Uncritical Acceptance of Atheist Nonsense Breeds Killers

[brewmama]

The original Christians were opposed to the Catholics and their claims. That is why the Pagan Catholics killed them.

Buh Bye! :wave:

 

[CherubRam]

You are going down pathways I don't think you want to go down. So I have to paste all the Catholics killed by Protestants? There are a LOT, and all with the blessing of Protestant leaders.

The irony of this, and something you bigoted anti-Catholic Protestants would hate, is how the Orthodox Church views Catholics and Protestants as 2 sides of the same coin, both mired in new errors as they fight each other.

Here is what most people do not know: After the Catholics killed off the original Christians, new protestants arose from the Catholics themselves. Both, the new Protestants, and the Catholic hated the original Christians. The original Christians were hated so much by both groups that they were hunted down and killed. By the way, it was the Judaizing Christians who had the original letters of the Apostles. The Catholics burned the originals and introduced their own version of scriptures.

 

[alwight]

If I think what you say is nonsense Lon I will say so, it's rather up to you to explain why my opinion of that is wrong, which I don't see any of that here btw.

Just FYI, all the most brilliant men in the world were deists and Christians. Fact. Look it up. You were wrong, it wasn't nonsense and I'm not as brilliant as them but saw it right off... You said nonsense and I again assert such says more about you and your close-mindedness than it does about what I said. It certainly was not nonsense. That's too bad for you, not for me. It means you were ignorant and arrogant to say so.

Lon you are only adding more nonsense here. Your assertion that all the most brilliant men (no women?) were deists and Christians is nonsense, but to hang your own personal beliefs on the academic achievements of supposedly worthy and well qualified third parties is just rather sad imo. Do you never want to form your own ideas and opinions, be they right or wrong? You say that you are not as brilliant as them but clearly do reserve a degree of brilliance for yourself. I however am under no illusion that I am in any way brilliant.

I constantly examine my own position because I can change, whereas yours seems to be rather entrenched in following a system of belief rather than in something freely thought out and concluded by yourself alone.

As you must. It is the difference between our worldviews: absolute vs relativism.

Yes absolutism is utter nonsense imo.

Preaching to me that I too need your particular belief system isn't going to change anything nor explain that I am out of control without it.

Sure it does, your belief system isn't absolute, so you 'can' change to accept what is.

Lon you have about as much human nature and enterprise as an automaton, why don't you use the brain you think God gave you and try a little free thinking once and a while?

You started your reply here with a misrepresentation of what I said. Wars each have their own individual set of circumstances but they are not causes in themselves of war, I never suggested that there were no particular reasons.
If people need God, and arguably they may often think they do, then why does it have to be the one that you happen to believe in?

Because He is absolutely the one that exists. Even a Muslim is trying to believe in that God, but getting it wrong. Christianity is literally the only religion that has God coming and explaining to man in person.

I don't know what it would be like to have absolutely no doubts of your own certainty, in fact I don't believe you.

Lon if you want respect for what you know and your ability to communicate it rather than gaining any glowing plaudits you say you have received, then you will need to demonstrate it, not just drone on about it. Go on, put me in my place. The object of life as I see it is to put your abilities into use as best you can, not to earn badges, or gold stars perhaps.

Again, the most brilliant men in the world have been deists and/or Christian. For the most part, atheists seem to 'think' they are smarter than the rest of us, use obscure college findings/statistics to try and show it, but it is simply not true. I notice you don't bother throwing your unrelated astrophysics degree (or whatever) out there. It does not brilliance make, especially if you didn't ace those classes. Yes you can work in that field, but that doesn't allow overt assertions on Christian theology forums. This IS my field of study, not your's. Disdain? Certainly, it is all I get. I don't care what you think of my degrees but rather put them out there as reasons why you should. It really is an ignorant man that would disdain them, and you do, otherwise it'd be a non-issue. Example: You and I get into a physicist disagreement, you, by example having that degree and then saying "You are wrong, this is my degree" would not be met by the same arrogance you portray here. It is a 'stop, listen, shut-up' sort of credential that I'd be a fool to shout-over. Atheist here returning the favor? You and others are actually offended at being called wrong, without the subject even being your field of study. Kinda audacious, doncha think? You are that guy. Of course so is Dawkins, Hawking, etc. They have degrees but then deem to speak on atheist issues. For them, it is amateur hour. Odd that. Hitchens too. All of them, not bothering to study, earn the right, just using their unrelated science platform to over-assert in areas they have no business asserting in. So yeah, I'm the 'arrogant' one

