A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
In order to use the civil rights act to bring a claim in court they would have to show that a person "acting under color of state law" deprived the constitutionally protected rights of any other person. I forgot which college this was. Clemson--S.Carolina? Yes, that's a public university. The state is paying the coach's wages, which means he is "acting under color of state law." That satisfies the first half of that. The trick will be to see if they can prove the second half.
I didn't find that many, but maybe I'm only seeing an incomplete list. There's about 2 or 3 dozen here.
http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/ongoing-lawsuits/
I can't say how much pride they feel. I think they feel a sense of injustice and want the Constitution obeyed.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Same here. I was seven before another little boy told me about this fellow named "God" who lives in the sky and can see everything we do. I assumed this was just one of those clever little stories that children invent and I laughed appreciatively. I couldn't understand why he did not like that. When I asked my mother, with a very sad face she admitted that many grownups believe that story is true. This is when I became a cynic. Took me thirty years to get over it.
I want to help achieve a strong, fair, peaceful human society, since it's clear that within a few generations there will be only one "country." This can't happen if people are still fighting over whose interpretation of the Holy Books is the correct one--not to mention believing that if someone chooses to abandon their religion it's fair to kill him.
I'm rather disgusted with religion and religionists, but I understand that most Americans who call themselves Christians (outside the Bible Belt, anyway) don't spend a lot of time on the supernatural aspects of the faith and instead concentrate on trying to live up to Jesus's teachings. Nothin' wrong with that. I try to live up to the teachings of Winnie the Pooh, Frodo Baggins and Kermit the Frog. They're all imaginary too, and they're all wise too.
How about the "harm" they cause by the incredible profits the churches bring in being exempt from taxation? L. Ron Hubbard solved this for himself by combining the milieu of his science fiction novels with his self-help methodology of Dianetics, and coming up with Scientology. I don't think the next guy who tries this will get away with it so easily.
I went to a Wiccan funeral service in February. It was rather nice. They assured everyone that we were welcome to interpret their (rather few) spiritual remarks according to the paradigms of our own churches--or our secular paradigms, as the case may be.
Certainly not for all atheists, but just as certainly for the ones I know personally. After decades of trying to understand religion, including many hours talking with religious people who were happy to have the conversations, we still can't find any better word to describe belief in supernatural phenomena, for which there is not a single shred of evidence, yet nonetheless claims to falsify the scientific method (which, as I've noted before, is predicated on the premise that the natural universe is a closed system), than delusion. If it's a child, it can be called a fairytale. But if a responsible adult doesn't come along and let him know that it was just a joke, and he doesn't figure that out by himself, then it is, indeed, a delusion.
It's not just rejection of deities. It's rejection of the entire concept of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, from which astounding forces emerge at random intervals for the express purpose of fucking up the operation of the natural universe--once again, claiming to falsify science. I take science seriously and I have no tolerance for people who think there are supernatural forces that make a mockery of it.
Adults who believe that things happen in violation of the laws of nature, which we have spent half a millennium painstakingly formulating, are antiscientists and should be ostracized as such.
Oh come off it! Lots of people meditate who are not religious. Many American Buddhists are atheists (Buddha takes a neutral position on the existence of gods and urges us to figure it--and everything else--out for ourselves) but many of them practice various forms of meditation.
Then you're fortunate that you haven't been overwhelmed by the fundamentalist and evangelical Christian communities. Having a lady tell me with a straight face that a few thousand years ago there was no carnivory so lions subsisted by eating plants, without being able to explain how large their torsos must have been to support the bacterial culture of a herbivore, strained my ability to be civil.
Again, the problem isn't the religion itself - the problem, from what is being said, is those following it perverting it into something they can use for their own gain. Though I agree - churches really should be taxable (especially ones like the WBC)
Tiassa said:
I believe that everyone understood that, Tiassa. It’s akin to me asking if you understood the metaphor of the red and blue pill.
I was wondering what the 'something' might be that triggered you to caution atheists on speaking out. I’m still uncomfortable and reluctant to speak out as it is. I don’t understand why people would want to cling to something that needs revising. It’s either true or it isn’t. What is it that you are pious towards, the truth?
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly.
