Posted on 03/04/2007 11:29:42 AM PST by wagglebee
“In America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom” Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America
In response to the recent assault by “tolerant” atheists, I am going to explain why it is necessary to maintain our Christian heritage in order to sustain our democracy. This is for the benefit of the “scientists” who presume themselves the authorities on everything and who have penned tomes with such ostentatious titles as The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, God: The Failed Hypothesis, and other works that rehash the arguments from ages past. They all have committed the common error of mistaking the empirical method for the whole of knowledge. It wouldn’t be too bad if they all just went off by themselves into their own little self-created hells where they snarl and snipe (called “free-thinkers meetings”) because a Christian might say “God bless you” or wear a tiny crucifix around her neck. Judging by the comments in reply to my column “Letter to a Stupid Atheist,” I have to conclude that this is one of the most miserable groups of people on earth. And as my adjective for them implies, they are not very smart, for there is no analogy between a female dog and a columnist, a claim they make through the name they call me in their blogs and letters.
But more importantly, whenever they assault Christianity, we need to remind them of the foundations of their freedoms.
First, the fact that they live in a country founded upon a belief in “inalienable rights” imparted by their Creator should give them a hint. The very notion of democracy is based on Christian principles—a historical fact, though one not really emphasized in our public school system. But I noticed as I was reading an article in 1999 in The Atlantic Monthly by Francis Fukuyama: “In the West, Christianity first established the universality of human dignity. . .” Yes, the Greeks had a democracy, but it was not a democracy for women and slaves. It was the radical Christian notion of equality--that there was neither “Jew nor Gentile,” and that even prostitutes could repent--that forms the basis of our democratic values.
This of course presupposes the notion of sin, or if you don’t like that old-fashioned word, imperfection. Christianity acknowledges the universality of human sin in addition to the universality of dignity. Therefore the Christian recognizes the limits of government because of the limitations of the (fallen) people who make up the government. The ultimate arbiter is God, not man the Scientist. Who is the ultimate arbiter for the atheist? Sam Harris? Richard Dawkins? Adolf Hitler? To whom will they appeal when they cannot decide their infernal debates?
The atheist, nonetheless, against all evidence, believes in the “progress” of science. He believes it can replace religion. And he believes that we are marching towards perfection. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that. But what do we do before we reach perfection? Which scientist do we turn to to save us? How do we make decisions now? Or if we mistakenly believe we have arrived at The Answer Through Science do we form our culture to that formula? But how do we know it’s perfect? Doesn’t each generation believe itself the most advanced? Didn’t the flappers? Didn’t the hippies? What do we do about the past generations that made mistakes?
This is where the idea of forgiveness comes in. The atheistic world view, since it does not allow for sin, does not allow for forgiveness. Instead, each successive generation smugly thinks of itself as more “advanced” than their predecessors. Grievances build up and with them a desire for retribution. Think about the demand for reparations, the young flocking to the despot Louis Farrakhan, the incessant “reminders” of “injustice” through music, art, and literature. The ruse has to be kept up. Revenge is called for, revenge even for the great-great granddaughters and sons. And thus we have groups who claim superiority—the opposite of the idea of equality. The aggrieved form the privileged, and superior, group, and thus we have the ridiculous notion that a black person or a Native American “cannot be a racist.” (I quote a former English professor as he was explaining the near-death beating of a white truck driver just for driving his truck while the Rodney King riot was going on.) Under the atheistic, secular view, only certain groups can be guilty of sin, and only certain groups deserve dignity. Such race-based favoritism is opposed to the Christian notion of fairness. But atheists believe in the Power of Their Own Minds and reforming society to bring about a utopia. Their Own Minds have come up with affirmative action, as well as forced euthanasia to “alleviate suffering,” concentration camps, and communism.
Thus the state replaces God and those with the physical or economic power dominate. They all presume that this is the “general will.”
