41 Comments

 

A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.

Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.

*******

Conservative Christians' assault on all things sexual knows no boundaries. Every aspect of sexual pleasure or entertainment that isn't directed at the specific purpose of procreation, and within the context of marriage, will inevitably become a target. Even masturbation done in privacy can become a target, if the state already has an excuse to exercise authority over one's life. Recently, prison officials in Florida charged a number of prisoners with "indecent exposure" for masturbating while alone in their cells.

Terry Lee Alexander, 20, of Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, was sentenced to a further 60 days in jail on top of the 10-year term he is currently serving for armed robbery, the Miami Herald reported yesterday. ...In reaching their verdict on Tuesday, jurors decided that an inmate's cell was "a limited access public place" where exposing oneself was against the law. ...
The prisoner's lawyer, Kathleen McHugh, failed to get him cleared on the grounds that a cell was a private place and what Alexander was doing was perfectly normal. "Did other inmates start masturbating because of Mr Alexander?" Ms McHugh asked Ms [Coryus] Veal. "Did you call a Swat team?"

"I wish I had," the deputy replied.

Source: BBC

*********

Council of Europe to vote on creationism next week

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor Tue Sep 25, 12:48 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body will vote next week on a resolution opposing the teaching of creationist and intelligent design views in school science classes.

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

The resolution, on the agenda for October 4, says European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It describes the "intelligent design" argument as an updated version of creationism.

**************

Tory said if he's elected premier Oct. 10, private religious schools could opt into the public system and still teach their core beliefs.

"It's still called the theory of evolution," Tory said. "They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs."

*****************

THE ULTIMATE OUTSIDERS? NEW REPORT CASTS ATHEISTS AS "OTHERS" BEYOND MORALITY AND COMMUNITY IN AMERICA

 

Atheists have become the ultimate scapegoats in our culture ... but the news isn't all bad!

 

Web Posted: March 25, 2006

new study by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology has found that Americans perceive Atheists as the group least likely to embrace common values and a shared vision of society.

Worse yet, Atheists are identified as the cohort other Americans do not want to see their offspring marrying!

These are just some of the result from a forthcoming article slated for publication in the American Sociological Review by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann. The research is part of the American Mosaic Project which monitors attitudes of the population in respect to minority groups. AANEWS obtained an advanced copy of the study that was based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households.

Researchers concluded: "Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."

*******************

God in the Military - The Pentagon and its Christian Embassy

Lou Dobbs

Thanks to CruciFiction for the link.

August 6, 2007. Lou Dobbs, CNN. Top generals in the Pentagon formed a Christian proselytizing organization called, "The Christian Embassy", to work within the ranks of the US military.

"God in the Military - The Pentagon and its Christian
Embassy"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_1F-vWVhBOw

 

 

********************

 

BILL TO PUNISH FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION CLEARS COMMITTEE, READY FOR HOUSE VOTE!

The House Judiciary Committee has passed the so-called “Public Expression of Religion Act.” The measure is ready for a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives. Congress needs to hear from you now!

The bill, H.R. 2679, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) would amend a section of the United States Code and eliminate attorney fees in legal cases where government violated the constitutional separation of church and state. PERA is part of a battery of proposed legislative items dubbed “The American Values Agenda.” This includes measure to protect “unborn children,” ban cloning and penalize legal challenges to violations of the First Amendment’s establishment clause

Hostettler and supporters of H.R. 2679 claim that attorneys working for organizations that defend the First Amendment and challenge unconstitutional governmental practices in respect to religion are enriching themselves and even violating the rights of believers. The American Legion has launched a national campaign to support PERA, and is calling for “a ground swell of public demand on lawmakers” to pass the bill immediately. A “guide” to PERA issued by this group states: “There simply is no reasonable basis to support the profiteering in attorney fee awards ordered by judges in these (Establishment Clause) cases. The very threat of such fees has made elected bodies, large and small, surrender to … demands to secularly cleanse the public square.”

 

*******************

We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the ocean, of course, we have huge creatures....this is where the plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing dragon is still down there -- very rare, but occasionally there.

--Rev. Walter Lang
Founder,
Bible-Science Association

******************

From the 2006 Republican Party of Texas Platform:

2. We believe that human life is sacred, created in the image of God. Life begins at the moment of fertilization and ends at the point of natural death. All innocent human life must be protected.

