This would almost seem like an arguement if those things you were describing were essential aspects of religion, which they aren't. Your "tone" strikes me as being much less interested in the logic of the issue, and much more interested in simply proving your point.

I find this arguement to be lacking. You've simply stated your point of view, just as you did in the previous post, which I accidentally skipped for reading willravel's posts, which were intelligent, well thought out arguements. I have enjoyed them thoroughly.

I guess the true root of our disagreement now is that "There is no god." only really qualifies as a doctrine if you assume the existence of a god. If not, then it would not. It is in some ways, as roachboy said, that we lack the true ability to see the matter from each other's perspective, try as we might. The issue is located at the very root of our understanding of everything.

Sorry it took so long for me to get back, I've only got certain times of day where I get the opportunity to log in.

yukimura: its sometimes hard to tell what is happening in a debate like this one when you decide to head into it and things are already unfolding--so i thought you were responding in part to my previous posts, when apparently you werent. mea culpa.

at any rate, the one you bit above has more to it than you think--consider what nouns do (not what they say) and you'll figure it out. this not as a function of a desire to be cryptic, but more because i have a ton of stuff to do at the moment....if it's not clear what i am getting at, let me know and i'll say more when things calm down.

I get what you're saying, but it boils down to the same point. Religion is also a noun. Christianity, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confuscianism (sp?), all of these are nouns as well. Noun is such a vague descriptor. What I interpreted you to be really saying was "atheism is a noun, and nothing more". I appreciate your point of view too. I'm not saying it's not valid or based in logic, just that you didn't do much to express that logic. That's probably because you're too busy to spend all that time chatting away on a forum about definitions of words. I recognize that I probably seemed a little on the offensive in that previous post, and I apologize. It's been a long and stressful day of very big events.

On the lighter side, the court hearing went through, and in ten days I should be a homeowner. Hooray.

ok so quick-like...

nouns group phenomena.
if you project that grouping back onto what is grouped, you generate a unity to it that is only a function of the fact you've named it..and which need not have anything to do with the phenomena beyond that.

damn...no time.

congrats on the hearing. i'm not sure what you mean, but that's ok: i assume it's good. home owning is not bad, that's the basis for the inference.

Atheism isn't a religion, and those who seem to act as if their atheism is a religion I'm willing to bet are more angry with 'god' and are atheists by defiance. The 'you let my child die' type. They want to hurt god by 'deconverting'.

I posted I was Asmurfic, because I don't believe in smurfs. I view belief in god at the same level and probability of smurfs. I am Atheist and Asmurfic equally.

Life is simple and is never as complicated as people tend to make it. Therefore God exists :D

Does this mean that you once believed in smurfs?

To be clear, an atheist need not have once believed in god. My kids will be raised atheist.

I was speaking to Ustwo specifically since he said he was once Catholic and he is now equally atheist and asmurfic.

And, for the record, I was raised atheist. What's interesting to me is that I have a friend who describes himself as post-Christian, which I think speaks to the fact that his foundation of morality and social outlook was built on the Christian belief. I've brought this up before, I'm sure.

Following that our previously established hiatus has ended...


I said that what we don't know is implicit in all science. The fact that you don't see it doesn't meant that it isn't there.

No, you're misunderstanding it.

See http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Heisenbe...inty+Principle

Specifically
Heisenberg isn't an ellipses, it's a period. Unless new information comes to light, that won't change.

I wasn't talking about heisenberg, i was talking about quantum theory, of which the heisenberg is apparently an essential member. By rejecting heisenberg you are rejecting quantum mechanics, which you have every right to do. It kind of takes the wind out of your sails as a man of science, though.


Incidentally,


If i am ever an intellectual of note, i hope that there is a washed up child actor who disagrees with me who is willing to debate me. I'm thinking frankie muniz.

Heisenberg absolutely is an ellipses.

for what it's worth, i have been an atheist since, well..., maybe 1971 or so. it was the result of a long process, very well-thought through.
wanted to--tried to--be religious, like the rest of my family, but i just couldn't see it. religions work "well" to varying degrees for some people, but not me. i see them as a weakness, an external crutch. but i realize other folks, most notably those adherents, do not. that's fine.
i just wish they would be as tolerant of my beliefs as i am of their's.
i saw a license plate, indiana i believe the state, which had a big "in GOD we TRUST" emblazened on it, like a university-style plate, alongside the numbers.
that REALLY offends me. suppose i could have a "no god" vanity plate?
no, i tried. the state of iowa d.o.t. told me it was too offensive.
yup. great country.

That you assert it does not make it so. Show some evidence.

p.s.
You're not on fire, are you. :(

The experimentation demonstrated that it's the current method is incapable of measuring the movement, not that it could never be measured.

I'm under the weather. And someone left halloween cupcakes where my beagle could get them and I was at the vet's office for 2 hours this afternoon. He should be okay, but I'm exhausted.

No and I'm not really sure if I ever really believed in god or if it was just defereance to the authority of the Church.

I realized I was an atheist when I was 8, in Church. I'm not sure if that qualifies as believing in God per say even if I did when I was 7. The whole concept of Jesus loves you blah blah never really sank in, I didn't so much renounce my faith as just looked around and saw that it just didn't make any sense.

Despite being now about 30 years ago I remember it rather clearly. I was sitting on the left side of the church, about half way back. It was a weekday morning mass which I went to on my own because I felt that it had to be a 'good' thing to do, plus being in a Catholic school I was able to hang out for a while before school opened which seemed fun. A very old priest was reading something or other, and there was a smattering of elderly people in the Church, something which you would expect to only see on a weekday morning. It just sort of dawned on me, less of an epiphany and more of a giant 'duh'. There was no god in that church, and no god anywhere else for that matter. I had no knowledge of advanced biology, plate tectonics, molecular clocks, or even the apparently important Hindenburg's uncertainty principle. Even without anything beyond a slightly advanced 3rd grade scientific understanding I could see that it just really didn't work, on any level.

