A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[quinnsong]

I am curious if there are more fundamentalists in political office now than in prior years due to the rise of the Tea Party? How would I go about finding this info?

Most of us are adaptable in our beliefs/identities. Fundamentalist beliefs are not. Fundamentalists believe their belief is infallible and unfalsifiable.

 

[origin]

It was an avowedly-atheist organization that was complicit in mass-murder.

Atheists don't have a corner on depravity.

While proudly proclaiming, 'God Bless America', the United States invaded 2 countries that has resulted in the following:

In March 2013, the Brown researchers revised the civilian total estimate to 200,000; and they estimated that 330,000 people had been killed overall as a result of the conflicts, accounting for all soldiers, militants, police, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and civilians involved.

Well, praise Jesus, and pass the waterboard.

 

[quinnsong]

Atheists don't have a corner on depravity.

While proudly proclaiming, 'God Bless America', the United States invaded 2 countries that has resulted in the following:

In March 2013, the Brown researchers revised the civilian total estimate to 200,000; and they estimated that 330,000 people had been killed overall as a result of the conflicts, accounting for all soldiers, militants, police, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and civilians involved.

Well, praise Jesus, and pass the waterboard.

So I guess the 64 million dollar question is, how do we stop dehumanizing one another? We see from history that both believers and non believers are capable of the same kind of atrocities.

 

[Balerion]

Oh. So because there's starvation in the world, we shouldn't debate ideologies you consider irrelevant.

Like - I don't know - women's rights? Gay rights? The minority voting franchise? Or is it that we shouldn't debate anything occurring in our little corner of the world? That's a curious choice of trump.

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

Make that one more who can't stand up to direct questioning.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

So I guess the 64 million dollar question is, how do we stop dehumanizing one another? We see from history that both believers and non believers are capable of the same kind of atrocities.

Well...you'd have to invest heavily into globalized education..but you would being fight social stigmas and entire cultures , oh and then there is the battle of persevering cultural diversity or trying to unifying everyone for the the good of the species. What else, you could remove borders or any sense of nationalism,patriotism, religion, language, ethnic identity. That would all have to go with education but again you'd have even more problems than results in trying and unite humanity this way. Then there is physical homogeneity in our species, that could help, so genetic engineering for a homogenous looking human race... eugenics... but we saw how those attempts fared out in history and that just raises even more problems. What else...Oh! Remove the instinctual pack and tribal mentality that divides us to being with...i doubt that will happen any time soon..or at all.

So basically...so long as their are realms for any difference, social stratification, ignorance, which all feed into the "us" vs "them" mentality, i doubt we can completely stop the dehumanization of our fellow human beings, without giving up our own humanity in the process.

 

[leopold]

Which means a coach (a government employee) can't baptize a player at a public university, right? So in the case Kitt mentioned, the atheists are clearly on your side.

i have no idea how you can arrive at that conclusion.
this is all about laws.
if a uni coach wants to baptize someone on the uni grounds then what right do you or i or ANYONE have to say anything about it?
oh, that's right, some ho got their panties too tight again.

 

[Aqueous Id]

i have no idea how you can arrive at that conclusion.
this is all about laws.
if a uni coach wants to baptize someone on the uni grounds then what right do you or i or ANYONE have to say anything about it?
oh, that's right, some ho got their panties too tight again.

Because he is a government official, which makes it illegal. You just got through saying the government shouldn't be telling people what to do. Therefore the government (a state employee) can not tell the student athletes (private citizens) what religious ideals to follow(what to do). That's the law. You're either for it or against it. Now I'm just not sure what side you're on. But the atheists suing over this are on the side of the law.

 

[Kittamaru]

I think therein lies the problem... why are we designating coaches, teachers, etc as the "voice of the government"?

