Interesting blog entry. I think the respondents at the blog you linked to are right. If the roles were reversed this would have been news. The audio on the other site is interesting to listen to because she has a lot of fear and anger in her voice.
It is also interesting that he got riled up by the moment of silence. When I was in school they did the moment of silence and I was unaware that it was a stand in for prayer. I sat there quietly thinking “hmm, what is the deal here?” I never felt that anyone was trying to force me to do or believe anything in particular.
BTW Your argument also applies to the theory of evolution. It’s best not to avoid it because it’s out there and you’ll have to deal with it at some point.

Yeah, I agree with that and that’s why the teach it to the kids at school.
I actually want my kids to learn as much of this as they can before they leave for college so that they know that I didn’t hide anything from them out of fear and that I can respond to the truth claims of these competing worldviews.

Thank you for once again giving us a good laugh at the expense of an idiot politician.
And of course, the great joy that comes from this exchange is the knowledge that there is absolutely nothing she can do to stop him. If she tries, the courts will hang her out to dry.

Actually, this doesn’t surprise me at all.
In many cases, the fairness or persecution arguments come down to the ideas of ‘I have a right to be comfortable’. or ‘I have the right to not be offended’. Or even, ‘I have the right to think that most people believe and think the same things I do’.
It is dangerous for our children to even know your philosophy exists.
I wonder what sort of news this would’ve made if that the roles were reversed?

umm, for the record, our founding fathers made sure to include “endowed by his Creator” because they knew that if by man these rights were given then by man could they be taken away. But if these rights were given to us by God, man couldn’t touch them. Whether Christian or atheist, our constitution doesn’t give us our rights, God does.

It is dangerous for children to know about Atheism? It’s going to stop progress in the state? This country, as was pointed out, has given the right to all it’s citizens to enjoy the practice of their religion or not to participate in a religious belief. Rep. Davis from Illinois (the state I was born in) has a really big problem! It’s hers and no one elses. I can guarantee the entire state of Illinois isn’t Christian! (nor is this country). If she wants a state mandated religion, she should move to a country that gives it’s citizens NO choice…Iran, Saudia Arabia, Iraq. Head scarves baby…and lots of religious rules.
Basically sounds like the Rep. is scared of education that might cause children to think and make up their own minds about things.

I don’t consider atheism dangerous, intellectually immature yes, but not particularly dangerous.

In effect, Davis (an African-American) was telling the atheist to go to the back of the bus. So much for civil rights in America. Why she’s so afraid of a philosophy that embraces reality and truth instead of myth, I’d really like to know. Had she said the same to a Christian or Jew, she’d be gone.

Yes, that’s why I said “acknowledged”

“Why she’s so afraid of a philosophy that embraces reality and truth instead of myth”
Realty and truth? You mean according to you? Prove it’s the truth.

“Reality and truth? You mean according to you? Prove it’s the truth.” Michele
Michele, how do you prove Christianity or any religion is the truth, and not myth?

The tricky part about proof is that a valid proof all depends on what givens you allow. If you can’t agree on the ground rules you’ll never come to agreement.
For example a world wide flood should leave plenty of evidence if it occurred, but there does not appear to be any, nor is there enough water on Earth to cover all the land. Plus building a wooden boat that size would likely be impossible.
So by my rules that event never happened and that story is a myth.
However, if you believe in miracles then water can be created, destroyed, and evidence removed or never left in the first place.

Could you believe that we descended from the same ancestor?

I’m not sure if that question was rhetorical, but yes I do.
The genetic evidence is pretty clear that all humans descended from a common female ancestor about 200,000 years ago. There were other humans on Earth at the time, but none of their descendants survived to the current day.

No, it wasn’t rhetorical, just trying to figure out if you would ignore all the evidence or was open to exploring it.
How about God becoming man? Do you see that as impossible?

There are no convincing arguments for the existence of a god.
None.
Not one.
No wonder theists are so threatened?
God, the tooth fairy, santa claus, and Thor all fall into the same category: Mythology.
“God” is the belief that: “LIFE HAS ALWAYS MAGICALLY EXISTED FROM NOTHING, IN THE FORM OF AN ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-PERFECT, ALL-KNOWING SUPREME BEING. ALL OTHER LIFE MUST HAVE A DESIGNER, BUT THE SUPREME PIZZA, ER UM… SUPREME BEING IS EXEMPT FROM THIS QUALIFICATION.”
If you want kids so STUPID that they fall for THAT, maybe you should move to Iran where the church rules the state.

