My other question would be "ok... so you voted for him, things went sour... Why'd you do it again?"

(Not directed toward kahuna, just to people who voted for bush in 04)

 

Well I agree with most of what you said. But I don't take the "seperation of church and state" to mean what it seems to. If people came over here to avoid persecution for there beliefs and then wrote a constitution to reflect that, wouldn't it make more sense to see it another way? I don't think it was so much, lets keep the church out of the law, but lets keep the laws out of church. To put it in better words, there will never be a state enforced religion.

Now that being said, I see that you understand that since the majority of the United States is Christian then the majority of politicians are as well. Well we live in a democracy, where all voices matter, and the majority "wins". So rules, laws, buildings, plaques, and money are all going to have a Christian bend to them. That's just the truth.
If however we decide to silence the majority and tell them that they can't do something, where would our democracy be?

 

I don't think they realized it until the 04 elections. If you were to ask the same people a month before the 04 elections and then asked them now, I'd bet most would have a completely different take on old W.

 

The reason this country was started was to avoid political and religious persecution... you still ignore the larger issue and instead focus on the perversion of the issue....

The politics of the situation very rarely have anything to do with the situation in the first place. You focus so diligently on the political issue, while not realizing that politics is full of corrupt and power-hungry individuals who will bend any worldview to accomplish their end.

What you consider political Chrisitianity isn't true Chrisitianity, and what you relate christianity to, isn't what Christianity is, it's what it has been distorted to, to serve political gain, by MAN, so your arguements are more approoriate to the men who distorted it, rather than the message itself within it's political context... What you see represented in your discussions of Christianity in Politics has very little to do with the message of what Christianity stands for. Therefore, it hold little credibility to me, as the world political situation is full of examples of how worldviews have been perverted to accomplish political gain....

Atheism being a large one example of the political perversion you could respect and understand... and as much of an example of how a worldview can be corrupted by man to accomplish atrocities and grab power. As the perverted ideals of Atheism have been used in History, most probably pretty near the amount the perverted ideals of Christianity have been. Would that mean that Atheism is a poor worldview system, most certainly not, as it's just an example of how that worldview was perverted for political gain, just as you see in America how Chrisitianity is perverted for political gain as well. So put into your understanding the difference between the fundamental ideals of a worldview and how you see those ideals perverted in politics... as using the political perversion to discredit the true ideals is meritless.

With that said though...

I see no true persecution or establishment of religion though in the posting of the ten commandments in public arenas, while taken into context as what it is, and what it means in an historical and respected context, as it was and in some ways, continues to be a strong part of a large number on represented individuals in the USA. I see it in no way an establishment of religion by the US government (which the constitution prohibits), but of "free expression" of an historical and religious symbol (Which the constitution protects), just as Abraham Lincolns historical texts written in stone in the Lincoln Memorial, which has many which refer to God and the rights given to men by God.

It's a reference and honor to the beliefs of many of the individuals who founded this nation, and in that context, could be respected as a historical marker, if nothing else. If you took any reference to God out of our government, you'd kill the declaration of independance, the gettysburg address and many, many other of the amazing and foundational aspects of US government.

While a few of the Ten Commandments Stand as law in America Today, no one would rightfully make the stretch that we hold all those commandments as the beliefs of the US government or US courts, and posting the commandments isn't a declaration of law or expectation of observing those beliefs from the perspective of the US government upon the people, as last I knew, Coveting, Idolotry, Dishonoring your parents, or using the LORDS name in vain weren't accounted for, or prohibited in American Law... once again, they were mounted and displayed as a historical and respected symbol of the ideals of many of the leaders who founded this nation, and of many of the men who fought injustice and made this nation what it is, Including Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and many more...

When it comes to establishment, they are probably more effective arguements of how the US Government would be establishing Christian religious ideals that just posting the ten commandments...

ONCE AGAIN, it's not about the TRUE perspectives of worldviews of Atheistic or Theistic backing, but how those perspectives are perverted and manipulated for political gain... which is consistent and rampant in both the ideals of Atheistic and Theistic worldviews when it comes to men in government.

