The idea that this was even on my agenda is pure projection on your part. I think that absent revelation, agnostic is the purest and most honest belief one can come to.
I didn’t claim that. However, when people talk about morality, it’s not always about you. The Christian idea is that one cannot pick and choose which rules they follow, either they believe in Christianity or they don’t.
Well, again the idea comes down to picking and choosing morals. You believe in an objective morality, IE there is a true right and wrong, or you don’t.
What I have a problem with is this kind of childish notion that people have that there is some onus on people to accept you belief system when you (general you) won’t accept theirs and in some cases are directly opposed to it. Atheists saying all Christians are bigots because they won’t accept atheism as equally valid. It’s just as bigotted against Christians to think that they SHOULD accept atheism, being that atheism is in direct contradiction to the Christian belief system.
For me accepting each other is irrelevant. Tolerance is a great word, because it says, ‘Even though I think you are totally wrong I am not going to stab you for it.’, and that’s essentially in a nutshell all tolerance promises. It doesn’t promise to vote for you, or to help you attain public office. That’s the problem here, people think that mutually incompatible ideologies should try and work together and not thwart each other in the name of some abstract liberal principle that doesn’t actually work in reality. Democracy gives us a system of resolution for these conflicts, but it doesn’t say that we need to elect our enemies out of some put-on notion of fairness.
Democracy isn’t about making the world fair, it’s about redirecting social energy so that conflict may be resolved without bloodshed. It’s not there to erase conflict.
Looking at demographics in Europe, it does seem that at least in some places, people most certainly are becoming more atheistic. That’s a good thing imo.
You know, mswas, since you aren’t actually a Christian, perhaps you should stop trying to explain Christianity to everyone else. Christianity is actually not some sort of totalitarian ideology in which Christians barely tolerate (in the sense of “not actually stabbing”) adherents of all other points of view, while seeking to deny them all civil or political power. I mean, some forms of Christianity may be, but other Christians are actually able to reconcile their religion with the possibility of voting for someone for public office who is not a member of their church, or even a believer at all.
This sort of non-totalitarian Christianity has deep roots in this country. Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island; and later on men like the Virginia Baptist Pastor John Leland from the Revolutionary Era, were quite passionate in arguing the rightness of supporting men of wisdom and good character for public office regardless of their religious views, be they Jews, “Turks”, pagans, or “infidels”.
I’m using it as an adjective, not as a reference to a religious sect, as noted by the phrase “in which religion dictated nearly every facet of life.” This is a method of practice common among many Christian sects, most notably, but not exclusively, the Puritans.
Judgmental much? Christians and Muslims also share some values, do they not?
This paragraph belies your disrespect for the beliefs of others. How can you possibly expect others to respect your beliefs? I’m so floored by this attitude paragraph at a loss for words. It’s pretty rude, but I’m not sure you’d recognize that.
I have to ask, though: is *Cafeterian *anything like Smorgasbordian? If so I get it. It’s like going to an all-you-can-bleat buffet of beliefs, right?
So my morals are specious or are you telling me that I’m something else other than agnostic? Do I have to pick or have you chosen for me, o wise one? Do my morals come from elsewhere other than my apparently specious opinion on god(s) and religion? Why yes, they do. I have internal ethics based on the fact that I’m a human being and I can relate to and empathize with other human beings. No one book or one ideology has provided my ethics to me, but they’ve developed through my interactions with other people, i.e. parents, friends, figures of authority, figures I admire, etc. Of course, they are evolving as I mature and continue to experience.
I’ll grant you that in recorded history civilizations has been primarily religious. They still are. The growth of atheism is still insignificant in relation to the changes our society has experienced in the 200+ years of its existence. The changes have far less to do with atheism as they do with secular pursuits such as industrial technology, knowledge of the physical world, scientific and medical advances, etc.
But you have been saying that it’s under threat by atheism and well, I’ve been trying to explain to you that’s not the case. But you seem to want to demonize atheism to the extent that **you **are ignoring a much more obvious explanation.
If Jesus is going the way of the Greek pantheon it’s not because atheist are trying to kill it but people may very well be deciding it’s not relevant as it once was when we were less educated and informed; lived shorter, often more brutal, lives; and, did not share in governing a nation.
You aren’t arguing with an atheist, as I said. I took that sidebar because I recognize what you were doing as belittling of the beliefs and ethics of others and, frankly, I wasn’t going to let that slide. If you deem that as an excuse to bitch about Christianity, it’s only because that type of “Christian value” many of us can do without.
