Posted on 10/04/2008 2:27:00 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
MADISON, Wis. — The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“An atheist society can not, as we have seen, maintain any morality.”
That does not look like something an atheist would write. In any case, I do not think we have seen that an atheist society cannot maintain any morality. Not at all.
History has shown that atheism is not a sufficient ingredient for a healthy society. But we cannot thus conclude that theism is a necessary ingredient for a healthy society. In fact, history has shown that atheists can form morally upright communities.
It is quite possible that the world can have a prosperous, stable, and morally sound society founded on atheistic principles. The failures of some atheistic nations is not disproof of that.
And let’s not confuse the discussion by lumping atheism together with every other belief system. If we are going to make a case against the atheists suing the government here—or if we are going to make an argument against atheism in general—we should be very careful about how we use the term. Atheism has its unique attributes, just like everything else.
And so it goes....
But neither the Soviet state nor the *Dear Leader* are gods.
They rejected any notion of God; hence they qualify as atheistic (God free) societies.
You can not like it all you want but, history bears out what happens when the God of the Bible is rejected and a God-free society is established. It’s not pretty.
Likewise, prohibiting the day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a "hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders," .....
Funny thing is, evolution scientists say that man has evolved to believe in God. So, those smug elitists who like to think that they're so superior to believers, really aren't according to science. Oh, the irony.
Where? I don't recall any examples of that.
It is quite possible that the world can have a prosperous, stable, and morally sound society founded on atheistic principles. The failures of some atheistic nations is not disproof of that.
Failure of *some* atheistic nations? Which atheistic nations have not failed?
I don’t get what the big deal is.
Why are atheists having a fit over something the don’t believe in?
I think it’s pretty obvious that there are atheistic communities in America. Aren’t something like 16 million Americans atheists?
“Failure of *some* atheistic nations? Which atheistic nations have not failed?”
China is one example. Though, of course, I am not holding China up as an example of moral perfection.
France is way more aggressively secular than the USA, and they’re not so bad off.
My point is, we have no grounds for concluding that all atheistic nations are doomed to immorality. I wouldn’t jump to such conclusions.
Of course, the most notorious atheistic nations have been linked with communism and/or fascism. I think the problems there are with fascism and communism, not atheism. Atheism is perfectly compatible with democracy and capitalism.
They’re not “Atheists.” They are “Anti-Theists.”
What will they do next, dig up George Washington and sue him?
Where? I doubt that the number of atheists is that high to begin with.
I know of no atheistic communities in the US. Why would you expect there to be?
Even if there were by some chance communities that were comprised solely of atheists (and I highly doubt there are), this is by far and away a Christian nation. The Christian heritage that this nation was founded on provides the moral basis for its laws and still protects any *atheistic* communities should they exist. They would not be independent nations; they are not isolated from the federal and state laws that they live under.
An atheistic community would still have the heavy influence of the Judeo-Christian heritage that this country was founded on. It would be no evidence at all that an atheistic nation would be successful. They simply are not. History bears that out.
If you think that China is not so bad, you are far more deceived than you even have a clue of.
If you think that France is not in such bad shape, yo don't know your history very well. Google up *French Revolution* to find out what happens to a society or nation that rejects God.
I know I don’t sound exactly like an atheist. It certainly confuses the Jehova’s Witnesses who occasionally come to my door. But I am.
“I do not think we have seen that an atheist society cannot maintain any morality”
I don’t mean to say that some atheists can’t maintain morality, only that an atheistic society tends to drift, and usually downwards. While we see that in theistic societies as well, I personally think that such drifts are directly attributable to the extent to which members of such a society are losing their faith. It is one thing to go to church. It is quite another to truly believe in the moral principles of a religion, and to practice them. That is a direct matter of faith, which atheists of course do not have.
“It is quite possible that the world can have a prosperous, stable, and morally sound society founded on atheistic principles.”
Well, okay. But based upon which, exactly, atheistic principles? There is no particular principle that I can think of that might be intrinsically common to or directly attributable to atheism.
“And let’s not confuse the discussion by lumping atheism together with every other belief system.”
If anything, I’d call atheism a lack of belief system. And I’m not trying to make an argument against atheism. I’d have to argue against myself to do that. I only argue that a theistic society provides a better society in which to live, for an atheist such as myself. Less bad things, generally, to put up with and more checks and balances to keep my own standards up.
