hell may be the result - IOW, the danger they see is for the soul/afterlife. However, this is a perfectly legal and very private acitivity between the couple ONLY. If they have different beliefs on the afterlife, that, too, is their business. As for what the Christian tells his kids, it’s his business. He can say “we don’t believe that is right” or “that’s not acceptable behavior for us” but he has no right to try and interfere with the private live of the cohabitating couple - regardless of how much he disapproves. This example could be used with many kinds of personal behavior, including homosexuality. The point being, no one is making anyone take part that doesn’t want to. Others might not like it, and are free to teach their kids that it is wrong, but they should not be able to actually interfere with the private lives of the couples involved. No one is forcing you or anyone else to participate, but in a free society folks need to be left alone. We all have rights - they stop as soon as they infringe on the rigts of another. Now, I know what you’re going to say - what about your right to have a world where kids aren’t taught that homosexual lifestyles are okay, that ABC and divorce are okay, etc… You teach your kids what you want them to believe. It’s like that for everybody. The world is a huge, diverse place. No one agrees totally with everyone else. Sex, politics and religion (to name a few) in an open society are going to be items of disagreement. So we let everyone live as they see fit as long as they don’t violate the rights of others to do the same. Seriously, what would you tell your kids about Hindus? Surely you find their beliefs as disagreeable as folks living together out of wedlock.

Now, should everybody be able to do anything they want? Clearly, there are limits. Crimes against person/property protect us from outside harm. And, as a Democrat, I’m pretty big on govt regulation of big business, food/drug/product safety, truth in lending, clean air/water, etc… These laws protect the people at large from the dangers inherent in the lassiez faire capitalistic society where money is more important than people.

But when it comes to private relatiohships, and this seems to be where right-wing Christians go nuts, two consenting adults outhgt to be left to live as they wish. It amazes me how much focus Christian groups put on the sex lives of total strangers, yet we rarely hear anything about corporate greed, impure foods, pollution, etc… despite the damage done in these areas that causes suffering and even death on a regular basis.

The issue of human rights in totalitarian countries has always be bad - whehter the rulers were atheistic, Islamic, or Christian. Many Latin American countries have terrible human rights records even though the leadership was at least nominally Catholic - in many cases the Church fully supported these regiemes. So religion doesn’t always, as I’ve mentioned before, assume human rights are respected. In fact, I fear it has something to do with mankind’s love of power that gets in the way.

 

[neploho]

What does it matter to you if I do? According to your views, I am in no danger of damnation or eternal life, so why bother trying to change me? Why even try to spend the time and energy to do so? If my faith hurts no one, what is it to you that I have it?

In the case of religion the beliefs of believers can have a substantial impact on the social policy and cultural practices of the region. Religious faith does not exist in isolation. Obviously religious beliefs can hurt others. Quite a few homosexual couples in California cannot be married because of the “private faith” of many voters. The faith of millions of Christians in the United States creates the political environment whereby Israel is allowed to continue its barbarism towards the Palestinians. Religious faith in Iran sanctions the stoning of women convicted of adultery.

From the Kansas school boad to apostate laws in Iran it is quite clear that religious faith is a wholly private matter.

 

[ralphinal]

First, I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. Second, we need to make some distinctions between folks doing what they want and warnings that some things are dangerous. Let’s take, for an example, cohabitation without marriage. Now, a Christian might tell me that this is a dangerous activity since hell may be the result - IOW, the danger they see is for the soul/afterlife. However, this is a perfectly legal and very private acitivity between the couple ONLY. If they have different beliefs on the afterlife, that, too, is their business. As for what the Christian tells his kids, it’s his business. He can say “we don’t believe that is right” or “that’s not acceptable behavior for us” but he has no right to try and interfere with the private live of the cohabitating couple - regardless of how much he disapproves. This example could be used with many kinds of personal behavior, including homosexuality. The point being, no one is making anyone take part that doesn’t want to. Others might not like it, and are free to teach their kids that it is wrong, but they should not be able to actually interfere with the private lives of the couples involved. No one is forcing you or anyone else to participate, but in a free society folks need to be left alone. We all have rights - they stop as soon as they infringe on the rigts of another. Now, I know what you’re going to say - what about your right to have a world where kids aren’t taught that homosexual lifestyles are okay, that ABC and divorce are okay, etc… You teach your kids what you want them to believe. It’s like that for everybody. The world is a huge, diverse place. No one agrees totally with everyone else. Sex, politics and religion (to name a few) in an open society are going to be items of disagreement. So we let everyone live as they see fit as long as they don’t violate the rights of others to do the same. Seriously, what would you tell your kids about Hindus? Surely you find their beliefs as disagreeable as folks living together out of wedlock.