But, at the foundation, we still are the product of this text...

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

 

Did not feel like reading all 40+ pages and just for the sake of time, not dissagreeing with you what proof do you have?

 

WeDriveScions, i dont understand why you believe that you are the authority in this thread to tell us what we can and cannot talk about.

ONCE AGAIN, if we want to talk about political religion, 'real' religion, etc, then we will. To say they are completely different is both true and false. Yes, they are not truly the ideals of a real religion, but one influences the other.

 

well in the case of religion, we would be obeying our constitution and bill of rights.

When it was founded, our country had a much higher percentage of christians living here, then we do now, and yet they found the need to write up the laws governing our land like it is.

 

Not to mention the fact that last I checked, coveting wasn't illegal in this country. In fact, it actually seems to be the basis of our capitalist society/popular culture.

And it has been mentioned a few times now and I have to say something before my head explodes. THIS COUNTRY WAS NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT CHRISTIAN. Several of them were Deists (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, amongst others). NOT the same as christianity, by a long shot. This country was founded on the freedom to do as one chooses as long as you do not hamper anyone else's free will. It was founded on not letting the government be controlled by religion and not letting the government enforce a religion upon its masses. (the problem that was occurring in britain and europe at the time, hence the reason people left in the first place.) That separation of church and state goes both ways. If you can have a cross and the 10 commandments in the court rooms, then I can have a pentagram in the court rooms and hindus can have an Ohm and satanists can put all the subverted symbols of other religions they want in the court room and radical atheists can put up a picture of themselves deficating on all those symbols in the court. Because if it is then every group in america has the right to put whatever they want in the courts. The courts are for government and law, not religion. Just because a few of your commandments parallels with law doesn't mean they all do. It doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want with public property. The constitution is clearly rejecting your standpoint. You can believe whatever you want. On private property you can put up whatever symbols you want. You are NOT allowed to do so on public property, however.

 

you're equating communism with atheism. I support capitalism, because that makes the benefactors of it rich. I would prefer is socialism or even communism ruled, if it worked, but it doesn't. Not from what we can see in history with china and russia, but because both socialism and communism, don't take into account people of different intelligence and abilities. I wish john lennon's imagine idea was in place, as alot of athiests do, but sadly it can't, unless we turned the whole world upside down.

just because communism says "officially no religion", doesn't mean it's atheistic.

Atheists do not have a code of conduct, or rules to live their life.
Christians do, and that becomes a form of government when you apply all those rules to everyone.

If atheists were in charge, there is no certain form of rules that you could assume. I am an atheist, and hold a mostly christian ideals because of where i grew up. My "belief system" of evolution and natural selection, doesn't say any human behaviour is necessarily is right or wrong. it doesn't say anything about it. I could be a total anarchist, or a super conservative and be atheist.

it can be when you put it infront of a courthouse.

who cares about the government's perspective. what about the people's perspective.

 

really, please read it. the flood like said in the bible didn't happen and couldn't have. the bible states pigeons and sperm whales were created before any land animal ever created(think land dinosaurs, worms, cochroaches). 76 generations between adam and jesus.

 

lets not forget here kahuna that we dont live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

And we are lucky to live in a republic, since a good number of people, including alexander hamilton wanted to have a restricted monarchy.

The founding fathers, although had the right idea of freedom fro all, went about the wrong methods of implementing it. The reason it took so long to make a constitution of democracy is because in fact, it ended up being a constitution of a republic. The founding fathers knew this, and ultimately decided to make a government that imitated a democracy. But in the end, the government has the power to do as they wish, even if the citizens are against it. Thats just how it is sadly.

 

It kinda seems like the people that won't read the 40+ pages of debate are probably the people that don't spend the time to actually read their own holy book and just spout out commonly heard phrases.

 

and there are other things that can be explained as well. At one time, the lake Jesus supposedly walked on water on, had a salinity high enough that it was reported you could walk on water..if you wore turtle shells on your feet. This same lake is the one that you can now float on, easily if u are laying in the water. So whose to say that jesus didnt just throw on some turtle shells. Seems other people at the time did as well.