Nonetheless, even as the systems presumably march on toward perfection, anarchists, who believe that they have the answer stir and fume. So in spite of the fact that virtually all conservative faculty members and texts have been eliminated in English departments, “resist and refuse” posters grace the doors of securely entrenched tenured radical English professors who make up hiring and curriculum committees. Somehow injustices still remain! And these radicals call for even more drastic changes, and finally anarchy. The fact that English professors cannot just stick to their jobs of teaching about the great literary traditions is evidence of the overweening hubris of the atheistic mind.
As the youth, taught by these radical atheists, search and search and look into the void, they find that they—in spite of the arguments of the atheists—have a spiritual need. Schooled in relativism and multiculturalism, they turn wildly to such things as paganism or radical Islam to fill a vacuum. I’ve had a student tell me about pagan rituals involving the drinking of human blood. Indeed, stupid atheists are responsible for taking away the spiritual bulwarks against internal jihad in our schools.
The atheist prides himself on his feelings of fairness and empathy but refuses to acknowledge the culture from which he has inherited these attributes. Such notions are as prevalent as the air we breath (thanks to Christians), but at one time in history they were not. At one time, women could be stoned to death and babies and the elderly left exposed to die. To what will the atheist appeal when we dispense with such notions?
But as I stated in my previous column, atheists are stupid. As George Santayana said, “Wisdom is the first philosophy, both in time and in authority, and to collect facts or to chop logic would be idle and would add no dignity to the mind, unless that mind possessed a clear humanity and could discern what facts and logic are good for and what not.” Well, the atheists are smart in a limited way. They can function at their technical jobs. But they cannot see or think outside of that box. They cannot do philosophy. They are incapable of seeing that their empirical method is really just a limited function, for limited tasks. And that its limitation comes ironically (for them) from the notion that man’s knowledge is limited. Philosophy is the larger investigation.
But because of his limited vision the atheist is incapable of seeing beyond the material world; he sees society as a giant organism. He sees it in a Darwinian manner, sees the part for the whole and does not even know that Darwin himself recognized the limits of his investigation. To atheists the world is a big organism and they fancy that they know everything because they see the world as a big organism. They do not know where this organism came from or what its ultimate purpose may be. Whether it’s the Big Bang theory or the reproductive habits of the amoeba, the atheist fancies that he has found the answer to EVERYTHING. Someone needs to clear the atheists of their confusion.
But in the meantime, atheists should not be allowed to impose their atheistic views on us and exclude all other, theistic, views as they are intent on doing. If they succeed they will eliminate democracy. They need to be reminded of the source of their own freedoms. They should be thanking God that they live in a Christian-based culture that believes in the separation of church and state and does not persecute them, and instead knows that it is through reason and the grace of God that they will be converted.
But that is not to say that we should remain silent and not counter their ignorance with facts and remind them of the Christian basis of democracy. We also need to tell them that, in spite of what they believe, they are not the wisest and they will not rule the world.
This is the PRECISE objective of the left.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is an incredible commentary on the left!
Bookmark
That article fits them like a glove.
Simple, point on fact analysis sure to be ignored and slighted by the left.
That's always been how it is. It's just that in the past the holders of physical and economic power said that was the will of God, instead of the general will. The only thing that has changed is the legitimizing myth.
Good Lord Almighty (no pun intended). Someone should tell the writer of this moronic piece of drivel that the FIRST democracy (Greece) was completely pagan.
Nope, that probably won't ever happen. I believe Hobbes much more than I do Locke.
Self-ping for later.
"Good Lord Almighty (no pun intended). Someone should tell the writer of this moronic piece of drivel that the FIRST democracy (Greece) was completely pagan."
Now, see, that's exactly what she's on about. Your argument is based on your utter lack of comprehension of what you oppose.
Though pagan, those religions grew out of man's longing for God. Sure, they had a lot of things wrong about the nature of God, but the things they got right were what allowed their civilization to rise to the heights it achieved.
