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 ...
The definition of an atheist is one who does not share a world view that originates from divine (God given) theology. To say that no one fits that definition is ignorant.
Where do you feel your rights come from? Are they inalienable (INCAPABLE of being alienated, surrendered or transferred)? Why is that?
What unchanging standard do you recognize in order to arrive at your conclusion? Is your standard a legitimate truth that is true for all people in all places at all times? By whose authority is it true? Is it true whether everyone agrees with you or not?
On another note:
Do you have *faith* that other people have minds?
If you don't have that faith, please explain how you *know* that others beside yourself have minds and that they aren't just preprogrammed robots.
An atheist can no more prove there is no God than the Christians or Muslims can prove, to their satisfaction, that there is. That being the case, an atheist's belief in the rectitude of his/her position is identical to that of a devout Catholic's in his/her position.
I do not profess to follow any organized creed and have absolutely no problem with those who do. If a person wants to include the word "under God" in his pledge, that's fine. If he wants to remain silent during those words, that's fine to.
But when an atheist tells a child she cannot pray before her lunch in a school, or when a rabid disbeliever cofiscates and throws a child's Bible into a garbage can, calling it hate speech and trash, they are engaging in a form of tyranny that is just as dispicable as that practiced by every OTHER religious fanatic, and they need to be confronted.
Well of course, to an atheist that's poppycock. And yet, I claim that a thoughtful atheist would have to concede that it's at least half right: eternity is indeed in the hearts of men, whether you agree God put it there or not.
If you've done even a casual study of cosmology, you know that the Big Bang Theory drives many atheist-leaning cosmologists and other scientists stark raving mad. Well of course I'm being overly dramatic there. But seriously, they can't stand the idea that the universe could be finite in duration or extent. It's proving more and more to be an accurate assessment of our universe every day, and it drives them nuts. Before Big Bang, they had the steady-state theory of cosmology to pacify them, but that's pretty much been decimated.
So what are conscientious atheist cosmologists to do?
Here's what: they posit new explanations that bring infinity/eternity back into the equation: multiple universes, oscillating universes, and so forth. Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that any of these ideas accurately describe the universe and it's "surrounding environment." And we never will have such evidence: we can never have contact with an "alternate" universe, nor can we survive until the "oscillation" of this one.
So what is an atheist to do? Well, they can subscribe to one of these unprovable theories... sounds like faith to me. Or they can harbor hope that a more plausible explanation will pop up later... again, sounds like faith. Or they can simply conclude that the truth is unknowable... which really makes them agnostic, doesn't it?
Perhaps we atheists and theists have more in common than we admit. We both struggle the notions of infinity, and we ultimately choose to believe in something that we really can't prove.
On the contrary. There are ultimately only two religions - one is man-centered, where man is sovereign in everything, and one is God-centered, where God is sovereign in everything.
Everyone who has, or will ever live, embraces one or the other of the two religions.
How is that?
Because one of the definitions of god is: something or someone of supreme value -- something or someone that functions as an ultimate concern in everyone's life.
We all care about many things: love of family, the condition of our home, taxes, war and peace, etc., etc., but for each of us, there can only be one ultimate concern, something so important and valuable that we are willing, at the moment, to sacrifice almost anything for it. (One's ultimate concern can change over time, but that doesn't change the fact that we all have one at any given time).
Whatever our ultimate concern is, is our god.
Not being the subject of this inquiry, but being an atheist, I’d like to answer. Rights in a theoretical sense from an Objectivist perspective come from the recognition of the needs of our nature. Being rational beings, we require the liberty to act in our own rational self interest in order to maximize our talents in living our lives.
"What unchanging standard do you recognize in order to arrive at your conclusion? Is your standard a legitimate truth that is true for all people in all places at all times? By whose authority is it true? Is it true whether everyone agrees with you or not?"
The concept of a “right” is a social construct, but one that recognizes that our nature changes very little with respect to our fundamental requirements. The validity underlying each right is either true or it’s not, irrelevant of anyone’s authority. Opinions may vary, similar to opinions on theology.
And that agreement is..?
Why are communist countries so afraid of religion? What "agreement" do people in those countries have with one another? Do you think they are "enlightened" in this regard?
Or could it be that the despots of the world understand that when the masses do not believe in a Divine Creator, they can be more easily ruled?
What part of the definition of “divine” do you not understand? If one does not accept a God given theology, he is not a theist. Therefore he is an atheist, and not religious.
Wow, that's a new one. (not really, theists try that trick regularly). Try this definition: Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity.
An atheist can no more prove there is no God than the Christians or Muslims can prove, to their satisfaction, that there is.
OK, what deity is it you want us to think exists? Can you describe it's attributes?
That being the case, an atheist's belief in the rectitude of his/her position is identical to that of a devout Catholic's in his/her position.
Could you please explain? I don't understand your assertion.
I do not profess to follow any organized creed and have absolutely no problem with those who do. If a person wants to include the word "under God" in his pledge, that's fine. If he wants to remain silent during those words, that's fine to. Did you mean "too"?
But when an atheist tells a child she cannot pray before her lunch in a school, or when a rabid disbeliever cofiscates and throws a child's Bible into a garbage can, calling it hate speech and trash, they are engaging in a form of tyranny that is just as dispicable as that practiced by every OTHER religious fanatic, and they need to be confronted
You are making this up, aren't you?
And who enforces these property rights?
That you own yourself.
Why are communist countries so afraid of religion?
They prefer people worship the state. The cult of
personality is on full display in North Korea.
What "agreement" do people in those countries have with one another?
They do not share the agreement, I guess. But if you are correct, that
rights are God-given, why do these people find themselves with none?
Do you think they are "enlightened" in this regard?
I think they are enslaved. Where are their god-given rights?
What happened to God?
Or could it be that the despots of the world understand that when the masses do not believe in a Divine Creator, they can be more easily ruled?
Really? I don't suppose you have any cites for that, do you? As a matter of fact, wasn't it Marx
who said people could be made to suffer greatly if you gave them the opiate of religion? You know,
the pie in the sky by and by.
It takes their mind off their misery.
My parents created me. Mom contributed the egg, and Dad contributed the sperm. Did your folks do something else that needed supernatural intervention?
O'Hair is NOT a antheist. She is unwashed asshole of an atheist.
(can I say that here?)
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.