US founded on "Christian Principles"?

it's bad.



And don't get me started on the millions wasted on ineffective abstinence only education.
One thing I never understood and Richard Dawkins said it best. We are all atheists it is just that we choose to believe in one less god than the monotheistic religions. So isn't christian dislike (thought they weren't supposed to judge) of atheists hypocritical to say the least?
 
Last edited:
It was an attempt at humor. The golden rule, and all that.

Ahh... and I should picked it up; I recently listened to Simon Singh on the golden ratio. Thanks for explaining.

(I love smart people, except when they're smarter than me :) )
 
Last edited:
One thing I never understood and Richard Dawkins said it best. We are all atheists it is just that we choose to believe in one less god than the monotheistic religions. So isn't christian dislike (thought they weren't supposed to judge) of atheists hypocritical to say the least?

Yes, but understandable. I think that "do unto others" applies to people of their same faith. You can kill the others according to the bible.

Faith has a built in meme against all that threaten it-- doubt, reason, etc. It is call temptation, satan, "biting from the tree of knowledge"-- non-believers are shunned, excommunicated, and vilified under the guise that god wants it that way. God, apparently needs mortals to stick up for him and keep and spread the faith. Nothing about religion makes sense... but these people have gotten use to things not making sense-- it's all just part of the mystery humans aren't meant to understand according to the faith paradigm. And faith is the key to "happily ever after"-- so what wouldn't you do to prove to an invisible guy that you have loads of it?
 
I think faith like nationalism is one of the very basic ways humans evolve their primitive good guy/ bad guy thinking. It's like young boys playing cops and robbers. It promotes in-group cohesion and amity (an insurance policy and form of protection) and out-group enmity and distrust. The only way to feel like a good guy is to not be one of those "others", --the bad guys. We evolved to identify our group and have loyalties toward that group and fear of others.

Male chimps do this too. They have gangs that go up and beat up lone males from different clans.

The bonobos curb all this extra testosterone induced thinking by engaging in lots of sex and setting up matrilineal societies. (Generalization coming) Girls play house as little girls. Boys play good guys and bad guys... some of the basic programming of hormones seems to have something to do with hierarchal paternalistic regimes, religions, and forms, of government that evolve from and tendency toward competition versus cooperation.

I think all religions are based on an evolving boys game of Cowboys and Indians... and some guys never grow up. They seem so confident that some other guys and females mistake their conviction for competence--and a new religion, movement, regime, etc. is born.

I'm a female. I don't get it. And I wish I had a voice to bring change. It's a primitive way of thinking and causes suffering, oppression, and bigotry. Every soldier believes he/she is on the good guy's side-- every believer has found the one true faith-- all religions think that their members are the most trustworthy and moral.

And atheist sees this and stands outside and wants no part of the madness. Dominionism is not your grandma's religion.
 
Faith has a built in meme against all that threaten it-- doubt, reason, etc. It is call temptation, satan, "biting from the tree of knowledge"-- non-believers are shunned, excommunicated, and vilified under the guise that god wants it that way. God, apparently needs mortals to stick up for him and keep and spread the faith.
Much like the "need" of an introduction in the 10 commandments. Total and unadulterated nonsense.
 
And don't get me started on the millions wasted on ineffective abstinence only education.

Which points to the subtler dangers of the Xian nation myth.

If the USA is actually part of prophecy, involved in the struggle of God and Satan, instrumental in the return of Christ and the establishment of His divine kingdom on earth, then just about any means are justified to bring about that end.

And if it's true that the Bible is the basis of our government (and all those references to British common law, classical cultures, and such is a bunch of lies) then our government should do everything it can to align with Biblical principles.

More mundanely, if enough people believe this stuff, there's a big enough voting bloc to make it sorely tempting to appease them in order to win their favor.

Remember, Bush proved that you could win in America by courting the evangelicals, even if you had to piss off the Catholics. This was a political revelation.

This is why we see, for instance, the administration changing the criteria for success of abstinence-only sex ed.

When it turned out that AOSE resulted in more pregnancies and STDs, they stopped using those as measures of success and replaced them with students' expressed attitudes toward premarital sex, and class attendance rates.

Scary stuff.

Equally as scary, non-scientist staffers editing NASA reports to purge references to the Big Bang and global warming.
 
Much like the "need" of an introduction in the 10 commandments. Total and unadulterated nonsense.

Where does he get this stuff?

Is he disputing that covenants in ancient texts from Mesopotamia, Israel, Egypt, etc. are formulaic and include these preambles? On what basis?

Stunning, really.

Especially when it's clear that this language actually is in the Bible.

Makes your head spin.
 
