NoGodBlog.com

I do not know how conservative evangelicals can call themselves believers in Christ with this voting record.

Simple - they're hypocritical, prudish liars who want to prevent others from breaking the laws they themselves refuse to obey. the 'Do as I say, not as I do' school of philosophy.

I wish I knew how the sheeple who swallow evangelical superstition manage to blank out the thinking part of their brains so that they don't have to face their hypocrisy.

Once again you think that Christians are not allowed to make mistakes. Just because we are Christians does not mean that we don't screw up just like everybody else. As a parent I tell my kids not to cuss but every now and then I let a word slip, I then apologise to my kids for using foul language.

Debbie,

How many slaves do you own and when was the last time you beat them? The bible is explicit in who can be owned and when they can be beat, so it must be okay, right? Infallible word of God, and all.

Go to hell!

Oops, my mistake. I apologise for using foul language. That just 'slipped' out.

How about your gawd, Debbie? Better get a pass from him too.

Tom: I'm with you, I wish I knew how the sheeple blank out the thinking parts of their brains so that they don't have to face their hypocrisy.

I made a big move last week and informed a cousin that I am an atheist. Couldn't help myself. She told me via email that she was going to vote for Huckabee come the Texas elections. I tend not to reveal my atheism to relatives because I know it torments them knowing I will be burning for eternity in their hell. But I told. And then, since she came back and said she didn't believe in evolution and gave me her screwy reasons I attempted to educate her--and I made nice, okay? Really nice!

But it is like talking to a stone. This gem met me this morning when I opened my email: "I personally do not have all the education to prove Christianity; but there are a lot of religious leaders in this world i.e. Billy G. for one; whose education far outweighs a lot of those who do not believe and I'll stand on their knowledge, God, and my belief in Him and will live eternally in a place that God has prepared for me."

I was, of course, happy to be enlightened about Billy Graham's sterling educational credentials (looked it up, he graduated from Wheaton University, a xian college), but I give up. I'm done banging my head against the wall. It's hopeless. Logic and reason mean nothing to most of these people.

Comment from: Debbie [Member]

Once again you think that Christians are not allowed to make mistakes.

Once again, a christian tries to tell a non-christian what they are and are not thinking. Please confine your statements about what someone is thinking to yourself, or someone who thinks as you do.

I certainly do not think that christians are not allowed to make mistakes - christians are free to make any mistakes they wish. Hopefully they will survive those mistakes, too.

What I do think, however, is that the opinion of christians should not be taken into consideration when they tell other non-christians what mistakes they are making, and how to correct them, by either putting (inaccurate) words in their mouths (as above), or pointing out how the non-christians are not following the christian codes (which, surprisingly, seem to be considered by christians as having the same legal status as actual law). If they want to crticize their fellow christians for engaging in un-christian-like behavior, then by all means go for it. Funny how they seem to want to focus on making others who do not share their beliefs 'see the light', instead of, you know, focusing on the continual hypocrisy coming from their religious leaders.

Logic and reason mean nothing to most of these people.

Logic and reason not only mean nothing to the Abrahamics, they are anathema.

I especially like the fact that Rep. Ron Paul has a 0% voting record for children and yet he is a doctor who has delivered 4000+ babies in Texas.

http://tinyurl.com/yvjosx

GodFree&Glad,

What about my God? If I do wrong, he doesn't like it either and I have to repent. I don't understand by what you mean getting a free pass. Christians don't get or expect a free pass from our God.

Debbie,

Once again you think that Christians are not allowed to make mistakes.

Had you taken the time research atheism you would never have made the mistake that tom has already castigated you for. Don't put words in our mouths.

Just because we are Christians does not mean that we don't screw up just like everybody else.

The problem here isn't that you make mistakes. Everyone does since perfection is impossible to attain. The problem is that Christians make more mistakes than atheists.

Case in point, in 1997 only .209% of the prison population was atheistic. But the general population was about 8% (as a conservative estimate). That means that atheists were 38 times less likely to end up in prison than the general population.

Is it any wonder that a spoon-fed morality is less likely to be adhered to than a morality that one must develop on their own?

Debbie,

If I do wrong, he doesn't like it either and I have to repent.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

I don't understand by what you mean getting a free pass. Christians don't get or expect a free pass from our God.

I don't see the words "free pass" anywhere in GodFree's post.

Christians certainly don't get a free pass from their god-idea. You have to give up so much to be a "true Christian" (whatever that means). And in the end you don't get much of a guarantee, do you?

Debbie,

Free pass? I didn't say that, but I'd have to agree that's pretty much what you'd be looking for if you "apologized" to the sky daddy like you do to your kids.

What never ceases to amaze me is that you, yet today, could go out and commit every sin in that bible of yours and right behind it you could get down on your knees and swear that you had repented and ask that gawd of yours for forgiveness and there you are: free ticket into heaven! Wow! Nevermind that you might have lied, killed, cheated or done any of those things and worse a dozen times over.

