4 Ways the 'No Religion' Boom Will Alter American Politics

Not timely, but...

The impact of religion on US politics has been anything but positive. The country has pursued war with even more enthusiasm. Meanwhile, the "religious revival" promoted a solidly anti-poor agenda; their primary success was in removing millions of dollars from human needs programs (i.e., welfare) to help cover the costs of massive annual "tax relief" for corporations/the rich. Under the strengthened influence of religion in politics, the US has become a highly arrogant, judgmental nation that is incapable of finding an answer other than punishment and contempt for "those other people." We are a culture solidly rooted in scapegoatism today.

DHFabian of WI 1:55PM October 26, 2009

thank you for opening my eyes to the savage nature of my sky god.i never realized that he condoned these horrible things. further, i am amazed that he did not first run them past our morality born of our common humanity. how unspeakably arrogant he must be.

thank goodness he is only a myth.

in fact it is amazing to me that the creators of this myth did not create someone slightly more paletable to our common humanity.

those fools like Abraham, how simple and mindless they were. it's amazing that they are still some of the most influencial people in the world (except of course mr. chilly spine)

well at any rate, my eyes are open now. whew! fools

Danny Whitley of AR 6:26PM September 30, 2009

Dr Shade: "[Let bullies prosper because it may be the result of natural evolution] is the logical conclusion of morality among humans if atheists are correct." This is a very obvious example of a naturalistic fallacy - taking an 'is' to come up with an 'ought'. Of course very few of the so-called new atheists recommend using natural selection as a normative basis for ethics. People like Dawkins and Dennett are very explicit in rejecting it.

As to why we have altruistic and other positive social impulses, there is a thriving research program examining how various cultural and biological mechanisms (e.g. kin selection, reciprocal altruism, group selection) could have given rise to such behaviour. And it is certainly much more fruitful and testable than the vacuous "god-did-it" explanation.

As to thinking that in order to say 'Hitler was evil' we need to ground such statements in the commands of a celestial being, this is to be extraordinarily ignorant of the last two hundred year of progress in ethical theory. Divine command theory has mostly been relegated to the history of thought (outside some theological schools). I won’t bother to spell out the numerous alternatives.

More so, this approach to ethics illustrates what I see as the most creepiest aspect of religion and why I believe there is a moral imperative to debunk this nonsense. To abrogate one's moral thinking by slavishly follow the commands of a celestial or earthly dictator is the source of some of the greatest crimes in history ("You want me to kill my son? Yes sir! No questions asked Sir", "The Jews are to blame for all our troubles? Yes Sir! We will deal with them for you Sir"). The fact that the Abrahamic faiths actually honor a man for trying to kill his son purely because a powerful sky being told him to, is a perfect example of how screwed up one’s moral compass can become from religion. I find it boggling to see modern civilized people finding even the slightest redeemable feature of such zombie morality.

Furthermore, given the numerous other genocides, infanticides and other slaughters conducted or commanded by the God of the Bible, it is tragic to see people wanting to ground their moral compass in such an apparent monster. The apologetics I have seen trying to justify such atrocities is reminiscent of so many other justifications for atrocities in the past by other earthly tyrants:'They deserved it', 'The children were saved from a worse fate by being slaughtered','Who are we to question the wisdom of the Great Leader?'. It's just spine chilling.

Therefore, the sooner we emancipate ourselves from such a non-thinking approach to morality and take responsibility for our actions, ground our ethics in our common humanity using concepts of happiness, freedom and equality rather than the myths of the local culture we were born into, the better the world will be. Certainly, fewer planes will be slammed into our buildings.

W K Clifford 1:28AM September 28, 2009

People often say there is no evidence for God, yet most of what they offer is quite questionable. Creation is an obvious evidence for God's existence. The Big Bang theory holds problems because the universe suddenly existed. Well, that would contradict the law of conservation which says nothing comes into existence or ceases to exist. What about an infinitely old universe? Well, that would mean the universe should be dead instead of alive. Why? Because the second law of thermodynamics states that energy is becoming less useable as time passes. This would engergy shouldn't be useable for life, and yet it is usable so an infinitely old universe doesn't hold water. The fossil record does not adhere to what many evolutionists say. Also, getting the correct chemical combinations in the correct order at random for a single cellular organism is quite improbable unless an intelligence was guiding the process.

Morality is another. Atheists can be moral, but why should they be moral and how do they know when something is immoral? If humanity is just a product of random (yes, random or else evolutionists have a higher impersonal being that is choosing which species shall continue to exist or become extinct) natural selection, then why does it find itself opposing what is supposed to be natural? For example, many parents and students oppose kids who beat their peers up. Well wait a minute, why are they opposed to this? Couldn't it be possible that the bullies are at a point in biological evolution that they now function as being a part of a bully species? This laughable, yet that the logical conclusion of morality among humans if atheists are correct. Also, this destroys the idea of being responsible. How can we say that Hitler was evil if there is no universal moral code by which we all identify with? Aren't we all just reacting to stimuli? How can we say there is morality. What is morality?

The Resurrection has yet to be explained.

Dogma is a set of beliefs. Atheism is a worldview and therefore has a set of beliefs that make it different from any others. Dogma can be questioned, but not to follow it means you are no longer a part of that worldview or system of beliefs. Mormons believe that the Trinity is three separate people under the name God. They are not Christians because Christian dogma concerning the doctrine of the Trinity says God is one being.

Dr. Shade of NC 2:33PM September 26, 2009