And now you have presented one of the great anti-religion falicies: that the religious morals cannot hold up without religion. Did you know that couples who cohabitate are more likely to have violent relationships? Or abused children? Or lower household incomes? Or are more likely to divorce by a HUGE ratio should they wed? I can teach my child 100% of my moral code without once mentioning God at all. However, the live and let live crowd seems to ignore the good things that these values present because of how they are presented.

I am not even going to touch the issues that living a sexually charged lifestyle can present to others.

As far as Hindus, or any other faith system goes, I do teach about them differently. They are people. too. However, most of them do not know the Truth. We should honor their life but teach them the Truth. The rest is up to them. However, if a Hindu moves in next to me, I will still grill my hamburgers. Likewise, a Muslim next door will not cause me to stop eating ribs.

Now, should everybody be able to do anything they want? Clearly, there are limits. Crimes against person/property protect us from outside harm. And, as a Democrat, I’m pretty big on govt regulation of big business, food/drug/product safety, truth in lending, clean air/water, etc… These laws protect the people at large from the dangers inherent in the lassiez faire capitalistic society where money is more important than people.

Do a little research on the current mortgage crisis. A lot of it was CAUSED by the government. I know. I am in the business. When a bank is told that you cannot discriminate because of race, it is good and I am all for it. When they are later told that you MUST approve because of race, I am bothered greatly.

But when it comes to private relatiohships, and this seems to be where right-wing Christians go nuts, two consenting adults outhgt to be left to live as they wish. It amazes me how much focus Christian groups put on the sex lives of total strangers, yet we rarely hear anything about corporate greed, impure foods, pollution, etc… despite the damage done in these areas that causes suffering and even death on a regular basis.

Actually, we should be doing more about all of that.

Now, if a couple shacks up, to use a slang term, and a child is born to them, and the man ends up in jail for beating his live in, that innocent child is harmed. Yet no one points out that the living relationship was a problem. Or if a live-in kills his girl friend’s child, do you ignore the fact that had he not lived there, he would not have done it?

The issue of human rights in totalitarian countries has always be bad - whehter the rulers were atheistic, Islamic, or Christian. Many Latin American countries have terrible human rights records even though the leadership was at least nominally Catholic - in many cases the Church fully supported these regiemes. So religion doesn’t always, as I’ve mentioned before, assume human rights are respected. In fact, I fear it has something to do with mankind’s love of power that gets in the way.

I do not disagree. Humans are bad people…

 

[ralphinal]

In the case of religion the beliefs of believers can have a substantial impact on the social policy and cultural practices of the region. Religious faith does not exist in isolation. Obviously religious beliefs can hurt others. Quite a few homosexual couples in California cannot be married because of the “private faith” of many voters. The faith of millions of Christians in the United States creates the political environment whereby Israel is allowed to continue its barbarism towards the Palestinians. Religious faith in Iran sanctions the stoning of women convicted of adultery.

From the Kansas school boad to apostate laws in Iran it is quite clear that religious faith is a wholly private matter.

I think you meant public matter, but I get your point. My point is that you have no more right to tell me that I am wrong then you claim that I have to do the same to you.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But that is where it will go. If they had their way. the next part would be “see how getting an abortion can save other lives.”

with respect … you’re using a slippery slope argument, which has no basis in fact. Why is it true that if we use embryos scheduled to be discarded (from invitro fertilization clinics) we will necessarily ultimately wind up using aborted fetuses. With respect that’s an illogical assertion (and it’s the type of argument designed to create an emotive response in people who are either too lazy or uninterested to think about deeply, or who are intellectually slower than you & hence get easily sucked in by it).

I’m not trying to be disrespectful … but I cannot let this fallacious reasoning go unchecked (or else I guess I’d be wasting my time here right)?

