Do Atheists have their own Militia ? [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Do Atheists have their own Militia ?

chloe

11-16-2009, 11:30 PM

I'm sure most atheists feel fine to not believe religion or God, but are there organized Atheists determined or having a main agenda to convert others to not believe in religion or God?

Noir

11-16-2009, 11:37 PM

I'm sure there are, almost every group will have its pressure groups and agendas.

chloe

11-16-2009, 11:43 PM

I'm sure there are, almost every group will have its pressure groups and agendas.

LOL I was just trying to open up a room for you and kathianne.....

Yeah some atheists came to my door asking if they could leave some Douglas Adams literature for me to ponder....:eek:....they are really getting nervy !

Kathianne

11-16-2009, 11:46 PM

LOL I was just trying to open up a room for you and kathianne.....

Yeah some atheists came to my door asking if they could leave some Douglas Adams literature for me to ponder....:eek:....they are really getting nervy !

OMG, I'd smack him and he me! LOL! Truly I think Noir is a good egg. Misguided and more prejudiced than he recognized, but good.

chloe

11-16-2009, 11:51 PM

OMG, I'd smack him and he me! LOL! Truly I think Noir is a good egg. Misguided and more prejudiced than he recognized, but good.

well I get what your saying, and it does worry me the way thing s are going. I don't want to lose religious freedom in america. It seems like more then ever there is an agressive atheist campaign going on instead of the live and let live attitude.

Kathianne

11-16-2009, 11:52 PM

chloe

11-16-2009, 11:55 PM

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 12:00 AM

Noir

11-17-2009, 12:04 AM

chloe

11-17-2009, 12:06 AM

??? By definition? They don't believe in God.

Agnostics say, 'No God, maybe. Being on the safe side.' Atheists? No God. Period.

Im not an atheist and so I dont know exactly what they think. Ok so they all dont believe in God. Some also seem to aggressively despise religion. Some also think its wrong to teach religion but not wrong to teach science or evolution theories. I say why can't children be taught religion and evolution and later decide what rings true for them? Why does religion have to be taken out of schools? Is it because somehow if children learn it early on they tend to stick with it>?

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 12:12 AM

Im not an atheist and so I dont know exactly what they think. Ok so they all dont believe in God. Some also seem to aggressively despise religion. Some also think its wrong to teach religion but not wrong to teach science or evolution theories. I say why can't children be taught religion and evolution and later decide what rings true for them? Why does religion have to be taken out of schools? Is it because somehow if children learn it early on they tend to stick with it>?

I've got to get to bed. More tomorrow.

Noir is an atheist I believe. There is no god(s).

Many others think sort of like him, maybe. They are agnostic.

If you believe in God, you're not either.

Good night.

chloe

11-17-2009, 12:15 AM

I've got to get to bed. More tomorrow.

Noir is an atheist I believe. There is no god(s).

Many others think sort of like him, maybe. They are agnostic.

If you believe in God, you're not either.

Good night.

nite I should go too

Noir

11-17-2009, 12:24 AM

Pah! All giving into the sandman, and i'm still going strong :P

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 07:40 AM

chloe

11-17-2009, 08:51 AM

Dawkins explains much better than i can, and i'm feeling kinda lazy so i'm gonna drop a video lol

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CULGslK2vrw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CULGslK2vrw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

While he was witty & humorous, it doesn't really answer my question. First off if he is going to make a case for not indentifying children with religion he should not pick a religious story "the fiery furnace" story is biblical and if kids were starring in it, then there is relevance to religious background. Now if he had used the kids play Olivier, perhaps the point would be more valid to me. I see a subtle agenda by atheist philosophers to wipe out religion most especially the christian religion. The way it comes off to me is as if perhaps the atheist may have experienced a personal intolerance by a christian attitude so now they have turned against all religion, sometimes with a vengeance.

glockmail

11-17-2009, 09:23 AM

well I get what your saying, and it does worry me the way thing s are going. I don't want to lose religious freedom in america. It seems like more then ever there is an agressive atheist campaign going on instead of the live and let live attitude.

Yes, and its called the ACLU. They go around removing prayer from City and town Board meetings, high school football games, and Christmas displays from public squares, then sue for legal expenses. It's a money making racket for them.

Gaffer

11-17-2009, 09:25 AM

chloe

11-17-2009, 09:27 AM

These people give atheists a bad name. A true atheist would never be a liberal.

:laugh2:

Noir

11-17-2009, 09:54 AM

While he was witty & humorous, it doesn't really answer my question. First off if he is going to make a case for not indentifying children with religion he should not pick a religious story "the fiery furnace" story is biblical and if kids were starring in it, then there is relevance to religious background. Now if he had used the kids play Olivier, perhaps the point would be more valid to me. I see a subtle agenda by atheist philosophers to wipe out religion most especially the christian religion. The way it comes off to me is as if perhaps the atheist may have experienced a personal intolerance by a christian attitude so now they have turned against all religion, sometimes with a vengeance.

There are 2 points being made, first that children are given labels based on their parents religious beliefs, and second that we unknowingly accept such phares as 'jack, a christain, aged 4' when we would not accept 'jack, a socialist, aged 4' or 'jill, a feminist, aged 4' ect ect.

By labling these kids, and then having their parents and school teach them day and daily about men who could turn water into wine ect ect. Out of the thousands of gods they could worship.

As I have said before we are all athiests on the website, we all (I think) know what it's like not to believe in Thor, or Ra, or Apollo, or the great JuJu.

As for science in schools, let science teach what needs to be taught, I don't see a real need for evolution to be taught in the class room, or how the universe started, what could rather be taught are more about other areas of science that's are more commonly ignored by school lessons, I'm sure there are plenty of them.

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 09:59 AM

second that we unknowingly accept such phares as 'jack, a christain, aged 4' when we would not accept 'jack, a socialist, aged 4' .

when have you ever seen the phrase "Jack, a Christian, aged 4" used?.......

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 10:00 AM

By labling these kids, and then having their parents and school teach them day and daily about men who could turn water into wine ect ect. Out of the thousands of gods they could worship.

why would any parent teach their child something they did not believe to be the truth.....I would consider that abusive behavior......

Noir

11-17-2009, 10:02 AM

when have you ever seen the phrase "Jack, a Christian, aged 4" used?.......

Watch the video I posted a few posts ago,

and children are more often than not refered to as their parents faith.

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 10:04 AM

As I have said before we are all athiests on the website, we all (I think) know what it's like not to believe in Thor, or Ra, or Apollo, or the great JuJu.

I have heard that argument before.....it's not very accurate, you realize.....in order to be an atheist you must deny the existence of any deity......choosing a single deity does not make me an atheist.....in truth, it makes me the opposite of an atheist.....

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 10:04 AM

Watch the video I posted a few posts ago,

and children are more often than not refered to as their parents faith.
so you are basing your argument on what an atheist did in his video?......rather self serving isn't it?.....

Noir

11-17-2009, 10:07 AM

why would any parent teach their child something they did not believe to be the truth.....I would consider that abusive behavior......

Just because a parent things it's the truth, shouldn't give them the right to force that truth upon their child. For example, a man such as hogwash is a White seperatist, would you therefore see nothing wrong in him raising his children to be White seperatists just because hogwash believes he is right?

Noir

11-17-2009, 10:08 AM

so you are basing your argument on what an atheist did in his video?......rather self serving isn't it?.....

have you watched the video? He took the extract from a British newspaper,

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 10:11 AM

have you watched the video? He took the extract from a British newspaper,

let me raise your consciousness a bit.....the 4 year olds in the article didn't put on the nativity play.....their teacher likely did, with the approval and cooperation of their parents......thus, the fact that a Sikh, a Muslim, and a Christian participated (irrespective of the fact they were only 4 year old kids) is evidence of the cooperation of their parents, not evidence that 4 year olds have religious committments.....the point Dawkins was trying to make was bogus....

chloe

11-17-2009, 10:12 AM

There are 2 points being made, first that children are given labels based on their parents religious beliefs, and second that we unknowingly accept such phares as 'jack, a christain, aged 4' when we would not accept 'jack, a socialist, aged 4' or 'jill, a feminist, aged 4' ect ect.

By labling these kids, and then having their parents and school teach them day and daily about men who could turn water into wine ect ect. Out of the thousands of gods they could worship.

As I have said before we are all athiests on the website, we all (I think) know what it's like not to believe in Thor, or Ra, or Apollo, or the great JuJu.

As for science in schools, let science teach what needs to be taught, I don't see a real need for evolution to be taught in the class room, or how the universe started, what could rather be taught are more about other areas of science that's are more commonly ignored by school lessons, I'm sure there are plenty of them.

But Noir you are missing my point, bare with me please, I watched the video and my impression was the professor was funny and witty, but really biased in his example. If there was a newspaper clipping of 3, 4 yr olds and the original arguement was about lets say "meat eating" and one child was labeled meat eater, one was labelled vegetarian, and another vegan. This is also stemming from a parental "choice" on how they want to teach their values to the child. The issue is not religion then, the issue is labels on children because of parents choices. So it is more honest to say dont label kids because of your choices, or to say you dont like parents getting to make those kind of choices for kids. So the answer to that is then dont have kids but you can't censor everyone because you disapprove of how society deals with procreation.

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 10:14 AM

Just because a parent things it's the truth, shouldn't give them the right to force that truth upon their child.

you are probably right.....I shouldn't force them to believe that 2+2=4, or that the US won the Revolutionary War.....I should let them explore their own choices.....sorry, I have discovered ample evidence that atheists are idiots....I intend to arm my children with that evidence as quickly as possible.....

Noir

11-17-2009, 10:30 AM

let me raise your consciousness a bit.....the 4 year olds in the article didn't put on the nativity play.....their teacher likely did, with the approval and cooperation of their parents......thus, the fact that a Sikh, a Muslim, and a Christian participated (irrespective of the fact they were only 4 year old kids) is evidence of the cooperation of their parents, not evidence that 4 year olds have religious committments.....the point Dawkins was trying to make was bogus....

But the point is that they are not of different religions, they are just 4 year olds, they are no more Muslim than they are capitalists, no more Christain than they are Post-modernists. And yet they are forced into these boxes, and we as a society make an exception for religion, allowing the children to be forced into these boxes

Noir

11-17-2009, 10:35 AM

But Noir you are missing my point, bare with me please, I watched the video and my impression was the professor was funny and witty, but really biased in his example. If there was a newspaper clipping of 3, 4 yr olds and the original arguement was about lets say "meat eating" and one child was labeled meat eater, one was labelled vegetarian, and another vegan. This is also stemming from a parental "choice" on how they want to teach their values to the child. The issue is not religion then, the issue is labels on children because of parents choices. So it is more honest to say dont label kids because of your choices, or to say you dont like parents getting to make those kind of choices for kids. So the answer to that is then dont have kids but you can't censor everyone because you disapprove of how society deals with procreation.

Indeed, lables are a key part of the problem, and for some reason we accept religious lables, and i for one would never accept that a 4 year old could be a vegitarian.

Upon re-watching the video I agreel that the what i have produced does not really deal with the issue of children being forced into a religion, but more with societys acceptence of labling, so i shall find another, which goes further into the issue.

May i also add, i find Dawkins a little too extreme, i don't agree with everything he says, and i think he can be quite agressive, however, on the whole he tends to make some very interesting points,

Noir

11-17-2009, 10:38 AM

you are probably right.....I shouldn't force them to believe that 2+2=4, or that the US won the Revolutionary War.....I should let them explore their own choices.....sorry, I have discovered ample evidence that atheists are idiots....I intend to arm my children with that evidence as quickly as possible.....

Teach your child as many facts as you like, for example when WWII was fought, why 2+2=4, or anything like that, but don't teach them of faith, for faith is not fact, though you have tried to merge the two in your above post.

Nukeman

11-17-2009, 11:15 AM

Teach your child as many facts as you like, for example when WWII was fought, why 2+2=4, or anything like that, but don't teach them of faith, for faith is not fact, though you have tried to merge the two in your above post.yet your willing to teach the absence of faith!!! Why are you allowed to exclude yet others are not allowed to include????

Noir

11-17-2009, 11:22 AM

yet your willing to teach the absence of faith!!! Why are yo allowed to exclude yet others are not allowed to include????

You wana include? then include them all,
I wana exclude, ergo i exclude them all,

I think my way is much more practical, if you don't fair enough, we'll agree to disagree,

Nukeman

11-17-2009, 12:32 PM

You wana include? then include them all,
I wana exclude, ergo i exclude them all,

I think my way is much more practical, if you don't fair enough, we'll agree to disagree,that right there is the point my friend... You seem to not be able to let go of the fact that others are doing differenty than you choose to!!!

Noir

11-17-2009, 12:40 PM

that right there is the point my friend... You seem to not be able to let go of the fact that others are doing differenty than you choose to!!!

We're am i not accepting anything? I don't think that children should be indoctinarted into a religion, and if i'm asked to explain why i think that i happily will, but there's nothing i can do about what people chose to do with their children, such is life.

HogTrash

11-17-2009, 12:47 PM

I'm sure most atheists feel fine to not believe religion or God, but are there organized Atheists determined or having a main agenda to convert others to not believe in religion or God?Marxism is the driving force behind the atheist movement.

Religion is feared and hated by marxist and they use their liberal pawns to attack it.

Liberals are indoctrinated mainly in the universities and some carry it into their adult life and pass their beliefs onto their children.

Virtually all atheist movements are rooted in marxism...To create a perfect successful marxist society, religion must be eliminated.

Nukeman

11-17-2009, 12:50 PM

We're am i not accepting anything? I don't think that children should be indoctinarted into a religion, and if i'm asked to explain why i think that i happily will, but there's nothing i can do about what people chose to do with their children, such is life.
Your tone through out these discussions has been riddled with contempt for any who choose to teach their children about their religion. I find it rather humours that you would believe that by NOT teaching children about religion then they will as adults be able to determine if they want to believe or not. I don't think very many people with a lack of religious upbringing suddenly one day say "ohh my I am now a religious person and I believe".

By not teaching your children or at least allowing them to know of the choices of religion than you are by deffinition "indoctrinating" them in an athiest setting!!!!

Noir

11-17-2009, 02:41 PM

Your tone through out these discussions has been riddled with contempt for any who choose to teach their children about their religion. I find it rather humours that you would believe that by NOT teaching children about religion then they will as adults be able to determine if they want to believe or not. I don't think very many people with a lack of religious upbringing suddenly one day say "ohh my I am now a religious person and I believe".

By not teaching your children or at least allowing them to know of the choices of religion than you are by deffinition "indoctrinating" them in an athiest setting!!!!

I do not have contempt, thats far to stong a word, yes i dislike the idea but not to such a degree that i would get annoyed about it,
And therein you say it yourself, it is indoctrination,
I'm not saying don't let them have a choice, or don't let them learn of religion, quiet the opposite, let them have full choice, let them learn of different religions, but do not push your religion on them, just because they happened to be born into your religion,

But as i've said before i'll say again, its more a matter for the parents, and its obviously one which hasn't gone down here very well, but there's no reason to go and start builind mountains outa molehills,

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 03:15 PM

Noir

11-17-2009, 03:20 PM

Noir for all his talk, has been modeled after his parents choices.

Indeedy, modeled by freedom and personal responsibility, what more could anyone ask for.

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 03:32 PM

Indeedy, modeled by freedom and personal responsibility, what more could anyone ask for.

You don't know what you are missing, as same will be said in reverse.

chloe

11-17-2009, 03:42 PM

Marxism is the driving force behind the atheist movement.

Religion is feared and hated by marxist and they use their liberal pawns to attack it.

Liberals are indoctrinated mainly in the universities and some carry it into their adult life and pass their beliefs onto their children.

Virtually all atheist movements are rooted in marxism...To create a perfect successful marxist society, religion must be eliminated.

I agree

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 05:52 PM

But the point is that they are not of different religions, they are just 4 year olds, they are no more Muslim than they are capitalists, no more Christain than they are Post-modernists. And yet they are forced into these boxes, and we as a society make an exception for religion, allowing the children to be forced into these boxes

your argument might make sense if the kids had been the ones organizing the nativity show.....they weren't.....their parents and teachers were....thus, the references to the various religions IS relevant....

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 05:52 PM

Teach your child as many facts as you like, for example when WWII was fought, why 2+2=4, or anything like that, but don't teach them of faith, for faith is not fact, though you have tried to merge the two in your above post.

for those who believe, it's as much fact as 2+2=4.....

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 05:53 PM

You wana include? then include them all,

why include them all when all except one are false?......I would not teach my child that something which is false might be true....

Noir

11-17-2009, 06:00 PM

why include them all when all except one are false?......I would not teach my child that something which is false might be true....

But ofcourse everyone of every faith will say that about their faith.

Noir

11-17-2009, 06:02 PM

for those who believe, it's as much fact as 2+2=4.....

A fact is a fact is a fact, it can not be a fact for one person and false for another, just because you believe something to be a fact, does not make it a fact.

Noir

11-17-2009, 06:04 PM

your argument might make sense if the kids had been the ones organizing the nativity show.....they weren't.....their parents and teachers were....thus, the references to the various religions IS relevant....

The point was that these children are labled when they are far to young to know what they are, and they are labled by their parents, and what they believe. Is that 4 year old really a Muslim?

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 06:13 PM

The point was that these children are labled when they are far to young to know what they are, and they are labled by their parents, and what they believe. Is that 4 year old really a Muslim?

I don't know that the Islamic faith has a ceremony of when children enter the faith on their own. In Catholic Church, confirmation is when one chooses to claim membership on their own. In Jewish it's bar or bat mitzvah. Catholics say that 7 is the 'age of reason,' when one is cognizant of right or wrong. Fits pretty well with child development.

