News

US survey reveals that evangelicals are most likely to despise Jesus’ teachings

A PIECE written for Religiousintelligence.com – based on the results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life -  says the finding reveal what social scientists have known for a long time:

Authors Phil Zuckerman and Dan Cady wrote:

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.

Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.

Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children.

They added:

They hate anything that smacks of ‘socialism’, even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the of the Prince of Peace.

They concluded:

Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. — it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow ‘Christian’. They aren’t.

 

86 Responses to “US survey reveals that evangelicals are most likely to despise Jesus’ teachings”

  1. Russell says:

    @Don:

    “The link you provided included the requirement that assertions should be backed up by evidence. Yours aren’t.”

    You assert that I have failed to provide any evidence, yet I direct you to eyewitness accounts. It’s not my fault that they were all gathered up and placed in the bible, a publication you adamantly believe is false. We are at an impasse. Let’s leave it at that.

    “I am quite happy to accept the ‘rules’ in your juvenile flow chart, but it seems you can’t manage that for even a paragraph.”

    Please do not resort to personal attacks. It does not further the discussion. I have very clearly stated that I see historical evidence supporting the events of the new testament. If a layman’s perspective is insufficient, I suggest you read a book such as “The Case for Christ.”

    “And don’t forget, you can’t argue that you don’t need evidence. So hard evidence as to who is or is not in heaven, please.”

    I didn’t argue that I didn’t need evidence. I merely stated that we disagree on what constitutes reliable evidence. Perhaps, with this too, we should agree to disagree.

    “Are you seriously proposing that the evidence for the historical existence of the Emporers (sic) of Rome is equal to the evidence for the historical existence of Adam and Eve? if not, what useful point are you making?”

    No. If you re-read my comments, you’ll see that I said the story of Genesis could be symbolic. What I tried to say about historical evidence is that the new testament has multiple copies of surviving document that date back 2000 years. There are precious few surviving documents from the same period that are not biblical (relatively speaking).

    “Suffering is relative, is it? So, we should get some perspective, should we? Have you actually seen real suffering? The real down and dirty no-way-out rotting flesh starvation dead eyed nothing you can fucking do to help suffering? Have you seen that? How did it smell? Don’t ever say that is an illusion or it is justified by the reward to come or that it is like a child being dropped off at school. Just don’t. If I needed to explain why I’d be wasting my time.”

    No. I can say that I’ve never experienced what you’re describing. I also have not said it was an illusion. I guess you didn’t like my analogy. Sorry. I can see that something about suffering hit close to home; You have my sympathy. I’m not sure a different analogy would help, if you disagree with my point from the first attempt.

    “It’s the same logic that had heretics tortured to death…”

    I would never advocate torturing heretics. However, someone twisting an argument to their own ends does not invalidate the argument. And I agree that suffering matters. I did not mean to imply that it didn’t.

    Don’t be offended, but I’m not about to click on the link to your picture. I learned years ago that some things cannot be unseen and I already have enough of those in my head. Let’s just assume I take your meaning. Was the photographer a Christian? Because I propose that a real, deep-down, true-believing Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ would not take pictures of a girl suffering; he would toss aside the camera and try to help. That’s the kind of “religion” I follow.

    As for where she is now… I have no idea.

  2. Russell says:

    @tony e:

    “Here is a top tip – if you keep your points to less than 50000 words you might get read – that was long and tedious with no real argument.”

    Sorry. I thought I would be thorough in my answers. Short quips are easily dismissed.

    “Secondly your increadibly (sic) stupid comment about proof of the existance (sic) of ‘Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero’ is a classic. Stop reading your infantile bible and pick up a real history book featuring REAL PEOPLE and REAL EVENTS. You might actually learn something.”

    Insults aside, your response goes back to my point. We disagree on the validity of the historical record. I ask two simple questions…

    Is the authenticity of a letter written in the 1st century automatically suspect? If the age does not make it suspect, what exactly does?

