3rd May 2012

“An established Church and compulsory religious education in Britain has produced a fairly agnostic, faith-unfettered nation, while the separation of church and state in the US has produced a hundred million or so creationists. So much for legislating orthodoxy.”

Ian Williams

15 Responses to “3rd May 2012”

  1. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Too true! I’ve said before nothing leads to atheism like reading the bible.

    It is only those who haven’t read the bible that can believe in such nonsense.

  2. Xhim Says:

    The quote is quite correct, but not for the reasons you might think. Germany had the established Church, compulsory reli-ed, AND used the state income tax system to collect a mandatory church tax (Hitler’s idea, BTW). The church tax removed all sense of responsibility from church members, and the reli-ed had virtually nothing to do with the Bible (trust me, my kids went through the system). So when young people started looking for a foundation for life, the conclusion was: don’t try the church, I’ve already had umpteen years of reli and didn’t get anything out of it! Those who did get into the Bible were more likely to hang on.

  3. The Heretic Says:

    I think that Americans believe that religion gives them a foundation of goodness. They believe that their values are attached to the Bible. Americans, by and large, are very good people, very generous, and have the best of intentions. But the Bible didn’t grant them that. The Pioneer spirit, freedom, and hard work made them what they/(we) are.

  4. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Yesterday’s quote was about the Vatican’s resistance of pluralism, it’s intolerance of other faith.

    I attempted to make a point about the underlying truth of every religious person wanting to advance their own version of faith while simultaneously rejecting every other. I say “underlying” because on the surface religionistas make politically correct homage to tolerance, they feign respect for other faith, but they are fooling no one: It is well understood they all think they are right and everyone else is wrong. You can’t erase that drive to assimilate other into one’s chosen faith.

    The Sean Harris punch the children article is an expression, crude as it may be, of this assimilation effort.

    Xhim attempted to lump me into an all things equal position in saying “agree with you…agree with me” so I called him on it. No one reading these words will not recognize that Xhim differentiates himself from others faith (not excluding my lack of), he finds his superior (as I do my lack thereof), and that he is spreading it in every way he can (as I do my lack of faith). The difference is I’m spreading nothing, at least nothing in the sense that I’m not asking anyone to make a leap of faith in any particular direction, rather I’m advancing a reliance on something other than faith. (An athiest is like everyone else, he just has one less god)

    You would have to be “free of faith” to understand tolerance precisely because their is no faith to advance. All faith, from this position, is the same and as such their is no bias one over another.

    Xhim then goes on with another attempt to equate all things equal of which they are most certainly not.

    R j gets the Sean Harris point! His abject rejection of this stupidity speaks volumes about the social immaturity of Sean Harris and people like him.

    As for prayer? No one seems to have any issue when Moses goes into that cave and communes with god, but when Osama Bin Laden does the same thing doubters pop up everywhere. I tend to like meditation, listening to music or quiet, and ther may very well be parallels in teerms of brain state between prayer and meditation but getting away from the cacophony of noise in a person’s life has merit on its own. There is no need to believe schizophrenic inner voice conversations are anything apart from just that.

    Dan also gets it as he always seems to “…critically thinking…”. An intolerant atheist is like an intolerant non-believer in Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster. Where yes there is a basis for the intolerance but it is rather benign. Very different than the intolerance that exists between people of different faiths where it routinely results in war, murder, violence toward women, and human rights violations in general.

    Simply put the intolerance of athiests rarely shows up on the evening news, heck atheists rarely show up on the evening news, or in prisons, or anywhere else where you might find people with intolerance issues. That is not the case with the intolerance of people of faith.

    Xhim I suppose I could go back an repost the Gallop survey showing people who have read the bible most often being athiests but you have already seen it. Maybe you are speaking to a specific situation or moment in time but we don’t have that many new people here, they all are well aware that reading the bible rarely leads to continued faith; quite the opposite.

  5. Dan Says:

    Sinjin,
    That’s a theist for you, where being critical of total nonsense = intolerance.

    🙂

  6. reetBob Says:

    Is Xhim really more than a parody? I can’t believe a real Christian would write that Jesus is ‘a lot like a little kid’s “imaginary” or “invisible” friend, except of course that he’s real and really there (or I am totally bonkers).’

    Am I way off the mark here?

