August 6, 2009
The Faith of the Atheist
Click on the video "The Faith of the Atheist" to hear some familiar arguments that I have made in the past. Mitchell sure can say it better, in an entertaining way, though. Stick around afterward and click on the other videos because they may help you understand a different perspective of current situations. I do like this guy, if you haven't guessed.
p.s. I am tearing my computer down for a period of time, I will return after I reassemble it. Patience is a virtue. For the Atheists, a virtue is defined as the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. No? We follow a standard that is not a completely arbitrary moral system. No? "Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong." Understand? No?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
[N]either a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
ReplyDeleteHmmm.
Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical "establishment" of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers.
(Someone is glaring at Dan right now)
[W]e have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.
Oh, dear.
It seems that the Supreme Court doesn't say what this guy suggests, but something far closer to what your opposition has been steadfastly telling you from the get-go: Atheism is a religion only in the sense that it is protected under the First Amendment, but it is not a religion in any other sense -- especially since, unlike bona fide religions, it has neither hierarchy nor tenets.
Read the Supreme Court decisions yourself, if you don't believe me. It's fun and informative reading, and it may give you a glimpse into the minds of rational thinkers far beyond your feeble quartet of neurons.
--
Stan
Why no, I don't understand. Because I've never heard English before. Because I've been living in a box. On Mars.
ReplyDeleteFor the record...
ReplyDeleteThe First Ammendment does guarantee freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion.
It guarantees you are able to believe or not believe whatever religion you wish.
The State just needs to stay out of it altogether.
How the hell do you people call yourselves "conservatives?"
This video is an example of what I call the "nonsense barrage" propaganda technique.
ReplyDeleteOh and when did secular humanism mean atheism? And what does atheism have to do with global warming? etc...
Yeah, I agree/disagree with the video. Yep, I am going to be a giant fence-sitter today.
ReplyDeleteHere is a thought:
That you can't keep religion out of politics.
I make my political decisions based on what the God of the Bible has taught me. I am going to make every decision from what I center my life around. (Prolife, smaller gov., right to bear arms, prayer rights in schools, protecting marrriage rights, etc. Even life stuff- way I handle my finances, how I raise my future kids, etc again.) I center my life around God, so everything is going to stem from him.
An athiest, who dosen't believe in God (totally generalizing) might center thier life on, don't know what they center thier life on exactly actually. However, without asking God about decisions their opinions will stem out differently (more liberal political views). (Oh and I am not saying an athiest can't have conservative views, just going with majority in society)
I am not sure we can keep religion out of politics at all. No matter what, it will always come back to God.
God is where we start and God is where we will end. I pray we all find Him in the middle too.
God Bless :)
J. J. Day, I don't disagree with any of what you say. Your worldview informs your political decisions, and if you believe an atheist would not make good decisions, then vote him out of office.
ReplyDeleteHere's the point of contention: the government ITSELF should not be making explicit theological statements.
Senator uses God and the Bible to inform his voting? Fine.
Official government money says "In God We Trust?" Bad.
President prays before making decisions? Fine.
President signs into law a National Day of Prayer? Bad.
Child prays before a major test? Fine.
Public-supported school leads official prayer over loud speaker? Bad.
Got it now?
Hi J.J. Day,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering on what your "smaller gov., right to bear arms" part of your beliefs is based.
Wow, I couldn't have phrased that question any worse.
ReplyDeleteI'll try again.
I've often heard Christians from the U.S.A. include "the right to bear arms" as a "God-based belief". On what do you or they base this?
I couldn't have phrased that question any worse.
ReplyDeleteI was about to object, but then I realized that this was a personal statement -- you couldn't have phrased that question any more poorly, but Dan probably could have...
Just sayin'.
--
Stan
Martin, right yes, so we are talking about the whole thing where our founding fathers were not Christians, etc.
ReplyDeleteI see, I think it has a lot to do with not revising history (ever heard that lying is revising history?) That when we erase those things, we erase history.
I just have to admit, that as a Christian, I love seeing Christianity's influence on dollar bills and monuments. Is it because I want Christianity to take over the world with some tyrant pastor-guy? Nope, because I hope for people to come and know the Lord.
I mean, we are letting 'free thinkers' roam free and everyone has got his rights (and what not), but I really don't want to see Christianity smothered and have it's rights taken away in the process. It's something to watch for...
Right to Bear arms:
Luke 22:36-38
36 “But now,” he [Jesus] said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! 37 For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’[d] Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.”
38 “Look, Lord,” they replied, “we have two swords among us.”
“That’s enough,” he said.
Oh and can't forget-
ReplyDeleteGod Bless :)
That movie was ridiculous and full of logical fallacies.
ReplyDeleteBut, the editing was great, so it works out to a not-complete-waste-of-time.