    I think it boils down to the fact that you don’t like the content. I can live with that…

    Regards,
    Russell

  3. Daz says:

    Russell.

    I cannot prove the existence of God (Abrahamic or otherwise). No one can. Furthermore, no one can prove the existence of Adam, Eve, Moses, David, Elijiah, Paul, Thomas, John the Baptist, Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, etc. Too much time has passed and too little exists in the form of “concrete evidence.”

    I did not mean to offend you with my beliefs. I was merely attempting to answer Broga’s questions.

    Last point first. I didn’t mean to give the impression that you’d offended me. (You’re fairly new at this game, I’m guessing.)

    There is no corroborating evidence for some of the Biblical figures you mention, a little for some—though not much, as far as I know, that corroborates the Biblical stories about them; just the fact of their existence. There is much corroborating evidence, in many separate documents, from many separate sources, for both the existence and much of the content of the lives, of all the non-Biblical people. See the difference?

    There is no “contemporary evidence” unless you count archaeological findings. I’m not an historian but as I understand it, the Christians living immediately after the resurrection of Christ believed He was returning immediately. Therefore, they didn’t bother collecting evidence to convince people 2000 years in the future. There are plenty of archaeological finds supporting the recorded events, such as the existence of Pontius Pilate as a governor.

    There are no archaeological findings pertinent to the crucifixion and resurrection. What we have is a set of documents which describe what was at first an aural tradition, changed by various interpretors over the years to reflect the current political situation of the times they lived in and the particular religious opinions of each interpretor. They do not constitute good documentary evidence.

    Yes, we know that Pilate existed. We even know a little about him. He was a harsh man, given to a very much iron-fisted policy. Most definitely not the sort to act in the compassionate manner he is shown in the Bible as taking, toward a trouble-making rabbi. There’s some evidence to support the theory that the story of him letting the Jewish leaders decide Jesus’ fate was a later, anti-semite/pro-gentile fabrication, meant not to take the blame from him per se, but to put it onto the Jews. What we don’t have is any evidence that he presided over the trial of a wandering rabbi named Jeshua ben Joseph.

    …In other words, I am saying that the bible is one part of an historical record that convincingly demonstrates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred. Since it can’t be proven, you’re free to believe it didn’t. Let’s agree to disagree.

    See above. There is no corroboration from non-Biblical sources, bar a footnote on Josephus that refers to the Christian belief, not that actual fact of, the crucifixion & resurrection, and the documents that make up the NT are unreliable.

    I agree (almost completely) with your statement. I don’t go around telling people their going to burn in hell. Why would you try to scare someone into religion? That’s just stupid.

    To me, hell is dying and not being with God afterwards.

    I’d like to introduce you to the No True Scotsman fallacy. What you’re doing is projecting your own definition of ‘Christian’ onto all Christians. Your, evidently rather gentle, belief is not shared by all.

    You realize it’s about love…

    Suffering here is relatively small compared to existing without God (see your responses to #4). An eternity with God is “heaven.”

    Sorry, but bull-guano. A ‘loving’ god who allows real suffering, not a mild fit of pique at having to go to school, but real, heart-breaking suffering, is not, by any reasonable definition, ‘loving’.

    Here’s the first three of the ten commandments:

    ONE: You shall have no other gods before Me.

    TWO: You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    THREE: You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

    This is not a description of love. This is a plea for worship, adulation, kowtowing. The reward for this is heaven, the punishment for not doing so is hell, as described in other places in the book.

    Here’s another one:

    He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    Not ‘He that doth good works’, or even ‘He that loveth me’. Just belief. By that NT standard, Hitler, if he’d made a deathbed confession, having been baptised a Catholic, would make it to Hell. Gandhi, who was exposed to Christianity but rejected it, would go to Hell. Tell me that’s justice…

    I see God’s love in a similar light. He created us. He loves us. He saw how screwed up we were. He sent His Son to endure the same things we endure, then demonstrated to everyone that death is not the end of it (oops, I guess there might be some accountability after all). He asks us for love and obedience.

