I don't want to live in an Atheist country.

[Lyric]

In fact, I don't want to live in a country that has ANY official national position on religion. I want to live in a "It's none of your damned business what my religion or non-religion is" country. I want to live in a country where everybody can believe, speak, practice, and enjoy their own religious ideas, and nobody gets to impose ANYTHING religious in nature on ANYONE else--no matter how much of a majority they have.

For all that the right-wingers claim to be "true patriots", these people have ZERO respect for the basic values that our Founding Fathers stood for. They seem to hate everything that makes America, well, AMERICA. Freedom of religion? HATE IT. Freedom of speech? HATE IT. Personal privacy about what consenting adults do with their own bodies? HATE IT. Freedom from being spied upon and/or searched by the government without any establishment of probable cause? HATE IT.

Seriously. I sometimes think that these people hate authoritarian nations so much because they're secretly jealous of them. THEY want all those insane powers to spy on, restrict, and punish people for anything they want to, and it drives them CRAZY that they can't. They seem to want America to be a Jesusified version of the Taliban. They're totally cool with the TACTICS of "Radical Islamists"...just not the underlying religious justification. Replace Islamist with Christianist, and they're ready to throw money and votes at the idea.

I sometimes wonder how ANYBODY can be THAT willfully blind--and so very, very unpatriotic. I just don't get it.

Who do right-wingers hate America? The answer: They hate us for our freedoms. Talk about the ultimate projection.

[Juche]

1. I do want to live in an atheist country

Not one where people are forced to be atheist mind you. But more secular, agnostic societies seem to be run better than ours (Sweden, Denmark, France, etc). I'm not sure when religion became associated with authoritarianism, aggression and superstition, but it has.

Back when obama first came into office I felt that most of the tea partiers were secretly hoping for some kind of US Pinochet to come to power. A general who would overthrow the government, purge leftists from politics/academia/the media and then enforce right wing social and economic policy on society. I don't know if they desire it as much now that the GOP has taken the house (and arguably the sense of victimization that they had going for them). But a Pinochet style revolution seemed like something many of them wanted back in 2009.

[Lyric]

5. See, it's the "forced" thing I don't like.

An Atheist Nation is no different than A Christian Nation; I don't want to live in a country where ANY religious point-of-view is The Official Religion Of The Nation. People should always have the right to decide that sort of thing for themselves without any interference from the government.

I'm an Atheist. My son is leaning toward Reform Judaism. I am *fine* with that, because his beliefs are HIS choice--not mine. I might explain the potential political ramifications of a set of beliefs if they might cause harm to his relationship with his family (his parents are a lesbian couple, so fundie Christianity could be a problem) but I have no right to insist that he follow me in my religious choices. I only wish that all children had the same freedom of conscience and acceptance from their parents.

[Lance_Boyle]

62. You mis-define "atheist," which is PRECISELY the kind of nation you want.

An atheist nation is a country where no religious point of view is taken by the government. That's what the "a" means - "not." As in "not theist." As in "not concerned with gods or any silly notions thereof." You appear to be conflating "atheist" with "antitheist."

[Pacifist Patriot]

80. Not exactly.

A secular nation is a country where no religious point of view is taken by the government.

[Lance_Boyle]

89. 'Atheistic' and 'secular' are synonymous. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

90. No, they are not.

[Lance_Boyle]

101. Nice argument there - care to support it?

"Atheistic" means "not theistic." "Secular" also means "not theistic."

Too many people misunderstand atheism as antitheism - they are distinct concepts, once of which is, in fact, synonymous with "secular."

[Pacifist Patriot]

106. Secular means non-religious

Atheist is a naturalistic world view that does not believe in supernatural beings.

Secularism is the perspective that the state should not take a position on religious belief. You can be religious and subscribe to secularism.

I agree with you whole-heartedly too many people misunderstand atheism as anti-theism. Where we disagree is equating secular with atheist. You can be secular and religious at the same time.

To carry this further, you can be atheist and religious. Humanist Unitarian Universalists, Ethical Culture Societies, types of Buddhism, etc.

So no, atheism and secularism are not synonymous. You don't have to take my word for it. Check both words in any thesaurus. They aren't synonyms.

[Lance_Boyle]

116. In the context of a government, atheistic and secular are indeed synonymous.

An atheistic government would be one not concerned with theism. A secular government, surprisingly enough, would also be one not concerned with theism. A person or a government cannot be both secular and theistic (religious) at the same time. A theist may take on a secular *role*, but unless that theist ceases to adhere to his or her religion then he or she cannot be deemed to be secularist (which would require the person, not his or her role, to be unconcerned with theism).

So yes, in the context of a government's character/nature, "secular" and "atheistic" are synonymous.

[Pacifist Patriot]

120. Sorry, but I stand by my previous posts on the matter.

We'll just have to disagree.

[defendandprotect]

340. The dictionary disagrees with you --

HERITAGE DICTIONARY -- SECULAR

1. Worldly rather than spiritual.

2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.


DICTIONARY.COM - SECULAR

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.

3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.


Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology|Definitions...|Philosophical...|HistoryAtheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively,...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism - Cached


Atheist - Definition
For information about the band, see Atheist (band). Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs and alternatively the disbelief in the existence of ...
www.wordiq.com/definition/Atheist - Cached

[polmaven]

115. Please look it up

in a dictionary....Atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Secularism is defined as a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. There is a big difference.

[Lance_Boyle]

118. You give the definition of positive atheism, not atheism.

Atheism is defined as not having to do with theism. This is not doctrinal, nor does it imply any positive belief on behalf of that which is a-theistic.

[polmaven]

124. I gave the DICTIONARY

definition of atheism....Are you saying they don't know what they are talking about?

[PassingFair]

136. Yes.

The dictionary definitions of atheism suffer
from being "defined" by believers.

Johnson's first definition is:

atheism: the disbelief of gods

[cleanhippie]

163. Yes, they do not know what they are talking about.

Ask anyone who self-identifies as an atheist and 99 times out of 100 you will hear that "I LACK a belief in a god or gods", not "I believe there are no gods."

The dictionary is not the end-all be-all, especially on words where self-identity is what defines it.

[tavalon]

306. Wow, that's a distinction I never thought of

And, it's an important distinction or framing. I love learning new things! thanks!

[defendandprotect]

341. Same thing -- rejection of deities --

[liberation]

286. Ahem...

The definitions in dictionaries are partial sometimes when void of proper context:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

[PassingFair]

140. Look up "theism" and put the letter "a", meaning "without" in front of it.

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.<1><2> In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.<3><4> Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.<5>

The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning God. The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–88).<6> Atheism is rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism; i.e. the rejection of belief that there is even one deity.<7> Rejection of the narrower sense of theism can take forms such as deism, pantheism, and polytheism. The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown is agnosticism, and can be compatible with theism and with atheism.<8><9><10> The positive assertion of knowledge, either of the existence of gods or the absence of gods, can also be attributed to some theists and some atheists. Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) knowledge; they are not mutually exclusive as they deal with different domains.

[Lance_Boyle]

151. Thank you.

Too many here (and at Dictionary.com) use the preachers' definition of atheism, which is barely half the story. The accurate philosophical definition is either neglected or incorrectly morphed into agnosticism.

[Pacifist Patriot]

153. So would you take the step of asserting secularism and atheism are synonymous?

[PassingFair]

165. No.

Although they may be sometimes interchangeable.

I tell people that I come from a "secular" family or background,
but I don't identify as a "secularist" (if there IS such a thing).

Every Theist that I know prefers to live in a
"secular government".

None of my Theist friends want to LIVE in a "Theocracy".

Of course, I consider the US to be a secular government.....

[defendandprotect]

342. Really? Even though taxpayers are now subsidizing the Vatican's ....

"faith-based" organizations?

Which, coincidentally, came about when they were most desperately in need of

funds to pay off their pedophile-priestd lawsuits? You remember them selling

off property -- schools, churches, real estate -- and the protests by members?

All of that came to a halt when W Bush came along with the money bags!!

Obama has not only continued this subsidy, but has increased the amounts.

RCC has most of these organizations -- but other churches do get $$.

[darkstar3]

222. I would come close.

Secularism deals with a concept larger than atheism. Atheism is a personal thing, while secularism is a social thing. In a strict sense, secularism is apathy toward religion and deities, which is exactly what atheism is for an individual.

I am an atheist. I lack belief in any gods or higher powers, and that is the extent of what atheism means. Now I just wish that my government felt the same way.

[PopeRatzo]

300. More than just "government"

I'm OK with the idea of living in a country where people don't believe in things for which there is no evidence.

It's not going to happen, but I'd be OK with it.

For now, I'd settle for living in a country where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but the GOP and the religious Right seem to have a problem with that simple directive.

[cleanhippie]

161. In the context of this conversation they most certainly are.

[Pacifist Patriot]

192. No, not even in the context of this conversation.

Secularism and atheism are not synonymous. There is just no way around that. I know I'm being dogmatic about it, but you can consider that semantic dogmatism, not religious dogmatism. ;-)

An atheist state and a secular state are not the same thing.

[tabasco]

454. You're wrong.

Looks like you lack the ability to admit it, though.

[WildEyedLiberal]

149. "Not concerned with gods or any silly notion thereof"

Yes, who could POSSIBLY confuse that with antitheism? :eyes:

[AllTooEasy]

336. Bullshit, that's a secular nation. The USSR was atheist.

I wish America was truly secular.

[darkstar3]

344. The USSR was Communist.

America's Constitution truly is secular, but the law didn't manage to stay that way under hundreds of years of assault from those who believe that government should never be a-religious.

[defendandprotect]

365. The USSR was TOTALITARIAN Communism ...

[PatrynXX]

354. flipped

An atheist nation is a country where no religious point of view is taken by the government.


...

and that would be the other side of the coin.... that would be wrong. don't want to live in an atheist nation either.. Agnostic bit better. Atheist is the Belief there is no god. Similar to Polygamy. The belief one should be married to more than one spouse. Which I somewhat have less of a problem with than atheists... depending on if it's in a sect or not.

[darkstar3]

358. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with knowledge.

Do you believe in God? No? You're an atheist.
Do you know whether there are gods or not? No? You're an agnostic.

That's why it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist, though the last two are somewhat more rare.

[defendandprotect]

335. Atheism isn't a "religious point of view" -- it's a non-religious point of view -- poof! No 'god" -

And where is it that you see "force"????

Remember, Christianity came to the world "Introducing the Cross With the Sword" --

also get a gander at the Old Testament and its violent "god" -- that's force!

So was the Inquisition!

Are you expecting an atheist Inquisition from lefties?

[whathehell]

395. Given that most is non-fundie, why is "christianity" virtually the only religion slammed here?

What about OTHER religions? They are so rarely attacked on DU.

Is it because it's the only one "safe" to slam

lest you be called "anti-semitic", "culturally intolerant", etc.?

I'd give that one a lot of thought.


P.S. Christianity did NOT come into the world with "the cross and the sword"

It started in the middle east, where most of it's adherents were women and slaves

It spread throughout the Roman Empire, where it was persecuted by other religions

who used "the sword" if you will, against them.

[darkstar3]

414. You crack me up.

You constantly claim agnosticism, and yet once again here you are with a post that screams "why me?!" regarding Christianity.

The answer to your question: DU is a board with a generally "Western" posting population. Christianity is the only religion that consistently gets in our faces and fucks with our lives.

Also, Christianity would have been a footnote in history had it not been for Constantine and the Roman Empire, who didn't remotely give up their swords when they gave up their household gods.

[PatrynXX]

353. You would be the normal Atheist

One that would not force their beliefs on others. But alot of other Atheists do try to force their beliefs on others. They do try to country that it isn't a religion... yeah well Polygamy isn't a religion either but some sects do. :(

It's not there might be no god it's We Believe there is no God or There is no GOD.

There is the PC Religion and the Mac Religion. I believe PC rocks and Macs suck :P

Or for movies folks I'd be part of the Purist religion. I want to see it as it was meant to be seen (which is getting harder to do with flatscreens where everyone's fat because most flatscreens don't do auto square I would doubt Sergeant York is gonna show up as a square thru your laserdisc player. It might with a blu ray player.

This would be near to the various porn there is now. (hello Tzar's vs csar's czar's etc) Violence Porn, Political Porn and well standard sexual porn. Albeit some Christian leaders at schools I've attended see nothing outright wrong with porn.... unless your married or if the nude item on the other side is married.

Otherwise I've met some Atheists who want their belief there is not god shoved down my throat. I don't want to be forcing my Religion down anyone's throat. There'll be someone on the other side telling me something in the end anyway. (predicated on my belief yes.) Agnostics don't have any bent. They don't shove things down anyones throat because they don't know and aren't stuck up. And don't like some right wing Christians automatically assume if there's a swastika in Jainism that there must be a Nazi bent to it. X_X

[Lance_Boyle]

394. You have an incorrect/incomplete definition of atheism.

Read the posts above to understand where your definition is lacking.

[Merlot]

7. Religion has ALWAYS been about authoritarianism, aggression, superstition

That's why it was started. Some people find the spirituality within the religion and have made it a good thing. But the leaders of the various religions have always used it to control the masses.

[cleanhippie]

164. +1

[hfojvt]

214. and what an awful thing that is

Why the masses should be allowed to steal, murder, commit adultery and perjury as much as their little hearts desire. Laissez faire!!

[liberation]

294. Wow...

... another day, another RW talking point.

Good job!

[tavalon]

308. If I required a God to stand in as my father to make sure I didn't do those things,

I would have to say I would be a person of amazingly weak character.

[defendandprotect]

337. Are you suggesting that without a "god" people would "steal, murder, commit adultery,

and perjury" ... ????

Most of the crimes of the world have been committed by right wing "god" believers!!

[Juche]

299. I don't agree

Religious people played a big role in the progressive era of 1890-1930, as well as the civil rights movement of the 1960s. I'm not sure but I think religious people also played a big role in abolitionism. So historically in the US religion can beassociated with social/economic justice, egalitarianism, compassion, etc. But nowadays that isn't the case.

[AllTooEasy]

338. Bullshit, you can't say that about Buddhism.

Shamefully, you can say that about my religion - Catholicism.

[Hestia]

339. ...which is why people are turning away from dogmatic religions - the constant capitulation

to make it work, and have the temerity to state that not only should you go along with it, but you should love it too. It's psychological abuse to the nth degree. One thing I don't get though. I too know the rule of 'a' and don't get why agnostic's use that term for themselves. Gnostic means pertaining to knowledge, so doesn't that mean that agnostics are anti-knowledge?

