@Emperor Devon--mental illness is entirely unconnected to using religion as an excuse for evil behavior.

I believe you are missing my point, which is that the word of God can be used to justify perfectly immoral actions.

This topic of mine has gotten kind of out-of-hand. As SilentScope001 put it, it's a firestorm. This thread was not intended as a debate, merely as a way to discuss views and experiences with Atheists such as myself, not Atheism itself as a belief. I've noticed Achilles and Nancy Allen have been going at it more than anyone, and while I appreciate the viewpoints of both, I think you might have taken my intentions out of context.

Perhaps the moderators would see fit to break the conversation out into a new thread (?).

I can do that--do you and/or Nancy have a preference where to split the thread off? --Jae

Might as well keep it in Kavar's Corner.

Sorry--I meant at which post number in this thread do you want to make the break. :) --Jae

I would defer to the OP.

Avoid using 'deluded' or any other terms describing someone's mental status, please, unless we're talking about mental illness, of course. It's an emotionally charged word and there are far better choices.

Which is exactly why I used it as people do use the term no matter how wrong it is. The point is Atheists don't like having their nonbelief attacked and Christians, Jews, ect don't like having their beliefs attacked. It cannot work both ways, you cannot say that you don't like being attacked while attacking others.

I can do that--do you and/or Nancy have a preference where to split the thread off? --Jae

Uh...wha? Whatever, doesn't bother me.

Which is exactly why I used it as people do use the term no matter how wrong it is. The term itself is not "wrong". "Delusion" and its derivatives are actual words that are used to describe actual conditions. If someone was (literally) psychotic, which word would you use to describe that person's mental state? If you're were using it as a slur, that would be one thing, but if the person really is psychotic, then it's something else.

The point is Atheists don't like having their nonbelief attacked and Christians, Jews, ect don't like having their beliefs attacked. It cannot work both ways, you cannot say that you don't like being attacked while attacking others. I can't speak for all atheists, but I will say that you're more than welcome to attempt to poke holes in my philosophies. In fact, I've made several open invitations. If the evidence points somewhere else or if my thinking is flawed, then I can only benefit from such discussions. I'm pretty sure that I won't turn into a pillar of salt if shown to be incorrect :)

Perhaps you should encourage them to create LF accounts. We could cut out the middleman and I could debate with them directly :)

I certainly appreciate your pastor's response to this. Unfortunately, I really hoping to hear your response. If I wanted to know what some pastor thought, I would have asked one.

I suppose I could sit here and spout off Dawkins and Harris all day (in fact, there's little doubt that they have influenced my thinking). However at the end of the day, I have to think for myself and form my own opinions about things.

Please ask your pastor why God .... Please let me know what he says.

P.S. If you think he would be interested in corresponding with me directly, please let me know and I'll give you my email address to give to him next time you see him.

Kudos to your pastor. The mental gymnastics here are very impressive. ;)

As for your argument (or your pastor's?):

In fact, I should probably caution against throwing stones in glass houses right about now. ;)


Just what are your intentions with these comments? You suggested I ask my pastor some of these questions, and I asked. Now it appears you are mocking me for following your suggestion and trying to formulate a decent answer. I don't pretend to be anywhere near an apologetics expert, and I don't have an atheist.org website from which to pull my canned, ready-made arguments, because there are subtle but important differences from apologist to apologist, and all of them require very careful reading. I've been working my butt off trying to read Zacharias (who you'd appreciate but who is a very heavy read), Geisler, and Lewis, on top of learning about the history and development of atheism on something more than the initial superficial read I'd given it 20 years back when I was looking at it then, and picking up info on Hume, Kant, Sartre, and so forth, because philosophy was one of the few courses I _didn't_ take when I was an undergrad. I apologize that I'm simply not able to synthesize the equivalent of 3 college courses in a a couple months' time and formulate an answer that meets your level of acceptability.

Just what are your intentions with these comments? My intention is address the fact that I'm no longer debating with just you. Apparently you've invited a 3rd set of opinions into our discussions (which is fine). Additionally, you prefaced your comments in such a way as to make me think that you were simply relaying the advice you were given. Nothing more than that. :)

You suggested I ask my pastor some of these questions, and I asked. I don't recall doing any such thing, but my memory might be failing me.

Now it appears you are mocking me for following your suggestion and trying to formulate a decent answer. No mocking intended. Really. In fact, I'd welcome an opportunity to speak with a religious figure that you hold in high-regard. If that person isn't able to answer my questions or address my points, maybe you'll give my opinions a little more consideration (I don't fool myself into thinking that you've pondered a single point I've made here, although I would be pleasantly surprised to learn that I've read you wrong).

I don't pretend to be anywhere near an apologetics expert, and I don't have an atheist.org website from which to pull my canned, ready-made arguments, because there are subtle but important differences from apologist to apologist, and all of them require very careful reading. <snip>
I apologize that I'm simply not able to synthesize the equivalent of 3 college courses in a a couple months' time and formulate an answer that meets your level of acceptability. If I may, I think you might be putting more thought into this that what's necessary. I try (and often fail, I'm sure) to limit my questions to those that I feel are pertinent to make my point. I don't expect a dissertation, I simply ask you to put blind faith and years of conditioning aside (i.e. temporarily divorce yourself from emotional responses) and examine these things from a rational point of view.

I know that questioning beliefs that have been held for a lifetime can be difficult. If they can be defended with reason, then they deserve to be kept. If they rely on faith and don't hold up to reason, then what benefit do they really offer? My 2 cents.

Parting thoughts: My apologies if my comments came across as mocking. I think if you read them as they were intended you'll see that they weren't meant to. Thanks.

EDIT: I just reread what you quoted. The "mental gymnastics" part was a dig, but for him, not you. Also, I stand behind the "glass houses" comment.

This topic of mine has gotten kind of out-of-hand. As SilentScope001 put it, it's a firestorm. This thread was not intended as a debate, merely as a way to discuss views and experiences with Atheists such as myself, not Atheism itself as a belief. I've noticed Achilles and Nancy Allen have been going at it more than anyone, and while I appreciate the viewpoints of both, I think you might have taken my intentions out of context.

As I put it in the first post in this thread and this morning, if you're Atheist, you're Atheist, being a jerk about it will only serve to make it look bad. The same for religion. If that's all you're looking for then I think that covers it.

I don't recall doing any such thing, but my memory might be failing me.I can't find it atm but I didn't go on an extensive search. It might have been a PM. I might have read something as an implication. Don't know right now.

No mocking intended. Really. In fact, I'd welcome an opportunity to speak with a religious figure that you hold in high-regard. If that person isn't able to answer my questions or address my points, maybe you'll give my opinions a little more consideration (I don't fool myself into thinking that you've pondered a single point I've made here, although I would be pleasantly surprised to learn that I've read you wrong).
Why do you think I'd be willing to put this kind of work into it if I didn't take you seriously? I'm probably one of the few Christians who's willing to be tolerant enough about your viewpoint to talk to you about it, try to understand where you're coming from, and find an answer for your objections. It's rather difficult to try to answer your questions if I don't think about the issues you've raised first. Yes, you did have me pegged wrong in that respect, which I find more distressing than anything else. Just because I don't come to the same conclusion you do doesn't mean I haven't given it some thought.

If I may, I think you might be putting more thought into this that what's necessary. I try (and often fail, I'm sure) to limit my questions to those that I feel are pertinent to make my point. I don't expect a dissertation, I simply ask you to put blind faith and years of conditioning aside (i.e. temporarily divorce yourself from emotional responses) and examine these things from a rational point of view.
I know that questioning beliefs that have been held for a lifetime can be difficult. If they can be defended with reason, then they deserve to be kept. If they rely on faith and don't hold up to reason, then what benefit do they really offer? My 2 cents.
I'm willing to consider many things if you also are willing to put blind 'faith' in atheism aside to consider the possibility that there may be some merit in some of the answers that theism can provide that atheism can never answer satisfactorily.

While you may not expect a dissertation, you nevertheless expect answers that are more than superficial. Many of the questions you ask require some serious research to properly understand the deep issues they raise. I'm trying to show that some respect instead of giving a flippant answer, and it requires a great deal of time and effort for me. I have learned some cool things along the way. :)

Parting thoughts: My apologies if my comments came across as mocking. I think if you read them as they were intended you'll see that they weren't meant to. Thanks.I'll take you at your word (that's not meant sarcastically, either).

I can't find it atm but I didn't go on an extensive search. It might have been a PM. I might have read something as an implication. Don't know right now. Fair enough.

Why do you think I'd be willing to put this kind of work into it if I didn't take you seriously? My hypothesis: Because you think that you're right and I'm wrong.

I'm probably one of the few Christians who's willing to be tolerant enough about your viewpoint to talk to you about it, try to understand where you're coming from, and find an answer for your objections. With all due respect, I can't think of any examples where you have done this. From my perspective, all of my key point have been glossed over or ignored, hence why they keep coming up over and over again. You are very good at presenting your perspective, however no one has been willing to truly engage mine.

It's rather difficult to try to answer your questions if I don't think about the issues you've raised first. Yes, you did have me pegged wrong in that respect, which I find more distressing than anything else. Just because I don't come to the same conclusion you do doesn't mean I haven't given it some thought. That may be.

I'm willing to consider many things if you also are willing to put blind 'faith' in atheism aside to consider the possibility that there may be some merit in some of the answers that theism can provide that atheism can never answer satisfactorily. Faith in atheism is contradictory. :)
I have stated repeatedly I'm willing to go wherever the evidence leads. That's not just lip-service.