“How about God becoming man? Do you see that as impossible?”
A tough and interesting question because I’m not entirely sure what it means. But I’ll give it my best shot using an analogy.
The concept of God seems so to be an infinite consciousness existing outside of our time and space that is the root cause of our reality, and has the ability to interact with reality in meaningful ways.
If we think of our universe as a cosmic version of the SIMS with us being characters in the simulation, then I suppose it is possible there could exists a SIM or SIMS that are controlled by a being or beings outside our reality. The SIM and its controller would not be identical with each other, but it would allow a God to interact with other SIMS directly.
I should say I see this as unlikely, but within the realm of the possible. It also raises a bunch of philosophy 101 questions like: “How do you tell a regular SIM from the other kind?”, “What evidence is required to prove there is an external reality?”, “Does the external reality also have a creator?”, and “How do you avoid an infinite regression of nested realities?”

“Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy — it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.
I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God…”
I didn’t know guns WERE allowed in schools. They certainly don’t belong there – like prayer. This Monique Davis is who sounds “dangerous”. She might have had a modicum of believability if she had said “This is where SOME people believe in God, but it is also a land where we have freedom of – and hopefully FROM – religion and the religionists.”

“Whether Christian or atheist, our constitution doesn’t give us our rights, God does.”
regardless of where our rights come to us from, what our constitution is supposed to do is protect those rights. god doesn’t do that for us here.

“Whether Christian or atheist, our constitution doesn’t give us our rights, God does.”
Actually “God” has nothing to do with our rights.

Nice post! The only place I might differ is that I raise my kids to discuss the issue, not argue from one side. Let them decide from themselves, right? Otherwise it’s just indoctrination.

MH, your answer is very good and shows an understanding of the problem of the infinite taking on finite form. It’s an issue that the church has been struggling with for years.
How about a man coming back from the dead?

“There are no convincing arguments for the existence of a god.”
You’re right. There is no proof that will make the blind see. The only way anyone can be convinced of the truth is for God to take away their blindness. I know because that’s what happened to me.
“If you want kids so STUPID that they fall for THAT, maybe you should move to Iran where the church rules the state.”
I am more concerned that they deny the obvious, I wouldn’t want them to be so delusional as to deny that which is evident to most of humanity.

anonymous reincarnate, they belong to us because our constitution acknowledges that they came from the Creator. It’s the states job to make sure they don’t infringe on our rights.

pagansister, evidently the founding fathers thought so.

“The only place I might differ is that I raise my kids to discuss the issue, not argue from one side. Let them decide from themselves, right? Otherwise it’s just indoctrination.”
Do you teach your children right from wrong? Would you tell them not to steal? If you do, then you are indoctrinating them in your view of behavior. We teach our children a way of life from birth. That is what I’m doing as well.
BTW, if I give them a book and tell them to read it and then respond to the issues raised in the book, if my response isn’t good enough, my daughter will know.

Thanks, I wrote it quickly and found it awkward after re-reading it.
While death is a natural process which is normally irreversible, a significant intervention can halt or reverse it. So I don’t find the concept of a man coming back from the dead to be impossible.
Our species is able to bring people back from what was considered dead only a short time ago. As our skills have grown, so has the length of time that a dead person can be revived if the conditions are right.
An advanced technological civilization might have the skills to analyze and repair damage at the cellar level using something like molecular nanotechnology. The better their technology the longer the time span someone who is dead could be revived if enough information was still present.
Going back to the cosmic SIMS analogy. A God outside the simulation could probably have enough information to restore anyone in the simulation, so brining a person back from the dead is easy if desired.
I’m ignoring the concept of souls and looking at death as a purely mechanical process. I figure if there’s a God and souls, then he’ll sort things out. If there’s no God and we’re mechanical processes then there’s no issue either.

MH, another very good answer. So, it sounds like you really wouldn’t have too much trouble with the Jesus’ claim. It’s plausible?

