Further, atheists are so much humbler AND smarter than us and we so much less perceptive than they that if they didn't tell us that they're atheists we'd be too stupid to notice. So they're doing it as a kindness.
Okay, maybe not.
Posted on 12/28/2006 4:15:11 PM PST by quesney
In nearly every interview about my book, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism,I am asked whether I am an atheist or an agnostic. The bias--a profoundly American bias--implicit in this question is that only an "unbeliever" would want to write a historical work about the secular influences on the founding and development of our nation.
[...]
What we ought to be talking about are decent human values that can be subscribed to by Americans of any faith or no faith. I could not care less whether any elected official believes in God: I care about what he or she does on earth. As an atheist, I believe precisely what the Bible says on this subject: "By their fruits ye shall know them."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.washingtonpost.com ...
Probably as a retort, but as a first principle, it is bound to be taken as provocative.
With all due respect, you're simply wrong. For example, just recently there was some study that indicated that people of faith gave much more to charity. That is not from 200 years ago.
I guess my question would be, "How does disclosing one's lack of belief in one of the tens of thousands of belief systems sound like an invitation to a fight?"
Further, atheists are so much humbler AND smarter than us and we so much less perceptive than they that if they didn't tell us that they're atheists we'd be too stupid to notice. So they're doing it as a kindness.
Okay, maybe not.
There aren't any...
"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates advanced the argument that piety to the gods is impossible if the gods all want different things.
Human claims of morality is sophistry without some singular higher power defining what it is...
The very idea that human beings have individual rights not subject to the whims of an earthly monarch, but subject to the laws of Yahweh, is directly from Moses.
The writer, like a couple of others recently positioned their works to coincide with religious events and designed titles meant to provoke outrage among the easily outraged; this is what I mean by picking a fight.
No rational person can logically conclude that gods or demons are in charge of events, but it isn't necessary or wise to insult your audience if your intent is to persuade.
You seem to have a problem with Catholics. I don't myself.
The conversation in this thread seemed to be about whether being some kind of theist made you a better person than someone who is not a theist - or maybe substitute "Christian" for "theist". Specifically it was debated whethere one could reasonably reject an atheist candidate for political office on no other grounds than that s/he is an atheist. I was engaging in that debate.
I was saying in my first paragraph, with C.S. Lewis, that my being a Christian is not an indication that I am "better" than any given atheist. All I can hope for is to be better than I was before I tried to do something vaguely Christian with my life. There are plenty of honest and virtuous atheists and of dishonest and vicious Christians and other theists. I don't think Cato was a theist and I think in very many respects he was better than I and, a fortiori better than Teddy the Hutt. I have no doubt therefore, that some atheists are more admirable than I, and some of my fellow Catholics more acutely and obviously beset with sin, more even than I. Is this under question? Is it controversial? If it is, I'm flabbergasted. Is this opinion indiciative of a problem with the Catholic Church? How so??
My final paragraph, which happens at the end of an informal exposition of a few paragraphs concludes (with an scarcely veiled allusion to Teddy the Hutt)that I would be prepared to vote for an atheist who showed himself to be virtuous in preference to SOME (not all, I neveer said ALL, never meant to imply ALL, and I think if you read "all" it's because you weren't reading carefully) Catholics, for example Jean Francois Kerry or Teddy the Hutt. I no more said that all Catholics think of God as something they have control over than I said that all atheists are prepared to die for their opinions.
I think this stand would be approved by my Dominican friends and that they would not conclude from anything I have said on this or any other thread that I have a problem with Catholics.
In the course of my argument I made a strongly monotheistic argument that if an atheist loves the truth and sincerely pursues it at cost to himself or herself that love and integrity comes from God. I got that opinioin from reflecting on my reading in Justin Martyr, whom I consider a Catholic.
I think the plain sense of what I wrote initially is as I have rephrased it and that a conclusion that I am slamming Catholics or being hubristis can come only from carelessness or malice.
Why would anyone want to make a point about being a Christian unless they want to start a fight. You are biased. Why would people want to make a point about JFK's Catholicism? It was very much an issue in his election.
"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."
...but you're an atheist, right?
Does the God that you don't believe in have a problem with bearing false witness?
Yes, Shadowdancer.
If you believe that there are absolute moral standards; that there is absolute truth; that Someone is watching you; that there is ultimately perfect justice; that there is a penalty to pay for disobeying God's law -
yes, it affects your behavior. For instance, some day you'll answer for your use of profanity. Mock if you will. You will answer for it.
Myself, I don't use profanity. Because God says not to, and I know He hears what I say. See? My belief system just affected my behavior.
I'm not worried about it. God likes me better than you.
I happen to think Buddha is the ideal when it comes to ethics.
And he was agnostic.
I'd rather have an athiest Constitutionalist than a Christian Socialist.
Fact is, many so-called "conservatives" are actually Christian Socialists. They're all for handouts, welfare, and government intervention as long as they are pro-life and anti gay marriage.
For a historical example, see Francis Bellamy, who wrote the original pledge of allegiance to the flag to teach obedience to the state.
They're all for handouts, welfare, and government intervention as long as they are pro-life and anti gay marriage.
For a perfect modern example of the above, see Mitt Romney.
Not true. At all.
I see nothing wrong with a patriotic salute to the flag, since it REPRESENTS the freedom our nation was founded on. Bellamy's own desires notwithstanding.
It's what the Federal Gov't has BECOME that is offensive.
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.