How do atheists propose filling in the gap
Offline http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/LOCAL18/705030475/-1/ZONES04
Rather than focusing on removing that which atheists disagree with, why not focus on finding ways to "minister" (in a humanistic way) to the community? How about creating programs to promote morality in the workplace? How about working in cooporation with others who share your desire to make society better, even tho you may not agree with them on the subject of God?
Shouldn't our government be concerned with supporting and promoting the morality of its citizens, given that, societies with rampant immorality, in the long run, are incapable of sustaining themselves? Is not one of government's fundamental responsibilities to promote order in a non-obtrusive way so that you and I are free to live productive lives? Shouldn't government institutions be allowed at least some flexibility in determining how to do just that?
Given the situation we find ourselves in, where our society's moral decay is becoming more and more evident, how do YOU propose promoting sound moral behaviors? In my opinion, simply suing those with whom you disagree does not get to the heart of the matter. It just leeches funding from programs designed to help people, so you are in effect, inhibiting their ability to serve their community.
Which brings me to my last question. Ultimately, is your goal to help others, or are you simply trying to make a point. If your goal IS to help others, how is suing going to help anyone???
Offline jce wrote:Actually, it's about the fact that the government is just plain dumb. It's too big to be anything other than dumb. If you do not believe you need a "God" to take care of you, why should you need a government to do it? We truly are capable of accomplishing much more than the government gives us credit for. I think our founders intended our government to be small and unobtrusive, however it has grown into a behemoth, and possibly it is partly to blame for why we're always shouting back and forth at each other in these forums. We give the gov our money so we feel entitled to have a say about what is done with it, but there are so many of us, and the gov is so big, there's no WAY we're ever going to agree. So what has happened is this ultra political correctness. Make everybody happy, don't hurt anyone's feelings, don't step on anyone's toes... blah blah... I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, I'm just now, because of this conversation, questioning whether the government should be in that business at all. Personally, I pay taxes for infrastructure, national security, those sorts of things. I am very anti-entitlement. Heck, I pay into Social Security, but odds are I'll never get it. That's crap and it's choking our economy. But this is just me thinking out loud, way off subject... (Don't even get me started on national healthcare... Just say no to socialism!!)sugarfree wrote:Well, you might be proud of me because I am changing my opinion, or refining it. Why is the government funding charity work in the first place? It's our money the government is spending. Aren't we smart enough to decide where we want to donate our money? Also, then, neither you nor I have to feel offended by what the gov does or doesn't give OUR money to. Problem solved!!Actually, this really saddens me. Part of the reason we pay taxes is to have programs that provide for those in need. It makes me sad to think that because you cannot have the religious based programs you want that you would take away all funding. I am sorry that you disagree with so much of what is said on this forum, but really, no one has promoted NOT helping others and I am sorry to hear that is what you want.
Yeah who want a government that cares about its people (sarcasm). Our government does these thing for reasons One being to keep the nation strong. We carry our government, it part of its job so to make sure we can carry it. That included helping people.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Offline Just a couple of comments:
- This thread had become very cumbersome and if we want to continue the government discussion (and I think we should), sugarfree would you mind started another thread about it including your thoughts posted here?
- Sugar - I must commend you on maintaining your side of the debate here (even if you did lose - it happens). I am glad you are back and it looks like you have been honing your skills. You always make me think and I get frustrated with you but I miss you when you are gone. You are very popular (135 posts in less than 48 hours!). Now, if I could just get you to see the other side of the issue...you don't have to agree, just understand it.
) 
Offline Would you rather criminals pray to Jesus, or go out and commit crimes again? Just something to think about.
False Dichotomy. Penalty, 5 yards, first down.
Praying to Jesus does not prevent people from committing crimes. I would argue that it, in fact, enables them to not improve, especially when they are told and accept that they are a lowly worthless sinner and it's only by the grace of god that anything good happens to them.
There's a known phenomenon wherein if you tell someone they are something (for example, a thief) over and over again, they start to believe it. If someone is told over and over again that they are a hopeless wretch, they'll likely start to act like one.
-Triften
Offline I don't think there is a gap to fill in. I live in Canada and religion doesn't fill in any of those so called 'gaps'.