    See previous, re love. How does the alleged sacrifice of his son absolve me, or you, or any person of the responsibility for their own actions? If this god existed, I would spit in his face rather than acknowledge his ‘morals’ as equal to my own.

    I agree. People pray for things. It doesn’t mean that God will answer their prayers or that that the purpose of prayers. If it were, I wouldn’t have taken the time to post these messages; I would have just taken away your free by praying “God, turn all the people into true Christians.” But, I think you see the problem there.

    See ‘No true Scotsman, above.

    I didn’t post my first (and this) comment to try to prove anyone wrong or to proselytize. I just ran across this article and saw someone asking what I thought were valid questions that I might be able to answer. I haven’t even had a chance to talk about the original topic of this blog post, which has so many problems that I’m not sure where to start…

    I’m all for debate. It’s cheap, sometimes healthy, and sometimes fun. If it stops being fun, I’ll stop. You maybe need to develop a thicker skin where heated debate’s concerned. Heat is not necessarily anger.

    If I catch you lying, I’ll stop.

    If I catch you depicting yourself as less fundamentalist/Biblically literalist than you turn out to be, I’ll stop.

    Other than that, lay on McDuff.

    As to the original topic, you don’t seem to be describing yourself as either evangelical or right-wing, so … *shrug*

  4. Daz says:

    Russell:

    Posted a reply, but I went ‘n’ included more than one link, so it’s awaiting moderation.

    And I didn’t take Tony’s advice… It’s bleedin’ huge. Sorry Tony :-)

  5. Don says:

    I direct you to eyewitness accounts. It’s not my fault that they were all gathered up and placed in the bible, a publication you adamantly believe is false. We are at an impasse. Let’s leave it at that.

    We are not at an impasse and I am not inclined to leave it at that. You made evidence a pre-requisite for serious debate and I fully agree. If biblical accounts don’t stack up against the evidence, then deal with that seriously.

    And I don’t need your sympathy for having seen how the world works. I should better offer you mine for not having seen it.

    I’m not offended that you didn’t click on the link. You know very well what I am saying. But if every journalist casts down their camera or notebook to take up a child, where do we get our information from? How do people know where injustice is? I can’t recall the photographer’s religious beliefs and I won’t look them up. He killed himself. What does it matter?

    As for where she is now… I have no idea.

    She’s dead.

  6. tony e says:

    Daz,

    You should know it’s not about size its about quality……

    Don,

    That image is horrific but thanks for posting it, made me stop and pause.

    Russell,

    No real insult intended, but you are treading the party line that most evangelicals do. The ‘If it ain’t in the bible then it ain’t true’ approach is no way to broaden the mind. The historical figures I picked up on were recorded by the scholars of their time, waged wars, led empires, started dynasties and got themselves onto the coinage of the day. You are a breath away from claiming there was no Roman Empire.

    Your point about does a letter written after the event make it any less valid. Hell yes.

    Can you write about a meal you experienced in a resturant 6 months ago, can you recall all the dishes served and the individual flavours? So how can you expect someone to write about an event they were not even present at, knew nobody who was at the event, and which happened before they were even born?

    Put down your bible and read the following:

    Breaking the Spell – Daniel C Dennett
    Cosmos – Carl Sagan
    Any good history book on the Roman Empire

    You will learn more than your bible will ever give you.

  7. Daz says:

    Don:

    That’s one of two pics I’ve never been able to get out of my head. The other was one of the holocaust I saw on The World At War, when I was a kid. Seriously heartbreaking stuff.

    More books:

    “Coming of age in the milky way”: Timothy Ferris.

    Anything by Bart D. Ehrman, but especially his latest, “Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are”

  8. Russell says:

    What started out as an humble attempt to answer Broga’s questions for Juli has turned into a full-on debate about the truth of Christianity. I hate to wave a white flag and retreat, but I didn’t expect it to get this extensive or detailed.