I think that you assume that I'm not familiar with religious doctrine or Christianity specifically. I've been a Christian and my experience has been that it offers no answers.

It seems to me that if Atheism is so obviously wrong and misguided, it could quickly be derailed with a few sound arguments from religion. Thus far, none have come. From my perspective, this is because it has none to offer. If you have one, I'll be happy to hear it, however you've yet to present any. This isn't an insult, rather an observation.

Also, I'd be interested in hearing more about what it is that theism provides that atheism cannot satisfactorily.

While you may not expect a dissertation, you nevertheless expect answers that are more than superficial. Many of the questions you ask require some serious research to properly understand the deep issues they raise. I'm trying to show that some respect instead of giving a flippant answer, and it requires a great deal of time and effort for me. I have learned some cool things along the way. :) Fair enough. For the most part, I thought my questions were pretty much "what do you think" type questions, however I can see where that may not actually be the case.

I'll take you at your word (that's not meant sarcastically, either). I appreciate it. Thank you.

At the end of the day - i feel that whether someone believes in a God or nor is irrelevant, i feel that its best to concentrate on how we live our lives and how we treat each other. I'll be frank - i myself am Atheist but i still respect people if they believe in a God as that is their choice in life.

I apologise for the delay in replying, I was on retreat over Easter. Here is the post I wrote beforehand in its entirety, but could not post due to login problems (we apologise for the inconvenience):



I appreciate the comparison, however the fact still remains that he was not an an atheist.
Funny, I don't recall claiming that he was. Rather, I pointed out his somewhat unusual 'positive' Christianity, and his disdain for the more mainstream ideas therein.

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler

Said on the day of the Enabling Act vote! Good grief man, do you know nothing about historiography? At the very least, you are quoting out of context to a huge degree! Clearly the point of this is to reassure those who would be reassured that he would use this new power responsibly, while he bullied those who would not by surrounding the opera house where they had met, following the Reichstag Fire which may or may not have been started by the Nazis, with men drawn from the Sturm Abteilung. It is clearly a political move. The context shows that quite clearly.

I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.

I never denied this. However, it is also clear from what he said in private, with those he trusted, and perhaps even cared for, that he had no liking for traditional Christianity. As I have shown you, he was not a Catholic - as his actions in imprisoning a quarter of all Catholic priests as well as other persecutions should show. Fear of the reprisals was all that prevented him and the rest of the Nazi Party from more vicious attacks, as shown by their own notes.

Their regimes were based upon what they thought best for society, not necessarily what reasoned examination of ethics would prescribe. Again, Mao and Stalin are examples of the dangers of dogmatic thinking, not atheistic thinking.
My point was rather that if Hitler were a Catholic as you said, he would be going against a morality that was absolute and of the highest imperative. Stalin and Mao, however, went against more relative moralities, which would be easier to bend and break. They were atheist, and presumably had some morality. Their actions, therefore, would seem to be due in part to their morality, if they in fact believed in a morality. I would posit that their consciences were severely malformed, but then this should be quite clear.

It is also interesting to note the number of atheist states, and what has happened in those cases. The only one I can think of is Turkey, where even now it is dangerous to be Christian, outward displays of religion can be dangerous, many Greek Orthodox have been deported due to the Istanbul Pogrom and the Patriarch of Antioch, last I heard, was under house arrest, while his office, cemeteries et al. have been bombed and otherwise assaulted.

Please note I will be away until Sunday.

Funny, I don't recall claiming that he was. Rather, I pointed out his somewhat unusual 'positive' Christianity, and his disdain for the more mainstream ideas therein. Funny, I don't recall claiming that you did. :)

I was simply making a point. A point that you appear not to argue here, but do later in your post. Since there appears to be a contradiction, I have to ask for clarification. Was Hitler a Catholic or wasn't he? If he was not, then what were his theological views?

Said on the day of the Enabling Act vote! Good grief man, do you know nothing about historiography? Considering the number of conversations you've "excused" yourself from, I caution you that your use of this tone is quite hypocritical, sir.

At the very least, you are quoting out of context to a huge degree! The only way that comment could be taken out of context is if it were preceded by something along the lines of "The following is something that you will never hear me say" or followed by "sike!" or "not!".

Clearly the point of this is to reassure those who would be reassured that he would use this new power responsibly, while he bullied those who would not by surrounding the opera house where they had met, following the Reichstag Fire which may or may not have been started by the Nazis, with men drawn from the Sturm Abteilung. It is clearly a political move. The context shows that quite clearly. It's also possible that he said it because he meant it. Your theory is a good one, but it is not the only one. Furthermore, I'll think you'll have quite a difficult time proving your case.

I never denied this. However, it is also clear from what he said in private, with those he trusted, and perhaps even cared for, that he had no liking for traditional Christianity. As I have shown you, he was not a Catholic - as his actions in imprisoning a quarter of all Catholic priests as well as other persecutions should show. Fear of the reprisals was all that prevented him and the rest of the Nazi Party from more vicious attacks, as shown by their own notes. Cue aforementioned contradiction.

My point was rather that if Hitler were a Catholic as you said, he would be going against a morality that was absolute and of the highest imperative. And this absolute moral imperative has its basis in what? The highly contradictory Bible? Your incredulity is not proof, nor it is a sound argument.

Stalin and Mao, however, went against more relative moralities, which would be easier to bend and break. Is your argument against non-religious ethics or the authoritarians that held such "ethics"?

They were atheist, and presumably had some morality. I'm glad you included "presumably". Did you have something other that supposition?

Their actions, therefore, would seem to be due in part to their morality, if they in fact believed in a morality. I would posit that their consciences were severely malformed, but then this should be quite clear. Indeed it is! Unfortunately, this puts your argument on shaky ground.

It is also interesting to note the number of atheist states, and what has happened in those cases. The only one I can think of is Turkey, where even now it is dangerous to be Christian, outward displays of religion can be dangerous, many Greek Orthodox have been deported due to the Istanbul Pogrom and the Patriarch of Antioch, last I heard, was under house arrest, while his office, cemeteries et al. have been bombed and otherwise assaulted. According to the UN, Turkey is 99% Muslim. The state may be officially secular, but the people are not. State imposed secularism is very different from cultural secularism, as I'm sure you're well aware.

What of Norway?

Funny, I don't recall claiming that you did. :)

I was simply making a point. A point that you appear not to argue here, but do later in your post. Since there appears to be a contradiction, I have to ask for clarification. Was Hitler a Catholic or wasn't he? If he was not, then what were his theological views?
He wasn't, at least in what he believed in private. I think this much is quite clear from his actions.

Considering the number of conversations you've "excused" yourself from, I caution you that your use of this tone is quite hypocritical, sir.
I see no correlation between the two.

The only way that comment could be taken out of context is if it were preceded by something along the lines of "The following is something that you will never hear me say" or followed by "sike!" or "not!".

I suggest you check your dictionary.

It's also possible that he said it because he meant it. Your theory is a good one, but it is not the only one. Furthermore, I'll think you'll have quite a difficult time proving your case.
No, its not the only theory. But it is the one which fits most with events, Hitler's character, the actions of the Nazi Party etc - in short, the context.

Cue aforementioned contradiction.
I never denied that he held a religious belief - only that he was Catholic.

And this absolute moral imperative has its basis in what? The highly contradictory Bible? Your incredulity is not proof, nor it is a sound argument.

Actually, in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded in Tradition and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the New Testament, which is believed by Catholics to be at the least, inspired by the word of God. Furthermore, the Pope is, as I am sure you are aware, infallible on matters of faith and morals. IF (and note that this is a hypothetical situation) Hitler had been a Catholic, as you inferred, he would have gone against an absolute moral standpoint, as opposed to a relative moral standpoint, from which one can veer more easily.

Is your argument against non-religious ethics or the authoritarians that held such "ethics"?
My argument is that moral relativism is easy to manipulate to your own ends - easier than absolute moralities, at least.

I'm glad you included "presumably". Did you have something other that supposition?

Indeed it is! Unfortunately, this puts your argument on shaky ground.

I think perhaps you missed the point - the combination of moral relativism and a malformed conscience is, I think you will agree, a dangerous one.

According to the UN, Turkey is 99% Muslim. The state may be officially secular, but the people are not. State imposed secularism is very different from cultural secularism, as I'm sure you're well aware.
Yes, but it does nonetheless seem that as a secular state, Turkey is failing to defend the Patriarch from the mob, which would seem to show a pro-Islamic bias. Whether this is on the ground or in the parliament buildings, it would seem to be there.

What of Norway?
Is this the same Norway with an established Lutheran church? What of it?

Atheism isn't a belief... it is a lack thereof.

I would have to disagree on this matter. Everything is a belief, but not everything is a religion. Atheism is the belief of no religion or any superiority of being in mankind or in the Universe for that matter.

Some believe they have the right and duty to persecute religion and that gives Atheism a bad name.

The thing is that the majority of anti-Atheists persecute everyone who does not believe what they do. This is completely natural in idea, but unnatural in how it goes down. Personally, I feel there are a lot of Christians who believe that since they think they are right they have every right to persecute, as long as they are not persecuted back.

But, I think it is likely that Atheism will soon take over the world. There is no need for God, and we will finally be waking up to that realization. Soon, the shackles of religion will be broken, and all religions will die. This is my view, and it is based on the fact that they approach the issue in a logical manner, and they got the aid of Science.

