Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scarmiglione']

As an atheist I'll just drop a couple of things I've learned here.

1.  Every group has it's share of assholes.  It's a requirement.  While it is necessary to understand that any group cannot be wholly regarded by the nature of its assholes, there is value to be found in how that group deals with its assholes.   

2.  I'd rather live in a truly libertarian Christian society than a communistic atheist one.  But note that this would directly reflect on point 1.  Libertarian-minded Christians need to be able to manage their assholes.

3.  Many atheists I've encountered replace the role religion used to play in their lives with government.  They still want an external power structure on people, but they wanted created by men with guns.  Ergo, many of the atheists are no better than many Christians with regards to individual liberty.

4.  Atheists are vocal because they are one of the last minorities that it is okay to openly discriminate against in this country.  They are vocal because they are waging a war for an open place in the cultural landscape.  Atheists, at less than 10% of the population, are blamed for the state of the schools, the sexuality on TV, the use of drugs by kids, the degradation of basic morality, and any number of social ills and problems people want to blame someone for.  Atheists speak out because we are just people.  Some good, some bad, mostly average.  Just folk with a different belief.  And we're sick of being blamed for others' failings.

5.  All philosophies are tainted by personal bias and priority.  Christian philosophy can be bent toward theocratic totalitarianism, or anarchist rebellion.  Same with atheist viewpoints.  I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with any Christian who believes in individual liberty.  But that means they would have to stand shoulder to shoulder with me and fight the other Christians and atheists who don't.  So question is really, what is each individual's higher priority?  Is it the people they share belief with?  Or the belief in individual liberty.  Because for both sides liberty may mean standing up against your own.

[macman2k]

scarmig brings up some excellent points. 

I am not an atheist nor would I associate myself with any particular religion, but the question of the thread is "why/or is any *religion* opposed to the freedom pov". 

An atheist "religion" can be used to establish all manner of "moral relativism", "survival of the fittest", etc.  The result is that a significant subset of atheists worship government as the solution to mans problems.  The atheist view point itself does not necessarily imply anti-liberty, but individuals could adopt an anti-liberty world view without violating the atheist creed "there is no god".

Other major religions universally support "government enforced justice".  If it were not so, then there would be an active civil war between people of such a religion and their government.  Maybe you could claim that they preach "no not resist an evil man when he asks for your coat"...

Unless you are willing to disregard the bible and the old/new testaments, then you must accept that:
A) God chooses to put his people under despotic rule (Egypt, Babylon, etc)
It is God's will for his people to remain under despotic rule (and a sin for them to fight back, see when they were captives of Babylon).
C) God delegates his authority to be exercised by "kings" (David, Saul, etc)
D) David was a man after "God's own heart", yet was a king who placed heavy taxes and had no moral issue with "being a king". 
E) God gave King Solomon supernatural wisdom, yet King Solomon did not establish free-market anarch-o-capitalism or even work toward that end. 

I could go on and on, but it appears that one must reject christianity, Judaism, or islam in order to adopt a pro-liberty point of view.  For a long time I could use bible verses to conclude the ZAP rule, prove that governments are under the authority of the devil, that God did not approve of the idea of a king (warned the Jews against it), etc.   But a couple of verses, like Romans 13, completely contradict EVERYTHING ELSE.   Thus, the bible must be fallible or tainted by pro-authoritarian influences such as the emperor of Rome. 

Further proof regarding christianity being anti-freedom is the fact that almost ALL followers and pastors, after studying it their whole life, remain firm in their belief that the powers that be are a legitimate authority created by God and to be obeyed as if they were God, "unless they ask you to worship another god or forbid you from worshiping Jesus". 

Regarding Johnson's post in defense of Christianity... it reads as something I would have written a few years ago.   Some points to consider:

1) The great majority of people today are greatly deceived by all manner of lies and manipulation
2) A great number of these people hold their painfully false beliefs so strongly they would likely die for them
3) An event like 9-11 will likely go down in the history books according to the "official story", people die for that story every day.
4) The character of good people is often abused to give legitimacy to bad ideas. 

Regarding prophecies, all it requires is a little bit of "legend" and everyone believes that they "gambled for his clothing" or any other prophecy was fulfilled.  Thus, Jesus did not have to "arrange for it to happen".  People desperate for hope will believe and embellish any such story.  It would not even be very hard to get all of those "independent" testimonies to "agree".  People are sheep and always have been.  Besides, hand selecting a subset of books that agree from a super-set of books that do not agree and then claiming that "divine intervention" would be necessary to get the remaining subset to agree is foolish and would be like only allowing testimony from people whom agree with you and calling everyone else a liar.   Then claiming that the remaining "democratically selected testimony" is the "word of God" is a nice touch.  I never trust anything "democratically selected" by a bunch of sheep! 

