I fully endorse rooting out all Christian influences from the military- in fact I regard it as a matter of national security to do so. But until I see evidence of atheists being discriminated against, I'm not going to just "take it on faith".
"Michael Weinstein, a retired senior Air Force officer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is suing along with Hall. Weinstein said he's been contacted by more than 8,000 members of the military, almost all of them complaining of pressure to embrace evangelical Christianity."
When they name their event the "Reason Rally", I'm pretty confident that they aren't going to successfully convey that message.
*shrug* Perhaps, but merely having a rally isn't necessarily a bad thing. As long as atheists are separated and not a 'group', they're an easy political target. Just like video games.
To be politically effective, it must state a claim.
I disagree; unless you think the claim "We don't want to be discriminated against for our lack of belief" counts as a claim. When you say 'claim', I assume you mean a religious claim, and I don't think atheists need to make a positive (ir)religious claim to be politically effective.
Katatori-kun: Pope Dawkins's followers like to flirt between the two extremes as suits them, leading to intellectually dishonest positioning all around.
Possibly. I honestly don't follow Dawkins that much. I've only picked up his books twice. The first was when I literally picked it up to give to a classmate as a Secret Santa present (He was the most devout Christian in our year. We all had a good laugh about it. For the record, I received a small child's rocking chair), the second was when I, as I said, picked up the God Delusion while home for Christmas.
A rally to say, "People who don't believe in god are decent people" makes as much sense as a rally to say, "People who don't believe in leprechauns are decent people."
When lack of belief in Leprechauns becomes political suicide in the US, I'll agree with you.
Unless you're trying to expand the strength of atheists as a political bloc, there really is no point in holding a rally.
*shrug* Maybe we should, to protect our interests, especially with the like of Rick Santorum around. As I said, we're an easy target when we're not a political bloc and the Evangelicals have already latched onto US politics parasitic tumour.
Katatori-kun: A rally to say, "People who don't believe in god are decent people" makes as much sense as a rally to say, "People who don't believe in leprechauns are decent people." Unless you're trying to expand the strength of atheists as a political bloc, there really is no point in holding a rally.
Gonna call you out on this. In a vacuum, you're correct. There'd really be no distinction between a rally for the a-theists and a rally for the a-leprechaunists. However, American atheists live in a society where a not-insignificant portion of the population sees them as irredeemably vile. There's a massive disconnect between the way a-theists and a-leprechaunists are viewed. You're simply off your rocker if you think that there's no value in holding a rally to say that a group generally perceived as having no moral base can actually be moral. Public image is a thing, and improving it goes a long way toward curing America of its religious fever.
i just dont really like how he conducts himself. i would compare him to our own danyal here.
Thank you for the compliment!
thats odd maybe he's not as aggressive in the god delusion, but he has equated god to a computer virus. he equates religion to a mental virus
That's actually completely normal in the field of memetics;
Memetics is a controversial theory of mental content based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution, originating from the popularization of Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene.[1] It purports to be an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. The meme, analogous to a gene, was conceived as a "unit of culture" (an idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc.) which is "hosted" in one or more individual minds, and which can reproduce itself, thereby jumping from mind to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a belief is seen-when adopting the intentional stance[1][2]-as an idea-replicator reproducing itself in a new host. As with genetics, particularly under a Dawkinsian interpretation, a meme's success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host. Memetics is also notable for sidestepping the traditional concern with the truth of ideas and beliefs. Instead, it is interested in their success. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
and believes that the young are supposed gullible and lack the ability to question religion (which is un-true you can ask any moderate religious person and i guarantee you a large number will say that they have questioned their beliefs)
Young children, certainly between the age of 0 and 7, are indoctrinated very easily.
And if you're criticizing Dawkin, maybe it's best to just let him speak;
Less than two minutes; 4:46-6:43. Or if you don't have time, 5:03-5:57.
He explains exactly why he calls it a virus and why children are so easily indoctrinated. Do you disagree with this?
but then does not equate that the same effect is possible with atheistic parents.
Religious parents cannot raise their children in an Abrahamic religion and to be skeptical and to question everything. Abrahamic religion is like building a house of cards... While the skeptical mind is trying to look whether or not it falls down if you remove some cards from the bottom.
And OF COURSE there are exceptions. Look at my 'hero' Kurzweil for example;
Having fled the Holocaust, my parents, both artists, wanted a more worldly, less provincial, religious upbringing for me. My spiritual education, as a result, took place in a Unitarian church. We would spend six months studying one religion-going to its services, reading its books, having dialogues with its leaders-and then move on to the next. The theme was "many paths to the truth." I noticed, of course, many parallels among the world's religious traditions, but even the inconsistencies were illuminating. It became clear to me that the basic truths were profound enough to transcend apparent contradictions.
But in general, if you want your child to be religious in your specific dogmas, you can't train your child to be skeptical to question everything.
And to everyone in this thread, regarding the discussion about the 'reason rally'; if you support black pride because they have been treated so bad in the past and are still disadvantaged because of that, you would be an enormous hypocrite if you failed to support 'atheist pride'.
Katatori-kun: While it is true that the philosophy of atheism is not a religion, it certainly seems that the New Atheist movement is dead-set on inventing an atheist religion. The ironically-named "Reason Rally" on March 24th at the National Mall certainly has all the appearances of a proto-religious gathering, particularly its claim that atheists are being oppressed. Pope Dawkins is going to make an appearance, so I have no doubt that plenty of loud-mouthed internet anti-theists will magically have a new set of pithy anti-religion arguments in their arsenal to endlessly recycle on March 25th.
im just curious how they can claim to be oppressed when they don't have a belief to be oppressed for?
They just trotted out that old survey that says Americans tend to dislike or distrust atheists more than other groups (a survey that I have already argued has severe methodological flaws) and are presenting that as oppression- conveniently forgetting that in the US you don't have the right to being liked. Especially when the loudest members of your group are prone to insulting everyone not in your group.
I'm going to half agree with you and half disagree with you. I don't think atheists are systemically oppressed, but I do think Christians are systemically privileged. And there is a systemic consequence to being not-Christian that manifests in different ways and different strengths for different groups. Atheists don't have it half as bad, say, as practitioners of African traditional and syncretic religions, who get it for not being white, not being Christian, and being part of a religion that has had scads of scare propaganda about them for years. That, and most atheist gatherings online or off tend to be disproportionately white/straight/male (something that I know for a fact drives a lot of female atheist POC away from associating with other atheists).