Right to Bear arms:
ReplyDeleteLuke 22:36-38
36 “But now,” he [Jesus] said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! 37 For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’[d] Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.”
38 “Look, Lord,” they replied, “we have two swords among us.”
“That’s enough,” he said.
Woah, that's pretty flimsy. I believe that you believe in the "right to bear arms" and then try and justify that belief afterward.
Here we have Jesus trying to make a prophecy come true. How can you turn these two verses into a blanket statement about the right to bear arms?
And from a man who said "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek"?
And where did you get the "small government" thing?
J J Day:
ReplyDeleteNo one here has said the founders of the country were not (mostly) christians -- although I understand Jefferson was a deist. They said that the government was not christian. We do not live in a theocracy.
Now, there is an interesting thing about putting "in god we trust" on the money and "one nation under god" in the pledge. It is like the way China calls itself "the people's republic of China." If it were, in any sense, true, the action would not have been taken. It is strictly for show and to present a false image.
Dan's fixing his computer? Whee, the Christian is away, the atheists can play! Time for random acts of senseless kindness!
ReplyDeleteJ.J. Day, you said, "Is it because I want Christianity to take over the world with some tyrant pastor-guy? Nope, because I hope for people to come and know the Lord."
ReplyDeleteTyranny will never think of itself as tyranny.
If you want people to know the Lord, then witness to them, but do not use the State to do your job for you.
"I really don't want to see Christianity smothered and have it's rights taken away in the process."
No one wants to take the rights of Christians away from them. We want to keep the State ITSELF practicing a religion, but not it's member individually.
MY tax dollars should not be paying for explicit religious opinions, such as how many gods there are or are not.
And you would feel the same if the case involved Allah.
Does anyone else find it humorous that a guy who criticizes non-Christians names his production company after a group that despised Christianity?
ReplyDeleteDan, you need to clarify; unless your God tells you to torture, rape, and kill. Then it's okay. You always forget that.
ReplyDeleteYeah, yeah, I knew I'd get flack for the right to bear arms thing.
ReplyDeleteHere we go:
John 18:10
Then Simon Peter drew a sword and slashed off the right ear of Malchus, the high priest’s slave.
(Okay, so Simon Peter has been walking around with Jesus (whom is the king/president guy to Peter, what Jesus says, goes to Peter) It's not like Peter could have kept this sword hidden and if you know anything about Jesus He would have let Peter know it wasn't okay to carry a sword around)
In the Old Testment alone, according to Bibletgateway.com there are 231 times we see the word sword. God totally approved of men carrying their weapons around. There were many battles over and over again and a sword was useful in those days and those times. (Yeah, I know, it isn't useful today. What if tomorrow we had a big suprise war? Wouldn't it be nice if America was armed and ready?)
Matthew 26:52
“Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword."
So, we got our classic arguement verse here. The thing is, is that Jesus told him to put it away. Jesus was making a point, 'you go around and be all violet with your gun, you are going to die by that violence' Why didn't Jesus tell him to leave the sword at home? It was a self-control statement. Use gun safety, use it for hunting, to defend yourself, etc...
King Jesus gave them the 'right' to carry it around. He didn't give them the 'right' to kill people randomly or use thier weapons irrationally.
Is that a bit better?
Go on now, ripped it all up if you want too.
God Bless :)
P.S., I don't own a gun.
ReplyDeleteOr really much care about guns.
God Bless :)
Smaller Goverment:
ReplyDeleteSamuel was basically a judge when he led the Isrealites. He was a high judge while God appointed several judges below him. This goverment was a 'people's goverment'. The people ran the show. (hmm, like today, like our goverment)
The thing is in in 1 Sam 8:19-20 they pushed Samuel for a king. They wanted to look like all the other cool kingdoms aruond them. So, by God's direction, Samuel went and found Saul. (Anyone else notice how much our presidency's power has grown in the last hundered years?)
Guesss what? When the king came there were high taxes, people taken into slavery, and tons of thier rights were taken away.
Tons and tons of power given to one guy is a scary thing.
Smaller goverment, is a good thing :)
(Fun Fact: Did you know that most of the welfare stuff was not taken care of the goverment before this last hundered years? It was all the church. They took care of the widows, orphans, sick, homeless..etc. Now people look to the goverment :(. Sad days.
Fun Verse: Isiah 33:22, For the Lord is our judge, our lawgiver, and our king. He will care for us and save us. Sounds like...the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the presidential branch. Hmmmm.)
Looking through the Bible for this stuff is a blast, I am having fun.
God Bless :)
This goverment [sic] [under Samuel and the tradition of judges] was a 'people's goverment' [sic]. The people ran the show.
ReplyDeleteUgh. You're 19. I have to remember that. I'll try to be nice.