Even though I am a strong Satanist (LaVey Satanist; basically extreme Atheism), I do not believe this statement is true. We have the logical aid of science, but the majority of people now days ignore science completely and focus on numbers, e.g. 80% of Americans are Christians so it must be true. Look at American principles today, basically anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, anti-anything-against-God. The way the world is going I think that Christianity will soon takeover almost the majority of everything. All because of belief. No true religion is fact, only few are. Those who base religion of the now and the human-life are true; not science, not belief, but reality. Don’t mean to be bias here, but Satanism is one of the only religions that is true fact. We don’t focus on disproving God, we focus on ourselves, our lives, and our carnal nature displayed in every living being. Nobody admires that way of living anymore.

"persecution of religion"

Persecution of religion is more of denying the existence of any other belief other than your own (or religion for that matter), there is nothing wring with it, but sometimes the ways it goes down is completely intolerable to the persecuted.

If you're saying that theists aren't harming anyone by being theists and should be left alone, you're wrong. American theism is influencing our ability to prepare our children for the future by introducing pseudo-science such as Intelligent Design and working to vilify legitimate science such as evolutionary theory. By far the largest voting group is Evangelical, therefore they are determining which elected officials make it into public office and which agenda items are put on the front burner. The list goes on and on.

I would say so far this is the most accurate quote of how America is portrayed now.

Islam is arguably the fastest growing religion in the world and they are the ones churning out terrorists by the dozen. Muslims with college educations go to their deaths "knowing" that their actions will a) kill Allah's enemies and b) ensure their place in paradise. We might say, "well that's ridiculous", but then again we're Muslim-atheists.

Well, not necessarily. Islam is not what the Radical extremists of Iraq and Iran make it out to be. Truly, Islam is peaceful. I think this is a bad portrayal of Islamic belief.

Honestly, I just saw how long the thread was, so of course I am not going to look at every post.

I think that the way Atheists are perceived is an abomination to all of mankind. For a people who try to promote the human way of living and how to make humanity greater, they get too much criticism. Do people not see that they are helping all of us with there ways? If you dislike Atheists and believe they are wrong then tell me how your beliefs make us better? Tell me how Christianity will help us? Will there be another 15-18 Crusades sprouting from Christianity? (or has that already started on the grounds of Iraq, and North Korea?)

North Korea has nuclear weapons and is threatening to use them. There are more grounds to attack them than Iraq, but it hasn't. Unless Kim Jong declares Jihad or a war on believers religion can be safely ruled out as a motive.

Being intolerent of religion, Anti-theism, I think that gets a lot of backs up. But it goes the other way as well. I don't want to hear you preaching Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Atheism to me. I don't care if you're peddling Jedi beliefs, I'm not interested. Same goes for politics, I don't care if you're Democratic, Republican, Labor, Liberal, an extreme Greenie, a fence riding wuss or any combination of the above. If you're any of those things, great, you are, and I apologise if my words upset you at all. You're not going to do yourself any favors bringing it up at every opportunity. I think that's part of the problem with Atheists in that some do beat people into the ground about it and are arrogant, bullying, condescending, double standered, egomaniacal, Jae can probably direct you to an example but unless she does I don't think it's my place to. The same could be said of those who believe in religion, I may have even seen such cases, but whenever the topic comes up the no right to belief Atheist stance is something I've always seen stick out and I think others can say the same thing.

This is a warning for flaming--this sounds way too much like an attack on Scyrone, and even if it's not it's general name-calling and definitely not in the friendly spirit of this forum. Keep it civil, please. --Jae

I didn't mean it to be, and I apologise.

Don't edit moderator edits or delete warnings, either. --Jae

He wasn't, at least in what he believed in private. I think this much is quite clear from his actions. Really? How? Isn't killing promoted in the Bible? Aren't there grounds for anti-semitism in the NT? So how would Hitler's actions contradict Catholicism? Or is it more likely that they contradict your view of Catholicism?

I see no correlation between the two.The correlation is that one that excuses themselves from tough questions should not presume to act as though they have a superior intellect.

I suggest you check your dictionary. Gladly. Which word?

No, its not the only theory. But it is the one which fits most with events, Hitler's character, the actions of the Nazi Party etc - in short, the context. The context as you see it. Let me try this another way? Do you believe that Usama bin Laden really believes in Islam?

I never denied that he held a religious belief - only that he was Catholic.Ok, then which religion did he subscribe to?

Actually, in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded in Tradition and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the New Testament, which is believed by Catholics to be at the least, inspired by the word of God. Furthermore, the Pope is, as I am sure you are aware, infallible on matters of faith and morals. IF (and note that this is a hypothetical situation) Hitler had been a Catholic, as you inferred, he would have gone against an absolute moral standpoint, as opposed to a relative moral standpoint, from which one can veer more easily. So in other words, because some men you've never met said so. The Pope in certainly not infallable, however I do acknowledge that you've been conditioned to think so because of your religious traditions. If you have some evidence to support your claim, I'd be more than happy to have a look at it.

IF Hitler was a Catholic, then he would have been yet one more person that cherry-picked from the Bible to support his or her viewpoint. Perhaps if the Bible were less contradictory, such actions wouldn't be possible.

My argument is that moral relativism is easy to manipulate to your own ends - easier than absolute moralities, at least.I'm sorry. Who here is arguing for moral relativism? My argument (as is the case for most atheists and some moral philosopers) is that absolute morality does not come from God. In many cases the morals that are attributed to God are found lacking compared to morals that can be derived for reasoned examination of ethics.

I think perhaps you missed the point - the combination of moral relativism and a malformed conscience is, I think you will agree, a dangerous one. Agreed! Hence why I'm an atheist.

Yes, but it does nonetheless seem that as a secular state, Turkey is failing to defend the Patriarch from the mob, which would seem to show a pro-Islamic bias. Whether this is on the ground or in the parliament buildings, it would seem to be there. I will not be moving the goalpost, sir. I asked for an example of an atheist state run amok and you offered a 99% Muslim country.

Is this the same Norway with an established Lutheran church? What of it?Yes, the Norway where only 36% of the population considers themselves religious compared to the 46% that consider themselves non-religions (with an additional 9% explicitly atheistic). Any Norwegian mobs looking to take over the world that we should be concerned about? How's their murder rate? Adult literacy? All I know is that they've held the top spot on the UN Human Development Index for the last 7 years.

Here's something I wanted to offer up. A friend of mine had his cat operated on, his leg had to be amputated, and he was praying daily for it to be given a good quality of life. Well the cat's gone missing, it was locked up, there was no way it could have escaped, there's nothing at all to show that it did escape or is somehow hiding. Maybe, just maybe, God answered the prayer and had done something to benefit the cat. Can Atheists in their infinite wisdom provide any other explanation?

Don’t mean to be bias here, but Satanism is one of the only religions that is true fact. We don’t focus on disproving God, we focus on ourselves, our lives, and our carnal nature displayed in every living being. Nobody admires that way of living anymore.

Too much sometimes IMO. Some of the Satanic Rules sound more greedy than simply placing importance on the self.

If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

LeVayen Satanism despite the name has some okay ideas (mainly the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ones), but some of them are very harsh IMO.

I would hesitate to call it true Atheism - Atheism is nothing but a disbelief in God (or Gods) without any other philosophies. Even the idea of living a good life and helping others which many Atheists believe isn't unique to their non-religion. That LeVayen Satanists also view Satan a prominent symbol makes them even less similar (as Atheism has no such things).

Satanism is a lot more like Objectivism or individualism IMO. If you've read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche or Ayn Rand you can see a ton of similarities between their philosophies and LeVey's (who he said influenced his writings considerably).

I agree with Emperor Devon more than I do with Scyrone, especially about Satanism being an extreme Atheism. Although I cannot agree with either when it comes to whether Atheism is a belief or a nonbelief. In my opinion, it is like the "glass half empty/glass half full" philosophy, in that it depends on the view of the Atheist whether they simply do not believe in any religion, or as I see it, a belief that there is no God. And any comparison between Atheism and Satanism is, quite simply, misplaced (and in my opinion, the Atheist equivalent of blasphemy), as the two are completely different. The only people I have heard saying that Atheism and Satanism are alike are religious people, including clergy and my own parents, who's view was obscured, and who I frankly thought were ignorant. Not saying Scyrone is ignorant for his comment, but he should know the line between the two is very finely drawn.

Although I cannot agree with either when it comes to whether Atheism is a belief or a nonbelief. In my opinion, it is like the "glass half empty/glass half full" philosophy, in that it depends on the view of the Atheist whether they simply do not believe in any religion, or as I see it, a belief that there is no God. It's a crude, but apt, analogy to think of it as a scale. To say that atheism is a belief in no God would be like saying atheism is at -100 on the scale. In fact, atheism is the scale at 0. I don't have a belief that there is no God because there is no reason at all to believe that there is one. Basing atheism on belief categorizes it with other beliefs, where it clearly does not belong.

And any comparison between Atheism and Satanism is, quite simply, misplaced (and in my opinion, the Atheist equivalent of blasphemy), as the two are completely different. My understanding of Satanism is limited, so please forgive me if I'm getting it wrong here. My understanding of Satanism is that it is a belief in God while renouncing him. Believing in the existence of Satan requires the belief in the existence of God. Atheist have no reason to believe in either.

The only people I have heard saying that Atheism and Satanism are alike are religious people, including clergy and my own parents, who's view was obscured, and who I frankly thought were ignorant. Not saying Scyrone is ignorant for his comment, but he should know the line between the two is very finely drawn. It's a common misconception, as I point out above.

It's a crude, but apt, analogy to think of it as a scale. To say that atheism is a belief in no God would be like saying atheism is at -100 on the scale. In fact, atheism is the scale at 0. I don't have a belief that there is no God because there is no reason at all to believe that there is one. Basing atheism on belief categorizes it with other beliefs, where it clearly does not belong.

