Christians vs Atheists

[lixluke]

Since I don't have much time.

What I'm getting from all of your definitions is that most atheists are nothing but agnostics trying to be atheists.

If you don't believe in God, that does not necessarily mean you believe there is no God. You just haven't come to the conclusion weather there is or there isn't.
Ergo agnostic.

If you are just as sure there is no such thing as God as religions are sure there is, you are atheist.


The fact of the matter is regardless of the fact that my friend seems to fit the definition of agnostic. I still continue to mock him as an atheist because he has all the atheist characteristics. The same way I would mock any religious person (especially the dumb jews) for claiming a religion, yet run around acting like atheists.

 

[Repo Man]

There is a very real difference between strong and weak atheism. When I say "there is no god", I say it jokingly. While I feel it is true in the sense of a Christian god, as far as a broader definition of the word goes, I don't truly believe it, since I cannot prove that there isn't some sort of meaning to the universe. Like when Stephen Hawking uses the word god, he says that he uses it as a metaphor for that which we (humans) do not understand.

So I do not assert that there is no god, I simply say that I'm unaware of any evidence for the existence of any god(s). I'm also unaware of any purpose behind the universe. I also maintain that there is no good reason that any purpose to the cosmos should involve humans in any significant way, or at all. "We are matter that has become aware of itself" said Carl Sagan. Only our egocentrism demands that we be important. Not any facts that science has so far revealed.

I'm sympathetic to the position of strong atheists. With the constant harping of dogmatic theists, it is very tempting to go the other way. But I feel that certainty in either direction is wrong, because there is simply not enough evidence.

An excellent essay, Am I An Atheist Or an Agnostic, by Bertrand Russell .

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Ok cool, then we agree completely.

And as I said, repo, you either assert a "god", assert the lack of such, or have no assertions whatsoever, those are the division lines. Muddling them with nuance is redundant and inefficient when one wants to exude any scent of perspicuity whatsoever.

Equally, a "god" doesn't have to be the Christian God, that is why I always put it in quotes. Moreover that is why it's so easy for me have such a strong abhorrence toward Christianity (truly religion overall) while still remaining theistic.

 

[DefSkeptic]

"There are no Atheist schools. Just because they dont allow religious teachings does not mean they are atheist."
Of course they are.
Any school that promotes the suppression of religion is promoting atheism.
That was the premise from the beginning.

No, by eliminating religious teaching in public schools, they (schools) are doing what they are supposed to be doing.....supplying education and not wasting time for something that should be done at a different time (prayer)

 

[lixluke]

Here are the definitions in case people are confused. I hope everybody can agree on them.

ATHEISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am certain there cannot be God. Therefore, God does not exist.
AGNOSTICISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am not certain there is a God. Nor am I certain there cannot be God. I am certain that one cannot be certain about the existence of God.
EMPIRICISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am not certain there is a God. Nor am I certain there cannot be God. I believe with enough evidence, one can be certain.
>>>>Empiricism is the only passive belief. They might not be actively searching for an answer, but will believe whatever evidence might lead them to.

[Believe you me, I am tempted to say that empiricism is the only one that is a philosophical view, and not a religion. While the other two are a religion.
I am only being politically correct because I know I will get jumped by the people that have not read this thread thoroughly.]
**********


Raithere:


"You have to bring agnosticism into the picture here."
----------------------------------------
First of all, I don't think you read the title of this thread.


"You can have agnostic theists who believe in god but are not certain god exists"
----------------------------------------
No. The fact that you believe in God means that you are certain He exists.
If you are not certain, you do not really believe there is a God.
An agnostic period is a person that is not certain, and believes one cannot be 100% certain.
You cannot believe 100% that God exists and believe that one cannot be 100% certain at the same time.


"agnostic atheists who don't believe in god but are not certain god cannot exist"
----------------------------------------
Atheists are certain God cannot exist.
Obviously if God cannot exist, God does not exist.
Therefore, they believe 100% that God does not exist.
You cannot believe 100% that God does not exist and believe that one cannot be 100% certain at the same time.


"Most commonly atheists are agnostic, generally called the weak atheistic position"
----------------------------------------
As far as I'm concerned from the input of this thread, agnostics call themselves atheists to feel better about themselves.
If you are not 100% certain God does not exist, you are agnostic period.
Why they would want to call themselves an atheist is because they don't wish to be associated as having a religious belief.
They want to appear rational, intellectual, indifferent, superior. It's a disguise for people that have inferior self images.
They cringe at the notion that they have a religious belief. Instead, they parade the plastic sophistication of their so-called disbelief.
They insist that everybody humor them in this manner.
Therefore, it would be politically correct to appease their silly notion of disblief in order to prevent them from throwing a temper tantrum so that your discussion may progress.
They sit on their high seat, and look down on religious people's supposed mysticism.
They blame them for wars and see them as lacking in logic.
All because it makes them feel better about their own low self image.
They refuse to acknowledge that they have a faith. A faith in their own religious belief that God cannot exist.
**********


Twist: "I do not believe God does not exist as a matter of personal faith, I simply do not believe there is a God."
----------------------------------------
My point exactly.
Atheists adamantly refuse to accept that it is out of personal faith that they lack the belief in God, but do not lack the belief that there is no God.


