A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[(Q)]

They are a part of the human population and want and need their rights to their beliefs to be respected and they also want to have a say about public policy that affects them as well. So how do you envision finding that level of respect for their rights and their rights to believe in the God of their choosing to develop public policies that satisfy both parties?

It's not possible, and you'll unlikely see atheism as part of that issue, which will instead be an issue between the varying religions under the umbrella of those policies. And since, neither side will ever give in to the other side, there will always be conflict, that is why the policies MUST be made under secular conditions, never giving any one side any effects that will have precedence over any other side. Atheism can easily fall within these parameters.

Don't get me wrong Sorcerer, I have fought against the intrusion of religious ideology in the political realm for many many years. However I recognise that we can't get rid of it. What needs to happen is respecting both sides and ensuring both sides have protections and rights that are protected.

That will never happen, the only way all sides have protections and rights is if they all live in a secular society, with state and church being separated. Unfortunately, many believers want to have their rights and protections but don't want to allow others to have the same rights and protections. Homosexuals, for example. So, if the believers don't want others to have rights, then we should remove their rights. Fair is fair.

Atheism is becoming what it purports to hate. We are becoming a religious movement intent on conversion and I am not sure that brings me comfort.

No, I don't think so, far from it. Atheism is simply getting a whole lot more attention lately due to the internet. Millions are losing their religion as a result, hence the rest of the believers are up in arms, as usual, using every propaganda tactic they can muster to put atheism in a bad light.

 

[Aqueous Id]

(To Spidergoat) Any atheist who includes in his or her outlook any version of "trying to convert the religious over to reason" has just called down a huge personal obligation through the identity politic.

There is no tithe among atheists, so really it's no obligation at all. But thanks for acknowledging that we try to convert our readers over to reason. I'll take free points from you wherever I can get them--all the better after that layup by Spidergoat.

Now that we've settled that, how about those Fundamentalists? They've certainly taken on a huge obligation, don't you think, just to convert their initiates over to unreason? I wonder how many meals on wheels could have been served with what was invested in that Creation Disneyworld which was designed to convince gullible people that humans lived in the age of dinosaurs. And all those leaflets and magazines and books which do the same? Plus the web sites. And all those lawyers litigating against the teaching of evolution? And don't forget suing to get climatologists' personal emails. I'd hate to be driving that Winnebago. Now that's what I'd call an obligation.




Now I see this:

The reason I didn't answer AI's stupid barb back then is that I see no genuine need to answer such dishonesty.

Call me stupid and call me dishonest but I do not recall feeling the need to insult you. I can only recall feeling the need to sing your praises, and have candidly done so on several occasions. I wasn't even sure what you were referring to. I just now realized I had overlooked this post:

(To Balerion) And he wants me to respond to Aqueous Id? Very well: Sorry, AI, but after your fuckup in the police discussion—

"At the same time you have recently surprised me with a few blanket statements (atheists are morons, cops are corrupt) which to me are incongruent with that sense of justice, in that it's unjust in these cases to generalize to a stereotype." (Boldface accent added)

Sorry for the late reply, but I only noticed this after it resurfaced in Balerion's recent post #361. I'm at a loss to understand your objection. Do you mean paraphrasing your remarks (post #3)

[Atheists'] hatred of religion leads to or is the result of extraordinary ignorance of history, psychology, anthropology, and art . . . they proved themsleves as stupid as the religious people they hate

(emphasis added by me) -- as "atheists are morons" -- was "a fuckup"?

More to the point: how is citing what you said, as an example of generalizing to a stereotype, a fuckup? :bugeye:

How is any of this dishonesty or a stupid barb? None of this adds up.

Also, I didn't understand your reason for saying this fuckup was grounds for you not to respond to me. I'm not pressing you to respond, I'm just trying to understand you and your characterizations of me. Sometimes it seems like a test, or a joke, and other times you seem to be sincere. Be that as it may, I apologize for any remarks I made that you feel were launched as barbs. Feel free to help me understand what you mean.