If we assume that there is no God, religion still can give hope. Religion can still allow for social constructs and bonding. There are lots of reasons for it. If there is a God, the entire question changes. The reality of America is that religious people donate more money to charities and do more to help others than non-religious. Not all atheists/agnostics are as helpful as you.

I’m not sure about the statistics you’re citing. Most of the atheists I know are very socially involved people (much more so than most of my Christian friends). Moreover, we have the lowest divorce rate, lowest child and spousal abuse rates, etc.

There’s a simple reason for all this & it has nothing to do with whether atheism is inferior or superior to living a religious life, it’s only because atheists are almost exclusively highly intelligent people. This of course doesn’t mean that there aren’t many Christians who are equally intelligent (it just means we don’t have many idiots among us, so we don’t have any sub-group screwing up our numbers). Sorry to put it so coldly … but it is what it is?

I agree about our form of government being the best thing out there. No doubt. However, you cannot dismiss the link between atheism and extreme socialism. Isn’t it funny that the two are linked? In the Bible, the earliest Christians were very communal in life. I wonder why it is so far the other way…

The link between atheism and extreme socialism is not a constant. Many of our founding fathers were near atheists & none of them had any inclination toward socialism. I do know what you’re saying though (and it is peculiar that Christians, the crowd you would think would want to help the poor the most, seem the most resistant to any sort of social welfare programs). However, this is also because the republican party has shaped themselves as the Christian party (which was a shift for them … since they used to be the liberal party i.e. Susan B. Anthony, Mary K. Stanton, Abraham Lincoln … all republicans).

Globally it is true that communism is very atheistic (however, it’s just coincidence that these two sets of ideas seem to have found a common bond in certain paradigms of modern history).

And I do not need a myth to make me good, either. However, we cannot establish that it is a myth. There are lots of people who would be good no matter what, and evil people will always be evil. The bigger problem are those who cannot form a decent code of morality and stick to it. I am not talking about the sociopathic typs, but those who see reletivism as valid.

what are you saying here? Are you saying religion is a good thing to keep dumb people well behaved (or at least sufficiently well behaved to prevent chaos)? Frankly I have a better idea … why not just educate them so they’re not dumb anymore (oops … there goes that atheist social engineer … I guess you were right )

 

[Barzillai]

What does it matter to you if I do? According to your views, I am in no danger of damnation or eternal life, so why bother trying to change me? Why even try to spend the time and energy to do so? If my faith hurts no one, what is it to you that I have it?

I was raised, educated, and lived as a happy and fulfilled atheist until I was 37 years old. I remember clearly how I thought when I was an atheist — because I lived as one so well and for so long! Your questions/statements are exactly how I viewed people who believed in God.

So, if we were having this conversation 25 years ago, your statements about “why should my religion bother you” would have caused me to say, “it doesn’t.” But I would have secretly felt sorry for you.

Although not part of your question, you might be interested to know that it was the form of the common derisions of Christianity that caused me to question — not Christianity (I was still fully convinced it was false) — but the foundational truths of what I thought I knew. For other converts to the Catholic Church from years of atheism and then years in Protestantism, you probably have a fairly good idea of the rest of my story.

 

[ralphinal]

with respect … you’re using a slippery slope argument, which has no basis in fact. Why is it true that if we use embryos scheduled to be discarded (from invitro fertilization clinics) we will necessarily ultimately wind up using aborted fetuses. With respect that’s an illogical assertion (and it’s the type of argument designed to create an emotive response in people who are either too lazy or uninterested to think about deeply, or who are intellectually slower than you & hence get easily sucked in by it).

I’m not trying to be disrespectful … but I cannot let this fallacious reasoning go unchecked (or else I guess I’d be wasting my time here right)?

Human actions recorded as historical facts tend to prove that the slippery slope, though a logica fallacy, tends to be reality when put into play. I cannot think of any specific case where people stoped at step one. There is always someone who wants to go farther. I do not disagree that it is not the most sound logic, but please tell me one case in human history where the slippery slope of events is not seen. Where did humanity stop before it went too far?

I’m not sure about the statistics you’re citing. Most of the atheists I know are very socially involved people (much more so than most of my Christian friends). Moreover, we have the lowest divorce rate, lowest child and spousal abuse rates, etc.

I would like to see that. According to most studies, those who do not cohabitate and do not engage in premarital sex have a much reduced chance of divorce, spouse abuse, etc. When i get a chance, I will research both sets. I had a professor in psychology who did huge amounts of research into this for a while. In the end, he dropped the study and got into gambling addiction.

