Posted on 01/06/2009 10:20:23 AM PST by Stoat
I'm not accusing you of doing this. My point is only that I can debate with the best of the pro-abortion racketeers, and am able to give reasons for why I oppose it based on my point of view, and none of those reasons involve religion.
The pro-life community would do well to utilize the pro-life beliefs of non-believers, as you'll need all the help you can get considering who is in charge now. We'll be right there beside you ready to storm the gates when they pass FOCA and other obamanations.
With respect to Passover, I would assume that if a loving creator existed, he would treat all children equally, and not hold them accountable for the evils of their parents or their society. The little boys and girls of Egypt did not commit any injustice against the Jews, yet I'm supposed to accept their slaughter as a moral act? I say NO, NO, NO!
Let me ask another question. Would it have been moral for Joshua to defy the orders given to him at Jericho?
I would have told God that I am NOT going to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. If he's going to damn my soul, then so be it. I would have told God to take his genocide and shove it. Get some other credulous fool to perform your murders; I won't be a part of it.
I’d say an honest atheist would admit there is certainly much worldly wisdom in the Bible. Even putting aside that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he was also simply the most remarkable and influential man in history.
No, I agree with this to a certain extent. I draw inspiration from Ben Franklin:
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."
Strict atheism is a bad bet. I personally think it’s silly to be anything beyond agnostic.
I do not refer to myself as an atheist. The only label I accept is secularist, because it deals strictly with how to deal with religion in government and public society. I think that agnosticism, pantheism, deism, and atheism all have beneficial aspects that I variously draw on. I didn't leave the Christian faith just so that I could immediately join some other collective group. My ideals are not wholly dependent on the agendas or creeds of any one philosophy.
One more thing: there is a certain unhelpful stubborness in your refusal to capitalize the name of God. From your viewpoint, do you by any chance decapitalize names in a fictional novel when you discuss them? Try. It makes the conversation just a little more open on multiple levels.
You are absolutely correct here. I frequently discuss theology and the nature and particulars of various gods, goddesses, divinities, etc. I try to keep the capitalization straight, but also frequently freep from my Blackberry, where grammar is a little more difficult to keep straight. When referring to God as a proper name, I will make sure that I capitalize, just as I would for Thor, Athena, or Yahweh. I will not capitalize pronouns of the deities into Him, He, or His, since I believe that this is a practice that grammar only demands of believers.
I will try to be correct in the future, but I do so in the interest in good grammar and not divine instruction.
Well I appreciate your concessions. Thank you.
Would you say that when a man brings dishonor upon himself he also brings it in come way upon his family which includes his children? I would say so.
God calls people away from this world all the time. When it is your time, it is your time. I have said God’s plans are inscrutable and that it true. But perhaps that was his way of punishing the Egyptians and also saving those children from becoming the terrible monsters they may have turned out to be. But that alone is known to God.
When you say you are a secularist explain to me if that includes forcibly removing God, religion, or any mention thereof except from behind closed home and church doors.
I believe that government must be absolutely 100% neutral in all affairs governing religion, nor should they be able to dictate a religious test for any citizen or elected official as demanded by Article VI of the Constitution.
Two examples I can point to are the silly debates that go back and forth every year about "Under God" in the pledge and Nativity scenes; these causes usually given secularists a bad name.
Idiots like Michael Newdow who claim that "Under God" in the Pledge establishes 'monotheism' hurt the secular cause. A pantheist like Einstein or a deist like Paine can just as easily say 'Under God' without there being any personal inconsistency. Monotheism is a form of theism, and since these words could be uttered by a deist, it proves that Newdow is wrong.
You and I both know that a Nativity scene is no more Biblically correct than showing Adam and Eve as Anglo-Saxons. The Bible says nothing about a stable or animals and the Magi didn't visit Jesus until after Mary and Joseph were already living in a house in Bethlehem.
If people want to arrange certain animals, shepherds, and Persian looking gentlemen around a manger crib, fine. Its a cultural display to me. I wouldn't say that you should be able to put these on publicly owned property, but if you've driven around any assorted American city, town, or subdivision, there's never a lack of Nativity scenes, and I don't think we need them on public property.
On issues of secularism, I usually take it on a case by case basis. I do this in the interest of not being yoked together with the more odious minions associated in the secular movement, like Code Pink and Newdow, and the only absolutist statement I will make is the first paragraph of this post.
Fine. I thought you might be suggesting in the previous post that you were of Newdow’s kind of hysteria. I see no point in going down the road where one day children cannot wear a cross around their neck to school and the like.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070617_religion_politics_and_the_end_of_the_world/
Whatever your opinions of Sam Harris may be, he is absolutely on our side (along with Hitchens) on the dangers of fundamentalist Islam. There are multiple dynamics here at play, and with Obama being inaugurated tomorrow, you're going to see many more liberal believers like Hedges, who use Christianity and other methods of belief to hammer away liberal causes, and to take advantage of religion for their ends.
If you've got the time, and if you can stomach Bob Scheer as moderator (it's not easy), I'd ask you to listen to Harris, a committed atheist, and Hedges, a self described Christian who defends God and religion against Harris. Keep in mind that Truthdig is a group of Marxists posing as secularists, so don't let the intro fool you. Harris is at odds with their liberal audience during the whole debate. He makes great points against fundamentalism while his liberal opponents do nothing but apologize for Islam.
After that, ask yourself who you agree with more. I think you'll be surprised.
Probably not much. They usually subscribe to some form of social darwinism. This is also why most atheists are ok with abortion and euthanizing the burdensome.
At which point the Professor and the whole class hated theists just a little bit more. Would have been better if the marine just picked him up or just a small push.
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.