tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8455728262357157615.post5501479584881370758..comments2022-01-21T21:37:42.624-08:00Comments on The Meandering Mind of Matt: Atheists and other beliefs.MattClaushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459822048391183804noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8455728262357157615.post-62496092100575299692012-04-16T13:10:40.405-07:002012-04-16T13:10:40.405-07:00I would say that while it may be true that fundame...I would say that while it may be true that fundamentalist Christians make up a small portion of Christians the fact remains that Christians are the largest organized group of people on Earth, and that we recently came out of a period where a fundamentalist young-earth creationist who did not believe in evolution was the leader of the free world. A very scary prospect that very much explains the more hyperbolic voice of the atheist movement in the last 10 years. <br /><br />To answer the question of this post. I would say it's quite obvious that Christianity happens to be the predominant religion of countries that have legally protected free speech. Therefore the countries where Atheists can speak out will tend to have a larger population of Atheists most personally affected by Christianity as well as where Christianity is built into the legal system, a particular point of annoyance for many atheists. <br /><br />If it were the other way around and most Muslim governments were non-secular while most Christian governments weren't, it is likely that most Atheists would be commenting on the Koran instead of the Christian Bible. <br /><br />Also, I feel you mis-characterizing the atheist argument that the bible must be dismissed if it is not entirely omniscient. The argument to support the bible being the word of god is what is used to allow it to be written into the constitutions, used in courts of law etc. The argument of the Atheist movement when it comes to omniscience is that if the bible is not entirely the word of god and is fallible, there is not way to say which parts are human derived, and which aren't. This completely changes the context of the bible. Now an adherent to the bible is just another person stating their philosophical choice. Like an adherent of Plato or any other body of philosophy. Like the commenter above said: "Treat the Bible as literature or philosophy and most of the issues go away", however so do all justifications for setting it above any other work of philosophy, which is at the core of the atheist argument you are mis-characterizing above - it is is not 100% infallible then it should not be given special status over any other philosophical book. I don't find this to be pretentious, it is just straight equality. I find it completely offensive and embarrassing that some sky-monster I fin silly is mentioned in the constitution of my country and many of its allies, and that I would be made to swear upon it in a court my tax dollars support and that as a federal employee I could be made to talk to a monster I do not believe in. These are serious issue that are all best illustrated by the fallacy test. <br /><br />I do think we all need to get along. But there is a fundamental difference. Atheists are asking not to be forced to acknowledge other peoples beliefs, this is not part of the Christian argument or an issue they have to worry about. If a law was passed referring to them as 'one nation under Allah' or if there were made to swear upon a Koran before giving a deposition, it would probably be alot easier to understand the Atheist point when bringing up that argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8455728262357157615.post-30558316137374821782012-02-28T07:57:47.138-08:002012-02-28T07:57:47.138-08:00Treat the Bible as literature or philosophy and mo...Treat the Bible as literature or philosophy and most of the issues go away. The Bible (just like the works of Shakespeare or Plato) contains much that is wonderful, inspiring, hateful, and repulsive. It's fine to extract wisdom from its stories. Stating that your position is correct solely because it mirrors a particular verse is not justifiable.<br /><br />There's lots of stuff out there about why Islam, Judaism, etc. also do not accurately describe the universe we inhabit - but in the United States, it's the fundamentalist Christians that try to pevert science cirrucula, prevent access to birth control, and assassinate abortion providers. Given that a majority of English language Internet content is genereated in the United States and targeted to an American audience, it's not surprising that a cursory search revealed mostly anti-Christian messages. <br /><br />People should be free to believe (or not) what they wish - this is the meaning of "freedom of conscience". But this principle also places freedom FROM religion on equal footing with freedom OF religion. Your right to swing your fist stops at the bridge of my nose. Your right to your beliefs does not give you the right to impose them on others.<br /><br />I do hope we can all just get along - but that implies a respect for diversity that differing philosophies that is not always present. The leading Republican presidential candidates, for example, do not appear to have much respect for those who believe differently (and even less for those who don't believe at all). <br /><br />Endorsing a political "live and let live" philosophy is called secularism, which is one I heartily endorse. It's why I am a proud member of the Canadian Secular Alliance (http://secularalliance.ca/).Leslie Rosenbloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16348048564434945617noreply@blogger.com