Dislike and distrust of atheists?

[shmogie]

See you just said, what they chose is their problem, as if you are saved and they are not, can you see the arrogance ?.

I never said I was saved, please don;t put words in my mouth. What arrogance? When I took my entrance exams for college a long time ago, I scored in the top 10% of my class in English and reading comprehension. Was I de facto arrogant because I felt I knew more than the other 90% ? I scored in the bottom 10% in math, algebra, calculus etc, Does that mean the other 90% were arrogant as relates to me because I sucked so badly in those area's ? One can accept that their position is right, and others are wrong, without being arrogant. If you have never in your life felt you were right, and others were wrong, then I think you are the only one.

 

[psychoslice]

I never said I was saved, please don;t put words in my mouth. What arrogance? When I took my entrance exams for college a long time ago, I scored in the top 10% of my class in English and reading comprehension. Was I de facto arrogant because I felt I knew more than the other 90% ? I scored in the bottom 10% in math, algebra, calculus etc, Does that mean the other 90% were arrogant as relates to me because I sucked so badly in those area's ? One can accept that their position is right, and others are wrong, without being arrogant. If you have never in your life felt you were right, and others were wrong, then I think you are the only one.

We are talking religion here, well at least I am, big difference, use your wisdom not your knowledge.

 

[shmogie]

We are talking religion here, well at least I am, big difference, use your wisdom not your knowledge.

Hmmmm, so someone who believes they have the right religion is arrogant, but someone who believes they have more knowledge isn't ? Actually, they are the same

 

[psychoslice]

Hmmmm, so someone who believes they have the right religion is arrogant, but someone who believes they have more knowledge isn't ? Actually, they are the same

Not when it comes to spiritual things.

 

[shmogie]

Not when it comes to spiritual things.

Not when it comes to spiritual things.

Ohh yes, one must have knowledge to lead to spiritual things, whether you are a Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Taoist, Hindu, whatever

 

[psychoslice]

Ohh yes, one must have knowledge to lead to spiritual things, whether you are a Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Taoist, Hindu, whatever

Yes knowledge can lead you to its edge, but then you have to drop the knowledge to enter, at least that is my experience.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sure, If you mean I am not an atheist, true, but I was for many years. One of my daughters is one. I have never seen, being a believer or not, atheists discriminated against. From my perspective it is an absurd assertion. I am left handed, I have seen more "discrimination" against we 14% of the population than against atheists.In 99% of human interactions, who really cares what someone else believes on a deeply personal and private matter ?

Who said I cared what they thought? All I am saying is that the negative feelings toward atheists are, most certainly, there - regardless your personal experience.

I was once in a sermon where the pastor openly bashed a general, irreligious-humanist worldview. Getting everyone to laugh at the idea that some people felt that morality was subjective - that one could even possibly feel entitled to come to their own conclusions about right vs. wrong.

I could have sworn, on that occasion, that the subject matter being discussed was specifically targeted at myself due to conversations I had had with the pastor... but that is probably my own ego biasing my view on whatever was really going on. I'll never know - because, again, it isn't like I really cared what he had to say enough to do something foolish like take it up with him. I would never, ever want to feed any delusions he might have that his views were at all important.

 

[shmogie]

Yes knowledge can lead you to its edge, but then you have to drop the knowledge to enter, at least that is my experience.

Yes, I understand. You don't "drop" the knowledge, you keep it in it's proper place.

 

[Augustus]

The process of rational ethics is founded on reason and empathy. The consensus among the democratic, egalitarian people that embrace this philosophy seems to be that the best ethical system is the one that facilitates the most good for the most people - utilitarianism.

Thanks for that explanation, wasn't really a term I'm familiar with.

I'd always seen Humanist ethics as being more deontological than consequentialist, having their ultimate basis in universal rights.

We know what people want in general - freedom, dignity, opportunity, safety, good health, peace, peace of mind, leisure time etc.. So, we assemble a list of rules that we think will facilitate those goals. No universal values exist to be plucked out the air, so we need to determine them ourselves. We decide which values embody those goals - kindness, tolerance, freedom, peace, integrity, etc.- and we attempt to create rules that embody them. Some of these rules are laws, such as 'don't kill or steal' and some are customs and traditions, such as sharing and cheerfulness.

These 'wants' seem pretty modern and western though.

