Said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, quoted in an Isthmus article with a subtitle that puzzles me:
"The nation's largest group of freethinkers strives to improve the image of atheists."
This slow trickle of religion into one-prohibited places [sic] creates a slippery slope that Gaylor fears could bottom out in a full-blown theocratic society. Fundamentalist Protestant groups and Roman Catholics are the top offenders pushing for a government governed by God, she says.
"These denominations may invoke state-church separation by crying it's being violated when they don't like a government action, such as Obamacare's contraception mandate," she says. "But they essentially believe in theocracy and believe their religious dogma should be legislated in our laws. They want to tell the government what to do so it conforms to their doctrines."
Is "freethinker" a term of art? I looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and found a single definition: "A person who professes to or is known for independence of thought,
esp. one who withholds assent to widely held beliefs or ideas;
spec. a person who refuses to submit his or her reason to the control of authority in matters of religious belief; (chiefly with capital initials) any of the rationalists, prominent from the early 18th cent., who rejected Christianity on the grounds of reason (now
hist.)." Among the historical examples of the usage of this word:
1708 Swift Sentiments Church of Eng.-man i, in Misc. (1711) 100 The Atheists, Libertines, Despisers of Religion..that is to say, all those who usually pass under the Name of Free-Thinkers....
1836 H. Smith Tin Trumpet I. 227 Freethinker..has come to be synonymous with a libertine and a contemner of religion....
1968 A. J. Ayer Humanist Outlook 4 Present-day humanists are in fact the intellectual heirs of those nineteenth-century free-thinkers.
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
"But they essentially believe in theocracy and believe their religious dogma should be legislated in our laws"
Some "freethinker."
If atheists have a bad image, it's not because believers (theists?) are intolerant of them. The vast majority of people today don't really care a great deal what some other person believes in their heart. It's where the smug self-satisfaction of being a non-believer (or a believer, for that matter) and willingness to stick it to others (e.g., taking references to God out of everything) that people start to think less of you. It's the humorless scolds that piss us off.
I'm speaking for atheists, believers, and agnostics alike who like to believe what we want without anyone getting in our faces.
"Freethinker" carries a connotation of nonconformity, of rebellion against established belief.
Yet today "rebels" are mainstream, and it is the religiously observant who have become nonconformists. And who, in some cases seem determined to maintain a cultural refuge where the established beliefs of the age can be questioned, and perhaps defied.
I'm against clergy tax-free housing allowances because I favor tax reform. I don't know if I am free thinking enough - I see, hear and feel evidence of the Divine every single day of my life.
People who fear this country becoming a theocracy are just appealing to emotion.
If the USA is sliding towards a theocracy, it is a Muslim one, not a Christian one.
"Money for nothing, thoughts for free."
"People who fear this country becoming a theocracy are just appealing to emotion."
Myself, I think it's more like they're completely delusional.
"They want to tell the government what to do so it conforms to their doctrines."
Everyone does this. Everyone has doctrines, everyone wants the government to conform to their doctrines. Some have a deity, others have a philosophy, some have foundations.
"Gaylor says terrorism in the name of God is a 'very stark reminder of the harm of religion.'"
In reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Circular reasoning so loony, it just might work.
Her brow is like the snaw-drift,
Her neck is like the swan,
Her face it is the fairest,
That 'er the sun shone on.
That 'er the sun shone on -
And dark blue is her e'e,
And for bonnie Annie Laurie
I'd lay me down and dee.
[NAE!]
I want to know what the Professor's take is on Madison wanting give atheists a protected class status.
Legal?
Atheists are interesting people that keep us on our toes. Nobody doesn't like Christopher Hitchens.
The hard thing to understand is their fears of a budding theocracy over every rule/law that tolerates free public expression of faith in God by believers.
Could they be afraid they will hear the Word and become believers too?
She's setting an unrealistic goal. The purpose of state/church separation is to prevent official orthodoxy. It was never intended, nor could it plausibly intend, in a democracy, to prevent laws from having religious moral foundations. If your goal is that having religious principles disqualifies you from having a democratic voice, that is an unrealistic, and actually, disturbing goal.
secular roots
???
We might need to add the phrase "In God We Trust" to their EBT cards.
traditionalguy said...
Atheists are interesting people...
No.
There are some interesting people ( such as Christopher Hitchens ) who are atheists.
