I swear I was going to leave this one alone...

But I can't! A student on another site posted this in her journal and I can't get this tripe out of my head. So I thought I would post this here and put in my comments and let all of you have a crack at it as well. If you have actual research to back your points up it would be helpful for my ultimate reply to her on the other website. Oh and if I'm wrong on something let me know would you?

1. Hitler and Stalin committed heinous crimes because they were atheists.
This statement assumes that (1) they were both atheists and (2) they committed mass murder and other horrible crimes BECAUSE they were atheists. Assumption 1 is false for Hitler; he was a Catholic who hated Jews!(Get it right, please) Since assumption 1 is false, then assumption 2 is false as well.
Assumption 1 is true for Stalin; however, assumption 2 is false for Stalin, so assumption 1 is irrelevant. What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically INFLUENCES people to do bad things. There is not a slightest evidence that it does.

This one irritates me because she erroneously paints Hitler as a practicing Catholic which is false. I grew up Catholic and I know for sure that nowhere in their teachings did exterminating foes come into play. I find it fascinating that most of the mass murderers were atheists once they rose to power.


2. Founding Fathers were Christians. America is a Christian nation.
Lack of knowledge in history cannot reveal itself so blatantly in this statement.
The founding fathers were SECULARISTS/DEISTS, men of ENLIGHTENMENT. Thomas Jefferson would eat you for breakfast if you said such thing!
The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion", This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy Muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
"The priests of the different religious sects...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live." - THOMAS JEFFERSON

Where to start with this one? Maybe that George Washington was the Chaplin for his troops for the French and Indian war and that he spent an 2 hours a day studying the Bible and praying to God. Of course the quote is taken out of context as well. It meant that there was no established state church in the USA, not that is was not a Christian nation. An odd statement considering that 99% of the people in the US were Christian. I also know that most of the founding fathers were either Christians or Diests and that even Thomas Jefferson attended church on a regular basis.

3. Many renowned scientists, like Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking, are religious.
Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking certainly do NOT believe in a personal god. Einstein was always irritated when people called him a theist or religious. He wrote a famous paper justifying his statements "I do not believe in a personal God." in 1940.

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat of new kind of religion.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." - ALBERT EINSTEIN

This one I am going to leave alone although I find it hard to believe. I do know that until the last few decades most scientists had religious faith.

4. Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith:
The most common misunderstanding about atheism is the definition. Many insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God, but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that atheism is exclusively about their god, the god common to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists to the exclusion of all others. Standard dictionary definitions list "denial of God or gods" second; first comes "disbelief in god or Gods." Disbelief is not the same as denial, it's either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism.

Well, Atheists sure act like it's their religion they way they not only attack people of faith but try to convert people to their secular view. Secular Humanism is a belief system that acts like religion but is Atheist in nature.

5. Atheists Worship Satan, Themselves, Money, or Some Other God:
The claim that atheists replace worship of God with worship of something else ranges over man possible objects for worship: Satan, themselves, humanity, etc. In addition to being wrong, these myths share the belief that worship is somehow fundamental to human existence such that it simply isn't possible for a person to live a decent life without worshipping something. This is false, though. No matter how important religion or theism is to someone, this isn't a good reason to conclude that they are also important to everyone else, even those who deny having any god or religion.

Everyone worships something, it's human nature...

6. Atheists hate God/Christians and that is why they claim not to believe.

It's not a myth, has she actually read any of the books written by athiests? If they love believers they have a funny way of showing it!

7. More People Have Been Killed in the Name of Atheism & Secularism than Religion:
A common criticism raised by atheists against religion is how violent religion and religious believers have been in the past. People have slaughtered each other in large numbers because of differences in religious beliefs or because of other differences which are justified and intensified through religious rhetoric. Either way, religion has a lot of blood on its hands. Can the same be said for atheists and atheism? Haven't atheists killed more people in the name of atheism than religious theists have killed in the name of their religion? No: atheism isn't a philosophy or ideology.
"Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honor killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give until it hurts'. Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it." - RICHARD DAWKINS

Go look at how many people Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Stalin etc killed vs. how many died because of religion. It's not even close...


8. Atheism is a Product of Rebellion & Pride:
There are many myths about atheism and atheists which claim that people are atheists due to some sort of rebellion (against god, religion, church, families, fathers, etc.) or pride. These myths come primarily from Christians whose religious mythology gives an important place to rebellion against divine rules as the origin of evil in the world (Satan is depicted as having rebelled against God). At most, these myths might be true of some but not all or even most atheists; even if true, however, none of these myths would have any implications for the truth or reasonableness of atheism itself.

This one may actually be correct in some way. Everyone comes to faith in different ways so I would assume that Athiests come to thier non-faith in various ways.