Q25: "there may be god,I just dont believe in it."
----------------------------------------
Therefore:
You don't believe there is a God.
You don't believe there is no God.
You are not certain, but. . .
You believe that with the right amount of evidence, one can be certain.
You are neither atheist nor agnostic


Twist: "You think atheism is taught in school? Unfortuantely atheism is not and cannot be taught in school; as it is simply an absence of belief, there is no need to teach it."
----------------------------------------
You act as if you have read the thread.
It is beyond me why you would restate a premise I already responded to.
Try targeting my response to this claim if you believe it is invalid.


CHRISCUNNINGHAM: "its advocates prevaricate, prevaricate by creating a muddled amalgam of nuance i.e. "weak atheists" but in the end they simply want to elude from the fact, truly by deluding themeselves into believing they don't have as much faith as theists."
----------------------------------------
Absolutely.
The only person they are fooling is themselves.
There is no such thing as weak and strong atheism.
It's illogical toddler talk.


CHRISCUNNINGHAM: "They don't want to admit it because that is their very premise for not believing in a "god". The idea that it requires too much faith to commit one's time to. Alas (for them), in the end, it requires no less faith than theism itself."
----------------------------------------
Correct.
They argue that faith is not reliable.
Therefore, they do not wish to admit their faith.
They do not wish to appear as a person with faith.
Therefore, they will argue till their brains fall out that it is not faith.
Again, the only person they are fooling is themselves.
Their faith that faith is not reliable does not do them any justice.
Until they embrace the fact, they are worse than a child waiting for Santa Claus.


Lemming3k: "as an atheist i dont believe in god, and i feel thats the same as saying i believe there is no god"
----------------------------------------
Right. At least you are not a person that is trying to hide behind some facade of rationalistic denial.


Lemming3k: "An atheist wouldnt say 'I do not believe there is no god' as they believe there is no god, i really hope im making sense with this."
----------------------------------------
Yes Lemming, you are.
Your stance is unpleasant for many atheists to accept.


Lemming3k: "you have to realise the difference between being educated about religion, and being taught to practise it, i dont think anyone is against being educated about relgion in schools its when it becomes practised by teachers in schools"
----------------------------------------
You are absolutely right that there is a difference between being educated about religion and being influenced to practice it.
You have clearly implied my point but misdirected it.

This is my point:
It might be wrong to teach children to practice religion. That is what separation of church and state is about.
There is nothing wrong with educating children about religion. The fact that atheist think it's wrong is a misconception about separation of church and state.


Assuming the teacher is not talking about porn, profanity, and other adult material:
A teacher shouldn't have to psychotically sit there and watch every single word that comes out of his mouth.
A teacher should not be judged for saying something that isn't adult material.
A teacher should be free to say whatever the hell the teacher feels like saying.
He is not actively forcing the children to bow down to any master.
At the same time, he is passively educating the children on what he believes is true weather the children accept it or not.
After all, that is a teacher's job. Not to force-feed, but to educate.
Moreover, that is also what religion usually teaches. To educate, not to force-feed, and to accept.


If a child asks the teacher which is the true religion, the teacher should be free to answer however so he pleases.
If he feels like saying, "Jesus Jesus Jesus is the truth," so be it.
This type of thing irritates the atheists.
The atheists wish to dictate the teacher into answering such a question by saying, "Separation of Church and State" does not allow me to answer such a question."
When in fact, that is not what separation of church and state is about.


From that, you can see my supplemental point:
The typical atheist wishes to dictate when and where people practice and follow their religion.
=>
DefSkeptic: "they (schools) are doing what they are supposed to be doing.....supplying education and not wasting time for something that should be done at a different time"

Most of them fall into nitpicking=>
Twist: "Regarding religion in school, there is a time and place, and that is in Religious Education classes, or non-educational settings in non-secular schools (assemblies for example). Religion should never be taught in science lessons, or Home Economics lessons for that matter. Further, the issue of a chlid's religious beliefs or lack of is not a matter for educators, but parents, and ultimately individuals. Parents may decide to send children to religious schools, thats fine and dandy. Parents could equally decide to send children to secular schools where they will receive religious education, but not engage in religious practice. You do see the difference between religious education and religious practice?"
----------------------------------------
The fact of the matter is, it doesn't really matter.
All the nitpicking is pointless.
The teacher is allowed to say what he wants without anybody jumping on his back for it no matter where he is.
Who cares? Nobody is doing anything wrong.
A teacher may talk about Lion King or give his opinion on a cartoon for that matter. The point is, atheists interrupt and impose on the teacher's rights by making a huge deal out of something completely insignificant.

 

[Lemming3k]

There is nothing wrong with educating children about religion. The fact that atheist think it's wrong is a misconception about separation of church and state.