Missileman

11-17-2009, 06:14 PM

Im not an atheist and so I dont know exactly what they think. Ok so they all dont believe in God. Some also seem to aggressively despise religion. Some also think its wrong to teach religion but not wrong to teach science or evolution theories. I say why can't children be taught religion and evolution and later decide what rings true for them? Why does religion have to be taken out of schools? Is it because somehow if children learn it early on they tend to stick with it>?

Which religion(s) would you be willing to have taught in public schools? Even better, what do you think of giving Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, et al the status they TRULY deserve and teach them as mythology?

Noir

11-17-2009, 06:20 PM

I don't know that the Islamic faith has a ceremony of when children enter the faith on their own. In Catholic Church, confirmation is when one chooses to claim membership on their own. In Jewish it's bar or bat mitzvah. Catholics say that 7 is the 'age of reason,' when one is cognizant of right or wrong. Fits pretty well with child development.

So you consider 7 year olds Catholics by their own choice, and not one that has been branded into them? Would you also consider a 7 year old a Humanist, or a socialist? or an athiest?

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 06:31 PM

So you consider 7 year olds Catholics by their own choice, and not one that has been branded into them? Would you also consider a 7 year old a Humanist, or a socialist? or an athiest?

You don't read very carefully, do you?

Noir

11-17-2009, 06:34 PM

You don't read very carefully, do you?

Well you did say "Fits pretty well with child development." i took that to mean you think 7 is the right age for a child to be considered catholic, no?

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 06:44 PM

Well you did say "Fits pretty well with child development." i took that to mean you think 7 is the right age for a child to be considered catholic, no?

Nope, read again.

chloe

11-17-2009, 08:11 PM

Which religion(s) would you be willing to have taught in public schools? Even better, what do you think of giving Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, et al the status they TRULY deserve and teach them as mythology?

Well, I think every subject should be taught with enthusiasm and it is even better if the teacher believes what they are teaching. I think all those religions you mentioned should be offered as an "elective" and so should should Philosophy, mythology, evolution. Those subject usually are taught in Jr High not elementary school anyway. Just like students can opt to learn a language they should have options to learn religions and philosophies. I don't think religion should be taught as a mythology becaause there are often historical documents to support particular people did exist, whereas my understanding with mythology is it isacknowledged to be a story made up with a moral. Anyway thats is my opinion I hope I answered your questions.:cool:

Noir

11-17-2009, 08:32 PM

Nope, read again.

I've tried it a few times and keep seeing the same,

Missileman

11-17-2009, 08:33 PM

Well, I think every subject should be taught with enthusiasm and it is even better if the teacher believes what they are teaching. I think all those religions you mentioned should be offered as an "elective" and so should should Philosophy, mythology, evolution. Those subject usually are taught in Jr High not elementary school anyway. Just like students can opt to learn a language they should have options to learn religions and philosophies. I don't think religion should be taught as a mythology becaause there are often historical documents to support particular people did exist, whereas my understanding with mythology is it isacknowledged to be a story made up with a moral. Anyway thats is my opinion I hope I answered your questions.:cool:

I'm curious why you keep lumping evolution in with philosophy and theology? Why not chemistry, biology, algebra, etc?

Mythology often takes a real place, real people, and real events and inserts a smattering of the supernatural or a deity to spice up the story. Today's mythologies are but ancient religious stories from religions that are no longer practiced.

chloe

11-17-2009, 08:35 PM

I'm curious why you keep lumping evolution in with philosophy and theology? Why not chemistry, biology, algebra, etc?

Mythology often takes a real place, real people, and real events and inserts a smattering of the supernatural or a deity to spice up the story. Today's mythologies are but ancient religious stories from religions that are no longer practiced.

because when I read exchanges between the atheists and religious people they seem to argue about evolution so it seems important.

Missileman

11-17-2009, 08:36 PM

Well you did say "Fits pretty well with child development." i took that to mean you think 7 is the right age for a child to be considered catholic, no?

I think actually what she said is 7 is the age when Catholic children are deemed old enough to be held accountable for their sins.

Missileman

11-17-2009, 08:39 PM

because when I read exchanges between the atheists and religious people they seem to argue about evolution so it seems important.

I've seen no evidence that any significant percentage of scientists are atheist. I am reasonably sure that the majority of scientists consider evolution a valid scientific theory, so by extension, lots of religious people have no problem with evolution.

chloe

11-17-2009, 08:43 PM

I've seen no evidence that any significant percentage of scientists are atheist. I am reasonably sure that the majority of scientists consider evolution a valid scientific theory, so by extension, lots of religious people have no problem with evolution.

well I have read on other boards as if people do. So then either way it doesnt matter if its offered up for study or not right?

Missileman

11-17-2009, 08:45 PM

well I have read on other boards as if people do. So then either way it doesnt matter if its offered up for study or not right?

It is taught exactly where it should be...in science classes.

chloe

11-17-2009, 08:53 PM

It is taught exactly where it should be...in science classes.

so be it then.

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 09:56 PM

I've tried it a few times and keep seeing the same,

Confirmation=14-16 year olds. Decided whether or not to 'confirm' faith.

Age of Reason=7 year olds. Ability via maturity to know right from wrong.

More clear?

Noir

11-17-2009, 10:40 PM

Confirmation=14-16 year olds. Decided whether or not to 'confirm' faith.

Age of Reason=7 year olds. Ability via maturity to know right from wrong.

More clear?

Indeed, thank-you,

So they are able to decide if they are catholic or not when they're mid teens, fair enough, er, after how many years of Catholic teachings if they've gone to a faith school?

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 10:47 PM

Indeed, thank-you,

So they are able to decide if they are catholic or not when they're mid teens, fair enough, er, after how many years of Catholic teachings if they've gone to a faith school?

Most do not go to 'faith school' for academics. Indeed, in US most 'Catholics' don't go to mass, much less send their children for indoctrinating lessons. Yet somehow, many young adults, (18-25) manage to declare themselves Catholics. Go figure.

Noir

11-17-2009, 10:54 PM

Most do not go to 'faith school' for academics. Indeed, in US most 'Catholics' don't go to mass, much less send their children for indoctrinating lessons. Yet somehow, many young adults, (18-25) manage to declare themselves Catholics. Go figure.

I know allot don't but IMO none should,

and i know, the same happens here, we are a society of passive christains,

Dara O'Briain covers that quiet amusingly,

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XUVNZFylTdo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XUVNZFylTdo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Kathianne

11-17-2009, 11:03 PM

I know allot don't but IMO none should,

and i know, the same happens here, we are a society of passive christains,

Dara O'Briain covers that quiet amusingly,

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XUVNZFylTdo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XUVNZFylTdo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Once again, you are entitled to 'your' opinion. Just your condescension gets tiresome. You seem clueless to what you are projecting.

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 11:09 PM

A fact is a fact is a fact, it can not be a fact for one person and false for another, just because you believe something to be a fact, does not make it a fact.

true.....fortunately, I picked the right one to believe in.....:poke:

PostmodernProphet

11-17-2009, 11:11 PM

The point was that these children are labled when they are far to young to know what they are, and they are labled by their parents, and what they believe. Is that 4 year old really a Muslim?

what I am trying to explain is that the label isn't really attaching to the child, the label belongs to the parent who agreed to let the child participate in the pageant......

Noir

11-17-2009, 11:13 PM

Once again, you are entitled to 'your' opinion. Just your condescension gets tiresome. You seem clueless to what you are projecting.

If you're getting tiresome of my opinions then stop asking me about them =/

I know what way i would like things to be, but they never will, you disagree, fair enough,

Noir

11-17-2009, 11:15 PM

what I am trying to explain is that the label isn't really attaching to the child, the label belongs to the parent who agreed to let the child participate in the pageant......

The label belongs to the parent who attached it to the child,

PostmodernProphet

11-18-2009, 07:43 AM

The label belongs to the parent who attached it to the child,

look....what was the purpose of the article.....to talk about four year olds and what they believe?......or to talk about the cooperative effort to engage in an ecumenical celebration of a holiday without hostility.......it wasn't the kids who were cooperating.....they were standing around looking at stuffed sheep and a doll in a manger.....it was the parents who were cooperating.....

chloe

11-20-2009, 01:17 AM

look....what was the purpose of the article.....to talk about four year olds and what they believe?......or to talk about the cooperative effort to engage in an ecumenical celebration of a holiday without hostility.......it wasn't the kids who were cooperating.....they were standing around looking at stuffed sheep and a doll in a manger.....it was the parents who were cooperating.....

Exactly ! That's why the professors example doesn't really make a case, since the whole thing was about different religions cooperating in a play based on a religious story.

glockmail

11-20-2009, 09:26 AM

Indeed, thank-you,

So they are able to decide if they are catholic or not when they're mid teens, fair enough, er, after how many years of Catholic teachings if they've gone to a faith school? It's called "Faith Formation", and classes are typically 90 minutes per week, on the same seasonal schedule as public school secular indoctrination, which is 1800 minutes per week. :)

chloe

11-20-2009, 09:31 AM

It's called "Faith Formation", and classes are typically 90 minutes per week, on the same seasonal schedule as public school secular indoctrination, which is 1800 minutes per week. :)

we have seminary in utah, kids go to a building next to the school and study the book of mormon.

HogTrash

11-20-2009, 09:58 AM

we have seminary in utah, kids go to a building next to the school and study the book of mormon.I was raised Presbyterian, which is a Scottish protestant religion that immigrated to America with my ancestors.

Was everyone aware that William Wallace, made famous by Mel Gibson and "Braveheart", was the George Washington of Scotland?

Did I also happen to mention that the scots make the finest whiskey in the world, rivaled only by the fine bourbons distilled in Kentucky?

Does it sound like I'm bursting with pride over my Scottish haritage? :clap:

chloe

11-20-2009, 10:03 AM

I was raised Presbyterian, which is a Scottish protestant religion that immigrated to America with my ancestors.

Was everyone aware that William Wallace, made famous by Mel Gibson and "Braveheart", was the George Washington of Scotland?

Did I also happen to mention that the scots make the finest whiskey in the world, rivaled only by the fine bourbons distilled in Kentucky?

Does it sound like I'm bursting with pride over my Scottish haritage? :clap:

I like ancestry, In Utah we have one of the largest genealogy libraries in the world. I started doing research on my family history over a year ago. Mostly german & irish, some swede, some scottish too. my family doesnt talk about our history at all. It is like pulling teeth to get info. LOL

glockmail

11-20-2009, 10:04 AM

Pericles

11-20-2009, 10:32 AM

I've seen no evidence that any significant percentage of scientists are atheist.

That's not what I've heard. I've read before (though can't remember where) that scientists are nonbelievers in far greater proportion to the general population (around 40%), and elite scientists - Nobel Prize winners, etc. are overwhelmingly nonbelievers (north of 80%).

I am reasonably sure that the majority of scientists consider evolution a valid scientific theory, so by extension, lots of religious people have no problem with evolution.

Evolution and the belief in monotheism are not in strict contradiction of one another (unless you're a Fundamentalist); BUT evolution gives an explanation of why the universe has the structure that it has, without any need to reference a supernatural explanation... so, by a simple application of the logical principle known as Ockham's Razor, we can dispense with God as an unnecessary hypothesis...

Agnapostate

11-20-2009, 07:47 PM

Yes, and its called the ACLU. They go around removing prayer from City and town Board meetings, high school football games, and Christmas displays from public squares, then sue for legal expenses. It's a money making racket for them.

Insightful as always, aren't you?

Oh. Or not. (http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression) http://www.forums.youthrights.org/images/smilies/sleep.gif

The ACLU vigorously defends the right of all Americans to practice religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is often wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described below – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians, with the remaining cases defending the rights of a wide range of minority faiths – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are. (The list below includes examples from the past decade only.)

* * * *

The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia (2009) argued against the censorship of religious materials being sent to detainees in the Rappahannock Regional Jail. The ACLU wrote a letter to the superintendent of the jail, asking that the jail cease the removal of Christian-themed materials and biblical passages from letters written to detainees.
/prison/restrict/40258prs20090709.html

The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) argued for the right of Christian preachers to distribute pamphlets at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival. The ACLU wrote a letter to the mayor in support of the preachers, who had been ordered to stop handing out religious material.
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=thetowntalk&sParam=30796437.story

The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Donald Leger, a devout Catholic and prisoner on death row at Angola State Prison. The lawsuit challenged the prison's policy mandating that all televisions on death row be tuned to predominately Baptist programming on Sunday mornings. Under the terms of a settlement in the case, Mr. Leger was able to view Catholic Mass regularly and was permitted private confessional visits with a priest.
http://www.laaclu.org/newsArchive.php?id=342#n342

The ACLU of Texas (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU urged the court to reverse a decision that had prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also had sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In June 2009, the Texas Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of the pastor.
http://aclutx.org/article.php?aid=726

The ACLU of Delaware (2009) represented the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware in a threatened eviction action against a congregation that was meeting in an elementary school on Sunday mornings. Because the school district permitted a wide variety of other groups to use its facilities, the ACLU wrote to the school district explaining that, as a general rule, public buildings must be made available to religious groups on the same terms that they are made available to the general public. In January 2009, the parties reached an amicable resolution permitting the church to continue using the facilities.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Shenkel United Church of Christ, objecting to North Coventry Township's refusal to allow the church to house homeless people for one month out of the year. The case is similar to several earlier actions brought by the ACLU on behalf of churches in Brookville, PA and Munhall, PA.
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/acludefendschurchprevented.htm
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/courtshowdownavertedastown.htm

The ACLU of Arizona (2009) filed a case on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her hijab during booking and overnight detention at the Maricopa County intake jail.

The ACLU of Kentucky (2009) represented several members of the Swartzentruber Amish, an Old Order Amish sect, in an attempt to overturn their criminal convictions for failing to display slow-moving vehicle emblems on their horse-drawn buggies. The Swartzentruber Amish object to displaying the emblems because they perceive them as worldly symbols that are to be avoided.

The ACLU of the National Capital Area (2009) brought suit on behalf of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish firefighters and paramedics who wear beards as a matter of religious observance. The district court agreed with the ACLU that the District of Columbia's policy prohibiting these individuals from wearing beards violated their religious freedom rights, and the court of appeals affirmed in 2009.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200903/07-7163-1168865.pdf

The ACLU of Arizona (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Maricopa County Sheriff's Office detention officer who was demoted and eventually forced to leave for failing to abandon his practice of wearing a beard in accordance with his Muslim faith.
http://www.acluaz.org/press_releases/5_29_09.html

The ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey (2008) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner – an ordained Pentecostal minister – seeking to restore his fundamental right to preach to other inmates. The minister had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison for more than a decade when prison officials issued, without any reason, a blanket ban on preaching by inmates, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff.
/religion/discrim/37958prs20081203.html

The ACLU of Michigan (2008) filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of a Benton Harbor minister who was sentenced to 3-10 years in prison for writing an article both criticizing and predicting what God might do to the judge who presided over his case – actions protected by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and religious expression.
http://aclumich.org/issues/free-speech/2009-07/1383

The ACLU of Maryland (2008) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Christian ministry for the homeless in the town of Elkton, MD, which purchased a site for a religious day center to help the local community through job training, food, showers, and religious services. Though the site is legally zoned for the use of churches and centers that provide those services, the zoning board refused to recognize the religious nature of the center, placing undesirable limitations on the community center.
http://www.aclu-md.org/legal/Legal.html#Anchor-RELIGION-48213

The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/102880

The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual's right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2008/NetherlandAmicus060408.html

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2008) filed several declaratory judgment actions to confirm the validity of marriages performed by clergy who do not regularly preach in a church or to a congregation.

The ACLU of North Carolina (2008) assisted an individual who had been banned from riding the bus in Raleigh for reading his Bible aloud. As a result of the ACLU's intervention, he was permitted back on the bus system.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2008) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas Supreme Court in support of mothers who had been separated from their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The DFPS seized more than 450 children from their homes in Eldorado, Texas, following vague allegations about child abuse by some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While fully supporting the state's commitment to protecting children from abuse, the ACLU argued that Texas law and the U.S. Constitution required that the children be returned unless the state could provide the requisite evidence of abuse. In May 2008, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled, consistent with the ACLU position, that the state must return the children to their homes pending further investigation of allegations of abuse.
/religion/gen/35468prs20080529.html
/religion/gen/35500prs20080602.html

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2008) sued the City of Poplar Bluff after the City's public library disciplined a part-time employee who objected to participating in the promotion of a Harry Potter book. The employee, a devout Southern Baptist, had religious objections to the promotion, which she believed encouraged children to worship the occult. The lawsuit argued that the city violated federal law by refusing to accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs.
http://www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/currentcases/smithvthomasetal.htm

The ACLU of Delaware (2008) came to the defense of a Muslim nurse who was told she could not wear her religious head covering to work at the New Castle County Detention Center. After the ACLU's intervention in the matter, the nurse received her requested religious accommodation.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2008) came to the defense of a five-year-old Native American boy who was forced into in-school suspension for wearing long braids as an expression of his religious beliefs and cultural heritage. A federal judge ruled that this policy violated the U.S. Constitution and state law, and the school district was required to provide the child an exemption from its restrictive dress code. The case is now on appeal.
http://www.aclutx.org/article.php?aid=672

The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The city had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the city revised its proposed ordinance.
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf

The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
http://www.aclu-or.org/content/nakashima-v-board-education

The ACLU of Colorado (2007) came to the defense of a Jewish law student who needed to reschedule the first day of her bar exam because of a conflict with a day of religious observance. After a letter from the ACLU, she was granted the requested religious accommodation.
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/Advocacy/2007/07.00153.sisk.may.htm

The ACLU of Texas (2007) represented a Texas man who was ordered out of the courtroom by a Justice of the Peace and threatened with arrest when he refused to remove his turban – worn in accordance with his Sikh faith – while defending himself against a traffic citation.
http://www.aclutx.org/chapters/article.php?aid=506&cid=6

The ACLU of Michigan (2007) filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court against Old Redford Academy, a public charter school in Detroit, for violating a ninth grade student's right to wear his hair long in accordance with a verse in Leviticus. Despite the religious basis for his long hair, ORA suspended him and referred him for expulsion for violating its "closely cropped" hair policy. The judge issued an injunction ordering the school to let the student come back to school.
http://www.aclumich.org/issues/religious-liberty/2007-10/1232

The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU's client a leave of absence to serve on a two-year mission for his church.
http://www.acluwv.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/07_19_07.html

The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) challenged a North Carolina Department of Corrections policy making all religious services in prison English-only, thereby denying access to many inmates. The North Carolina Division of Prisons agreed to review the policy and the need for religious services in languages other than English in the state correctional system.