[defendandprotect]

368. It is democracy which protects their right to do so -- in fact, the guarantee of the right

to free thought and personal conscience -- which comes from Separation of Church

& State --

Without that right, you're back in the arms of Church dictates --

The Founders well understood the role organized patriarchal religion played in

soaking the soil of Europe in blood --

[Hestia]

401. Yes they did, Deists everyone and of all the foundations that the Founding Fathers

gave us, that one is the biggest blessing. The founding fathers knew about the religious wars in Europe, unfortunately, we've spilled our own over here. Way too much blood for a myriad of reasons. What I found "interesting" is that the puritans accepted help from the natives and then turned around and slaughtered them all in the early 1600's - forget the date, it was on History Int'l. (That is not a horrible channel, you have to pick and choose what programming to watch, not unlike all the other channels.) From the very beginning, before we were a glimmer in someone's mind (Bacon?) settlers were already sacrificing to their blood god. Unfortunately, that god demands more and more and more...

[defendandprotect]

435. True -- and ....

used to watch the History channel quite a bit -- but it has changed and agree you have to

be selective. The Puritans we could have done without!!


I'd also highly recommend Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the US" -- available

at your library and everywhere!! Think you'll like it! :)

[lbrtbell]

13. Sweden's being overrun with Fundies, too

The secularists are trying to fight it, but you know how that goes when you're up against frothing-at-the-mouth nutjobs. :(

[freshwest]

24. Aren't they doing it the slow way, though? Disaster Capitalism is here now.

[eShirl]

59. "I'm not sure when religion became associated with authoritarianism, aggression and superstition, "

This can be found throughout history, I'm afraid. It has a tendency to be used as a tool of control.

[defendandprotect]

369. Evidently, they didn't notice the Inquisition -- "Introducing the Cross with the Sword" ... !!

[AtheistCrusader]

285. We have a secular government.

that IS an 'atheist country'.

We don't have a majority of atheist PEOPLE, and that's fine. What's not fine is Republicans trying to inject religion INTO government.

[Capitalocracy]

302. That's not just something you felt, it's largely true.

I don't know about "most" of the tea partiers, although polls indicate they "believed" ridiculous things like Obama having been born in Kenya, something they chose to "believe" to promote his anti-democratic removal from power.

But among the patriot movement, a lot of people at the time were openly talking about the military taking over the country and getting rid of this "traitor", even claiming to have high-ranking members of the military on their side ready to remove the government from power. So a Pinochet-style coup is precisely what a lot of people were hoping for.

[tinrobot]

330. I simply want to live in a tolerant country.

[freshwest]

2. Great Rant, 100% True.

[L. Coyote]

408. One thing left out. Don't give religion huge tax breaks. Why do atheists have to carry the cross?

Atheists should not have to suffer higher taxes because churches get a huge pass!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demosincebirth]

10. Self deleted

[Lyric]

12. Oh dear. Guess I missed that one.

Ah well. I've had my share of abuse today already.

[PassingFair]

72. Here's another thing you missed. Atheism IS the default position.

There are no creeds or rules for atheism.
There was never a country ruled under "atheism".

Atheism is simply the absence of religious belief.

[Pacifist Patriot]

122. Atheism is the default position because....

it is naturalistic. Theism posits something in addition to nature. Atheism, to me, is not theism minus God. Theism is nature plus the supernatural. This is why the etymological fallacy applies to the word. It cannot be defined adequately by its etymology. Kind of like defining microphone using etymology. In that case one would suppose they would generate very small sounds rather than achieving the opposite. ;-)

Atheism would still exist if religion had never entered into human history. We just wouldn't have a word for it.

[ozone_man]

126. And secularists would default to being atheists.

What a rational world it would be. :)

[darkstar3]

203. You are confusing atheism with several other -isms.

This isn't surprising, as they tend to overlap, and the relationships between these -isms confuse a lot of people. The fact remains though that atheism, skepticism, naturalism, positivism, and -isms often referred to as "atheistic" like animism and Buddhism are all separate and distinct ideas. Atheism, the lack of belief in any deities, is simply compatible with them.

[Pacifist Patriot]

209. Nah, just utilizing Baggini here.

I get the differences.

[defendandprotect]

370. Agree --

[cherokeeprogressive]

262. USSR +gosateizm... Google it. n/t

[darkstar3]

265. And?

You think this is an example of a "country ruled under "atheism"."? Funny, I thought it was an example of a country ruled by a Communist dictatorship.

[cherokeeprogressive]

270. I guess you didn't bother...

"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion<1> and its replacement with atheism.<2><3> Toward that end, the communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools.<4> The confiscation of religious assets was often based on groundless accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

[darkstar3]

273. I guess you didn't bother to realize the difference between a policy and a government.

The Communists (you know, the party that actually governed the USSR) adopted the policy of state atheism in order to cement their power over the masses and eliminate the extra-party power structure of the Russian Church. The policy had as much to do with forwarding atheism as America's war in Libya has to do with forwarding Christianity.

[cherokeeprogressive]

274. "adopted the policy of state atheism in order to cement their power over the masses "

We're arguing semantics.

[PassingFair]

277. Semantics.

Did they burn or stone people who
"believed" differently?

Theocracies do.

[darkstar3]

278. Not really.

You want to say that the USSR is example of an atheist-run state, and by proxy lay the mass-murders committed by that regime at the feet of atheism. It's a guilt-by-association thing tried time and again by believers and so-called agnostics who wish to denigrate atheism with any straws they can grasp. The truth, however, is that Communism and atheism are not remotely the same thing. The Party was intolerant of any center of power other than itself, and it took any avenue it could to crush the biggest extra-Party center of power Russia had, the Church. The Communists would just as quickly have chosen Satanism, Catholicism, Anglicanism, or animism if they thought these -isms would have ensured that people looked to the Party and nowhere else for leadership.

If the USSR was an atheist-run state, then today's Great Britain is a Church of England-run state.

[demosincebirth]

4. I don't understand why atheists continue to rant and rave about something

they don't believe in. Why should it bother them ? Anyone know? As progressive and liberal as some atheists claim to be, why should they care if people worship their god in any way they want?

[Mz Pip]

9. personally I don't care what

anyone believes. I just don't want those beliefs injected in public policy. I don't think atheism should be taught in schools anymore than I think Christianity should be taught in schools.

I want a secular government where the personal beliefs of those who make policy stay personal.

[demosincebirth]

15. Never heard of a public school teaching religiion, I know, I know, that you have, tell us

the school so I won't send my kid there.

[immoderate]

19. All public schools are required to release students for religious instruction.

Religious groups also have a strong effect on the science, history, and literature your child may get. In some states there is no evolution. that may not conform to the law, but religious folks are more righteous than atheists. A little religion, they think, never hurt anybody.


--imm

[demosincebirth]

25. You side-stepped my question.

[immoderate]

67. I can't account for what you have heard.

From what I know, there are schools teaching religion all the time. They pray, they learn that Christians formed this country (false.) They learn creationism.

How narrowly do you want to tweak your question?

--imm

[demosincebirth]

125. I don't get into pissing contests with anybody. You must be a pol the way...

you evade a question. Pretty slick. eom.

[immoderate]

173. Well, you're wrong about that too.

Keeps your average up, at least.

--imm

[Critters2]

220. I've never lived anywhere where kids were released for religious instruction.

I keep hearing that this happens, but I've never seen it. Not in MA, WI, IA or IL.

[immoderate]

357. Did they request it?

I was in NY. As a student, and as a teacher on and off over a 30 year span. Few students released, but there were some. It's a federal deal.

They can have time for religious instruction, but it can't be in a public school. Google McCollum.

--imm

[Critters2]

407. This came out of the McCollum decision? Interesting.

I know Dannel McCollum, the then child on behalf of whom his parents filed suit against the Urbana School District. He was mayor of Champaign when I directed a VORP program there. Nice guy, but constantly demonized by the fundies because of that decision...even though he was a kid. And it was a good decision.

[immoderate]

429. From the little I know, it seems right to me.

A few kids from my class in elementary went for religious instruction Wednesday afternoons. They were mostly Catholic kids. Most of the rest of us were Jewish except the black kids who were Baptist of Catholic.

Good times. When they were gone, we worked on crafts projects, and "art." Loved those afternoons. School became tolerable.

When I taught, it was mostly upper grades. I don't recall religious time, but I do recall students I'd release.

--imm

[defendandprotect]

367. Used to happen -- and/or religious teachers were permitted to teach

religion after school in a public school classroom --

[freshwest]

29. Isn't this what privatization is about? They'll end up in religious schools on the public dime.

So that makes them religious public schools, in way. Virtually every private school in my area is affliated with a church.

Antipathy towards secularism and a desire to keep children within the religious belief system of their parents is also one of the driving forces in the homeschooling movement.

I say keep the family religion at home as a cherished thing. If it's a loving and functional family, the children will probably agree. But let them socialize with others of different beliefs or no beliefs.

Some children are now growing up into adults and have never felt any sense of connection to the larger communities around them, of different belief systems, economic or ethnic background because they are being segregated by their families. It's balkanizing the USA.

But there comes that force argument again, and we don't want to force their parents to give anything up.

It's just that there are some of these people are entering the public arena and trying to force what they believe on everyone. Wrong, IMHO.

[and-justice-for-all]

245. They are pushing for Charter Schools...

instead of doing proper education reform.

[Mz Pip]

32. I didn't say that

I said I don't want that. There seem to be plenty of people who would be more than happy to see that happen, at least that is the subtext of all the evangelical christian rantings that permeate our political discourse today.

But perhaps schools isn't where it will be inclined to occur. We've got plenty of people who are anti-gay marriage and put that into public policy because their religion demands it. We have preachers telling their congregations that they will go to hell if they don't vote for the church approved candidate. There were plenty of examples of that happening in 2008 and continue to happen today. Churches interject themselves into public policy all the time.

They should lose their tax exempt status if they do as far as I'm concerned.

[csziggy]

34. How about the schools now teaching Creationism,

Which is a thinly disguised version of Genesis? How about the schools teaching abstinence only instead of sex education?

Both of those are teaching right wing Christian sect beliefs in public schools. Sure, they don't come right out and call it religion, but public schools ARE teaching religious doctrine and ideology.

[jeff47]

83. In many very religious parts of the country, they pull stuff like this:

Students are selected to read the "saying of the day" over the school's PA system. The "sayings" are on pieces of paper in a box, and they get to read any one they want from the box. It just so happens that every "saying" is from the bible. But the school isn't leading the prayer, because the kids are just reading the saying they want to read.

Then there's science class, where the official position is to teach only evolution. Yet the biology teachers keep running out of time before they get to the evolution part of the class. Shockingly, it happens every single year.

Then there's the part where "In God We Trust" is put on every single dollar bill I have to use "for all debts, public and private". Or the jamming of "under God" into the pledge of allegiance. National prayer day? Prayer breakfast? Gays can't marry because God hates fags? Anti-cohabitation laws so we don't "live in sin"? Evangelical Christianity being forced on cadets at the Air Force Academy? The current anti-abortion crusade? Opening prayers starting each session of Congress and at presidential inaugurations?

How bout the tax benefits given to churches and ministers? My taxes are higher to subsidize your church.

How 'bout the statistic that an overwhelming majority would not vote for an atheist for president? An openly gay man beats an atheist by 10 points - meaning it's not just the religious right objecting. There's plenty of liberals who would vote against an atheist only because he or she is an atheist.

How 'bout the oath you have to give in court before giving testimony? "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"...while your hand is on a bible.

Christianity is forced upon all of us all the time. If one is already Christian, it probably doesn't bother you. Heck, you probably don't even notice because you've chosen to make Christianity a constant part of your life. But if you're an atheist, it's an irritant. And because it's always being forced upon us, it's a constant irritant.

We'd be thrilled if you guys could keep your religion private. Unfortunately, you have a terrible track record of doing so.

[kurtzapril4]

195. + 100 Brazillion!!!

Christianity worms its way into damn near every facet of life in this country.

[darkstar3]

197. Well said. Hardly comprehensive, but well said.

[krabigirl]

132. Well, many elementary schools have "good news" clubs, sometimes headed up by a teacher.

And held right after class..there is quite a bit o f pressure to attend those, especially if the teacher is leading it.

[demosincebirth]

144. I beleive you , but I've never heard of them. Point is, they are not foreced to attend. nt.

[darkstar3]

198. In the rural areas of the bible-belt, Baccalaureate services are held in public schools.

Usually held sometime in the week before graduation, these religious themed services are held on school property, led by a selected local preacher, and required to be attended by students who wish to "walk" at graduation.

Happens at my old high school every year, and at every high school we ever played basketball against. Illegal? You bet, but that doesn't stop them. Who's gonna stand up for the First Amendment rights of the superminority in a place like that?

[Pacifist Patriot]

261. Rural? Try suburban Atlanta 1986

for me anyway

[darkstar3]

263. Not surpising in the least, but I was simply writing what I knew.

[Pacifist Patriot]

304. Oh I know. I wasn't criticizing you at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in northern cities, midwestern rural communities, etc.

[murielm99]

391. We have baccalaureate services here, but no one is

required to attend. They don't have the band students play at the event, because it is entirely voluntary. Some musicians may choose to play, but this is not required, either.

If you are bothered by this event at your old high school, you should speak up.

[darkstar3]

415. "You should speak up." Really?

Do you have any idea how far away my entire family would have to move from that area if I did so? Events like this are litmus tests for new people brought into the area by the military base. Anyone who complains or doesn't participate quickly finds their way out of town.

[kurtzapril4]

194. Dupe. Sorry.

[kurtzapril4]

200. Here's some for ya....

A High school teacher in Libertyville, IL was teaching that evolution and creation were both theories(in fact, only one of them is a theory. The other one is a belief.) He'd been doing it for years and finally someone called the School District about it. Happened a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately, he was neither fired or suspended.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110322/news/703229799/

In addition, people running for school boards in the nearby towns of Round Lake, Lake Zurich and Island Lake gave interviews with the Daily Herald indicating that they believed that creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in science classes. After an outcry...they backed right off their positions, saying that they "misunderstood the question(?!)". But that's the only reason they backed off...so it's on their agenda.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110308/news/703089648/
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110304/news/703049893/

This is right in my back yard, my patronising friend.

[defendandprotect]

366. Evidently you don't know the history of Bibles being used in public schools to

teach reading, for one --

Or the long traditions of having prayer in public schools --

and at graduations and during school holiday events -- ?