What happens when 'what people want' in a given society is devotion to literal religious scripture? What happens when peace is the last thing a society wants because it associates martial prowess with manhood? What happens when personal worth comes from contribution to the polity and freedom is basically seen as immoral self-indulgence or even treason?

Does rational ethics in these societies come up with completely different, and incompatible results? Utilitarian ethics, greatest good, is not incompatible with any of these.

What is the role of universal human rights in rational ethics? Does it see these as 'self-evident' or cultural constructs?

Scripture is ossified. If it could have been the source of any idea, it would have been before two thousand years. Something else entered into the ethical calculus from outside of scripture. That was rational ethics.

It's a maximum of 300 years with a fair chance of less than this (remember I'm not concerned with anything beyond the history of ideas so popularity means nothing).

While the words may be ossified, theology never has been. Scripture has always really been a start point for philosophical discussions rather than a fixed set of rules. I don't see human reasoning on the implications of scripture as being what you describe as consequentialist rational ethics.

Even what became Christianity is really a result of Hellinic influences on Judaism, which is why early Christian theologicans were ok with and continued to be significantly influenced by (pagan) Greek philosophy.

Did you mean why did the Christians not reach the conclusions that the rational ethicists did sooner than the Enlightenment? Because they had no way to until they started applying reason and empathy to the matter. That's rational ethics, even when Christians employ it.

But what I meant was why do rational ethics seem to be such a historical anomaly if they are simply based on reason and empathy that is innate to humanity?

Almost no societies believes slavery was inherently wrong, certainly not the rational Greeks who saw it as natural. Almost no societies thought we were even theoretical equal, even many post Enlightenment rationalists saw the 'inferior races' as being bound to die out. Almost no societies believed in concepts of universal rights.

The reasoning that they came from Humanism/rational ethics is a bit too circular for my liking.

Modern Humanists believe these things therefore they came from Humanism/rational ethics, even though they appeared 1400 years before Humanism/rational ethics were ever conceptualised.

Also seeing as these were stated as deontological rights rather than an expression of the consequentialist ethics you proposed it becomes even more problematic.

We have a 4th C theologian expressing his view that these rights come from God's act of creation in a society where alternative conceptions of universal rights do not exist, and were certainly never proposed in Greek ethics (which tended to be virtue based). Just seems to me a bit of a stretch to put this down to Humanism or rational ethics.

And when later (often non-conformist) Christian groups used exactly the same reasoning, why should this be credited to Humanism, rather than the Christian theology that predates it by 1400 years?

Where else could those ideas have come from? Islam?

The same evolving traditions of ideas that eventually evolved into Humanism. Humanism was one of the diverse results of the long process with many influences, rather than being the catalyst which sets it all off.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thanks for that explanation, wasn't really a term I'm familiar with. I'd always seen Humanist ethics as being more deontological than consequentialist, having their ultimate basis in universal rights.

No, not deontological at all. I think that most humanists would repudiate deontological ethics. As I alluded, I describe my ethics as utilitarian (the best for the most peoople) and pragmatic (putting it t thetest andseeingwhat works,tweaking that which doesn't-).

These 'wants' seem pretty modern and western though. What happens when 'what people want' in a given society is devotion to literal religious scripture? What happens when peace is the last thing a society wants because it associates martial prowess with manhood? What happens when personal worth comes from contribution to the polity and freedom is basically seen as immoral self-indulgence or even treason?

Those values are inconsistent with humanist values. If you want a religious society (I assume you mean theocratic) or a martial society, you're not going to optimize happiness. No ethical calculus applied to those goals can lead to the best life for the most people.

Does rational ethics in these societies come up with completely different, and incompatible results? Utilitarian ethics, greatest good, is not incompatible with any of these.

Intelligence is knowing how to get what want. Wisdom is knowing what to want - what will bring serenity and enduring satisfaction. You're describing a process that has jumped the track. Rational ethics, the ethical system in humanism, won't help much here. This isn't humanism. It's theocracies and militocracies are authoritarian. The less authoritarian and the more democratic, freedom and autonomy promoting a government, the more humanist it becomes. Those are our values.

What is the role of universal human rights in rational ethics? Does it see these as 'self-evident' or cultural constructs?