One thing I never understood and Richard Dawkins said it best. We are all atheists it is just that we choose to believe in one less god than the monotheistic religions. So isn't christian dislike (thought they weren't supposed to judge) of atheists hypocritical to say the least?

That's actually a rediculous argument. If one is discussing "the truth" (whatever that vapid phrase means), then the difference between 0 fallacious beliefs and 40 or 800 million or whatever vs. 1 true belief doesn't matter. It's not a question of mulitple choice, it's a question of true or false.

Whether atheists believe in one less deity than monotheists do who believe in X number less than polytheists do has no bearing on weather no, one or X number of deities exist. It's the evidence for that deity or deities existing that matters.

And as an addenda, I don't "chose" to believe in any less number of deities than any religion, I don't have a reason to believe in any of them.
 
Last edited:
That's actually a rediculous argument. If one is discussing "the truth" (whatever that vapid phrase means), then the difference between 0 fallacious beliefs and 40 or 800 million or whatever vs. 1 true belief doesn't matter. It's not a question of mulitple choice, it's a question of true or false.

Whether atheists believe in one less deity than monotheists do who believe in X number less than polytheists do has no bearing on weather no, one or X number of deities exist. It's the evidence for that deity or deities existing that matters.

And as an addenda, I don't "chose" to believe in any less number of deities than any religion, I don't have a reason to believe in any of them.
So your telling me that a christianis not an "atheist" as far a someone who believes in Odin is concerned? Tell you what though, I said who uses that very argument and if you have problems with it you could always contact Richard Dawkins.
 
So your telling me that a christianis not an "atheist" as far a someone who believes in Odin is concerned? Tell you what though, I said who uses that very argument and if you have problems with it you could always contact Richard Dawkins.

I'm sorry, but your reply is so all over the map I don't quite know where to begin. Obviously someone who believes in Odin isn't an atheist as far as a Christian is concerned since that person, as long as "atheist" didn't somehow take on the definition of being "not Christian" while I wasn't looking, believes in a deity and thus cannot be an atheist by definition. And why would I need to contact Dawkins? I've already met him in person.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7962&d=1186369856

So you examined the evidence and made a decision yet it wasn't a choice? You mean as in predestiny?

Do you really not understand what "atheist" means? Or are you mincing the meaning of "choice"? I find no reason to believe any deities are out there, that is different from "chosing to believe" a deity does not exist.
 
I think faith like nationalism is one of the very basic ways humans evolve their primitive good guy/ bad guy thinking. It's like young boys playing cops and robbers. It promotes in-group cohesion and amity (an insurance policy and form of protection) and out-group enmity and distrust. The only way to feel like a good guy is to not be one of those "others", --the bad guys. We evolved to identify our group and have loyalties toward that group and fear of others.

Male chimps do this too. They have gangs that go up and beat up lone males from different clans.

The bonobos curb all this extra testosterone induced thinking by engaging in lots of sex and setting up matrilineal societies. (Generalization coming) Girls play house as little girls. Boys play good guys and bad guys... some of the basic programming of hormones seems to have something to do with hierarchal paternalistic regimes, religions, and forms, of government that evolve from and tendency toward competition versus cooperation.

I think all religions are based on an evolving boys game of Cowboys and Indians... and some guys never grow up. They seem so confident that some other guys and females mistake their conviction for competence--and a new religion, movement, regime, etc. is born.

I'm a female. I don't get it. And I wish I had a voice to bring change. It's a primitive way of thinking and causes suffering, oppression, and bigotry. Every soldier believes he/she is on the good guy's side-- every believer has found the one true faith-- all religions think that their members are the most trustworthy and moral.

And atheist sees this and stands outside and wants no part of the madness. Dominionism is not your grandma's religion.

Only women can only be True Atheists now? Those darn men just destroy everything with their testosterone?

Just how many groups of people are you going to exclude from being True Atheists??

Yes, I know you read every post of mine, so you can address this.
 
I'm sorry, but your reply is so all over the map I don't quite know where to begin. Obviously someone who believes in Odin isn't an atheist as far as a Christian is concerned since that person, as long as "atheist" didn't somehow take on the definition of being "not Christian" while I wasn't looking, believes in a deity and thus cannot be an atheist by definition.
So christian's recognize Odin as god?

And why would I need to contact Dawkins? I've already met him in person.
His original argument. If you have a problem with it, tell him. You can tell me if you want but it isn't going to change anything.

Do you really not understand what "atheist" means? Or are you mincing the meaning of "choice"? I find no reason to believe any deities are out there, that is different from "chosing to believe" a deity does not exist.
You find no reason so you don't believe. Did you make a conscious decision (choice) or was it predestiny that made you not believe?
 
