Atheists challenge the religious right

Christian Science Monitor ^ | 4 January 2007 | Jane Lampman

[therut]

They also have their liberal bias. They do not support the Second Amendment and ALWAYS write pro=gun control polemics.

[oprahstheantichrist]

You outdid yourself on that one. I don't know how anyone could write so fast and be SO coherent.

[Borges]

I've read Dawkins' book and he attacks all religions but specifically the three Abrhamic religions (Judaism, Christanity and Islam).

[SteveMcKing]

"Isaac Asimov, Gordon Stein, and other celebrated atheists freely admit their inability to prove God's nonexistance."

Nor pink elephants. And that one doesn't believe in pink elephants does not mean such a person is trying to be one, as often charged by their critics.

[Borges]

You don't have to believe something to know a lot about it. It's like a Classical scholar writing about the Greek Gods. And deaf people with perfect pitch can write about music just fine. :)

[CottShop]

There is truly nothing new under the sun- these atheist liberal dolts think they're being novel in their approach to villify Christianity? Here's a wake-up call God-Deniers- you've failed for centuries and will continue to fail right up until the point the Christ returns to paint the streets with your spilled blood. http://sacredscoop.com

[little jeremiah]

Well, look at the bright side [so pun intended...remember the atheist organization who call themselves "Brights" in contrast to the barbarians in darkness who believe in God]. At least the God haters are outing themselves. Better to know what the enemies of God are up to. Better to deal with avowed enemies of God than phony religious people.

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Auntie Dem]

They are distressed over polls that show that at least half of Americans are unwilling to vote for an atheist despite the Constitution's requirement that there be no religious test for public office.

Huh, I thought you could vote for anyone you wanted to.

Tell that to Reed Smoot, a Mormon apostle (and NOT a polygamist) elected as a senator from Utah in 1902, but not allowed to be seated in the senate until 1907. Simply, and ONLY because he was a Mormon.

It seems it is consitutional to bar some religions from government. At least if it's not your religion.

[Mike Darancette]

This article is typical of the writing style which is crystal clear prose with no affectations or egregious hostile shots at anyone.

Not unless you think equating a voluntary belief with involuntary servitude might be a little over the top as below:

"Mr. Harris suggests it could be equated with slavery, which once was widely acceptable, but eventually was looked upon with horror. He sees it as responsible for many of life's tragedies."

The crap espoused by these so called enlightened intellectuals makes me want to vomit. Their inability to believe in nothing is not my problem. An intelligent person need not deny God.

[freeangel]

"do these bright, enlightened atheists have anything to say...?"

As a friend of mine likes to tell me...If I'm wrong, I have led a decent, moral life in Christs name and haven't lost a thing. If the atheist is wrong, well, he is in for one heck of a surprise.

[Texas Songwriter]

Because they know, deep down, that they are wrong

It is called Natural Law.

[gitmo]

Sooner or later they will believe.

[jveritas]

And that is why the democrats won Congress by running a lot of candidates who are more or "appear" to be more religious than their Republican opponents.

[Quix]

Oh dear.

The inmates in control of the asylum?

In a lot of places, that might be an IMPROVEMENT!

[Mike Darancette]

Wait a %$#$ minute Atheists do not challenge the religious left? The left's God exists while the right's doesn't? Is the CSM headline writer out of his mind? The left and the right Christians both believe in the SAME God and His Son.

[Quix]

To them . . . all religion is

either

a shade this side of insane

or

a shade this side of the crsades or inquisition or all 3.

They never met a god or religionist they couldn't hate enough to rid the world of the burden of them.

[Quix]

Oh, I suspect there IS a demon named Allah.

But he's sure NOT God Almighty!

[oprahstheantichrist]

...they know, deep down, that they are wrong."

These secularist zealots tend to be quite vocal in their thirties and forties. It's easy to be an atheist when you're 25. Ever know one older than sixty? They're not so pompous as they start to see their friends and colleagues get cancer and drop dead of heart attacks. Then they start to get outright nuts. Some become clean/germ freaks. Others are just hyper controlling, or become OCD.

I've labeled it A.A.S., or Aging Atheist Syndrome:

"If I'm RIGHT I'm screwed," "If I'm WRONG I'm screwed."

If it weren't so pathetic it'd be funny.

[Torie]

Can someone cite an example of a nontheist who is NOT an atheist?

The distinction is subtle, very subtle. Apparently a nontheist thinks that some metaphysical power beyond conception may have done the start your engines thing with the universe. A "hard" atheist just says no, but a "soft" one may not be all that different. Having said that, the terms to describe those who are skeptics about traditional religions metaphysical leaps of faith are breeding like rabbits, and I don't think the resulting terminological issue is very illuminating.

But then I coined my own term for myself, a "near atheist," so a case can certainly be made that I am part of the problem!

[Quix]

Frankly, atheists writing about religion are tiresome. It's like a blind man writing about painting, or a deaf man writing about music. They haven't the foggiest notion what they're talking about. Who wants to read a long rant by people who don't know what they're talking about?
= = =

Indeed.