If Atheism is a religion, what is *not* a religion?

[joeboonda]

[SIZE=+1]WAS THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "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 the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Isit not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Tex Browning[/SIZE]

I found this little tidbit of info from Tex Browning. Believe what you will, the facts remain that we were founded as a Christian Nation. Jesus Christ died for our sins as a totaly free gift to us so we may spend eternity with Almighty God. I tell you this because I love everyone and do not want to see anyone die in their sins and wind up in Hell. God loves you, Jesus loves you, and I do too, and I will pray for you all.

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(King James Bible, John)

 

[joeboonda]

Here is another article:

WAS AMERICA FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION?​

Written by: Unknown Posted on: 03/31/2003​

Category: Educational​

Source: CCN​

WAS AMERICA FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION?

The question of our Biblical origins has been bandied around in intellectual circles for many years, especially now that there is a renewed Christian involvement in the culture of AMerica.

The major hurdle in answering the question is to define terms properly. The concept of a Christian nation is often written off because of misconceptions as to what this means. A Christian nation is not one in which al people in a society are all Christians, just as in an Islamic country, not all people are necessarily Moslems. But in a Christian nation, as our Founders would have defined it, the principles and institutional foundations are Biblically based and the people in general share a Biblical world-view.

Nor should we confuse the term "Christian Nation" with a "Christian state." since the word state refers to a political body or the body politic of the nation, the term "Christian state" would mean one in which the government ruled in religious matters through a state church. This would, of course, preclude religious liberty.

All Laws Are a Codification of a Religious System

Nevertheless, it is imperative to understand that all laws of a nation are the codification of a presuppositional world-view, i.e., the laws of the Untied States have presupposed form the beginning that the Bible was the foundation of our system. Rev. John Wingate Thornton said:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY."

Rev. Thorton's words condense and paraphrase comments Adams made in a July 4, 1837 oration, which are even more powerful in their full statement:

"Is it not that, in the chain of events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation?

Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemers's mission? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before?"

Such convictions as these concerning the Christian foundations of our government persisted into comparatively recent times. John W. Whitehead analyzes the Supreme Court's historic understanding of the relationship between Christianity and government in the United States:

"In 1892 the United States Supreme Court made an exhaustive study of the supposed connection between Christianity and the government of the United States.

After researching hundreds volumes of historical documents, the Court asserted 'these references add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a religious people...a Christian nation.' Likewise in 1931, Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland reversed the 1892 decision in relation to another case and reiterated that Americans are a 'Christian people' and in 1952 Justice William O. Douglas affirmed 'we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'"

Christianity the Dominant Influence in America

America was under the dominant influence of Biblical Christianity from 1620 until well into the nineteenth century. There are many who, in their desire to lay claim to the great accomplishments of that era, have tried to minimize the Christian influence and take the credit for themselves. But only God deserves the glory for what He did in the founding of this great nation.

People from many denominations came to America in the early years, but the vast majority of them shared a common faith in the basic tenets of Christianity. Whitehead's research reveals that

"when the Constitution was adopted and sent to the States for ratification, the population of America numbered only about 3 1/4 million. The Christian population numbered at least 2 million. James c. Hefley has commented that about 900,00 were Scotch or Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, with another million also holding to basic Calvanistic beliefs."

Christian Nation in Apostasy

It must be admitted that today, although we are still essentially a Christian nation in form (i.e., the Constitutional, legal structure, church affiliation), we are not one in conduct. For the first 250 years of our existence Christian character determined the conduct of self-government in homes, churches, and civil society. But today we have forgotten our heritage and only the skeleton remains. Even so, deep within the American character there lingers a Christian conscience ready to be revived by the spirit of God through awakened american Christian patriots.

It should be noted that by stating that America was a Christian nation we are not saying that we were the "New Israel" or a special race that God must bless. Quite the contrary, God Blessed America because our forefathers built their nation with reliance on Him and His Word, and because God had a Gospel purpose for our nation. If we turn from His purpose we can expect His judgement, perhaps greater judgement than other nations because "to whom much is given, much is required."

