Why is atheism not a religion?

shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Why is atheism not a religion?

The defintion of religion is: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Now, what I got from the debate on ABC, is that athiests want to debunk religion. Now, if you are an athiest, you do not believe there is a God, you belive in science. You have that right. Shouldn't people who believe in God have the same rights? Why is intelligent creation not taught in the public schools? Why do we have to take Darwinism as fact? Should there not be a balance? My biggests problems, other than rejecting God, is the condescending fashion you guys use to argue, athiests challenge everything in courts because it can't be done at the ballott box. You come off as trying to be intellectually superior. It is rather insulting. If you guys want to go hug trees and bow at the alter of junk science, its your choice. But, I should have the same rights; especially when it comes to my child. I do not need him indoctrinated in the schools with something I know to be false and have to come home and try and undue what this godless school system has taught him. Most people I have argued this point with say, put him in private school. Well, I should not have to, considering I pay taxes.

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
shhansen wrote:

shhansen wrote:

The defintion of religion is: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Okay

shhansen wrote:
Now, what I got from the debate on ABC, is that athiests want to debunk religion.

Yes, where it infringes on my rights or hinders progress.

shhansen wrote:
Now, if you are an athiest, you do not believe there is a God, you belive in science.

Not necessarily, the only thing that defines an atheist is "lack of belief in a god". Besides, there is no such thing as science 'belief'. Merely do you accept scientific finding or not.

shhansen wrote:
You have that right.

Yes, I do.

shhansen wrote:
Shouldn't people who believe in God have the same rights?

Yes, they also have the right not to believe.

shhansen wrote:
Why is intelligent creation not taught in the public schools?

It is not taught in science classes because it is not science. It can be taught in mythology classes or theology classes.

shhansen wrote:
Why do we have to take Darwinism as fact?

It is not called 'Darwinism', evolution though is a fact.

shhansen wrote:
Should there not be a balance?

Not in science class, mythology is not taught in science.

shhansen wrote:
My biggests problems, other than rejecting God, is the condescending fashion you guys use to argue, athiests challenge everything in courts because it can't be done at the ballott box.

No, there are court battles because some things are illegal.

shhansen wrote:
You come off as trying to be intellectually superior. It is rather insulting.

I am sorry you take it that way.

shhansen wrote:
If you guys want to go hug trees and bow at the alter of junk science, its your choice.

No, junk science is christian science. You may bow at the altar of superstition and mythology.

shhansen wrote:
But, I should have the same rights; especially when it comes to my child.

Which rights?

shhansen wrote:
I do not need him indoctrinated in the schools with something I know to be false and have to come home and try and undue what this godless school system has taught him.

Indoctrination is a church practice, not a school practice.

shhansen wrote:
Most people I have argued this point with say, put him in private school. Well, I should not have to, considering I pay taxes.

And since I pay taxes, I should not have my child taught mythology as fact.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
I was coming on to read

I was coming on to read posts, not post since I am at work but since I am bored I feel like responding.  Ill work backwards on yours.

 

First, the fact you pay taxes and that should somehow justify the fact that public schools should have to teach god to those of us that are godless is retarded.  The constitution says that there should be seperation of church and state, which implies that if taxes are involved, religion should not be.  Regardless of your beliefs (unless you think the constitution is wrong but thats another set of posts).

I dont know about others on this site, but I do not like to hug trees.  NOt a big fan of camping myself, I prefer technology.  As far as people as you call it indoctrinating those in school with believes you "know" to be wrong, theres reason for that.  Its called evidence.  Stuff that is taught in schools, such as evolution are fact because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support them and very little to not.  The reason Intelligent Design is not taught in school is because its crap.  Zero evidence besides the bible.  

Going to the original  subject of your post of why is atheism not a religion is atheism, and this has been stated many times on the forums and elsewhere, is simply a lack of belief in a god/gods.  Besides that, everyones whos an atheist usually differs on "beliefs" and ideas.    


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
shhansen wrote: The

shhansen wrote:

The defintion of religion is: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Now, what I got from the debate on ABC, is that athiests want to debunk religion. Now, if you are an athiest, you do not believe there is a God, you belive in science. You have that right. Shouldn't people who believe in God have the same rights? Why is intelligent creation not taught in the public schools? Why do we have to take Darwinism as fact? Should there not be a balance? My biggests problems, other than rejecting God, is the condescending fashion you guys use to argue, athiests challenge everything in courts because it can't be done at the ballott box. You come off as trying to be intellectually superior. It is rather insulting. If you guys want to go hug trees and bow at the alter of junk science, its your choice. But, I should have the same rights; especially when it comes to my child. I do not need him indoctrinated in the schools with something I know to be false and have to come home and try and undue what this godless school system has taught him. Most people I have argued this point with say, put him in private school. Well, I should not have to, considering I pay taxes.

 

Are all claims equal? Of course not. So dont go accusing us of egotism. It is simply a matter of evidece, thats it. I find it quite insulting that without even knowing us that you'd come here and make statements based on an hour of video. How about spending time here before you yourself pass judgment.

Look, if you had a friend, for example, who claimed that he could magically make Lamborginni's pop out from under their bed, would you merely accept it because they claim it?

My point is that not all claims are equal, no matter how much someone wants them to be. And you dont excape judgment of others claims either. I am quite sure in your life, you look at a friend, or co-worker or another culture and say to yourself, "That person?culture, is full of it" DO NOT TELL ME YOU DONT DO THAT!