At various times, these practices continue -- though more often now met

with lawsuits.

[demosincebirth]

26. I agree 100%.

[vim876]

53. Right.

It's like that email forward: "Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one. It's ok to be proud of it. But don't start taking it out in public and waving it around, and DON'T shove it down children's throats." I like my church and my state very separate, for the good of both.

[jeff47]

94. One does not "teach" atheism

Atheism is a lack of belief. You don't teach that.

What you do is fail to teach any other religion. That will result in an atheist.

[tavalon]

312. Not necessarily

Perhaps, it might lead to a more independent minded person who would then pick his or her religion or not as an independent adult.

[immoderate]

359. You can teach critical thinking. Then hope for the best.

--imm

[cleanhippie]

170. Hold up a sec. How does one "teach" atheism?

HAVING a beleif in a god is a postive assertion, and that needs to be taught. Atheism is the LACK of belief in a god, its the default position we are all born with. You cannot teach that.

Maybe you meant to say that "teaching that there is no god" should not be taught in school?

[Mz Pip]

180. Pretty much n/t

[cleanhippie]

182. Ok, glad we agree on that part. Have you ever heard of a school where anyone was trying to teach

that "there is no god"?

[Mz Pip]

183. Not a school

but I did work at a high school where an English teacher was pretty outspoken in his atheism. I don't know if he was trying to teach atheism or just expressing his opinion. Sometimes those lines can be pretty blurry.

I think that is a lot more unusual than the other way around though.

[Goblinmonger]

223. Were you equally noticing

the teachers that were overtly Christian? Wore a cross? Celebrated the holidays? Why can't a teacher be open about his atheism?

[Mz Pip]

242. Never said they couldn't

on either.

[Lyric]

11. Well it depends on what the rant and rave is about.

Sometimes the religious practices of other people negatively affect OUR lives or subvert OUR rights--in which case, we have every right to rant and rave at will. A lot of the people who gripe about religion are people who've been seriously hurt by the thoughtless, cruel practice of it.

I'll tell you what: when religious people completely stop trying to punish, persecute, slander, defame, and oppress those of us who don't fit that religion's idea of "good"...then we'll cease to rant about religion. So long as the practice of religion can hurt (and kill), there will always be people who oppose it. I don't know any Atheists who think that their beliefs should carry the force of law...but I know LOTS of religious people who do.

That's the problem with the right-wing. They aren't content to live their OWN lives by their religious standards. They want to force them on everyone else as well, and they HATE IT that they can't.

Seems pretty clear to me. :shrug:

[demosincebirth]

18. If I don't like whats on tv, I just change the channel.

[Lyric]

27. Life isn't a television show.

Some of us have to live with the shitty real-world consequences of other peoples' ideas about God. Gay people lack equality, and must constantly worry about religious violence. Women are constantly under attack by religious people who think that THEY should get to decide what we can do with our bodies and what we can't. There are places in the world where someone who isn't of the "right" religion cannot safely walk. There are books that entire nations ban because they don't jive with the majority religion of the nation. Holy text verses are used as justification for atrocities across the globe.

We can't change the channel. We LIVE here. I don't see how that's hard to understand.

:shrug:

[freshwest]

30. Well said.

[demosincebirth]

139. Those are really tremendous problem for a person who probably gets

three squares a day and goes to a home every night. You should go visit a homeless shelter like I volunteer at every so often...you think you got problems. They will seem very small. I know this is hard for to swallow, but 90% of them are run by religious organizations that are being trashed by some because of a few.

[JoeyT]

152. Yeah, 90% of them are run by religious organizations because they're the only ones that can get

government funding. Funny thing, every time someone tries to start a secular one they just can't seem to find the money. Then there's the huge uphill battle to becoming a non-profit in that arena if you don't stamp Jesus on the front of it.

[demosincebirth]

162. You really don't know what you are talking about. You just assume, with no facts. When you

read don't just read the Headlines, read the content. I quit!

[liberation]

301. Holy tap dancing Saint Josephine patron saint of projection!

Where are your facts then?

[JoeyT]

397. No, you got pissed off because I pointed out why almost all of them are run by religious orgs.

So yeah, you'll have to forgive me for not heaping praise on groups that get tax dollars and tax exemption to preach at a captive audience. Especially since they do their level best to block competition that doesn't.

[darkstar3]

201. So me and mine gotta lay down because you and yours run homeless shelters?

Religious persecution of minorities is not OK, even if those minorities manage to have homes and food.

BTW, there are plenty of secular charities out there, with the added benefit to their work that they do what they do purely out of concern for their fellow man, and not for jewels in some future crown.

[freshwest]

264. In my area they are run by secularists. When I lived in a rural area, they were run by churches.

If someone came on really hard times, they had to move to the city. So it depends on geography. And most of the religious ones in my area do take government money, too.

I'm not putting down those wonderful people who act with a christlike sense of duty to the poor. I attribute a lot of good to those who act of unconditional love for others that way. But there are more than one kind of church today.

The problem with religious charity is that it is often conditional. I've seen some church charities who expect a form on income and social security numbers to be filled out just like a secular or government program. Or ask questions about voting and religion.

I've seen grocery stores dump their meat, which defrosted turned out to be rotten, crates full of moldy bakery goods and rotting produce which the poor are supposed to be grateful for in wealthy rural areas for the church to distribute.

Help is help, love is love, and we are just arguing about who is going to help who and how. Peace.

[fishwax]

430. those really are tremendous problems

I don't understand why you're being dismissive of those concerns.

[freshwest]

22. I'm sick of people trying to force others to buy their version of reality.

The Founders were a mixed group. People came here for freedom of religion, or freedom from it or just to be permitted to decide for themselves what the world is about.

I run from any organized religion like the plague now, but for those who find happiness there, it's fine as long as it's live and let live. I don't want to show them any disrespect, some that I know are great people and this is simply their chosen construct of reality. But I can have my own!

I'm freaked by the Dominionists who have infiltrated all levels of government and attack people for permitting private matters theyu don't want to do, and will do absolutely anything to get them out of the public arena. And I mean anything! Nothing is too low.

It's like we've gone back into the Dark Ages. People see all these changes coming about and don't know how to react so they go back to what they were taught as children.

All of those who get into authoritarian religions are afraid of losing something. It's driven by fear and it can't be rational that way. It can't be just or logical, it's the brain in panic mode.

The Golden Rule, Law of Reciprocity or whatever you want to call it, doesn't require one to believe a set of things written in any book, not a science book or any other.

Just requires listening to your heart and respecting that others are allowed to be different! For goodness sake, are we going to have thought police here in this country? People came here to get away from that.

Trouble expressing myself, but anyway. I want to see more respect and love and less of this fear and hate, because it doesn't work!

[sfwriter]

14. I don't try and make laws based on my atheism...

As an atheist I have been told I "won't find work in this field."
As an atheist, I have been told I'm evil.
My daughter is constantly bothered by other children at school because she is one of only FIVE children she knows who are allowed to make up their own mind on religion.
We couldn't give out invites to our Halloween party to her class, but we get get invites to various church functions in her take-home bag all the time and the "good news" club meets in the school.

Why, oh why, should I be bothered?

Man, the list goes on and on.

[vim876]

54. Being bothered...

by bigotry, stupidity, and hypocrisy is not the same as being bothered by other people's private religious beliefs. You don't have to be an atheist to know that atheists are no more evil (or good) than anyone else. You don't have to be an atheist to think religion has no place in the public sphere. Plenty of religious people agree. But people who do their own thing aren't bothering others, so the fact that they constitute a significant part of the religious population is easy to miss. I don't try to push my belief on others, and I expect others (including atheists) to do me the same courtesy.

[sfwriter]

86. “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office”

http://networkedblogs.com/g0lvH

Without any support, your argument is basically the same as saying, "I don't bother blacks, and I'm not racist, so they shouldn't make trouble for me."

I'm sorry if you are inconvenienced, but we are fighting a human rights battle here.

I gave you VERY distinct and personal examples of persecution at the hands of religious fruitbats. In matters of faith, each person has a right to seek the path of their own choosing, right up until it infringes on others.

In this AMAZINGLY RELIGIOUS COUNTRY, it does. (http://religioninamerica.org/2010/09/04/the-united-states-as-religious-outlier/)

-Sandy

[Pacifist Patriot]

98. The problem is, too many people don't feel the same as you.

I've yet to meet a proselytizing atheist, but routinely see Christians trying to get others to, if not believe the same, at least agree to be subjected to their Christian-based morality in practical terms.

[defendandprotect]

371. They've had to try very hard -- it's difficult -- they've resorted to cults like Moonies ....

brain washing and extremes of religious beliefs -- literal belief in the Bible --

to do it!! And, democracy is still the enemy of organized patriarchal religion -- !!

[Critters2]

455. I have met proselytizing atheists--people who try to talk me out of my faith,

as well as atheists who insult my intelligence, and otherwise make clear their disapproval of my faith. You're fortunate not to have met such people, but I assure you they exist. Just like the UUs who've told me "You're too bright to be a Christian", or that my faith is something I'll grow out of. There's plenty of intolerance out there, on all sides.

[tavalon]

314. They seem to be confusing you with a satanist.

Funny, I met two self proclaimed satanists in a goth coffee shop once. They were highly thoughtful young men. I wonder how their lives have turned out?

[immoderate]

16. There are some who want to turn the country over to God.

try to understand how that makes an atheist feel.


--imm

[vim876]

55. I'd rephrase that.

There are some people who want to turn the country over to THEIR God. In their hoped-for future, my God would be as illegal as your atheism. They don't just want everyone to have A religion, they want everyone to have THEIR religion.

[immoderate]

66. I am not saying that.

God is not qualified to run a country. Even yours, with all due respect.

--imm

[vim876]

404. I'm not saying God should be involved in running the country.

In fact, I believe exactly the opposite. What I'm saying is that lumping religious people together is pointless, because I'll be right behind you in line to go up against the wall if the fundies win. It's more useful, accurate, and fair to be angry at people who think religion should be part of public policy than people who happen to have private beliefs that are different than yours. I'm not telling you to be Christian, I don't think you're going to hell, and I want God out of the Pledge and off the money as much as you do. So why am I the problem?

[darkstar3]

416. Because you're too concerned about tone,

and you're injecting yourself into a group where you were not originally included.

Rants like the ones that have obviously upset you may use imprecise language, but they are clearly aimed at those religious followers who are uninterested in keeping their faith private. If YOUR faith IS private, then you need not publicly latch yourself to those loudmouths being railed against.

I have trouble understanding those who claim their faith is private but consistently discuss their faith on a public board...

[theHandpuppet]

20. Perhaps it's because...

... too many discriminatory laws in this country and around the world are based on religion?

Or perhaps it's because thousands of years of oppression, genocide, war, ignorance, race hatred, misogyny, et al can be traced to various religious teachings?

It's not atheists who are bombing clinics and assassinating abortion providers. It's not atheists who are continually fighting to deny anyone the right to marry. It's not atheists who have kept women in subjugation for thousands of years, all in the name of "God's law". It's not atheists who have killed millions of indigenous peoples and obliterated their histories, all in the name of their faith.

Why should it bother them? Think about it.

[defendandprotect]

372. +1000% --

Organized patriarchal religion has a long list of enemies still --

democracy, women, homosexuals -- pagans --

used to be an even longer list -- Jews, people of color -- Native people they did so much

damage to in the Catholic and Mormon Church schools which were run for the government to

deprive young native Americans of their language, customs -- many were kidnapped.

But always abused -- in every way.

--- And the Vatican's priests continue to sexually abuse children even today --!


This isn't something to celebrate -- it's something to rid ourselves of !!

[LadyHawkAZ]

33. Because "the way they want"

tends to be exactly the way the OP described- invasive, controlling, bigoted and destructive. It is a built-in problem with most religions, since the basic doctrine of almost all of them is we're-god's-chosen-everyone-else-is-bad.

We care because to us, it's a massive mob with an imaginary friend who (they think) has commanded them to hate us, repress us and if possible remove us. And everyone else who doesn't subscribe to their version.

We care because we have seen what happens to human rights in a theocracy.

We care because we see the trials and tribulations of women in the Middle East, and have the sense to remember that less than 100 years ago, that was us.

We care because when the Catholic pedophilia scandals hit, we paid attention.

We care because we remember 9/11, the clinic bombings and murdered doctors, Jim Crow, Mountain Meadows, legalized slavery, the Holocaust, and a whole host of other atrocities throughout every single period in recorded history.

We care because we had a President say we weren't citizens.

The question isn't why we care, it's why you don't.

[whathehell]

39. Hammer, meet nail. n/t

[whathehell]

43. It's called the Bullying that comes with Insecurity...

They're still a huge minority and some are insecure about it.

[MindPilot]

117. Mighty broad brush you got there.

"They" = Atheists. Would you have posted that same comment if "they" = Blacks or Mexicans or Jews?

[whathehell]

129. No

because I haven't been bullied by them here

as I have by some intolerant atheists.

[Pacifist Patriot]

186. Question for you.

Have you been bullied by atheists of their own initiative or has it been in the context of a discussion about religion where atheists get the brunt of it first? Because quite frankly, I don't know any bullying atheists, but I know quite a few who will get their backs up when attacked. It's not out of insecurity. The funny thing is, I think you've got it backward. The people I know who are secure in their religious beliefs are extraordinarily tolerant regarding atheism. Those with doubt tend to fear atheists more. Which is a shame because the best of Christian theology stems from a position of doubt. Fascinating tension there.

[whathehell]

202. Answer for you.

Yes, I HAVE been bullied by atheists on their own initiative,

usually in the passive aggressive manner with their calling

all religion "stupid" "fairy tales", etc....This IS their

preferred method of bullying, and no, it doesn't come

in the context of insults hurled at atheists first,

I've never, in fact, seen a "believer" in anything

insult an atheist insulted on this board...

It's highly unlikely to have come from

me, anyway, since I'm an agnostic!

[Pacifist Patriot]

207. Have you considered expressing the opinion religion is stupid and founded upon...

myths akin to fairy tales isn't necessarily an attack but sharing how someone legitimately feels about the subject?

It may not be what a believer wants to hear, but in the case of many atheists it is true. Is religion so fragile it can't handle atheists sharing this opinion?

I have people tell me all the time I am going to hell because I do not accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I don't consider these people bullies simply because I do not find their opinion to have any validity in my life.

I'm not excusing disrespect or personal name calling, but using this as an example trivializes bullying.