    You guys win. I don’t have the time or inclination to debate this; it will go on forever without either side reaching an agreement. Feel free to do a victory dance.

    Some last comments before I go, though… ;-)

    I read your response fully. The only problem I have with it is that many of your statements are based in the position “it doesn’t make sense for an all powerful God to…” Who are we to judge God? (That’s rhetorical…).

    I watched the video. I think he makes good points, though not all are 100% valid.

    I’m very conservative in my views, though definitely not a Republican. In my opinion, all politicians are bottom feeders and liars and I will not affiliate myself with an entire group of them. (Shudder)

    As for being evangelical, I’m working on it. Give me time. I just don’t think anyone accepted Christ because another person beat them down in a debate. That sort of life change is way too personal.

    Regards,
    Russell

  9. tony e says:

    Russell,

    When it comes to religious debate the victory is often pyrric, well done for holding your own. If you have religious doubts don’t be afraid to question them, there are good folk on this site who have been there.

  10. Don says:

    No victory dance. We only do that after you eat the babies.

  11. Daz says:

    I never eat babies! I merely sacrifice them on a bed of crackers at my altar to PZ Myers.

  12. neorush says:

    wow, just wow, some of you please read the details on the poll before commenting. “The analysis shows that most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party.” So we’re not only talking about having only a 64% correlation between religious right and the tea party, which is statistically not all that significant in a single poll, but the religious right is clearly only a subset AND NOT ALL Christians. How can you even make that leap? The Christian right (also known as the evangelical bloc) is a term used predominantly in the United States of America to describe right-wing Christian individuals and organizations characterized by their strong support of public polices of social conservatism. Wow, so the social conservatives are supportive of the social conservatives. Big freaking deal. This is NOT IN ANYWAY representative of the entire christian population as everyone seems to want to assume.

  13. Quint says:

    As an evangelical Christian I simply disagree. Both evidenced in changes in my own life and a google search shows that followers of Jesus do change and follow His teachings. Not perfectly of course…that is the whole point behind the old testament law…and Christianity.

    http://www.compassion.com/

    http://www.christianvolunteering.org

    http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/OCC/

    http://www.persecution.com/public/tfc.aspx?clickfrom=c2lkZWJhcg%3d%3d

    http://www.londonshelter.org/

  14. Anonymous says:

    As an evangelical Christian …

    We don’t have a lot of use for sexist folk and anti-gay bigots here; sorry.

  15. Daz says:

    This is NOT IN ANYWAY representative of the entire christian population as everyone seems to want to assume.

    No it’s representative of right wing christians, a large proportion of whom would seem to be evangelical. As the teachings ascribed to Jesus would seem to be rather left/liberal-leaning; love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, give unto Caesar, etc, there would seem to be a certain amount of hypocrisy involved.

    This thread does seem to have attracted an unusual number of apologists.

  16. Glenn says:

    I have to wonder whether Christianity isn’t somewhat of a misnomer. One thing that has become increasingly clear to me is that what defines the evangelical movement hews more closely to A) hideous OT theocracy and B) Paul’s sterile harpings.

    It might better be called Paulism. Throw in some Calvinism and you’ve got some basis for the irrationality demonstrated by the evangelicals.

  17. Bill Boswell says:

    I am an evangelical Christian and it is absolutly absurd to say that evangelical are more likly to shun the teachings of Christ. Flaky so called Christians yes but true converts no!
    As for healings i have been a Christian for 6 years and can give personal testimony of healings when doctors and hospitals could do no more….God did!!!