Do you think that somene claiming to slam planes into buildings will get them 72 virgins is lagit? No, so why would we be any different just because we dont buy your claims either? Because your claims dont envolve violence means they get a pass by default? I dont buy claims of ouiji boards or Loc Ness either. Maybe you should try understandy why I class all these claims in the fiction catigory insted of expecting me to sugar coat life because you think I might hurt someone's feelings. 

We are not smug domatic people out to barbaque kittens or spark up oven. Every single human on this planet goes through life the same way. We all feed ourselves, seek shelter and love, and all of us will die someday. But that does not obligate me to bow unquestioningly to absurd claims.

It would be unfair for me to say to you, "You must not question my belief in Ganish who has multiple arms". I expect intelectually honest people to tell me the truth, not sugar coat it because my feelings might get hurt. If someone can show me the error in my claim wouldnt it be wise of me to consider it?

I dont know what is worse, people who make absurd claims, or the people who think we should pussyfoot around absurd claims and never question them. If we never went outside our comfort zone as a species and never questioned anything we would never grow or learn.

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson.

"I distrust what god believers say what god wants because it usually coincides with their disires" Susan B. Anthony. If she never question the majority of white Christian men in power, women would still not be allowed to vote.

Your reaction is a natural one, but not because we are hatefull. It is natural because you are not used to challenging yourself to ask hard questions about your own beliefs. Since you dont do that you falsely accuse those asking the hard questions of hate, insted of doing the intelectually brave thing and aim those hard questions at yourself.

At one time the majority of the human population believed the world was flat. At one time humans believed that the heart, not the brain did the thinking. You want us to lie and sugar coat reality? That is an insult to reality and an insult to education. 

 Do not put thoughts in our head or accuse all atheists of hating all religous people. Certainly some do, no doubt. But calling any claim, be it about politics, sports or even religion absurd does not equate to hate or bigotry.

Maybe you should spend time reading our posts here insted of trying to paint us as monsters. Maybe you could learn something new. OH NO, LEARNING.......THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE! 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is not a religion

Atheism is not a religion because there is nothing that holds atheists together other than the small fact that we simply do not believe a supernatural deity exists. 

Creationism is not science, you cannot prove it or disprove it.  If you want creationism and the Bible taught in school, then you  must also teach the Q'uran and the Torah, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.  It would be taught as a humanities class, but certainly not science.  If you are so bent on having creationism taught, then I'm assuming you won't mind having all the other religious versions of creation taught as well. 

You think atheists are condescending?  You are insulted by atheism?  Well, I'm insulted that you think your holy book is such a superior moral code that you use it to deny people their rights.  I find it insulting that you have no problems blurring the lines between church and state when this country was founded on the separation between the two.

You don't want to pay taxes because the public schools don't teach religion, namely your religion?  Well, then perhaps the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, atheists and everyone else who doesn't believe what you believe shouldn't have to pay taxes if your verision of Christianity is taught in schools.  Why do you think you have the right to enforce your religious teachings in school, but others do not?  Seems a little arrogant to me, don't you think? 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
"So dont go accusing us of

"So dont go accusing us of egotism"

I was simply refering to the 2 people in the debate as well as the lady in the crowd asking about cancer.

"It is simply a matter of evidece"

I find it hard to believe that evolution ever happened for the simple fact, there is no documented history of it. Much like the argument of Jesus Christs' existance.

 

"I am quite sure in your life, you look at a friend, or co-worker or another culture and say to yourself, "That person?culture, is full of it" DO NOT TELL ME YOU DONT DO THAT!"

 

I do on a case by case basis. I dont look at a race and say just because they maybe black, white, ot whatever that they are all bad.

 

"We are not smug domatic people out to barbaque kittens or spark up oven"

I never said it and don't spin it.

 

"I dont know what is worse, people who make absurd claims, or the people who think we should pussyfoot around absurd claims and never question them."

How is Gods creation any more absurd than you coming from a family of apes?

 

"I distrust what god believers say what god wants because it usually coincides with their disires" Susan B. Anthony. If she never question the majority of white Christian men in power, women would still not be allowed to vote.

 

Isn't that what they call gender baiting?

 

Your reaction is a natural one, but not because we are hatefull. It is natural because you are not used to challenging yourself to ask hard questions about your own beliefs. Since you dont do that you falsely accuse those asking the hard questions of hate, insted of doing the intelectually brave thing and aim those hard questions at yourself.

I never used the word hate. Watch the spinning.

 

Do not put thoughts in our head or accuse all atheists of hating all religous people. Certainly some do, no doubt. But calling any claim, be it about politics, sports or even religion absurd does not equate to hate or bigotry.

 

I agree. I never did..spin

condescending remark

 

OH NO, LEARNING.......THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE!

 

(mod edit to remove extra whitespace at the bottom)


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Get your fact straight. The

Get your fact straight. The seperation of church and state is no where to be found in the constitution. It is a court precedent.

 

The big bang theory cant be proven either, that is why it is called a theory along with evolution.

 

"You think atheists are condescending?  You are insulted by atheism?  Well, I'm insulted that you think your holy book is such a superior moral code that you use it to deny people their rights."

 

If you read through my post, you will see I said you have the right to believe what you want. BE HONEST!!!


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Atheism

pariahjane wrote:

Atheism is not a religion because there is nothing that holds atheists together other than the small fact that we simply do not believe a supernatural deity exists. 