The problem with religion, is not in how it violates scientific principles, but how it violates good old common sense. Perhaps this is why, a question which so many would think of as complex seems so simple to me. I almost have a hard time discussing it with people because I feel like I'm talking to a child who still believes in Santa.

So, just because I want to get this straight, You believe that there is no god as a basic tenent of Atheism?

That's not how i interpreted it at all. From the article that i linked to, which is from an online encyclopedia for whatever it's worth, it seemed to make it pretty clear that any way around heisenberg had been ruled out.

I happen to think that there almost certainly isn't a god based on a reasonable conclusion drawn from evidence. That means I'm not a theist. If one is not a theist, one is an atheist.

It should be noted what will doesn't believe in agnostics either.

Ok. I happen to be a stikler for understanding and agreeing on definintions so that all parties are speaking to the same concept. I have always viewed atheism as a belief that there is no god. From my perpsective, I think that what you (Will) are stating is agnosticism or the witholding of acceptance of theism or atheism because there is no evidence to support either.

True theists believe that there is no requirement for evidence... they are faith based. If Atheism holds in the belief that there is no god, then it too is faith based and does not require evidence.

I have a sneaking suspicion that most athiest are in fact agnostics.

actually, most atheists classify themselves using the terminology that will is using. strong and weak atheism. agnosticism is a different descriptor entirely. atheism deals with whether or not one believes in a god. agnosticism deals with whether or not you believe that its possible to ever have proof of god, or knowledge of god's existence. thus, you could have an agnositic atheist, or an agnostic theist. i would argue that you should have gnostic theists and atheists as well; however, the term gnostic is tricky because it refers to an early movement in the christian church that many believe was heresy.

Bill Maher uses the word rationalist to describe those who are what I call weak atheists. That may be a better term as it describes what I am as opposed to what I'm not.

Rationalist? Okay term?

I would like to have an easy, understandable term: either you believe in a god or believe that there is no god. No weak, strong.

Agnostic: Latin for do not know? Not tied to Gnosticism. Therefore a term used when faith is not accepted. eg, the scientific approach that Missourians prefer. Rationalists would fall in this category.

"Common sense" is irrelevant in both religious and scientific terms. "Common sense" says the earth is flat; the moon, the sun and planets revolve around the earth; the earth isn't hurtling at a few thousand kilometers through space etc.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."-- Albert Einstein

I'm neither, then.
Oy vey.

Care to expand on the 'oy vey'?

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree

I found that hard to swallow at 8. Common sense, or I should perhaps say, just really easy to figure out.

leto: the problem with the first portion of that is that those two choices are not the only choices available. an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god. after that distinction, there's a lot of disagreement about issues.

for the second bit - that's my point. agnosticism isn't relatived to Gnosticism. however, i hold that one can feel (because i myself think this) that would be possible to know god or proof his/her/existence, were he/she/it a real phenomenon/being/whatever as portrayed in one of the major religious texts, pick your flavor.

ustwo: that may have been snarky, but it cracked me up. :D

Surely we can go one day without a snide remark?

Common sense describes none of these. The Earth can easily be demonstrated as not flat by a layman who can see someone or something travel over the horizon and then return with tales of... jack shit. No one falls of the end, thus the world is not flat. The sun, moon, blah blah... it's all a matter of very, very simple astronomy. When one realizes the movement of the stars relative to the sun and moon it becomes strikingly obvious. As for distance from the Earth to the sun? Triangulation. Take the position of the sun in the sky on two points on the Earth at the same time from far apart, then triangulate. Bam, about 92,000,000 miles. Common sense is not sitting there and guessing like an idiot. It's idiots that slow scientific development.

*Shakes his head*

Apparently you don't understand what common sense is and why it contradicts logical thinking, so I'll help you out.

Look up at the sky during the day and observe the sun. It appears to move across the sky. Now do the same with the moon. It also appears to move across the sky. Since you observed both the sun and the moon to move across the sky during the day, then it stands to reason that they both orbit the earth. That's what 'common sense' is. This is why the geocentric theory was accepted as fact for so long; Because 'common sense' dictated it to be true. We assume what we observe with our senses to be true, even when they might not be. None of your examples involve 'common sense', but rather the application of logic (Science) in order to solve a specific problem or answer a specific question.

Generally, 'common sense' inhibits logical thinking.

But-- Hey!-- Since you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to this guy ;)

Why you can't trust common sense

Helping out by weakly condescending? Do you actually speak to people this way? Do you think people listen?
Common sense is not sitting there making counterintuitive guesses.
Common sense is a starting point, not a conclusion. After you've allowed common sense to tell you that god makes no sense, you allow your rational and scientific mind to explore what does make sense.

BTW, Richard Dawkins uses a Mac. I win.

Sometimes. Depends on my mood.

You did :D

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how would "The sun revolves around the earth" be counter-intuitive? Given the fact that the sun appears to revolve around the earth, it's counter-intuitive to believe that it's the earth which moves (After all, we don't notice the fact that the earth is actualy moving through space at several thousand kilometers per hour) and the sun is stationary. Hence why it was 'common sense' that was geocentric theory was true and why Galileo was a nutjob ;)

Common sense is, in essence, neither. It's an intellectual cop-out, almost like giving the argument "It's so because it is". There's no discussion to be had.

*See above*

Didn't you watch the video? If you did, you'd know just how not possible your statement is. Common sense and logical thinking simply don't mix.

He uses a mac to feel even more superior to the common man while overpaying for a machine that has less available software. He even makes a bad joke about PC's being Virus machines in The Ancestors Tale and its a shame that such a man can't figure out how to avoid spyware when he goes to zooporn sites :p

I enjoy reading Dawkins to a point, but he is the epitome an ivory tower intellectual, and therefore he can't use the masses PC. My guess is he wears crocks too.