5. We believe that traditional marriage is a legal and moral commitment between a natural man and a natural woman. We recognize that the family is the foundational unit of a healthy society and consists of those related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property,

p.8, Christian Nation: "The Republican Party of Texas affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation ..."

p. 8: Faith-Based opportunites should be increased. Until that time, "Faith-based Initiatives as proposed by President George W. Bush and currently implemented, should continue to be funded by federal monies. (In other words, the Church should assume responsibility for welfare and education. These programs would be funded through tithing -- collecting 10% of church members' income -- and through community, and business contributions. Until the churches have taken over welfare, the government would fund these programs.)

Until such time as such unconstitutional spending programs are repealed, we believe that the faith-based initiative as proposed by President George W. Bush, and currently implemented, should continue to receive federal monies.

***********

From: http://www.theocracywatch.org/clarkson_inside.html

To further please Robertson, Bush greeted over 100 major Christian Coalition donors and invited guests at a private reception in the rose garden of Pat Robertson's walled estate. With black swans gliding by on a pond and a harpist playing Pachelbel's "Canon in D Minor," the televangelist personally introduced members of his "inner circle" to the presidential candidate, mentioning their "help" or their "contributions."

 

**********************

Man dies after Phoenix 'exorcism'

July 29, 2007

PHOENIX -- Officers responding to a report of an exorcism on a young girl found her grandfather choking her and used stun guns to subdue the man, who later died, authorities said Sunday.

The 3-year-old girl and her mother, who was also in the room during the struggle between 49-year-old Ronald Marquez and officers, were hospitalized, police said. Their condition was unavailable.

The relative who called police said an exorcism had also been attempted Thursday.

''The purpose was to release demons from this very young child,'' said Sgt. Joel Tranter.

Officers arrived at the house Saturday and entered when they heard screaming coming from a bedroom, Tranter said.

A bed had been pushed up against the door; the officers pushed it open a few inches and saw Marquez choking his bloodied granddaughter, who was crying in pain and gasping, Tranter said.

A bloody, naked 19-year-old woman who police later determined to be Marquez's daughter and the girl's mother was in the room, chanting ''something that was religious in nature,'' Tranter said.

The officers forced open the door enough for one to enter, leading to a struggle in which an officer used a stun gun on Marquez, Tranter said.

After the initial stun had no visible effect, another officer squeezed into the room and stunned him. The girl was freed and passed through the door to the relative, Tranter said.

Marquez was placed in handcuffs after a struggle with officers and initially appeared normal, but then stopped breathing, Tranter said. He could not be revived and was pronounced dead at a hospital.

The cause of death was not immediately known, and autopsy results probably will not be available for several weeks, Tranter said.

Tranter declined to identify Marquez's daughter and granddaughter but said they lived in the house with Marquez.

The mother was not arrested, but police will consider criminal charges, Tranter said.

There was no phone listing at Ronald Marquez's address.

 

**************

San Jose Mercury News, 1992, Two articles -- one before the election, one after:

A group dedicated to making the Bible the law of the land has quietly positioned itself to take over the Republican Party's power structure in Santa Clara County.

The 17 Christian right candidates for the Republican Central Committee appear on a mailer put out by a Tehama County group called Citizens for Liberty. The flier says the candidates advocate "traditional family values, more jobs, lower taxes, welfare reform and choice in education."

But at least some have a more sweeping agenda ... Some see takeover plans. More liberal Republicans say the Central Committee campaign is part of a widespread "stealth" effort to take over America by starting with little-noticed local races. They cite elections in San Diego County two years ago, when 60 of 90 Christian right candidates for low-level offices won election, largely by campaigning through conservative churches.

"Clearly the strategy is to control the central committees and then use the central committees to give credibility to their candidates," said Luis Buhler...

A fundraising letter ... includes "a call for the death penalty for abortion, adultery and unrepentant homosexuality."

***********************

 

Paul Weyrich, speaking in Dallas in 1980, captured the spirit of this new movement. He said,

"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context."

********************

Jerry Falwell, who became the leader of the Moral Majority said: "get them saved, get them Baptized, and get them registered." (These two quotes can be heard on the video produced by People for the American Way called Life And Liberty for All Who Believe.)

***********************

 

In 1988 Pat Robertson ran for President in the Republican Primaries and lost to George Bush Sr. In 1989 the Moral Majority disbanded. A lot of people concerned about the Religious Right breathed a deep sigh of relief. But there was one strange event that should have been a warning sign.