I think it's almost like that here in the UK. Except that religion does fill some of those roles as well as ordinary secularist people (again we aren't much of a religious nation). But I think the church does play perhaps too much of a significant role in helping people, obviously their work is good, but it does reinforce the attitude that Christianity must be a wholly benevolent thing which I'm less sure about. I think there should really be a secular organisation, acting as a charity for say, the homeless, out of sheer humanity. I'm not really sure on the nature of some of the charities, but it seems to be the case that a lot of them are Christian. I don't think any of them advertise the fact that they are secular.
Offline Thanks to everyone for not starting a healthcare debate here!
sugarfree wrote:In the workplace, I think it would have to do more with those things we agree with, like honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, reliability, respect, etc.Sugarfree, those are called ethics. Most companies have a code of ethics anyway.
sugarfree wrote:And I also think it is in a company's best interests to assure that it's employees have the tools they need to create happy productive homes lives. No the company cannot say, don't get divorced, stop cheating on your husband, don't get an abortion, or what not, but they can foster an environment where upstanding moral behavior is supported and praised.
From what I'm reading, you are alluding to praising employees for being good church-going folks. Otherwise, companies would be out there praising everyone for not stealing office supplies every day.
What do you mean "assure employees have the tools for happy, productive home lives"? Most companies have some kind of health insurance. If an employee has mental or physical problems, they can get help.
However, I will note that Sugarfree did not respond to my question.
I would appreciate specifics/examples.
So, do we start a newsletter praising everyone that didn't steal pens and pencils today?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Offline I've had no free time to read lately, but it looks like I haven't missed much. How did this post get more than 130 replies? Seriously. Why is anyone paying attention to sugarfree? Does anyone notice the insincerity? The straw-men? The false dichotomies? Is there a hope that an agnostic or a smart theist will read her incoherent gurglings, see her get swiftly spanked, and walk away with a little more doubt? Maybe I'm just feeling impatient, but I don't understand the point of debating theists on such a small and non-public scale.
Offline I've had no free time to read lately, but it looks like I haven't missed much. How did this post get more than 130 replies? Seriously. Why is anyone paying attention to sugarfree?
Because we just can't resist! We see something that is just wrong, wrong, wrong and we HAVE to say something. I have tried to stop myself from typing responses - can't do it.
Does anyone notice the insincerity? The straw-men? The false dichotomies?
Yes. It is frustrating and it gnaws at me until I feel I have made my best effort to set the record straight. (See above...apparently I am a glutton for punishment)
Is there a hope that an agnostic or a smart theist will read her incoherent gurglings, see her get swiftly spanked, and walk away with a little more doubt? Maybe I'm just feeling impatient, but I don't understand the point of debating theists on such a small and non-public scale.
I know of three that I showed this argument to and they were stunned that she could take that article and interpret it the way she did. One was already on the fence with spirituality so that was an easy discussion. The other two claim to have no intention of changing thier beliefs (moderate christians) so I recommended Mr. Harris' book for fun reading. Maybe....?
Offline sugarfree wrote:Actually, it's about the fact that the government is just plain dumb. It's too big to be anything other than dumb. If you do not believe you need a "God" to take care of you, why should you need a government to do it? We truly are capable of accomplishing much more than the government gives us credit for. I think our founders intended our government to be small and unobtrusive, however it has grown into a behemoth, and possibly it is partly to blame for why we're always shouting back and forth at each other in these forums. We give the gov our money so we feel entitled to have a say about what is done with it, but there are so many of us, and the gov is so big, there's no WAY we're ever going to agree. So what has happened is this ultra political correctness. Make everybody happy, don't hurt anyone's feelings, don't step on anyone's toes... blah blah... I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, I'm just now, because of this conversation, questioning whether the government should be in that business at all. Personally, I pay taxes for infrastructure, national security, those sorts of things. I am very anti-entitlement. Heck, I pay into Social Security, but odds are I'll never get it. That's crap and it's choking our economy. But this is just me thinking out loud, way off subject... (Don't even get me started on national healthcare... Just say no to socialism!!)Actually, this really saddens me. Part of the reason we pay taxes is to have programs that provide for those in need. It makes me sad to think that because you cannot have the religious based programs you want that you would take away all funding. I am sorry that you disagree with so much of what is said on this forum, but really, no one has promoted NOT helping others and I am sorry to hear that is what you want.
(Paces back and forth, debating whether or not dive back into the melee. Takes big gulp of wine and jumps in)
You know I was just waiting for some friends to come over and I had to check this $%&* thread!! Grrr.