Every nation can be a nation under God if it chooses to follow Jesus Christ. Our history is unique in that we were allowed to express the full flower of Christian civilization and government. This fact should give us cause to ponder the price we have paid for the maintenance of our Christian liberty. Will we be the generation that presides over its death?

 

[joeboonda]

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/heritage.htmlhttp://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/heritage.html
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=583
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP1200W3.htm

Some more info...

 

[gnomon]

A quick counterpoint,

The United States federal government did not establish Christianity as a national religion. No federal churches exist. Church leaders owe no loyalty to the government. From the start people were free in most states to be a member of any religion they so chose and those states which actually did establish an official church dropped them shortly into the 19th century.

That alone is enough to validate the statement that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.

Now, were most citizens of the country Christians. Sure. Two different concepts.

Economics. Not religion.

 

[joeboonda]

A quick counterpoint,

The United States federal government did not establish Christianity as a national religion. No federal churches exist. Church leaders owe no loyalty to the government. From the start people were free in most states to be a member of any religion they so chose and those states which actually did establish an official church dropped them shortly into the 19th century.

That alone is enough to validate the statement that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.

Now, were most citizens of the country Christians. Sure. Two different concepts.

Economics. Not religion.

I can go along with that, its kind of all in the definition.

 

[Majikthise]

I thought this was "WHAT IS NOT A RELIGION".

 

[stemann]

If we don't know that "heaven" does not exist, and hoping that heaven does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, what's illogical about their hoping that heaven does exist, and living
according to that hope?
If we don't know that a kind and loving and forgiving God does not exist, and hoping that such a God does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, then what's illogical about their holding on to such hope,
and living accordingly?

First: you assume that a logical outcome of an unverifiable belief is that the belief holder should live a 'good' or 'calm and happy' life. I disagree because morality has got nothing to do with logic in this way. If it had,
then I could similarly say 'We should all kill each other because God said so, even though this can't be proven, but I hope that it is true since I want everybody to kill each other.' The only difference between this and
your ideas is different ways of living, ie either 'calm and happy' or 'killing everybody,' and the only difference between those is that you personally want everybody to live calmly and happily whereas somebody else
might want something entirely different. The upshot of this paragraph is: How do you logically justify your belief that people should live in a certain way (calmly and happily) than in any other particular way?

Secondly, the concept of 'hope' is in itself illogical. What is it, except an expression of desire? According to your arguments, there would be no logical difference between saying 'I hope that heaven exists, so I will live
a "good" life [insert whatever kind of life you feel to warrant the title "good"],' and 'I hope that God is really a sadistic Jew hater, so I will live a Jew-killing life'? This person is living life according to their hope.

If human beings are frightened by what they don't understand and therefor can't control (which we are), and we can mitigate that fear by imagining that "God" controls the unknown for us, and the result
of this belief is that we function better in the face of our own fears, what's illogical about choosing to trust in this "God" even if this God doesn't actually exist?

This is contrary to the tenets of scientific investigation. If you come across something 'unknown,' then the action taken by science is to attempt to determine exactly what it is, as opposed to leaving it in the certain
section of their worldview called 'the unknown' and then terming this 'God.'

You seem to be implying that it's illogical to make any assumptions about the unknown, even if those assumptions can help us function positively,

I think you are very morality based here. What has the word- or even the concept of- 'positively' got to do with anything? If I describe my 'positively' as your 'negatively,' why am I not logical whilst you are?

and even though we can make them while still remaining aware that they are assumptions (and we can choose to drop them at any time).

You may think that we can choose to drop them at any time, but how many people still believe the sun revolves around the earth, or that praying will alter the course of the physical world? Tradition is an extremely
difficult thing to break, considering the makeup of the human psyche.

Yet I don't really see how we humans can do much of anything else. Isn't establishing probability just making an assumption about something unknown, based on what we think we do know? And isn't
even what we think we do know still subject to error?

