A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Mar 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    And that's all fine and good - just permit those that do practice a religion the respect to let them do so in peace.

    Conversely, a religious person should respect a non-religious person enough to allow them to not practice a religion on peace.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    But we can't find a way to regard it as anything but a delusion, and it's difficult to respect deluded people. It is exactly the same experience as encountering a grownup who still believes in Santa Claus.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    So what... your beliefs are somehow more important than theirs? This is the kind of mindset that causes this sort of problem... theists and non-theists at each others throats, simply because they, in their egotistic, self-centered way, believe that THEIR belief is the ONLY correct belief, and anyone who doesn't believe it is not only wrong, but immoral/delusions/crazy/evil/insert adjective here.

    If their beliefs aren't causing you any harm, why try to change them?

    This is the same exact argument being used against homosexuality... it's the same argument that was used to discriminate against races and hold back gender equality... there's no reason for it, period full stop end of story.

    A little creed I know:

    Bide the Wiccan Law ye must,
    in perfect love, in perfect trust.
    Eight words the Wiccan Rede pulpill;
    An ye harm none, do as ye will.
    And ever mind the Rule of Three;
    What ye send out, comes back to thee.
    Follow this with mind and open heart,
    and merry ye meet, and merry ye part.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    Justified in accusing someone of only being able to read short sentences? She's calling Sorcerer an idiot because he doesn't like reading long posts.

    This is the standard you want set in our forum? Shame on you, man. I thought you were better than that.

    I most certainly am not!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It has nothing to do with being forced into anything. It has to do with the athletic department establishing a prayer group and bible study class.

    That is completely inaccurate. The FFRF is not saying students can't have prayer groups or huddle in prayer on the field. They're saying that the school should not be involved in the establishment of such groups.

    It seems odd that you haven't even read the link you provided. There's no other explanation for this gross misrepresentation of both the FFRF's complaint and of the situation at the school. You've got both wrong, somehow, which is really strange since you're the one who brought it up. I mean, what's my recourse here? Do I quote from the link you provided? Sheesh. You're putting me in a tough spot here, man.

    To the point about "allowing it to occur," you're wrong. The school admits that they run a bible study program and prayer group for the players. To the point about forcing everyone into compliance with a non-religious viewpoint, you're wrong. The FFRF does not demand that student refrain from bible study or prayer groups. It couldn't ask such a thing, so why would it? It's simply demanding that these be student-organized groups, rather than school-organized groups. Do you understand the difference?
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    To take some excerpts from the article that led me to my conclusion:

    So, their claim here is that the athletic program is too "deep" into religion... that is a load of bollocks.Their real issue comes up though:

    So... what is this costing the school, exactly? Their grievance is that it is a misuse of state funds? Nope, that apparently isn't it either.

    And from another article here

    So, we see that there is no punishment for NOT participating...

    Ah, here we go... here we are, at the apparent crux of the issue... they are pissed that this could potentially be a chance for Coach Swinney and Chaplen Trapp to "proselytize" and use their influence to sway a young mans mind...

    God FORBID young men be exposed to something new and be able to form their own opinions on it! The ironic thing is, that is EXACTLY what the FFRF is doing... using their influence and power as an organization to PREVENT them from being able to do this...

    I contend, point out how or why this program is a bad idea. If the kids wish to worship, they get to. If they don't, they don't have to. They still play together, play as a team, and there have been no reports of any kind of wrongdoing or misconduct... what's the problem!?

    EDIT - More being typed up now

    So, here we have the FFRF complaint itself

    Now, I understand that the supreme court likes to strike down any kind of public prayer... somehow, apparently, a school allowing a teacher to lead students in voluntary prayer is showing "preference". That is a load of woo-woo, plain and simple. Now, if the school ONLY allowed ONE religion to do so, then there's preference. However, again, freedom of religion... if they want to be able to have a student organization, let them.

    As to what the FFRF wants? WHy, that's simple:

    So, yes, the FFRF is trying to remove from these students their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to freedom of religion...
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Again, no. "Entangled" means that religiosity is part and parcel with the athletic program, which is a problem.

    Never said it was. What gave you such an idea?

    So says the coach. But as we've seen in other areas, when the authority endorses religious participation, the atheists tend to get the short end of the stick.