So one can simply look at the sun without considering the stars? It's beyond stupid. Weak ass assumption ≠ common sense. As soon as one takes into consideration the movement of the stars in the sky, it becomes clear.
Common sense is about recognizing systems in nature and then basing projections on the understanding of those systems.

It's why I use it...
Does zooporn mean what I think it means? If so, then that's a big LOL for a world renowned biologist. Also, it's nice not worrying about spyware. What does defrag mean? I have no clue.
The ivory tower would have a huge Apple insignia?

Apparently it's not as clear as you say it is, because it took science to disprove the geocentric theory, which was considered to be 'common sense'. If you look up at the sky you have no reason to not believe that the moon, the sun and stas don't revolve around the earth, as you can see them 'move' across the sky.

No, not it's not. We call that logical/abstract thought (aka, science). Common sense is using one of your five senses-- Usually sight-- To derive a 'common truth' about the universe.

Something being considered common sense and being common sense are not always in harmony.
Ignoring evidence isn't common sense.
Not it's not? There's nothing natural about ignoring reasonable evidence, and if ignoring evidence is common, well then it doesn't make any sense thus only fulfilling one of the two descriptive terms.

it is not a good idea to rely on "common sense" in an argument--you cant define it (above, i think il is closest in no. 436)---if it is more or less what hermeneutics types call "prejudice structures," then they are as much a filtering system as an apprehension system.

if you look at the german "alltagsgeschichte" (history of the everyday---the german is probably spelt wrong) sometime, you find a pretty damning analysis of petit bourgeois "common sense" as a system of perceptual filters--difficult to localize, difficult to specify, but not so hard to infer as being-at-work --that enabled folk to carry on their normal lives in the midst of deportations and not really notice much of anything. this work is mostly about the 1930s-40s in germany. it is about trying explain how genocide organized as the nazi party organized it was possible, not administratively, but more at the level of popular consent.

common sense is a way to refer to ideological effects that we perform in the normal run of our lives, when we are not particularly paying attention, when we are not particularly focussed..its a kind of immediacy, a frame that operates within the context of immediacy, which shapes it without requiring any particular effort.

any recursive statement entails a break with "common sense".

If works just fine if I don't take into account petit bourgeois "common sense" as a system of perceptual filters.

Call it 'really basic deductive reasoning' if it makes it seem better.

I thought common sense meant simpler things, like not sticking your hand in the fire and not stepping off a cliff.

What the hell happened to atheism?

:D

it gets a lot more plausible if you factor in the whole bit where two of every species of animal on earth was loaded onto a handmade wooden barge just before the entire planet was flooded until it became a vast watery expanse.

it's seems to me an inescapable characteristic of the old testament universe that the human race is descended from some really rather ratty and inbred genes, if we all came from the same two characters (and one, as you say, was derived from the rib of the other).

embarking from such a genetic cul de sac, it's a wonder we aren't all hydrocephalic imbeciles at this juncture. but evidently the authors of the bible were no more aware of rudimentary genetics than they were that the sky wasn't a flat canopy over which a vast unseeable hierarchy of heaven could be inscribed. nor did they seem to know that the ground wasn't a flat firmament just barely containing the fires of a vast holy internment camp.

it's actually not their fault, the authors of the bible. they did quite beautifully given the body of knowledge they had at the time. but as for so many of us, 2000 years later, still believing it literally? i really have no way of accounting for that.

It's fear, MrTia. Fear leading to dependance and groupthink. Groupthink and dependance occasionally leading to delusions. Zealotism, allegiance.

Why do people die for their leaders?

There are more religions than Christianity out there, you know....

And Church doctrine does not equal truth for many people.

Sometimes people die for their leaders because they believe in them. They believe that they will bring a better tomorrow and not always because of groupthink.

atheism on the rise?

that's why Islamic parties are winning power all over Asia, Africa, the Middle East - why millions of second and third generation immigrants in Western Europe are massively less integrated than their parents... etc etc.

Of course, the point I am making is that I do not notice that religion is so much in decline... rather to me it is radicalising.

Christianity and Judaism are on the decline and the population of the planet is growing, which makes it easy for both atheism and Islam to be on the rise.

are you equating Islam and atheism as equivalent things?

I'm not sure how you got that because both are growing, both are the same or equivalent. Coke use is on the rise, is that also equitable to Islam?

Both are labels for groups of people, and both groups are growing.

Quite an oversimplification, wouldn't you say?

In terms of the number of adherents versus world population growth Islam ranks first, followed by Sikhism, Hinduism and then Christianity. This, in iteself, is no surprise as the fastest growing areas are the Middle East/Asia. In total number of adherents for each religion, they're all expected to increase with Christianity still garnering the most adherents. Judaism is expected to increase at a rate much less than that of the aforementioned religions.

As far as atheism goes, well, did you know that there were more people who defined themselves as atheists during the 1970's than do presently? As a percentage, the number of atheists world wide is expected to decline, but the number denoting themselves as non-religious is expected to rise. Ironically enough, the biggest religious gainers in the United States are, in order, Evangelicals/Born-again Christians, Non-denominationalists and those identifying themselves as non-religious. Maybe we should rename the thread "Evangelical's sudden rise" :D

I'm sure you can cite evidence.

Don't believe me, huh? Oh well...

Ye' of little faith, you think I made this stuff up?