That said, discrimination against atheists isn't *nothing*. I just think it should be taken as part of a piece-- of discrimination against non-Christians as a whole. (Something modern Pagans are increasingly realizing, and our CNN-equivalent routinely runs pieces on discrimination against non-Pagan non-Christians. We really are all in that particular fight together.)
On the actual post-- nice video Danyal, but I fail to see what it has to say about any religion, never mind all religion. It's a good message, I agree with it.
But what I do is aggressively local. My religion is saying "this is the old folkway of these people from this corner of this tiny blue dot" and is asserting that all folkways of all peoples of this universe should be curated, even as they adapt (hopefully) to a changing world and change into something more fair for the people within it. We don't make giant claims, we think if there are other sapient beings on other dots somewhere else in the universe, that they have their own gods and their own folkways that matter for those beings. It's that "everyone becoming one big undifferentiated glop" thing that concerns us. Multicultural, not melting pot.
When they name their event the "Reason Rally", I'm pretty confident that they aren't going to successfully convey that message.
*shrug* Perhaps, but merely having a rally isn't necessarily a bad thing. As long as atheists are separated and not a 'group', they're an easy political target. Just like video games.
I think you've missed my point. As annoying as the gamer moniker is, generally people who play video games don't try to claim that playing video games says something about the superior quality of themselves as people. "Reason Rally" is explicitly attempting to do that. The message of using that name is "Our group uses reason, their group does not. We are superior." It is appropriating the well-honed tools of religions of the past to create a religion-like atheist movement.
To be politically effective, it must state a claim.
I disagree; unless you think the claim "We don't want to be discriminated against for our lack of belief" counts as a claim. When you say 'claim', I assume you mean a religious claim, and I don't think atheists need to make a positive (ir)religious claim to be politically effective.
I'm not just referring to a religious claim (though it is often comes up in atheism debates). Look at the name: "Reason Rally". That makes a claim about the nature of atheists and non-atheists. I can only imagine the howls of fury that would come up on this forum if a religious group held a "Morality March", implying that anyone who wasn't a part of their movement lacked morality. Actually, strike that. I don't have to imagine it, because I see atheists on this forum whining about it every day.
This is the problem with trying to turn atheism into a political movement. Atheism says nothing about who an atheist is. Trying to invent a set of values that supposedly atheists share turns atheism into a religion-like political group. When that is coupled with myth-making that purports that atheists are oppressed and calls for atheists to form a bloc for their own defense, it only exaggerates the asinine "us vs. them" mentality that pervades these discussions.
Polarity27: I don't think atheists are systemically oppressed, but I do think Christians are systemically privileged.
i just dont really like how he conducts himself. i would compare him to our own danyal here.
Thank you for the compliment!
thats odd maybe he's not as aggressive in the god delusion, but he has equated god to a computer virus. he equates religion to a mental virus
That's actually completely normal in the field of memetics;
Memetics is a controversial theory of mental content based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution, originating from the popularization of Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene.[1] It purports to be an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. The meme, analogous to a gene, was conceived as a "unit of culture" (an idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc.) which is "hosted" in one or more individual minds, and which can reproduce itself, thereby jumping from mind to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a belief is seen-when adopting the intentional stance[1][2]-as an idea-replicator reproducing itself in a new host. As with genetics, particularly under a Dawkinsian interpretation, a meme's success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host. Memetics is also notable for sidestepping the traditional concern with the truth of ideas and beliefs. Instead, it is interested in their success. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
and believes that the young are supposed gullible and lack the ability to question religion (which is un-true you can ask any moderate religious person and i guarantee you a large number will say that they have questioned their beliefs)
Young children, certainly between the age of 0 and 7, are indoctrinated very easily.
And if you're criticizing Dawkin, maybe it's best to just let him speak;
Less than two minutes; 4:46-6:43. Or if you don't have time, 5:03-5:57.
He explains exactly why he calls it a virus and why children are so easily indoctrinated. Do you disagree with this?
but then does not equate that the same effect is possible with atheistic parents.
Religious parents cannot raise their children in an Abrahamic religion and to be skeptical and to question everything. Abrahamic religion is like building a house of cards... While the skeptical mind is trying to look whether or not it falls down if you remove some cards from the bottom.
And OF COURSE there are exceptions. Look at my 'hero' Kurzweil for example;
Having fled the Holocaust, my parents, both artists, wanted a more worldly, less provincial, religious upbringing for me. My spiritual education, as a result, took place in a Unitarian church. We would spend six months studying one religion-going to its services, reading its books, having dialogues with its leaders-and then move on to the next. The theme was "many paths to the truth." I noticed, of course, many parallels among the world's religious traditions, but even the inconsistencies were illuminating. It became clear to me that the basic truths were profound enough to transcend apparent contradictions.
But in general, if you want your child to be religious in your specific dogmas, you can't train your child to be skeptical to question everything.
And to everyone in this thread, regarding the discussion about the 'reason rally'; if you support black pride because they have been treated so bad in the past and are still disadvantaged because of that, you would be an enormous hypocrite if you failed to support 'atheist pride'.
hmm weird every church I've been in the pastor,preacher,bishop etc. encouraged their members to challenge their faith. heck i went to church with my girlfriend recently and they actively encouraged skepticism. they encouraged their members to test their faith and themselves. also you cannot say to me that if you were an atheist parent you would never tell your kids religion was bullshit. even if you don't do it directly chances are you'll make off hand comments and such and your children will still be "indoctrinated" as you like to put it.
EDIT: once members of the atheist community get kicked out restraunts, beaten in the streets for protesting, chased away from voting polls, lynched, stabbed, take bricks to the side of the head, be beaten in the street by a group of non atheists, un able to hold important and non menial jobs, unable to buy houses in nice neighborhoods, and not allowed to go to a school with non atheists, maybe then will i support atheists pride. the fact that you compare this to the movements of a people who were genuinely oppressed is disgusting.
