Christians vs Atheists

[Lemming3k]

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

Good point, and as much as christians deny it, it does matter to them, i believe we had a christian speak earlier who agreed with the atheists.
Cool skill you keep bringing up teachers saying stupid cliche's, i've only met one that did that and i've heard more from the people around me, if you want it as a serious arguement that teachers should say what they want then think of it this way, some religious familys believe its disgraceful to change your religion from what the rest of your family is, if their kid comes home and says he/she's changed their religion because teacher says so they would have a fit, i think you'd find many religious people are with the atheists on that one, besides if atheists didnt send their kids to public school on the understanding that teachers cant preach religion, they'd have to start an atheist school, just like they have catholic ones etc, i hope my kids make their own decisions on religion and are not influenced by someone like their teacher.

 

[poposhisho]

i have nothing against either 'religions', i just think it's better to have ideas than beliefs; they're easier to change.
and yes i do celebrate god

 

[lixluke]

"Good point, and as much as christians deny it, it does matter to them,
----------------------------------------
Of course it might matter.
But no one will force the teacher from freely speaking about something one disagrees with.
Or force him say it with some stipulation such as being his opinion.

As much as something that somebody says bothers you, that does not mean you may force them to say it in a way that you prefer.


"i believe we had a christian speak earlier who agreed with the atheists."
----------------------------------------
Ya. What's up with that?
The rest of us are out blowing up abortion clinics for Jesus.
And he's over here defending the atheists.

Anyhoo, believe you me there are tons of them.
Everybody knows that any person that would call themselves a fanatical christian would want to force the teachers to say in Jesus' opinion whenever they speak.
Just like the fanatical atheists want the teachers to say in my opinion.


"i've only met one that did that"
----------------------------------------
Fascinating. Most of the teachers I come across spout them like water.


"says he/she's changed their religion because teacher says so they would have a fit"
----------------------------------------
It is not because the teacher says so.
It is because the child says so. That doesn't mean the child will not grow up and change his mind.

Regardless, who cares if they have a fit and are not happy about the child's decision to have a different view?
Therefore, they should be allowed to force the teacher to speak how they want the teacher to speak?

Suppose a teacher tells a child that other teachers shouldn't be allowed to talk about religion without making it clear that it is their opinion.
The parents believe the teachers can say what they want.
Are they going to force that teacher to say that it his opinion that other teachers should say that it is their opinion when they say something that is their opinion?


"i think you'd find many religious people are with the atheists on that one"
----------------------------------------
Yes. Especially the dumb jews.
Bunch of sellouts if you ask me.
They would rather impose atheist anti-religion forced speech than defend the freedom provided by their lord.


"they'd have to start an atheist school"
----------------------------------------
If only.
That's why they try to turn public schools into atheist schools by forcing teachers to speak how atheists feel they should speak.


"i hope my kids make their own decisions on religion and are not influenced by someone like their teacher."
----------------------------------------
You can always do what the rest of the fanatics do.
Impose your belief that they should be forced to say that it is their opinion.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Cool skill,

As an 'Atheist' in the U.S., I wanted to take an opportunity express my point
of view. My wife is a protestant. She goes to church every sunday, takes any
opportunity to sell 'Jesus' to me, and is a fantastic person. Being a protestant
helps her be who she wants to be. I encourage her to go to church (I'll
even go along with her if she's feeling lonely) and I discuss religion with her
if she wants to talk about it (admittedly she finds my take on 'God'
frustrating).

Her religion does not impede my path in life. If my kids were in school and
were forced to participate in a religious event (praying, sacraficing chickens,
doing the voodo dance) then I would be upset as this would impede their
path in life. If my kids were given the optional opportunity of time during any
particular day to practice religion in school then I would not have any problem
with this.

Similarly, I don't consider 'atheism' a religion; however, the definitions
of 'religion' and 'atheism' seem to vary without firm agreement so this point
would be moot until such definitions are brought to agreement.

-CC

 

[lixluke]

Point?
Especially the first 2 paragraphs.
Were you just running your mouth or can you please explain how what you are saying in the first 2 paragraphs relate?
By the way, did anybody say or imply they should be "forced to participate in a religious event"
?