And lets explain the 10 plagues for a minute here...this one is pretty cool i must admit

1. (Exodus 7:14-25) rivers and other water sources turned to blood ('Dam')
Archaelogists can trace earthquake activity to about the time of the plagues. It is recorded that an extremely high concentration of iron was released into the river nile and surrounded water sources. Because of this regions special silt content, with high levels of iron introduced...the water turns blood red, and can even taste like blood since theres a lot of iron in human blood too.

(Exodus 7:26-8:11) reptiles (commonly believed to be frogs) ('Tsfardeia')
well, all of the fish died, mainly because the water was no longer able to sustain the right elements to support fish life. Just so happens that out of all of the marine animals, the only ones that could escape this new, harsh enviroment would be frogs. This is due to the fact that they have legs. So, thousands, to millions of frogs would leave the water and plague the city.

(Exodus 8:12-15) lice ('Kinim')
well, since the frogs are no longer in the river to eat the egg colonies of the flies, millions of these biting flies and insects would be able to spawn innumerously like never before.
(Exodus 8:16-2 Either flies, wild animals or beetles ('Arov')
^^see plague above for same explanation.

(Exodus 9:1-7) disease on livestock ('Dever')
all of these bugs that are now up and about happen to bite and transmit disease rather easily. And since there are so many, it is almost certain that epidemics would have broken out among livestock...killing almost all of them.

(Exodus 9:8-12) unhealable boils ('Shkhin')
Same thing that is happening to the livestock is happening to the humans from all of the bug bites

(Exodus 9:13-35) hail mixed with fire ('Barad')
Ok, for those of you who arent volcanologists, volcanic activity normally triggers a release in brimstone into the atomosphere. Brimstones chemical compound actually alters local weather systems and causes hail on many occasions. This can still be seen all across the world with fresh volcanic eruptions. towns will report hail prior to eruptions and after tremors.

(Exodus 10:1-20) locusts ('Arbeh')
since hail tends to destroy most food crops, the remaining crops would be targeted more heavily by swarms of locusts. Whereas they were spreaded thinly before throughout the area, they would become extremely concentrated during these times. This still happens.



(Exodus 10:21-29) darkness ('Choshech')
there are many explanations for this, such as a solar eclipse, volcanic ash, fires caused by extremely frightened people (and rioters), or simply the fact that there were so many locusts.


(Exodus 11:1-12:36) death of the firstborn ('Makat Bechorot')
because of all of these conditions listed above, there almost certainly would have been a specific mold that would have grown on the top layers of grain buckets. The cultural standing at the time permitted the person of highest status (which would have been the first born), to take first in food collection and almost certainly have taken grain from the top layer in the bucket or storage bins. I cant remember the name, but this mold actually only affects the top layer or two of the food deposits, but its very poisonous. Consequently, the majority of people who would have been poisoned would have been the first born of every family.



Sound like a stretch? Guess again, it has happened in modern times and has even been caught on tape. Because of the silt in a lake, the water turned red, and these exact plagues happened, in ear sequential order as stated in the bible. These are not trvial science fantasies, these are things that have been recorded and reported.

 

^nice! I'm so posting this on my blog

 

I never said this country was founded on Christianity, but it was founded on the ideals that our rights were given from a creator and widely recognized Christian Principles, and that the founding fathers wished the blessing of this creator on our nation.... So they did respect and observe the role religion had in Government and public documents...

Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington were definately not supporters of Christianity, that's widely documented.

It was founded on letting the people control the government, not a monarchy.... read the declaration of independance... the largest issue was taxation and the control of the government by a single individual NOT chosen by the people.... religion was a part, but the real focus of the declaration of independance isn't religious principles, although they are heavily mentioned in regards to a creator and God, but on Monarchy and RULE... thus a government by the people and for the people.