There’s a simple reason for all this & it has nothing to do with whether atheism is inferior or superior to living a religious life, it’s only because atheists are almost exclusively highly intelligent people. This of course doesn’t mean that there aren’t many Christians who are equally intelligent (it just means we don’t have many idiots among us, so we don’t have any sub-group screwing up our numbers). Sorry to put it so coldly … but it is what it is?

Not all of you are highly intellegent without a cost. Some of you are lacking greatly in what is known as good old-fashoined common sense. I am not sure which is worse: the unintellegent/poorly educated or the plain old fool.

The link between atheism and extreme socialism is not a constant. Many of our founding fathers were near atheists & none of them had any inclination toward socialism. I do know what you’re saying though (and it is peculiar that Christians, the crowd you would think would want to help the poor the most, seem the most resistant to any sort of social welfare programs). However, this is also because the republican party has shaped themselves as the Christian party (which was a shift for them … since they used to be the liberal party i.e. Susan B. Anthony, Mary K. Stanton, Abraham Lincoln … all republicans).

I would love for the Republican party to drop the religious right, for more than one reason. It would be best for the country. Anyway, the founding fathers of this country were not as religious as the religious revisionists would say, but they were much, much more anti-socialist than you see today in places like Europe. They saw the beauty in self-determination. The reason that Christians are not socialists is because WE are supposed to take care of others, not trust a government to do it for us. Historically, the more a people rely on government, the less self reliant they become. I would love to understand why the more agnostic/atheistic Europe becomes, the more socialist it drifts. You would think that being less than 20 years removed from the Soviet threat, they would still fear the whole communist thought. Oh well…

Globally it is true that communism is very atheistic (however, it’s just coincidence that these two sets of ideas seem to have found a common bond in certain paradigms of modern history).

Isn’t religion the opiate of the masses? It is not coincidence at all. They were linked by Marx himself, as well as others. The Soviet leaders saw the CHurch as a threat. Even China sees traditional Christianity as a major destabilizing force. Why is that?

what are you saying here? Are you saying religion is a good thing to keep dumb people well behaved (or at least sufficiently well behaved to prevent chaos)? Frankly I have a better idea … why not just educate them so they’re not dumb anymore (oops … there goes that atheist social engineer … I guess you were right )

NOt entirely, but it does help. Different people have different needs. Socialism does not take that into account. Atheism does not really care, as it is not a view in and of itself for treating others. I have a faith for different reasons than some people.

Besides, why not worry about teaching people good money skills or how to do math or use their turn signal than worry about God? The world would be a better place. Why not try to teach people to actually understand the facts around them when it comes to education? Reading? etc.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Human actions recorded as historical facts tend to prove that the slippery slope, though a logica fallacy, tends to be reality when put into play. I cannot think of any specific case where people stoped at step one. There is always someone who wants to go farther. I do not disagree that it is not the most sound logic, but please tell me one case in human history where the slippery slope of events is not seen. Where did humanity stop before it went too far?

smart people stop before they go too far every minute of every day. I’m not seeing your point here … but I’m glad you see the logical fallacy.

Not all of you are highly intellegent without a cost. Some of you are lacking greatly in what is known as good old-fashoined common sense. I am not sure which is worse: the unintellegent/poorly educated or the plain old fool.

so you’re saying if I believed little invisible angels are flying around I would have this elusive common sense?? I’m sorry … but think about how that sounds?

I would love for the Republican party to drop the religious right, for more than one reason. It would be best for the country. Anyway, the founding fathers of this country were not as religious as the religious revisionists would say, but they were much, much more anti-socialist than you see today in places like Europe. They saw the beauty in self-determination. The reason that Christians are not socialists is because WE are supposed to take care of others, not trust a government to do it for us. Historically, the more a people rely on government, the less self reliant they become. I would love to understand why the more agnostic/atheistic Europe becomes, the more socialist it drifts. You would think that being less than 20 years removed from the Soviet threat, they would still fear the whole communist thought. Oh well…

there’s plenty of atheist libertarians out there. While I concede there may have been a correlation between atheism and communism or socialism historically (mostly because its founding fathers were atheists) there’s also been plenty of socialist Christian groups throughout history (particularly in Europe). I think the Catholic Church has strong socialist leanings (and tends to have a very Euro-centric perspective). But anyways …

Isn’t religion the opiate of the masses? It is not coincidence at all. They were linked by Marx himself, as well as others. The Soviet leaders saw the CHurch as a threat. Even China sees traditional Christianity as a major destabilizing force. Why is that?

yet China is exceedingly a free market country. The bottom line is there’s no logical correlation between socialism and being an atheist. I’m personally a libertarian (I believe in much less government than almost anyone I know) … yet I don’t believe that little angels are flying around or this omnipresent diety (who conveniently never shows himself) is governing the universe.