Like I said, it's all about how the individual views it, and I think comparing belief to a scale is indeed a crude way to view something as complex as the beliefs of another. There is Weak Atheism, which is more along the lines of Agnosticism, then there is Strong Atheism, which can be associated with Anti-theism, which is not only a disbelief in religion, but an outright oppostion to it. I'm pretty much the latter. I view my own brand of Atheism as not just a skepticism of religion, but an outright oppostion to the existence of a deity of any kind. It's how I view my own beliefs, and I know that others view things differently, but I know that some people see Atheism as a lack of belief, but I view my own as a belief in itself. So if someone asks me "do you belief God doesn't exist?" I'll proudly say "Yes I belief that God does not exist."

*shrugs*

To each their own, however I do see your point that it can be difficult to operationally define atheism. From my perspective, "outright opposing the existence of a deity" would be something like trying to kickbox with an imaginary opponent :). I find carrying an "anti-belief" to be equally productive, but as you point out we each have our own way of seeing things.

Atheism and religion in itself are not problems. A large part of the problem is from the smugness people get from it that makes them think they are better than everyone else. If people chose not to look down the noses of those who do not hold the beliefs they do then I think it would be far more openly accepted and not criticised.

Atheism and religion in itself are not problems. A large part of the problem is from the smugness people get from it that makes them think they are better than everyone else. If people chose not to look down the noses of those who do not hold the beliefs they do then I think it would be far more openly accepted and not criticised.
Dare to dream Nancy Allen but it is a nice dream. On a general note, this discussion on atheism is one on a minority group. Like other minority groups, there are certain characteristics that classify it as such and hence we get stereotypes. One could say that an atheist is a hard core science person who believes in big bang and evolution but that doesn't classify all of them. That is part of the problem that we have in getting along. We are very polarized in our perceptions of people that it is hard to see that there are people who don't fit the mold. If you are looking for someone to blame, blame it on the forefathers with the concept of slavery or blame the media for aggravating the stereotypes. We can all point fingers but the hardest part is owning up to the fact that we may be wrong in our perceptions.

Like other minority groups, there are certain characteristics that classify it as such and hence we get stereotypes. One could say that an atheist is a hard core science person who believes in big bang and evolution but that doesn't classify all of them. Indeed, considering the general lack of understanding about science, it would not surprise me to learn that a great many atheists are unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of the big bang or evolution theories.

Most of the atheists that I know or whose works I've read have a strong background in science, however not all the scientists I'm familiar with are atheists.

We are very polarized in our perceptions of people that it is hard to see that there are people who don't fit the mold. Agreed! This article (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/gods-dupes1/) by Sam Harris does a great job of showing that there are varying degrees of faith. The problem (as he points out) is that even the relatively moderate faithful can hinder reasoned discourse.

I think the point that Nancy and a few others contributors to this thread might miss is that the general argument against religion is not pointed at individuals, rather the institution.

We can all point fingers but the hardest part is owning up to the fact that we may be wrong in our perceptions.

Now that is a dream. People will not face up to the fact they are wrong no matter how many times they are shown to be. I have, others have, I'm sure you have as well. Ferrous Cranus you might call them. To be fair I think it has a lot more to do with human nature than religion or Atheism.

People will not face up to the fact they are wrong no matter how many times they are shown to be. I don't know that I would apply that to all people, but yes, I certainly know what you mean. Certainly some people can be objective about their beliefs and are willing to cast aside old explanations when they find them to be no longer useful or true. To your point, some people are unwilling to let go of their beliefs no matter what evidence or argument is provided.

To be fair I think it has a lot more to do with human nature than religion or Atheism. I agree that it's in our nature to be egocentric, however some endeavors are better than others at negating this. I would say that any institution that claims to have absolute truth is going to be especially guilty of this.

Though this type of hypocracy shows in religion as well. People are only too happy to apply some of the dogma to themselves and leave the rest of it to others. Enforcing the Ten Commandments is fine when they're not the ones breaking them. Though if there's nothing else Anti-theists wish to take away from religion they should take this: He who is without sin cast the first stone. By that people can be critical of others, but they should look at themselves and see how well they hold up to their level of scrutiny and criticism. I'd be the first to admit I wouldn't do well but it's certainly something people want to think about.

This is a warning for flaming--this sounds way too much like an attack on Scyrone, and even if it's not it's general name-calling and definitely not in the friendly spirit of this forum. Keep it civil, please. –Jae

Thank you, Jae, but although it was attack-like, I must say that I don’t mind things like these. Me being a fierce “Religion/Politics/Philosophy talker” these questions and ‘attacks’ are necessary for my growth. But I thank you anyway.

You may not mind an attack, but we moderators do. ;) Flaming is unnecessary, it invites flaming in return, and it's counter-productive to learning. It's also against the rules here. :) --Jae

I don't want to hear you preaching Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Atheism to me.

Many people have told me this everywhere I go on the internet and in RL; all I have to say is that I can preach all I want to you, but it is up to you if you wish to listen or not. So if you don’t want to listen to me then ignore my ‘preaching’s’. ;)

I think that's part of the problem with Atheists in that some do beat people into the ground about it and are arrogant, bullying, condescending, double standered, egomaniacal

So below 3% of the population affects 300 million people? Atheists seem arrogant at many times, but I must say that it is not right to only point out Atheism. EVERY religion and belief is arrogant. Everyone believes they are right. That is the way of life and living. You cannot believe in something you do not believe is true. So in this rightful belief in everyone, there is certain arrogance. Honestly, Christians have many problems. It is hard to see what they truly believe in these days. It is so hard to see what they believe that they had to separate into a multiple of different denominations to help their own views better even out. There was a case awhile ago (I live in OH, but I don’t know if it happened here or not) that a group of Christian guys were verbally abusing a Mormon girl day after day at school. They made remarks such as “At least I don’t have 5 moms” and remarks that replaced Mormon with ‘Moron’. After awhile the girl got angry and called the guys “a bunch of Christian fa—ots.” The girl was sent to the office and put on a 3 week suspension for offending the guys religiously. The guys got off free because they were only expressing their religious freedom. I am not saying this happens all the time, but Christians are A LOT of times arrogant and they get away with it. They think there preaching to me about God is good for me when really it makes me want to hit them in the face. Why? Because it is ignorant, arrogant, and selfish for someone to come up to me and say I am wrong and have no proof to back it up.

but whenever the topic comes up the no right to belief Atheist stance is something I've always seen stick out and I think others can say the same thing.

It comes up because most religions make a big mess out of it.

Can Atheists in their infinite wisdom provide any other explanation?

Yes, the cat died and the vet took it to a place to have it’s remains placed delicately into many other things.

Yes, it wasn’t the prayer that healed the cat, it was the belief of the boy that the cat would feel better. Maybe the cat was better being dead.

Yes, it could be a lie.

Now provide an explanation for this. Since transfossils HAVE been found and early primitive being related to humans HAVE been found, and dinosaurs HAVE been proven to exist and have been related to some more evolved forms of animals, then how can evolution be wrong?

If Jesus bled, could be born, could die, could grow from young to old, could eat and drink, could have feeling, could feel happiness and suffering, could cry, and could go to the bathroom, then he must be human right? Maybe those magic tricks he performed were just tricks and the people he healed were his REAL followers. If he went to crowds to heal people then why heal everyone and not just select people to heal? Maybe it was all just a set-up by a magician to make everyone follow him. Could you answer that (in all your wisdom of course ;) )?

Some of the Satanic Rules sound more greedy than simply placing importance on the self.

Greed fuels all of society. Why not give all your money to the poor and give your internet away to someone who needs it to find a job? Because you would not want to give up your possessions. That’s Greed, and Greed is not bad.

If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.


When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.


Would you take everything into literal meaning? If you go to ‘Sea World’ then do you expect to go to another planet covered in Water? The Satanic Bible was meant for those who could understand and interpret it into those who have the quality for it. If someone robbed your house then wouldn’t you want them out? If you are on another person’s property are you going to make them mad? If someone was on your property and decided to vandalize them wouldn’t you tell them to stop? If they don’t would you call the police? Don’t take destroy into literal meaning.

"do unto others as you would have them do to you"

That’s only a small part of it. LaVey Satanism focuses more on one’s self and one’s life.

Not saying Scyrone is ignorant for his comment, but he should know the line between the two is very finely drawn.

Well actually this is correct to a limit. Forgive me if I misinterpreted wrongly. Satanism and Atheism are the same as in believing there is no superior God, but they are very much different in true ideal and philosophy.

My understanding of Satanism is that it is a belief in God while renouncing him. Believing in the existence of Satan requires the belief in the existence of God.

Haha, don’t worry my friend, you are with all the other 90% of Americans. This is not Satanism. I would post the link but I know it is over PG-13 material. If you want it then I suggest PMing me if you want the link.

The thing is pastors and preachers will do things and say things to hound and pound on Satanists like myself. They will do anything to keep us from showing what we truly believe. We do not believe in Satan, Demons, God, Heaven, or Hell. All they have to do is look at our Bible, the Satanic Bible, and see the truth. I read the Christian Bible all the time. It helps me understand what a Christian is trying to say to me and how I can refute there arguments. Human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, capturing children and adults, and having massive orgies are all but rumors started by “Christian Satanists” (people who are Christians who worship Satan).