Katatori-kun: "Reason Rally" is explicitly attempting to do that. The message of using that name is "Our group uses reason, their group does not. We are superior."
I can only imagine the howls of fury that would come up on this forum if a religious group held a "Morality March", implying that anyone who wasn't a part of their movement lacked morality. Actually, strike that. I don't have to imagine it, because I see atheists on this forum whining about it every day.
If you think reason is superior to blind faith... yes, atheism is superior. The existence of God cannot be proven by reason; the necessity of blind faith in the Bible or any other Holy Scripture cannot be proven by reason. Atheism can be 'proven' by reason. So claiming that atheism is more founded in reason than religion is not faulty.
But... atheism does not mean you lack morality. Some people condemn homosexuality; they say it's 'immoral'. Others defend homosexuals; they claim doing that is 'moral'.
Claiming homosexuality is immoral is often grounded in an ancient book that is claimed to be divine, while defending homosexuals often has its roots in modern, secular humanism.
TL;DR: Religion actually lacks reason, while atheism doesn't lack morality.
This is the problem with trying to turn atheism into a political movement. Atheism says nothing about who an atheist is. Trying to invent a set of values that supposedly atheists share turns atheism into a religion-like political group. When that is coupled with myth-making that purports that atheists are oppressed and calls for atheists to form a bloc for their own defense, it only exaggerates the asinine "us vs. them" mentality that pervades these discussions.
I argued roughly the same about something else a few weeks ago here. I was even suspended for it! It went like this.
This is the problem with trying to turn 'being black' into a political movement. Being black says nothing about who that black person is. Trying to invent a set of values that supposedly black people share turns being black into a religion-like political group. When that is coupled with myth-making that purports that black people are oppressed and calls for black people to form a bloc for their own defense, it only exaggerates the asinine "us vs. them" mentality that pervades these discussions.
But again; I'm right, and you're wrong. Sorry.
Atheism says nothing about who an atheist is.
Yes. It does. Being the one who doesn't believe that we should pray for unicorns to come and save us in a community where the overwhelming majority believes that we should do that does say something about you.
EDIT: once members of the atheist community get kicked out restraunts, beaten in the streets for protesting, chased away from voting polls, lynched, stabbed, take bricks to the side of the head, be beaten in the street by a group of non atheists, un able to hold important and non menial jobs, unable to buy houses in nice neighborhoods, and not allowed to go to a school with non atheists, maybe then will i support atheists pride. the fact that you compare this to the movements of a people who were genuinely oppressed is disgusting.
It's disgusting? 1. I'm quite sure that 'members of the atheist community' DID HAVE to experience that! "He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[16] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock." People who failed to believe in Christianity were burned...
And let's not forget all apostates in the Islamic world.
2. So we know that black people nor atheists had an easy history. Let's look at the modern world.
The first study asked 351 Americans from across the country to compare the trustworthiness of an atheist and a gay man, since both represent groups often described as threatening to majority religious values. They rated atheists significantly higher than gay men on distrust, though lower on levels of disgust.
The second study recruited 105 UBC undergrads -they purposely targeted a more liberal sample from a less-religious nation - to test whether distrust of atheists is more pronounced than distrust of other groups, including Muslims. The students read a description of an untrustworthy man who pretended to leave insurance information after backing his car into a parked vehicle and were asked to say whether it was more likely the man was either a Christian, Muslim, rapist or an atheist. People were far more likely to say he was either an atheist or a rapist and not part of a religious group. They did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists, something Mr. Gervais found disconcerting... http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/01/canadian-study-religious-people-trust-atheists-about-as-much-as-they-do-rapists/
It's virtually impossible for an atheist to become president of the US.
EDIT: once members of the atheist community get kicked out restraunts, beaten in the streets for protesting, chased away from voting polls, lynched, stabbed, take bricks to the side of the head, be beaten in the street by a group of non atheists, un able to hold important and non menial jobs, unable to buy houses in nice neighborhoods, and not allowed to go to a school with non atheists, maybe then will i support atheists pride. the fact that you compare this to the movements of a people who were genuinely oppressed is disgusting.
It's disgusting? 1. I'm quite sure that 'members of the atheist community' DID HAVE to experience that! "He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[16] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock." People who failed to believe in Christianity were burned...
And let's not forget all apostates in the Islamic world.
2. So we know that black people nor atheists had an easy history. Let's look at the modern world.
The first study asked 351 Americans from across the country to compare the trustworthiness of an atheist and a gay man, since both represent groups often described as threatening to majority religious values. They rated atheists significantly higher than gay men on distrust, though lower on levels of disgust.
The second study recruited 105 UBC undergrads -they purposely targeted a more liberal sample from a less-religious nation - to test whether distrust of atheists is more pronounced than distrust of other groups, including Muslims. The students read a description of an untrustworthy man who pretended to leave insurance information after backing his car into a parked vehicle and were asked to say whether it was more likely the man was either a Christian, Muslim, rapist or an atheist. People were far more likely to say he was either an atheist or a rapist and not part of a religious group. They did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists, something Mr. Gervais found disconcerting... http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/01/canadian-study-religious-people-trust-atheists-about-as-much-as-they-do-rapists/
It's virtually impossible for an atheist to become president of the US.
yes your only examples of oppression are extremely dated, that would be like Jews claiming that they are actively oppressed in Egypt even though that happened thousands of years ago. or Christians claiming to be oppressed cause of events that happened 2000 years ago. maybe if you had actual modern examples of oppression i would feel sympathetic but you don't and i wont. on your last example so 49% of Americans don't like atheists whoopdy freaking do.
It may sound a little smugly superior, but hey, it's a catchy bit of alliteration. I suppose a bigger question is, why do atheists feel they need a rally in the first place - and, given that they evidently do, shouldn't they enjoy the same right to speak (and be heard) as any other minority group?
Yes, American atheists are a minority, and yes, many of them do face genuine disadvantage and even hostility for their lack of belief.
yes your only examples of oppression are extremely dated, that would be like Jews claiming that they are actively oppressed in Egypt even though that happened thousands of years ago. or Christians claiming to be oppressed cause of events that happened 2000 years ago. maybe if you had actual modern examples of oppression i would feel sympathetic but you don't and i wont. on your last example so 49% of Americans don't like atheists whoopdy freaking do.
