No kidding. And unfortunately, the rock-n-roll bit leaves me out of Waldman’s one-world dream, since I can’t stand most of it.

Now I hope more than ever that you’re joking. Nobody could be that shallow.

Could they?

Let’s try this shoe on the other foot, shall we? “Don’t let your philosophical blindness get in the way of your civic duties. Separate atheism and state, always. Both will grow stronger.”

If you assert that, as Christians, we shouldn’t permit our faith to inform our politics, then your atheism shouldn’t inform yours, either.

One of my friends is a pro-life atheist - she has reasoned her pro-life stance completely without regard to divinity. If she were to support pro-life candidates and policies, she would be aligning her voting preferences with those of pro-life theists. Should she avoid doing so, or are those strictures only to be placed on those of us who vote on the basis of religious conviction?

K, even my angry-with-organized-religion husband is turned against ya, Waldman.

If atheists are so much smarter than believers, why do they so often piss of people who agree with them, or are sympathetic to their views?

Seems like smart folks would be better at convincing people….

1) “Why has Xianity been along for so long? Because people fall for the lowest common denominator. ”

It seems to me that there are several religions that are even older than Christianity - what does your statement say about adherents of those faiths?

2) “Now go forth and be good to your fellow man.”

Exactly! It might do you some good to heed your own advice once in a while (just sayin’ …)

Xianity was an invention of Saul. If that man Joshua of Nazareth existed, he was just another rebel out in the baked sun of the Levant ready to blow. People, human beings, do and think strange things under duress. He may have been a good synthesizer of ideas but he was no messiah. And he was put to death for heresy — not that I agree with that notion, but that was the law of the land at the time.

End of story. Now go forth and be good to your fellow man.

My point in bringing this up to you is not so much that this particular set of comments was rude, but that you’ve been unnecessarily insulting in something like half the comments you’ve left on the blog. I’m not a polemicist, and I don’t appreciate polemics. As I said, this is my Internet home, and I expect civil discourse in my home. You’re becoming the guy who always comes to the party, drinks way too much, and pukes on the couch; and your “words and ideas” are steadily decreasing in proportion to the vomit. Keep the “ideas” at the forefront and the vomit in the background, please. That’s all I ask, and it isn’t unreasonable. If your only purpose is to come here and tell people they’re nuts for believing in God, or argue with us about why we believe in God, I think you’re wasting your time; but I don’t really care that you choose to waste your time that way. Just do it with a modicum of civility.

On to your comment. I submit to you that Christianity took off like it did because of the witness of the Apostles (minus, of course, Judas), and other people who saw Christ after the Resurrection. Do you know what happened to the remaining eleven Apostles? Of all of Jesus’ twelve closest followers, only one died a natural death - John, who (coincidentally?) was the only one of them who stayed by Christ through the Crucifixion, along with the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. The others all died horrible deaths.

Bartholomew was skinned alive. Peter was crucified upside-down. Thomas was boiled in oil.

Imagine that you are leading a fledgling religion, and you are (as you posit) just in it to sucker people. The authorities are none too friendly, and your comrades start to be gorily executed. Don’t you think that you would slink off and shut up for a little while, until the fuss died down, or maybe try to find a slightly less deadly line of work?

But they didn’t. They kept preaching and winning converts. And I submit to you that they had no reason to do so - they had no reason to have an interest in suffering a brutal martyr’s death - unless they were sure that Jesus was who they said he was. These guys did not have a reason to die for what they were saying if they were just trying to con people.

And moving past the “con” prospect, let’s say they were suffering a mass delusion. I don’t know about you, but I think if I was even the tiniest bit unsure about whether I had seen what I thought I had seen, after the knife peeled off the first strip or two of skin, I think I would say “Um, you know, maybe you’re right - maybe he’s really dead.” But you know, that’s just me. I’m a sucker for not wanting to die a horrible painful death for absolutely no reason.

Why has Xianity been along for so long? Because people fall for the lowest common denominator. Just like P.T. Barnum. They think with their torsos, their guts and hearts, instead of their heads. And yes, one should have all these in alignment. I’ve posited it as: Brain, Heart, Guts & Gonads. But the Brain is at the top.