No, I don’t remember that. I remember a lot of bleating from atheists who do not comprehend that religious people can believe in secularism too, and that being part of the flaw in their thinking.
I don’t think the fact that the peasants are morons has anything to do with ideology. Again secular humanism is the status quo already and has been for years.
Ok, be pissed off. It’s irrelevant to me. If you do not represent the interests of the electorate you don’t get elected.
In what sense are the “interests of the electorate” harmed if an atheist is in office? There is, in all statistical likelihood, Congressman who are atheists but have put on a public face that they are religious. These congressmen may be doing a good job of representing their constitutients, but would be voted out if they answered a question truthfully about their beliefs.
The only answer then, is irrational prejudice on the part of the electorate. I want people to be less prejudiced than they are now. Is it irrational to at least try to make that happen?
Yes. There was a joke I heard on a show once htat sums things up quite well. ‘Do you go to church?’ ‘Yes’ ‘Do you believe in God?’ ‘No’ ‘Then why do you go to church?’ ‘Because I’m Catholic.’
Basically your fundamental ideas will reflect your agenda. For instance you believe the human race should be extinct. I will NEVER vote for you and will campaign against you. The moment you become proactive in your agenda you are my enemy, not simply an opposing viewpoint but actively my enemy because you believe in somethign fundamentally at odds with what I believe. It has nothing to do with fairness. You are not entitled to public office. So someone who wants to remove ‘Under God’ from the pledge does not represent those who think this is a Christian nation. Me, I believe in God, and I would do away with the pledge altogether as I think pledging allegiance to the flag is idolatry because it violates the separation of church and state by assuming that the state and the flag are holy in some way.
No it isn’t. You are irrationally prejudiced. Your atheist views put you at odds with people on fundamental key issues, and you are simply dismissing opposing views as being prejudiced bigotry, which is of course prejudiced bigotry in itself. It’s perfectly rational to try and fight for your views, just as it is rational to oppose your views if they conflict with mine. You do not represent secular humanism. Atheism and secularism are not synonyms. A secularist can be religious or not as long as they value the separation of church and state.
Not all opposing views are created equal. If Candidate X believes in Unicorns, I can justifiably be worried that his thought processes are less than entirely rational and refuse to vote for him accordingly. However, Candidate Y, who does NOT believe in Unicorns due to the lack of evidence, should not be thought of negatively because his “point of view” makes more sense.
Belief in God has just as much relevence to public policy as belief in Unicorns. That is, not at all.
Backtracking a little…
OK, I can see pro-life – but what would it mean to “care about faith-based issues”? That sounded like saying “atheist can get elected… as long as he panders to the religious right”, which I’m not sure is what you meant.
As a minor note, last week I had to give an impromptu speech and though I’m a hardcore atheist, I used the phrase “by the grace of almighty God” because it sounded cool.
Let me try to explain this is as best I can. For sure, people are much more willing to do things that offend atheists than things that offend Jews, Muslims, or members of any other religion. The reason for this is not an arbitrary bias in favor of faith or anything else, nor anything to do with powerful special interest groups. Rather, it’s a reaction to the what the various groups do.
I’ve debated members of many different religions, both online and in real life. That would include other Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and Hindus. All of them have been polite to me. Very polite, unfailing even when the debates got heated. I can think of no instance where any of them said anything inappropriate.
By contrast, most atheists I debate with are nasty. On this board, atheists have called me an idiot; called me insane; called me ignorant; compared me to a Nazi, a wife-beater, and a pedophile; and told just about any other nasty lie that they can come up with. All this only because I choose to be a follower of Jesus Christ, no other reason. And they often don’t stop there, but extend their tirade of insults and lies to my parents and other family members, my students, my friends, my pastor, and numerous other persons whom they have never met or heard a single word from.
And after all, Valteron, you should be well aware of this problem, since you’ve started so many threads devoted purely to expressing your hatred of Christians. Moreover you start them in Great Debates, which violates forum rules, and force the moderators to waste time moving them to the Pit. The bottom line is that everybody is an ambassador for what they believe in.
(It goes without saying (or at least it should) that this doesn’t apply to every atheist. Some are intelligent and unfailingly polite, like Revenant Threshhold. But they’re in the minority and tend to get drowned out.)
Given that divergence in behavior, it should be pretty easy to see why the result is divergence in treatment. If atheists were nicer, people would be nicer to them. Simple as that. As long you and others fall over yourselves into a contest to be as nasty as possible, you’re going to get treated in kind.
(And lastly, to those who say that behavior on a message board is not a fair means of judgment, I generally agree. In this case the behavior of the most prominent atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is just as bad, so the result would be the same if I responded to them.)
I have been shouted down on this very board by atheists who think religion shouldn’t appear anywhere in the public square.
