Wednesday, May 15, 2013

ZenTiger Thou shalt not tolerate

They know not, nor care what they do
When "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not kill" become too scary for liberal atheists, they invoke "Thou Shalt Not Tolerate". 

They have demanded plaques of the 10 commandments be removed from classrooms.

"Thou Shalt Not Tolerate" is not something they want to put on a plaque on a school, but you need to believe it, respect it and bow down to it. Were these plaques really so scary to atheists? It would seem so.

Said the puller of the plaques: “People think I’m attacking their religion,” Pulliam told 5-News. “I’m really not. I’m trying to help others so they can feel equal in a world, in a town. I just want them to feel equal.”

Feeling equal by reducing everything to nothing. Which, ironically, is what the atheist believes in. Such people haven't learned that equality is not about striving to bring everyone down to the lowest denominator. A sad and pointless victory for the nihilists. And so it continues, step by step.


Oklahoma School District Removes Ten Commandments

49 comment(s):

leftrightout said...

Oh, the poor victimised xtain playing the victim card again.

The correct heading should be "Thou shalt not tolerate breaches of the law, even when said breach is done by a xtian".

Xtianfundies love the constitution, they swear to honor and defend the constitution, except when it denies them privilege.

I wonder if they, and you, ever read and understood it.

This is not about a refusal to tolerate religious motifs in schools, it is about applying the law, equally, to all. The state cannot prefer one religion above another. Simple.

Would you be as aggrieved if a school had been told to remove the ten sayings of Buddha? Or 10 haddiths of Mohammed? Of course not; you are simply outraged because xtians are being expected to obey the same laws everyone else obeys.

O the NZ had as robust a constitution.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;...

The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, you know, one of those "founding fathers" the religiousright rabbit on about as being founders of a Xtian Nation.

leftrightout said...

Here's a bit more for your "Truth Hurts" file, a fantastic post from a rellie of yours and Pastor at Trinity UMC in Muldrow, OK.

It’s critical that we realize that we can’t let the schools do the church’s job. Our school is filled with wonderful Christ-centered teachers, administrators, and staff. Their job is to love these kids and give them the best education. Our teachers have a difficult enough job without giving them the additional personal responsibility of teaching the faith. Teaching the faith is the mission of the church. We must find ways to meet the students in our community where they are, and give them the love of Christ. We must make Christian education a priority both as a church program and as a ministry of parents and guardians.

http://aarontiger.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/10-commandments-muldrow-and-the-mission-field/#more-470

Matthew said...

I wouldn't be opposed to an athiest putting something like "I don't believe that God exists" on the school's classroom wall.

I guess there's the ability for anyone to share how you live your life in verbal and written form in any place at any time. A bit like what you do here LRO :).

I didn't notice the teachers were teaching the faith - I thought it was the plaque informing students of the Ten Comamdnements :). Are you opposed to putting on a wall "That shalt not kill" (regardless of where we believe it came from, it is something you and I agree with) - if it's self evident then that's no different to having the words "fire exit" next to the door in a school building. If it's not self evident then I guess we need to educate people :).

Hopefully God will get your attention, I think the odds are pretty good in your lifetime. I do find it an encouragement that you refer to us as xtian - x is the sign of the Cross of Calvary. Probably unintential on your part, but peceived as something good on mine :).

leftrightout said...

I wouldn't be opposed to an athiest putting something like "I don't believe that God exists" on the school's classroom wall.

I would. What relevance would it have to the teaching of anything other than philosophy? Does it help with maths, geography, science, history? No.

Would you object to this being placed on the classroom wall? http://www.al-islam.org/masoom/sayings/prophsayings.html. I would, even though it contains a little more wisdom than the 10 commandments. And I bet the good folks referred to above would howl like dervishes were this to be in every classroom in their local schools.

I guess there's the ability for anyone to share how you live your life in verbal and written form in any place at any time. A bit like what you do here LRO :).

Big difference. The government does not compel anyone to visit this site, and even if they do, the government does not compel anyone to read my words of wisdom. See the difference?

Are you opposed to putting on a wall "That shalt not kill"

Again, that may be relevant in an ethics class, but not in biology or chemistry.

And what about the other commandments, the ones where your god reveals himself to be jealous and vindictive? How do they aid anyone's learning?

I do find it an encouragement that you refer to us as xtian - x is the sign of the Cross of Calvary. Probably unintential on your part, but peceived as something good on mine :).

I don't write xtian to make you feel good, I write it in the full knowledge of its etymology. I do it because every now and again an ignorant christian will rant and rave over the "abbreviation". Makes me smile to see how dumb many of them are.

Hopefully God will get your attention,

Well, he knows where to find me, but he never buys me a beer. I dumped all my invisible friends years ago, time you grew up and did the same. There bis a whole world of wonder and enchantment, a whole life to be lived fully and freely. Cast off your chains, throw down your cross and stand up and declare "I am MAN!"


bamac said...