Pat Robertson beat Vice President George Bush Sr. in the Iowa Republican caucuses. How did Pat Robertson beat the Vice President in that state? Members of his campaign worked precinct by precinct to take over the party leadership at the local level until, eventually, they controlled the state party apparatus.

In March, 1986, I (Joan Bokaer) was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus:

"How to Participate in a Political Party

Rule the world for God.

Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.

Hide your strength.

Don't flaunt your Christianity.

Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing."

******************

Sex As A Weapon, Jeff Sharlet, Nerve.com, April 25, 2005:

The problem, as [James Dobson] outlines it in Straight Talk to Men , a Dobson "classic" originally published as Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives , is that men, in a righteous attempt to resolve the problems of sexism, have ceded too much power to women. As a result, he insists, women are engaging in a parody of male headship and most men lack the guts - and the sensitivity - to stand up to them.

And, later in the article:

Every Christian man-guide emphasizes the claim that women play just as important a role in the maintenance of what evangelicals view as society's all-important unit, the family, and it's more than dishwashing, suckling, and sex (though what else they are to do is not often discussed). Women must submit to their husbands, but their husbands in turn must commit to "serving" their wives. The phrase that comes to mind is "separate but equal."

*****************

The Christian Taliban
March 28, 2004, By Stephen Pizzo, AlterNet

During the Taliban rule of Afghanistan the world got a good look at what happens when religious zealots gain control of a government. Television images of women being beaten forced to wear burkas and banned from schools and the workplace helped build strong public support for the President's decision to invade Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11.

But even as President George W. Bush denounced the brutal Islamic fundamentalist regime in Kabul, he was quietly laying the foundations for his own fundamentalist regime at home. For the first time far right Christian fundamentalists had one of their own in the White House and the opportunity to begin rolling back decades of health and family planning programs they saw as un-Christian, if not downright sinful.

Since 2001 dozens of far-right Christian fundamentalists have been quietly installed in key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration and on commissions and advisory committees where they have made serious progress. Three years later this administration has established one of the most rigid sexual health agendas in the Western world.

**************************

 

Unwed mothers are not eligible for federal money. From the Ithaca Journal, August 20, 2004:

According to a state Department of Labor document issued to program coordinators on Jan. 24, centers will now only be allowed to use federal funds for women who can produce a divorce certificate or death certificate proving they have previously been in a legally recognized marriage.

Left out of the federal definition for displaced homemakers are those who do not meet the criteria for the word "family," including unwed single mothers, mothers and children from broken homes where a marriage certificate was never issued, mothers and children who can't afford the costs associated with obtaining a divorce certificate, and mothers from same-sex relationships.

A report in April, 2004, revealed that the Bush administration quietly removed 25 reports from its Women's Bureau Web site deleting or distorting crucial information on issues from pay equity to reproductive healthcare.

 

 

 

In all honestly, i still can't grasp why the mistakes of few represent the idea of all.  i see that not all christians ( like Hitler) represent the christianity God in a biblical way.  those people aren't real christians.  Does that mean that all christians are just the same.  I can easily hate white people for killing and lynching my black ancestors years ago but wouldn't you agree that those whites didn't represent the views of all, including the one's today. so don't tell me a story about a christian you knew that did something like go to church but mistreat kids or something. thats the individual persons mental illness, not to blame god for. you will find people like that in every religion or anti-religious group. if you suggest that the actions of hitler or the so called christians you run into represent all, i might as well start hating all whites for segregating and spitting on my people in the past. It's a stupid generalization.

lol, I'm sorry but i simply dont see your point. what i was saying is that even though you may still invest or gain from those cruel acts, you don't represent everyone. if i meet a racist on the street or an individual online that tells me something like that, naturally, i would feel anger or resentment towards them. that however, would not justify me going to class in the morning and hating my white professor because of an ignorant red neck i spoke to over the week end.

 

get my drift 

Race and philosophy/religion aren't equivalent. Not every white or black person has to hold certain views; but every adherent has to hold certain views by definition. Holding those views makes them an adherent. If there's a correct way to interpret Christian doctrine, please get the word out, because they're clearly all confused.

