John Steinrucken, an atheist writer at the American Thinker, is arguably one of the most honest atheists there might be. This is quite refreshing considering how so many atheists argue that Christianity is the most wicked thing ever to have been invented. So, coming across Steinrucken’s article made for some pleasant reading.


Steinrucken tells us that although “Rational thought may provide better answers to many of life’s riddles than does faith alone” it is still Christianity that “has made possible the advancement of Western civilization. That is, the glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition.” This is true in both the context civil rights afforded to all American citizens as well as the major advancements made in the scientific faculties over the past centuries. Steinrucken also believes that the Christian tradition has graciously allowed for him, and his atheist friends, the freedom of opinion & thought, he writes that “secular thought, depends on the continuance within our society of the Judeo-Christian tradition.” It would seem that Steinrucken believes that if such freedoms are to be continually guaranteed then Christianity needs to remain an influential voice within contemporary society. This also ought to happen as Christianity, although not exempt from misuse by those with certain motives, maintains peace in society as well as in the world at large: “it is the Judeo-Christian tradition which offers a template assuring a life of inner peace toward the world at large — a peace which translates to a workable liberal society.”


He then also praises Christianity for its morals, especially how morality (as a corollary of the Christian tradition) has benefited society at large: “Although I am a secularist (atheist, if you will), I accept that the great majority of people would be morally and spiritually lost without religion. Can anyone seriously argue that crime and debauchery are not held in check by religion? Is it not comforting to live in a community where the rule of law and fairness are respected? Would such be likely if Christianity were not there to provide a moral compass to the great majority? Do we secularists not benefit out of all proportion from a morally responsible society?”

Yet he seems aware that secularism has failed to ground moral experience in any objective sense as “There can be no such morality without religion” & “Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist!” In other words, naturalistic theories attempting to ground moral values cannot elevate themselves above the realms of moral relativism – in short, moral realism cannot exist on an atheistic worldview. So moral judgments, thoughts & feelings have no objective value on an atheistic worldview whereas Christian theology affirms the existence of objective moral values & duties as an extension of God’s own nature. Steinrucken seems grateful to the Old Testament prophet Moses: “Has there ever been a more perfect and concise moral code than the one Moses brought down from the mountain?” However, Steinrucken is clearly skeptical of the theories that have been proposed by his fellow secularists: “The best answer we can ever hear from secularists to this question is a hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of situational ethics.”


Yet I cannot fault him on his analysis & I am immensely grateful for his honesty. Most atheists will try and dodge this problem. However, the problem remains for the atheist for since morality is relative he is ultimately in no position to tell others that their views are immoral. He cannot tell the rapist that rape is wrong or the murderer that murder is a moral evil. It might be his opinion that such things are morally evil but they are not objectively evil in any sense; it’s simply personal preference.


Steinrucken notes the value that religion has on the lives of many people, according to him “religious tradition is inextricably woven into their self-awareness. It gives them their identity. It is why those of religious faith are more socially stable and experience less difficulty in forming and maintaining binding attachments than do we secularists.” However, that “Most men do have a need for God” is also why we find other religions such as New Age Spirituality, or some forms of Eastern religious philosophies, increasing in popularity in the West, especially since these are primarily “attempts to fill the spiritual hole” that atheistic philosophies cannot touch.


Steinrucken then argues contrary to what most atheists would be willing to admit, namely that it was an outpouring of a purely atheistic worldview, held by some of humanity’s worst despots, that “has not merely come to naught. [But] Attempts during those two centuries to put into practice utopian visions have caused huge sufferings.”


In short, Steinrucken believes that “Secularism has never offered the people a practical substitute for religion” & that attempts to create religion free (particularly Christian free) societies are mere “justifications for their fantasies.” In fact, Steinrucken goes as far as to ask: “And what harm will come to a child who hears prayer in the schoolroom? I daresay harm is far more likely to come in those places where prayer is not heard.” This is similar to the thoughts shared by the atheist writer Matthew Paris who once claimed that: “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God”. Evidently Paris, an atheist, saw the positive benefits that belief in the Christian God brought to those suffering the most in the world, as well as to those in the darkest parts of Africa.


Steinrucken ends with a strong challenge: “This means that our elitists should see that their most valued vested interest is the preservation within our culture of Christianity and Judaism.”







References.

1. Steinrucken, J. 2010. Secularisms Ongoing Debt to Christianity. Available.

2. Parris, M. 2008. As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God. Available.

a big blow to atheist world wide.
see them avoiding this thread like plague

Nice Piece.

Hmmm. Admission.

