Posted on 10/17/2003 4:04:27 PM PDT by TXLibertarian
Excerpted from a longer op-ed. Author discusses the danger of legal proselytizing by a few firebrand secularists. Worth a read, IMHO.
What Atheists Want
By Chris Mooney
....
Unfortunately, in my experience, the U.S. atheist and secularist communities contain a number of activists who are inclined to be combative and in some cases feel positively zestful about offending the religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, easily America's most famous atheist firebrand, wasn't dubbed "the most hated woman in America" for nothing. Despite her landmark 1963 Supreme Court victory in a case concerning the constitutionality of school prayer, O'Hair's pugilistic and insulting public persona hurt atheists a great deal in the long run. A head-on attack on the pledge seems to epitomize the confrontational O'Hair strategy.
....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It suppose many people, regardless of other beliefs, "struggle" with infinity. This I don't understand. It is a fairly well developed and understood concept and not really all that complicated. I suppose there would be a struggle for those who insist on the impossible venture of comprehending infinite physical entities. This would be akin to trying to picture a general shape that has no specific shape. Or picturing a general person but not a specific person. Or more specifically it is attempting to force identity on that which lacks identity. It is a misapplication of an abstraction to concretes.
Doing the impossible is always a struggle.
The big bang theory is not complete. That is merely fact. So in that regard at least, those dissecting atheists are actually correct.
I am not satisfied with an uncaused universe having a finite extent and duration.
I agree that there is much that is unsatisfying about current cosmological theories. However, the notion of infinite extent and duration being utterly incoherent, we are left with finite extent and duration. So much is left unexplained, but at least it leaves open the possibility of a coherent reality.
Evidence supporting the big bang theory is encouraging precisely because it seems to be directing cosmology in a logical, rather than absurd, direction. Good cosmologists (except maybe a few trying to sell pop science books) seem careful to stick with observations, not letting any kind of metaphysics, no matter how apparently rational, take precedence. Thus, though general relativity predicts singularities within black holes, cosmologists have not observed them and freely question their existence. Likewise, despite the seeming absurdity of infinite space, cosmologists recognize that they cannot see beyond the visible universe which is necessarily finite. Many thus leave open the possibility of infinite space.
Unless you live outside the U.S. and I missed that detail, we live in with a secular government that is constitutionally separated from religion.
Are you naive enough to believe that the attack on Christianity will stop with it's erasure from the public square?
I know plenty of atheists and not a one of them hold me in contempt for being a Christian nor have any of them ever show an iota of interest in barring me from worshipping at the church of my choice or praying in my own home. I think you're either a little paranoid or have an 'oh-woe-is-me' persecution complex.
"You say over 90% of Christians never question your belief as an atheist..." "My presumption that you are paranoid of Christians being "in charge"...
Apparently it is you who has missed something. Try reading closer.
Everywhere voodoo is the main religion a cesspool exists, Hati for example.
You think voodoo religion is the sole explanation for Haiti's troubles? That's a bit narrow and utterly simplistic. It's probably also completely wrong.
That will not be the case under totalitarian socialism. And while that may make you happy for a short time, feeling justified through fiat, it will be a short lived joy.
I'd be happy under socialist totatlitarianism??? I'm sorry, but have you been drinking??? Before you make such preposterous statements in the future, do yourself the favor of at least learning the actual beliefs of the person you're speaking with. By the content of what you've posted to me, I would have no idea whatsoever that your comments were actually directed toward me.
I will say that my statement was imprecise in that I should have said; That being the case, it is my opinion that an atheist's belief in the rectitude of his/her position is identical to that of a devout Catholic's in his/her position.
Devout Christians and others state they have a personal a personal relationship with God and that God has made himself manifest to them. I am not going to accuse them of falsehood or self-delusion.
Thus, since it is generally agreed that you cannot prove a negative, in this case the negative being "there is no God" those who say "God exists and has revealed himself to me" would seem to have the stronger claim.
All I can tell for sure is that if God exists, he has not made himself known to me personally if a way that I can accept as undeniable divine providence.
Not "have the stronger claim", but "be making the stronger claim". It is not so much that one cannot prove a negative as the burden of evidence is on those making a claim. I might say that 3-headed Elvi dance figure-8's on my toilet seat. The burden is on me to demonstrate it, not on my skeptics to prove me wrong.
This must be the case lest we find we must accept as true all the absurd rantings of madmen until they are proven false.
That is, and always has been, my position.
But if you read my sentence I said would seem to have the stronger claim. The credibility of the witness and the claim itself are obviously major factors in whether or not any claim is, or should be, accepted.
Thus, based on my own experience and knowledge (which is the only thing I have to base anything on) I am forced to stipulate that those who do believe in divine providence have a greater weight of evidence on their side than those who do not.