All of that said, I cannot disprove the testimony. I have concluded that if "all are liable" including those on a remote island who have never heard the "gospel", then the bible and gospel are completely irrelevant.  Considering the dangers of blindly following a book that others likely manipulated to support their "power structures", I would much rather trust my salvation to my own observations of God, my conscience, and natures testimony than trust anyone else to tell me "what God says".   God can speak to me directly, or not at all.

For all of your faith, you still risk losing everything because not all who call "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven.  We all risk believing the wrong thing and facing eternity in hell.  Believing you are right and others are wrong may help you sleep better at night, but it does not change the reality that you may still be wrong.  I doubt God would even honor "believing just in case" as a real belief anyway so arguing with an atheist that "if I'm right you are screwed, and if you are right then we are both dust" is totally missing the nature and point of faith.  I use to argue that way, but not any more.         
 

[Who...me?]

1.  Every group has it's share of assholes.  It's a requirement.  While it is necessary to understand that any group cannot be wholly regarded by the nature of its assholes, there is value to be found in how that group deals with its assholes.

A very true statement.  If whatever group you belong to does not have any assholes then most very likely you are, in fact, that asshole. 

[Claire]

1.  Every group has it's share of assholes.  It's a requirement.  While it is necessary to understand that any group cannot be wholly regarded by the nature of its assholes, there is value to be found in how that group deals with its assholes.

A very true statement.  If whatever group you belong to does not have any asshole the most very likely you are, in fact, that asshole. 

  Very good, Who...me?! I thought scarmig's post was pretty much spot on, but I hope he'll consider adding this as a corollary to "Scarmig's Law."

Reminds me of an old poem (origin unknown) that I sometimes use to keep myself humble:

See the happy moron.
He doesn't give a damn.
I wish I were a moron.
By god, perhaps I am!

[Clip Johnson]

I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with any Christian who believes in individual liberty.  But that means they would have to stand shoulder to shoulder with me and fight the other Christians and atheists who don't.  So question is really, what is each individual's higher priority?  Is it the people they share belief with?  Or the belief in individual liberty.  Because for both sides liberty may mean standing up against your own.

Absolutely Scarmig, I agree with you. There is an indisputable need for folks to stand together in the pursuit of liberty regardless of each of our own frailties, belief systems, political or religious allegiances, or whatever other differences there may be between each and everyone here. But when a certain subject, like this thread has exposed, comes up, unfortunately is abundantly clear that it serves to divide and enrage more than it seems to enlighten. Hence, as Radio Flyer well put it, "it's fruitless". And I agree, particularly within the framework of a thread such as this one, where as it has gotten so far off the original posters initial inquiry (admittedly so, it is largely due to me). But there are so many falsehoods, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and the like given in regards to God and the Christian faith within this thread, that it can only serve to enrage anyone who holds to these beliefs. Beliefs not based upon shear, unadulterated, blind faith, but based upon actual years upon years of honest research and study. A good healthy debate is one thing, but seeing them made a mockery of with such disdain as has been exhibited here, particularly by someone who simply may be misinformed or misguided about the topic, and then misstates facts (and is unwilling to even remotely listen to anyone else’s findings and/or opinions) about God/Christianity, is another.

[dogsledder54]

There is NOTHING in my religion that is opposed to freedom. BTW, my religion is completely VOLUNTARY. As are my associations.

[Who...me?]

I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with any Christian who believes in individual liberty.  But that means they would have to stand shoulder to shoulder with me and fight the other Christians and atheists who don't.  So question is really, what is each individual's higher priority?  Is it the people they share belief with?  Or the belief in individual liberty.  Because for both sides liberty may mean standing up against your own.

Absolutely Scarmig, I agree with you. There is an indisputable need for folks to stand together in the pursuit of liberty regardless of each of our own frailties, belief systems, political or religious allegiances, or whatever other differences there may be between each and everyone here. But when a certain subject, like this thread has exposed, comes up, unfortunately is abundantly clear that it serves to divide and enrage more than it seems to enlighten. Hence, as Radio Flyer well put it, "it's fruitless". And I agree, particularly within the framework of a thread such as this one, where as it has gotten so far off the original posters initial inquiry (admittedly so, it is largely due to me). But there are so many falsehoods, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and the like given in regards to God and the Christian faith within this thread, that it can only serve to enrage anyone who holds to these beliefs. Beliefs not based upon shear, unadulterated, blind faith, but based upon actual years upon years of honest research and study. A good healthy debate is one thing, but seeing them made a mockery of with such disdain as has been exhibited here, particularly by someone who simply may be misinformed or misguided about the topic, and then misstates facts (and is unwilling to even remotely listen to anyone else’s findings and/or opinions) about God/Christianity, is another.