 

[SnakeLord]

Ok, after spending time reading this entire thread - which provided me with a large barrel load of laughs, and an even bigger barrel of cringes, I have decided to respond and hopefully help clarify some things for you, Cool Skill, that you seem to be missing. Unfortunately, the majority of people who have replied have failed to put it in its simplest terms that hopefully even you can understand.

You have said time and time again in this thread that atheists are forcing their "religion" down your throats. Don't panic, I will keep this simple...

Tell me Cool Skill.. have you ever heard of any teacher in a school stating "god does not exist. You students need to learn this. There is no such thing, there never has been, it's all a fiction and anyone who believes it is a retard."

Well Cool Skill.. have you? No, you haven't, and as such have no place to be claiming with such astounding stupidity that the atheist "religion" is forced down anyones throat. There are no school trips to the most non-religious place in the country, there are no days where bibles are burned or drive by stonings at the local church. What exactly is forced down your throat Cool Skill? Please, you've been bitching about it for eight pages now, kindly give me an example...

Ah wait! I know.. You're about to say that we force our beliefs down your throat by saying you shouldn't be forcing your belief down peoples throats..

But of course.. How upset would you be when your child comes home stating that the teacher said god is a fiction, santa claus isn't real and the loch ness monster is only a plastic mass of Evian bottles? Yes, you'd be thoroughly pissed, and so you should be if someone forces their belief down you or your childrens throats.. and as such some of us do not like christianity being forced down our childrens throats. Fair's fair is it not?

You say the teachers should do morning prayers with the students.. What if there was a morning "anti-prayer", where all the students had to get up and state god was a load of old non-existant bollocks? That would really piss you off no doubt, but luckily for you there isn't anything like that because....

Atheists force nothing down your throat.

As final clarification I will not have schools teach my daughter religious garbage and in return I do not ask the teacher to tell the other kids god is just make believe. However, I would happily allow christianity to be taught in public if only you would not be allowed in public. You're a grade A, certified tosser.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Point?
Especially the first 2 paragraphs.
Were you just running your mouth or can you please explain how what you are saying in the first 2 paragraphs relate?
By the way, did anybody say or imply they should be "forced to participate in a religious event"
?

I am contradicting the statement:

Atheists on the other hand promote their religion by stopping others from promoting their religion.

In reading the posts in this thread, I get the impression that this is a
competition rather than a debate. Cool skill, are we trying to discuss or
win here?

 

[Lemming3k]

Atheists on the other hand promote their religion by stopping others from promoting their religion.

Must have missed that statement, does that mean tv and radio promotes atheism every time they arnt promoting religion? Sounds from that statement like it isnt possible to promote neither, and doesnt it work the other way round aswel? Christians stop atheists promoting atheism by promoting Christianity? Do Catholic schools allow atheism to be promoted if a student decides to became atheist?

 

[Morion]

ok ive read most of this thread and well after 2 pages it seems to be ths same damn thing over and over and over again.... it seems to me that all and all raithere is one of the most senseable ppl here! CoolSkill is obviously oblivious to the fact that not everyone has the same beliefs and most of which will never share these beliefs! I personally am pagan i believe in the oldways and gods. but this is of no matter to this thread. what is important is that i was athiest once. i said there is no god but i could not prove that belief of mine just i cannot prove that there is a god/gods! i have seen things that make me believe but that doesnt make me go out and about telling everyone

"hey look chritianity/athiesm/judaism/etc. is all bullshit! you cant be serious if u believe this shit!"

personally if my teacher wished to pray in class i would pray with him/her! why? well, whynot? just because my teacher believes in jesus doesnt mean im not going to participate in something spiritual! and if i had kids yes i would be pissed if their teachers said

"hey christianity is the only way!"

but i'd also be pissed if those same teachers said

"hey god doesnt exist! its all a hoax!"

again im sure u ask

"well why do you say that mr morion sir?!"

well because i believe in one strict buddhist principle and that principle is

"follow what paths you will but change not the paths of others for it is not your right to do so!"

so i ask you all now... who do you think you are going about saying its only this way or only that way? perhaps it is... for you! but whose to say it is for others? and BTW CoolSkill.... did it ever occur to you that perhaps the jews or islams or muslims or pagans or hell maybe the atheists and agnostics in these childrens class might be offended if you try to force your ideals on them? isnt that why some wars start?