She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."—Martin Luther
"There are both atheists and theists who caution that it would be better for atheists not to make so much noise and not attract so much attention to themselves by speaking out against religion or theism. It's claimed that this only creates negative attention, thus encouraging distrust of and animosity towards atheists, but can't the same be said of anyone who dares disagree with the majority and dissent from conventional wisdom? How will anything change if everyone is afraid to speak out?"—Cline
Last edited:
This assumes there is some "true" form of religion. There isn't. Religion is in the interpretation.
The need for the separation of church and state was due to the need of freedoms of expression, in light of all the powers the founding fathers gave exclusively to the state. Only the state can raise an army, commandeer land and resources, make laws, enforce these laws with police, appointed judges, and jails, raise taxes, to name a few. This is a powerful overlord position, compared to religion, which is limited to the power of persuasion, lacking these teeth. Anyone who is rational can do the math and see who is the underdog and who is the top dog. The separation was there to keep the powerful state, from abusing religion, not the other way around.
Atheism demonstrates poor math skills. This leads me to believer that science is a more of prop, so atheism can pretend rationality by association.
Atheism demonstrates poor math skills. This leads me to believer that science is a more of prop, so atheism can pretend rationality by association.
Indeed, the act of following a religion is in the interpretation... but that can be said of most anything. After all, reality is what you make of it.
A Note on Rational Discourse, and the Importance Thereof
It's a long process, but it essentially looks like this thread. The lack of utility in pointed nonbelief is something many atheists in my association seem unable to comprehend. That determined, unrelenting, pointed anti-identification is problematic in any number of ways:
I would note that I find it intersting that the majority of your post is devoted to propaganda.
Martin Luther? What, is there a reason you present that particular nugget? I mean, a functional one? Or is it just that you can't let the opportunity pass to remind us of some dead guy's evil?
And as to Austin Cline? Well, here's the problem I have with this pathetic mewling: When one is not afraid to speak out, what is the obligation to actually be rational and useful in speaking out? The thing about Cline is that atheists in our community don't really like what he has to say about rational discourse.
No, really, the dispute at the time was how one defines religion; it became apparent that at Sciforums, atheists expect to argue against whatever they define as religion.
This is why I push the point about downticket obligations to be rational.
But we see how the evangelical wing among our atheists respond.
In the question of being afraid to speak out, we might ask ourselves what our atheists should be afraid to speak out about. Unreconciled at this moment, between our outlooks, is the question of rational discourse. If the fear is, "Oh, my goodness, look at the disrespect atheists are shown when they shrug off the academic and historical records in favor of personalized definitions of other people in order to justify their vitriol", such as some of our evangelical atheists would have it, then, no, they will not find sympathy in me.
Get around to actually speaking out about something that isn't irrational, and yes, they will find sympathy in me. There are occasions in life when it is of use and no general harm to identify as one who rejects the proposition of a supernatural godhead, but sometimes in political discourse there are occasions when it is of use and no general harm to identify myself as a male and a father. In either situation, though, I must guard against identifying with the prominent supremacist movements associated with such political identification. If the argument can be made without such identification, so much the better.
There are diverse ways to address the problems religious belief has visited on the human endeavor; that evangelical atheism should choose the most superficial is not unexpected, but tragic nonetheless.
Trooper said:
It's a long process, but it essentially looks like this thread. The lack of utility in pointed nonbelief is something many atheists in my association seem unable to comprehend. That determined, unrelenting, pointed anti-identification is problematic in any number of ways:
• It concedes the choice of battleground.
• It is not affirmative, but, rather, functions as an identification against something else; even as an opponent, that something else is still of great importance.
• It is adversarial beyond rational necessity; that is to say, too much of this identity politic functions at an adversarial degree that precludes actually making any progress except through dispute.
• It is insular, a mere proposition juxtaposed against something much bigger than its adherents wish to admit. This results in the striking lack of pathos that is the trigger you seek, and that so many of your colleagues would not simply reinforce, but do so proudly and without a whit of irony.
• It is not affirmative, but, rather, functions as an identification against something else; even as an opponent, that something else is still of great importance.
• It is adversarial beyond rational necessity; that is to say, too much of this identity politic functions at an adversarial degree that precludes actually making any progress except through dispute.
• It is insular, a mere proposition juxtaposed against something much bigger than its adherents wish to admit. This results in the striking lack of pathos that is the trigger you seek, and that so many of your colleagues would not simply reinforce, but do so proudly and without a whit of irony.