Plenty of other atheists ( such as me ) are incredibly boring.
The United States, racing towards theocracy since 1776.
madAsHell - a fair number of the founders were not overtly religious, with some obviously being atheists but wise enough to tap their cane, if you will. Others (Adams for example) were devoutly religious.
My person favorite quote supporting the lack of belief in some of our founders is from Hamilton (perhaps apocryphal) that when asked why the Constitution makes no reference to God, replied, "We forgot."
"We might need to add the phrase "In God We Trust" to their EBT cards."
Good one.
Atheism is just one more religion, although one with lots of oddballs.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair found out just how odd.
O'Hair is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963.
And, of closures, for this.
In 1995 she was kidnapped, murdered and mutilated, along with her son Jon Garth Murray and granddaughter Robin Murray O'Hair, by David Roland Waters, a convicted felon out on parole, and fellow career criminals Gary Karr and Danny Fry. Waters was a member of the American Atheists from February 1993 to April 1994, first as a typesetter and later as office manager.
autocorrect strikes again.
I think she needs to learn her history about religion in the United States.
http://www.shmoop.com/church-and-state/religion-early-america.html
Most of the initial states had official state religions, paid for by taxes, some including laws that prevented holding of office if you weren't a member of the church.
Her take is that we were completely agnostic from the start, and only when the fundy religious whackos took over, we had any sort of religious impact on government as we march slowly down a slippery slope to theocracy.
If anything, it's the exact opposite.
The most relevant historical examples of "freethinkers" in the United States are Charles Knowlton and Robert Dale Owen, who published books in the early 1830s advocating contraception. Knowlton was convicted of blasphemy in Massachusetts and sentenced to hard labor. His book was reprinted in England in 1876 by freethinkers Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant and their high profile trial -- which resulted in a conviction on obscenity subsequently overturned on a technicality -- is credited by some historians as kick starting the onset of long term fertility decline. Yesterday's freethinkers, however, are not the same as today's.
I am a freethinker in matters of the global warmist religion.
"I want to know what the Professor's take is on Madison wanting give atheists a protected class status."
You're not showing me the text of a particular law and I'm not going to look it up, but it's obvious that discriminating against someone for believing that there is no God is discriminating on the basis of religion. It's an easy question. The government can't do that. I suppose you're looking at a law that imposes that nondiscrimination principle on private businesses. How is that a change in the law? And what is your problem with it? What's the issue?
These Aetheist Fundamentalists give the vast majority of aetheists and vague non-believers a bad name. If they weren't crusading agaisnt religion, it would be something else - some people just have a visceral need to get up in someone else's sh*t so they can proclaim their moral superiority. And gather personal and political power.
The Freedom from Religion foundations does not, as the Isthmus article state, defend the constitutional separation of church and state. It does however supply a free ride for the Gaylor family. The little non-profit scam has been controlled by the Gaylor family since her mother started it. While it's possible they are sincere in their beliefs, they sure didn't come to them through the strength of their intellect. I strongly suspect they are more committed to the meal ticket than the cause.
"What used to be absolute, and therefore quite simple to enforce, has become blurred and contentious," she adds.
This slow trickle of religion into one-prohibited places creates a slippery slope that Gaylor fears could bottom out in a full-blown theocratic society.
One would like our freethinkers to pinpoint exactly when this descent into theocracy began. With protests against legalized abortion - surely there were no "religious" laws prohibiting abortion until that date? With restrictions on divorce, or referenda against gay marriage - because obviously there were no laws before then restraining consenting adults from marrying or de-marrying how and with whom they pleased, right? Was this the time when religious people not only started getting nosy about other people's contraceptive use, but just out of the blue got all theocratically enraged about being forced to pay for other people's abortions and contraceptives, which of course they'd been totally all separation-of-church-and-state cool with theretofore? And I'm trying hard to remember when it was that public nativity displays and other public references to Christian holidays started being shoved into our faces, when they had always been strictly prohibited before.
On the one hand, "freethinkers" invoke alleged roots of absolute secularism. On the other hand, their own examples of intolerable "religious interference" today, if compared to past practices in the real historical United States, ought to convince them that this country was until very recently not only not secular, but an outright raging theocracy.
First we need to know is whether God is Dead or not?
Second we need to know whether God is an atheist now because he is angry like he was in the Babylonian Captivity episode.
Otherwise atheism is a moot point.