My '1.)' was to show you that atheists have been repressed violently in the past. Why does it matter? Because blacks were too in the past, and they are also not-repressed anymore. Remember what you said;
the fact that you compare this to the movements of a people who were genuinely oppressed is disgusting.
You implied that blacks were genuinely oppressed and atheists not. My '2.)' was too show that modern day atheists have less chance of becoming president of the US than black people, and they are distrusted more than blacks.
yes your only examples of oppression are extremely dated, that would be like Jews claiming that they are actively oppressed in Egypt even though that happened thousands of years ago. or Christians claiming to be oppressed cause of events that happened 2000 years ago. maybe if you had actual modern examples of oppression i would feel sympathetic but you don't and i wont. on your last example so 49% of Americans don't like atheists whoopdy freaking do.
My '1.)' was to show you that atheists have been repressed violently in the past. Why does it matter? Because blacks were too in the past, and they are also not-repressed anymore. Remember what you said;
the fact that you compare this to the movements of a people who were genuinely oppressed is disgusting.
You implied that blacks were genuinely oppressed and atheists not. My '2.)' was too show that modern day atheists have less chance of becoming president of the US than black people, and they are distrusted more than blacks.
the problem with your #2 is that study was done with a small sample size that any other study wouldn't be taken seriously with. that and it was done primarily in Alabama, a state not known for its tolerance and acceptance, in fact its known for the complete opposite. so that study is worthless.
EDIT: lol i just clicked the link you posted and it even states the study itself is bullshit.
One of the great failures of New Atheism and popular conceptions of atheism in our society is that the two are mutually exclusive, and that being an atheist puts one on the side of reason.
and, given that they evidently do, shouldn't they enjoy the same right to speak (and be heard) as any other minority group?
Don't try and prop up a straw man suggesting I am arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to meet. I haven't argued any such thing. I'm saying that by letting insecurity drive them to these kinds of events, popular atheists are turning themselves into a religion-like group. Rather than learning the lessons of what they supposedly oppose, they are instead adopting identical memes.
Yes, American atheists are a minority, and yes, many of them do face genuine disadvantage and even hostility for their lack of belief.
Yeah, I'm not going to buy that without evidence. And my past calls for evidence for that claim on this board have only been met with shallow cries of oppression and complete misrepresentations of isolated incidents.
If you think reason is superior to blind faith... yes, atheism is superior. The existence of God cannot be proven by reason; the necessity of blind faith in the Bible or any other Holy Scripture cannot be proven by reason. Atheism can be 'proven' by reason. So claiming that atheism is more founded in reason than religion is not faulty.
But... atheism does not mean you lack morality. Some people condemn homosexuality; they say it's 'immoral'. Others defend homosexuals; they claim doing that is 'moral'.
Claiming homosexuality is immoral is often grounded in an ancient book that is claimed to be divine, while defending homosexuals often has its roots in modern, secular humanism.
TL;DR: Religion actually lacks reason, while atheism doesn't lack morality.
Your definition of reason must be different than mine. You can never reason yourself into getting evidence. You can however reason based on evidence. The important difference between atheists and religious people basically comes down to how reasonable you think it is that a specific religious text, message or idea is correct. Becuase the truth of the matter is that neither side can say to be on the side of absolute reason since even atheists have to make the leap of faith from "we currently don't have enough evidence to support these religious teachings" to "this religion is false".
Let me compare it like this: Radiation, electromagnetism, coelacanths and many other things existed way before humanity could prove them (in the case of the coelacanths, we even thought them extinct before catching live specimen), they didn't magically pop into existance once we proved them. Can we be certain there is a god? No. Can we be certain that there isn't a god? No. In the end, both atheists and religious people have used reason to reach the conclusion that their set of beliefs is right.
That one party is trying to lay claim to being the only party to use "reason" only speaks volumes of the hubris of that party, but doesn't say anything about how much or little reason they use compared to the other party. That the other party lays claim to being the only "moral" party is equally atrocious, by the way.
Yes. It does. Being the one who doesn't believe that we should pray for unicorns to come and save us in a community where the overwhelming majority believes that we should do that does say something about you.
I don't believe that is what most religious people do. Either way, it really does say very little about you. Albert Einstein, you know the the poster child for awesome scientist and great intellect, was a theist agnostic (and criticized atheists as being too arrogant). Wernher von Braun, the guy that revolutionized and spearheaded rocket development, was a lutheran. Copernicus and Galilei were both catholics. I could make this list extremly long if I wanted to, but my point is simply that being an atheists only says something about your own personal religious inclination. It says nothing about your intellect, ability to reason or make informed decisions.
Just like it is presumptous to claim that only religious people can be moral, it is likewise presumptous to claim that only atheists can be intellectual.
Your definition of reason must be different than mine. You can never reason yourself into getting evidence. You can however reason based on evidence.
My definition of reason;
Reason is a term that refers to the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, to establish and verify facts, and to change or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs. The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
In philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason. It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
The important difference between atheists and religious people basically comes down to how reasonable you think it is that a specific religious text, message or idea is correct.
And reason is enough to justify atheism; it's not enough to justify, by definition, any religion, because we lack evidence of God.
Becuase the truth of the matter is that neither side can say to be on the side of absolute reason since even atheists have to make the leap of faith from "we currently don't have enough evidence to support these religious teachings" to "this religion is false".
Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that asserts there is no deity.[1] Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but without asserting there to be none.[1][2] A negative atheist refers "to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are currently no rational grounds that support [its] existence."[3] Strong atheism and hard atheism are alternates for the term positive atheism, whereas weak atheism and soft atheism are alternates for negative atheism.
Atheism is not positive atheism, most of the time. Well-known atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher are negative atheists.
Let me compare it like this: Radiation, electromagnetism, coelacanths and many other things existed way before humanity could prove them (in the case of the coelacanths, we even thought them extinct before catching live specimen), they didn't magically pop into existance once we proved them.
And thus, it would be stupid to assume that radiation doesn't exist. But.. that's not what (negative) atheists do. It would actually be stupid to assume that coelacanths exist and are very important to us, and that's what a lot of religious people do. (Regarding God etcetera, not regarding coelacanths :P)
Can we be certain there is a god? No. Can we be certain that there isn't a god? No. In the end, both atheists and religious people have used reason to reach the conclusion that their set of beliefs is right.