Edited to get rid of too many "thats"

[WildEyedLiberal]

238. I think you're being willfully blind.

It's not about religion being "fragile." Are atheists "fragile" if they dislike being told by fundies that they're going to burn in hell? No, but they have every right to be offended by such blatant rudeness, hostility, and nastiness. And religious people have just as much right to be offended by blatant rudeness, hostility, and nastiness coming from atheists. It doesn't matter "who started it," since presumably we are adults who don't need a playground excuse to continue a namecalling fight. The fact that so many atheists so vocally defend their right to say ugly, petty things that are deliberately designed to inflame, anger, and provoke says plenty about their motives - and productive dialogue certainly isn't one of them.

Yes, before the tirade starts, I'm fully aware there are religious people who vocally defend their right to say ugly, petty things designed to inflame, anger, and provoke. However, DU is almost exclusively the province of the Angry Atheists, and it gets tiresome for the rest of us.

Cue comments about how I'm claiming "persecution" in three, two, one... :eyes:

[darkstar3]

240. Confirmation bias. Look it up.

[WildEyedLiberal]

243. HAHA - right back atcha, friend

[darkstar3]

246. I have no need to look up something I am familiar with.

You made the statement: "However, DU is almost exclusively the province of the Angry Atheists"

That claim is based entirely on your bias. You take offense at posts that don't treat your religion with kid gloves, but gloss over the myriad of posts that contain hateful religious rhetoric. That's confirmation bias in a nutshell. We don't even need to visit the idea of a persecution complex to show your claim for the inanity it is.

[Pacifist Patriot]

260. Again, I think it's a matter of intent and context.

I'm not being willfully blind, I fully realize there are ugly people on both sides. I just don't happen to agree that expressing the opinion supernaturalism is silly or biblical myths are akin to fairy tales is always an attack or constitutes bullying behavior.

[whathehell]

256. Have You considered that expressing the opinion

that atheism is a sign of moral weakness and unfitness to hold public office is not

an "attack", necessarily, but a sharing of how some legitimately feel about atheism?

Do you think that atheism is so fragile it can't handle believers sharing this opinion?


Get my drift? :eyes:



P.S. The above beliefs about atheism aren't mine, by the way,

I'm stating them as counterpoint.

[Pacifist Patriot]

259. Maybe it is because of the family in which I grew up.

I have had relatives stand in my kitchen and tell me I am not a good person because I am not a Christian. I've had a relative tell me I would be unfit to run for office because I would not be able to make moral and ethical decisions as a representative of the people. Did I feel attacked? Not really? Did I think it was a stupid and rather useless opinion? You bet!

All depends upon the person and the intent. I'm one of those silly Pollyannas who has the annoying ability to give people the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I know people who honestly believe the examples you gave. Are they attacking me? Hard to say without context.

[darkstar3]

204. #39 and #43 constitute your own version of bullying,

and they are far from your first foray into that field. I may not believe in Karma, but in this case you get what you give.

[defendandprotect]

373. Male-supremacist religion is a bigotry -- and a form of "bullying" --

Male-supremacy is a right wing concept -- which has long dominated.

Organized patriarchal religions' main enemies are democracy and women --

closely followed by homosexuality!

They've been forced to drop Jews and African Americans, but pagans are still on the list!

[opiate69]

46. Yeah..no idea why us atheists are so uppity...

[Pacifist Patriot]

143. Something ilke that deserves its own thread.

[opiate69]

424. Thanks, PacPat.. I've been debating whether or not to post it on it's own..

I might do it this weekend...

[defendandprotect]

374. +1 --- k/r

[ReggieVeggie]

49. I care that god is written on the money

and associated with national pride, and there's a church on every corner

[demosincebirth]

360. TS

[darkstar3]

361. Really?

Tough shit? That's what you have to say to a Christian-created "fuck you" to minorities? Damn...

[demosincebirth]

452. I Read your post too fast. My apologies

[eShirl]

60. Tell that to people who can't get married because it would "offend God."

et cetera

[Pacifist Patriot]

77. Because you're misunderstanding the rant?

Apparently, "stop shoving your religion down my throat" gets interpreted as ranting and raving about something they don't believe in. Can't imagine why.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. The religious tend to project their dogmas into other people's

lives. I do not have equal rights in the nation mostly because of folks who say "Well, I'm a Christian, so..." and then explain how the way they want to worship their god involves controlling my life, while actually not following the tenants of their faith for themselves.
If they were to mind their own business, and stop requiring others to live their faith in their stead, they would be more like in general society.

[Silent3]

85. Please define "care" as in "should/should not care"...

...as is "caring" about other people's religious choices.

Once you've defined "care", ask yourself this: Do you consistently apply that same standard for what you think people should or should not "care" about to all topics?

I could easily make a better case for how one person's religious choices often end up affecting people beyond that one person, more often and more seriously, than one person's choices in music, fashion, TV shows, leisure activities, etc., effects other people.

Yet how often does a comment on a message board about how much a particular song sucks, or how stupid a particular TV show is, how ugly a hat is, get greeted with angry shouts to shut up about stuff you "shouldn't care" about? People can, after all, listen to whatever music they like, watch whatever TV shows they like, wear whatever hats they like, and we could all just ignore their choices and go about our own lives without ever commenting, right?

Nearly everyone voices opinions all the time on a variety of topics without bearing any special burden of having to prove "why they should care" standing between them and the expectation of being able to voice an opinion without that opinion being greeted with anger and indignation as something you shouldn't say because there's no reason you should "care" about the issue in question.

It's pretty much only when someone wants a particular topic, quite often religion, to get special treatment as a "sacred cow" that this standard of "caring" gets trotted out.

[darkstar3]

206. Thank you.

Look how long it took for someone to properly identify that claptrap as special pleading...

[MindPilot]

97. Are you seriously asking that question?

Because it's about the oldest atheist-baiting strawman there is.

[Stuckinthebush]

100. Well, this atheist doesn't rant and rave - most don't

However, let me answer your question, "Why should it bother them?"

My children are in public school in a town in Alabama. The default position is fundamental Christianity. So much so, that my children are bombarded daily by this dysfunctional belief system. They are told implicitly and explicitly that if they don't believe in the narrow Christianity of this region then they are forever damned. Also, if thy are non-believers then they have a target on their heads which is attractive to immature philosophers. My children live in a war zone.

A nation that truly worked to prevent implicit and explicit endorsement of belief would critically evaluate all the messages given to children. The adults in such a system would work toward tolerance for all. As it stands now, there are few adults in my childrens' lives who will protect them from the misguided religious fervor of their peers and their teachers.

Thankfully, my children are level headed and strong. They have learned how to avoid confrontation and not make a scene. They know how to laugh off pointed questions and pretend to bow their heads when prayers are recited at school functions. They know not to make waves. This, frankly, sucks. But it is survival.

Why do we "rant and rave"? Well, we don't, but we do critically analyze our social world. Those analyses make us pretty pissed off. But, we endure. As do our children.

[MindPilot]

105. + 10x9.9^25

"They know how to laugh off pointed questions and pretend to bow their heads when prayers are recited at school functions. They know not to make waves." :cry:

[Stuckinthebush]

211. Indeed

Quite sad.

[JoeyT]

156. +1000

I wish I'd learned how to avoid confrontation and not make a scene. As it was I just got into constant fights and arguments. Many with teachers.

Watch for that, by the way. One of their favorite tactics is to have a "voluntary" prayer meeting before school at the flagpole(Gotta get their fascist on.) or the cafeteria, and try to force all the kids to attend. The kids and the teachers will do their best to enforce attendance.

The teacher supplied intimidation usually goes "Go to the flagpole with the rest of the kids." "I'm not religious, so I don't pray." "I told you to go to the flagpole! Go to the office!" and an 'insubordination' suspension follows. My mother had to actually bring a lawyer to the school twice over that crap.

[Stuckinthebush]

212. Yes, they will

I dealt with that in the 70s and 80s at school. But I was a little too combative and often got in trouble for not being non-confrontational.

[Pacifist Patriot]

184. Nicely said.

[fishwax]

431. well said n/t

[Lucian]

108. I don't understand why Christians rant and rave about something

they believe in. Your god forbid that we believe in science over religion, fact over faith. Considering there's facts on one of those and none on the other, it's no wonder why athiests rant and rave about it.

Oh, and how it's being rammed down our throats every goddamn day. That gets old.

[sudopod]

127. I don't know, lol.

Why don't religious people like gays and evolutionary biologists?

[demosincebirth]

155. Easy there. Your're painting with a wide brush. I'm a frequent attendee at church

and I have no problem with gays or evolution So there you are, prejudging every person who you think is religious. So,where is the tolerance and open mindedness many of your mind espouse? Maybe its just selective.

[sudopod]

160. A wide brush, you say?

"I don't understand why atheists continue to rant and rave about something..."

You see, it isn't so fun when it goes the other way, is it?

[demosincebirth]

331. Atheist are of one belief .. Religious are many faiths and denominations

and believe in many things spiritual. You, on the other hand don't believe in God, and rant about it all the time...like its a badge of honor or something. You can't drop it. You just go on and on. One last thing, I would rather be happy than right. So I'll leave this discussion with those who seem to bust a jugular every time God is mentioned. Adios

[sudopod]

363. You don't think you're being a teensy, weensy bit hypocritical? nt

[defendandprotect]

375. No -- it's all Male-Supremacist religion -- which is anti-democratic ...btw ...

[polmaven]

205. This religious person

does like both gays and evolutionary biologists. Please do not lump all of us, or, for that matter, even most of us, into one category.

[defendandprotect]

376. Organized patriarchal religions have been pressured to change --

and fortunately we no longer find the anti-Jewish fervor that Christianity once

displayed -- or those who supported enslaving the African here based on Bibical teachings!

Not sure that we have yet freed the "pagan" from their intolerance?

Certainly a long history of Christianity abusing the Native American -- native peoples in

general!

The hierarchies of organized patriarchal religions have to be held accountable --

but we do need consciousness-raising among members -- that's what creates change!

When parishioners walk out, for instance, when any priest is preaching intolerance and

hatred for homosexuals.

[polmaven]

403. Not all Christian

churches are still patriarchal in nature. I am an active United Methodist. Women have had full ordination since 1956. The US has had a woman serving as the President of the Council of Bishops. My own congregation is led by a woman pastor (third in a row).

My congregation is, by vote of the members, a "Reconciling" congregation, meaning that LGBT may feel at home with us, for who they are, without any questions being asked. Now, I won't say that is true of all UM congregations, and the GENERAL church does not yet allow pastors to bless LGBT marriages, but that is now due to votes taken each quadrennial at our General Conference. Our regional Conference elects delegates (both clergy and laity) each 4 years who promise to vote down the rule forbidding those marriages, (and forbidding ordination of LGBT clergy, for that matter). In 2008 we came very close to being successful.

My point is that there are many of us who are forward looking and thinking, and are working toward eliminating bias and exclusion.

[defendandprotect]

434. No one said "all" .... However, Methodists now worship a female god?

I'm sure we're all grateful for whatever progress organized patriarchal religions

are making --

but keep in mind that the Vatican is recognized by the United Nations as a "soverign nation" --

a one square mile nation in Rome -- populated only by males.

And we're now subsidizing their "faith-based" organizations with our taxpayer dollars.

Coincidentally, W came along with that gift when the Vatican most desperately needed money

to pay off their pedophile-priest lawsuits for sexual abuse of children. Until then, they

were selling off church property which was bringing members out into the streets in protest.


Also keep in mind that the Vatican and RCC in America continue to try to influence and

control government and our elected officials on many issues of concern to all of us.

Though Catholics supported a single payer/government run health care system with FULL

reproductive rights -- including abortion -- the Vatican/RCC aggressively acted to prevent it.

Pelosi not only met with the US Catholic Bishops on two occasions, but had a phone call from Rome.

Catholic women everywhere have just as many abortions as any other women - however, the RCC

does not only want to interfere with women's right to abortion ...

they are also against birth control/contraceptives -- and even knowledge of them.


Congratulations to you all for having come this far re LGBT issues -- with some exceptions ....

and the GENERAL church does not yet allow pastors to bless LGBT marriages, but that is now due to votes taken each quadrennial at our General Conference. Our regional Conference elects delegates (both clergy and laity) each 4 years who promise to vote down the rule forbidding those marriages, (and forbidding ordination of LGBT clergy, for that matter). In 2008 we came very close to being successful.

Keep at it -- !!

My point is that there are many of us who are forward looking and thinking, and are working toward eliminating bias and exclusion.

Hierarchies have to change -- they are the main point of control --



PS: Catholic support for single payer/government run health care was 73% --

when Latino/Latinas Catholics are included it is 83%


:)

[polmaven]

439. Actually,

Methodists worship a genderless God.

[defendandprotect]

443. Genderless? Have Methodists dumped the Bible?

[polmaven]

447. No, we have not "dumped" anything.

Most of us are not, however, literalists. You do understand, don't you, that the vast majority of religious people do not think that God is an old man with a long white beard, sitting on a cloud? You do understand that most of us do not believe in "immediate", if you will, creationism? There are many, many other examples which I could site that are misunderstood about people of faith. I will not go into all of them here.

[defendandprotect]

448. Organized patriarchal religion is largely governed by the very violent male "god"

of the Bible ---

literal or not, the entire concept is of a male god --

If the Methodists are still using the Bible, they are still teaching concepts

of a male god --

[polmaven]

449. I won't say that the word

"he" is not still used, but most thinking Methodists understand that God is neither male nor female, mostly because God is not a human entity. In childhood, we are likely to believe so, but as we grow up, we understand otherwise. But think what you like about people of faith. I can't do anything on a message board to change that.

[defendandprotect]

450. Until the Bible is changed to reflect that, others will continue to get a different message....

[JoeyT]

145. Um, because it's constantly rammed down our throats.

It's the same reason we rant and rave against the dominant religion and don't write a thirty page rebuttal of Thor.

And to answer your question one step further down this argument, yes, public high schools teach religion. I went to a public high school in Alabama and left a decade ago. Not only does the school teach religion, but the students enforce it. You could sue and make them stop, but that just exposes you to more "love" than most people can handle.

[cleanhippie]

169. You seem to be confused about what atheists object to.

Its NOT what god people worship or what beliefs they hold, its the intrusion of those beliefs into the government and into OUR lives we object to.

If theists kept their beliefs to themselves, you would never even hear about an atheist.