"The latter action was resented even more than the former, for many of the men were freethinkers, lately emerged from countries where the church had played a considerable part in attempting their oppression, and they drew the line somewhere short of being preached at, prayed over, or uplifted." --Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative (vol 2)
Deophobes that don't believe in God. How can you be afraid of something that you don't think exists?
EMD: "The United States, racing towards theocracy since 1776"
As with Fascism (thank you Revel) that is always descending in the United States and yet landing only in Europe, the fear on the crazy left (is there any other kind?) happens to be that theocracy is always descending in the US yet landing only in muslim led nations.
Ironically, the only "religion" the left in cult like fashion wishes to protect is Islam.
Free thinker was used because the author believes in the cause.
"Freethinker" has come to be associated with antitheist fundamentalism, as it should be. These people are paranoid religious zealots.
As Paddy O said, "Everyone wants the government to conform to their doctrines." ...or at least to avoid having the government trample on their doctrines.
The dismissive tone that many atheists and other activists take towards people with strongly held religious beliefs leads me to think that they are less about "freedom" of/from religion, and more about finding ways to disqualify people they disagree with from participating in government and in policy making processes.
It's entirely possible to come to policy conclusions that are consistent with the teachings of one religion or another, without actually being religious, but it can be a powerful political tool to paint opposition to your own position as being driven by narrow-minded religious zealots or ancient superstitions.
I see it often with abortion activists who seem to believe that any opposition to abortion is driven solely by religious views, and not by honest, non-religious, philosophical and scientific, concerns about pain, suffering, developmental biology, and the proper/practical boundaries of legal protection.
I also see it from some people on the religious Right, who seem unable or unwilling to believe that non-religious people can synthesize a code of morality without believing in God. You don't need to believe in God to believe that murder is wrong, but some people seem to think that is impossible.
We might need to add the phrase "In God We Trust" to their EBT cards.
"In God We Trust - all others pay cash."
In the intelligence community, it's "In God We Trust, all others we monitor."
"God may help those who help themselves but this store prosecutes shoplifters."
Citizens of the republic "want to tell the government what to do"? What madness is this?
"If the USA is sliding towards a theocracy, it is a Muslim one, not a Christian one."
Ooops! You're letting your xenophobic paranoia show!
Deophobes that don't believe in God. How can you be afraid of something that you don't think exists?
Are there such things as "deophobes?" If so, they're likely not scared of the god that doesn't exist but of the people who believe the god does exist.
"Nobody doesn't like Christopher Hitchens."
Sure there are. He's not Sara Lee, after all.
When the religion bashers get their wish and reason finally prevails and people are just as stupid and superstitious as ever, who will they feel superior to?
"Oops! You're letting your xenophobic paranoia show!"
Yeah, Cook. Much better to dump on Christian and Jews than worry about the folks who blew up the towers, promote Sharia Law and behead nonbelievers.
Lefty logic in action.
@Michael K.
"Atheism is just one more religion, although one with lots of oddballs."
What you did not include in your reporting of the murder of Ms. O'Hair and her son and granddaughter is that the man who murdered them, a former employee, was a convicted felon who had committed violent crimes, including murder, in the past. He also stole $54,000.00 from the American Atheists organization while employed by them. Apparently, his criminality was discovered by Ms. O'Hair, who wrote an article for the American Atheists newsletter exposing him and his crimes. He reportedly was enraged at this and plotted revenge. (He also, after abducting the family with his accomplices, stole a great deal of money from them before murdering them.)
Perhaps you did not think it germane, but your remark (quoted above) and your reporting of the murders, without explanation, would have it appear that, "well, atheists are just kooky, and they sometimes murder each other!"
Hombre:
1.) I have never dumped on Christians or Jews.
2.) For one to assert that "if we are sliding toward theocracy, it is a Muslim one," without it being xenophobic paranoia, there must be some indication that Sharia law is making substantial inroads into American law-making.
It isn't.
traditionalguy said...
Could they be afraid they will hear the Word and become believers too?
That'll happen right after "they" stop laughing.
Greg Hlatky said...
When the religion bashers get their wish and reason finally prevails and people are just as stupid and superstitious as ever, who will they feel superior to?
You.
"We truly thought..."
Go ahead, pull the other one!
@Biff (10:10): The aggressive antitheism is another manifestation of leftist tendencies toward totalitarianism. Nothing new there.