GoodMuyis:
a big blow to atheist world wide.

see them avoiding this thread like plague

Yes it is indeed a big blow when an atheist begins to sing the praises of Christianity and the morals found therein when other atheists like frank317 or is it franky317, hopeful landlord and dalamama would find a way to lie through it.

I don't think they are avoiding the thread though. If and when they see if, they will simply say their usual "hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of nonsensical situational ethics" as observed by the atheist John Steinrucken.

Winner01 do I speak your mind?

I'm non religious but not an atheist, and I wholly agree with some aspects of what he was saying, for example the new testament has some very good lessons on morality, though I find some of the levels of pacifism to be too extreme to function in modern society (turn the other cheek when slapped). Since the new testament is where Christians base their faith on, it's fine. I realized this later on and some of my moral guidelines do come from the new testament as with other religious books.

But saying that forming moral guidelines needs to come from religion is something I disagree with, because even modern Christians also leave out some portions of the bible when choosing what their moral guidelines need to be, its this common sense that makes them know that murder is not an appropriate punishment for rude children as we see in the bible. I think moral guidelines can come from anything that the two parties involved consent too, and which doesn't affect any other human being negatively. If we look at the ten commandments, all of them fit in with this rule. Historically humans have had one form of push for human rights, law, and order or the other even before Christianity. Though some laws in the past were primitive but they've evolved over time.

On the other hand, the old testament has so many negative lessons and horrid atrocities committed in the name of the god they believe in- leaving you wondering if it really is the same deity that was being worshipped in both parts of the bible.

Still on morality, he mentioned that the vast majority of people would be lost without religion, and I agree with that. Religion teaches community, relationships, etc and so it helps people understand why they should want to do things that wouldn't harm their fellow man. Without religion, a guy working a job with long days and long nights with no time to even talk to anyone might lose sight of the reason why he needs to live in a way that's beneficial or at the very least, tolerable by his fellow man. I think its less about the 'moral compass' because if we take Muslims as a case study, there's so much supported violence in their religion and yet, a lot of them are peaceful- they've learned the value of community simply by meeting together and congregating regularly and the friendships and loved ones they meet along the way is enough reason to behave properly.

Another part from that message that made sense was where he said Judeo-Christian religion held western civilization together, which is very true. Though its a movie and not 100% historically accurate, from DaVinci's Demons we could see how historically warring Italian city-states all agreed to unite to defend themselves from the onslaught of Muslims from Eastern Europe who were looking to pillage and cause destruction in the name of their prophet.

But a grouse I have with the op is his constant idea of picking out achievements done by Christians and attributing it to Christianity, which is ridiculous. Its no different from the retards in the politics section who look for successful people of their ethnic group and attribute their success to their origin.
Religion doesn't even teach logical reasoning, it teaches faith, and the scientific process has little or nothing to do with faith (little because at times scientists make guesses and hope they're right, but then again these are educated guesses from verifiable data).

Religion also does provide stability to people's lives because at the very least it gives them somewhere to tick when they fill out employment forms, lol . And less strange looks from people. Its also a reason why I'm considering becoming a Quaker because they are legally recognized as Christians but they have so many denominations including the non-theist Quakers who place emphasis on morality and being useful to community, which is a great idea. The last time I was in the United States I attended a Quaker fellowship (the people I stayed with were Quakers) and the 'service' was simply a two hour silence and reflecting on how you've been able to add positive values to people's lives during the week, thinking about the things you've done wrong, etc. Then after service everyone could meet with each other for help, from hard tasks to simple tasks like assistance with fixing bicycles. Everyone also brought food they could afford for the less privileged to have something to eat, and it was then I realized the immense value of community in developing morality. And I realized I needed to do more in terms of being a positive member of society.

That's all I have to say.

how old is religion, how old is atheism, i don't know the actual ground atheist are standing on. they were just recent

Atheist generally knows that lending any form of credibility to Christianity is very dangerous to their movement. So they resort into rewriting history and shaming Christians, especially the poor ones.

Atheists would rather support Islam than give support to Christianity because they know that while Christianity can survive in a modern society just as it has in years bye in Europe and currently in America it would be difficult for core Islam to thrive in any society without altering that society for worse.

South East today is the most christian part of Nigeria and yet unarguably the most peaceful. I'm sure it is not a coincidence. Infact I believe if Christianity did not exist in south west it would be exactly like the North. It was Christianity that brought education to the south west and gave it that early enough push.