The government is controlled by the people, and people are religious by nature, even atheism is a religion of sorts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), so religion, or the ideals of religion are going to influence and control our government in many ways.... the atheist ideal would influence government a lot as well, and definately impose it's perspective and belief system if it were to be represented in the majority.... Imagine if John Lennon's Perspective was that of the majority... The US government would change DRAMATICALLY based on that religion.

ONCE AGAIN.... EXTREMES and rediculous ones.... the monuments relating to the 10 commandments were and are historical monuments representing an old and widely recognized reprentation of "LAW" and why they are in front of places of "LAW", such as courthouses...

Anyone can understand the historical context of them and why placing them in such locations makes "some" sense... Respect for the history behind them, and behind many of the founding fathers and some of our greatest leaders seems somewhat appropriate and it's a perversion of that reprentation to believe that they were ever put there to impose those statements on American Law, it's rediculous to think that the American Government, by placing them ANYWHERE endorses many of the commandments as law, or imposed law upon the people...

And, the constitition no where states that religious symbols or statements cannot be on public property, but that the government cannot make laws respecting the "ESTABLISHMENT" of religion.... ESTABLISHMENT PEOPLE.... You cannot walk too far in Washington D.C without seeing a reference to God, a Creator, or other Theist principles in stone.... it's part of our history and part of many of our leaders speaches, belief systems, and the law that they founded or fought for. No where does it establish that Christianity is the Established Religion of the United States, but it'd be significantly rediculous to not think that Christianity and it's ideals didn't influence strongly american law and our freedom and government perspective on our rights, so why not respect and appreciate that role in the forms of Monuments.... It's not an endorsement or establishment, but an historical representation...

Once again, and again, and again, and again.... It's not able to be discussed appropriately here, and is always taking other tangents and issues which are unrelated....

I'm not the authority, But I will tell you what can or cannot be done based on the reality that it can or cannot be done.... it can't be done here... it's uncontrolled, filled with personal bias, and it interupted by uneducated and misinformed banter from both sides.... so it's impossible, within this envirnment to do justice to either viewpoint....

AND, discussing what politics has done to religion is not talking about religion.... Political religioun does not influence the true ideals of Christianity and doesn't change them... Not only is that true, but Political representations of Religion are influenced by power, votes, agendas, and money way more than the ideals of the religion in the first place....

Take ANY, and I mean ANY historical depiction of Governments in World history and you'll see UNIVERSALLY how the corruptive tendancies of Man has taken any religious perspective and corrupted it for political gain and power...

I also would state that there are many ideals that were founded by people who were clearly atheist.... Carl Marx? The ideals of Atheism represented through a "Singer" like John Lennon are clearly flawed and contradictory to all of human history and the nature of Man.... in no way EVER will a true socialist or communist government succeed, or any government founded by men, for men... not because of the fact of education or abilities, but because of the nature or man... (What seattle referred to in turning the world upside down) Why, if atheism makes such sense and is the answer, is it contradictory to what the world really is, and why are the ideals of Atheism flawed to never succeed due to the nature of Mankind which ALL of human history shows.

It scares me foundationally to think that if Atheists were in charge that there is no certain rules that you could assume... Look at history!!!!!!!! That would be insanely destructive and would essentially result in us being equal to animals. But, if the atheist ideal was truely implemented, it still would leave the idea as to "Why" anyone would want to participate in any behavior that profits others..... History has shown us that Man wants one thing.... to profit himself... and if this life is all there is, and there is nothing afterward... why would man want to do anything other than to make his experience as benificial as possible for himself, at the expense of others, as that would be the result, as shown in history, when studying the nature of man.... To assume that said man would sacrifice anything to help another have a better "Life" experience, ignores all of human history and the true nature of mankind... Why do anything socially or morally benificial at the sacrifice of Selfindulgence... heck, if this is all you got, you got to live it up.... why do anything else?