I am happy to inform you Lon that I have no degrees at all, I did an apprentice-ship and acquired knowledge by doing things. I was paid for what I did, not because I had qualifications or gold stars.
Your opinions of non-believers views of themselves is pretty irrelevant and perhaps shows your own inferiority complex about them? How dare these people think for themselves and arrive at a conclusion that is not absolute nor the same as your absolutist one.
No you can't lock your theology away in an ivory tower because it is not testable. Anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's unless it can be evidentially falsified or repeated. You may have put in plenty of academic effort and passed all the tests Lon but you can validate nothing about Christian doctrine because it is based on personal belief, not science, and we can all have beliefs even those of us who have no gold stars.

Your doctrinal reasoning aside for a moment, have you never wondered that organised religion has wielded great powers to wage war in the past, so that even kings needed to claim that their authority was divine?
Whatever the truth about religious beliefs it seems to me that religion and kings have used that power as their own.

Whatever comparison this is, it falls short of the greater questions and most often is used as uncritical scape-goating, and worse, by those 'scholars' just mentioned who have no business stating anything of the sort. A degree in astro-physics does not a philosopher/religious expert make. That is the real irony of Dawkins btw. He has no education to have written the God-delusion, none. Audacity....

Lon respect in scientific matters does not come from qualifications but is due to those who earn it by their achievements after peer review. Why should I give similar respect to those who have passed their theology exams but yet haven't managed anything practical beyond a religious philosophy even if they may have impressed other theologians?
Anyone can have an opinion on why some people believe in a god, and your belief is due no special pleading whatsoever imo.

Many Christians are led to believe that this world is only a waiting room for the next and that salvation is its objective.

Other than 'only' absolutely.

Lon you have no more idea about that than I do, which is probably what worries you despite your absolutist claims. You don't want to hear it from me nor your own nagging doubts.

But I don't accept any of that as being in any way a requisite for being a functioning human being. Indeed humanity existed long before any organised religions came along to become an arguable lever of power and control. I know you won't want to consider that, but there it is. Religions are the borrowers from the evolved secular golden rules that most religions like to claim as their own, but aren't.

A few points: 1) that men more brilliant than I have said that a nation or man without Christ is doomed to fail. That's true. Secular government is driving the agenda right now. 2) A person without a history degree and without a religion degree, and without a philosophy degree, really shouldn't be over-asserting their opinion in our field of study. They really shouldn't. 3) No, you are wrong concerning the golden rule because the Christian rule is beyond that parameter, going so far as to say do good to even one's enemy as well as going beyond a self-centered interest to invest in the needs of others, over/against the comfort of self. That doesn't mean catering to selfishness, but rather meeting actual needs. That is why my church has a foodbank and why I volunteer there. It doesn't matter 'who' comes, but that I would serve in love, whoever they are. The action itself, is Christian that I need not preach the golden rule. They see rather the second of the commands of God in action. 4) How functional are you truly in society (contemplative question and makes no difference if not accepted on those terms)?

This is all a bit too all-over-the-place for me to want to comment.

I usually tend to look for helpful facts and evidence to decide matters rather than wishful thinking and assertions Lon.

I don't really think you are open to that unless that view crushes your own. Again, the vast history of brilliant men were deists and/or Christian. It wasn't just their culture, they wrestled with the ideas themselves. We have their writings showing this to be true. Academic prowess may not break that veneer, but it is why I tend to start there with my credentials. I 'am' better educated than you and Dawkins and Hawking on this philosophical matter. The sad thing? You don't care. You really don't. You are as prideful and as arrogant as that, and you will 'think' I'm the one being so when I'm the one who actually has degrees in this stuff. You just called it 'wishful thinking' and 'assertion.'

I wouldn't be qualified enough, of course, to suggest that you may have spent a great deal of your time barking up the wrong tree, but even with all your fine qualifications you still can't demonstrate that I am wrong.

 

[CherubRam]

Buh Bye! :wave:

And this is an example above, of indoctrination of a person. How very sad! Her mind and eyes are closed to the truth due to her indoctrination.

