What Atheists Want

The Washington Post ^ | Chris Mooney

[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.

....

[beavus]

There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?

Actually, if there isn't, then there won't be any evidence against it, and we will never know.

Heinlein also wrote:

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."

And, more apropos to our discussion:

"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa."

[Ronin]

Yup.

Let's table it. I get the feeling we are more or less in agreement.

Agnostically yours,

Ronin

[man of Yosemite]

A man once referred to Jesus as "good Master", and Jesus asked him "why do you call me good, There is one who is good, and that is God." Jesus pointed people to the ultimate source of good, but some people don't allow for the invisible realm. They even follow good behaviour but deny any source outside of man himself. Is goodness an invention or would it still be good even if there were no human race?

[gcruse]

Isn't 'good' a social construct? If it were innate, then what would be the difference between humans damming up rivers and beavers doing the same thing? Silliness aside, one needs a strict definition of good, I think, to answer your question.

[tdadams]

The government is to be neutral as to a persons religion in regards to his civil rights, not atheistic or secular.

You seem to be confused here. Governments are either secular or theocratic. The U.S. is not a theocracy, therefore it is secular. Secular in this sense is not synonymous with atheistic, as you seem to be using it.

Being a secular government doesn't prohibit Christians from holding office, it doesn't bar a recounting of our Christian roots, and it doesn't require us to strip any symbolism of God from any and all public spaces.

Now, can we put that to rest already?

It is you that has bought a bill of goods, probably comes from public school indoctrination.

OK, Miss, you're geting ugly. I would normally be the last person to bring up my credentials, but before you go and get all condescending on me again, keep in ming I have six years of education at two different Christian universities, with a full two years in Biblical exegesis. Don't get smug and snippy with me about my education. If you had any decency, you'd apologize for that comment, but I don't expect you will.

As for you inability to understand there will always be those perverts [pedophiles] attempting to move the moral line behind them a little investigation into their agendas would be in order.

Sure, I understand that there are those who want to legalize pedophilia, just as there are those who still want to teach that the earth is flat. They're both similarly marginal in our society and both have about the same chances of succeeding in their goals. Keeping this in mind, I don't go into hysterics about it the way you seem to be doing.

Sure, they may keep pushing incrementally, but I don't lose sleep over it. I proise you, legalized pedophilia is not coming to a town near you anytime soon.

atheists have no business defining where Christians worship or defining where they cannot worship.

You're being evasive here. If you mean that Christians (or any religion) should be able to take their worship (something they're free to do in their church) and impose it on the rest of society by 'worshipping' in public at the courthouse or the shcool, then I'm going to say you're absolutely dead wrong. You do not have that right, no matter how many times you contend otherwise.

As for the public schools and the courthouse, government should reflect the community it serves... The majority population in the USofA is of the Christian religion, government should in no way hinder their free expression of their religion in their courthouses, public schools or other institutions.

Again, this goes back to my original post to you. You seem to think that everything is hunky dorey as long as it's not your ox being gored. Do you realize how haughty that is? What about those who are not Christian and do not wish to have your religion imposed on them? Is that just too bad? Should they just leave the country?

We live in a Constitutional representative republic that protects the interests of the minority as much as the majority. We don't live in a society that lives by simple "majority rules". Or were you not aware of that? Maybe you're the victim of public schools, Miss.

You seem to be saying that it's OK for Christians to impose their religion on the public because Christians are the majority. What if in fifty years, Muslims or Buddhists are the majority? Will you concede that Christians should quietly accquiesce and allow the Muslims to impose their religion on the public, since they are the majority? Should the government be allowed to tell little Susie to wear a burka to school?

No where in the Constitution is this mandated, nor was it ever considered that government must be athestic or secular

What part of "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" is unclear to you???

... it merely prevents government from demanding that all citizens adhere to Christianity.

You seem to have taken up that cause all on your own.

[tdadams]

And God has spoken - His Bible remains historically tested, theologically consistent, the very spoken Word of God

Since you seem to be knowledgeable on these matters, maybe you could offer me your guidance as to which Bible I should be reading.

Should I read the Jewish Bible that includes the book of Sirach, the Catholic Bible that includes the books of Tobin and Macabees, or the Tyndale Bible, the first English translation?