I would argue against a religious state, for that can be oppressive. Our constitution prohibits that at the federal level, which gives me the benefit of being able to openly be atheist and still benefit from the high moral base of American theism. Pity that the latter is giving way to liberalism at an alarming rate.
I’ve never been oppressed by religion in the USA. However, I’ve been terribly oppressed by liberalism. I can tell the door to door missionaries to get lost, but liberals use the state to steal both my treasure and my liberty. They’ve managed to bypass the constitution quite handily to that effect. A national prayer day is the least of my worries.
“I doubt that the number of atheists is that high to begin with.”
Here’s one site that claims there are over 16 million atheists in America:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Atheists_live_in_the_US
And I don’t think they’re trying to cater to any religious or non-religious persuasion, but I cannot attest to the validity of their statistics. However, I’ve seen similar numbers elsewhere. I can find a better source of information, if you require it, metmom.
“An atheistic community would still have the heavy influence of the Judeo-Christian heritage that this country was founded on.”
That might be stretching things a bit. I would say that our country was partially founded on a Judeo-Christian traditions and philosophy, but it was also based on secular traditions and philosophy as well. We cannot ignore the role of secularism in American history. In fact, the USA was the first country to found itself on a separation of church and state, and secularism helped define the American experiment as such.
“If you think that China is not so bad, you are far more deceived than you even have a clue of.”
I never said China wasn’t so bad. But they are a powerful nation, not a failing one. That was my only point.
“If you think that France is not in such bad shape, yo don’t know your history very well. Google up *French Revolution* to find out what happens to a society or nation that rejects God.”
I don’t need a history lesson, thank you. My point, again, is that France has survived and is now a strong member of the European Union.
So, no, I don’t think there is enough evidence to conclude that nations which reject God and radically embrace secularism are doomed to failure.
But please note the following point: I am not basing my argument on the examples of China and France. I only mentioned them because you asked for examples. Rather, I am basing my argument on the fact that we simply don’t have enough evidence to form a conclusion here.
The problems and failures of most atheistic nations are the problems and failures of communism and fascism, not atheism.
“Funny thing is, evolution scientists say that man has evolved to believe in God. So, those smug elitists who like to think that they’re so superior to believers, really aren’t according to science. Oh, the irony.”
Can you reference any studies by scientists about that? I know that some scientists have hypothesized that religious belief is an evolved trait. But that is not a fact. It’s just an hypothesis. It has not been supported by evidence, as far as I know.
But, let’s say, hypothetically, that it is true. That does not really matter. Because lots of things that hurt us are evolved traits. Consider wisdom teeth. We don’t want’em, and we’re better off when we get them removed. Yet, scientists will tell you that they are the product of evolution.
So, finding an evolutionary source of religious belief would not count as an argument for (or against) religious belief. It would just be an explanation for how we got it.
wgflyer,
Okay, atheism is not generally thought of as a belief system. But I think it is, because a person who lacks belief in God would not bother to call themself an “atheist” unless they had some reason to do so. Atheism is the belief that not believing in God is something to embrace and identify with.
Atheistic principles are principles which reject notions of divine authority or intervention.
A society can be democratic and capitalistic and reject all notions of divine authority and intervention. They can regard authority as a man-made issue, as a matter of man-made laws and politics. They can regard morality as something which is concerned with this life, with how human beings live and work together.
We don’t need religious books or leaders to tell us how to live. In fact, I think even some of the most religious of us tend to look skeptically upon religious texts and leaders, even within their own faith.
We can think for ourselves. About morality, about politics, about life. We don’t need religious authority to tell us how to be good people. We feel it and we negotiate it together, as civilized human beings.
An atheistic society, as I see it, is one that regards human beings as responsible for their own morality and culture. It regards human beings as responsible for their own lives.
It’s all about responsibility.
For atheists, the National Prayer Day is part of a bigger picture which involves funneling tax dollars towards religious institutions and providing a state-sponsored shield which protects religious authority from criticism.
Again, it’s about responsibility. We want to be able to subject religious institutions to the same controls and criticisms we apply to everything else. That is what it means to live in a free society.
Basically, what you describe is liberalism. I see no difference in what you say and liberal America today. Right now my money is stolen to support, for example, homosexual misbehavior, and the results, addicts of various narcotics, sloth, apathy, European boondoggles and, now, the failure of Congress and their cronies in the housing and real estate industry. All of these things are the result of irresponsibility. All the results of behavior by people who no longer know the difference between right and wrong. And you’re worried about possible tax dollars going to a prayer day? (and I don’t get the connection between a national prayer day and a state religion funneling tax dollars anywhere) Rejection of divine authority is simply that. It is no principle. It is merely a disbelief. When you “negotiate” your rights with other people you ultimately are saying that your rights are negotiable. Our constitution was written to suggest that our rights are definitely not negotiable. I notice that the more atheistic our society becomes, the more my own rights are negotiable...to other people.
