Posted on 06/27/2002 5:50:47 PM PDT by JMJ333
John Locke didn't have much room for atheism either.
Similarly, assuming there is an afterlife, why would belief in God have anything to do with getting there?
A bump and many pings.
I made a good case based on material evidence of history for the existence of God in the link on post 9. You may find it interesting.
I'm an atheist. It is not an easy thing. I must accept that my existence will permanently end at some point. It would be NICE to believe in a God that might grant me some way around my mortality--but to me, wishing isn't going to make it so. I'd be happy to 'answer' to some god in exchange for extended (eternal?) life. And since I don't believe in God, I don't hate him. I don't hate religion or religious people, either (well, except maybe certain Islamofascists).
I was for many years a very religious person, but gradually came to believe that the foundation for faith (of any type) was lacking. Very long story, I won't go into it here. It's my personal view, and I don't bother to convince others of it. I don't look down upon those who disagree, either. Furthermore, I hardly agree that statements like 'under god' in the pledge of allegiance *establish* a religion. Atheists like Newdon (sp?) are an embarrassment.
I am a scientist, but I am not an expert in evolution. I have heard all the arguments for the existence of god, and I'm not convinced by the argument that the "order" we see in the universe implies an intelligent designer. (Even if I conceded a designer, my view is the designer has such limited interaction with humanity as to be meaningless--but that's another thing altogether). We observe that nature behaves in certain ways, but to interpret that behavior as 'orderly' and therefore intelligent doesn't carry much weight with me. Sorry.
You may conclude I'm stupid. Doesn't bother me. Stupidity is not the exclusive domain of atheists.
As for Him demanding that we follow his rules, it seems you are giving Him human attributes, not me. If God is holy, ie: sinless and perfect, we cannot abide with Him unless we become holy. What His commandments show us more than anything else is that Holiness is a gulf between us and Him that we cannot bridge on our own. Thus, the necessity for a "perfect man" in the form of Jesus Christ, to die a substitutionary death for others. Death being the proper penalty for our (mine anyway) choice to live out my will apart from God.
At the end of the day, accepting Christ's gift of salvation and forgiveness is a very freeing experience. Anyone who thinks all the good things in their life are of their own doing is duped. An honest appraisal of my own life shows much more good given to me than I deserve. I say that not out of guilt, because, I really dont feel any guilt. I do have fairly clear 20/20 hindsight though. And I believe that one day I will have a perfect vision of what my life was about and who directed it. I'm sure I will see that, thankfully, I handed over the reigns to Christ and let him drive.
First look at what was they state in the ruling
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,"' Goodwin wrote.
But the statment above is false
Jesus, Vishnu, Zeus. are proper names of a god a supernatural god
But the word God is not a proper name... it is a title
The term god is generic, look it up
It is the title for what anyone believes is the ultimate truth .. that is there god
It does not even mean a supernatural god
God (a. & n.) Good.
God (n.) A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.
God (n.) Figuratively applied to one who wields great or despotic power
Atheist have a god an ultimate truths they believe in
Part of there god is that there is no Supreme Being
They "would claim" they follow a humanist moral code and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.
So the judges ruling was fundamentally wrong because he assumed the word "God" called on a particular supernatural god but it does not
Meanwhile, for those that missed it, there's a thread about atheists improving society at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/698289/posts
Why is that not easy? Where were you before you were born (or at least conceived)?
Believing in God as an abstract entity that created the universe is pretty easy, i.e. the cause behind the Big Bang. Believing in God as a still abstract entity that causes the laws of nature to continue on in a consistent fashion throughout time is also pretty easy.
Understanding why the creator and sustainer of the universe would want to mess around with individual humans (each of the 6,000,000,000 of us) on the third planet of a mediocre star in the edge of a sort of average galaxy is a lot harder. It's sort of like trying to believe that Santa delivers presents to all the boys and girls on Christmas Eve in his sleigh with only nine flying reindeer.
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.