LRO,

I see where both Auckland and Mt
Roskill Grammar Schools , along with Lincoln, Victoria and Canterbry Unis all have a Muslim prayer room provided ... are they wrong too in your eyes ,or is it just us Xtians?

Mrs Mac

leftrightout said...

bamac, IF the room is exclusively for the use of Muslims then I believe it is wrong. If it is available for Muslims for their (waste of time) prayers, and for other groups at other times, then I am OK with it.

Matthew said...

Hi LRO,

the government doesn't compel anyone to attend a school either. I just picked a command that I knew you would have no problem with - again they are for the person, not the subject. I view myself as an integrated whole - I don't become this or that when I enter the doors of a particular subject.

On the subject of the other commandments, we coul dfill up pages and be no furterh closer. You'll well know by now that no-one is debated into God's kingdom. Rather they encounter the Holy Spirit and are changed. It may happen to do some day.

I don't write xtian to make you feel good

I know you don't, but the result is the opposite...so please continue :).

Maybe you can come to our church - we meet in a pub and drinks are welcome.

ZenTiger said...

LRO, missed the....point, methinks.

I get that you are very keen to be very fundamentalist about this issue, and use the law to hammer things like this into oblivion.

Your comparison to Buddhism is irrelevant though and further adds to my deduction you miss the point. My cartoon selection covers a part of my response to that. Are you also advocating that the "In God We Trust" get's scraped off most US coins and struck out of the Star Spangled Banner - and would your reason be that there is no Buddhist saying on those things either? Really?

And does this really have anything to do with the Constitution. I don't fall back on it in this discussion because it's not relevant to my point.

If the only criteria is that it has to comply with the law, that can be fixed. Laws get changed all of the time. The law needn't be a tool to justify intolerance.

If the law was something to comply with, then there would be 90% less abortion in this country.

ZenTiger said...

And you have a fixation with interpreting everything as an issue of victimization. You have no basis for that assumption. It's a post demonstrating intolerance of the fundamentalist atheist. Other than that, I'm quite relaxed about the slow and steady decline of western civilization. Have a cup of tea mate, the sun will still rise tomorrow.

bamac said...

Carefull LRO, if you accept Matthew's invitation... hope that you do though .... God just might buy you a beer through the hands ( and pocket) of one of the Xtians there.:-)

bamac said...

LRO, You said ...It's a post demonstrating intolerance of the fundamentalist atheist.

I feel that most of your posts show intolerance of the Xtian point of view ... hello black kettle!

ZenTiger said...

I get what you mean, but you might want to delete the above comment and re-post with the right attribution, given I made the quote :)

bamac said...

OOPS!!
Sorry LRO...but you do agree that intolerance is not just a one-way-street and neither is bigotry?

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

"Big difference. The government does not compel anyone to visit this site, and even if they do, the government does not compel anyone to read my words of wisdom. See the difference?"

Funny you should say that, because I think governments should not compel anyone to go to school - schooling should be entirely at the discretion of the parents.

Would that change anything?

Like it or not, in a Western country, having the Ten Commandments prominently displayed is entirely appropriate, because without them our civilisation would not exist. The same could not be said of Islam or Buddhism, which are not really part of our culture in any meaningful way.

Which is a big part of the point of this post, the intrinsic rules by which most of us in the West (including NZ) live by are encompassed by the Ten Commandments. Yet there are those who find them incredibly uncomfortable, I assume because they remind them of moral failings they'd rather ignore.

Stimulation of a guilty conscience will provoke an extreme reaction. It's a phenomenon I've observed again and again. A seemingly rational person will completely flip out when something reminds them of their inadequacies.

The solution is not to remove all reminders of failure, the solution is to repent of failure and to beg for forgiveness from a God who is just waiting for a reason forgive and remove all guilt. He just needs your acknowledgement and consent, and will not work without it.

leftrightout said...

Funny you should say that, because I think governments should not compel anyone to go to school - schooling should be entirely at the discretion of the parents.

Would that change anything?


For the homeschooled, yes. Fundagelicals are well known for their support of home schooling as it is the only way they can be sure that their children are fully brainwashed in to the family cult and not exposed to ideas that may lead them to question the cult.

But, regardless of what you think, this particular case is in the USofA, where children are compelled to go to school and where the Constitution says that they cannot be brainwashed in to a government endorsed religion. And that is a good thing.



Because? God? Or something mumble mumble.

because without them our civilisation would not exist. The same could not be said of Islam or Buddhism, which are not really part of our culture in any meaningful way.

Oh, I see. WE are civilised by The Big 10, whereas Buddhists and Muslims are uncivilised savages.

Which is a big part of the point of this post, the intrinsic rules by which most of us in the West (including NZ) live by are encompassed by the Ten Commandments. Yet there are those who find them incredibly uncomfortable, I assume because they remind them of moral failings they'd rather ignore.


