Proselytizing
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. How does creating a radio program to discuss atheist topics qualify as establishing atheism as a religion? It simply creates a forum for discussion.
Well I contend two things in support of my point: 1) Atheism is a theological belief system. 2) Atheism is increasingly organizing itself like an organized religion. Religions all have certain common threads. They have an underlying belief system (i.e. theology). They tend to have some structure with leaders or respected individuals who interpret and disseminate that structure (atheism has several now). They have a well-defined moral structure such that deviation is considered irreligious (secular humanism and multiculturalism are designed for the atheist). And they also have a strong tendency to prosteytize such that members compel others to become like-minded. That last element is clearly evident in this radio show (and in recently published books designed to convince some new recruits). I also find this part (from the article) interesting:
There was also an interview with an advocate for a U.S. soldier stationed in Iraq
(a "very brave atheist in a foxhole," the hosts called him) who is suing the Pentagon
and his Army major for allegedly stopping an atheists meeting he tried to hold on
base.The first amendment restricts government from establishing a religion (which is not relevant here) and from restricting practice thereof (which is). If this lawsuit is based on the first amendment, then it seems to be designed to protect the organized religious practices of atheists. The host of this atheist radio show apparently endorses that idea.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Well I contend two things in support of my point: 1) Atheism is a theological belief system. 2) Atheism is increasingly organizing itself like an organized religion.
#1 - False. You can not say that belief = theology. I believe that there is no god. Just like I believe that the sky is blue and the earth is round. You cannot say that I am in any way practicing a religion simply because of my belief of a lack of such a construct just you cannot say that everyone that believes the sky is blue is a member of a religion. #2 - Organizing is organizing, plan and simple. Religions have structure just like corporations do. If you don't believe that take an organizational behavior class. To run ANY organization you need a cohesive structure or it all falls apart.
Red Stateler wrote:
They have a well-defined moral structure such that deviation is considered irreligious
I am not really sure exactly what to say to this other than my moral code comes from ME and I think that is what makes an atheist different form a non-atheist. MY moral code is driven by what I know and feel is right, not from some third party that tells me what is right. Yes, there is an overlying moral code, most people know what is considered right or wrong, and we all follow it, but so does EVERYONE so once again, mine is not a matter of religion.
Red Stateler wrote:
And they also have a strong tendency to prosteytize such that members compel others to become like-minded.
DUH, and so do users of PCs instead of MACs and Pepsi drinkers instead of Coke, and the list goes on and on... It is human nature to cluster in groups of like minded people. It provides us with a sense of community that the normal human mind craves. It kept us alive when we were apes and then latter on as we evolved into man. Do I really care if I am an atheist and my Neighbor is not? Nope. He is free to practice what ever he wants as long as he does not get any of it on me.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem isn't that atheism is a religion per se, it is a question of what substitutes for moral authority without the moral authority inherent in religious tenents.
I just can't figure out the source of your paranoia. No one is removing religion from people's lives. Everyone is free to attend the church of their choice, to raise and educate their children in the religion of their choice, to send them to a religious school, or home school them, and to assert church and family as the dominant moral authorities in their lives. Children are free to form bible study groups, prayer groups, animal sacrifice groups, whatever, as long as they do it off the grounds of the federal institution they attend. We have yet to elect an agnostic president, much less one who is atheist; I would guess that the number of atheists in elected and appointed positions is statistically zero. Our children recite "one nation, under God." Our money bears the slogan "In God We Trust". Where do you get the idea that atheism/secular humanism is a threat?
Because 'secular government' is increasingly interpreted as meaning that government is empowered to contain and control religion. That somehow a secular government is specifically responsible to defend the non-religious from the religious. That drives religion from its traditional role of defining the moral foundations of society and gives it completely to those who control government. Certainly the Christian origins of our civilization remain very visible as well they should be. But government has now established that it has the legitimate authority to control when, where and how religion is exercised, creating a very strict and specific interpretation of 'free exercise of religion'. This does nothing but encourage the rise of religious fundamentalism determined to control that power itself as a reaction. It creates an inevitable and unnecessary conflict between the church and the state that has never before existed in our society. -- modified at 18:42 Friday 12th October, 2007 -- modified at 18:43 Friday 12th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Do we truly need a moral authority? We should stand by the things that are truly moral and let the rest go to society... Examples... Moral Truth Don't Kill other people. --> Not sure of any society where people are allowed to go around killing others for no reason. could probably only list about a dozen more before they belong in the list below. Society Nudity --> Decided by society as what is acceptable and where. Generally prohibited in the US, cool in Europe. Alcohol Consumption --> Decided by society. Good for everybody but M&Ms (Muslims and Mormons) Hogan
snorkie wrote:
Do we truly need a moral authority?
Morality without authority is merely opinion.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
What facts? What evidence? You can't prove nor disprove.
The facts and evidence in the archaeological and historical records that show the events in the bible did not occur. The fact that Christianity was built on the foundations of pagan religions who worshiped other gods, the fact that the bible (supposedly from a divine source) is not internally consistent. The list goes on... you have the synoptic problem, a lack of archaeological evidence and in some cases archaeological evidence that directly conflicts with the supposedly "divine" nature of scripture. Genesis is glaringly wrong, for instance, yet it is the literal word of God. How could God be wrong? Is Genesis not meant to be interpreted literally? Well, perhaps the entire Bible is not supposed to be literally interpreted then - perhaps it's just a nice fable...which, really, that's what it is - a complicated discourse on morality. Nothing less, nothing more.
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
you have the synoptic problem, a lack of archaeological evidence and in some cases archaeological evidence that directly conflicts with the supposedly "divine" nature of scripture.