 

Well, isn't that what holds Christians together? We all have different belief systems i.e. politics, science, sports. 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
shhansen wrote:

shhansen wrote:

Get your fact straight. The seperation of church and state is no where to be found in the constitution. It is a court precedent.

Little blurb I found.

"The prevalence of the term "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted and endorsed by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to popular and political discussion of the concept, as well as criticism that the phrase overstates the limits created under the Constitution."

So to a point, we are both right and not. However, whether the thing comes from the constitution directly or not, it still exists as part of US law. There are other things in history that show that this country was founded on freedom of religion and from. For those that are historically inclined, feel free to correct or add to my thing as I am not a history buff in any shape or form.

Quote:

The big bang theory cant be proven either, that is why it is called a theory along with evolution.

Everytime I see this argument, I die a little inside. Scientific theory differs greatly with what most people consider theory. Evoltution is fact just like gravity and that the earth is round. True, the big bang has less evidence then evolution, partly because we can observe evolution. We can't quite do that (yet) with the big bang (which many believe to be a misnomer as its generally held that there was no "bang" but I digress)

Quote:

"You think atheists are condescending? You are insulted by atheism? Well, I'm insulted that you think your holy book is such a superior moral code that you use it to deny people their rights."

 

If you read through my post, you will see I said you have the right to believe what you want. BE HONEST!!!

Ok the issue we have with your reasoning is that again you are trying to hold your beliefs on the same ground as science which has evidence. You have the right by law to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe a snarfwidget (a great term that I learned from Sapient) exists on your shoulder and tells you things, feel free. I could care less. Its when you start telling others that they should also believe that the snarfwidget exists and that what he says should be taught on the same level as science which is heaps of evidence that we have problems with it. Also when the snarfwidge is responsible for laws that make no sense, we have problems. So yes, honesty we are doing. Are you?


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
shhansen wrote: Get your

shhansen wrote:

Get your fact straight. The seperation of church and state is no where to be found in the constitution. It is a court precedent.

 

The big bang theory cant be proven either, that is why it is called a theory along with evolution.

 

"You think atheists are condescending? You are insulted by atheism? Well, I'm insulted that you think your holy book is such a superior moral code that you use it to deny people their rights."

 

If you read through my post, you will see I said you have the right to believe what you want. BE HONEST!!!

Nobody wants to take away your right to believe what you want--just don't come over here and pretend that you have anything with which to back up that belief and force it upon us. Our issue doesn't lie with the beliefs of individuals, but rather with the individuals who want to influence legislation and use the fear of their imaginary friend's torture chambers to coerce us into their camp. Go ahead and believe whatever you want and brainwash your children and live in an insulated anti-science bubble if you like.

As far as the separation of church and state issue, it's not a court precedent as you stated, but rather the express wishes of the founding fathers (it was Jefferson who coined the phrase to begin with).

 The statement you made about the "big bang theory" and evolution just  shows your ignorance of the scientific method. Do some research and come back.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:  Go ahead

kellym78 wrote:

 Go ahead and believe whatever you want and brainwash your children and live in an insulated anti-science bubble if you like.

Having been at the receiving end, I'm not down with that whole "brainwashing your children" bit.  I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done to protect kids except what we're doing: challenging people to rethink their positions. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: shhansen

kellym78 wrote:
shhansen wrote:

Get your fact straight. The seperation of church and state is no where to be found in the constitution. It is a court precedent.

 

The big bang theory cant be proven either, that is why it is called a theory along with evolution.

 

"You think atheists are condescending? You are insulted by atheism? Well, I'm insulted that you think your holy book is such a superior moral code that you use it to deny people their rights."

 

If you read through my post, you will see I said you have the right to believe what you want. BE HONEST!!!

As far as the separation of church and state issue, it's not a court precedent as you stated, but rather the express wishes of the founding fathers (it was Jefferson who coined the phrase to begin with).

 

Oh its not.... Due some research because it very much is. I am not arguing Jefferson never said that. It was meant that the government could not endorse a specific religion. If you read the founding documents, you will see this country was founded on Christian beliefs. As a matter of fact they used to have church service in the capitol building.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, Kelly and

Thanks, Kelly and Gizmo. 

I do have my facts straight, thanks very  much.  No where in my post did I say 'separation of church and state is in the constitution'.  

You can say all you want that you think everyone has a right to believe what they want, but you're actions say something different.  Don't believe me?  Ask any homosexual couple that's been denied the rights that heterosexual couples have.  Stem cell research?  I can assure you I am being very honest here.

 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
The topic that this country

The topic that this country has been founded on Christian beliefs has been talked about ad nauseam and I don't feel like responding to it besides this.  Read more on the forums, its been discussed many times and do some research yourself.  However, it would require doing some work and I am tired today of spoon feeding it for you.  For those that wish, feel free. 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Thanks,

pariahjane wrote:

Thanks, Kelly and Gizmo.

I do have my facts straight, thanks very much. No where in my post did I say 'separation of church and state is in the constitution'.

You can say all you want that you think everyone has a right to believe what they want, but you're actions say something different. Don't believe me? Ask any homosexual couple that's been denied the rights that heterosexual couples have. Stem cell research? I can assure you I am being very honest here.

 

I was the one that said it was in the constitution.  I mistated as it is not implicintly said there however more implied through other things refering to the first amendment.  Again, bad argument on my part but my point still stands.  

