Why we need the 1st Amendment

[Smalso]

www.thisistrue.com/bravegirl.html

There is a link there to the original story.

(If you are not subscribed to www.thisistrue.com you are missing some of the best the internet has to offer.)

[Nasarius]

If there's one thing that Christ taught, it was tolerance.

My thoughts exactly. It's astonishing how people can be so fanatical while forgetting what their religion was about in the first place. Sad story...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Nasarius


My thoughts exactly. It's astonishing how people can be so fanatical while forgetting what their religion was about in the first place. Sad story...

Yes religions like Islam and Atheism (Stalin's Russia for example) do have track records as does Judaism and Xianity. Darned people just don't always "do right" do they. Buddhism has a better record so far as I am aware.

I'm not up on Hinduism (and many others); which group seems to best respect heretics? Yesterday? Today? Tomorrow?

[Smalso]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yes religions like Islam and Atheism (Stalin's Russia for example) do have track records as does Judaism and Xianity. Darned people just don't always "do right" do they. Buddhism has a better record so far as I am aware.

I'm not up on Hinduism (and many others); which group seems to best respect heretics? Yesterday? Today? Tomorrow?

Atheism is a religion?

I am unaware of any organized attempt by atheists as an organization persecuting anyone. Sources?

Stalin persecuted everyone who opposed, or had the potential to oppose, him and his power. That included the free press, academia, organized labor and those in the government and the military. It was not so much religious as it was political.

[Ladewig]

If persecution is in the eye of the beholder, then the Supreme Court's 1962 decision banning teacher-led school prayer is considered by millions to be persecution of Christians by atheists.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Smalso


Atheism is a religion?
A debatable issue in the opinion of some including me. And no, my arguments will not convince you as an atheist.

I am unaware of any organized attempt by atheists as an organization persecuting anyone. Sources?
The source is 20th century history. It's not Organized Atheists (think herding cats) that is the problem. It is an atheist (e.g. Stalin, and in a sense Mao & Pol Pot) seizing absolute power.

[Tom Head]

I think history has shown that when anybody assumes absolute power (regardless of belief system), stuff hits the fan.

The newspaper story described in the first post depresses me, but is consistent with stuff I've heard about public schools throughout the South.


Cheers,

[Occasional Chemist]

The family follows the ancient religious tradition of Paganism, which embraces kinship with nature, positive morality and acknowledges both the female and male side of Deity, according to the Pagan Federation.


Given that the Christian take on Paganism seems to be that they are those "who worship false gods; idolaters; heathens; people who are neither Christians, Mohammedans, nor Jews", I'm not surprised at what happened. {Definition from Webster's (1913)}.

That doesn't make it right, of course, but where did anyone get the idea that the Southern Baptists (much of the religious problem there seemed to be caused by a "crusade" they were running and busing children to) were particularly tolerant?

Looks like a suit to keep an eye on ...

[Skeptic]

It's not Organized Atheists (think herding cats) that is the problem. It is an atheist (e.g. Stalin, and in a sense Mao & Pol Pot) seizing absolute power.

(Sigh)

As opposed to all those wonderful historical lessons we had from religious people seizing absolute power: the Ayatollah Khumeini, Torquemada, the judges in the Salem witch trials...

[fishbob]

Tyranny by majority rule is still tyranny.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes religions like Islam and Atheism (Stalin's Russia for example) do have track records as does Judaism and Xianity. Darned people just don't always "do right" do they. Buddhism has a better record so far as I am aware.

Atheism is a very general, nonspecified point of view. The Buddhists you mention for example are atheists. The difference in generalizing between atheists and Christians is similiar to the difference in generalization between nonracists and racists. One tenet promotes specific beliefs and values a group can organize around (Christianity,racism) whereas the other simply does not.

It is irrational for one to base a generalization on what a given group does not believe in, one must do so on what a given group does believe in. Thus Stalinism can be more closely be seen as a flawed practice of Marxism then mere atheism.

