If I’d’ve known that was all you wanted, I would’ve given it to you years ago.
Although I find the personal perspective of the article quite repellent, I agree with his overall conclusion. I wish everyone in the country could read this article.
What’s kind of interesting is the ignorant assumption that Buddhism (and Shinto) are automatically “inimical” to his faith. I can’t speak for Shinto, but I know that it’s entirely possible, from the Buddhist perspective, to be a Buddhist Christian. A shame that the tolerance doesn’t go the other way.
Here is an example of this. In The Age of Reason, Tom Paine spends a lot of time explaining why he does not believe in Christianity. But he was not an atheist. He talks about how the arrangement of the planets in the solar system cannot be accidental, and led him to believe in a deity. A deistic one, who did not interfere, but a deity nonetheless.
I wonder if Paine would still be a deist if he lived today, and could have learned that a god is not necessary to explain the solar system. I think this is an example of how ignorance of the true cause of something led many to invent a supernatural cause.
I’ve long thought that many or most of the deists of 200 years ago would be atheists today. It just wasn’t that plausible to them that the world got to this state without being put here by someone. If they had access to our knowledge of astrophysics and evolution, they could let go of those ideas, exactly as we modern atheists have done.
And I wish that I’d been paying attention when I changed didn’t to [don’t] instead of [doesn’t]. :smack:
As for the tone, he does sound a bit self-satisfied with his Christianity, doesn’t he? With regard to accepting other religions, I’m pretty sure that Christians are allowed to worship at the Altar of the Holy Potato. So, you know, baby steps.
Look, ambushed, you’re barking up the wrong tree here. A person expressing their beliefs in public is not the same thing as some sort of permanent or semipermanent display on public property. Public property is in fact owned by the government, so such a display is implicitly sanctioned by the government. Likewise, a government employee expressing religious beliefs to an audience while on the job (e.g., a teacher leading prayer at a school function) also implies government sanction of those beliefs. If that same teacher is on the subway and starts handing out Chick tracts, there is no implication of government sanction, unless the teacher is trying to have a prayer meeting on campus or something like that.
What we object to is not the expression of religious belief in public, but the appearance of government sanction of religious belief.
That’s absurd and picayune hair-splitting that is utterly irrelevant to everything I’ve written. Religiosity is absolutely, positively, definitely NOT ignorance! Ignorance usually plays a role, but to equate or blame religiosity on NOTHING but ignorance is mind-bogglingly stupid and ignorant! Over and over again I’ve explained why, but you keep ignoring what I’ve written and thus have retained your profoundly ignorant assertion against all reason and logic. You’re demonstrating the very worst aspect of too many of our atheist colleagues: extremely arrogant over-simplification and mindless demonization of theists. I dearly wish there were FAR fewer such as you on our side. After all, aren’t we the ones who are supposed to value and rely most strongly on reason and science? But you aren’t doing that! You’re even foolishly asserting that the words “religiosity” and “ignorance” are exact synonyms, which is patently false!
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE??? Ignorance is defined as the lack of knowledge! Don’t you know what your words mean? When you repeatedly asserted that religiosity=ignorance, you’re IMPLICITY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY saying that religiosity can ONLY be fought with the opposite of ignorance, which is knowledge! It’s called logic. Look into it.
That utterly and completely contradicts what you’ve been saying all along. It’s what I’ve been saying all along, but that’s exactly the opposite of what you’ve been saying all along!
THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU"VE JUST SAID IN THOSE LAST TWO QUOTED SENTENCES!! :smack: You can’t even keep straight what you’re saying! You’re all over the place. Your thinking and writing is horribly, horribly muddled and unbelievably ignorant. I can only hope everyone knows that as well as I do and ignores you. You’re terribly hurting atheists and atheism.
Open it may be (just like a garbage can, perhaps?), but it also appears to be replete with misunderstandings, ignorance, unscientific and sometimes sophomoric thinking, and error.
I obviously understand it far better than you. Especially since you clearly implicitly agree with TimeWinder that, among all the other things he’s listed, NO ONE has EVER tried to remove the Ten Commandments from courthouses and other public buildings!
Yes or No: Has anyone ever tried to remove the Ten Commandments from courthouses or other public buildings? If they have, then you agree with me that TimeWinder’s claims in the post in question are FALSE, which is all I’ve said. If you think they haven’t, then please carefully explain exactly why and how the court’s cases, judgements, and their records on this issue are completely fabricated, such as in the case of Glassroth v. Moore.
Only if you agree to switch to honesty.