Certainly I would say it is possible, but this is an extraordinary claim and I’d need some extraordinary evidence before I accepted it as a fact. My need for evidence is why I’m an agnostic.
A requirement for this claim is to accept the existence of a being outside our reality which wanted to do what Christians claim. As I pointed out earlier accepting an outside to our reality raises more issues than it seems to solve with regards to the nature of reality.
But the philosophy 101 stuff is not really my core issue. The problem of evil is my core issue against accepting the existence of such a being with the properties described. As I see it humans were created through the process of evolution. Being red in tooth and claw this process built into us some of the nasty traits which we call evil.
So it seems to me we were created in a broken state and not broken by rebelling against God through our own choices.
Earlier you brought up our common ancestor. The basis for this discovery was the mitochondiral DNA studies which besides showing the common ancestor of humans, also demonstrates our common lineage with other animals and even plants.
If you use this evidence to support the existence of Mitochondrial Eve then you need to accept its ramifications with regards to the theory of evolution. You can’t play it both ways, or at least I can’t.
So there might be a God, but he seems comfortable using a mechanism to create beings that leaves them effective but imperfect. So this raises troubling question to me about why Jesus would need to do what was claimed.
Sorry if this is rushed but my kids are bugging me to go on webkins.

“Earlier you brought up our common ancestor. The basis for this discovery was the mitochondiral DNA studies which besides showing the common ancestor of humans, also demonstrates our common lineage with other animals and even plants.”
Which makes sense if we shared a connection with the earth as Genesis 1-2 claims.
You’re problem with Christianity is typical. I understand that the problem with evil is stumbling block for many people. How can a good God allow evil to exist. Would you rather man lacked freedom? Would you want God to force us to be good?

Unnecessary.
Heck, simply not (according to the theology) having a predisposition toward good. Make good like, well, what liver is for me.
I CAN eat liver, if I had to. So obviously not being ‘forced to not eat liver’.
I simply don’t like it, so I don’t do it.
Rendering ‘evil’ into something that people don’t like/don’t want to do, but COULD would still allow free will, and still improve things.
So would removing some of the most common causes for bad behavior. (Not the exclusive reasons, but the most common.) Such as desperation, limited resources, ignorance, fear, anger, etc.
None of which would remove any free will.
Umm.. which I’m interested in hearing a Reform Calvinist arguing anyway.

Of course, interesting place for a thread starting with a State Senator literally telling someone of a different philosophy that it is dangerous to her children to know that he and his group even exists, and ordering him out of a public forum.

While I’m agnostic with regards to the facts, I’m a weak theist with regards to belief, so I’ll assume the existence of God for the sake of discussion.
I don’t think the problem of evil means that God isn’t good, otherwise God would have made things much worse. If God liked violent video games instead of the cosmic SIMS think how bad things could be. But it limits at least one of the Omni-attributes and seems to alter God’s motivations.
While the abuse of free will is often brought up as a solution to the problem of evil. I think that falls short in two ways: First, humans don’t have enough free will and are prisoners of our evolutionary heritage which allows our instincts to overcome our reason and better nature. Second is that natural evil is far deadlier than the human created kind.
Karen brought up resource constraints as a big cause of human cruelty. This relates nicely to my evolution point. The mechanism used to create man means that we have built in biases towards resource hoarding and violence toward our own kind because of the survival advantage conferred. These individuals survive to pass on their genes which reinforces these traits.
There’s also all the wars fought over what was ultimately bad reasoning on the part of the participants. This has a basis in the state of nature where ignoring a real tiger can get you killed, while attacking a non-existent tiger behind a bush is only a waste of effort. Placing this instinct in the low trust environment of international politics triggers wars and much suffering.
The natural evils such as disease and disasters have killed more humans than all warfare. For example the 1918 flu pandemic alone killed at least 50 to 100 million people which exceeded the death toll from World War one by at least 10 million. The 2004 Tsunami killed more than 225,000 which exceeds the total death toll of the Iraq war.
Moving to an explicitly Christian issue. There’s also the issue of God’s motivation with regards to becoming Jesus. I could see a curious God taking on human form seeking to interact with its creations directly, but why the need for Christ’s sacrifice? Why would God save us from the conditions he created?
Michelle you’re being a good sport about this, plus there’s an upside to this discussion. It we keep it up we can get you on the hot topics list.

Karen Brown, do you think man is inherently good or evil?