 

[(Q)]

First world religion is based on a free market approach, where the various merchants of faith, present their wares via advertisement. But in the end, everyone has to a choice to buy or not to buy.

If you believe that religions are to be bought and sold like so many other products on the market, not only have you missed the mark entirely about what religion is about, but you are doing little more than exploiting religion for your own selfish needs. You would be a very good example of why religions need to have their rights removed.

Atheism takes the approach of using central power to create laws, to restrict the free flow of intellectual goods and services, enforced with fines and punishments. This is like third world religion with the Muslims doing this.

That is just plain silly and entirely false. No need to make up lies.

If you want to pray in schools, religion gives one a free market choice to do or not to do. The penguins (nuns) are not beating on you with a stick and handing out fines. But atheism forces it will, punishing all violators. It uses the approach of a third world religion lacking tolerance.

Sorry, but in order for believers to maintain their rights, they must live in a secular society in which all religions share equal rights, hence the separation of church and state. You will create far more conflict between the various religions by allowing prayer in schools. Pray at church if you want to pray, come to school if you want to learn.

Strong arm use of government, is not consistent with the atheist claim of science being its foundation. Science may have laws of science, but science always stops short of punishing those who are not with the program. The university gives one the choice to learn particular science, or to enter only liberal arts, without science ambushing you. There is an irrational bully aspect to modern atheism that transcends science.

A pure science philosophy atheism, would say religion is illogical, but so is the obsession of video gaming, so live and let live. All I can do is point out my beliefs and the laws of science, within the free market of ideas, and hope some come around.

That freedom of expression is not how some atheist activists function. Many people react to atheism in a negative way, not due to its connection to science, but due to the use of strong arm tactics to remove free speech and force conformity. This aspect I often call the atheist religion, since it acts like an older version of Christianity and/or a modern third world religion. How about a free market atheism, like in first world religion?

The only reason free market may not be acceptable to the irrational atheist, is they may not be able to compete in fair and free market. This only goes for the irrational atheist, since the rational scientific atheists are engaged in their own search for truth, via the free market of ideas.

Nonsensical gibberish.

 

[Bells]

If you think I'm going to waste my time replying in detail to this rambling nonsense then you're mistaken.

That's right, I forgot you can only deal with short sentences.

When people take the time to respond to you in detail, perhaps you should be less of a prat about it.

You're a mod and should act like one, and not behave in an emotive and personal way.

Can you please explain how or why you believe I am being emotional? What is it with people accusing me of being emotional whenever I dare to post anything?

I've made clear at length what I believe in and I stand by that; if you are unable to understand it then I suggest a course in English would be in order.

Oh no I fully understand what you do not believe in. I just think that your whole spiel are mere headlines with absolutely no fillers, in a manner of speaking. You seem to blame everything on theists. You fail to account for the human condition and the pure and simple fact that humans are selfish. What? Do you think the persecution and demonising of women only happens in theist cultures, households or communities? You actually think it's theists who mistreat minorities? Which minorities? Gays? Yes. What about secular Governments turning back refugees? What about those minorities? Or do they not count? What about the mistreatment and distrust of certain religious minorities resulting in human rights abuses against them? Do they count? Or is that acceptable because, well, they are theists?

I wonder what your motivation has been for these two posts. Are you trying to wind me up with a personal attack so that I'll respond in kind and say something I shouldn't, resulting in a warning or a ban?

Perhaps you could be less paranoid? If you are incapable of going beyond talking points and incapable of having your militant atheism critiqued, perhaps you should keep your beliefs to yourself?

That's what several people have tried, remember, including another mod. If that's the case then forget it; I discuss things in a calm and rational way, unlike you, so it ain't going to work.

I'm not the one refusing to answer anything and incapable of even naming his theistic enemies? You are. I am also not the one complaining if a post has more than 3 sentences and refusing to go into any detail and then rambling about bans or what have you. You are.