 

[leopold]

Because he is a government official, which makes it illegal.

how does it make it illegal?
the issue at hand is congress and their limits on religious freedom, their ability to pass laws regarding religion.
it has NOTHING to do with a member of congress or any other government employee baptizing someone.

edit:
ah, i see now why it's referred to "separation of church and state".

 

[gmilam]

I think therein lies the problem... why are we designating coaches, teachers, etc as the "voice of the government"?

Because they are paid from the taxes collected by the government.

 

[leopold]

Because they are paid from the taxes collected by the government.

what's this have to do with congress and their religious freedom in this area?

 

[Balerion]

I think therein lies the problem... why are we designating coaches, teachers, etc as the "voice of the government"?

Why wouldn't they be considered as such?

And how is that the problem? If you're in that position, keep your religious BS to yourself. If that's too hard, then leave your position,

 

[leopold]

Why wouldn't they be considered as such?

because congress doesn't speak with one voice, it's the collective voice of all americans.

If you're in that position, keep your religious BS to yourself. If that's too hard, then leave your position,

ooOOoo that's really adult of you.

 

[quinnsong]

Well...you'd have to invest heavily into globalized education..but you would being fight social stigmas and entire cultures , oh and then there is the battle of persevering cultural diversity or trying to unifying everyone for the the good of the species. What else, you could remove borders or any sense of nationalism,patriotism, religion, language, ethnic identity. That would all have to go with education but again you'd have even more problems than results in trying and unite humanity this way. Then there is physical homogeneity in our species, that could help, so genetic engineering for a homogenous looking human race... eugenics... but we saw how those attempts fared out in history and that just raises even more problems. What else...Oh! Remove the instinctual pack and tribal mentality that divides us to being with...i doubt that will happen any time soon..or at all.

So basically...so long as their are realms for any difference, social stratification, ignorance, which all feed into the "us" vs "them" mentality, i doubt we can completely stop the dehumanization of our fellow human beings, without giving up our own humanity in the process.

Damn, no wonder we create heroes that save us from ourselves.

 

[Balerion]

because congress doesn't speak with one voice, it's the collective voice of all americans.

While such platitudes sound pretty, I don't know what that's supposed to mean in any practical sense. You're saying that no one single government employee should be constrained by the Establishment clause?

ooOOoo that's really adult of you.

??

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

Umm, dont let the Religious Redneck Retards know. Hey, we may just have found a way to convert the Fundies!

Just he other day I mentioned how James, the brother of Christ, and the Christians as portrayed in The Book of Acts were forerunners of communists, and a certain relentless troll slammed me for that saying no one really knew who James was (He apparently did, but wasn't saying). And now I have to see abusive terms aimed at Christians like this one saying that religious people don't see the link between Jesus and Marx? Give me a break! You all imagine you are so tolerant, but like most prejudice people you resemble exactly those whom you persecute.

Oh, and Happy Easter, Quinn.

 

[Aqueous Id]

how does it make it illegal?
the issue at hand is congress and their limits on religious freedom, their ability to pass laws regarding religion.
it has NOTHING to do with a member of congress or any other government employee baptizing someone.

edit:
ah, i see now why it's referred to "separation of church and state".

No, you have it wrong. Just as prayer in the public schools is illegal, so are baptisms. However they were doing prayers regularly as well, if that makes you feel better. The establishments clause is not by itself what makes this illegal. It's the extension of the prohibition of establishing a religion to all employees of every state which makes it illegal. That occurred in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed to extend the federally protected rights of liberated slaves against state violations. The cause of action arises under the Civil Rights Act of 1877, which gives the district court venue and jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's complaints arising from such state violations. This law was needed to force the Southern states to comply with the 14th Amendment. It's the basis for all civil rights lawsuits against state officials.

I think therein lies the problem... why are we designating coaches, teachers, etc as the "voice of the government"?

It's the language of the Civil Rights Act:

"Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ."


The coach was acting "under color of State law", depriving the rights and privileges of the players who did not believe in Anabaptism.

what's this have to do with congress and their religious freedom in this area?