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If so, it embodies values that are identical to some explicitly stated in the Affirmations of Humanism, some implied or compatible with, but a few that I don't recall humanists taking a stand on as humanists, such as the right to own private property

Remember though: Rational ethics is the method. The values brought to the process are not rational ethics. They are the values of humanism when humanists employ it, and perhaps the values of religious or militant states if they were to apply the process

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

While the words may be ossified, theology never has been.

If Christianity grows, it grow by methods outside of Christianity. There is no rational ethics in scripture either explicitly or implicitly. It is a alien idea to scripture. If a new idea or value crept into Christianity, as when many Christians supported abolition, it did so by coming from elsewhere, in this case, the rational ethics of humanism. These adherents and theologians may not have been aware of humanism, but the correctly intuited that those values were fair and intelligent.

But what I meant was why do rational ethics seem to be such a historical anomaly if they are simply based on reason and empathy that is innate to humanity?

Where did innate come from? These ideas were centuries in their development and assimilation. But to answer your question about why the delay,I can only speculate.

Almost no societies believes slavery was inherently wrong, certainly not the rational Greeks who saw it as natural. Almost no societies thought we were even theoretical equal, even many post Enlightenment rationalists saw the 'inferior races' as being bound to die out. Almost no societies believed in concepts of universal rights. The reasoning that they came from Humanism/rational ethics is a bit too circular for my liking.

Humanism is a product of the Enlightenment, as are concepts like the rights of man.

Where else could these ideas have come? People applied reason to empathy and made progress. As I said,they didn't have to know that those were Enlightenment or humanists values, just to recognize their potential. The point remains that even if Christians had such ideas, they didn't come from Christianity, and that leaves one other ideology that could possibly be the source.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Modern Humanists believe these things therefore they came from Humanism/rational ethics, even though they appeared 1400 years before Humanism/rational ethics were ever conceptualised.

As already stated, humanist values were centuries in their nascence. Anybody employing such methods however early was at least an early, proto-humanist.

Also seeing as these were stated as deontological rights rather than an expression of the consequentialist ethics you proposed it becomes even more problematic.

Not following you now.What deontological rights?

We have a 4th C theologian expressing his view that these rights come from God's act of creation in a society where alternative conceptions of universal rights do not exist, and were certainly never proposed in Greek ethics (which tended to be virtue based). Just seems to me a bit of a stretch to put this down to Humanism or rational ethics.

That would be an early expression of humanist values: Guaranteed or inalienable individual rights, also not from the Bible.

And when later (often non-conformist) Christian groups used exactly the same reasoning, why should this be credited to Humanism, rather than the Christian theology that predates it by 1400 years?

I think I've already answered that.

The same evolving traditions of ideas that eventually evolved into Humanism. Humanism was one of the diverse results of the long process with many influences, rather than being the catalyst which sets it all off.

Humanism was not the Child of Christianity. It was a rejection of its methods.

 

[1robin]

The Constitution prohibits:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
---John Adams

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....
---Thomas Jefferson

We are not now, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation. Our founding fathers explicitly and clearly excluded any reference to “God” or “the Almighty” or any euphemism for a higher power in the Constitution. Not one time is the word “god” mentioned in our founding document. Not one time.

The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers and the Constitution — to disprove that ridiculous religious bias. All four documents unambiguously prove our secular origins.

Our founding fathers understood well the extraordinary danger of mixing religion and politics; we forget that lesson at our great peril. If we forget, just glance over to the Middle East.

That frightening majority has forgotten our history, ignored our founding principles and abandoned our most cherished ideal of separating church and state. In mixing religion and politics, the religious subverts both. And the world suffers.

My computer locked up causing my original response be lost. So this will be the scaled down version.

1. We were not discussing the nature of the US's governmental institutions.
2. We were discussing the basis for certain events or attitudes on the fact that almost all our founders and framers being Christians.
3. As for our founding institutions and government, many colonists can here to escape the Church of England. It was incorporated (for lack of a better term) by England's monarchy which both ruined it and made it far more powerful.
4. Our founders wanted to set up a government which could not repeat England's mistakes. It is said that the US's moral soul is based on Jerusalem, it democracy on Athens, and it's administration and academics on Rome.
5. My point was that in a 300 year old country made up of between 70% - 90% Christians you going to see influences of that. For some reason you ignored everything I said then instead you brought up the nature of our early foundations. I do not feel like reposting everything you ignored so I will just give a few quotes on this new subject matter.