If everything is reduced to personal judgments you can’t really speak about anything.
Respect my beliefs? I don’t generally share my beliefs with people openly. Again you think it’s personal when it isn’t. Paganism isn’t a religion. It just isn’t.
a la carte beliefs yes.
No, I am describing differences in beliefs. It’s not personal about you for me, though I recognize it is for you. I have made no personal judgment about where you came to your beliefs.
Well as I said there is atheism, ‘I am an atheist, I don’t believe in God’, and atheism, ‘I don’t really care about that religion stuff.’ The point is that Christian is a life lived in its totality, it cannot be separated into pieces. I’ve been making a mistake by using such terminology as, ‘values’, and ‘ideology’. The Christian conversion is supposed to be complete and total, you either are with Christ or you aren’t. It’s not an abstract list of things one believes in.
No, as long as you think this is personal you can’t understand what I am getting at. It IS under threat from atheism, but not under threat by a conspiracy of atheists. People are just losing their beliefs, for whatever reason. There is no demonization here.
Some atheists are actively trying to kill Christianity. To pretend otherwise is to be either dishonest or naive. I cannot comment on the level of effectiveness.
Right, that’s the initial reaction. You cannot have a discussion about belief systems without accepting that the validity of beliefs themselves will be challenged. To have a real discussion of these topics you have to get over the idea that people’s feelings need to be saved.
And one of your examples was a stupid billboard. Except when it’s pointed out to you that the owner of the company doing the advertising is, in fact, very obviously Christian you hand wave it away with your typical “oh you’re just too stupid to understand my towering intellect.”
Somehow “people losing their beliefs” leads logically to a Christian business owner putting up a pornographic (to you) billboard.
You are pathologically unable to admit to a mistake, or to admit that anyone else has a valid point of view.
Because the owner of the billboard is irrelevant. Jesus wasn’t a pimp regardless of the professed beliefs of the owner of that billboard. I’m sorry it’s difficult for you to comprehend. We’re not talking about something requiring a towering intellect here, but more of a squat structure.
I’m sorry these simple concepts go over your head.
I’m reading the thread, but it’s made easier by the quantity of posts by you, which can be skimmed (and in most cases, ignored altogether) without losing any valuable information.
Anyway, as i told you a while ago, i’m no longer interested in debating with you as if you were a rational human being, because it’s a futile exercise. If you ever decide to change your username to another adjective-noun combination, “Broken Record” is still free, i think.
So, now we’re going to argue semantics? I clarified what I meant right after using the word in question.
It’s not my judgment. You said Muslim values are “generally less tolerant than those of Christians.” It’s a subjective statement. You could also say that Christian values are less tolerant of Buddhist values. Regardless, what difference does it make? A dearth of Christian values doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be any values left over. That’s the point. Again, Christians have not cornered the market on values. Additionally, Christian values are not objectively the “best” values.
It isn’t? Oh. You mean, it’s a catch-all term for several different types of polytheistic, pre-Christian and folk religions. I see we’re back to semantics again. I apologize for confusing the issue with a term so clearly unrelated to religion. How about we just pretend I said (to paraphrase myself), “I’m floored that you can be so openly disrespectful to the beliefs of polytheists and the like?”
You aren’t describing differences in beliefs. You are simply saying that Christian beliefs are under attack by sleeze-valued atheists and that Christians aren’t as intolerant as those rigid Muslims. You aren’t saying anything esoteric at all. It’s nothing personal you say. It’s just that atheist culture embraces “lowering of standards, crude jokes on television, [and] child pornography on billboards”. Why would anyone take that personally? Oh and since I’m not actually atheist, I have no business calling you out on the rudeness of that. I have to be personally attacked to call you to task, apparently.
Sorry, atheist peeps, apparently I don’t have a dog in this fight.
Yes, there’s explicit atheism and apatheism.
It’s fine, but it’s also very personal, is it not? If you are with Christ, you can be faithful without imposing your beliefs on others. Yes, I know that some sects believe they have a duty to proselytize, but there’s a time and a place for that. That time and place is not in government. Although I can’t exactly prove this, I’m going out on a limb and state unequivocally that no religious platitude on any form of legal tender is going to convert the faithless.