Very few people from the religious right believe that "non-religious people can(not) synthesize a code of morality without believing in God."
Whether we can articulate it or not, we believe the question is metaethical. That is, atheists can behave morally, but they have no "moral compass." Where beliefs are transitory, so are moral "codes."
"God may help those who help themselves but this store prosecutes shoplifters."
BTW, "God helps those who help themselves" does not come from the Bible as many suppose. It is a paraphrase of something Heracles is supposed to have said when pushing a wagon that was stuck in a muddy ditch. "The gods help those who help themselves." The wagon's driver had been praying to the gods for the wagon to become unstuck but not doing anything to help his draft animal to pull it out.
So the militant atheists are trying to claim "freethinker" now, are they? Horsehockey. It's a term of art which is not synonymous with that brand of theophobic malignantly predatory atheism that the "Freedom from Religion" clan represent. Hell, Lincoln was a freethinker. It basically meant "unchurched" in the 19th Century American context. Did it include atheists? Yes, but also agnostics, anti-clerical snobs, freemasons, transcendentalists, nudists, perverts, uncatagorizable mystics, and free-range cranks from a wide spectrum of religious persuasions.
Secular as in "Declaration of Independence"?
Atheism is a simplistic philosophy based on a single article of faith or affirmative statement about phenomenon outside of the scientific domain (e.g. extra-universal). Atheists would do well to acknowledge their faith and seek neutral ground in the scientific domain.
As for "religious" dogma, everyone has it, including the so-called "Freedom from Religion" Foundation. While religion and faith are separable, presumably FFRF is atheist and promotes some variant of a moral philosophy (e.g. libertinism), including debasing human life through premeditated murder (i.e. pro-choice) and a firmly held belief in a fairytale of spontaneous conception.
Anyway, there is a reason that atheism combined with left-wing ideology has been responsible for committing more violence against human lives than any other faith, religion, and ideology, other than Islamic imperialism, but over a far shorter time as a universal Church.
Curb your ego and bloodlust. End the planned parenthood rites and the progress of an unprecedented violation of human rights. The opiate of the masses is not necessarily religion or moral philosophy, but false promises of dissociation of risk, and rewards of instant or immediate gratification. As well as corruption sponsored by unacknowledged departures into extra-scientific domains.
@Cook: It was not my intention to accuse you of dumping on anyone other than the person you suggested was xenophobic and paranoid and those who share his views.
The belief that it is xenophobic or paranoid to be concerned about "a slide toward Muslim theocracy" in the absence of Sharia Law "making substantial inroads into American law-making" turns a blind eye toward the virtually universal declaration of the intention of Islam.
It is similar to the refusal of the liberal/left to acknowledge that the mullahs and Muslim national and terrorist leaders who promise to destroy Israel and annihilate Israeli Jews mean exactly that. Throw in the acceptance of the claim by the country with the world's third largest oil reserves that it is desperate for "peaceful" nuclear technology.
Combine the three and you have the foundation for left/liberal Middle East foreign policy. It doesn't matter whether it's based on stupidity or anti-semitism, it isn't based on reality. It's lefty logic.
"But they essentially believe in theocracy and believe their religious dogma should be legislated in our laws. They want to tell the government what to do so it conforms to their doctrines."
Such nonsense. I'm sure there's a perfectly nonreligious reason I can't buy beer before noon on Sunday.
That term, "freedom from religion" really irks me. To say that you have the right to be "free from" something implies that that "something" has no right to exist. We have freedom OF religion so that true free thinkers can co-exist with people who think differently than themselves. Peacefully coexist. But that requires tolerance, which is sorely lacking in these militant atheists.
Atheists have worked hard to convince the world they are intolerant of everyone else. I see no particular reason to accommodate their particular fiction over anything else they choose not to believe.
hombre said...'Very few people from the religious right believe that "non-religious people can(not) synthesize a code of morality without believing in God."'
Perhaps, but they sure show up on comment threads when the subject comes up.
Whether we can articulate it or not, we believe the question is metaethical. That is, atheists can behave morally, but they have no "moral compass." Where beliefs are transitory, so are moral "codes."
This is actually an example of what I mean. You claim that atheists have no "moral compass." You might be able to argue that "God's will/law" is unchanging, but I don't think you can credibly argue that interpretations of that will/law, i.e. "beliefs," are not transitory, either across history or across most people's personal engagement with the Divine. Are those beliefs any less transitory than the beliefs of an atheist who has grappled earnestly with questions of right and wrong, based on first principles as they perceive them?