 

Ok, you just contradicted yourself merely one paragraph down.
By placing the 10 commandments in a building of LAW you infer that the American Government indeed accepts and endorses them as LAW to be used on the people. This is a false assumption. Separate your church from our state.
Separation of church and state. Religious symbols are a symbol of said church. Thus they must be separate from state buildings. That IS in the constitution. One of the definitions of establish is "4. to cause to be accepted or recognized." If it is in front of the court room it is establishing the idea that the 10 commandments are accepted and recognized by all americans. They are not. Everyone likes bringing up do not murder and do not steal, but coveting is not illegal, nor is worshiping a god that is not your own.
Gee guess who put those there? Theists. Atheists don't need to put stuff into stone. They put it into paper and principles.
Religion is part of almost all history. So is ignorance. Go make a museum for our history and put a religious section in it. Keep it out of our court rooms. And just because a leader spoke about religion doesn't mean you can put the 10 commandments in the courtroom. You can fight for a religious law all you want. In the end it is still unconstitutional.
I would agree with that statement, however I would say it has detrimented the perspective considerably, but that is my opinion and open to debate (although I think we should stay on topic).
Um, that's exactly what the church itself has done throughout history. Taken man's trusting nature and corrupted it for political gain and power.
Um, firstly, the lack of belief in a god does not equate communism or socialism. Secondly, how is atheism contradictory to the way the world really is? And thirdly, which ideals of atheism are flawed to never succeed? (last I checked there really was only one ideal. God cannot be proven to exist.)
Why would the world fall apart into chaos if atheists were in charge? Just because you don't believe in god doesn't mean you don't have morals. Morals are beneficial to the society. I know that murder is wrong (in most non-survival contexts). I don't learn this from god or religion, I learn this from life and instincts. And what is wrong with being equal with animals? A lack of god has worked just fine for them for millenia. You are an animal too. Animals follow an order, they don't need god to govern their lives.
Because sometimes helping others helps yourself. Much like christians doing the right thing (helping others) so they can get into heaven (helping themselves). I have yet to meet a christian who does things out of true altruism (helping out of instinct and general morality vs for personal gain).

 

It wasn't contradiction... just easily misread, which is my mistake...

I was referring to them being an endorsement of American Law... the law we observe here in the USA...

Are we debating whether or not posting the 10 commandments, in, or near a courthouse declares them as american law? cause we both know it doesn't and was never intended to... the intention was always a historical and symbolic recognition of LAW itself, and being that our nation's leaders throughout our history, and our nation generally respected Christianity and it's ideals, those depictions of law were used as memorials... It doesn't establish endorsement, but recognizes history and our leaders or citizens widely held beliefs, which are part of our identity...

You're leading me and others to believe that the government placing, or allowing placement of those monuments, expected people to actually FOLLOW those beliefs? COME ON.... We both know that wasn't the intention... as they would have legislated it or petitioned for it, not just put some old biblical text on a rock outside a courthouse. It's kinda funny to think that our government was thinking... hey, let's tell people not to covet, or use God's name in vain... and let's do it by placing a stone monument outside a courthouse.... they'll really get it then!

Next thing..... phew....

References to God or a Creator in the stone of our nations capital are depictions of our HISTORY! Abraham Lincoln... he was a decent enough guy... ever read what he's said? A heck of a lot about God, our rights as people.... Maybe MLK? He said a lot, and it's memorialized in public areas... and it was all christian... How about our declaration of independance? It's all part of our HISTORY and the legacy of America.... and it all included God and Theistic Principles.... if the founding father's intention constitutionally was to not include religion in government, why did they include Theism so much in their government texts, in their distribution of Bibles in public education and so on.... They founded the nation and wrote the constitution, wouldn't it make some sense that they'd have stood up against Theism in government if they didn't want it, but.... the realitiy is that they INCLUDED Theism in their documents, in the declaration of independance, and it's demonstated in many presidential speaches, political movements, and the cause for CIVIL WAR... God, Religion, or Theism, has been an intregal part of our government historically.... anyone can see that. If our leaders of the past really wished it not to be.... then why was it included? they could have refrained or taken it out, but they didn't? Why? because it was part of them, and their respected beliefs about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... not respecting the fact that those beliefs influence them politically, or are part of our government is sincerely naive... a government free from religion is a government free from people. people are religious by nature... as the religion of atheism shows just as much as the religions of Christianity, Islam, or others.