If you can't cope with having your militant atheism critiqued, then that is your problem, not mine.

Just because you are an atheist does not mean I, as an atheist, will agree with your brand of atheism.

 

[quinnsong]

That's right, I forgot you can only deal with short sentences.

When people take the time to respond to you in detail, perhaps you should be less of a prat about it.


Can you please explain how or why you believe I am being emotional? What is it with people accusing me of being emotional whenever I dare to post anything?

Yep, I read the exact same post by you and emotional was not a word I would have used to describe it. Sorcerer's response was him copping out and making the excuse that you were being emotional because he knows you are female and it is his cheap way to get a rise out of you, I suspect. When you can't win an argument on merit there is always insult!

Bells, your writing style is lively and animated and maybe people mistake that for emotional.:shrug:

 

[(Q)]

For Tiassa: Freedom is my Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC35KHoI6_E

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...some people defend their atheism so intently that it has become less about an "absence of belief" in deities and more about contesting any and all religious deity.

That sounds interestin... please give an example of it.!!!

 

[Kittamaru]

I'm sure if I dug around here I could find a few, but as an example:

the Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation is SUING the Clemson Tigers football program for having prayer and bible studies as a part of the team... even though none of the students are required to participate in these if they don't wish to, nor are they punished for not doing so.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...GRAM-ATTACKED-BY-ATHEIST-GROUP-FROM-WISCONSIN

The FFRF claims "100 new legal successes" on their website, including a complaint against Appalachian State and former coach Jerry Moore. App State capitulated, and issued a statement saying that Moore's activities "had no legitimate place in the University's athletic program." Clemson has no intention of being success number 101 for the group, saying in a statement that "the Supreme Court has expressly upheld the right of public bodies to employ chaplains and has noted that the use of prayer is not in conflict with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom."

IN fact, I would say the entire FFRF is... well, psychotic. It's an attempt to make Atheism into a religion all its own and force others to either follow it, or not follow any (which, i thought, was the point of atheism to being with...?)

 

[wellwisher]

One litmus test of how irrational atheism can be is the idea of the separation of church and state.

If you compare the church and state, only the state has the right to raise an army, to raise taxes, to create laws and enforce law via police, justice and prison systems. It has the power of life and death. The church has no such power, beyond any other political group, like the democrats or republicans. If this was a gladiator match, picture the state as the 380 pound 6'8" warrior with body armor, sword, battle ax and shied, versus religion which is a 150 pound farmer with a stick and garbage can lid.

The founding fathers saw the same equation had formed in England, with the king of England (state) having commandeered the church. He could use the law, an army and police to enforce religious persecution. Groups like the Pilgrims had to leave, since you can't fight the state when it uses the law to stack the deck to prevent opposition. The founding father attempted to give the farmer analogy, a fighting chance against the state, but putting a handicap on the 380 pound 6'8" warrior, saying it had to be play fair; no cheating on top of all the power advantages it had.

This irrational position, by atheism of state allowed to cheat, does not reflect that atheism is being lead by the reason of science. It is being led by certain political groups that use science like a prop to promote irrationality, via waving the science prop around.

Let me ask the rational and scientific based atheists, whom I respect, detail their own power equation for church and state? Maybe I am missing something. My equation is why I believe that atheism is irrational at the top due to alliances.

 

[Kittamaru]

Wellwisher, the idea behind true atheism is simple - in its most generalized form, atheism does not subscribe to the belief in any kind of deity. It is, simply put, just another system of belief... the problem stems from both sides though. Theists want to evangelize and "save" atheists, where as atheists, in general, just want to be left alone, though some (such as the group I mentioned above) take it to the offensive and try to remove as much religion as possible

 

[Balerion]

That's right, I forgot you can only deal with short sentences.