I don't know why but secularism is also not far away from where Christianity is practiced exclusively. Maybe because Christianity doesn't really seek to hold its host community to political ransom. if the south east breaks away from Nigeria what you would see in the coming years is that you wouldn't be able to recognize whether it was once a christian state or not. Moral decadence quickly sets into christian states not because Christianity has problems but because its adherents are not willing to forcefully input her tenets in political governance. On the other hand the fastest way to death in a Muslim country is to challenge the credibility of Islam.

Butterflyleo:


Yes it is indeed a big blow when an atheist begins to sing the praises of Christianity and the morals found therein when other atheists like frank317 or is it franky317, hopeful landlord and dalamama would find a way to lie through it.

I don't think they are avoiding the thread though. If and when they see if, they will simply say their usual "hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of nonsensical situational ethics" as observed by the atheist John Steinrucken.

Winner01 do I speak your mind?

The guy gave his opinion . Some of what he stated are not true.

His assertions make sense, until you realize the 10 commandments and many aspects of the mosiac law are similar to the babylonian​
Hummurabi code written centuries before it. Given that most of the old testament was written by priests during the babylonian exile, it's hard to ignore the connection. Also, Jesus's golden rule : do unto others what you want them to do to you was also mentioned word for word in sacred Hindu texts written centuries earlier. It points to one conclusion: no single religion can lay claim to the development of civil or societal laws. The similarities in these religious moral laws simply show they are
rules made by man to ensure peaceful coexistence of human societies. Religious association to these rules simply invented some higher 'spiritual' authority to ensure compliance. Cue in human gullibility and the opportunity for priests of different religious groups to fleece their flock and it's not hard to see why different religions have appropriated basic human civil behaviour.

Butterflyleo:


Yes it is indeed a big blow when an atheist begins to sing the praises of Christianity and the morals found therein when other atheists like frank317 or is it franky317, hopeful landlord and dalamama would find a way to lie through it.

I don't think they are avoiding the thread though. If and when they see if, they will simply say their usual "hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of nonsensical situational ethics" as observed by the atheist John Steinrucken.

Winner01 do I speak your mind?

Totally Sir. And they have started saying it . Very few atheists will admit the positive role of christianity in western civilization. Its always relieving to know that there are a one or two honest atheists around.

There are several atheists that argue against the contemporary belief that religion is evil.
Richard Norman explains that “religion has inspired not only some of the worst but also some for the best human achievements…. To present religion and its works in a wholly negative light would in my view be hopelessly unbalanced”.


As also mentioned in the Op, Journalist and professed atheist Matthew Paris, upon reflecting of his journey to Africa in his piece As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God, noted the positive impacts Christianity has had. Essentially, Parris believes, that to remove Christian evangelism from Africa will “leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete”. Paris believes that “Africa needs God…Missionaries, not aid money,” as they “are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem—the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset”. Truly, will you honestly say Nigeria for instance, lacks money or natural resources?


Parris also saw how those professing belief in Jesus’ name has made life more bearable for many people in Africa. He explains: “Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good”.


He has also seen how Christians, irrespective of race, have worked wonders across Africa: “Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.”.


However, Parris explains that this doesn’t seem to fit his atheism: “It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my worldview, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God”.


Similarly, another atheist, Hattersley, criticizes his fellow atheists for their lack of effort in relief effort: “You don’t hear of “Atheist Aid” rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army… I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor”.

HigherEd:
Atheist generally knows that lending any form of credibility to Christianity is very dangerous to their movement. So they resort into rewriting history and shaming Christians, especially the poor ones.

Atheists would rather support Islam than give support to Christianity because they know that while Christianity can survive in a modern society just as it has in years bye in Europe and currently in America it would be difficult for core Islam to thrive in any society without altering that society for worse.

South East today is the most christian part of Nigeria and yet unarguably the most peaceful. I'm sure it is not a coincidence. Infact I believe if Christianity did not exist in south west it would be exactly like the North. It was Christianity that brought education to the south west and gave it that early enough push.

Actually, Christianity is perceived to be the major obstacle to the atheistic belief system. It is the only religion that seeks to coexist peacefully with the atheistic worldview, while progressively thumping the atheistic worldview even despite the vituperations against its tenets. Despite the fact that many atheists push that Christianity is not peaceful, we have some honest atheists admitting the obvious.

Atheist Sam Harris is honest enough here:
“Our Christian neighbours… are right to be outraged by this pretence of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery than Christianity has been for a very, very long time”.

Similarly, atheist philosopher Michael Ruse believes that “it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard Dawkins claims… ”


Several other religions, most notably Islam, outrightly rejects any form of religious competition in Islamic societies. In mild cases, it can seem to tolerate freedom of religious worship, but it endeavours to keep the growth of other religions in check. This is similar to what China is doing with the growing number of Christians in China. They are simply keeping Christianity in check by banning online Christan materials, embargo on importation of bibles etc.