The ACLU of Colorado (2007) defended the rights of prisoners in the Teller County Jail to receive a proper diet consistent with their religion. After jail officials determined that prisoners would not have "certain religious articles or diets," the ACLU wrote a letter of inquiry which resulted in a revision of the jail's policy to allow for religious accommodation.
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/Advocacy/2006/06.0119.snare.htm

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) came to the defense of a second-grade student who, in response to a class assignment to write a story, submitted a story about Easter and redemption. After the teacher rejected the submission because of its religious content, the ACLU wrote a letter to the school on the student's behalf. The principal and teacher subsequently apologized, and the principal agreed to instruct his teachers on the law.

The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html

The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU's advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/egyptiantorture/courtrejectsdeportationofe.htm

The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) wrote a letter to the Dismas Charities Community Correction Center on behalf of a former resident who was told he could not drink wine during communion services while confined at the Center. After the ACLU advised the Center of its obligations under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the Center revised its communion policy to comply with federal law.

The ACLU of Colorado (2007) came to the defense of a Seventh-Day Adventist who was being refused a religious diet in prison. After the ACLU communicated with prison authorities on the prisoner's behalf, the diet was provided.
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/Advocacy/2006/06.1021.wise.htm

The ACLU of Georgia (2007) filed a federal lawsuit to help obtain a zoning permit for a house of worship on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church after the city of East Point denied the request. The city has since repealed the ordinance and churches are now allowed to occupy buildings that were previously used for commercial purposes.
/religion/discrim/25518prs20060419.html
http://www.acluga.org/press.releases/0707/church.east.point.html

The ACLU of Delaware (2007) prevailed in a lawsuit brought on behalf of Christians, pagans, and Wiccans, alleging that a department store violated a Delaware public accommodations law by canceling community courses after individuals complained about the religious beliefs that were being taught in the centers.

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2007) represented Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose religious beliefs led her to condemn homosexuality as a sin and insist that God is punishing the United States. The protests in which she has been involved have been confrontational and have involved funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. While the ACLU does not endorse her message, it does believe that she has both religious and free-speech rights to express her viewpoint criticizing homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently refused to overturn a court of appeals decision in Phelps-Roper's favor.
/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html

The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) assisted with the naturalization of a Jehovah's Witness who was originally denied citizenship based on his conscientious refusal to swear an oath that he would be willing to bear arms on behalf of the country.

The ACLU of Rhode Island (2007) prevailed in its arguments on behalf of a Christian inmate, Wesley Spratt, who had been preaching in prison for over seven years before administrators told him to stop based on vague and unsubstantiated security concerns. After the ACLU prevailed in the court of appeals, the parties reached a settlement under which Mr. Spratt is free to preach again.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/Preacher_07-31-07_T76IHBQ.34294dd.html

The ACLU and the ACLU of Southern California (2007) filed suit on behalf of Jameelah Medina, a Muslim woman who was forced by local deputies to remove her religious head covering while she was in custody in San Bernardino County's West Valley Detention Center. Despite her repeated requests to keep her head covered during her day-long incarceration, Medina was forced to remove her hijab in the presence of men she did not know and to remain uncovered for much of the day. In October 2008, the county agreed to adopt a policy accommodating the right of Muslim women to wear headscarves in accordance with their religious beliefs.
/womensrights/gen/35300res20071206.html

The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) won its lawsuit against the state of North Carolina to permit witnesses at trial to take oaths on the religious scriptures of their own religious beliefs (in this case, Islam) rather than on those approved by the state.
/religion/govtfunding/29872prs20070524.html

The ACLU of Southern California (2007) represents Calvin Chee Keong Lee, a Buddhist-Taoist conscientious objector who enlisted in the U.S. Army shortly after arriving in the United States from Malaysia. Currently stationed in Ft. Irwin, California and scheduled for imminent deployment to Iraq, Lee sought discharge from the Army based on his religious beliefs, which compel him not to kill or cause injury to others. When he enlisted, Lee believed that he would be able to remain in his civilian construction job.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/102655

The ACLU (2007) argued that veterans and their families should be able to decide for themselves which religious symbol is placed on a deceased veteran's headstone at federal cemeteries. The ACLU challenged the constitutionality of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs policy that had restricted religious symbols only to those that had been approved by government officials. The Department of Veterans Affairs settled the case by agreeing to allow a Wiccan symbol to be included on the plaintiffs' loved ones' military headstones.
/religion/discrim/26970prs20060929.html

The ACLU of West Virginia and the ACLU of the National Capital Area (2007) represented a Muslim Iranian-American couple, both of whom were terminated from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) because of their religion and without due process. The ACLU negotiated an agreement with NIOSH under which the husband and wife were reinstated to their previous positions with back pay, benefits, and damages.
http://www.acluwv.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/12_18_06.htm
http://www.acluwv.org/Slideshow/AfshariSlideshow.htm

The New York Civil Liberties Union (2007) successfully brought suit on behalf of a Muslim prison guard who was told that he had to remove his head covering (known as a kufi), while working, even though he had worn it while on duty for many years. A federal judge ordered the New York Department of Corrections to allow the guard to wear his head covering on the job again.
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1062

The ACLU of Alabama (2007) represented Native American inmates in their successful religious liberty suit requiring the state of Alabama to permit sacred sweat lodge ceremonies at designated correctional facilities on holy days. After winning that case, the ACLU of Alabama represented some of the inmates again when the State attempted to transfer them to a correctional facility in Louisiana that does not allow such religious ceremonies.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Georgia (2007) wrote a letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on behalf of a Sikh physician. The doctor had been instructed that he must, contrary to his religious beliefs, shave his beard and remove his turban in order to work at the Public Health Commissioned Corporation of CDC. After receiving the ACLU's letter, the CDC implemented a new, individualized process for requests for religious exemptions that creates a general presumption in favor of religious accommodation.

The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) brought suit challenging a company's refusal to permit one of its employees to wear a skirt to work. The employee's religious beliefs prohibited her from wearing trousers. The employer refused to accommodate these beliefs despite the employee's offer to pay for a uniform skirt with her own funds.

The ACLU of Missouri (2007) sent a letter to the Kansas City Water Department demanding that a Muslim employee be permitted to attend Friday prayers. The Department responded by extending the employee's Friday lunch to accommodate her religious observance.

The ACLU of Nevada (2007) appeared before the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and the EEOC on behalf of a Jewish Orthodox employee of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department whose request to wear a trim beard and yarmulke while at his non-uniform desk job was denied. When the Department still refused to grant the employee a religious accommodation, the ACLU brought a successful suit in federal court.
http://aclunv.org/aclu-wins-victory-orthodox-jewish-police-officer-seeking-wear-beard

The ACLU of Virginia (2007) filed a complaint under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act challenging a Virginia Department of Corrections policy requiring inmates to be clean-shaven and to keep their hair short. The policy infringed on the beliefs of Muslim and Rastafarian inmates who have religious objections to cutting their hair.
http://www.acluva.org/newsreleases2007/Jan6.html
http://www.acluva.org/newsreleases2006/May19.html

The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) filed a religious discrimination case on behalf of a Muslim student who had to choose between following his religious beliefs that forbid him from entering buildings with foreign religious symbols and attending his public high school graduation that was scheduled to be held in a church. The ACLU argued that the school's decision unlawfully forced the student to choose between attending his graduation and violating his religious beliefs.
http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/schoolviolatesreligiousfre.htm

The ACLU of Louisiana (2007) filed a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim in federal court after the David Wade Correctional Facility refused to permit a Muslim inmate to receive a religious newspaper.
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2007/LeonardPR_050907.html

The ACLU of Southern California (2007) filed claims under RLUIPA, the First Amendment, and several state law provisions on behalf of Souhair Khatib, a practicing Muslim woman who was forced to remove her hijab, a religious headscarf, when taken into custody at an Orange County courthouse holding facility. In accordance with her religious beliefs, Mrs. Khatib wears her headscarf whenever she is in public or in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, and she does not permit any physical contact with men who are not her immediate relatives.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/05/local/me-hijab5

The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) reached a favorable settlement after filing a federal suit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of an inmate who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). The inmate, Norman Sanders, was denied access to religious services and religious texts including The Book of Mormon.
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2005/Aug26SandersvCain.htm

The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don't Shop There."
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2006/Crayton_111306.htm
/freespeech/protest/27266prs20061027.html

The ACLU of Florida (2006) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brian Nichols, a Christian minister, and First Vagabonds Church of God, his church for the homeless based in Orlando. The suit challenges the City of Orlando's ordinance that makes it unlawful to provide food to groups in the same public park more than twice per year. The challenge prevailed in the federal district court and is currently in the court of appeals.
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3668

The ACLU of Nevada (2006) defended the free exercise and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of Las Vegas. When the County government refused to change its unconstitutional policy, the ACLU filed suit in federal court.
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T

The ACLU of Southern California (2006) filed suit on behalf of a Vietnamese Buddhist Temple (Quan Am Temple) against the City of Garden Grove and its officials for violating the congregation's First Amendment rights to free religious exercise and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the city's zoning codes, as well as the city's application of the zoning codes to Quan Am Temple. A federal judge issued a preliminary ruling requiring the city to allow "the Temple, the Abbot, and his congregation [to] peaceably practice their Buddhist faith at the Chapwood Property immediately."
http://www.aclu-sc.org/news_stories/view/102046/

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2006) helped a Rastafarian baggage screener wear his hair in accordance with his religion. The screener had been employed for three years by the Logan Airport for the Transportation Security Administration. The ACLU filed a complaint before the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission defending his religious rights.

The New York Civil Liberties Union (2006) filed a federal lawsuit in Manhattan defending the right of people wearing religious head coverings not to have them removed for identity photos. The case was brought against a Coast Guard regulation denying merchant marine licenses to those who would not remove the coverings for photographs.
/religion/discrim/24780prs20060328.html

The ACLU of Virginia (2006) filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting an inmate's allegation that the Virginia Department of Corrections violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by refusing to provide him with meals consistent with his religious beliefs.
http://www.acluva.org/newsreleases2006/Jun12.html

The ACLU of Nebraska (2006) brought a free exercise claim on behalf of followers of the Church of Scientology who alleged that Nebraska's mandatory testing of newborn infants for metabolic diseases violated their religious liberty by preventing them, as new parents, from exercising their belief that a newborn should be kept quiet and serene during the first days of life.

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2005) defended the rights of two teenage girls who, for religious reasons, sought to wear anti-abortion t-shirts to school after school officials threatened to punish them.
/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html

The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) helped release a street preacher who had been incarcerated in Roosevelt County jail for 109 days. The case was brought to the ACLU by the preacher's wife and was supported by the American Family Association.
/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html

The ACLU of Michigan (2005) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Hanas, a Roman Catholic who was punished for not completing a drug rehabilitation program run by a Pentecostal group whose religious beliefs he did not share. Part of the program required reading the Bible for seven hours a day, proclaiming one's salvation at the altar, and being tested on Pentecostal principles. The staff confiscated Mr. Hanas's rosary beads and told him Catholicism was witchcraft.
/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html

The ACLU of Southern California (2005) defended an evangelical scholar who monitored the fundraising practices of several ministries and their leaders after a defamation suit was brought against him in order to silence him.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004-2005) won two cases on behalf of predominantly African-American churches that were denied permits to worship in churches previously occupied by white congregations. In 2005, the ACLU of Pennsylvania settled a case against Turtle Creek Borough brought on behalf of Ekklesia church. After the ACLU's advocacy, the Borough of West Mifflin granted Second Baptist Church of Homestead an occupancy permit in 2002 and, in 2004, agreed to pay it damages and compensate it for its losses.
/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11083&c=28
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04111/303298.stm

The New York Civil Liberties Union (2005) filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing a policy of detaining, interrogating, fingerprinting, and photographing American citizens at the border solely because they attended Islamic conferences.
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1097

The ACLU of Washington (2005) represented The Islamic Education Center of Seattle, a small Muslim nonprofit organization that holds prayer services, education programs, and cultural activities, after the city of Mountlake Terrace denied the Center a conditional land use permit. The City denied the Center permission to operate even though it granted an allowance to a Christian church next door to the Center. With the aid of the ACLU, the Center eventually received its permit from the City.
http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=294

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) settled a lawsuit with the New Jersey Department of Corrections on behalf of Patrick Pantusco, an inmate who was denied religious books and other items while in prison. Although it permitted persons of other religions to obtain materials for their religious practices, it denied Mr. Pantusco's requests because it did not recognize Wicca as a legitimate religion. In the settlement, the state agreed to permit Mr. Pantusco access to all requested items and pay damages.
http://www.aclu-nj.org/legal/closedcasearchive/pantuscovmoore.htm

The ACLU of Northern California (2005) filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging restrictions on an asylum seeker's right to wear a religious head covering. The plaintiff, Harpal Singh Cheema, a devout Sikh, had been imprisoned since 1997, while awaiting a decision on his asylum application. The Sikh faith requires men to cover their heads at all times, but Yuba County jail authorities would not allow Mr. Cheema to leave his bed with his head covered.
/immigrants/asylum/11736prs20050518.html

The ACLU of Wisconsin (2005) filed suit on behalf of a Muslim woman who had been required to remove her headscarf in front of male prison guards in order to visit her husband at the Columbia Correctional Institution

Frankly, I'm not really sure how anyone who claims to value liberty could attack a civil libertarian organization. :lol:

emmett

11-20-2009, 09:34 PM

Insightful as always......aren't you!

PostmodernProphet

11-20-2009, 10:11 PM

Frankly, I'm not really sure how anyone who claims to value liberty could attack a civil libertarian organization. :lol:

probably because an exhaustive search turned up a whole page of cases where they supported a conservative position....out of how many thousands of cases where they opposed it.......

Agnapostate

11-21-2009, 05:53 AM

probably because an exhaustive search turned up a whole page of cases where they supported a conservative position....out of how many thousands of cases where they opposed it.......

Social conservatism isn't typically associated with civil libertarianism. The crude analysis of the Libertarian Party as being "left on social issues, right on economic issues" is derived from that fact.

PostmodernProphet

11-21-2009, 08:05 AM

Social conservatism isn't typically associated with civil libertarianism. The crude analysis of the Libertarian Party as being "left on social issues, right on economic issues" is derived from that fact.

true.....but that doesn't change the fact that the ACLU is a friend to liberals and no one else....

Agnapostate

11-21-2009, 08:39 AM

true.....but that doesn't change the fact that the ACLU is a friend to liberals and no one else....

The ACLU is a friend to civil libertarianism.

That accounts for their defense of decidedly rightist Christians on many occasions, for example.

chloe

11-21-2009, 10:12 AM

The ACLU is a friend to civil libertarianism.

That accounts for their defense of decidedly rightist Christians on many occasions, for example.

agreed on that one,aclu is not part of the atheist militia

Noir

11-21-2009, 12:52 PM

Exactly ! That's why the professors example doesn't really make a case, since the whole thing was about different religions cooperating in a play based on a religious story.

But the point is the labling!
Is that 4 year old really a Muslim? Or just a 4 yearold with Muslim parents? Non the less that child will grow up as a 'muslim child'

chloe

11-21-2009, 01:08 PM

But the point is the labling!
Is that 4 year old really a Muslim? Or just a 4 yearold with Muslim parents? Non the less that child will grow up as a 'muslim child'

:laugh2:, and if it was Richard Dawkins child, the label would be atheist....:poke:

Noir

11-21-2009, 01:15 PM

:laugh2:, and if it was Richard Dawkins child, the label would be atheist....:poke:

No ofcourse he wouldn't. Infact in the video Dawkins pokes fun at the idea of a child being called an atheist aswell, or any other label, simply because they are not, but simply by an accident of birth their religious path is chosen for them, a path which i'm sure few diviate from,

PostmodernProphet

11-22-2009, 01:14 PM

Noir

11-22-2009, 01:23 PM

/shrugs....well, I for one am going to poke fun at the idea of calling this a valid example of what Dawkins wants to claim......

So you think that those children are infact a Muslim child and a Christain child and so forth?

chloe

11-22-2009, 02:37 PM

No ofcourse he wouldn't. Infact in the video Dawkins pokes fun at the idea of a child being called an atheist aswell, or any other label, simply because they are not, but simply by an accident of birth their religious path is chosen for them, a path which i'm sure few diviate from,

so then atheiest children are labelled as well, and if he thinks its so funny why did he start a kids camp teaching atheist views and philosophy? I see no difference. What I see is that organized atheists/organized philosophy groups think their beliefs are acurate and everyone elses beliefs most especially religous sects are wrong, whereas, someone who simply doesn't believe in God/Gods, just doesn't believe in it and has no other need to control other groups ways of believing, or someone who does believe in God but doesn't belong to a religion is fine living there life that way without needing to change the way others express their religion. To me, allowing religious people to be religious and atheists to be atheiests is the best way to be. Organized atheiests have there own agenda as much as organized religion.