9. You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith

Is the existence of "God" a subject which science cannot answer? That depends entirely on how "God" is defined by believers. Some can be proven or disproven empirically or logically and some cannot — but those which cannot are defined in ways which are too vague or incoherent to properly evaluate. In such cases, it also isn't very reasonable to believe in them, and religious theists are only fooling themselves if they think this is a way to avoid providing rational defenses of their claims.
Any alleged deity which is claimed to interact with the world we live in is a deity which should have empirical effects — and that constitutes potential evidence for or against the existence of said deity. Only gods without any impact on our world are beyond empirical investigation, but such gods are also without any real relevance for us. Even if they are somehow not unreasonable to believe in, they certainly aren't worth basing an entire life around.

I'm not sure this even makes sense so for now I will leave it be. I will say I have seen enough evidence in my life to make me a Christian and nothing to make me turn away from my faith.

The Pope

The Pope left the USA today after a six day visit. I did not know what to expect of him when he was elected although the bits that I did hear over the last few years gave me hope for the Catholic faith and their new leader. He was supposed to be an interim Pope, a stepping stone for the next one if you will. That's what the experts thought. Boy were they wrong.

He is a great man, a truly great man. Every time I heard him speak I got a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes. The look in his eyes every time he was introduced and stunned by the roar of the crowd told me what a humble man he is. And the topper was that he not only addressed the child abuse scandal several times in his sermons. But he also read the riot act to the Bishops and Cardinals and basically told them that this had better not happen again, especially the cover ups and the transferring of problem priests from one parish to the next. The crowning moment was when he met privately met with some of the victims of this terrible scandal to apologize and pray with and for them. The Catholic Church should rejoice and thank God almighty this selection.

To bad some people like that moron Bill Mahr couldn't resist taking shots at him and the Church. I won't dignify that dope by repeating what he said, just turn him off when he comes on the air.

Finally, understand that I am not Catholic anymore. I belong to one of the Vineyard churches here in the valley. However I still follow what the Pope says and does, and in this case it fills my heart with joy.

I hope and pray that I could somehow make that kind of a difference in the classroom when I finally finish school and begin my career in earnest because then I would know that during my brief time on Earth that I made it a better place to live.



----------------
Now playing: Meant To Live - Switchfoot
via FoxyTunes

This is an interesting... By Vegas Art Guy

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/491640,CST-NWS-race01.article

A professor got himself into hot water by wondering aloud if Jew's rigorous study of their holy texts is one reason why the pass the bar exam at a higher rate than black student's whose churches are more emotionally driven and less rigorous in biblical study.

This, of course, got turned into a racial issue and the professor lost a 5% raise and was disciplined. He has finally resorted to the legal system for remedy. This is sad because I think that the professor raised some valid questions about religious study and study habits in general.
Churches run the gamut on biblical study from lots of study to none at all.

The one I attend falls in the middle. I have done small groups that do bible study and ones that don't. The services are heavy on Biblical references but the lessons are heavy on real life application and not pure study and discussion. Bible study is certainly encouraged but not mandated at our church. However the point the professor makes is a valid one I believe. Because their studies are rigorous, it better prepares them for the bar.

It never should have turned into a racial issue, the complaining students should have know that in the first place.

Christianity loses again...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1626300,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Once again Christianity loses on the world stage. Because Lina Joy was born into a Muslim family she is subject or subjugated to sharia law and not civil law. The highest court in Malaysia has decided that her conversion to Christianity will not be recognized officially and now her life has just taken a decided turn for the worse. Islam takes a very dim view of apostasy, or people who convert from Islam to another faith. In many countries it's a death sentence and in parts of Malaysia this will get you prison time. Don't be shocked when she's killed in the future.

A religion of peace? Really? Or the scourge of Western Civilization? Each time I see or hear something like this it gets harder and harder for me to really believe that Islam is truly peaceful.

Anti Catholic Bigotry Updated

What the? This really pisses me off. It's bad enough Rosie O'Donnell thinks that Roman Catholics shouldn't be judges but now Tony Auth has added his 2¢ to his view of Christians and Catholics in particular.

Now this cartoon is in response to the partial birth abortion ban that the court upheld. The 5 in the mitres are all Catholics. Notice that the two Jews and the two protestants are not identified in this cartoon by similar garb. Why the hell do people think it's OK to bang on Christians? Because we don't go nuts, starting riots and killing people of other faiths?

I'm sorry this is bigotry pure and simple. The message he is sending with this cartoon is that Catholics cannot be trusted as judges because they get their marching orders from the Pope. What crap, and yet we as Christians are just supposed to get a thick skin and deal with it right? Uh, no. This should not stand and all Christians need to let Tony and the paper know that you cannot bang on Christians without consequence. The cartoon appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer so if you want to let them know how you feel they're the ones to contact.

Update 3:27pm...

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2007/04/christian_marty.html

Three Christians in Turkey had their throats slit for the crime of selling Bibles last week. Funny how it didn't seem to get any mention in the MSM. Of course had they been Muslim or any other religion aside from Christian it'd all over the place, with pleas for tolerance and understanding. But Christians? You'd be lucky to even get crickets to chirp. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here or is it just me?