 

[alwight]

So you're an anti-border guy, huh, and whoever is there at the moment wins? If Muslims storm Europe and take over that's AOK with you? And you certainly support Israel?

If an outside force has designs on my country then traditionally we fight them off. I have no interest in maintaining any rights of pilgrimage in foreign places who have their own conflicts to deal with.

 

[brewmama]

Here is what most people do not know: After the Catholics killed off the original Christians, new protestants arose from the Catholics themselves. Both, the new Protestants, and the Catholic hated the original Christians. The original Christians were hated so much by both groups that they were hunted down and killed. By the way, it was the Judaizing Christians who had the original letters of the Apostles. The Catholics burned the originals and introduced their own version of scriptures.

Please acquaint yourself with actual history.

 

[ok doser]

If an outside force has designs on my country then traditionally we fight them off.

how'd that work out for you in 1066?

 

[brewmama]

If an outside force has designs on my country then traditionally we fight them off. I have no interest in maintaining any rights of pilgrimage in foreign places who have their own conflicts to deal with.

And once again you ignore the pleas from the Orthodox countries to the Western countries to help them against the Muslims. You clothe it all in access to the Holy Land and pilgrimage, and just because you have no interest in it, you assume no one else has any right. Do you think Native Americans have any right to their sacred burial grounds?

 

[brewmama]

how'd that work out for you in 1066?

How will it work out in the near future? Since he's so pro-Muslim, I'm sure he'll be fine.

 

[alwight]

And once again you ignore the pleas from the Orthodox countries to the Western countries to help them against the Muslims. You clothe it all in access to the Holy Land and pilgrimage, and just because you have no interest in it, you assume no one else has any right. Do you think Native Americans have any right to their sacred burial grounds?

Please don't bleat about rights, life isn't fair or is always how we want it to be.
I'm rather convinced that the crusades didn't actually improve things, even if some combatants were convinced that they could score brownie points with their particular deity in Holy war.

As I understand it Native Americans lost the right to even live where they traditionally lived, I don't know about their sacred burial grounds.

 

[alwight]

How will it work out in the near future? Since he's so pro-Muslim, I'm sure he'll be fine.

:yawn:

 

[CherubRam]

Please acquaint yourself with actual history.

People fear change of traditions I think.
Matthew 10:37
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:38
Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 15:3
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Matthew 15:6
they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mark 7:8
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Mark 7:9
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

 

[rexlunae]

:nono: That IS relativism.

No Lon, it's not. Even if I were wrong, it wouldn't be relativism. Relativism is the belief that the the truth depends on your perspective. I don't believe that. What we have here is a dispute over the facts. But neither of us is arguing that there isn't an objective truth.

That'd be like me saying your grades in astrophysics doesn't matter and I, without them should be allowed in the space program.

1. I don't accept you as an authority on the subject. Sorry, this is the Internet. Maybe you have a PhD in medieval history that you haven't mentioned, and I should acknowledge your authority to pronounce on the subject, but even if that were true, I would have no way of verifying it even if you claimed it. And supposing I accepted your educational record as you've claimed it, I don't see how a masters in education, even if you got good grades, is especially authoritative here.
2. Even if you were a real verifiable expert on the subject, when you approach the question by stating your credentials instead of your evidence in opposition to me, I would be very suspicious of your claims.

You are logically inconsistent here, because I do have the education. History is not used the way you 'think' it is used and thus I hold your 'education' suspect for abusing it so.

What do you mean "history isn't used this way"? History is a set of objective truths. How we use those truths is up to us.

You can assert otherwise, but I know pretty well that history is not your strong suit or you wouldn't have abused it. That means education and prowess in that education really does trump the amateur.

You're such a paper tiger.

Your 'take' isn't controversial, it is wrong. Flat out.

So you've been saying. But show me how. I'm open to correction by evidence, not to being shouted down with overblown claims of authority.

The fact that the video didn't support atheists killing people may be an oversight or perhaps Naz was aiming at the fact that anti-theists have been attacking all influence of religion from society.

An oversight?!?!?! It's quite an oversight, don't you think, that there were more confirmed religious people in the video than atheists? It's rather rich to blame atheists for things that non-atheists do.

That leaves an ugly wake of nothing and no-purpose, which in turn makes for an aimless society that may very well value life less.