PostmodernProphet

11-22-2009, 04:55 PM

So you think that those children are infact a Muslim child and a Christain child and so forth?

no, I think no one was claiming the children themselves had any religious beliefs....

SassyLady

11-22-2009, 05:05 PM

Noir

11-22-2009, 05:34 PM

so then atheiest children are labelled as well, and if he thinks its so funny why did he start a kids camp teaching atheist views and philosophy? I see no difference.

Likewise i see no difference, I had not heard of this camp before, and would be rather disapointed if thats the few that dawkins takes, however, as i have said before i do find him a lil too extreme for my liking, while i do agree with him on many issues, i think he sometimes takes them too far.

What I see is that organized atheists/organized philosophy groups think their beliefs are acurate and everyone elses beliefs most especially religous sects are wrong, whereas, someone who simply doesn't believe in God/Gods, just doesn't believe in it and has no other need to control other groups ways of believing, or someone who does believe in God but doesn't belong to a religion is fine living there life that way without needing to change the way others express their religion. To me, allowing religious people to be religious and atheists to be atheiests is the best way to be. Organized atheiests have there own agenda as much as organized religion.

Indeedy, i agree, the problem being that organized religion is tolerated within schools, which it should not, in my opinion.

Noir

11-22-2009, 05:38 PM

no, I think no one was claiming the children themselves had any religious beliefs....

....then why is the fact that the children are 'Christain' or 'Muslim' even mentioned? they are just children, they do not have religious beliefs, but they will be brought up and told what god to follow and the vast majoirty will do as taught from birth.

Noir

11-22-2009, 05:46 PM

Noir, why shouldn't kids be taught religion? They are taught all sorts of subjects including science and mythology. Is there a fear from atheists that if kids are taught all those subjects somehow they won't become atheists later?

I think you hit the nail on the head Chloe!:clap:

And how exactly do you seperate religion and mythology?

and as i said before if religion must be taught in schools then fair enough...but surly then all relgions should be taught, i mean who is to decide that children shouldn't learn about Islam and its teachings, or Thor, or Buddha, or Apollo? ect ect.

Its all or nothing really, and all is not possible,

Kathianne

11-22-2009, 06:40 PM

Noir

11-22-2009, 06:44 PM

I'm so lost here. The public schools do not teach religion. In upper grades they may or may not teach comparative religions, seems Noir, our resident genius on all things regarding kids, has a problem with that.

Oh well.

Aw shucks darlin, i ain't no genius ^.^

Indeedy i have a problem with religion being taught in schools, simple really, i also have a problem with children being brainwashed by their famlies, but such is life.

Kathianne

11-22-2009, 07:24 PM

Aw shucks darlin, i ain't no genius ^.^

Indeedy i have a problem with religion being taught in schools, simple really, i also have a problem with children being brainwashed by their famlies, but such is life.
Yet none regarding the failures of states to look after interests of individuals. Yet, what would one think? That a Marxist would suddenly grow gonads or truth?

SassyLady

11-22-2009, 07:27 PM

And how exactly do you seperate religion and mythology?

and as i said before if religion must be taught in schools then fair enough...but surly then all relgions should be taught, i mean who is to decide that children shouldn't learn about Islam and its teachings, or Thor, or Buddha, or Apollo? ect ect.

Its all or nothing really, and all is not possible,

My granddaughter is in the 5th grade at a charter school and the school combines history, english and geography classes and one of the units is Greek mythology. She also attended a christian school through the 4th grade. She has no problem separating faith from myth.

What I take exception to Noir is that you want to take away ALL opportunities for everyone and narrow it down to just what YOU think is appropriate. When you have children of your own you will understand why parents don't want the state/government dictating what their children learn or don't learn.

Surely you are not advocating the state to start dictating how and what we are allowed to teach our children? To me, teaching one's children about the family's faith is no different than teaching them about the family's cultural history.

Noir

11-22-2009, 07:53 PM

My granddaughter is in the 5th grade at a charter school and the school combines history, english and geography classes and one of the units is Greek mythology. She also attended a christian school through the 4th grade. She has no problem separating faith from myth.

She can tell myth from faith? Hows that...i dare say its cause, er, she's been taught that some religions are myths and others are faiths. Kinda ironic given what i've been sayying, no?

What I take exception to Noir is that you want to take away ALL opportunities for everyone and narrow it down to just what YOU think is appropriate. When you have children of your own you will understand why parents don't want the state/government dictating what their children learn or don't learn.

I'm not taking away opportunities, infact quiet the opposite, if a child is brought up from brith to be Muslim, or Christain, or Buddhist ect ect, then chances are they will be with that religion for life. However, if they are able to grow up without being brainwashed into one or another, and then when they are of a good age they can chose to believe whatever they want.

Surely you are not advocating the state to start dictating how and what we are allowed to teach our children? To me, teaching one's children about the family's faith is no different than teaching them about the family's cultural history.

Here we disagree, however, i realize that in order for what i think should be done, to be done, it must have the support of everyone, which it never will, so it will never happen, but still, tis a nice thought.

Kathianne

11-22-2009, 08:24 PM

She can tell myth from faith? Hows that...i dare say its cause, er, she's been taught that some religions are myths and others are faiths. Kinda ironic given what i've been sayying, no?

I'm not taking away opportunities, infact quiet the opposite, if a child is brought up from brith to be Muslim, or Christain, or Buddhist ect ect, then chances are they will be with that religion for life. However, if they are able to grow up without being brainwashed into one or another, and then when they are of a good age they can chose to believe whatever they want.

Here we disagree, however, i realize that in order for what i think should be done, to be done, it must have the support of everyone, which it never will, so it will never happen, but still, tis a nice thought.

You've not a clue to the cognitive abilities of 9-13 year olds. Seriously, you are so wrong on both topics of interest to yourself and the ability of children to separate wheat and chaff.

Agnapostate

11-22-2009, 08:30 PM

You've not a clue to the cognitive abilities of 9-13 year olds. Seriously, you are so wrong on both topics of interest to yourself and the ability of children to separate wheat and chaff.

Inculcation from a young age will probably cement certain beliefs in a person's mind even if they possess the ability to make rational and informed decisions.

chloe

11-22-2009, 08:40 PM

Well, I think every subject should be taught with enthusiasm and it is even better if the teacher believes what they are teaching. I think all those religions you mentioned should be offered as an "elective" and so should should Philosophy, mythology, evolution. Those subject usually are taught in Jr High not elementary school anyway. Just like students can opt to learn a language they should have options to learn religions and philosophies. I don't think religion should be taught as a mythology becaause there are often historical documents to support particular people did exist, whereas my understanding with mythology is it is acknowledged to be a story made up with a moral. Anyway thats is my opinion I hope I answered your questions.:cool:

Noir, I think people agree mythology is made up stories, and there is some history and artifacts that shows places or people in the bible existed.

Noir

11-22-2009, 08:56 PM

Noir, I think people agree mythology is made up stories, and there is some history and artifacts that shows places or people in the bible existed.

And what makes them made up stories? You consider Apollo a myth, yes? But do you think if you had been brought up in ancient greece that you would think Apollo was a Myth? No, ofcourse not.

You can not judge what is a religion and what is a Myth based on what you think is a religion or a myth, surly the conflict of interests is clear to see.

chloe

11-22-2009, 09:00 PM

And what makes them made up stories? You consider Apollo a myth, yes? But do you think if you had been brought up in ancient greece that you would think Apollo was a Myth? No, ofcourse not.

You can not judge what is a religion and what is a Myth based on what you think is a religion or a myth, surly the conflict of interests is clear to see.

The term mythology can refer to either the study of myths or a body of myths.[1] For example, comparative mythology is the study of connections between myths from different cultures,[2] whereas Greek mythology is the body of myths from ancient Greece. The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[3][4] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.[4][5] In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[6][5][7] Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[7][8][9] In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.[10]

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

Im just going by a definition, to be honest with you I was outside smoking weed during myth classes. Sorry is Mythology based on real occurances? I didn't know:cool:

Missileman

11-22-2009, 09:01 PM

Noir, I think people agree mythology is made up stories, and there is some history and artifacts that shows places or people in the bible existed.

Would you consider the existence of the city of Troy evidence that the Greek gods really existed? Almost all mythology is based in part on real people, places, or events. The recipe for a myth is a smidge of reality mixed with abundant amounts of tall tales. The references to real people and places in the Bible is no certification that it's more than a smidge true.

chloe

11-22-2009, 09:06 PM

Would you consider the existence of the city of Troy evidence that the Greek gods really existed? Almost all mythology is based in part on real people, places, or events. The recipe for a myth is a smidge of reality mixed with abundant amounts of tall tales. The references to real people and places in the Bible is no certification that it's more than a smidge true.

did they find written scrolls by troy there? I believe there was a king nebukenezzer, and there is history to support that,if there is text or scrolls to hint of a story then there is a reality to it because it existed, it is up to me to discern what I want to out of it. if an atheist wants to discount it fine, but I have the right to get meaning out of it too. Right?

SassyLady

11-22-2009, 09:15 PM

She can tell myth from faith? Hows that...i dare say its cause, er, she's been taught that some religions are myths and others are faiths. Kinda ironic given what i've been sayying, no?

She has been taught to be open minded to all possibilities.
She attended a Christian school, goes to church at a Catholic church when she is with her mom (who converted after becoming an adult), attends a Baptist church with her dad, and attends a non-denominational church when visiting me. However, all of us talk to her about our beliefs rather than leaving her to formulate her vision of the world from her peers or media.

I'm not taking away opportunities, infact quiet the opposite, if a child is brought up from brith to be Muslim, or Christain, or Buddhist ect ect, then chances are they will be with that religion for life. However, if they are able to grow up without being brainwashed into one or another, and then when they are of a good age they can chose to believe whatever they want.

See - you are taking away opportunities. You want nothing to be taught rather than teaching something that can orient or ground someone in their daily lives.

Here we disagree, however, i realize that in order for what i think should be done, to be done, it must have the support of everyone, which it never will, so it will never happen, but still, tis a nice thought.

So you would advocate "group think"?

Noir

11-22-2009, 09:17 PM

did they find written scrolls by troy there? I believe there was a king nebukenezzer, and there is history to support that,if there is text or scrolls to hint of a story then there is a reality to it because it existed, it is up to me to discern what I want to out of it. if an atheist wants to discount it fine, but I have the right to get meaning out of it too. Right?

I'm not saying you do not have the right to find meaning in them. What i am saying is do you have the right to force that meaning onto children, just because they are children. I don't think you do, or atleast i don't think you should

(and just to make clear i know i am saying 'you' but i don't mean you personally, i.e. i'm not attacking you)

SassyLady

11-22-2009, 09:21 PM

Inculcation from a young age will probably cement certain beliefs in a person's mind even if they possess the ability to make rational and informed decisions.

Really - and what beliefs do you feel your parents or society cemented in your mind. Were your parents anarchists? And if they were then perhaps your theory is correct and you have no control over what you believe now. However, if they were not anarchists........what happened to your indoctrination?

Missileman

11-22-2009, 09:22 PM

did they find written scrolls by troy there? I believe there was a king nebukenezzer, and there is history to support that,if there is text or scrolls to hint of a story then there is a reality to it because it existed, it is up to me to discern what I want to out of it. if an atheist wants to discount it fine, but I have the right to get meaning out of it too. Right?

Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are a detailed account of the Trojan War and the journey home of one of the Greeks. They include vivid descriptions of the involvement of gods and goddesses in both. In its day, the worship of those deities was THE major religion of that region. Amazingly, Jewish mythology from the same time period is accepted as gospel.

SassyLady

11-22-2009, 09:23 PM

Noir

11-22-2009, 09:24 PM

She has been taught to be open minded to all possibilities.
She attended a Christian school, goes to church at a Catholic church when she is with her mom (who converted after becoming an adult), attends a Baptist church with her dad, and attends a non-denominational church when visiting me. However, all of us talk to her about our beliefs rather than leaving her to formulate her vision of the world from her peers or media.

Nice way to dodge the point. You said she can tell myths from religions, but surly that is only through being told a Myth is a Myth, i mean, if you knew nothing about anything, and got told the stories of Apollo, Jesus, Thor, and the first Buddha, how could you tell them apart? You couldn't. It is only because of the age we live in that some are considered myths and others are considered religions.

See - you are taking away opportunities. You want nothing to be taught rather than teaching something that can orient or ground someone in their daily lives.

No i'm not, i'm GIVING opportunities, by not forcing a kid down one path or another, a child growing up in Iran now will prob never have the opertunity to become a Christain, because such religions will be brainwashed out of them, and yes, religion may help some people through their lives no doubt, but that does not mean you have to force it upon young children

So you would advocate "group think"?

Sorry i may have missed somtihng, what is "group think"?

chloe

11-22-2009, 09:29 PM

I'm not saying you do not have the right to find meaning in them. What i am saying is do you have the right to force that meaning onto children, just because they are children. I don't think you do, or atleast i don't think you should

(and just to make clear i know i am saying 'you' but i don't mean you personally, i.e. i'm not attacking you)

Here's the problem if I don't pass on my values, society will, and society changes it values in every era, if I let society soley influence my children, then depending on the era, cartoons is what they worship, laptops, ipods, hollywood, materialism. Now can I teach them without God from the bible type of religion? Sure I can, Im not in any christian, muslim buddhist religion, can I teach philosophy or ethics? yep, to me spirituality is a language that has many translations, while some atheists choose psychology to teach morals or philosophy, I like christian religious viewpoints just as much. It seems like philosophy or psychology or atheism is the new religion. Religion is simply ritualistic and worshipping praising a belief. Some people make money their God and work their religion. Now Atheists have become religious in there convictions against the idea of God.

chloe

11-22-2009, 09:33 PM

I totally agree with you on this one Chloe.:beer:

Thanks, I don't really understand why atheists seem so upset that church going religious people worship God. There are many forms of worship.

SassyLady

11-22-2009, 09:39 PM

Nice way to dodge the point. You said she can tell myths from religions, but surly that is only through being told a Myth is a Myth, i mean, if you knew nothing about anything, and got told the stories of Apollo, Jesus, Thor, and the first Buddha, how could you tell them apart? You couldn't. It is only because of the age we live in that some are considered myths and others are considered religions.

I do believe she can look up the definition of "myth" and "religion" and decide from her own experiences what SHE feels is reality. And once again, you are attempting to rationalize that reality is based upon what one is told.......if you truly had any wisdom you would understand that deep in your soul you know what is truth and what is fiction.

No i'm not, i'm GIVING opportunities, by not forcing a kid down one path or another, a child growing up in Iran now will prob never have the opertunity to become a Christain, because such religions will be brainwashed out of them, and yes, religion may help some people through their lives no doubt, but that does not mean you have to force it upon young children.

Noir - do you and Agnapostate belong to the Youth Rights group. Both of you sound like you've been indoctrinated by the ideology of that group.

Sorry i may have missed somtihng, what is "group think"?

When you say that everyone has to agree on something or it will never happen.

SassyLady

11-22-2009, 09:41 PM

Here's the problem if I don't pass on my values, society will, and society changes it values in every era, if I let society soley influence my children, then depending on the era, cartoons is what they worship, laptops, ipods, hollywood, materialism. Now can I teach them without God from the bible type of religion? Sure I can, Im not in any christian, muslim buddhist religion, can I teach philosophy or ethics? yep, to me spirituality is a language that has many translations, while some atheists choose psychology to teach morals or philosophy, I like christian religious viewpoints just as much. It seems like philosophy or psychology or atheism is the new religion. Religion is simply ritualistic and worshipping praising a belief. Some people make money their God and work their religion. Now Atheists have become religious in there convictions against the idea of God.

Chole - I think you and I were raised in the same household because I have the same beliefs.
:eek:

chloe

11-22-2009, 09:49 PM

Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are a detailed account of the Trojan War and the journey home of one of the Greeks. They include vivid descriptions of the involvement of gods and goddesses in both. In its day, the worship of those deities was THE major religion of that region. Amazingly, Jewish mythology from the same time period is accepted as gospel.

Never read it, so is there a historical scroll that was found where it happened? can you send a link about it? I was reading about King Nebukunezzer and could only find the bible version of his history which archeologists confirmed. Some Scientist said he thought that physiologically king neb had syphillis and was hallucianting and thats why he saw 4 in the fiery furnace. However, they didnt dispute there was a king Neb or dispute that king neb existed where the story said he existed. So it is up to me to decide what I want to believe from that history, and my belief doesn't censor yours.

chloe

11-22-2009, 09:53 PM

Chole - I think you and I were raised in the same household because I have the same beliefs.
:eek:

:laugh2:, and we are free to have those beliefs.... he he:coffee:

SassyLady

11-22-2009, 09:58 PM

:laugh2:, and we are free to have those beliefs.... he he:coffee:

for now anyway.............:thewave:

Missileman

11-22-2009, 11:58 PM

Never read it, so is there a historical scroll that was found where it happened? can you send a link about it? I was reading about King Nebukunezzer and could only find the bible version of his history which archeologists confirmed. Some Scientist said he thought that physiologically king neb had syphillis and was hallucianting and thats why he saw 4 in the fiery furnace. However, they didnt dispute there was a king Neb or dispute that king neb existed where the story said he existed. So it is up to me to decide what I want to believe from that history, and my belief doesn't censor yours.

Troy was real.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849509.html

It doesn't make the entire Iliad factual.

King Neb was real. It doesn't make the entire Bible factual.