Seems to me that the broad brush  we talk about a lot here is being used quite liberally in regards to this subject.  I see many statements that say Christians are this or Christians are that.  When in reality no one, especially here, fits any single mold or classification.  I would hope that we all can see that and realize most of us have much in common regardless of our individual beliefs.

[socalserf]

I whole-heartedly agree with you Radio Flyer. I too wish not to anger anyone as I apparently have done. I too will bow out of this subject.

I am SO sorry to see you make this statement Chip.

I can understand that we have found a kinship here that is comforting, there are not many places where we can talk so openly about our "Radical" thinking. I can also understand not wanting to taint that feeling of family with dissent.  But, Isn't that how the masses are kept in line? Fear of being different or worse yet your opinions and ideas should offend or anger someone else?

Bad form for someone to have a hissy because you happen to not conform to their thinking and wants on a specific topic. This forum, as do many, affords a user many many many options on how THEY could deal with THEIR issue with out resorting to telling you , no matter how sweetly,  they prefer you to shut the F up thank you very much.

Very well expressed CM.

[Scarmiglione']

Beliefs not based upon shear, unadulterated, blind faith, but based upon actual years upon years of honest research and study. A good healthy debate is one thing, but seeing them made a mockery of with such disdain as has been exhibited here, particularly by someone who simply may be misinformed or misguided about the topic, and then misstates facts (and is unwilling to even remotely listen to anyone else’s findings and/or opinions) about God/Christianity, is another.

Knowing that we agree on the priority of individual liberty, I would like to ask you to consider something regarding this particular line of thought.

Here in America, 85% of people profess to be Christian.  That belies at least a cursory knowledge of the religion, exposure to traditions, beliefs, and basic tenants.  If you do any research into atheism in American, it should come as no surprise that most atheists are ex-believers.  Seems pretty obvious given the saturation level of Christianity in the culture.   And I hear this charge often, that people who criticize or disdain Christianity are misinformed, misguided, mistaken, and somehow have just managed to miss the truth.  But consider what it means to stand up in our culture and say, "I don't believe."   It is, for many people, worse than coming out as gay.  Do you think non-believers would make such socially hazardous claims without consideration, research, and seeking out different opinions and beliefs?  I suppose a rebellious thirteen-year-old might.

My point here is not that "atheists are right and Christians are wrong", but that the path of the non-believer is simply different.  What we see as truth is not the same.  The very foundation of "truth" and what that word means is different.  It's been a long time, but back when I first deconverted, I could quote scripture toe-to-toe with every pastor I debated with.  My lack of belief had nothing to do with ignorance of Christianity, but rather the opposite.  In studying the book that was supposed to save me, I was lost (in Christian terms).

And that is part of the reaction that you see.  You see non-believers reacting against this idea that they are ignorant, misinformed, too lazy to research, or openly falsifying what is true to you when they have made very hard decisions, risked social and emotional abandonment (try to find other atheists to date sometime!), and stood up to face a life of scorn and derision by their fellow countrymen simply because they reached a different conclusion.  Can you see where a reaction less than embracing of evangelism is understandable?  I've been an atheist for over twenty-five years now.  So when a group of evangelists surrounds me and they starts telling me on how misinformed I am about God and Jesus and Christianity... well... I tear into them.  It is grossly disrespectful to my journey, my tribulations, and my triumphs to assume that I arrived here by simple rebellion and not research and introspection.  But that's what happens.  Often.

I know that Christians mean well.  I've seen tears in their eyes when I say that if they are right they will not see me in Heaven.  It would be really nice if Christians would try more often to understand our point of view and the significance of it in our daily lives.  Then maybe we could put a lot of this churn behind us and work on those damn politicians.

[suijurisfreeman]

I was a 'christian' back in 1987 when I started doing my research, research intended to answer an individuals question about the bible.  I wasn't looking for the answers that I found, I wasn't expecting the answers that I found, I had a very difficult time accepting the answers that I found -- it nearly destroyed me!  It literally turned my world upside down, for several years I could barely function as I tried to come to terms with this 'new truth'.
First I was mad at all the adults in my life that had lied to me about the bible and christianity and finally I was really pissed off at my own ignorance and failure to thourghly examine my deepest religious beliefs.  Finally after four years I came to terms with what I had found.  I've been more a peace with myself since then (knowing that I don't have a clue as to what 'life's answers' are) than when I was a 'christian' believing that I had all the answers.
My 'problem' was that I asked too many questions, my problem was that I did too much research, my problem was that I started thinking for myself!  I even had one 'minister' tell me that god hates a christian that thinks for themselves!

