Exclusive: Atheist Movement‘s ’George Soros‘ Says Bible Has ’Moral’ & ‘Factual’ Flaws; Touts His Vision for Secularism
- Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:22pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Todd Stiefel
Millionaire atheist Todd Stiefel is on a godless mission — literally. The businessman-turned full-time atheist activist is devoting his life to the dissemination of freethought and to the righting of what he sees as discriminatory wrongs against members of the atheist, agnostic and freethinking community.
The Blaze recently interviewed the multimillionaire to gain perspective on his work and to better understand his role in the growth and increasing organization of the secularist movement.
Stiefel, who has given millions toward atheist causes and who considers himself to be Republican-leaning, is a “George Soros” of sorts for the secular community. In addition to allocating funds for numerous freethinking organizations, the Reason Rally and the Rock Beyond Belief, Stiefel is serving on advisory boards and providing non-fiscal advice to movement leaders. Through The Stiefel Freethought Foundation (SFF), the 37-year-old businessman is serving as an atheist philanthropist extraordinaire (he’s devoted $3.5 million to related causes).
SFF gave $250,000 toward the Reason Rally (which The Blaze covered extensively) and another $70,000 toward Rock Beyond Belief (read about this latter event here). Plainly stated: He’s a key player, asset and organizer for the atheist cause. During a 90-minute interview with The Blaze, Stiefel shared a plethora of information and perspective. While many would potentially dismiss him as offensive or irreverent like many of the other leaders in the atheist movement, Stiefel takes a different, more respectful approach.
Using Less-Abrasive Tactics
When asked about his tactics and why they aren’t as biting as those adopted by scientist Richard Dawkins and Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, among others, Stiefel answered the question respectfully.
“I think it is a different approach,” he said regarding his own handling of atheist issues. “I think all approaches are important. It’s useful to have a lot of different voices and a lot of people saying different things.”
Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins
While this may certainly be true, Stiefel’s tact and stature add something a bit more refined to the freethinking cause (this has also been highlighted in past reports about his work). Rather than attacking people for their faith, the activist said his focus is “trying to get people to be a little more skeptical and less of literalists and not attacking faith in general.”
“There’s some who focus more on the critique of religion and there’s others who focus on other aspects of the movement,” Stiefel continued. “I try to focus more on the importance of defending the Constitution and separation of church and state — and ending discrimination against freethinkers.”
Despite his respectful tone, Stiefel has plenty of criticisms for religion. In particular he railed against teaching children intolerance and encouraging them, in the name of Christianity, “to despise homosexuals.” Additionally, he said that telling kids that they will burn in hell for all eternity is “scary” and that it is an unpleasant portion of the religious experience.
“You want to give a kid nightmares, tell them they’re going to burn over an infinite level of years,” he said.
But despite these statements, throughout our interview, Stiefel emphasized the difference he sees between targeting religion and hammering its adherents.
“There’s an enormous difference between criticizing religion and religious people.”
Stiefel’s Road to Atheist Activism & His Mission
The atheist leader, who resides in Raleigh, North Carolina, graduated cum laude from Duke University. He then worked for 12 years for Stiefel Laboratories (his family’s skin care company that was sold to GlaxoSmithKline for $2.9 billion in 2009).
Following the many roles he filled at the company, the young man decided — like other businessmen — to devote his life to worthy causes. Considering his passion for the atheist community, he has found himself serving as a pivotal individual in the movement. But Stiefel wasn’t always a non-believer.
Todd Stiefel (Image Credit: TheHumanist.org)
“I was very religious at various points…especially in high school. The final nail in the coffin when I stopped believing forever was a course at Duke University on Old Testament history,” he explained. “Nothing like learning the Bible and the history of the Bible to get a person to stop believing [in it].”
Stiefel expounded upon the fact that actually reading and studying the Bible caused him to inevitably reject it.
“Most atheists…we tend to be more religiously literate than believers. Part of the reason we are non-believers is we have read the Bible. Large portions of it,” he said later in the interview. “I think the Bible is a fascinating grouping of books. I think it has wonderful lessons in it…beautiful stories…[but] I think it does have a lot of things that are atrocious.”
Among the allegedly atrocious elements are verses that purportedly frame slavery and genocide in a positive light and others that tout “abhorrent” ideas about women. Despite his Biblical hesitations, Stiefel says he reads the Holy book to his two children, because he wants them “to learn.”
Unlike other atheists, he’s not as interested in trying to convince Christians that their personal faith views are incorrect.
“I would love religion to become more moderate. It’s fine to me if someone wants to be a person of faith. That’s their business, their right, their choice,” he said. “I don’t even really care about persuading them away from their own faith. That’s not my job. But I do want them to question and be a bit skeptical about some of the aspects of their faith because you can get yourself in a lot of trouble if you take a book like the Koran or the Bible to be literally true.”
Some of the Bible’s messaging, he explained, was at the heart of his decision to stop believing. This decision, of course, has grown into something much more powerful, as the millionaire uses his personal wealth to help build up freethinking groups. For Stiefel, his work is aimed at stopping what he sees as discrimination against non-believers.
“The reason I got active is because I was witnessing intolerance and hatred [against atheists],” he said. “It was [the assumption] that we were immoral that was of concern to me and also seeing the damage that fundamentalist religion was having on the world. Including 9/11. Including abortion doctors being killed.”
Stiefel said that his other motivations were rooted in the fact that some religious people were attempting to legislate their believers “over more universal values.” It is this notion — that a group would push its personal religious beliefs on the overall population — that Stiefel found concerning.
“That is where we start seeing our country’s Constitution being eroded and our freedoms being eroded,” he proclaimed. “That’s why I got active – to eliminate that discrimination and to help the world be less fundamentalist and to help religion be more oriented towards love…”
The atheist bakroller says he’s looking to help — even “save” the world.
“I want to fight for love, freedom, integrity and reason…I see this as a civil equality movement in a very similar vein to other movements of the past,” he said, referring to atheists’ fight against the discrimination they claim to regularly face. “Ours has been going on for centuries and we’ve made great progress – at least in this country we aren’t burned to the stake or stoned to death anymore. But we are stoned to death in other countries – regularly. It’s not wise to be a public freethinker in the Islamic world right now. It’s a good way to be killed.”
Stiefel’s Support for Reason Rally
Considering his support for Reason Rally, though, and its rabid poor language and negative content, I asked Stiefel about his thoughts on some of the event’s controversial elements. In particular, I inquired as to whether he had a problem providing funds for something that included vulgar language and negativity (as you’ll recall, The Blaze brought you exclusive video of one Reason Rally performer’s song, which included the F-word more than 75 times).
“I don’t agree with everything everyone says…but we’re all different. And there’s many different individuals and voices,” he said. “And some resonate with some people and some with others…there’s some more sensationalist atheist activists and firebrands – just like there is in Christianity. And there’s others that take a more mainstream…approach.”
Considering the general nature of this response, I pushed Stiefel a bit harder on the issue, citing specific examples of problematic issues at the event.
“There were some things said at the rally that I disagreed with – sure,” he said. “My kids were at the event and there were points where their ears were covered. Because of the language – not because of the things that were said…some of the language probably should have been better for nighttime.”
But when it comes to censoring the content, Stiefel explained that he would never advocate such a thing.
“I think people need to understand this very specific point. Ideas are not sacred. They don’t need to be respected. People need to be respected. So we do criticize ideas…[and] institutions, including religious institutions,” the freethinking leader said. “Those are not critiques on religious people. And we believe extremely strongly that all ideas need to be open to question and we need to learn from history and mistakes and grow and improve.”
Stiefel said he plans to continue criticizing religion and educating people about the “moral” and “factual” “flaws in the Bible.”
Being “Good Without God”
Through billboards and online messaging, atheists are regularly claiming that it’s more than possible to be “good without God.“ Religious people generally argue that faith provides a blueprint for what is ”good” and that without it non-believers are floating in a sea of moral uncertainty. Stiefel made it clear that he finds such a notion monumentally offensive.
“When someone asks me that question [How can you be good without God?], the question is so loaded it’s the same as asking, ‘How could you be good with black skin?‘ ’How can you be good as a Jew?’…let’s just turn it around specifically – ‘How can you be a good person and a Christian?,’ he said. “How does it feel being asked that question? That’s how it feels to be an atheist.”
Stiefel admitted that it’s emotionally painful when people question his goodness based on his decision not to embrace Jesus Christ (or any other concept of God, for that matter). He reiterated his point by saying that people should be judged by actions, not beliefs. This question about being good without God’s assistance, too, has motivated his activism.
“It hurts, because it’s questioning the most human part of the individual – they’re morality,” he said. “And it’s taking the assumption that someone is immoral without even knowing the person. If you’re going to judge someone it should be based in their actions.”
Ironically, Stiefel went on to talk about the decisions human beings are faced with on a daily basis — choices rooted on whether they wish to act positively or negatively. In Christian circles, this is referred to as “free will.” That’s one area the divergent sides — the faithful and the atheists — can agree on.
“We’re all built in with a capability of morality and all of us are capable of…good or evil behavior,” he continued. “We’re making choices on a day to day basis on how to live [our lives]. We simply have to choose to be good…”
And here’s a bombshell: Stiefel’s wife is a Christian who sometimes still attends Protestant churches. Despite their very clear faith differences (not to mention Stiefel’s fervent activism for freethought equality), the couple make it work due to their shared values.
“Here’s something you should know…there’s many of us – atheists, humanists and agnostics – that are married to religious people,” he explained. “It’s not a matter of your religious beliefs…it’s a matter of your values and how you treat each other.”
Atheism, the GOP & Small Government
Stiefel’s political background will be somewhat of a surprise to some, as he has traditionally aligned himself with the GOP.
“I’m technically an independent at the moment…I was a Republican my whole life before I moved to North Carolina,” Stiefel said. “My family is, for the most part, Republican.”
When he began looking into the state’s GOP party platform, he realized he had big issues with it — particularly its treatment of homosexuality.
“I couldn’t believe how much essentially gay-bashing was going on in the official North Carolina platform,” he explained, going on to say that he leans libertarian (but he lamented libertarians’ tendency to “stick to their philosophy at the extend of realism”). “I couldn’t feel morally that I could register as a Republican in this state.”
Stiefel says that he wants the Republican Party he knows and loves back and that he “can’t stand” what has happened to the GOP. He called this alleged political transformation disastrous for both the party and the nation.
“The main issue is the party is catering too much to religious ultra-conservatives and that is a base that has been intentionally targeted and mobilized and so you can win elections through mobilizing your base to actually vote,” he explained, going on to also highlight the fact that Republicans need Independents too — a group he believes they simply can’t capture with this strategy.
According to Stiefel, there are atheists from various political viewpoints. This, of course, would defy the notion that most non-believers tend to be liberal (this latter fact is true, but Stiefel was attempting to make it known that there are others under the secularist umbrella who embrace different political ideals).
“We tend to be very much freedom oriented. We tend to want the government out of our lives as much as possible,” he explained. “I like small government. I’m a big fan of it. I don’t like the government overstepping its bounds. The government needs to step out of promoting religion or promoting lack of religion.”
It was at this point — later in our discussion — that Stiefel took aim at the Republican Party’s support for the White House’s faith-based initiatives.
“The faith-based initiative is pouring literally billions of dollars into what are essentially entitlement programs — social service programs with minimum requirements, minimum accountability,” he said, going on to call this a form of “pork” and an example of big government. ”Do we want the government choosing which churches get enormous amounts of government money to distribute with minimal supervision? I would contend, ‘No.’ This is exactly the opposite of what Republicans should be supporting.”
A Fearless Defender?
In the end, it became clear that Stiefel’s work is centered upon creating a favorable image for atheists in America. Discrimination was a common theme he mentioned, as he positioned himself as an individual prepared and willing to tackle anti-secularist sentiment head-on.
“There’s some atheists who have been really hurt – really, really harmed. And they’ve been damaged psychologically and they might be anger about it,” he claimed. “There’s children who have been thrown out of their homes and stripped of all their possessions and college tuition just because their parents found out they don’t believe in the same religion as them.”
Stiefel is clearly a defender of the atheist cause, but he’s also a different voice — a less shrill, though still anti-religious individual — in the movement. However, his message is even more important to understand because of the widespread financial support he’s offering. In the end, money is power and his sentiments will likely help shape the atheist movement as it unfolds and grows.