Perhaps I should rely on the King James version of the Bible, although it is only 83% consistent with the Tyndale Bible, which is regarded as much more accurate in it's translation. However, Tyndale was executed as a heretic for having translated the Bible into English, so maybe that's not a good idea.

So, if the Bible is the "very spoken word of God" how can there be this much confusion, inconsistency, and disagreement about what is "The Bible"? Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[tdadams]

government should in no way hinder their free expression of their religion in their courthouses, public schools or other institutions.

If your child wants to say a prayer before her lunch at a public school, who is going to stop her? If you and your family form a prayer circle before going into a court hearing, who is going to stop you?

The answer is, you know it and I know it, that no one is going to stop you. So how is it that you still contend that government is hindering your free expression of religion?

What you really mean is that you want free license to proselytize. And that, you do not have the right to do with the sanction or assistence of the government.

[Gamecock]

***Lesson: Evolutionary processes are *incredibly* more efficient and effective than simple randomness alone.***

If you give Evolutionary Process the power of actually being "something." Evolutionary process is nothing but a description of a theory, which in spite of 100+ years of efforts, hasn't been proven.

Even the biggest adherants to evolution are stating to change directions and say that life may have been introduced fro anothe rplanet, by meters or some other mechanism. That of course will be just as unsatisfying, because, where did that life arise?

They just can't explain the black box.

[jwh_Denver]

Rights are given by God. They must be guaranteed by moral governance, and/or the vigilance of the individual.

This is from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


I was just plain wrong and I see no difference in what you said than what the DOI says. Thanks for helping to set me straight. I kind of have a great desire to be right. Thanks!

[Zack Nguyen]

No problem!

[Zack Nguyen]

The Bible is the single most copied ancient document in existence, by an enormous margin. Amazingly, it also has the most integrity between copies. Very little of the Bible, in fact, is in any question at all. I am told that in only about 50 places in the New Testament (the size of a large paragraph) is there is some sort of question on grammar. And frankly the message of salvation through the atoning death of Christ, the central message of the Bible, is not at risk here.

Now, inerrancy does not apply to a translation. It applies only to the originals written by the Apostles. However, we can be assured that the Bible we read today, assuming you get a responsible translation, is about as close as it can get, and truth unto salvation.

Here is a quote I found a few months ago from Vanderbilt School of Divinity, hardly a hotbed of fundamentalism:

Most scholars agree that there is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament. Moreover, no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Illiad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. Furthermore, to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no document of the ancient period are as well attested biographically as the New Testament.

Here is the link:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/NTBib/textual.html

So, if you want to disagree with the words of the Apostles, then we can discuss that. But you cannot consistently doubt the integrity of the New Testament.

There are many excellent translations available. The essential message of the 66 books of the Bible remains the same.

[Zack Nguyen]

So far, I only see you trying to shoehorn every worldview and every person's experience into something that all comes back to God (I presume Jehovah God of the Christian faith), even if it's unbeknownst to that person themselves.

That's right. I try to look at all ideologies through the Christian prism. The Christian worldview is the only one that makes rational sense.

[man of Yosemite]

The sense of something being "good" is a social construct, but if you believe the biblical record, God calls creation "good" even before the creation of man. If you don't believe in that record, you could observe the difference between this planet and the other planets we know, and conclude that there is something far more wonderful and interesting going on here that on the barren landscapes of other worlds. Just looking at the planets from high up would draw someone to our world, and then to observe the many networks of cities, the travel of air, land and sea craft, the myriad forms of life and vegitation, how could they not say "bravo".

[Zack Nguyen]

Do you honestly think that harming someone to the point of taking their life is a concept that is rendered invalid in the absense of God?

I think you are asking if it wrong to harm someone to the point of death if there is no God. I'm sure we could all think of some utilitarian reasons for not harming someone - they are more useful to us alive than dead, etc. But morally, ethically, the answer is "No." Without God there are no eternal consequences and no eternal standards, so if you can get away with it, it is entirely up to the Mind of Man, and on that there is no Governor. I agree with Dostoevsky, who I believe said that without God, all things are permissible.

