0  0

0  0

A)What is a superficial reality? Christians are currently the majority. That’s real. I agree it is changing (succumbing, such a prejudicial term). So on this point I guess we agree.

B)I’m happy to concede the point you make but only for the sake of argument. Although there is plenty of evidence pointing to at least the possibility of Atheistic tendencies of our forefathers, it is irrelevant for the point I’m trying to make. For at least two reasons, Christianity may very well not hold the majority in the future as we seem to agree on in point A: 1-migration of non-Christians to the USA and 2-Succumation (literary license ya know).

C)What?!! You believe Christianity is not the majority?!? Well . . . I guess if you mean evangelical Christians . . . but were they ever? And what is your point exactly? If, as an extreme example, 100% of the inhabitants of the USA were suddenly Muslim . . . they should still run the country according to Christianity? Or just admit that Christians started things off? I’m confused.

D)Cry me a river Fred. I don’t see any IAWT placards being erected anywhere. It amazes me how Christians can turn a majority (even if non-Evangelical) into a whine about how they are under attack. Here’s a deal, stop trying to tell me what to do and I won’t attack you. Fair enough? Probably not . .

” . . . Atheists would never do that . . ” – I’m not kidding. Perhaps I should have said, no Atheist I’ve known or talked to would. I’m certainly aware of Dawkins et al and my opinion is that they hold and propound the extreme position. Most “man in the street” Atheists would be happy if religious types (not confined to just Christianity) would just stop trying to plaster their stuff all over the place. I don’t care if you want to worship chocolate soufflés . . . just don’t make it the National daily breakfast.

“Controlling the zeitgeist of society.” Are YOU kidding? OK, I’m gonna have to stop at some point and this is it. I went to your website and it gives me a headache. Nothing personal, but I spent an hour and a half of my precious lunchtime (I’ll make up the 1/2 tonight) reading through various articles . . . nothing I haven’t read many (I wanted to say hundreds, but I’m not quite there yet), times before. Suffice it to say you and I won’t be agreeing on any of this stuff anytime soon. So you’re a “Religious Coordinator.” What exactly is that? Connoisseur of coffee? Well there’s some common ground (pun intended). If there is a God, may he bless you .. if there isn’t . . then you’re wasting your time.

0  0

such let’s just cut to the end game . . . these discussions nearly always end up like this:
Atheist: You have no scientific proof!
Theist: You have to have faith, it’s part of God’s plan.

Actually, this applies both ways. Atheist exercise just as much faith as anyone else in the world, except their faith is unjustifiable.

My discussions have generally come down to this:

Theist: The scientific proof is overwhelming against your thesis.
Atheist: You’re crazy, you need to be educated more.

I wasn’t avoiding any question, I didn’t get the notion you wanted me to respond. But to answer swiftly

A) is “true” but it is a superficial reality. America is a post-Christian society slowly succumbing to the irreligiousity found in Europe. It may take us longer to get there, but we will.
B) Is just historical fact. Atheists mistakenly believe America was not founded as a Christian nation, but the reading of original sources does not sustain the Atheist’s beliefs. I am for a secular government in a Christian nation, but that does not mean Christianity cannot have meaningful influence within society and the government. Going back to our example of the Lancaster city council, them invoking prayer in Jesus name reflects the roots of the founding of their government as well as our own state.
I personally believe C) is already true, but for the sake of argument, even if C) becomes a reality, that does not change historical fact, America was still founded as a Christian nation. A majority rule of a different faith does not change fact. Truth is not relative.
D) is already happening on a wider scale than what you are willing to admit. Christians are being limited by an increasing secular society generally along the lines of having images and such removed from any governmental art work or what ever, along with being ridiculed in general by media, popular programming and the like. And of course the censorship of non-Darwinian interpretations of science, which I am sure you think is utterly infallible.

As an Atheist, if we were ever to be in the majority . . . strike that, Atheists would never do that . . .

Are you kidding? Yes you would. Atheists have historically done that in every society where they have come to power. They have to in order to control the zeitgeist of the society. Just start with the French Revolution and move forwards. I am surprised you are unaware of your main philosophers, because Dawkins, Ruse, Harris, and Dennet have all advocated the enforcement of laws to limit Theism and Dawkins even advocates for their eradication if they won’t “repent” as it were. Of course, how can we “repent” if memes, er, I mean evolutionary stable strategy controls our genetics?

Seriously, I’ll be happy to exchange emails. Go to my blog that is linked to my name. Email is in the profile page.

0  0

I started it with the moral comment which, in the interest of actually having a meaningful discussion, I withdraw. So let me get back to the question I really wanted to ask and which you really did avoid. Let me state it in the form of a hypothesis:
A) Fact: Christians are currently the majority (from a religious affiliation perspective) in the USA.
B) Fact: Christians currently, and on a somewhat regular basis, attempt to cause government to recognize that the USA is a country founded on Christianity and should allow (fill in the blank with IGWT, Christian invocations at government events etc.).
C) Suppose: Some day, Christians may NOT be the majority.
D) Hypothesis: If C ever comes true, those that then hold the majority position may impose measures which, in effect restrict or punish Christians.
Seems like a reasonable possibility, doesn’t it? As an Atheist, if we were ever to be in the majority . . . strike that, Atheists would never do that . . . aren’t you, as a Christian, even the least bit concerned that Islam or Hinduism etc. etc. might, if not become the majority, at least push Christianity to the rank of also ran? Wouldn’t it be (I can’t resist) an evolutionary stable strategy for Christians to be less egotistical in their insistence that the USA proclaim it’s Christianity.

I look forward to your response (no really, I look forward to it).

0  0

Good point. And so true.

And I liked your little ending there too, Jeff.

0  0

Creating the mythical memes is an intellectually lazy way to deal with the problem materialists have with epistemology. Never mind the problem created between biology and metaphysics, in reality, appealing to memes is basically saying our beliefs as humans are biological products of our genetics. I am then accused of being closed minded; but how can I do anything BUT what the memes have programmed me to do? That being in this case, rejecting that literary junk that is the Bible?

That all aside, you still have left us without a reasonable justification as to why we should feel pity for human beings who are merely being naturally selected out of the population.

0  0

Before you mess with a Richard Dawkins quote, you should really spend some time reading his book, “The Selfish Gene.” The answer to your question is way beyond the scope of this forum, but the answer, if you choose to do the legwork, is there. And yes, I’ve read the Bible. Morality can hardly be ascribed to that interesting literary artifact. In particular the OT . . you know what I’m talking about.

As to the quote, while every point can be easily attributed to the God of the Old Testatment with examples, the same can not be said for applying it, as you have, to nature. For instance, how is nature misogynistic? Vindictive? Jealous? Etc.

Sounds clever, but doesn’t hold up.

0  0

Well Scott, that is a good question. Where do YOU think they come from? How can evolutionary naturalism that is built upon the concept of tooth and claw, descent with modification by natural selection justify why I should feel pity about people being killed in an earthquake in Hatti?

To modify slightly something Sir Richard Dawkins wrote,

“Mother Nature is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of history: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

0  0

Why do Christians not see that it is dangerous, even to them, to allow that sort of thing to happen? Oh wait . . because THEY are the ones that currently have the majority. They should consider the possibilty of the day when they do NOT have that majority.

But they won’t because they can’t even consider that to be a possibility. Well . . . maybe you should consider it.

One more thing . . morals. That’s a fun issue. Where do YOU think they came from? Oh never mind, I guess I already know how you feel about drivel like evolution.

0  0