“Christians and atheists have vastly more in common with their values than they realize…The audience of The Blaze probably has the vast majority of their values in line with what most atheists believe,” he said. “We believe in love. We believe in freedom. We believe in truth. We believe in integrity and living moral, ethical lives…in creating happiness and decreasing suffering.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 458 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 302 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 313 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 210 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 302 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (562)
barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:08pmI still do not see how atheists are “ discriminated against” in this country. I think this is just another over-reach of the Discrimination Card to “ fundamentally change ” traditional values that this minority finds offensive to them – simply because they find a belief in God offensive. No one makes anyone attend a church in this country ; parents must pay for both public schools through taxes as well as fund private/ church schools for their children; tax payers are expected to pay taxes as well as fund their individual religious institutions IF THEY CHOOSE TO. I do not see the so-called discrimination these Lefties are clubbing us with to change laws and values that they do not support. Federal over-reach through the use of the Discrimination Card is becoming an instrument of bullying and an assault on the rights of the individual in this country. Big Brother.
Report Post »hi
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:13pmI know. Christians are the ones being discriminated against !!
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:18pmSo if you have an all powerful god… why are you worried about “discrimination”?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:24pm@Barber2
“I still do not see how atheists are “ discriminated against” in this country.”
Wasn’t there a poll on The Blaze just a couple of days ago showing that atheists are the least trusted group in America? From living in the South, I can tell you that there is a large anti-atheist bias outside of the urban areas. Thankfully as a Christian I’ve never dealt with it directly; but even in some places, saying you’re “Christian” instead of “Born Again” nets you bad looks and rudeness. For an atheist, I can just imagine how terrible the situation would be.
Report Post »WARRIORSCROWN
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:33pmJoe … God (capital ‘G’) is also all-knowing, perhaps you should ask Him your questions instead or are you only here to bash someone else‘s ’free-thinking’?BTW Morality is legislated…for example: ‘Do not murder’ … Yes… I know… Such a terrible religious law.
Report Post »drphil69
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:35pmWell, you see, the poor athiest has to view crosses on churches and in cemetaries…
so while prayers are being removed from public view, and the baby Jesus is banned from manger scenes in public view, only non-offensive things are allowed – you know, like a crucifix in a jar of urine, which was deemed “art.” Obviously something like that would offend NOBODY…
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:37pm@ Warrior
Yes, the tribal laws mandated by the Hebrews included “do not murder”. However, they also included some other gems such as stoning unruly children and homosexuals.
So… is your god infallible? If so, how does it make sense to say some of his laws are mistakes. Also, if your god is the highest authority, who are we to decide which laws to follow and which ones not to?
Obama Snake Oil Co
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:37pmI am waiting for an aethist to tell me where they get their morals from?
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:47pmLocked : sorry about the “ least trusted group ” awarded to the atheists. A few thoughts : Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro . The fact that they have no moral code to follow . Like Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals which allows anything goes to foster ” their agenda.“ An agenda to force coercion to some dictatorial ” vision” of what’s right for everyone. Big Brother. People used to rely on a person’s word of honor. Trust is important. If you can not trust a person to follow a code, you don’t trust them. Not excusing intolerant religious people, but refuse to think that a “secular” meaning atheist government will be any better. It is always the INDIVIDUAL that matters and they come, naturally, in individual packages. Big Brother governments are just as despotic as any fundamentalist religion.
Report Post »GodHatesFigs
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:57pmMorals come from the physical structure of our brains and from learned social constructs.
Report Post »db321
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:59pmIsn’t it amazing how the pages of the Bible just keeps telling us of things to come – I’m really excited! We are going to see with our eyes and hear with our ears – how many be deceased – even the wises among us!
I Studied the Bible 18 years ago – and I had 2 question – that I could not understand until now.
1) Many would be deceived – the Many are those that turn from God and follow a man or a false profit – before Obama, I never saw a man that could make the masses do that in America – I will never follow a Man!
2) How would the Whole World Turn on Israel – Before Obama – I never thought that we would have a President that would turn America’s back on Israel – “The Apple of Gods Eye”. This means that Obama and everyone voting for Obama is spitting in the eye of God!
The Bible is complete for me now – I thank God every day that I live in these important Biblical Times – and ask that God uses me in any way he see fit to get his message out – so many wont be deceived – by people like Obama, Soros and this idiot Millionaire that spends every waking hour of their day – trying to prove something they doesn‘t believe in doesn’t exist!
Oh – one more thing, I can’t figure out – The Bible says in the end times that an event would happen on the other side of the World and the whole World would see it the very moment it happens – Do you think God was talking about CNN or You Tube!
Please vote for a President for his Word and Deed – not for his Lying and
Report Post »jzs
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:07pmThomas Jefferson very much agreed that the Bible was flawed:
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
Report Post »-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:11pmHey Locked,
So let me get this straight………….
In your world,……….being thought of as “untrustworthy” equates to “discrimination” ?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:13pmJZS,
Should we give what you are saying any credence?
Or are you just making stuff up again?
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:17pmJesus came into the world to turn it upside down (not in the Van Jones sense), but to give us new commandments. The NT is what we stand on!!!! I’m so tired of these arguements. Jesus came with real transformation, not this stupid hope and change. Our real hope in in Him. And He was NOT a socialist.
Report Post »old white guy
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:19pmmore words do not improve the quality of the argument.
Report Post »DYNA
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:28pm@Joe Bonham,
You are correct in part.
Those who are of this world will hate Jesus the Christ. So then those who are in Christ will be hated by those who are of this world.
Fortunately when a mans ways please the Lord, He will make even His enemies to be at peace with him. It is impossible to please God without faith and the God kind of faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
A theologian may have the Bible memorized but without His Holy Spirit he is blinded to the revelation as he remains spiritually dead. Even theologians must be born again.
Satan knows the Bible also but also without revelation, otherwise he would not have crucified Jesus the Christ, which made way for those who believe, to be restored as sons and daughters of God. Jesus is the first begotten and He is Lord of lords and King of kings.
Report Post »Jesus came to restore that which was lost. Man, the first Adam, was created in the image of God and Jesus, the last Adam, came to fulfill it.
DYNA
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:33pm@Joe Bonham
P.S.
Report Post »I replied to your statement
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:18pm
So if you have an all powerful god… why are you worried about “discrimination”?
Locked
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:33pm@Billy
“In your world,……….being thought of as “untrustworthy” equates to “discrimination” ?”
I think you’re shooting yourself in the foot on this one. If you’re making a judgment on them based only on a lack of belief in a deity, isn’t that discriminating based on religious belief? It might not be an action, but it’s definitely a snap judgment based on nothing else besides their faith (or lack thereof).
@Barber2
“A few thoughts : Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro . The fact that they have no moral code to follow .”
Ignoring the fact that Hitler called himself a Christian (though he wasn’t in any way most Christians would think of themselves), you’ve just equated 15% of the US population to mass-murderers, as well as Godwinsing yourself.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:47pmYo DB321:
I was a little confused by you’re post …
Report Post »Obama is not the antichrist … he may be “lead” by dark spirits , but he is a smaller fish ( in my humble opinion).
Concerning the return of the true Christ … do to think that he will need some puny man made inventions such as tv to announce the Return of the King?
Not critizing, just wondering …
Hollywood
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:48pmSoros,and his OPINIONS, are not of concern. Here is a self hating Jew, who was a NAZI collaborator, during WW2 helping seize, and sell property from his fellow Jews, as THEY went off to the ovens. This piece of trash, has NOTHING to say to anyone, except his evil followers. There is a warm place waiting for him for eternity. Of course he could REPENT, but I think he has a seared conscience.
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:49pmGods’ Word is foolishness to those who perish! Nuff said?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:54pm@Hollywood
“Soros,and his OPINIONS, are not of concern. Here is a self hating Jew, who was a NAZI collaborator, during WW2 helping seize, and sell property from his fellow Jews, as THEY went off to the ovens. This piece of trash, has NOTHING to say to anyone, except his evil followers. There is a warm place waiting for him for eternity. Of course he could REPENT, but I think he has a seared conscience.”
You might want to read the article. The guy in question is compared to George Soros… but he isn’t him.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:55pm@Locked
Shooting myself in the foot? Really? No, don’t think so.
My thinking less of someone does not harm or affect them in any way, shape or form.
See……they would not even know what my opinion of them is, so how does that hurt them?
And you should not use those inflammatory words like “shooting”
JZS does not like that.
Even though his party’s leaders use them all the time.
Hey boys and girls, can you say,,,,,,h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e
Report Post »scarebear83
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:00pm“There’s children who have been thrown out of their homes and stripped of all their possessions and college tuition just because their parents found out they don’t believe in the same religion as them.”
Exactly…. I heard of a story where the whole family was Baptist and one of the older children became a member of the church of Christ (not the United coc denomination) and they were sent packing with a plane ticket and told not to come back. So yeah it happens to other kids as well for far less things, not just atheists.
@ Joe Bonham -As for saying God’s laws were mistakes where does anyone get that idea? There was a purpose for the law of Moses and that was to bring us to Christ. Since Christ came He fulfilled the law and nailed it to the cross so that we are now under His law. (Col. 2:13-14) The law of Moses was never meant to be permanent. It wasn’t a mistake, it was designed that way from the beginning (Eph. 1:4) Eph. 3:10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord ~ God doesn’t make mistakes. He knows and He’s always had a plan.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:02pmOh, and LOCKED,
You never answered my question from a while back………..
Do you go to a baseball game with the hopes of seeing the pitcher take a line-drive to the noggin?
Because you made the implication that any NASCAR fan that was at all “honest” ……..would have to admit that they go to the races hoping to see a flaming wreck.
You then said that it was the “gambling mentality”……..if you pull the lever enough times, sooner or later it comes up…….“WINNER”
Remember that?
Report Post »Marci
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:06pmExactly Barber–they are not discriminated against. And though he has decided to take a different approach, whether he realizes it or not, he is pushing the religion of Atheism. To be an activist means you are actively trying to change perceptions and change the position of that “religion” in society. Fine if you are an atheist–but most atheists I have ever met are “live and let live” types and you will never know they are atheists unless you initiate a religious discussion with them. Furthermore, who do atheists believe grant rights if not God? You end up with two choices when asking an atheist activist…..the government or no one—in other words, anarchy. So, try as they might to mask the truth, this part comes out in the wash. Anarcho-atheism is a sect on the rise.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:11pmHey Locked,
I forgot the sentence in my post, it should have ended with……………..
That sounds a bit discriminatory to me……no?
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:17pmLOCKED: my intent was NOT to say that all atheists are mass murderers. ( and I thank you for acknowledging that Hitler was in no way, by his actions, a Christian ) My point was merely to explain the reason some people may not trust an atheist. People can call themselves anything. It is their actions and speech which prove what they are. Am sure there are some fine, tolerant atheists just as there are Christians. I think there is far too much mud-slingding and bullying right now. going on for political purposes and far too many med slinging , vocal atheists in the media . Tolerance seems to be out; bullying / Occupying / union mobs seem to be in fashion.
Report Post »Amos37
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:19pmHitler did his job for God much like Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar did, because God mad them for that purpose. Sometimes God raises up very powerful forces in order to punish even His Own children. If the righteous barely escapes through the flames what about the unrighteous and sinner?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:21pm@Billy
I didn’t realize I put such a bee in your bonnet! I do like your articles, however; keep up the good work! As for discrimination:
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.
So yes, if you consider someone less trustworthy based solely on categorization, you’re discriminating against them. It’s not a crime. It is, however, a fact.
“Do you go to a baseball game with the hopes of seeing the pitcher take a line-drive to the noggin?”
Nope. And no one expects that to happen. But NASCAR crashes? Man, if you don’t think people can remember and recount the most serious crashes with gusto, you’re delusional. I think you should move to the south and hang out with NASCAR fans; it might inform you a bit more!
“… … … … …”
No idea what that’s supposed to mean, actually?
Report Post »pastorcop12
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:31pmMore to come…
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:55pm@LOCKED
Come on now, you know as well as I do that that’s not the type of “discrimination” that was being referred to.
One can have a “discriminating” mind…………
Or, one can “discriminate” against people, thereby doing them an injustice of some sort.
No one could, or would protest or complain about a thought process, because they would not be aware of it, unless it was acted upon in some way, thus causing them some grief.
So if atheists think that they are being discriminated against, it must be due to something that has manifested itself, not just an opinion.
Remember the old childhood saying………..Sticks and stones may break my bones, but WORDS can never hurt me? (Words to live by).
So again, the fact that many people believe that atheists are not trustworthy, does not in itself cause them any harm. Unless they are thin-skinned as well as untrustworthy.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:10pm@Billy
Oh, I see. “It is discrimination, but it’s only words, not actions!” I guess that could be true? Sure, I’ll meet you halfway on that and agree. I‘d say that’s also most discrimination against Christians as well. I know I’ve had people give me funny looks when they ask about my faith in Jesus, but, eh, that’s their right. I just think of them as immature and move on.