Oh yes! i figured those of you who are unaware of what pagan means might think it's evil, bad, or has something to do with satanism but you are very wrong friends...

Pagan (pâ-gen) n. 1. One who is not a christian, muslim or jew; heathen.

Heathen (hê-then) n.. pl. -thens or heathen. 1a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the god of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. 1b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
(these two definitions are from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; third edition, by the Houghton Mifflin Company)

Satanism (sa´tan`ism) Noun 1. Satanism - the worship of devils (especially Satan)
(from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Satanism)

*Note: Though most christians deny it, Satanism is a christian sect. How have I come to this conclusion? Well I answer this question with yet another question. What other religion believes in Satan? no not demons... but Satan as in.... Lucifer? Angel turned devil? you know ruler of hell enemy of god? that Satan? Well I can assure you it isn't the Pagans/wiccans!*

Paganism
Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism (q.v.). It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i. e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian. Various forms of Paganism are described in special articles (e.g. Brahminism, Buddhism, Mithraism); the present article deals only with certain aspects of Paganism in general which will be helpful in studying its details and in judging its value.
(definition from http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defpagan.htm)


for more information on satanism plz see this site it is very intelligent letting ppl realize satanist are different then pagans! and that there are very few (if any) ppl that are satanists in the true aspect of worshiping Lucifer.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis2.htm

sorry that i went on a tangent but what was going on was utter chaos and ignorance! i hope that i was able to help those ppl in this thread!

 

[jadedflower]

I don't understand how you can claim agnosticism and atheism to be religions...

 

[lixluke]

"Empiricism, for instance, has nothing directly to do with god."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is different from the other two.
As I said with regards to the definitions:
"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."
You wish to take the term empiricism out of this context.
A person with the view as I defined it is taking on the empiricist view.
The person might not be an empiricist in another context.
But with regards to the context of religion, the person with that view is an empiricist.
I don't even know why you would bring it up in another context.
Nobody was even talking about it.


"You don't even know what empiricist means."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you figure?
Because I do not wish to dissect the context?
You're dealing with semantics.

When I say empiricist, anybody else would understand that I mean a person with an empirical view with regards to the existence in God.
Then you accuse me of not knowing the dictionary definition of empiricist.
Why?

"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."
This is an empirical take on religion.
Therefore, anybody with this view is an empiricist in the context of religion.
Why the hell would you start inserting dictionary definitions other than you just want to be nitpicky?


"Weak Atheism: I do not believe god exists (but cannot prove it)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An atheist disbelieves in God.
Therefore, an atheist does not believe in God.
Therefore and atheist lacks the belief in God.

Your "weak atheist":
Lacks the belief in God.
Weather he can prove it or not, he is certain there cannot be God.
Therefore, he is certain God does not exist.
Raith: "Strong Atheism: God does not exist."
Weak and Strong are one and the same.
We might as well simply refer to it as atheist period.


"Weak Agnosticism: The question of god's existence is unknown."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This person that you refer to as a "weak agnostic" either:
1) Is certain that one cannot be certain about the existence of God.
2) Is certain that with enough evidence one can either be certain or one cannot be certain about the existence of God.

If 1:
One cannot be certain about the existence of God.
Therefore, the question of God's existence is unknowable.
Raith: "Strong Agnosticism: The question of god's existence is unknowable."
Therefore Weak and Strong are the same.
We might as well refer to it as agnostic period.

If 2:
With enough evidence one can either be certain or one cannot be certain about the existence of God.
He believes that with enough evidence one cannot be certain.
He also believes that with enough evidence one can be certain.
cool skill: "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."
Therefore, he is taking on an empiricist view.

He can either have the agnostic view or the empircist view.
There is no reason to attach "Weak" into the circumstance.