Nihilism is not an exclusively atheistic feeling.

Um, no, read my sig. It even has the doh icon. The Constitution was simply trying not to abuse another's religion.

1. Given the era of that quote, it's peculiarly unspecific about who or what that "Creator" is.
2. That's not even a quote from the Constitution. That's from the Declaration of Independence, which isn't even law.

There is NO WAY we can live together if you cannot put up with my expressions of faith or more specifically, the genuine values portrayed by them.

That's fine, because I never asked you to do without them. I just ask not to be forced to participate, which includes co-opting our common government for your private religious purposes.

Tell me truly, Does "Merry Christmas" really affect separation of church and state? I don't believe it does.

It depends on the context, but I'd generally say agree. But the thing that you're missing is that the vast majority of the noise about a "war on Christmas" was actually initiated by Christians (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) trying to fill airtime on cable news. Some atheists might be offended by being wished a Merry Christmas, but I really think the majority take it in the spirit it was intended. The only time it would bother me is if it's deliberately used to attack my choice of belief. I celebrate Christmas (although, not for the same reasons or likely in the same way as you), and I wish people who I know celebrate the holiday Merry Christmas with no hesitation.

Only Affirmative Action for all minorities has started attacking the base of American belief and values. That attack is leaving casualities, whether by bullets or ink doesn't matter, they both end with lost life and value.

I'd say, turn off the conservative outrage porn, have some eggnog, and spend some time with your family. Those bullets will feel a little less effective.

And have a Merry Christmas.

"Us/them." It is a tension that must exist, and I too embrace it, but in the end, my philosophy, while rejecting the philosophy, does seek to keep the person. We really aren't witch-hunting this century, just trying to retain values we really do believe are good for society as well as embrace ourselves.

I think I have a different view, and perhaps a broader notion of "tribe". I see religion as often encouraging tribalism, but it can really go either way, and especially Christianity and Islam are fairly good, at least in the mainstream, of asking people to see their fellow humans as brothers and sisters. I think American Christians often fail at this in particular, but I think that's more an anomaly than anything else.

We are supposed to 'learn from' the Old Testament, not go and do likewise.

Well, that's one interpretation. But if you learn from it, there's always the danger that the same reasoning will creep into new situations.

MADists on TOL repeat this often enough that I don't think we should overtly apply. Today, I support Israel, but land isn't what I'm after so a lot of the wartime conveyance in the OT isn't for us today AND they weren't wrong for doing it then. Think of the Old West. One of us would be in jail if we dueled today. The law used to look the other way but challenging you outside the saloon in the street, while we can appreciate the points and why it happened, isn't how we do things today but it wasn't wrong in that day - it was at times, the only thing they could do.

Well, that's more relativist than I'm comfortable with. The fact that we recognize dueling as wrong now doesn't mean it was any better in the past. What's changed is our recognition.

We HAVE to find commonality or we can't exist. That is the lesson from every fallen government. The Roman Empire fell, but we still have Italians. There has to be a binding, so the strong-hand of a melting pot isn't always a bad thing. Harsh, yes, but it has to happen. There is no way we can exist well if we are not unified. Right now, minority colors are mixed but we must find something of commonality and value or there is no reason any longer to 'come to America.'

I think a lot of the people who are already here would prefer it if people didn't come to America anymore. But that's always been true.

"Opportunity" is a selling feature of bonding and unity, but us/them tribalism has to give way to 'us.' Somehow we have to get there. The TOL-atheist version has been "Yay! No more Christians!" That'd be a bloody, violent way to go and literally advocates the removal of blacks, whites, Hispanics,

I don't think I understand the bloody hypothetical you're contemplating.

:nono: I've a lot of Native blood, you?

None whatsoever. I could have walked off a boat from Europe yesterday instead of 400 years ago. I had tests done.

If not, your offense doesn't mean a lot. We were talking about the history of the United States, not the History of America. Know the difference?

A lot of it happened in the United States, after the colonial era. The Trail of Tears, i.e., the process of building the slave states of the deep south on land taken by force from non-Christian natives considered unwanted.

Many natives are Christians.

Now.

Not only is my Great Great Grandmother, full-blood, but I've served many of these in my church as well. You trying to take offense for me is noble, but misplaced, both historically and culturally. Our cemetery is an 'Christian Indian' cemetery.

