There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler’s attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent. A separate Pew Forum poll echoed the ARIS finding, reporting that the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans. (Seventy-five percent of unaffiliated voters chose Barack Obama, a Christian.) Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)
While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. [...] As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America’s unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right’s notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.
# 138 Thomas said, on April 6th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
#136
I am well aware of the argument from silence. …
…Adam’s never says anything about purple leprechauns in any of his speeches, any of his memoirs, or any his official documents nor does anyone else when they are talking about the President. We can thus make a reasonable assumption that purple leprechauns were not as important to him as say France. It is still remotely possible of course that he hid his love for purple leprechauns but until we get evidence to the contrary and from an historical perspective, we can make a safe conclusion that purple leprechauns were not important to him.
You should have done as I asked, Googled “argument from silence”, you clearly don’t understand it.
What you concluded John Adams and Leprechauns is an unsound argument from silence…
As John is silent about Leprechauns you cannnot argue he believes anything about them…
Not “soundly.”
For an argument to be sound, it must be FORMALLY VALID and its premises true.
The law of the undistributed middle invalidates your argument about John Adams…
It is this law that causes EVERY argument from silence to be listed as a fallacies in all the lists…
Your argument about “patterns” is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. I only humored you when I repeated it in my reply.
I will exegesis Exodus 21 again as some translation wrongly have:
BBE Exodus 21:22 If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.
(Exo 21:22 BBE)
I will show how that translation is untenable…the context makes it impossible.
Hebrew is a very compact language, the same word standing denoting and connoting often very different things…context rules, and here it is expressly said “if no harm is done” after the subjects woman and child…therefore the BBE translation is impossible.
But back to the point…I have no desire to argue endlessly in circles with you…if you cannot accept what an argument from silence is…when every book on fallacies teaches the same I just stated…our discussion is ended…you can waste someone else’ time.
re BBE Exodus 21:22 If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges. (Exo 21:22 BBE)
The translation is incorrect paraphase, nothing in the Hebrew states the child died…it says the child came out, that there was a miscarrage.
It is an assumption of the translator this resulted in death.
For that assumption to be true, the Hebrew yeled יֶלֶד
would have to denote “fetus”, but everywhere else in scripture it refers to a child, fully formed.
Therefore the harm mentioned here, is any harm done to either the woman or the child who “came out” of the woman prematurely:
.4. The Recompense Smiting (Exodus 21:22–25)
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow [to the new-born]; he shall surely be punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot …” (Exodus 21:22–25). This smiting involves a pregnant woman who is smitten so hard that she gives birth to her child. The punishment is determined by one of two conditions.
• The uninjured child. “No mischief [injury] … he shall surely be punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). A premature birth from being smitten was not to be accepted as normal even if no injury resulted from the birth. The punishment would be determined by the husband (new father) and the judges.
• The injured child. “If any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exodus 21:23–25). The equity of this punishment cannot be disputed. It was fair as could be.
Butler, J. G. (2008). Analytical Bible Expositor: Exodus (194). Clinton, IA: LBC Publications.
# 132 Mr. Fusion said, on April 6th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
#130, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
I didn’t lie…Obama sold drugs…
Wrong. You claimed he sold drugs, now prove it. There is no evidence, even “likely” evidence. It is all just your wish in order to denigrate the man. Now you’ve been caught in a lie.
Its not a lie, its my conclusion as to what is likely, based upon the facts of the phenomena.
It is much more likely Obama sold drugs at least once, just as did every other drug user on the planet, or distributed them free for other reasons (which really is a sale, but not for money), just as every drug user does, than not.
The burden of proof really isn’t on me.
When Bill Shaheen(black) alleged Obama sold drugs…it rang true to me.
Its true many things cannot be proved 100%, but it does not follow that standard is required….we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt, based upon chemical heads universal, that Obama distributed drugs for money or fun, at least once during his career.
I don’t expect you will accept this explanation, you are either “hot for Obama”…or an irrational follower…either way, everything that fails to exalt your “dear Leader” is rejected by you.
#143 – Alfred1,
Its not a lie, its my conclusion as to what is likely, based upon the facts of the phenomena.
I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to you. Nor does the biblical admonition against bearing false witness. You are one fucked up induhvidual.
It is much more likely Obama sold drugs at least once, just as did every other drug user on the planet, or distributed them free for other reasons (which really is a sale, but not for money), just as every drug user does, than not.
I’m sorry. Do you seem to think of this as proof of anything??!!? More likely? You stated it as fact. Further, you obviously know nothing about drug use or channels of distribution of any product. There are always more end users than distributors.
I shop in grocery stores, but have never worked in one. I buy clothing but have never sold it. I drive a car, but have never sold them. I stay in motels on travel, but have never run one.
Are you an idiot? Or, do you merely play one on TV?
The burden of proof really isn’t on me.
Ah … your clearest statement of your lack of understanding of the world yet. You made an accusation. The burden of proof is most definitely on you.