AARGH! How can you and Cervaise possibly believe I’m so incredibly ignorant that I don’t know all that perfectly well and agree entirely? I HAVE NEVER DISPUTED ANY OF THAT NOR HAVE I EVER CLAIMED ANYTHING REMOTELY TO THE CONTRARY! I am an educated man and a secularist and atheist and I’m familiar with the full range of meanings and implications of the First Amendment and it’s related jurisprudence. It’s utterly unjust and insulting that you and Cervaise keep talking down to me. I’ve very long known and agreed with everything you said, but your and Cervais’s responses to me are utterly and completely off point and irrelevant to my posts and the issue at hand!
I don’t understand how you two can so completely misunderstand the extreme simplicity of what I’m saying. You must be reading things that simply are NOT there! You’re not reading me literally enough. You’re not taking what I’ve written at face value. It is EXTREMELY simple and straightforward, but you’re imagining all kinds of things I never said.
Look: PLEASE read carefully and work with me here. This is about NOTHING more than correcting TimeWinder’s profoundly false assertions that NO ONE has EVER tried to limit ANY public display of faith. That’s all I’ve ever said! I’m sorry to sound condescending in return, but please recall and consider what the words “NO ONE”, “EVER”, and “ANY” mean. They’re absolutes. They don’t allow ANY exceptions or interpretations or nuances. Don’t you see that TimeWinder’s assertion that NO ONE has EVER tried to limit ANY public display of faith necessarily includes even those public displays of faith that are clearly and indisputably (and illegally) examples of the official government sanction of religious belief?
So I ask you this Yes or No question: Is it true that NO ONE has EVER tried to limit ANY public displays of faith, even those that involve official government sanction of religion?
If you answer “No” – the only possible answer that comports with reality – then you are agreeing with me that TimeWinder was wrong, and thus you are agreeing with what I wrote to TW (since all I said is such absolute claims are false). But if you answer “Yes”, then you have to explain why and how every single report of such attempts in all American history are nothing but lies.
Ambushed, please switch to the decaf. You’ve used up a week’s alotment of boldface for the entire SDMB.
Yes, I see the point you were making and I see where it is frustrating that others have not grapsed it, but it is counterproductive to get so worked up over that particular point, (particularly when you are fighting with people who are mostly on your own side of the larger debate).
It has affected your attitude to the point where you are getting dangerously close to hurling personal insults (your “garbage can” comment) over what is, basically, a pretty trivial misunderstanding.
You’re arguing against a point that TimeWinder never made. Do us all a favor and reread these quotes carefully. The first one is from TimeWinder’s first post in this thread.
This one is from a clarifying post later in the thread.
It’s quite obvious that when he said “you” in the first post, he was referring to private citizens displaying their personal faith. You’re seeing giants where there are nothing but windmills.
Not all Christians feel persecuted, just those who have doubts about their beliefs unless every one believes the same as they do. The first and early Christians didn’t display their faith in public places, I think the modern Christians in the USA have sincere doubts about their own faith and there fore are afraid they may be wrong and need bolstering up by public display.
If they really trusted in their God they would just pray and live as their faith instructs them to do.
Before the 50’s" Under God" was not added to the Pledge, The world is no better since it was added. Displaying The Ten Commandments doesn’t help to convert anyone. The majority of people in Prisons are not atheists.
There is a difference in being spiritual and religious. Jesus pointed this out(According to the gospel writer) in his criticism of the Pharisees .for makeing a public display of their faith instead of just living it. Being religious is not ignorance as religion appeals to the emotions and satisfies an emotional need to most believers.
Monavis
Jumping back for a second to the OP, I thought I’d read recently that “Believe in God, but not a member of any religion” was becoming much more common (we live in a red state with strong church affiliations, so such stories are always news-worthy). I couldn’t find the exact article, but here’s a site with data on various polls that mentions the phenomenon.
While I agree that atheism is a valid option that deserves representation (and has helped keep religions in check), it’s my opinion that the growth of “Spiritual, not religious” is a more hopeful sign. “God” is not the problem, per se; it’s the organized part of organized religion that causes trouble.
Which was exactly Michael Newdow’s point that he took to the Supreme Court.
ambushed, In spite of all you’ve said, I still feel that my simple formula has not been logically defeated, its been attacked, put down, and lashed out at by you, but not defeated. To paraphrase a quote, we are men of action, tantrums do not become us.
I’ve already disputed that statement, but I want to add further evidence that your view is not widely held. I quote from this article from TIME magazine:
You disagree and you think I’m lying. I got that the first time.
No, I absolutely do NOT think you’re lying! I think you’re mistaken.
Hallelujah!
Thank you!
Trivial misunderstanding or not, the fact that all the others plainly couldn’t grasp my extremely simple point drove me to utter distraction. I’ve rarely known such frustration! Personally, I thought I handled myself with considerable self-restraint in the face of such puzzlingly inadequate comprehension.