And then if you slip up tomorrow, because after all, you are only human, right? Well, all it takes is a repeat of steps 1, 2 and 3.

We atheists don't have this super-duper benefit. We mind our p's and q's simply because it is the right thing to do, no pie-in-the-sky promise of fluffy white clouds, harps or angel wings and gold streets needed.

But hey, I bet every last one of us would defend your right to believe whatever fantasy you want to believe. So go for it.

Since when is it the governments duty to raise children? what about parental responsibility? SCHIP be damned, I'm with the Libertarians on this one.

"Once again you think that Christians are not allowed to make mistakes."

You're missing the point. You can make all the mistakes you like. It's the unwillingness to be held accountable for their errors xtians possess that irritates.

I'm sorry for stating you said "free pass", I misinterpreted that. Although it is true that when we sin regardless of what that sin is we can ask forgiveness and Jesus will forgive as long as our hearts are right. We just can't sin and say oh well, God will forgive us. We have to really mean in our heart that we our sorry. But that does not mean we will not suffer the consequences here on earth. For instance, if I Murder and I repent, Jesus may forgive me but I still might spend the rest of my life in prison.

alexatheist:

I am all in favor of parents being responsible for their own children. My parents were. But you have to be smart enough to know that there are children living in poverty, some with only one parent on minimum wage and unable to afford the exorbitant cost of medical insurance. As a matter of fact there are about 12 million such children. What about them alex?

Debbie,

Although it is true that when we sin regardless of what that sin is we can ask forgiveness and Jesus will forgive as long as our hearts are right.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

I think you should not be using the word "true" here. You should be using the word "believed."

There is no truth in unsubstantiated claims.

Peter,

Whether you are a theist or an atheist, if it is in our capabilities to help these children then we should.

Peter,

I would avoid using this as a criticism of John McCain. There's a decent enough chance that his score is very low due to absenteeism. That would explain why Obama's score is only 60%, he's been gone quite a lot lately.

It certainly doesn't make the rest of the republicans look good though.

am all in favor of parents being responsible for their own children. My parents were. But you have to be smart enough to know that there are children living in poverty, some with only one parent on minimum wage and unable to afford the exorbitant cost of medical insurance. As a matter of fact there are about 12 million such children. What about them alex?

Bad example, the children in poverty you illustrate would actually fall under Medicaid and wouldn't require SCHIP to insure them. SCHIP I beleive covers up to those earning about $40,000 a year. So basically familes that have cell phones, cable, internet, new cars, and new homes rather than take care of there childrens insurance needs.

http://tinyurl.com/348jqb

Brad14146,

Very good point. I agree.

...that there are children living in poverty...As a matter of fact there are about 12 million such children. What about them alex?

What about them, Peter? It's not my problem that there are poor children in America so why should I have to pay higher taxes for someone else's irresponsible family planning?

Can't feed 'em? Don't breed 'em.

Actually, I think the recent SCHIP legislation was trying to increase income caps to something like $60 - $70,000 a year for a family four. If a family of four is earning up to $70,000 a year they ought to be able to afforded there own health coverage.
Paul, Mccain, and Tancredo are doing exactly what they were voted in to do;
keep government small. Likewise, the Democrats are doing what they were voting in to do. That is to pander to the dumb masses and create government dependence.

Brad14146,

I'm not too fond of any of our candidates on the Republican or the Democrat side. I think we got spoiled with Bush in office because no one matches up to him.

Blockquote>I think we got spoiled with Bush in office because no one matches up to him.

G-A-A-A-A-A-C-K-!!!

Oh my FSM(Marinara Be Upon Him), save us from the shrubbers!

My Darwin! Did Debbie write what I think I'm seeing?

We got spoiled with Bush in office because no one matches up to him???

Somebody tell me nobody can be this stupid. Oh wait, I forgot, she's a xian. Nevermind.

alex

What about them, Peter? It's not my problem that there are poor children in America so why should I have to pay higher taxes for someone else's irresponsible family planning?

Can't feed 'em? Don't breed 'em.

Don't you feel any empathy for those children, alex? Why so cold-hearted? I agree that people should be responsible and plan their families as they can afford to care for them. But the fact of the matter is there ARE all those children out there through NO fault of their own. Would you punish them for mistakes their parents made?

GodFree

You know, Debbie's statement would make an excellent submission to the "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" website. ;-)

Karen,

As long as I get royalties.

Don't you feel any empathy for those children, alex? Why so cold-hearted

Of course I have a great sympathy for these children but I have my own serious and expensive health concerns to take care of without worrying about having my hard earned tax money go to pay for someone else's health care when it takes a fortune to pay my own medical bills. From an evolutionary viewpoint why should I care about a stranger's children anyway or give away my resources to help raise them? It's just not my problem that there are poor kids in the world but I also don't think that this makes me a cold hearted monster. I believe in looking after myself and my family first and foremost and everyone else comes in a very distant second.