NOt entirely, but it does help. Different people have different needs. Socialism does not take that into account. Atheism does not really care, as it is not a view in and of itself for treating others. I have a faith for different reasons than some people.

that’s debatable … but still the same even if religion does promote certain aspects of virtue, it doesn’t make it anymore real. It just gives some aspects of its philosophy value (however, Christianity isn’t the only and wasn’t the first religious or philosophical system to preach charity and humanity toward the underprivilaged).

Besides, why not worry about teaching people good money skills or how to do math or use their turn signal than worry about God? The world would be a better place. Why not try to teach people to actually understand the facts around them when it comes to education? Reading? etc.

I guess I would agree here. IMO religion should be the exclusive purview of churches, parents, and so on (not government). No government can allow itself to be guided by religion, if we were we would become weak and defenseless (that is if we took the words of Christ to their logical extreme).

Should we turn the other cheek when we’re bombed? That would be absurd right … we bomb them into the stone age (even though I guess they were already there). We could not survive under those scriptures, hence government cannot allow itself to be swayed by ancient mythology and superstition.

 

[ralphinal]

smart people stop before they go too far every minute of every day. I’m not seeing your point here … but I’m glad you see the logical fallacy.

Were there intellegent people in Hitler’s Germany? Or Pol Pot’s Cambodia?

so you’re saying if I believed little invisible angels are flying around I would have this elusive common sense?? I’m sorry … but think about how that sounds?

Re-read it. I am saying that you can be “book smart” and still be an idiot. Haven’t you ever seen that? I can think of a few politicians who fall into that catagory…

there’s plenty of atheist libertarians out there. While I concede there may have been a correlation between atheism and communism or socialism historically (mostly because its founding fathers were atheists) there’s also been plenty of socialist Christian groups throughout history (particularly in Europe). I think the Catholic Church has strong socialist leanings (and tends to have a very Euro-centric perspective). But anyways …

The socialist leanings of the Church are more about protection and aiding human beings, but it is not about forcing people willing to work or who can succeed into government inflicted poverty.

yet China is exceedingly a free market country. The bottom line is there’s no logical correlation between socialism and being an atheist. I’m personally a libertarian (I believe in much less government than almost anyone I know) … yet I don’t believe that little angels are flying around or this omnipresent diety (who conveniently never shows himself) is governing the universe

Ok. But, I will grant that being atheistic/agnostic does not make you more likely to be a socialist. I will say that the other direction seems to be true (socialists are more likely to replace God with government).

that’s debatable … but still the same even if religion does promote certain aspects of virtue, it doesn’t make it anymore real. It just gives some aspects of its philosophy value (however, Christianity isn’t the only and wasn’t the first religious or philosophical system to preach charity and humanity toward the underprivilaged).

True, but it does a good job of it.

I guess I would agree here. IMO religion should be the exclusive purview of churches, parents, and so on (not government). No government can allow itself to be guided by religion, if we were we would become weak and defenseless (that is if we took the words of Christ to their logical extreme)

If you ever studied what the Catholic Church teaches about government, you might see it a little differently. The Church teaches that it is the DUTY of governments to protect its citizens. In fact, that duty applies to threats from outside and inside, including the government itself. Otherwise, I do not disagree

Should we turn the other cheek when we’re bombed? That would be absurd right … we bomb them into the stone age (even though I guess they were already there). We could not survive under those scriptures, hence government cannot allow itself to be swayed by ancient mythology and superstition.

Middle road would apply. If attacked, we defend. That is enough. Now what actually constitutes defense is another story.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Were there intellegent people in Hitler’s Germany? Or Pol Pot’s Cambodia?