Edit: Changed the last link to make it easier on you >_>

evangelical protestantism was among the fastest-growing social movements in the southern hemisphere over the past 20 years---the information i am thinking of (which i have notes about somewhere, but would have to find again...) is maybe 5 years old, but the numbers were amazing.

i had this idea at one point that you could link the shift into a somewhat more militant posture on the part of islam in certain areas to the suddent expansion of the evangelical reach---a factor that tends for whatever reason to be filtered out of american medialogic maybe because protestant ideology is like dirt here in that you walk on it all the time without giving it particular notice.

http://christianity.about.com/

That you'd cite from a site with this name is insane.

Why? It's just about.com, and it's merely linking content from somewhere else. I actually looked around a little in other places and couldn't find support for the idea that atheism is on the increase (at least over the last 30-40 years). Agnosticism, or even people calling themselves non-religious is on the rise. So the discrepancy, if any, probably has something to do with people self-identifying and self-reporting, so there's probably a lot of variation in what agnostic/atheist/non-religious means to those individuals.

It seems hard to contest that fundamentalist/evangelical sects are growing quickly. After all, they're...evangelical.

Erm.... Why is it insane? As Uber said, I got it from about.com and they're typically unbiased in the resources they provide (Even if I don't always agree with it).

I think you are willfully misunderstanding me.

I am not stating that because two otherewise unlinked things are growing (and I do not agree atheism is growing) that they are the same thing.

I am questioning why you placed the two things - atheism and Islam - together in a statement and opposed them to Judaism and Christianity.

I can understand some growth in certain rich countries of agnosticism (if that is the right term) - but to me real atheism - the active and religious disbelief in God is as silly as Satanism.

(and I do not say that are the SAME thing, I say that they are equally silly, equally illogical)

You're reading into it too much intentionally. I mentioned Islam because it was brought up before, and atheism was brought up for obvious reasons. Christianity and Judaism, two religions relatable to Islam and central in the US, were chosen because I'm too lazy to look up new information on Hinduism.

Disbelief in god includes both hard line atheism and rationalism.

*sigh*

Apparently humanism will lose until we understand ourselves better and learn to love ourselves more.

Even in this (mostly) civilized discussion, prejudice is showing.

Either god is happy and plays with us or is jealous and vengeful, and our mental masturbation is the root of my evil, my prejudice, and my discontent with our willingness to give up joy in life for sacred lies.

No statistics, mea culpa, but has anybody read "How to Lie with Statistics"?

We've been, and still are, killing each other over NOTHING, and I consider that a tragedy. No outside power will step in to save us from ourselves.

IT'S JUST US HERE, PEOPLE!

I agree with everything you said except for "NOTHING." We've been, and still are, killing each other over delusions.

Thanks.
Delusions don't make the world go around, they just go around on it.

I really like you OCM!! Even though I don't always agree with you.....:orly:

Wouldn't it be great to just erase all political/religious memories from everyone, and start from scratch??? :)

^And... Accomplish what?

A new start for everyone.......

A new start? How so? Assuming man made up religion, then what's to stop him from doing so if he were to somehow be "restarted"?

Religion is not the reason that people fight, it is simply a banner.

People fight because of the exploitative and alienating methods of production of commodities and control of labour existing in pre-revolutionary societies.

In the natural state of mankind, there was no war. Or, if you like - there was no war in the garden.

War is a result of exploitation and alienation... all known wars in all human history have been made by the master class and fought by the working class. After the imminent collapse of capitalism, there will be no war.

But one thing in which Marx was wrong was his views on religion. There is no human existence that is possible without God. Not even the Brave New World. Whether or not you believe that God created man, or it is just an accident of chemical reactions - the concept of God is more central to the human condition than any other thing.

I do not say this to be insulting, but atheism is perverse, an extraordinary reaction to a society where old certainties are scattered. To question things is human. To wilfully make a decision to actively disbelieve in God is simply a form of self debasement.... like the pimp in The Deer Park, who as soon as he thought an insecurity, somehow was bound to obey it

I remember seeing Richard Dawkins debating Tony Benn about this on a UK show (Dawkins being a famous atheist who hates the Christian religion, Benn being a socialist and a Christian)... Dawkins certainly has a point to say that a lot of evil has been done under the banner of the church, of many churches... and that texts such as The Bible and The Holy Qu'ran have some pretty crazy stuf in them... he also admitted that he wanted to believe in God and still hoped that he would meet God when he died, although he could not personally sustain his faith in God and believed people should live as if there was no afterlife.

Maybe if they start suicide bombing you will hear more about it.

The closest ape to human would be Pan troglodytes, the common chimp.

They have wars all the time.

There is no reason to believe that warlike behavior is a later invention of mankind, it is part of our nature.

at least try to make sense, ustwo.

Assuming what you claim is true, and I'm just assuming for arguments sake, the reason such would be filtered out is that they don't call attention to themselves by blowing people up.

I think it should have been perfectly clear in the context of your statement.

i dont think that what i wrote poses any great mystery, ustwo.
i am sure that you can work out what it means.


i'm going back to doing other things now.

Umm sure....

That you took that into ..such productive realms boggles my mind, such as it is.

Our species has a greater place, to go.

I, honestly hate being affilated with any group. I would best be classified as an "Aithiest" yet do not share all the qualities that are sterotypical for one. I could honestly care less if you are Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Aitheist.
I don't go out meeting new people Saying "Hi, I am an _______. What are you? You are __________? Oh... well...
Generally I come from a very diverse area where its about 75% "Christian" 25% "Aitheist". Many people will not accept friends from the other view point, therefore I usually do not bring it up, because I could care less. I cound just "blend in" with any religion, if I got with a christian, sure, I'd go to church, I might not agree with what they are saying, but it wouldnt bother me.
I was raised going to church every sunday, and after a while I just started to sit back and think, this makes no sense, why would my life be in control of a higher being? I have complete control of my life and many of the things around me
This mirrors my view on political parties as well, I have some democratic views, and some republican views, and even some communistic views. I think our governmental parties should be done with and have everyone as an independant.