As far as any of us can tell, everything we know is subject to error. And like we both agreed before, God lies outside the realm of calculable probability, so technically it is illogical to ascribe some probability to Him.
All belief in Him is through either faith in Him, or faith in people on earth that tell you about Him.

It doesn't necessarily make it illogical, either. What's illogical about making assumptions about the unknown, and then trusting in those assumptions as long as doing so delivers positive results? ...

It is illogical to believe that God exists just because you want Him to, since you could similarly believe the exact opposite (ie, an Evil God) with the same amount of justification. And 'positive results' still doesn't mean anything, since your definition of 'positive' is a subjective definition, so somebody else could think 'positive' means 'killing everyone' with just as much justification.

Especially when there is no evidence to prove the assumption wrong.

There is lots and lots of evidence to prove many of the assumptions about God wrong, especially assumptions made through history that have now been debunked through science. However, since it is not possible to provide evidence against God as such, you are still in exactly the same position to believe in an 'Evil God' rather than a 'Good' one. There is no evidence to prove that the Evil God does not exist, any more than there is to prove the Good God, so aren't I exactly as logical in killing people to please Him?

Probably, but there is no logical reason why the universe being governed by physical laws should preclude the existence of "God".

If you had read my next sentence, you would have seen that I agree with you.

Also, I think it's pretty obvious that the idea of "God" is a human invention. But that's not necessarily a relevant point. The idea of a "tree" is also a human invention, based on human experience of a particular objective phenomena, but that doesn't make the tree any less "real", or the idea of a tree any less valid.
Yes, we humans did invent the idea of "God" (as far as we know). But that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the idea of "God" is invalid, or that the divine phenomenon we imply by that idea does not exist.

If we didn't have the idea of a tree, we would still see it and walk into it and such. The fact that we have an idea about it or not does not in any way affect the existence of the tree in reality. It is the same with God; if He exists, then our having an idea of Him or not won't affect His actual existence. This doesn't change the debate about whether it is logical to 'hope' or 'act by hope.'

I agree. Most people define "God" using the concept of the infinite (perfect, eternal, omni... etc.). And we humans can't quantify, qualify, or verify the phenomena of infinity. So we can't verify any concept that includes the ideal of the infinite, either. We can't even establish probabilities for it.
But that doesn't mean that the phenomena of infinity does not occur. Nor does it mean that it does. Nor does it mean that it's probable one way or another. It simply means that we do not know.

So why act based on the assumption that it does if it is equally valid to act based on the (equally valid) assumption that it does not?

What's not logical about your likes and dislikes?

I meant that I don't believe things just because I want them to happen. I would be very pleased if heaven existed (that is, if I was going there....) but this doesn't mean that I believe it exists. Otherwise, I would also believe that I could fly, or survive without breathing, or a whole host of other things. And, these things also can't be tested scientifically, since if it doesn't happen one time, I can just believe that it will happen the next time.

I would say that it's illogical to assume that you should NOT be biased, or that it's even possible for you not to be biased. The whole scientific process is based on the realization that we humans are always biased.

I agree, but what we attempt to do is eradicate that bias maximally, as you said here:

I would think, too, that logic dictates that we acknowledge our bias, and accept it as an inevitable part of the human condition, and then remain skeptical of ourselves and our opinions as a result of this realization of our bias.

This is what I, and good scientists, do (or attempt to do). My bias away from the existence of God and the supernatural may only be because my brain is made up in a naturally skeptical way, so I try to think about it as objectively as possible, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

They are being dishonest, it doesn't matter to me much whether they mean to be, or not.

You can't be dishonest if you don't mean to be. You can only be incorrect.

But the statement would include itself, which both removes the contradiction that you're inferring, and lends credibility to itself, but does not prove itself true.