Though if there's nothing else Anti-theists wish to take away from religion they should take this: He who is without sin cast the first stone. By that people can be critical of others, but they should look at themselves and see how well they hold up to their level of scrutiny and criticism. I'd be the first to admit I wouldn't do well but it's certainly something people want to think about. I think that as you point out, this should be guidance for all people, not simply non-theists. As I've stated repeatedly, some groups are more prone to self-analysis and in some cases it's strongly encouraged.

Since the flagship of this is arguably science and atheists tend to be science-minded (not always but a lot of the time), I think it's safe to say that you should save your concern for a group that really needs it. :)

Being critical of ideas should never be viewed as a bad thing.

Haha, don’t worry my friend, you are with all the other 90% of Americans. This is not Satanism. I would post the link but I know it is over PG-13 material. If you want it then I suggest PMing me if you want the link. After posting that I did a little reading on your brand of satanism and saw that my analysis was indeed incorrect. Rather than retract it, I thought it best to leave it so that you educate others by correcting me.

Really? How? Isn't killing promoted in the Bible?

You shall not kill.
"You have heard how it was said to our ancestors, You shall not kill; and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court. But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother 'Fool' will answer before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him 'Traitor' will answer for it in hell fire."
From the New Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition, first published 1985, text (c) 1985, ISBN 0-232-51930-7 .

Here we have, in Christian terminology and according to Catholic teaching, the Father and the Son both condemning killing (more often translated 'murder' due to theological developments and interpretations of the text). Clearly, these are important precepts. Of course, it isn't always possible to remain peaceful, yadda yadda, that's a discussion for another thread. I'll start one ASAP. Anyhow, Aquinas, IIRC and Augustine both also add to Christian understanding of war, specifically Just War, and define that one should only go to war in a Just War. Scripture and Tradition both however, are not very keen on war.

Aren't there grounds for anti-semitism in the NT?
I'd say no. It is the Sadducees and the Pharisees who move against Christ in the gospels, and the Romans who put him to death. The apostles and Jesus were Jews, after all (admittedly this fact was glossed over in the past...)

When the reached the place called The Skull, there they crucified him and the two criminals, on on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing.' Then they cast lots to share out his clothing.
This would also seem to support my position.
So how would Hitler's actions contradict Catholicism? Or is it more likely that they contradict your view of Catholicism?
The thing about Catholicism is that, due to the enshrinement of a single interpretation of Scripture, the existence of the Tradition as an equal partner with Scripture, and Papal Infallibility, there is only one Catholicism. Doctrine only develops, it doesn't change. That's the theory, anyway. The occasional person who does make it onto the Throne of Peter who decides to, say, declare a fourth person of the Trinity, or legitemise simony tends to be declared Antipope...

Yes, it does go against 'my' version of Catholicism. But there is only 'my' version :)

Gladly. Which word?

"Context".

The context as you see it. Let me try this another way? Do you believe that Usama bin Laden really believes in Islam?
I couldn't say without studying Islam more closely, and indeed the various subsects thereof. Do I believe that he follows the Islam that those muslims I know and/or am friends with? No.

Ok, then which religion did he subscribe to?
A non-denominational Christianity that he described as 'positive' Christianity. A sort of militant version, with Jesus leading a holy war against non-Aryans...
So in other words, because some men you've never met said so. The Pope in certainly not infallable, however I do acknowledge that you've been conditioned to think so because of your religious traditions.
I believe that the Pope is infallible, in matters of faith and morals, and this is part of Catholic doctrine. Whether or not you agree with this is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. It is part of the Catholic faith.

If you have some evidence to support your claim, I'd be more than happy to have a look at it.
Sorry, which claim exactly?

IF Hitler was a Catholic, then he would have been yet one more person that cherry-picked from the Bible to support his or her viewpoint. Perhaps if the Bible were less contradictory, such actions wouldn't be possible.
If Hitler were a Catholic, he sorely tested the supremacy-of-conscience doctrine. I think he would have had to have been very unfamiliar with the gospels (and so probably lapsed), using the supremacy of conscience and relying on half-remembered medieval history and the OT to back him up.

I'm sorry. Who here is arguing for moral relativism? My argument (as is the case for most atheists and some moral philosopers) is that absolute morality does not come from God. In many cases the morals that are attributed to God are found lacking compared to morals that can be derived for reasoned examination of ethics.
I was just airing my own opinion on relativism. As for absolute morality, how many people examine their ethics regularly?

Agreed! Hence why I'm an atheist.
Could you expand on that a bit, please?
I will not be moving the goalpost, sir. I asked for an example of an atheist state run amok and you offered a 99% Muslim country.
You never stated it should be a *culturally* atheist state as I recall...

Yes, the Norway where only 36% of the population considers themselves religious compared to the 46% that consider themselves non-religions (with an additional 9% explicitly atheistic). Any Norwegian mobs looking to take over the world that we should be concerned about? How's their murder rate? Adult literacy? All I know is that they've held the top spot on the UN Human Development Index for the last 7 years.
And where 86% of the population are members of the national church.

If Osama Bin Laden is ever captured I'll be sure the 'cast the first stone' message is passed on to him. It's important in everyday life as well.

The cat was found, at home, as though nothing had happened. This was after intense prayer. So how did he get out?

My understanding of why Jesus didn't do this and didn't do that when he could have is because he didn't want to be shown as a trickster who follow the whims of what people wanted. Yes, he was human, the story goes that he was made human so that he could be sacrificed for sin.

Because most religions make a big mess of...Atheism? Could you explain this to me? The arrogance Atheists have is the fault of religion?

The actions of Christians as you had pointed out shouldn't be allowed. That's exactly how they feel when Atheists go 'ZOMG WTF THERE IZ NO GOD LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11.' It goes beyond discussion of religion and the validity of it.

I'll make my feelings of religion simple. This isn't flaming or criticism or anything of the sort. Below are my feelings towards the kind of religion or non belief you choose to follow.

I don't care.

When it becomes clear that it's causing problems however, such as Christian bombing of abortion clinics, Islamic terrorism and Atheist anti theism, that's what I do care about.

<snip uncontested examples>

Here we have, in Christian terminology and according to Catholic teaching, the Father and the Son both condemning killing (more often translated 'murder' due to theological developments and interpretations of the text). Clearly, these are important precepts. I fully acknowledge that there are parts of the Bible that unequivocally advocate non-violence. I also fully acknowledge that there are parts of the Bible that unequivocally, not only condone but promote murder. Such examples are most prevalent in the OT, but exist in the NT as well. How do you reconcile this?

You have an encyclopedic knowledge of Catholic doctrine. It would be difficult not to be impressed by this. The problem I see in this dialog is that this is similar to having memorized the dictionary while debating whether or not the words are misspelled. In other words, quoting Aquinas, Augustine, etc will not help to reconcile that the Bible contradicts itself. By these contradictions, the Bible is shown to be an imperfect source. Furthermore, since the Bible is the closest thing we have to evidence for god, religion itself has no foundation.

Scripture and Tradition both however, are not very keen on war. This argument can only be supported by cherry-picking.

I'd say no. It is the Sadducees and the Pharisees who move against Christ in the gospels, and the Romans who put him to death. The apostles and Jesus were Jews, after all (admittedly this fact was glossed over in the past...) I appreciate that this is your opinion on the matter, however we cannot say with any degree of accuracy that your interpretation is the only possible one. Anti-semites quote the bible as well and there is little denying that the scripture they invoke is indeed there. We can debate whether or not it is being taken out of context, however since we're arguing interpretations, it difficult to set ground rules for "winning".

Yes, it does go against 'my' version of Catholicism. But there is only 'my' version :) But you say this right after conceding that there are other (albeit "unofficial") versions. From a historical perspective, Lutheranism is a version of Catholicism.

I couldn't say without studying Islam more closely, and indeed the various subsects thereof. Do I believe that he follows the Islam that those muslims I know and/or am friends with? No. So from your perspective he is not truly Muslim, yet from his perspective he is but your friends might not be. Both quote the same source to support their position. This is the exact same situation with any religious claim, including the claim that Hitler was not Catholic even though he professed to be.

A non-denominational Christianity that he described as 'positive' Christianity. A sort of militant version, with Jesus leading a holy war against non-Aryans... A version that could easily have a foundation based on cherry-picked bits of religious doctrine. Even the four canonical gospels cannot agree on a single interpretation of Jesus and those were the four that were deemed sufficient for representation in the bible.

I believe that the Pope is infallible, in matters of faith and morals, and this is part of Catholic doctrine. Whether or not you agree with this is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation. It is part of the Catholic faith. But your belief is not proof and that is essential to the conversation. As professed in another thread, you're also willing to accept that gravity might actually be nothing more than a universal affinity for cake.

Sorry, which claim exactly? The claim that the pope is infallible...in whichever context you'd like to use. This is a rather impossible position to defend, so if you would like retract your comment, I'll drop the matter.

If Hitler were a Catholic, he sorely tested the supremacy-of-conscience doctrine. I think he would have had to have been very unfamiliar with the gospels (and so probably lapsed), using the supremacy of conscience and relying on half-remembered medieval history and the OT to back him up. *shrugs* You appear to be willing to concede the point then.

I was just airing my own opinion on relativism. As for absolute morality, how many people examine their ethics regularly? Not nearly enough, in my estimation. It's difficult for me to blame people on an individual basis though. Moral philosophy isn't exactly standard fare in any elementary curricula. Furthermore, a large percentage of the world's population are enculturated into a spoon-fed system of ethics that they are encouraged not to examine.

Could you expand on that a bit, please? Sure, I'd be happy to. You said, "I think perhaps you missed the point - the combination of moral relativism and a malformed conscience is, I think you will agree, a dangerous one."