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 07:36 AM

....then why is the fact that the children are 'Christain' or 'Muslim' even mentioned? they are just children, they do not have religious beliefs, but they will be brought up and told what god to follow and the vast majoirty will do as taught from birth.

to show that their parents are cooperating in the celebration of a religious holiday......as I said, the kids didn't create the pageant......

the vast majoirty will do as taught from birth

and we will mourn the loss of the rest.....

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 07:41 AM

To me, teaching one's children about the family's faith is no different than teaching them about the family's cultural history.

/shrugs....to me, teaching children about faith is akin to teaching them you don't cross the street when the traffic light is red......

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 07:44 AM

What i am saying is do you have the right to force that meaning onto children, just because they are children. I don't think you do, or atleast i don't think you should

yes, just as equally as I have the right to raise my children to believe that taking heroin is a bad thing or that they should avoid sexually transmitted diseases......

Noir

11-23-2009, 08:52 AM

yes, just as equally as I have the right to raise my children to believe that taking heroin is a bad thing or that they should avoid sexually transmitted diseases......

Ofcourse it is only right that you should pass on such advice, and I would expect that you pass on your morals, however, you do not have to pass on religion with your morals,

chloe

11-23-2009, 08:54 AM

Troy was real.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849509.html

It doesn't make the entire Iliad factual.

King Neb was real. It doesn't make the entire Bible factual.

Well any factual occurance that has been transcribed can later be added to, have parts ommited, or even be missing parts from its original occurance. That doesn't really discount it. For instance if 2000 years from now someone stumbled on the debate policy message board manifesto, and it was a collection of memoirs from DP members, now in your chapter you were very factual about who the admins were and how many years the board ran etc etc, then other members wrote the same account but added personal accounts of there experiences, at the board. Lets say people in particular found Kathianne & Noirs experiences inspiring, then one day someone finds printed versions of threads containing posts by Kathianne & Noir, however, the admin from time to time got annoyed and had removed/deleted some of there posts in the thread, now it is still a FACT they posted those replies that are now missing, yet because of the deletion the meaning has been changed and some people may say it never happened, or that kathianne or noirs accounts were made up. Howerever, it doesnt change the fact, that there were posts and they got removed or deleted. 2000 years from now people can choose to believe that or not.

Missileman

11-23-2009, 10:29 AM

Well any factual occurance that has been transcribed can later be added to, have parts ommited, or even be missing parts from its original occurance. That doesn't really discount it. For instance if 2000 years from now someone stumbled on the debate policy message board manifesto, and it was a collection of memoirs from DP members, now in your chapter you were very factual about who the admins were and how many years the board ran etc etc, then other members wrote the same account but added personal accounts of there experiences, at the board. Lets say people in particular found Kathianne & Noirs experiences inspiring, then one day someone finds printed versions of threads containing posts by Kathianne & Noir, however, the admin from time to time got annoyed and had removed/deleted some of there posts in the thread, now it is still a FACT they posted those replies that are now missing, yet because of the deletion the meaning has been changed and some people may say it never happened, or that kathianne or noirs accounts were made up. Howerever, it doesnt change the fact, that there were posts and they got removed or deleted. 2000 years from now people can choose to believe that or not.

Two thousand years from now, those missing posts will neither confirm nor deny the legend of the mad, long-distance love affair of Kathianne and Noir.

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 10:31 AM

Ofcourse it is only right that you should pass on such advice, and I would expect that you pass on your morals, however, you do not have to pass on religion with your morals,

why on earth wouldn't I pass on my religion?......you don't think I want my kids growing up like you, do you?......

chloe

11-23-2009, 10:31 AM

Two thousand years from now, those missing posts will neither confirm nor deny the legend of the mad, long-distance love affair of Kathianne and Noir.

:laugh2: I didnt say they wrote about a "love affair" he he nice touch, :cool:

Missileman

11-23-2009, 10:39 AM

Ofcourse it is only right that you should pass on such advice, and I would expect that you pass on your morals, however, you do not have to pass on religion with your morals,

Passing one's ideology to one's kids is the primary method of ideological propogation. Agree or disagree, but it's the parents' right to do so. Exposure to other ideologies is happening more often than ever and things will eventually work themselves out.

Noir

11-23-2009, 10:44 AM

why on earth wouldn't I pass on my religion?......you don't think I want my kids growing up like you, do you?......

Oh my, you do drive that blade deep, :p

Well i would think you shouldn't because you are brainwashing that child, and
indoctrinatating them into your religion. But ofcourse as far as you are concerned you a right, so that doesn't matter to you, i'm just saying it does to me.

Again i put it too you, do you think it is right that, as far as you believe, there are children being born in Islamic states today who are doomed to hell because they will be taught from birth that Islam is the one true religion?

Noir

11-23-2009, 10:46 AM

Passing one's ideology to one's kids is the primary method of ideological propogation. Agree or disagree, but it's the parents' right to do so. Exposure to other ideologies is happening more often than ever and things will eventually work themselves out.

Well i don;t consider it the parents right to do so, as i believe that it comprimises the rights of the child, but i know this is certainly not a view that many would agree with.

Pericles

11-23-2009, 11:45 AM

I'm sure most atheists feel fine to not believe religion or God, but are there organized Atheists determined or having a main agenda to convert others to not believe in religion or God?

Submitting my 2 cents on the OP...

Atheists believe that it is true that there are no gods. The question of the truth of the claims of religion is of central existential, moral, and political importance; they directly affect how people approach life. We can all agree that it is better to know the truth, than to be wedded to an illousion.

To take truth seriously, is to believe that it is best (if not in fact a moral imperative) for others to recognize the truth as you do.

Atheists take truth seriously. We belief faith in magic is a misbegotten illousion. And we are fighting to persuade others of 'the truth' - as best, anyway, as we can discern it.

Reason vs. Faith is an either-or.

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 12:58 PM

Oh my, you do drive that blade deep, :p

Well i would think you shouldn't because you are brainwashing that child, and
indoctrinatating them into your religion. But ofcourse as far as you are concerned you a right, so that doesn't matter to you, i'm just saying it does to me.

Again i put it too you, do you think it is right that, as far as you believe, there are children being born in Islamic states today who are doomed to hell because they will be taught from birth that Islam is the one true religion?

first, unless you consider all teaching to be 'brainwashing', your claim is invalid.....second, I don't think anyone is 'doomed to hell', I think everyone has an opportunity to choose....look at me, I was born and raised in a household of liberals......Mom still thinks Carter was the best president we ever had.........

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 01:03 PM

Pericles

11-23-2009, 01:51 PM

I have to be honest, I consider atheists to be among the most foolish people on the planet....I can respect agnostics, but for an atheist to claim to be rational, yet deny the possibility of a deity is a living contradiction of the term 'rational'.....I don't think atheists take truth seriously....I don't think they are bright enough to even understand the concept......

For the record, personally I would say that the very concept of deity is internally incoherent, and so deity is not possible (just like square circles are not possible). Still, denying that deity is even possible is the boldest of the claims made by atheists; you don't have to make this strong assertion to be an atheist.

God's presence is not evident. The only evidence of God is subjective experience. So, if you continue in the assertion that "God" is as real for me as it is for you, the burden of proof's on you to show how the existence of this god is not only possible, but evident.

What in any of what I've just said, is in "living contradiction of the term 'rational'" - ? That I don't understand what the crtieria for truth are?

I deny the truth of a belief that you regard as intuitively true. It should go without saying, that that does not mean that I do not take truth seriously.

Noir

11-23-2009, 02:41 PM

first, unless you consider all teaching to be 'brainwashing', your claim is invalid.....second, I don't think anyone is 'doomed to hell', I think everyone has an opportunity to choose....look at me, I was born and raised in a household of liberals......Mom still thinks Carter was the best president we ever had.........

I consider teaching faith to be brainwashing, because you are telling a kid from a very young age, about beings which are super-natural, about creating universes, about rising from the dead or living a second life as a butterfly ect ect ect. and making them believe that such stories are fact, and that any other stories are not, that is brain washing, or conditioning atleast.

As for your personal story, you changed the context of my question completly, care to address it in context?

chloe

11-23-2009, 03:47 PM

Submitting my 2 cents on the OP...

Atheists believe that it is true that there are no gods. The question of the truth of the claims of religion is of central existential, moral, and political importance; they directly affect how people approach life. We can all agree that it is better to know the truth, than to be wedded to an illousion.

To take truth seriously, is to believe that it is best (if not in fact a moral imperative) for others to recognize the truth as you do.

Atheists take truth seriously. We belief faith in magic is a misbegotten illousion. And we are fighting to persuade others of 'the truth' - as best, anyway, as we can discern it.

Reason vs. Faith is an either-or.

:laugh2: that reminds me of that song in the Jesus Christ Rock Opera, remember when Pontius Pilate was singing but what is Truth? Is Truth unchanging law, we both have truths are mine the same as yours? I don't see any difference in an active atheist group teaching there values and beliefs to children, then in a religion doing the same thing. The child did not choose to decide one way or the other, they were taught either belief or disbelief. I think Atheists have the right to teach it if they want to, but religious people also have the right to teach religion if they want to. Now you can dispute whatever I say my truth is and I can dispute yours, you can poke holes in this religion or that religion, but at the end of the day it is a choice of what anyone wants to believe. I don't want your disbelief to strip away my legal rights to believe. That is my point. As far as Noir's argument, I am not sure what he thinks parents are allowed to teach, so I am not really sure what to say except that when he has children he has the right to not talk about religion, non religion, ethics non-ethics, atheism, non atheism he can sit them down in front of tv all day and let them learn there, that would be his right whether I agree or not. But in any of those scenarios the child will be influenced.

Pericles

11-23-2009, 05:14 PM

:laugh2: I don't see any difference in an active atheist group teaching there values and beliefs to children, then in a religion doing the same thing. The child did not choose to decide one way or the other, they were taught either belief or disbelief... at the end of the day it is a choice of what anyone wants to believe. I don't want your disbelief to strip away my legal rights to believe. That is my point.

Well... I don't have kids myself. If I did, I simply wouldn't tell them anything about religious faith, until they came across it in their own experience and asked me about it. You know, like someone telling them at school that there's an afterlife, or that people go to church and why do they do that, etc. etc. And then, I'd explain what I know of the beliefs of the people they're talking about. "They believe this, they believe that, etc. etc."

When my son or daughter would then ask me what I believe, I'd say, 'Well, no one really knows, but myself I don't believe the stories.' And I'd tell them, in as simple terms as I could, why.

It happens, often enough, that the children of secular parents opt to become religious. If that was the case with my son or daughter, I wouldn't discourage them. I believe, after all, in freedom of conscience. And anyway, an interest in religion in a person who was brought up without religion, should be taken seriously and respected.

Of course, I'd always make my own beliefs clear. And, if they were a bit older, I'd debate with them the merits of their beliefs vs. mine. But I'm not concerned, ultimately, about what they chose to believe, as long as they chose without any duress and with exposure to alternate views. After all, I had a religious upbringing - I was raised Catholic, by more or less devout parents - but I still found my way towards greater truth.

In my statement, above, I said that I endeavor to perusade others of what I believe - with very good reason - to be the truth, namely that there are no gods. It's not my interest to dictate to others what they can and can't believe. Again, I believe in freedom of conscience. But am I going to try to spread the good news that there are no gods? Definitely.

chloe

11-23-2009, 05:47 PM

Well... I don't have kids myself. If I did, I simply wouldn't tell them anything about religious faith, until they came across it in their own experience and asked me about it. You know, like someone telling them at school that there's an afterlife, or that people go to church and why do they do that, etc. etc. And then, I'd explain what I know of the beliefs of the people they're talking about. "They believe this, they believe that, etc. etc."

When my son or daughter would then ask me what I believe, I'd say, 'Well, no one really knows, but myself I don't believe the stories.' And I'd tell them, in as simple terms as I could, why.

It happens, often enough, that the children of secular parents opt to become religious. If that was the case with my son or daughter, I wouldn't discourage them. I believe, after all, in freedom of conscience. And anyway, an interest in religion in a person who was brought up without religion, should be taken seriously and respected.

Of course, I'd always make my own beliefs clear. And, if they were a bit older, I'd debate with them the merits of their beliefs vs. mine. But I'm not concerned, ultimately, about what they chose to believe, as long as they chose without any duress and with exposure to alternate views. After all, I had a religious upbringing - I was raised Catholic, by more or less devout parents - but I still found my way towards greater truth.

agreed

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 09:28 PM

you don't have to make this strong assertion to be an atheist.

actually, if want to be defined as an atheist, you do.....I don't accept atheist's recent attempts to align themselves as agnostics.....if you can't take the heat, don't make the claim....an atheist, by definition, denies the existence of deity.....

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 09:30 PM

As for your personal story, you changed the context of my question completly, care to address it in context?

what context did I change?.....

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 09:34 PM

But I'm not concerned, ultimately, about what they chose to believe

you see, that's the difference.....I would hate to see my kids fuck up their eternity.....I AM concerned.....

Noir

11-23-2009, 09:44 PM

what context did I change?.....

My question involved a child being brainwashed into a religion, in my example Islam, your response was something about your mother liking Carter.

Pericles

11-23-2009, 11:04 PM

actually, if want to be defined as an atheist, you do....I don't accept atheist's recent attempts to align themselves as agnostics.....if you can't take the heat, don't make the claim....an atheist, by definition, denies the existence of deity.....

No. An agnostic is someone who claims that the evidence adduced for the existence of the gods, is no more convincing that the evidence adduced against the existence of the gods. Hence, they are in a position of formally witholding assent to either proposition.

An atheist is someone who says that recourse to ordinary observation, as well as the crucial absence of certain kinds of evidence for the object of religious faith, places the answer to the proposition "Do the gods exist?" into the "they don't exist" column. Here we don't have a question of formal proof, but of perponderance of the the evidence.

You can only say that the existence of the gods is not possible, if you have a formal proof of the nonexistence of the gods. This proof cannot, in the nature of the matter, be a positive, empirical proof - you can't prove a negative. But it could be an indirect, logical kind of proof - proof by reductio ad absurdum. In fact I do think that there are a few such proofs against the possiblity of a monotheist god.

But the bottom line is that you can have an evidence-based claim against the proposition that the gods exist, without having to assert that it is not logically possible that the gods exist. The argument against the possibility of god is an argument made by anti-theists, and not all atheists are anti-theists.

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 11:14 PM

My question involved a child being brainwashed into a religion, in my example Islam, your response was something about your mother liking Carter.

religion, politics.....any fierce belief structure will do......

Pericles

11-23-2009, 11:14 PM

you see, that's the difference.....I would hate to see my kids fuck up their eternity.....I AM concerned.....

I just love the thought process that goes into this kind of thinking. It requires you to believe in a moral authority that cares more about obedience, than anything else. It requires you to believe that this moral authority is going to hold you responsible for a choice which you had no role in - the choice of your parents to raise you with a particular worldview that, perchance, did not centrally feature rank obedience to that authority.

It is really just lost on me, how you think that that moral authority is worthy of its name. No unjust ruler is entitled to anyone's obedience; and no ruler is entitled to anyone's absolute obedience.

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 11:22 PM

You can only say that the existence of the gods is not possible, if you have a formal proof of the nonexistence of the gods. This proof cannot, in the nature of the matter, be a positive, empirical proof
which is precisely why an atheist, who "believes" there is no god in the absence of any evidence to prove is acting in faith....acting in faith while decrying it is evidence of irrationality.....

But it could be an indirect, logical kind of proof - proof by reductio ad absurdum.
I will concur that your argument is absurd....

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 11:24 PM

not all atheists are anti-theists.

if they aren't....they aren't atheists....by definition.....the claim of "weak" atheism is a "weak" claim.....

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 11:27 PM

I just love the thought process that goes into this kind of thinking. It requires you to believe in a moral authority that cares more about obedience, than anything else. It requires you to believe that this moral authority is going to hold you responsible for a choice which you had no role in - the choice of your parents to raise you with a particular worldview that, perchance, did not centrally feature rank obedience to that authority.

It is really just lost on me, how you think that that moral authority is worthy of its name. No unjust ruler is entitled to anyone's obedience; and no ruler is entitled to anyone's absolute obedience.

as is true with most atheists, you lack knowledge of the belief system you condemn.....tell me for example how you conclude that the deity of Christianity is "unjust"....for that matter, tell me how you misconstrue the essence of that religion as "obedience"......perhaps you will surprise me....I haven't met an atheist yet who could carry an argument they couldn't cut and paste....

Noir

11-23-2009, 11:30 PM

religion, politics.....any fierce belief structure will do......

I asked you a simple question, can you reply to it in context and stop trying to fob it off, if not then just say you won't.

PostmodernProphet

11-23-2009, 11:47 PM

I asked you a simple question, can you reply to it in context and stop trying to fob it off, if not then just say you won't.

????....I don't consider it a different context.....if that's "fobbing it off" then I am fobbing it off.......if you're asking me if I will answer the question the way YOU want me to instead of the way I did, then no, I won't......do I take it from you comments that you don't believe people can hold other beliefs as strongly as religious beliefs?.....if so, you are being short sighted......

Pericles

11-24-2009, 12:21 AM

which is precisely why an atheist, who "believes" there is no god in the absence of any evidence to prove is acting in faith....acting in faith while decrying it is evidence of irrationality.....

You don't appear to understand the rules of evidence. An atheist is someone who believes that the perponderance of evidence tells against the existence of gods. It's not merely the absence of evidence like a publically observable miracle, that counts as relevant evidence for the atheist; it is also our ability to understand the world, without ever having to have recourse to supernatural explanations. It doesn't require faith to not observe miracles. It doesn't require faith to remark that the existence of gods is an entirely unnecessary hypothesis, when it comes to explaining our world.