The major point I wish to highlight in the op and I've mentioned here severally is that atheists must be grateful to Christianity for the freedom of opinion and thought. Christianity is the reason atheism has a voice especially in the western world. Atheists dare not speak in many religious environment, Egypt proposed criminalizing atheism a year or two ago. You dare not speak of your atheism in many Islamic countries.

Similarly, even in the atheist countries that ever existed, you dare not speak about religion. In many of the atheistic countries of the 20th century, there was a clamp down on religious beliefs and its adherents and it led to widespread sufferings and senseless democide.

There exists and existed Islamic states, atheistic states even Jewish states. The word Christian state sounds conflicting because it negates peaceful coexistence. This is whey there are no christian states. Atheists need to be grateful for Christianity.

gabe:
His assertions make sense, until you realize the 10 commandments and many aspects of the mosiac law are similar to the babylonian​
Hummurabi code written centuries before it. Given that most of the old testament was written by priests during the babylonian exile, it's hard to ignore the connection. Also, Jesus's golden rule : do unto others what you want them to do to you was also mentioned word for word in sacred Hindu texts written centuries earlier. It points to one conclusion: no single religion can lay claim to the development of civil or societal laws. The similarities in these religious moral laws simply show they are
rules made by man to ensure peaceful coexistence of human societies. Religious association to these rules simply invented some higher 'spiritual' authority to ensure compliance. Cue in human gullibility and the opportunity for priests of different religious groups to fleece their flock and it's not hard to see why different religions have appropriated basic human civil behaviour.

Can you give examples of the similarities between the mosaic laws and the Hammurabi code?

The argument from a religious point of view is that these moral laws are engraved in the hearts of all humans. Religious texts are simply reflecting the mind of God through his prophets. That aside, objective moral laws or values do not exist in the atheistic worldview.

This is quite significant as if this logic follows then it would not be possible to make objective moral claims; morality becomes relative. In other words, that one atheist thinks beating elderly people is a good thing because it provides him with entertainment such an act cannot be deemed to be objectively wrong by another atheist. Why? Simply because it’s one’s opinion against another. However, not all atheists view moral values as relative, but many do. The atheist activist and president of American Atheists David Silverman says:

“There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” “The hard answer is it [moral decisions] is a matter of opinion”.

Atheist nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would also claim that “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system”. Nietzsche would go on to see that if God does not exist then “everything is permitted”.

Arguably philosopher Julian Baggini captures this best: “If there is no single moral authority [i.e. if there is no God, then] we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are… moral claims are judgments [that] it is always possible for someone to disagree with… without saying something that is factually false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error”.


Philosopher Michael Ruse admits that morality is innate, he even tries to attribute our “sense” of morality to a byproduct of socio-biological evolution:

“In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race”.


Atheist Richard Taylor seems to think civil and societal laws are meaningless and that moral values and duties is only truly grounded in God: “to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone”.


Its is usually refreshing to hear from honest atheists. Unfortunately, there are very VERY few honest atheists.

Dalamama:


The guy gave his opinion . Some of what he stated are not true.

You stopped short of saying "most of what he stated are true"

When you say "some of what he stated are not true" then that means most of what he said is true.

I bet it was shame that made you leave that obvious part out.

I am surprised you did not present your usual lenghty rebuttal as you always do. Could it be because it was an atheist who stood here for Christianity?

Butterflyleo:


You stopped short of saying "most of what he stated are true"

When you say "some of what he stated are not true" then that means most of what he said is true.

I bet it was shame that made you leave that obvious part out.

I am surprised you did not present your usual lenghty rebuttal as you always do. Could it be because it was an atheist who stood here for Christianity?

Ogbeni, you've come again with your spin abi? A lot of what he said are completely NOT true. But as a person that relies on lies and falsehood to operate you took them and started running away with them.

Secularism (total separation of church and state) what made the west what it is and NOT Christianity. They knew that Christianity had nothing to offer then and the separated it from their state affiars.

When Europe was under the leadership of the church we all know what happened, in fact part of that period was regarded to as the dark age.

Dalamama:


Ogbeni, you've come again with your spin abi? A lot of what he said are completely NOT true. But as a person that relies on lies and falsehood to operate you took them and started running away with them.

Secularism (total separation of church and state) what made the west what it is and NOT Christianity. They knew that Christianity had nothing to offer then and the separated it from their state affiars.

When Europe was under the leadership of the church we all know what happened, in fact part of that period was regarded to as the dark age.

Now you want to lie abi?