That these civilizations were pagan in no way impeaches her arguments, any more than Moses' Jewishness invalidates the Ten Commandments.
"The only thing that has changed is the legitimizing myth."
No, what has changed is the substitution of leftist myth for the Reality of God's will.
As you prefer to believe.
The real problem with democracy/republic's functioning is the inability of the various interest groups to reconcile and function as a whole. Things only run smoothly when the franchise is limited--when it is universal, things start to unravel.
But on the whole, our country is still doing alright. Dying a slow death, but that is the nature of things.
the will of God, instead of the general will.
Two quite different entities. The will of God postulates that absolute truth exists; That objective facts exist; and that logic exists.
The general will presumes that no truth exists and that "concensus" is an adequate substitute for a truth that does not exist.
But God's will is only knowable through His creations, themselves imperfect, and hence the will cannot be known, only guessed at through faith. And faith is fallible.
If God's will could be known, why bother with democratic institutions?
This is the PRECISE objective of the left.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Scratch a leftist and under his thin skin is a hard core socialist. Dig a little deeper and you will find the Marxist nuclear fuel rods that drive all that he does.
This myopic little troll is so full of hate and bitterness that she’s hardly worth taking seriously. But in as much as her “I Hate Atheists!” essay was published on a respectable web site, I’ll hold my nose and briefly respond.
She’s promoting her personal war on everyone who’s not Christian (or one of her approved religions) by linking them to the fringe of her political opposition.
America is not just a nation of Christian principals, but of Christian principles reformed through the spread of idea and principles rooted in the works of Aristotle and other atheists. Christian nations prior to that were anything but Democratic. She condemns all atheists for their imagined refusal to acknowledge the Christian roots of our culture, while she denies our atheistic roots.
She demonstrates her ignorance claiming that atheists replace God with science. Atheist beliefs are as varied as theists, but science’s scope does not include the ethics or politics promoted by God. And those who attempt to hijack science for their agenda fall into all religious and ideological camps. For every leftist atheist falling back on the state to promoting their values, there’s a theist doing the same.
She doesn’t attempt to explain her claim that “Atheist don’t allow for forgiveness, because they don’t allow for sin” because she can’t. It’s absurd. Forgiveness is reasonable, with or without God.
She rambles on about every evil atheist as if there were no evil theists promoting contradictory and destructive agendas.
Atheists are somehow condemned for not knowing where the world came from or what its ultimate purpose is, oblivious how that mirrors her not knowing where God came from or what his ultimate purpose is.
But I think that the most bizarre theme that she vomits up here is that atheists are stupid and smug in this clearly ignorant and thoughtless article she smugly offers. She says “atheists can not do philosophy” (even though they arguably invented it), but she screws philosophy up miserably here. She says “atheists can’t think outside the box”, but there’s not an original thought in her essay, just hate. This whole article’s barely high school level. It’s just… laughable…
Please excuse me for not responding to replies. I’m aware of the classical counters to what I’ve suggested, that atheistic ethics can be just as objective as theistic ethics. I’m confident in and proud of my previous replied to that here, but don’t have the time to repeat them. Again, excuse me for not addressing them.
Democracy was invented before Christianity was.
jas3
The fact that you think either one is an "invention" speaks volumes.
"As you prefer to believe."
Ah. Well, you see, that is a factual error on your part. Of course, you had no way of knowing that, but still, you should not presume that all knowledge of God is a matter of belief.
"The real problem with democracy/republic's functioning is the inability of the various interest groups to reconcile and function as a whole. Things only run smoothly when the franchise is limited--when it is universal, things start to unravel."
Your point about the franchise is well taken, and I am happy to meet another person who understands that problem. I have been bashed a number of times here on FR for bringing that up.
Still, you're excluding from consideration a very important, some would even say essential, element.
Will and Ariel Durant
Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars? ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.