And going on the stem cell thing, eventually it will be allowed as science will eventually prevail as it always has, however im sure those that were fighting against it are going to be kicking the shit out of themselves when they realize that they had the potential of saving or helping possible thousands or millions but they held it back because of some stupid ass belief in something they had no proof over.  I have always found it ironic that Christians and other theists wish to "save" us, yet things that really could are being held back because of their beliefs. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I still wish an automatic

I still wish an automatic billion-volt shock was sent through the internet to anyone who misused the word "theory."

Atheism isn't a religion for the same reason that "off" isn't a TV channel, bald is not a hair color, and being sedentary isn't a sport.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: shhansen

kellym78 wrote:
shhansen wrote:

Nobody wants to take away your right to believe what you want--

Well, what I see when I come to your site is police badges and your bannner states "Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism." From that statement that is exactly your goal. Folly

 

 


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Oh its not.... Due

Quote:
Oh its not.... Due some research because it very much is. I am not arguing Jefferson never said that. It was meant that the government could not endorse a specific religion. If you read the founding documents, you will see this country was founded on Christian beliefs. As a matter of fact they used to have church service in the capitol building.

What it means, quite literally, is that the government can not endorse any religion through any of its devices. That includes tax-funded public schools. 

Now, would you like us to defuse the idea that United States is a "country founded on Christian beliefs"? And do you by any chance think that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion?

 


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
shhansen wrote: kellym78

shhansen wrote:
kellym78 wrote:
shhansen wrote:

Nobody wants to take away your right to believe what you want--

Well, what I see when I come to your site is police badges and your bannner states "Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism." From that statement that is exactly your goal. Folly

Yes. It does not say we're fighting to take away your rights. We're fighting to take away the nonsense you call faith because it hurts us. And we do it honestly, openly, proudly and without reservation.

Police is needed because there are criminals. Atheists are needed because there are theists. Of course neither the criminals nor the theists would miss a chance to accuse their opponents of ulterior motives, but by the end of the day, it is neither the police nor the atheists that is the problem.


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I still

MattShizzle wrote:

I still wish an automatic billion-volt shock was sent through the internet to anyone who misused the word "theory."

Atheism isn't a religion for the same reason that "off" isn't a TV channel, bald is not a hair color, and being sedentary isn't a sport.

 

Explain to me theory then, sinse your intellect is far superior than mine. Atheism comes off as a religion for the fact it is a belief you have. It doesn't matter if you believe in God that you can't see or if you believe in some explosion that happened which no one witnessed. At least in the bible there is testimony and is one of the oldest history books around.


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Mike Seth wrote: shhansen

Mike Seth wrote:
shhansen wrote:
kellym78 wrote:
shhansen wrote:

Nobody wants to take away your right to believe what you want--

Well, what I see when I come to your site is police badges and your bannner states "Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism." From that statement that is exactly your goal. Folly

Yes. It does not say we're fighting to take away your rights. We're fighting to take away the nonsense you call faith because it hurts us. And we do it honestly, openly, proudly and without reservation.

Police is needed because there are criminals. Atheists are needed because there are theists. Of course neither the criminals nor the theists would miss a chance to accuse their opponents of ulterior motives, but by the end of the day, it is neither the police nor the atheists that is the problem.

 

You see son, that is an opinion. If you dont want to believe in God, then don't. All I am saying is why do you feel you need to stop christians? What exactly have christians done to you, other than going to church. This non-sense that we are the problem with this country is ludacris. To compare us with the likes of terrorists shows your ignorance. You may not have, but I have heard it before and it is a false claim.


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Explain to me theory

Quote:
Explain to me theory then [sarcasm skipped -MS].

Gladly. In fact, I just did in another thread, and I have a feeling that I will have to do it over and over again.

----- cut here -----
Quote:
There are many theories of the orgins of the universe but we can't seem to agree on just one so why not plug in one involving God?

Well, because anything involving god is not a theory; it's speculation that does not deserve to stand in the same line as what scientists know as theory. A real theory has some properties:

  1. It can explain the subject matter only relying on verifiable facts or other theories
  2. It can predict other instances of subject matter
  3. It can be independently verified by anyone
  4. It does not contradict itself or any other theories that were shown to be valid for now
  5. If any of the above conditions are violated, the theory is either revised or discarded.
Additionally, scientific theories tend to be peer reviewed and published to the public. By scientific standards, we should have discarded God long long time ago, on all counts.

---- cut here ----

Quote:
Atheism comes off as a religion for the fact it is a belief you have. It doesn't matter if you believe in God that you can't see or if you believe in some explosion that happened which no one witnessed.

We have no reasons to believe in the former. We have reasons to believe in the latter, and if it turns out that the latter is wrong we'll just shrug and look for a better answer.

Quote:
At least in the bible there is testimony

No there isn't. In bible, there are many words none of which can be construed as testimony.

Quote:
and is one of the oldest history books around.

It is not a history book just the same way as Star Trek is not a documentary.

 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
You obviously missed the

You obviously missed the points of what Christians have done to us.  Also, we never said that Christians are the root of the problems with this country (assuming you are refering to the US).  However there are problems that Christianity introduces into politics and legislation that do cause problemsn and can lead to problems (read A letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, he brings up some great points).  Three I like to bring up (and there are plenty more) are the three big ones; abortion, gay rights and marriage, and stem cell research.  All of the bad things and the reasons that laws exist banning these issues have ONLY to do with religion.  If it weren't for religion, gay marriage would not be an issue cause its only in the bible that there are issues with gays, abortions would not be an issue because it should be a woman's right to do with her body as she wants and one of the big ones for me, stem cell research which could save a lot of people but is being held back by religion because of some stupid superstition. 