    As an official of the state-funded school, yes, that's precisely the issue.

    They are free to worship as they see fit, as you would well know if you'd calm down and actually read any of the materials you keep linking to. The problem is a state-funded school establishing these bodies.

    The problem is that it's unconstitutional. The problem is that there may very well have been misconduct but players are afraid to come forward out of fear of repercussion. The problem is that this influential man is hand-picking a chaplain to preach to a captive audience as an officer of this state-funded school.

    Less typing, more reading.

    The Constitution is woo-woo? LOL! Okay, man.

    The Constitution says nothing of preference. That's something you've invented because your argument makes no sense without it.

    [quoet] However, again, freedom of religion... if they want to be able to have a student organization, let them.[/quote]

    No one is putting a stop to student organizations.

    LOL @ you claiming the Constitution as authority when you agree with it, and woo-woo when you don't.

    Try reading it again, chief. The FFRF is not trying to tell students they can't have team prayers or bible studies, or church attendance. The FFRF is (rightly) saying that the coach and the chaplain have no business orchestrating these events.
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Why should the coach and chaplain not be involved? I mean, it's the football team, so obviously the coach would be involved, and it's a religious gathering, so having a chaplain there makes sense to me.

    No, I'm not saying the constitution is woo-woo - I'm saying the way it is being interpreted is.

    If we're so worried about some sort of negative consequence of the non-theists deciding not to participate in this, then we should probably also worry about the consequences of a gay football player coming out... does this mean we shouldn't let a gay man play football if he so chooses, to protect them from possible negative consequences?

    This is, once more, diving into an ego trip - the students have no complaints here... the coach is not forcing anything on anyone... nobodys rights are being trampled. Thus, again, what is the issue here?

    I'll reply to more of your post asap - time for me to head home though
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Or who believes in karma, or who believes in the Gaia theory of the environment, or who believes in happy endings. All fine with me. I don't have difficulty respecting them, but to each their own.

    Now, someone who believes in FOX News . . .
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Alright, so, let me back up a little and pose a question regarding my example (not to mention calm down a bit, as I'm getting frustrated that my overall point seems to be being missed):

    The school football team has some religious people on it.
    The coach, also being religious, brings in someone to lead religious meetings for those religious people.
    The rest of the team is free to do as they will, with no repercussion.

    What, exactly, is the "big deal" here?

    Much the same... what does it matter if someone is religious or not? If they aren't hurting you... why do you care?
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Now that you mention it billvon:

    I am a gaian. Not a current "mainstream gaian" rather, more hearkening to the beginnings of the concept of a self regulating biom.
    I know that the biom is a lot older than we are, as individuals, as a species, as a family, etc... .
    I think that the biom is a lot wiser and smarter and powerful than we are now. I think that everything within this biom has a symbiotic relationship with almost everything within the biom.
    --- and so on in that vein---
    I think it likely to be impossible to prove me right or wrong within our lifetimes, and maybe the lifetime of the species...etc
    And, that's where faith comes in.

    Maybe I'm just a hedonist, and (for me) thinking that the biom is more powerful than "us" helps me feel comfortable.
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    It's not their involvement that's at issue, it's their orchestrating of these events as officers of the school. If they want to run prayer grouls and bible studies, go coach at a private school. Or do it independently in their community. Doing it through the school is a violation of the constitution.

    No, I'm not saying the constitution is woo-woo - I'm saying the way it is being interpreted is.

    You don't even understand what the rulings have done. You should educate yourself before making such a judgment.

    Your anology is broken, because asking coaches to refrain from running prayer groups for players at publicly-funded schools is not the same as asking homosexuals to refrain from playing team sports. They simply are not analogous.

    As I told you already, just because no one is complaining doesn't mean no one is being pressured into prayer, or being punished for not praying. It just means no one has come forward.
  15. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Is this being led by an employee of the public school system? On property owned by the public school system? During school hours?
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    It's okay, man. We all get emotional sometimes. You're not gonna change my mind about you being a good guy with a great mind.

    Which is a problem, because these are all official school functions. If this were a private school, no problem (at least legally), but it's a publicly-funded school.

    Dangerous assumption. You couldn't possibly know that. And we've seen many examples of the opposite being true.

