Skip to comments.True unbelievers Events of Sept. 11 have atheists "coming out' to face an unaccepting society
Posted on 03/10/2002 4:11:04 AM PST by OldeconomybuyerEdited on 04/13/2004 2:39:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Way in the back of an ornate and dimly lit German restaurant in San Francisco, partitioned off from other Saturday night diners, sits a group packed in two long rows of tables. Chewing bratwurst and the fat, they are as old as 80 and as young as 22. They are black, white, Asian, hailing from as far away as Zimbabwe and Australia or as close as Daly City. Some know each other; some are strangers. All seek support and comfort from those who understand.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"...My spirit shall not always strive with man..." Gen 6:3
Where do athesists think their inner voice of what "we think is right" originates? Believers try to do the right thing, not out of fear of later punishment, but out of a longing for an inner peace that comes from obedience to the life God intended for us to live. Christians can release the guilt of falling short in that quest through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ who lifts that burden from our shoulders.
Amazing. Belief in God provides the absolutes of right and wrong. Without God, there is no right or wrong. These intellectual midgets just don't get IT.
Some quote about secular humanism triumphing over the bloody corpse of Christianity has floated around. It was from an NEA article, publication, or speech.
Carl Sagan was a dedvout renouncer of a belief system.
It's easy to be a naysayer and deny the obvious. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.
Finding ways to communicate with secular humanists effectively could be the way to present Christianity to the Islamo-fascist crowd. Simply expounding on "beliefs" and "feelings" won't work to convince the unbeliever.
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith, a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being.
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level -- preschool day care or large state university.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.
Yeah. Caucasians, Christians, and Gun Owners. Oh, and also, anyone who lives in the South or Texas.
Be careful not to lump Christians as intolerant. I think you'll find the lot to be very compassionate in their actions and deeds.
I have several friends who are atheistic/or agnostic. I don't quite understand it, but would not stop being their friend.
The great thing about this forum is that we can discuss these things without wanting to act out agression.
Christians are a fierce group of people, very devout in their faith. If you really look deep down they are concerned for the salvation of your soul. (Not a bad thing in my book...)
So... God bless... and welcome to the best forum out there!
No. Belief in God gives you a cop out: Do what God says or else. It's might makes right with a supernatural twist.
If she thinks that is bad ,she should be a Bible Believing Christian here or as we are called "talibornagains". And that is by our "friends" *grin*
This is flatly an unhistoric statement. Not only did many founding documents, including state constitutions, mention God, but Congress and the several state legislatures employed chaplains from the beginning. Religion provides the moral underpinning of our law, a fact symbolized by the use of religious oaths before testimony and the many religious concepts, such as intention, in the commmon law, owing to its relation to the Justinian Code, a legal code that is undeniably religious. The special place that religious bodies have in our society--as mediate bodies--is not allowed in truly "secular: governments, of whicvh the purest examples are the communists states of Cuba and China. The blatant hostility of such states to religion does not make believers feel much inclinted to listed to the whining of atheists about the minor discomforts under American law. Religion is not "seeping" into a"national policy"; rather it is refilling again its natural place by artificial dikes created by secularist bigots like those in the ACLU and other friends of the these atheists that are gathering in SF. What will they do next: petition that the name of the city be changed?
That's the gist of it.
FWIW, I'm acquainted with several atheists here at FR -- and they don't drive everyone nuts whining about how life done 'em wrong.
I'm sure listening to "God Bless America" is like hearing finger nails dragged across a blackboard to them and they feel left out. Well gee, when you hold yourself apart, I guess you are left out. If you don't have enough compassion for your fellow man to quietly induldge the majority in their beliefs during a tragedy, then a person is right to leave himself out of the equation. I guess they just want to whine about it.
Oh please. Does being an atheist also mean one must be paranoid and delusional?
To call oneself an atheist is an act of pride.
I suggest that the members of this little group have elevated whining to a new level. The whole concept of a group of atheists boggles my mind even. I can't imagine meeting with a group to discuss what I don't believe. Am I the only atheist who doesn't see the logic in this?