Likewise atheism is not a religion, that statement reveals a great deal of ignorance on the matter of what a religion is. Religion is basically a belief system made to epmphasize or promote a belief with the Sacred(something inexplicable/not open to rational analysis) in such a way as to give life meaning. A belief system thus requires three elements to be considered a religion to a greater or lesser degree: myth,ritual and dogma. Mere atheism contains no sacred and none of the above elements.

Basically the Christian or apologist is trying to justify past wrong acts via putting an unwarranted generlization on par with a warranted one. Given that line of reasoning I can likewise wipe the blame off racist doctrines of the past by saying "Well nonracists like Stalin did wrong as well." Stalin did bad, but I doubt the motivation stemmed from being a nonracist. Likewise I doubt Stalin's atrocities can be blamed on not believing in God.

But to likewise say hate crimes and the holocaust were not motivated by racist leanings, seems unreasonable. There simply is no warrant between throwing two different types of generalizations into the same basket.

The fact that the apologist is willing to make the ridiculous claim that atheism is a religion confirms this viewpoint of their argument being made for the puprose of desperation instead of actual evidence.

[Smalso]

I wonder how the good people of Union County would have reacted if the girl's parents had rented the school busses and asked that the students be taken to a Paganism rally.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Smalso
I wonder how the good people of Union County would have reacted if the girl's parents had rented the school busses and asked that the students be taken to a Paganism rally.

Congratulations. You have arrived at the conundrum posed by Federal intervention in local issues, be the issues race, gender, sexual practices, etcetc.

Once *you* have been deprived of choice, ALL have been deprived of choice. If school curricula were a local issue -- as in my mind it should be, as should all the areas of personal choice -- you would at least have the option to find, or start, and have your children attend, such a school district. And if I don't agree with my kids learning Paganism, I also would have that choice.

Back to the broader issue, "should Atheism be considered a Religion", as I said my ideas will not sway atheists. "Higher Powers" to worship are just not required. Well, I'm still waiting for direction from "Morality of Secular Humanism"; until Bill finishes it, you are each using your own version.

As I recall, it was one of the Holmes family who noted that the last person who should interpret a Law would be the person who wrote the Law. Each materialist/atheist has the same problem, and although you may all deny a "faith" in science, calm reflection on your part could provide room for at least agnosticism. For their part, the US Founders met this consideration with their clear delineation of three, equal, branches. The ongoing concern is the Federal vs State areas of responsibility.

Finally, as another hamm-handed drive-by, what *is* "prayer"? Is it not again a question each *individual* must answer for himself?

[Smalso]

Good answer. That's exactly how I think they would react.

How, then, do you think they would react if India Tracy went around smashing other students' heads into lockers because they are Christians?

[fishbob]

Once *you* have been deprived of choice, ALL have been deprived of choice. If school curricula were a local issue -- as in my mind it should be, as should all the areas of personal choice -- you would at least have the option to find, or start, and have your children attend, such a school district. And if I don't agree with my kids learning Paganism, I also would have that choice.
It is amazingly arrogant for anyone in the majority, who does not have to worry about assaults on their kids, to defend this situation. If public school curricula were a local issue, public schools still have to provide education to all the students in the local area. Allowing the majority (religious or otherwise) in the local area to dictate curricla is still wrong. If you want your kids to attend a school that caters to your personal beliefs, then you can choose private school.

[hammegk]

It is also amazingly unrealistic to think the human tendency of "Us" vs "Them" does not still at times, against the law, mistreat "Them". Do I condone illegalities that occur? NO. Do I understand why they may occur? Yup.

Finally, even in this case, judges and jury try cases to find facts and apply law, not one-sided news articles. Do you actually *know* the facts of this matter?

Re "public schools": If I were faced today with the requirement to educate my kids k-12, if I could nor afford private school, they would be home-schooled.

[fishbob]

It is also amazingly unrealistic to think the human tendency of "Us" vs "Them" does not still at times, against the law, mistreat "Them". Do I condone illegalities that occur? NO. Do I understand why they may occur? Yup.
Why do they occur? Is this Us vs Them learned behavior? Maybe a thorough lesson in the First Amendment would be a good addition to the school curriculum.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by fishbob

Why do they occur? Is this Us vs Them learned behavior? Maybe a thorough lesson in the First Amendment would be a good addition to the school curriculum.