I claim you are a murderer. The burden of proof really isn’t on me.
I claim also claim you are a bald faced liar. The proof is on this thread.
When Bill Shaheen(black) alleged Obama sold drugs…it rang true to me.
Not only are you a liar and a bearer of false witness, you are a total racist bastard as well. I see you have learned the love of Christ very well from the bible.
You are also excellent evidence of the problems inherent in the judeo-christian-islamic religion (deliberately singular) and are an excellent example of exactly why I am not only an atheist but an antitheist as well.
Your bible has taught you hatred and fear of others. It has made you a xenophobe in the extreme. You would do well to pick up another book or two once in a while.
Oops. Forgot to close a bold tag. Only the first two bold sentences were intended to be that way.
#141
You really need to take a class or five on archeology (and logic). We are not making an evaluation in a vacuum based on a single passage. We have a mountain of additional evidence to consider which you seem determined to ignore.
We can, given the available evidence, make a provisional conclusion that John Adam cared little if anything for purple leprechauns. If any contrary material were found, we would change our conclusion. The more material we find that is silent on the subject, the proportionally stronger our conclusion becomes. Similarly, we can conclude that had abortion been considered the equivalent of murder, a crime that is documented numerous times along with a host of other crimes meriting punishment by death, it would have been documented in more than a single dodgy passage out of the volumes of text that were written at the time. The more material we find that says nothing on the subject, the stronger our conclusion. This is sound, common historical analysis. This is not a criminal court where the evidence must be beyond all reasonable doubt. Historians make conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence because the evidence they generally have is minimal.
By your logic, we could never conclude anything about history since after all, we don’t know what we don’t know and we only have a limited number of authors saying anything at all. Hey, the Jews could have enjoyed screwing camels with palm trees since they never say anything about it. We “can’t” conclude they did or did not. This type of thinking is ridiculous. We can use the evidence we have to make a reasoned conclusion and while it is possible that abortion was considered so heinous that the never wrote about it, the evidence, including the lack of evidence to support the claim, suggests otherwise.
Again, the original premise is still quite valid: the Bible, if anything, says nothing on abortion or at best considers child younger than a certain age to be inconsequential or property.
#141, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
C’mon Queenie, by your own quote you just elevated a fetus to something of property.
… the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.
The same as if the men fighting had of broken a table, a door, or a bed. If they can’t agree on damages then a Judge will decide tha value.
NOWHERE does that passage even imply that a fetus is anything more than a chattel. Worthy of future value, yes, a life worth the charge of murder, NO.
And you are still a liar. On two levels now.
#143, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
It is much more likely Obama sold drugs at least once, just as did every other drug user on the planet, or distributed them free for other reasons (which really is a sale, but not for money), just as every drug user does, than not.
The burden of proof really isn’t on me.
Wrong. You have no evidence that Obama ever sold drugs. You ASSUME he did because he is half black. You ASSUME he did because he also experimented with them. You ASSUME he did because some third party stated that someone Obama knew might have sold drugs.
No proof. No evidence. Only denigration. And the burden of proof IS on you. You claimed it.
Now I watch you nitpick arguments from others such as your “argument from silence”. Yet the same level of veracity you require from others you deny of yourself.
Please, Queenie, learn the difference between an opinion and a fact.
Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
I googled “argument from silence”.
Interestingly, the wikipedia page that came up gave a textbook example in which it is perfectly valid to use the argument from silence.
More interestingly, it asserted that a valid use is exactly as Thomas has been using it.
Here it is for your education.
http://tinyurl.com/cmvvfq
What a lying sack of shit: “Its not a lie, its my conclusion as to what is likely, based upon the facts of the phenomena.”
Not a lie at the time uttered==it became a lie after a week for demands of evidence and a final decision to bluff it out as if it weren’t a pathetic failure to be honest with ones self.
Truly PATHETIC. Just admit simple overstatements made in a rush and separate fact from fiction. Course, Alfie ain’t great at that particular distinction.
Heh, heh. “I believe – - – - – -”
# 148 Mr. Fusion said, on April 7th, 2009 at 7:54 am
#143, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
It is much more likely Obama sold drugs at least once, just as did every other drug user on the planet, or distributed them free for other reasons (which really is a sale, but not for money), just as every drug user does, than not.
The burden of proof really isn’t on me.
Wrong. You have no evidence that Obama ever sold drugs. You ASSUME he did because he is half black. You ASSUME he did because he also experimented with them. You ASSUME he did because some third party stated that someone Obama knew might have sold drugs.
No proof. No evidence. Only denigration. And the burden of proof IS on you. You claimed it.
I said Obama sold drugs…and referred you to a site which listed the circumstantial evidence for that claim…and without evidence…you rejected the claim…
Since then you’ve been stalking my posts …constantly you rage at me with a burning hate of a thousand suns….
You’re sad.
#151 – Alfie,
I missed something here. You referred someone to a site which listed something you called evidence?
Please provide at least that link. I don’t see it on this thread.