Report Post »Jeffreyeast
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:13pmIn my 44 years on the planet,I have never seen a group of people who spend so much time,money,and effort into trying to convince people into not believing in something that they don’t believe exists…As my friend Dinesh D’Souza once said, I don’t believe in unicorns but,I don’t go around spending millions of dollars on campaigns trying to convince people to not believe in unicorns…
Report Post »jblaze
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:25pmWhat Is True Freedom?
Report Post »Many non religious people like to talk about freedom. But if they don’t get their definition of freedom from the Bible, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32), they have a different idea of freedom and they are infact enslaved.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:25pm@Locked,
But see, that “funny look” you mentioned is a manifestation, or action, not just their thoughts.
And Locked, it does seem to me that you doth protest too much, and make mountains out of molehills. You seem to have the same problem that MODERATIONISBEST had, and that is that you have people always questioning your faith, or lack thereof, and then hassling you about it in some way, or giving you “funny looks”.
I have never in my life, (and i’m pretty sure I have been around quite a bit longer than you), been questioned by anyone, anywhere, anytime, about my Christianity, or what i do, or do not believe in.
And I have lived in the south.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:35pmOkay, lets lay out the facts:
Humanist/Atheist regimes: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Castro, Kim Jon Il, etc…all Christian hating Atheist/Humanists openly. They killed over 250,000,000 innocent people, caused wars and costs (monetary) beyond comprehension.
Christians… most giving of ALL groups in the world combined. The only extremists (still wrong) killed 5 in abortion clinic bombings.
There are many more facts but I’ll keep it simple. Atheism/Humanism is clearly the danger and problem.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:52pm@Billy
“But see, that “funny look” you mentioned is a manifestation, or action, not just their thoughts.”
Take away the funny look then. If you hear that someone is an atheist, and you instantly find them untrustworthy, that’s discriminating based on their faith. Again, I‘m not saying it’s against the law or leads to actions. But making judgments without regard to the individual himself is discrimination. It’s literally the definition of it.
“I have never in my life, (and i’m pretty sure I have been around quite a bit longer than you), been questioned by anyone, anywhere, anytime, about my Christianity, or what i do, or do not believe in.”
Interesting! I tend to have discussions and arguments about religion all the time. Sometimes with fundamentalists (going to CSR meetings is quite interesting, I recommend trying it… although they don‘t take kindly to anyone who’s not a young earth creationist, I’ve found), other times with atheists, and mostly just with groups from my church. Even within the same (non-denominational) Christian setting, people vary wildly. Heck, look at the views on here!
I mean, it’s not the same as going to a job interview and being asked about it, but that doesn’t happen to Christians either. Well, unless they’re applying to jobs at specifically religious businesses.
“And I have lived in the south.”
Oh, so you know then!
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 5:02pmI’ll preface this by saying that I wish more atheists were like this guy. That being said, the biggest hurdles facing the atheist movement (such as it is) are the “built-in” proclivities that humans have toward belief in God or some higher power, and the general behavior of seldf-identifieatheists themselves.
There is a reason people don’t trust them and it extends beyond questions of moral compass. Additionally, “don’t trust“ and ”discriminate against” are two very different things.
One frustrating aspects of this interview is that although the guy is a “friendly” atheist, he still suffers from the same juvenile emotional rejection of objective authority and logical failures that neo-Atheists like Dawkins, Harris, etc. suffer from. Like them, he builds poor strawman arguments (no one is really arguing that there are no “good” atheists, but rather what defines “good” for the atheist is subjective). and relies on fallacious atheist talking points like “the way to become an atheist is to read the Bible, which is full of terrible things, blah blah.”
Reading the Bible without the proper context and understanding is like having your first exposure to Shakespeare be a completely cold reading without any guidance. Not only will you have problems understanding the meaning of the text, but you’ll probably reject it out of ignorance and emotional frustration.
This fellow simply presents the same bad atheist arguments in a friendlier package.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 5:12pm@LOCKED
“Ignoring the fact that Hitler called himself a Christian (though he wasn’t in any way most Christians would think of themselves), you’ve just equated 15% of the US population to mass-murderers, as well as Godwinsing yourself.”
Hitler was really more of a pagan. He simply identified as Christian when it suited him politically, but in reality he believed in all kinds of goofy stuff. However, in the case of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot — those jolly fellows were atheists through and through.
Learn your statistics. Roughly 15% of the U.S. population identify as “non-religious”, not as atheist. Roughly half that number still believe in some sort of higher power, and of that number, only about 4-6% self-identify as atheist.
While I’m not saying that the 4-6% of the self-defining atheists who make up the U.S. population would be mass murderers if given sufficient power, we can say that historically-speaking it is more likely than not.
Cheers!
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 5:15pm@Locked,
Don’t look now, but there is a bee in your bonnet. :-)
Report Post »Drives Like Jehu
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 5:49pmLike Rush says, don’t argue with a fool; you both come off looking like idiots. In this case, Todd Stiefel is even worse than a fool because he is a RICH fool. God’s elect should take stories like this about the ever increasing boldness and haughtiness of atheists as a strong warning about the time in which we live and the nearness of the end of the Grace Dispensation and redouble our determination to think more and more upon God and His masterful plan of our Salvation and less and less upon the world, the flesh and the devil.
Report Post »Shiroi Raion
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 6:52pmI’m an atheist and Leftists are reversing the idea of discrimination here. I am NOT discriminated against in the slightest. I am not offended by religious symbols – to be offended by religious symbols is not about atheism, it’s about hatred for religion: almost always Christianity or Judaism.
Report Post »Leftists are twisting the truth. As an atheist, how can I be offended by a cross or a manger scene? It‘s like somoene who doesn’t believe in ghosts being offended by those idiotic Sci-Fi poltergeist reality shows or someone that doesn’t believe in life in space being offended by alien movies.
Leftists are pathological liars in their justification for their amoral ideology.
Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 7:02pmWhile we’re on the subject, let us not forget that religion inhibits “SCIENCE!” and how tolerant and logical those neo-atheists really are.
http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/collins-vs-gnus-2/
Report Post »Shiroi Raion
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 9:21pmReligion doesn’t inhibit science any more than Liberal agenda does. You’re arrogant without reason. Being an atheist doesn’t make you any smarter than a religious person. In fact, I’d say simply following the Liberal ideology and not thinking for yourself makes atheists less intelligent, in general.
Report Post »The Conservatives must fight every day to justify their beliefs. Liberals can simply flow with the tide like spineless jellyfish.
I’m an atheist, but not a Liberal. I see the attack on religion every day and I side with the Conservatives. Liberalism inhibits TRUE SCIENCE because Liberals almost always choose the results of their experiments before they have even conducted their studies. The governments “so-called” scientists are bought and paid for.
What happens to science when government and science are in bed together? We’ve seen it happen hundreds, thousands of times. Remember this little bit of history? When people measured the size of their heads to boast intelligence. Germans heads are bigger, so we’re smarter. French said, “Our heads are bigger than Germans, then English said, “Our heads are bigger, we’re the smartest!” Not sure which country started it, but it was all obviously junk science and it still goes on to this day. We still see Liberals every day doing the same thing. They just use falsified data or biased studies to get their desired hypotheses and – whadya know? – they’re always right! Amazing! LMAO
OverweightLover
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 9:41pmHow are Christians discriminated against?
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 11:16pmThey get their morals from Gunga Din.
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 3:54pmTodd is mistaken of course re his understanding of Scripture re slavery. God NEVER has/ will accept forced slavery. Servitude is mentioned in Scripture. MANY of the poor entered into contracts for periods of 7 years or less, to pay off debt, earn a living from the wealthier. Jewish law required serving no longer than 7 years. This is why, as mentioned in Genesis Ch 29, Jacob entered into a 7 year contract with Laban, the father of Rachel, who he desired to marry. Laban got him drunk, and fooled him, and sent in Leah, Rachel’s older sister who he married instead. He then Voluntarily worked for another 7 years for Rachel. I will not get into polygamy here, as God has NEVER approved THAT either.
Report Post »As far as a Lake of fire. Scripture is VERY clear in Revelation Ch 20 Verse 10 is VERY clear such a place exists,and that it was originally created for the devil, the fallen angels/demons. It is now where the anti-Christ, the False prophet,and all the unsaved will go. NO man,woman has to go there! God offers an escape from this! All one has to to is recognize they ARE sinful, turn from their sin[REPENT] and accept God’s plan, in offering HIS only Son, who died for our sins-Jesus Christ. Scripture says the Gospel is foolishness to those who perish! I pray Todd will recognize his foolishness/sin, repent and believe the Good News.
Maranatha
terangolf
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 12:21amHere is a discrimination that non-believers endure. When joining the military or testifying in court one must swear to God. I didn’t know I had a choice when I joined the military, that I did not have to swear to God, but would have felt I would be singled out if I had. Living in WV, I would feel if I were to appear in Court to testify, and took the non-faith oath, my testimony would be received with great suspicion (because how can a non-believer be trusted?). Yet if I lied and swore to God to tell the truth, they wouldn’t have that suspicion.
Report Post »DeeFields
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:06pmWow, everyone that commented that Atheists could not possibly be discriminated against just proved the point I will make in a moment. Any person or group can and usually will be discriminated against….btw, just as religious folks can be discriminated against also. Usually the insult is made by the people that claim that they “just can not understand how that group of persons could possibly ever be at the receiving end of discrimination”. Wake up everyone, basic unchecked human nature is to attack that which is different from yourself based on fear and ignorance. Education of ways that are different from your own is the only way to learn about the other 7 billion people with whom you share this planet. Stop living in fear.
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:06pmMisery loves company. Since he can’t buy spiritual faith with his vast riches, he donates his earth-bound wealth to causes that try to bring everyone else down. It must really irk super rich folk to know that one day they will be gone and can’t take their (earthly) riches with them…So they deny God altogether.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:36pmSoros is the fulfillment of the saying “What does it gain a man to posess the world and lose his own soul.” He is soon to face his destiny as all of us will, and it appears to me that the only plan he will push on with is to destroy and reforge in his insane image as much of the world as possible.
I wonder if there will be anything he can say when he stands before God and the seat of judgement.
Report Post »Goldenyears22
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:01pmSoros will not be able to defend himself in any way. He has only done evil all the days of his life. He does not believe in God or his life would have been different and the billions spent on helping the needy instead of fostering Communism. I can only grieve for this young man who thinks he knows there is no God. All of them die, not one of them will llive, they will all go to face judgement and the fact they don‘t believe it doesn’t matter one single bit. He ought to do more digging into the truths of God’s Word how all the prophecies have come true and those predicited to come true in the near future will. How the Bible tells the history of the ancient world better than any other book. The miraculous wonders that only God could do. To spend and waste his money trying to prove there is no God will not convince Christians there isn’t, only athiest that already believe that way will look at the advertisement and agree, some agnostics may be convinced there isn’t, but in all those doubting groups, some will come to know God as their personal Savior and it won’t matter what he does or says. He comes from a long line of evil people who have tried to do away with Christianity, but it will be fruitless because history shows that Christians have been persecuted throughout history and the Church shall prevail and evil men like himself will not cut them out, They may persecute them, cut them down in numbers, but God’s Word tells us that evil will not destroy His Word.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 8:32pmI would like to know… What are… the so called Factual Flaws? But, I would not buy their rag for one cent!
Report Post »justyntoo
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 10:02pmgod does not honor the devils promises – if you do not believe the truth , you will believe the lie .
Report Post »aaron.w
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:28amWow, that is the most ridiculous thing I have read here. I’m sorry, but he is being more Christ-like than most of the Christians on this page. The hate that flows forth from you peoples mouths sickens me. What makes you so certain you have even chosen the right religion in the first place? You were obviously born in America, and not oh say, Afghanistan (Where chances are you would be Muslim.), or India (Where chances are you would be Hindu, or Muslim.). Get over yourselves already, this isn’t even a war against your god. Which happens to be the same one that Muslims worship, and the Jewish. It is about keeping our country the way it was intended to be. Secular, meaning free for all people to choose what they wish to worship or not. Our founding fathers ran from a theocracy to establish this country that you so valiantly claim as a “Christian Nation” to escape that exact train of thought. Where did all of this go wrong? It really makes me sad. I hope that one day you wake up, and realize that your god is not the only god that is worshiped, and that not everyone worships any gods. Leave that for people to decide for themselves, it won’t hurt you any if you are right…..right?
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:23pmOne very interesting way in looking at it.
Report Post »Aix_sponsa
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 11:12pm@Goldenyears22
You may very well have written one of the most backward and insulting paragraphs I have ever read. I have no idea how you can go through life with such a negative and hateful view of the nonreligious community… To say that when one lacks a belief in a deity, they can never find happiness or do good? Please, go spew your hatred at something or someone that lacks a conscience. That way, you can remove all of your religiously-fueled anger on an object that cannot respond to your nonsense.