    I used to post on here last year but barrieduke got scared and kept deleting my posts,you claim to be the voice of atheism but get scared when asked simple questions which i find sad

    As for the scam artists who claim to be faith healers you can rest assured that one day they will be dealt with “it is permitted once for a man to die and then face judgement”

    Remember people that there are NO athiests in the afterlife!!!

    if anyone wishes to ask my simple question then please feel free before this post gets deleted by the ones who cant give a simple answer

    Here goes…….Q…Please give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and everything in it came into being WITHOUT using terms such as IF BUT MAYBE PERHAPS COULD MIGHT ect ect because after all who can be serious about there beliefs if is based on ifs buts and maybes?

    When this post gets deleted and you feel you have the answers that im asking for then saerch Bill Boswell on facebook i look forward to your SCIENTIFIC proof as answers God bless

  18. Barry Duke says:

    For the benefit of others reading Mr Boswell’s bullshit, may I point out that he was not banished because I was “scared”. He was banned because he was a wearisome troll whose talent was only to pose questions but never to answer them.

  19. Bill Boswell says:

    Hello Barry long time no silence lol

    The questions i ask are for athiests to answer Barry.How am i supposed to answer my question from an ethiestic viewpoint?

    This is supposed to an athiest site that is full of “freethinking” people so why cant you answer my questions?

    I acan give answers to back up my beliefs ansd will gladly do so.
    So why cant you lot? Personaly Barry i think you are scared because if it were not so you would answer me and “make me look stupid” rather than delete my posts and palm me off with a load of nonsence and/or abuse!

    Come on people surley one of you “freethinkers” can give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being?

    After all once again you cant surley put your faithinto a belief that is based upon IFs BUTs and MAYBEs.That just wouldnt make sence would it?

    You claim to be “freethinkers” people who live life baesd upon facts……so why not lay them on me….give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being

    Once again God bless and hope to hear your SCIENTIFIC PROOF
    Regards Bill Boswell
    P.S keep up the silence Barry and just keep smiling lol

  20. Bill Boswell says:

    P.S Saying that evangelical Christians are the most likely to leave the teachings of Christ is like saying motorists are the least likely to buy fuel from a petrol station!
    A Christian is somebody who lives TOTALY by the teachings of Christ,so your argument doesnt hold muchwater lol

    Would you believe and publish a story that said “hungry people are themost likely not to eat?” or would you believe a doctor who said to an asthmatic “instead of using your pump you should use a cigarette or better still exhaust fumes?” you guys claim to be free thinkers so i suggest you start to think about what you start to believe!!

    Now i still await an answer to my questions????

    P.S this sort of stuff make you all look rather dim
    because its proves that you will believe anything but the truth and cant answer questions on you beliefs, i will post links to your site on facebook so the world can see at atheism DOESNT have a voice!!

  21. Daz says:

    Wow. Just … wow!

    Barry Duke, I can see what you mean. It’s like five normal fundies, all in one family-size package of bullshit.

    Memo to self: Check back on articles that have disappeared off the front page more often. It’s quite entertaining!

  22. Bill Boswell says:

    @Daz what you said makes no sence at all,perhaps you would like to answer my long standing queation that NO aethiest in the history of man kind has been able to answer lol. Give us SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being WITHOUT using IFs BUTS and MAYBEs etc etc

    This is quite beings you cant answer and it proves that you all have abelief based on IFs BUTs and MAYBEs lol

    Call me what you wish but at least i have the bottle to stand up and give an account and proof for what i believe

    All Barry Duke and the rest of you are capable of doing is ranting and talking tripe lol

    But when someone challenges your beliefs you get scared or your brain goes into meltdown because you cannot answer,its sad lads

    P.S i hope you realize that your rfanting and raving will NEVER achieve or change anything because when it comes to the crunch all you know how is rant and get angry rather than stage a sensible debate

    Last year Barry Duke mocked me by claiming that Christians only come on this site to row rather than debate but once i responded to his challenge HE FLED lol

    Anyway people i thank God for this site because when i see what is actualy behind your beliefs (ie NOTHING lol) it just strengthens mine

    God bless all Cheer up Bazza

  23. Daz says:

    Bill Boswell:

    No no! I’d hate to interrupt your flow. You obviously find it cathartic or summat. Carry on old chap, I’m watching in admiration.