So you do have faith in it, as it is not provable. And it doesn't lend credibility to itself by claiming that it might be incorrect, it just asserts a truth about itself that does not enhance nor detract from its validity. We are in the realm of things here that are 'True' yet 'Unknowable,' which I always find a scary concept, mainly because it requires faith which I don't tend to get along with.

I would say that it's both illogical and dangerous for we human beings to believe anything absolutely and unconditionally. In fact, I would consider this is a form of insanity.

What about 'Cogito ergo sum,' or the fact that you can say something must exist, whatever form it is, because I am experiencing something. Even if it a delusion, there must be something causing the delusion, and experiencing it.

 

[stemann]

Can't take a joke?

It was a pretty poor joke. Since hating Bush is sooooooo popular you must have thought you were being trendy, is the only conclusion I can think of.

What about the converse, those that have been taught that hell exists, and live a "good life" only because they live in fear of death. This sort of morality is not logical, it's based upon emotion, and these people often have many mental problems using this fundamentalist type of approach..

There is no kind of 'morality' that is logical.

 

[PureX]

If we don't know that "heaven" does not exist, and hoping that heaven does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, what's illogical about their hoping that heaven does exist, and living according to that hope?

If we don't know that a kind and loving and forgiving God does not exist, and hoping that such a God does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, then what's illogical about their holding on to such hope,
and living accordingly?

First: you assume that a logical outcome of an unverifiable belief is that the belief holder should live a 'good' or 'calm and happy' life. I disagree because morality has got nothing to do with logic in this way.

Please note that I began both propositions with the word "If". The use of this word at the beginning of the sentence indicates that I am proposing a possibility. I was not making any blanket assumptions. You have a habit of mischaracterizing other people's ideas and statements. Please try to refrain from doing that.

Also, morality is a subjective assessment. All I wrote was that trusting in an unproven concept could help someone live a calm and happy life. I did not make any statements about calm and happy lives being morally superior to any other kind of life. Once again, you're mischaracterizing what I've written. So I will try and make the point even more clear, and less able to be misunderstood:

If one desires to live a calm and happy life, and one can achieve this goal by trusting in an ideal or concept that has not been proven to be objectively true, or false, how is it illogical (as you have claimed) for that person to choose to do so?

If it had, then I could similarly say 'We should all kill each other because God said so, even though this can't be proven, but I hope that it is true since I want everybody to kill each other.' The only difference between this and your ideas is different ways of living, i.e. either 'calm and happy' or 'killing everybody,' and the only difference between those is that you personally want everybody to live calmly and happily whereas somebody else might want something entirely different.

Your analogy is wrong, in that all I was proposing is that one individual could achieve his own desired goal (a calm and happy life), for himself, through the use of faith. There is nothing implicitly moral or immoral about someone who wants to live a calm and happy life, doing so through the use of faith. Your analogy, however, has people killing each other, which has nothing to do with the scenario I proposed. You're trying to force morality into the discussion by misrepresenting my proposition.

The upshot of this paragraph is: How do you logically justify your belief that people should live in a certain way (calmly and happily) than in any other particular way?

I wrote absolutely nothing about how people "should live". You have invented this morality issue in your own mind, and projected it into this discussion. Please try and pay attention to what I actually wrote. I go to a lot of trouble to try and be precise, when I'm writing, and I would appreciate it if you would honor my effort by expending a little effort of your own, and reading what I actually wrote, not what you imagine me to have written.

Secondly, the concept of 'hope' is in itself illogical. What is it, except an expression of desire? According to your arguments, there would be no logical difference between saying 'I hope that heaven exists, so I will live a "good" life [insert whatever kind of life you feel to warrant the title "good"],' and 'I hope that God is really a sadistic Jew hater, so I will live a Jew-killing life'? This person is living life according to their hope.

I wrote only that acting on hope (faith) in the face of the unknown, can yield positive (desired) results. And that it is not illogical, then, to practice the use faith as a tool for living. You are insisting on side-stepping the obvious logic of doing so (because you were trying to claim that it is illogical, and now can't back up that claim) by pointing out that such a tool (faith) could be used successfully for both moral and immoral purposes. And further, you're trying to imply that because you have managed to force morality into the discussion, that the proposal being discussed must not be logical.