Congress has powers, not freedoms. A person voting a bill is acting "in the official capacity" and shall not pass any law regarding the establishment of religion without breaking the law. In this case, no state official acting "in the official capacity" shall infringe the rights of any other person. If you're thinking the coach has the right to practice his belief that he should do baptisms, then no. No rights can be taken or assumed which break the law. As you see this has nothing to do with Congress. It has to do with all employees, contractors and agents of each state. That's how Big Government (the feds) stepped in and saved little people (liberated slaves) from Big Bullies (the States).

 

[quinnsong]

Just he other day I mentioned how James, the brother of Christ, and the Christians as portrayed in The Book of Acts were forerunners of communists, and a certain relentless troll slammed me for that saying no one really knew who James was (He apparently did, but wasn't saying). And now I have to see abusive terms aimed at Christians like this one saying that religious people don't see the link between Jesus and Marx? Give me a break! You all imagine you are so tolerant, but like most prejudice people you resemble exactly those whom you persecute.

Oh, and Happy Easter, Quinn.

When I think of you Arne I do not think of a Fundamentalist, I think of you as a progressive Christian of which there are many in the States. Fundamentalism is responsible for much of our current and past ills and I will not be apologizing for my utter distaste for this sect of Christianity. If you can show me how Fundies are deserving of any kind of praise, please do.

Love thy neighbor as thyself, well I try I really do but when the Fundies are trying to bring on Armageddon just because it is written in a book then we have a problem Houston! Should we all just roll over Arne? We should be building the kingdom of heaven not waiting for the utter destruction of mankind.

Oh, and Happy Easter, Arne.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Just he other day I mentioned how James, the brother of Christ, and the Christians as portrayed in The Book of Acts were forerunners of communists, and a certain relentless troll slammed me for that saying no one really knew who James was (He apparently did, but wasn't saying). And now I have to see abusive terms aimed at Christians like this one saying that religious people don't see the link between Jesus and Marx? Give me a break! You all imagine you are so tolerant, but like most prejudice people you resemble exactly those whom you persecute.

Oh, and Happy Easter, Quinn.

My objection to your post, on the question of historicity of legendary characters, is not trolling. You are free to argue as you wish, but don't expect people to abandon facts simply because you believe things to be a certain way. If you wish to claim James was a historical person the proper way to do that is offer facts and evidence attesting to his existence, for the benefit of readers. Josephus alludes to "James, brother of Jesus, who is called xpristos" but this passage is controversial since some scholars believe it's a copyist's later edit. It's certainly authored far too late to count as testimony. (30 years too late). Worse, it's only hearsay. And second level at that. Josephus gives no evidence that he witnessed any person named James or any person named Jesus (other than several other people by the same names). In order to prove historicity you need some scholar (not a Bible thumper) bringing forward the evidence that attests to the existence of a man named James, who matches your religious descriptions of such a man. Normally that evidence comes from autographs, not hearsay accounts like those of latecomer Josephus. If Josephus had breaking news on this fantastic story he had witnessed, he would have included it in his earlier book and it would have been the lead story. It's ludicrous to think he would wait 30 yrs, and then just casually mention it the middle of a more pressing matter--the story of why one Jesus got the high priest job instead of some other guy --- and, oh, by the way, not that one they called "oiled" (usu. translated "anointed"). That doesn't make Jesus historical and it doesn't make James historical either.

Don't be crude. Just say you disagree and knock yourself out trying to prove me wrong. Better: just delve into the question of the historical Jesus and look at the state of this issue through the eyes of the experts.

 

[Randwolf]

While such platitudes sound pretty,

Platitudes are designed by definition to sound "pretty".

I don't know what that's supposed to mean in any practical sense.

Leopold, IMHO, never says anything that makes practical sense.

You're saying that no one single government employee should be constrained by the Establishment clause?

Right. Only the collective. Which, of course, is made of individuals, so see above point.