I think I may have misinterpreted your previous post. I have to wonder if you've ever been part of a minority, or if you've ever had to struggle to survive. I cannot say whether or not the founders intended our government to be of the laissez faire variety (but I do know it was intended to be secular). I get the feeling you are very unforgiving of people who perhaps don't fit into your category. Can't quite pin it as to why I feel that way...
Oh, and Susan - see I didn't mention healthcare just for you!!! 
You are confused beyond words. No I do not think any funding should go to any organization for the sole purpose of preaching any kind of personal message. I do not care what kind of organization receives these funds as long as they are used to truly help the needy and any personal/religious message is kept out of it. I am sorry that I cannot make this clearer to you but the law, unfortunately for you, is actually on my side. At this point you are beating a dead horse and I refuse to participate in the abuse any further.
Sugarfree - Of course you don't find it offensive because he shares the same faith with you! I'll ask you again, what if this minister was Jewish or Muslim? Would YOU feel comfortable with that? This is a yes or no answer, Sugar. Either you feel perfectly comfortable being counseled by a Rabbi and Imam or you do not. Please answer this time.
You are not giving all religious people counseling in this matter, you are giving Christians counseling. Not Jew, not Muslim, not Hindu. I don't understand why you can't see that. Do you think a Hindu would be comfortable receiving counseling from someone who's faith basically feels that the Hindu will be going to hell? Ignore the atheists and the agnostics for once; this issue would not giving ALL religious people counseling! Your argument is moot.
I am going to give you poor advice, am I? I will be a better person and not make a nasty retort, but Sugarfree, you're treading on thin ice with your pathetically veiled insults.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Fine. Let me rephrase that - MANY atheists and agnostics are NOT anti-religious or anti-god. We just want to maintain the healthy balance of separation between church and state (which also benefits you, as a religious person, by the way).
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Check out this thread to see how proselytism is being snuck into government prison programs -- with my money. I'm paying for criminals to pray to jesus? Damn right we should sue!
Do you not see that with "faith-based initiatives", any kook can start a religion, offer to do some "community service" to gain an air of legitimacy, then line up at the government trough?
Even the scientologists do community work. You feel like writing them a check?
There are no theists on operating tables.
As it stands, there are funds going to religious groups who do have a message to preach. They use these funds to "help" causes while preaching their message. There are no funds going to atheist groups because any funds applied for would be considered "secular" since there is no message to preach. You are confusing websites such as this where we discuss these issues with supporting the community. Many people here do support their community, they just do not bring a personal message with it..no anti-god; anti-religion. Why is it ok for religious groups to bring "god" into it? We do not bring "no god" into any assistance provided.
Have I told you lately why you are my best friend? Because this is a perfect examply of why!
Yes, I am for separation, I just think you all tend to apply that in situations where it needn't be. I think I see more gray area than you do, and in those gray areas, situations need to be considered on a case by case basis.
That's ok. We think you all tend to apply religion in situations where it needn't be. (Hence the lawsuit.)
Sorry to hear about your impaired vision.
Sugarfree is right about one thing: I, at least, am anti-religious and anti-god. It's not a requirement to be an atheist, but it is true to some extent of most of the people here I think. However, I have a basic belief that the government should not be made an authority of truth, because that authority would be prone to abuse. Therefore, I oppose governments promoting belief or disbelief in anything any more than necessary, so I would no more support a positively atheist agenda supported by government than a theist agenda.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Not to change the subject, but may I ask why your religious folks are using my tax dollars on lawsuits to teach creationism? There is no benefit to the needy, there is no benefit to science and Evolutionists are clearly in the majority. Could you please ask them to stop?
I think this is a fair position to take. The only two fair positions I truly see in this situation are 1. make funding available to ALL groups or 2. make funding available to NO groups at all. And I would be okay with the government cutting all this type funding (including to secular groups) as long as it was done in a phased, thoughtful manner so that people in need are not just thrown out into the cold.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "secular"? It seems as though you are confusing secular with atheism - it is a common mistake.
sec·u·larThe problem is addressed from what we teach. The state of education leads to the moral failures in our society. Students are taught to compete to win and that winners and only winners receive accolade in our society. Students are not taught how to think. How to critically analyze situations/problems/issues and use logic are not taught in our schools. Students are taught that there are "right answers" and that they should "find them" rather than generate a model and provide AN answer. It all stems from the simplistic thinking that accompanies religion, needing to TELL people what to think instead of teaching them how to think - giving answers to them rather than helping them come up with their own.