But you could force morality into a discussion of a hammer, as hammers could also be used morally or immorally, yet that would not make using a hammer an inherently moral act, nor does it make using a hammer illogical. So let's dispense with this morality "straw man".

This is contrary to the tenets of scientific investigation. If you come across something 'unknown,' then the action taken by science is to attempt to determine exactly what it is, as opposed to leaving it in the certain section of their world-view called 'the unknown' and then terming this 'God.'

So what? Science is science. Religion is religion. Each is a method, or tool, that we can use to help us understand the world around us better, and to help us live in it more successfully. The scientific method works fine as far as it goes, but because it requires direct observation of repeatable phenomena, and objective interaction to test our theories about that phenomena, it doesn't work for many of the questions we still have about the nature of life and existence, and that are still very important to us. So when "science" becomes ineffective, and we're left facing the unknown, we have other methods we can use to help us move forward, like faith. And this is not illogical.

You may think that we can choose to drop them at any time, but how many people still believe the sun revolves around the earth, or that praying will alter the course of the physical world? Tradition is an extremely difficult thing to break, considering the makeup of the human psyche.

I agree that people can become addicted to religious theories to the point where they become irrational and dangerous. But people can become addicted to most any behavior or idea; that doesn't make the behavior or idea inherently illogical, or the behavior ineffective. It just means that we often choose to misuse, or illogically apply a behavior or idea. Again, the illogical or immoral misuse of a hammer does not make the hammer inherently illogical or ineffective. Nor does it do so for the 'tool' we call faith.

As far as any of us can tell, everything we know is subject to error. And like we both agreed before, God lies outside the realm of calculable probability, so technically it is illogical to ascribe some probability to Him. All belief in Him is through either faith in Him, or faith in people on earth that tell you about Him.

Yes, So? That's what the method of faith is for ... when the method of establishing and following probability no longer works.

It is illogical to believe that God exists just because you want Him to, since you could similarly believe the exact opposite (i.e., an Evil God) with the same amount of justification. And 'positive results' still doesn't mean anything, since your definition of 'positive' is a subjective definition, so somebody else could think 'positive' means 'killing everyone' with just as much justification.

It is logical to employ the use of faith if doing so can gain a desired objective when other methods can't. The moral value of the objective is not currently under discussion, as it has nothing to do with the logic or effectiveness of faith.

However, since it is not possible to provide evidence against God as such, you are still in exactly the same position to believe in an 'Evil God' rather than a 'Good' one. There is no evidence to prove that the Evil God does not exist, any more than there is to prove the Good God, so aren't I exactly as logical in killing people to please Him?

Again, you are confusing logic with morality. If your desired goal is to kill people, and practicing faith in an "evil God" will help you achieve that goal when other methods can't, then it is both logical and effective to practice such a faith in an "evil God". Is it moral? That's a subjective question. It depends on who's moral code we're using to qualify the answer. But whether or not it's moral has nothing to do with the fact that it is both an effective and a logical method of achieving a desired goal when other methods can't.

So it appears to me that your "atheism" is really a moral objection to what you perceive to be the misuse of faith. And you're mislabeling your own moral objections to some religious behaviors as an objection to the "believer's disregard of logic". But in fact the "believers" are being logical, they just aren't using their faith in ways that you consider morally acceptable.

I often find this to be the case with "atheists".

 

[stemann]

Aha, I understand this better now. I did not realise that you weren't bringing morality into the debate.

However, I still disagree with some of the things you say.

Please note that I began both propositions with the word "If". The use of this word at the beginning of the sentence indicates that I am proposing a possibility. I was not making any blanket assumptions. You have a habit of mischaracterizing other people's ideas and statements. Please try to refrain from doing that.