So christian's recognize Odin as god?

Equivocate much? Why don't you answer my response directly instead of asking a question? Does a Christian consider a worshiper of Odin an atheist or a theist?

His original argument. If you have a problem with it, tell him. You can tell me if you want but it isn't going to change anything.

Why would you use an argument you're not willing to defend yourself? And as I have proven with photographic evidence, I've met Dawkins. Have you?

You find no reason so you don't believe. Did you make a conscious decision (choice) or was it predestiny that made you not believe?

Dave's not here man.

You're still convoluting several arguments I'm not making into some sort of straw man you're trying to knock down. I realize some people like to derive philosophy from rock song lyrics, but Rush was incorrect when they said that chosing not to decide was still a choice.
 
Last edited:
Where is the term "Separation of Church and State" in any Amendment to the Constitution.

You show a profound misunderstanding of both history and Constitutional law. In any law, and the constitution is just a species of law albeit more fundamental, words are not always self defining. In fact, much of the language of the Constitution is purposefully vague and ambiguous. The reason is simple, language is not precise enough to think of all the particular applications of principles, so you state the principles and leave it to those who decide particular cases to put the flesh on the bone so to speak.

Case in point, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that Churches cannot be taxed. You can read it, there's nothing in there. However, it has long been a principle that Churches will not be taxed because that may inhibit the "free exercise" of a religion.

Another case in point, there is nothing in the Constitution that defines "commerce", yet Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. How could Congress possibly regulate something that is not defined? Simple, they enact regulations and the courts decide based on common definitions, tradition and precedent if what Congress is regulating is Commerce for constitutional purposes. That's how things work in our system.

To say that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution, which of course that exact phrase is not, and then try to bootstrap that to mean that the separation of church and state was not intended is to ignore history, precedent and common sense.

BTW, as you probably know, Jefferson seems to be one of the originators of the phrase "separation of church and state", and as one of the principle founders, I would think his opinion on the subject should count heavily in interpreting what the language of the amendment was intended to mean.
 
{apologist hat=on}
the philosophy of Jesus advocates an equality of everyone. This is demonstrated by the statements of treating others as you would treat god. This notion of human equality imbued into people by their creator (that certain inalienable rights thing) can be seen as a direct result of Jesus philosophy.
{apologist hat=off}

I think in this sense, it can be said to be true. But this is more saying that the nation was built upon the philosophies of Jesus and not built upon the religion of Christianity. Although not mutually exclusive, these are different beasts.

the philosophy of Jesus is quite humanist.
At the heart of Christianity is the belief of Christ’s divinity. You must believe that Christ is the son of god, died and rose from the dead to be a Christian. this isn't a Scotsman fallacy, it's simply the simplest level of the faith. You don't believe that, you aren't Christian.


I meant to come back to this and forgot, sorry.

I think what you've posted is probably the closest that one could come to a decent argument that there are Christian principles at work in the USC.

I am not convinced by it, but it is much better than everything else I have seen. (I realize it is not necessarily your argument)

There is something to the idea of "natural rights" as a foundational principle in the founding, but I'm not convinced those a traceable to the NT. I would have to think about that some more or see some more discussion of it. I don't think simply saying you should treat your neighbor as yourself can reasonably be stretched to mean everyone is equal, but I may be wrong about that.

Thanks for your post, it is food for thought.
 
Equivocate much? Why don't you answer my response directly instead of asking a question?
My Jewish upbringing. Why can't you answer a direct question? Does a Christian consider a worshiper of Odin an atheist or a theist?
Why would you use an argument you're not willing to defend yourself?
Reread my post and explain how I used the argument. I said I agreed with it and Richard Dawkins put it best. Don't fault me for your not fully reading my post.
And as I have proven with photographic evidence, I've met Dawkins. Have you?
You give me one legitamate reason that it matters and i'll answer.
I realize some people like to derive philosophy from rock song lyrics, but Rush was incorrect when they said that chosing not to decide was still a choice.
Huh??? I thought you were supposed to be intelligent so why do you bring up lyrics from a Canadian rock group? You made a choice between beleiving in a deity and not. Or again I will ask (and again you will sidestep the question) was it predestiny? BTW, you could cut the hypocritical bs about my answering with a question when you have been refusing to answer my question all along.
 
Last edited:
I think that "do unto others" applies to people of their same faith.

That doesn't make too much sense to me. If the rule were intended to be applied solely to people of the same faith, why would Jesus illustrate it with the parable of the Good Samaritan (who belonged to a different faith than the person he helped)?
 

Back
Top Bottom