_Please Excuse My Spelling_

From another thread:
Seeing as atheism does not have any belief in the supernatural, no devotional and ritual observances, no organization, no moral code, and is not even close to being fundamental, I'd never consider atheism to be religion.

To be clear: atheism is a name for something one is NOT, not something one IS.

This speaks to atheism. And I agree: atheism isn't a set of beliefs--not in the sense of a religion. What we look at instead, is the individual atheist, and then ask: What is his or her set of beliefs? This is the difference between the religious and the non-religious. The religious belong to a unified belief system, whereas the non-religious base everything on individual experiences and thoughts. This is not to say that the religious have no independence, nor does it mean the non-religious do not belong to any groups that share similar beliefs. What it means is that the priorities are different; the balance shifts in the direction of where each person finds their foundation: in the religious, it is in the community cohesiveness based on religious texts/dogma; in the non-religious, it is in the individual observances based on community interaction.

Thanks for helping with the jump over.

There basically is no community cohesiveness for atheists. Our church is nonexistent. We happen upon one another, sure, but I doubt one might have a place to go to discuss it in an organized manner.

Ok..... let's look at it this way.

Do you believe in God? If no, what is your belief?

Are you fervent in your belief?


I'm sorry, to me Atheism is a religion that believes in nothing spiritually. (Agnosticism is the one that says there maybe....).

Now you can claim Scientific belief that there is no God, personal belief, statistically.... anyway you desire to say there is no God. But MY BELIEF is that if you are fervent, if you are so wrapped up in being an Atheist and that you scoff others beliefs or are so closed minded that you believe your belief to be the "only true belief". Then you are basically, for all intents and purposes no different than 99% of all other religions and religious zealots out there. It's just YOU choose to say you do not believe in anything.... but a belief in nothing is still a belief in something.

So for me, in my belief.... you choosing to say "there is no God" and being adamant to which so that no prayer can be in school, even if the school is willing to cover all major forms of spirituality, even the lack of, then you are just as pushing of your beliefs as the Christian Right, the extremist Muslim, etc. I say this because you are still pushing a spiritual belief, whether you accept it is a belief or not.

I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest the supernatural exists, including god or gods. Based on this information, I cannot reasonably believe in the existence of god. So no, sort of.
I understand that the world can probably be explained through science. It doesn't really have any necessary connection to god except that apparently being a rationalist also makes me an atheist, which is an exclusionary term for those who do not believe in god.
It's not a belief, and I'm not fervent in it. I'm fervent in adapting my understanding of the universe to match whatever information I have. If I get positive evidence that god exists, bam I believe in the existence of god. It's highly unlikely that would happen because most of the information presented about god runs contrary to our current scientific understanding of the universe.
There's no belief about it except believing what my senses deliver to my brain.

You should read what you copy and paste. I couldn't find the word supernatural or anything implying as such in the definition(s) you provided.

Hence the word usually.

I'm guessing this is a joke. What would you call groups such as, say, AA?

No kidding.

I'm curious as to what your definition of fundamentalism is.

So you're an atheist but not really an atheist? Cool!

But you didn't answer the true underlying question.... which is..

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME I CANNOT HAVE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN MY SCHOOLS??????

As long as every major religion (and atheism) is represented and if someone objects that theirs isn't taught and is willing to teach a week's worth, then what right do you have to object? IT IS BASED SOLELY ON YOU SAYING "YOUR BELIEF IS THE ONLY BELIEF YOU WILL SUPPORT", and what separates that belief from Pat Robertson's or militant Islams or so on?

You are militant about your belief and you refuse to allow open conversation that may open people's minds to accept others beliefs.

If you can't see that, then you are as blind in this area as Pat Robertson, militant Islams, etc.

The Constitution states There hasn't been an establishment of any religion as the "official religion" of this nation from Congress.

It goes on to say, I argue that taking someone's right to say prayer in school is abridging their right to freedom of speech.

And Article 9 states; So if a community or state wishes to allow prayer by MAJORITY vote of it's citizens, those rights should not be denied nor disparaged.

Yet, you would deny the majority voters those rights based on nothing else but YOUR SPIRITUAL BELIEF or lack of... or whatever, however you wish to phrase it.

I am sorry but this is just another argument in support of the so-called "tyranny of the majority". Just because a majority wants a thing doesn't mean that we should ignore the rights of a minority.

Religion does not belong in a public school. If you want prayer in your schools, start a private school. At best, lobby for a prayer room in your school so you can do it outside of the curriculum.

But then the question is WHY?

Why are you so militant to not allow prayer and religious education encompassing ALL major religions as I outlined above?

You cannot argue that the school is in any way stating one religion is above another.

My view is that in your doing so YOU are as closed minded, hypocritical and self righteous in your belief as those that would demand that a school could only teach one religion and had to ignore any other.

You are still taking away my child's right to speech, to religious belief. In doing so in the name of your belief of "nothingness" or however you wish to call it, you ARE dictating a religious belief is more important than another's.

And again, I point to your militant views as being no different than that of the religious extremist. You, whether you want to believe it or not, are being a religious (oops sorry.... anti-religious) zealot and extremist and pushing your beliefs as being more important than anyone else's.

And your argument does not standup to the true words of what the Constitution states. YOU are still asking for laws by Congress and the states to regulate religion.... YOU are still abridging freedom of speech by not allowing prayer....... YOU are still demanding that the majority bow down to YOUR beliefs.

What is the difference between YOU doing this and Pat Robertson making demands or any religious extremist making demands to support only their beliefs? NONE. YOU and the religious extremists are one and the same.... YOU just choose to hide behind your belief in "nothingness" or whatever/however you wish to say it.