Since religion claims to have a monopoly on absolute truth and those versions of truth make conflicting claims, these systems of morals are relative. Since this belief in absolute truth is frequently accompanied by (or arguably, the source of) dogmatic thinking, the more "fundamental" a person is, the more malformed their conscience is (as shown by various behavioral experiments).

Therefore, my decision has been to reject any claim to prepackaged system of absolute truths in favor of a reasoned system of ethics (I have the benefit of having taken several ethics courses as part of my undergraduate and graduate programs). Additionally, I also reject fundamentalism, especially the religious flavor.

As anyone here will be able to point out, religious fundamentalism is not the sole source of moral relativism or malformed consciousness, but I think the evidence is on my side when I say it certainly the leading source.

You never stated it should be a *culturally* atheist state as I recall... True. If you would like to continue to argue that Turkey is an atheist state, I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say. Next time, I'll be sure to be more specific with my wording.

And where 86% of the population are members of the national church. Well, I could pull up stats on frequency of church attendance and sources that show such membership is largely to satisfy ceremonial functions (weddings, funerals, etc), or we could just accept that Norwegian people are largely non-religious yet somehow manage to consistently set the standard for social wellness. The purpose here was to argue that religious societies do not make for good societies.

Take a look at the results of this survey (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_impo.htm). Here are the 10 least religious countries surveyed:


Slovakia 29
Italy 27
South Korea 25
Vietnam 24
Germany 21
Russia 14
Bulgaria 13
Japan 12
France 11
Czech Republic 11
50% of them are listed in the top 30 countries on the UN Human Development Index (Italy, Germany, Japan, France, and the Czech Republic. Here's thelink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Top_thirty_countries_.28HD) I_range_from_0.965_down_to_0.885.29)). I'm sure that these results could have been more impressive (although 50% is very statistically significant), however only 8 of the top 30 nations were included in the survey. 3 were in the top 10 (Canada, Japan, and the U.S. in that order).

If religiousnesses were truly beneficial to society, the top 10 would have looked more like this:


Senegal 97
Indonesia 95
Nigeria 92
India 92
Pakistan 91
Ivory Coast 91
Mali 90
Philippines 88
Bangladesh 88
South Africa 87


Yes, several of these countries are poor, so let's look at the G8 (ranked by position on the Index):

Canada. 30% religious (11th on the poll). #6 on the Index.
Japan. 12% religious (3th on the poll). #7 on the Index.
United States. 59% religious (18th on the poll). #8 on the Index.
France. 11% religious (tied for 1st on the poll). #16 on the Index.
United Kingdom. 33% religious (12th on the poll). #17 on the Index.
Italy. 27% religious (9th on the poll). #18 on the Index.
Germany. 21% religious (6th on the poll). #21 on the Index.
Russia. 14% religious (4th on the poll). Not listed in top 30 on the index.

Only the U.S. is largely religious. It is twice as religious as the next closest "religious" nation in the top 10. Based on the evidence, we can conclude that even rich religious societies (such as the U.S) are not significantly better societies than non-rich non-religious societies (such as Czech Republic).

If you would like, I might be willing to break out a separate analysis for predominately Catholic countries. Just let me know.

Thanks for reading.

Note to moderators: Double post allowed because of post and quote character limits. Now you won't get zinged, Achilles. :D --Jae
Hi Nancy,

I'm breaking my response to you out into a separate message because of the length of my response to DI.

If Osama Bin Laden is ever captured I'll be sure the 'cast the first stone' message is passed on to him. It's important in everyday life as well. I'm not sure what that would accomplish. UBL is an extremely pious man within his religion.

The "cast the first stone message", as you refer to it, is a parable about passing judgment on others. As it stands, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything being actually discussed in this thread. The moderators have been extremely vigilant about personal judgments. As I am now pointing out for a third time, this discussion is about evaluating reasons and beliefs, not judging other people. In other words, this is a red herring.

My understanding of why Jesus didn't do this and didn't do that when he could have is because he didn't want to be shown as a trickster who follow the whims of what people wanted. Yes, he was human, the story goes that he was made human so that he could be sacrificed for sin.In G.Mark and G.Luke, Jesus wasn't bashful about performing miracles at all. He was somewhat secretive about his identity in Mark, but I tend to think that mark wrote Jesus this way as a plot device.

The actions of Christians as you had pointed out shouldn't be allowed. That's exactly how they feel when Atheists go 'ZOMG WTF THERE IZ NO GOD LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11.' It goes beyond discussion of religion and the validity of it. Could you please provide one example of someone debating like this? If you cannot, I would appreciate it if you would stop flame-baiting with your caricatures of atheists.

When it becomes clear that it's causing problems however, such as Christian bombing of abortion clinics, Islamic terrorism and Atheist anti theism, that's what I do care about. I would very much like to be able to take this at face value, however you seem incredulous of every example of mainstream fundamentalism provided for you.

And where 86% of the population are members of the national church

You can be considered a member if: one person in your family is a member/have been baptised, you have been baptised, or for no reason at all. Combined with the fact that getting out of the church is close to impossible, it's no surprise that a lot are members without knowing it. I have been removed from the list 4 times, yet for all I know I might still be a member.

Aren't most of the Scandinavian national churches like this as well? I know Sweden is.

Sure.

The thread has us examining the faults in religion and Atheism, so looking at ourselves and seeing that we are free of fault, 'he who is without sin cast the first stone', I would have thought would be quite relevent.

Certainly. Here's a thread on the forums where religion was threated with redicule and flamebait.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=173590)

And here's some sites I found that support attacking religion and those who follow it.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070406050722AAC9HXY)
http://www.antitheism.net/blog/very_irreverand_bill/20061029/religious_tolerance_over_rated_political_correctio) n
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/anti.html)
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/killgod.html)
http://community.livejournal.com/antitheism/profile)

You painted me the picture of religious evil before. Now put it in a frame. From what I understand reading what you've told me in previous threads George Bush, a Christian, wants to force Jesus returning which would destroy the world. To do this he intends to throw the world into such chaos that Jesus, if he does exist (and if Atheists don't believe in God why do they buy this story?), will have to return and bring about the events in Revelations to restore order. And Bush has appointed a number of fellow Christians to follow this plan. Does that sound close to this fear of this fundamentalism you're talking about?

The thread has us examining the faults in religion and Atheism, so looking at ourselves and seeing that we are free of fault, 'he who is without sin cast the first stone', I would have thought would be quite relevent. It's not relevant at all. The parable is about personal judgment. As I am now pointing out for a 4th time, this is about evaluating reasons and beliefs. The two are not similar at all.

If your example were applicable, then you would be advocating that we not evaluate reasons for anything. As such, we'd still be sitting in caves eating meat raw off the carcass because a deficit of critical analysis of thoughts and ideas would have left us in the stone age.

Certainly. Here's a thread on the forums where religion was threated with redicule and flamebait.<snip> In all fairness to you, I only skimmed these links. Only one was a LF thread, and not one from this forum. In none of them did I see 'ZOMG WTF THERE IZ NO GOD LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11.'. So again, I respectfully request that you cease using this inaccurate representation of your opponents' arguments. If you do not, you will leave me no choice but to begin reporting posts.

You painted me the picture of religious evil before. Now put it in a frame. From what I understand reading what you've told me in previous threads George Bush, a Christian, wants to force Jesus returning which would destroy the world. To do this he intends to throw the world into such chaos that Jesus, if he does exist (and if Atheists don't believe in God why do they buy this story?), will have to return and bring about the events in Revelations to restore order. And Bush has appointed a number of fellow Christians to follow this plan. Does that sound close to this fear of this fundamentalism you're talking about? I'd say you've almost accurately captured a small part of the argument. The important (and scary) part would be the percentage of the american population that supports/shares this view. Pinning the whole thing on Bush is a little unfair: He did have be elected after all. Instead focus on the fundamentalist movement and I'd say you'd be a lot closer.

PS: One does not have to believe something themselves to be terrified of others that do. If all the fundamentalists lived on an island out in the middle of the ocean and wanted to blow themselves up, that would be one thing. If they lived on the island, but had nukes and believed that they had to take us out first before blowing themselves up, that would be another thing, wouldn't you say?

Thanks for your response.

Split thread from "Your Views on Atheists". Carry on the Theism/Atheism debate here.

Would it be fair to say then that Atheists treat those who believe in religion with quite a bit of contempt and resentment? Given the arrogant, bullying, condescending, double standerd, egomaniacal and downright nasty attitude some have towards them?

As for the other thing, to add to what I said, the voters are to be held responsible? Were they in on this plot to force Jesus' return at all? What about the people Bush had elected into these positions of power? Did they rig the 2000 elections to make sure he won? Where does September 11 fit into all of this? An incident that was allowed to happen to set Bush's plan into motion or a set up?

Would it be fair to say then that Atheists treat those who believe in religion with quite a bit of contempt and resentment? Given the arrogant, bullying, condescending, double standerd, egomaniacal and downright nasty attitude some have towards them? It would be accurate to say that some atheists treat some theists with contempt some of the of the time, yes. Would it be accurate to say that the same scenario is true for theists with regards to atheists?

What you've just described is this group known as "people". You can't pin such behavior on one group. Unless you want to cast the first stone ;)

As for the other thing, to add to what I said, the voters are to be held responsible? I suppose you could. I don't advocate that, but it's one alternative. What I would prefer to see is a cultural revolution whereby people choose rationality over superstition and reason over faith. The only way I see that happening is if rational people speak out against irrationality (e.g. ridding ourselves of the fallacious fiat that you have to respect other people's religious beliefs).