They reject the existence of God, but then clamor to prove they are "moral" - even though the word has no real meaning in a world without God. Any effort to establish a morality apart from God inevitably relies on the religious traditions they claim to reject. Non-violence, universal rights, and cooperation with others are seen as self-evident priciples, and anyone who dares challenge the validity or question the foundation of those precepts in an atheistic system is typically insulted and belittled for his free-thinking. (e.g. when asked for the source of some universal right, a typical answer is, "How can anyone question the universal right to blah blah blah? You must be a liberal commie pinko fag.")
The reason for this is that there is no validity to those precepts; they are hold-overs from the system they claim to have left behind. This then leaves only two options - 1. Accept the rules and therefore the existence of God. 2. Reject God and live in a world without rules. Option number two sounds liberating and appealing, until it is realized that the other guy has no rules, either. Since neither option is acceptable, it's easier to call names than to think about it.
C.S. Lewis nailed it when he pointed out the circular reaonsing - that selfishness is "bad" because it harms society, and harming society is bad because it's selfish. The atheist will resort either to "self-evident axioms" or throw up his hands and challenge you to come up with a better source of morality outside of God - in spite of the fact that it's his job to defend his belief system.
They may claim to do what's "right" for different motives, but they fail to see that "right" is a "moral" distinction that evaporates in a world without God.
A mark of sanity.
Amen, preach it!!! I once was separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and a stranger to the covenant of promise. But now, I have been brought nigh and have peace by the cross of Christ.
I think what we see being played out here is the establishment of another special interest group that has been "discriminated against" and is looking for some lawsuit material or to become a protected special interest group. After all, this is San Francisco!
Then you would say that those who defy such "things" are not actually "wrong" or "evil", but merely in disagreement with you. If men made it up, other men should be free to ignore it. Someone else might believe that lying is good, rape is virtuous, and stealing is honest?
I'm curious about your view here ... is anything wrong or evil, or is it really up to us to toss a coin and decide? If you come to the conclusion that there are absolutes, where did they come from, and how did we find them?
Would that be the Rathskeller? (AKA Rat cellar) Hangout of the freaks in a town devoted to freaks. Once the hangout of Edward Abbey, Jack Loffler (AKA Travis T Hip), Anton LaVey and numerous other well known freaks, all of which have at one time or other sworn that there is no God, but a couple of them now know better, I suspect.
Athiests persecuted? What a laugh! Especially in the Bay Area; it's a badge of honor.
By the most reasonable freepers here, right, 'MoM' ??
The blood of Calvinists bought freedom of speech.
I will never cease to be amazed that the ones that most value free speech are slandered by other conservatives with the "talibornagain" label..and then they give the left permission to use it as ammo to beat Christian conservatives .
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Certainly. And pointing out, at the same time, that any other view is inconsistent for the atheist.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just pointing out the reality. As soon as you claim that we just made up morality, you essentially admit to being a moral relativist.
If we just made up the rules out of thin air, then there really is no such thing as a criminal. Nothing is really wrong, but only contrary to the opinion of the majority, who imposes its morality on the minority.
So you can call those who find rape honorable "criminals", but your definition of a criminal is simply someone who disagrees with you. If his side was the majority, you'd be a "criminal" for avoiding rape.
Wishful thinking on his part.
There is a definite anti-Christian bias in the schools. But the alternative is some kind of "New Age" fuzziness, not some thought out philosphy such as humanism.
All the same to a Christian being bashed, but far from the same to a humanist.
Hard to believe considering all the shrill lawsuits you yahoos file!
I have immense difficulty viewing atheists as being "persecuted" in the Bay Area, and most of the atheists I know in the Bay Area (and there ARE loads of them here) are not the whining losers portrayed in the article. In fact, most of the Bay Area atheists I know are pretty conservative as a group in the strictly Constitutionalist sense. I would say that "atheist constitutionalist" describes a non-trivial percentage of the Silicon Valley engineering and executive professionals (with "non-trivial percentage" unfortunately being much smaller than the avalanche of sandal-wearing grass-eaters in the area).
I'm just going to guess that there is also a type of left-wing atheist that I just don't run into very often (by choice). They make all the conservative atheists look bad.