Are these not your words?

Dalamama:


The guy gave his opinion . Some of what he stated are not true

The OP was not talking about your hodgepodge lame relativism jargon. His focus was on morality and even at the so called separation of church and state they still could not deny the foundation of the morality used despite the separation. That is the point of the OP. But trust you to deny this obvious fact and twist it for all its worth

Butterflyleo:


Now you want to lie abi?

Are these not your words?




The OP was not talking about your hodgepodge lame relativism jargon. His focus was on morality and even at the so called separation of church and state they still could not deny the foundation of the morality used despite the separation. That is the point of the OP. But trust you to deny this obvious fact and twist it for all its worth

After reading the piece for the second time am at liberty to change my mind and say almost all what he said is false. The moral foundation of the western society is not based on the Judoe-Christian faith but purely on secular values some of which are condemned in the bible.

We all know the values that made the west what it is today, I'll list a few and yiu are to tell me which of them is advocated in the bible.

1. Freedom of speech and association
2. Separation of church and state
3. Naturalism which gave birth to all the scientific processes that is driving all the scientific/technological advancement they've achieved.
4. Equality of the sexes(male and female)and same sex union.
5. Capitalism
6. Individual Freedom
7. Justice and accountability in the here and nowe not the stupid turn the other check nonsense pacifism espoused by Jesus in the bible.

Dalamama:


After reading the piece for the second time am at liberty to change my mind and say almost all what he said is false. The moral foundation of the western society is not based on the Judoe-Christian faith but purely on secular values some of which are condemned in the bible.

Many reasonable atheists avoided this thread due to obvious reasons. Like I pointed out earlier, a few honest atheists do not share the dogmatic outlook and crusading spirit of your type of atheism, and expectedly you don't agree with their honesty. It goes on to show how open minded you are.

Dalamama:

We all know the values that made the west what it is today, I'll list a few and yiu are to tell me which of them is advocated in the bible.

1. Freedom of speech and association

Freedom of speech and association is actually as a result of the socio liberal freedom of christianity as the op rightly pointed out. Compared to several Islamic states today and atheistic states that existed in the past e g atheistic Russia, Cambodia, Albania etc.
In those countries, freedom of speech and association is significantly suppressed as supported by their constitution. You could easily get arrested by speaking against state recognized beliefs and practices just as is happening in China today. Below are some evidences that shows that atheistic countries and their leaders had a dangerous idea of an utopia which suppressed freedom of speech, thought, opinion, association and religious beliefs (in order to spread atheism) just like Islamic countries.


Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated: ‘The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic outlook in people’

"Party organisations must direct their most serious attention to the improvement of atheist propaganda. Anti-religious propaganda must be more offensive, combatant, more direct. . ." - Mzhavanadze (at the 20th Congress of the Georgian Communist Party), Zarya vostoka, 26 January 1960.

“It is furthermore imperative to put the propaganda of atheism on solid ground. … It is necessary to produce a book on the church's struggle against naturalism.” - Maxim Gorky (Founder of the socialist realism literary method and a political activist), Letter from Gorky to Stalin, November 29, 1929, on the organization of antireligious propaganda

"We want to sweep away everything that claims to be supernatural and superhuman, and thereby get rid of untruthfulness, for the root of all untruth and Lying is the pretension of the human and the natural to be superhuman and supernatural. For that reason we have once and for all declared war on religion and religious ideas ..."- Friedrich Engels (co- founder of Marxist theory), Review of Thomas Carlyle's Past
and Present, 1844

"The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is guided by the conviction that only conscious and deliberate planning of all the social and economic activities of the masses will cause religious prejudices to die out. The Party strives for the complete dissolution of the ties between the exploiting classes and the organizations of religious propaganda, facilitates the real emancipation of the working masses from religious prejudices and organizes the widest possible scientific educational and anti-religious propaganda."- Political Program of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union), adopted March 22, 1919 at the Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party, section 13

"We must deepen a revolutionary world-outlook, we must fight the religious prejudices in the youth and approach the youth, including those having religious prejudices, with the maximum pedagogical attentiveness of the more educated towards the less educated. We must go to them with the propaganda of atheism, for only this propaganda defines the place of man in the universe and draws out for him a circle of conscious activity here on earth."- Leon Trotsky, The Position of the Republic and the Tasks of Young Workers, 1922

“Communist society will bury forever all mysticism, religion, prejudice and superstition and will give a powerful impetus to the development of all-conquering, scientific knowledge. ... One of the most important tasks of the cultural revolution affecting the wide masses, is the task of systematically and unswervingly combating religion-the opium of the people. ... the proletarian State ... carries on anti-religious propaganda with all the means at its command and reconstructs the whole of its educational work, on the basis of scientific materialism.” - The Programme of the Communist International. Comintern Sixth Congress 1929

To mention a few, these are writings from the constitution of atheistic countries and the product of the minds of the leaders of atheistic countries. You will surely agree with me that I could have been killed if I was outspoken about my Christianity and at the same time against those forceful atheistic dogmatic quotes, provided I existed in those countries.