Large segments of Christian America are directly responsible for holding back social, scientific, medical, and educational progress. It's not equivalent to say you don't hate one white person because another is racist; you'd have to be talking about the racism itself (or some directly associated idea, like racial purity). Not every Christian supports teaching Creationism or is against embryonic stem cell research, but those that are, are so because, in their views, of their Christianity.

but try reading the book yourselves. it amuses that many atheists claim to have read the bible themselves but i have yet to hear one interpret it correctly.  what my point is, is that, if the bible you say you have read clearly states that adultery is wrong, and you hear of a good christian man practicing this sin, why call it a christian thing.  clearly, according to his own beliefs, he is sinning. why use the man that is obviously living a life contrary to the one he claims be a representative for you. i think atheists like to pick and choose. you guys freakin use, hitler, and stalin and all the people you heard of in the news to depicts the picture you feel comfortably recognizing as the christian.  you don't give credit to the dr. martin luther kings, or princess diana's or charity givers. in fact, you discredit their goodness by saying they only do it for the sake of christianity. wrong again! this is my favorite atheist misconception.  the bible says that your works and good deads do not buy your salvation. meaning, if i give food to the poor(which i happen to, what you gotta say now?) i do it out of goodness in my heart. not because if i don't i will go to hell.

unfortunately there are many nut jobs that profess to be christians. in fact, a large percentage of americans claim to be believers but they aren't. don't blame the religion or the people. look at the jesus that they claim to be following, the one that they should have been following. that is the heart of the faith.  jesus said to everyone "follow me". he never said, "follow hitler, your aunt and uncle, or pastor".

 

he said FOLLOW ME! 

So are you admitting that your morality does not stem from god or the bible?

If you do these things out of the goodness in your heart, why do you need god, jesus, or the bible?

I absolutely guarantee that I have read it more times than you, in more versions, with the greek and hebrew concordance on my desk.

I guarantee that many of the atheists here know the bible better than you do.

I'm going to try to explain this to you one more time.  After you ignore me again, I'm going to give up because you're not here to exchange ideas.  You're here to preach.

Everyone claims to have the correct interpretation.  Do you think there are Christians who wake up one day and think to themselves, "Today, I'll misinterpret the scripture.  I'm sure Jesus would love me for that."

Use your brain, man!  Everyone thinks they have the correct interpretation, and nobody can prove theirs correct.  Since there's no proof that any is correct, nobody gets to say that theirs is unless they offer new proof.   None has ever been presented.  Ever.

 

Only Christians would claim that we would say this.  As a matter of fact, humans, as well as their ancestors have all been slightly polygynous.  Put another way, ever since there have been humans, there has been "adultery" -- even before there was marriage.  We're not the only polygynous species, nor are we the most polygynous.  In fact, as primates go, we're right about the middle of the pack in terms of long term partners and "fidelity."

    I have never heard an atheist say that Christianity is wrong because Christians commit adultery.  That's ludicrous.

 

And atheists, quite apart from the bible, have come to their own conclusion that cheating on his mate is wrong.  So what?  Both atheists and Christians cheat occasionally.  This doesn't have anything to do with anything.

 

And the kettle calls the pot black.  Would you like to go through the bible with me and pick out all the times that god orders murder?  How about when god himself kills at least a hundred thousand babies who, by any Christian standard, aren't old enough to sin?  How about when Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season?

Or, would you like to tell me why women are allowed to speak in church?  Paul says it's strictly not allowed.

Or, what about cutting their hair?

Would you like to explain to me why you keep saying that atheists use Christian's morality as an argument against them?  We don't.  You are the only one here making that argument.

We disprove Christianity without ever mentioning a single Christian.

Let me put that in big print for you.

 We disprove Christianity without ever mentioning a single Christian.

We do not make the claim you say we make.  Get off of it.

 

Stalin was an atheist, dude.  Get off of it.

 

You aren't aware that there are more non-Christian charities in the world than Christian ones, are you?

You're just ranting, and you're not even ranting factually.  

 

I don't discredit their goodness.  You say that I do.

Please.  Get off of this.  I recognize that lots of Christians have done good things.  So have lots of atheists.  It's built into our genes to do good things.  We never could have formed a social contract in the first place if we weren't predisposed to do good things.

You do know about the social contract, right?

 ******************

Here's the thing, focusedoc.  We are all about facts here.  You don't have your facts straight, and I'm showing you where you're wrong.  If you can prove that you're right and I'm wrong, have at it.  Please.  I like to know when I'm mistaken.

But, we have forum rules here, and one of them is that you can't spam the threads with preaching and not respond to the people who are trying to have a constructive debate.  