[Claire]

Well said, suijuris and scarmig. Thank you.

I'm not an atheist, but I am a non-believer. I'm a seeker, and the more I seek, the less I find.

I was raised in a home that wasn't particularly religious but used the threat of hell and the presence of God's every-watching, ever-judging eye as a means of child-control. So I spent years -- years -- years -- years reading the bible, attending various Christian churches, and studying with different denominations. Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, Foresquare Pentacostals, Catholics ... you name it. All in an effort to find the secret to getting on the right side of the Deity and avoiding eternal punishment.

But the more I read, especially of biblical history and archeology, the more convinced I became that every religion (with the possible exceptions of the purest, non-theological forms of Taoism and Theravada Buddhism) was nothing but a combination of sincere human guesswork and conniving human power-mongering. I felt (and still feel) betrayed that something as grand as spirituality gets twisted into something as base as threats that "the all-loving God of mercy will send you to hell to be tortured for all eternity if you don't agree with me."

I don't say this of all Christians, but I do find it true of evangelicals in general: When a non-believer continues to non-believe, or continues to ask hard questions, they dismiss that person not as a sincere person seeking truth, but as a stubborn, possibly even diabolical person who is coldly "rejecting" God -- and who therefore deserves whatever punishment God chooses to dish out.

Clip Johnson, I can understand your pain at feeling that your religion is being misrepresented and scorned by some people here. Yet in your long message, I saw very clearly that implication that any "good" person who studied the bible would come to the same conclusions you did, and that anybody who disagrees with you must be ignorant or ill-willed -- and they'll be punished if they don't shape up. And you don't question the morality of punishing people simply because their thoughts, experiences, and studies lead them in a different direction than yours.

You feel insulted, it seems. Yet in your polite way, you deliver an insult that goes beyond anything anybody has aimed at your beliefs. Not a single non-believer here thinks you deserve eternal punishment simply because your studies have led you to conclusions different from theirs.

[Silver]

I was born and raised Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic school education.  No government schooling, ever.

It left a mark.  I know right from wrong.  I can think for myself.

I used to be an altar boy.  In college I led the choir, literally, and occasionally gave sermons.

But like others, I kept asking questions.  Unlike most Catholics, I read the Bible cover-to-cover.  I read it as an adult, carefully and critically.  I came to rather different conclusions about its message and meaning than any Christian sect I have visited or read.

I investigated and attended many different varieties of Christian congregations, from Baptist and Methodist to Pentacostal and Latter-Day Saints. 

And like many here, when I looked carefully at organized Christianity I found it wanting.  I have many reservations and criticisms, but the most fundamental one was summarized far more eloquently than I could ever hope to match:

For the first three centuries, the three centuries closest to Christ, the Church was a pacifist Church. With Constantine the church accepted the pagan Roman ethic of a just war and slowly began to involve its membership in mass slaughter, first for the state and later for the faith.
...
The mainline Christian Churches still teach something that Christ never taught or even hinted at, namely the Just War Theory, a theory that to me has been completely discredited theologically, historically, and psychologically.

So as I see it, until the various churches within Christianity repent and begin to proclaim by word and deed what Jesus proclaimed in relation to violence and enemies, there is no hope for anything other than ever-escalating violence and destruction.

Until membership in the Church means that a Christian chooses not to engage in violence for any reason and instead chooses to love, pray for, help, and forgive all enemies; until membership in the Church means that Christians may not be members of any military, American, Polish, Russian, English, Irish, et al.; until membership in the Church means that the Christian cannot pay taxes for others to kill others; and until the Church says these things in a fashion which the simplest soul could understand – until that time humanity can only look forward to more dark nights of slaughter on a scale unknown in history. Unless the Church unswervingly and unambiguously teaches what Jesus teaches on this matter it will not be the divine leaven in the human dough that it was meant to be.

"The choice is between nonviolence or nonexistence," as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, and he was not, and I am not, speaking figuratively. It is about time for the Church and its leadership in all denominations to get down on its knees and repent of this misrepresentation of Christ’s words.

Communion with Christ cannot be established on disobedience to His clearest teachings. Jesus authorized none of His followers to substitute violence for love; not me, not you, not Jimmy Carter, not the pope, not a Vatican council, nor even an ecumenical council.