Maybe you should think twice about insulting someone’s right to happiness. I am an atheist, and I try to live everyday to its fullest: Do you know why? Not because of a 2,000 year old myth. Because we only have one life to live, and every day is precious. When I die, and in fact, when you die, that will be all there is. All of this nonsensical rhetoric about “seeing God at the seat of his judgement throne” is unproven, unsubstantiated, and illogical. You CAN be good without god, and you can be happy without such a belief too.
Report Post »grimmy
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:05pmAtheists are NOT free thinkers, but sheep being led around by a belief (religion) that there is no god.Atheists are parrots,repeating what their masters tell them to say.Free thinkers my ass. Oh and encinom, the difference in those that believe in God and an atheist,is the difference in God, and man….
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:17pm“…parrots,repeating what their masters tell them to say.”
You mean like all the christians who constantly do the ONLY thing the CAN do, . . . repeating bible verses and christian buzz phrases like “I know that I know that I know god is able…”???
Hmmmm. Interesting. BTW, how can someone “parrot” NOT seeing a claim as being credible? If there isn’t evidence for a claim, . . . .then there isn’t evidence.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:51pmi guess your pastor/priest/minister doesn’t call you his “flock”? hello kettle!!!
Report Post »Truthbeliever2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:18pmDeavonReye
Hey dude! Lets see/hear that irrefutable evidence that there is no God. Where is it man? Still waiting…
Oh that’s right! You have NO evidence EITHER!!!
JACKA$$
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:30pmPlease. The burden of proof is for the person making the claim. I only reject the claims that theist provide. I do not need to “prove no god exists”, nor have I SAID that “no god exists”. There could be, . . . but it is YOUR job to prove YOUR god. It is no different than insisting that you prove to me that Faeries don’t exist.
BTW, do you feel like a big boy now, what with you calling me a name? How about addressing the claim issue instead of making needless personal attacks! Go ahead!
Report Post »Aix_sponsa
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 11:14pmHAHAHAHAHA!! You said atheists are sheep.
Isn’t Jesus your shepherd, Grimmy?
Report Post »MemphisViking
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 4:23pm@ Deavonreye – If the burden of proof is for the person making the claim, and you claim there is no God… I no more need to prove God exists than I need to prove air exists. I just have the responsibility to tell people about Him, if you choose to reject Him that’s on you.
@ Aix_Sponsa – Jesus is my shepherd. Who is yours?
Report Post »elosogrande
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:01pmI have news for Mr. Soros. At some time in the future he will die, and when he does, he will find out whether he is right or wrong. Their are no athiests in hell – Fatso. You will become a believer.
Report Post »SilentDove
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:57pmI have news for you, this article has nothing to do with George Soros… lol
Report Post »jackact
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:01pmInteresting.
Report Post »A socialist, capitalist secularist?
I think Obama just warned him last week about oil market speculators.
Although I am sure that dictate does not include ‘patrons of Obama’.
COFemale
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:58pm“It is this notion — that a group would push its personal religious beliefs on the overall population — that Stiefel found concerning.”
So it is okay that you push your personal non-religious beliefs on the overall population that WE find concerning. See nitwit it can go both ways. It is always What I want, What I need with you selfish narcissistic atheist. There is never a WE in your statement.
Leave us alone and WE will leave you alone – When you push YOUR agenda to be the only one to be recognized WE personally take issue with this. When you start eliminating OUR ability to practice OUR religion in public, WE take issue with this.
You were once religious by your very own words, so you got your “moral” clarity from Christian values. You did not decide to write your own and follow them. It is funny all you atheist claim to have moral values, but you are not willing to state they are based on established Christian values established through your parents. Do you think your parents made up their moral values and common sense ways to act when in public, to other people, in your own home?
You also state the Old Testament changed your mind. Does that mean you have not read the New Testament and the new covenant from God? God realized early on, you can’t dictate behavior. You set up guidelines for people to follow; they either do or they don’t. He also states that if you don’t their are consequences; another thing you atheist hate. GROW UP!
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:22pmgrow up? listen to yourself! how many Atheists knock on your door trying to spread the word? how many fliers from Atheist houses of worship do your get in the mail?
you act as though you are being persecuted:
“Leave us alone and WE will leave you alone – When you push YOUR agenda to be the only one to be recognized WE personally take issue with this. When you start eliminating OUR ability to practice OUR religion in public, WE take issue with this.”
when are we bothering you? how are we not allowing you to practice your religion in public? i’m pretty sure you can pray in public all you want. your reality must be a very strange place.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:41pmPhlly…dont try to reason with them, its futile. They have a persecution complex thats almost comical, reality is just nowhere to be seen in their worldview…..dont even try to understand.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:50pmCofemale. Japan has a fraction of the crime we do….a fraction of murders, rapes, robbery, etc….yet they have a Christian population of less than 2%. Guess others can be moral huh? You people are so self righteous – it makes me sick. The most bigoted, disgusting filth I see comes from the hard christian right, you guys are pathetic, weak, full of rage and jeoulsy, have no understand of people who are different. Thanksfully I live in New England and there are very few of you around me….
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:50pmPhillyatheist – You lefties sue religious people all the time whenever they speak out about their faith or display it. Under the lie of “Separation of Church and State” which does NOT exist in the Constitution.
Don’t forget that you have the media and academia where you demonize and bully people who are religious and tell them how stupid they are.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 6:47pmDose – That’s b/c in Japan they have an honor code, which is something that you lefties don’t have. And your beloved Western European countries also have higher burglary rates than the US does.
You also forgot that the atheist countries have higher suicide rates than the Christian countries around the world.
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:26am[Leave us alone and WE will leave you alone]
Nonsense. That has never happened and never will.
Report Post »zencycle
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:12am@ COFemale
“ Leave us alone and WE will leave you alone ”
That‘s a sect of christianity I’m unfamiliar with. Christians are instructed to proselytize as a matter of your faith. If you don’t, you go to hell.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:57pm“Most atheists…we tend to be more religiously literate than believers”
Yea, just ask them. They’ll tell ya. Ridiculous. They Bible has been proven historically accurate EVERY time some new archeological fact is found. There are no errors in the King James Bible and I enjoy proving that to people. Athiests will never aknowledge the validity of the Bible no matter what fact you show them. Calling themselves freethinkers (as if we aren’t) is laughable. They are more dogmatic about their atheism than most christians are (sadly).
“The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” – King Solomon (the wisest, richest man who ever lived)
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:49pmwell, except the part declaring “bats” as “birds”. and shellfish being an abomination. and the whole Noah thing. and the talking snake. or have archaeologists found the skeletal remains of the original Eden snake yet and i missed it?
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:20pmsquid I agree, they try their very best to tear it apart taking many things totally out of context and doing their very best to be overly critical. funny how they love to bash the Christians, who are nonviolent, as opposed to the muslims. oh well it’s called faith, like love you cannot see it, but it is there. it isn’t a noun it is a verb, like love, a choice.
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:44am@Squid:
[They (sic) Bible has been proven historically accurate EVERY time some new archeological fact is found.] Quite the opposite, actually. Most of the time, when there is some bombshell news story about some Biblical tomb being discovered, there is often a follow up story (that gets buried deep in the news) a few days later about how it was a hoax.
[There are no errors in the King James Bible and I enjoy proving that to people.] You enjoy proving a negative. Please tell me how that’s done. Do so by proving to me that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
BTW, check out this site for all the errors you wish to disprove: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
[Athiests will never aknowledge (sic) the validity of the Bible no matter what fact (sic) you show them.] Right back atcha. No matter how many inconsistancies and absurdities there are, you will find a way to continue in the non-questioning of your flawed philosophy. Worse, many of you will continue to push it on the rest of us through ill-considered legislation based on OT books like Leviticus and Exodus.
BTW, what’s the difference between the law as described in those two books and Sharia law?
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:41pmSquid,
Some people would rather live in darkness than the light.
Report Post »Archaeology helps confirm the truth and reliability of the Bible. In addition, the many fantastic finds bring new light to the people, places, cultures and times of the biblical period. Archaeology proves the skeptics wrong and the Bible to be true.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t190-archeology-proves-the-historicity-of-the-bible-is-true
Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 3:07pm@Tarm:
Lies and wishing does not make it so.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:40pmFruno,
Right back at ya guy!
Report Post »MiCurmudgeon
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:57pmSoros has factual and moral flaws.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:36pmDo you think he even knows that the Bible wasn’t written to be a science book ? Since it deals with the spiritual, old Mr. Material might have missed the entire purpose ! But he continues to do what he always does : he bets , focuses, and counts on destruction .
Report Post »RodT
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:55pmWell my question to the Atheist is why bother with being “good”, I mean whats the point, you’ll get no reward for it and why do you who care what others think of you (most people that are none believers seem to want man’s approval…Why?). I mean if I were an Atheist I would be the bigest jerk in the world and would do pretty much what I wanted as long as I don’t get arrested. The atheist I know all consider themself good and me as a believe, I don’t but I try to be. Anyway what ever floats your boat! believe it or not.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:13pmOMG!!!!! Then by ALL means keep believing in your god!! WOW!!!! O_o
I am good because it makes life BETTER if you are. I‘m not good because I’m afraid of a god! You should try it!
Report Post »GodHatesFigs
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:14pmWow. I hope you stay a believer, for everyone else’s sake.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:18pm“Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you”–Confucius
This is a very good and just maxim that transcends all religious and philosophic thought. One does not need to believe in a reward in the afterlife in order to be a good person.
Rejecting supernatural entities does not equate to a rejection of morality and ethics.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:22pmWhere did you get your “good” from DeavonRye. See this is where you are afraid to admit that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a doctrine you follow unconsciously. In order to be good, you had to have a moral guideline. Otherwise, just say “be good” has no meaning. It must be defined first in order for you to follow what it means.
See you never think what it means to be good and where it came from originally. It is beyond your comprehension.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:22pm@Rodt
“Well my question to the Atheist is why bother with being “good”, I mean whats the point, you’ll get no reward for it and why do you who care what others think of you (most people that are none believers seem to want man’s approval…Why?).”
I’m happily a Christian, but I can’t believe you cannot see ANY incentive for being a good person? Here, let me list a few:
- People like people who are nice to them
- Kind people are less stressed and enjoy life more
- People who are not Christian still have values, and being kind to others is often one of them
- Being kind to others leads to a more beneficial society and positive environment
It amazes me you couldn’t think of any of these.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:26pmbe good and you get a cookie. be bad and you get a spankin’. sound familiar? that’s how Religion treats you, like a little child.
i prefer to be good, without reward. i guess i have the moral high ground. who’d have thunk it?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:30pm@Cofemale
“See this is where you are afraid to admit that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a doctrine you follow unconsciously. In order to be good, you had to have a moral guideline. Otherwise, just say “be good” has no meaning. It must be defined first in order for you to follow what it means.”
What is his moral guideline was “Treat others as they want to be treated, not as you want yourself to be treated”? Wouldn’t that still be valid, arguably make you even more appealing to others, and not align with Christianity?
Morals and values are part of Christianity, but don’t make you a Christian. It’s disingenuous to say “Look! You’re trying to be a Christian by being a good person!” if the person still doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ. It’s as ridiculous as saying “You believe in the 10 Commandments because you don’t kill random people!” I’m pretty sure that not killing others was still generally considered “good” before Moses came down the mountain.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:09pm“Where did you get your “good” from DeavonRye. See this is where you are afraid to admit that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a doctrine you follow unconsciously. In order to be good, you had to have a moral guideline. Otherwise, just say “be good” has no meaning. It must be defined first in order for you to follow what it means.
See you never think what it means to be good and where it came from originally. It is beyond your comprehension.”
“Good” is a learned condition. Our society developed a mechanism that works [for the most part]. I’m a product of that upbringing. If I had been born in China, I would have had a different upbringing. Iran, . . . ANOTHER [more dangerous to infidels] upbringing.
What takes NO “special comprehension” is what I’ve stated. And there is no “god” who causes people to be good OR bad. People do it all on their own, theist and atheist alike.
Report Post »Xyskalla
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:17pmThe issue of being good without God isn’t just a question of “why bother making the effort to be good?” It involves a philosophical issue about the nature of what is good.
Without God, there isn’t even a standard of good and evil. Instead, you only have individual preferences and society’s preferences (which are often at odds with each other) concerning what is pleasant, what is harmful, what is orderly, what causes dissension, etc. But what you like isn’t necessarily going to be what other people like. You might think that it’s obvious that something like murder or rape is evil, but not everyone agrees with that standard. Murder is harmful, true, but that doesn‘t mean it’s evil, and many societies throughout history did not equate the two.