"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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer to anything depends upon the definition.
Nobody here is going to nitpick definitions.
We all have an understanding of what one another is referring to when they say God.
Therefore, you might fit into a category if you understand without having to nitpick on definitions what we are all talking about whenever we say God.
If you haven't figured out what we are talking about, you are not being an overly relative extremist.


"It depends upon the definition of god."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares. We are not arguing about the definition of god.
We are able to have a discussion where the definition of God is not a problem.
It is when you make the definition an issue that you lead yourself away from the discussion.


"I find there are quite a few reasons that warrant a belief that god does not exist."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point?
Raith:
"the weak (that there is no reason that warrants a belief in god)" and also that there is no reason that warrants a belief God cannot exist.


"Epistemologically, yes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well are you certain God does not exist or not?
Do you believe one can even ever be certain weather or not God exists?
Or do you wish not to discuss because you would rather nitpick on the clarity implied definition of God.


"Huh?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I asserted that agnostics want to be called atheists because they want to feel like logical minded individuals that do not buy into mysticism.
You said no because that is not why agnostics want to be called atheists.
You stated: "that would be irreligious not strictly atheistic."
In other words, you feel being agnostic would not be strictly atheistic.
Being agnostic would be irreligious.
Therefore, the reason they want to be called atheists is because being agnostic would be irreligious.
They want to be called atheists because being agnostic is irreligious.
Therefore, they do not wish to be irreligious.
So I asked you if this was the correct interpretation.
cool skill: "So the reason agnostics would call themselves atheists is not because they do not wish to be irreligious?"


"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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What bibblztr.
No kidding nnsno.
Nobody said they were the same thing.
A puppy cannot exist on your desk. Therefore, a puppy does not exist on your desk.
Atheists do believe that God cannot exist. Therefore, They believe God does not exist.
What are you trying to get at?


"These two statements are not the same. All atheists believe the second. Not all atheist believe the first."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they do. All atheists believe the second because all atheists believe the first.

 

[lixluke]

"have you ever heard of any teacher in a school stating "god does not exist."
----------------------------------------
Are you sure you read this thread?
What does that have to do with anything we are discussing?


"the atheist "religion" is forced down anyones throat."
----------------------------------------
Of course it is.


"There are no school trips to the most non-religious place in the country, there are no days where bibles are burned or drive by stonings at the local church."
----------------------------------------
Who cares?


"What exactly is forced down your throat Cool Skill? Please, you've been bitching about it for eight pages now, kindly give me an example..."
----------------------------------------
Haven't I already clearly demonstrated over and over again what exactly it is that atheists shove down people's throat?
Haven't I given enough examples of how atheists wish to force their beliefs on others?


"You're about to say that we force our beliefs down your throat by saying you shouldn't be forcing your belief down peoples throats"
Wrong. Try again.
I never said anybody should force their beliefs on others. Show me where I ever said that please.


"Yes, you'd be thoroughly pissed"
----------------------------------------
When did I ever imply that I would ever be pissed about something like that?
Or do you just want to put words in my mouth?


"where all the students had to get up and"
----------------------------------------
Did I say anybody HAD to do anything?


"Atheists force nothing down your throat."
----------------------------------------
Get real. What planet are you on?


"You're a grade A, certified tosser."
Sure that's me.




Crunchy: I am contradicting the statement:
?Atheists on the other hand promote their religion by stopping others from promoting their religion."
----------------------------------------
Please specify which exact statement contradicts that, and how.


Lemming: "Must have missed that statement, does that mean tv and radio promotes atheism every time they arnt promoting religion?"
----------------------------------------
Nope. How do you figure?
Does the TV stop others from promoting religion?
Or do you actually believe somebody that isn't promoting religion is the same as somebody that is stopping others from promoting religion?

 

[lixluke]

"follow what paths you will but change not the paths of others for it is not your right to do so!"
----------------------------------------
You should apply that to yourself.

Saying:
"hey christianity is the only way!"
"hey god doesnt exist! its all a hoax!"

Therefore, you wish to impose your idea that he shouldn't be saying this?
Or do you prefer I say, "change his path"?


"who do you think you are going about saying its only this way or only that way? perhaps it is... for you! but whose to say it is for others?"
----------------------------------------
Who do you think you are accusing of saying something?
I'm not the one forcing people to abide by the atheist beliefs on how people should speak.