I misinterpreted what you was saying before then and i apologise, now you've cleared that up and i understand it, i must say i dont find anything wrong with being educated about religion, in fact the more educated about it i become the more sure i was about atheism, im quite annoyed if you've found atheists that think its wrong to be educated about it. Im agianst prayer in schools(except if a religious group wants a class to themselves at lunch), im agianst it being preached or a religion being singled out in any way, but not against it being educated, so long as its done without bias and about all religions it helps people make their own choices and beliefs as opposed to just agreeing with everybody elses because its easier.

If a child asks the teacher which is the true religion, the teacher should be free to answer however so he pleases.
If he feels like saying, "Jesus Jesus Jesus is the truth," so be it.
This type of thing irritates the atheists.

The reason it irritates(at least in this example) is because its his opinion thats given, but he does not state its an opinion, he is asked what the true relgion is, and states it as if its a fact not just his opinion. If he states it is christianity then muslims would have a fit as well as atheists, if he states clearly it is just his opinion that christianity is the true religion then i have no problem with it, just like if he says islam or atheism or buddism, its only if he states it as if its a fact i would have a problem.

The atheists wish to dictate the teacher into answering such a question by saying, "Separation of Church and State" does not allow me to answer such a question."
When in fact, that is not what separation of church and state is about.

I disagree, most atheists i've met would be happy so long as he states its his opinion and doesnt state it as a fact, a christian wouldnt be happy if he stated islam was the true religion unless it was only given as an opinion and he made that clear.

The typical atheist wishes to dictate when and where people practice and follow their religion.

Again i disagree, i find atheists arnt bothered if you practice religion, its if you PREACH religion that bothers them as thats why people go to church, so you can have something read to you from 'the good book', like i said i dont mind if a group of students wish to practice religion at lunchtimes in a class, its preaching it on the playground i disagree with, besides my understanding is that churches were built for worship, not schools, would you bring prayer to your workplace?

A teacher may talk about Lion King or give his opinion on a cartoon for that matter.

Yes they can say what they like, they are entitled to opinions and to voice them, but it has to be made clear thats all they are. Hopefully i explain it better than your atheist friends do.

 

[lixluke]

"The reason it irritates(at least in this example) is because its his opinion thats given"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not irritated. I don't think it's a big deal at all weather he states that it's his opinion or not. I should have to state that about everything he teaches. I don't think he should be consciously watching what he says. He should be free without worried to say anything.
(Assuming as you understand that it isn't adult material)


"atheists i've met would be happy so long as he states its his opinion"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right.
In other words:
'as long as he says it in the manner we tell him to say it in, we are happy.'
It's typical atheists trying to put stipulations on what one says.
It really isn't such a huge deal. It has no psychological effect on the children whatsoever for a teacher to say what he wants.

A teacher promoting stupid cliche sayings *ie "life isn't fair"-"what goes around comes around"-"to each his own" the list goes on forever.*
That type of garbage does have more of an effect on a child's mind.
But personally, I think a teacher is completely free to say these ridiculous sayings, and whatever the else he wants without any stipulation.


"Again i disagree, i find atheists arnt bothered if you practice religion"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sure think so.
Atheists seem to nitpick on things that aren't really a big deal.
Such as what you said about them stating that it is their opinion.
They shouldn't have to state anything.
But the atheists seem to find a reason to impose something on teachers that really have no reason to be imposed.


"its preaching it on the playground i disagree with"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here again is something that is not a big a deal.
Say in school, a bunch of students decide to pass out flyers.
Flyers that say you must repent and follow Jesus to live forever.
It's not a big deal.
The difference is that while they are not imposing anything.
In other words, they are not forcing anybody to believe so.
The typical atheists are imposing.
They do want to force their stipulations upon people to be followed.
That's why I continue to insist throughout this thread that atheits are the worst and most fanatical.


Yes they can say what they like, they are entitled to opinions and to voice them, but it has to be made clear thats all they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't.
That is not what separation of church and state is about.
That is a stipulation that atheists wish to impose on other people, and force them to follow.


EDIT: Hopefully you can understand why I think that your stipulation about including the opinion clause before what a teacher says is totally unreasonable.

 

[Lemming3k]

They shouldn't have to state anything.

Yes they should, a child would be unable to distinguish between what he's saying being purely his opinion or being a fact, especially as schools are there to educate people on facts, shall we wait until a teacher says the true religion is buddism and the kids believe him and see how christians react?
It is not unreasonable for a teacher to distinguish between what is fact and what is opinion in an environment for education, i would not say for a fact atheism is right if i was a teacher, it would merely be my opinion and i would state that, if a kid is too young to tell what im saying is opinion without me saying so then i would get in all sorts of trouble.

I'm not irritated. I don't think it's a big deal at all weather he states that it's his opinion or not. I should have to state that about everything he teaches.