And on the terroist comment, like Sapient brought up in the debate, terrorists don't have to be violent.  The threat of violence (in this context hell) can also be attributed to people we label as terrorists.   


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Mike Seth

Mike Seth wrote:

Quote:
Explain to me theory then [sarcasm skipped -MS].

Gladly. In fact, I just did in another thread, and I have a feeling that I will have to do it over and over again.

----- cut here -----
Quote:
There are many theories of the orgins of the universe but we can't seem to agree on just one so why not plug in one involving God?

Well, because anything involving god is not a theory; it's speculation that does not deserve to stand in the same line as what scientists know as theory. A real theory has some properties:

  1. It can explain the subject matter only relying on verifiable facts or other theories
  2. It can predict other instances of subject matter
  3. It can be independently verified by anyone
  4. It does not contradict itself or any other theories that were shown to be valid for now
  5. If any of the above conditions are violated, the theory is either revised or discarded.
Additionally, scientific theories tend to be peer reviewed and published to the public. By scientific standards, we should have discarded God long long time ago, on all counts.

---- cut here ----

Quote:
Atheism comes off as a religion for the fact it is a belief you have. It doesn't matter if you believe in God that you can't see or if you believe in some explosion that happened which no one witnessed.

We have no reasons to believe in the former. We have reasons to believe in the latter, and if it turns out that the latter is wrong we'll just shrug and look for a better answer.

Quote:
At least in the bible there is testimony

No there isn't. In bible, there are many words none of which can be construed as testimony.

Quote:
and is one of the oldest history books around.

It is not a history book just the same way as Star Trek is not a documentary.

 

 

My friend the bible is to a history book. This is amazing. But it lets me know what I have to deal with as my son progresses through school. Like I said believe what you want, but as the bible states people who follow Christ will be persucuted. That just proves what ministers have been saying...Christians are under attack.


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Mike Seth

Quote:

Mike Seth wrote:

Yes. It does not say we're fighting to take away your rights. We're fighting to take away the nonsense you call faith because it hurts us. And we do it honestly, openly, proudly and without reservation.

Police is needed because there are criminals. Atheists are needed because there are theists. Of course neither the criminals nor the theists would miss a chance to accuse their opponents of ulterior motives, but by the end of the day, it is neither the police nor the atheists that is the problem.

 

You see son, that is an opinion.

Do not patronize me unless you want to enumerate the pity I have for you. Worse yet, I might interprete it as surrender. Lex talionis.

Quote:
If you dont want to believe in God, then don't.

As a matter of the fact, I do believe in God. Just that my God is unlike anything you can conceive.

Quote:
All I am saying is why do you feel you need to stop christians?

I do not feel the need to "stop" christians or any other particular faith. However, I do feel the need to contain their unwanted influence on everyone else. Please try to deny that there is such influence so that I can show you point by point how it is there and you are wrong.

Quote:
What exactly have christians done to you, other than going to church.

Gay marriage? Family values? Prohibition of drugs? Missionaries? War in Iraq? Colonialism? Censhorship? Persecution of other believers and non-believers? Systematic brainwashing of children? Grand fraud? And I am not even american. Ted Haggard as a role model for children?

Trust me, you are not being singled out. I have enough in my happy bag for Islam and Judaism and any other religion which is intolerant of what's outside of itself.

Quote:
This non-sense that we are the problem with this country is ludacris. To compare us with the likes of terrorists shows your ignorance.

"If you have sex outside of marriage, you are going to hell"

That's intellectual terrorism. And here is the actual terrorism. Stand up and say that you oppose it, or concede and consider yourself a supporter of terrorism.

Quote:
You may not have, but I have heard it before and it is a false claim.

Again. "If you have sex outside of marriage, you are going to hell"

That's intellectual terrorism. And here is the actual terrorism. Stand up and say that you oppose it, or concede and consider yourself a supporter of terrorism.


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: You obviously

Gizmo wrote:

You obviously missed the points of what Christians have done to us.  Also, we never said that Christians are the root of the problems with this country (assuming you are refering to the US).  However there are problems that Christianity introduces into politics and legislation that do cause problemsn and can lead to problems (read A letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, he brings up some great points).  Three I like to bring up (and there are plenty more) are the three big ones; abortion, gay rights and marriage, and stem cell research.  All of the bad things and the reasons that laws exist banning these issues have ONLY to do with religion.  If it weren't for religion, gay marriage would not be an issue cause its only in the bible that there are issues with gays, abortions would not be an issue because it should be a woman's right to do with her body as she wants and one of the big ones for me, stem cell research which could save a lot of people but is being held back by religion because of some stupid superstition. 

And on the terroist comment, like Sapient brought up in the debate, terrorists don't have to be violent.  The threat of violence (in this context hell) can also be attributed to people we label as terrorists.   

 

Gizmo as you can see I have a veryhard time walking away from an argument. With that being said,
what it comes down to, is you guys are left wing liberals with agendas. The term marriage is a biblical term, a ceromony between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Now shouldn't marriage fall under the speration of church and state the left loves to quote so much. I think it should. The government should not be involved in any knid of marriage ceromony if we want to be consitent. This issue of the abortion argument a womans right to do what she wants to with her body, is debunked by if I want to do drugs or run around in public naked I should be able because it is my body. Stem cells, its not bad enough we kill babies we want to use them like lab rats after the fact.