Thomas Jefferson literally cut out any part of the bible he didn't like and what was left became his religion. Yet when even he was asked what are human rights are founded upon he replied: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.
http://thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
– George Washington

True religion affords to government its surest support.
– George Washington

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
– George Washington

The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
– Samuel Adams

The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.
– John Adams

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
– John Adams

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.
– John Adams

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
– Patrick Henry

“The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”
– Benjamin Rush
US History Quotes About God and the Bible

I can post these for days.

The ten commandments are carved into the capitol building, a bible was buried in the cornerstone of the Washington monument, Moses appears on the supreme court (I believe) building, there have been congressional chaplains for centuries, and in God we trust is on our money.

There is no hope in trying to strip away the saturation of Christianity upon this nation, but it was never intended to be a theocracy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
– George Washington

True religion affords to government its surest support.
– George Washington

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
– George Washington

The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
– Samuel Adams

The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.
– John Adams

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
– John Adams

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.
– John Adams

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
– Patrick Henry

“The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”
– Benjamin Rush
US History Quotes About God and the Bible

I can post these for days.

How many are authentic?

*****

From David Barton and fake quotes

Here are some of the BOGUS quotes that you should immediately refute if you see them used in a letter to the editor, in an online forum, or anywhere else for that matter.

1) “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” – Patrick Henry

2) “The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.” – Abraham Lincoln

3) “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” – George Washington

4) “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” – Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court case)

5) “The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drown from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.” – Noah Webster

6) “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader.” – Samuel Adams

7) “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves … according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison

8) “There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet.” – Noah Webster

9) “Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.” – Benjamin Franklin

10) “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” – Abraham Lincoln

11) “I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

[Augustus]

Those values are inconsistent with humanist values. If you want a religious society (I assume you mean theocratic) or a martial society, you're not going to optimize happiness. No ethical calculus applied to those goals can lead to the best life for the most people.

Happiness is a very vague concept though.

Human freedom seems not to be a key component of it when compared to a sense of community and a purpose in life.

What appeals most to modern Humanists may not reflect all societies and cultures, so in these the greatest good would be met by adopting values perhaps inimical to Humanism.

Remember though: Rational ethics is the method. The values brought to the process are not rational ethics. They are the values of humanism when humanists employ it, and perhaps the values of religious or militant states if they were to apply the process

Aren't all ethics 'rational' in this regard though. They are based on reasoning regarding the values you wish to create or protect.

Values don't come out of a bottle, only as a product of thought and reasoning whether the goal is consequences or rights/duties.

If Christianity grows, it grow by methods outside of Christianity. There is no rational ethics in scripture either explicitly or implicitly. It is a alien idea to scripture. If a new idea or value crept into Christianity, as when many Christians supported abolition, it did so by coming from elsewhere, in this case, the rational ethics of humanism. These adherents and theologians may not have been aware of humanism, but the correctly intuited that those values were fair and intelligent.

The immorality of slavery was not consequentialist though, but based on absolute rights regardless of consequences. And these rights (although primitive) were both unprecedented in the 4th C (unless you can find one) and directly based on the logical implications of a particular aspect of scripture. Are you arguing that the scripture was incidental to the theology or that reasoning based on scripture is not Christian?

You, like me, don't believe Christianity was Divinely inspired. How did it come to be? Where do you see it's intellectual roots?

I see it as a Hellenised form of Judaism, so from the outset it contained aspects of Greek philosophy (see for example Philo's Logos as Divine Mediator). Christian theology has never existed without Greek influence, this is part of the essence of its tradition (and imo one aspect which led it to develop in the way that it actually did).

What you seem to be saying is that as soon as the canon became settled, Christianity became a literalist reading of scripture only. The traditions that led to its creation suddenly became alien to it, even though they were part of a continuous and unbroken process. Your Christianity is something that has never existed, just a book frozen in time.

Where did innate come from? These ideas were centuries in their development and assimilation. But to answer your question about why the delay,I can only speculate.

Do you believe that Humanism produces the greatest good in all societies?

Humanism is a product of the Enlightenment, as are concepts like the rights of man.

Where else could these ideas have come? People applied reason to empathy and made progress. As I said,they didn't have to know that those were Enlightenment or humanists values, just to recognize their potential. The point remains that even if Christians had such ideas, they didn't come from Christianity, and that leaves one other ideology that could possibly be the source.