Brad

Actually, I think the recent SCHIP legislation was trying to increase income caps to something like $60 - $70,000 a year for a family four. If a family of four is earning up to $70,000 a year they ought to be able to afforded there own health coverage.

So are you making your judgement based on what you think, or do you know for sure that is the case? You might want to do a little more looking and back up your statement with credible sources. You might also want to look into the dollar amount increase it would have been for SCHIP and how much the military spending increase was. Christian nation indeed...

Paul, Mccain, and Tancredo are doing exactly what they were voted in to do;
keep government small. Likewise, the Democrats are doing what they were voting in to do. That is to pander to the dumb masses and create government dependence.

Not that I'm not a fan of oversimplified and broad brush comments, but do you think Republicans keep government "small" while Democrats create massive government? The military is part of the government, so do you think that Republicans are making the military smaller? Using Ronald Reagan as an example, illustrate for me how he made government smaller. What I think you mean is not "smaller". I think you mean Republicans offer less social safety nets while Democrats tend to offer more.

I'm willing to pay for more social safety nets. I have seen studies on SCHIP illustrating that children who have coverage tend to get more regular medical care, while those who don't tend to end up in emergency situations more often, which is more expensive. Sometimes it's not as clear cut as you may think. I have sympathy for small government people, but at least be accurate in describing what you're in favor of: less social safety nets.

Somebody tell me nobody can be this stupid. Oh wait, I forgot, she's a xian. Nevermind.

This administration has been a tragedy.

No Karen, the I Like Me bunch do not have any empathy for anyone. The only one John Galt loves is John Galt. He's got his and he doesn't live on this damn planet with either you or me.

In other words, alexatheist, etc. are not humanists, just radical individualists. To some extent, we are all libertarian in that we do not follow any religious organizations or those who lead such organizations. We all follow our own individual dictates.

The problem with the expansion of libertarianism of alex, etc. into the realm of economics is that they refuse to see the classes in our society and reject the idea of the poor.

Debbie said: "For instance, if I Murder and I repent, Jesus may forgive me but I still might spend the rest of my life in prison."

Well, yeah, Debbie, but what's a few miserable years or decades or a puny human lifetime in prison compared to the unfathomable bliss of eternally sitting at the feet of your Lord? GF&G's point was that in Christian doctrine there is nothing unforgiveable, as long as you feel truly sorry for what you've done (the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost notwithstanding, of course, whatever the blazes "blaspheming the Holy Ghost" is supposed to mean). Is there nothing else you could conceive of that your Jesus would not forgive as long as you "repent" of it? For if not, then as long as you "repent" first you get to escape the fiery torment of an eternity in Hell and instead get eternal life in Heaven, no matter what you've done on Earth. Sounds like a "free pass" to me.

But it also seems to me you harbor doubts about this. You qualifed your statement by saying "...Jesus may forgive me..." (my emphasis). You're not so sure, are you? Given all the inconsistencies within the bible and the myriad disputes among the thousands of Christian sects present in the world today, your doubt seems quite justified. I would recommend that you take this doubt and run with it, as fast as you can, away from Christianity.

Debbie

Royalties?

Oh, trust me, your statement would net every cent it was worth.

Forrest Prince,

Oh, I am very sure. I have no doubts. Don't read into that too much. I know without a doubt that I will be in heaven some day. It's like when my kids do wrong and they apologise, I will forgive them, I may punish them like grounding but I still love them and will not withdraw my love from them and that night they may be on my lap. Just like Jesus, when we do wrong, we may get punished but if we turn to him he will not withdraw his love from us. And later on we will be able to hold him in love, in heaven.

Karen,

Don't you feel any empathy for those children, alex? Why so cold-hearted? I agree that people should be responsible and plan their families as they can afford to care for them. But the fact of the matter is there ARE all those children out there through NO fault of their own. Would you punish them for mistakes their parents made?

Why is my Spidey-sense tingling??? I think I'm picking up a possible thread derailment because of that post???

Hmmm...

alex

From an evolutionary viewpoint why should I care about a stranger's children anyway or give away my resources to help raise them?

Well, the herd protects the young, doesn't it? And besides, from a purely selfish standpoint, suppose one of those children you're not keen on helping turns out to be the one who comes up with a cure for diabetes?

I don't know how you can even say, from any standpoint, "why should I care about a stranger's children?" You're a stranger's child; should I not care about you?

Deb
Once again you think that Christians are not allowed to make mistakes. The truth is that xians are more likely to get a divorce than an atheist, more likely to be addicted to elicit drugs and alcohol, more likely to be poor, and more likely to be under educated. So despite all the resources you devote to your theism there is no positive outcome with respect to making those "mistakes".

Angel_Of_Light

Thread derail? lol I think THAT was accomplished long ago. :)

Deb

Once again you think that Christians are not allowed to make mistakes.

The truth is that xians are more likely to get a divorce than an atheist, more likely to be addicted to elicit drugs and alcohol, more likely to be poor, and more likely to be under educated. So despite all the resources you devote to your theism there is no positive outcome with respect to making those "mistakes".