Edmund Burke
What is liberty without...virtue? It is...madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites.
Albert Einstein
Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks.... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
Patrick Henry
Should I keep back my opinions through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country and an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
The eternal difference between right and wrong does not fluctuate. It is immutable. And if the moral order does not change, then it imposes on us obligations toward God and man. Duty, then, requires the willingness to accept responsibility and to sacrifice one’s desires to a higher law.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.
"Dying a slow death, but that is the nature of things."
Spiritual warfare, sometimes called cultural warfare, is the proximate cause of our decline.
"If God's will could be known, why bother with democratic institutions?"
Come on, you can answer that question. Give the little gray cells a workout.
Your conclusion is undoubtedly that God wills us to be a democracy. However, the problem I have with that is in a democracy, it is the general will--really the pragmatic compromises of the disparite interest groups--that carry the day. The whole point of this article is that this is the problem.
God's will means different things to different people. It has to be interpreted and as such cannot be universal. I appreciate your point, but I am not an especially religious person and as such think that God has been used cynically by those who want their agenda to triumph.
What makes you think I "oppose" Christianity. Her article is moronic because of her assumptions. Christianity is NOT necessary for democracy to function. It "does" make it function better (and the reverse).
"Though pagan, those religions grew out of man's longing for God. Sure, they had a lot of things wrong about the nature of God, but the things they got right were what allowed their civilization to rise to the heights it achieved."
"That these civilizations were pagan in no way impeaches her arguments, any more than Moses' Jewishness invalidates the Ten Commandments."
Nice parroting of Catholic doctrine. But, since "I" am Catholic, I'm well aware of those points. The article is STILL drivel. Even her supposed rebuttal about Greek democracy not being applied to women and slaves is moronic, because, at the time de Toqueville wrote, NEITHER DID THE U.S.'s. de Toqueville had been dead quite a while before the slaves were freed, and it took much longer than THAT before women got the vote.
"This myopic little troll is so full of hate and bitterness"
Fascinating that you see hatred and bitterness where none exists. Or do you? Perhaps that's just a convenient slur.
"She’s promoting her personal war on everyone who’s not Christian (or one of her approved religions) by linking them to the fringe of her political opposition."
Whether you like it or not, every "counterculture" movement over at least the past 500 years has had atheism as one of its planks. This is true of communism as codified by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and those leftists who are not yet atheists are moving in that direction.
Quite simply, atheism belongs to the left. If you are an atheist, you share that with them.
"America is not just a nation of Christian principals, but of Christian principles reformed through the spread of idea and principles rooted in the works of Aristotle and other atheists."
Aristotle’s notion of god was quite clear: the Unmoved Mover, thought thinking thought; and this metaphysical mind has a definite role in the explanation of natural phenomena. But the god of contemporary empiricists seems to have no role at all; mainly because the meaning they attach to the word God is utterly vague. (Gordon Clark)
Also, see the Patrick Henry quote in my earlier note.
"She condemns all atheists for their imagined refusal to acknowledge the Christian roots of our culture, while she denies our atheistic roots."
Considering that she is speaking the truth, of course she denies any atheistic roots.
(Next paragraph ignored as without substance)
"She doesn’t attempt to explain her claim that “Atheist don’t allow for forgiveness, because they don’t allow for sin” because she can’t."
No, she doesn't explain because it is patently obvious.
"It’s absurd. Forgiveness is reasonable, with or without God."
Without God, the only thing that is reasonable is self-interest, enlightened or not. Without God, the only reason to forgive is to profit one's self in some way.
"She rambles on about every evil atheist as if there were no evil theists promoting contradictory and destructive agendas."
Your logical error there lies in creating a category you call "theists," dumping all non-atheists into this category, and treating them as if they were equal.
"Atheists are somehow condemned for not knowing where the world came from or what its ultimate purpose is"
No, they're not. Those things are brought up only to demonstrate the limits of human reason.