There are obvious reasons why we don't have too many outspoken atheists in Islamic countries and why we don't have too many outspoken Christians in countries like China.
Christianity is the reason we have many outspoken atheists in the western world, Christianity is the reason for your freedom, Christianity is the reason you have a voice son, be grateful.

Dalamama:


2. Separation of church and state

As expected, regurgitated atheist arguments.

"Separation of church and state" was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The intent of this clause was to limit the power of the Federal Government in regard to religion thus ensuring "freedom of religion in the United States of America."

In other words, you got this one totally backwards. Separation of church and state wasn’t put in place to protect the state from the church; it was created to protect the church from the state!

The founding fathers came to the country primarily for that very reason – for freedom of religion. They were fleeing a country that was attempting to impose restrictions on their ability to believe or worship freely. Their whole purpose was to make sure that the government of the United States never imposed itself upon a citizen’s right to believe or practice their belief without government interference.

So with that proper understanding and historical context, what does separation of church and state mean today? Or what should it mean?

The founding fathers were clearly not ignorant of what was going on in atheistic countries and many other parts of the world, and majority of them being influenced by their religion, Christianity, they sought to impose freedom of religious worship, thereby protecting their freedom of worship. This freedom contributes to the reason why atheists have a voice in today's western world.

Dalamama:


3. Naturalism which gave birth to all the scientific processes that is driving all the scientific/technological advancement they've achieved.

This is as wrong as they come. Naturalism did not give birth to all the scientific processes that drove their scientific achievement. As a matter of fact, many early proponents of science were against naturalistic ideologies.

Legends like Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming, etc. were against naturalism, darwinian evolution and other pseudoscientific notions.. Even those who lived before Darwin were strong opponents of earlier evolutionary systems, not to mention pantheism, atheism, and other such anti-supernaturalist philosophies, which were every bit as prevalent then as now.

Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method! They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science.

I gave relevant examples in this thread, on how major breakthroughs in science was accomplished by several Christians as well as other religious believers.

Dalamama:

4. Equality of the sexes(male and female)and same sex union.

Really how has this made the west enviable?
I won't even bother to counter this until any atheist tells me if it is wrong to outlaw the following:

1. Sex between an adult and a consenting minor (paedophilia)
2. A human and a consenting animal (Bestiality). Several animals have different ways of communicating consent.
3. A human and a dead human (provided the dead human consented before death) (Necrophilia)
4. And other sick sexual acts.

If this can be viewd as sick by you and your peers, then you have no moral rights to blame those who view same sex union as sick. That's some double standard.
If one if confused on which gender he/she is, one can simply look inside his/her pants.

Dalamama:


5. Capitalism

Its still part of the socio liberal freedom associated with Christianity that created capitalism.

For those who are interested, you can click here to find out how Christianity created capitalism

Dalamama:


6. Individual Freedom

As explained earlier, you owe your freedom to Christianity. Women in Saudi were recently permitted to drive, they recently gained some level of freedom. Hopefully atheistic China and north Korea can follow suit and stop the clamp down on churches, Christians and online christian materials and watch Christianity grow massively.

Dalamama:

7. Justice and accountability in the here and nowe not the stupid turn the other check nonsense pacifism espoused by Jesus in the bible.

"Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free". - Proverbs 11:21.

Jesus was simply speaking figuratively on peace and forgiveness. Peter for example, did not fully understand this, thats why he attacked those who came to arrest Jesus. Peace and forgiveness is very important in our world today and many people will agree with this. Peace and forgiveness is the only hope and voice of the repentant criminal and the wrongly convicted. Peace and forgiveness is why many federal government are reconsidering certain punishments such as the death penalty.


Its good that some atheists are not as dogmatic as you are, and its also expected that you won't agree with honest atheists. Its only natural that you guard your "religion of unbelief" with jealousy.

winner01:
Can you give examples of the similarities between the mosaic laws and the Hammurabi code?

The argument from a religious point of view is that these moral laws are engraved in the hearts of all humans. Religious texts are simply reflecting the mind of God through his prophets. That aside, objective moral laws or values do not exist in the atheistic worldview.