People tend to prefer peace and stability over disorder and violence, but without God there is nothing to say that one is good and the other is evil, there is just “this is what we prefer, so this is how we will live, this is how we hope others will treat us, and we will enact laws to protect our lifestyle.” So you can’t be good (or evil) without God because there is no such thing as good or evil without an objective moral standard.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:26pmThat’s why a god is needless. To the muslim, their god is perfectly fine with them doing something that WE [in America] see as abhorent. WE make our nation what it is. Warts and all.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:43pmDeavo,
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to get away from using the “OMG” and the “O_o”
They give everyone a pretty good idea of your age bracket / maturity level.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 5:07pmAnd now you are the post police? I can post anyway I want. @_@
As for my age, that is none of your business.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 6:28pm@DEAVONREYE -
You’re simply kicking the can down the road here and not addressing the question at hand.
Your statement is that “good” is simply a learned condition that is subjective from society to society and (by relation) person to person. This equates to stating that there is no objective “good” at all, it is simply a societal illusion.
Do you not see the moral ramifications of such thought? If someone murders someone else, what makes that “good” or “bad”? These are simply societal constructs with no intrinsic meaning.
You state that you are good because it makes “life better” if you are. By whose standard? Your own? Perhaps what you consider “good” actually makes life worse for someone else per their standard. Perhaps their definition of what “makes life better” does not equate to your idea of good.
No one is arguing that God “causes” people to be good or bad. These actions come with our free will. The question is how is good is objectively defined by the atheist? So let’s hear it.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 7:31pm@Deavo,
Yes, you are correct.
You can indeed post anyway that you like, and as I have told you before, I would not have it any other way.
I was simply stating my opinion that I believe you were posting foolishly.
You did not like my opinion or statements about your behavior, and you reacted defensively.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm ???????????????
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:08amBad, . . . we learn things that we label as “good” because they prove to be the best choice for the society as a whole. Allowing people to kill whomever they want is a danger to that society. This would be the case irregardless of any deity.
Billy,. . . how about we just continue without addressing the person making the comment, . . . just the validity of the comment. I’m perfectly game for that construct.
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:06amThe concepts of good and evil are manmade. Consider this thought experiment: if there were no life in the universe, would good and evil still exist?
The problem I have with the very concept of ‘evil’ is that — because of the very definition — it must be eradicated at all costs. That is a very slippery slope towards “ends-justify-the-means-ism.” Which means concentration camps, genocide and other atrocities.
I prefer to call it ‘criminal behavior’ or ‘psychotic behavior’ or whatever it is. Calling something evil is like using a stone hand ax to cut down a tree when we now have chainsaws available.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:23pm@DEAVO,
It seems that the underlying meaning of my comment was wasted on you.
But that’s OK, I knew that when I posted it.
Till next time.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 3:54pmBilly, are you going to continue with your little jabs or are you going to reply to TOPICS and not people making the comments? Until you do, you show your true colors.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 7:13pm@Deavon
That’s a wonderfully telling answer; thank you for being so obliging. So essentially what you are saying is that “good” is defined as whatever maximizes the happiness and livelihood of conscious creatures; conscious creatures making up society as a whole.
This is not morality, it is simply a constantly rotating wheel of well-being, and theoretically in such as system what defines well-being could be synonymous with what we call “evil”. If murderers, rapists, etc. could be just as happy as “normal” people, then by this very definition, these acts would be “good”.
Given that it’s possible that moral goodness and human well-being are not one in the same, then your definition of good falls short. It is simply touchy-feely utilitarianism.
Cheers!
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 7:22pm@FRUNO
This is lazy pseudointellectualism. Your thought experiment is only valid is one presupposes a materialist worldview. From a theistic worldview, good and evil would clearly still exist.
This is the essential difference between moral values and duties. Even if there were no created moral agents, moral values (good and evil) would still be grounded in the personhood of God. Moral duties, which would be grounded in God’s commands would not exist because God would have not have issues such commands.
Finally, even if you avoid the term “evil” (at least your consistent in your atheistic relativism) what makes criminal behavior or psychotic behavior “wrong”?
Cheers!
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:37amBad, it may be. . . . .but it is more honest than “being good out of fear that a magical all powerful being will hurt you if you aren’t”. Show me the entity, specifically, . . . then there would be actually something worth considering.
As it is, . . . “good” really IS “what’s best for the society as a whole”. “Good”, in the radical muslim world [of which they believe, by faith, is given by their god], is FAR different! However, there are many biblical laws that would be more at home with that religion than what chistianity today preaches.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:42pm@DEAVON
Once again, you are simply attempting to move past the argument to snipe at religion. This is nothing more than the “atheist shuffle”.
Christians are not “good” for fear of retribution, but because God demands it…but this is neither here not there as it is not the topic you and I are specifically discussing. This is not a doctrinal religious argument…that comes later; so let’s get back to the “core” argument.
The question being asked is “what is good”? The point being made is that if objective morals do not exist, or morality is not held externally, then morality is subjective as is the definition of good.
This is the problem the atheist has. On atheism, “good” is simply defined individually or out of utility. I’ve already demonstrated that per your “well-being” argument, good could potentially be defined as what we currently consider to be “evil” or “bad”.
So per your definitional parameters, even if we apply this to civilization as a whole, rather than on an individual-societal level, your argument is still problematic. If it was for the betterment of society to murder 25% of the global population…and assuming you buy into anthropogenic global warming, food shortages, population overcrowding, etc. such an argument could be made…based on your definitions this would be a moral act. It would be for the betterment of society as a whole.
Unless of course you would like to concede that some morals may in fact be objectively h
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 4:05pmAgain, . . .yes, it is problematic. But I doubt you will find people coming to an agreement that 25% of people should be killed. But even then, the block wouldn’t be religious in nature, but repulsion of the thought of that many being systematically killed. History has shown us what mass anihilations look like and they are no longer palatable. Will that always be the case? I have no idea. I hope so. But I cannot control other people anymore than the law can [which is why people still kill others]. I can only approach a topic, and make my own moral judgement on it. I’m not perfect, so of course I will not always choose the right way. . . . .but I do the best I can.
Now, if you must have a code of conduct, AND call it the christian bible, then you still have a problem because even if you insist that “all the words are god breathed…”, you are still just taking the words in a text that hasn’t met its burden of proof. It is STILL the ideas of Bronze Age men. And as I read the Old Testament, my ability to determine morality is no different than theirs, . . . except that they lived in a culture where certain things WERE permitted and require. . . .and those things are no longer acceptable in modern society, and rightly so.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 10:41pmHi Deavon,
Not to sound superior here, but you’re still not seeing the forest for the trees. This response has basically devolved into atheist ranting. OT incredulity, moral relativism and Bronze Age goat herder blah.
Palatable and moral are two completely different things. It could very well be moral to do something we find to be unpalatable.
As I mentioned earlier, our specific conversation is not about the Christian Bible and it acting as a “code of conduct”. That comes later. Our conversation is about the basis for morality and how it is revealed. If morality is objective it must be held in an external source such as God.
In the absence of God (an absence which atheists claim to be true), morality or “good” is simply a subjective and meaningless term. My original question of “On atheism, how do you even define what is moral?” is still valid, and all of your answers have failed miserably.
Cheers!
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 9:30amThey haven’t failed. . . .except to you, . . . with your apparent absolute requirement of “morality coming from a god”. But you haven’t proved that it is actually the case. You are just using your own belief system to say “it is how it is” and want to poke at the atheist “who doesn’t see morality from any supernatural source” and say, “See! They don’t have any source for their morality.” Yes, morality IS subjective. Even the bible shows that. And I will say it again, specific religion aside, . . . anyone who states that “their morality comes from their god” is still wholly transfering their OWN personal morality [which happens to be of their religion] onto what “they believe their god would agree with”. Any religious texts that states something “to be immoral” is still only the thoughts of those men that wrote it. And THEIR “morality” was just as subjective as what we are left with today.
On this, we may just talk in circles to each other. FWIW, I’m not an atheist. I lean that way, but am agnostic. I have seen nothing that concludes any gods being in this realm of existence and [obviously] in any other.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:32pmDeavon,
Sigh. You continue equating my argument to “The Bible = Morality”. That is not the argument being made. You are simply projecting or have a reading comprehension problem. Let’s agree to throw the Bible completely out of this argument…can we agree to this before we move forward?
Additionally, your moral position is a demonstrable failure because it is by your own admission completely subjective. This means that “good” is only defined as what the individual wants it to be. Even expanding your argument to civilization as a whole, we’ve illustrated that what may be best for civilization is not necessarily what we would consider good or moral.
Your only real response to this moral failure? “It’s better than the Bible.” Fine. But that is not the argument at hand.
By your criteria, there is a scenario in which child rape would be considered moral and good. Can you please explain such a scenario? It shouldn’t be that hard…morality is subjective after all. So before we continue, I would like you to address your subjective morality by painting the scenario above in a moral framework.
FInally, you are functionally an atheist, even if you define as strongly agnostic. This doesn’t really change anything.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:11amNo, . . . there would be no subjective “okay to rape”. That goes against a person’s individual freedom/liberty. My rights stop at the point where it could hurt another person. . . . . within reason, of course. I have the right to self protection if an attacker is bound to causing me harm or death.
Why don’t we cut to the chase and you give me your argument for this. I’m interested in hearing it, since we are taking god/bible out of it.
Report Post »CPT_GCF
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:54pmSad to see how liberals teaching about the Bible are the ones that despise God and His Word. Duke University’s founders must be rolling in their graves since it was founded on something so different than what it has become today. Atheists have no concept of what the Bible really teaches anyways. They cannot understand Whom they do not know. They need the Holy Spirit for discernment and the forgiveness and love that Jesus gives. Why shouldn’t atheists be scared and repentant of the eternal damnation that our sin condemns us to?
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:41am@CPT_GCF:
[Sad to see how liberals teaching about the Bible are the ones that despise God and His Word.]
There are many — if not in reality, a vast majority — of Liberals who believe in God. Your comment is prejudicial. Perhaps even bigoted.
[Duke University’s founders must be rolling in their graves since it was founded on something so different than what it has become today.] You mean a major center for learning and medical institution?
[Atheists have no concept of what the Bible really teaches anyways.] The Bible is famous for creating more atheists than any other source.
[They cannot understand Whom they do not know. They need the Holy Spirit for discernment and the forgiveness and love that Jesus gives. Why shouldn’t atheists be scared and repentant of the eternal damnation that our sin condemns us to?]
Right there. Jesus loves us so much that he punish us for all eternity. You honestly don’t see a contradiction in that?
Report Post »Clmsadjman
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:54pmNo kidding Georgie Boy the bible in a lot of places is not literal some of the stories are metaphors for behavior. I bet Soros cannot see his reflection in a mirror. I don’t believe in the afterlife, but I hope there is a hell because people like Soros and Buffett will and express pass there. I guess Soros believes its better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:50pmYou want to give a kid nightmares tell him it‘s just a whim of nature that he’s here. There is no purpose to life and there is no hope. You’re just another animal that happened to end up here, with the rest of us. Life has no reason for morality, ethics or ethos. You are free to act as you wish, consequences are irrelevant and meaningless.
Frankly, I believe that a reason for having hope, being good and living an ethical life would be a very favorable outlook. Without understanding that there are powerful consequences for your actions and that YOU are responsible for them, we’d all end up like the communist democrats or OWS pigs or the New Black Panthers, or the Black Liberation Theology swine. Savvy? I’ll bet not.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:00pm@Ruler: That is simply not the case for myself, nor any atheist I have ever met or read. It is not a difficult thing to find reasons for morality and to understand the concept of consequences without having to also accept supernatural elements as a fact of the universe. You are creating a Straw Man argument.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:29pmAnd I always thought of the astronomical improbability of my birth to be an inspiration to life the best and most satisfying life I can.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:31pm@ calm though with out a Divine Author, what defines morality? Upon what is the foundation of morality built? What timeless truth or principle is it that grounds atheist morality? What is the standard? If there is a standard what is the source?
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 6:39pm@CALM
I would consider this to be less of a strawman and more of an extrapolation of the ultimate destination of secular thought. Without an objective basis for morality, it is simply defined individually without judgement and when taken to its logical conclusion, no ramifications. This is part of the reason why Western atheists are by and large morally parasitic. They simply adopt the current religious framework within which they exist. This is also why attempts at a system of secular morality have repeatedly failed, the most recent being Sam Harris’ warmed over utilitarianism.
Cheers!
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:44am@Kaydee: How about the Golden Rule? Look, if a person doesn’t know why stealing or murder are wrong choices, please, by all means, threaten that person with supernatural damnation if you think it will do any good, but if you need to depend on someone else defining right and wrong for you, your issues are much deeper than missing a few Sundays in church.
Report Post »zencycle
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:50am@ Bad_Ashe
“Without an objective basis for morality, it is simply defined individually without judgement and when taken to its logical conclusion, no ramifications.”