This by the way is your major flaw, nobody is bothered if he states an opinion, but it has to be clear thats what it is, he is not allowed to teach that jesus is the truth, just like he cant say islam is right or hinduism(thats what places of worship are for), if you are teaching something that is not fact you must state its an opinion, its not unreasonable or atheists pushing their beliefs its the way schools work, you are not taught 2+2=5 as fact if its somebodys opinion, how long ago were you in school? Can you not remember what its like? And if your still in school i suggest you start paying attention.

 

[lixluke]

"nobody is bothered if he states an opinion, but it has to be clear thats what it is"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So says the atheists.
'He has to do this he has to do that.'
He doesn't have to do anything.
There is no reason he should have to watch what he says.
If an atheist wishes to watch what he says, fine.
But it is unreasonable for them to impose this attitude on other people.

Weather the child is too young or not. It's no harm whatsoever.
You are bias. You try to dictate what and how a teacher says something with regards to religion -Something that is no big deal.
But not anything else.
A teacher might promote stupid cliches. Something that is still not a big deal, but yet much worse than religion.
Nobody cares.
A teacher should be free to express whatever he feels is true weather it be something as harmless as religion or something as unproductive as stupid cliches.

It's just another excuse for fanatical atheists to impose their beliefs on how, where, when, and what people should be allowed to publicly say when it comes to religion and only religion.


"he is not allowed to teach that jesus is the truth, just like he cant say islam is right or hinduism"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes because fanatical atheists want to make it seem like this really has the slightest effect on children.
And even more so, blow it out of proportion like it's the end of the world if a teacher supports his religion.
You tell a teacher how to talk, and nitpick on what he says.
That's the same as saying that he has to glorify the name of God every time he opens his mouth.
It's you imposing your belief on a person that shouldn't have to worry about sitting there watching what he says all day. (strawman I know)
That is totally not what separation of church and state is about.

Teachers feed children with all kinds of garbage that is way worse than the insignificance of supporting a religion.
IE - stupid cliches.
Who cares? Atheists blow things out of proportion not because speaking freely is wrong.
But because they are anti-religion fanatics that want to impose their anti-religion ideas on how people should talk.
Ideas that attempt to turn something that is completely harmless into something life threatening.


If they really wanted to impose, why don't they impose about stupid cliches?
Because these fanatical atheists have something against religion.
Therefore, they target religion.

The fact of the matter is, there is no harm in a teacher speaking freely about anything.
Weather it be stupid cliches and to a lesser degree religion. It's really no big flicking deal.
Nobody will die just because a teacher can practice his right to free speech.
And no. Separation of church and state does not mean interfering with this right when it comes to religion.
Separation of church and state makes sure that the state doesn't force religious practices on people.
The only reason the atheists twist is this is to impose their anti-religion ideas on others.


A person might wish to force teachers to glorify the name of God.
That is no different from forcing teachers to speak a certain way or to not speak a certain way.
Teachers should be allowed to freely say anything they believe to be true without any stipulations.

Atheists go to people saying, "Would you really want your children to be forced into religion by the evil religious teacher? Would you?!!!! Well that is what is happening to your child. It's horrible it's horrible I tell you!!!!"
People eat it up. "Oh my goodness. This teacher his imposing his religious opinions on my child's impressionable mind. Let's overlook all his other retarded cliches and opinions."

This ongoing atheist imposition against religion in public is simply a collective modern mythical misconception.
Although it's not against the law, it's a collective imposition to dictate what a teacher can and cannot say with regards to religion.
The overly accepted myth that it really has any effect on the child.
People cry out like it's a nightmare if a teacher says something religious to their child.
Is it because it is a big life threatening deal? Is it because it is in any way harmful? Is it because it is against the law? No.
It's because the atheist anti-religion misconception that this is a horrible thing has been ingrained and plastered into the collective public.
Like some myth about a sea monster keeping people from going near the water.

This misconception is a negative imposition because it prevents the teacher from practicing his absolute right to freely speak as he well pleases.

 

[Vienna]

Cool Skill

What is your definition of God?

 

[Raithere]

First of all, I don't think you read the title of this thread.

Yeah, you're right. I clicked on the link and replied without even reading the topic heading.

It's a matter of epistemological honesty, cool skill. Not believing that god exists is not the same thing as asserting that god does not exist. It may be a fine point and it may fall beneath your personal level of discretion but it remains none-the-less. Essentially, the weak atheistic position is simply a statement of belief (or more accurately the lack thereof).

To put it another way; I do not believe in god. I do not believe in god because I have never come across any argument or evidence that would lead me to believe that god exists and I am not prone to believing speculative fantasy is real. However, although many definitions of god are logically unsound, I cannot prove that god does not exist. And therein lays the difference between the strong position (the assertion that god does not, in fact, exist) and the weak (that there is no reason that warrants a belief in god).

If you are not 100% certain God does not exist, you are agnostic period.

How can you be 100% certain of anything?

Why they would want to call themselves an atheist is because they don't wish to be associated as having a religious belief.