Were they in on this plot to force Jesus' return at all? Yep. They went to their churches and read their right-wing, special interest group voter guides and then went to the polls and voted just how they were told to by their religious leaders. The evangelicals became very insular after the Scopes monkey trial but when Roe v. Wade happened, they began to unify. President Bush is one of them and they very much wanted him in office.

What about the people Bush had elected into these positions of power? I think the word you're looking for is "appointed". The public generally decides elections.

Did they rig the 2000 elections to make sure he won? From some points of view, the answer is yes. You can do a google search and make your own decisions based on your research.

Where does September 11 fit into all of this?
This is a good question. If you're asking for my personal opinion, I haven't made up my mind what to think about the events of 9/11. There are two sides to every story and both the "official story" and the "conspiracy theories" have elements that I don't buy. I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that a plane did not hit the pentagon, nor did flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania. It's obvious that planes hit the WTC, however I've yet to see any evidence that makes me belief that the resulting fires caused WTC 1,2, & 7 to collapse. Was the government complicit? I don't know. I'm not convinced by the conspiracy theories. Did the neo-conservative movement benefit from these events? They certainly did. If you want to explore this further, I'd recommend starting a new topic.

Regardless of what I think, 9/11 was inarguably the catalyst for the war in the middle east and that does benefit the Rapture Right.

Yes it would be fair that theists can be just as nasty as Atheists have been, and it's wrong to be that way no matter what side of the arguement you're on. I've seen the Atheist arguement brought up again and again and every time it's been the Atheists doing the attacking but I have no doubt that theists would say something that's flame baiting as well.

As for Bush wanting to use religion to destroy the world, any comments Jae? Anyone?

Yes it would be fair that theists can be just as nasty as Atheists have been, and it's wrong to be that way no matter what side of the arguement you're on. I've seen the Atheist arguement brought up again and again and every time it's been the Atheists doing the attacking but I have no doubt that theists would say something that's flame baiting as well. I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything we've discussed here, but it would seem your argument has reached some form of conclusion. Perhaps you could continue this sentiment (if it is not dead) in the "Your views on atheist" thread that this thread was split out from.

As for Bush wanting to use religion to destroy the world, any comments Jae? Anyone? Nancy, if anyone is interested in responding to my points, they will. Many of my points have been repeated 2 or 3 times in various threads, so anyone wanting to do so has had ample opportunities.

I say all this because I would like to ask you stop invoking Jae. You've done this more than a few times and it really concerns me. She is very much capable of deciding which of my points she will respond to and those that she will not. If she were interested in engaging my arguments she would have done so without your request.

So please, respond to my posts if you want to and pass on them if you want to as well, but please quit asking others to take over your arguments if you get stuck.

Thanks in advance! :)

I think using Bush's belief in the doctrine of pre-millennialism to say that Bush actively wants to be the one who brings about the end of the world is completely idiotic. If Bush is knowledgeable enough about the Bible to know the difference between pre-and post-millennialism, he knows enough to know that the Bible says no one knows when Christ will make His return, as if anyone could force Christ to come back by trying to nuke something. I can't believe anyone would take that leap of logic in the first place, and I can't believe that anyone would actually take that seriously. Bush has never said anything like that, Bush won't say anything like that, and Rice and Cheney would beat him profusely around the head if he even suggested doing anything like that. It's about as intelligent as saying Lieberman would bomb an Arab country with pork chops if he ever got elected President.

Bush-bashing/Bush-loving should go in a different thread than this, too, as should the treatment of Atheists in general. We've kind of steered off course from the Theism/Atheism debate and should get back on topic.

I think using Bush's belief in the doctrine of pre-millennialism to say that Bush actively wants to be the one who brings about the end of the world is completely idiotic. Assertions supported by....

If Bush is knowledgeable enough about the Bible to know the difference between pre-and post-millennialism, he knows enough to know that the Bible says no one knows when Christ will make His return, as if anyone could force Christ to come back by trying to nuke something. I can't believe anyone would take that leap of logic in the first place, and I can't believe that anyone would actually take that seriously....nothing but appeals to ridicule.

"X cannot possibly be true because I don't believe it".

Bush has never said anything like that, Bush won't say anything like that, and Rice and Cheney would beat him profusely around the head if he even suggested doing anything like that. You've raised this point before and I've responded to it before (Link (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2281777&postcount=22)). I never received a response in that thread, but perhaps you will be willing to offer one here. It's been a while, but IIRC at least a couple of those links quote Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq. If not, let me know and I'll post the quotes (with sources) separately.

It's about as intelligent as saying Lieberman would bomb an Arab country with pork chops if he ever got elected President. Lieberman is jewish. If he were a rapture-ready christian that believed that war in the middle east would help speed up the return of his messiah (and if he was quoted making supporting claims), then I would think the same thing about him.

Bush-bashing/Bush-loving should go in a different thread than this, too, as should the treatment of Atheists in general. We've kind of steered off course from the Theism/Atheism debate and should get back on topic. That makes sense, however I would argue that my comments re: Bush are specific to this topic. I have no problem putting my general concerns about him in another thread if someone wants to start one.

PS: How come calling someone's beliefs "idiotic" is not considered loaded language, but labeling someone's beliefs "delusional" is? Thanks in advance for your reply.

You asked. I simply answered your question.

Is appeal to logic allowed? If so then logically speaking Bush would know, being a Christian, that he cannot possibly force Jesus to return. From my point of view, not waiting or asking for other's opinions, if you are to assert that then explain to me how in this time of Christian extremism there arn't mass terrorist attacks on Muslims. Why are so many Christians opposed to Iraq and the war on terrorism?

Is inviting someone with more knowledge on the topic than I do to speak their piece wrong? Saying to read your posts again when you get stuck? Or for one or two members to basically hold the floor rather than letting a particular point breathe and allow others the opportunity to respond?

You asked. I simply answered your question.If it makes this go away: fine, you're right. :)

Is appeal to logic allowed?Not only allowed but very much welcome.

If so then logically speaking Bush would know, being a Christian, that he cannot possibly force Jesus to return. Your logic is not his. People do things based on belief rather than logic all the time. It doesn't make sense that the rapture-ready would want to bring about the end of the world, but that fact doesn't stop them. That's the dangerous thing about faith: it's more valued more than reason by those that have it.

From my point of view, not waiting or asking for other's opinions, if you are to assert that then explain to me how in this time of Christian extremism there arn't mass terrorist attacks on Muslims.Where to start....

Christian doctrine does not promote terrorism, however it's perfectly ok with other forms of violence. You're trying to project the promoted tactics of one religion onto another. Although neither is rational, that doesn't mean that they are the same.

Christianity claims to be a religion of peace, therefore terrorism is out (for the most part), but war is just fine. In other words we don't need to militant civilians to carry out terrorist activities against those in the middle east, because we have an occupying military force. Now before you or anyone else claims that our presence is not an occupying force, I'd like for you to ask yourself how many permanent military bases we're building in Iraq. If you answer, "I don't know", I'd encourage you do to some research before replying.

Why are so many Christians opposed to Iraq and the war on terrorism?Bushes approval ratings average about 35% this month. While you might think that's low (and I would agree) keep in mind that means that 1 in 3 people think he's doing just fine. Ask yourself if that 35% represents moderate christians that, like so many, cherry-pick the bible for messages of love and peace or the fundamentalists that believe in the jesus of revelations that returns with a sword to cast sinners into a lake of fire.

Is inviting someone with more knowledge on the topic than I do to speak their piece wrong? Saying to read your posts again when you get stuck? Or for one or two members to basically hold the floor rather than letting a particular point breathe and allow others the opportunity to respond?Not at all, but I have to tell you that your multiple requests for Jae to step in might make one think that you're incapable of defending your points yourself.

Bush's view on this specific topic could arguably be somewhat connected, and since we were already talking about it before the thread got split off, that's fine. I just don't want the thread to turn into a political/Bush discussion.

Delusional is a specific psychiatric term, and idiotic is not used in any kind of medical way in today's language. I take issue with anyone except one who is having a psychotic episode known as a delusion being labeled as delusional. I did not remotely link you or say 'Achilles' ideas are idiotic'. However, there have been any number of attempts (not necessarily by you) to label me or my ideas specifically as delusional, and there is a big difference.

There is a big difference between praying about the decision to go to war (and wouldn't you have some quiet reflective time before making a decision as big as going to war?) and espousing the belief that one is going to personally bring about Armageddon. I have seen no statements by Bush that say 'I'm going to do x to bring about Christ's return'.

The point about knowledge of pre/post-millennialism and knowledge that he can't bring about Christ's return by bombing the hell out of something is not an appeal to ridicule. Part of eschatology is knowing what the Bible says about Christ's return, and Bush knows these verses as part of pre-millennial doctrine. Since he's familiar with the verses that no one knows when Christ will return and that He'll return like 'a thief in the night', _and_ Bush has never said he was planning on bringing about Armageddon or Christ's return, then equating praying about the Iraq war/knowledge of eschatology with bringing about the 'end times' is false. The only way someone could make that incorrect leap in logic is to hear Bush is a pre-millennialist, go look that up without looking up the relevant supporting verses, and say also 'Bush prayed about the Iraq war! He therefore must be wanting Armageddon!!' That is a complete non sequitur. It ranks right up there with the logic of my favorite proof:
Dirt is brown.
Chocolate is brown.
Dirt has no calories,
Therefore chocolate has no calories.