The practical question is whether or not there are objectively graspable first principles upon which to build a moral code. Whether or not God exists, you still can have first principles for how the universe works, and, from there, develop a moral code. That doesn't mean it's easy or trivial, but it also doesn't mean that faith in the unknowable is logically required.
Of course, you are free to believe what you wish.
There is almost nothing I dislike more than a theist/atheist debate. As usual I've not read anything here that cultivates any ground that hasn't been thoroughly plowed by Hume or Kant more than two centuries ago -- particularly the facile blatherings of Robert Cook. Here's some free advice, Cook: Get yourself a new one-trick pony, the one you been flogging died a long time ago.
1. "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth".
2. Atheism is based on a THEOLOGICAL PREMISE: "There is no God nor any gods".
3. Like other tyrannical religions, it wishes to drive all others from the public square.
4. Our US Circuit Court of Appeals has made Atheism the equal of other religions.
5. Other such religions are: Islam; The Cult Of Obama; And, the "Religion Of Meaningful Human Effects On Climate".
Imagine all the other things we can demand freedom from.
"The nation's largest group of freethinkers strives to improve the image of atheists."
And haven't they done a bangup job of it? :rolleyes:
Here's the skinny on atheists, there are two kinds, roughly -- the big A Atheists, and the small a atheists. The big A variety are the kind who form associations with other big A Atheists to combat the dreaded Theocracy, which is always threatening to curtail our cherished inalienable (and self-evident, a point the big A Atheists always breeze through as quickly as possible in hope that we won't notice the contradiction - wink, wink) rights, yet never seems to curtail any successfully. Theocracy in the Atheists lexicon is a synonym for Christianity, mostly the evangelical Protestant strain. Islam is off-limits at all big A confabs, partly because Islam is Brown Culture and therefore sacrosanct, and partly because big A Atheists don't relish the prospect of being burned to death in a cage. Evangelicals just roll over and take it, which eggs on the big A's to dish it out even harder. Big A Atheists also spend a lot of time congratulating themselves. Big A's give out more awards and kudos to themselves than a gender-neutral preschool soccer league. The set of Big A Atheists contains more than its share of teenage virgins who go on to be twenty-something virgins.
Small a atheists just don't get this deity thing, in the same sense that I don't get cats (I get cat, it's cats plural I don't get. Clear?) Small a atheists don't think their non-belief amounts to much, and certainly not enough to be a point of pride. Small a atheists don't form associations because they think the idea of agreeing about something that doesn't exist is futile if not slightly loony. Small a atheists don't meet for lattés at Starbucks on alternate Saturdays. In fact I'm not sure that the set of small a atheists contains more than one member.
Now that that is settled can we talk about something interesting?
"2. Atheism is based on a THEOLOGICAL PREMISE: 'There is no God nor any gods.'"
This is not a "theological premise," but a materialistic premise.
"'4. Our US Circuit Court of Appeals has made Atheism the equal of other religions."
Rather, our First Amendment protects us against the imposition of religion(s) by state entities.
"5. Other such religions are: Islam; The Cult Of Obama; And, the 'Religion Of Meaningful Human Effects On Climate."
Just calling something a religion is not sufficient to make it into one.
Just calling something a religion is not sufficient to make it into one.
Saying it is not is not sufficient to refute it either.
By that definition, it would be the Christians of today who are the free thinkers. The humanists just parrot what their peers are thinking. The progressives are stuck on utopian visions and refuse to discuss both sides of an issue. Christians are constantly being put in a position where they need to take a reasoned stand for what they believe against all the pressures of society.
The smallness of your thinking, Robert Cook is often a disappointment to me. Like hoping for better from a promising minor leaguer.
Buff: "I don't think you can credibly argue that interpretations of that will/law, i.e. "beliefs," are not transitory, either across history or across most people's personal engagement with the Divine."
God's written law is the metaethical basis for the morality of God's people. The immediate issue is not whether our interpretations are transitory, but whether atheists have a metaethical basis for their morality. If not, it would seem that their morality is inherently transitory.
Buff: "The practical question is whether or not there are objectively graspable first principles upon which to build a moral code."
I see, morality as mathematics or physics. I'd certainly like to consider such a "first principle."
Care to suggest one?