Gee, I believe any good Darwinist will tell you Us vs. Them is a significant Survival Strategy. That probably overrides the even the US Constitution (well, not for the pc'liberals I suppose -- many of them seem to be significantly lacking in survival skills).

[DialecticMaterialist]

Back to the broader issue, "should Atheism be considered a Religion", as I said my ideas will not sway atheists.

Not just atheists, but I doubt any professor of world religions would agree with you as well. I have studied several texts and taken several classes on world religions and have yet to see "atheism" pop up as a category.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by hammegk


Gee, I believe any good Darwinist will tell you Us vs. Them is a significant Survival Strategy. That probably overrides the even the US Constitution (well, not for the pc'liberals I suppose -- many of them seem to be significantly lacking in survival skills).

Poppycock.

Darwinist, atheistic, PC liberal scientists have contributed more to the quality of life and the enlightenment of the human race than all the Bible thumping, scripture spouting, money grabbing, hate spreading Falwell types with their scare tactics and god myths. Go ahead and practice your religion; but if you try to cram it down my throat, don't complain if I puke it back up on you.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Smalso


Poppycock.

{Us}
Darwinist, atheistic, PC liberal scientists

{Them}
Bible thumping, scripture spouting, money grabbing, hate spreading Falwell types with their scare tactics and god myths.

Only 2 choices you say? Poppycock indeed!

At least you do see how it works. ;) Good strategy, huh?

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Not just atheists, but I doubt any professor of world religions would agree with you as well. I have studied several texts and taken several classes on world religions and have yet to see "atheism" pop up as a category.
True, and this is probably because, semantically speaking, there is no such thing as "atheism." This word, as such, creates the illusion of an "ism" and implies the active participation in some sort of tenet. This is false. It is also not entirely accurate to use the word "atheist" as a noun. It should be used as an adjective. For example, one should not say, "I am an atheist," as this suggests that the speaker subscribes to some particular practice. But rather one should say, "I am atheist" which simply means that "I do not subsribe to any theistic doctrine." Perhaps an even better way to phrase the statement would be "I am non-theistic." When put in either of these two forms, it becomes clear that term "atheism" is not only highly misleading, but terribly inaccurate and nearly meaningless, since it can only be defined as "the practice of not subscribing to any theistic doctrine" which is semantically an absurd statement.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Psi Baba

It is also not entirely accurate to use the word "atheist" as a noun. It should be used as an adjective. For example, one should not say, "I am an atheist," as this suggests that the speaker subscribes to some particular practice. But rather one should say, "I am atheist" which simply means that "I do not subsribe to any theistic doctrine."

I like this very much. Well done.

While I am not always consistent in my usage, I do tend to use atheist adjectively more often most people I know.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Psi Baba

[]the[/i] term "atheism" is not only highly misleading, but terribly inaccurate and nearly meaningless, since it can only be defined as "the practice of not subscribing to any theistic doctrine" which is semantically an absurd statement.

You are beginning to sense the problem an atheist needs to address.

Note: Agnosticism is perfectly logical. The problem is with your "100% certainty" of the assertion and is what non-atheists object to. ;)

How can a skeptic be 100% certain of anything? The odds may be no better than the odds all the air molecules in your room collect in the corner & you suffocate, yet calculable as "greater than zero". ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk


You are beginning to sense the problem an atheist needs to address.

Note: Agnosticism is perfectly logical. The problem is with your "100% certainty" of the assertion and is what non-atheists object to. ;)


Mr Strawman returns.

Who ever said anything about 100% certainty? You made that up.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Mr Strawman returns.

Who ever said anything about 100% certainty? You made that up.

Well,

If you are a "hard atheist" then 100% no-god is exactly what you believe in. Isn't it? :confused:

-zilla

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Nasarius
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's one thing that Christ taught, it was tolerance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts exactly. It's astonishing how people can be so fanatical while forgetting what their religion was about in the first place. Sad story...

Interestingly enough, there are several examples in the Bible, of Christ and his followers not being very tolerant at all.