There is no such thing as objective morality. Christians define morality in certain temporal parameters, muslims define it in others. Judaism claims a host of moral laws based on Levitican values, while christianity claims blood sacrifices and bans on shellfish were rendered moot by the death of jesus. None of you can prove yours is more correct. If the word of god was as immutable as your ilk likes to claim, there wouldn’t be 5 different versions of the Westminister Confession of Faith adding and subtracting sins based on the concurrent moral sensibilites, and women on the rag would still be forced to wait out their menstruation in isolation.To take _your_ comment to _it’s_ logical conclusion, claiming judgement and ramaifications based on whatever version of whatever holy book you believe in is simply another case of circular logic beign applied to support your own subjective morality.
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 11:58am[There is no purpose to life and there is no hope. You’re just another animal that happened to end up here, with the rest of us. Life has no reason for morality, ethics or ethos. You are free to act as you wish, consequences are irrelevant and meaningless.]
Strawman. You personally may be limited in your life’s purpose without God, but there are many others who are not.
The archaeological record shows that humanity’s ethics and morality predate proto-religious thought by hundreds of thousands of years and even predate our own species.
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 12:08pm@ Bad Ashe:
[This is part of the reason why Western atheists are by and large morally parasitic. They simply adopt the current religious framework within which they exist.]
That’s quite ironic, considering that Christianity is famous for having assimilated most of it myths, traditions and even its holidays from other religions.
Once again, the archaeological record shows that once proto-humans began hunting/gathering in groups, they began to care for each other, particularly when injured. Proto-religious evidence (ceremonial burials and such) is relatively recent — perhaps 30,000 to 50,000 years old.
Thus, the origins of our most basic moral leanings have nothing to do with religion. If anything, we may not even have needed rules prohibiting murder if not for religion.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 7:41pm@ZENCYCLE
First off, stop conflating moral ontology and epistemology…what morality is based in as opposed to how it is revealed. Because you don’t understand the difference, the majority of your post is pointless.
As for the nonexistence of objective morality, I can only assume then that your are prepared to present a scenario in which child rape is moral? If morality is simply subjective, then such a scenario exists.
Cheers!
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:08pm@FRUNO
Primitive survival instinct and group survival is distinctly different from a complex system of morality. Extrapolating one to the other is nothing more than the sort of evidentially weak “just so” explanations we see in the oft-mocked field of Evo Psych.
Your comment about potentially not needing rules prohibiting murder were it not for that evil religion is simply absurd. Unless of course you can provide evidence for this “just so” assertion.
Christianity adopted some Roman traditions because it was pragmatic, they adopted the OT because the God of Abraham was the God of Jesus. That being said, if you want to get into historically ignorant, patently absurd Richard Carrier-esque atheist conspiracy theories about how Jesus is simply Mithra retold (surely that rock was a virgin), knock yourself out, but this isn’t really the forum to debunk such nonsense.
Traditional Western morality on which atheists base their humanistic morals is itself derived from a Christian morality. To attempt to argue that past human societies shared the Christian moral view of theft, murder, deceit, etc. as well as any concepts of individual rights or equality takes a double Hefty-bag of historical ignorance. Unless of course you can demonstrate otherwise.
At least the French atheist philosopher Michael Onfray is honest about it, throwing poo at his fellow atheists for clinging to patently Christian morals for what he considers to be no good reason.
Cheers!
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:50pm“The reason I got active is because I was witnessing intolerance and hatred [against atheists]”
He must read the Blaze comment threads.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:39pmyes. Especially the ones by the arrogant , secular Lefties !
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:49pmHow dare he spread the idea of athiesm! Only chrisitans are allowed to promote their beliefs!
Report Post »Winedude
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:56pmLOL. I had never heard of this guy before today. I’ll need to find out more about him…my kind of guy. I don‘t know that I’d call myself a total atheist but somewhere between that and agnostic works for me.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:04pmWhen your intent is to legislative eliminate the other because of your own beliefs, then yes we have a problem.
I don’t care he is an atheist, I don’t care he does not go to church. I don’t care. It is when he tries to block us legislative against the CONSTITUTION that I take issue.
I don’t hate him. I feel sad for him, that he could not understand the Bible in its full context. If you read it cover to cover, you see the growth that God realized after the flood. He vowed not to wipe the earth clean again because people were not following him. He realized that humans are not perfect and will fall short. So he gave us an out. You either take or you don’t. This guys does not want that out; he will suffer consequences as I will when the time comes. I can only hope that when my times comes, I have mercy from God. I’ve always been on his side. There are many times I have fallen short and I am sure there will be more times before I die. I can only ask that God will have mercy on my sould.
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 12:35pm@Cofemale:
[When your intent is to legislative eliminate the other because of your own beliefs, then yes we have a problem. I don’t care he is an atheist, I don’t care he does not go to church. I don’t care. It is when he tries to block us legislative against the CONSTITUTION that I take issue.]
I gather from your somewhat unlettered scribblings that you somehow think being prevented from imposing your religious beliefs on everyone else is constitutional. It is not.
[I don’t hate him. I feel sad for him, that he could not understand the Bible in its full context. If you read it cover to cover, you see the growth that God realized after the flood. He vowed not to wipe the earth clean again because people were not following him.]
This is the problem I have with this issue; right here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/senator-inhofe-global-warming-is-a-hoax-arrogant-to-think-humans-can-change-seasons/
Your crazy religious beliefs are gonna result in the extinction of our species. THAT is why religion needs to stay out of government.
[He realized that humans are not perfect and will fall short.]
Your all-knowing God didn’t know this before he killed everyone on the planet?!
Please… even the theologians laugh at that one.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:49pmFruno,
So you are angry and intolerant because most clear-thinking people can see through your pseudo-religion of man-made global warming and call it out for the hoax and scam that it is?
Report Post »Everyone today demands proof! People like you have a chip on their shoulders, so to speak. They want someone to prove whether the Bible REALLY is true. Christ said this challenging attitude would reach its climax in these last days of human civilization — just before man with his scientific ingenuity could blast all human life out of existence (Luke 18:8)
Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 3:27pm@Tarn:
[So you are angry and intolerant because most clear-thinking people can see through your pseudo-religion of man-made global warming and call it out for the hoax and scam that it is?]
First, what makes you think I’m angry? Next, what makes you think I’m intolerant? Third, most “clear-thinking” people accept global warming as a reality. See:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2012/04/19/poll-most-americans-now-link-extreme-weather-to-climate-change/
And that only asks if the current *weather* is affected by global warming, which even I’m not sure about. So I’ll take it that you are simply misinformed; otherwise you’re a liar.
[Everyone today demands proof!]
Without proof, one is vulnerable to charlatans and hucksters. In the past, perhaps people were more trusting. But we’ve learned.
[They want someone to prove whether the Bible REALLY is true.]
Good luck with that.
[Christ said this challenging attitude would reach its climax in these last days of human civilization — just before man with his scientific ingenuity could blast all human life out of existence (Luke 18:8)]
Luke 18:8 “I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” What are you tallking about? Can I spout out random Bible verses too?
More than likely, there are millions of fundamentalists of all religions that want the world to end for a variety of reasons.
I, personally, would
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:03pmFruno,
One look at your posts shows a severe lack of original thought, a reliance on tired old cliches about religion, and unoriginal snap judgements employing psycho-babble, so it’s very easy to see you are a few fries short of a happy meal.
You depend solely on your Googlemanship of selective progressive sites to support all of your wide ranging convoluted and stupid ideals because no ONE resource can reach such a confusing assembly of ideas and mediocre reasoning. . It is a fact that it takes a great intellectual capacity to understand, trust and hope than it does to only understand and believe what you see. So it stands to reason that you greatly lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend the concept of God.
There is still no empirical evidence supporting the warmist nonsense (excepting the bent data, which has been mostly pointed out and exposed for the propaganda that it is.) So, just like the current US election, the desperate believers are thrashing about getting ever more strident and ever more far from truth. I’m stocking in extra popcorn and adult beverage. When the final meltdown occurs (pardon the pun) it will be a sight to behold.
http://junkscience.com/
“Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.”
Report Post »http://online.wsj.com/articl
lukerw
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:48pmGorbachev’s… Universal Religion… to support Communism… requires that Atheism & Christianity be merged! So, SOROS has picked it… as the assult upon Christianity continues… from Black Liberationists, Islam, Communists, and European Socialists. Here is The ENEMY!
Report Post »Southern Rebel
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:36pmYou’re absolutely Right! Gorby and his United Religion Initiative is making huge leaps and bounds. Mind you, it needs to happen to fulfill endtime prophecy..which is revealing itself all the time now.
Report Post »Berbel73
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:47pmAtheists don’t want to believe in GOD because that threatens their sense of self importance. There simply can not be anyone that is superior to them, their ego and pride just won’t allow for it. They believe that through their own invented sciences that they can become gods in their own minds. It’s really sad and pathetic when you get right down to it, and I pity them for their insolence. Their lack of faith will result in their being separated from GOD and their loved ones for all eternity and THAT is what hell is.
Report Post »TEIN
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:53pmWhat you described is the way of pride…and you know what comes before the fall….
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:10pmWhat would be “sad and pathetic” is a god who would DO this seperation on someone who was SINCERELY HONEST as to the god claim. In fact, if this god were TRULY a “righteous judge” it would HAVE to honor a sincere honest stance over a “theistic belief because they were afraid OF being seperated from family after death”.
Report Post »EPICBAMF
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:32pm“Atheists don’t want to believe in GOD because that threatens their sense of self importance”
I think your comment right there makes an important point as to a common misconception between atheists and believers. You say they do not “WANT” to believe? …what makes you jump to that conclusion? Ever think that perhaps they simply are not as closed minded as yourself and have done some research and used logic and reasoning to conclude that many of the things they say in the bible are nothing more than fantasy and contradictive babbling? Sure many of the stories may have been based on true events, however over centuries they have been translated, twisted, and molded into something entirely different. You “WANT” to believe because you are scared, from what you blindly believe will happen to you, if you do not believe.
Report Post »Atheists to not WANT to not believe,..it is that they cannot believe in something that is so ridiculous and far fetched that doesn’t begin to add up and equate to something of sound logic.
DoseofReality
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:24pmBerbel…self importance? wanting to become gods? Serioulsy man, you do not understand how people can have different beliefs than you can you?
Whats more self important and prideful?
1) believing that that the creator of the entire universe…billions upon billions of light years of matter, unfathamable distances and time, created that entire universe and all its matter just for you? That the entire point of it all was to place humans in his image on earth, and that only the select few who feel exactly as you do get to live forever after they die in paradise with the rest of the inhbitants of the univserse rotting in hell…or
2) Admitting you dont know, that from all the evidence out there many people have chosen to either look for scientific reasons, be spiritual without religion, or just not pay any of it much attention. They feel they are lucky to be alive, and for the most part live moral lives becasue its the right thing to do, not for any post death reward.
Your the one that says you look like God (literally)….your the one who says you know exactly what God wants and relish in the fact that those unlike you will rot in hell, your the one that feels this amazing universe was made for you! Whats more self important? Whats more egotistical?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 6:49pmDose – You atheists have no belief system that’s based on anything other than nihilism.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:33amGit-you have no idea what your talking about. You are an evil hateful person…its very obvious. I feel sorry for you…..
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 12:57pm@ Berbel:
[Atheists don’t want to believe in GOD because that threatens their sense of self importance. There simply can not be anyone that is superior to them, their ego and pride just won’t allow for it.]
Bigotry.
[They believe that through their own invented sciences that they can become gods in their own minds.]
Science is discovered; gods are invented. Remove all references to the sciences in our culture, and they will eventually be rediscovered. Remove all references to gods in our culture and new ones will be invented.
[It’s really sad and pathetic when you get right down to it, and I pity them for their insolence. Their lack of faith will result in their being separated from GOD and their loved ones for all eternity and THAT is what hell is.]
All of which would make you very happy: seeing those who disagree with your beliefs being tortured forever. THAT is what heaven is.
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 12:59pm@Git-R-done:
[Dose – You atheists have no belief system that’s based on anything other than nihilism.]
Bigotry.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:36pmFRUNOBULAX
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 12:59pm
@Git-R-done:
[Dose – You atheists have no belief system that’s based on anything other than nihilism.]
Bigotry.
@Frunobulox
Ok, if you want to add “bigotry” to go along with “nihilism”……..I’ll buy that!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:40pmIts not for sale. ;-)
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:57pmEpic,
The truth is, those who acquaint themselves with the evidence, and use common logic, cannot but conclude that naturalism explains nothing; atheism leaves one in a fog of intellectual and ethical confusion.