I would note that I find it intersting that the majority of your post is devoted to propaganda.
Martin Luther? What, is there a reason you present that particular nugget? I mean, a functional one? Or is it just that you can't let the opportunity pass to remind us of some dead guy's evil?
And as to Austin Cline? Well, here's the problem I have with this pathetic mewling: When one is not afraid to speak out, what is the obligation to actually be rational and useful in speaking out? The thing about Cline is that atheists in our community don't really like what he has to say about rational discourse.
No, really, the dispute at the time was how one defines religion; it became apparent that at Sciforums, atheists expect to argue against whatever they define as religion.
This is why I push the point about downticket obligations to be rational.
But we see how the evangelical wing among our atheists respond.
In the question of being afraid to speak out, we might ask ourselves what our atheists should be afraid to speak out about. Unreconciled at this moment, between our outlooks, is the question of rational discourse. If the fear is, "Oh, my goodness, look at the disrespect atheists are shown when they shrug off the academic and historical records in favor of personalized definitions of other people in order to justify their vitriol", such as some of our evangelical atheists would have it, then, no, they will not find sympathy in me.
Get around to actually speaking out about something that isn't irrational, and yes, they will find sympathy in me. There are occasions in life when it is of use and no general harm to identify as one who rejects the proposition of a supernatural godhead, but sometimes in political discourse there are occasions when it is of use and no general harm to identify myself as a male and a father. In either situation, though, I must guard against identifying with the prominent supremacist movements associated with such political identification. If the argument can be made without such identification, so much the better.
There are diverse ways to address the problems religious belief has visited on the human endeavor; that evangelical atheism should choose the most superficial is not unexpected, but tragic nonetheless.
Here is an exercise, to help put this equation into proper perspective.
Let us look at the two extreme scenarios. First we get rid of the separation of church and state. In the first scenario, the state, run by the atheists, uses the powers of the state, to have its way with religion; atheist paradise. They can call in the army and bomb them into the stone age, since they are the declared enemy. They can steal all their land and possessions under articles of war. The state can self police itself if this is challenged. They can make laws that they know the religious will break, like no more mention of God. The penally is prison and/or the death penalty. Or religions have to pay 99% taxes. They can also not enforce criminal laws on the book, like the administration does with the illegal aliens. This could be applied to assault against religious people. Then can use the IRS to create complications and target anyone who is able to deflect the assault. They can use the Attorney General' office. They can even force everyone to buy evolution insurance or go to jail or pay fines. How about an abortion tax to twist and stab the knife.
In the second scenario, we get also rid of the separation of church and state, with church having their freedom to act without the state able to but in. They don't have the power to raise an army, so they can't storm the capital and take over. They can't commandeer public lands and resources to increase power and wealth, since they have no such power. If they try the state can respond since there is a law against this, not connected to separation of church and state. They can't make any laws against atheists, since they lack that power to make laws. All they can do is assemble, talk, pray and rally. Maybe prayer in school is allowed again if the majority allow it. Not much will change other than not being harassed by the state. Free speech is still allowed.
In the atheist equation the second appears to add to a huge amount.
Let us look at the two extreme scenarios. First we get rid of the separation of church and state. In the first scenario, the state, run by the atheists, uses the powers of the state, to have its way with religion; atheist paradise. They can call in the army and bomb them into the stone age, since they are the declared enemy. They can steal all their land and possessions under articles of war. The state can self police itself if this is challenged. They can make laws that they know the religious will break, like no more mention of God. The penally is prison and/or the death penalty. Or religions have to pay 99% taxes. They can also not enforce criminal laws on the book, like the administration does with the illegal aliens. This could be applied to assault against religious people. Then can use the IRS to create complications and target anyone who is able to deflect the assault. They can use the Attorney General' office. They can even force everyone to buy evolution insurance or go to jail or pay fines. How about an abortion tax to twist and stab the knife.
In the second scenario, we get also rid of the separation of church and state, with church having their freedom to act without the state able to but in. They don't have the power to raise an army, so they can't storm the capital and take over. They can't commandeer public lands and resources to increase power and wealth, since they have no such power. If they try the state can respond since there is a law against this, not connected to separation of church and state. They can't make any laws against atheists, since they lack that power to make laws. All they can do is assemble, talk, pray and rally. Maybe prayer in school is allowed again if the majority allow it. Not much will change other than not being harassed by the state. Free speech is still allowed.