The government of the time was a Theocracy. The people did not run the show, but the priest caste and the judges did. Some aspects, however, were rather like Socialism, as with the fact that Jews cared for other Jews, no interest was collected regarding debts, etc. There were differences, sure, but it was a far cry from a Democracy, and in spite of the socialist aspects that did exist, it wasn't like the people had any actual say over matters.
It was a "people's goverment" as much as China is a People's Republic, or North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic.
When the king came there were high taxes, people taken into slavery, and tons of thier rights were taken away.
Oh, hogwash. While taxes may have increased, slavery was well-established in the Torah, and since it didn't change, neither were their rights especially restricted as a result of the switch to a Monarchy.
Tons and tons of power given to one guy is a scary thing.
Smaller goverment [sic], is a good thing :)
These two statements, which appear exactly as shown, are incompatible. One person with control -- a Monarchy -- is a small government. The only form of government smaller than a Totalitarianism (including a Monarchy) is Anarchy. I'd guess that's not what you advocate, either.
Did you know that most of the welfare stuff was not taken care of [by] the goverment [sic -- seriously; ther's an "n" in government] before this last hundered [sic] years? It was all the church.
This is a red herring. Even so, it is not in dispute that Christianity has done good things and it has done atrocious things. This says nothing to its veracity.
For the Lord is our judge, our lawgiver, and our king. He will care for us and save us. Sounds like...the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the presidential branch. Hmmmm.
No, it sounds like Stalin. It's one guy, and I don't get to vote. You were saying?
--
Stan
Stan, buddy, friend,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I am just 19 (tomorrow, actually), so I am learning as I go, but it's fun to learn, yes?
Okay, so when the people were all like, "We want a king, give us one, that's our 'vote'." Why did God give it to them? If God knew what was best and what would happen AND Samuel told them what would happen, God still gave into their 'vote'.
When Moses ruled it said over and over again that the people 'complained' (or voted?) and Moses would make judgements based on what was fair. There were so many complaints that Moses had to appoint more judges.
So, it was a Theocracy, alright, yeah, yeah. When you're a Christian like me you believe in a totally just and fair God. You trust God with all your heart. So, quite frankly, a Christian Theocracy dosen't scare me. (Bad men scare me actually), (Not that I want a Theocracy either, I rather like our democracy and hope to keep it that way.)
Oh, my fun verse!
Like I said, as a Christian I believe that God is totally good. I would understand why you compared Stalin to God, you're view on God is totally different than mine.
That is what checks and balances are for, God could handle being the judge/law/king, but we can't, we are naturally sinful, so we got keep accountability. (You knew that, yes, I know) God's ways are a great framework though. :)
(Wow, I kind of rambled on this one. Oh and God help me, I wish there was spell check on this comment box, but just bear with my bad grammer/spelling. Your patience is invaluable to me)
God Bless :)
Okay, so when the people were all like, "We want a king, give us one, that's our 'vote'."
ReplyDeleteSo the people got one vote, if they were privileged enough to be alive on "election day"? What of term limits, or of subsequent votes and/or election days, or of persons who were born into the monarchy?
I suppose there was a one-vote maximum per person, depending on one's fated birthdate, yes? How democratic.
If God knew what was best and what would happen AND Samuel told them what would happen, God still gave into their 'vote'.
I'm actually addressing a similar argument to this on a different blog. In that fellow's argument, he recognized that the biblical god suspends "free will" on occasion, but justifies this by saying god 'gives us what we want.'
This is similar to your statement here, in that you note that god recognizes a poor choice, but allows it anyway. Unfortunately, even if some of the Israelites were informed with regard to the likely perils which would result from a government change, surely you don't contend that the entire populace was polled, nor every vote counted even if it were, do you? Surely, too, you recognize that those as-yet unborn Israelites who were never provided the opportunity to 'vote' were effectively forced to endure a poor system -- as a direct result of god's relenting.
The ability to vote is fleeting and illusory, in the OT system, and with regard to your god in general. You say this is a good thing, but that's probably only because you weren't born an Amalekite, or a Canaanite woman, or in any variety of modern oppressive scenarios.
--
Stan
"So, quite frankly, a Christian Theocracy dosen't scare me."
ReplyDeleteGreat. Fine. But you can't do it here because you have to live with other people. Some/many of these are not Christians and do not want to live under a Christian Theocracy.
America, remember?
If you want a Christian Iran, fine, but buy an island or something.
Glen20,
ReplyDeleteFirst I just put my computer back together and have about 10 minutes to answer some questions. Now I find 40 email! So bear with me and I should get some answered later.
I've often heard Christians from the U.S.A. include "the right to bear arms" as a "God-based belief". On what do you or they base this?
Well I remember in Luke that Jesus said to sell garments to buy swords and something about defending others in the OT.
I just looked up the Jesus quote, its Luke 22:36
Not to mention that all laws of nature, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger.
It is a post worthy subject. Thanks for that.
