Rants, observations and opinions on most any subject. The stupidity of religion gets top billing.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Why do atheists care about religion?
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Thanks so much for that succinct, effective, clear-minded video. I will share the link with others.
I guess it's possible that if the religious would live and let live, as some of them claim to try to do, that religion and atheism could coexist. However, it's obvious that we don't live in that world. Atheists will have to push back in order to have the space to live freely without having the God concept forced on us at every turn.
Nice video. I agree with the previous post. But I reject the "Atheist" label. It seems to me that labeling is an irresponsible way to "describe" someone. One-word meanings typically get hijacked and distorted until everyone has a different idea of what it means. Then it becomes quick judgement toward others. This keeps us divided. Just look at the word "Liberal". It means something different to everyone. But the word has ONE meaning. Instead of arguing over what label we're carrying maybe we should drop them and take more time to explain where we each come from. The mainstream media is one of our biggest enemies and they use labels extensively. If they didn't have them they wouldn't be able to fool us as easily. It shines a whole new light on things when you know more about a person instead of whether or not they are Atheist, Christian, Muslim or whatever. This is important and maybe more important than people will accept at this time.
Yes, we keep accepting things that we should never accept. Always a quick band-aid fix but we always overlook something important. This gives "evil" another door to come through.
I think those religious tests in those states would be deemed unconstitutional in court. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, doesn't the US constitution supercede these state constitutions and therefore there would be no religious test for office. Also, "god" is pretty vague. I could say that my god is Odin or Zeus, or even Satan, and I would meet the test. People are silly.
I am a little puzzled by the Cascioli case, although I am happy for him to bring the case to court. I don't think it is reasonable to ask for someone to "prove" the existence of a historical person although I accept that it is reasonable to demonstrate that there enough evidence to make it possible or even likely. As for me, I really don't expect to convince anyone that Jesus lived from a historical perspective any more than I could convince people that many other historical people existed. I personally think that the historical evidence is good and that the books of the New Testament and the writings of the early church make Jesus' existence historically probable, but others are free to come to their own conclusions.
I am not sure what to make of the Zephyrinus story, which definitely appears a bit bizarre to our modern eyes, however, with regard to the "canonicity" of the four Gospels, I assume that you are aware that it is reasonable to propose that at least some in the early church already considered them to be the most authoritative before 199 CE - refer to Irenaeus' "Adversus Haereses", dated by some to 175-185 CE (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html).
7 comments:
Thanks so much for that succinct, effective, clear-minded video. I will share the link with others.
I guess it's possible that if the religious would live and let live, as some of them claim to try to do, that religion and atheism could coexist. However, it's obvious that we don't live in that world. Atheists will have to push back in order to have the space to live freely without having the God concept forced on us at every turn.
Nice video. I agree with the previous post. But I reject the "Atheist" label. It seems to me that labeling is an irresponsible way to "describe" someone. One-word meanings typically get hijacked and distorted until everyone has a different idea of what it means. Then it becomes quick judgement toward others. This keeps us divided. Just look at the word "Liberal". It means something different to everyone. But the word has ONE meaning. Instead of arguing over what label we're carrying maybe we should drop them and take more time to explain where we each come from. The mainstream media is one of our biggest enemies and they use labels extensively. If they didn't have them they wouldn't be able to fool us as easily. It shines a whole new light on things when you know more about a person instead of whether or not they are Atheist, Christian, Muslim or whatever. This is important and maybe more important than people will accept at this time.
Yes, we keep accepting things that we should never accept. Always a quick band-aid fix but we always overlook something important. This gives "evil" another door to come through.
Thank you for your comments....British Gary, I'm sure you know what answer I would give :-)
I think those religious tests in those states would be deemed unconstitutional in court. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, doesn't the US constitution supercede these state constitutions and therefore there would be no religious test for office. Also, "god" is pretty vague. I could say that my god is Odin or Zeus, or even Satan, and I would meet the test. People are silly.
Amen, brother...
I am a little puzzled by the Cascioli case, although I am happy for him to bring the case to court. I don't think it is reasonable to ask for someone to "prove" the existence of a historical person although I accept that it is reasonable to demonstrate that there enough evidence to make it possible or even likely. As for me, I really don't expect to convince anyone that Jesus lived from a historical perspective any more than I could convince people that many other historical people existed. I personally think that the historical evidence is good and that the books of the New Testament and the writings of the early church make Jesus' existence historically probable, but others are free to come to their own conclusions.
I am not sure what to make of the Zephyrinus story, which definitely appears a bit bizarre to our modern eyes, however, with regard to the "canonicity" of the four Gospels, I assume that you are aware that it is reasonable to propose that at least some in the early church already considered them to be the most authoritative before 199 CE - refer to Irenaeus' "Adversus Haereses", dated by some to 175-185 CE (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html).
Best regards, Andrew
Post a Comment