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My friend the bible

Quote:
My friend the bible is to a history book.

Please. I can read the Old Testament in original Hebrew. That's a piece of some creepy history. 

Quote:
This is amazing. But it lets me know what I have to deal with as my son progresses through school.

Did you miss the rest of my post? Why did you not address it?

Now, I don't have a moral right to criticize your parenthood skills, but if you measure the progress of your son's education by how far he has advanced in Bible, then let me reassure you that your son would fail my job interview within first three minutes. Notice that if he were to interview with me, he would be granted a fair chance without prejudice against his faith.

Quote:
Like I said believe what you want, but as the bible states people who follow Christ will be persucuted. That just proves what ministers have been saying...Christians are under attack.

Or, alternatively, it proves that ministers knew from the start that the feces would encounter the oscillator, and preventively lied to you so that when it does indeed hit the fan they wouldn't be held accountable.

And, it is about to hit the fan.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
shhansen wrote:   Gizmo


shhansen wrote:

 

Gizmo as you can see I have a veryhard time walking away from an argument. With that being said,
what it comes down to, is you guys are left wing liberals with agendas. The term marriage is a biblical term, a ceromony between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Now shouldn't marriage fall under the speration of church and state the left loves to quote so much. I think it should. The government should not be involved in any knid of marriage ceromony if we want to be consitent. This issue of the abortion argument a womans right to do what she wants to with her body, is debunked by if I want to do drugs or run around in public naked I should be able because it is my body. Stem cells, its not bad enough we kill babies we want to use them like lab rats after the fact.

The term marriage tho perhaps coined in the bible (not sure on this but doesn't really matter) has a different meaning to most these days.  Most of which has to do with the rights of those who are married/joined/whatever youw ant to call it.  Most of those rights don't exist in some states for gays and even the ones that have civil unions or whatever, its still unfair that they are still not treated with the same respect as others simply because marriage was coined in a book.  

The argument you bring up with abortion is stupid.  Public nudity would not be that much of an issue with me other than decency.  Most people don't want to see others private parts.  On the part of the drugs, the issue with drugs is that they are illegal.  I have mixed feelings on the legalizing things like marijuana as its generally harmless.  The rest of the drugs that exist do actual harm to people and others (because of the fact that people are high while driving or doing shit or in the case of people oding on shit thats not regulated on like medicine).  And again, just because there may be things that are regulated that people can do to themselves does not mean its right to impose that same thing on abortions.  

And either you just have no concept of how stem cells work or you wish to dodge this one.  Most of the time current research thats wanting to be done is stem cells that are already avaliable due to being donated or whatever by abortions that are currently legal however are being forced to discard that tissue rather than study what it can do.  The thing is being junked for the most part anyways, why not learn and find something good out of it.  And even if you skip that part of it, stem cells from a embroyo usually has very few cells and has no nervous system so can in fact feel no pain.  If you want to argue that you are killing a "soul" bring me evidence of said soul.  

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Not every belief is a

Not every belief is a religion. I think broccoli is disgusting but only a complete idiot would call that a religion. To be called a religion a belief at minimum needs to believe something supernatural exists. Callingany belief a religion is way too broad a definition.

 

And now we got another asshat that thinks a fetus is the same as a baby that's been born. Even the Bible says this is not true:

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: shhansen

Gizmo wrote:

shhansen wrote:

 

Gizmo as you can see I have a veryhard time walking away from an argument. With that being said,
what it comes down to, is you guys are left wing liberals with agendas. The term marriage is a biblical term, a ceromony between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Now shouldn't marriage fall under the speration of church and state the left loves to quote so much. I think it should. The government should not be involved in any knid of marriage ceromony if we want to be consitent. This issue of the abortion argument a womans right to do what she wants to with her body, is debunked by if I want to do drugs or run around in public naked I should be able because it is my body. Stem cells, its not bad enough we kill babies we want to use them like lab rats after the fact.

The term marriage tho perhaps coined in the bible (not sure on this but doesn't really matter) has a different meaning to most these days.  Most of which has to do with the rights of those who are married/joined/whatever youw ant to call it.  Most of those rights don't exist in some states for gays and even the ones that have civil unions or whatever, its still unfair that they are still not treated with the same respect as others simply because marriage was coined in a book.  

The argument you bring up with abortion is stupid.  Public nudity would not be that much of an issue with me other than decency.  Most people don't want to see others private parts.  On the part of the drugs, the issue with drugs is that they are illegal.  I have mixed feelings on the legalizing things like marijuana as its generally harmless.  The rest of the drugs that exist do actual harm to people and others (because of the fact that people are high while driving or doing shit or in the case of people oding on shit thats not regulated on like medicine).  And again, just because there may be things that are regulated that people can do to themselves does not mean its right to impose that same thing on abortions.  

And either you just have no concept of how stem cells work or you wish to dodge this one.  Most of the time current research thats wanting to be done is stem cells that are already avaliable due to being donated or whatever by abortions that are currently legal however are being forced to discard that tissue rather than study what it can do.  The thing is being junked for the most part anyways, why not learn and find something good out of it.  And even if you skip that part of it, stem cells from a embroyo usually has very few cells and has no nervous system so can in fact feel no pain.  If you want to argue that you are killing a "soul" bring me evidence of said soul.  