Maybe you'll wish to correct this if you know about negative atheism.
Albert Einstein, you know the the poster child for awesome scientist and great intellect, was a theist agnostic (and criticized atheists as being too arrogant).
What he writes about 'accusations of religiousness';
'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.'
And more; And to Eric Gutkind he wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."
And even more; On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
Even the subtlest interpretation of the Bible is childish? The idea of an afterlife, core of Abrahamic religion, is the absurd egoism of feeble souls?
Jesus Christ, if he had known the difference between positive and negative atheism he might have posted here under the name 'Danyal'! And you admire this man and agree with him? Great!
Wernher von Braun, the guy that revolutionized and spearheaded rocket development, was a lutheran.
Those who had known von Braun before the late 1950s may have been surprised by his answer. Throughout his younger years, von Braun did not show signs of religious devotion, or even an interest in things related to the church or to biblical teachings. In fact, he was known to his friends as a "merry heathen" (Frohlicher Heide). http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Wernher_von_Braun.html
it is likewise presumptous to claim that only atheists can be intellectual.
And you accused me of making strawmen? I've never claimed that only atheist can be intellectual; but I do know that faith in the unknowable cannot be justified by reason, and that atheism is way more rational than religion.
Katatori-kun: One of the great failures of New Atheism and popular conceptions of atheism in our society is that the two are mutually exclusive, and that being an atheist puts one on the side of reason.
Doesn't it, though? Anybody who cares enough to call themselves an atheist usually does so having rejected the superstition, mythology and supernaturalism that's prevalent in most religion.
[edit] Let me tighten up that statement lest I create a loophole big enough for one of the famous counter-argument religions (Buddhism, Baha'i, etc) to slip through. I mean the superstition, mythology and supernaturalism that forms an integral and underpinning part of the Abrahamaic religions - which constitute a non-trivial 54% of global religious adherents (Source: Wikipedia) and notably in the United States (which is the nation most relevant to this thread's topic of discussion), where over 78% of people identify themselves as Christian and just under 2% are Jewish (Source: Ditto).
Don't try and prop up a straw man suggesting I am arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to meet. I haven't argued any such thing. I'm saying that by letting insecurity drive them to these kinds of events, popular atheists are turning themselves into a religion-like group. Rather than learning the lessons of what they supposedly oppose, they are instead adopting identical memes.
No straw men here, but it seems as if you believe an atheist rally has about as much legitimacy as a Straight Pride parade or a Men's Rights march - i.e., something that they're entitled to do under freedom of speech and expression laws, but frankly a waste of time.
I've never attended an Atheist rally, and in the vanishingly unlikely event that one was organised here in London, I'd almost certainly decline to take part. The UK is more or less secular enough for my taste, and I have better things to do with my time[1]. But the fact that people have gone to the effort to organise one, doesn't that attest to its legitimacy, or at the least the sincerity of the organisers and participants?
You say it's ironic that atheists end up "looking like" a religion - Pope Dawkins, God Darwin, the Holy Book that is the God Delusion, etc etc - (and no, you're not the first to point out this delicious "irony"); but obviously religion has no monopoly on literature, public speaking, or conventions. Your chums the Feminists are even more vocal a community than atheists, and publish a higher volume of dogmatic literature, and they seldom get accused of being a religion. You'd find similar leaders, consensus of agreement, and published literature within the conspiracy theory community, animal rights activists, climate change alarmists, hell, even the god-forsaken Furry community could be held up as an example. But none of these "special interest groups" have the key hallmarks of cults or religions - there are no atheist hymns or chants of devotion, no feminist ceremonies, no furry creation myths, and no temples to a deified version of Al Gore (yet). The differences outweigh the similarities.
Yeah, I'm not going to buy that without evidence. And my past calls for evidence for that claim on this board have only been met with shallow cries of oppression and complete misrepresentations of isolated incidents.
As I mentioned, the UK is still quite secular so I only have second- or third-hand examples from the states.
The fact that the blonde bimbo in the closing section of this video is allowed to express views like this - which are apparently indicative of quite some percentage of Americans - is clearly worrying.
I understand that citing Fox News is probably only a short step removed from invoking Godwin's Law, but scarily enough there are people out there who agree with this kind of right-wing, ultra-religious sentiment. And what's more, they seem to be over-repesented in your political system.
Speaking of Youtube, if you've never checked out The Atheist Experience, take a look. There are plenty of testimonials from people who are probably best called survivors of religion (in the same vein as cancer survivors, or child abuse survivors); people who have faced great emotional trauma and abuse (often from a very young age) at the hands of their religious communities; people who have been disowned or ostracised from their families after "coming out" as atheist; and so on.
If you can bring yourself to read it, The God Delusion also contains many examples of the hostility faced by atheists - many of them American, and enjoying less freedom of (and from) religion than they would had they lived in the Middle East.
It's completely up to you whether you consider these examples to constitute evidence or cherry-picked "isolated incidents".
And you accused me of making strawmen? I've never claimed that only atheist can be intellectual; but I do know that faith in the unknowable cannot be justified by reason, and that atheism is way more rational than religion.
Nah, you only claimed that only atheists can use reason. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to consider someone intellectual if they can't use reason. Apart from that, you still only repeat that aheist uses more reason than religious people but don't provide any evidence or reasons as to how. Reason is not the same thing as the scientific method and in a matter completely void of evidence to support either stance, you are essentially just making a guess.
If there is a god, chances are we can't detect that being with modern scientific equipment. Just like I won't be able to detect radiation just because I got a set of binoculars. That doesn't mean the binoculars are faulty or that radation doesn't exist, only that binoculars are not the right tool for the job.
I think it is fully possible to use reason to conclude that a specific relgion is right, just like it is possible to use reason and conclude that all religion is hogwash. In the end, it is a field that our current scientific means are not up to the challenge of exploring fully, if at all. Until the day that they are (if ever) the matter of religion, or ones lack thereof, should be considered a matter of individual reality. Religious people need to stop being bothered that people are atheists and atheists need to stop being bothered that people are religious. It ain't hard, just live and let live.