  24. Bill Boswell says:

    All im asking you all to do is give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF (which you have claimed tohave in past posts lol) of how the UNIVERSE AND ALL THAT IS INIT CAME INTO BEING

    Come on Daz dont be like Barry Bottler Duke give either give the answers or admit that your beliefs are based upon IFs BUTs and MAYBEs!

    Remember my friend that “there is a way that SEEMS right to a man but in the end leads to death”

    Once again athieism has no voice,poor effort lads ,i will leave you all to rant on about tripe because that is all you are capable of doing “but as for me and my house WE WILL SERVE THE LORD”

    Regards Bill Boswell (an uneducated Romany Gypsy who left school aged 14) what a show up for you all lol

  25. Bill Boswell says:

    how about the SCIENTIFIC PROOF Daz? either that or admit that your beliefs are based up IFs BUTs and MAYBEs

  26. Daz says:

    Ah, there’s your problem, see. You think I have beliefs about these things. That I have some kind of faith.

    Please go back to the long-winded rants about how an uneducated bastard like yourself is right, and all the people relying on silly things like ‘evidence’ are wrong. They were so much more entertaining.

    Bored now.

  27. Bill Boswell says:

    lol once again more insults and WIDE WIDE BERTHS around my question which is once again give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being ?

    Come on Daz i think your Barry Bottler Duke using a different name because you are avading the question in the same ignorant manner as Mr Bottler Duke!!!!

    Come on atheists if there is no God who created the universe then please show me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the UNIVERSE AND ALL THAT IS IN IT CAME INTO BEING!!!

    This dont look good on you freethinking clever folk lol

    Come on iv asked a simple question just give a simple answer lol (sorry for the lolololololololols but i just cant help myself)

  28. Bill Boswell says:

    P.S Daz yes you do have a beliefe every one has a belief whether Christian,athiest or a jedi knight

    If you choose to ignore the God of creation you then choose to BELIEF that the universe just came into being

    That poses the BIG question Daz……How did something come from nothing and where did that something come from? All of these questions require a belief!! So yes whether you like it or not you do have a belief!!!

    Now….back to my question which is ….once again all together now……drumroll please……………tension all around………….Please give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being???????????????????……??

    God bless and really really really really with cherries on the top look forward to seeing your SCIENTIFIC PROOF

  29. Noah Nationalist says:

    >supportive of the death penalty

    I don’t think David decide to forgive Goliath, I think he killed him with a well placed stone. Compassionate does not mean suicidally altruistic.

    >governmental use of torture

    Like most sane people, many christians are willing to accept and adjust their beliefs according to the reality that terrorists won’t simply give up their plans for slaughtering innocents if asked nicely, and that coercion is necessary to prevent the loss of innocent human life. Besides, it’s not as if islamic terrorists have been slaughtering christians around the world for over a millenia.. Oh, wait.

    >loving, peaceful and non-violent

    People who support gun rights do so in the firm belief that everyone, not just the militant arms of the state, has the right to defend themselves. People who support gun rights don’t buy guns to shoot up schools. They buy them to protect their homes and families from people who don’t respect the law. I seem to remember the christian faith saying something about all men being equal before God, not, the state apparatchiks are more equal than the citizenry. It’s been proven many times that when conceal and carry or gun ownership is banned, homicides go up because this guarantees defenseless victims.

    >Pursuit of wealth

    Conservative christians are notably more charitable than their liberal counterparts – Conservative faithful give money to the poor, liberals lobby for more laws to force other people to hand other their money through coercion to support their pet welfare programmes.

    >socialism

    Ditto. Lobbying the state for other people to be thrown in jail if they don’t give up their wealth for your personal agenda is not “Charity.” it especially isn’t very christian. There’s something rather sick and twisted about people saying that a philosophy which centres around compassion and respect for ones fellow man actually supports a philosophy which states people need to be forced to give up their wealth, or suffer the consequences. Charity is not state provision.