This is excellent and well-reasoned:
“I don’t think the problem of evil means that God isn’t good, otherwise God would have made things much worse. If God liked violent video games instead of the cosmic SIMS think how bad things could be. But it limits at least one of the Omni-attributes and seems to alter God’s motivations.”
“The natural evils”
What makes disease and disasters “evil?” From an evolutionary perspective isn’t death just part of the process?
“There’s also the issue of God’s motivation with regards to becoming Jesus. I could see a curious God taking on human form seeking to interact with its creations directly, but why the need for Christ’s sacrifice? Why would God save us from the conditions he created?”
If God’s justice demanded that everyone who sinned against him had to spend eternity paying for it, would you stand a chance of remaining sinless? No one can. Christ came to lead the sinless life for us. He is the only one who can meet the standard of obedience necessary to enter heaven. God sent his Son to live the perfect life for us and die in our place to take our punishment. God’s standard has been met but Christ and all of those who are united to him will be saved.
An analogy for this is Noah’s ark. God’s punishment is coming, it will rain down like the rain that filled the earth (I know you don’t believe it) and we can’t avoid it just as mankind could not avoid the flood. Those in Christ will live and those outside of Christ will be punished for all eternity. That’s what the Bible says will happen.
From the Christian perspective Christ’s death and resurrection makes sense because we understand the obedience we owe a holy God. Those who don’t understand the purpose they were created for won’t see their obligation to God as Creator.
BTW, God didn’t create this situation, we did. We are free to be obedient to him and do not.
“Michelle you’re being a good sport about this, plus there’s an upside to this discussion. It we keep it up we can get you on the hot topics list.”
I’m not being a good sport, out of all the things I can discuss on this blog, my favorite is discussing belief with others And I don’t if I can ever beat anything on God’s Politics or the Crunchy Con

“This is excellent and well-reasoned”
Hey thanks! Overall this thread has really made me think. I’m going to bookmark it for future reference.
“What makes disease and disasters “evil?” From an evolutionary perspective isn’t death just part of the process?”
It is true that death is part of the process of life, but there’s always the question of the time, place, and means.
I assume in a world where a God is sovereign over reality then there are no accidents unless God wills it. For example natural processes like plate tectonics while appearing random to us are in fact not random. In this scenario a tsunami which kills a lot of people really is an act of God and it automatically raises issues about what it means and why it happened.
In such a world evolution would be a directed process leading to specifically desired ends. This allows a God to create us, but the genetic mutation which allowed the 1918 flu pandemic wasn’t really random either. Since that disease killed a lot of people it would also have a moral dimension also.
When such events actually kill more people than human evil it makes you wonder. From my point of view God is either non-existent or limited, so random processes happen and a tsunami or the flu have no moral dimension. They are actions without causes and no one can be held responsible, not even God.
“If God’s justice demanded that everyone who sinned against him had to spend eternity paying for it, would you stand a chance of remaining sinless? No one can. Christ came to lead the sinless life for us. He is the only one who can meet the standard of obedience necessary to enter heaven. God sent his Son to live the perfect life for us and die in our place to take our punishment. God’s standard has been met but Christ and all of those who are united to him will be saved.”
“Those in Christ will live and those outside of Christ will be punished for all eternity. That’s what the Bible says will happen.”
I realize from your point of view you’re following the rules as written and are not responsible for them. So justifying them is perhaps not something you concern yourself with. It might even be consider man judging God which might make you uncomfortable. But I have a questioning nature and I think those statements are the hardest thing for non-Christians to understand about Christianity for two reasons:
Given that I am finite then all of my sins are finite as well. So an infinite punishment for a finite crime seems a bit on the harsh side even if it is against an infinite being.
There’s also the issue of how punishing one person (Jesus) for another’s crime is itself a moral act. A finite punishment towards the sinner in question seems more moral. I realize that from a Christian point of view God is punishing himself however.
This also allows someone like Ted Bundy (who converted in prison) into Heaven while damming generally moral non-Christians killed in the Tsunami who only believed the wrong religion due to where they were born. I realize that Ted Bundy might not have been sincere but the concern is still valid.
I know the Catholic Church introduced the concept of the “Anonymous Christian” to cover this exact scenario. But I don’t think this is recognized by conservative Protestant Christian groups.
I should close by saying that I’m not trying to anger you with this last section. It is meant as a respectful question/observation in a tough area.

I’m not sure what my beliefs regarding man’s nature has to do with a state senator ordering a citizen out of a public forum because she doesn’t like the group he’s part of..
Just for FYI, neither.
I think humans are a messy mix of both. We can be, depending on need, circumstance, environment and a ton of other factors, surprisingly good or evil. And most of us, at different times, can be, and have been, both.
Now, if you can tell me what that’s got to do with if the mere knowledge that atheists exist is dangerous to people’s children?