Not for you, Lon. For the people who were and are still being erased. Clearly you've chosen to identify with the dominant culture at least to the extent of adopting its religion. And that's fine for you, but it doesn't mean that those who resisted assimilation were any less real.

You took offense rather than paid attention. The only way for Christianity to not be forever, is by violence.

I disagree. Maybe people will simply tire of it. I don't think that violence could get rid of Christianity.

Even Europe has churches yet, even the most atheistic ones.

Weddings and funerals. There's got to be some kind of venue for those.

I simply said that the "United States" would cease being what we have been up to this point, and that is certainly true.

And my response is that the United States will change regardless. Staying the same isn't an option.

Question: Do you desire it by usurping and fighting or by better means? I do not envision atheism being much beyond the small percentages in America but an Oligarchy can certainly do mass damage.

The United States is an oligarchy, but not of atheists.

No, I rather am relating what historical commentary allows and what it does not. We know there are substantiated reasons for fighting. We support having police and military for the most part. We don't however, support atrocity, and that's the point here. I am not sure Europe had a choice but to go on the Crusades.

The stated purpose of the Crusades was to ensure Christian access to the Holy Land. Of course they had a choice. They could have not done that.

It is somewhat like today, in that we have to do something about Muslim extremists. When history looks at us exploiting the situation, they will probably say we have some blame here, but they are attacking the bottom line rather than the direct line of who they might blame and it is certainly true that they have embraced portions of their religion to justify those attacks. Conversely, the removal of Christian influence in America is tied to the rise in what is meaningless in comparison.

There's blame to go around, and I think the invasion of Iraq will go down as a massive tactical mistake, as well as an atrocity. I think the chances of it being prosecuted properly as a war crime is low, however. Of course, terrorism is a horror, whatever the motivation.

Mortal conflict is always a survival of the fittest in result.

Unless one of the parties isn't trying to survive. Are you including, or excluding the Crusades in that judgement?

I think you have some grasp on philosophy principles, but, for what it is worth, atheism handicaps the broad category and limits its expression because it literally denies over half of its precepts.

I'm not sure how you're measuring that "over half" thing, but philosophy is more about exploring ideas than it is about conclusions. So, I'd say "no, not really." And I wonder how much time you've spent exploring atheist philosophy.

Again, you make statements beyond historical prowess. That indeed, is a problematic education.

You make a lot of historical blunders with erroneous assessment. Instead of being baffled, you could listen to someone who has spent a lot of time in history.

You know what's funny about that suggestion, to me? You suggest that I should listen to "someone who has spent a lot of time in history". I'm guessing you're talking about you, given your stated opinion of the value of your education. But I literally couldn't do that if I wanted to, because you simply haven't said a word about where, specifically, I am mistaken, or what the truth would be. You've made absolutely no effort to actually give me anything to listen to except how brilliant you think you are.

It is. While you give me instruction below on mark-up language, that doesn't automatically mean you get to teach the class or are allowed to tutor. It doesn't even mean someone is necessarily helpful in the correction.

Just a suggestion, take it or leave it, I really don't care.

Yes, but think further, the one asserting the fallacy was appealing to authority for you to accept it, and imho, blind to counterfactuals.

Named fallacies are established by reason. Maybe they are taught in the first place by authority, but ultimately they represent patterns for recognizing common reasoning errors.

The only thing the fallacy given is good for (though over-used and abused) is to remind people that authority isn't "always" right.

That's actually not what it's about at all. The appeal to authority fallacy is the use of an authority figure to establish a fact that they are not qualified to speak on. For instance, "My English teacher says that the law allows me to shoot my neighbor is he falls into my yard, and English teachers would know!" It's not really for cases where a cited authority is actually applicable (e.g. "My English teacher says you shouldn't split infinitives."), even if that authority is ultimately mistaken (e.g. "My English teacher says you shouldn't split infinitives.").

That said, I will go to the ten year astrophysicist or the specialist doctor, which is indeed a deference to authority and prowess. Your parents were most often right when they said "because I said so." It may not suffice, but essentially that is what my appeal is as well.

You are probably right about my parents, but you have no business saying "because I said so" to me.

The fallacy is over-abused thus wrong, a philosophical sleight-of-hand for rejection.