This is a moderator, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Balerion]

I'm sure if I dug around here I could find a few, but as an example:

the Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation is SUING the Clemson Tigers football program for having prayer and bible studies as a part of the team... even though none of the students are required to participate in these if they don't wish to, nor are they punished for not doing so.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...GRAM-ATTACKED-BY-ATHEIST-GROUP-FROM-WISCONSIN



IN fact, I would say the entire FFRF is... well, psychotic. It's an attempt to make Atheism into a religion all its own and force others to either follow it, or not follow any (which, i thought, was the point of atheism to being with...?)

Why is this psychotic? How does this make atheism a religion?

The cause to keep a wall of separation between Church and State is not a religious one, and characterizing it as such as ignorant.

 

[Kittamaru]

This is a moderator, ladies and gentlemen.

Indeed, though I do rather feel her post was justified given the circumstances... a desire not to read long posts really doesn't constitute much of an argument.

Why is this psychotic? How does this make atheism a religion?

The cause to keep a wall of separation between Church and State is not a religious one, and characterizing it as such as ignorant.

Balerion, I know you are smarter than that.

The football program put together something so the players could have prayer and worship if they so chose... nobody is forcing them to do anything.
Conversely, this FFRF is attempting to dismantle that and force ALL the players to renounce any sort of religion whilst on the field, on the grounds that it is "separation of church and state".

The school is not promoting a religion. It has simply allowed it to occur. This does not go against separation of church and state; if anything, attempting to force everyone into compliance with one (non)religious viewpoint (atheism) would be trampling that separation, as it would violate a students right to worship as they deign appropriate.

 

[Bells]

This is a moderator, ladies and gentlemen.

To whom are you appealing to here?

Sorcerer has spent quite a bit of time complaining about having to read too much if anyone dares to insult him by answering with detail in their posts. I was merely responding to yet another one of his 'dodges' of complaining that I had spent my time in responding to him and giving him the time of day to provide detail in my posts. How dare I! The horror! Oh the humanity!

If one repeatedly complains when posts have paragraphs in them, then I can only assume that individual can only cope with short sentences.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by Bells
That's right, I forgot you can only deal with short sentences.

This is a moderator, ladies and gentlemen.

Its a smart azz reply... so what... thats not aganst the rules (i supose) even for mods.!!!

 

[Yazata]

We [atheists] have one thing in common, which is unbelief in any gods, which is based on rational thought. That's it.

While I definitely think that atheism is more justifiable intellectually than theism, I'm less convinced that atheists typically arrive at their atheism by a process of rational thought.

Many atheists are born into it. I wasn't raised in a religious home, for example, certainly not in a conventionally religious home. Even when I was a small child, I can't remember ever believing that the Bible stories were anything but stories.

That was all before I was ever introduced to philosophy and started thinking philosophically. In a way, my path was already kind of laid out for me before I ever started to reflect intellectually on it. I've always been fascinated by the religion and religiosity of those around me, but have never felt particularly threatened by it or hostile towards it.

Many other atheists appear to be former theists, reacting (sometimes violently) against the religions in which they were raised as children and once embraced. There's an inner struggle that's still taking place inside some atheists' heads and it can occasionally get very heated and emotional in there.

It's very clear what we're [atheists] trying to achieve, and we're getting somewhere.

I don't think that it's always clear what if anything atheists are trying to achieve.

Some atheists just don't believe in the existence of religious deities and that's that. Whatever they are trying to achieve in their lives has little or nothing to do with that disbelief.

But other atheists have very strong, passionate and typically highly negative views about "religion" and "religionists", and may occasionally feel that they are participants in a grand historical struggle of "reason" and "science" against what they imagine as evil obscurantism.

It seems to me that the latter, more militant kind of atheists are implicitly adding new ideological premises to the simple disbelief that defines atheism.

 

[(Q)]

One litmus test of how irrational atheism can be is the idea of the separation of church and state.