 

 

The evidence of the soul is the bible which you dont believe, so its a mood point. The issue on drugs and public nudity is the same damn thing. It is my body therefore I shall do as I please and screw everyone else. I got a DWI back in 95, I did not hurt anyone but I got it. If I want to drink and drive I should be able to because again it is my body. The argument of abortion is not law, it is court precendent. These issuses should have been left to the states to decide, not some un-elected judge appointed for life. The purpose of the legislature is to legislate. THe purpose of the Judicicary is to interpret. It is complete disregard for the rule of law.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Uhhh you are risking

Uhhh you are risking everyone else on the roads health and life by driving drunk. Quit with the red herrings.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Uhhh you

MattShizzle wrote:
Uhhh you are risking everyone else on the roads health and life by driving drunk. Quit with the red herrings.

Agreed.  The reason DUI laws are good is because it hopefully (though apparently not in your case) from being doing it and hurting people.  There are mounds of evidence that says drinking while drunk is retarded and dangerous.  Does not quite equate to the abortion idea.  And I agree, abortions should not be a thing for the courts to worry about.  However, the idea that the states should purely decide this stuff scares me (some may argue, rightfully so in some cases, that this has already been the case) because I can see there literally being blue and red states and the people within them following those and then you have the possibility of even more civil unrest.  Its shit like that we are trying to prevent by showing people how irrational some of their beliefs are.  


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
The evidence of the soul is the bible which you dont believe, so its a mood point.

No. The evidence of soul is in Principia Discordia. Prove me that I am wrong without referring to what Bible says.

Quote:
The issue on drugs and public nudity is the same damn thing. It is my body therefore I shall do as I please and screw everyone else. I got a DWI back in 95, I did not hurt anyone but I got it. If I want to drink and drive I should be able to because again it is my body.

What you've just said is nonsense. When you are drunk and driving, you are a danger to the public. Will you still think it's your right to drink and drive knowing that if you hit someone you will be immediately shot to death?

On the other hand, what you do drunk or stoned or tripping or autofellating outside of public presence is only your business and no one else and fuck everyone who says otherwise.

Quote:
The argument of abortion is not law, it is court precendent. These issuses should have been left to the states to decide, not some un-elected judge appointed for life. The purpose of the legislature is to legislate. THe purpose of the Judicicary is to interpret. It is complete disregard for the rule of law

The argument is immoral, and the law based on it is immoral too. Any attempt to force a woman to carry a child, in any fashion, is sexual slavery. It is that woman's body and she gets to choose. Remember the none of your business rule?

And if you want to argue law, here is your law: persons that do not exist do not and must not have rights under the law. An unborn child is a living being, maybe a living soul, whatever, but under law, it can not be a person exactly the same way as monkey or a TV box can not be a person. An unborn child has only one interest, that is to live, but the society does not and must not concern itself with interests of fictional persons who themselves do not have the capacity to recognize it, and thus no law must be made to protect that interest. Personhood is a fundamental idea of law, and for this reason corporate personhood is called in legal terms "legal fiction", a device installed into law for convenience to imitate a person. Of course, everyone would like to have their own convenience features built into law, so lately our religious colleagues across the globe are trying to reshape the law into such form that it command the society to bend according to our religious colleagues' ideas of morality. We are not going to have any of this.


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is no more a

Atheism is no more a religion than apolytheism, aoctatheism, or aharrypottertheism.  Labeling atheism as a "religion" is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to define the terms of the debate within the framework of your silly delusion.
-HCG


suttsteve
Posts: 82
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
shhansen wrote: The

shhansen wrote:

The defintion of religion is: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

And that's not what atheism is. It's just not having a belief in any gods at all and nothing else. 

Quote:
Why is intelligent creation not taught in the public schools?

If you mean in science class, it's because it's creationism, not science.

Quote:
You come off as trying to be intellectually superior. It is rather insulting.

 Sorry you feel that way, but consider this. If you met a group of adults who wholeheartedly believed that magical, invisible fairies were going to take them to a sparkling kingdom floating around in the clouds (which, by the way, you do), wouldn't you feel sorry for them?

Quote:
I do not need him indoctrinated in the schools with something I know to be false and have to come home and try and [undo] what this godless school system has taught him.

You don't know it to be false. You believe it's false. There's a major difference. If you're talking about evolution, it's a fact which has been observed in insects and applies to all living things. If you have a problem with it, then you simply don't understand it. The theory of evolution and evolution, itself, are two different things. Evolution is a fact. The theory explains how the mechanism of the fact work. 


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey Shizzle, Did you take

Hey Shizzle,

Did you take the rebuke the holy spirit challenge?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Sure

Sure did!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Caeh5j-Q7wE

(and it's called the Blasphemy Challenge.)


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Mike Seth

Mike Seth wrote:

Quote:
The evidence of the soul is the bible which you dont believe, so its a mood point.

No. The evidence of soul is in Principia Discordia. Prove me that I am wrong without referring to what Bible says.

Quote:
The issue on drugs and public nudity is the same damn thing. It is my body therefore I shall do as I please and screw everyone else. I got a DWI back in 95, I did not hurt anyone but I got it. If I want to drink and drive I should be able to because again it is my body.

What you've just said is nonsense. When you are drunk and driving, you are a danger to the public. Will you still think it's your right to drink and drive knowing that if you hit someone you will be immediately shot to death?

On the other hand, what you do drunk or stoned or tripping or autofellating outside of public presence is only your business and no one else and fuck everyone who says otherwise.