[liberation]

287. Well, add this to the list of things you don't understand then...

[OwnedByFerrets]

316. Generalize much??

And worshipping the Spagetti Monster is fine with me. Just dont start wars over it and dont shove it down my fucking throat.

[AlbertCat]

329. Why should it bother them ?

Oh get real!

It will stop bothering me when it STOPS BOTHERING ME.... as in when religion leaves me alone. This is not what happens and you know it.

Religion must aggressively confront atheism because it doesn't want to lose (any more) authority (or money).It attacks atheism all the time. But let an atheist complain about having the 10 Commandments in the public court house, or teaching their children the founding fathers were devout Christians, and the whining and outrage starts. Poor put upon Christians! They may have a church on every other corner in every town in the USA, but they must also be in our science classrooms too or their message might disappear!

Remember, religion is just ancient government and thrives on control over people. Because of it, malarkey like prayer is actually thought to be some kind of solution to problems.... and other dangerous notions, like we have a right to go to war somewhere...


Why should it bother me... pul-eez

[defendandprotect]

364. Odd that it doesn't bother you that taxpayers are now financing "faith based" religious orgs ....

which W set up -- coindentally just when the Vatican most desperately needed

money to pay off their pedophile-priest lawsuits!

The RCC has the majority of these organizations --

Obama is not only continuing this violation of Separation of Church & State --

he's increasing it.

That should bother anyone -- !!

[ScreamingMeemie]

460. Because Fundie Atheists are just as bad as Fundie Christians.

That said, the majority of Atheists are not Fundie-like, just like the majority of Christians are not.

[darkstar3]

463. Define what principles, precepts, holy texts, or dogmas

would be "fundamental" to atheism.

Are you familiar with the term oxymoron?

[ScreamingMeemie]

465. Sorry, but the behavior is the same and I label it (and hopefully you

don't "practice" it) the same stupid drivel. Again, sorry, but Fundie Atheists (and I will continue to use it whether it makes you happy or not) is appropriate when one ponders the behaviors and actions of this group. Cheers. Disclaimer---I am not a part of either the group that believes, or the group that pontificates (heehee) on how much it doesn't believe. :D

[darkstar3]

466. Fundamentalism has little to with behavior and everything to do with observance.

If you don't care about the proper use of terminology, you are free to misuse terms in any way that you want, but you should know two things:

1. Such abuse of language makes it difficult for others to communicate with you clearly.
2. You become more difficult to take seriously.

PS: I find it hilarious that people believe one of the best insults to an atheist is to call them religious. I think it says a lot more about the religion than it does about the atheist.

[snappyturtle]

6. Yep...unfortunately, that's the way it seems to be now. Wasn't always

that way. We've been in an accelerated whirlwind of loss in the last ten years. I feel whiplashed.

[napoleon_in_rags]

8. Exactly. All governments care about truth...

...but democracies are in the business of letting the people figure it out for themselves, dictatorships are in the business telling people what to think.

[AmericaIsGreat]

17. Of course it wouldn't be an official national position

Atheists are not insecure enough to enact something like that. But would I want to live in a majority atheist country? Like 85-90% atheist? Hell yeah! A lot of things would be better off that way. I guaran-fucking-tee that.

[Lyric]

31. Oh, I'd be fine with a country in which the majority of people CHOOSE to be atheist.

I just don't want to live in a country where ANY religious philosophy is "The Official One".

[Pacifist Patriot]

92. If 85% of the population were atheist...

It would be extremely unlikely for there to be an official stance on belief, naturalist or theist.

[Lance_Boyle]

410. Atheism is *not* a religious philosophy,

it is the lack of a religious philosophy.

This concept seems to confuse people greatly.

[Nye Bevan]

21. "I want to live in a country where everybody can believe, speak, practice, and enjoy their own

religious ideas".

I guess you're lucky enough to be living in the right place. How many countries have "no establishment of religion" constitutionally enshrined?

[Lars39]

23. Never lived in a small bible belt town, have you.

[Nye Bevan]

64. No. I guess a lot of people in those towns choose to be Christian.

And I guess you don't like that, but you wouldn't want to deny them that choice, would you?

[jeff47]

96. The problem is they wish to deny us that choice.

I lived in a large, southern city for a few years. Complete strangers would try to "save" me when they found out I was an atheist. They'd invariably find out I was one because a question you ask strangers in the south is "which Church do you belong to?".

[Lyric]

28. If only there weren't so many powerful people trying to change that.

Like Newt Gingrich--the man I was thinking of when I wrote this.

[Nye Bevan]

65. Changing the Constitution is very difficult (nt)

[darkstar3]

225. Why change the law when they've been flaunting it since the '50s?

[LiberalFighter]

35. Religion was intended to control people. A form of government.

In all likelihood religion came about with someone dying a horrific death and an enterprising devious person took advantage of the situation. Using fear they were able to control people. It would had been easy for them to have done considering the lack of knowledge everyone had about everything around them.

[L. Coyote]

38. No, just the slaves needed a fairy tale.

Only some of the people must be kept ignorant.

Problem is with that system, after a revolution only the ignorant might survive, and that explains "Western Civilization" in a nutshell :rofl:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anneboleyn]

45. Yes, I agree. Points can be made without patronizing insults.

[whathehell]

70. Thank you very much.

It is only the insecure who resort to insults.

[darkstar3]

208. I'll keep that in mind as I read your various flare-ups in the future.

[L. Coyote]

104. Who is insulted? The origin of religion is remote, prehistoric even.

Are the dead rolling over in their graves. I doubt it!!

Or is there a bit groan in some mythical realm called heaven :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

378. It's "insulting" that in a democracy we had Congress using the Bible to validate slavery--!!

[ReggieVeggie]

50. just proves atheists are not proselytizing

I'm not out to "win hearts and minds"...if a religious person can't find the truth, that's their problem...I just don't want to make their weirdness my problem

[whathehell]

69. Actually, you prove my point, not yours

regarding proslytyizing atheists:

If people don't share your beliefs, they are "weird".

and unwilling to "find the "truth" only

you and your fellow atheists possess.


Thanks for playing!:evilgrin:

[PassingFair]

112. You left out the word "verifiable".

"Revealed truth" is NOT truth.

[ReggieVeggie]

250. I don't want to live in a theist country

Even though that's what it is.

[whathehell]

268. Neither do I and I don't...

We still have that "separation of church and state" thingy

although I do believe we must be vigilant in keeping it that way.

[ReggieVeggie]

284. not very separated, really

why don't churches pay taxes?

[whathehell]

325. I think they should..

Otherwise, I think they are separated and should remain so.

[ReggieVeggie]

249. not at all

Atheists don't believe in strange, unverifiable things. A believers truth is their own. I think truth is something you have to verify, not something you wish and hope for.

[whathehell]

266. Is that what you think?

Atheists are limited, IMO, to strict empiricism.


Many a "strange, unverifiable thing"

has come to be seen as a "truth"

unverified for centuries

because of the lack of the proper tools.

The fact of bacteria, for instance,

was no doubt "strange and unverifiable"

until an advance in technology made it not so.

Experience cannot always be "verified"

To the one who experiences it, however

it is truth. Neither you nor anyone else

has to believe them, but

you're apt to have a very hard time

making them "disbelieve" themselves.

[darkstar3]

267. The only really correct thing you said there was "IMO".

[whathehell]

272. I don't know what Ignored said

but I can't complain since

I planned it that way, lol.:P

[darkstar3]

275. You didn't plan very well. It seems you haven't ignored me after all.

Just what does it say about you, exactly, that you feel the need to say "I can't hear you, I'm not even listening."?

[ReggieVeggie]

288. oh for pity's sake

you're arguing on behalf of ignorance! ANd, if you can't explain something, invent magic sky fairies to explain everything! Holy crap.

[whathehell]

347. This is a non sequitor...I don't know where these "sky fairies" are coming from

out your ass, apparently,:shrug:

I was speaking of empiricism, and non-empiricism

and how it relates to issues of knowledge

and truth.

Unfortunately, you're unable to discuss things at that

level and so offer up some ham-handed, one size fits all

"blast" you imagine passes as a response..duh.


Come back when you've acquired something called

critical thinking skills.

[ReggieVeggie]

437. I wish you had a clue

well, maybe you do, but because you lost your argument you resort to ad hominem...as you said earlier, thanks for playing! :hi:

[whathehell]

442. I wish you did.

I "lost the argument"?

You don't have the skills to even conduct one:rofl:

[ReggieVeggie]

453. what a lame reply

no substance

[whathehell]

456. I avoided big words

so that you could understand.B-)

[Bluenorthwest]

88. The Bible has much to say about slavery, all favorable.

Here is a fact. It is not possible to quote a Biblical author or teacher who speaks against gay people who did not also speak in favor of slavery in clear and extended terms. This is a simple fact. Those who castigate gays also urge the slave to obey the master as the master is like unto God for the slave. These are just facts, you know. So when anyone quotes the Bible against gay people, they are quoting a pro-slavery author to do so. If they do not like that, they should stop coming after gay people with words from slavery proponents. It is that simple.

[whathehell]

135. Guess what, Blue?

Despite some people's obsession with it here,

Christianity is not the ONLY religion out there, 'kay?

Maybe you should broaden your knowledge of different religions,

instead of repeatedly dragging out the

old bible rants.

[defendandprotect]

380. Male-Supremacist is the unpinning for America's religions ...you didn't know that?

[whathehell]

423. Um, yeah, I did and I don't think it's just "America's religions"

..I'm pretty sure it's trans-atlantic, if not global.

[defendandprotect]

433. No one said it was . . . however, what of the issue of supporting male-supremacy?

[whathehell]

440. No one said it was?

Well, it's strongly implied by framing them as "America's religions".

Not sure where you're getting this "supporting male-supremacy" thing..I've

been an outspoken feminist for about forty freaking years.

You seem to be "all over the map" on this thread, Defend and Protect,

you must have misinterpreted...Anyone who knows me, on this board or

elsewhere, knows I'm no supporter of patriarchy.

[defendandprotect]

444. Because the OP addresses his "country" ... which I presume is America?

Glad to see you addressing issue of organized patriarchal religions and

male-supremacy, however ....

Not sure where you're getting this "supporting male-supremacy" thing..I've

been an outspoken feminist for about forty freaking years.

Meanwhile, you tend to convert every post down to the "I" -- these are general

convesations, about ALL of organized patriarchal religion -- not about your own

one personal experience, or your own one church. Try to take it from a higher

perspective.


You seem to be "all over the map" on this thread, Defend and Protect,

you must have misinterpreted...Anyone who knows me, on this board or

elsewhere, knows I'm no supporter of patriarchy.

All issues are related -- and it helps to understand that --

especially that organized patriarchal religion is political and has definite political

consequences.

Again -- try to move away from the "me" and the "I" --

Generally the conversations are bigger than oneself --

[whathehell]

458. Can you say

"attention whore"?

Bye.

[L. Coyote]

103. What do you think the origin of religion is? Did religion start before slavery?

Or, is religion just a belief system created to enforce slavery?

Religion is just a fairy tale, with bigger, badder fairies of course,
but still just some wild imaginings. So, when and where does the irrationality start?

[whathehell]

141. Honey, you're so far off the mark

that I don't know where to start.

You can state and re-state "opinion

as fact" all you want

but that doesn't make it so..

That's why I prefer Agnostics

They're smart and, perhaps more importantly

intellectually secure enough to admit

that they do NOT know.

Have a nice day.

:hi:

[L. Coyote]

146. As an agnostic, of course I know the unknowable is unknown

That's why I prefer Scientists.

They are educated and intelligent and, perhaps more importantly,

they admit that they do NOT know the unknowable.

And, they don't have bad grammar :rofl:

[whathehell]

159. You're an "agnostic" whenever the rigidity of your atheism becomes apparent and untenable

And as any scientist knows,

there is no "unknowable"

at least in the absolute sense.

That is why I prefer smart people.:rofl:

[yawnmaster]

191. Scientists don't have bad grammar??!! LOL I know LOTS of scientists,

and believe me, most did not minor in English.

Poor use of grammar crosses many boundaries; scientists are in no way immune.

[darkstar3]

210. There's that manufactured, superior middle again.

Don't look now, but there's a fencepost up your ass.

[Goblinmonger]

227. Thanks for showing you don't know what the words mean

You can be both a gnostic atheism and an agnostic atheism. Just as you can be a gnostic theist and an agnostic theist.

But don't let what the words really mean get in the way of your rants.

[defendandprotect]

382. Old religions were simply based on NATURE -- not "gods" -- and no "hell" --

pagan beliefs --

Look where we've gotten since male-supremacist religion gave us

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" --- the licenses to exploit

nature, natural resources, animal-life -- and even other human beings according to

various myths of inferiority!!



:hi:

[sudopod]

130. Cussing makes baby Jesus cry. FYI.

[whathehell]

137. Sure...and somehow in your narrow frame of religious reference, you thought

being a non-atheist = Belief in Jesus.

Try again:eyes:

[sudopod]

138. OK, then if your god, godess, or elder thing doesn't mind

drinking, cussing, having fun, or science, and it doesn't demand that you harangue your neighbor (especially the kids!) and leave...pamphlets (shudder), then I've got no problem. ;)

[whathehell]

148. Ding, ding, ding. we have a winner!....That is precisely my point.

Too many here, out of ignorance or sheer laziness,

lump all religions together in terms of "rules" "customs" "prosylitizing", etc.

and it's just not true.

Actually, one need not have a personal deity of any kind

to qualify as a non-atheist.

One might believe in a divine force

or simply be agnostic.

[sudopod]

154. Agnostics and other "non-aligned" folks are not the people

who ruin an atheists' days, though. They aren't the ones demanding that that the US government post "In God we maybe trust unless we find a reason otherwise" in public buildings or demanding that we ban abortion and not enjoy sex because of $ANCIENTTEXT. Do people really need to preface their emotional atheist fits with the above disclaimer every time they get aggravated with Brother Bob Better-Than-You?

It seems a little pedantic.

[whathehell]

168. It may seem a little pendantic to people who are too young to remember

the time in America when Christianity meant "Mainstream Christianity"

NOT the looney tune Right Wing Fundamentalism we see now..

I grew up in a northeastern urban environment where religion

was a personal thing and separation of church and state was

a given...Religion that had virtually NOTHING to do with

government (besides having money with "In God We trust", on it and that wasn't an issue for most)

and "Christianity" meant pretty much protestants and catholics...Period.

We shared neighborhoods with each other and no one tried to "convert" anyone

That would have been viewed as weird..it was an ENTIRELY different environment.