Alex

From an evolutionary viewpoint why should I care about a stranger's children anyway or give away my resources to help raise them?

Because, like it or not, evolution has provided us with empathy.

Deb

I know without a doubt that I will be in heaven some day.

And if you are there how could it possibly be considered "heaven"? Huh? Huh?

Angel_Of_Light,

If anyone is going to derail this thread, it will be ME, by golly. It is in my job description :-)

xians are more likely to get a divorce than an atheist, more likely to be addicted to elicit drugs and alcohol, more likely to be poor, and more likely to be under educated

I do question the idea that their religion is the reason.

I lean more towards the idea that those faculties that make atheists less likely to do these things are the same faculties that made us more likely to be atheists.

I think that came out right.

Debbie,

I know without a doubt that I will be in heaven some day.

And you know this, how?

Where exactly IS heaven, anyway? Is it in the clouds? Above the clouds? In the upper atmosphere somewhere? Inner space? Outer space? Within the solar system? Within the Milky Way Galaxy? Somewhere in our galactic cluster? Anywhere in the physical universe?

How can you be so certain about something so obtuse as heaven, or even God, for that matter?

What,

What does me being there have to do with it being called heaven? Sometimes you don't make any sense.

I especially like the fact that Rep. Ron Paul has a 0% voting record for children and yet he is a doctor who has delivered 4000+ babies in Texas

He has a 0% voting record for higher taxes - something that you whiny hippies can't get through your head.

If you have children, they're your responsibility not the responsibility of everyone else in America. Grow up, take a bath, cut your hair, get out of the fucking handout line, and get a job.

AOL screaming hysterically at AT:

Will somebody please think of the children?

Deb

What,

What does me being there have to do with it being called heaven? Sometimes you don't make any sense.

I think there may be a connection bewteen intelligence and one's ability to understand sarcasm. Maybe you should ask somebody else to explain my comment to you.

The problem with the expansion of libertarianism of alex, etc. into the realm of economics is that they refuse to see the classes in our society and reject the idea of the poor.

Here's a little history lesson: No government has ever eradicated poverty. It has never been done. With all of your wasteful government social programs, all of the churches, all of the soup kitchens and homeless shelters, there are still people living under highway overpasses.

Some of these people actually want to live this way. Some of them are actually organized thieves, preying on your sense of empathy for people that really are poverty-stricken. Some of them are actually poor, but have no incentive to do better because they'd lose all of their government handouts if they accepted a raise.

Nothing any of you have done has done a thing to eradicate the problem that you've dedicated yourselves to eradicating. All you've done is provide a system that keeps the poor economically suppressed - often by their own choosing. Those few that actually have a commendable work ethic will always find a way to not be poor.

The only way to make a system like this fair is to extend it to everyone, and when government completely takes the reins of economy for the "good of the people" we end up with communism. Ask those in the former Soviet Union what they think of how that system worked.

Atomic

He has a 0% voting record for higher taxes - something that you whiny hippies can't get through your head.

Just what is it that we don't understand?

AT

No government has ever eradicated poverty.

No government has eradicated gonorrhea either. What's you point?

Some of these people actually want to live this way.

Umh ... How many?

The only way to make a system like this fair is to extend it to everyone, and when government completely takes the reins of economy for the "good of the people" we end up with communism.

You seem to see most socioeconomics i extreme terms - very often extrapolating to extreme positions that nobody here is advocating.

No Karen, the I Like Me bunch do not have any empathy for anyone.

Actually if you knew me in person you would know how innaccurate this statement is. I take care of myself and my loved ones and will do whatever it takes to see that we all have what we need.

The problem with the expansion of libertarianism of alex, etc. into the realm of economics is that they refuse to see the classes in our society and reject the idea of the poor.

I am full aware of the different classes in our society and in no way reject the idea of the poor, I just don't see that I have much of an obligation for their welfare.
It is very clear to me that for a person to be truly poor in the USA, unless they have a serious mental or physical disability, they must have made very poor decisions in their life such as addiction problems, no or little education, having too many kids too early, etc. Why should I pick up the tab for other people's bad choices? Let the charities do this on a voluntray basis instead of fleecing John Q. Taxpayer for more social welfare entitelment programmes that create a dependent society.
Peter, might I suggest that you would be more comfortable in Denmark where there is a huge social safety net but workers pay upwards of half of their earnings in taxes and the opportunities and expectations are very mediocre. It's a paradise for bleeding heart far left social-ists, go check it out mate.

"Although it is true that when we sin regardless of what that sin is we can ask forgiveness and Jesus will forgive as long as our hearts are right."

Ahh, yes. The Golden Cop-Out.

AOL screaming hysterically at Alex:

Will somebody please please think of the children?

Because, like it or not, evolution has provided us with empathy.

Yes it has but this sense of altruism evolved in our tribal past when those we were likely to encounter on a day to day basis were genetic relatives and not unrelated strangers. Don't forget that xenophobia is another trait that we evolved to protect our genes. Richard Dawkins has even suggested that our altruism in a modern world where we are surrounded by strangers is a misfiring of this once useful trait and no longer serves us in the same capacity.