I don't find it astonishing at all, that people see what they want to see, to enable their own agenda.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well,

If you are a "hard atheist" then 100% no-god is exactly what you believe in. Isn't it? :confused:

-zilla

No. You just have to accept the statement "God does not exist" as true.

All it takes to do that is that consider that it is more than 50% likely to be true.

There is very little that we believe to be 100% true. A theist who says "I believe god exists" is not saying that he/she believes probability of god existing is 100%. Just that they believe the statement "God exists" is more likely true than false.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Who ever said anything about 100% certainty? You made that up.

Actually not. My original poll taken many months ago -- apparently also lost in the db glitch -- had, iirc, about 30% responses claiming 100% certainty.

Feel free to re-poll.


I note your definition of atheist above; what did you say an Agnostic is under your system?

[Smalso]

Originally posted by hammegk


Only 2 choices you say? Poppycock indeed!

At least you do see how it works. ;) Good strategy, huh?

Horsefeathers.

I did not state that there are only two choices. Religions argue with each other and even Christianity cannot decide which brand is the "right" one. As with most controversial issues, it's Us against them and them and them and them....

It is disgraceful what has happened to this girl in the United States in the 21st century.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Psi Baba

True, and this is probably because, semantically speaking, there is no such thing as "atheism." This word, as such, creates the illusion of an "ism" and implies the active participation in some sort of tenet. This is false. It is also not entirely accurate to use the word "atheist" as a noun. It should be used as an adjective. For example, one should not say, "I am an atheist," as this suggests that the speaker subscribes to some particular practice. But rather one should say, "I am atheist" which simply means that "I do not subsribe to any theistic doctrine." Perhaps an even better way to phrase the statement would be "I am non-theistic." When put in either of these two forms, it becomes clear that term "atheism" is not only highly misleading, but terribly inaccurate and nearly meaningless, since it can only be defined as "the practice of not subscribing to any theistic doctrine" which is semantically an absurd statement.

You are right, of course. Thanks for pointing that out.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk


Actually not. My original poll taken many months ago -- apparently also lost in the db glitch -- had, iirc, about 30% responses claiming 100% certainty.


But that of course is not all atheists, so to claim that it is something that "an atheist" has to solve is disengenious. Those atheists who make the claim might have to deal with it, but the others do not.



I note your definition of atheist above; what did you say an Agnostic is under your system?

Those who would consider the statement "The existence of god cannot be known" to be true.

Others may prefer the statement "The existence of god _is not_ known" as opposed to cannot.

(where I would consider "know" to be the 100% certainty statement)

The best part about the second statement is that it makes a nice distinction:

Gnostic atheists who do not believe god exists and claim to know god does not exist
Agnostic atheists who do not believe god exists but do not claim to know god does not exist
Agnostic theists who believe god exists but do not claim to know god exists
Gnostic theists who believe god exists and claim to know god exists

The problem with the first statement above (the existence of god cannot be known) is that it is a tautologically true statement for any existential claim. You cannot know, to 100%, that any being does not exist, whether it is god or a unicorn orbiting Pluto. You can assign a very small probability, but it is always non-zero.

[Psi Baba]

I would have to submit that someone who is 100% convinced that no god exists be classified as an "antitheist." The prefix 'a-' on the word "atheist" merely means "not" or "non." It does not mean "against" or "opposed". Perhaps we should discard the word "atheist" from the lexicon altogether in favor of the words "non-theist" (meaning one who merely does not subscribe to a theistic doctrine), and "antitheist" (meaning one who believes that no gods exist).
People like like hammegk and JK insist on classifying all admitted atheists as antitheists.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
Agnosticism is perfectly logical.

Can I quote you on this in the future?

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Gnostic atheists who do not believe god exists and claim to know god does not exist
Agnostic atheists who do not believe god exists but do not claim to know god does not exist
Agnostic theists who believe god exists but do not claim to know god exists
Gnostic theists who believe god exists and claim to know god exists

I like this. I like it better than my idea. This shows clearly how many people seem to be unable to make a distinction between the first two classes. They assume all atheists are gnostic atheists.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by WMT1


Can I quote you on this in the future?

You mean rather than you taking the alternative so we can discuss it? :D


BTW, pgwenthold has classified any debate out of existence imo.