For all your vaunted learning and your supposed respect for intellectual betters, it's a little bizarre to watch you now engage in denialism about one of the most widely-recognized and understood fallacies out there. Shouldn't you respect the word of logicians? Or are you above that?

That is why it is problematic, it leaves a voided wake. If kids are no longer taught 'why' it is wrong to do an 'evil' (emphasis rather than {I} {/I} six more strokes!), they have no reason to refrain from doing so. Christianity isn't the only one that does, but again, we are talking about a void left in a wake of removal. It was actually wrong to take the Ten Commandments off the walls.

Well, it's the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Dissertations on Moral Uprightness. If you're looking for explanations of the "why" behind a moral precept, the Commandments should leave you absolutely empty. I don't find moral dictates offered as "I told you so" commands especially compelling.

Paternal, yes but more theoretical? :nono: Dead wrong. Yes I can and often do easily substantiate that. In comparison, I volunteered about 6 hours last month giving food to needy people. You? How about $? In addition, $ trails are really easy to follow. We really do out-give our counterparts.

I don't dispute the overall generosity of Christians. But it's fairly unevenly distributed. Would you be shocked to learn that there are self-proclaimed Christians on this site who, nonetheless, would refuse refugees fleeing their homes in fear because somehow terrorists might get into the country with them. Or that they would tell a welfare recipient that they deserve their misfortune?

Maybe that is a really hard pill for atheists to swallow given that I have to overtly repeat this line of conversation so often, but I really wonder where your head can be at, that you'd ignore statistics and likely your own actions in comparison.

There's more to charity than given money.

It is flat-out crazy to even suggest as much after such contemplation. How could you possibly say 'theoretical' at that point? I realize your atheism isn't always 'against' religion by intent, but your neutral stance isn't neutral either, it has and leaves consequences. This goes back to support what I said. It is more about atheism not contributing positively.

I feel like perhaps you've misunderstood what I meant by positive:

pos·i·tive ˈpäzədiv/ adjective 1. consisting in or characterized by the presence or possession of features or qualities rather than their absence.

How could atheism contribute positively? It's a non-thing. If atheists are generous, it's an individual decision.

It is really strange to take "thou shalt not kill" off of a wall. It was, in fact, psychotic.

Depends on which wall.

There is a ton but here for instance.

A link to Conservapedia, with a broken link for the citation? That's not a source.

That and, to date, I contribute a lot and have found most on TOL cannot talk about their efforts and contributions, because they don't.

Maybe they just consider it a little vulgar to talk about money. Or, perhaps they feel that it's not fair to compare dollar amounts without consideration of ability.

Good on you for giving, though.

I think whether that interpretation is noble and otherly or self-excusing is an important consideration.

The nice thing with atheism is, I don't have to wonder how it was meant. If I want to make it positive, I can do that. Or I can ignore it and come up with something I like better. There's no Atheist Magesterium, no Sanhedrin of the Heathens, no Imams of Infidels.

Thank you for this, and the next, sincerely. Both are heavy on my mind.

Thanks here too.

:e4e:

We oddly, are allowing natives to sue the government for things neither they nor we experienced. I don't think you should blame 'this' white boy for what 'another white boy' did. I have nothing to do with him. I don't mind helping out the tribe at their request, but suing me? Likewise, I don't mind helping a black person either, nor a white on hard times. I, however, don't want you blaming me for slavery.

Of course I don't blame you for slavery. But, white folks who live today continue to benefit from the uncompensated labor of past slaves. And white folks have inherited lands stolen from Native Americans. If your grandfather stole someone else's property and you inherit that, the victims of the crime could sue the estate and get it back. Even the children of the victims could do so. After slavery was abolished, the former slave-masters used their political power to ensure that the former slaves would have little choice but to go back to work under fairly similar conditions. Is it so patently absurd to try to compensate the descendants for the lingering systemic iniquities.

Likewise, any historical reference to the Catholic church, which is twice-removed by generation AND Reformation, must be seen as me being a 'different kind of Christian' than perhaps my ancestors as well as realizing that we have to be very careful about 'importing' values into another harsher culture.

Romans 12:5? Anyone?

I'm not so sure that lesson really took, anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_missions_in_China_1807

I can rightly say, for instance, that atheists have killed more people in history, than any other philosophy.

