This is an excellent post...

It is truly turning into a major fight for common sense and reason...

I do not think it will be won by converting people of  faith, for once bitten,  they seem to become delirious, and stubborn to the point of absurdity..
How can anyone argue with a person who's total reasoning is based on ONE book.. 

" self destructive...   and seeking the destruction of others "  is a better way of describing this state of mind..

40% of Americans think that Evolution is a lie.. and that the planet is only 6,000 years old....

NO atheist will ever become President of the United States... this mere fact is so damning it is frightening

I think these facts alone , indicate the immense  struggle ahead of us,  who rely on reason and understanding..

I am very concerned.....

thank you for  your great post ...

I understand Obama got something in his oath slightly wrong, so redid it back in the White House, but didn't bother with the bible in that non-public situation.

Religious requirements are inconsistent with the Constitution. Does that not matter?

There are no good arguments for God.

I have this 'stupid' compulsion to seek Truth.

But then I live in Australia, and while we do have religious crazies, we are still nowhere near as messed up as the US in that respect.

The State I live in. Queensland, had a religious nut case for a leader for a long time, (roughly equivalent to your state governor), but we eventually got him out. At one point the guy in charge of education was talking about letting Creationism into our public schools (shudder).

Current govt at our state level is average, Federal is at bit too religious leaning for my taste but could be a lot worse.

Unfortunately our opposition just kicked out a relatively intelligent and open-minded guy and put in a Roman Catholic, Global Warming denier. Ugh!

As a preface, I am responding as a citizen of the United States; as such, I am replying from the perspective that I have come to known in my country. Speaking only for myself, I have felt that non-believers of all stripes have been turned into ancillary characters in our national play. While it's admittedly anecdotal evidence, I sometimes believe that atheists are the most hated minority in the United States. Does this mean we should hide in shame at not buying a fraudulent story foist upon us by half-wits and charlatans? I would submit that perhaps the democratic foundations of my country require that I voice my opinion without fear of repercussion or being ostracizing. Therefore, I intend to seek like-minded individuals who are capable of rational thought untinged by the influences of super-naturalism. To be honest, I am not a particularly "rabid" atheist so often portrayed in the media; rather, I am a decent, hard-working person who defies marginalization and will no longer tolerate the second-class status afforded me. I will speak, and some will listen; some will not- but I will not be shouted down in the name of mindless, amalgamated belief structures.     

That shows Taggett using a couple of tricky tactics.

Asserting that some person accepts his position, that the other guy (Dawkins) would not expect to is marginal at best to proving his case, whether true or not.

Crudely misrepresenting the argument ("Strawman" ) is the other dishonest tactic: the eye has evolved by a combination of 'accident' and 'deterministic' selection.

No wonder Dawkins was at a loss as to which of several misleading or erroneous points to address in the pressure of the debate format.

Intelligent Theists have to be very skilled at skating over or around logical fallacies, they have to do it all the time to maintain belief, without letting themselves fully acknowledge what they are doing.

Niall, most of us don't see it as an identity either. Being an atheist is like not collecting stamps -- it's not much of a hobby.

However, your position only makes sense if theists keep their theism to themselves.

You mention the US pledge, as if the atheists are trying to change something from the original. But actually, they are only trying to change it *back* to how it was originally. The 'god' thing is a recent insertion by politically motivated theists.

Now, you may not appreciate the importance of keeping church out of government, but I'm curious if you're aware that theists in your own country have recently limited your freedom of speech and expression.

Ireland has recently passed a blasphemy law:

When atheists fail to stand against religious incursions on our rights and freedoms, this is the crap you end up with.

The question is not, "Why are we angry?" The question is, "Why aren't you?"

I can't help but believe this is an attempt at trolling?  I'm sorry if that's not true.  It's extremely obvious that anti-intellectualism is pushed upon the masses in most every facet of our lives and it's a pity if you do not realize this.  Don't take that as an insult, I don't wish you insult you...  But when things like creationism are forced upon little children in the public school systems, there must be a push back.  If we stand idly by and do not challenge irrationality and what stems from it, we're guilty too.  We're guilty of watching people rain down destruction on the minds of others; plundering their good thoughts and replacing them with nonsense and insanity.