Ok, maybe I can’t speak for atheists, but I don’t really see an ‘atheist movement’. I do see some pretty vocal atheists who would very much like to see the end of Christian dominance in all walks of secular life. I don’t think that’s really such a bad thing myself, but I don’t see how atheists are trying impose their lack of belief in God on anyone (perhaps excepting Der Trihs; I don’t know if that’s his intent honestly). Do they have other actual beliefs they are trying to push? I don’t know this either, so I’m pretty unclear on this “atheist culture” of which you speak.
You do seem pretty focused on atheists, you have to admit. The irony is that atheists make up barely 16% of Americans, while Christians are in the overwhelming majority (78%) according to the 2007 U.S. Census. How can 16% of the population have as much of an impact on American culture as you seem to think it does? It’s mind-boggling that you could make such a leap of logic, frankly.
Who cares? It’s not the threat you seem to think it is. If it’s worth defending, it will persevere. As long as society deems it relevant.
Huh. Can we have a discussion in which you don’t make ad hominem attacks on people’s values such as, oh I don’t know, accusing atheists of valuing child porn? That’d be swell.
And that’s actually a pretty optimistic percentage (from the atheist P.O.V.) The census data actually just says that 16% of Americans are “unaffiliated”, which surely includes a lot of people with various idiosyncratic “spritual” views, generalized monotheists who don’t approve of any organized religion, latter-day Deists who don’t hang with the Unitarians, people with some sort of personally defined belief in a Higher Power, etc. (And even among these people who do not in fact have any belief in any kind of God or gods, only a subset of them would really be willing to embrace the big-A label.)
I mean, I think it’s great that that number is as high as it is, and that it’s likely growing, but I have no illusions of an Atheist Great Awakening sweeping the land any time soon.
So she’s not a “real Christian” then? She “pimps Jesus out”? So your point, I take it is that Atheists are controlling her mind or something? And I’m sorry its difficult for you refrain from insulting people.
Again, I’m very sorry that you feel that insulting people somehow makes your points more accurate or understandable.
??maybe you could go back and read again. I clearly said that you are unable to admit that anyone else has a valid point of view.
That does not mean that “I am everyone”
You really do not seem to have a clue how civil discourse takes place. As I said before, you must be a real thrill to work with.
Me too. But I think it is really strange to see atheists react the way I picture Christians acting about things like inaugeration traditions. Just over reacting. I mean, this thread really opened my eyes to how atheists really think about these things. I actually thought this was the kind of thing we made fun of Christians for.
I even lumped myself in that percentage too! Does that mean I get to join your culture too? Do I get a special card or something? I have no culture, but I can bring cheese plate to the meetings.
I dunno, I think Obama wanting to officially add a God reference is a bit disappointing, but I can why he’s (I believe cynically) doing so, but just be careful to qualify a statement like yours as “some atheists”. I’m not aware that the over-reaction (and it’s not that much over - there’s a valid argument to be made that such a change is not appropriate) is being felt by all, most, or even a significant minority of atheists.
I think he meant Jesus would never pimp out kids to hock some hip hop clothes. So, obviously, Simmons and Baby Phat are not really Jesus phreaks despite the fact that God gave her a mansion.
Sure is. That is all we atheists want, to offend people. But if it is only the small minded atheists, why could the theists not survive if there was no SHMG? or no, “Have a blessed day.” I am really offended by the fact that there are people out there that will not accept the fact that the US may not be a christian nation. There are actual people who think that removing “Under God” from the Pledge will somehow make christians turn towards Atheism. That to me is pretty small minded.
You have now corresponded with a pro-life atheist. I guess all conservatives accept the death penalty. I think stoning is called for in the book of christ. Call me to the Pit if you want to know why, or open your fucking eyes to the fact that not all tenets of a belief are accepted by all.
Nzinga, Seated,
I have recently come to enjoy seeing you in a thread that I am in. You seem to have a voice of reason. On this topic, you may be underreacting. I think the issue is that there is an expectation of christianity in the US. If you are willing to silently accept the fact that the Commander in Chief must acknowledge belief in something omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and you are fine with his vocal, public affirmation of this while he is accepting his official responsibilities, I would really like to know why.
Why does the incoming President have to publicly state a belief in the all-knowing, all-powerful, all(?) present being? Because there have been 43 before him that have. Kind of hard being obviously different. If you don’t agree ask Jackie Robinson what he felt like when he took the field for the first MLB appearance.
By quietly accepting theism, and one specific son of a god, or at least not discussing it, we end up with intelligent design, blue laws, and, of course, "sorry we can’t help you we gave all our adoptable children to families that believe in the divinity of a carpenter.