But that weight of accepted evidence does not reach a level in me personally that allows me to classify it as belief, so I remain agnostic in the most general sense.
No it's not. No where in the Consitution does it require the government to be secular or atheistic. This is part of the attack on the foundations of this nation by using the ignorance of the general population content to buy from any snake oil salesman that slips them a sip.
Just because the members of a radical Supreme Court used their office to deliberately misinterpret a passage that a three year old could comprehend to promote their own agenda does not lend their interpretation legitimacy. They should have been impeached.
Ben Franklin wrote that the only way this form of government could succeed is with a Christian population that adheres to moral principles. And that takes us to the heart of the problem. A Christian society has boundries and limits on moral behaviour.
Just because homosexuals do not like where that line is drawn, should not entitled them to move it behind them via judicial fiat. Now phedophiles want it moved behind them, and those that practise beastiality want it moved behind them via judicial fiat. Where is a moral society allowed to draw the line? Who are we to judge murderers? If no one is allowed to say, then who is to say?
I know pleanty of atheists and not a one of them hold me in contempt for being a Christian nor have any of them ever show an iota of interest in barring me from worshipping at the church of my choice or praying in my own home.
How nice of your friends to allow you that, while a Christian society allows them to be atheists where ever they please. However some of us are not satisfied with the boundries put on the majority to worship any where we please by a radical minority. Nor are we satified to have them remove Christianity from our government institutions where it has always been in attendance, on our money, carved in marble in our government buildings, and displayed at Christmas and is a means of reminding said government that it is NOT the last word. They answer to a higher authority and by no means of useful idiots are they to attempt to wiggle out from under that higher authority.
That I have to explain this to a person that professes to be an American Christian is a mystery to me. It is American Christianity 101.
John Locke (Concerning Toleration, 1689)
Many atheists are good citizens, patriotic, and moral but I am afraid that they have no basis for chalenging the toleration that they enjoy in the United States. That toleration is based upon the rights granted by the Creator and that is the basis for our law. John Locke had it right and we can see the effects of tolerating atheists in seeking to undermine the fundamental rights that we enjoy. To be replaced by what -- the materialistic laws of nature? God help us from basing our laws on the survival of the fittest. Try as he will the moral atheists has nothing but matter, the blind laws of physics and the reasoning of men upon which to base a nation. The reasoning of men is far too fickle. It is better left in the hands of the Creator. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should remain transendent.
The U.S. has a secular, not a Christian, government. To say otherwise is simply mistaken. If this nation's government was intended to be Christian, don't you think our founding document, the Constitution, would mention Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being? Even the Declaration of Independence simply uses the generic verbiage of "Creator", which would seem to leave the issue of which Creator each person believes in as a personal decision, not dictated by the state.
The only two mentions of religion in the Constitution are in fact restrictions against the encroachment of religion in the business of government. The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." and Article VI, Section 3 states ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
So, please, let's put this fallacy to rest, shall we?
those that practise beastiality want it moved behind them via judicial fiat.
More nonsense. I've yet to ever see practitioners of bestiality marching on Washington demanding the Supreme Court recognize their right to diddle their dog. If you can prove me wrong, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe you're dishing out some ridiculous hyperbole that you've been told and believed without questioning.
However some of us are not satisfied with the boundries put on the majority to worship any where we please by a radical minority.
I assume you mean by this that you feel atheists are trying to stop you from worshipping as you please. Well, if you're telling me that atheists are trying to stop you from worshipping in your home or church, I would like to see some proof of that because I simply don't believe it otherwise. But if you're demanding that you be allowed to proselytize in public schools and court houses, then is it the atheists imposing on you or you who are imposing on the atheists? I'd really like your answer.
That I have to explain this to a person that professes to be an American Christian is a mystery to me.
Should I state an untruth simply because I may wish it to be? Should I argue that the Constitution says something it clearly does not, simply because I'd like it to favor my religion? You're apparently indignant that I won't subordinate my critical thinking skills to my Christian beliefs.
What evidence? You mean a belief counts as evidence of the truth of a belief?
About the issue of God, there may or not be one above, but I'm more inclined to believe one may have "sparked" the process and is sitting back watching.
And that would be a philosophy consistent with Deism. Adams, Jefferson, Paine, and Madison were generally regarded to be Deists, but no doubt you'll hear from some Christians here that they were Christians.
But the crusher is the CONTINGENCY ARGUMENT. It states that everything is contingent upon something else; you are contingent upon your parents, the chair upon the carpenter, etc. But eventually we come to the beginning of the UNiverse and before the Universe existed there must have been someone who could make something from nothing...that is God.
If you're not referring to physical limits, then what is forbidden becomes a matter of personal choice or imagination. What is morally forbidden depends upon what morals one chooses to adhere to, and as well as what is outside one's realm of imagination.
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.