I did not purposely mischaracterise your ideas and statements, but I misunderstood them as I was reading. I can admit that this was probably due to my inherent bias against morality, so I imagined that it was being discussed where it wasn't, and so I apologise. I shall change what I said:

If we don't know that "heaven" does not exist, and hoping that heaven does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, what's illogical about their hoping that heaven does exist, and living according to that hope?

If we don't know that a kind and loving and forgiving God does not exist, and hoping that such a God does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, then what's illogical about their holding on to such hope,
and living accordingly?

A person cannot choose to hope or believe something, their hope or belief arises due to information processed by the brain and their emotions. They can only choose to discover information which would influence their hopes in some way. So, if somebody was leading a life they enjoyed because of said untestable belief in God, then the idea of 'My belief in God is leading me to pursue my happy life' is neither logical nor illogical. It is neither justifiable nor unjustifiable, because the predicate (God's existence) is not testable and so nothing can be said to logically lead from it. The only reason I was against such things as 'faith' and 'hope' is because I believe them to be generally illogical, and I believe logic should be used at all times.

Also, morality is a subjective assessment. All I wrote was that trusting in an unproven concept could help someone live a calm and happy life. I did not make any statements about calm and happy lives being morally superior to any other kind of life. Once again, you're mischaracterizing what I've written.

I realise now that I misunderstood. Believe me, if I knew what you were really saying I would not have purposely changed the meaning of the quote. That is a pointless and stupid exercise.

So I will try and make the point even more clear, and less able to be misunderstood:

If one desires to live a calm and happy life, and one can achieve this goal by trusting in an ideal or concept that has not been proven to be objectively true, or false, how is it illogical (as you have claimed) for that person to choose to do so?

My answer to this is as above; my amended answer to your previous quotes.

Your analogy is wrong, in that all I was proposing is that one individual could achieve his own desired goal (a calm and happy life), for himself, through the use of faith. There is nothing implicitly moral or immoral about someone who wants to live a calm and happy life, doing so through the use of faith. Your analogy, however, has people killing each other, which has nothing to do with the scenario I proposed. You're trying to force morality into the discussion by misrepresenting my proposition.

I see now I was wrong, as before. However, I would be infinitely happier in a debate that did not include morality; I only included it, as I have said, because I thought mistakenly, that you did. I agree that morality has no place in this objective discussion.

I wrote absolutely nothing about how people "should live". You have invented this morality issue in your own mind, and projected it into this discussion. Please try and pay attention to what I actually wrote. I go to a lot of trouble to try and be precise, when I'm writing, and I would appreciate it if you would honor my effort by expending a little effort of your own, and reading what I actually wrote, not what you imagine me to have written.

It didn't require a superhuman use of stupidity for me to have misunderstood you in this way but I hope now that we can move on and discuss the real point of the discussion.

I wrote only that acting on hope (faith) in the face of the unknown, can yield positive (desired) results.

I misinterpreted your use of the word 'positive.'

And that it is not illogical, then, to practice the use faith as a tool for living. You are insisting on side-stepping the obvious logic of doing so (because you were trying to claim that it is illogical, and now can't back up that claim) by pointing out that such a tool (faith) could be used successfully for both moral and immoral purposes. And further, you're trying to imply that because you have managed to force morality into the discussion, that the proposal being discussed must not be logical.

It is not logical, let alone obviously logical, to practise the use of untestable faith as a tool for living; however, neither is it illogical. If I described it as such then, certainly, I can't back it up, because I was wrong, and should have written 'not logical.'

I didn't try to force morality into the discussion, I just saw it where there was none. I am glad there is no morality in this discussion.

So what? Science is science. Religion is religion.

I am discussing how they both utilise logic, or, more frequently, how they fail to. If some part of religion is based on untestable faith then there is no point in discussing the logic of it, since it is absent.

Each is a method, or tool, that we can use to help us understand the world around us better, and to help us live in it more successfully.

How do you define 'successfully'?