Just what is it that we don't understand?

Oh let's see...

Maybe that there's no connection whatsoever between a Libertarian's desire to keep the government out of our fucking lives and his/her sense of empathy, altruism, compassion, etc.

The more you try to convince one another that this is the case, the more pissed off you're going to make us. For how "enlightened" and intelligent that many of you believe you are, you are either ignorant as fuck about what Libertarians actually believe, or you're being intentionally deceitful.

Libertarians are compassionate people too, but we completely disagree that it is the job of the government (nor even a job that a government has done or ever can do well) to rule the economy with an iron fist through excessive taxation and restrictions based on some group's idea of "morality."

And also, stop being ignorant or lying (whichever it is) when it comes to your pea-brained comparison of Libertarianism to anarchy. We do not believe in no government. We believe in small government. Small government leaves the money in the hands of the people and provides police and military protection, courts of law, and a few other services, like the fire dept. which very few people disagree with - just to head off your next line of bullshit.

Does that clear it up for you?

You seem to see most socioeconomics i extreme terms - very often extrapolating to extreme positions that nobody here is advocating.

No, braindead, I am not seeing it in
"extreme terms." I am illustrating what must be done in order to end the problems that occur within these programs.

If everyone pools all resources and spreads them among everyone, then we can eradicate the problem with creating economic hurdles that people cannot or are unwilling to get over - those many social benefits they'll lose when they make more money. There isn't another solution to that problem - you'll always be creating an artificially poor underclass within the society unless you put everyone into the same boat.

AOL,

I agree, we all need to think of the children.

That should read:

"problem with [these programs] creating economic hurdles "

I agree, we all need to think of the children.

**sigh**

AT,

For how "enlightened" and intelligent that many of you believe you are, you are either ignorant as fuck about what Libertarians actually believe, or you're being intentionally deceitful.

So it's impossible to simply disagree with you?

The world is not black and white. Stop viewing the economy in terms of extreme libertarianism and extreme communism. The vast majority of us fall in the middle somewhere. Nobody is suggesting that we round up all the money in the US and divide it among the population equally.

There is an ideal economic plan that pisses off the fewest people and I can guarantee you that it doesn't fall to the extreme right or the extreme left.

So it's impossible to simply disagree with you?

No, that's perfectly fine to disagree. I'm getting pissed because there are a few that are intentionally distorting facts, misrepresenting my position instead of correctly representing their own.

The world is not black and white.

Congratulations, now we can discuss this on the same page. The President didn't veto SCHIP, he vetoed the expansion of SCHIP. When the plan was revised and presented with only a small expansion, it was signed into law. Of course, Peter didn't stop to post anything about this.

Besides, what the fuck does any of this have to do with atheists?

Stop viewing the economy in terms of extreme libertarianism and extreme communism. The vast majority of us fall in the middle somewhere. Nobody is suggesting that we round up all the money in the US and divide it among the population equally.

See my last post.

There is an ideal economic plan that pisses off the fewest people and I can guarantee you that it doesn't fall to the extreme right or the extreme left.

That's why some of us vote for Libertarians or Democrats or Republicans or Greens - this gives us the system that pisses the fewest people.

Let me set the record straight, I don't give a fuck what any of you believe in, vote for, or ate for dinner. I do care when you intentionally start misrepresenting my position and slapping each other on the ass like you just scored a touchdown. Grow the hell up.

Debbie,

I know without a doubt that I will be in heaven some day.

This statement strongly suggests that you will never make a mistake.

After all, if you're going to party with Jesus for all eternity after you die, then nothing that happens to you on earth matters in the long run. If you take an infinite reward and subtract any finite mistakes you make while alive you still end up with an infinite reward.

With that mindset, your life in the here and now has no meaning since you'll be rewarded infinitely after you die.

Basically your life just becomes a struggle to reach that little goal at the end. As long as you believe in Jesus you'll be fine, regardless of how much damage you do to the planet while you're here.

I find that awfully depressing and disgusting.

So thank you for voting for George Bush and doing that much more to destroy our planet. Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be very happy you're hanging out in heaven while they're dying of skin cancer at 22 years old.

OK, let's forget about the poor kids. Let's forget that without the free or reduced school breakfasts and lunches, they may not have another meal. They may be malnourished anyway, and haven't had a decent night's sleep because of a myriad of problems at home that go along with being extremely poor, but who cares. They're just going to fall asleep in class, or act up in class, either of which is going to take the teacher's time and attention and the focus of learning for the whole class. Every day. Which puts everyone behind.
(But alex doesn't care; he's gay, so he's not having kids. He's mad as hell that he's told he can't adopt, but why the hell would he want a stranger's kid, anyway?)
These same kids are typically the ones who father and bear babies while they are still kids themselves. But who cares? Just another generation of brats to disrupt the education of those of us who can't afford to put our kids in private schools.

Mentoring a kid could go a long way to curing the problem of recycling poverty. People who cared enough to step into a kid's life to show him/her that there are other options, that there are people who care, can make a world of difference with a minimum effort. Unfortunately, too many people are only worried about "them and theirs" or quick to broad-brush the ones who do step in as hysterical or tree-hugging hippies.

Ironically, without enough volunteers, it takes taxes to pay people to go into the schools and identify at-risk youth and try to intervene.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

AT,

I agree that some of the posters here do seem to distort your views. I'm not happy about that.

Our posts also overlapped so I didn't see your response to the "extreme" comment while writing mine.

Personally I think the arguments for leaning towards libertarianism are quite strong in some respects. But it'll take a lot of convincing to get me to agree with the level that you want. The other problems I have are usually that it's tied to an administration that leans far too strongly towards social authoritarianism. That's the real problem with Neocons.

Karen,

I care, the children are our future and we need to take care of them.

I agree that some of the posters here do seem to distort your views. I'm not happy about that.

I think it's rather clear, neither am I. I've yet to see any apologies for this.

The black-and-white view that Peter and his apostles on this blog have been pushing is that either you're for the government taxing us into their idea of "heaven" (the socialist utopia) or you hate children. There doesn't seem to be any wiggle room there.

Setting up straw men and repeatedly knocking them over isn't convincing me that I'm an amoral person any more than the religious wackos are convincing me that I'm amoral because I don't buy their line of bullshit.

AT,

I agree. If I am guilty of this I apologize.

perhaps we can be objective about this.

the reason I beleive in expanding social welfare is not that I think the government should be responsible for everyone, its not because I think that communism is just "the shit", and it's not because I want any sort of responsibility taken off my shoulders.

simply put it's because I'm a firm beleiver in following the example of successful models. why do we think we should be spreading democracy? because dictatorships and monarchys don't tend to lead to societies that fuction well. likewise, if we look at societies that have the highest rates of literacy and employment, and the lowest rates of health and crime problems, those societies are situated to the left, politically, of our own system of government. (it just so happens that these societies have lower rates of religious membership as well)

I think we can all agree on that, we've seen the figures.

so why all the fuss?

AT called me braindead! LOL

AT

You nor anybody else would survive very long in the deregulated world that Libertarians claim they want. It must be comforting to be a Libertarian knowing that your utopia will never be put to the test and therefore never proved wrong. Hmm, sounds strangely alike other beliefs that are sometimes espoused here on the American Atheist NoGodBlog. Hmmmm.

afterthought to all the libertarians here. specifically AT and alex:

you're both atheists, and I know you appreciate the point of my previous post.

obviously you don't have any reason to beleive that you or your loved ones would suffer in a society modeled after the successfull liberal societies I've mentioned. political and economic theory can be set aside because that model has been proven to work, even if you and I don't yet appreciate exactly why they work. so what exactly is your objection?

You nor anybody else would survive very long in the deregulated world that Libertarians claim they want.

Yeah, after the founding of the United States, it quickly died out because its government was small.

Oh wait, it didn't and went on to be the most economically powerful nation on the planet. No thanks to your socialist programs either.

Debbie said "I know without a doubt that I will be in heaven some day." Hmmm, I guess that your previous use of the word "may" as in "Jesus may forgive me" was just an inadvertent keyboard slip on your part. Sorry, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. You are now prevaricating and backtracking on words you wrote.

Virtually no Christian (just like you) believes that s/he will personally end up in Hell, and yet virtually all Christians believe that many other Christians will end up in Hell. Do you? What if you (or I) did something really heinous and then died before you (I) got a chance to repent? It could happen, you know. Will your Jesus still forgive you, or me? If so, what's the purpose of repentance if we still get into Heaven anyway?

Look up "cognitive dissonance" Debbie. You're suffering from it. But there is relief. It's called accepting reality.

Ah heck, never mind. After all, you "know without a doubt". I wish I was omniscient like you.

Atomictesting:

On the topic of...

1. Hippies: I am proud to be a hippie and a liberal and a commie.
2. Bathing: I am Mexican so according to our Resident Racist, I do not bathe. Okay, Maja soap once a month.
3. Hair: Cut my chestnut tresses? Never. Scalp treatments and healthy hair are a MUST. Balding men, men with rugs or hair weaves or comb-overs or botched perms are repulsive.
4. Job: Why? Why work when I can be a civil servant and live PALACIALLY off your taxes.
5. Bud, I gotta racket goin' with yer tax $$$. Yer payin' fer my mudflaps and my four-wheeler and my pontoon boat and my serial boob-jobs for deflated teats and my vacations to Branson, Missouri and my Brazilian buttlift...ain't it sweet!

ROFLMAO!!!

Peter, Karen: TWO THUMBS UP!!!

Comment from: atomictesting [Member]

And also, stop being ignorant or lying (whichever it is) when it comes to your pea-brained comparison of Libertarianism to anarchy. We do not believe in no government. We believe in small government. Small government leaves the money in the hands of the people and provides police and military protection, courts of law, and a few other services, like the fire dept. which very few people disagree with - just to head off your next line of bullshit.

You mean, ignorant like Grow up, take a bath, cut your hair, get out of the fucking handout line, and get a job, or ignorant like The only way to make a system like this fair is to extend it to everyone, and when government completely takes the reins of economy for the "good of the people" we end up with communism. Ask those in the former Soviet Union what they think of how that system worked?

Getting bent out of shape because your position is being misrepresented. While misrepresenting others. I wonder why people don't really sympathize with that sort of attitude at an atheist site where christians distort their comments in blog posts every day. Hmmmmm....

AT:

Yeah, after the founding of the United States, it quickly died out because its government was small.

small by modern standards.

I'd be interested to see how our government compared to other governments of the time.

to be sure, the young united states had a more liberal government than its contemporaries, and of course, the world is a much, much different place now than it was then.

I'll look it up myself of course, but I'm not gonna hot-foot it. all you libertarians and conservatives might want to think about it yourselves.

side note,

its very nice to see a thread where there's some healthy debate between us atheists rather than just the same tired diatribes by and in response to trolls.

I said nothing about Libertarianism. I was speaking directly to alex about his personal views towards others, specifically, children. It was only after AT's comments already addressed by Barbie and (: tom :), and AOL's chiding about hysterics that I made more generalized comments. But I still said nothing about the L-word.

I wonder if we've firmly fixed the idea in Debbie's mind that all atheists are jerks. I'm actually learning a lot here between the explosions.

Tom,

Getting bent out of shape because your position is being misrepresented...

And you don't think that maybe, just maybe, I said those things in exactly that way to illustrate that exact point?

*Clears throat*

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, we have the following definition of the word satire:

Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-ˌtī(-ə)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough — more at sad
Date: 1501
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

FlyingWeasel,

You're confusing the issue. Libertarians are accused of being too conservative by Democrats because we're economically conservative. We believe that a government that governs best, governs least. To that end, giving them boatloads of tax money is practically begging them to misuse it - and they do with great regularity.

You'll find that conservatives accuse us of being too liberal. By this, they mean socially liberal as in, we don't give a shit what their religion says, it has no business defining our laws. We don't want the government intruding on freedom.

AT

Yeah, after the founding of the United States, it quickly died out because its government was small.

Hmmm. Let's see that was about 230 years ago right? That was before modern transcontinental highways with those 75mph moving buggies right? That would be before the industrial age correct? Before modern pharmaceuticals? Before massive meat and produce processing plants? Before the ubiquitous processed foods? Before medical diagnostics like CT scans and treatment using ionizing radiation? That would be before petroleum polluted our air, water and changed the temperature of our planet I suppose? Do mean back when there was maybe a hand full at most corporations in the US? Or when nuclear energy was still unheard of? Or when the most lethal weapon available to citizens was a single-load musket? Is that the time period you are referring to?

Hmmm. Now how could anybody possibly think in their wildest imagination that we need regulation in the 21st century to survive as a prospering society?

Barbie

A long-haired four-wheel'n big-boobed hippy. Mamacita!

AT:

You're confusing the issue. Libertarians are accused of being too conservative by Democrats because we're economically conservative. We believe that a government that governs best, governs least. To that end, giving them boatloads of tax money is practically begging them to misuse it - and they do with great regularity.

I'm well aware of this. my question to you is why you oppose economic liberalism when there is ample evidence that societies that have adopted economically liberal policies have flourished in spite of your clever catchphrase?

the only reason I can think of would be that there is some fundemental difference between us and them that would preclude the same system (of economic liberalism) from working for us. if so, what do you beleive this difference is and do you beleive that it is an irrevocable difference?

do you beleive that private industry is immune to the pitfalls that you foresee economically liberal governments succumbing to? before intervention by the government there were monopolies in many enterprises (railways, iron, oil) that seemed to perfectly embody your complaint, I would wager that the problems of industry we see today (health care, oil, etc) are largely do the influence of private industry on the government rather than the influence of the government on industry.

The government created those monopolies through easements.

And you're wrong, the problems in those two you mentioned are largely the result of governmental regulation. Most of what you pay for gasolene is not paid to oil companies, it's paid to the government in huge taxes. I'm not going through another huge posting of the problems with governmental regulation in health care, but it is extensive. Look to the last blog entry about SCHIP and you'll see all that I've already been saying.

AT

We believe that a government that governs best, governs least.

Have you ever bothered entertaining the idea that the vast majority of humans would probably agree with this notion yet have wide ranging opinions what "least" should be?

ok AT, whatever. I'm not gonna pretend to know everything. but you still didn't addressed my main question.

