Slashdot Mirror

It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians.

Yes, America is a country that is well-known for its persecution of Christians.

Here are some shocking examples:

Life In Our Anti-Christian America

Look. Many "White Male Christians" have made it their life's work to "lambast" other groups. If it's not calling Muslims the "s pawn of Satan" or advocating killing homosexuals because the book of Leviticus says they should be put to death, it's blasting professional women because they have high-paying corporate jobs instead of a non-paying role as a submissive housewife.

I'm sorry if it offends you when people say that these views are completely full of shit.

But they are. They just don't fly anymore.

That's right. See Forgery in Christianity - Chapter 3

There are many ambivalent posts here that I empathize with. Let me try to explain why this strikes nerves.

There are two perennial sectarian subjects that seem to seek a focus at any opportunity: the exalted status of faith and the old ideological 'fight for the children'.

If you listen long to Christian media, you will sense a preoccupation with persecution. The Christian is under siege. The mass media consists of "anti-Christian bigots". Gov. Ventura is a bigot. When it is suggested that 'bigot' does not apply to ideological matters, that pure assertions should be taken on their own merit---that faith must merit respect and not be guaranteed the dispensation of respect---a peculiar sort of cult insanity is exposed. The burden of proof lies completely on the believer and not on the unbeliever or the disbeliever? The Romans used a stake for crucifixion---at no time anywhere did they employ a crossbeam? The great historian Philo-Judaeus, born before Jesus and living long after the time of his reputed death, lived in Jerusalem during Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre? He was there for Christ's supposed grand entry into Jerusalem and for the crucifixion with attendant earthquake, magic darkness, and resurrection with the many witnesses to his heavenward ascent that amazed the world? And he makes no mention of Jesus or anything remotely like this story in his comprehensive history of the Jews during his life? The only other autochthonous historian, Justin of Tiberius, was a native of Galilee and in his incredibly detailed history we know how the crops did in each of these years, masses of political gossip, and have complete martial account of the land without a single mention of the savior?

This is war! Attend Christian soldiers! This "free inquiry" is conspiracy! Myth discrimination! The Focus on the Family Christian Attorney's mailing list starts chugging. The Religious Liberties Protection Act has just passed in the House. CBN calls scientists elitist "bullies" (this from the chosen people). There is now an act in the New York senate introduced by Sen. Maltese making it a crime to "ridicule religious beliefs or practices".

One prime front in that war is for the minds of the children. I attended a Catholic pre-school! I once read, "With other subjects we wait until the child has the mental maturity to grasp them. We do not start a child on analytical chemistry or solid geometry. We begin with small numbers and lesser skills in every subject---except religion. [...] other subjects wait, until the child is old enough to understand and evaluate it. But, for religion and the churches, it is literally the child or nothing; for if they fail to get the child, it is a matter of time before they get nothing."

Even if we're talking about high-schoolers, mature minds, there is a desire for no discontinuity between early Sunday school and secondary education in these ontological matters. Mention in the context of science ironically reifies the Creation as a scientific 'live option'. I remember coming around about the time I read this by Arthur Schopenhauer, "There is no absurdity so obvious that it cannot be firmly planted in the human head if you only begin to impose it before the age of five, by constantly repeating it with an air of great solemnity."

The resort to force of force when force of reason does not apply keeps its edge for all its repetition. It's the hot button for many like me. The Mediterranean societies of the time of Paul's Gospel weren't in a substantively inferior position to Enlightenment Europe; the western world seemed then poised for a scientific revolution. What came next is known as the Dark Ages: a supranational theocracy. So, unfair as it may be, I now see these ideas as arresting the development of humanity for over fifteen hundred years. Evolution is at least constructive. How much do you want to give up for a fable? Is all the allegory in history worth kissing Hank's ass?

Can you provide references? I am very curious about this matter. I have a friend that claims she can argue for the existence of god through the law of identity. We are still researching our sides, and so I haven't been exposed to her "evidence". I would like to know what to expect though.