Sorry. I know it's "Biff," not "Buff." My iPad doesn't.
Consider two moral axioms: individual dignity and intrinsic value, that could could form the foundation of a faith-agnostic moral philosophy. Unfortunately, liberal societies denigrate the former and debase the latter. Perhaps there are no moral axioms that would ever enjoy a consensus without the authority of an extra-universal author, or mortal gods (i.e. coercion) who are selective and therefore corrupt.
Free thinker apparently means lacking an understanding of the constitution, the founding fathers, and history.
1. Even Jefferson described himself as a Deist
2. We don't have a historical tradition where the head of state is the head of the "official" church
3. the first amendment guarantees not only the freedom from a state establishment as described in point two, it guarantees the freedom to freely practice your religion, which this dumbass is exercising by practicing atheism.
Seems to me this arschluck simply wants to everyone to as joyless as she is.
I've read some things over at the Isthmus, and the ideas are manifestly doctrinaire and dogmatic
For Mr. Robert Cook: The general test, in the USA, as defines a religion is someone calling an ideology a religion.
RecChief wrote: Even Jefferson described himself as a Deist
Can you cite a source for this? I ask because most scholars would disagree with you Jefferson was most difficult to pin down on matters of faith, and deliberately so, most likely, wishing to avoid needless contretemps with his more devout neighbors.
The one time I can point to where Jefferson was explicit was in a letter to his close friend and secretary, William Short. In that missive he writes "it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; ..."
Let me remind everyone that we have created life form bodies living well on a created planet in a created universe and the chance that creation happened by accident does not exist.
So why be so mad at the Creator?
So why be so mad at the Creator?
What do you say to the Muslim who says the Creator demands your death for being an infidel?
Annie Laurie Gaylor is the reason why the image of atheists need to refurbished. I describe myself as a non-proselytizing atheist to distinguish genuine atheists from her ilk. Does it bother me that clergymen who receive a housing allowance get to claim it on their income taxes? No! Why should it? Does a crèche bother me? No! I'm certain that even with the Roman Warm Period shepherds were not able to stay out in the fields keep watch over their flock by night in late December. Should it bother me? No. Does it? No again.
So why does it bother Annie Laurie Gaylor? Because she's basically not happy unless she's yelling for attention and making people angry. I can imagine her as a schoolgirl acting out to get negative attention from the teacher.
Big Mike,
"I'm certain that even with the Roman Warm Period shepherds were not able to stay out in the fields keep watch over their flock by night in late December."
Uhhh, you realize that this was talking about people at a greatly lower latitude AND elevation than Switzerland or the Pyrenees, right?
Big Mike,
And if that's still inconceivable to you, just pick up a cheap used copy of Dreadnaught and marvel at the account, in the early chapters, of Her Majesty's [sailing] Navy and the barefoot enlisted/impressed sailors running around the rigging, during freezing weather, in their bare feet.
Yes indeed, our ancestors were tougher than we are.
"'Just calling something a religion is not sufficient to make it into one.'
"Saying it is not is not sufficient to refute it either."
Labeling an idea or complex of ideas a religion without basis, without explanation or information showing how the idea (or ideas) is, in fact, a religion does not require refutation: it is self-refuting.
"...it would be the Christians of today who are the free thinkers. The humanists just parrot what their peers are thinking. The progressives are stuck on utopian visions and refuse to discuss both sides of an issue. Christians are constantly being put in a position where they need to take a reasoned stand for what they believe against all the pressures of society."
I'm sure there are some Christians who are "freethinkers," who take reasoned stands for what they believe, but they are outnumbered by those who are not, and don't.
This is not to say that many "humanists," or "progressives," or whomever it may be (or however one wants to label them) do not also resort to rote parroting of received ideas to support their views (or namecalling to denigrate those they disagree with), as this is human nature, and is nearly universal.
"1. Even Jefferson described himself as a Deist."
What do you think this means? What significance does this have?
"Let me remind everyone that we have created life form bodies living well on a created planet in a created universe and the chance that creation happened by accident does not exist."
I don't know what the first part of this sentence means, but the second part of the sentence--"the chance that creation happened by accident does not exist"--is mere assertion, and has no authority of proof.
There is a spiritual aspect to the militancy of atheists and the contempt they have for God and his followers. I think they are choosing sides in the great spiritual battle.
I generally ignore things I don't believe in.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा