Dave Silverman on CNN: Will God Exist in 50 Years?

I thought Silverman’s comments were excellent. There was nothing rude or harsh about them; the public face he puts on atheism seems to me near perfect. LaScola’s comments were also effective. I thought it was good that she refused to answer the question about politics- she presented herself as an expert on atheist clergy; to openly offer no comment about something she feels unqualified to address is honest and respectable.

That said, I was most impressed by the third interview, with Jay Bakker. I think he really understands what Christianity is likely to look like in the future. Non-judgmental, non-discriminatory, perhaps not even strongly organized. He isn’t threatened by atheists, he isn’t threatened by the apparent decline in faith (or at least, increase in doubt) that the polls reveal. He seems focused on the abstract spiritual issues and on the positive messages that can be found in his religion. He doesn’t seem to see everyone with a different opinion as an enemy.

Shoot, I already eye politicians with skepticism because of their religious beliefs and watch how they act in regards to them. I’m not voting for Romney because of it.

As much as I want to agree with Silverman’s ideas on the future of religion, I can’t get myself to feel that there will not be many people proclaiming the atheist stance in the future that will be doing it because they want to fit in and that they may be discriminatory against theists.

Personally the best religious people are those that would rather feel the need to just stay focused on their faith rather than convert anyone that isn’t their faith. Making death threats to Atheist figures isn’t making their side sound very tempting, so they’re best off just keeping to their own.

http://goo.gl/NwZ5b

I do believe this article to be true in that the number of none believers will continue in increase.  This movement starts at home, the schools, in the court rooms and now on the internet.  This is also biblical.  A day WILL come when believers will be persecuted for such beliefs.  All that being said, popular opinion does not result in accuracy. 

It saddens me to about the eternal consequences that individual beliefs will cost them.  Even more dis-heartening is the fact that a lot of it is based on inaccurate information.

Although it hasn’t happened here (yet), I continue to find others who disagree with me, cursing me and insulting me for something  so simple as my faith.  I don’t go around judging or condemning, but when I say what I believe is the truth, the slander begins. 

Why are so many non believers so angry?

Because we are under constant and dangerous assault by believers, people in powerful positions who are actively seeking to deprive us of our rights, and to drive us into a new Dark Age. That seems like something that demands an angry response.

I was just glad they didn’t feel the need to be “Fair and Balanced ™” and bring in Bill Donahue and half a dozen other assorted apologists to present the ‘other side’.

Hilarious stuff HP! You’re too much!

Judeo/Christian believers being assaulted? What rubbish! It is no assault on Christianity to ask that the First Amendment be observed.

The government is endorsing prayer at public meetings. That’s an assault on my Constitutional rights. Religious organizations are being allowed exemptions to the law. That’s an assault on the Constitution. Religious organizations are being granted tax privileges. That’s both an assault on my Constitutional rights, and on my personal finances. My tax money is being directed towards religious organizations that provide various services and which run schools. That’s an assault on the Constitution, and on my finances. Religious organizations are using their tax exempt money to influence elections. That’s an assault on the very foundation of our government. Religious organizations are infiltrating and influencing government to allow false information to be spread: that evolution is not true, that humans aren’t altering our climate, that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. Another assault- on rationality and on civil rights.

Again, what constant assault are the non believers under? 

What rights are we trying to take away from them that they once had?

Why are you afraid to answer these questions?

You do realize that the term “separation of church and state” is NOT in the constitution don’t you.  It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Dansbury baptist in an attempt to explain how the 1st Amendment protects them.

Still waiting to hear what constant and dangerous assaults you are under.  That’s truely hilarious.

Why are so many non believers so angry?

You say that like it’s a bad thing.  You keep listing what you claim are injustices, and seem to be angry about them.  Isn’t anger a normal response to injustice?  The key is what we do with that anger.

3rd time I’ll ask. 

What injustices?

Your side can’t seem to name them.

Perhaps non believers like you are angry because of an absence of the holy spirit.

I’m sorry you are not able to answer my question, but it really doesn’t surprise me.  You’ve had nothing to offer that is based on fact to this point so why start now.

I’m happy for religion to be around, just not in my face, in politics, in schools or being used as a way to discriminate.

Oh, and by the way:
– non-religious people predicting the end of religion; probably incorrect but harmless
– religious people predicting the end of the world; at best harmful (as there’s always *someone* who believes it and sells their house or whatever), at worst frightening (eg some Christians seems to be fixated on Judgement Day or have some sick kind of wish for death as a ‘path to heaven’ or the end of the world)

Perhaps non believers like you are angry because of an absence of the holy spirit.

Great hypothesis.  And easily tested.  All we need is a single example of an angry religious person.

You’ve had nothing to offer that is based on fact to this point so why start now.

Ah, I think I see the problem.  We disagree on the definition of ‘fact’.  See, I use something like: “a truth known by actual experience or observation; :”

I’m not sure what you call a fact, but since you haven’t provided any, I can understand the confusion.

That statistic of 68% never doubt the existence of god was mentioned on Hemant and Jesse’s broadcast too.  I am actually shocked that it is still that high.  I would think that even people who identify as religious would have a much lower percentage.

National Day of Prayer. It was passed into LAW. It respects the establishment of religion. (Prayer certainly isn’t a non-religious action, now is it?)

Adding “In God We Trust” to our motto and currency (officially). It was passed into LAW. It respects the establishment of religion. (God is established by many religions. Certainly not inclusive of atheists, now is it?)

I can go on. But, you see, the Establishment Clause is written rather vaguely, as it is open to interpretation, and purposefully so. Our higher courts have, time and time again, interpreted the Establishment Clause to erect a wall of separation between church and state, making our government a secular one (i.e. neutral in regards to religious beliefs).

It’s a “gotcha” question in his mind, as long as he ignores all of our responses and rebuttals to him.

 And add to the list that people like you who refuse to acknowledge the assaults we describe are problems at all.

Also, people like you HIJACKING the word TRUTH. Your “truth” is unimportant to us. We take your “truth” about as seriously as a schizophrenic’s claim that his neighbor’s cat is plotting to steal his car.

You presume to know why we are angry. You come in and kick the proverbial hornets’ nest, ask why the hornets are angry, dismiss the idea that kicking the nest was what made them angry, and then offer up your own half-baked opinion, and presenting it as fact.

I’ve already answered.

No I don’t find the teach comment to be an assault and wish that would happen at my kids school.  That would be fun.

Your Isalmic tablets.  Ok, if a community is comprised of a majority of people who want that, then go for it.

You money comment, again, put it to vote.  My problem is how a very small minority of people are bothered by “In God We Trust” or “One Nation Under God”.  If it’s that offensive and assaulting then find a better country that supports your beliefs in the manner you want them too.  Outside of that, it has no bearing on your individual rights.

Remember this country was founded by a large majority of Judeo/Christians.

My mom taught CCD (like Sunday school, but for Catholic kids who went to public school) one year in the seventies.  She brought in John Lennon’s album Shaved Fish and had the students write about the song “Imagine”.  They didn’t ask her back the next year. 😉

That doesn’t make it Constitutional.  The supreme court has frequently legislated from the bench over the years.

I don’t expect you to live by ANY religious rule.  Please tell me who has?  That would be unconstitutional.

A court of law?  Lol

Any evidence I have provided is always claimed as brain washing or lies. 

How would you explain the miracle that occurred with George Washingtons coat?

I have to echo the sentiments posted here about Pastor Bakker. I have no idea how Jim and Tammy produced him, but I’m glad they did. He sounded at least completely reasonable and humanist. (Well, not completely reasonable as he actually still has “faith” but, you know what I mean).

I can only hope there are more young generation Christians like that out there. I know we can’t de-convert all religious people, but if we can get most of them to believe in humanist ideals such as the ones he appears to have expressed (or hinted at), I’d be a lot happier about the way this struggle is going.

My family is wondering why I am clapping at my computer screen.