This is quite significant as if this logic follows then it would not be possible to make objective moral claims; morality becomes relative. In other words, that one atheist thinks beating elderly people is a good thing because it provides him with entertainment such an act cannot be deemed to be objectively wrong by another atheist. Why? Simply because it’s one’s opinion against another. However, not all atheists view moral values as relative, but many do. The atheist activist and president of American Atheists David Silverman says:

“There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” “The hard answer is it [moral decisions] is a matter of opinion”.

Atheist nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would also claim that “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system”. Nietzsche would go on to see that if God does not exist then “everything is permitted”.

Arguably philosopher Julian Baggini captures this best: “If there is no single moral authority [i.e. if there is no God, then] we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are… moral claims are judgments [that] it is always possible for someone to disagree with… without saying something that is factually false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error”.


Philosopher Michael Ruse admits that morality is innate, he even tries to attribute our “sense” of morality to a byproduct of socio-biological evolution:

“In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race”.


Atheist Richard Taylor seems to think civil and societal laws are meaningless and that moral values and duties is only truly grounded in God: “to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone”.


Its is usually refreshing to hear from honest atheists. Unfortunately, there are very VERY few honest atheists.

lol any atheist that agrees with religion is honest. The 'eye for an eye' concept in Mosaic law is straight out of the Hammurabi code. For more similarities, please use google. Our conceit as the 'superior' species doesn't allow us look at examples that abound in other species. Why do lions not rip themselves to pieces? how do bees refrain from stinging themselves to extinction? Intra species order have evolved simply because they ensure the survival of the species. Simple. A cat rescued it's 7 kittens from a burning building. Real life story. It didn't need biblical instructions to do that. In my area some years back, a dog fought off a pig that was about to eat an abandoned baby until people arrived to take the baby. Sacrificial, benevolent behaviour abound in nature. It just humans were gullible enough to attribute theirs to religion. And we know who profits from such gullibility.

gabe:

lol any atheist that agrees with religion is honest. The 'eye for an eye' concept in Mosaic law is straight out of the Hammurabi code. For more similarities, please use google.

Any atheist that is honest enough to point out the significance of religion in society is obviously honest. You don't have to agree with religion to do that.

An eye for an eye concept is different from turning the other cheek as stated by dalaman, where was turning the other cheek also stolen from?

I ask you to post evidence here, so that others can learn. It will do no harm to give 4 or 5 similarities in the mosaic law and the Hammurabi code. It won't take more than 6 lines. You can do it.

gabe:

Our conceit as the 'superior' species doesn't allow us look at examples that abound in other species. Why do lions not rip themselves to pieces?.

Oh well, Komodo dragons feed on their young ones, mother bears, felines , canids etc have all been seen killing and eating their young ones.

While I was also a poultry farmer, on several occasions, I observed my hens sucking their own eggs and sometimes attacking their chicks.
Our species consider this immoral. Can we give reasons for these exemptions?

gabe:

A cat rescued it's 7 kittens from a burning building. Real life story. It didn't need biblical instructions to do that.

Touching story, can we get some evidence to this?

And you obviously didn't get where I earlier pointed out that the Christian argument for morality is that "morality is engraved in our hearts". Humans obviously don't need a Bible before they can be moral. The Bible however is our guide through a dangerous path in a world full of misery.

gabe:

In my area some years back, a dog fought off a pig that was about to eat an abandoned baby until people arrived to take the baby.

As true as this sounds, Can we get evidence to this? Or we must believe it without questioning it?

gabe:

. Sacrificial, benevolent behaviour abound in nature. It just humans were gullible enough to attribute theirs to religion. And we know who profits from such gullibility.

Like I said earlier " morality is engraved in our hearts" this explains why some non theists are more morally sound that some theists.

As expected, we are gullible, but you, you're not?

winner01:
Any atheist that is honest enough to point out the significance of religion in society is obviously honest. You don't have to agree with religion to do that.

An eye for an eye concept is different from turning the other cheek as stated by dalaman, where was turning the other cheek also stolen from?

I ask you to post evidence here, so that others can learn. It will do no harm to give 4 or 5 similarities in the mosaic law and the Hammurabi code. It won't take more than 6 lines. You can do it.


Oh well, Komodo dragons feed on their young ones, mother bears, felines , canids etc have all been seen killing and eating their young ones.

While I was also a poultry farmer, on several occasions, I observed my hens sucking their own eggs and sometimes attacking their chicks.
Our species consider this immoral. Can we give reasons for these exemptions?


Touching story, can we get some evidence to this?

And you obviously didn't get where I earlier pointed out that the Christian argument for morality is that "morality is engraved in our hearts". Humans obviously don't need a Bible before they can be moral. The Bible however is our guide through a dangerous path in a world full of misery.