If you compare the church and state, only the state has the right to raise an army, to raise taxes, to create laws and enforce law via police, justice and prison systems. It has the power of life and death. The church has no such power, beyond any other political group, like the democrats or republicans. If this was a gladiator match, picture the state as the 380 pound 6'8" warrior with body armor, sword, battle ax and shied, versus religion which is a 150 pound farmer with a stick and garbage can lid.

Let me ask the rational and scientific based atheists, whom I respect, detail their own power equation for church and state? Maybe I am missing something. My equation is why I believe that atheism is irrational at the top due to alliances.

Yes, you are missing something very important.

It is the state that gives YOU freedom of religion so that other religions never have the power to suppress or persecute YOU, which means YOU also cannot have the power to suppress or persecute them. Hence, if the church were allowed to create an army, raise taxes, etc., this would result in conflict and wars between the various religions that have to live in the same state.

Is any of this getting through to you?

 

[Yazata]

the Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation is SUING the Clemson Tigers football program for having prayer and bible studies as a part of the team... even though none of the students are required to participate in these if they don't wish to, nor are they punished for not doing so.

I don't know if I agree with the FFRF until I learn more details about this.

There have been superficially similar instances in the US military where commanders organized "voluntary" Bible studies and prayer meetings. Supposedly personnel were free to not attend, but if they didn't they were apparently labeled 'trouble makers' who were not 'team players' and somehow ended up getting all the shitty assignments.

To its credit, the military higher ups do try to dial that stuff in when they hear about it. Doing so isn't "psychotic", it's just good management.

So I'd like to learn more about what kind of repurcussions, however subtle, a Clemson team member might experience if he didn't attend.

The obvious way to address this would be to have individual team members (or military personnel) organize prayer and Bible studies for themselves and whoever among their fellows are interested, without turning it into an organized team (or unit) activity.

 

[Sorcerer]

That's right, I forgot you can only deal with short sentences.

When people take the time to respond to you in detail, perhaps you should be less of a prat about it.


Can you please explain how or why you believe I am being emotional? What is it with people accusing me of being emotional whenever I dare to post anything?


Oh no I fully understand what you do not believe in. I just think that your whole spiel are mere headlines with absolutely no fillers, in a manner of speaking. You seem to blame everything on theists. You fail to account for the human condition and the pure and simple fact that humans are selfish. What? Do you think the persecution and demonising of women only happens in theist cultures, households or communities? You actually think it's theists who mistreat minorities? Which minorities? Gays? Yes. What about secular Governments turning back refugees? What about those minorities? Or do they not count? What about the mistreatment and distrust of certain religious minorities resulting in human rights abuses against them? Do they count? Or is that acceptable because, well, they are theists?


Perhaps you could be less paranoid? If you are incapable of going beyond talking points and incapable of having your militant atheism critiqued, perhaps you should keep your beliefs to yourself?

I'm not the one refusing to answer anything and incapable of even naming his theistic enemies? You are. I am also not the one complaining if a post has more than 3 sentences and refusing to go into any detail and then rambling about bans or what have you. You are.

If you can't cope with having your militant atheism critiqued, then that is your problem, not mine.

Just because you are an atheist does not mean I, as an atheist, will agree with your brand of atheism.

You're just trolling me, as you did in the first two posts. Just what is your agenda, and why are you hiding behind your mod status? You're on ignore now, as far as a mod can ever be.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...as an example:

the Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation is SUING the Clemson Tigers football program for having prayer and bible studies as a part of the team... even though none of the students are required to participate in these if they don't wish to, nor are they punished for not doing so.

When my 7th grade home room teecher esplained the order in which we woud read a bible verse to the class each mornin... it was jus assumed that everone woud partisipate an we did... but i felt as silly as if i was readin a list to the class what Santa had promised to brang me for Chrismas.!!!

IN fact, I would say the entire FFRF is... well, psychotic. It's an attempt to make Atheism into a religion all its own and force others to either follow it, or not follow any (which, i thought, was the point of atheism to being with...?)

I didnt get the memo on what the points of atheism are... lol... but personaly... im not supportive of superstition.!!!