I said smart people stop without going to far every minute of every day … however, I never said (or meant to imply) that smart people never go too far (as was the case in Hitler’s Germany).

Certainly the CC has made its share of dumb mistakes throughout history (i.e. Crusades, Galileo, etc.). Not to say reaching out to save Byzantium (the reason for the first crusade) wasn’t an understandable action (of course it was) … however, the point is no one is exempt from stupidity and folly (aka – the later crusades that were just horrible ideas and were horribly executed).

Re-read it. I am saying that you can be “book smart” and still be an idiot. Haven’t you ever seen that? I can think of a few politicians who fall into that catagory…

of course … but I don’t really see the relevance to this topic? Either there are little angels flying around and an omnipresent invisible god mysteriously governing the universe or there isn’t. I say there’s not & I believe I can say that with reasonable certainty.

As I said before every religion on earth relies on ancient sitings of their respective gods. This god has never manifested himself in any tangible way to modern man. Obviously if a man claimed to be god and gathered a group of followers … these days (as I’ve said in other posts) we would likely send in the ATF to storm the compound.

The fact is if Christianity never became the official religion of the Roman empire we might have all been raised pagans (and we would be arguing over whether Zeus is real or just an invented myth).

The socialist leanings of the Church are more about protection and aiding human beings, but it is not about forcing people willing to work or who can succeed into government inflicted poverty.

I guess I would argue that the churches socialist leanings is really a manifestation of the Europe in which it grew up in. For instance the church has by and large always been supportive of labor unions. There’s certainly no divine or religious reason for this (certainly nothing I’ve read in scripture lends any validity to the Teamsters). In fact unions are just an outgrowth of the trade guilds of medieval Europe. Whether or not they’re a good idea isn’t really the point, but rather the point is the churches stance on these sort of topics isn’t because of some invisible god imposing his will on humanity by stirring the thoughts and actions of men. They are the result of our own intellect and reason, followed by action. Nothing more nothing less.

Ok. But, I will grant that being atheistic/agnostic does not make you more likely to be a socialist. I will say that the other direction seems to be true (socialists are more likely to replace God with government).

perhaps … but again I think the RCC is generally supportive of programs like welfare, food stamps, etc. Not to say these are good or bad things; it’s only to say there’s no correlation between religion (or lack thereof) and whether one is a socialist or libertarian. Socialists might be more likely to, as you say, replace god with government (although I suppose they wouldn’t view it that way). In sum I just don’t think god has much to do with the formulations reached by socialists. They are usually well intentioned people who simply don’t understand why a libertarian society works better (it’s a hard concept for anyone to wrap their mind around). It’s much easier to think a government can sweep in and fix problems by micromanaging society.

Moreover, there are good arguments for some degree of government intervention. Many would argue programs like unemployment, food stamps, social security, etc. give our economy a buffer, or a floor (below which it can’t fall because of this safety net). However true that may be, for every dollar used by government it’s one less dollar used for innovation and sustainable economic growth (so I guess there has to be balance).

True, but it does a good job of it.

that certainly is the theory … but how true is it really? Look at the places the church has been operating in for centuries, like Latin America. Yes the church does lend some help to the poor, but it’s never been much help in eradicating the underlying poverty. The only theological system I can think of, which arguably has helped in this regard, was the old protestant work ethic (usually associated with Calvinism). The extent of its influence in the success of America cannot be quantified, but it’s reasonable to assume it had some positive effect.

If you ever studied what the Catholic Church teaches about government, you might see it a little differently. The Church teaches that it is the DUTY of governments to protect its citizens. In fact, that duty applies to threats from outside and inside, including the government itself. Otherwise, I do not disagree

Middle road would apply. If attacked, we defend. That is enough. Now what actually constitutes defense is another story.

I guess I was referring more to what scripture teaches (rather than the catechism of the CC). Christ always deplores aggression (at least inferentially). As far as I can tell he never promulgated any exceptions to turning the other cheek (though he did say give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s … which I guess can be interpreted in different ways).

 

[ralphinal]

I said smart people stop without going to far every minute of every day … however, I never said (or meant to imply) that smart people never go too far (as was the case in Hitler’s Germany).

I just had to call you out on that one.