In the atheist equation the second appears to add to a huge amount.
While we are playing the what if game, let me pose to you the opposite question - what if anti-theists run the government?
If you're actually asking that question, then perhaps you need look no further than wellwisher's ridiculous scenario.
Also, anti-theist is not the opposite of religious.
We have a good example of this; it's called the Taliban.
Don't forget the " comfy chair "...This is what you get.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Cardinal Fang... TFF.
Most people are superficial and irrational. They don’t want to know facts.
Is atheism secular woo? Nope. Propaganda? Well, I might ask you the same thing.
Religion isn't based on rationalism. It is faith-based. It's a perspective, an interpretation on 'how to live', based solely on assumptions. It’s a struggle for dominance over others, a battle of wills, not wits.
Like Bells said, Rah! Rah! Rah!
[video=youtube;3AdISNeq_bo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AdISNeq_bo&feature=share&list=UUVfYZ7m5BJKZCJLBpKSHiFw&index=1[/video]
You’re trying to tell people how to be an atheist. Here’s what Austin Cline suggested.
Here are the steps necessary to become an atheist:
Step One: don't believe in any gods.
That’s it. Tah dah!
Done deal.
Good day to you, Tiassa.
Except it shouldn't be... it is supposed to be a struggle against ones self, against the darker aspects of humanity, and how you can overcome them. We have, as a society, twisted it into something... well, something we can use as a tool to our advantage. It isn't meant to be that. Heck, Christianity is, at its core, about service and aid and being kind and joyful to ones fellow man with the understanding that that is what Christ wanted us to do.
You've never read the bible, have you?
I have, multiple times. My wife and I have studied it a fair bit (and she was a youth leader as well, for what that's worth). The thing is, yes, there is a LOT of information in there; what is it in there that matters the most, above all else?
Taken literally:
“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.” — Mark 3:28-29
Now, we also have the decalogue, or ten commandments:
Then God gave the people all these instructions: I am the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.
1) You must not have any other god but me.
2) You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected—even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me. But I lavish unfailing love for a thousand generations on those who love me and obey my commands.
3) You must not misuse the name of the Lord your God. The Lord will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name.
4) Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
5) Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6) You must not murder.
7) You must not commit adultery.
8) You must not steal.
9) You must not testify falsely against your neighbor.
10) You must not covet your neighbor’s house. You must not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.
1) You must not have any other god but me.
2) You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected—even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me. But I lavish unfailing love for a thousand generations on those who love me and obey my commands.
3) You must not misuse the name of the Lord your God. The Lord will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name.
4) Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
5) Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6) You must not murder.
7) You must not commit adultery.
8) You must not steal.
9) You must not testify falsely against your neighbor.
10) You must not covet your neighbor’s house. You must not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.
from the Old Testament. Now, there is dispute over whether or not the "New Covenant in Christ" overturns these... I would say no, especially in light of:
Matthew Chapter 5, Verse 17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill”
HOWEVER, we also have Jeremiah 31, verses 29-31 - In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.
So, obviously, some of the "old laws", such as sins of the father being passed down from generation to generation, no longer apply.
As such, I believe (as do many others) that Christs intent is simple: Live your life so that, to the least of us, Christs message can be seen through you. Do not idolize objects and material wealth, because in the end, what does it matter; what truly matters is how you touch the lives of those around you.
As was stated above... this kind of thing is open to interpretation. The church my wife and I attend... we interpret it to mean, quite literally, this; Christ died for us, to forgive our sins. We are imperfect, mortal people... we WILL screw up and we WILL sin. That is okay... because of the fact Christ died for us. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean we should go around doing what we please willy nilly... we should live our lives and conduct ourselves in such a way as to be morally adept, and to do our best to love those around us. Yes, spreading the message is important; we should not attempt to shove it down peoples throats though.
Again, all this confrontation, all this anger and rage... it isn't meant to be like this. The ideals held in many beliefs are nearly identical... in fact, the majority of them can be, as George Carlin described, condensed down into one simple phrase: Don't be an asshole.
- Status