Nah, you only claimed that only atheists can use reason.
Nonononononononononono.
'And reason is enough to justify atheism; it's not enough to justify, by definition, any religion, because we lack evidence of God.'
I don't know about you, but I find it hard to consider someone intellectual if they can't use reason.
I find it hard to consider someone intellectual if they believe...
And as you saw, Einstein did not believe that. Religion, by definition, is believing in the unproved/the unprovable. The more devout you are, the more you lack reason.
The lack of reason in one field does not have to mean that you lack reason in all fields (that would make you a worthless intellectual in your eyes).
Apart from that, you still only repeat that aheist uses more reason than religious people but don't provide any evidence or reasons as to how. Reason is not the same thing as the scientific method and in a matter completely void of evidence to support either stance, you are essentially just making a guess.
But reason/rationality and the scientific method are very closely related. And you don't think evidence supports this stance?
A negative atheist refers "to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are currently no rational grounds that support [its] existence."[3]
If there is a god, chances are we can't detect that being with modern scientific equipment. Just like I won't be able to detect radiation just because I got a set of binoculars. That doesn't mean the binoculars are faulty or that radation doesn't exist, only that binoculars are not the right tool for the job.
"We haven't proven it" doesn't mean "it probably exists". It means exactly what it means; "We haven't proven it". And therefore; there are currently no rational grounds that support [its] existence.
I think it is fully possible to use reason to conclude that a specific relgion is right, just like it is possible to use reason and conclude that all religion is hogwash.
You can't properly use reason on a specific set of data and yet end up with two completely opposed statements. You can end up with multiple statements and pick the one you like the most, but even then; Islam and Christianity are completely unprovable.
In the end, it is a field that our current scientific means are not up to the challenge of exploring fully, if at all. Until the day that they are (if ever) the matter of religion, or ones lack thereof, should be considered a matter of individual reality.
An invisible supreme being exists that hate homosexuals. He is unprovable and science is not up to the challenge of discovering this supreme being. I also lack any evidence for his existence but that doesn't matter, or at least, that's what Gethsemani tells me. So that's my proper reasoning to ban gay marriage!
Religious people need to stop being bothered that people are atheists and atheists need to stop being bothered that people are religious. It ain't hard, just live and let live.
Deal. I stop bothering religious people, religious people stop bothering me. That also means they can't bother me using the government.
So that'll mean two things; -an atheist fascist dictatorship, preventing religious people from gaining any power in the government -a completely powerless government, AKA objectivism.
So what do you prefer? Those two options, or the third option, a democracy where we try to make the voters use their brain? But if you want power over me using democracy, you'll also be asked to explain and prove your believes/ideology.
If people like Santorum conclude from the Bible that pornography is evil, that anti-conception has to be banned and that homosexuals have to be killed, I am not going to engage in a theological debate, but I can prove that his faith in the Bible is wrong. But I don't need to convince him, I need to convince his electorate.
Katatori-kun: One of the great failures of New Atheism and popular conceptions of atheism in our society is that the two are mutually exclusive, and that being an atheist puts one on the side of reason.
Doesn't it, though? Anybody who cares enough to call themselves an atheist usually does so having rejected the superstition, mythology and supernaturalism that's prevalent in most religion.
This is an assumption we cannot make without evidence (ironic, isn't it?). I have seen many, many atheists on the Internet (especially on this forum) fail to grasp the most basic principles of some of the scientific topics they advocate for (check out any thread where evolution comes up for a good example.) And the lack of intellectual curiosity from these people when it comes to understanding what religion is, is staggering. Remember, this is a forum where people who call on atheists to accurately speak about religion and not to attribute to religion as a whole what can only be said about certain denominations and certain interpretations of certain religions routinely get shouted down by the mob.
Clearly, there is a portion of atheists who do not adopt atheism out of reason. They adopt it out of a shallow need to rebel against the norm and to put on airs of being smarter than the norm, even if the evidence to support that intelligence is sorely lacking.
No straw men here, but it seems as if you believe an atheist rally has about as much legitimacy as a Straight Pride parade or a Men's Rights march - i.e., something that they're entitled to do under freedom of speech and expression laws, but frankly a waste of time.
Yet another false assumption you've made (without a shred of evidence to boot. So much for atheists practicing reason.)
An atheist march is undesirable for completely different reasons. Straight Pride or Men's Right's gatherings are illegitimate because they represent people with privilege campaigning for greater recognition and rights.
An atheist march is not illegitimate. In fact, if atheists want to make an atheist religion this is a perfectly legitimate way to start. But that's about all that it will accomplish for them. This rally demonstrates what I've been saying about the New Atheism movement all along- it's not about reason and rationality. It's about establishing political power. It's about gathering a group of people under a flag and proclaiming "we are not like you!" Which is really absurd if you want to preserve the notion of what atheism actually is.
You say it's ironic that atheists end up "looking like" a religion - Pope Dawkins, God Darwin, the Holy Book that is the God Delusion, etc etc - (and no, you're not the first to point out this delicious "irony"); but obviously religion has no monopoly on literature, public speaking, or conventions. Your chums the Feminists are even more vocal a community than atheists, and publish a higher volume of dogmatic literature, and they seldom get accused of being a religion.
You forget- I have absolutely no problem with things being a religion. It's the New Atheist movement that is vehemently anti-religion. I point out that they are behaving like a religion not to scorn them for their religiosity, but to point out their hypocrisy.
The fact that the blonde bimbo in the closing section of this video is allowed to express views like this - which are apparently indicative of quite some percentage of Americans - is clearly worrying.
Take a minute and catch your breath, because if you think that clip is "clearly worrying", then you are clearly on the edge of a nervous breakdown.
I understand that citing Fox News is probably only a short step removed from invoking Godwin's Law, but scarily enough there are people out there who agree with this kind of right-wing, ultra-religious sentiment.
It's actually a good deal worse than Godwin's Law. This wasn't just Fox News, this was Fox & Friends, a morning show infamous for dumb, uninformed presenters to make dumb, uninformed comments. Their host Steve Doocy says 10 things stupider than that comment before his hair is dry every morning. It's the equivalent of me taking a British tabloid article and presenting it as representing mainstream British political thought.
