Posted on 05/01/2011 6:06:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Long after blacks and Jews have made great strides, and even as homosexuals gain respect, acceptance and new rights, there is still a group that lots of Americans just don’t like much: atheists. Those who don’t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and angry. They can’t join the Boy Scouts. Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score as sufficiently “spiritual” in military psychological evaluations. Surveys find that most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry or vote for nontheists; in other words, nonbelievers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.
Rarely denounced by the mainstream, this stunning anti-atheist discrimination is egged on by Christian conservatives who stridently — and uncivilly — declare that the lack of godly faith is detrimental to society, rendering nonbelievers intrinsically suspect and second-class citizens.
Is this knee-jerk dislike of atheists warranted? Not even close.
A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.
Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Good answer to post 62. The devil seeks to change what God said Islam. Mormonism, even Catholicism and others to a degree, ) and then to deny it altogether.
Certainly it can, and i am not saying it is wrong in principle to seek to persuade others of what one believes is true and best, but pointed out that it occurs on both sides.
True...see the documentary “Demographic Winter”. And then most of the “religious believers” that have these children will send them off to public school to learn from an institution dedicated to teaching the tenets of atheism. This leads to a very confused younger generation...mom and dad talk about God but send me to school to learn that there is no God...and then we wonder why...”. Murder is overwhelmingly committed by 15-30 year olds.”
The evolution of mammals is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships...
The teaching that matrimony is a sacrament gives to a religious clergy the power to judge the lawfulness of marriages and power of ecclesiastical censure for divorce.
The government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.
The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind, but not of the persons of men.
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world; and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
Most so-called "atheists" ignore the greater premise and scientific fact that mammals can only evolve heterosexually. They are religious faggots (a term I invented exclusively for them and their ilk).
And whether any of the philosophical combatants like it or not, this idea is supported by the book of Genesis.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Romans 1:21-22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth tight unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Ask them if they believe in the existence of black holes. Ask them if they've ever seen one.
they are mixing apples and oranges.
Upper class and wealthy refined atheists are being compared to the rest of us uneducated bitter types who cling to our guns and religion.
I could see how a person that was just going through the motions of being religious without actually believing in God would feel “happier” after walking away.You are so right. I'd feel exactly that.
onedoug,
thanks. I agree with your comments about science.
best,
ampu
(The US Constitution is based on God and moral absolutes that have been ripped apart by the atheists and pagan and occultists. Schools are brainwashing children into Darwinism and atheism and Marxism.)
“Antony Flew, the 81-year-old British philosophy professor who taught at Oxford and other leading universities, became an atheist at age 15. Throughout his long career he argued—including in debates with an atheist-turned-Christian named C. S. Lewis—that there was a “presumption of atheism,” that is, the existence of a creator could not be proved.
But he’s now been forced to face the evidence. It comes from the Intelligent Design movement, led by Dr. Phillip Johnson and particularly the work of Michael Behe, the Lehigh biochemist who has proven the “irreducible complexity” of the human cell structure. Though eighty-one years old, Flew has not let his thinking fossilize, but has faithfully followed his own dictum to “go where the evidence leads.”
Christian philosophy professor Gary Habermas of Liberty University conducted an interview with Flew that will be published in the winter issue of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and Biola University. Flew told Habermas that a pivotal point in his thinking was when he realized two major flaws in the various theories of how nature might have created itself. First, he recognized that evolutionary theory has no reasonable explanation for “the first emergence of living from non-living matter”—that is, the origin of life. Second, even if a living cell or primitive animal had somehow assembled itself from non-living chemicals, he reasoned it would have no ability to reproduce.”
From: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/01/antony-flews-co-1.html
Yes.
I find it remarkable that when the most influential Atheist for decades, Flew, acknowledged that there is a God, it wasn’t splashed on the front pages for months. If any famous Christian renounced Christianity and became an Atheist, it would have been broadcast 24/7 for half a year.
Media is just brainwashing bullsh*t.
Placemark.
It's a much, much bigger jump to go from believing in a creator to believing in a God (or Gods) who rewards and punishes humans on a one-by-one basis, and even a bigger jump to the paradox and schism packed belief system that is Christianity.
save
If one were to catalogue heresies marking the whole long story of Christendom the list would seem almost endless. They divide and subdivide, they are on every scale, they vary from the local to the general. Their lives extend from less than a generation to centuries. The best way of understanding the subject is to select a few prominent examples, and by the study of these to understand of what vast import heresy may be.
Such a study is the easier from the fact that our fathers recognized heresy for what it was, gave it in each case a particular name, subjected it to a definition and therefore to limits, and made its analysis the easier by such definition. Unfortunately, in the modern world the habit of such a definition has been lost; the word "heresy" having come to connote something odd and old-fashioned, is no longer applied to cases which are clearly cases of heresy and ought to be treated as such.
For instance, there is abroad today a denial of what theologians call "dominion"-that is the right to own property. It is widely affirmed that laws permitting the private ownership of land and capital are immoral; that the soil of all goods which are productive should be communal and that any system leaving their control to individuals or families is wrong and therefore to be attacked and destroyed.
That doctrine, already very strong among us and increasing in strength and the number of its adherents [*COUGH* DEMOCRATS *COUGH*], we do not call a heresy. We think of it only as a political or economic system, and when we speak of Communism our vocabulary does not suggest anything theological. But this is only because we have forgotten what the word theological means. Communism is as much a heresy as Manichaeism. It is the taking away from the moral scheme by which we have lived of a particular part, the denial of that part and the attempt to replace it by an innovation. The Communist retains much of the Christian scheme- human equality, the right to live, and so forth-he denies a part of it only.
Cheers!
THX for the ping.
True....but societies with great numbers have never ever been capable of great freedom, creativity and productiveness and fairness under any paradigm but the Christian one. No other gives dignity and worth to every single human being.
That being said.....why destroy the Christian ethic when no other ideology gives such freedom and fairness? None. Atheism ends in totalitarianism and destruction of freedom and morality. Evil always gets rewarded and goodness gets punished and taxed (and eliminated).
Objective Truth is necessary for Just Law. You can never have it in a moral relativist society (one with no Revelation and Objective Truth) which are all cultures and religions not based on Natural Law Theory (like Christianity) and the basis of the US Constitution. The Christian paradigm dominated America and was the reason underlying the success of the Capitalistic country. Morality has to be a part of Capitalism.
Socialism destroys freedom and responsibility and T. Dalrymple explains the destruction of cultures which destroys the family and Christianity. Welfare state always destroys the family and faith.
1 - how about the Jewish "paradigm"?
2 - I do agree with you that societies with Christian underpinnings do well by human freedom and dignity. But only for the last three hundred years. It took a good sized side order of Enlightenment philosophy added into the mix to activate that "freedom, creativity and fairness".
3 - Your rationale for Christianity is a pragmatic one. "It produces a better society". I can accept that premise and agree with it while still having no personal acceptance of the supernatural in any way.
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.