So much more sane and tolerant.

The rise of the "Religious Right" has changed all that, I guess,

To me and those I grew up with, it looks like Hillbilly Heaven, or something.

[sudopod]

271. Fair enough. :) nt

[defendandprotect]

383. Notice no mention of Jews -- it was "us" and "them"? Catholics and Protestants?

Certainly atheists aren't responsible for the rise of the right -- often

disguised as religion -- a tool of elites used to bring about conquest over

other people/nations.

America's religion has been based on male-supremacy -- that's certainly extreme

enough -- fundamentalist enough!!

[whathehell]

396. Umm, no...actually I was thinking of including Jews,

but most seemed (and often still do) to want to

live in their own neighborhoods.

My sister was a good friend of one of the few Jewish kids in the neighborhood.

There was no "us against them" but I do see an inclination on your

part, to see nothing but negatives in those "catholics and protestants".

[defendandprotect]

432. Anyone who supports democracy should see "negatives" in male-supremacist religion -- !!

Should they not?

Or do you think that democracy is somehow about male-supremacy --

and not "equality for all"?


People do want their comfort zones, but it does tend to make them less aware

of what the other guy is going through. On the one hand, we protect ourselves

in this way from challenges to our beliefs and traditions, but it also limits

our understanding of others' beliefs and traditions -- and even an overall

examination of what we believe from higher perspectives.



but I do see an inclination on your

part, to see nothing but negatives in those "catholics and protestants".


Again, it is impossible to both support democracy and equality and still support

organized patriarchal religions.

The challenges we make to these religions are efforts at conscious-raising among

members in some part -- but the fault remains with the hierarchy of these churches

and their teachings.

[whathehell]

441. Well, yeah, but

you're broadening the discussion

to the point that I don't even know what the topic is.

Last I looked, you seemed to be criticizing

my post that described growing up in

a neighborhood that was primarily

Catholic and Protestant because

it didn't have many Jews.

I answered that and now, you're criticizing me for

supposedly condoning "male supremacist religions" (!?)

It's like you're all over the map, switching

subjects or broadening them to the point that

their unrecognizable.

I don't know what this is about

but it seems like I'm involved

in some weird game where the rules

keep changing.

Enjoy yourself, I guess..I'm out of here.

[defendandprotect]

445. If you're used to looking at issues from simply ....

how it effects "me, myself and I" --

you might begin to think about issues from a little higher perspective --


you're broadening the discussion

to the point that I don't even know what the topic is.

Wow -- !



Last I looked, you seemed to be criticizing

my post that described growing up in

a neighborhood that was primarily

Catholic and Protestant because

it didn't have many Jews.

No -- I didn't criticize your "neighborhood" for not having Jews --

I mentioned that you didn't seem to have an awareness of the Jewish faith in your

consciousness of religion.



I answered that and now, you're criticizing me for

supposedly condoning "male supremacist religions" (!?)

"ME" again? Is there not a world of male-supremacist religions?


Bye --

[whathehell]

457. Honey, I'm used to "looking at issues" that are intelligently framed

Not just as they come out of a poster's ass.


Bye.

[sudopod]

142. Yours is good with cussin, right? ;) nt

[whathehell]

257. I don't really "have" one, lol

I'm agnostic, which to me means

"I don't know".

Any deity I can think of would not have a big problem

with cussin, unless it denigrates a person

on the basis of gender, race, or sexual orientation.

Mine would be a good Humanist.:D

[L. Coyote]

147. ROFLMAO

All babies cry, FCS! :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

377. And, recall the objections when they made good use of it to turn the tide on

those holding them in slavery -- Segregation, Inc.!

Remember the outrage when AAs participated in civil rights demonstrations

carrying the American flag! Or kneeling to pray!!

[vim876]

56. Meh.

Religion is as good or bad as the believer practicing it. If religion disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, I guarantee some new tribal identity (nationalism, etc.) would emerge that people could fight over. People who want to hate will find a reason. Religion just happens to be the most convenient one.

[sfwriter]

87. Wouldn't that be nice though...

An end to the Phelps clan for starters...

No more lectures on how you are expected to "uphold Christian ideals to work here..."

It would be one less thing as you say.

[AmBlue]

36. But they LOVE fetuses. n/t

[defendandprotect]

384. Hate women -- but love those fetuses -- !!

[Rex]

37. I want to live in an agnostic nation.

Where a persons beliefs are not as important as what brand underwear they have on! :hide:

[underseasurveyor]

40. I don't care what religion or un-religion anyone practices

As long as they keep it out of my government and off my civil rights!

[vim876]

57. Ding ding!

We have a winner!

[Withywindle]

41. Great rant, thanks for posting it!

I agree 100%. I'm not an atheist, I'm a Pagan - and I don't want to live in an atheocracy, or a theocracy of any religion, including my own. ESPECIALLY my own, because power corrupts. Every religion that acquires state power, military power, huge amounts of money, etc., eventually becomes a tool of oppression and pisses on its own best principles.

The ONLY system that can ever work is one of pluralism, IMO, and the only way to achieve that is to let go of the desire to control what others believe. The problem is that fundamentalists of any stripe will never let go of that, because they will never believe it's a good thing to be rid of.

[inna]

44. good for you, cuz you don't. in fact, you live in a ridiculously religious society.

unfortunately, let me add.

[upi402]

47. Atheists are the most Christ-like IMHO. n/t

[NashVegas]

281. Although I Find Some Atheist Are Quite Good With the Martyrd Acts

Overall I can't agree one way or the other.

[dorkulon]

48. Secular. It's called secular.

Although I wouldn't mind living in a majority atheist, secular country.

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. Thank you! It's driving me insane.

[old mark]

51. K&R-

[LAGC]

52. Richard Dawkins for Global President!

It's time we put science on the front burner in this world and start allocating serious money towards more research and development toward solving many of our pressing problems (health, environment, energy and otherwise) that science can one day solve for us.

Goddess knows we have the resources, we just need the political will to make it happen.

[vim876]

58. Wait...

So is this about Richard Dawkins or science research funding? 'Cause I find Dawkins to be a bit of a prick, but I think we should be pouring money into science research and education like there's no tomorrow.

[CrawlingChaos]

269. What a horrific thought

Dawkins brand of intolerance IS authoritarian and almost akin to religion. He wants all religious people bullied and humiliated, as an example to others. He has descended into flat-out hate-mongering and promotes racist anti-Muslim screeds on his website. Hand power over to someone like Dawkins and just watch what kind of hell you get.

[GoneOffShore]

280. Have you got some references to back up your assertions?

Links, quotes, anything?

Haven't seen any "flat-out hate-mongering and ... racist anti-Muslim screeds" on the website.

[CrawlingChaos]

315. a bit more info

He has been featuring the videos of the notorious bigot Pat Condell on his website. The guy is...beyond the pale. I'll dig up some links later when I have some time.

Dawkins rhetoric has been getting more and more hateful towards Muslims. He recently called called the burqa a "bin liner" (trash bag) and bemoaned the decline of Christianity in the UK because, as he put it, it was functioning as "a bulwark against something worse" (Islam). Irrational vilification of one particular group - especially a vulnerable, already persecuted group - is extremely disturbing.

He has also asserted, incredibly, that religious people of all stripes, regardless of whether their religious practice is peaceful and non-intrusive to others, should be publicly ridiculed and mocked, so that others will see this mockery and shrink from religious affiliation out of fear of becoming the targets of such bullying themselves. I'll try to find a link where he explicitly states this - I remember being stunned by his words. This is the kind of society he advocates - think like he does or be bullied. The implications of that are, needless to say, chilling.

[darkstar3]

323. I think you may be confusing Dawkins and Hitchens.

Both are atheists, but Hitchens is a dick, funny as he may be at times.

[CrawlingChaos]

328. No, I don't think so

Hitchens is worse, with all his cheerleading for BushCo's wars of aggression. Dawkins has been evolving from merely obnoxious and lame (he is, let's not forget, the guy who wanted you to go around calling yourself "a Bright") to more sinister rhetoric, IMO, designed to stir up hatred and suspicion towards Muslims. Hitchens, of course, has been doing that for a long time too.

[GoneOffShore]

413. Perhaps if you actually read Hitchens rationale for supporting the Iraq War

you'd be a little less dismissive.

I don't support him in that, but I understand why he thinks the way he does.

That aside, Hitch is, along with Dawkins, one of the brighter lights in the intellectual world.

[CrawlingChaos]

422. You can't be serious

Or perhaps you are. Yes, I've read his utter bullshit.

Hitchens is nothing more than a pompous, warmongering windbag, and Dawkins isn't even a good scientist, what with, among other things, his cringe-worthy attempts to marry science with his ideological agenda. I can only chuckle at the suggestion that these two blowhards are "brighter lights in the intellectual world". How sad that would be, if true, which it isn't.

[GoneOffShore]

425. Somehow I think you haven't read either Hitchens or Dawkins.

[GoneOffShore]

427. ?

Really?

Well, at least your buttons got pushed and I know where you're coming from.

Have fun with your imaginary friends.

[darkstar3]

436. And with that post, you prove one of two things:

1. You haven't read anything beyond a few select quotes of either author.
-OR-
2. You know so little about science that Dawkins' writing went right over your head.

There's simply no other excuse for you to state that you believe Dawkins is not a good scientist.

[CrawlingChaos]

438. And with that post you prove

That you need to work on reading for comprehension.

I notice you don't try to refute my specific points - you just claim it's "over my head". Do you deny that conclusions drawn by Dawkins are tainted by his ideologies? (a charge I've seen leveled by others in his field, btw)

As I mentioned earlier, Chris Hedges has written some excellent essays on this, such as:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080511_render_unto_darwin_that_which_is_darwins/

And I'm guessing you also have no problem with Dawkins' descent into flagrant anti-Muslim hatemongering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhYus6TiGEE

I'm learning that when you criticize Dawkins, expect his followers to have an absolute tizzy. Sounds like a personality cult to me.

[darkstar3]

451. Since you have only one fresh point, I will answer that.

"Do you deny that conclusions drawn by Dawkins are tainted by his ideologies?"

Yes, I do, and if you had read and understood his work, you wouldn't make that idiotic accusation.

[GoneOffShore]

462. I see you're getting crickets.

Obvious from the start.

[GoneOffShore]

326. As someone who agrees with the French ban on the burqa

And finds Islam and Christianity to be equally culpable in violence and repression I'm not disturbed by the Condell videos.

As to Prof. Dawkins and the burqua - "he stood by his remarks and told the Daily Mail: ‘I do feel visceral revulsion at the burka because for me it is a symbol of the oppression of women.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301750/Fury-Richard-Dawkinss-burka-jibe-atheist-tells-revulsion-Muslim-dress.html#ixzz1I83QcSq4

I haven't encountered the bullying aspect of Dawkins and would appreciate any actual quotes you provide.

[CrawlingChaos]

333. Seriously, you have no problem with Condell?

I hardly know what to say. I find him physically sickening. When I've seen people try to post Pat Condell's videos here at DU, the moderators lock them because of the racist content. It's hard for me to understand anyone supporting that type of flagrant hate-mongering but, clearly, he has his followers.

I'm pressed for time but I've tried to find some links regarding the bullying aspect of Dawkins. I know there are better examples somewhere out there, but I found this one involving an exchange about a speech given by a prominent atheist called "Don't be a dick" - making the case that atheists need not be cruel or demeaning when interacting with religious people, and that, indeed, this might be counterproductive. Dawkins chimes in (response #29) to disagree, taking the pro-dick position. Here's a quote:

"Ridicule may indeed annoy the target and cause him to dig his toes in. But our goal might very well be (in my case usually is) to influence third parties, sitting on the fence, or just not very well-informed about the issues. And to achieve that goal, ridicule can be very effective indeed. "

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/are-we-phalluses/#comment-40191

What kind of a thug mindset is that? Pick on religious people so bystanders can observe their humiliation? I know it's quite fashionable right now to go around saying "all religion is evil", and I am not a fan of religion personally, but if it doesn't intrude into my life, it is none of my damn business what spiritual beliefs other people hold. As much as I staunchly support taxing churches and keeping all things religious separate from all things political, I also see the obvious importance of tolerance and mutual respect toward people who have done nothing to deserve such treatment.

But I'm guessing since you have no problem with Condell, you probably have no problem with this either.

[GoneOffShore]

334. Ridicule is very effective - see Thomas Paine on John Adams

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2011/03/the_us_has_always_had_politica.php#more

[CrawlingChaos]

343. That is not analogous (n/t)

[GoneOffShore]

355. Religionists of all stripes and beliefs have ridiculed atheists for centuries

Atheists have been persecuted far more often than the religious.

I don't consider what Prof. Dawkins has said to be "bullying".

[CrawlingChaos]

362. So that makes it OK?

Do you need to prove that you can be just as obnoxious as some of them are? You can't expect things to get better if you're going to adopt the worst behaviors of the fundamentalists you object to so strenuously. That is not progress, it's a recipe for disaster.

I have zero patience for self-righteous religious people who seek to impose their beliefs on others, BUT, if a religious person is going to treat me with courtesy and respect, they can expect the same from me.

[GoneOffShore]

406. I'm happy to respect people who accord me respect - however

to quote Dylan Moran -

'I respect all the differences but if you believe any of it you're a moron. To me, it's just people talking about their imaginary friend at length'


And ultimately, believing ridiculous things for ridiculous reasons will always rot ones judgment and lead to swallowing tripe like religion, creationism and (un)Intelligent Design.

[CrawlingChaos]

420. calling all religious people "morons"

Is so absurd that I have to wonder about the intellectual insecurities of the person making such statements. Not to mention the total lack of civility.

This type of Dawkins-esque rhetoric displays an unbelievably shallow grasp of something very complex. Chris Hedges has written quite eloquently on the subject, although I suppose he's a "moron" too in your book.

[GoneOffShore]

426. Chris Hedges is right up there with Dawkins and HItchens.

Was going to put you on ignore, but thought better of it.

And was going to use an ad hominem but also figured that that was the easy way out.

[GoneOffShore]

428. Civility is overrated.

As the last 30 years have proved.

We've let the camel stick his religious nose too far into the tent and now we're out in the sandstorm. We got here by being 'civil' and polite. And that camel ( who looks like an elephant cloaked in a flag and carrying a bible) has taken over.

[defendandprotect]

385. +1000% -- k/r

[mwb970]

61. All I know is, I would much rather spend time with an atheist than a religious person.

Any day of the week!