"oblivious how that mirrors her not knowing where God came from or what his ultimate purpose is."
The two things are comparable in no way.
"But I think that the most bizarre theme that she vomits up here is that atheists are stupid and smug"
Sorry that you're offended by that. Thanks for demonstrating it.
"She says “atheists can not do philosophy”
Yes, that's true.
"She says “atheists can’t think outside the box"
Yes, that's true.
"but there’s not an original thought in her essay"
Some of us prefer the eternal verities to novel errors, and there is no requirement to present novelty when discussing the eternal verities.
"just hate"
The hate is to be found among the God-haters such as yourself. Believers don't hate atheists. We may be irritated, even sickened by them, and certainly we pity them; but there's no reason to hate them.
"I’m aware of the classical counters to what I’ve suggested"
It is clear that you understand nothing of the "classical counters."
"that atheistic ethics can be just as objective as theistic ethics"
Right there. How convenient that you demonstrate the validity of my last statement so promptly.
You offer equal objectivity as though that presumed equal validity.
Your assignment for Monday: 500 words on why that is not only false, but stupid.
"I’m confident in and proud of my previous replied"
Pride is a sin too, you know, and pride of intellect is no less pernicious than other sorts. Who knows what it will take to shake you out of your smug complacency; perhaps God Himself would have to contradict you. I certainly hope it happens before you find yourself standing before Him at the last judgment.
to that here, but don’t have the time to repeat them. Again, excuse me for not addressing them.
“What makes you think I "oppose" Christianity.”
That’s not my point.
“Her article is moronic because of her assumptions. Christianity is NOT necessary for democracy to function. It "does" make it function better (and the reverse).”
A desire to conform to God’s will is necessary for any desirable form of government, whether it’s a monarchy or a democracy. A godless democracy cannot stand. Today, the fullest understanding of God’s will is to be found within Christianity.
“Nice parroting of Catholic doctrine.”
I had reasoned my way to those conclusions before I even acknowledged giving up God-hating agnosticism, much less became a Catholic.
“I'm well aware of those points. The article is STILL drivel.”
No, if those points are valid, then the article is not drivel.
“Even her supposed rebuttal about Greek democracy not being applied to women and slaves is moronic, because, at the time de Toqueville wrote, NEITHER DID THE U.S.'s.”
No need to shout. As regards slavery, the country then existed in a state of tension, a temporary hiatus before the storm. It’s worth looking at the various anti-slavery measures enacted prior to the War Between the States. As regards women, Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best: “Were our State a pure democracy...there would yet be excluded from their deliberations...women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, should not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.” (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval)
“and it took much longer than THAT before women got the vote.”
That black day.
"Your conclusion is undoubtedly that God wills us to be a democracy."
Do what? I can't even imagine how you came up with that.
"However, the problem I have with that is in a democracy, it is the general will--really the pragmatic compromises of the disparite interest groups--that carry the day."
I'm sure that was factored into the Founding Fathers's decision to establish a representative republic instead of a mobocracy.
"The whole point of this article is that this is the problem."
With universal sufferage and moral decay, problems emerge.
"God's will means different things to different people."
The only meaning that can be extracted from your statement is that some people misunderstand God's will to a greater or lesser degree. God's will is immutable and eternal.
"It has to be interpreted and as such cannot be universal."
The false premise underlying that statement is that one man's interpretation is as good as another's. There is the correct interpretation, which can be discerned, and then there are mistaken interpretations, which need be accorded no credibility whatsoever.
"I appreciate your point, but I am not an especially religious person and as such think that God has been used cynically by those who want their agenda to triumph."
If I were Satan, I would certainly do that, in the hope that people would see bad men doing evil in the name of God and turn away from Him.
A person who destroys another's faith commits spiritual murder; but when you allow something like that to destroy your faith, you commit spiritual suicide.
“ Whether you like it or not, every "counterculture" movement over at least the past 500 years has had atheism as one of its planks.”