J.J. Day,
ReplyDeleteI center my life around God, so everything is going to stem from him.
Amen sister.
It took me a while, until after having kids, to figure out to strictly follow God. You know things like how to parent my kids, so you are well ahead of most. You will never, ever, go wrong if you faithfully follow God and His Word and Plan for us. Blessings to you and your family.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteThey said that the government was not christian. We do not live in a theocracy.
Let's get things clear.
Christian Government? Nope
Christian Nation? Yes.
Christian principled nation? Yes
Missed you WEM!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments about weapons and John 18:10, JJ Day. You are spot on.
ReplyDeleteAbout small governments: Again, well said JJ Day!
ReplyDeleteI might add the tower of Babel in that by changing one language into many, He separated nations more effectively the any Wall of China.
God stepped in to prevent the human race from falling under the sway of single, absolute tyrant over all the earth. Only in His time would Christ gather together God's family from every nation and Tongue. (Revelation 7:9)
One correction JJ.
(Not that I want a Theocracy either, I rather like our democracy and hope to keep it that way.)
We do not have a democracy. What we have is a republic.
A democracy is a government of the masses. In a republic the authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Even though it is completely chaos at this moment, our Founding Fathers were very smart to do that for many reasons. (The first video of this post explains it better then I can)
Martin,
ReplyDeleteMY tax dollars should not be paying for explicit religious opinions, such as how many gods there are or are not.
Do you think my tax dollars should pay for abortions, that I am absolutely against, that this administration pushes for? It is after all freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. Murder is against every part of my religion.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Let's get things clear."
I agree. Clarity is important. So let's clarify. "Christian nation" is just another way of saying that the government is christian. The actions, ideals, policies, traits, etc. of a nation are the ones endorsed and/or enforced by its government. Iran is an islamic nation, not because most of its citizens are islamic, but because its government promotes islam.
"Do you think my tax dollars should pay for abortions, that I am absolutely against, that this administration pushes for?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think the government should force you to pay taxes for that.
However, this is whataboutery. You did not address my original argument.
Do you think my tax dollars should pay for abortions, that I am absolutely against, that this administration pushes for? It is after all freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
ReplyDeleteWhat if your religion were Notaxianity? What if it was against your religion to pay any taxes whatsoever?
For better or for worse, if taxation is implemented, somebody will object to how and why tax revenue is spent. There is no escaping this simple fact. If it's such a big deal, get off the grid completely and self-sustain, or if that's too much to ask, refuse to pay any tax you feel is against your religious sensibilities. You've bragged before about how you'd love to be imprisoned for Jesus, well, here's your chance.
Really, Dan, a little research into your rights with respect to taxes might do you some good. You may find that you can avoid conflicts of interest such as you describe. If not, you'll at least be informed, rather than reactionary.
--
Stan
It is after all freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
ReplyDeleteSame thing. Why? If one is a member of one religion, that means that they're free to not be coerced into following the tenets of a different religion. By it's very definition, "freedom of religion" also includes "freedom from religion".
Murder is against every part of my religion.
Unless your god sanctions it, like in the OT.
For the hell of it, anyone here heard of PZ Myer's trip to, and subsequent expulsion from the Creation "Museum"?
Well, he didn't get expelled, some kid did. For wearing a tshirt that they didn't like. No profanity, no pictures on it either.
Dan Said, "Christian principled nation? Yes"
ReplyDeleteAs I've already pointed, you have not been clear about what you claim are the 'Christian Principles' you are speaking of, and I have shown you that what I think you might be referring to were principles that were around before or were not born from Christianity.
In order for you to claim they are Christian, you need to show me that they were originated by Christianity, otherwise they were just particular principles already promoted by individuals, tribes, nation or groups, that Christians borrowed.
Also, let us not forget all the other things from the bible you seem to ignore, that could be equally defined as Christian Principles by your standards, that our Nation does no support.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
I couldn't watch the video for some reason. Oh well, no big loss for me.
ReplyDeleteHope your computer comes back in one piece.
Best of luck to you,
- Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn: I'll summarize the clip for you. This guy just says that atheism is a religion (like not collecting stamps is a hobby, I guess), implies that global warming is not manmade, shows Dawkins saying about Einstein "what an idiot", and concludes that separation of church and state is a crock because atheism is a church too. So, yes, it's no big loss if you can't see it.
ReplyDeleteVideo, video, video. Text is easily linkable, easily quotable, and the most universally accessible format. It's also much faster to absorb, for those of use who are even moderately literate.
ReplyDeleteThe web works best as a text-based medium, and I am so f---ing sick of people trying to turn it into television. There aren't even easy links to the transcripts.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:03 PM on August 10 [64 favorites]
Here's a comment from another website (Metafilter) about another video, that sums up my thoughts on linking to videos.