No, that would be irreligious not strictly atheistic. There are irreligious theists, in fact, who believe in god but refuse to assign properties to god.

A faith in their own religious belief that God cannot exist.

Who ever said god cannot exist? The question here is; do you believe god exists?

There is no such thing as weak and strong atheism.

You're right coolskill, we'll all pack and go home now.

Here's some help for you:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_strongweak.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/weak_atheism

~Raithere

 

[lixluke]

What is your definition of God?

From your previous responses, you have provided my with nothing but evidence that you have no intention of discussing the topic.
Exhibit A: You attack my character rather than focus on the discussion at hand. Blatantly.
Exhibit B: You would rather completely slander a person's personal website than offer constructive suggestions.
Exhibit C: You would rather slander a person's personal website and photo. Both of which have no relevance to the discussion in the least.
Exhibit D:
You and your boyfirend with the help of other morons decided to troll this thread.
In other words destroy it. I wouldn't call them weak attempts.
Needless to say, they didn't work.
After chasing you and your extremely obnoxious counterpart away, you proceeded to spit on your computer.
Ptew! And as if it really made the slightest difference in my life, you added me to your ignore list.

You have no idea how to argue a topic. You seem to focus very hard attacking the debater.
Not just occasionally, but to the extreme.
I have no idea why all of your attention would go towards the debater.
I have seen many people who do so to an extreme degree. You would be among the top of the list.
It still makes no sense to me.


Previously, you repeatedly asked me what religion I consider myself to fall under.
Vienna:
"Are you Christian?

What are your beliefs if any?

Which catergory of religion are you in?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It simply seemed to me as if you were searching for more methods to attack my character.
Now, you ask me about my definition of God.
What makes you think I won't give you a similar toned answer?
I'm not sure where you were going with the first question.
Especially since when I answered it, I never heard anything about it again from you.
I assumed you were asking me as a set up on another one of your typical attacks on my character.
Just as I am assuming that you are doing the same with this second question.
At one point you even asked me: "What do you do for a living?"
Can you get any more blatant about the fact that you would rather focus on me than the topic at hand?
Too bad you can't understand that attacking the character of the person opposing your points does not prove your points correct.
My character is irrelevant to the topic.
For what reason you would ask me about my definition for God other than to discuss me instead of discuss the topic is beyond me.


With any luck you will either put me back on ignore or contribute intelligently to the discission.
As for your question:
God is who the typical atheists throw a fit over when they see people promoting and worshiping in public.
Point?

 

[Vienna]

From your previous responses, you have provided my with nothing but evidence that you have no intention of discussing the topic.
Exhibit A: You attack my character rather than focus on the discussion at hand. Blatantly.
Exhibit B: You would rather completely slander a person's personal website than offer constructive suggestions.
Exhibit C: You would rather slander a person's personal website and photo. Both of which have no relevance to the discussion in the least.
Exhibit D:
You and your boyfirend with the help of other morons decided to troll this thread.
In other words destroy it. I wouldn't call them weak attempts.
Needless to say, they didn't work.
After chasing you and your extremely obnoxious counterpart away, you proceeded to spit on your computer.
Ptew! And as if it really made the slightest difference in my life, you added me to your ignore list.

You have no idea how to argue a topic. You seem to focus very hard attacking the debater.
Not just occasionally, but to the extreme.
I have no idea why all of your attention would go towards the debater.
I have seen many people who do so to an extreme degree. You would be among the top of the list.
It still makes no sense to me.


Previously, you repeatedly asked me what religion I consider myself to fall under.
Vienna:
"Are you Christian?

What are your beliefs if any?

Which catergory of religion are you in?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It simply seemed to me as if you were searching for more methods to attack my character.
Now, you ask me about my definition of God.
What makes you think I won't give you a similar toned answer?
I'm not sure where you were going with the first question.
Especially since when I answered it, I never heard anything about it again from you.
I assumed you were asking me as a set up on another one of your typical attacks on my character.
Just as I am assuming that you are doing the same with this second question.
At one point you even asked me: "What do you do for a living?"
Can you get any more blatant about the fact that you would rather focus on me than the topic at hand?
Too bad you can't understand that attacking the character of the person opposing your points does not prove your points correct.
My character is irrelevant to the topic.
For what reason you would ask me about my definition for God other than to discuss me instead of discuss the topic is beyond me.


With any luck you will either put me back on ignore or contribute intelligently to the discission.
As for your question:
God is who the typical atheists throw a fit over when they see people promoting and worshiping in public.
Point?

Don't dance around the question like a fairy.

Just give a straight answer.

What is your definition of God??