Certainly the CC has made its share of dumb mistakes throughout history (i.e. Crusades, Galileo, etc.). Not to say reaching out to save Byzantium (the reason for the first crusade) wasn’t an understandable action (of course it was) … however, the point is no one is exempt from stupidity and folly (aka – the later crusades that were just horrible ideas and were horribly executed).

Granted. Although, I suggest that you read the whole story of Galileo before you include him. The Church catches a bad wrap on that that she does not deserve. IN the end, humans will always be humans, and that means imperfect.

of course … but I don’t really see the relevance to this topic? Either there are little angels flying around and an omnipresent invisible god mysteriously governing the universe or there isn’t. I say there’s not & I believe I can say that with reasonable certainty.

As I said before every religion on earth relies on ancient sitings of their respective gods. This god has never manifested himself in any tangible way to modern man. Obviously if a man claimed to be god and gathered a group of followers … these days (as I’ve said in other posts) we would likely send in the ATF to storm the compound.

Study the documented miracles of Lourdes or any of the documented miracles of the 20th century and tell me God does not manifest himself to modern man.

The fact is if Christianity never became the official religion of the Roman empire we might have all been raised pagans (and we would be arguing over whether Zeus is real or just an invented myth).

Actually, no. Rome was becomming a nation of, for lack of a better term, nation worshipers. The highest ideal was Rome itself with the emporer as its head. However, there is validity to your point. Now, why and how did Christianity take over?

I guess I would argue that the churches socialist leanings is really a manifestation of the Europe in which it grew up in. For instance the church has by and large always been supportive of labor unions. There’s certainly no divine or religious reason for this (certainly nothing I’ve read in scripture lends any validity to the Teamsters). In fact unions are just an outgrowth of the trade guilds of medieval Europe. Whether or not they’re a good idea isn’t really the point, but rather the point is the churches stance on these sort of topics isn’t because of some invisible god imposing his will on humanity by stirring the thoughts and actions of men. They are the result of our own intellect and reason, followed by action. Nothing more nothing less.

Actually, there is scripture supporting the concept of unions. A worker is entitled to his pay and depriving a worker of his pay is one of the sins that cries out to God in the OT. That said, no, you will not find anything in there about Mafia connections and beating up scabs.

perhaps … but again I think the RCC is generally supportive of programs like welfare, food stamps, etc. Not to say these are good or bad things; it’s only to say there’s no correlation between religion (or lack thereof) and whether one is a socialist or libertarian. Socialists might be more likely to, as you say, replace god with government (although I suppose they wouldn’t view it that way). In sum I just don’t think god has much to do with the formulations reached by socialists. They are usually well intentioned people who simply don’t understand why a libertarian society works better (it’s a hard concept for anyone to wrap their mind around). It’s much easier to think a government can sweep in and fix problems by micromanaging society.

I agree 100% that they are well intentioned but lack understanding. Why don’t atheists spend more time trying to teach them?

Moreover, there are good arguments for some degree of government intervention. Many would argue programs like unemployment, food stamps, social security, etc. give our economy a buffer, or a floor (below which it can’t fall because of this safety net). However true that may be, for every dollar used by government it’s one less dollar used for innovation and sustainable economic growth (so I guess there has to be balance).

Agreed. Although the Catholic Church would say that these programs are bad if they enslave people to them by removing their desire or ability to acheive or develop. In many ways, the welfare state is contrary to human dignity

that certainly is the theory … but how true is it really? Look at the places the church has been operating in for centuries, like Latin America. Yes the church does lend some help to the poor, but it’s never been much help in eradicating the underlying poverty. The only theological system I can think of, which arguably has helped in this regard, was the old protestant work ethic (usually associated with Calvinism). The extent of its influence in the success of America cannot be quantified, but it’s reasonable to assume it had some positive effect.

Do not discount colonialism (not CHurch related) or corrupt governments (not Church related) or the myriad of other issues that these nations deal with.

I guess I was referring more to what scripture teaches (rather than the catechism of the CC). Christ always deplores aggression (at least inferentially). As far as I can tell he never promulgated any exceptions to turning the other cheek (though he did say give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s … which I guess can be interpreted in different ways).

He did say that there would be a time when men would sell their cloaks for a sword. Paul wrote that the government, by the order of God, held the sword of judgement and the sword of defense so long as it did the will of God.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Granted. Although, I suggest that you read the whole story of Galileo before you include him. The Church catches a bad wrap on that that she does not deserve. IN the end, humans will always be humans, and that means imperfect.