Mary didn’t blame atheist for counter culture, she blamed them cultural evils, leaving out various genocides in the Middle East, Europe and America by theist dominated movements.
“ Quite simply, atheism belongs to the left. If you are an atheist, you share that with them.”
There are infinitely more leftist Christians than leftist Objectivists (and they are all atheists).
“ Aristotle’s notion of god was quite clear: the Unmoved Mover”
Please, if Aristotle were remotely referring to God rather than an objective universe he would have done so. The Unmoved Mover is more akin to reality and its properties and laws.
“ No, she doesn't explain because it is patently obvious.”
Unworthy of comment…
“Without God, the only thing that is reasonable is self-interest, enlightened or not. Without God, the only reason to forgive is to profit one's self in some way.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing… (You have a lot to learn)
“Your logical error there lies in creating a category you call "theists," dumping all non-atheists into this category, and treating them as if they were equal.”
If you can’t see that this is exactly what this article did with atheists, you’re way too close to it.
“ No, they're not. Those things are brought up only to demonstrate the limits of human reason.”
Yes, in order to condemn it in favor of religion, which suffers from exactly the same limitation.
“ The two things are comparable in no way.”
They’re exactly the same. If you can’t see it, you’re way too close to it.
“ Sorry that you're offended by that. Thanks for demonstrating it.”
You’re welcome, but you appear to be too close to the hate piece to understand why such poorly reasoned and supported accusations would be offensive to any reasonable person. So close that you rudely throw them at me now while pretending to be civil.
“ Yes, that's true… Yes, that's true.”
Unfortunately two half witted responses don’t equal anything of substance.
“ The hate is to be found among the God-haters such as yourself. Believers don't hate atheists. We may be irritated, even sickened by them, and certainly we pity them; but there's no reason to hate them.”
You are in denial.
“ It is clear that you understand nothing of the "classical counters."”
More nonsense…
“ You offer equal objectivity as though that presumed equal validity.”
You’re consistently wrong. I’ve had several substantive arguments with Christians here regarding the possibility of objective ethics without God. That’s the first “classic counter” that I referred to, not the one you imagined.
“ Your assignment for Monday: 500 words on why that is not only false, but stupid.”
[snicker] Ask me politely, and I’ll take the time on Monday to show you where I last defended that position, so you can bring yourself better up to speed.
“ Pride is a sin too”
Almost anything in excess is a sin. Pride is critical to productivity, but that’s another discussion.
The great atheist thinkers were Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and Sartre.
Out of which Nietzsche's atheist credentials were suspect (he protested too much), Marx projected Hegelian Absolute into future Communist Mankind, Sartre repented before his death and Freud was more a dreamer than a thinker.
So you have to settle for some third rate minds or go for Marx.
If you can’t see hate in the dribble, you’re too close to it.”
No, it’s not there. You’re merely seeing your own hatred reflected back.
“Mary didn’t blame atheist for counter culture, she blamed them cultural evils”
Those are synonyms.
“leaving out various genocides in the Middle East, Europe and America by theist dominated movements.”
(1) Except in rare cases where it is accurate, “genocide” is a loaded word intended to stop discussion rather than promote it.
(2) Once again, you lump all non-atheists into one basket and declare them substantially equal.
(3) As is usual among atheists, you obdurately refuse to distinguish between actions that legitimately grow out of belief, and the wrongdoing of men who cynically claim the mantle of religiosity.
“There are infinitely more leftist Christians than leftist Objectivists.”
So? There are infinitely more leftists of other stripes than there are people who call themselves Objectivists. Further, even if there were more leftist Christians than leftist atheists, that would still say nothing about the source and provenance of atheism.
“Please, if Aristotle were remotely referring to God rather than an objective universe he would have done so. The Unmoved Mover is more akin to reality and its properties and laws.”