They say nothing about equality. They say nothing about slavery. They say nothing about child abuse. They say nothing about how to organise civil society. Yes, I can see why they appeal to a catholic, but they leave a lot out for a Humanist.

The good bits about not murdering and not stealing were not exclusive to the Jews, and in fact were codified by other human societies long before the OT. And the rest is about your god's paranoia, showing how afraid he was of competing gods.

The solution is not to remove all reminders of failure, the solution is to repent of failure and to beg for forgiveness from a God who is just waiting for a reason forgive and remove all guilt. He just needs your acknowledgement and consent, and will not work without it.

Total tosh and balderdash.

How many prayers are made every day? And how many answered. THERE is total failure. Thousands prayed in Minnesota yesterday, and yet the house and the senate have voted for marriage equality in that state, the Governor signed the bill in to law. God not answering prayers, as I remind you again in direct contravention of Jesus' words, is proof that god is a myth, prayer a waste of time and The Big 10 pretty small beer.



Matthew said...

this particular case is in the USofA, where children are compelled to go to school

no, there are more than 5 million children being homeschooled in the USA. My sister is one of those doing it, and legally too.

I think you do have things to contribute - so what have you got to lose by coming along to my church in a pub?

scrubone said...

How many prayers are made every day? And how many answered. THERE is total failure. Thousands prayed in Minnesota yesterday, and yet the house and the senate have voted for marriage equality in that state, the Governor signed the bill in to law. God not answering prayers, as I remind you again in direct contravention of Jesus' words, is proof that god is a myth, prayer a waste of time and The Big 10 pretty small beer.


The assumption behind your assertion is wrong. God does not grant requests to whomever asks (that would be absurd). History also shows us especially that he frequently steps aside and lets man demonstrate just how evil he can be without God.

However, when a pious man prays for something that will glorify God, the results can be amazing.

If you are serious in your claim the other day that you are willing to consider evidence, I would point you to the life of George Muller, who founded orphanages in Bristol with a strict rule that no man was ever asked to donate for the care of the orphans - only God. And he was pretty strict about that rule too, no hinting in his church services or anything of that sort. Nor did he keep large reserves on hand, his detailed accounts contain instances where food only arrived after God was thanked for it.

Now, Muller started his first orphanage in 1836. His work still continues today, and in all that time, not a single meal has been missed. I understand these days they do most of their work among the elderly.

It goes without saying that no atheist would ever so much as dream of starting a charity on which so many directly depended on terms of what would essentially amount to hope. We both know it would fail, and fail quickly.

Psycho Milt said...

I'm sure that if the public school system of Oklahoma had decided every classroom should carry the declaration on its walls "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet," the Christians of Oklahoma would have discovered a sudden enthusiasm for barring religious declarations from public spaces. And let's not pretend this was about offering the children unnecessary admonishments against murdering people, it was actually about "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" and the various other "Me"-related commands apparently considered more important than not killing people or stealing their stuff.

leftrightout said...

yes, PM, you are right. In fact, almost the exact situation is now unfolding in some Southern US states where parents forced governments in to providing vouchers for education. Suddenly the Muslims have latched on to the idea and the xtians are going batshit "That's not what vouchers were intended for". Vouchers were never about "choice", they were always about funding xtianity.

leftrightout said...

God does not grant requests to whomever asks (that would be absurd). History also shows us especially that he frequently steps aside and lets man demonstrate just how evil he can be without God.

Show me where Jesus said that.

You seem to think that John or Jesus lied, see John 14:13.

My bet is they both lied.

leftrightout said...

If you are serious in your claim the other day that you are willing to consider evidence, I would point you to the life of George Muller, who founded orphanages in Bristol with a strict rule that no man was ever asked to donate for the care of the orphans - only God.

Of course, no one knew what he was doing, did they? No one knew he would need help, did they? No one helped because they thought it the right thing to do, did they? And no help was ever delivered by human hands, it was all "manna from heaven" wasn't it? Yeah, right.

It goes without saying that no atheist would ever so much as dream of starting a charity on which so many directly depended on terms of what would essentially amount to hope. We both know it would fail, and fail quickly.

International Committee of The Red Cross.

Doctors Without Borders

Donors Choose.

Three secular, non religious, humanitarian bodies founded pretty much on hope and hope alone.

The big difference with atheist charity is that we give credit to each other for the work, not to god who sat on his fat arse and did nothing while children starved, women were raped, men slaughtered. And when the starvation, rape and slaughter was over, in came the "men of god" to claim credit for the work done, not by god, not by prayer, but by Man.

It was god's nuns who aided in the Rwanda genocide. Where was he then? hiding? Smoking behind the bike sheds? Editing clips to put on Youtube?

Twice, I nearly died in Christchurch earthquakes. No god to help me, just my fellow Man. No god came to lift the slabs off the trapped and dying. Just Man. Some of those dying cried out "God, help me" and god just turned a deaf ear, a blind eye and got on with casting lots with the angels.