    The big deal is that a school which lives in tax dollars is running a bible study and prayer group. Aside from the human element--the possibility of students being pressured into praying against their will, or having to lie about themselves to fit in, or being punished for their beliefs
    --it's in violation of the constitution.

    Straw man. Nobody cares what anyone believes.
  17. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Tiassa, is this your blog that you linked? If so, what is a nondescript theist?
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    LOL!! Explains a lot.
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    My school had a Christians in Action group - it was student founded, but like any other group in the school, it required to have an instructor head it up (granted, this was high school).

  20. Bells Staff Member

    ** Start Mod Note **

    I could very well question your agenda, Sorcerer.

    You have posted some things on this forum and called for certain things and suggested that perhaps we should do certain things that by any definition, would constitute as hate crimes in your home country and in most other countries as well. There is one thing I will not allow on this site and that is anyone endangering this site by posting illegal content or content that could endanger this site. I don't care who you are. Let me be clear to you, sorcerer, do not post comments that constitute an incitement to harm people or damage property based on the other person's religious affiliations. That is not acceptable under any circumstance. Suggestions that maybe we should perhaps start bombing their church's and murdering their preachers, you are inciting hatred and violence. Not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to suggest that we should burn down their places of worship so that they start to pay attention and listen. This is dangerous and idiotic to even propose. AI's comment was to define this is what militant atheism would encompass. You went further and quoted his words and suggested that this is what "we" should be doing. Not only is it not acceptable, it is downright illegal. My advice to you is to delete those comments and if you do it again, I will recommend your permanent removal from this site. Because you went beyond ridicule or insults or even abuse. You are suggesting damage and harm to people and property alike. I do hope I have made myself clear on this matter. Ignore it at your peril.

    ** End Mod Note **


    I don't hide behind my mod status. My mod status is plain to see for anyone who looks at the colour of my name on this site.

    If you are incapable of addressing the very points you have raised, then to me, it simply means they are empty comments, mere headlines with no substance. The reason being, you are incapable of not blaming theists for things that occur in all societies and communities, theist or atheist. The demonisation of women is institutional, ingrained within cultures around the world and within families, regardless of their religious affiliations or atheistic tendencies. Domestic violence is the bare bones of this demonisation. So to me, when you say demonisation of women, I ask you what about a woman who is abused in an atheistic household? Or do atheists not count when it comes to the demonisation of women? I could cite your continued assertion that I am somehow too emotional, which as a woman, I could take as you being condescending and stereotyping me in a particular way, which quinnsong also picked up on. Under any definition, such behaviour is also demonisating women. Or are you exempt because you are an atheist? What about abuse against minorities? That occurs in all communities and societies, regardless of whether it is religious or not. One only has to look at how ethnic minorities are treated to see that. Or did you just mean gays? Civil rights encompasses more than just gays Sorcerer. So when you say minorities, I ask you for examples and you are incapable of providing them. When I point out that theists and atheists are capable and do discriminate and demonise minorities, you react angrily and tell me I am being emotional and complain that the posts are too long.
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    The Pilgrims established a theocracy, and they killed anyone who wasn't a member of their sect of Christianity. We rebelled against that, and forever more enshrined the principle that the church and state should be separate, for the preservation of both. Modern Christians think theocracy was just fine, and seek to reestablish it. That's why American atheists tend to fight so hard against religious encroachment in secular affairs. For someone who understands so little, you talk so much.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Modern ultra right Christians believe that theocratic rule is beneficial to society, but I don't think they understand or realise the dangers of this type of governance.

    Medical research would be one of the first to suffer, especially in fields where embryonic stem cell research has made inroads in what they take for granted, for example. And not all Christians are pro-life and many Christians have accessed things like IVF or abortions for reasons such as to save the life of the mother or in instances of rape. Contraception? Safe sex practices and access to things like condoms? This is taken for granted. Theocracy could see all of this removed entirely.. Which is inherently dangerous for a variety of reasons and devastating for others.

    And it's not just atheists who fight against religious encroachment into governments. I know many theists of a variety of religious persuasions who are just as against it as atheists often are.
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    And they find out quickly enough when they allow for things like public finance of private religious schools. Who would have guessed, Muslims qualify too! Be careful what you wish for.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page