Why, given that we have seen economically liberal societies (france, denmark, europe) are consistantly the leaders in terms of employment, literacy rates, public health, and low crime rates (you know, the important things), do you persist in your insistance that the same economically liberal policies cannot work for us?

in other words, havn't we already seen in europe that economically liberal policy works?

or at least that it won't lead directly to hellish third world conditions?

its like I'm trying to say to someone,

"hey, look at those people over there? they're happy... those people. if we would just act like that, we could be happy too."

but they just wanna tell me that the people who I can see very clearly are doing better than us are doing it the wrong way.

liberties and freedom + atheistic worldview + a reasonably coherent mind = social darwinism


alex and atomic seem to make the better case in nonsupport of government intrusion in taking responsibility of raising children.

Was wondering what the congressional breakdown was between republicans and democrats regarding the safety and protection of the youngest members of society--those less than 9 months of age?

I'm not convinced that deciding collectively to pay for healthcare for children is equal to government intrusion in taking responsibility of raising children. Raising children is much more than affordable doctor visits. I think forcing children to say under god in the pledge is much more intrusive than providing affordable health care.

What,

Hmmm. Now how could anybody possibly think in their wildest imagination that we need regulation in the 21st century to survive as a prospering society?

You see, this again is an exaggerated misreprsentation of libertarianism. The argument is NOT regulation vs. non-regulation. The real argument is how much is enough and how much is too much.

We'd all agree that we need to give police some power to maintain the law. We'd also all agree that we cannot give police unlimited power. But we'll all argue how much power they should have from somewhere between those two extremes.

Our ideologies will dictate where along the line we fall. But for some reason, the gods of the blogs dictate that we ultimately end up arguing from the extreme, untenable positions. Go figure.

And then you say this:

Have you ever bothered entertaining the idea that the vast majority of humans would probably agree with this notion yet have wide ranging opinions what "least" should be?

Which is pretty much what I'm saying, isn't it? But again, refer back to those tricky blog gods. They're wicked what they to do us.

Weasie,

Why, given that we have seen economically liberal societies (france, denmark, europe) are consistantly the leaders in terms of employment, literacy rates, public health, and low crime rates (you know, the important things), do you persist in your insistance that the same economically liberal policies cannot work for us?

In other threads, folks would have attributed these to other possible causes.

Some would say our poor educational scores on the influence of religion. Some would blame public schools. The high crime rates would be blamed on lack of gun control. Too much television and video games would be blamed for both. Health care...how often has the "quality" of government-run health care been debated?

Can we truly credit all things in these nations to their economic liberalism? No, it's more complicated than that.

AOL

You see, this again is an exaggerated misreprsentation of libertarianism. The argument is NOT regulation vs. non-regulation. The real argument is how much is enough and how much is too much.

I exaggerated nothing. I never said that libertarians support nonregulation and, as you noted, my later post makes my position clear. The post that you are criticizing was a response to AT's post about the size of the US government in the 18th century and my implicit and deservingly sarcastic argument that more government regulation is obviously needed in the 21st century. But I did leave out the word "more" in the final sentence of that post. So I will amend that post to read: "Hmmm. Now how could anybody possibly think in their wildest imagination that we need more regulation in the 21st century to survive as a prospering society?" Does the "more" satisfy your sense of fairness? Does it change the argument in any significant manner?

I'm not dense AOL, I know that.

all I'm trying to say is "LOOK, it WORKS"

clearly being economically liberal hasn't caused the fabric of their society to collapse.

and for the record, gun control laws are another perfect example. despite the fact that europe has thrived with heavy gun control libertarians here continue to argue that tougher gun control laws here will lead to a rash of home invasions or school shootings or something, I really don't understand the logic.

hell, religion is a perfect example. all the religious folks here are so sure that the US will die in fire and brimstone if we don't have a president who sucks up to the sky-daddy. cant they just look across the ocean and see that nothing bad happened when the folks over there tried it?

relgion, economic liberalism, gun control. they're all parallels and you atheists here should be able to appreciate this.

its ok! the berries aren't poisonous! we're all over here eating them and they're delicious!

that reminds me, lol. eggplants and tomatoes are in the nightshade family, so they were widely considered poisonous here in the states until around the 1800s

in france, they called them "love apples"

but it took the states like a century to get over it and realize that no one ever died from eating a tomato.

timmy,

What does atheism have to do with social darwinism? There's no reason religious people can't be social darwinists. Looking at the way the religious right has been voting lately, they're much more likely to want something akin to social darwinism than more secular voters.

Social darwinism requires a strongly authoritarian government, and a small to medium amount of economic regulation. Libertarians do not fit that bill. Neither do American liberals. The only people in the USA that do fit that image are neocons.

Does the "more" satisfy your sense of fairness? Does it change the argument in any significant manner?

Yes and no and yes.

Yes, since this all started from Peter, who has posted in the past suggesting that Libertarianism = No regulation = Anarchy. I was replying to what I thought was creeping into the conversation again.

No, because your post wasn't arguing that point.

Yes, because I wouldn't have posted a reply!

:)

AOL

Can you provide a quote from Peter that implicitly or explicitly states Libertarianism = No regulation = Anarchy? :-)