God did not help the orphans in Bristol, George Muller did. If you think that god deserves the credit for aiding those orphans, why didn't he provide help earlier and prevent them from becoming orphans in the first place?

Does it please god so much to see little children suffer?

ZenTiger said...

@PM - I really think you are missing the point, and therefore jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Firstly, if a school in O. decided to put "praise Allah" on the walls, then Christians wouldn't suddenly seek to ban religious expressions from public places, that would be stupid. They'd more likely seek to get the Allah signs taken down and replaced with something suitable.

Secondly though, you need to answer my question to LRO as well if you think all religions are equal in regards to the American (and western) culture (hint: they are not).

Trying to give examples based on your assumption the religions are to be treated equally misses the point I raised - coins have "In God We Trust", not "PBUH", and have done so for over 100 years. I'm not sure about the plaques in this school, but in other schools, things like this have been around fro many, many years and are part of the character of the school.

And if you make the point it's not just above "Thou Shalt not steal or kill, but also about the first and second commandments...then I think I'm on safe ground saying this move by atheists is not just about "equality" and meticulous adherence to the law.

Muerk said...

"because without them our civilisation would not exist. The same could not be said of Islam or Buddhism, which are not really part of our culture in any meaningful way.

(LRO)
Oh, I see. WE are civilised by The Big 10, whereas Buddhists and Muslims are uncivilised savages"

This here is exactly why I don't engage with LRO anymore. If he can interpret something in bad faith, he does so.

Lucia Maria was talking about _our_ civilisation, that the Ten Commandments are a foundational part of _our_ culture. No where was there a hint that ours was the only civilisation. LRO purposefully misread Lucia for the greatest effect.

Our culture has a Judeo-Christian well-spring, it makes sense for our students to know this about their own culture. Other civilisations, such as Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc. have their own religious and philosophical traditions. Likewise their students are taught their history within their cultural context.

The problem with some atheists is that their position is so fragile and brittle that displays of religion gives them the vapours. Our religious context has to be expunged so that we can all live some kind of collective lie that says Christianity isn't important to Western culture. No one is advocating removing freedom of belief, but a display of Judeo-Christian heritage is suddenly being lumped with coercive behaviour. It's ridiculous.


Heck, put up the Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu equivalent! Anything but this bland secular pap where we all have to pretend that religion doesn't exist or isn't important to our cultural narrative. Be free to be atheist but have a little courage with it.

Psycho Milt said...

And if you make the point it's not just above "Thou Shalt not steal or kill, but also about the first and second commandments...then I think I'm on safe ground saying this move by atheists is not just about "equality" and meticulous adherence to the law.

It's totally about the first four, ie the ones the author(s) considered the most important. So yes, it's not a legal quibble for atheists - it's about getting religious proclamations removed from public spaces because they're offensive to us, just like the declarations of Dawkins or Hitchens about religion are offensive to Christians. An Oklahoma public school wouldn't for a moment think of putting up a placard containing one of Hitchens' declarations that religion is a North Korea of the mind, regardless of the importance of the Enlightenment to western civilisation. Likewise, they should not be putting up placards demanding, issuing commands no less, that the children of atheists or anyone else subject themselves to a Lord God.

Arguments about the importance of Christianity to western civilisation are irrelevant here - these placards aren't there as historical reminders of how our civilisation came to be what it is, as "senatus populusque romanus" or a copy of the Magna Carta would be, they're there as commands to believe in and follow the precepts of a particular religion. As such, they have no place as official notices.

ZenTiger said...

I agree, they most certainly are not put up as historical reminders. I didn't quite argue that. My point is more that they are part of the fabric of our civilization. As in the "In God We Trust". That will be the next target no doubt. Because such statements are offensive and have no place on money...etc etc.


They need to be removed not because they have no place on a school wall, but more so that they are "offensive to us" and Thou Shalt Not Tolerate.

It's very marxist to want to stamp out and eradicate all traces of this. Doing it in the name of neutrality, even more so.




scrubone said...

International Committee of The Red Cross.

Doctors Without Borders

Donors Choose.

Three secular, non religious, humanitarian bodies founded pretty much on hope and hope alone.


I hadn't heard of Donors Choose. It appears to be a site that collates requests for donations. The other two display prominent "donate" buttons on their homepages, so again a good demonstration of my point that no organisation would ever consider operating on hope alone.

Of course, no one knew what he was doing, did they? No one knew he would need help, did they? No one helped because they thought it the right thing to do, did they? And no help was ever delivered by human hands, it was all "manna from heaven" wasn't it? Yeah, right.

No, no, no & no, and I never suggested anything else. Certainly, it's arguable that in later years the orphanages funding can be at least partially explained by their fame.

But that misses the point. No one was told whether the orphanages needed bread or shoelaces, whether the coffers were full or empty (usually empty in the early years). But when shoelaces were needed, shoelaces were provided. When bread was needed, bread was provided. When the staff became aware of a need and bought it to him, Muller prayed over it and someone turned up with the items, or the money required to purchase the items.