And such it is. The Apostle Paul, quoting the Prophet Isaiah, said that without Christ, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

[gcruse]

Oh, indeed. This planet is wonderful. I expect there to be billions like it out there with critters just as happy to find themselves sentient. Of course, we think it is good because we can thrive on it. Looked at another way, we have adapted (evolved) to make use of what the planet has available. Of course we fit. It's called evolution. And it is good. :)

[tdadams]

You've conveniently opted not to address the point of my post and only make issue with a point that's not really disputed.

So, let me make it simple and I'll ask for your explanation.

If the Bible is the "very spoken words of God" as you've said, then why do we not only have only an 83% consistency between translations (which I'll concede is insignifigant), but also disagreement as to which books are actually part of the Bible.

I know you've said you believe the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are the words of God, but are you then telling Catholics and Jews, who include other books (such as the Apocrypha) or different versions of one of the books (the book of Esther) that their Bible, which they also believe to be the "very words of God", is in fact not the words of God?

Who are you to say so? Perhaps they are right and you're wrong. But one thing is certain, both cannot be right and neither can be sure who is right.

[gcruse]

I like your tagline, BTW. I can tell when I should stop buying something. That's when I am using it so much I figure I better stock up on it. That means I won't use the stock and would be wise not to buy...except that until I stock up, I won't quit using...

[Zack Nguyen]

I can condemn it because I have the freedom to condemn whatever I choose.

You can condemn whatever you like. Hitler could condemn you or me too. That doesn't make it valid, because as you just stated all morality is a personal choice. You can say "I personally condemn Hitler" but you can't say (without an eternal standard) "Hitler is wrong in all places and all times."

Now of course you rebel against this, because God has implanted a conscience within you and you obey it. You have a knowledge that there is a God and there is such a thing as an eternal standard. Find out who that God is.

I mean, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao all lived long and fruitful lives, implementing their choices freely. Their moral choices were antithetical to mine. On the other hand, I know of many good peaceful hardworking and kind people whose lives, though short and miserable, barely conflicted with my morals at all.

I would hardly say that Pol Pot or Stalin lived "fruitful lives." In fact I'd say the exact opposite. I wouldn't trade places with them for an instant, and where they are now there is no hope at all. Be assured of that - justice escapes no one, accept those that receive Christ who bears justice for them on the Cross.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. We don't always know why. But we live in a sinful world and evil is our own invention. God will deal with all of it in his own time.

[tdadams]

I think you are asking if it wrong to harm someone to the point of death if there is no God... morally, ethically, the answer is "No."

I think anyone who answers this question "No" is simply being dishonest. I understand you wish to promote the idea of a universe that revolves entirely around God and is dependent upon God for everything, but even in the absence of God, man has an inner sense of morality that precludes doing harm to other, if only to not bring harm upon themselves. It would not be open season to commit any kind of offense against others as you contend.

Think about this. The oldest book in God's word to us, the Bible, is only about 3,000 years old. Was man free to murder prior to receiving God's expressed disapproval in the Bible? If you say no, then tell me on what basis? Man had no stricture against murder from God, but surely you don't think it was permissible.

[Zack Nguyen]

Scientists disagree on what part of the brain does what. Should we drop the study of the brain all together as useless? Then let's not apply a different standard here.

Are you actually asking how people can disagree? I'll offer a shocking confession - Christians disagree on a few things. The really suspicious thing would be if we walked in total and complete lockstep on all things. People would wonder why or how.

In my last post I tried to show you that there is really very little disagreement among serious scholars on the integrity of the NT - that is what we read today is what was written two thousand years ago with stunning precision.

Christians disagree in some cases because they are still sinful people. In a few cases they disagree because the Bible is open to interpretation in a few places (i.e. eschatology, etc.)

With regards to the Bible you should read, since you asked I'll give you a suggestion. I use the New International Version, which is a Protestant Bible. It is used by countless Christians today. It is not as scholarly as the New American Standard, but it is excellent and is noted for it's readability. I have never really studied the Apocrypha or why Protestants do not claim it as the word of God. I'm sure you can discover why if you do the research. I assume Protestants had some good reasons, but you can discover that for yourself. I have never heard a Catholic sermon on the Apocrypha or even seen it referenced, and I watch a lot of Catholic television.