Yeah, yeah, tell it to centuries of academia. You’re as bad as the homos who go around insisting that every well-known historical figure was a secret homo.
“ No, she doesn't explain because it is patently obvious.”
“Unworthy of comment…”
That is how you maintain the delusion that you are adequately defending your position.
“You say that like it’s a bad thing”
Of course it is.
“(You have a lot to learn)”
Right. Thirty years ago I was where you are now, and “learned” my way out of it. Perhaps you will too.
“If you can’t see that this is exactly what this article did with atheists, you’re way too close to it.”
It is perfectly valid to discuss the similarities among atheists. Niggling differences among them pale in the face of the fact that they reject God. The sleight of hand you use to dismiss all believers as identical, on the other hand, is totally invalid.
“Yes, in order to condemn it in favor of religion, which suffers from exactly the same limitation.”
Another factual error on your part. Like leftism, atheism grows out of error.
“They’re exactly the same. If you can’t see it, you’re way too close to it.”
They are similar in no way. If you see a similarity, it is an artifact of your emotional attachment to your god-hating.
“You’re welcome, but you appear to be too close to the hate piece to understand why such poorly reasoned and supported accusations would be offensive to any reasonable person.”
No, the problem is that you have a six-year-old child’s understanding of the arguments.
“So close that you rudely throw them at me now while pretending to be civil.”
I bluntly throw them at you. Nothing on my part has remotely approached your breaches of civility, so you can just climb down off your hobby horse.
“Unfortunately two half witted responses don’t equal anything of substance.”
See? You didn’t see me whining about your smug, arrogant, insulting and abusive comments. Even if a person is conservative in many areas, when he argues a leftist position, he argues like a leftist…which means that you want to reserve the right to abusive speech to yourself.
“You are in denial.”
No, it’s the truth. I know it comforts you to think that you are hated by those unreasonable, bigoted believers, but it’s just not the case.
“More nonsense…”
No, your every reply makes it clearer that you misunderstand the vast majority of that which you think you understand.
“You offer equal objectivity as though that presumed equal validity.”
“”You’re consistently wrong.””
No, I’m right. You did in fact offer equal objectivity as though that presumed equal validity. I would be content to put your statement before a jury of any 12 philosophy professors in the country.
“I’ve had several substantive arguments with Christians here regarding the possibility of objective ethics without God.”
And if you think you won, then either (1) they were weak; or (2) you refused to hear. I’m betting on (2).
“Ask me politely, and I’ll take the time on Monday to show you where I last defended that position, so you can bring yourself better up to speed.”
If you think you defended it successfully, you are living in a fool’s paradise.
What am I saying? You’re an atheist. Of course you’re living in a fool’s paradise.
“Almost anything in excess is a sin. Pride is critical to productivity”
Dern, is there anything you do understand correctly? At all?
Ping
Yes, the Greeks had a democracy, but it was not a democracy for women and slaves. It was the radical Christian notion of equality--that there was neither “Jew nor Gentile,” and that even prostitutes could repent--that forms the basis of our democratic values.
And neither was the United States government at the time de Toqueville wrote (pre-Civil War, and pre-Suffrage amendment).
The woman can't even get her facts straight.
This is just too dishonest to waste time on. If someone said the same about your religion with such limited insight, it would be hate speech. But since it’s much more likely to apply to your political opposition, it’s not.
I can deal with people not thinking clearly, but not with that level of dishonesty. There’s nothing to be gained from speaking with you or reading beyond that line, not for either of us. You’re in a place where you can’t be reached. Good luck.
Oh, and the American democracy involved women and slaves?!?! Seems that Mary Grabar should learn some history before writing such pieces.
In fact, the argument can be made that it was precisely NOT Christianity that was the push for equality; Christianity was as split as many other groups on the issue.
A historical marker stands over the small chapel where my mother's ancestors are buried, proclaiming how energetic the abolition movement was centered around the place...yet you could easily find churches where inequality was preached. And those Republican ancestors of mine up in rural New York State would have been the radicals of their time, pushing for a change, not the "conservatives" of the time.