Where did the idea that we had certain rights as a virtue of our humanity come from though? If we keep taking one step back then another where do these ideas come from? Reason and empathy lead nowhere without a framework of values and concepts to work with. Then where do these values come from?

Your reasoning is entirely circular: modern Humanism believes X so X comes from (proto)humanism, humanism is a product of itself rather than an evolutionary hybrid comprising numerous traditions that later became Humanism (but can't be called Humanist at that time).

 

[Cobol]

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793


“Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
~Founding Father John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799
“I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual.

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
~Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

“I never liked the Hierarchy of the Church — an equality in the teacher of Religion, and a dependence on the people, are republican sentiments — but if the Clergy combine, they will have their influence on Government”
~Founding Father Rufus King, Rufus King: American Federalist, pp. 56-57

“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
~Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

“Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.”
~Founding Father Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789

“The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.”
~Founding Father Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787

These are hardly the words of men who allegedly believed that America should be a Christian nation.

There is nothing in the design of the United States Supreme Court building that would indicate that the Congress, architect or designers had any special regard for the Ten Commandments.

Those large statues beside the steps do not represent any religious figures or concepts.

Did you know that if the Ten Commandments were the basis of law, there would be no “equal justice” for nonbelievers or followers of other religions? Did you know that Robert Ingersoll Aitken, the sculptor (A famous agnostic), put himself into the Western Pediment on the front door of the supreme court?

The bronze doors at the front of the building, leading into the courtroom, contain no references to religion. Moses is walking behind (not leading) Menes and Hammurabi in the south frieze. Menes was an Egyptian pharaoh and Hammurabi was a Babylonian king, both of whom worshiped a sun god.

Did you know that the designer of that eastern pediment gave secular reasons for that art? Sculptor Herman A. MacNeil wrote: "Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The 'Eastern Pediment' of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East." Neither Congress nor the sculptor claimed that American law is based on Confucius, Solon, or Moses.

The pyramid on the 1$ is a throwback to ancient Egypt, but is in many ways a much tamer version of the seal that Franklin and Jefferson envisioned.

Many subscribe to the idea that our currency is originally Masonic, there’s a lot to work with. Many of the people involved in the multi-step design for the seal are known Masons. Almost everyone concedes that Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Wallace were Freemasons.

 

[1robin]

If you are referring to the American national debt, that debt was piled up by Christian presidents.

If you want to see why we are so far in dept. Go to this link:

Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason

Scroll down to spending distribution. You will see that social programs went from 20% at the start of the early secular hippy movement and then at 2015 when those hippies are all grown up, it is now 65%. All other spending went down, despite the fact that our military protects half the world.

Incidentally, the secular revolution is over two centuries old, when the first modern secular government was contrived. It's been working pretty well until recently. Thank it for your freedoms.

A revolution is when a group vies for a significant portion of the power another group has, not that a few people in any particular group exist. We have had secularists since we were just colonies, however their power grab really began in earnest in the 50s.

Watch what the Christians in the present American president's cabinet do to it. They're already assaulting climate mitigation efforts, and will attempt to penetrate the church-state wall - a sacred tenet of secular government.

IMO Trump will be a disaster, his only merit is that he wasn't as sadistic and evil as the Clintons are.

Theocracy is a disaster. If it ever re-establishes itself, you can expect to be persecuted for your religious beliefs if they don't happen to be those of the people who assume power.

The best and worst possible forms of government are the same type, dictatorships. A good dictator (or monarch) would be the best form of government, a bad dictator (or monarch) the worst. Since history shows we get more bad leaders than good leaders we should not risk it. Christianity is meant to rule the heart of man, not the government of men. I think ours (Christian at heart, but secular in body) was about as good as will ever or has ever occurred, if it's nature hadn't started being corrupted in the 50s we may have had a good long run.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

We are animals.

what if I said no.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Atheism is nothing more or less than a "No" answer to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?" How can that be wrong? I don't believe in gods, and therefore I am an atheist. That's a fact.

Well the other said we are animals. I said no. I didn't say no there. So why cant I disagree with this we are not animals.
So I could walk around saying God all day and gods all the time and they would likely praise me. But if I say we are not animals, it's somehow bad. Everyone wants to argue.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

the only time I will agree is if a freaky situation of the opposite where I really don't want to be around "humans" that convinced everyone they are animals.
I'll call it a throw back.