Supernatural was a more broad interpretation of superhuman.
In the case of Atheism, it's never.
Alcoholics Anonymous has absolutely no connection to atheism.
Normally I'd tell someone to go fuck themselves for making a bigoted remark like this, but I'll let this slide seeing as you don't seem to comprehend atheism. I'm sure that despite the despicable implication of your statement, it was made from ignorance of how offensive it truly is.
Seeing as atheists are fluid in their interpretation of the universe, there are no real rigid principles to adhere to. As for opposition to secularism, I'll let you wrap your noodle around that.
Atheism is a label for people who are not theists. I am not a theist, thus I am an atheist.
No one is teaching not to believe in god in public schools. The idea is to stay neutral by both not posting in all caps and also by not allowing for any kind of religious representation in a public government funded organization. Seeing as atheism, or the lack of religion, is neutral, it's used. TJust as teachers cannot say "Let us pray", they also cannot say "god is a myth". That would also be religious.

Just to nitpick here, but AA most definitely not secular in any way. In fact, just the opposite.

The entire 12 step program is based around surrendering to the fact that you are powerless against alcohol, and the only chance you have to stay sober is in fact asking your higher power (insert god of your choice here) to assist you. A belief in God or higher power is the centerpiece of AA.

A lot of people actually have a big problem with this fact, since AA is often mandatory for people who get a DUI conviction. They see it as state sponsored religion. You cannot complete the 12 step program without accepting a belief in God.

See but your militant beliefs are such that you promote hatred, disrespect and ignorance of others religions.

Like I originally stated, if you have a school that teaches ALL major religions equally and allows questions and thought provoking exchanges, you allow for understanding, acceptance and perhaps respect from each other.

By disregarding it, ignoring it, disallowing it because of YOUR beliefs..... you do not allow the possibility for children to be exposed to other religions, to other beliefs and to have that understanding, acceptance or respect of others beliefs. What is the point of school if not to open children's minds to other's ideas? School is just as important socially as it is educationally.

I would argue that a country that allows open discussion of all religions (while not preaching just one) is one that is more open and accepting of others than ours ever has been.

As for neutral..... I don't see your solution as neutral at all. I see it as divisive , extremist and hate mongering. True neutrality in a school would be educating on ALL religious viewpoints, not "ignoring the question" not as some "compromise" because it isn't a compromise....it is YOU dictating your views and expecting everyone else to accept what you deem as "best for the country"..... again I ask (and you cvhoose to ignore and skip this question every time) What is the difference between YOUR extremism and that of a Christians, Muslims, etc.?

Pan, who decides what constitutes a major religion and what doesn't? Who decides what actually constitutes a religion? How do you differentiate between "religion" and "cult"? What if there is no one available to teach the class for a religion that is a minority in one area?

Seems like you could end up having Christianity taught exclusively in some areas of the country to me.

I'm not saying that yours is necessarily a bad idea, just potentially unworkable.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling "not collecting baseball cards" a hobby.

Also, agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with athiesm or even theism. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

From Wikipedia:
"Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, in particular the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this. There are contrasting views of the term."

I think atheists, like myself, would say that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god. Atheists generally place a very high value on reason and logic, science, and the scientific method. It is impossible to hold a belief in a god without casting aside your reason or logic, at least temporarily.

And you're getting these ideas from where? I can't remember promoting hatred or ignorance of religions. As a matter of fact, most atheists just want to go about living our lives without being killed or having to move because we don't have a personal relationship with Jesus.
We do learn about religion, in history class. We don't pray, though. We don't have god taking any kind of administrative role at the school.
Religion has it's own school that can be run by people of that faith. What if a teacher is Christian and asked to teach people how to pray to Allah? That's just asking for serious problems, and it's not like there's a shortage of churches or bible schools.
You can discuss it, sure. Don't make school into a religious institution, though.
If we lived in a theocracy, it'd make sense to have church presence in school. We don't. We allow for church to be free to preach. We don't preach in schools because we're not a theocracy. It has nothing to do with hatred. It's about equality.
You can't be an extremist atheist. There are no atheist bombings. There are no atheist crusades. One can be an extremist while being an atheist, I suppose, but there is no connection between the extremism and the atheism. We have no doctrine to be extreme about. We just don't believe in something.

as a follow up to this discussion, i would also have to ask which part of the current curriculum should be tossed out to allow for a full course in world religion, and at what point should that class be taught? would it also cover world philosophies? how many parents of judeo-christian-islamic students are going to allow their children to learn about the other two sects, much less buddhism, hinduism, wicca, native american spirituality, etc? should students have grade 13 to accomodate all this? i don't think a course in world religion and philosophy is a bad thing; i do question whether or not such a class could be taught, both practically and politically.

i also have to say that nothing currently prevent prayer in public schools. kids can pray whenever they want to, as can teachers and administrators. what is protested against is government/administrator-led prayer. organized prayer in public schools. i don't really see any way around the establishment clause on that one. i personally don't see the problem: we have various religious institutions that can teach their choice of religion, unfettered by government standards. we have religious instruction at home. weekend community groups...why is it so important to have it taught in schools? would this material need to be included on the SAT/ACT? the GRE? i mean, if my kid is studying it, then they would need to be measured on progress, correct?

as far as this goes, i truly don't understand this issue's contentiousness, but i respect the fact that for many people it's a big deal.

as for atheism being a religion, i have toyed with that concept myself. it really breaks down to a semantic argument, and i don't know that i care anymore about it. if the presence of a deity is required for a religion, then i don't see how atheism can be a religion. if you're simply saying that spirituality can form a religion, then some atheists would be 'religious,' and some would not. all christians, jews, muslims, hindus, etc etc etc are religious. i'm not sure i see the value in that view point, but if it works for some, then fine by me.

But you would have people move because you refuse to allow religion to be discussed and taught in school?

.