It was an experiment that was deliberately and openly set up to prove to Christians in particular that prayer works. And there is zero question that it did work.

The funny thing about the publicity argument is that they did put the word out that they were caring starting a home for orphans, but it was only when he prayed that any turned up!

God did not help the orphans in Bristol, George Muller did. If you think that god deserves the credit for aiding those orphans, why didn't he provide help earlier and prevent them from becoming orphans in the first place?

The funny thing is, atheists and Christians agree that most suffering comes from the actions of man. Wars are a good example of that. (And if you're complaining about the actions of the church, I'm a protestant - I know the church fails and fails badly when it turns from God.)

Atheism rejects God. That's something we all do to some degree or other. So while we might quibble on some details, we know the answer to why there is suffering - man screws up.

Why didn't God help these orphans earlier? That's easy - because the help that Muller provided glorified God. Muller demonstrated that Godly men acting for God's glory *can* trust God's faithfulness. And Muller's story is only one - there are many more.

But if there's one thing I can say it's this: don't take my brief comments here as a full account of the evidence. I recommend this book as a more detailed account.
http://www.amazon.com/George-Muller-Delighted-God-HistoryMakers/dp/1845501209/ref=pd_sim_b_16

ZenTiger said...

LRO - is your argument that because God doesn't act in ways you can fathom, he cannot exist? It seems that way.

Muerk said...

I would object to Hitchens and Dawkins' quotes being placed on a school wall because both men are mere fashionable polemicists.

I'd have no objection to Friedrich Nietzsche though. In fact I think having a range of views from the best theologies and philosophies prominently displayed in each classroom would help to inspire students to think outside of their world views.

leftrightout said...

Jesusonarollerblade. Muerk. Dawkins a "mere fashionable polemicist"? just where do you get your ideas?

Dawkins is one of this generations leading biologists, and excellent communicator and teacher and an intellectual giant. I suppose you think evolution is "just a theory".

Have you read "The Blind Watchmaker"? "The Selfish Gene"? "The Magic of Reality"?

leftrightout said...

ZenTiger said...
LRO - is your argument that because God doesn't act in ways you can fathom, he cannot exist? It seems that way.


No, its more that god doesn't act. Therefore, god does not exist.

leftrightout said...

Scrubone - Why didn't God help these orphans earlier? That's easy - because the help that Muller provided glorified God. Muller demonstrated that Godly men acting for God's glory *can* trust God's faithfulness.

So to glorify god, that is, to satisfy god's insatiable desire for worship and praise, a whole pile of children had to suffer? Theodidiot.

Surely god could have been better glorified by NOT making orphans in the first place!

Why is it that your god gets so much pleasure from out pain?

leftrightout said...

Be free to be atheist but have a little courage with it.

In a lot of communities it takes far more courage to be an atheist than it does to be a believer.

Do you know, not much more than 50 years ago an atheist could not give evidence in many American courts?

Have you seen the recent treatment of atheists in Bangladesh, USA, India? How about in Iran and in any other country where a religious minority refuses to tolerate the very existence of doubters?

For too long we have given precedence to religion, we have granted it an undeserved and unearned status; the time is ripe to remove gods from every sphere of public life, to push them back in to the dark corners from whence they sprang and to live free from the hectoring and cant of those who pretend to know "god's will".

leftrightout said...

As a Christian, I think it’s time to rid ourselves of this notion of freedom of religion in America.

(...)

One of the greatest moments in U.S. Senate history came when a Christian group recently shouted for God to forgive us during the opening prayer of a Hindu in the Senate.

THAT is the face to Xtian Tolerance! Spit!

http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2013/05/the-case-against-freedom-of-religion/

ZenTiger said...

After all these years coming here, why has the thread led to you arguing that if God exists, he is wrong to allow free will, and the necessary consequences that follow?

If you can outline a more coherent argument against this concept, instead of just dropping basic apologetics 101 type random statements it might be more productive.

ZenTiger said...

You've managed to make extra comments before I hit send. To your recent comments, is this where, after arguing that when I point out signs of Atheist Intolerance and you pronounce it whining, you are now countering with a couple of incidents of supposed Christian intolerance?

Christians have shown enormous tolerance and acceptance of atheists in our culture. Western society is essentially formed from a Christian heritage.

Pointing to cultures that persecute Christians and Atheists alike doesn't make a relevant argument.

You will also find that some people are into persecution, no matter the reason. The reason isn't essentially religious. Throwing off religion, as my post shows, will not stop small-minded bigotry and intolerance.

Your argument is "having no religion is the key to a tolerant society" and my post, and others like it will show that even atheists will be bastards and bigots.

leftrightout said...

ZenTiger said...
After all these years coming here, why has the thread led to you arguing that if God exists, he is wrong to allow free will, and the necessary consequences that follow?