No, my friend, I would say that to maintain your faith requires maintaining a very high set of principles that atheism can not compete with. And I applaud the faithful for that.
Now, if you wish to debate the actual existence of God, I’ll probably jump over to your side, for I haven’t seen a good argument yet, which is why I’m atheist. But I see very clearly the difference between the behavior of those of faith and those without. And I don’t like what I see in the latter.
And it won't last long that way. You keep referring to countries which are atheistic and successful. Please give us examples of ANY country which has been successfully established based on a rejection of God. Please give us an example of any country which has continued to be successful when it has rejected God.
Our country is in the rejecting God stage and is beginning to bear the fruit of that rejection. Moral values are being lost; human life is being devalued; crime and corruption are increasing. Nothing good comes from a rejection of God.
Atheists have no standard on which to base a value system. Situational ethics don't work. What it finally gets down to is might makes right and people who manage to get into power impose their belief and value systems on others with the heavy hand of tyranny.
We want to be able to subject religious institutions to the same controls and criticisms we apply to everything else.
I'll bet you do.
That is what it means to live in a free society.
No, it isn't.
Our Constitution restricts what the federal government can do in regards to religion. What you are championing violates the Constitution.
I don’t see how I’m describing liberalism here. I have problems with liberalism, too. No, I think “secularism” is a better word for what I’m talking about. Secularism, not liberalism, is the political manifestation of atheism.
“And you’re worried about possible tax dollars going to a prayer day? (and I don’t get the connection between a national prayer day and a state religion funneling tax dollars anywhere)”
The issue is whether or not we want a government that promotes religious devotion and offers tax breaks and financial protections to religious organizations. When I mentioned actively funneling tax dollars, I was thinking more about the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program. The separation of church and state is being eroded. The National Prayer Day is just one part of that bigger picture.
“Rejection of divine authority is simply that. It is no principle. It is merely a disbelief.”
I don’t want to argue semantics here. Rejecting divine authority is meaningless unless it is done on principle. And for atheists like myself, it is a matter of principle.
It is the idea that together we can act rationally to make our lives and the world better. In political terms, we call it secularism. Not liberalism.
“No, my friend, I would say that to maintain your faith requires maintaining a very high set of principles that atheism can not compete with.”
I don’t understand. To maintain what faith?
“I see very clearly the difference between the behavior of those of faith and those without. And I don’t like what I see in the latter.”
You are talking about yourself there, and many great people who have served humanity through the ages.
Now, certainly the world has problems. You may be correct that there is some connection between the world’s greatest problems and the decline in faith and religious devotion. However, let’s not jump to conclusions about what the connection may be, if in fact there even is one.
It could be that there is merely a correlation here. Perhaps a decline in religious faith is correlated to irresponsible behavior, because there aren’t enough secular institutions in place to clean up the mess left in the wake of the failures of religious organizations.
It is quite possible that a lot of the irresponsibility in the world today is not the result of a lack of religion, but the result of a lack of education and clear thinking.
Of course you can’t just take away religion and expect the world to be a better place. We still need to educate our children and encourage a responsible and rational approach to humanity. That’s not gonna happen without some work.
“Please give us examples . . .”
Metmom, I’ve given the examples of China and France already.
“Nothing good comes from a rejection of God.”
I don’t think that’s accurate.
And let’s face it, governments generally tend to be corrupt. Religion does not protect governments or individuals from corruption. It does not eliminate sin. It does not protect people from pain, sorrow, or suffering.
I don’t see the world’s ills coming from a rejection of God. However, I do see a number of them stemming from an irrational devotion to religious dogma.
“Atheists have no standard on which to base a value system.”
The standard is rationality.
“Our Constitution restricts what the federal government can do in regards to religion. What you are championing violates the Constitution.”
How is championing secularism a violation of the Constitution?
In fact, history has shown that atheists can form morally upright communities.
France and China?
What, no Cuba, North Korea? :)
Somehow if one asks which atheistic “community” is a “moral” one, France and China are not only not good examples of moral perfection, but don’t get onto most people’s radar.
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.