The End of Religious Freedom · Updated!

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6301

Don't look so surprised.

The assault on religious freedom has reached a new high, or low depending on your viewpoint. Now England wants to outlaw Christian Schools from teaching about sexuality from a biblical viewpoint. What did we expect from across the pond anyway?

Western Europe has been becoming more and more secular, when that happens, religious freedom becomes something that is now subject to the whims of governments. And in England that means that you can no longer legally practice your religion like you have for the last several hundred years.

Those that continually call for tolerance from people of faith are finally showing their true colors and that the only thing they tolerate are views that are in lock step with theirs. All others are intolerant, homophobic, an assault on women's rights etc. Expect laws like this to spread throughout Europe, which will make life very interesting for countries like France that have large Muslim populations and who find homosexuality abhorrent to the point where you can get killed for your sexual preferences. I doubt seriously that the Muslims will go quietly into the night on this one and that will probably give the fanatics even more traction in their war against the west.

The USA is next on the list and I doubt even the First Amendment will be enough to protect people of faith. Of course they'll go after the Christians first, then once they've been made irrelevant then the 'minority' religions are next in line. After all they must be treated the same right? That's the reasoning they will use.

If you're a person of faith, be it Jewish, Islamic, Christian or whatever...

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Update #1 3/21/2007
Et, tu Brutus?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3376215,00.html
Now this I thought I'd never see. Now it's not only illegal to convert Muslims in the Middle East but now Israel is off limits? As it stands you can't convert anyone under the age of 18 in Israel now they want to make all Israelis off limits. Huh? Maybe we need to take a hard look at our so called ally. Needless to say I am surprised and disappointed in Israel for this policy.

Credit to Alex http://alexlsilva.blogspot.com/2007/03/83-interesting-links-viii.html
(A fine blog in it's own right)

Catholic Church raises money to build a what?

http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_19335-Catholic-Church-In-Cologne-Collects-Money-For-A-Mosque.html

WTF? Sorry, not getting it. If you believe you're the one true faith then why the flizz do you help build a place of worship for a faith you consider false and wrong? I'm all for freedom of religion. You're Christian? Jewish? Muslim? Hindu, etc? Fine, no problem. You want to worship sports, money, sex, power the oak tree in your back yard? Enjoy. But this is wrong. Very wrong. I have no problem with community projects that people of different faiths can participate in together, it breaks down the ignorance and hatred, I'm all for that. You want to have celebrations and have people from different faiths participate? Be my guest. But I don't get raising money for what is a totally different religion and faith.

Are European Christians so weak in their faith that they're willing to embrace another faith in this way? Is the spiritual vacuum that great in Western Europe?

What am I missing folks?

Credit to KCC and their fine commenters for the news story...
http://kansascitycatholic.blogspot.com/2007/03/kcc-100000.html

A clear double standard

On wetcanvas.com there was a discussion about the Christophobia label and if it applies in the USA. Judging from stories like this, I'd say there is a clear double standard at work in this country regarding the first amendment.
http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=364

In short, it's OK to indoctrinate kids into becoming muslims in public schools as long as you don't do it with Christianity. I'm sure this was done under the banner of multiculturalism but that's a load of horsepucky. There are tons of ways to teach Islam without forcing them to become Muslims for three weeks. I mean what if they did this with Christians? The ACLU etc would be all over this like white on rice. But hey it's OK if it's Islam... What did I miss? Where is the MSM screaming about the first amendment?

Then there is this gem also from California...

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/school_officials_reverse_earli.php

Parents pay for an ad that mentions God and the school takes the word God out. I'd be willing to be had it been Allah, or Goddess etc., no problem...

The message is clear all faiths but Christianity are welcome in the public square. Ever wonder why Christians get so worked up? This is why...

All or Nothing

One of the disturbing trends I've noticed in many discussions, well cyber-shouting matches, is this concept of all or nothing.

This concept means that it's 1 or 0 black and white. You're either with us all the way or you're the enemy. There's no room for discussion with all or nothing because there is nothing to discuss. The problem with this is that you can reach any sort of compromise and in real life it means that you can't get as many people as you like on your side because you only want people who agree with you 100% of the time.

Let me give you an example. Recently I was involved in a discussion of gay marriage. One gentleman who is gay subscribed to this all or nothing mentality. To him you were either 100% for gay marriage or you were a homophobic bigot. To him, civil unions, domestic partnerships etc. were not good enough because they treated gays like second class citizens even though gay couples would then have all the rights that my wife and I have as far as tax breaks etc. In addition he demanded that anyone of faith accept without question that nothing gays did in bed were immoral. Needless to say he gave people no wiggle room and I was sad because there are people who would stand with gays on certain issues and not others. Things like hate crimes, stopping the spread of AIDS in the gay community etc... But for him it was, you guessed it, all or nothing...