Report Post »TEIN
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:47pm“We simply have to choose to be good…” There is the paradox of an atheist…The Father of the spirit made the laws that defines “good” and the perversion of those things are evil…the laws and definition of good can not exist without the author of “good” being there to enforce the natures of those principles…
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:53pmWhat about other religions that don’t believe in YOUR god? They have a different set of beliefs about what‘s good and bad and yet they’re not murderous or inhumane. Buddhists don‘t even believe in deities and yet they’re considered to be the most peaceful group of people on the planet. The idea that people can‘t be good to each other without fear of your god smiting us for eternity is very easily proven false by the fact that most people aren’t Christian.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:54pmand as if all christians are good, moral, respectable human beings…
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:23pmWrong. Study Buddhism.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:24pmEveryone falls short. Of course, you are not willing to admit your shortcomings because in your mind you are right and perfect.
Christians admit they are sinners. Atheist admit nothing.
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:34pmSorry mamm…Most people ARE Christian. But yours is just a little lie. You could say you’re ignorant of statistics if that will help save face.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 6:49pm@MAMMALONE -
You make a couple of errors here. The first is not understanding that the claim being made is not that atheists or non-theistic religions cannot be good without God belief, they certainly can. The claim is that without an objective source of good (in this case, God), there is no good. It is a subjective and meaningless term. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that if objective moral values and duties (objective good) exist, they come from an external higher power (God).
Your second error is assuming that fear of punishment is what motivates believers to act in a moral way. This is not true. Adherents attempt to act in a moral way because God commands it, and it‘s God’s game, God’s rules. Hell (or more specifically the eternal absence of God and all he embodies) is simply one possible ramification of those actions.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:46pmDid you ever wonder why the words, atheist, communist, socialist, progressive and Soros always seem to hang out together?
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:29pmthink you forgot a few : arrogant, intolerant, bully….
Report Post »jay1975
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:42pmMan I know it, like conservative, intolerant, racist, homophobe, chauvinist and redneck among others. Both sides are disgustingly intolerant of those who are not just like them.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:57pmJAY: maybe only because the ones who are now in power on the Left are so intolerance and “ religiously” fanatical about spreading their “social justice ” – shall we say – “agenda ? ” Oh, and I have seen far more examples of so-called “ redneck” intolerance from black racists of late than any white KKK types. The name Farrakhan / NBPP come quickly to mind…
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:25pmhks isn’t it fun on every religious thread the amount of new posters on the blaze and the constant militant religion ripping nonsense that goes along with it. All you athiest posters I will be praying for you. Your angry ways you think are fun or clever but we find them sad and feel for you
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 10:31pmJay1975 – So what if conservatives are intolerant? At least we’re not stupid and shallow enough to believe useless meaningless crap such as tolerance and diversity like you are. And you leftists are also hypocrites when it comes to tolerance and diversity.
Report Post »burnbabylon
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 11:21pmI‘ll ignore the Soros part since he isn’t the subject of the article. I might refer to Mr. Stiefel.
Non-believers tend to look for some other moral compass. Hopefully one that will justify their behavior, at least in their own eyes.
Unfortunately, many of them find Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has what they want in the hedonistic equation. “The greatest happiness for the greatest number.” It sounds good. It gives them the appearance of morality, or , as they see it, Moral Authority. Worse, they see it as an ideology as well. They think that is the reason to have a government. Too bad they can’t, or won’t, see its flaws.
Of particular concern is the “Spoiled Brat Syndrome.” Any time someone, (of their side), has a complaint, the utilitarians think we should all, meaning you, attend to their woes. This leads quickly to a Tyranny of the Whinority.
For Instance, take the sexual hedonists. Whether it is Sandra Fluke or the gay community, both have problems related to their behavior. Their line about their behavior is, “What two, (or twelve), people do in the privacy of their bedroom, (or bath house), is nobody’s business.“ Their line about their problems is that ”It is everybody’s business.”
We really need a term to distinguish between reasonable atheists and these Reason-Free Thinkers.
Unrelated subject. I accidentally hit report post on somebody. Sorry, I’ll try not to do it again, or find an undo button.
Report Post »theninthplanet
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:46pmThe phrase “useful idiot” comes to mind…
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 2:14pmthe phrase spoiled rich kid also is ringing a bell
Report Post »scootervanneuter
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:41pmYet another case of the clay criticizing the potter – FAIL
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:42pmI didn’t see anything in there about some person making pots? :-/
Report Post »Sirfoldallot
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:45pmI wounder if Soro’s is afaird of his futur home in HELL.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:33pmDEAV: you’re probably more familiar with people smoking it….
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:04pmBarber, . .. strawman much? I know NO ONE who smokes pot. Love how people [christian] personally attack so quickly. Typical.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:06pmDEAV: sorry but so many of our anti-religious / non- traditional ones do.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:11pmNo problem. I’m probably no much different than you. I just don’t believe in the god claims.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:12pm…NOT much different.
I REALLY need to proof read before hitting “Reply”.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 6:50pmDeavon – How are you the same as me? And what you consider to be good is useless b/c your belief system isn’t based on anything.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 9:02amI’m the same as you. Just have no god that I worship. Pick another topic and we may very well agree.
As for “good”, . . . “good” is a learned behavior. If you don’t believe that, understand how the “good” in Iran is taught to THEM!
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:39pmYes George we understand you found Moral Flaws in the Bible.
Report Post ».Saying this Gives you Cover.
Because you have Violated Everyone Of Them
Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:10pm@Deavon — It seems my response to you yesterday on this thread didn’t post. While your logic is flawed, I want to make sure I have your argument down before I respond:
Are you asserting that the system is paradoxical and unjust because a perfect being cannot have experienced failure, and since the system sets us up for failure, it is therefore unjust for said being to judge us, and this in turn paints the the being who created the system as non-perfect?
I just want to make sure I have this 100% down before I respond.
Cheers!
Report Post »iampraying4u
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:35pmHe is just upset the bible tells him where he is going
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:40pmWow! You actually talked to him and he told you that? Interesting!
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:07pmActually, if I am sent to hell [for the sake of argument that this "hell" is a real place] for not believing the claims of theists [rather choosing to stick with my sincere honesty], . . . then I wouldn’t want to worship any god that would pass that summary judgement upon me regardless of my honest stance, . . . especially when this god would be ignorant of the human condition and how we “fall for temptation”. . . . . [which is just another way of saying "being human"].
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:25pmSo Deavon you descended from apes with no morals. Got it.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:28pmDEAV: Let’s see. You mock religion . So guess you must be one of those “ kind secularists” who aren’t ” intolerant and prejudiced .” Correct ? Guess I just need to reread your comments….must have missed something.
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:39pmHe “devolved” from apes, cofemale. His evolutionary ladder is still in the garage.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 3:02pmYes, that’s right. Instead of addressing what I said, you all feel better about yourselves by attacking. I’m feeling even better about my comment now. And they are true and honest.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:39pmCome on Deavo,
Don’t get your panties in a wad.
If you can’t stand the heat……………
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 4:43pmExcuse me, but you have no idea what my emotional state is, . . . so your “panties in a wad” statement is just another form of personal attack.
Just another post that doesn’t address what I stated above.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 5:00pmUmmmmm, yes, I do.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 5:05pmSo sorry. Didn’t realize you were a god. My bad.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 7:01pm@DEAVONREYE -
I’m happy to address what you “said”. God’s game, God’s rules. It’s really as simply as that.
Anything else is just simple whining, projection and poorly constructed snark. Additionally, are you sharp enough to spot the theological errors you made in your assumption here? Until you are, you are simply too short for this ride.
The question at hand is not really whether you would “want” to worship God or not. The question is God’s existence or non-existence and the potential ramifications of non-worship.
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 7:05pmFor man to look forward, and so strive for divinity rather than look backward and thereby fall into mere animalism is the true evolution of the soul.
Report Post »“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body”.
DeavonReye
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:59am“God’s game, God’s rules. It’s really as simply as that.”
Yes. . . . . and that’s what Job came to understand. Doesn’t make it worth worshipping.
“Anything else is just simple whining, projection and poorly constructed snark. Additionally, are you sharp enough to spot the theological errors you made in your assumption here? Until you are, you are simply too short for this ride.”
I understand that you bought into your church’s doctrines . . hook, line, and sinker, . . . but what you understand as a “theological error” might very well be doctrinal indoctrination. But, . . . care to show me my “theological error”?
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:16pm@Barber:
[Let’s see. You mock religion . So guess you must be one of those “ kind secularists” who aren’t ” intolerant and prejudiced .” Correct ?]
Incorrect. Mocking one’s beliefs is not the same as mocking individuals for an accident of birth (race, ethnicity, gender, and so on).
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:45pm@FRUNOBULAX
So according to you…………if some one is born a certain race………or a certain gender…………. that is an “accident” ?
Bigotry.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 2:15pmHe is upset because his philosophy of atheism has double crossed him and he knows it.
Report Post »Atheists can defend no moral decision beyond that of their own judgment, and they know it.
Study what Dawkins, Myers, ffrf and others are saying and you will soon realize that this radical brand of atheism intends, if possible, to tear the very heart out of this nation. Many of them have already stated that intention. They want nothing short of the abolition of religion.
Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 3:34pm@RightsOfBilly:
[So according to you…………if some one is born a certain race………or a certain gender…………. that is an “accident” ?]
Or if one is born is a certain time or place. No one can choose if they were born male or female: its a single chromosome that makes the difference.
{Bigotry.]
Explain.
Report Post »Frunobulax
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 3:39pmTarm:
[He is upset because his philosophy of atheism has double crossed him and he knows it.]
Atheism is not a philosophy. It is more of a declaration that says “I don’t believe you.”
[Atheists can defend no moral decision beyond that of their own judgment, and they know it.]
Bigotry.
[Study what Dawkins, Myers, ffrf and others are saying and you will soon realize that this radical brand of atheism intends, if possible, to tear the very heart out of this nation. Many of them have already stated that intention. They want nothing short of the abolition of religion.]
Lies, or misinformation.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 8:23pm@DEAVON
First off, let’s not mistake God in the OT as lawgiver and law enforcer with God in the NT after human laws were in place and the covenant of man. This OT God as monster argument continues to be fallacious one.
Secondly, the “not worth worshipping” comment is still simply juvenile rejection of objective authority. You’re still projecting here.
Thirdly, if you think most theists “buy into” their church’s doctrine “hook, line, and sinker”, you’re simply ignorant. Doubts and questions abound. disagreements happen. Calvinists happen. (If you were a Calvinist, that last bit would be funny).
I’m not going to show you your theological error not because I can, but because I’m trying to make a point. What I will do is ask you some questions:
From where does the concept of salvation that you mentioned arise? From where do you derive your interpretation? What study have you done on God’s grace? How does this effect salvation? Is there any particular secondary reading you were doing on the topic?
The point is that thinking you can correct mathematical equations without actually knowing what they are is a bit of a fool’s errand.
Cheers!
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:26amBad, . . . I will restate my point. Just because something has authoritative power . . . doesn’t MAKE it a moral system. I have no problem with rejecting and fighting against an immoral authoritative power. Ultimate power does not equate to ultimate good. I would rather die free than live under dictatorial rule, kissing the ring of a totalitarian regime.
When I said “hook, line, and sinker”, I’m talking about people who are deep within their religious affiliation/denomination and defend it piously. MOST of them are as they are because they choose to believe the words of the pulpit as “absolute truth”. Few investigate further. The “believe by faith” world view which has been the catalyst for much of the world’s violence [particularly Islam].
Your questions: “From where does the concept of salvation that you mentioned arise? From where do you derive your interpretation? What study have you done on God’s grace? How does this effect salvation? Is there any particular secondary reading you were doing on the topic?”
My understanding of biblical salvation came from my ~30 some years in the church. Interdenominational first, mostly A/G later. I fully believed the concepts and embraced them ~20 years [little kids don't understand such things when very young, just mimic].
Logic, however, shows that the entire system is flawed. If it were all as the bible states [of which I no longer believe], it is an unjust setup from the beginning.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:09pmHi Deavon,
You’re still not understanding the core of the moral argument — see my latest post to you above.
Your “religion causes much of the world’s war and violence” comment is one of those warmed over atheist talking points that simply isn’t true. While radical Islam is certainly violent, it is the exception, not the rule:
According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, only 7% of the wars from 8000 BC to 2000 AD were religious in nature. According to FBI statistics, only a handful of the 16,000 or so murders a year in the United States are racial or religiously motivated, and if we look at the most dangerous U.S. cities by county, less religious liberal counties are more violent than more religious conservative counties.
But I digress…
Your church argument still doesn’t explain to me what specific sources your concept of salvation came from. Was it solely from the minister? Was it from you Sunday School teacher? Was it direct from the written sources? Biblical Scholars? How did you critically apply what you learned? I can sit in a hospital for 20 years, but that doesn’t make me a Doctor. My previous comment about mathematical equations still applies.