Katatori-kun: You forget- I have absolutely no problem with things being a religion. It's the New Atheist movement that is vehemently anti-religion. I point out that they are behaving like a religion not to scorn them for their religiosity, but to point out their hypocrisy.
But why should the things Batou named (holding conventions, public speaking, publishing literature) be equivalent to "behaving like a religion"?
Katatori-kun: Clearly, there is a portion of atheists who do not adopt atheism out of reason. They adopt it out of a shallow need to rebel against the norm and to put on airs of being smarter than the norm, even if the evidence to support that intelligence is sorely lacking.
I'm sure there are a few atheists who have these reasons, but where's this evidence you keep speaking of? Isn't it unfair to denigrate an entire group based on the actions of the least sincere of its members? A lot of teenaged girls become feminists just because of adolescent angst, an indistinct feeling of social injustice and as a way of experimenting with their voice and identity; but to dismiss ALL feminists as immature and misguided would clearly be an offensive oversimplification.
And, if we're criticising people who adopt an ideology with little to no questioning, then watch out Theists, Katatori is about to rip you to shreds. Right? I'm sure you reserve just as much hatred for religious people who aren't constantly introspecting, educating themselves on rival faiths, and reading their own scriptures with a critical eye?
Yet another false assumption you've made (without a shred of evidence to boot. So much for atheists practicing reason.)
Which brings us neatly to my next point. I practice reason, I don't practice clairvoyance. I'm an atheist, not Spock from Star Trek. You're arguing from a biased viewpoint where religion is normalised (and hence all but exempt from scrutiny) and atheism is a wilful opposition to this state of cultural normality. That's not meant to be an insult or cheap-shot, but I'll bet that there's more truth to it than maybe you even realise (using my atheistic mind-reading super-powers, naturally).
Here in Europe, a great many of us are raised atheist. For many of us, there was no moment of rebellion, no decision to be "different", and no religious majority to be shocked and impressed by our "edgy defiance". I really do think you're getting hung up on this perceived aspect of atheism.
But that's about all that it will accomplish for them. This rally demonstrates what I've been saying about the New Atheism movement all along- it's not about reason and rationality. It's about establishing political power. It's about gathering a group of people under a flag and proclaiming "we are not like you!" Which is really absurd if you want to preserve the notion of what atheism actually is.
What if one of the goals of such a rally is to push for secularisation of politics and wider society? Currently, being openly atheist in the US makes you effectively ineligible for premiership. If you see no problem with that, please skip to my next point. There's no Atheist Manifesto that forbids atheists from wanting access to political positions. Perhaps there is an element of "We are not like you", but you're missing the implicit "...and we'd still like to be treated like normal, decent people, please". Once again, you're presuming an overarching Atheist Hivemind and enforcing your own opinion of what atheism "ought to" look like: complete acquiescence to the status quo lest they be accused of "hypocrisy", apparently.
It's actually a good deal worse than Godwin's Law. This wasn't just Fox News, this was Fox & Friends, a morning show infamous for dumb, uninformed presenters to make dumb, uninformed comments. Their host Steve Doocy says 10 things stupider than that comment before his hair is dry every morning. It's the equivalent of me taking a British tabloid article and presenting it as representing mainstream British political thought.
Seekster: Ok question to Atheists, is Atheism a religion or a lack of one?
Atheism is a lack of religion. I think 'atheist religion' refers to atheism that has a lot of aspects of religion - but lacks the unproven parts.
Religion & spirituality according to Wikipedia;
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the "deepest values and meanings by which people live." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
Atheist 'religion';
Atheist religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Atheist spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the "deepest values and meanings by which people live.
That's defining for so many religions; faith in a truth that isn't so true at all.
Atheist religion would be about world views and symbols and moral values or 'deep values' or 'discovering the essence of your being', but a-theist; without God and other unproven fairy tales. Like the video that Phasmal links to;
Phasmal: I'm really not interested in the massive walls of text here, but as for the Original Post, I really like this... (okay I can't get it to embed).
And, if we're criticising people who adopt an ideology with little to no questioning, then watch out Theists, Katatori is about to rip you to shreds. Right? I'm sure you reserve just as much hatred for religious people who aren't constantly introspecting, educating themselves on rival faiths, and reading their own scriptures with a critical eye?
Seekster: Got it, Atheism is only a religion when its convenient to call it such.
No...
Atheists and religious people are both humans. Some wear a dress and a funny hat and hate gays, others are bound to a wheelchair and know very much about the universe. Both desire moral values, 'discovering the essence of the self and "deeper values" ', all need a worldview.
Sometimes, atheists try to find those things outside of religion. This 'deeper essence' was largely monopolized by religion in the past. Maybe it's best to use a quote from Einstein, already used in this thread;
'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.'
This 'unbounded admiration for the structure of the world' could appear religious in nature, but there are some very clear and important differences.
Like the fact that a lot of religions are based on writings from the Bronze Age while Einstein's worldview is derived from important scientific discoveries.
Why? Because you can be an atheist and still have a religion, ie Buddhism for example. Some sects of it are atheistic, no deity at all, but still has a spiritual aspect to it.
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less.
Until then religion is a bunch of hogwash involving the mass belief in a common imaginary friend(s) that has plundered societal progress since its creation.
Katatori-kun: You forget- I have absolutely no problem with things being a religion. It's the New Atheist movement that is vehemently anti-religion. I point out that they are behaving like a religion not to scorn them for their religiosity, but to point out their hypocrisy.
I can't help but chuckle at your attempts at painting atheism as a religion because of marching, public speaking and "holy" literature, as if those things are the three holy requirements for being a religion.
See, the brilliant thing is that your position has already been shot down in a number of fairly well known jokes, which I'll happy inform you of.
Firstly, what you are expressing is, in the extremely entertaining show Yes, Minister, described as politician's logic. "All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat!". Now, this is doubly funny, because not all religions even have marching, public speaking and holy literature, all in all resulting in that you are proclaiming that atheism is a religion because it involves absolutely nothing that is exclusive to religion! That is absolutely fantastic.