Furthermore, two of the “great issues” facing atheists today listed in this thread are “Under God in the Pledge” and “In God We Trust on money”. The fact that these are your big causes (and equating it to the gay rights movement) is just bizarre. I know Valteron said he was gay, but comparing someone’s child being “forced” (and I use forced very loosely, because no one gives a shit about the Pledge beyond the 2nd grade) in school to a person being beaten and dragged behind a car is throwing yourself on the cross a bit too eagerly.
Anyone who attempts to make their case based on the idea that the “other side” is being shrill or hostile or rude is behaving foolishly while (deliberately?) ignoring the bad actors who favor their own position. In any public feud over religion, if you watch Fox or Trinity Broadcasting Network, you are going to see pious, quiet folk defending God while arrogant loudmouths attack God; if you watch the other three broadcast networks or CNN, you are liable to see slack-jawed yokels attacking unbelievers while quiet scholars defend their positions. Even on this board, posters are more likely to remember the two or three rude ranters who attacked them while ignoring the similar number of nutcases on their own side.
When I see claims that one side or the other has some exclusive lock on incivility, I know that I am reading a polemic that is not based in fact, where all the nuts on one’s own side are treated as simply individual emotional outbursts while any nut on the other side is deemed to be an archtype that represents all that is evil with the opposing position. We very definitely do have a couple of ranters on both sides of these discussions, (and there are currently a few more ranters on the anti-god side because many of the pro-god ranters have left), but these discussions would provide more enlightenment if the sane posters would simply ignore the nuts (or ask the nuts on their own side of the lines to tone it down).
Certainly anyone is entitled to vote against an atheist who believes that the human race should be extinct. But not all atheists believe this; I would venture to say the great majority of atheists would be as strongly opposed to the extinction of the human race as the great majority of theists would be. To not vote for any atheist on the grounds that you disagree with the views of one or a few atheists is as silly as saying you won’t vote for any theist on the grounds you disagree with the views of the Taliban or the Christian Reconstructionists.
Well, of course not. I wouldn’t expect the “Christian nation” crowd to vote for an open atheist. But the idea that this is a “Christian nation” (in anything but a purely demographic sense, in the same way this is a “Caucasian nation” or a “right-handed nation” or a “female nation”) is both factually incorrect and bigoted. I don’t think all theists are bigoted, though, and I would expect a fair-minded theist to be as willing to vote for an atheist (provided they agreed with that atheist’s political agenda) as they would for a different variety of theist (a Christian voting for a Jew or a Jew voting for a Christian).
“Secularism” and “secular humanism” are not the same thing. A theist can certainly support the separation of church and state; however, secular humanism, while going beyond simple atheism in what it supports, is an atheistic philosophy. It can’t be reduced to atheism, but it does include atheism, along with other ideas and beliefs.
I agree these aren’t really substantive human rights or civil liberties issues (with the possible exception of some situations that arise during daily PoA recitations in public schools). On the other hand, if these things are so unimportant, why can’t we change them? The country did perfectly well for over sixty years with a Pledge of Allegiance that did not include “under God”.
And if Congress had ever declared the national motto to be “We don’t believe in God”; well, that wouldn’t really affect the substantive rights or liberties of Christians or other believers–but I really doubt they’d be particularly philosophical about the point.
Some people are atheists because they reasoned things out and made a decision to reject theism while others may be atheist because of their culture or upbringing.
I don’t think people are born atheists. Atheism is taught just like any other belief system. Strong atheists do not believe in the existence of God or gods which is a strong belief and arguably as dogmatic as a belief in God.
Instead of having an atheist movement, a renewed focus and respect for science and reason, the enlightenment values of our forefathers, would be nice.
I can’t see how it could; it’d fall down at the “Uh, exactly *why *do you want us to congregate?” part. We can’t ‘sell’ Secular Humanism Group Events to people as a ‘fun day out for the family’: there’s no dancing (because nobody would agree on music), no singing, no dressing-up, no ceremony.
Folks who veer towards the mega-churches often do so (this is purely speculative evidence based on my experience with folks who belong to the mega-churches) because they feel the need for validation in their lives. They need to feel part of Something Bigger. They’re often unhappy with their lives and they want to feel like it All Makes Sense in the bigger scheme of things. They want to belong. They’re looking towards leadership that can show them how their lives will be better (if not now, then at least in the Afterlife).
Atheists, on the other hand, tend to be critical thinkers, individualists, and generally don’t take well to being told what to do. So saying ‘Hey, turn up to our Mega Anti-Church’ might work once if it sounded like a fun idea at the time, but you’ve got Buckley’s of convincing an atheist that giving up their Personal Time so they can hang out with a bunch of people they have nothing much else in common with is something they’d love to do.
But even if it could work, I’d kind of hope it didn’t. I don’t want to convert anyone to atheism; I’d like them to believe whatever makes them happy, provided it’s not hurting me. Taking away someone’s hope of an afterlife, a loving god, and a Reason For Everything isn’t an act of kindness; it’s an act of cruelty. If they get there by themselves because they’re able to face that idea, then great. If not, leave them alone if they’re not hurting anyone.