-You forget HISTORY..... MAN has taken EVERY worldview and religion throughout history and perverted it to accomplish political gain or power.... it's not just what you refer to as "The Church".... look at political movements founded in the idea of "No God", they accomplished the same perversion.... Power Corrupts.... Man is inherantly corrupt.... history proves it over and over again... You cannot just select history about Men in power in a role like "The Church" and take their atrocities, when Men in Power in roles outside the church have done just as much.... It's about the Men, not the belief system they corrupted.... you could argue that Marx or others corrupted the Atheistic viewpoints in their pursuit of goverment systems....

In that regard, I associate Socialism, or Communism with the ideals of Atheism, as that is the system in which I see Atheism most appropriately played out... you say that helping others helps yourself... that would be a typical socialist mentality.... thus why I equate it as such... although many political systems would be possibly agreeable with an atheistic perspective, I still think they deny the true tendancy of man....

Helping others may help yourself, but persecuting others in pursuit of dominance and power sure is pretty darn helpful to myself as well, as many individuals throughout history have done and done pretty well... at least they lived it up, and those around them had it pretty good as well... at least for their lifetime.... History is full of examples of Selfish men (IN and out of Christianity) or groups of Selfish men (IN and out of Christianity) trampling others to gain power and success.... how many examples are there in history of selfless men , or groups of selfless Men truely doing anything for others outside of eternal consequence and that succeeding in any way? Men are inherently selfish, and inherently in pursuit of power... trying to convince me that if all mankind was atheist that they would adopt the mentality that helping others was the best way to go.... yeah... that works..... it's contradictory to all of human history and who we are....

General "Morality" has no foundation outside of Eternity... who cares what others do or don't do...

Outside of eternity, I'm sure I wouldn't.... I'd do whatever I could to further my own position, many times at the consequence of another.... why do otherwise? If I can achieve success and power with no regard other than the possibility of death, I'd go for it... wouldn't you..... heck, if you die, it's not that big of a deal... you're gone.... so what? not like I'd care what happens to the earth after I'd die, why should I?... for their sake? HECK NO.... They'll only live and die too... I'm living and dying for myself.... I have no reason to do it for anyone else. Why do it for anyone other than me... It's surely not instictual... as history has shown that man is instinctually selfish... it's a greater morality that appeals to us to go beyond that... and without some eternal consequence what appeal does that morality have?


I don't believe there are many, if any, christians who operate out of true and pure altruism. The reason for any behavior is inherantly selfish in many basic ways.... at least Chrisitianity accounts for the harsh reality of pure human selfishness.....

 

i highly disagree. Throughout history the politics of man have change the original documents that the religious leaders hold as the word of god. It has happened time, and time, and time again.

I would be almost certain that even the original documents, if they still existed, would be full of bias and viewpoints of man. From the moments of a religions conception upon more than 1 person, that religion has changed. I would go as far as to say that there is no religious document in existance without the bias of man. There is no ''pure'' religion.

It does not take a huge convention of brilliant minds with endless time to point out flaws in a religions belief. You yourself WeDriveScions are a theist. It truly is a sad thing that you believe all people do good for others without self benefit just to please a god. This statement truly offends me on a personal level.

i saw a homeless man being attacked by 3 people once. 2 of these men had knives, and were larger than I. I dropped what i was doing, ran over, hit an attacker on the head, picked up his knife, stabbed 2 of the guys near fatally, and then took a deep stab wound into my back near my spine. Then i slashed the guy in the arm and he ran away. I did this out of no self indulgence or for anything. i did not get on the news, i did not get any sort of reward, i received nothing. I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT do this good deed for the approval of any god. I dont even feel good about what i did... because i realize how brutally terrifying the experience was and how I, an unarmed 17 year old (at the time), risked his own life to save another innocent human being. Whats scares me is that out of all the people walking by, i am the only one to help this poor man who has been $hit on not only by society, but by god himself if he even exists.