Atheism isn't a philosophy. Stalinism is. Marxism is. Communism is. But atheism is just not believing in a god. The connection between Soviet state atheism and other atheists is virtually nil.

For a comparable case of Christian violence, the 30-Years' War killed a huge portion of the population of Europe. The absolute numbers were lower, but so was the population.

That does not mean, however, that ever Atheist would do the same thing, given the opportunity. Rather, there is some connection between 'godlessness' (removal as well as atheism) and how society behaves. You could turn around and blame Christians for 'allowing' it to happen.

There's not. None that you can demonstrate, anyway.

We could certainly have had another civil war before we allowed bible verses to be removed or prayer to be removed, realizing ahead of time, that a void would cause this kind of problem.

We're not going to have a civil war about it unless Christians start one. You can have your religion, but you can't use the government to push it. That's the deal the Constitution strikes, and if you are moved to violence as a result, I'd encourage you to think about what it says of who the real violent people are.

I'm not sure how the blame-game works though, I'm still trying to be wise as a serpent, but gentle as a dove. -Lon

Maybe, in the end, we're all just responsible for what we personally do.

 

[badp]

Atheism isn't a philosophy. Stalinism is. Marxism is. Communism is. But atheism is just not believing in a god. The connection between Soviet state atheism and other atheists is virtually nil.

Atheism is a philosophical belief that God doesn't exist. Logically, that's equivalent to a "non-belief in God" which for some reason seems to be the favored wording of atheists (even though it means exactly the same thing).

 

[alwight]

Atheism is a philosophical belief that God doesn't exist. Logically, that's equivalent to a "non-belief in God" which for some reason seems to be the favored wording of atheists (even though it means exactly the same thing).

Not so, some atheists may believe that no gods exist but you don't need to have any such positive belief about gods at all to call yourself an atheist. It's simply not having belief, being without theistic belief, a non-belief, not a conclusion that no god exists.
As an agnostic atheist I have no positive belief either for or against the existence of gods until something evidential changes that for me.

 

[badp]

Not so, some atheists may believe that no gods exist but you don't need to have any such positive belief about gods at all to call yourself an atheist. It's simply not having belief, being without theistic belief, a non-belief, not a conclusion that no god exists.
As an agnostic atheist I have no positive belief either for or against the existence of gods until something evidential changes that for me.

There are two possibilities: God exists or God does not. If you don't believe in God, you believe that God does not exist. It's the law of the excluded middle.

 

[alwight]

There are two possibilities: God exists or God does not. If you don't believe in God, you believe that God does not exist. It's the law of the excluded middle.

The actual truth may have no middle I would agree but I don't claim to know what the absolute truth is and I suggest that neither do you. For you to insist that I must conclude one way or the other simply to please those like you who may be deluded enough to think that they somehow do know the absolute truth is nonsense and/or special pleading for your particular God.

But then again perhaps God speaks directly to you and leaves you without any doubts, you have unambiguous knowledge of God, yes?
Ask Him to tell you my middle name, then I'll become a believer too if you get it right, or maybe I don't have a middle name?
The law of the excluded middle applies here too, you can only be right or wrong, but nevertheless you can huff and puff but you don't know what or if it is, you can however be agnostic about it while you don't know but you can't logically conclude that my middle name doesn't exist.

 

[badp]

The actual truth may have no middle I would agree but I don't claim to know what the absolute truth is and I suggest that neither do you.

Let me make sure I understand you. You claim not to know for sure that either (a) God exists or (b) God does not? You think there may be a third possibility?

 

[quip]

Let me make sure I understand you. You claim not to know for sure that either (a) God exists or (b) God does not? You think there may be a third possibility?

Well, the law of excluded middle: A = A or A =/=A (But not both)

Yet, prior to that we must establish the first law of the trio, namely the law of identity: A = A.

In this case A = God.

As such, humanity cannot even establish an unanimous consensus over the very ontological basis for God...let alone whether the nature of your asserted God actually equals God. (whether that's even a cogent possibility)

I believe the agnostic wins here by insipid default...unless of course you're able to give us some objective, contravening evidence that supports otherwise.

 

[alwight]

Let me make sure I understand you. You claim not to know for sure that either (a) God exists or (b) God does not? You think there may be a third possibility?

Yes, I'm saying that the state of not knowing is the third possibility.