[cordelia]

68. Depends

I know religious people that are total assholes.

I know atheists that are total assholes.

[Pacifist Patriot]

91. I'm with you. I just want to be around nice people. Couldn't care less what they believe.

[Nye Bevan]

113. Really? I am agnostic myself but some of the people I most enjoy spending time with are religious.

For example, I know a rabbi who is a remarkable woman.

Try to judge people based on the content of the character, not on whether or not they happen to follow a religion.

[krabigirl]

134. Same here.

[no_hypocrisy]

63. Separation of Church and States means Neutality, not Atheism.

Not the same thing.

To PROTECT religion, there is the "other" religion clause in the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause, to protect an individual's right to practice his/her/their choice of religion.

The drafters of the Constitution intended for there to be a tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, to limit the scope of each, to encourage reflection and debate, in order to allow everyone the ability to believe (or not believe) without persecution or prosecution.

[jeff47]

73. Atheism is not antitheism

While antitheists are atheists, the reverse is not true.

Just like baptists are all Christians but all Christians are not baptists.

Atheists would love to have a country that was neutral on religion. It would be a vast improvement over the Christianity being forced upon us.

[no_hypocrisy]

76. + 1000000

[liberation]

296. Unfortunately, the definition has now been hijacked by theists/believers

and the term is now seeing as the positive (active) form of negative theism. Most theist project their notion of "faith" or "belief" and can't grasp the concept that not believing in any deity is not the same as actively opposing a deity (or their belief). This is, most theists define atheist as a person who does BELIEVE there is no god. It simply does not compute to some individuals that other people simply lack belief and that is that, thus they have to project their expectation that everyone has to have faith or believe in something (even if that belief is negative).

Of course, as you pointed out there are atheists who are also anti-religious, who are a subdivision of the atheist definition. So it is silly to define a whole by just a subset of it. The corruption of the term is usually done to further a very specific narrative of victimism put forth by some theists.

Probably, "secular" may still work when referring to a religion neutral state. Even though, as of late theists have been also moving their industrious little tails to make it a "dirty" term too.


Most atheists and agnostics I know would have no problem "believing" in a god as soon as religious folk produce irrefutable proof and justification for the existence of their respective deity and the tenets they claim to represent. I try to explain to religious people that most atheists are not of the opinion that there is no god, because most atheists I know are fairly well educated and most of the comprehend the folly of trying to prove a negative, they simply do not give two shits about it until there is actual proof. Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence...

[ehrnst]

74. I'd prefer agnostic - which does not take a firm position on any religion or existence of God. (nt)

[Pacifist Patriot]

79. Sure it does.

It takes a firm position on the inability to know for sure. ;-)

[darkstar3]

213. Knowledge vs. belief.

Those are two non-overlapping circles. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know everything there is to know about the possibility of supreme beings, but I don't believe in any of them.

[jeff47]

75. You are conflating atheist and anti-theist

An atheist country would actually be the ideal you describe. Religion would have no part in government, leaving the people to do as they wish.

Your 'horror story' version is an anti-theist government. That's quite different from an atheist government.

[inna]

81. thank you

[RegieRocker]

78. Stock around and see first hand heretic beheadings, burnings and stoning.

[JoePhilly]

84. Correct.

[stuntcat]

93. wow, people sure hate atheists

interesting thread, golly!

My favorite feature of Atheists is most aren't gonna fight with other people for what they worship.

[Pacifist Patriot]

99. Routinely polled as the least trusted people in the U.S.

I'm not sure why some Christians refuse to see it, but atheists are regularly discriminated against. One individual above listed several very good examples of how.

[ReggieVeggie]

291. least trusted?

I thought it was most hated, before homosexuals and terrorists

[MindPilot]

102. Yep even here at the wildly progressive & tolerant DU

Of all the rules and restrictions here about what we can and cannot say, the words we use, it is still perfectly OK to make the most insulting and sweeping generalizations about Atheists.

[Nye Bevan]

166. Actually the worst insults in this thread are from atheists, directed at believers

See post 110, which states that believers "deny reality", are "delusional", "irrational", and deal in "counter-reality".

[cleanhippie]

174. Actually, you mistake, as is frequently done, criticism of belief as criticism of a believer.

Post 110 explicitly states "religious belief...", not believers.

Unless you are saying that criticizing a belief is the same a s criticizing a persons right to believe?

[ReggieVeggie]

293. well, if religious folks want to argue that 2+2=5 because their faith tells them to

who would you give more credence to when it came to, oh, say, a doctor?

[Union Scribe]

128. I wonder if it has anything to do with their words

Just reading this thread over...c'mon, how many times can the average non-atheist handle being told they're an ignorant slave before deciding they aren't fond of atheists?

[Pacifist Patriot]

157. Probably about as many times as atheists are told they're evil and sinful before deciding...

they aren't fond of theists?

Okay, are we all even now or do we need to start pulling out the yard sticks?

[cleanhippie]

175. +1

[Union Scribe]

199. And all that ill will is understandable

To me, anyway. But people shouldn't wonder why they aren't liked by the "other side".

[NashVegas]

283. So ... You See a Lot of This On DU?

[Pacifist Patriot]

307. I see it go both ways here, there and everywhere.

[NashVegas]

346. Could You Give Some Specific Examples, Please

Of this type of talk on DU?

[NashVegas]

282. No. I Think Some of Us Are Fed Up With Some Atheists

Specifically, those atheists who are certain of their positive affirmation, "there is no god." Some of us feel that's attempting to impose one's world view on others, just as much as any theist.

Just because you may win a philosophical argument by choosing the negative position - which cannot be proven - doesn't mean you are correct.

[PassingFair]

290. Yes, those who say "I know there is no god" are as terrible as those who say "I know there is a god"

There might be one or two on this whole board.

The other 99.5 percent of atheists would change
their minds about the non-existence of ZEUS, if he
stood in front of us or turned us into swans...


but we probably wouldn't worship him anyway.

[Shagbark Hickory]

95. I think what you meant to say is you want to live in an agnostic country. You may find Europe more

to your liking. I read (can't rememeber where) that a significantly smaller portion of the population there is affiliated with a particular religion.

[Nye Bevan]

109. The UK is essentially a non-religious country now

with a very small percentage of churchgoers; also, 2 of the 3 leaders of the major political parties are openly atheist, with no apparent adverse consequences. Which is kind of ironic given that the UK *does* have an established national religion, headed up by the Queen (the Church of England).

[darkstar3]

215. Agnosticism and atheism are compatible, and frequently overlap.

What you have here is another example of a misconception. Agnosticism is not a middle ground somewhere between theism and atheism. Gnosticism deals with knowledge, while theism deals with belief. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Lucian]

107. Secular nations are some of the best nations to live in.

The citizens of those countries are among the world's happiest.

I don't know what this rant is about, considering you jump from bashing atheists to ranting about authoritarian governments, but no one is trying to force you into living in an atheistic country.

[L. Coyote]

110. Religion is belief and faith. It originates from ignorance, to explain the unknown and to

overcome fear of the unknown and inevitable, like personal death.

Religion is often a form of denial of reality and those aspects of the known that are feared, such as death supplanted by after-life ideation.

Religious belief is a state of delusion, both self delusion and group delusion, an irrational state of mental disordering and imagining.

Religion is a form of counter-reality, often disabling with regard to dealing with reality.

Let us face facts, religion is irrationality and a harmful aspect of American society, especially with regards to political control and political manipulation.

[Lucian]

111. +1

[Nye Bevan]

114. Yeah. People like Obama, Biden, Kucinich and Ted Kennedy are delusional, irrational idiots! (nt)

[MindPilot]

119. When they speak about myths and fairy tales as if they are real

then yes, they are delusional and irrational.

[Union Scribe]

131. There's that famous atheist good will.

[cleanhippie]

177. Are atheists famous for good will?

And since when did it become inappropriate to criticize irrational beliefs?

[MindPilot]

399. After a lifetime of institutionalized discrimination, I ain't got much goodwill left.

Sorry.

[L. Coyote]

150. Or, they have to pander to the masses who are.

Humans have the ability to compartmentalize activities. Just because you believe something irrational does not mean you cannot drive a car, for instance!!

Meanwhile, how many "smart politicians" understand they have to pander to the irrationality of the masses?

God bless America :rofl: like that's gonna happen :rofl:

[Nye Bevan]

158. Got it. So Obama and Biden have pretended to be Christians their entire lives

because they figured that one day they would run for elected office, and they wanted to pander to the masses by pretending to believe in God.

I actually think that's less plausible than Jesus turning water into wine.

[Goblinmonger]

232. Actually, if you read some of Obama's older stuff

you will not find the praise jebus stuff you find now. If anything, it reads as an agnostic (perhaps theist perhaps atheist but certainly agnostic) but once he's on the Presidential track, he found Jebus.

[darkstar3]

217. Fallacy will get you nowhere.

[L. Coyote]

400. Have you read the tax returns of the mega-churches?

Oh wait, they don't pay taxes!!!!

[Chris_Texas]

121. I want a rational country. By definition this does not include tolerance for lies or insanity

[Iggo]

123. I sure do. (n/t)

[krabigirl]

133. I would like to live in a secular one. Sorry if it offends you.

[Cleita]

167. Anyone who feels an atheist country is the answer only

needs to look at Soviet Russia and Maoist China in recent history to see that atheists are as bad as any religion for imposing totalitarian solutions like arrest, torture, imprisonment and even death for anyone who tries to practice any religion.

[Taverner]

172. Or better yet - Albania under Enver Xoxa

They tried to forcibly create an Atheist State

Didn't work out too well

[cleanhippie]

178. Was that atheism or communism that was responsible for that?

Hint: it was communism and the political ideology, not atheism.

[Cleita]

179. It was Marxism. Communism as a social and economic

system is not concerned with religion and communism is often successfully practiced in many religions. Marx stated that religion was the opiate of the people so the Soviets and Maoists decided that their religion was atheism. In case you don't see it, atheism is also a religion and can be as evil as any other invented by man.

[cleanhippie]

181. Atheism is a religion? Really?

What dogma, what ritual, what ANYTHING that makes a religion a religion, does atheism have that would equate it to a religion?

[Cleita]

185. Your dogma is that you claim to have science behind

your assertions, but science is always evolving because scientists minds are always open to possibilities and atheists have already decided what they believe in. They have meetings and clubs just like any religion to discuss their beliefs. They call religions and any one who practices religions false believers because only they have the true dogma or beliefs. I wonder what will happen one day when science discovers and then proves that there is a god or many gods and a world in another dimension one could call the spirit world. What will atheists do then, when their belief system comes tumbling down?

Religion as far as I'm concerned.

[Pacifist Patriot]

193. Here's something for you.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Debates-Atheists-Believers-Everyone/dp/1444336428/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301504395&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Brief-Insight-Julian-Baggini/dp/1402768826/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301504417&sr=1-2

Educate yourself and then get back to us. Your ignorance about atheism is absolutely staggering!

[Cleita]

226. Not really. Calling me ignorant already tells me

you have nothing to base your assertions on. As far as debates between god believers and god non-believers, they are as useful as debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. There are no factual premises to base your arguments on.

[Pacifist Patriot]

252. I'm calling you ignorant because your own statements back that up.

You are making assertions about atheism that have no basis - are patently wrong in fact. You clearly could benefit from the content of the two books I recommended. Until you understand what you are arguing against, it's a little pointless to be arguing at all, wouldn't you think?

[Lucian]

218. How can something based on the rational and facts be a religion?

Religion is the OPPOSITE of that. Religion is based on the irrational and has no facts backing it up.

Calling Atheism a religion is an insult.

[Cleita]

224. Because if you really examine the claims of atheists,

they are neither rational nor factual. They are as much based in the belief that there is no god or universal mind for which there is no proof.

[darkstar3]

228. Sure, because requiring you to pony up the proof for your claims is irrational.

Because telling people that we need hard evidence before we will believe something goes against facts...

[Lucian]

230. It's not a belief.

That's what you fail to understand.

Atheism is backed up because there's no evidence of a god or gods. So we don't believe in them because of the lack of evidence. And asking theists for proof to back up their claims of the existence of a diety/dieties/magics/etc., doesn't constitute a religion.

[Pacifist Patriot]

255. I would seriously be more than happy to lend you my copies of the recommended books.

Nay, I'd give them to you if you promised to read them. Really, you're so wide of the mark it's cringe worthy. ;-)

[Pacifist Patriot]

254. I'm an atheist and I wouldn't go quite that far.

Atheism is not the opposite of religion though calling atheism a religion is erroneous to say the least. It's like saying monotheism is a religion. No, monotheism is part of the belief system of several religions.

I'm a religious humanist and my personal beliefs are grounded in a theology of community. I engage in the quest for complex subjectivity through community and relationship, not through the worship of a supernatural being. I consider myself both atheist and religious with no inherent contradiction.

Ethical Culture and humanist Unitarian Universalism are two examples of religions with atheism as part of their orientation.

[snooper2]

446. "They have meetings and clubs just like any religion to discuss their beliefs."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh shit that is funny :rofl:

[Pacifist Patriot]

188. That wasn't atheism.

That's nationalism and ideology elevated to the status of religion. The idolatry encouraged by such dictators isn't a fair equivalency to a naturalistic philosophy which is atheism.

[Cleita]

189. Philosophy is fine, but most atheists consider themselves

absolutely right and everyone else wrong so I consider it a religion no different than any other.

[Pacifist Patriot]

190. One, you clearly don't know many atheists.

Two, it's not a religion even though there are religious atheists.

No way around that. Can't justify that one no matter how hard you try. No point in continuing this discussion any further. Have a nice day.

[Stuckinthebush]

216. Actually, most atheists are very reflexive in their thoughts

They analyze their actions and beliefs constantly.

[Cleita]

229. Yes, they do and then they decide they are right and

everyone else is wrong. It's like being around Vegans. Now I practice Veganism myself but I really don't like the dogmatic approach that goes along with it. I also have no use for organized religions but I find being around atheists pretty intolerable as well.

[darkstar3]

231. There's a whole lot of paint in that post...

[Goblinmonger]

235. I'm shocked it only took 229 posts to get to veg*nism

I'm a vegetarian atheist which makes me fucking screwed in the eyes of the world.

I like the "I'm a Vegan but pretty much all of them suck" post. Nicely done.

[Stuckinthebush]

247. Not true

It sounds like you have met one asshole and are painting us all with that brush.