 

[Lemming3k]

Cool skill you understand nothing i say, and you show your ignorance in your posts, i shall try one last time to get through to you I DONT CARE IF HE SUPPORTS HIS RELIGION, just like if he supports killing animals, it wouldnt bother me but he IS NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH IT to children, not in a public school, can you imagine the complaints if he taught kids that muslims are worthless because thats his opinion of them? you got that now? Nobody wants to deny him an opinion or stop free speech, we want it to be known that it is free speech not something he's teaching, kids interpret things wrong all the time, you wouldnt want a muslim teaching christianity is crap so dont be such a hypocrit. Like i say atheists dont care what he says so long as he says its an opinion, we arnt saying he cant say that stuff like you so fanatically imply, we are saying its an opinion and should not be taught as fact, and yes kids would believe it, i wouldnt care if a teacher said he thought islam was fantastic, i would care if he just said 'islam is fantastic', its not what he says that bothers atheists its the way he says it, like its a fact, and if you had a 4 year old that came home and said islam is fantastic teacher says so, what would you think? And before you say it NO WE DONT WANT TEACHERS TO ONLY SAY ATHEISM IS FANTASTIC, its in the same bracket as religions when it comes to what teachers say, we want their opinions but not expressed as facts, is that clear now because you miss the point everytime.

 

[laughing weasel]

I am a Christian and I find it very offensive if a teacher discusses his religion in class. A teacher is an authority figure and his job is to teach children facts. How is a child supposed to know when the teacher is displaying their opinions or is explaining a fact? A child cannot reasonably be able to judge. Even when a child is at a reasonable age 13+, the child will still be unduly influenced by the opinion of someone who is in such an authoritarian position. I will want to teach my children my religious values and I do not wish to have to explain why they cannot believe their teacher.

 

[Raithere]

Religion in public schools:

Actually the more that I think about it the more I'm of the opinion that religion should be allowed in U.S. public Schools. Of course, seeing as that this is a pluralistic and democratic society it is only fair that all religions are represented equally. Therefore we should have, for instance, Scientologist English teachers, Satanist P.E. teachers, and allow each to preach their religion to the student body. After 12 years of schooling in such an environment I'm sure the students will have a very clear picture of religion.



Helpfully,

~Raithere

 

[lixluke]

"Yeah, you're right. I clicked on the link and replied without even reading the topic heading."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems you are being sarcastic.
But from even this reply, it seems like you haven't read my responses.


"Not believing that god exists is not the same thing as asserting that god does not exist."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know this. But I guess you must have missed what I said.
cool skill: "If you don't believe in God, that does not necessarily mean you believe there is no God."


"It may be a fine point and it may fall beneath your personal level of discretion but it remains none-the-less."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn to read. You obviously didn't read.
You respond as if I ever disagreed with this.


"Essentially, the weak atheistic position is simply a statement of belief (or more accurately the lack thereof)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet again something I went over.
cool skill:
ATHEISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am certain there cannot be God. Therefore, God does not exist.
AGNOSTICISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am not certain there is a God. Nor am I certain there cannot be God. I am certain that one cannot be certain about the existence of God.
EMPIRICISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am not certain there is a God. Nor am I certain there cannot be God. I believe with enough evidence, one can be certain.


There is no such thing as weak atheism. Or strong atheism.
You are trying to tell me that weak atheists:
Lack the belief in God.
Because they are not certain there is a God.
Nor are they certain there cannot be God.
The only thing they are certain about is that one cannot be certain about the existence of God.
That's agnostic.
Why an agnostic would want to call himself atheist is beyond me.
Because they know they are not real atheists, in order to continue to be called an atheist they come up with some dumb term.
Weak atheist.


"To put it another way; I do not believe in god."
"I do not believe in god because I have never come across any argument or evidence that would lead me to believe that god exists"
"I cannot prove that god does not exist."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say you do not believe there is a God.
That doesn't mean you believe there cannot be a God.
Therefore, you do not believe in God.
Nor do you believe there cannot be a God.
You believe that one cannot prove there is a God.
You believe that one cannot prove there is no God.
Therefore one cannot be certain there is a God.
Nor can one be certain there is no God.
You are agnostic.


"and the weak (that there is no reason that warrants a belief in god)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that there is no reason that warrants a belief God cannot exist.


cool skill: "If you are not 100% certain God does not exist, you are agnostic period."
Raith: "How can you be 100% certain of anything?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ergo Raith is agnostic.


"No, that would be irreligious not strictly atheistic."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the reason agnostics would call themselves atheists is not because they do not wish to be irreligious?


"Who ever said god cannot exist?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The atheists. Duh. Atheists period believe that God cannot exist.
If you don't believe this, it's not because you might be a weak atheist.
It's because you are not atheist period.
Weak atheist is a toddler term with no real meaning.


"Here's some help for you:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FA..._strongweak.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/weak_atheism"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I checked those sites out.
They all seem to promote the silly notion that there is such thing as strong and weak atheism.
Atheists believe God cannot exist. Atheists believe there is no God.
If you do not have this belief, but you do lack the belief in God.
You are either agnostic or empiricist.




Cool skill you understand nothing i say,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really, I have yet to see you show me a point that I didn't already respond to.
Because you sure didn't in this post.


"can you imagine the complaints if he taught kids that"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes by the superstitious parents that fall for the atheist anti-religious garbage that it's such a big deal.