As true as this sounds, Can we get evidence to this? Or we must believe it without questioning it?



Like I said earlier " morality is engraved in our hearts" this explains why some non theists are more morally sound that some theists.

As expected, we are gullible, but you, you're not?

'Morality is ingraved in our hearts'. Really? An organ that has NOTHING to do with thought apart from blood supply? Surely you can do better. Engraved by whom? Which is more plausible: engravement of moral codes on the body's blood pumping organ or an evolving of rules to ensure the perpetuating of a species as evidenced by behaviour present in the many other species present in our midst? Lest I forget, your God demands you eat his body and drink his blood as often as possible to be a part of him. Not much different from komodo dragons and your chickens now eh?

gabe:
'Morality is ingraved in our hearts'. Really? An organ that has NOTHING to do with thought apart from blood supply? Surely you can do better. Engraved by whom? Which is more plausible: engravement of moral codes on the body's blood pumping organ or an evolving of rules to ensure the perpetuating of a species as evidenced by behaviour present in the many other species present in our midst? Lest I forget, your God demands you eat his body and drink his blood as often as possible to be a part of him. Not much different from komodo dragons and your chickens now eh?

You are so cocksure of all the heart does, you probably were with the designer while it was being created. Little wonder many atheists think the tail bone in humans is a result of bad design like they know what it was designed for

Well my point remains, Morality is innate, and this is more plausible because there seems to be some form of objective realism across the human species.

Even if I drink his sweat, what difference should it make to an atheist? I'm probably more productive to my society that many of you talkatives here

It seems to me that you winner01 haven't stopped posting topics about atheism/atheists. � . Well, no hard feelings bro.

DeSepiero:
It seems to me that you winner01 haven't stopped posting topics about atheism/atheists. � . Well, no hard feelings bro.

This is a topic on Christianity. Why Christianity is great. You missed that part right?

winner01:
This is a topic on Christianity. Why Christianity is great. You missed that part right?

I didn't!. I also didn't miss that you felt the need to emphasize that John is an atheist in your post's title while still seizing same opportunity to criticize other atheists.

DeSepiero:


I didn't!. I also didn't miss that you felt the need to emphasize that John is an atheist in your post's title while still seizing same opportunity to criticize other atheists.

Can you please highlight just 1 criticism of atheists in the op?

winner01:
Can you please highlight just 1 criticism of atheists in the op?

Loads of them in your subsequent posts. You couldn't resist the urge

DeSepiero:


Loads of them in your subsequent posts. You couldn't resist the urge

Lol, this guys just funny one kind.

Every post I made on this thread apart from the op is a reply to one person or another.

You missed those atheists who disagree with the honest atheist in the op. But you care that I hive them reply with quotes from more honest atheists.

Don't worry ehn, because if you, i'll stop opening threads concerning atheism. Only because of you

winner01:
Lol, this guys just funny one kind.

Every post I made on this thread apart from the op is a reply to one person or another.

You missed those atheists who disagree with the honest atheist in the op. But you care that I hive them reply with quotes from more honest atheists.

Don't worry ehn, because if you, i'll stop opening threads concerning atheism. Only because of you

Hey bro, don't take things too personal. I only made a simple observation in my first post on your thread and I did so because I saw your posts/responses. I have always known you to talk about atheists/atheism all the time and like I said, you haven't stopped.

DeSepiero:


Hey bro, don't take things too personal. I only made a simple observation in my first post on your thread and I did so because I saw your posts/responses. I have always known you to talk about atheists/atheism all the time and like I said, you haven't stopped.

Nothing personal bro, I'm simply having fun. That's what I do when I come here, fun, and its nothing personal.

Are my threads not healthy or do they not give strong religious views?
Opposition is healthy sometimes, that's why this religion section is interesting for some people.

winner01:
You are so cocksure of all the heart does, you probably were with the designer while it was being created. Little wonder many atheists think the tail bone in humans is a result of bad design like they know what it was designed for

Well my point remains, Morality is innate, and this is more plausible because there seems to be some form of objective realism across the human species.

Even if I drink his sweat, what difference should it make to an atheist? I'm probably more productive to my society that many of you talkatives here

lol, there is no designer. Unless you're talking about natural selection...

winner01:
Nothing personal bro, I'm simply having fun. That's what I do when I come here, fun, and its nothing personal.

Are my threads not healthy or do they not give strong religious views?
Opposition is healthy bro, that's why this religion section is interesting for some people.

Hahaha...of course, the divergent views are the spice of this section.