I will concur that your argument is absurd....

If you don't know what a reductio argument is, look it up. Why put your ignorance on display?

Pericles

11-24-2009, 12:32 AM

as is true with most atheists, you lack knowledge of the belief system you condemn.....tell me for example how you conclude that the deity of Christianity is "unjust"....for that matter, tell me how you misconstrue the essence of that religion as "obedience"......perhaps you will surprise me....I haven't met an atheist yet who could carry an argument they couldn't cut and paste....

The proof is all over the OT. Adam and Eve are punished, not for doing anything obviously wrong (eating a piece of fruit?) - but for failing to obey. Abraham, on the other hand, is awarded the highest praise for obeying what any rational person will tell you was an evil command: to kill his son. The very First Commandment lays it out plain as day: the most important duty is obedience. When you have an absolute master, the important thing is not to do the "right" thing, but to do whatever he tells you to, since, after all as an absolute authority, he decides from one day to the next what the "right" thing is.

This same point is made plain by the Book of Job. Its practical consequences appear in Deuteronomy, where God reveals himself to be a genocidal maniac. This is the character Jesus believed in, the character that people like you regard as the ultimate "moral authority." It would be laughable, if it weren't so disgusting.

SassyLady

11-24-2009, 01:15 AM

why on earth wouldn't I pass on my religion?......you don't think I want my kids growing up like you, do you?......

:clap::clap::clap:

must spread reputation

PostmodernProphet

11-24-2009, 08:30 AM

You don't appear to understand the rules of evidence.
but I do....you apparently don't know the difference between "truth" and "evidence"......

An atheist is someone who believes that the perponderance of evidence tells against the existence of gods.

which tells you nothing about "truth".....

It's not merely the absence of evidence like a publically observable miracle,
which is an error in itself, since there were many publicly observed miracles....

It doesn't require faith to remark that the existence of gods is an entirely unnecessary hypothesis, when it comes to explaining our world.
no, but it requires faith to conclude from the absence of evidence that something is "true"......

If you don't know what a reductio argument is, look it up.
I know what a reductio argument is....do you know what "mockery" is?.......

PostmodernProphet

11-24-2009, 08:45 AM

The proof is all over the OT. Adam and Eve are punished, not for doing anything obviously wrong (eating a piece of fruit?) - but for failing to obey. Abraham, on the other hand, is awarded the highest praise for obeying what any rational person will tell you was an evil command: to kill his son. The very First Commandment lays it out plain as day: the most important duty is obedience. When you have an absolute master, the important thing is not to do the "right" thing, but to do whatever he tells you to, since, after all as an absolute authority, he decides from one day to the next what the "right" thing is.

This same point is made plain by the Book of Job. Its practical consequences appear in Deuteronomy, where God reveals himself to be a genocidal maniac. This is the character Jesus believed in, the character that people like you regard as the ultimate "moral authority." It would be laughable, if it weren't so disgusting.

First of all, let me share two very important verses that reflect the essence of Christianity.....I suspect you could query any Christian as to whether he believes any other verses are of more or even equal importance as a statement of what her religion teaches and you would find agreement....

One is from John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

the other from Matthew 22
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

You should note from these two passages that obedience is not the essence of the Christian religion......rather, it is love....the love of the deity for the created, and our responsive love in return....

now, as to "unjust"....you say that Jesus "believed in" an immoral authority figure.....what you misunderstand about Christianity is that Jesus didn't "believe in" the Old Testament deity, Jesus WAS the Old Testament deity.....

you accuse YHWH of ordering Abraham to kill his child.....you overlook the fact that YHWH did not require Abraham to kill his child....Isaac lived and was the beginning of the people of Israel.......

you cite Job, but if you claim that passage shows God to be "unjust" you make it apparent that you stopped reading the book after the first two chapters.....

you claim God is genocidal, yet he does not meet the classical definition of that term.....he did destroy a number of cities, but did not destroy an entire race, or even an entire tribe....and those cities he did destroy were destroyed in an act of justice, not an act of injustice.....

so again....upon what basis do you determine that God is either immoral or unjust?.......upon your standards?......you are not only not aware of all the facts that the deity was aware of, you are apparently not even aware of all the facts he has revealed to you....how then are you qualified to make judgement upon him?......

Pericles

11-24-2009, 11:37 AM

but I do....you apparently don't know the difference between "truth" and "evidence"......

Enlighten me, then. How does the absence of any independently verifiable evidence for your beliefs, not count against the likelihood of their truth?

which is an error in itself, since there were many publicly observed miracles....

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've never seen a miracle, never come across any disinterested, independent account of any magical phenomenon occurring. If you believe in miracles, you've got to have a non question-begging criterion for why only the miracles associated with your own religion are the "true" ones.

no, but it requires faith to conclude from the absence of evidence that something is "true"......

We've photographed the dark side of the Moon. We have found there no pyramids built by any alien civilization. Does it take faith to conclude from the absence of these pyramids, that there never were any aliens on the Moon?

I know what a reductio argument is....do you know what "mockery" is?.......

Actually, I think you don't know what a reductio argument is. You should learn something new today and look it up.

Pericles

11-24-2009, 12:08 PM

First of all, let me share two very important verses that reflect the essence of Christianity.....I suspect you could query any Christian as to whether he believes any other verses are of more or even equal importance as a statement of what her religion teaches and you would find agreement....

One is from John 3... the other from Matthew 22

You should note from these two passages that obedience is not the essence of the Christian religion......rather, it is love....the love of the deity for the created, and our responsive love in return....

Christians do not understand love. The essence of the law, Jesus says, is to love, first God (that First Commandment, again) and then, your neighbor. Jesus is not giving blandishments about the importance of love. He is commanding that we love. This is psychologically perverse; the attitude of love cannot be an obligation - only cult leaders believe that. Hmnh. Then again, that's just what Jesus was now, wasn't he?

Christians do not understand love. Love does not place the object of love under some unbidden obligation. We did not ask to be created; we did not know we were being doen some great favor. It is simply perverse, to be given something that you did not ask for, and then be told you are under obligation to reciprocate the gift, on pain of very serious harm to yourself. That is a prime example of how gift-giving can originate in a manipulative and unjust character.

now, as to "unjust"....you say that Jesus "believed in" an immoral authority figure.....what you misunderstand about Christianity is that Jesus didn't "believe in" the Old Testament deity, Jesus WAS the Old Testament deity.....

I'm talking here about the character of Christian belief; I don't presume the truth of Christianity, I don't presume the claim that Jesus was God, because I have very good reason to think it false. It is the greatest Lie ever Sold.

you accuse YHWH of ordering Abraham to kill his child.....you overlook the fact that YHWH did not require Abraham to kill his child....Isaac lived and was the beginning of the people of Israel.......

Abraham obeyed the order. That he was interrupted in the commision of the act, is secondary to his moral culpability. The fact that his obedience was what was of paramount importance, is revealed in the fact that he is praised to the heights for it.

you cite Job, but if you claim that passage shows God to be "unjust" you make it apparent that you stopped reading the book after the first two chapters.....

I've read the book quite closely, twice. In the Book of Job, it is God's righteousness, not Job's fidelity, that is put to the test. God fails the test (as indeed Job predicts God would).

you claim God is genocidal, yet he does not meet the classical definition of that term.....he did destroy a number of cities, but did not destroy an entire race, or even an entire tribe....and those cities he did destroy were destroyed in an act of justice, not an act of injustice.....

You should listen to yourself. This mealy-mouthed defense of mass murder is simply beneath contempt. Christianity is, on a fundamental level, morally stunted.

so again....upon what basis do you determine that God is either immoral or unjust?.......upon your standards?......

Upon the standards of common sense and basic human dignity.

you are not only not aware of all the facts that the deity was aware of, you are apparently not even aware of all the facts he has revealed to you....how then are you qualified to make judgement upon him?......

I'm as qualified to judge God as I am to pass judgement on any other moral actor. The mere fact that God has power does not make God righteous. That is the lesson of Job.

PostmodernProphet

11-24-2009, 02:05 PM

Enlighten me, then. How does the absence of any independently verifiable evidence for your beliefs, not count against the likelihood of their truth?

"liklihood" is immeasurable.....those things which have not been proven are either true or untrue.....that is a 50/50 proposition which never changes....."liklihood" may be measured in your willingness to believe, but beyond that it has no value.....

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've never seen a miracle, never come across any disinterested, independent account of any magical phenomenon occurring. If you believe in miracles, you've got to have a non question-begging criterion for why only the miracles associated with your own religion are the "true" ones.
no, you simply reject accounts of miracles as not being 'disinterested and independent".....I myself have experienced what I consider to be a physical reaction to the presence of God.....I know five people who experienced what I can only describe as a miraculous event (young girl dying of cancer....her favorite bible verse talks of choirs of angels singing when a soul enters heaven.....father prays "God if you have to take her at least let me know she is with you"....at the moment of her death five people in the hospital room hear choir singing......later, a night duty nurse asks, "What was that CD you were playing last night, it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard").....I believe those five people to be credible.....you will not, nor would you consider my report of it credible.....your choice doesn't mean it didn't happen.....

We've photographed the dark side of the Moon. We have found there no pyramids built by any alien civilization. Does it take faith to conclude from the absence of these pyramids, that there never were any aliens on the Moon?

uh, yes.....there is no reason to conclude that all aliens build pyramids.....

Actually, I think you don't know what a reductio argument is. You should learn something new today and look it up.

lol....that's interesting to know.....I didn't realize you thought that....I just that you were the dimwitted type who didn't realize when he was being insulted.....

PostmodernProphet

11-24-2009, 02:38 PM

Christians do not understand love.
obviously, you don't understand Christians....

It is simply perverse, to be given something that you did not ask for, and then be told you are under obligation to reciprocate the gift, on pain of very serious harm to yourself.
and this statement demonstrates that misunderstanding of the religion.....

I'm talking here about the character of Christian belief; I don't presume the truth of Christianity, I don't presume the claim that Jesus was God, because I have very good reason to think it false. It is the greatest Lie ever Sold.
no, your argument tops it....look, you can't honestly make the claim and then deny the precepts of the religion to win the argument....we are talking about Christianity, not some Pericles-imagined pseudo-Christianity.....if you aren't willing to accept for the sake of the debate the terms of what Christianity teaches, then fold your cards and go home now....don't waste our time....

Abraham obeyed the order. That he was interrupted in the commision of the act, is secondary to his moral culpability. The fact that his obedience was what was of paramount importance, is revealed in the fact that he is praised to the heights for it.
only if you pretend that his obedience went to the point of acting contrary to the deity's order.....you seem to be pretending that the deity demanded the death of Isaac....that is false, and you base your conclusions upon that falsity.....the entire incident points to the sacrifice of the deity, not the obedience of the created....

I've read the book quite closely, twice. In the Book of Job, it is God's righteousness, not Job's fidelity, that is put to the test. God fails the test (as indeed Job predicts God would).
omigorsh, what an ignorant interpretation of Job.....the book of Job is intended to answer, in particular, the claims you are raising.....our lack of standing to "judge" God.....if you have in fact read it, you didn't "get" it.....

You should listen to yourself. This mealy-mouthed defense of mass murder is simply beneath contempt. Christianity is, on a fundamental level, morally stunted.

I'm not "defending" mass murder....I am pointing out your ignorance regarding what the scriptures say.....if you would like to examine one of these alleged "mass murders" simply point it out and I will do my best to clear up your misconceptions.....

Upon the standards of common sense and basic human dignity.

of which you are a less capable judge than a creating deity......

I'm as qualified to judge God as I am to pass judgement on any other moral actor.
truly stated, as you are not qualified to pass judgment on either.....you lack the knowledge that an omniscient deity would have, as well as the authority that a creating deity would have.....

Pericles

11-25-2009, 12:02 AM

"liklihood" is immeasurable.....those things which have not been proven are either true or untrue.....that is a 50/50 proposition which never changes....."liklihood" may be measured in your willingness to believe, but beyond that it has no value.....

Not all scenarios or states of affairs whose truth-value we are unaware of, are equally likely. If that were true, it would be effectively impossible to plan for the future.

no, you simply reject accounts of miracles as not being 'disinterested and independent".....

That's absolutely right. Religious adherents the world over, makes claims of miraculous events. Their claims, like the one you gave, are strictly anecdotal. I'm only insisting that your claims meet the same standard of veridicality, that you would insist that the claims of miracles made by those in other religious confessions, also meet.

I believe those five people to be credible.....you will not, nor would you consider my report of it credible.....your choice doesn't mean it didn't happen.....

I don't doubt your sincerity. But people have very sincerely clung to false beliefs.

uh, yes.....there is no reason to conclude that all aliens build pyramids.....

So: you are saying that, if there is no independently verifiable evidence that aliens were on the Moon, still you don't have to rely on faith to believe that they were there?

lol....that's interesting to know.....I didn't realize you thought that....I just that you were the dimwitted type who didn't realize when he was being insulted.....

Well - from this clumsy dodge - I can only guess you don't know, and you aren't even concerned enough to overcome your ignorance, to open up a philosophical dictionary.

Pericles

11-25-2009, 12:52 AM

obviously, you don't understand Christians....

No, it's not obvious. You're going to have to make an argument, not just a bland assertion.

and this statement demonstrates that misunderstanding of the religion.....

On the contrary, I think it gets at Christianity's dark heart. Still waiting on your demonstration, that I'm wrong...

no, your argument tops it....look, you can't honestly make the claim and then deny the precepts of the religion to win the argument....we are talking about Christianity, not some Pericles-imagined pseudo-Christianity.....if you aren't willing to accept for the sake of the debate the terms of what Christianity teaches, then fold your cards and go home now....don't waste our time....

Well, sure I recognize that Christians identify Jesus with the Old Testament Yahweh. What is true of the moral character of Yahweh, is also true of Jesus.

only if you pretend that his obedience went to the point of acting contrary to the deity's order.....

Enlighten me; how did Abraham's obedience of Yahweh's order to murder Isaac, culminate in Abraham acting contrary to the deity's order?

you seem to be pretending that the deity demanded the death of Isaac....that is false, and you base your conclusions upon that falsity.....

Did Yahweh command Abraham to offer up Isaac's life in sacrifice, or not?

the entire incident points to the sacrifice of the deity, not the obedience of the created....

You can't draw that conclusion from the Genesis text. If you want to insist that the Gospel reveals the "true import" of the Genesis story, then you have to contend with the fact that the son was not a willing (nor even a knowing) participant in the sacrifice, and that the son in fact in the end was not sacrificed. Your entire analogy between the sacrifice of Isaac, and "the sacrifice of the deity," breaks down.

omigorsh, what an ignorant interpretation of Job.....the book of Job is intended to answer, in particular, the claims you are raising.....our lack of standing to "judge" God.....if you have in fact read it, you didn't "get" it.....

Nope. You've never really read the book; you've just read it through the eyes of those who told you what lessons to extract from it.

Job's entire lament is about how God is beyond reproach, not on account of God's righteousness, but because of God's power... Job's cri de coeur is that God explain the unjust sufferings of a just man. Job fears that God won't ever explain, but will instead overawe him into acquiesce - which is exactly what happens, in the end. Job gives God the opportunity to justify himself, to give the objective grounds for justice; but instead of answering with the power of argument, God answers with the argument of his power. The implication of Job is clear: if it's justice you're interested in, monotheism isn't for you. Like Ecclesiastes, the book is very subversive, and I'm convinced that it was not written by a believer.

I'm not "defending" mass murder....I am pointing out your ignorance regarding what the scriptures say.....if you would like to examine one of these alleged "mass murders" simply point it out and I will do my best to clear up your misconceptions.....

The book of Deuteronomy is a house of horrors. I'll let you pick at your leisure any one of the numerous instances in the text where God sanctions murder, and see what apologia you can make of it. Should be entertaining...

truly stated, as you are not qualified to pass judgment on either.....you lack the knowledge that an omniscient deity would have, as well as the authority that a creating deity would have.....

You fail to account then, for how billions of people throughout history, have been able to offer moral praise for, and condemnation of, others, even though they never heard of Christianity...

And again you end with the primary fallacy with monotheism: that power confers moral authority. There is good reason to believe that the very idea of a "creating deity" is incoherent - but even presuming it for the sake of argument, there is no reason why all moral actors, however unequal in power, are not able to stand in judgement of one another.

PostmodernProphet

11-25-2009, 08:24 AM

Not all scenarios or states of affairs whose truth-value we are unaware of, are equally likely. If that were true, it would be effectively impossible to plan for the future.
I am simply pointing out that whether or not you consider it "likely" has nothing at all to do with whether it is ultimately true or not.....the same is true of miracles....

So: you are saying that, if there is no independently verifiable evidence that aliens were on the Moon, still you don't have to rely on faith to believe that they were there?

no, I am saying that it is equally true that you have to rely on faith to believe that they weren't there.....

Well - from this clumsy dodge - I can only guess you don't know, and you aren't even concerned enough to overcome your ignorance, to open up a philosophical dictionary.

I thought you said you didn't doubt my sincerity.....:poke:

chloe

11-25-2009, 08:37 AM

D'Souza, a popular author of political and social commentary, was at Brigham Young University on Oct. 16 for the Wheatley Institute's "Symposium on Responding to the New Atheism." He wasn't in enemy territory, but his trademark take-no-prisoners rhetoric was still sharp as he laid out what he thought was new about the new atheism.

The old atheism focused on separation of church and state and wasn't all that appealing to the masses, D'Souza said. The new atheism is different.

"It's not content with policing the bounds of church and state, it wants to attack belief in God and wants to attack religion in the private sphere also," D'Souza said.