[Pacifist Patriot]

313. Hmmm....

"I find being around atheists pretty intolerable"

I cannot possibly imagine why. :-)

[catenary]

292. Are there any -other- groups you're not a part of but for which you presume to speak?

Maybe you're the missing god we've all been looking for...
:eyes:

[Union Scribe]

233. Ah, yes.

Here's what I see far too often, and it's not necessarily present in what you said but it reminds me: When THEY do it it's because they're religious kooks and it proves religion is terrible. When ATHEISTS do it it's not fair at all to connect it to philosophy. What's good for the goose and all that. People of whatever stripe seem to like playing No True Scotsman.

(on edit: I don't think either side of that blade is too sharp, to be honest. People citing the USSR in regards to atheism don't convince me any more than people citing the crusades regarding religion. And I shouldn't have framed a general observation as applying to your post in particular.)

[darkstar3]

237. Feel free to prove that atheism was responsible for the atrocities mentioned there.

First you'll need to establish atheist dogma. Then you'll need to show how that dogma could be used or twisted to do what was done under those regimes. Finally, you'll need to show how this dogma that you managed to find transcends Communism under which these atrocities occurred.

Good luck. Dogma is to atheism what blind hatred is to common sense.

[Union Scribe]

239. I don't think it was. Please see my edited post.

I was revising it as you were posting.

[darkstar3]

241. So what you're saying is, that dog won't hunt.

Agreed.

Though I leave my original response to you intact so that others who read this thread and agree with your first sentiment, and not your edit, can read it.

[ReggieVeggie]

289. could you, uhhhh, show me anyone who said that?

anywhere? thanks

[Taverner]

171. Secular State - what I want too

One that has NOTHING to do with religion

Hell, I would be for BANNING candidates from stating their religion

[KamaAina]

176. Not even if it's dominated by radical Islamists?

:sarcasm:

[GeorgeGist]

187. The genesis of religion is ignorance.

[DireStrike]

196. So what you're saying is you want to live in an atheist country.

The only possibly country that will treat all religions equally is a secular one.

[darkstar3]

219. +1

[Lyric]

258. Secular and atheist are not synonyms.

:hi:

[LanternWaste]

221. I've learned to tolerate all the imaginary constructs...

I've learned to tolerate all the imaginary constructs we as humans force upon ourselves and out cultures-- philosophies, economics, religions, governmental systems, etc.

I've never really perceived the political canvasser coming to my door as "forcing his opinion down my throat", or the family at the table next to me praying as any type of intrusion, or the philosophy major pontificating at party about the merits of Stoicism as an attack on my own belief systems.

The GOP appears to do just that though... mocking and ridiculing any and all human construct they themselves do not adhere to. I'd like to think that's an absolute (yet undefined) difference between progressives and neocons: we tolerate and respect the ideas, the philosophies, the thoughts, and the religions of others.

[Union Scribe]

236. Not seeing it.

I don't personally tolerate all thoughts and philosophies, nor do I see most other progressives doing so. I think that's less a progressive trait and more a kind of wisdom, zen, or maturity perhaps; something to work toward as a person, but obtained by fewer than we'd like as a society.

[mainstreetonce]

234. undisclosed

I would like to live long enough to see a candidate for public office have to run with a clear statement that says "religion undisclosed" and have it be a political policy, not necessarily a law, that religion may not be discussed during a campaign.

[and-justice-for-all]

244. There can never be a little religion....

it is always going to be a dirge upon society. The only real answer is no religion, ever; simple because people will always take it to far and use it as a tool to manipulate masses. A pure Atheistic society, solely based on reason and science is one that I welcome with glee.

[LanternWaste]

276. I can only imagine that even in that hypothetical, religion-free Eden

"A pure Atheistic society, solely based on reason and science is one that I welcome with glee."

I can only imagine that even in that hypothetical, religion-free Eden, individuals will still manage to find other things (philosophies, arts, etc.) to use as tools to manipulate masses.

I daresay that even in the hear and now, tools other than religion are being used to do just that-- media marketing, news broadcasts, infotainment, etc. Would these things too be non-existent in "A pure Atheistic society..."?

[liberation]

317. For what it is worth... A religion-free "Eden" is a contradiction

You know, Eden being a biblical term and all.

[LanternWaste]

319. For what it's worth... it was a metaphor.

For what it's worth... it was a metaphor (albeit a playful one). I certainly don't think metaphor's are relegated to the religious only-- but hey, we've all got our own literary crosses to bear, right?

[and-justice-for-all]

419. LOL...nt

[and-justice-for-all]

421. A world free of religion is a better world...

Are we not talking about religion? the other things you mentioned are secondary and would not be abolished, how they operate on the other hand is a completely different story. What I mean when I say a purely atheistic society is a global society where not only is religion no longer a divider of people, but it no longer exist. This also means that solidarity exist on a global scale and that homo-sapiens function as a single unit working together to make life better for everyone.

At the moment, religion continues to divide and solidarity is practically nonexistent. Religion is a problem and not an answer.

[louslobbs]

248. I'll write the music to your "Lyric" about no "national" position on religion".

Thank you for posting this I'm in total agreement with your post.
Lou

[opihimoimoi]

251. Yuo, they are GANG OF PROJECTIONISTS (GOP)...THATS WHAT THEY DO

Instill fear then do what they projected about

Maddow show them doing this...catch if ya can

[hobbit709]

253. I'd rather live in an atheist one than a wannabe theocratic one.

[Enthusiast]

279. You are right on!

They hate us for our freedoms.

[valerief]

295. Atheism isn't a religion. It's the absence of religion. I like that. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

311. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but...

Yes, atheism is not a religion. Just like monotheism is not a religion. It is a tenet of some religions.

But, atheism is not the absence of religion. There are religious atheists. Two examples being humanists within Unitarian Universalism and the American Ethical Union (Ethical Culture Societies).

Religious atheists are most likely a minority among atheists and most atheists would consider themselves to have an absence of religion, but that doesn't mean atheistic beliefs necessitate an absence of religion.

[catenary]

324. Why in the world would you continue to beat a horse you know is dead?

That's...like really weird. :silly:

[Pacifist Patriot]

392. Silly, it's because...

atheists are sadists, didn't you know that? :-)

[valerief]

417. Don't be dumb. Break down the word atheism. Amoral means no morals. Atheism means no theism.

You can't make things up to satisfy your agenda.

[felix_numinous]

297. Your post defines true freedom of religion-

it is in the Constitution, Amendment I = The very first Amendment....which makes it very important.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This pretty much wraps it up in one sentence!! Is this not plain enough English for people to understand???? An establishment of religion means anything, be it Christian, Pagan, and this includes atheism-- not becoming legally sanctioned by government. It is clear.

Wow-- we seem to be having problems with the whole first amendment besides!

[darkstar3]

303. One of the problems is misclassification.

Atheism isn't a religion.

[felix_numinous]

322. I know we are all on the 'same page'

with the separation of church and state. Of course atheism is not a religion, I am one person that gets that.

In the the first amendment, atheism is covered in the freedom of speech part, definitely. My personal interpretation has always been that freedom of religion includes not having one--I am trying to remember if I learned that in civics or not. It certainly is an interesting point.

Atheism has never been an issue at all until the fundamentalists gained influence-- they seem to have no other purpose than to make enemies.

[SemperEadem]

298. right wing thugs and their hatred

to that end:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/03/america-you-keeping-using-that-word.html

[GoneOffShore]

411. Thanks for that - Excellent bit of ranting

And if it gets posted here in part I'm sure the defenders of the CBF will be out in force.

[OwnedByFerrets]

305. Amen from an atheist.

[Arkana]

309. I don't wanna be an American idiot.

*guitar riff*

[whathehell]

459. Too late, lol

Unless you'd care to become

an idiot of another nationality.:eyes:

[catenary]

310. I want to live in a country that has no people stupid enough to think atheism is a

religion...
:shrug:

[provis99]

321. there are too many who think atheism is a religion.

It's like claiming that not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a religion.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color.

[paparush]

318. Hey TeaParty - You can't love your country and hate half the people in it.

[Utopian Leftist]

320. Very well-articulated post.

Many of the fundie "Christians" have a persecution complex because of the tradition of persecution that the early church suffered.

They need to let it go. That's just baggage at this point. Doesn't the Bible say, "it is done unto you as you believe"? Then stop believing you're persecuted and start believing in peace, love and charity. You're going to need it when the plutocracy comes for you.

[AlbertCat]

327. because of the tradition of persecution that the early church suffered.

Hmmmm... well maybe.

I think the it must take a huge amount of energy to continually cling to things that clearly are not true. And it's tough to look around and casually see that you are simply wrong about basic things everywhere you turn. When one lives and partakes of the successes of science on an hourly basis, it feels oppressive to deny science is true. Fear of having your fantasy world shattered calls for desperate measures. Voila! Persecution complex. The very fabric of space-time is against them! ... or something...

[defendandprotect]

386. The Vatican was wiping out pagans and heritics -- followers of Jesus ...

who believed in his humanity -- rather than that he was a "god" --

[mochajava666]

332. I see where you are coming from, but as a total non-believer

of any supernatural power, I can't help but think:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one


There is too much strife, cruelty, wars, etc., over the fight of whose invisible buddy is better.

I just don't get it, and I've seen prejudice and cruelty directed toward myself all of my life from people who have perceived themselves as whatever cult's chosen few. I choose reality, and have paid a price.

So, on a personal note, I would love an atheist world. The less delusions in this world at this time, the better, IMO.

[pansypoo53219]

345. denmark and lutherans

taint bad. but they are not all that religious.

[robinlynne]

348. Bush said so himself: as long as I get to be the dictator....

[defendandprotect]

387. Above all, let's remember that GOD chose to speak with W BUSH -- !!

Sadly, GOD told W to attack Afghanistan --

late GOD told W to attack Iraq --

How's that for an accomplice!!

GOD siding with the Repugs in pushing illegal and immoral wars of aggression -- !!



:evilgrin:

[robinlynne]

402. Yeh. God has been doing that through thousands of years...provoking wars....

[bertman]

349. I really like and agree with what you wrote, Lyric. REC. nt

[PatrynXX]

350. agnostic would be fine for me

Atheists are just as arrogant (the public ones) as some Christians (again the public ones) Well hell there is extremes in every religion. And I expect some Atheists to get mad at me for saying it's a religion but I'm not alone in that opinion. As compared to Agnostics who don't believe in anything or don't know. Cenk is supposedly Agnostic. I think Jewel is similar. Never really figured U2 if they were agnostic although alot of their music is spiritual.

But I do have an opinion that is counter to ACLU. ACLU takes the side of Atheists. Which is a religion to me. If someone wants to put up a ten commandments sign in a courthouse thats just fine with me. perhaps Put it outside along with any other religious sign. We are a nation of different religions and I would feel more comfortable walking into a courthouse with a line of Religious beliefs along it. Not to take them all down. Like what to put as a religious symbol at Arlington. Pagan? Wicca?

[darkstar3]

352. Agnosticism and atheism are compatible, and frequently overlap.

Your fallacious reasoning does nothing to make atheism a religion.

[Runework]

381. atheism is not a religion

aclu should take the side of atheists and the non-majority, it's why we have a bill of rights too

and the 10 commandments have no business on courthouses, that's crazy

[Mariana]

409. Why would anyone want the Ten Commandments

put up in or on a courthouse? I don't even understand why any religious person would want them there, of all places. Most of the Ten Commandments are utterly incompatible with our inalienable rights under the US Constitution. So why on earth put them up anywhere near a courthouse? It's extremely disturbing to think that they might be considered when deciding cases in court.

[Corruption Winz]

351. Good post...

I'm an "atheist" but I don't want to, either. I want people to do what they want. I couldn't care less. I just want people out of power that focus too much on these types of beliefs, period. From either side. Though, let's be truthful, it mainly comes from believers.

Nonetheless, beliefs such as these shouldn't affect policy.

[SkyDaddy7]

356. What motivated this righteous rant?

Was it Newt Gingrich's comment? I think it very sfae to say the very last fear anyone should have is America becoming an Atheist country...Nobody likes us. Which makes me sad sometimes.

[Runework]

379. I'd love to live in an atheist country

Religion has no place in politics, none, zilch

I have my own private spiritual beliefs and the world would be
better if everyone kept theirs private as well.

Organized religions are successful cults.

[SkyDaddy7]

393. Yes, I happen to agree!

What I do find funny is whenever we Atheist so much as open our mouths in public we are labeled "arrogant & angry" but we are attacked publicly far more than we go on the attack! Yes, we would like the Constitution to be upheld but you can't defend the Constitution by remnaining silent. Most folks do not care about the creep away from religious neutrality in our government because it is their religion that is doing the creeping. I mean lets be honest it has only been in the past 5-10 years that Atheist have become more public & outspoken...But that is the way things are.

[Lucian]

405. +1

[defendandprotect]

388. Let's aim for a nation which is humane -- for everyone -- near and far !!

[Warren DeMontague]

389. "Atheist" = A-Theist = "No God". You do live in an Atheist country. We have no official God.

Which is as it should be.

Saying "I Don't watch football" is not picking a Favorite Football Team.

[Warren DeMontague]

390. Help! Help! I Don't Want To Live in a GAY Country, Either!!! Help!

Because, honestly, it's just as likely that hordes of oppression minded gays are going to force everyone to be gay as it is that you're going to wake up in an America that doesn't "let" you believe in God. :eyes:

[L. Coyote]

398. I don't want to live in an irrational country run by true believers of any ilk.

Religion is dangerous, very, very dangerous, especially in the wrong minds.

Religious tolerance does not mean tolerating belief systems to the point of not criticizing irrationality.

We need to recognize that less religion makes us all a lot safer,
and we should work towards the goal of rationality replacing delusion.
This means being critical of religion as a "belief system" while tolerant of individual freedom.
It is difficult to change a society and move from a dark age to enlightenment
because blind faith and illogical beliefs are self-perpetuating.

But, there is hope because even if people do not change, the old ones die.
What is really important is that young people grow up in a world with options.

[Dogtown]

412. I wouldn't mind at all.

Rational thought is a better basis for government than religious ecstasy.

[Just_visiting]

418. I've been several things...

An atheist, an agnostic and somewhat of a Christian. I'm not sure I've ever felt any of these things, especially in CAPS!? ; p

[roamer65]

461. I want to live in an agnostic country.

It is the scientific way to approach this topic. Prove a god/gods exist, prove they don't...can't be done.

[darkstar3]

464. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism.

It deals with an entirely different question. Knowledge vs. belief.