Books Online has some essays which argue against the existence of god. For example:
Plea for Atheism.

Two books which address atheism:
"What is Atheism?" by Douglas E. Krueger
"Philosophy & Atheism" by Kai Nielson (just started reading it)

Ironically, I find CS Lewis to be a good proponent of atheism within his works wich argue for god. Example: "The Problem of Pain"

Man is driven to discover these things through doubt and rigorous self-examination, out of a desire to live honestly, not out of some ridiculous desire to demonstrate god does not exist. We don't need to demonstrate anything vis-a-vis gods existence. Religeon makes a villain of doubt, an enemy of knowledge. Religeon is dishonest, rooted in fear, and is pure bunkum.

God does not matter. Man makes gods. It's time for man to stop being so primitive.

I wasn't defending creationism (or denying it) I just don't like to see people throw false facts out to try to prove their case. And if you accually read the Atheism FAQ you just pointed me to, it in no way mentiones the theory stated above, much less disproves it.
Note: if you wern't replying to me, I apologize, but I see no reason for a rational person atheist or not standing up for ungrounded arguments.

Someone else already posted a link to a religious rebuttal. However take a look at the alt.atheism FAQs and you find that they list this as a red herring argument.

Come on, Creationism is complete hogwash and there are many valid arguments to use against it. Don't be stupid and use a bogus one!

Anonymous because I moderated another post in this discussion..

www.infidels.org

www.lucifer.com

virus.lucifer.com

If anything, we need more Christians "running the show" as it were. At least then there would be a little backbone and common decency, instead of clandestine trysts going on in the Oval Office.

You make two primary arguments. Both are false and are even more annoying than hearing someone say "Linux is just a fluke" or "Our company can rely on Microsoft but not on a bunch of hackers."

First, you say "what many people don't know is that to take God out of any part of our lives is to remove the foundation for a corporate and individual morality." I would argue that many people have heard this and concluded that it is not true. There are several philosophical arguments that state that 1) God is not required for morality and 2) God does not make a good foundataion for morality (references at the end of this post). Would you argue that Ghandi and the Dalai Lama were/are immoral because they do not believe in the Christian god? On a more personal note, I am an atheist/agnostic (depending on how I feel when I get out of bed in the morning :-), and I consider myself to be a very moral person. My morality is based on many things (including, but not limited to a desire for others to treat me well, the betterment of myself and mankind, the warmth I feel when in love, and the general sense of wonder and insignifigance you feel when looking up at the night sky), but is in no way based on the fear that I will be judged by an angry jealous god when I die.

You also tried to give an example (Hitler) of what happens when we remove God as the basis of morality. This particular example is partially flawed to begin with -- Hitler used religious arguments to gain the support of his people. Whether or not he believed them is a different question. Now, lets look as what has happened when the Christian God has been used as the foundation morality:

- Martin Luthers anti-semitic teachings.
- The Inquisition.
- The elimination of South, Central and North American native cultures.
- The persecution of those who disagreed with the church (for example, the astronomer Bruno, who was burned at the stake for suggesting that the stars might actually be other suns with planets orbiting them)
- Televangelists extorting millions from the easily frightened.
- Anti-abortion sentiment which has contributed to the murder of doctors and placed unfair pressure on women who are making an already difficult choice.
- Hundreds of years of sexual opression.

Thirdly, you cite "Pascals Wager" (in your list of several intelligent people throughout history, and in your "Christianity hinges on the man Jesus who lived 2000 years ago" paragraph). Unfortunately, Pascals Wager is bogus if you take into account religions other than Christianity. If there existed only one religion, then it would be a useful tool for refining one's personal philosophy. However, there is more than one religion in the world, and in choosing any certain religion, one immediately alienates themselves from most of the others. What if I choose to believe in Christianity, and upon my death I come to find out that Hinduism is in fact the One True Way. A lot of good Pascal's Wager did me in that case.