Oh, but it gets better! You remind me of a little thing Jimmy Carr once said, when asked if he had ever had any gay experiences. He said that yes, he had once described a cake as "To die for", and he had once said of a pair of shoes "Gotta have 'em!". But no, he had never had another man's cock in his mouth and or bum, and that's really the one that counts.
See? Just because something shares characteristics with religions, which you failed miserably at demonstrating in the first place, that doesn't mean it is actually a religion.
Oh well, I thank you for giving me a good laugh. Being reminded of Jimmy Carr and Sir Humphrey Appleby is never a bad thing!
Seekster: Got it, Atheism is only a religion when its convenient to call it such.
No...
Atheists and religious people are both humans. Some wear a dress and a funny hat and hate gays, others are bound to a wheelchair and know very much about the universe. Both desire moral values, 'discovering the essence of the self and "deeper values" ', all need a worldview.
Sometimes, atheists try to find those things outside of religion. This 'deeper essence' was largely monopolized by religion in the past. Maybe it's best to use a quote from Einstein, already used in this thread;
'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.'
This 'unbounded admiration for the structure of the world' could appear religious in nature, but there are some very clear and important differences.
Like the fact that a lot of religions are based on writings from the Bronze Age while Einstein's worldview is derived from important scientific discoveries.
Ok the joke went over your head and I am in no mood to explain it to you, plus got other things to do tonight that don't include a long drawn out religious debate with a bunch of atheists and anti-theists that is going to end inconclusively anyway (because basically all religious debates end inconclusively by nature).
colby694: LOVE is the main theme of the Bible. I am a Christian as in i believe in God and Jesus Christ as my Savior but i hate Religion. Religion is of man and is evil because for some reason hypocrites always come to lead a Religion. They become greedy and power hungry so they start so called wars in the name of God, rob people blind, etc. When Jesus came he didn't start a Religion, he came to destroy it. The pharisees were corrupt and hypocrites who only cared about money, looking good infront of people, and themselves. Jesus said "Do as they say, not as they do" because they knew the law but did not follow it. Jesus was killed(he willingly died for our sins)not because didn't believe he was son of God, but because he was ruining what they had and was taking over. They offered judgement, while Jesus offered love and acceptance. Religion is the cause of most problems in this world, but God is not. Many Christians are mislead by Priest and modern day Pharisees to believe and do things Jesus said not to do, what's funny is the Bible says that would happen, infact everything going on world wide the Bible said would happen. I am a Christian, i love every one and that means every one, i support Gay rights and marriage, my goal is to spread love across the world,i help whoever calls out to me, i shun no one, i am not Hollyer than Thou because i am a sinner because we all are sinners(something the church forgot)i'm very open minded and i love the fact that America allows religious freedom, because God allows it as well, God will never make you do anything you don't want too because he gave us free will. All of you are loved no matter what. Real Christians love others, Mainstream Judge others. I hope all of yall have a wonderful day and may Jesus bless you and your families. God Bless.
Your goals are laudable. Your support for equal rights for all is also laudable.
However the "Real Christians" falls squarely into the "No true scotsman" fallacy. And as for the Bible being about love....no. I have never seen a larger collection of hatred and jealousy. Really the god talked about in it is a very much a complete dick. And what his followers do in his name is terrible.
That being said, you are the kind of Christian I do wish other Christians (especially in the US) were like. I'd happily call you neighbour. So for what it's worth, I hope you too have a wonderful day, and may your beliefs in your deity bring you happiness and joy. (No I am not being sarcastic. I am being sincere.)
Yes, it is true in the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, except Jesus, but you also must understand the context of the Law(old testament) and the NT. Besides those two things the Holy Bible was compiled by man and man not being perfect makes mistakes. I agree and disagree at the same time on your view point of the Bible. Horror upon horror have been done in the name of God and Religion, but it does not mean that these things were right in anyway form or fashion. There are many opinions and "other" questionable things in the Bible, but the Bible is not the word of God and is not perfect. Look at the reasons Jesus came and died for us, we were all destined for Hell, to die, but he gave his life so YOU and I may be forgiven. The Lord gave us free will to do what we please, though there was less in the OT than now. The reason is the time of grace, the time when God's hand isn't directly upon Earth, aka he doesn't just wipe a city off the face of the Earth because they are terrible. In my belief, the Bible, while important, isn't the most important thing about Christianity or being a Christian. The most important thing is to follow the teachings of Jesus and to over be like him, loving, caring, sacrificing, etc. His teachings are the most important out of the whole Bible.The modern day church has become more powerful and hypocritical than the pharisees ever thought about being. All the hatred in the Bible and all the hatred in the world is not of God, God is love. i'm sorry if you feel that i am wasting your time, i really am, but it is my duty to show the love and kindness that basically ever christian should. I'll leave you with this, most Christians, just like the Pharisees, would see that you are an athiest and either say turn and burn or your a lost cause, but Jesus would say "Hey man, wasup, are you ok? How bout i buy you beer".
P.S. Thank You for having a civil conversations instead of saying i'm stupid for my beliefs. God Bless you, have a nice day.
Quick google
"Michael Weinstein, a retired senior Air Force officer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is suing along with Hall. Weinstein said he's been contacted by more than 8,000 members of the military, almost all of them complaining of pressure to embrace evangelical Christianity."
Seems like there's evidence of it there.
*shrug* Perhaps, but merely having a rally isn't necessarily a bad thing. As long as atheists are separated and not a 'group', they're an easy political target. Just like video games.
I agree.
I disagree; unless you think the claim "We don't want to be discriminated against for our lack of belief" counts as a claim. When you say 'claim', I assume you mean a religious claim, and I don't think atheists need to make a positive (ir)religious claim to be politically effective.
Possibly. I honestly don't follow Dawkins that much. I've only picked up his books twice. The first was when I literally picked it up to give to a classmate as a Secret Santa present (He was the most devout Christian in our year. We all had a good laugh about it. For the record, I received a small child's rocking chair), the second was when I, as I said, picked up the God Delusion while home for Christmas.
When lack of belief in Leprechauns becomes political suicide in the US, I'll agree with you.
*shrug* Maybe we should, to protect our interests, especially with the like of Rick Santorum around. As I said, we're an easy target when we're not a political bloc and the Evangelicals have already latched onto US politics parasitic tumour.