Chrisitans and Liberal Atheists, why do you keep missing the point?

As a Liberal Atheist my view is that in a cold and uncaring world the only way to get good things in the world is that we make the good that we want to see in the world.

So yes, sometimes we have to push up against human nature or the huge, negative forces that are an after-effect of human society. And even if we can't win in the end, and history says we will fail eventually on security, education, poverty, or the economy; it doesn't mean we should stop trying.

I mean if you think things are bad now just imagine what would happen if we just let things go to ruin: banditry, starvation, disease, violence, oppression, and so on. Our civilization worked hard over many centuries to claw our way out from the rocks, sticks, and mud. We should not be so eager to go back to square one without trying the brakes.

 

Well I'll be dannnn... do you have your degree from one of those "southern Harvards"? LOL

Oh man the prevalent theory in biology academia is that human evolved through millions of years in a graduate fashion.

And your invoking of the concept "God" just brought yourself into yet another bigger scientific quandary: Who created "God"?

If believing the existence of man being spontaneous is improbable, wouldn't that make it even more improbable to believe God being spontaneous?

 

Well why I do, thank you for point that out, but the sequence of DNA can be "coded" naturally. The coding process is called evolution.

And how shall I acquire the original blueprint?

 

I maintain that America is influenced by Christian values, not founded on.

 

Gee, so whenever there is a problem, I'll just punch in gubbermint, of which primary function including all those problems it was supposed to solve, right?

Ok I'm done being acid and grumpy. My point is, why not have a little faith in humanity, and start from your own, instead of "I'm not doing it, I'ma let somebody else collect somebody else's money to do it"?

 

I would disagree with that.

The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643

The Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the Government of the Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut, and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith:

Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; and whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the sea coasts and rivers than was at first intended, so that we can not according to our desire with convenience communicate in one government and jurisdiction; and whereas we live encompassed with people of several nations and strange languages which hereafter may prove injurious to us or our posterity.

 

Most historians and experts I've heard/read, agree with what you've said above.

 

The premise of your post is inaccurate. The existence of God is not a scientific question, it's a religious/philosophical question, and falls into a very different sphere. The existence of an incorporeal being is no more a scientific question than the existence of an social contract (incorporeal) is a scientific question.

- - - Updated - - -

pffft, that obviously doesn't count. Can you scientifically prove that it does?

 

If God exists, there should be proof.

Science is the explanation and rationalization of reality. Everything is a question of science.

 

in court? absolutely!

Just would need to have is certified and stamped by the state as the official document that it is.

otherwise it very clearly states that it is in fact based on religion.

Its not the only one they all read the same way.

 

Only until you ask Jesus to enter your life or help you and then something just coincidentally happens to answer your prayers will you understand. And don't expect instant results or anything, really. Just ask him earnestly to enter your life or steer you in the right direction or whatever it is you want and ask him to give you a sign.

Then you will be closer to getting the point.

 

True enough. I'm a believer in God, but I know that my belief is based upon 'faith'.

Intellectually, I know that I have nothing to PROVE the existence of God or a god.

Of late, I often wonder why more Christians do not realize that 'faith' is what their beliefs are truly based upon.

And that is the main reason I smash heads with many; I think that 'faith' is a foundation for religious belief. But I also accept that 'faith' isn't science and cannot prove anything (except through actions of the faithful). Really, there is nothing I know of in this world, that can FORCE or COMPEL a person to 'believe'; not the Bible, going to church or being screamed-at by an overzealous fundamentalist. People either exercise 'faith' in "God" or they do not.

I understand atheists and why they say/feel as they do, because I was once at a point where I almost lost ALL of my 'faith'. I'm in no way shocked or surprised that unbelief is the state of many. I respect that in people, just as I do belief.

 

they have a better idea of how simple life came to be, then a complex God would just come to be, How inanimate objects can become a God?

 

I understand this and generally agree.

My big gripe with Christians, is they are too often trying to COMPEL others to 'believe'.

 

That I can not agree. The existence of certain substance or entity has been age old scientific question.

Does oxygen exist? Light a candle, put it into a bathtub with water in it, cover it with a water glass. You know the rest of the routine.

You can do it in Russia and it would end up with the same result. Reproducible results from repeatable experiments, now that's proof.

Can the same thing be said about God?

- - - Updated - - -

But that's circular logic, to believe in God, I need proof, to "understand" proof, I need to believe in God...

 

I don't see the difference.

 

Do you know what incorporeal means? And why don't you try taking a sample of air here and measure for socialism. You can even try in Russia.

 

I think he's a bit confused and means he acknowledges it was founded on Christian values, but not as a Christian state.

 

Okay, I get it now....he's the one who is confused.

 

I'll try to phrase this as I see it: The nation and it's corresponding culture and political system is established according to principles derived from the general philosophy/ideology of Judeo-Christianity but the government plays NO role in establishing, endorsing or promoting that philosophy.

Keep in mind that this isn't necessarily my position but my best effort at articulating the position of most Americanized Christians.

 

You are exactly right. It may seem to be paradoxical in nature that our Christian Founding Fathers who were heavily influenced by their Christian beliefs had created a Constitution that would leave religion out of its makeup, but the reason they did leave religion out was because they saw what control and power the Anglican church had in England, and thus wanted to create a nation that was totally controlled by the people and not by a monarch, an oligarchy or by an overpowering church.

 

Great post.

Carter was actually pretty underrated from a Libertarian perspective imo. Without any shadow of a doubt I'd take Carter over Reagan.

 

The problem with the above statement is that the existence or not of a defined social contract between humans is definitely a scientific question. The problem of "God" is a scientific question. It's just that as of yet there is no evidence for a personal God, so there is no reason to go any further with the question until more evidence comes along. Are you aware how many "incorporeal" things exist even now in the realm of physics? EM waves? Weird action at a distance(quantum)?

 

Yes, America's constitution was influenced by Christian values, but Christian values are themselves based on much older philosophies and systems of beliefs. The founding fathers were influenced by more than just one philosophy, but instead pulled their ideas from many different philosophies(the social contract, locke). It was influenced by, rather than founded on Christian values because there were other influences as well, get it? If it were founded on Christian values, there would be no other influences. We have a system a of cooperation and supposed democracy because working together tends to be the best method of having a civilized society. Very condensed, but that is the gist of it.

 

The results of a collective effort are always bigger than that of an individual effort. Even when there is inefficiency involved.

Use of the Government is the use of a type of tool: It's like a sledge hammer. It isn't the most precise tool there is and it's clunky to use, but it can punch through a brick wall. The power of Government is to throw its weight around and throw everything it has at a problem, and that can be useful.

The Government isn't the solution to everything but like any tool there are situations where it's the best tool for the job, and society's problems are in the domain of the Government, and the Government has access to special manipulators (the spending budget, the currency, taxes, financial aid, central planning, ect.) that no one else does which form the core of what our society is founded on.