The scientific method works fine as far as it goes, but because it requires direct observation of repeatable phenomena, and objective interaction to test our theories about that phenomena, it doesn't work for many of the questions we still have about the nature of life and existence, and that are still very important to us. So when "science" becomes ineffective, and we're left facing the unknown, we have other methods we can use to help us move forward, like faith. And this is not illogical.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by 'move forward.' However, I would say that to step from a faith to action in the physical world is neither logical nor illogical, since an equally untestable faith could be used to attempt to 'justify' a completely opposite action in the physical world. It cannot be equally logical to do one thing as to do its absolute opposite, so it is neither logical nor illogical to go from faith to action.

I agree that people can become addicted to religious theories to the point where they become irrational and dangerous. But people can become addicted to most any behavior or idea; that doesn't make the behavior or idea inherently illogical, or the behavior ineffective.

I agree, the addiction does not necessarily imply any standard of the behaviour or idea.

Yes, So? That's what the method of faith is for ... when the method of establishing and following probability no longer works.

I still disagree since this 'method' can lead us to opposite actions with no apparent contradiction.

It is logical to employ the use of faith if doing so can gain a desired objective when other methods can't.

Not when you are only discussing one individual and their desired objectives. This is because their faith is theoretically just as likely to prohibit their desired objectives than to help them to gain them.

So it appears to me that your "atheism" is really a moral objection to what you perceive to be the misuse of faith.

You misunderstood my objections. I do not have moral objections since I do not believe in any kind of morality, whether objective, subjective, relative or otherwise. And this is linked to my atheism, but only a small part of it. I know that it is illogical to say 'Lots of people get killed in the name of God, so I will become an atheist and slander the theists' morality codes on religiousforums.com.'

And you're mislabeling your own moral objections to some religious behaviors as an objection to the "believer's disregard of logic". But in fact the "believers" are being logical, they just aren't using their faith in ways that you consider morally acceptable.

Did I ever say anything about what I consider to be 'morally acceptable'? I am confident that I did not.

I often find this to be the case with "atheists".

I don't know why this is in quotation marks. I still think the believers are not logical.

 

[Sapiens]

Atheism opposed to theism is a belief that there is no God. It is a belief, a worldview, I don't know that it is a religion more than it is a lack of a religion. Some atheists call it a religion, some are insulted at the idea. There are some religions that don't necessarily believe in God, some Budhists don't believe in a God, some do.

I have never met a single atheist who would describe atheism as a "religion." I would be indebted to you where you to either identify such a one or withdraw that base canard.

The thing is from the USA having been established by people who believed in God and the Bible,

That, for one is false, the founders were not believers or bible thumpers.

and from that, holding liberty and freedom dear, have to let people live and believe how they wish, unfortunately, people tend to lean toward the downhill side of morality more and more, and it is just a big mess.

Unsupported claim.

I think our country was founded on Godly principals and our laws were founded on the same, our schools too.

Flat incorrect.

People use the 'separation of church and state' idea, which was nothing more than the idea that the government cannot make you choose a certain denomination or religion.

Wrong again.

That you could have freedom of religion, not from religion.

Wrong again.

People have made it into more than it was intended.

Wrong.

This is a nation founded on Christian Principles, the Laws and Courts on the Ten Commandments, etc. and it is part of our heritage to have them in the Court Room IMO.

Wrong. Your opinion is demonstrably wrong.

People may still feel free to not believe in God, but I don't think they should overturn 200 plus years of our heritage and what the majority of Americans believe.

Wrong, at least in terms of our heritage, though we do seem to be mincing toward a fundamentalist theocracy.

(Most of us are theists). Well, whatever, I will raise my children and teach them about the Lord, and pray for our country and everyone in it, that they may be saved by trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is your right, just do it on your own time with your own funds on your own property.

What happens happens, God will sort it out in the end, even if someone does not believe He exists. Strange they believe in morality when someone robs them or something....anyway, whatever.

Why is that strange, atheists are the most moral people I know, we do not need the threat of punishment by the uber-pixie to keep us on the straight and narrow.