I'm not the one who brought "free will" in to the thread. You did that yourself. Look, just up above.

But it was always bound to happen - "free will" the final refuge of the cornered xtian. The problem of evil just won't go away, will it?

If you can outline a more coherent argument against this concept, instead of just dropping basic apologetics 101 type random statements it might be more productive.

Hmm, so god gives me free will. I use that free will to rape. Looks good, so far, doesn't it. And, I suppose, if I am caught, I will be punished. If i am not caught, one assumes I will be punished in the "after life", or I will have made penance and thus get away scot free. Not sounding so good now.

Then we are faced with the issue of my victim's free will to not be raped being violated. But I suppose that is all part of god's plan, and anyway, if it was a genuine rape, she won't have any ill effects, will she? And we all know that god (well, the Republican one anyway) hates women, so why care about her?

Martin Wagner does an excellent job showing how immoral xtianity is.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/05/06/how-the-problem-of-evil-uncloaks-christianitys-total-moral-bankruptcy/







bamac said...

Having read through so many of the comments on this site ,particularly those of LRO and Milt, a saying comes into my mind "Mine thinketh he doth protest too much!" ( maybe I have the wording a bit wrong , am not sure where the saying came from .Over the years I have met a number of people who claimed to be atheists , all of whom left me with the same feeling that, despite/or because of, all their rhetoric,there is a sneaky doubt in the back of their minds ( a doubt that they would and do,vehemently deny) that they are wrong ..
LRO and Milt , you have come onto a Christian blog site, maybe with the hopes of "saving" some or any of us from what you claimto be the "myths" of any ideas of religion O Yeah!

Where then is your undeniable proof that you are right and we are wrong ? Not you usual comment LRO , that you have never seen Him.

Mrs Mac

leftrightout said...

Bbzzzzt. Mrs Mac, you got both the quote, and its meaning wrong.

Where then is your undeniable proof that you are right ...

Well, I've never claimed to have any, but reason, logic and study tend to support the lack of gods.

I don't have "undeniable proof" that unicorns don't exist, either. Or fairies. But again, deduction and reason can lead one to the conclusion that there are no fairies riding unicorns at the bottom of my garden.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share your undeniable proof that you are right and I (and Milt) are wrong? A photo of you and god, sharing a beer should do it. :-)

chris said...

I'm always amused when the athiests jump in with various tripe about the US constitution. This is increased when they post on NZ conservative -- and as a fellow NZer I need to remind them that NZ does not have a written constitution, and nor should we .

So, ignoring the separation of church and state and what Jefferson did and did not say for that is only applicable to those scoundrels who rebelled against King, country and the Whigs...

There have been a series of ministries, run for considerable periods, without publicity and by prayer alone. Current examples would include L'Abri and Overseas Christian Fellowship (the former China Inland Mission). These organisations are generally the antithesis of the televangelist, instead working alongside people, doing good, and not begging for dollars to do so.

One commentator says that secular people can do good. Yes. They. Can. This point was taken by a certain author called Paul as an example why the non Jews still knew they were accountable for the wrong they had done and his idea was expanded by Augustine.

Finally, as someone who has read most of Dawkins, he has had but two ideas -- the selfish gene (which led to the bioligicisation of human behaviour, and the hidden rise of eugenics) and the meme -- which is now quite stale.

His most recent books are not that good, and his athiestic rants do not have enough venom in them. He needs to do better.

Muerk said...

Dawkins an intellectual giant on the subject of religion - bwahahahaha!

Sure, the guys is smart, "bright" even. He's a good biologist but he knows very little about the academic fields of religious studies, theology, and philosophy in which he likes to write populist books about.

Now if you want to bring out the atheist minds that are the big guns try Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Marx, Engles, Nietzsche, Comte, or Sartre. Now these men were genuine intellectual giants. Their work is still being studied and taught today. No philosophy undergraduate will be studying Dawkins' theories about religion in a hundred years. (To be fair, I have no idea about how timeless is his work in his actual field - biology.)

Psycho Milt said...

...saying comes into my mind "Mine thinketh he doth protest too much!" ( maybe I have the wording a bit wrong , am not sure where the saying came from

It's "Methinks the lady doth protest too much," in which Queen Gertrude tells Hamlet she thinks the queen character in a play is laying it on a bit thick in her protestations of love for the king character. It's often quoted by dumbasses who think it means "These guys complain too much," but you're using it entirely validly here - to suggest that LRO and I are covering up fear that some god actually exists with our protestations of atheism. Obviously I don't agree (in my case at least - can't speak for LRO), but you're entitled to your opinion.

As to why I trouble myself, an atheist, to comment on a Christian blog, it's not due to some Quixotic urge to try and convert Christians to atheism, but because the particular blog authors involved engage in some interesting discussions - this one, for instance.

bamac said...