Missed the Edit window. :smack:
Just explaining that last bit, quoted above: the reason I don’t want it to work is that if an atheistic ‘Secular Humanism’ movement became like a mega-church, you can bet your little cotton socks that the next step would be the assumption that it’s okay to ‘convert the ignorant’. It’s what happens when large groups of people get together and decide They’re Right; the hive mind/mob mentality takes over and they decide that other people have to know What’s Right too.
Isn’t this what we complain about with Christianity? Decent set of core values, sadly ruined by a bunch of folks for whom it isn’t just enough to believe, they have to get together, revel in their righteousness, and go out and correct the poor fools who have differing opinions?
I’m grateful for the dialog that Sam Harris and other atheists have thrust into public awareness. I remember reading The End of Faith in a restaurant at lunch and two ladies gesturing toward me as if reading it was some insult or unfortunate tragedy. As a believer I think the attention should be on finding the truth and allowing religion to hold their myths in protected status does no good to the truth or humanity as a whole. I’ve never been surprised by someone’s atheism or thought less of them because of it. It amazes me that so many people seem to be woefully ignorant about it. More atheists speaking out can only help educate the general public.
I’m not sure about the aggressive part. How would that be expressed? However, since people seem comfortable and even proud as they try to shove their religious beliefs and personal moral view onto others, using a 2000 year old book to justify themselves, I suppose it would be just balance to have a group of atheists declare they’re sick of that crap. It can get ugly at times but striving for a truly reasoned debate is a worthwhile goal.
The old, “they bring it on themselves by being such awful people” line. That bit of jutification for bigotry has been used on so many groups (blacks, Jews, gays) that I will not even waste my time refuting it.
Your contention that I hate Christians is a gratuitous *ad hominem *argument that would be limited by the moderator if he did not so intensely dislike me.
The only thing people like Dawkins refuse to do, which you interpret as nastiness, is refuse to cater to the illogical idea that as soon as something is a matter of “faith” (lower your eyes modestly when you say it) it suddenly becomes immune to criticism, no matter what illogical and even destructive ideas the religion is spouting.
You think too much of what I might think of you.
However, the assertion that you do not like Christians is an observation, (correct or incorrect), about your actions based on your words. It is not an example of name calling. Ad hominem arguments are not prohibited in this forum, but like all errors of logic, they are expected to be corrected by the paticipants, not by mods.
For once you have posted an actual debate in GD, rather than a rant based on a less than honest presentation of some event. Rather than poking the mods with a stick to get our attention, why don’t you just enjoy the fact that you finally posted a decent thread that I have not had to move.
By Jove (no, I do not believe in Jove, I just use the expression:p). I honestly thought that that ridiculous “Atheism is a form of faith” line had been sooooo thoroughly discredited by now that nobody dared to use it. I guess I was wrong.
I do not believe there is right now a large bull elephant in the master bedroom of my third-floor walk-up condo. Have I been to check? No, as a matter of fact I have not been to check. There is enough room for one, but apart from that, the idea seems highly unlikely. And most impostant, there is not an iota of evidence that would lead me to believe it. I have not heard trumpeting, or heard the sounds of a large animal moving around. Do I require faith and dogma NOT to believe it? NOOOO! Not in the least. It is the normal default position of a logical human being.
Next to me is a friend who believes there IS a large bull elephant in the master bedroom. How does he know? Has he been to check? Has he seen it? No. But he has in his posession a book of unknown authorship that says that large bull elephants appear in master bedrooms on December 21 in certain locations. He has interpreted various prophetic passages in the book to mean that one has appeared in our bedroom over the past few hours. They call this book the elephant Bible. He is convinced that when the time is right, he will take the elephant out and sell it to a circus for a nice profit. When I ask him if he is fucking crazy, he lowers his eyes, says it is a matter of Faith (which the dictionary defines as belief without evidence). So apparently I have to respect his ability to believe things that are patently absurd without evidence, or I am a nasty Aelephantist.
Faith is the act of believing something without evidence. I have never seen a dictionary that also defined “Faith” as the failure to believe something because there is no evidence for it. Have you, Annie?
You are aware the “nasty anelephantist” label comes from the asking if he’s “fucking crazy” and not from doubting the validity of his beliefs, right?
It would be nice to have one of these discussions that did not get sidetracked into the meaning of “atheism,”
The Wikipedia article notes, under etymology:
In other words, the various folks who wander into these threads insisting that atheism is an affirmative belief have the weight of history and etymology on their side, however, those atheists who prefer to define it as an absence of belief should be permitted to use the newer definition that they use in their internal discussions without other folks nitpicking that usage.
Neither side has the right to claim that the other usage is “wrong,” and discussions would procede more smoothly if each side simply accepted the other side’s usage for its intent by their opponents.
In other words, everyone knows what the other side means; quit trying to tell them they cannot use the word their way.