Church leaders relax. It isn’t our fault. The problem is that the cows are out of the barn and we cannot put them back in.
Who is speaking for us? Crazy televangelists and talking vegetables (Veggie Tales). Hollywood, on the other hand is doing something differently.
As Hollywood finally put Charlton Heston to pasture and began making films about the true history of the church, people have become increasingly disgusted. The true stories of Joan of Arc, the Crusades, the treatment of the Indians, etc. won’t simply go away because we want them to.
Then there was Hollywood’s favorite Christian, Mel Gibson. The effectiveness of his personal spirituality is now well documented. His ‘Passion’ film was so outrageous to those on the fence that it did more harm than good. Next to the X-Men and Spiderman, Jesus’ powers look week. His subsequent drunken rant confirmed his critics’ assessment.
This Autumn there will be another assault on us in the form of the film “Agora.” A full screen blockbuster depiction of the rape of the last librarian of pagan Alexandria aught to help seal our downfall in the eyes of young people. We can look forward to the final scene where fourth century Bible wavers peel the skin off her living body with sea shells. Nothing like scenes of mobs of book burning Christian zealots to ring in the Christmas season… I mean Saturnalia.
Hollywood knows what they are doing.
We cannot say The TRUTH will set us free, then cherry pick or abandon it when it releases countless others. I think the church will be destroyed, and true Christians will return to small groups of Bible believing worshippers.
There is a lesson here for us.
#151–Fusion==it did look a bit manic, but your efforts finally bore fruit. Sad, rotten fruit but illustrative to us all: the religious mind at work. Some idea takes hold and no amount of evidence will shake it even when the truth is evident and not important to anyone.
Alfies “mind” set is what drives religious bigots. Its rarely demonstrated so convincingly. But how else can one describe belief based on faith rather than reason?
Yes, very instructive. Alfie: you made and continue to make a mountain out of a molehill, or even of the tunnel undeneath the molehill. FACTS vs OPINION. FAITH vs REASON. HUMILITY vs OPPRESSION.
Lots to learn.
the pastor of the church my wife and I attend gave a word on this awhile ago, and it really didn’t strike me as surprising, seeing as how most “Christians” call themselves “saved” because they attend church, but they don’t really maintain their salvation on a daily basis. what I mean is that they’re not taught that salvation is a DAILY choice. when I think about what that means, I automatically think about what God’s Word says, “choose you THIS DAY, who will you serve?” that tells me that we can CHOOSE to serve Jesus one day, and the next we can choose to serve our flesh. that tells me that too many Christians out there have done just that, and they feel ashamed about it, as if God will not accept them back because they’ve chosen to serve their flesh instead of Him. the REAL truth is that God will ALWAYS love us, no matter WHAT we have done, and no matter WHO we have become. God knows who we REALLY are, and He is the ONLY One who can make us that person. it’s not by our might, nor by our power, but by His Spirit, and it’s not by OUR works alone, lest we should boast.
#154, Bobbo,
#151–Fusion==it did look a bit manic, but your efforts finally bore fruit.
Call it a bug up my butt or a passion. One thing I can not tolerate is blatant slandering. There is currently another thread on Obama Derangement Syndrome. Alphie fits the definition of that exactly.
Calling people on a deranged, slandering, baseless statement is necessary in my opinion. If you notice Cow-Patty is a little more careful about what he posts. Not always, but a little. I only wish Alphie could see the errors of his ways and realize that pure hate and vitrol is not a substitute for a reasoned, rational, factual argument.
Keep the peace bro.
it scares the shit out of me that so many people are so easily blinded by an ideology that is clearly the script of man and using the oldest ideological method in the book…….. power by fear!!!! anyone who lives a certain way for honest fear of their soul burning in hell for eternity seems a bit retarded to me personally. get out from under your rocks, take one biology class, and hopefully you’ll make better use of your time on earth in realising what a beautiful and lucky thing life really is…. cause when you die it’s all over and there’s no way to say ‘i told you so’ cause you’ll just become part of the soil.
ISIAIh 41 BRING forth your IDOLS did they PREACH to you see they can’t speak they can’t DO ANYTHING all they do is cause confusion. spalms 115 and spalms 135 thier IDOLS are FALSE cant speak can’t hear cant smell and those that make them shall become like them. Jeremiah 10 they nail their IDOL down like a scarecrow it can’t move can’…t speak can’t move must be carried these are nothing but the WORK of CON men.john 10 jesus christ sais his sheep hear his voice and another voice thy will not follow and if another person tries to preach to them they WILL FLEE from him. jeremiah 5 the priests bear rule on their own authority what will you do when your judged my word is not inside them. Now here is the kicker john 5 son of man voice goes back in time mathew 16 jesus christ claims to be the son of man.1 cor2 mind of CHRIST preached internally and john 16 sais the spirit of truth comes in the future. Ezekiel 13 lying prophets of ISRAEL my word is not inside them saying god sais god sais god sais wrote hoping mankind would CONFIRM their WORDS. all of this is EASILY verifiable.