Bush may do many dumb things, but saying he espouses the idea that he personally can bring about the end times is misleading at best and alarmist at worst. The only thing that this kind of comment does is scare the crap out of people unnecessarily. I get very angry about those with an anti-Christian bias (and I'm thinking more generally along the lines of the media than anything else) misquoting and misusing the Bible and people's beliefs in order to paint someone in a negative way. If someone disagrees with Bush, fine. None of us is going to agree with him all (or even most) of the time. Publishing the truth about what he has actually said is certainly appropriate. However, don't use sensationalism and scare tactics based on an insufficient knowledge of a particular doctrine to try to make Bush look like something he is not. That's disingenuous.

Whew. A lot to unpack here...

Bush's view on this specific topic could arguably be somewhat connected, and since we were already talking about it before the thread got split off, that's fine. I just don't want the thread to turn into a political/Bush discussion. Noted.

Delusional is a specific psychiatric term, and idiotic is not used in any kind of medical way in today's language. It is true that this is one of the meanings, just like one of the meanings for "idiot" is a psychological term. Whether or not it is still used that way is a non-issue.

I think it goes without saying that most people hear "idiot" in the context of "a foolish or stupid person" rather than, "someone with extreme mental retardation". Similarly, I don't think people hear "a persistent false psychotic belief" when they hear the word "delusion", rather "something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated". A belief can be shown to be false, where as "idiot" in any context (other than the "unused" professional context) can only be taken offensively, "delusion" is a valid label. Therefore, it makes no sense that someone willing to accuse someone's argument as being idiotic should take offense at having their belief referred to as delusional. At the very least you make some attempt to discover the person's intent rather than presume to know what context they are being used in.

I think the simplest solution here would be to retract your earlier statement, but truthfully, I don't get that ruffled over words, so I really don't care. I only brought it up because I found it to be extremely hypocri...double-dealing. My apologies for the side-bar.

Point taken, it fell out of the 'friendly' category. I apologize. --Jae

Apology accepted. Since this wasn't a moderator warning, I'm assuming that it's ok to re-edit. Thanks.

I did not remotely link you or say 'Achilles' ideas are idiotic'. However, there have been any number of attempts (not necessarily by you) to label me or my ideas specifically as delusional, and there is a big difference. Fair enough. In the spirit of open dialog then, what did you mean by:

"I think using Bush's belief in the doctrine of pre-millennialism to say that Bush actively wants to be the one who brings about the end of the world is completely idiotic."

Keep in mind that you posted this after I made such an assertion.

And yes, I have made blatant attempts to label your ideas delusional. I don't shy away from that. In the context I provided earlier in this post, I believe that they are. The good news is that sufficient counter-argument should be enough to persuade any reasonable person that they are not (although such arguments have not been forthcoming). However, there is a moratorium on using the term, therefore I've taken to utilizing the thesaurus to make my points. It will be interesting to see if such a moratorium is extended to "idiotic", considering I've argued that this can only be taken as a derogatory term, whereas "delusion" cannot.

There is a big difference between praying about the decision to go to war (and wouldn't you have some quiet reflective time before making a decision as big as going to war?) and espousing the belief that one is going to personally bring about Armageddon. I have seen no statements by Bush that say 'I'm going to do x to bring about Christ's return'. I'm not sure how to proceed here, because I doubt I have the sufficient skill to point out all the problems with this thinking to a theist. That isn't a dig, rather an commentary on the chasm that exists between theism and non-theism.

Let me start off with a quote:

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” - Sam Harris

If Bush had said he thought long and hard and finally came to a decision, I would have some confidence that his faculties of reason were used to come to that conclusion. Instead, the story is that he prayed and god told him to do it. This tells me that in no way were his faculties of reason used, rather he consulted the metaphysical equivalent of a magic 8-ball...to determine our nations foreign policy...knowing that we are the only military superpower in the world. Why this doesn't set off red flags for anyone is beyond me, however I have to take into consideration that there is a large percentage of my fellow Americans that think this was a perfectly normal thing to do.

On to the crux of the matter.

As we have seen in various threads (and in fact in many history books) world leaders do crazy stuff all the time. Putin appears to be on a killing spree, Kim Jong Il wants to wage war against the U.S. on the broken backs of his people, Hitler invades Poland, Communist China imprisons and murders there own citizens for staging democratic protests, etc, etc, etc. Murder, corruption, insane leaders twisted by their own agendas, the list goes on and on. But not here.

Haliburton wins no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Cheney was CEO for several years. Bush 1 and Bush 2 both invade Iraq, but that has nothing to do with their family ties to Saudi Arabia. Bush 2 declares war on Usama bin Laden (who is believed to be strafing the Afghanistan/Pakistan border) as part of his war on terror, but he's primarily focused on Iraq. His reason: To bring about democracy in the middle east.

Let's break for a moment and take a look at the prophesied "signs of the second coming":

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." - many false churches of jesus which will deceive many. mormons and jehovah witnesses maybe?
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:..." - Like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rumors? Like the ones about Iran and North Korea. How about Chavez's claim that U.S. tried to have him assassinated? Darfur? Iraqi Civil War?
"and there shall be famines,..." - Well it would be obvious to point out the much-publicized African famines of the 80's. Somalia in the 90's? Darfur now?
"...and pestilences,..." - HIV/AIDS? SARS? Avian influenza?
"...and earthquakes, in divers places." - Japan had an undersea earthquake the other week. Indonesia shortly be before that. The whopper in Indonesia in December 2005.
"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." - America isn't very popular right now because of its thinly veiled theocracy.
"And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another." - Clearly Jesus is referring to LF and Kavar's Corner specifically :D. Seriously though, I imagine that the conflict between atheist and theists is a potential explanation.

Now...do I believe any of this? Heck no!

But do I think the rapture right does? You'd better ****ing believe I do.

How many of these points do I think that neo-conservative, rapture-ready christians believe Bush has direct control over? Bullets 2, 6, and 7 directly (foreign policy, "go it alone", and "compassionate conservatism", respectively). The rest just happen to be coincidentally going on. Maybe not all that persuasive on it's own, but consider that 44% of americans believe that jesus will definitely or very probably return in the next 50 years, and I think it's obvious that significant portion of the voting public doesn't care what it says about pre/post-millennialism in some book, they're doing everything they can to make this baby happen now.

Back to my point.

If Bush and his administration were moderate Christians, I probably wouldn't be too concerned. However, Bush and many of his appointees are unabashedly hard-core, evangelical christians. So the argument that none of this adds up and Achilles is being melodramatic doesn't hold up. There is genuine cause to be afraid.

I want so save some energy for the rest of my response, so I'll end this section here.

The point about knowledge of pre/post-millennialism and knowledge that he can't bring about Christ's return by bombing the hell out of something is not an appeal to ridicule. No, Jae, but the part about you not believing that Bush (and the rest of the rapture right) believe that is an appeal to ridicule. I keep pointing that out. It's not what you believe, it's about what they believe.

Part of eschatology is knowing what the Bible says about Christ's return, and Bush knows these verses as part of pre-millennial doctrine. Since he's familiar with the verses that no one knows when Christ will return and that He'll return like 'a thief in the night' Do we really want to start comparing all the christian doctrine that he should know about to what he actually espouses?

Suppose you have a deeply-held belief that picking up pennies brings about good luck. Suppose the doctrine of this belief states that at some point, events will unfold, and the lifting of a special penny will bring about all believers winning 100 billion dollars. No one knows when this penny will be lifted or where. Being one of the believers, do you pass penny lying on the street or do you stop and pick them up? Do you pick them up with anticipation? Is it feasible that some percentage of believers might take to purposely leaving pennies laying about for others to pick up in the hopes that they might hasten the jackpot? Maybe at some point, believers start going into banks and changing out bills for pennies. At first, just singles, but maybe (for the cause), they start changing fives, tens, twenties, asking for their paychecks in pennies (what's a few thousand dollars now when my faith tells me that $100 billion is just around the corner if I just believe enough?)

Perposterous right?

_and_ Bush has never said he was planning on bringing about Armageddon or Christ's return, then equating praying about the Iraq war/knowledge of eschatology with bringing about the 'end times' is false. The only way someone could make that incorrect leap in logic is to hear Bush is a pre-millennialist, go look that up without looking up the relevant supporting verses, and say also 'Bush prayed about the Iraq war! He therefore must be wanting Armageddon!!' That is a complete non sequitur. That may be and I have to tell you that I sincerely hope you're right. However I think I've made a respectable case for showing that you're not. Even if I'm 99% wrong about this, that 1% more than I'm comfortable with.

It ranks right up there with the logic of my favorite proof:
Dirt is brown.
Chocolate is brown.
Dirt has no calories,
Therefore chocolate has no calories. This is satire, correct?

Bush may do many dumb things, but saying he espouses the idea that he personally can bring about the end times is misleading at best and alarmist at worst. The only thing that this kind of comment does is scare the crap out of people unnecessarily. I encourage everyone to do their own research, review the fact, and form their own opinions. If I'm wrong, please come back and show me why because I would certainly sleep better at night. (sorry Jae, you just haven't done it yet :D).

I get very angry about those with an anti-Christian bias (and I'm thinking more generally along the lines of the media than anything else) misquoting and misusing the Bible and people's beliefs in order to paint someone in a negative way. If someone disagrees with Bush, fine. None of us is going to agree with him all (or even most) of the time. Publishing the truth about what he has actually said is certainly appropriate. However, don't use sensationalism and scare tactics based on an insufficient knowledge of a particular doctrine to try to make Bush look like something he is not. That's disingenuous. It certainly would be. However your opinion that it the information is inaccurate doesn't make it so.

Thanks for reading.