"Nobody wants to deny him an opinion or stop free speech"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull shit.
You want to impose your idea that he has to be clear that it his opinion when he says sonething religious.
How is that not denying him to FREELY SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS without such a dumb stipulation that he has to say it's his opinion?
You continue telling me that you do not wish to force him to speak a certain way.
Then the next thing you tell me is that you want a teacher to say something he shouldn't have to.
In case you hadn't figured it out, you are imposing.
And you are lying to yourself about it.


"you wouldnt want a muslim teaching christianity is crap so dont be such a hypocrit."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you be anymore of a presumptuous pig?
When did I ever imply that?
Did you not understand what I mean when I say teachers should be allowed to say "ANYTHING"?


Like i say atheists dont care what he says so long as he says its an opinion,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're an upside down contradicting yourself.
They do care what he says.
If they didn't care what he says, they wouldn't care weather or not he says it's an opinion.

I already went over this.
A teacher shouldn't have to say that it is his opinion.
You atheists only wish to force him to say that.
Didn't you read my last post?

cool skill: "So says the atheists.
'He has to do this he has to do that.'
He doesn't have to do anything.
There is no reason he should have to watch what he says."

"If an atheist wishes to watch what he says, fine.
But it is unreasonable for them to impose this attitude on other people."

Do you want me to post it 10 more times?
If an atheists wants to say that it is his opinion, fine.
Atheists wish impose others to do the same.


"we arnt saying he cant say that stuff like you so fanatically imply"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you are!
Lemming: "so long as he says its an opinion"
You atheists are trying to dictate that a teacher has to say this.

An atheist might believe that teachers should say that it his opinion.
The teacher might not believe that he should say this.

A christian might believe a teacher should proclaim Jesus everytime he opens his mouth.
The teacher might not believe that he should say this.

The difference is that the christian will not try to impose the teacher to proclaim Jesus.
The atheist on the other hand wishes to impose the teacher to say that it his opinion.
That is because the atheist wishes to control how the teacher says things with respect to religion.
I went over all this in the last post.
I don't know why we aren't moving on.


"we are saying its an opinion and should not be taught as fact"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody asks a teacher to say that it his opinion with respect to cliches.
But as you can see, the atheists target reliion.
Yet another thing I already went over. Learn how to read.

"Teachers feed children with all kinds of garbage that is way worse than the insignificance of supporting a religion.
IE - stupid cliches.
Who cares? Atheists blow things out of proportion not because speaking freely is wrong.
But because they are anti-religion fanatics that want to impose their anti-religion ideas on how people should talk.
Ideas that attempt to turn something that is completely harmless into something life threatening."

Why is it that an atheist wants to force a teacher to speak a certain way such as saying something is his opinion -
But only wishes to do so with respect to religion, and not these dumb cliches?
Because they are anti-religion fanatics.


"i would care if he just said 'islam is fantastic', its not what he says that bothers atheists its the way he says it, like its a fact"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ergo atheists want to impose their ideas on how a teacher speaks.
What if the teacher doesn't believe in this atheist idea that he should not teach what he believes is fact as fact.

Again, I already went over this.
cool skill: "It's just another excuse for fanatical atheists to impose their beliefs on how, where, when, and what people should be allowed to publicly say when it comes to religion and only religion."
You wish to impose that the teacher says it's his opinion.
Stop imposing. He doesn't have to do anything.


"and if you had a 4 year old that came home and said islam is fantastic teacher says so, what would you think? And before you say it NO WE DONT WANT TEACHERS TO ONLY SAY ATHEISM IS FANTASTIC,"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you even know how stupid your presumptions sound?
I'm not even going to give them the time of day. when you grow up,
Let me know when you are ready to understand what I mean when I say a teacher should be allowed to say ANYTHING.


"is that clear now because you miss the point everytime."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf?
You mean the point that you wish to impose your beliefs on how a teacher should speak?
On how he HAS to say it's his opinion?
I could have sworn I responded to that?
Please explain to me what you mean by me missing the point.
What point did you make that I did not go over?




"I am a Christian and I find it very offensive if a teacher discusses his religion in class."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You're a blood sucking atheist disguised as a christian.
You promote the atheist idea that teachers should not discuss religion.
The fact that you find it offensive is a typical atheist emotional response to teachers speaking freely about religion.

"Hey kids. Bobby got an A+. Praise Jesus!"
Who cares?

Anti-religious atheist fanatics.


"A teacher is an authority figure and his job is to teach children facts."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, a teacher should be allowed to tach whatever he believes is fact.


"How is a child supposed to know when the teacher is displaying their opinions or is explaining a fact?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Went over that.
I suggest you read this thread or at least this page before you make comments that have already been discussed.

Everything that is in your opinion a fact, might not be a fact in another person's opinion.
A teacher believes it is a fact that Jesus created the earth.
Who are you to tell the teacher that what he is teaching is not a fact?