"might be offended if you try to force your ideals on them?"
----------------------------------------
What are you asserting?
That I'm the one that wants to force ideals on people and not the atheists?
Get real.




Jaded: "I don't understand how you can claim agnosticism and atheism to be religions"
----------------------------------------
Not many people do.
Even fewer attempt.

 

[Lemming3k]

Or do you actually believe somebody that isn't promoting religion is the same as somebody that is stopping others from promoting religion?

Nope never said anything like that, just i've never seen the tv promote atheism, only christianity.

Atheists on the other hand promote their religion by stopping others from promoting their religion.

I was just curious about this statement thats why i asked the question, atheists dont stop people promoting religion at the appropriate places, wouldnt even dream of it, we just dont think promoting religion in schools is a good idea, and that sentance includes atheism aswel, they are places for education and learning, not preaching anything. By the way stopping others promoting religion in school doesnt promote atheism, promoting atheism in school promotes atheism, i think all should be stopped.

 

[lixluke]

"just i've never seen the tv promote atheism, only christianity."
----------------------------------------
I think I've seen just about an even amount of both.
But of course many shows have episodes that promote the christian outlook.


"at the appropriate places"
----------------------------------------
Atheists believe they can tell people where the appropriate places are.
They don't tell a person - "This is not an appropriate place for you to do this."
They try to impose and force the person to abide by where they feel is the appropriate place.


"atheists dont stop people promoting religion at the appropriate places"
----------------------------------------
Atheists do try to stop people.
They believe they can dictate to people when and where it is appropriate.
For the most part, there no such thing as an inappropriate place to speak freely.
Anywhere really is appropriate.
A person might be practicing his freedom of speech. He might be speaking about religion.
In certain places, atheists will attempt to force a person from speaking about religion.
Although it is really no big deal and completely fine to speak there, atheists will still attempt to drive them out because they feel it not appropriate.


"By the way stopping others promoting religion in school doesnt promote atheism"
----------------------------------------
When people do not speak about religion in certain places, atheists jump for joy.
I call any place where religion is not mentioned, a place of atheism.
A place where atheists can be happy and free from the very thing many(not all mind you) of them despise. Religion.
Stopping people from speaking about religion in a certain place is turning it into a place of atheism.
Turning a place into a place of atheism is promoting atheism.

 

[lixluke]

"sorry that i went on a tangent but what was going on was utter chaos and ignorance!"
----------------------------------------
So you add your share.

 

[vslayer]

Jesus rules (literally), nobody sucks because he loves them all

jesus was a hippie plain and simple,
religion is for those who cannot comprehend the fact that when we die we cease to exist, they want to believe that they can live on for eternity as some kind of being outside the space time continuom

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy: I am contradicting the statement:
?Atheists on the other hand promote their religion by stopping others from promoting their religion."
----------------------------------------
Please specify which exact statement contradicts that, and how.

I am concerned that this response may be due to mis-interpretation of my
original message. Before I begin pointing out highlights, I would really like
to see my message paraphrased so I can be confident that it is understood or
have the opportunity to align any mis-perception with the intended meaning.

-CC

 

[SnakeLord]

They believe they can dictate to people when and where it is appropriate.
For the most part, there no such thing as an inappropriate place to speak freely.
Anywhere really is appropriate.

Reminds me of the time I walked into a church and started saying god was the non existant belief of delusional retards who seek comfort to take away from the pathetic lives they have.

I agree with you man, anywhere's appropriate. right?

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

There's a very large disparity between promotion and acknowledgement.

In school's I agree that there is absolute no reason why religion should be promoted, equally, there is absolutely no reason why atheism should be promoted. No philosophy, or religion should ever be promoted in a place where one should think on his own.

Now, whether or not it should be acknowledged in school is a different story. Being enrolled in school, I have seen that both religion and theism is acknowledged, without favor toward either. Of course I won't asininely assume this happens everywhere, but the point is this, to promote is to propagandize. To acknowledge is merely to educate.

One cannot be epistemological without the education of many standpoints, nor can one be wholly understanding of what he believes and why without being epistemological.