Thank you Milt for clearing up for me where the quote came from ... I should have remembered from English class studies of Shakespear some sixty odd yesrs ago...
Thank you too for the rest of your comment ...you are right that we are all entitled to our opinions ... I find that hte sharing of them makes life interesting.

Mrs Mac

ZenTiger said...

RO said: "I'm not the one who brought "free will" in to the thread. You did that yourself. Look, just up above."

Zen says: I just put a name to your argument.


LRO said: "But it was always bound to happen - "free will" the final refuge of the cornered xtian. The problem of evil just won't go away, will it?"

Zen said: Not cornered at all. Not a final refuge either. If you argue that if God exists, then why does he allow people to do want they want, the alternative you infer is that he would make people not do what they want, and the world would never have bad things happen. Or that there is some expectation that God should not have heaven elsewhere, but create it here. If you are making a different argument than what I've boiled it down to, I'd like to hear it.


LRO said: "Hmm, so god gives me free will. I use that free will to rape. Looks good, so far, doesn't it. And, I suppose, if I am caught, I will be punished. If i am not caught, one assumes I will be punished in the "after life",

Zen says: The actual point you are attempting to make is lost on me. Are you actually making a point? Yes, you have free will, yes you can use it to do evil and yes, there are consequences.


LRO said: "or I will have made penance and thus get away scot free. Not sounding so good now."

Zen says: Our blog has several posts outlining that penance, contrary to the assertions of the atheist, does not remove the consequences of the sin. Receiving forgiveness is very different than having no consequences. The penance has to also be genuine contrition. It's not a matter of faking sincerity, like many atheists believe.


LRO said: "Then we are faced with the issue of my victim's free will to not be raped being violated. "

Zen says: That's not what free will is. It's not free will to wish for something. You are not making sense.


LRO said: "But I suppose that is all part of god's plan, and anyway, if it was a genuine rape, she won't have any ill effects, will she? And we all know that god (well, the Republican one anyway) hates women, so why care about her?"

Zen said: This is not an argument, this is a rant full of bias and errors. Is this how you convince me that you apply reason and logic and objectivity to come to an informed decision? Not working.


LRO said: "Martin Wagner does an excellent job showing how immoral xtianity is."

Zen said: Completely off-topic, and not relevant to the argument and if it uses the same logic as above, totally off-base too. The post is about Atheist intolerance - I'm suggesting the law is being applied to justify a remarkable lack of intolerance. I'm also suggesting that your argument religion makes people intolerant and behave badly is countered by me pointing out that some atheists will prove to be just as much in the wrong as some Christians, and over time (given atheism is on the rise) we will see much proof that the more positive qualities of liberalism are pushed aside and people will invent all sorts of reasons to be intolerant - and there wont be any blame able to be put onto religion. Instead, atheists will have to face up to the fact that having no religion doesn't make them any better people. Some will start to figure out further that having no agreed and shared moral values will make people generally worse. We can discuss this idea more fully over each new post. I foresee a steady increase in new material to prove my point.

leftrightout said...

Zen said: Completely off-topic, and not relevant to the argument and if it uses the same logic as above, totally off-base too. The post is about Atheist intolerance - I'm suggesting the law is being applied to justify a remarkable lack of intolerance.

No, you are arguing that the is being used to end xtian hegemony. You are arguing that the law should be applied equally, unless it is being applied to a xtian. You are arguing that xtians should have a special place above everyone else.

And the US constitution doesn't work that way. A display of religious symbolism outside any direct teaching is illegal. Full stop. End of argument. You may not like it, but that IS the law.

I'm also suggesting that your argument religion makes people intolerant and behave badly is countered by me pointing out that some atheists will prove to be just as much in the wrong as some Christians, and over time (given atheism is on the rise) we will see much proof that the more positive qualities of liberalism are pushed aside and people will invent all sorts of reasons to be intolerant - and there wont be any blame able to be put onto religion.

You only have to look at any of Fletcher's rants "the poofs are coming for us all" to see how evil religion makes a person.

Instead, atheists will have to face up to the fact that having no religion doesn't make them any better people.

But, in many cases it does.

In general, atheists are more charitable than theists.

In general, atheists are more open to education than theists.

In general, atheists are far more self aware than theists.

Some will start to figure out further that having no agreed and shared moral values will make people generally worse.

Ah, but we do have shared moral values, even the atheist and (most) theists accept that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, that theft is wrong, that slavery is wrong, that genocide is wrong. And we have come to that conclusion in spite of the content or religious texts.

Can you point to one solitary moral value that is good for humanity and that can only be practiced by a theist?

Muerk said...

"Can you point to one solitary moral value that is good for humanity and that can only be practiced by a theist?"

Transcendent hope.

leftrightout said...

Muerk, in what way is that a moral value? And how is it good for humanity?

Hope is what I have when I buy a lotto ticket.

But, leaving that aside, why can it only be practiced by a theist?

Muerk said...

