Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."
"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."
"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"
- Name: beepbeepitsme
- Location: Australia
I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.
View my complete profile
"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"
Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.
Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME
Goya, Francisco "El sueno de la razon produce monstruos" ~ The Sleep Of Reason Produces Monsters 1797-98
"Religious fanaticism in all its forms leads inevitably to bigotry, hatred, and, too often, violent confrontations. Let's end it like reasonable human beings. How many more Crusades, Jihads, Holy Wars, whatever you want to call them, must we live through to see the light? Let's put belief in a personal God, who tells us that only we are right and that everybody else is wrong, on a dusty top shelf, out of reach, where it belongs."
More From The Original Source: ~ Intervention Magazine ~ God Has Got To Go "Many people associated with the Religious Right in America would have us believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. They foster this lie because they want to force their narrow-minded religious beliefs down our throats. They would like us to envision that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison are standing with them shoulder to shoulder when they spout their distorted views on abortion, contraception, gay marriage, school prayer, evolution, etc.
But to assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation is clearly un-American, if we define "American" as holding dear the precepts and values handed down to us in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. The framers of the Constitution had no intention of defining our country as Christian. On the contrary, they were deeply concerned about preventing any kind
of religious tyranny." By Joseph Smigelski
Link
12 Comments:
"Let's put belief in a personal God, who tells us that only we are right and that everybody else is wrong, on a dusty top shelf, out of reach, where it belongs."
I'd put that God on a dusty shelf, out of reach, as well. God is much too infinite and complex to confine within a small, narrow doctrine or ideal....in my humble opinion.
As for 'Christian nation', have you ever stopped and asked why all the countries with the best standards of living are predominantly Christian by population?
WE have a high standard of living because we are the most ruthless.
That is a glib answer.
As for 'Christian nation', have you ever stopped and asked why all the countries with the best standards of living are predominantly Christian by population?
For Jeff´s question, I guess you can find out an anwser in beeps recent post called "the corporation" more than look the answer in a religious issue. (although surely there must exist a link, between economy and religion.)
I have been enjoying your discussions, both Jeff and Beep
Mario G
Yw Mario G, glad to see you are enjoying it. :)
Japan is predominantly Christian by population? I thought it was predominantly Shinto.
If you're talking about Northern Europe, then these are countries with high social security spending, gay marriages, low gun ownership, inclusive health care and little mention of religion in the media.
Australia has a consistently high standard of living also with a low % of gun ownership, national healthcare and little mention of religion in the media (unless it is a religious program.)
And yet we are consistently higher placed in the surveys for "Most Livable Countries" than the US.
Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2005
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html
The most religious nation in the top 20 is undoubtedly the US, and yet it is number 10, not number 1.
Australia is ranked third behind
Norway and Iceland.
So you're saying the top 20 countries are not predominantly Christian? Just because religion isn't in the media, does that mean they aren't predominantly Christian by pop?
19 out of 20 countries are indeed predominantly Christian..... You know, this poses a certain number of problems from an atheist perspective. I don't envy you in your attempt to square this...
RE: jeffie the troll:
The predominate difference between the countries at the top and those at the bottom is the degree of poverty.
Obviously those which are in the most "liveable category" are the richer countries and those in the "least liveable category" are the poorer countries.
If you want to say that countries are rich BECAUSE they are christian, you will need to show some direct correlation.
Or, conversely, if you wish to claim that countries are poor because they are islamic, you need to get to work on that thesis.
When the least liveable countries in the list are examined, what becomes obvious is their POVERTY.
Poverty is obviously the major determining factor when assessing living standards.
Saying countries are wealthy BECAUSE they are christian is like saying you are fat because you are republican. Though I would like to make the link, it is a tenuous claim.
My claim would be that countries are less liveable because they are poor.
Why are they poor?
And what can reasonably be shown to be directly correlated to low living standards?
"The Least Livable Countries" have these things in common.
1. They are countries which are predominately desert. Yes, DESERT.
2. They have huge populations relative to land use.
3. They have very little arable land.
4. Many lack natural resources on a scale which encourages wealth.
5. Many have all been colonies of the "Christian West".
Many "christian nations" became rich by sucking the wealth from their colonies and leaving them as an economic disaster areas.
The 20 "Least Liveable Countries" were all colonies of the West.
Niger, The Congo, Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, and Central African Republic were all COLONIES of France.
Zambia, Malawi, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone were all COLONIES of Britain.
Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau were COLONIES of Portugal.
Ethiopia and Eritrea were COLONIES of Italy.
Burundi and Tanzania were COLONIES of Germany.
Present day Rwanda and Burundi were COLONIES of Belgium.
The so called "christian nations" just might be rich because of their ruthlessness and greed which was pretty much my argument from the beginning.
And surprise surprise, most of these poorest countries are christian.
Is Jeff going to insert a post hoc ergo propter hoc comment here, I wonder?
I'm tipping:
* They're poor because they're persecuted by non-Christian countries.
Honestly, you can't win where true believers are concerned.
RE dikki: "Is Jeff going to insert a post hoc ergo propter hoc comment here, I wonder?"
So jeff will understand your dismissal of his potential argument, I will post a link for him. :)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Post a Comment
<< Home