Finally, please illustrate how the “entire system” is logically flawed. I can make a perfectly logical argument for the existence of God, the truth of Christianity, and the source of moral truths based in God. Unjust based on what? Stop conflating justice with fairness. These are two distinct things.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:52pmAll of the above [on my understanding]. Look at the A/G doctrinal statements. I was well versed in the topic.
Why am I no longer [and for the sake of argument, the bible is true and god exists]. For brevity sake, . . . it is an unjust system because the very “judge” is incapable of knowing the system it set into motion. In effect, it created a sort of “paradox” for itself. Making a system that fails, and becoming angry when it does “because it must reside with perfection” [even though I can point out where the biblical god isn't "perfect", but for another day]. So, this “perfect, sinless judge” can ONLY be ignorant of what it means to be human. What it is LIKE to fall to temptation. The very NATURE of “falling to a temptation” require a mindset that would have fallen to it anyway, and can’t fall unless it FIRST desires the temptation in the mind. To this god, a thought crime is just as damning as the actual action. If this god is “perfect”, it cannot know this mechanism, and therefore cannot be a judge unto it because it is incapable of TRULY knowing it.
It isn’t the same as “an earthly judge who has never murdered, but can rule against a murderer”. It goes beyond that. . . because the earthly judge understands failure.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 4:31pmJust an FYI, I won’t be able to reply much this weekend. Lots of stuff going on. But I will get back here when I can.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 1:09amBad Ashe,
I want to give you props for dissecting and exposing many false claims used by a few of the more rigid atheists that post here.
Report Post »Watching the skeptics get lathered into a frenzy, hardly knowing which way to turn when they are confronted with the truth in such a bold manner is entertaining to say the least.
Keep up the good work, Sir.
DeavonReye
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 9:07amTarm, . . .that “lathered frenzy” is called LOGIC. If you care to refute my post above, go ahead. But no one has mastered me on here. The truth remains what it is. Without a frame of reference, this “perfect god” cannot judge. It can only damn outside of the ability to know why we do what we do, . . . and therefore is UNJUST. You can’t say “it knows, because it is god”, because that is an impossibility. Without WANTING to know what it is like, thus “committing it in your mind”, you cannot understand it.
*disclaimer* – On my posts, what may look like “frenzy” is just normal, calm talk. I only do full caps on words that I want to stand out. It should never be considered as “I’m angry”.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:36pmHi Deavon,
Before I address this logic you’re using…let me make sure I have this argument correct.
You are asserting that the system is unfair because it sets up those working within it for failure and they are then judged by a “perfect” being who has never experienced failure, which therefore makes both the system and the “perfect” being imperfect?
Does that accurately sum it up? I just want to make sure before we continue.
Cheers!
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:03pm@Tarm778
Atheists (or strong agnostics) who take time out of their day to express their rampant incredulity about religion to others make a lot of poorly constructed arguments…while some of their arguments are simply outright lies.
Calling them out on such things isn’t to change their mind (it’s amazing how quickly most of them devolve into illogical ranting or engage in the “Atheist dance”, which we’ve already seen hints of) but to allow anyone reading along to observe the exchange, that way if the reader runs into such argument in the future, they might have a better perspective on the topic.
Cheers!
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 6:55pmDeavon,
What funny is you actually believe no one has “matched” you. I didn’t know we were keeping score. Just because you have the last word, doesn’t mean that word is ever right.
Report Post »But as C. S. Lewis so very rightly pointed out, “To argue with God is to argue with the very power that makes it possible to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.”
Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 9:34pm@Tarm
Part of the problem is that Deavon seems unwilling or incapable to see the failures in his/her own arguments. I’m waiting for his/her response to both my subjective morality scenario and clarification on the claims of a paradoxical system.
The former will likely be addressed with avoidance or an attempt to reframe the scenario, while the latter (if I’m understanding it correctly) is already displaying particularly poor logic and philosophy…but I’m curious to see where he/she goes with both of these threads. Since we’ve come this far, I’m willing to hang around and see how this shakes out.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 4:38pm@Deavon (1)
You declared victory and ran away just when things were getting interesting. In case you decide to pop back in and read this…here is a response for you to chew on:
A couple of posts ago when I asked you about your education regarding Christian theology and philosophy, it was for a specific purpose. Your objections are philosophical in nature, yet you clearly lack the knowledge in Christian philosophy to understand that there are answers to these objections. Sadly, your familiarity with the Assemblies of God doctrines does not make the grade for deep Christian philosophy.
To call back to my previous analogy, this is akin to criticizing complex calculus when you only know basic mathematics. My advice is to begin reading and researching Christian philosophy, and you will find that many of your questions have been answered and objections defeated.
That being said, there are few problems with your claims of logical incoherence and paradox when it comes to both God’s attributes and of the system God has put in place:
The first thing that you need to understand is the actual conception of perfect being theology, which you clearly do not. When God is described as “perfect”, he is being described as the greatest conceivable being. Do you see the distinction here?
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 4:39pm@Deavon (2)
Keep in mind that this does not imply that there are no great-making properties or that the concept of the greatest conceivable being is subjective…our uncertainties regarding the properties of God does nothing to negate our definition of God as the “greatest conceivable being”.
As for the system in place being unfair (you utilize the term unjust, but what you really are arguing for is fairness), I assume you are talking about the Christian framework. To build upon the point made in my first paragraph, you clearly have never heard of the philosophical concept of molinism, or middle knowledge.
This addresses the majority of your concerns regarding the supposedly unjust nature of the system. Via middle knowledge God would not condemn someone for what they might have done but did not do, he would not condemn infants who were never baptized or came to Christ, he would never condemn someone who was never given the opportunity to come to Christ, but would judge them based on general revelation. God simply judges people on what they actively do, which may not be an fair system (no free will system will be entirely fair), but certainly a just one.
As for your claims of incongruence regarding God as judge in an unfair system, my first rebuttal identifies the proper meaning of “perfect being”, and the second identifies God as just. There is no inherent incongruity regarding this being judging within the system as understood. This is not paradoxical.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 4:47pmDeavon (3) -
In conclusion, my suggestion is that you read up on middle knowledge, particularly in how it applies to revelation and salvation, and also start digging into Christian philosophy. At best it will address many of these questions and objections you have (who knows?), and at the very least it will make you better prepared to debate.
Cheers.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 4:51pmDeavon (1.2)
Paragraph went missing:
Your objection confuses this with the properties you believe the greatest conceivable being must possess. This is left open to a lot of unclear answers. Is it greater to exist at all times or to be timeless? Or to your point, is it greater to have knowledge and infinite understanding of failure, or to have failed?
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:55amFirst of all, . . .let me clear up a misunderstanding. I did not “post a final post and walk away declaring myself the victor”. I do not know how you both came to that conclusion.
I understand that you have a great knowledge of your religion. More than me, I could admit to [because I don't know all there is to know about the topic].
But why would I reject Molinism? Because this “greatest being” is yet another example of man projecting what it believes onto a “god being”. In that case, . . . “of course god would know everything, even counterfactuals”. This makes their god invincible against any attack and pushes the argument to others to answer. And with the double talk of “freedom of choice”, because this god set it up that way, once again, this god is proven even greater. It is the “I chose to be saved because god made me to ‘freely choose’ it.” In that case, you must conclude that people, such as myself, could only be the way we are because this god WANTED us to be non-believers and placed us on a path to where THIS was the only choice. . . . . when, if this god cared about those people, he would have stacked the deck for them to believe. The question is, . . . why? The question seems to conclude that this god chooses and rejects . . . and there is nothing we can do about it.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:04amIt is a well crafted ideology. Seems to be an ideology pushed by William Lane Craig, . . . who promotes his own biased assumptions about reality. But what was the purpose of the crucifixion? It was “the final payment for the sins of people”. Regardless of any “middle thought”, unless this god wishes to place himself outside of the rules he demands of us, then he may know about a topic . . . .but still not KNOW about it. It may be a poor example, but off the top of my head, it would be like a man knowing about pregnancy, . . . but never being able to KNOW . . . pregnancy like a woman.
I will say it again. This being cannot be tempted like we are. If it can be. . . and HAS been, . . . then it must attone for its OWN sins [thought crime, . . . . "if you look upon a woman with lust, you have committed adultry with her in your heart".]
So, think of the most awful, carnal, hideously grotesque action [ie. having a full night of same sex hedonism. . . . . taking a baby and systematically pulling it's eyeballs out] . . . . [and I'm sorry for the ghastly imagery, but there's a point] . . . would you be tempted to do these things? I would hope that you wouldn’t! The only TRUE temptation is one that you WOULD do, and would conceive of it in your mind before acting on it [that "thought crime"]. If Jesus/god did the latter, he would have to pay for his own sins first. If he didn’t do the latter, he is unqualified to judge.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:35amOh, . . . forgot to say this. I consider myself agnostic, . . . but DO lean more towards atheism. But that is just my sincere and HONEST appraisal of the information at hand. Christianity, for me, is just a world view that “someone else wants/expects for me to believe”. Nothing outside other humans to corroberate it. In my 20+ years of WANTING to reach god [when I was a christian], never experiencing anything, and in fact, coming away empty, . . . “just believing” would pretty much be inadequate and even hypocritical of me.
Apparently, from what I understand, I may have been placed on a path of non-belief for a distinct purpose. Or, none of it is at all true and there isn’t any god being directing anything, . . . which is what I suspect. But hey, . . . I’m all for this god, itself, coming to prove me wrong. I would be far more convinced by that then just another person [even though well meaning, such as you seem to be] telling me I should embrace it. As I said, . . . there is nothing [nor has been anything] that would keep me from feeling hypocritical by “just believing it”.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:34pmSays the man that helped the Nazi find Jews and sieze their property……..sectularism more like suckularism
Report Post »Abraham Young
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:32pmHe seems more like a communist propagandist than a free thinker. No thank you.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:29pmOnce primitive tribal religions like Islam and Christianity are gone, the world will be a better place. The less ignorance and prejudice being spread around by organized religion, the better!
Report Post »Gita
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:36pmIf you are right no harm for us believers but if we believers are right you are in an eternity of trouble! Good luck!
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:38pm@Joe: While I agree in theory, I also have come to the realization that for many people, morality must come from their belief in a higher power. Religious traditions do have a role in society and are an important element to our culture. I do wish that is was moderated with reason more often…
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:40pmAnd you know this HOW?
Report Post ».Or
.Is it a Belief?
jesusletsmespeed
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 12:48pmLoads of tolerance in this observation with Reason and Facts to back it up. How could anyone not be pried from a life-long relationship with the living God? Thanks for your incisive critique and defense of your righteous cause, Bonham, but I’ll have to pass.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:18pm@ Calm Voice
True, and that may have worked in a small, homogeneous agricultural society. But today? The key for any society to work now is co-existence. A house divided upon itself cannot stand. Right now the strongest religion in America is one that believes their narrow and backwards belief system must be codified as the law of the land.
No thanks.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 1:22pmAnd all of this “ ignorance and prejudice ” will be automatically replaced with “ secular ” love ? From the nasty, prejudiced comments made by atheists on the Blaze alone, I seriously doubt that ! Hate and intolerance know no bounds . They are practiced just as well by atheistic governments like Stalin‘s and Mao’s Communist governments and Hitler’s National Socialist ( Nazis ) governments as well as fundamentalist Muslims . Oh, those two non-religious governments were just monuments to secular tolerance and love !!??
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 7:16pm@JOE
Do you really want to compare modern religious societies (or societies with religious tradition) to attempts at 20 century secular societies. Do you really want to compare the body count for Christianity as opposed to organized atheism? Do you really want to compare religious wars vs. wars fought for secular reasons? These are all losing battles for you, but I’m happy to do so if you wish to continue perpetuating demonstrable falsehoods.
Cheers!
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 9:57pmJoe – You mean like how wonderful the former Soviet Union was? They tried to eradicate religion just like you wanted and look what happened.
Report Post »AntoninusPius
Posted on April 18, 2012 at 11:46pmGermany and Russia were and are Christian nations. That didn’t prevent the atrocities.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 2:06pmPraise Be To CHANCE! All Hail the blessings of Meaninglessness! Sound forth the trumpets to praise the great humanitarian works of Atheists around the world! Note the countless Atheist Orphanages dotting the globe and bringing hope and smiles to children everywhere! And the multitudes of Atheist hospitals such as the Who Needs Mercy? And the Atheist Charity organizations like the Red Plus Symbol and the No Need For Salvation Army. Yes, these selfless shining examples of godlessness only prove how dastardly and poisonous those few isolated bands of “believers” really are. Those pitiable life forms that plague our society must be shown all the great and helpful things that ATHEISM has done for humanity through the ages of history. Why, all our early ancestors were ALL atheists. They even had that much figured out at the beginning of our species. Praise CHANCE. All Hail Meaninglessness! hahahaha
Sarcasm off
Report Post »