Finally, I have read the bible. Much of it portrays god as angry and jealous. Numbers chapter 31 even condones rape while Deuteronomy 22 says that rape victims should be stoned to death if they do not cry for help (There are others, but since you seem to have read the bible I'm sure you have noticed). Should I use that as the foundation for my morality with regards to rape? I would rather use my own atheistic morality even if you think it is without foundataion. As for the parts about Jesus, they portray him as a pretty good guy. That is of course when they do not conflict with each other. And their accuracy is in doubt because they were written 30 - 100 years after Jesus' death, and in many cases not by the author to whom they are attributed.

In summary, 1) there is a strong foundation for morality, and 2) choosing to accept or refuse the christian god is not a simple decision as you seem to have implied. I think it is difficult to accept most of christianity if one approaches it with an open mind.

Some good URLs:

some moral arguments

one very good one

(When did Slashdot turn into alt.atheism? Oh, I guess that is my fault.)

You make two primary arguments. Both are false and are even more annoying than hearing someone say "Linux is just a fluke" or "Our company can rely on Microsoft but not on a bunch of hackers."

First, you say "what many people don't know is that to take God out of any part of our lives is to remove the foundation for a corporate and individual morality." I would argue that many people have heard this and concluded that it is not true. There are several philosophical arguments that state that 1) God is not required for morality and 2) God does not make a good foundataion for morality (references at the end of this post). Would you argue that Ghandi and the Dalai Lama were/are immoral because they do not believe in the Christian god? On a more personal note, I am an atheist/agnostic (depending on how I feel when I get out of bed in the morning :-), and I consider myself to be a very moral person. My morality is based on many things (including, but not limited to a desire for others to treat me well, the betterment of myself and mankind, the warmth I feel when in love, and the general sense of wonder and insignifigance you feel when looking up at the night sky), but is in no way based on the fear that I will be judged by an angry jealous god when I die.

You also tried to give an example (Hitler) of what happens when we remove God as the basis of morality. This particular example is partially flawed to begin with -- Hitler used religious arguments to gain the support of his people. Whether or not he believed them is a different question. Now, lets look as what has happened when the Christian God has been used as the foundation morality:

- Martin Luthers anti-semitic teachings.
- The Inquisition.
- The elimination of South, Central and North American native cultures.
- The persecution of those who disagreed with the church (for example, the astronomer Bruno, who was burned at the stake for suggesting that the stars might actually be other suns with planets orbiting them)
- Televangelists extorting millions from the easily frightened.
- Anti-abortion sentiment which has contributed to the murder of doctors and placed unfair pressure on women who are making an already difficult choice.
- Hundreds of years of sexual opression.

Thirdly, you cite "Pascals Wager" (in your list of several intelligent people throughout history, and in your "Christianity hinges on the man Jesus who lived 2000 years ago" paragraph). Unfortunately, Pascals Wager is bogus if you take into account religions other than Christianity. If there existed only one religion, then it would be a useful tool for refining one's personal philosophy. However, there is more than one religion in the world, and in choosing any certain religion, one immediately alienates themselves from most of the others. What if I choose to believe in Christianity, and upon my death I come to find out that Hinduism is in fact the One True Way. A lot of good Pascal's Wager did me in that case.

Finally, I have read the bible. Much of it portrays god as angry and jealous. Numbers chapter 31 even condones rape while Deuteronomy 22 says that rape victims should be stoned to death if they do not cry for help (There are others, but since you seem to have read the bible I'm sure you have noticed). Should I use that as the foundation for my morality with regards to rape? I would rather use my own atheistic morality even if you think it is without foundataion. As for the parts about Jesus, they portray him as a pretty good guy. That is of course when they do not conflict with each other. And their accuracy is in doubt because they were written 30 - 100 years after Jesus' death, and in many cases not by the author to whom they are attributed.

In summary, 1) there is a strong foundation for morality, and 2) choosing to accept or refuse the christian god is not a simple decision as you seem to have implied. I think it is difficult to accept most of christianity if one approaches it with an open mind.

Some good URLs:

some moral arguments

one very good one

(When did Slashdot turn into alt.atheism? Oh, I guess that is my fault.)