Please address the material that I've posted.

 

Honestly, people. Pick an idea out of a hat, either political or religious, and I will show you some fucktard who subscribed to it and did extremely evil things.

 

The whole human race of any religion (or lack there of.) has commited astrocities. 

 

So cherry picking through history won't help.

 

The idea of reading the bible amuses me, too.

"Correctly" meaning what?

Huh?

Sounds like you're projecting. If a person can call themselves a Christian and still do things his/her own religion deems wrong, and even secular society frowns on, then the concept of Christianity fails as an indicator, or even a prescription, for morality. In other words, it tells us what we know already. You would rather approve of anyone calling themselves a Christian until they do something to shame you, then disown them as failed Christians rather than fairly as representatives of it. That might work in a purely academic sense, but Christianity is bandied about as superior to secularism as an objective moral guideline. If its adherents fail to meet its supposed standard, it fails in its supposed benefit to society.

You're referring to one thread that not everyone even agreed with.

What's that got to do with embryonic stem cell research, science education, gay marriage, etc.?

I've heard different interpretations of how "salvation" (LOL, these words) is attained. I'll dig them up later if necessary.

You must be special having the ultimate interpretation of the doctrine.

Blame Jesus?

Your knowledge of him comes from one book, so distinguishing between the man (who may not have existed after all) and then the scripture, and then the necessary interpretation from the interpreter (because the scripture is so bad) isn't something to be taken lightly.
 I wasn't convinced until I saw the ALLCAPS and exclamation point. 

So why did god give different people different morality? How do you know that the one god gave you is right?

So is the bible necessary?

So you aren't stopping out of the goodness in your heart?

Doesn't god threaten you with hell, or are you saying that you can do things that make god unhappy and not go to hell?  Are you stopping because you want to, or because god will punish you if you don't?

i dont know where to start. i was not calling anyone stupid. i said it was a stupid attempt to try and destroy religion. i never said you were vulgar by the way. wow-lol. i actually said that many atheists i know are very vulgar. it was a generalization. yes thats what i said. generalization. and why do you think you read the bible more than me. lol that is so weird to just assume that. i'm a random girl your talking to on time online and i happen to be a christian and you make such an assumption. wow!

 

if you read my original message, yes i am tasha (please don't email  me, i have a life), i was asking you guys what your point is. you know, i will admit to this. i am a political science major in college right now trying to type out a paper. this paper with help me get an A in my class, maintain my good average, and hopefully get me a good paying job one day.  going on about this all night will not go anywhere as i already stated that i don't think you guys are going anywhere with this. i will admit gladly thati have not been sitting here, lifeless, reading all of your messages. i am one individual trying to answer multiple people at once. everytime i write out my response, i get another two at the same time. i was never insulting, thought i can be. to be honest, none of what you guys are saying is annoying enough to make me get upset. i'm seriously indifferent. i talk to atheists all the time in my school that think they are too smart for god. i speak to them in my job, on the stree handing out pamphlets (yes, you guys are also handing out pamphlets now-lol). this worries me not! lol. my original thought was so simple i see now how complicated you all made it.  i don't have time to go all night, like i said, i and a paper to write. 

 

truth is, many people don't even know you guys exist, nonetheless, will they care about any of the things you have to say.  the bible said many like you will come and say all that you are saying. this was all expected. they will simply ignore it and move on. to be honest, i am very open minded and i was once an atheist myself. (go ahead make jokes, i can feel them coming on, sarcastic or something right, like ,"its ashame you gave up intelligence for faith&quot. predictable. anway i was. i like to listen to what you guys have to say, one thing that can be discouraging is the sarcasm and language. its hard to find an atheist that can have a calm discussion without the emotions.

 

anyway my point is that we will still love honor and cherish our God in which you do not believe. what you said was educational but not persuasive. i will still believe, they will still believe. you can only get the weak ones that doubted in the first place but i'm stronger than that. i watched your movies and read your books just cause i thought it was all interesting. i still go to church on sunday and pray to the God i love. i have a relationship with god that you cannot put in a test tube and measure. sucks for you i guess cause you want that solid physical truth that i cannot give but i guess i am not that evangelical cause i don't care. there are miraculous experiences that i had that could not be explained. there are encounters i had that were real. i know you think i was dreaming them but that is up to you to believe. but for me... I will always believe

 

God Bless,

 

I'm finishing up my paper now,

nice talking to you 

Here's the short version of what she said:

1. I wanted to make an assertion, and want to get away with not substantiating it.

2. I've got big, important things to do, so I can't read any counter-arguments.

3. Not having read anything, I think my argument stands.

If you don't plan on a conversation about it, then don't say it. You can't just snipe and expect your point to stand regardless of how it looks against reality. 

what is your problem dude. i was not saying  that. your proving my point exactly about atheist can't have this discussion without the emotions. spare me. i did not plan on having a stupid discussion board to be honest. i sent an email to the rational response team and without my concent, they turned it into this. i do have better things to do. i did know how to answer your questions but i would rather a one on one. i was not making any assertion. wow, ur just weird. i was not tryin to get away with anything. your miserable without god. look at you. your making so much assumptions and i was not making an argument. i was asking ya'll some questions. i never said ya was wrong. i just wanted you to answer some questions. seriously dude, hop off this forum, shower up for the night and go to bed.

 

gosh!

 

friggin loser 

American education, ladies and gents. 

Pineapple,

Sorry I'm not quoting. Going line by line in a repeatedly quoted thread is time consuming. I'll try to address your points in sequence. 

I didn't think it was directed at me -- I had no idea what it was meant to be directed at, only that I've seen it before. A lot.

I've never heard a secular argument against embryonic stem cell research, but I'll take your word for it that they exist somewhere. However, in contrast with religious arguments, we can have a secular conversation about whether a blastocyst being used in research, rather than just being discarded, poses a moral dilemma, based on what we know, or will know, of biology and consciousness. There can be, based on parameters like what specific level of development can experience suffering. There can be satisfactory a right or wrong answer, at least based on the parameters we understand to be relevant. Dualism admits no conversation; it crosses its arms and digs in its heels.

The same goes for gay marriage. If the real meter of morality isn't some transcendent thing in itself, but is whether an act causes suffering or harm, there is just no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage. Perhaps there are psychologists of some sort with theories against homosexuality; but let's be honest here about both these issues. The preponderance of opposition is coming from religion.

 I agree with your goal of improving education, and the net effect it will have. But I think it's myopic to suppose it replaces the different efforts that atheists have been making of late. We won't reap the benefits of that for years, and the obstacle in its path -- religious-political blocs -- can't be taught out of existence. They have to be confronted head on before we can even hope to convince the general public that, say, evolution and creation aren't just "two differing opinions." I didn't consider myself truly an atheist until I saw Dawkins explaining his position on TV, and then read "The End of Faith." It emboldened me to speak out, as I think it does for others. There are different ways of addressing different kinds of theists -- I agree again. It's not good to alienate reasonable people when you can find a middle ground. But that isn't all we're dealing with here.

 

True, but my point is America isn't a theocracy.

The people voting against the creationism in schools, or voting for stem cell research funding, etc.. are Christians themselves.

 

So my point in the post stands.

 

I mean would you try to get rid of the Republician party, because some fucktard is a Repuplician and using that to press his/her Republician views on people?

 

 

 

IIRC, the topic is about why people are speaking out against religion and pushing to end it. 

 

Hi Tasha,

If you have read all the comments posted I hope you can get a feel for what damage is being done by people with a "personal relationship with god" when they get power over their fellow man.

If you are not outraged by what is being done in the name of your god you are not paying attention.

As atheists we know the power of faith; after all it can move skyscrapers.

 Please keep the voices in your head to yourself. We don't want to be saved from your insanity - we know it's not real.

Come over to the bright side - after all posting on this site means you must be tempted - you would be welcomed with open minds and aplauded for your bravery and humanity.

Be good; have fun! It's later than you think.

ManX 

Pineapple, 

You repeat that secular ideas are the primary cause of many harmful acts, but that leads to the question of what distinguishes a secular from religious act. Is it enough for a person to believe sincerely that their own actions are religiously inspired, or is it necessary that they have the theological background to support their views? My answer, as an atheist who doesn't distinguish between religious and cult doctrine, is that any substantial agreement on an interpretation of religious doctrine legitimates it in a practical sense; at least sufficiently to call the religious motive sincere. If a text expert can pluck a passage from scripture that contradicts them, the reality stands that this is an academic exercise. Take a person like Ted Haggard, who may have been in it for power and money exclusively; secular -- bad, but secular -- motives. That didn't prevent him wielding influence over sincerely religious people, who believe that Pastor Ted was distilling their religious obligations into modern political agendas. The net result is the same whether he was honest or not.