So for you to say that man has ONLY done good for his own benefit unless there is a god to please, is very wrong.

 

I say why do anything if there is no consequence or benifit.... adopting an atheist viewpoint, What good did it do you, or him by saving his life? He would have ceased to exist if he were to die, so what? There was honor in your doing what you did.... why? It's good to help others.... why? from an aethist viewpoint this doesn't logically make sense... apeal to me in logic.... why, if this is all we have, what makes human life more valuable than the life of the animal, and why hold it higher than those of the animal...

I say what I say because although I know you are an atheist, I know you realize and respect a moral actuality that lies outside that belief... A belief that's beyond animal nature, or the true nature of man.... a moral code of "Right" and "Wrong"... It can't be evolved for the survival of man, as man would survive best if the week and sick were killed off for the stronger... like in the animal kingdom... we have a moral code beyond that, where did it come from, and why does it make sense from an atheistic perspective....

We do what we do because of a moral code, a respect for the sactity of life.... even as an atheist, you value life, but why value life if we live and die and cease to exist... it doesn't make logical sense...

Man does good cause he has an appeal to a moral sense of what is "right" and what is "wrong"... which I believe to be fully unexplained by Atheism...

You take an entirely incorrect perspective of the theology of Christianity if you believe that God S*$t on that man by not interviening, which you'd have to study a bit to understand correctly and fully... blaming God for every horrible thing to happen to men isn't acurate and unfair to God himself..."

It's been put into simpler terminology by your disliked author, lewis, in "The problem of Pain", which accounts in too simplistic a way of why if God is so good, does he permit atrocity and pain on his creation, or even allow the concept of hell itself.... it's complex theology, which Lewis attempts to break down into simpler ideas... good, but not great... there are better venues to see the real theology behind the issue, but his is a start....

I do respect what you did and honor it... I'm not one of those people and currently work at the Portland Rescue Mission, commiting my time, work, and passion into helping the homeless with food, clothing, and as much shelter as we can, and assisting men recovering from addiction to drugs and alcohol... I see the worst of that issue and do my best to help in the ways I can... showing others that I do respect life, I do honor them as valuable people, and I want to encourage them that there is more to this life than all the hopelessness they know.

I see the worst of the worst of what our society can do, and what man, left to his own devices, can choose to do as well... I see an amazing and strong benifit to true Christianity and see attacts on that true Christianity as meritless and unfounded... I've spent years of my life dedicated to protect and value life, share hope, and spread a theology of value for life, value for others, and value for selflessness, which is in opposition to the nature of man I've seen around the world....

I've seen first hand the forests destroyed in Brazil, I've seen with my own eyes the hunger and strife in the Africa we've destroyed through greed and consumption, and I've seen the consequence of War on South Korea... and the bunkers, tanks, and tunnels that run underneath the schools I've tought at. The world is full of examples of Man, when left to his own self, has destroyed and persecuted others... and done so in the name of many worldviews... Including Theistic and Atheistic ideals...

But, show me than man, on his own, is inherantly selfless and good, and explain how we gained morality, when it defies evolutionary theory, or logic, and why we must behave morally if there is no consequence for not doing so? Explain why life has value, outside of relationships, for why do they have value? Explain how Atheism could survive in our world without turning over the nature of man. If all we are in a group of atoms spinning beyond comprehension, then why value us? We will be, and then we won't.... there will be no worth is doing good or not....

Once again, it's not a simple concept.... people do good for many reasons, but didn't it make you feel better to do good? didn't others praise your actions? Didn't you know that man was thankful to you? You did what you did because is was the "Right" thing to do.... Why was it right? That is the question.... Why do a "Right" thing or not do a "Wrong" thing from an atheistic viewpoint?

 

Whoa whoa whoa, backup... Are you f@cking serious?! Theism is the reason for the civil war?! Sweet zombie jesus you need a history refresher...