Here’s a link:

http://www.therealamericanhis-story.com/gw

Stats on the rise of non-belief are actually fuzzy, if you break them down.  For instance, over all, the number of non-believers is rising around the world.  But then, if you break down the numbers, it presents a mixed view.  For instance, the number of young people who leave the belief they grew up in is growing.  But the number of adults over 30 that return to, or pick another faith, is also growing.  Likewise, the rise in non-belief itself is also confused with the rise of those who are ‘seeking’.  Plus, you also have the number of children raised by atheists who actually leave the non-belief they were raised with to embrace some other form of religious belief.  Then last, and certainly not least, you have those numbers of non-believers who say things that make no more sense than some of the things people of religious faith say.  For instance, the number of self-proclaimed atheists, who add to the growth of atheism, but who nonetheless claim belief in a higher power, with some actually believing in a ‘personal god.’  An atheist who claims belief in a personal god?  What’s that even mean?  So it’s more than just a simple ‘X number is growing’.  Break down the stats, and it shows what’s always been true: it’s far more complex than a single, simple stat can demonstrate.

Episcopalian and Catholicism are Christianity.

Were you hibernating for a year and a half before May 21, 2011?

You do realize that the Supreme Court isn’t “legislating from the bench” when it refuses to rubber-stamp what Congress and the President do; that their purpose is actually to review the actions of those bodies?  “Legislating from the bench” is pretty much code for “boo-hoo they won’t let us do what we want to even if it’s against the rules!”  I don’t agree with many SCOTUS decisions (Citizens United comes to mind), but I don’t stoop to attacking its integrity every time it doesn’t let me get my way.  But since your so fond of asking for proof, how has SCOTUS legislated from the bench?

 You seem to be implying, with your last sentence, that because something started out a certain way, that it should continue that way. Consider the logical statement “X was created by Y, therefore X should remain in control”.  Notwithstanding the truth of the statement, the inference is self-evidently false, and you should stop using that argument.

Are you talking about legalized murder?  Ironic isn’t it when you look at court cases how people will be convicted of a double murder for killing a pregnant woman.  I guess it’s only murder if its wanted.  What happen to personal responsible to avoid the pregnancy in the first place.

Did said “old white dudes” force a penis into the woman, cause it to ejaculate, and create life or did the woman make that decision?

Actually Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32  both say, “no man knows the day and hour” so if a Christian makes any claims they are misguided and it’s not Biblical.

God wants us to choose Him freely.

What do you believe happens to people who do not worship your God?

Sure, that doesn’t change the fact that Harold Camping, a Christian, used the bible to predict the end date and thousands of Christians lost everything because they believed him.  Misguided or not, it happened.  Not surprising considering Christianity’s origins as a doomsday cult.

I think it’s terrible that you call them that, and you call me despicable.

How about a condom or birth countrol pill. 

So she HAD to be prenant huh?  No way to stop it is there?

Lol

People should reference the bible not some nut case.  We could point to the Branch Dividians and many other cults for that matter.  Some people believe anything.  lol

What does that have to do with the truth of what the bible says?

And then there this:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and
this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one
can boast.”

Ephesians 2:8-9

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to
His mercy He saved us…..

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. for God
did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world
through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not
believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of
God’s one and only son.”

John 3:16-18

I kind find more.  Just saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KLphfq_g0kw

Including Mathew 5:17 I presume?

 I think the reference to that link says all we need to know about HighPriestOfThePainfulTruth — as if all of the previous comments and biblical quotes weren’t evidence enough.  Please don’t feed the religious trolls!

I just hope Hemant makes money off of each comment.  If so, HighPriestofThePainfulTruth is quite the philanthropist to an atheist blog!  For some reason, that makes me very happy.

One last time, HighPriest. Pay attention this time. The Constitution was written in such a way that the Supreme Court would decide specific cases relating to the application of various sections thereof, including the Amendments. The Supreme Court does so, and they establish the precedent, as well as the official interpretation of the Constitution. The current interpretation of the Establishment Clause (part of the First Amendment to the Constitution) is that there should be a separation of church and state, resulting in a secular government.

Are you trying to argue that we shouldn’t have a secular government? Does a Christianity-based government benefit the people better? Or doesn’t it follow (which it does) that a secular (neutral) government is a fair one, and protects ALL of our rights, not just special groups?

The last thing we need around here is another ignorant religious troll. Go peddle your willful ignorance somewhere else. We here enjoy real debate, not straw-man arguments, changing the subject rapidly, and self-admissions of trolling.