Ok, but for some religion isn't just history. Knowing the history of each religion can bring forth better understanding and would be part of the "one week" religious class", I proposed. (And yes it maybe actually 2 or 3 week courses).

What part of religion were you taught in school? What part is acceptable to you?

Where have I ever said that I supported in anyway How is a school teaching all major religions as being a theocracy, or putting God in an administrative role at the school?

You are just reaching now Will.

Again, the teacher doesn't tell you who to pray to or that you have to, just allows you the opportunity to if you so desire. Atheists got rid of even "the moment of silence" because it still promoted religion.... even though it promoted no religion and was considered voluntary. I call that extreme.

Yes, it does. I offered a true compromise... a way for children to understand and learn about others beliefs, you aren't even willing to do that. Again it is bow down to YOUR beliefs but don't even try to get someone else's in there.... You are deciding what the compromise or lack thereof will be. To you it is a subject as closed as your mind.

Really, no extremism?

Then what is.... "My beliefs will be taught, there will be no compromise. If the majority vote for it we will strike it down. We determine what can be taught in school. We regulate what can be done on school property (school kids can't gather to say prayer after or before games.... sound familiar?).... We determine what is in the best interest of the country. We determine that our belief in "nothingness" or however you wish to phrase it is far more important than kids learning different cultures, different religions, etc.

That is extreme pushing your beliefs on me is extreme.

I didn't attack you for your belief.... I never even looked in this thread before you took 1 sentence out of a post and made an issue of it.

So who is the extremist?

Pan, I sense that you are passionate about this subject but you appear to be jumping to conclusions that are not there.

If you read back somewhere either in this thread or in other threads like this, I have always advocated for sociology course that surveys World religions. I think there isn't enough sociology, philosophy and anthropology taught in public schools. As pig points out though, the curriculum would require a severe overhaul to introduce these new subjects. Not only would it require new textbooks, but it would also require new teachers (or new training for existing teachers).

The other question raised is will Christian parents (or parents of any faith) be willing to put up with this? Will they be OK with a) a course that looks at religion in this manner and b) gives equal weight to other religions.

Somehow, I don't think this is what they are looking for.

As for prayer in school, I think you will find that I agree with you that prayer in school is acceptable. I even suggested a multi-denominational prayer room could be built (if the community wishes to fund such a venture). The issue is when you take tax dollars in a public school system and advocate a mandatory prayer (i.e. state run prayer).

I am hardly a fundamentalist about things. I have simple requirements. No state sponsored prayer in schools. And no religious teaching in state run schools. The West prides itself on a plurality of points of view. Why would be turn back the clocks of progress to impose only one?

"... but of course, religion is poison. It has two great defects: It undermines the race ...(and) retards the progress of the country. Tibet and Mongolia have both been poisoned by it."

-Mao Zedong

I believe extremism in atheism exists when it wants to eradication theism. More commonly, we may see this when the religious find it increasingly difficult to abide by their beliefs. We must strike a balance to allow us all to practice what we believe in, so long as it isn't harmful to others.

See, with you there is true compromise, I don't see it with others on here.

I don't advocate a mandatory prayer, but I see nothing wrong with "moments of silence."

I can also agree with a multi-religious room where the schools can have books on world religions for students to peruse. And yes, if the majority voted for it then it should be funded through separate funds.

I don't see you and I differing so much that a compromise would not be reached swiftly, in our little perfect world.

BTW, I agree getting Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. parents to compromise also maybe another task.

And that is what I am saying. How is getting schools to allow prayer and the ability to teach world religions, including atheism equally and unbiasedly using leaders from the area churches, synagogues, temples, etc, ... harmful to anyone?

Yet some here, would not want to allow even that.

It's like creationism versus evolution versus whatever else explains our beginnings. Why not allow the sides to be presented in school without bias or judgment and allow the kids to decide for themselves?

Why does it have to be 1 or none?

The main reason, that I see, for not allowing a religious teacher access to teach a lesson on world religions is their tendency to proselytize. I certainly wouldn't be happy if an attempt was made to draw my children into a religion. This is doubly true when I am in a minority.

I can only imagine the opposite to be true as well.

You would have to be able to hire some very sound teachers to teach a course on world religions. They would have to be very diplomatic and would ultimately be open to slings and arrows from every direction (e.g. Which brand of Christianity are you going to explore?).

Agreed.

See in 4th grade we had a Jewish Rabbi, Catholic priest, and a few Christian denominational church leaders, even had a Buddhist, come to our school. Every Thursday, we would have one of these leaders talk about their religion's holidays, how their religion started, and the very basics of their religions.

It was a half hour to 45 minute "class" and to be quite honest, for me it was very educational and allowed me to talk openly to my parents about religion and to reach the beginnings of my own spirituality.

The students that didn't want to participate got an extra recess that day.

It would be harder today to allow that to happen. But I truly believe we need to do something along those lines before we all get killed in the name of some religion or non religion.

Pan, my take on why something like that can't happen is simply because Religion has been increasingly politicized.

The evangelicals have pushed very hard to see that their agendas are front and centre. They make no bones that they would like a strong religious element in the classroom.

The thing is, the West is a changing place. Not only are there increasing numbers of those who are in minority religions but those minorities, thanks to the civil rights movement, have realized that they have a voice and a say.

I go back to the idea of a Tyranny of the Majority. Just because a majority wants something does not mean it is the right thing or won't make things difficult for a minority.

The question of trying to strike a balance is important but so is drawing a line in the sand and saying, no.

To my eyes, inviting religion into a public school as part of the curriculum is asking for a large can of worms to be opened. A survey course is even problematic, though not impossible to implement.

I suppose we could go back to a pre-civil rights era and just let the minorities live with what the majority wants but I don't think you would agree that that is necessarily a good thing.