They're the ones guilty, we're only guilty of self-defense and trying to do what is truly good and not based on hateful and irrational thought processes.  I hope it doesn't appear that I'm frothing at the mouth or anything, I don't have a problem with certain sects of theism...  But (to take Christianity as an example) liberal and accepting churches are quite the rarity when compared to the treacherous ones.  

You would not tell people what they can and can't say? Well, I agree. That is exactly why it's inappropriate for a public entity to require people to say "under God" in a mandatory pledge.

Religion class? Why, I do have every right to want that abolished from a publicly funded school. Why should my tax money be used to indoctrinate anyone in something I don't have a stake in? Why should the Presbyterians allow Baptist dogma taught to their kids? Why should the Catholic parents allow their children to be taught that the Pentecostals are really the ones with the direct line to God?

Freedom of religion means no one gets to choose for us, we get to ourselves. It may be very different in Ireland, if so please get to know the situation before you criticize it.

I try not to dig my feet in the mud when debating something.  I like to do my best to see what it's like in the other person's shoes and even empathize with their cause.  Okay... Okay.  What do I say now?

You didn't even address what Deadly Fingergun said.  At all.  I'm trying to be polite and I hope you're not insulted, but how was your reply a rebuttal in the least?  You seem to let your convictions be what is driving your reasoning instead of your logic.  He mentioned at least three key clash of interests in his post and to use a baseball term, you struck out!

With all due respect I make this post.  I don't want to see this devolve like any kind of forum often does which is a big reason why I said what I did.  Please don't take it personally.

I'll keep it short.  

I never said anything about "why should I allow religion to be taught in school if it goes against my beliefs".  I'm approaching it from an intelligent point of view.  It's not all about me and my kids either.  If parents want to indoctrinate their kids there are several things these parents can do, such as teaching them at home/sending them to a class outside of school, or going so far as homeschooling them, or sending them to a private school where their theist beliefs are enforced.  

Why should tax payers accommodate every belief system?  That's very much not possible, financially and theoretically otherwise as well.  I'll abstain from listing some of them.  But, I will wonder why a school system should "spend money on not teaching science".  (A paraphrase but an accurate one imo.)  Where's the smiley face that commits suicide when you need one?

I too believe theology can be taught in schools but you better damn well believe there's going to be an outcry against it, even if the teacher and curriculum were absolutely perfect in every way.  In this country if a public school so much as taught the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism, a lot of parents would pull their kids out for that class.  How is that doing the children justice?  Fuck their backwards irrational parents.

My argument is: Religion should in no way be enforced by a public entity. For the sake of everyone, including the religious.

"Religion" isn't one thing. It's a huge mess of things - it is nigh impossible to "teach religion" without setting someone aside as "not important enough to cover" - to turn them into a second-class citizen. To treat them unequally under the law.

Science is not religious in nature. and is thus exempt from being a matter of equal treatment under the first amendment. Removing it from the curriculum would only result in even more ignorance in the public sphere. A disaster for citizenry.

Meanwhile, leaving religion out of schools has little effect on knowledge of religion, given the well-established private religious entities.

Because you have twice entirely failed to address what I've said in favor of knocking down straw-men.

Debating and not understanding a topic are mutually exclusive conditions. Understand first, debate second.

There are 26 posts, 8 of them are mine.  I am pretty sure if you did a word count you'd find that most of the input is from me.  That combined with the fact that I started the thread rather than hijack someone else's thread and start spewing all kinds of ignorant bullshit, suggests to me that I am very interested in this discussion and furthermore I am completely open to be proven wrong and I'll be the first to mention that some valid points have been made, In Ireland there are pretty much 2 religions and in the Republic that is even narrowed down to marginally 1 religion which of course makes it easy to have a religion class in school, I oversimplified, having not grown up in America I didn't understand the logistics or having "a religion class" having said that I still think that alot of points that I made were valid.  You can say that phrases like "In God we Trust" and "One Nation under God" are highly offensive to you, personally I think thats just being over sensitive, for non believers then all they are is empty words.

I used to think that people were overreacting to saying "one nation under god" but then I found out that in American public schools it's basically compulsory. People have to pledge 5 times a week for 12 years, and if they don't then school officials will get involved and it's considered to be a problem.

actually, not in my experience.  there were several students in my school who refused to say the pledge, ironically enough usually for religious reasons.  i myself only stood and nothing more, some even refused to stand.  none of the teachers ever said a word.