The national day of prayer is NOT a law, it is a date recognized by the government for prayer.  There are no consequences if you don’t pray.

In God we trust is also NOT a law.  Again, no consequences. 

Definition of LAW
1 a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2): the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3): common law b (1): the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2): the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also: litigation (3): the agency of or an agent of established law c: a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d: something compatible with or enforceable by established law e: control, authority

I can’t see how you 0.7 % of the American population who are atheists out there are losing your civil rights or are being persecuted over either.

Find something meaningful to take issue with.  How about the EITC and it’s socialistic intent.

Lol

“Christianity has nothing to do with “good” deeds.”

No kIdding

And funny

Want a clear-cut case of our rights being violated? The School Prayer Banner case in Cranston, RI is a perfect example.
As a parent, I should have the right to send my child to a publicly-funded, government-run school without any religious artifacts on the wall, giving a clear and privileged endorsement of Christian beliefs and practices (prayer). However, that right is violated when one group gets an unfair advantage and has a prayer for their religion (“Our Heavenly Father” is a uniquely Christian moniker for their monotheistic deity) up on the walls where they don’t belong.

This violates my rights as a parent, because I should have total control over what religious beliefs (or lack thereof) I wish to instill into my children, whether it’s outright atheism, or just a gentle prodding along the path of skepticism and critical thinking. It is a violating of my rights as a parent to have a school that my child might attend endorsing any specific religious belief, which sets me and my child[ren] apart from the Christian majority.

This is not a majority-rules nation when it comes to rights and religion. Your beliefs don’t get to have special endorsement or privilege over mine, yet they do on a near-constant and daily basis.Want another example? I can point you to a dozen or so towns and areas where Creationism is being shoved into public schools, which is an affront to science and anything truthful. Certain forces are attempting to have their religious beliefs seen as scientific fact, to which is nowhere close. This violates my rights, once again, as a parent, because I want my child to learn about REAL science, not some horse-shit Creationist fantasy that is essentially a forced indoctrination of MY children.

So get the hell out of here with your “your rights aren’t being threatened” bullshit, HighPriest. We’re not buying it.

I also think we should legalize protitution and weed.  I don’t believe in moral laws.

You must also be against properly using definitions, since you can’t murder something that’s not legally a person.

Still no rights are being violated.  They aren’t required to recite it are they?  Does it affect the grade if they don’t?

No laws were passed requiring the banner to be there.  No consequence of any sort related to it.  Just a very small minority looking to bully the majority.

Here’s a real violation.  I feel my tax dollars should support Planned Parenthood, but Obama is bullying the states regarding this matter.  That is a true violation not just hurt feeling because they share very different opinion.

Big claims require big evidence. If I say there’s a pink elephant under my bed, I’d better be ready to produce the elephant.

Wow, I have to give credit to both the host and the pastor they had on. Usually you get people who range from passive-aggressive to blatantly belligerent, but both of those men were professional, respectful, and honest. Well done CNN.

The cynic in me says:
It’s quite simple how Jim and Tammy Faye produced him.   They were leaches that knew how to fill their niche and suck the blood of their followers.    It’s a safe bet that their son will find a similar niche to bleed his generation.

 You really need to actually read the court case surrounding this and other first amendment cases, because you come off as being profoundly ignorant on the subject.

Fuck you, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Oh, by the way, birth control can fail. Or she can be pressured not to use it by her partner. Or she and her partner maybe can’t afford it. Or she and her partner are miseducated about the facts of practicing safe sex (thanks a lot “abstinence only “education”” ).

Don Lemon did a nice job….thats rare.

Much different than that defensive ass Pearce Morgan when he had Penn on his show. Lemon did a good job.

I bet Episcopalians and Catholics aren’t Scottish either. 😉

Taxes paying for something you don’t agree with is not a violation of your rights.  That’s the way taxes work.  So pretend you taxes pay for, I dunno, military pay, and mine will take care of PP.

I’m also against my tax dollar being redistributed to the non tax payer.

Keeping with  Luke 14:13 I see.

 I always wondered the parameters behind “reasonable”. I don’t think one’s individual thought about an unanswerable question makes them unreasonable. Rather, I would wager that certainty, or arrogance, about it makes them unreasonable.