- Father George B. Zabelka, Catholic Chaplain charged with caring for the men bombing Japan, including dropping the atomic bomb.   A Military Chaplain Repents

If some day in my travels I happen upon a Christian congregation whose every member wears bandages on their heads, to staunch the bleeding from their ears after listening to yet another blistering sermon on the evil of killing a million innocent people who never harmed us or posed any realistic threat of any kind, maybe on that day I will stop and listen.  But I'm not counting on it.

Instead the former ArchBishop of Boston hides in Vatican City, knowing that should he return to the US he will be arrested, tried, and very likely convicted for aiding and abetting the sexual molestation of scores, perhaps hundreds of innocent children.  Religious leaders who cackle about the persecution of Roman Polanski, whose single victim has publicly forgiven him, ignore the rape, murder, and theft conducted by members of their own congregation, every day. 

I hold no particular animosity for Christians.  I wish them well.  But I do hold a strong distaste for servants and enablers of the state.  Being a Christian and a soldier killing innocent people is not only a contradiction, it is profoundly immoral and destructive of liberty.  Being part of a congregation that celebrates and supports that behavior is little better.

Peace,

Silver

[ZooT_aLLures]

Well................from my point of view.............narrow as it is..............there's a big difference between Christians and christians.
Just like there's a big difference between Libertarians and libertarians...............

[Clip Johnson]

I felt (and still feel) betrayed that something as grand as spirituality gets twisted into something as base as threats that "the all-loving God of mercy will send you to hell to be tortured for all eternity if you don't agree with me."

Please understand that hell could very well be comprised of separation from God and Heaven, and NOT what is so commonly understood of it being a multitude of sinners that are thrown into a lake of fire and brimstone to suffer and be tortured for all of eternity? It is not all about Him doling out punishment or torture as you have referred to so many times now. Once again, from my standpoint (based upon what is written in the Scriptures) it is thus; God knows every thought that goes through our minds. He knows all the bad things we are capable of doing, as nothing whatsoever is hidden from Him. He knows the very worst about us, yet loves us anyway, even far beyond what our ability to comprehend will allow. He does not want anyone to suffer and it grieves Him deeply to see such.

Yet in your long message, I saw very clearly that implication that any "good" person who studied the bible would come to the same conclusions you did, and that anybody who disagrees with you must be ignorant or ill-willed -- and they'll be punished if they don't shape up. And you don't question the morality of punishing people simply because their thoughts, experiences, and studies lead them in a different direction than yours.

In all due respect, I certainly didn't mean to imply that "any good person who studied the Bible would come to the same conclusions as I". However, I must admit that I am definitely not as articulate as the vast majority of folks here, and I suppose things have the tendency to come out like that and be misconstrued. But what I did say was precisely what I was meaning to get across, which was there are a multitude of sources (I've only listed a few of them) other than the Holy Bible to gather vital information from regarding the validity of the Holy Scriptures, God, and Jesus. If only one looks with a truly opened mind, and isn't looking with any bias or prejudice for or against (which can be terribly difficult to do for many of us).

You feel insulted, it seems. Yet in your polite way, you deliver an insult that goes beyond anything anybody has aimed at your beliefs. Not a single non-believer here thinks you deserve eternal punishment simply because your studies have led you to conclusions different from theirs.

Once again Claire, please understand that when folks begin to talk of Christians being "stupid", "dangerous", "a religion for sheep", and I happen to be Christian, then yes, how is it not reasonable to assume that practically anyone else would also feel a bit of an insult as well. Do you think that is wrong of me to feel this way? After all, I am only human.

But more importantly, please tell me what I said that was so insulting. If I did, I truly didn't mean to do that, and I sincerely apologize for doing so. But if you will, please point out what it was that I said or did that was out of line to cause you to feel that way.

In all  honesty, there is so much more I wish to reply to everyone that has posted here. Perhaps I should just start another thread, as I have certainly derailed this thread more than enough.
 

[penguinsscareme]

*Sigh.*
With deep sadness, I have to agree with the anti-Christian sentiment.
I was raised in a Christian home and have had a relationship with God since before I can remember.  But Christians have done some horrible things to me and people around me.  That's just my personal experience, to say nothing of the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.  Most Christians, if pushed, reveal themselves to be hypocrites.
That said, most Christians that I know personally are decent people who want to make the world around them a better place.  Unfortunately they think that one of the ways they have to do that is to support things like the drug war, anti-immigration laws and practices, and honor the veterans that are "fighting for our freedoms."

A great lie was perpetrated, and the people bought into it.  Lack of courage, lack of thought, lack of integrity...I don't know.