Oh and I agree. I think just by the attitudes shown here by Atheists, any type of a world religion study in school would be impossible to get. The Atheists would have their say, the Radical Christian Right theirs and so on. Everyone would want their views and would want to dispel the views of the others.

Sad really, when you think about it. Life is supposed to be a journey, (whether to another realm, a heaven, another life, or just for your own education in this life) and as a journey, it is easier to travel with many so that when you need help someone is there, when you want to share a smile, a laugh or a cry someone is there.... and yet, people want this journey to be only on their terms and their ways.

So in the end, even though we in someway influence everyone else's life.... we end up very alone because we refuse to allow ourselves to learn from each other, because we work so hard to believe ours is the only way, in religion, politics, you name it.

That made sense as I typed it..... hope it makes sense to those reading it.

BTW, I wouldn't look at it as a tyranny of the majority if all religions were to be taught as equals and those not wishing to participate were not forced to. I would view that community as very progressive and wanting truly the best for their kids. But it won't ever happen so .......

Ummm... Yeah. That's why the definition says usually.

I'm sure that was your attempt at a joke, but AA stands or American Atheists. How the hell is it that I, a non-atheist, happens to know more about the largest atheist organization in North America than you, the atheist, do. Same goes for sprocket.

I didn't make the statement; You did. I was simply agree'ing with it. Can't get mad over something you said, can you?

I'm pretty sure I've had this conversation before, but nevertheless... I ask because, many times, people love to use fundamentalism as a pejorative term in order to describe a portion of theism whilst ignoring that fundamentalism doesn't refer exclusively to theism. Did you know that we've had-- And are still currently undergoing-- Periods in which you atheistic fundamentalism? Yeah... I'm sure you did ;)

That'd make you something then. You're labeled for what you are, not what you're not.

Move? You act as if there's not a church on every corner. They are everywhere. Unless you're not Christian (or less than 20% of the population), you're set. If you're not Christian, you're probably living near your mosque/synagogue/etc. anyway.
If it's an elective and it's totally 100% neutral, there is still a very serious chance that you've going to have problems. You know how insane some people get when their kids are exposed to other religions. I mean I'm sure you've heard about the French schools and burkas. And that was in uber-liberal, socialist France, not the United States of Jesus.
I learned about Christianity in Rome, the Dark Ages, Crusades, Diet of Worms, Reformation, settlement of the East Coast of North America, witch trials, the Vatican, etc. I leaned history.
I don't believe there should be publicly accredited private elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, or colleges that are religious. I suspect that you disagree. Knowing about god shouldn't be a part of getting any kind of scholastic diploma. Again, church is there to teach about religion, school is there to teach about everything else.
Would you also want astrology? How about holistic medicine? It's hardly a slippery slope as allowing religion into public schools is leading to the teaching of mythology in science classrooms. That's prevalence makes it a real life concern.
Kids can silently pray at recess or lunch. No one stops them from doing that. Setting aside time for structured learning of facts to have prayer time, which is what it's usually called, is taking away from education to allow for superstition. No one is stopping anyone from doing what they will on their own time, but school is about learning facts.
True compromise? Like having kids learn about how Jesus died on the cross and then letting them go next door to math class? That teaches them that Jesus is just as viable and reliable as math. Besides, atheism isn't even a belief. Atheism is zero sum. It's a lack. A lack of belief is not belief. A lack of belief is not belief.
If schools were taught with my exact philosophy, then the teachers would tell the children that religion is a product of groupthink with the occasional delusion. Is that taught? Absolutely not, because that would be putting church and state together. The middle ground is allowing each child to learn about their god or god in a church, where it belongs.
Who is the extremist? The person who wants my children to learn about Vishnu because they don't get that school is supposed to be neutral.

And the NAACP stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people... do obviously not being white is a religion. Besides, how many AA churches have you driven by? Have you ever had an atheist knock on your door to read from ATHEIOS NECRONOMICON, THE HOLY WORD OF ATHEOS! Do we even have any kind of coherant text or organization? Of course no.
I said that atheists as a whole do not have one solid moral code that they all stick to. Like, oh I dunno, two big tablets? We are all moral, but it's because we are allowed to freely develop morality on our own.

Suggesting atheists are immoral absolutely is bigotry, and you were clear in what you said. I expect an apology, or I expect you to defend every sin that a Christian has ever committed.
There's no such thing as atheistic fundamentalism. It's a contradiction in terms, as I demonstrated.
It's funny a Christian isn't familiar with the word "Gentile". Go ahead. Look it up. Now, look up atheist. Then come back and admit you don't know what "atheist" means.

Okay... Reading posts like this one drive me absolutely insane...

1.) You speak of the scientific method, do you? Well, I've said this over and over and over again in the past, but one more time can't hurt. Did you know that a lack of evidence for existence isn't the same thing as evidence of non-existence (Probably not). A lack of evidence for existence is, simply put, a lack of evidence for existence. If you believe that God doesn't exist because science has never observed him, then you'd also agree with this statement: "Aliens don't exist because we've never seen one."

2.) Anyone with an introductory course in logic would be able to tell you that there's nothing illogical about a belief in God. For as long as you accept that He exists, then any argument you could possibly make about God existence would always-- ALWAYS-- Be true.

Mmmmmm does this mean we would have to move teaching about the Greek/Roman gods to this new religion course, or do we just call it mythology if the the religion is pretty much dead?

God I'd have fun with this course if I were teaching it.

I'm not Pan, by the way >_>

Well, aside from that little NAACP anecdote not having anything to do with what was being discussed... You're sooo behind the times.

But I didn't say anything. You were the one who said "Atheists have no moral code". I was merely agreeing with your statements. Like I said earlier, you can't get mad at words I didn't say, especially considering you were the ones who said it.

Gentiles refers to people who aren't Jewish. Atheists refer to people who don't believe in the existence of God. What do I win? :D