“How about a condom or birth countrol pill. ”

The ones that religious institutions fight so vehemently against?

How about the one that tells to women to STFU?

Especially that name, I do hope he sticks around.

While appreciating what you’re going for there, isn’t Presbyterian the main Scottish denomination?

Well, being able to talk to him might help, for sure. Though I would demand of him a pretty high standard of evidence, too.

If we can’t get a good reason to believe him, then the appropriate response is to withhold judgement regarding the truth.

You can talk to me. If I say I have a pink elephant under my bed, you would ask me to show you, or show you the footprints, _something_ that isn’t hearsay.

Good questions.  In recent threads I’ve been arguing that it is wrong for atheist to insist that particular believers can’t be christians becasue of their disagreements with the bible or traditional teachings.  But at the same time, it isn’t fair for people to to be able to say “I’m not THAT kind of christian”(referring to homophobic or sexist attitudes or other conflicts with modernity and rationality) and move on, without providing any more detail or justificaion for what they DO believe.

I’m curious to see some honest responses.  Looking below, it looks like all the commenter does is list some highly debateable scripture and claim it helps his/her interpretation, without addressing why his/her interpretaion is correct or why centuries of tradition is wrong, but maybe it’s a start. 

Having a “personal relationship” with Jesus that outweighs what any church might say is both old and new.  Old in the sense that there are many sects of christianity that contradict each other, and each believes their “relationship” to be the right one.  As a widespread point of view for the masses, encouraged by various preachers, it is a fairly new thing.  Many American christians who aren’t part of an established, long standing church describe their religion this way, hoping to avoid the conflicts between religion and modernity that older churches are having big problems with.  I can sympathize, but it often seems to me to be a “get out of contadictions free card”, allowing each person to interpret the bible however they choose without having to accept any intellectual responsibilty to deal with the parts of the bible,  christian history and tradition, or current popular christian beliefs that are unpopular with non-christians and liberal christians.  Saying that “it’s a relationship, not a religion” doesn’t mean you get to ignore problems and expect others to not notice. 

 I find it very hard to believe that you were taught nothing about “salvation” in those churches yopu mentioned.  Maybe you weren’t paying much attention or disagreed with their interpretation, but “salvation” as a concept is central to every form of christianity I’ve ever heard of.   That’s why they all call Jesus their “Saviour”. 

You seem to have a habit of saying things that any rational person with eyes and ears would have a hard time believing.  Many types of christianity, as well as other religions and assorted mystics, have predicted the end of the world, probably hundreds of times over the centuries. 
Even though many choose not to predict a set date, the majority of christian sects and followers have held the idea that there will be a 
god-chosen end to the world, involving judgement and resurrection.

I’m trying to be generous, but I’m starting to think that you are just another liar who will say anything that justifies your beliefs.   

I’m not a particularly angry atheist, most of the time, just like most people aren’t angry most of the time. 

But if nothing else, living around people who can’t be bothered to investigate, explain, or show any evidence for their beliefs is somewhat annoying.  It bothers me, just a bit, that so many people seem to value cheap emotional gratification over truth and honesty.

Having those same people claim that their unexplainable, unprovable beliefs are VERY, VERY important on a cosmic, eternal scale, is even more annoying, even if they don’t try to force them on people.

Having a large number of those people insist that their personal, unexplainable, unprovable beliefs are not only VERY VERY important, but must be respected, shouldn’t be questioned, and should be spread to others by way of training them young, or using emotional blackmail like threats of heaven and hell, or even by using force, is much more than annoying, and enough to make any sane person angry. 

The members of the cultures that most of us live in, do all of these things on a regular basis.  Sometimes that makes people angry. 

It’s really not that hard to understand, if you think about it for more than half a second. 

 Neither is any mention of a creator, a god, a higher power, a man in the sky, jesus, the holy spirit, or an almighty. There is a mention of “Lord” as in “the Year of our”, a context which was a common way of expressing the date, not an expression of faith. Does not stop the faithful from declaring this a christian nation even though the first amendment states quite clearly:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

No national religion and the freedom to exercise, or not, a faith. i.e.   the term “separation of church and state”