"It wants to make the believer feel like a total idiot for believing in God. So it's more ambitious, it's more aggressive in its agenda."

The new atheists are also a "suave bunch" that strikes a "rebel stance" appealing to young people, D'Souza said.

And young people are the target. The new atheists' goal is to "let the religious parents breed 'em" and then win them over later with their arguments, he said.What's so new about the 'new atheism?' Michael De Groote finds it curious that the new atheists hearken back to old controversies in science, but seem to ignore recent discoveries that may support a divine creator -- such as the way the laws of the universe are so precisely tuned as to allow the development of life.

Even most of the modern religious conflicts have at their heart not religion, but other issues such as land or the right to self-rule, D'Souza said.

The third argument is that religion isn't just wrong, it is pernicious and dangerous. To prove this, the new atheists point to the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Salem witch trials.

It is a matter of degree, however to D'Souza. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, lasted about 375 years and killed about 2,000 people -- about five a year. The Salem witch trials killed 19 people. He said this was 2,019 too many, but these crimes are pretty much unrepeatable today.

The atheist death toll is not only larger, it is more recent and is ongoing, according to D'Souza. He said that in seven decades the atheist regimes of Stalin, Mao and the Nazis killed 100 million people.

"Atheism has amassed a massive body count. A mountain of bodies. An ocean of blood," D'Souza said. "Atheism, and not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history."

But the ultimate motive for the current antagonism against religion, according to D'Souza, isn't science or lack of evidence.

"How do you get out from out of the shadow of unceasing accountability, of unremitting moral judgement?" D'Souza said. "Well, abolish the judge. If you can somehow get rid of God, then all his preachments and commandments become optional."

To those who don't want religion to become marginalized, D'Souza recommends that people of faith become prepared and learn about their religion above the "crayon level" of a child. They need to learn of ways to speak that communicate their ideas without religious-based language. Different faith traditions also need to work together."(The new atheists have) taken these issues," D'Souza said, "and put them into the public square, creating an opportunity for the believers to reenter the public square and engage them there."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705342159/Whats-so-new-about-the-new-atheism.html?ID=705342159&headline=Whats-so-new-about-the-new-atheism.html&pg=1

PostmodernProphet

11-25-2009, 08:45 AM

No, it's not obvious. You're going to have to make an argument, not just a bland assertion.

lol, as opposed to the statement I was responding to?......trust me, when you get beyond "bland assertion", I will join you....

the rest for later, off to work....

PostmodernProphet

11-25-2009, 10:38 AM

On the contrary, I think it gets at Christianity's dark heart. Still waiting on your demonstration, that I'm wrong...
but you've done nothing yet to demonstrate you are right.....I gave you John 3 and you responded with this...

It is simply perverse, to be given something that you did not ask for, and then be told you are under obligation to reciprocate the gift, on pain of very serious harm to yourself. That is a prime example of how gift-giving can originate in a manipulative and unjust character.

you have clearly misrepresented the essence of Christianity....there is nothing in John 3:16 about the "pain of serious harm".....there is no obligation of reciprocity.....there is an offer of love which can be accepted or rejected....if you reject it you are merely getting that which you desire more than love.....

it isn't that I haven't proven you wrong....it's that you have chosen a position which you will never be able to demonstrate is right.....

PostmodernProphet

11-25-2009, 10:40 AM

Well, sure I recognize that Christians identify Jesus with the Old Testament Yahweh. What is true of the moral character of Yahweh, is also true of Jesus.

precisely....which demonstrates you are wrong about the moral character of YHWH......

PostmodernProphet

11-25-2009, 10:45 AM

Enlighten me; how did Abraham's obedience of Yahweh's order to murder Isaac, culminate in Abraham acting contrary to the deity's order?

Did Yahweh command Abraham to offer up Isaac's life in sacrifice, or not?

You can't draw that conclusion from the Genesis text. If you want to insist that the Gospel reveals the "true import" of the Genesis story, then you have to contend with the fact that the son was not a willing (nor even a knowing) participant in the sacrifice, and that the son in fact in the end was not sacrificed. Your entire analogy between the sacrifice of Isaac, and "the sacrifice of the deity," breaks down.

yes, YHWH commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.....and he commanded him not to sacrifice Isaac.....atheists love to ignore the latter and pretend thus that God is bloodthirsty and demanded human sacrifice.....Isaac did not die, he didn't die because Abraham was obedient, not because he was disobedient......YHWH never intended Isaac to die, he intended to teach Abraham, and more importantly us, something about the nature of sacrifice and what would happen through his incarnation as Christ.....

it is absurd to say we cannot draw that conclusion.....Christianity has drawn that conclusion for two thousand years....the fact that the son wasn't sacrificed IS the essence of the story....Isaac doesn't represent Jesus in the parable, he represents humanity......the goat that was sacrificed in Isaac's place represents Jesus......

PostmodernProphet

11-25-2009, 11:06 AM

Nope. You've never really read the book; you've just read it through the eyes of those who told you what lessons to extract from it.

Job's entire lament is about how God is beyond reproach, not on account of God's righteousness, but because of God's power... Job's cri de coeur is that God explain the unjust sufferings of a just man. Job fears that God won't ever explain, but will instead overawe him into acquiesce - which is exactly what happens, in the end. Job gives God the opportunity to justify himself, to give the objective grounds for justice; but instead of answering with the power of argument, God answers with the argument of his power. The implication of Job is clear: if it's justice you're interested in, monotheism isn't for you. Like Ecclesiastes, the book is very subversive, and I'm convinced that it was not written by a believer.

interestingly, you have adopted the position of Elihu in arguing that God acts through a position of power and superior moral authority....

God's immediate response was "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?"....

the conclusion of Job is that it isn't God's power that grants him the authority over creation, but God's knowledge......

we look at the death of a city of Canaanites and someone might claim it a bloodthirsty act......but, can we question the omniscience of God?.....would sparing a single life in that city have resulted in some greater holocaust? .....there is no reason in the world to conclude that God's actions are capricious.....

PostmodernProphet

11-25-2009, 11:09 AM

The book of Deuteronomy is a house of horrors. I'll let you pick at your leisure any one of the numerous instances in the text where God sanctions murder, and see what apologia you can make of it. Should be entertaining...

which leads us to this.....no, I'm not here to prove the negative.....you make your choice and make your case......show me how God's commands to take life violate your moral authority.....

PostmodernProphet

11-25-2009, 11:11 AM

You fail to account then, for how billions of people throughout history, have been able to offer moral praise for, and condemnation of, others, even though they never heard of Christianity...

And again you end with the primary fallacy with monotheism: that power confers moral authority. There is good reason to believe that the very idea of a "creating deity" is incoherent - but even presuming it for the sake of argument, there is no reason why all moral actors, however unequal in power, are not able to stand in judgement of one another.

are you presuming that those billions of people have a superior knowledge and understanding of reality than an omniscient deity?.....I would love for you to demonstrate how someone not aware of all truth could make a superior judgment to someone who is.....

....and, should you choose to attempt to show the "incoherence" of a creating deity you can do so in another thread....changing the subject to avoid floundering on this one is not allowed.....

Pericles

11-27-2009, 02:51 AM

D'Souza, a popular author of political and social commentary, was at Brigham Young University on Oct. 16 for the Wheatley Institute's "Symposium on Responding to the New Atheism." He wasn't in enemy territory...

That's for sure. He's not going to put forth his strawman-atheist before an audience that is going to challenge him...

The old atheism focused on separation of church and state and wasn't all that appealing to the masses, D'Souza said. The new atheism is different.

This distinction (between "old" and "new" atheism) is one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book; attempt to de-legitimize your opponent's position as a more radical version of the heretofore "honest" opposition that you've had to contend with. I wonder which "old" atheists he was referring to? Baron d'Holbach? Thomas Paine? Arthur Schopenhauer? Samuel Clemens? Please! Those folks (oh, along with Nietzsche and Feuerbach) were every bit as aggressive as Hitchens and Harris today.

"It's not content with policing the bounds of church and state, it wants to attack belief in God and wants to attack religion in the private sphere also," D'Souza said.

Everybody who attacks the practices of cults, also attacks religion in the private sphere. Especially when children are involved, we are highly suspicious of cultic beliefs and practices. I agree with Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. that inculcating in children the belief in an afterlife where there is an eternal place of extreme pain, is a form of emotional abuse. It's not serious enough a problem for it to be officially proscribed; but it is wrong, and just as anybody can comment on somebody else's bad parenting style, I am allowed an opinion about what should - and what should not - belong to the moral education of the young...

Pericles

11-27-2009, 02:59 AM

"It wants to make the believer feel like a total idiot for believing in God. So it's more ambitious, it's more aggressive in its agenda."

The cosmology that is put forth by Fundamentalist monotheists is a serious impediment to understanding the truth of the physical world, and alone on those grounds, religion will come in for criticism. But to my mind, the much more serious problem is the awful moral implications of monotheism. Here the problem is not one of an intellectual deficiency, but the much more serious problem of the lack of moral insight and moral discernment. A simple but profound example of this: The Calivinist belief in predestination.

The new atheists are also a "suave bunch" that strikes a "rebel stance" appealing to young people, D'Souza said.

Here we have a snide, back-handed compliment from D'Souza (his specializes in these kinds of remarks): he "explains" why atheist viewpoints are gaining greater currency amongst younger people, by referring not the substance of the atheists' arguments, but instead to how 'slick' their messaging is. Moreover, it conveniently lets apologists like himself off the hook, for losing the argument to the atheists.

And young people are the target. The new atheists' goal is to "let the religious parents breed 'em" and then win them over later with their arguments, he said.What's so new about the 'new atheism?' Michael De Groote finds it curious that the new atheists hearken back to old controversies in science, but seem to ignore recent discoveries that may support a divine creator -- such as the way the laws of the universe are so precisely tuned as to allow the development of life.

The "intelligent design" argument for the existence of a Creator, is only the latest variant on the teleological argument for the existence of God, which is centuries old, and which was decisively rebutted by philosophers in the 18th century. It's true, that our cosmos is especially well-suited for life; but there are possible scientific explanations for why this is the case. You don't need to haul out the ultimate Deus Ex Machina to explain why this is. In logical reasoning, the simplest explanations are the best. And just saying that "Well, what happened, see, is that some guy (we think it was a guy) just pulled it all out of a hat" is an utterly fanciful and arbitrary story that doesn't, properly speaking, explain anything.

Pericles

11-27-2009, 03:07 AM

Even most of the modern religious conflicts have at their heart not religion, but other issues such as land or the right to self-rule, D'Souza said.

D'Souza's problem is that he apparently has not thought through the categories of his ideas, at all. "Religion," as it is understood in the West, is a very complex social phenomenon, one whose implications reach into many diverse aspects of life. One thing that we know from history: All religion, especially organized religion, is essentially political. Ethical and political considerations are intimately bound up with the faith, especially as it grows and serves as a template for a new civilization.

The third argument is that religion isn't just wrong, it is pernicious and dangerous.

Religion, again, is a very complex social phenomenon. It has been a source of solace for countless numbers of people, certainly. But its moral authority is dubious just as a matter of principle, and it certainly has conduced (either directly or indirectly) to the suffering of millions upon millions of people.

It is a matter of degree, however to D'Souza. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, lasted about 375 years and killed about 2,000 people -- about five a year. The Salem witch trials killed 19 people. He said this was 2,019 too many, but these crimes are pretty much unrepeatable today.

The atheist death toll is not only larger, it is more recent and is ongoing, according to D'Souza. He said that in seven decades the atheist regimes of Stalin, Mao and the Nazis killed 100 million people.

This is the believer's favorite canard against the atheist. But a little thought should reveal how shallow this argument is. First of all, killing in these mass numbers was only physically possible with the advent of modern weapons; human beings have been at war, fighting and brutally killing one another without respite from the dawn of civilization. It's naive to think that anything changed in recent times, except our ability to kill on a vastly broadened scale. It has nothing in particular to do with atheism.

Indeed, the necessary condition of the killing fields of the 20th century was the new weaponry; but the sufficient condition was the modern, centralized state and - especially - the powerful attractions of nationalism. Nationalism emerged in the 19th century in a full-throated way, energizing the populations of Europe into a kind of militant group solidarity not seen since the Crusades. For many Europeans, devotion to the nation came to fulfill the need people have for meaningful participation in something greater than themselves, that the Christian religion had in prior times. When we reflect that all organized religions have an essentially political dimension to them, the nationalist enthusiasms of 19th century Europe can be seen as new forms of religion; the same old spritual impluse, just in a new guise. And just as religion can foment dogmatic fervor and murderous zeal, so did nationalism. Only this time, the murderers had machines that enabled them to perform mass killings.

"Atheism has amassed a massive body count. A mountain of bodies. An ocean of blood," D'Souza said. "Atheism, and not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history."

Again, it was the modern religions of nationalism that produced this body count. Atheism might have been the personal belief of some of the leaders of the carnage (Stalin and Mao, for example), but not all of them (Hitler and Mussolini seem to have been marginal believers, of a sort). An ideology of atheism certainly did not exist. People did not rally by the millions to go to war in the formal belief that God was dead. Instead, they did so for the glory of the Fatherland (during the Crusades, it was simply "for Christ and spices!"). D'Souza doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit this. It's too easy for him to score cheap rhetorical points by blaming 20th-century mass atrocities on atheism.

Pericles

11-27-2009, 03:17 AM

But the ultimate motive for the current antagonism against religion, according to D'Souza, isn't science or lack of evidence.

"How do you get out from out of the shadow of unceasing accountability, of unremitting moral judgement?" D'Souza said. "Well, abolish the judge. If you can somehow get rid of God, then all his preachments and commandments become optional."

This is another cheap shot. It is simply a lie to suggest that atheists don't care about morality, don't care about right and wrong. We care very much about it - and we ask the crucial question: who decides right and wrong? Who is the "judge" that D'Souza speaks of? This judge has never appeared to us to make his directives plain. But there is no shortage of people claiming that they speak for the judge, and that we should do as they say, because after all they speak for the judge. Sorry, but we won't get fooled again. In the modern world, we have decided that any authority that is self-appointed is arbitrary, and has no rational claim on our obedience. All authorities, if they are to command our loyalty, must commend themselves to our consideration, must justify themselves to us. We Moderns believe in democracy: the people are the final judge.

You can't get away from accountability, because your fellow humans won't let you. No one can appoint themselves the Judge; and no one has the obligation to obey the preachments and commandments of an arbitrary ruler.

To those who don't want religion to become marginalized, D'Souza recommends that people of faith become prepared and learn about their religion above the "crayon level" of a child. They need to learn of ways to speak that communicate their ideas without religious-based language. Different faith traditions also need to work together."(The new atheists have) taken these issues," D'Souza said, "and put them into the public square, creating an opportunity for the believers to reenter the public square and engage them there."

By all means, people should become more knowledgeable about their faith, and in general about the other major faith traditions. Experience shows that the more one knows about their faith, the less exclusionary they are likely to be in the claims they make for it...

Pericles

11-27-2009, 03:34 AM

I am simply pointing out that whether or not you consider it "likely" has nothing at all to do with whether it is ultimately true or not.....the same is true of miracles....

You miss the point: the issue of the reality of miracles only has moral relevance, if people believe in them, if people feel justified in believing in them. No one cares about miracles performed in a universe with no people. And if there is no sufficient reason to believe in miracles, we are rationally - and morally - at our leave to deny that there have been any.

no, I am saying that it is equally true that you have to rely on faith to believe that they weren't there.....

But in this, you are wrong. Just as in the case of a miracle, the prospect of space aliens having lived on the dark side of the Moon at some time in the past, is a quite unlikely event. If there is no evidence of their presence, the only rational default belief (otherwise known as the stasis of the debate) is that they were never there. There is a clear, logical rationale for this belief; it is not faith.

Pericles

11-27-2009, 03:49 AM

you have clearly misrepresented the essence of Christianity....there is nothing in John 3:16 about the "pain of serious harm".....there is no obligation of reciprocity.....there is an offer of love which can be accepted or rejected....

We are not free to decline the gift, except on pain of extreme harm. What sort of offer of "love," is that?

if you reject it you are merely getting that which you desire more than love.....

I am not getting what I desire, if I were to be subject to unimaginable tortures for all of eternity, now would I? Or, like many believers, are you not going to pay me the dignity of taking me at my word...?

it isn't that I haven't proven you wrong....it's that you have chosen a position which you will never be able to demonstrate is right.....

On the contrary, I think it is that I have thought through the true implications of monotheism for good moral conduct; and you, have not - yet.

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2009, 08:13 AM

You miss the point: the issue of the reality of miracles only has moral relevance, if people believe in them, if people feel justified in believing in them. No one cares about miracles performed in a universe with no people. And if there is no sufficient reason to believe in miracles, we are rationally - and morally - at our leave to deny that there have been any.

but you began by saying you would believe if they were present....obviously you are contradicting yourself, since you now admit your choice supersedes the occurrence....it isn't that you would believe if there were miracles, you admit there would be miracles if you believed....

But in this, you are wrong. Just as in the case of a miracle, the prospect of space aliens having lived on the dark side of the Moon at some time in the past, is a quite unlikely event. If there is no evidence of their presence, the only rational default belief (otherwise known as the stasis of the debate) is that they were never there. There is a clear, logical rationale for this belief; it is not faith.

irregardless of the "default" that they were never on the dark side of the moon, it tells you nothing of what may exist on the other side of the universe.....your "rationale" does not lead you to truth, it only shapes your faith......