It is coming soon though.
Hey sugarfree, I'm glad you came back.
If nothing else, your threads receive a lot of attention.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I had said to rexlunae earlier that my ideal government is one that is very hands off. I am quite uncomfortable with this country's vast entitlement systems. I would be okay, as I said, if government did not fund ANY of this type of stuff and just let the people take care of it. Given that the government has gotten itself into a sticky entitlement mess, however, they would have to carefully plan how to cut this funding so that people are not thrown out on their butts without fair warning.
The problem I have with the types of lawsuits Iby the FFRF that I have mentioned is that, it seems they are filed just to make a "point" with no care or concern given to the people that are potentially hurt when the funding is cut.
Lastly, since the government has decided to offer this type of funding, I do not think it is fair to exclude religious groups from applying for it. I think that is discriminatory.
LOL. Is that a good thing? I must be really opinionated or something.
The point being it's unconstitutional? Nobody here is claiming they need to cut funding to aid programs with a religious bias and let people who use them hang without implementing some kind of unbiased secular replacement.
We exclude religious groups all the time from funding, why should this be any different? I agree with you that there are two options, either hand out the money without discrimination to all denominations and religions, or hand out money to non-religious secular organizations (which can have people of faith working within them).
Which system do you think is more resistant to corruption from within government?
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Having opinions is good. Being able to change them when presented with good evidence is also good. I haven't read very far into this thread, but I imagine I'll have some kind of comment.
I hope all is well with you.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I don't see how my question is misguided but I appreciate you answering it. Thank you. I'm glad that you can admit that you would be uncomfortable if this person was of another faith.
My argument isn't taking away the minister and not replacing it with anything, Sugarfree. Its instituting a system that benefits everyone. You see, religions are discriminatory by nature (i.e. The Chosen Ones, etc.) You can have a counselor but it has to be in a secular sense. And secular is not anti-religious.
There is a difference between having a Christian counselor and a counselor who is Christian.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quoting]
If god takes life he's an indian giver
If the government is involved, neither! LOL. I'm coming closer to convincing myself that the government needs to stay out of this charity work thing all together! Then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Uh oh, you're not planning on taking on the government Sugarfree, are you?!
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Actually, this really saddens me. Part of the reason we pay taxes is to have programs that provide for those in need. It makes me sad to think that because you cannot have the religious based programs you want that you would take away all funding. I am sorry that you disagree with so much of what is said on this forum, but really, no one has promoted NOT helping others and I am sorry to hear that is what you want.
Geez, this thread still going strong? I thought everyone was hugging and making up back at my post?
The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...
Actually, it's about the fact that the government is just plain dumb. It's too big to be anything other than dumb. If you do not believe you need a "God" to take care of you, why should you need a government to do it? We truly are capable of accomplishing much more than the government gives us credit for. I think our founders intended our government to be small and unobtrusive, however it has grown into a behemoth, and possibly it is partly to blame for why we're always shouting back and forth at each other in these forums. We give the gov our money so we feel entitled to have a say about what is done with it, but there are so many of us, and the gov is so big, there's no WAY we're ever going to agree. So what has happened is this ultra political correctness. Make everybody happy, don't hurt anyone's feelings, don't step on anyone's toes... blah blah... I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, I'm just now, because of this conversation, questioning whether the government should be in that business at all. Personally, I pay taxes for infrastructure, national security, those sorts of things. I am very anti-entitlement. Heck, I pay into Social Security, but odds are I'll never get it. That's crap and it's choking our economy. But this is just me thinking out loud, way off subject... (Don't even get me started on national healthcare... Just say no to socialism!!)
Ack! If anyone even STARTS to post about healthcare, PLEASE PLEASE start a new thread for it!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
(Paces back and forth, debating whether or not dive back into the melee. Takes big gulp of wine and jumps in)
You know I was just waiting for some friends to come over and I had to check this $%&* thread!! Grrr.
I think I may have misinterpreted your previous post. I have to wonder if you've ever been part of a minority, or if you've ever had to struggle to survive. I cannot say whether or not the founders intended our government to be of the laissez faire variety (but I do know it was intended to be secular). I get the feeling you are very unforgiving of people who perhaps don't fit into your category. Can't quite pin it as to why I feel that way...
Oh, and Susan - see I didn't mention healthcare just for you!!!
If god takes life he's an indian giver