Well, the US is a large nation and I'm sure it varies from place to place, and technically because of the first constitutional amendment students can't be compelled to pledge. But I have seen news reports where students say they were coerced by school officials in more subtle ways.

Well pardon my ignorance but isn't that what the RRS guys where doing on the show that this whole thread is based on?  Were they not telling the two lads on the opposing side how futile their efforts of worshipping God are?

Plus who's to say that I am strutting in out of the blue, perhaps I will become a continuous contributor, atleast my first post didn't go unnoticed which is always a good start.

You think that I don't understand?  You think that America is the only country to have religion shoved down their throat and church propoganda camouflaged as patriotic duty?  If I was to take full stock of Amhrain NA BhFiann, I'd be out killing as many English people I could find, but times change and now when I'm at a match and the marching band belts it out, I don't sit down with my hands in my pockets and I don't look around to see who is sitting down with their hands in their pockets.  Sing it, don't sing it... No one is forcing you to do either.

The problem isn't that I don't understand, the problem is that you think that you are the only person who has something worth listening too.

What exactly is the difference between a debate online and a prepared debate on TV, its the same thing and I wasn't trying to be condescending in my text, I was merely saying that thats what a debate is, atleast thats what a good debate is, one side showing the other that their attempts are futile.

With regards to being uninvited, thats what a public forum is, are you seriously saying that your forum is not open to new members whom may have a contribution, if you look back at the thread the very first reply was someone saying that my thread was pretty good and that he enjoyed reading it, so why am I not welcome?

With regards to making a fool of one's self, I sympathize but sometimes one can't help themselves.

oh, let's not get melodramatic.  if you weren't "welcome," a mod would have booted you by now.

all i'm saying is that, if you want to avoid being lambasted, the best strategy is to hang around a bit and get friendly before you call the whole relevance of the rrs into question.  if you're bothered by being lambasted--which it seems to me you are--then you have only your lack of tact to blame.

but you're very "welcome" in that you have total freedom to tell us we're going about being atheists the wrong way.  and we have total freedom to treat you like a dick.

Supposedly an open-minded place.

I'd say places rarely are whet they're made out to be. We humans generalize too much.

BTW, it wasn't the teachers doing the stigmatizing, it was the students.

This has been responded to:

With regards to the shift in stance, Yeah OK maybe... I didn't actually mean my original post to be as aggressive as it came across but on the other hand, the particular debate in question was kind of one sided, I could hardly say that the Christians were trying to tell RRS that their attempts were futile because the point of being an Atheist is that you are not attempting to worship anything.

No, I don't see a difference in prepared debate and online debates, its basically the same thing, two different opinions trying to disprove eachother, you can take a republican and a Democrat of similar intelligence a manuscript and ask each of them to interpret it, I guarantee you each one will come back with a different conclusion, thats not because one is smarter than the other, its because they are both on a different wave lenght.

You said something to the effect of me coming in uninvited, I was merely asking why I need to be invited its suppose to be a public forum.

Strutting in out the blue, I was trying to say that maybe I will be back on other threads, probably not but maybe I will, I would usually associate that phrase with people whom turn up make a cavalier statement to get everyone's goat and then leave and you never hear from them again.

Rubber/Glue...  I don't get it, what does that mean.

WITH regards to me being an idiot because I don't consider any of the stuff thats been posted a decent reply... I hold my ground, someone said that my point would only hold water if theism stopped advertising their belief's that was probably the best reply but I still wouldn't agree, I think that religions have something to promote, atheists don't.  i.e.  A)  Hi, I'm a Catholic and I have a book its called the Bible, would you like to read it? B)  Hi, I'm an Atheist and as such I have no belief's or document that you might be interested in hearing.  Only one of them marketing campaigns has any chance of a follow up. 

  I think you have an inability to critically read.  I'll just make a point on one thing you said...

Who said atheists don't have anything to promote?  Just because there is a lack of belief that doesn't believe atheists are nihilists.  RRS for one promotes science and ethics, and points out that many organized religions try to tear down facts that can be proven with the scientific method etc.  Also, there are very many organized religions (arguably all, I "disagree" with that though) who are very unethical.

There is a group in America of fundamental theist elitists called "The Family" which has ties to the bill regarding homosexuals in Ugandan parliament.  That bill is in every way revolting to human rights and any rational ethical thought.  And that is just a single example out of countless ones.

So anyway, to believe that Atheists are nihilists and have "nothing to promote" is presumptuous.