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2009, 08:21 AM

We are not free to decline the gift, except on pain of extreme harm. What sort of offer of "love," is that?

the harm that exists, exists because of justice......the love is that which is freely given to spare you from justice....all that is required is acceptance.....if you refuse to accept the existence of "deity", why should you complain of the existence of "harm".......on the other hand, I believe the "harm" is earned, not forced.....I believe the reprieve is given out of love, not demanded......I find it more rational to accept love freely offered than to reject it......
[/quote]

I am not getting what I desire, if I were to be subject to unimaginable tortures for all of eternity, now would I?
how would it not be what you desire?......you have two choices....either choose to believe that God exists and have one result, or choose not to believe that God exists and have the other.....

if you are hungry and there is food in front of you, you may choose to eat and be filled or you can choose to not eat and remain hungry.....do you complain that you are "forced" to eat to not be hungry?......

On the contrary, I think it is that I have thought through the true implications of monotheism for good moral conduct; and you, have not - yet.
then feel free to articulate your argument....so far, all you have done is make the statement.....

Pericles

11-27-2009, 09:43 AM

yes, YHWH commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.....and he commanded him not to sacrifice Isaac.....atheists love to ignore the latter and pretend thus that God is bloodthirsty and demanded human sacrifice.....Isaac did not die, he didn't die because Abraham was obedient, not because he was disobedient......

But what are the implications of this tale for moral right and wrong? Did God, or did God not, command Abraham to perform an evil act?

it is absurd to say we cannot draw that conclusion.....Christianity has drawn that conclusion for two thousand years....the fact that the son wasn't sacrificed IS the essence of the story....

Verse 15-16: Again the Lord's messenger called to Abraham from feaven and said: 'I swear by myself, declares the Lord, because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your beloved son, I will bless you abundantly...' Now - there's the essence of the story, from the horse's mouth. God rewards Abraham for his unconditional, unwavering obedience, of even an obviously evil command.

Isaac doesn't represent Jesus in the parable, he represents humanity......the goat that was sacrificed in Isaac's place represents Jesus......

Alright, we'll go with your interpretation of the story then; analogizing Isaac to humanity renders the premises of the Christian religion even more morally dubious. If Isaac represents humanity, then it is evident that humanity is innocent vis-a-vis God, and not in some original "sin-debt" to God. Humanity is subject to mortal threat, only by the sheer caprice of deity; and it is also by the sheer caprice of deity, that we are supposed to be "released" from that mortal threat. Now, that's a con game, if there ever was one; but it is the moral essence of Christianity.

Pericles

11-27-2009, 10:10 AM

the conclusion of Job is that it isn't God's power that grants him the authority over creation, but God's knowledge......

Hah! That's a quick piece of sophistry. Knowledge, of course, is a form of power. It confers all manner of advantages upon a person, who has it as their aim to exercise direct control over others.

In any event, God's "knowledge" is conspicuously absent in the last portion of the book. God does not impart moral insight or reason with Job. God simply asks empty rhetorical questions and bullies Job into submission. Job even anticipated that God would do this, and specifically called upon God not to. God's answer to Job, boiled down to its essentials, "I'm in the right, because I'm Number One and I said so - and don't you ever forget it!"

we look at the death of a city of Canaanites and someone might claim it a bloodthirsty act......but, can we question the omniscience of God?.....would sparing a single life in that city have resulted in some greater holocaust? .....there is no reason in the world to conclude that God's actions are capricious.....

This is the same mealy-mouthed defense that those scandolous passages have always received. "Oh, our Dear Leader only wants what is best for us! Since he is always just, whenever we suffer at his hands, it is because we've got it coming!" This is just the sort of craven moral hypocrisy that keeps tyrants and cult leaders in power. We can question the omniscience, we can question the benevolence, of God because we have very good reason to do so. If God is so omniscient, and if God truly acts with justice, then God should be able to give justifications for how he acts. The blithe apologia that "God has reasons that are not are own" will not cut it, in this adult conversation. By all the evidence, God decides with complete impunity. If the matter is not to be left at that, then some genuine rational defense - a theodicy - has to be put forward.

chloe

11-27-2009, 10:34 AM

Pericles

11-27-2009, 10:40 AM

which leads us to this.....no, I'm not here to prove the negative.....you make your choice and make your case......show me how God's commands to take life violate your moral authority.....

I credit you with having enough intelligence to know that any attempt at theodicy over the book of Deuteronomy is truly a lost cause, so you won't even try.

The denial of the existence of God, the denial of a single privileged source of moral authority, opens up the question of how we are then to determine right and wrong. This is a very involved, very complex question, but it is really a matter for its own thread. My main point here, is that God, as depicted in the sacred books of Christianity, is, by reason, not the kind of being that can wield moral authority over us.

But to give a quick sketch of how it is that God's commands can violate "my" moral authority (an authority which I indeed wield, but only in concert with my peers), I'll say this: I regard myself as having original moral prerogatives, otherwise known as 'rights,' as a consequence of the kind of being that I am - namely, a rational-moral agent. Now, as a rational-moral agent, I do not exist in a vaccuum; I am embedded in a community of peers, all of us morally equal to one another because we all possess this same rational-moral free nature. This original equality is the basis for our making claims against our peers, when they exercise their freedom in ways that are detrimental to the prerogative of myself or others to equal freedom - to their rights, in other words.

To say that we are all originally morally equal, is not of course to say that we are all (or should be) equal in our material fortunes. Some of us, by luck and some measure of effort, are able to exercise power over others. But this power is never without limit; it must always respect the essential equal rights, and consequent equal dignity, of all. When that does not happen, when the powerful try to lord it over the rest of us, we are entitled (and indeed, our Founders would say that we are obligated) to challenge that abused authority, in word and in deed.

I in my very rights, in my very nature as a rational-moral being, have the power and prerogative to judge that others are not using their freedom to abuse others. When I see that this is happening, I can exercise the authority, in the name of our common rational-moral nature, to call the powerful to account. I of course will do so at physical risk; but I have that right, all the same. Again, the cardinal error of monotheism, found again and again in the texts of all the Semitic faiths, is to mistake power for righteousness.

It does not matter that our being is wholly dependent upon the whim of a Creator. If by nature we are truly free, and not slaves, then we have the same basic rights and dignity as the Creator itself. At some time in the future, we may develop and android which, when we switch it on, enjoys feeling and has free will. We may hold in our hand a remote control that would serve as the "off" switch for that new intelligent being; but the mere fact that we made it, would never justify us in turning the android off, or in making it a slave to serve us.

Pericles

11-27-2009, 11:02 AM

are you presuming that those billions of people have a superior knowledge and understanding of reality than an omniscient deity?.....I would love for you to demonstrate how someone not aware of all truth could make a superior judgment to someone who is.....

You're obviously arguing in a circle. You've invoked alleged miracles as evidence of the existence of some kind of supernatural authority. You can't now turn around and appeal to the "alleged superior knowledge and understanding of an omniscient deity" - whose very existence and character has not been established - as providing the criterion enabling us to say that the miracles that a Muslim experiences are false delusions, and the miracles that a Christian experiences are veridical and true.

Pericles

11-27-2009, 11:11 AM

The story of Jobs suffering came about because the devil said if Job had it all bad then he would no longer love God, his friends got superstitious and blamed Job for his own misfortune then turned their backs on him. But no matter what Job went through he kept loving God, he knew God wouldn't want him suffering.

Chloe, I recommend you read the book of Job carefully. Job's attitude is not one of deferential love toward God; it is one of righteous defiance at his unjust treatment, and his calling upon God/giving God an opportunity to justify his treatment of Job...

This was the correct view God caused no suffering, God bestowed love and prosperity on Job.

God did not harm Job directly, but any judge would say that God was morally complicit in, responsible for, Job's suffering... in the end, Job is materially compensated for his losses. But how can getting a new wife and children really be a compensation for having lost all your loved ones? Job's family had it worse than Job, even: they lost their lives. The story makes no mention of how they were indemnified.

chloe

11-27-2009, 11:20 AM

Chloe, I recommend you read the book of Job carefully. Job's attitude is not one of deferential love toward God; it is one of righteous defiance at his unjust treatment, and his calling upon God/giving God an opportunity to justify his treatment of Job...

This was the correct view God caused no suffering, God bestowed love and prosperity on Job.

God did not harm Job directly, but any judge would say that God was morally complicit in, responsible for, Job's suffering... in the end, Job is materially compensated for his losses. But how can getting a new wife and children really be a compensation for having lost all your loved ones? Job's family had it worse than Job, even: they lost their lives. The story makes no mention of how they were indemnified.

indemnify [ɪnˈdɛmnɪˌfaɪ]
vb -fies, -fying, -fied (tr)
1. (Law) to secure against future loss, damage, or liability; give security for; insure
2. to compensate for loss, injury, expense, etc.; reimburse
indemnification n
indemnifier n

I thought his wife wanted him to curse God ? I can't really understand the bible myself, I have to find a interpretation before I can give you my thoughts about your question.

Pericles

11-27-2009, 11:33 AM

but you began by saying you would believe if they were present....obviously you are contradicting yourself, since you now admit your choice supersedes the occurrence....it isn't that you would believe if there were miracles, you admit there would be miracles if you believed....

My point is that actual miracles might, for the sake of argument, serve as evidence for the existence of an all-poweful being; but even if that were established, it is another question whether we are beholden to abject obedience before that being. Two separate questions. The reason you blur them together, again, is that you are making the cardinal error of monotheism: believing that power confers absolute moral authority. It does not; it cannot.

irregardless of the "default" that they were never on the dark side of the moon, it tells you nothing of what may exist on the other side of the universe.....your "rationale" does not lead you to truth, it only shapes your faith......

No. In contrast to the faithful, I do not take something to be true, without adequate, independently verifiable, evidence.

chloe

11-27-2009, 11:49 AM

Chloe, I recommend you read the book of Job carefully. Job's attitude is not one of deferential love toward God; it is one of righteous defiance at his unjust treatment, and his calling upon God/giving God an opportunity to justify his treatment of Job...

God did not harm Job directly, but any judge would say that God was morally complicit in, responsible for, Job's suffering... in the end, Job is materially compensated for his losses. But how can getting a new wife and children really be a compensation for having lost all your loved ones? Job's family had it worse than Job, even: they lost their lives. The story makes no mention of how they were indemnified.

Job said he had heard about God, by hearing of the ear, but now he see's God, what he means is that sure he may have said he believes in God but now he knows God, the gift he recieved was knowing more to life then just flesh n blood. The story says he lost his kids I didnt read anywhere about losing his wife, but all the people around him were ready to curse God and wanted Job to do the same. He did not do that, when God supplied him with more abundance then Job had before, it was not really the material reward that he gained, he gained a real knowing of Gods existence, and also knowing that his kids who the devil killed were with God, in other words he was given peace of mind, which is more then the physical reward mentioned.

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2009, 05:06 PM

But what are the implications of this tale for moral right and wrong? Did God, or did God not, command Abraham to perform an evil act?

not....

Verse 15-16: Again the Lord's messenger called to Abraham from feaven and said: 'I swear by myself, declares the Lord, because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your beloved son, I will bless you abundantly...' Now - there's the essence of the story, from the horse's mouth. God rewards Abraham for his unconditional, unwavering obedience, of even an obviously evil command.

God rewards Abraham for obedience, but God did not require him to kill his son....God never intended Abraham to kill his son....Abraham did not kill his son......let me see....is there something Pericles is missing about this story...ah, yes.....Isaac did not get killed.....is it starting to sink in yet?....

Alright, we'll go with your interpretation of the story then; analogizing Isaac to humanity renders the premises of the Christian religion even more morally dubious. If Isaac represents humanity, then it is evident that humanity is innocent vis-a-vis God, and not in some original "sin-debt" to God. Humanity is subject to mortal threat, only by the sheer caprice of deity; and it is also by the sheer caprice of deity, that we are supposed to be "released" from that mortal threat. Now, that's a con game, if there ever was one; but it is the moral essence of Christianity.
not at all....the sin-debt is erased for any that want it erased.....it is not the "caprice" of the deity that leaves it in place but the choice of humanity to refuse to believe it.....why would you expect to be "released" by someone you don't believe exists of something you don't believe exists to avoid something you don't believe exists?........

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2009, 05:19 PM

Hah! That's a quick piece of sophistry. Knowledge, of course, is a form of power. It confers all manner of advantages upon a person, who has it as their aim to exercise direct control over others.
nice dodge, but transparent.....you were obviously arguing a "might makes right" theory...."knowledge" not "might" IS the basis of God's authority, though obviously it goes without saying that a deity with the power to create has the power to do whatever else he chooses....regardless, the lesson of the book of Job is that God alone has the knowledge that is necessary to determine what is necessary and what is not....

In any event, God's "knowledge" is conspicuously absent in the last portion of the book. God does not impart moral insight or reason with Job. God simply asks empty rhetorical questions and bullies Job into submission. Job even anticipated that God would do this, and specifically called upon God not to. God's answer to Job, boiled down to its essentials, "I'm in the right, because I'm Number One and I said so - and don't you ever forget it!"

obviously you have overlooked the fact that Job wasn't being "tested" by God.....God made it clear to Satan that he already knew the outcome.....the "testing" was done by Satan......

This is the same mealy-mouthed defense that those scandolous passages have always received. "Oh, our Dear Leader only wants what is best for us! Since he is always just, whenever we suffer at his hands, it is because we've got it coming!" This is just the sort of craven moral hypocrisy that keeps tyrants and cult leaders in power. We can question the omniscience, we can question the benevolence, of God because we have very good reason to do so. If God is so omniscient, and if God truly acts with justice, then God should be able to give justifications for how he acts. The blithe apologia that "God has reasons that are not are own" will not cut it, in this adult conversation. By all the evidence, God decides with complete impunity. If the matter is not to be left at that, then some genuine rational defense - a theodicy - has to be put forward.

ah, but the justifications are there, you simply ignore them.....I have offered to let you pick an instance but you continue to refuse....in the case of the Canaanite cities that were destroyed the bible indicates they were places where human sacrifice was being conducted.....God was putting a stop to it......

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2009, 05:26 PM

I credit you with having enough intelligence to know that any attempt at theodicy over the book of Deuteronomy is truly a lost cause, so you won't even try.

and I credit you with understanding that you lack sufficient knowledge of the scriptures to come up with an example that you can defend.....you are wise to avoid my challenge....

The denial of the existence of God, the denial of a single privileged source of moral authority, opens up the question of how we are then to determine right and wrong. This is a very involved, very complex question, but it is really a matter for its own thread. My main point here, is that God, as depicted in the sacred books of Christianity, is, by reason, not the kind of being that can wield moral authority over us.

But to give a quick sketch of how it is that God's commands can violate "my" moral authority (an authority which I indeed wield, but only in concert with my peers), I'll say this: I regard myself as having original moral prerogatives, otherwise known as 'rights,' as a consequence of the kind of being that I am - namely, a rational-moral agent. Now, as a rational-moral agent, I do not exist in a vaccuum; I am embedded in a community of peers, all of us morally equal to one another because we all possess this same rational-moral free nature. This original equality is the basis for our making claims against our peers, when they exercise their freedom in ways that are detrimental to the prerogative of myself or others to equal freedom - to their rights, in other words.

To say that we are all originally morally equal, is not of course to say that we are all (or should be) equal in our material fortunes. Some of us, by luck and some measure of effort, are able to exercise power over others. But this power is never without limit; it must always respect the essential equal rights, and consequent equal dignity, of all. When that does not happen, when the powerful try to lord it over the rest of us, we are entitled (and indeed, our Founders would say that we are obligated) to challenge that abused authority, in word and in deed.

I in my very rights, in my very nature as a rational-moral being, have the power and prerogative to judge that others are not using their freedom to abuse others. When I see that this is happening, I can exercise the authority, in the name of our common rational-moral nature, to call the powerful to account. I of course will do so at physical risk; but I have that right, all the same. Again, the cardinal error of monotheism, found again and again in the texts of all the Semitic faiths, is to mistake power for righteousness.

It does not matter that our being is wholly dependent upon the whim of a Creator. If by nature we are truly free, and not slaves, then we have the same basic rights and dignity as the Creator itself. At some time in the future, we may develop and android which, when we switch it on, enjoys feeling and has free will. We may hold in our hand a remote control that would serve as the "off" switch for that new intelligent being; but the mere fact that we made it, would never justify us in turning the android off, or in making it a slave to serve us.
yet what you lack, and what prevents you from being morally superior to an omniscient deity is total knowledge of ALL of the consequences of an action.....

an exercise in ethics often asks the question, "if you had the ability to kill Adolph Hitler when he was an infant would you do so".....we look at what Hitler did and we say yes.....yet, if there had been no Hitler, no WW2, what other consequences might there have been.....might that have prevented the American Civil Rights movement, for example....would America have gone the way of South Africa and practiced apartheid until the 1980s......we cannot know what the results of all our possible acts might be.....an omniscient deity would.......

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2009, 05:29 PM

You're obviously arguing in a circle.
no, it just seems that way because your head is spinning....

You can't now turn around and appeal to the "alleged superior knowledge and understanding of an omniscient deity" - whose very existence and character has not been established

again, I am not arguing against some Pericles imagined pseudo Christianity.....for the purpose of this debate you are stuck with what Christianity teaches about deity......

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2009, 05:31 PM

it is one of righteous defiance at his unjust treatment, and his calling upon God/giving God an opportunity to justify his treatment of Job...

but of course.....his treatment was admittedly unjust.....the opening passages make that clear....

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2009, 05:35 PM

it is another question whether we are beholden to abject obedience before that being.
but God doesn't even want "abject obedience"....he wants love....

No. In contrast to the faithful, I do not take something to be true, without adequate, independently verifiable, evidence.

if you are in fact an atheist, you do.....you take it as "true" that God does not exist....you do that without evidence.....