  7. R J Says:

    xhim…………..

    thank you for your answer posted yesterday.

    very telling.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    dan………………

    your last entry yesterday was nicely put.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    sinjin……………….

    i wonder if it has ever occured to sean harris that all humans

    come into this world at the APEX of what is a totally feminine

    process ???

    and, since in some circles infants (( pre-birth and AT-birth ))

    are considered fully cognizant entities, is some portion of that

    exposure to complete femininity indelibly dissolved into the

    human animism of the MALES…………..with the ever-present

    possibility that it could rise up and become a dominant trait

    in the developing personality ????????

    UH-OH !!!!!!!!

  8. R J Says:

    REETBOB……………………

    i dont know if you remember our old friend SOLOMON

    who used to post here……….but i was always convinced

    that ” he ” was actually a composite of 4 people .

    xhim seems to be one guy.

  9. Rotten Says:

    A quite different reason for the level of reliosity in America is that it basically started with a level playing for all religions. Those that could market themselves best have thrived the most. Religious marketing — whether through word of mouth, gospel music, finer orators, better organizational skills — is simply much better in America than in countries with religious monopolies. Fast food is similar, in some ways.

  10. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Once upon a time, not too long ago, we had sharp divisions between Baptists, and Lutherans, Protestants and Catholics, et cetera.

    Each of these groups detested each other, thought them invalid Much like the anti-Mitt Romney crowd who demonize the candidate on the basis of his Mormonism/fake Christianity).

    Then leaders of the various denominations got together and declared themselves to all be Christians, unifying themselves under that title while each retained its uniqueness.

    Today we have nin-com-poops laying down claims that this nation was founded as a Christian nation. How incredibly inept. Go back 50 years and you will find that opinion simply did not exist.

  11. Xhim Says:

    Sinjin, your understanding of the word “tolerance” seems to be the relatively new definition: a tolerant person has to affirm and treat all opinions as equally valid (which is surprising because you obviously and emphatically do not). The older definition is much more useful: tolerance is the ability to strongly disagree with a person’s opinions without disrespecting or even hating the person himself. Do I disagree with you? Goes without saying. Do I hate you? God forbid! (Actually, he already has.) And I hope you don’t feel that I disrespect you. If I have communicated that, I apologize.
    reetBob, the ‘imaginary friend’ thing was an attempt (apparently unsuccessful) to play this game by your rules. Since by definition an atheist will deny the reality of the person I am conversing with, I tried to point out that I realize and can live with this. Sorry if it didn’t work. I should have known better. My response to rj’s request required me almost entirely to draw on my own frame of reference, much of which y’all have to object to or put your own consistency in question. I kind of hoped rj would be the only one to read it, because I knew it had to draw fire. I usually try not to walk on land mines, but to answer this one candidly I had no choice.
    I do appreciate, rj, your confirming the essential unity of my person. Yes, I really am only one somewhat aging overweight white Anglo-Saxon male.
    🙂

  12. reetBob Says:

    I appreciate your candid response. does yourite not make you question your own judgement? Honestly, how do you know your invisible friend is actually there? Do you ever doubt?

  13. R J Says:

    xhim…………………..

    you would have gotten a kick out of our old contributer

    Solomon. he really couldnt present or argue any points

    rationally…..so debating with him was pretty much shooting

    fish in a barrel. also , 2-3 times a week he would condemn

    everyone to burn in the fires of hell !! big laffs !

    but his finest moments were explaining god’s thoughts

    and actions………………….a regular Pope Solomon !

    too bad you missed him.

  14. The Heretic Says:

    — “If you think you’re leading and no one is following you, then you’re only taking a walk.” – Afghan proverb.

    Similarly, if you talk to God regularly, but there is no God, you are just chatting with yourself. Xhim, maybe you are just having a regular conversation with yourself, and lo-and-behold, you have an inner voice/conscience.

    Most people talk to themselves, a few of us will even admit it. It doesn’t necessarily mean that we are nuts, it is just a way to analyze what we think and to organize it.

    As to atheists being tolerant. I find them to be exceedingly intolerant (and I am one!), unless you say something that they agree with. They tend to be patronizing and rude if you say something they disagree with. But then, I suppose that I can say that about most theists. Disagreeing with someone should not be disagreeable. One can agree to disagree and still have a meaningful conversation.

  15. Dan Says:

    Xhim,
    Since when does a tolerant person have to treat all opinions as equal?? That’s nonsense. Look it up in the dictionary. You won’t find it said that way at all.

    All tolerance entails is that we not obstruct in any way your rights to ridiculous ideas. Is anyone here doing that? No. You’re free to adhere to any and all ridiculous beliefs that you might have, but you’ll still have to live with criticism – if it’s deserved. And ohhhh boy, it is deserved.