    >corporate greed

    I guess it kind of eluded these retards that most american corporate elites are very much pro-liberal and pro-wealth redistribution to the 3rd world, and repeatedly show their humanitarian concerns by donating huge sums of profit to the less well off.

    >militarism

    Yup, disposing of genocidal tyrants is extremely unchristian.

    First time on this blog, won’t be coming back. Glad I left atheism and returned to the church – As usual, every atheist viewpoint is infact a socialist mirror image of reality, blaming the evillllll right wing for every one of the worlds ills, and running to the idea of a benevolent, all powerful state to make things right. The irony that these buffoons traded in their belief in a supernatural or supermetaphorical entity for a supernatural state that doesn’t run according to youknow, human nature and selfishness, eludes these shameless hacks.

    How about a hearty Fuckkkkkk Youuuuuu on behalf of all freedom loving, God-fearing, righteous Christians who stand alone in defending individual freedom from the utopian dreams of power-hungry left wingers.

  30. I appreciate the effort and resources invested in this report. Even so, do we need even more evidence that “christian” and “hypocrite” are semantically equal?

    It seems that the more rabid the christian appears, the more hypocritical they are.

    Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. For example, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, 9/11, and family planning clinic bombing in the USA. Then there were the crusades, the inquisition, witch burnings, and the dark ages. Get the idea?

    Humanity will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.

  31. Stutz says:

    Very annoyed at the assumption that gun ownership rights are somehow equivalent to supportive of violence. It’s already illegal to murder. How will making guns illegal make any difference? Annoyed at the assumption that valuing charity means supporting government programs. Annoyed that the study’s authors unscientifically interpret people’s views through their obvious left-wing bias without taking into account things like basic human psychology.

    Annoyed that I, an atheist and socially liberal political moderate, has to point out this stuff. Annoyed that studies like these give fuel to loons like Noah Nationalist above, and are why people feel justified in questioning the science behind things like evolution and climate change.

  32. Stutz says:

    There’s no scientific proof of how the universe came into being, Bill Boswell. Now you tell me, so what? So God exists and made a covenant with the Jews and sent Jesus to save us? Sorry, that does not follow. (Maybe Zeus kicked off the big bang using a powerful lightning bolt. I demand scientific proof that God did it and not Zeus!) The only thing that does follow is this: we don’t know how the universe began exactly, yet, or that it necessarily even “began” at all. On the other hand, we have zero scientific evidence for God’s existence, let alone PROOF that he exists. At least with the universe we have some evidence to go on and can make educated guesses. So, again, I answered you directly, now you answer my question: so what? You tell us what it means that there’s no scientific proof regarding the beginning of the universe, and we’ll discuss your interpretation of things to see which one has more merit, okay?

  33. Rosita says:

    @Stutz

    Thanks. I was wondering when someone was going to challenge this annoyingly ignorant troll.

    @Bill Boswell. The problem is that you do not have the education or the intellect to understand a scientific answer about the origin of the universe even if it were provided. Worse, it is clear that you do not have the intellect to understand that your question is ludicrous and does nothing to advance your cause. We don’t know and neither do you. Scientists are working on it. On the other hand, Christians and adherents of other religions who believe that their god/s created the universe, are NOT working on it because they falsely believe (ALL of them) that they have the one and only truth and they have the supernatural power to infallibly interpret it. That’s the arrogance of ignorance and the certainty of fools.

    It is people like you who give American Fundies such a bad reputation throughout the world.

  34. pusna says:

    @dooflotchie

    Is it important for you to “fit in”?

  35. Abdel Irada says:

    This post reminds me of Mohandas Gandhi’s quip: “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

    @BillBoswell: Before becoming an “athiest,” do you first have to pass through the stages of being “athy” and “athier”?