Atheists usually seem to prefer not to be tied to such a well defined postion though.

Note, if you ain't 100% something, we got no debate at least some of the time. :(

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk


BTW, pgwenthold has classified any debate out of existence imo.

Atheists usually seem to prefer not to be tied to such a well defined postion though.

Note, if you ain't 100% something, we got no debate at least some of the time. :(

Sorry to destroy your little strawman. I'm sure it was fun for you.

OTOH, regarding

Atheists usually seem to prefer not to be tied to such a well defined postion though.


I think you are mistaken. I suspect very many atheists would have no problem with my characterizations. Some may quibble on my approach to agnosticism (the "cannot be" vs "is not" argument), but I don't know any atheists that would have a fundamental problem with it. For example, the orthagonality of gnosticism and theism (knowledge vs belief) is something that most (but not all) atheists I have encountered tend to understand.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
Agnosticism is perfectly logical.

Originally posted by WMT1
Can I quote you on this in the future?

Originally posted by hammegk
You mean rather than you taking the alternative so we can discuss it?

Um ... I didn't mean "rather than" anything in particular, so I guess that would have to be a no. What "alternative" are you referring to me taking?


The rest of your response ...

BTW, pgwenthold has classified any debate out of existence imo.

Atheists usually seem to prefer not to be tied to such a well defined postion though.

Note, if you ain't 100% something, we got no debate at least some of the time.

... seems to be meant for someone else.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hammegk

BTW, pgwenthold has classified any debate out of existence imo.


Sorry pg et al, my bad. Whoops!

Revising:
BTW, pgwenthold has classified at least some of our debates out of existence imo.

And my real point was, your classes make sense to me. Who is willing to pick one & stick with it is my question.


for WMT1
Possible alternative: "Agnosticism is perfectly not logical"?

[Tom Head]

I don't mean this in any sort of negative way, but I wouldn't take a JREF poll as indicative of what the average atheist believes. Skepticism attracts a specific subset of atheists, and (in my experience) a disproportionately high number of strong atheists.


Cheers,

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
for WMT1
Possible alternative: "Agnosticism is perfectly not logical"?

Okay, since you and I both apparently believe that agnositicism is perfectly logical, you've just identified the "alternative" to both our viewpoints. Now what?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by WMT1


Now what?

Nothing. Just note with interest that we found a piece of common ground. Perhaps it will (maybe not) be useful in some future discussion we might have. :)

[DialecticMaterialist]

I would have to submit that someone who is 100% convinced that no god exists be classified as an "antitheist." The prefix 'a-' on the word "atheist" merely means "not" or "non." It does not mean "against" or "opposed". Perhaps we should discard the word "atheist" from the lexicon altogether in favor of the words "non-theist" (meaning one who merely does not subscribe to a theistic doctrine), and "antitheist" (meaning one who believes that no gods exist).
People like like hammegk and JK insist on classifying all admitted atheists as antitheists.


I'd really rather not get into the philosophy of what a noun or verb etc is or how to use a word. Basically I think language is more flexible then you are allowing. Saying "I'm an atheist" means "I a person that lacks belief in theism." While atheism might not be a noun, atheist is. Also I personally think the definition of atheist is ambiguous, it can mean negative: lack of belief in God. Or positive: belief there is no God. Basically though I think language is very complex and not as easily straight jacketed into these little categories "verb,noun,adjective" as many think it is.

[Smalso]

Some excellent points there. However, back to the point of the thread: There seems to be a feeling by some that what happened to India Tracy is acceptable because her beliefs are in the minority and that the Constitution does not protect her from discrimination and persecution because of that. (She is not an atheist as most of us understand the word. Her parents practice a religion called Paganism.) Yes or no, and why?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Smalso
Some excellent points there. However, back to the point of the thread: There seems to be a feeling by some that what happened to India Tracy is acceptable because her beliefs are in the minority and that the Constitution does not protect her from discrimination and persecution because of that. (She is not an atheist as most of us understand the word. Her parents practice a religion called Paganism.) Yes or no, and why?

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to delineate rights that cannot infringed upon, even by unanomous vote.