"A child cannot reasonably be able to judge. Even when a child is at a reasonable age 13+, the child will still be unduly influenced by the opinion of someone who is in such an authoritarian position."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Went over that.
I suggest you read this thread or at least this page before you make comments that have already been discussed.


I will want to teach my children my religious values and I do not wish to have to explain why they cannot believe their teacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if a teacher says something, you do not want to have to go through the effort of telling your child he is wrong.
That goes for anything the teacher says. Yet you blood thirsty anti-religion atheists target religion.

 

[Vienna]

So if a teacher says something, you do not want to have to go through the effort of telling your child he is wrong.
That goes for anything the teacher says. Yet you blood thirsty anti-religion atheists target religion.

So what is the teacher going to teach - that the Jews are right - that the Christians are right - or that the Muslims are right.

Should he teach that God exists or that God doesn't exist, neither which can be proved or disproved.

what a dilemma..

Lol!

Lets scrap Religious Education - it's a load of bollox..

 

[Vienna]

My young lad came home from school one day and told me they had been talking about Jesus's father in Rel. Educ.

I said "OK, whats the name of Jesus's father"

He replied "Joseph"

I don't think R.Ed. teachers even know the subject they are teaching.

--------------------

So Joseph is God now... eh?

 

[Raithere]

ATHEISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am certain there cannot be God. Therefore, God does not exist.
AGNOSTICISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am not certain there is a God. Nor am I certain there cannot be God. I am certain that one cannot be certain about the existence of God.
EMPIRICISM: I lack the belief in God. That's because I am not certain there is a God. Nor am I certain there cannot be God. I believe with enough evidence, one can be certain.

By those definitions you are indeed correct. I do question your definitions however. Empiricism, for instance, has nothing directly to do with god.

"Empiricism, 2 a : the practice of emphasizing experience especially of the senses or the practice or method of relying upon observation, experimentation, or induction rather than upon intuition, speculation, deduction, dialectic, or other rationalistic means in the pursuit of knowledge"

"Atheism, 1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b : the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity"

"Agnosticism, 1 a : the doctrine that the existence or nature of any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable or that any knowledge about matters of ultimate concern is impossible or improbable; specifically : the doctrine that God or any first cause is unknown and probably unknowable b : a doctrine affirming that the existence of a god is possible but denying that there are any sufficient reasons for holding either that he does or does not exist"

"Theism, 1 : belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God who is viewed as the creative source of man, the world, and value and who transcends and yet is immanent in the world <Christian theism>"

(The above from MW Unabridged online.)

As I said before agnosticism is an epistemological stance. You will note this in the first half of the definition. There can be strong and weak positions of all three theistic belief categories.

Strong Atheism: God does not exist.
Weak Atheism: I do not believe god exists (but cannot prove it).
Strong Agnosticism: The question of god's existence is unknowable.
Weak Agnosticism: The question of god's existence is unknown.
Strong Theism: God exists.
Weak Atheism: I believe god exist (but cannot prove it).

Personally, I don't strictly fit any of these categories. I find the answer to be dependent upon the definition of god I am considering.


You are trying to tell me that weak atheists:
Lack the belief in God. Yes.
Because they are not certain there is a God. No
Nor are they certain there cannot be God. Yes
The only thing they are certain about is that one cannot be certain about the existence of God. No

That's agnostic. No.

Why an agnostic would want to call himself atheist is beyond me.

An agnostic wouldn't call himself an atheist (at least not accurately). An agnostic does not disbelieve in god's existence.

You say you do not believe there is a God.
That doesn't mean you believe there cannot be a God.
Therefore, you do not believe in God.
Nor do you believe there cannot be a God.

It depends upon the definition of god. Some definitions of god are logically possible others are not. Yet another consideration is that the answers to such ontological questions might be beyond the scope of human logic.

You believe that one cannot prove there is a God.

Not at all. If god were to exist one might be able to prove its existence.

You believe that one cannot prove there is no God.

Universally, yes. I find there are very few things that one can prove.

Therefore one cannot be certain there is a God.
Nor can one be certain there is no God.
You are agnostic.

I am rather certain that there is no god, at least in most definitions of the word. But I cannot prove it.

And that there is no reason that warrants a belief God cannot exist.

Quite the contrary, I find there are quite a few reasons that warrant a belief that god does not exist. This is the difference between a weak atheist and an agnostic.

Ergo Raith is agnostic.

Epistemologically, yes. Regarding belief in god no (excepting as noted above).

So the reason agnostics would call themselves atheists is not because they do not wish to be irreligious?

Huh?

The atheists. Duh. Atheists period believe that God cannot exist.

No. Typically atheists believe that god does not exist. Cannot and does not are different things. A puppy does not exist on my desktop but it could.

Atheists believe God cannot exist. Atheists believe there is no God.

These two statements are not the same. All atheists believe the second. Not all atheist believe the first.

If you do not have this belief, but you do lack the belief in God.
You are either agnostic or empiricist.

You don't even know what empiricist means. Well, maybe now you do since I provided the reference.

~Raithere