Religion is being singled out not because it, alone, is the only possible ideological source of irrational and destructive behavior; but that it's a powerful and prominent one that needs to be countered. So does the Republican party, and corporate lobbying -- as Noam Chomsky would say, it's a complicated world. But any of these issues can easily consume entire lifetimes, without anyone seeing a conclusive result. This site, this organization, focuses on one thing. There are other orgs that focus on other things, and people are free to work with them, too.

An effort to disparage religion isn't meant to be absolute, or suggest it only inspires bad behavior. But it has to be pointed out where it does, and it has to be pointed out strongly to get attention in a country that, in large parts, is violently opposed to heresy. I think your point is valid, but I also think there's a bigger picture with more immediate elements in it.

also, someone said i was curious about joining you guys in atheism. been there done that. i was and someone assumed i was raised religious, then had a crisis and accepted jesus.

 

wrong, it didnt go down like that. i couldnt see how he was real and then i went to a church with my friends ( and like what happened to paul), i heard an interpreter tell me some pretty weird stuff that no one else knew. it was pretty specific and undeniable real. i had a million encounters like that. some one on the train one day stopped me and told me all about myself and said god told them to tell me this. creepy!

 

also, when i was younger, i was curious about if he was real, i lost a ring and cried about it. my mom was crazy and she was going to kill me. i remember til this day where i left that ring. i was screwed cause i knew if i went back there it would be gone. i left in that same day in a public bathroom at mc donalds-lol. i prayed for the first time that day, i must have been seven. i did not want my mom to hit me or choke me or something. i opened my eyes and it was right there

 

you can well believe its a lie but people like me that DID  experience some wicked crazy unexplainable stuff like that... there is no other answer but that he is real.

You haven't really addressed any of the other responses to your post.

However, there are several possible theories regarding the origins of the universe, and none of them require god. You can find an article about one such example here. As our understanding of mathematics and quantum physics increases we are able to develop better models of what actually happened.

 

I'd be scared of the trident. We're talking about Poseidon right? I'm making a serious point here. Believing in one deity doesn't let you out of this question either; and when you consider the number of deities that have been worshipped over the history of mankind -- from sun gods, animism and nature worship to elaborate pantheons and various monotheistic deities -- you realize the question is based on special pleading. That is, you're making the assumption that there is one god in particular to believe or deny, when there are thousands.

Yikes, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent -- omnimax. If you think about these terms, the idea that such a being created this world/cosmos makes even less sense. Think about it: why would an omniscient god need to do anything? It would know everything simultaneously, so nothing could be accomplish by acting. And acting wouldn't alter its knowledge. It would be the ultimate nihilism. An omnipotent deity would make absolutely no sense as a designer. It implies a god would have found a great way to work around physical principles to achieve an end. But it would have to create those principles first; being all-knowing, it would already know what limitations would arise, and could choose not to create limitations. And again, there'd be nothing to accomplish.

Special pleading, again. Most modern concepts of deities are defined as invisible. Ever wonder why?

Here's a preview of a show featuring a Fijian dude who de-converted because of this site.
http://www.freethoughtmedia.com/public/store/preview/Show20Preview.mp3

I can define something right now that you can't disprove. There's an invisible, undetectable man living in your eyebrow that is nonetheless real. You don't believe he exists, which is exactly what he wants. Is that a good argument for it? All your religion has going for it, to make it sound more credible than the man in your eyebrow, is tradition.

You got me there. I haven't read any Decartes.

Gasses?

No good: You've got your conclusion in the question. There's the question where energy came from, or why there's something rather than nothing. There are theories. My answer is "I don't know." I do know that sticking a "god" in there doesn't answer anything. "God" was as useful in Catholic astronomy as it is to "Creation Science" today. People were content believing the earth was the center of the universe, orbited by planets embedded in crystal spheres, pushed by cherubs. That has as much use to the space program as "Intelligent Design" has to the biological sciences.

And for the most part, the alternative is not knowing.

Not by a long shot.

Do you not see the difference between a body of knowledge built on centuries of careful testing and observation? Methods that go to extreme efforts to minimize the role of subjectivity and personal bias? Models of reality that have been supported by, well, the entire body of technological progress? The difference between that, and something that is believed because it's comforting?

What's your incredulity about gasses? Your question is... all wrong. Sorry.

 

doublepost

doublepost

doublepost