As much as I believe Christianity to be one of the hopes for humanity's future, I find this article quite ridiculous. As much as Ms. Grabar complains about atheists not recognizing the debt owed to Christianity, it would be just as much an oversight for Christian Americans to overlook the contribution of those who dared think outside of the box the Church had created.
Is there a significant example in history of a society maintaining an immoral life without the aid of religion? Seems to me that there's a fallacy in the reasoning used here, with a bit of post hoc definition of "successfully maintaining."
Or revealed.
Your claim isn’t supported by your link. Aristotle’s work influence the concept of both God as well as a Godless reality, and I’m not aware of claims of his to the existence of God or creation. The Unmoved Movers is more consistent with the laws of physics and reality and his quest to discover them through observation and reason. It was part of existence, its “perfection”, a motivator but without form.
”The great atheist thinkers were Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and Sartre.”
A democracy is MOB Rule.. the mobsters can be atheists.. or not..
Only GOD can grant UNalienable rights.. because no democracy on earth has any rights.. but merely priviledges.. that can be and ARE alienated not soon after they are granted.. Rights in a democracy is a myth.. Sharia Law is very democratic..
Should be a simple truth/fact but in Canada, England, and many European countrys they do not know this.. OH!.. and every single american democrat and most republicans.. are ignorant too.. Are YOU ignorant of this?..
Really? Show me.
Famous Atheists
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was famous, but she was not a great thinker.
I know. Just pointing out that she did mention Greece, even if in passing.
"This is just too dishonest to waste time on."
And once more, an example of the way in which you maintain your delusion that you are successfully defending your position.
Far from dishonest, it is obvious that the hatred is yours.
"There’s nothing to be gained from speaking with you or reading beyond that line"
Yes, you wouldn't want to read anything that utterly destroys your position. That would be unsettling.
"You’re in a place where you can’t be reached."
I'm in a place where I can no longer be deceived by the errors that hold you in thrall, errors that I have outgrown.
Perhaps one day you'll open your mind. Or maybe God will do it for you.
"Is there a significant example in history of a society maintaining an immoral life without the aid of religion?"
Two major ones in recent memory that I can think of.
"Seems to me that there's a fallacy in the reasoning used here, with a bit of post hoc definition of "successfully maintaining."
No, the reasoning is sound. If you read Barzun's Dawn to Decadence, you will find a number of failed attempts over the past 500 years.
"In fact, the argument can be made that it was precisely NOT Christianity that was the push for equality"
It would, however, fail, as the reality is otherwise.
"Oh, and the American democracy involved women and slaves?"
America was founded as a Representative Republic, not a democracy.
Please...I'd love to hear of these societies that have succeeded without religion.
I believe in individual freedom not any external authority regardless of the author.
Let's go back to the original quotation.
"Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars? ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."
To this you replied, “Is there a significant example in history of a society maintaining **an immoral life** without the aid of religion?"
Note that the Durants meant maintaining a high level of morality in a society, while you meant…what?
To this I somewhat facetiously replied that I could think of two significant examples of societies maintaining **an immoral life** without the aid of religion…meaning, of course, the Soviet Union and Red China, which maintained and in the case of Red China still maintain an immoral life.
To my statement that I could think of two, you replied, “Please...I'd love to hear of these societies that have succeeded without religion.”
Note that you have worked things around from the Durant’ assertion that there is no example of a society maintaining moral life without the aid of religion – that is, avoiding a descent into depravity – all the way to demanding the names of “societies that have succeeded without religion.”
Very clever. The only problem is you have still said nothing meaningful about the Durants’ assertion.
Oh, that’s it! I enjoy going toe to toe with the best, but not you. You're too "unsettling" and "destructive to my position". You nailed it.
Get some rest.
Touché.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.