Jack Burton: The hell of what?
Eddie Lee: The Chinese have a lot of hells.
from the classic movie "Big Trouble in Little China"
Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
You misunderstand game theory, and are projecting characterizations on it that are not expressed in it nor rightly interpreted from it. As I said, most people get it wrong on casual analysis. :-)
from the classic movie "Big Trouble in Little China"
It was during the French and Indian War that many British and Colonials were first exposed to freemasonry through "Field Lodges" in the army. This was the only social construct where officers and enlistees could mingle on a more or less "equal" footing and discuss the issues of that time. Some of the issues discussed were no doubt related to the Rights of Man.
That so many of our founders were Masons (including the "Indispensable Man" Washington) cannot easily be dismissed. And though most believed in God (perhaps Tom Paine and Jefferson being the most famous atheists), they did not resemble in their lifestyle or professed beliefs the "Born Again" Christians of today's America.
Washington, though a church-going man, never took communion while Martha did.
I shall give credit to Freemasonry.
(perhaps Tom Paine and Jefferson being the most famous atheists)
Neither were atheists. Paine was a deist who had issues with Christianity. Jefferson was pro-Christian who had issues with miracles.
Note: Paine's book "Rights of Man" was not published until 1792.
My basis in understanding of game theory comes from computer models where an attempt to find an evolutionarily stable strategy is the goal. During these simulations, the “winner” for the most part mirrors what the opponent’s last move was: Tit-for tat. Am I grokking it so far? This strategy does not necessarily always equate to the golden rule.
I do like js1138’s "tough love" interpretation though.
Denying the existence of your creator is arrogant only if you know your creator exists!
There's the rub.
If emperical proof were present of God's existence, I would agree that a person would need to be amazingly arrogant to be an atheist.
The lack of such evidence suggests that the opposite be true.
And yes, Christianity certainly teaches that man should be humble before God. However it sometimes comes across like mankind is an only child. Self-centered and expecting to be center of all of God's attention.
Great point about other religions. We tend to stay Judeo-Christian centric in our thinking, but you're correct, not all religions claim God takes a personal interest in Man.
Still though, most of those religions do take the position that man is at or near the center of the reason for all creation.
Amen Brother! ;)
I didn't state it clearly, but Christianity is indeed the religion I had in mind with my comment about belief in a personal God.
Problem is that atheism has no scientific or rational basis for these claims. We live in an orderly and beautiful universe and it is not rational to claim that this "just happened".
I don't entirely disagree with you on this point. The existence of a higher power cannot be dismissed. There is not enough evidence to absolutely state one way or another.
However, though completely respecting the right of others to their own belief system, I personally do not think there is evidence of a personal God as represented by Christianity.
>>Belief in religion requires a much larger ego and is a much greater statement of arrogance on the part of mankind.
Well, nonsense.
Perhaps. Though it seems illogical to think that a large ego would concieve of an impersonal universe where he plays absolutely no role.
This will become a tedious argument if you insist on relying on examples of individuals. I can come up with a Christian for every Atheist you dredge up.
For every Stalin, I'll point to a Christian Hitler.
For every Mao, I'll point to a Constantine (first Christian Emperor of Rome who purged the empire, family too, in much the same way Mao did.
For every egotistical Carl Sagan, I'll point to a Jimmy Swaggert who's ego was so large that he could preach against sin every day and meet with his prostitute every night.
I guarantee you that as a group both Atheists and Christians have geniuses and idiots, saints and sinners, good Samaritans and jerks.
Of course there are egotistical Atheists!! Of course there are egotistical Christians!! The personalities of the individuals are similar because they all come from the same population called mankind.
The argument is not about the individuals but about the theology.
Paine suffered then, as now he suffers not so much because of what he wrote as from the misinterpretations of others. He has been called an atheist, but atheist he was not. Paine believed in a supreme intelligence, as representing the idea which other men often express by the name of deity.
His Bible was the open face of nature, the broad skies, the green hills. He disbelieved the ancient myths and miracles taught by established creeds. But the attacks on those creeds -- or on persons devoted to them -- have served to darken his memory, casting a shadow across the closing years of his life. When Theodore Roosevelt termed Tom Paine a dirty little atheist he surely spoke from lack of understanding. It was a stricture, an inaccurate charge of the sort that has dimmed the greatness of this eminent American. But the true measure of his stature will yet be appreciated. The torch which he handed on will not be extinguished. If Paine had ceased his writings with "The Rights of Man" he would have been hailed today as one of the two or three outstanding figures of the Revolution. But "The Age of Reason" cost him glory at the hands of his countrymen -- a greater loss to them than to Tom Paine.
I stand corrected.
And, your silence on my point about Christians being different in colonial times than Christians of today (General Washington, for instance, spoke of "Providence" and not Christ) I will take as agreement.
Paine suffered then, as now he suffers not so much because of what he wrote as from the misinterpretations of others. He has been called an atheist, but atheist he was not. Paine believed in a supreme intelligence, as representing the idea which other men often express by the name of deity.
His Bible was the open face of nature, the broad skies, the green hills. He disbelieved the ancient myths and miracles taught by established creeds. But the attacks on those creeds -- or on persons devoted to them -- have served to darken his memory, casting a shadow across the closing years of his life. When Theodore Roosevelt termed Tom Paine a dirty little atheist he surely spoke from lack of understanding. It was a stricture, an inaccurate charge of the sort that has dimmed the greatness of this eminent American. But the true measure of his stature will yet be appreciated. The torch which he handed on will not be extinguished. If Paine had ceased his writings with "The Rights of Man" he would have been hailed today as one of the two or three outstanding figures of the Revolution. But "The Age of Reason" cost him glory at the hands of his countrymen -- a greater loss to them than to Tom Paine.
I stand corrected.
And, your silence on my point about Christians being different in colonial times than Christians of today (General Washington, for instance, spoke of "Providence" and not Christ) I will take as agreement.
You have conceived of a universe in which you play absolutely no role?
Hitler was not a Christian. He hated Christianiy. He sought to destroy Christianity. This has been established to the point it can't be disputed.
That actually sounds like some people on these forums.
I missed your point. No, we are not in agreement. A Christian today is not significantly different than a Christian in 1776 who is not significantly different than a Christian in 776.
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.