I think the church deserves a bad wrap on the Galileo affair. They will claim that Galileo was punished for his theological positions (for instance insisting verses such as Psalm 93:1, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 104:4, etc. shouldn’t be taken literally … of course everyone today, including the RCC, understands those verses are indeed figurative).

The problem is you cannot distinguish between Galileo’s theory of a heliocentric universe and debunking the churches interpretation of Psalm 104:5 (and various other verses). They’re inseparable ideas … so it’s such a red herring when church apologists use this tactic. Galileo proposed a scientific theory pertaining to the structure of the universe that debunked the churches interpretation of several biblical passages. He had to say and believe those verses cannot be interpreted literally (since he proved with absolute certainty that a literal reading of those verses could not be true).

In the end he was in fact punished for advocating Heliocentrism. More specifically he was charged with heresy for holding the opinions that the earth is not the center of the universe, and it (the earth) moves (contrary to the literal language of verses like Psalm 104:5). Not only did the RCC charge a man for the content of his ideas and his scientific work … but they proved their own fallibility in the process (I might add they evidenced their fallibility in the particular area where they claim infallibility, faith e.g. interpretation of scripture).

Galileo even recanted (yet he was still imprisoned, a sentence later commuted to house arrest). There was something of a rumor that he made a rebellious remark during his inquisition … but there’s no evidence indicating this story is true. Galileo was tried and convicted by the inquisition for publicly proclaiming the earth rotates around the sun. The church held the position that the earth didn’t move at all (interpreting Psalm 104:5 literally). So even the idea that it rotates (whether around the sun or not) was heretical. There’s no excusing this affair. It was an unfortunate event in the history of the church (certainly not its worse, Galileo did survive until a natural death after all & he wasn’t burned at the stake).

Study the documented miracles of Lourdes or any of the documented miracles of the 20th century and tell me God does not manifest himself to modern man.

funny how none of those so called miracles are ever verified by secular doctors? Hmmm …

All of those miraculous events, healings, apparitions, etc. are just delusions. It is true, however, that ones state of mind can be critical to their well being and physical health. There are plenty of documented cases showing the connection between psychology and healing (and physical health generally speaking). There is, however, no credible documentation proving any divine miracle ever occurred at any point in history. None of these so called miraculous healings have ever been put to rigorous medical scrutiny.

Actually, no. Rome was becomming a nation of, for lack of a better term, nation worshipers. The highest ideal was Rome itself with the emporer as its head.

yes that is true … there was an emperor worshiping regime in the Roman pagan belief system. However, under Constantine Christianity became the official religion of the empire.

However, there is validity to your point. Now, why and how did Christianity take over?

Christianity took over because it gave hope to the hopeless. In other words it is the religion for the poor man, the down trodden, etc. (and there were plenty of those types in the ancient Roman empire). Nietzsche thought along these lines (and I think explained the psychology behind the attractiveness of Christianity among the ancients quite well). Of course this is only speculation. You will say it was an act of divine providence. How could have Christianity lasted so long if it weren’t for some invisible god? Well, western civilization still stands, Judaism still exists, heck the pyramids are still there right? What does all that prove? Not a single thing (except that the Romans were good at building and institutionalizing stuff).

Actually, there is scripture supporting the concept of unions. A worker is entitled to his pay and depriving a worker of his pay is one of the sins that cries out to God in the OT. That said, no, you will not find anything in there about Mafia connections and beating up scabs.

not paying workers wasn’t the main impetus behind the Pullman strike (and other important events in labor history) … but that’s neither here nor there. A union is a collective & there’s nothing in scripture supporting the idea. It is a Euro-centric concept & that’s I think why the CC is supportive of it. Of course who really knows right?

Do not discount colonialism (not CHurch related) or corrupt governments (not Church related) or the myriad of other issues that these nations deal with.

I think at some point we need to look beyond events that occurred five or more centuries ago as the cause for current conditions in places like Latin America.

He did say that there would be a time when men would sell their cloaks for a sword. Paul wrote that the government, by the order of God, held the sword of judgement and the sword of defense so long as it did the will of God.

I guess that’s an area of ample theological dispute right? Did god will the Jewish holocaust? Did he will slavery or 9/11? Anyways …