Quote:
The argument of abortion is not law, it is court precendent. These issuses should have been left to the states to decide, not some un-elected judge appointed for life. The purpose of the legislature is to legislate. THe purpose of the Judicicary is to interpret. It is complete disregard for the rule of law

The argument is immoral, and the law based on it is immoral too. Any attempt to force a woman to carry a child, in any fashion, is sexual slavery. It is that woman's body and she gets to choose. Remember the none of your business rule?

And if you want to argue law, here is your law: persons that do not exist do not and must not have rights under the law. An unborn child is a living being, maybe a living soul, whatever, but under law, it can not be a person exactly the same way as monkey or a TV box can not be a person. An unborn child has only one interest, that is to live, but the society does not and must not concern itself with interests of fictional persons who themselves do not have the capacity to recognize it, and thus no law must be made to protect that interest. Personhood is a fundamental idea of law, and for this reason corporate personhood is called in legal terms "legal fiction", a device installed into law for convenience to imitate a person. Of course, everyone would like to have their own convenience features built into law, so lately our religious colleagues across the globe are trying to reshape the law into such form that it command the society to bend according to our religious colleagues' ideas of morality. We are not going to have any of this.

Well under the current mandate, she does have a right to choose. I'm going to break it down like this. People who sin will answer for there trangressions. I have nothing to do with people killing, molesting, stealing, etc. Where I draw the line is when my tax dollars go to fund abortions or stem cell research. At that point the money I pay in goes to fund it. With that being said, If I have freedom of religion on this country, I should not have to give one red cent to the cause because its against my religion. If they want to conduct this research off of donations is one thing but when I am being forced to fund it crosses the line. GOT IT. FASCISTS

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You obviously know nothing

You obviously know nothing about poilitics - Fascists are the extreme right: ie those opposed to abortion, stem cell research, etc. Calling us commies would be illogical, but not as idiotic as that. Taxes don't fund abortion by the way.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


shhansen
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
You know what Mr. Shizzle, I

You know what Mr. Shizzle, I really need to find a job. I have been laid off for a few months now and I am chatting with folks who are, at best, irrelevant.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why don't you become a

Why don't you become a minister, or if you want something more worthy of respect, a pimp?


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Even if the option was out

Even if the option was out there for those of us who do believe in stem cell research, it still doesn't solve the irrational belief that people hold that somehow some cells constinute a living person.  Ill grant you, if there was the option that research could continue on private donations or whatever then great.  A step in the right direction.  However that option currently does not exist.

Also, I would suspect that if we did start on that then people would realize that the benefits are much better than the negatives (are there any?) and would concede that ok, lets go all in.  I suspect the reason stem cell research is banned at every corner is because of that.  They realize that if they let a little, the benefits will be shown and people will realize that they should go for it.  But that scares those who want to control everyone. (obviously this is all speculation of how I see things).   


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Mike Seth

Quote:
Mike Seth wrote:

shhansen wrote:
The argument of abortion is not law, it is court precendent. These issuses should have been left to the states to decide, not some un-elected judge appointed for life. The purpose of the legislature is to legislate. THe purpose of the Judicicary is to interpret. It is complete disregard for the rule of law

 

The argument is immoral, and the law based on it is immoral too. Any attempt to force a woman to carry a child, in any fashion, is sexual slavery. It is that woman's body and she gets to choose. Remember the none of your business rule?

And if you want to argue law, here is your law: persons that do not exist do not and must not have rights under the law. An unborn child is a living being, maybe a living soul, whatever, but under law, it can not be a person exactly the same way as monkey or a TV box can not be a person. An unborn child has only one interest, that is to live, but the society does not and must not concern itself with interests of fictional persons who themselves do not have the capacity to recognize it, and thus no law must be made to protect that interest. Personhood is a fundamental idea of law, and for this reason corporate personhood is called in legal terms "legal fiction", a device installed into law for convenience to imitate a person. Of course, everyone would like to have their own convenience features built into law, so lately our religious colleagues across the globe are trying to reshape the law into such form that it command the society to bend according to our religious colleagues' ideas of morality. We are not going to have any of this.

Well under the current mandate

No. Not under the current mandate, but as a general principle of abolishing sexual slavery.

Quote:
, she does have a right to choose. I'm going to break it down like this. People who sin will answer for there trangressions. I have nothing to do with people killing, molesting, stealing, etc. Where I draw the line is when my tax dollars go to fund abortions or stem cell research.

No, you don't. The "great" thing about your government is that it doesn't ask you what to do with your taxes. For example, half of all americans think that Bush is an idiot and that war in Iraq is immoral. They still pay their taxes, and there's no reason for you not to. In other words, you do not get to choose whether your money is used to do stem sell research.

Quote:
At that point the money I pay in goes to fund it. With that being said, If I have freedom of religion on this country, I should not have to give one red cent to the cause because its against my religion.

Yep. Anf if I were an american citizen, I wouldn't have to pay taxes because they might go to: feminists, black people, feeding the poor, promotion or abolition of guns, abortion or drugs, or any other arbitrary thing that makes me angry. You can have any opinion you want, but you do not get to claim exclusive exemption from taxes because you are religious any more than I get exemption from taxes because I am so fucking awesome.

Quote:
If they want to conduct this research off of donations is one thing but when I am being forced to fund it crosses the line.

Well, if you oppose any kind of scientific research, I am afraid you should start burning books so that the circle of ignorance can be complete.

Now, please address the rest of points I brought up in the previous postings in this thread.