Oh of course an atheist can have hope, buy your lotto ticket as you like. What you can not possess as an atheist is a transcendent hope, a hope that there is meaning in your sufferings, trials and losses.

For an atheist suffering is meaningless unless there is some kind of utilitarian benefit, like the pain of jogging has the utilitarian positive benefit of better health.

However when the trials of life come, death, disease, loss, pain - there is nothing to help find meaning in the evil of suffering. The dead loved one is gone to oblivion. There is no hope of resurrection or reincarnation. No Hawaiki or Heaven.

Transcendent hope is a positive moral good for humanity because it helps us process grief and suffering. It helps us to get out of bed in the morning after a loss. It can help people have a good death or face pain. It helps provide a shared meaning in the face of loss.

It's no surprise that the oldest book of the Bible is Job. Humanity has always tried to process suffering. Likewise the Bagavad Gita is about suffering. It's not a Christian thing, it's a faith thing. Look at the vital role a Maori tangi has in the community, the transcendent hope of Hawaiki and the rituals involved with the tangi help the community in objective ways.


Atheist philosopher Alain de Botton understands this, which is why he suggests creating atheist versions of rituals that provide meaning to religious communities in his book "Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion". However without the transcendent hope that comes with faith it's an empty gesture.

leftrightout said...

Hi Muerk, thanks for trying,but I think we need a clear definition of moral behaviour, as your points above don't, IMHO, fall in to that category. But I will still address your points as I can.

For an atheist suffering is meaningless unless there is some kind of utilitarian benefit, ...

Is that true? And why should there be meaning in suffering? And how can the meaning be teased out? Two years ago I was in hospital with a badly shattered elbow, the chaplain came around, I said I wasn't interested. His parting remark was "These things are sent to try us". NO, I slipped on the ice and smashed my elbow, nothing was "sent"; it was simply an accident.

However when the trials of life come, death, disease, loss, pain - there is nothing to help find meaning in the evil of suffering. The dead loved one is gone to oblivion. There is no hope of resurrection or reincarnation. No Hawaiki or Heaven.

Your hope is a false hope, akin to my hope when I buy a lottery ticket. When a loved one dies, I don't need to pretend I'll see them again, I know they are gone from my life forever. And it is knowing this that makes me want my relationships to be stronger and more meaningful today, not in some far away fantasyland.

It's no surprise that the oldest book of the Bible is Job. Humanity has always tried to process suffering. Likewise the Bagavad Gita is about suffering. It's not a Christian thing, it's a faith thing. Look at the vital role a Maori tangi has in the community, the transcendent hope of Hawaiki and the rituals involved with the tangi help the community in objective ways.

All you are doing here is confirming my point that there is nothing good that can only be done by a theist.

When my grandfather died, some bloke he'd never met, who knew nothing about Bertie, presided at his funeral and droned on. Later, his family sat around the veranda, beers in hand, and reminisced about him in our lives. I know which was the more therapeutic, the one that best allowed us to process our suffering.

I really would like you to come up with a truly moral act that can only be done by a theist.

Perhaps we could use the following definitions of moral as the basis for the discussion.

Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral ): a moral man.

Muerk said...

LRO:


You didn't ask me to find a moral value for _you_ but for humanity. Of course you aren't going to derive any benefit from a ritual where the presiding person didn't know your loved one personally because for _you_ death is final and personal memories are what you have.


Whether you acknowledge it or not most societies have religious rituals for the dead and for ancestors, quite a few even have ancestor worship. It's a fool's errand to continue to engage you on this topic because any moral value I or anyone else comes up with will not pass muster with you. You clearly believe that religion is not even merely neutral but actively harmful, so of course I can never satisfy your criteria, either you will not regard something as a moral value, or you will deny that it's positive for humanity.


Isn't it obvious that for a Catholic person (as an example) the moral action of "right conduct" as per the definition (which was a good one btw) will be what brings one closer to God and that which follows God's Holy Will. Since God IS Truth, Goodness, Beauty and Reason (or rather the Logos) to come closer to God's Will is to engage in greater and greater "right conduct". Love God and Love thy Neighbour is the essence of it.


An atheist may love his neighbour, indeed to the point where he shames the Catholic, but an atheist can never, ever love God because at the heart of his existence is a denial of the one being he owes reciprocating love to. Although you can not believe it, the very breath you take at this moment is because God is continually in the process of creating Creation. His is an ongoing work of love, love that an atheist can not participate in.


I believe that I was created out of love, to participate in love, and to share the grace of love I have received with others. The natural family mirrors the Divine Truth. A man and a woman love in a Covenant relationship, exclusive and permanent, open to life. A life is born out of this open, fully giving love and that life receives the love of his parents and reciprocates it in turn. So whilst an atheist can enjoy the fruits of the natural family, and atheist can never see beyond this. Atheistic "right conduct" is blunted and stunted to the material plane, it can never actively draw on the fountain of grace that is the Spirit of Love.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.