You presume to assume in arrogance. You don't know me well enough to diagnose me. There was historical evidence recently of the parting of the Red Sea by Moses. Funny though, they found natural causes to reflect and support it. There is a lot of material under that sea that produces the Red, and a potential quake that could have retracted the sea, which incidentally they think is a mistranslation of the Reed Sea. So, not divine, but historical. Your assertions are not entirely correct. And I don't consider the bible divine. I consider it a book of parables written by Man. Sometimes divinely inspired, sometimes human inspired. That's how I view it. But then I am an Agnostic Christian. Meaning that the language of Jesus, not the people afterward, but the words directly attributed to him are meaningful enough to me to listen and take them to heart. But I don't follow any organized social construct that pretends to be religion. In my view true religion is very personal and can only be on a one to one basis. Me and my concept of God. Which is only a concept til proven through experience. I've had enough experiences to lead me to accept it on faith. But I also recognize that I could be wrong. So I don't push it on to others. I also don't ridicule those who don't agree with me by calling their world views "fairy tales or fables". So, really you should speak about what you know, which doesn't include my personal views and beliefs. Or you disregard this advice and continue to insult people who don't think like you. But then you'd just be an a s s h o l e.
This statement was never false.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
There's a push among atheists recently to consciously define their atheism in terms of what it IS (positive beliefs)
To me, there is an issue with using the term "belief." I prefer the term idea or philosophy simply because it opens the door for rational discourse and an open mind. From my point of view, a belief is immutable. I may just be a bit uptight about the terminology so please forgive me if I am being pedantic.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
For me I choose not to believe. But to keep my eyes open to the possibilities, and that includes the possibility of God. An open minded skepticism if you will. Sure, I want to believe, but I'm constantly reminded by 5 words from Robert Anton Wilson: "Whatever You Believe Imprisons You".
This statement was never false.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
- Atheism is a theological belief system. 2) Atheism is increasingly organizing itself like an organized religion.
I think you're mistaking structure for the appearance of religion. While I don't doubt that many atheists go out and try to 'convert' others, the more well-known atheists don't really make any attempt to do so. Religion also obviously has a theological component that cannot be compared to the organizing of ideology done by atheists. Merely organizing to share what you have in common cannot be said to be religion, otherwise we'd call every group of every sort 'religion', completely diluting the meaning of the word.
Red Stateler wrote:
If this lawsuit is based on the first amendment, then it seems to be designed to protect the religious practices of atheists. The host of this atheist radio show apparently endorses that idea.
The amendment says "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yes, I realize that seems to lead to a contradiction in which atheism would have to be classed 'religion' in order to qualify for the protection of the amendment. But I would say that's an entirely far too literal reading of the amendment. Interestingly, I don't remember a case in which SCOTUS has ever actually ruled on that point. So we'd just be speculating by trying to argue that point anyway.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
Religion also obviously has a theological component that cannot be compared to the organizing of ideology done by atheists. Merely organizing to share what you have in common cannot be said to be religion, otherwise we'd call every group of every sort 'religion', completely diluting the meaning of the word.
So call it an organized belief system then.
-
snorkie wrote:
Do we truly need a moral authority?
Morality without authority is merely opinion.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Because 'secular government' is increasingly interpreted as meaning that government is empowered to contain and control religion. That somehow a secular government is specifically responsible to defend the non-religious from the religious. That drives religion from its traditional role of defining the moral foundations of society and gives it completely to those who control government. Certainly the Christian origins of our civilization remain very visible as well they should be. But government has now established that it has the legitimate authority to control when, where and how religion is exercised, creating a very strict and specific interpretation of 'free exercise of religion'. This does nothing but encourage the rise of religious fundamentalism determined to control that power itself as a reaction. It creates an inevitable and unnecessary conflict between the church and the state that has never before existed in our society. -- modified at 18:42 Friday 12th October, 2007 -- modified at 18:43 Friday 12th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
How does the inability to pray in school prevent a person from praying at home, at church, while driving, at Starbucks, or anyplace else? How does keeping religion out of schools and government offices in any way keep church and family from doing a job that was theirs to do all along? Outside of government institutions, government has no authority to control when, where, and how religion is exercised, nor has it attempted to assert any authority (apart from localized cases of bureaucratic demagoguery). There can be no conflict between church and state so long as they remain separate.
-
Precisely.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
How does the inability to pray in school prevent a person from praying at home, at church, while driving, at Starbucks, or anyplace else? How does keeping religion out of schools and government offices in any way keep church and family from doing a job that was theirs to do all along? Outside of government institutions, government has no authority to control when, where, and how religion is exercised, nor has it attempted to assert any authority (apart from localized cases of bureaucratic demagoguery). There can be no conflict between church and state so long as they remain separate.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Outside of government institutions
What does it mean to be outside of a government institution? What is a government institution? Government keeps growing. Why is a local public school a government institution? When did that happen? Only a few generations ago it was simply a place parents sent their kids to learn about their civilization, includeing their Christian traditions. It was not a 'government institution' just becasue it was funded with local tax revenue, but just a little building with kids in it. Governments are already telling people they can't smoke in private businesses and trying to do the same in places considered private abodes. Are those government institutions? When health care is nationalized will hospitals and clinics thereby be government institutions? If I'm living off welfare is my home a government institution? Who will get to make those definitions? Why, secularists, of course. Who else could be trusted with such power? Christians? As secular government grows so does secularism along with the power of secularists. The inevitable conclusion is not difficult to predict. Secular-humanism is a set of political and moral principles specifically engineered to take advantage of a secular government at the expense of other competing principles and philosophies. It does not represent the promise of secular government, it represents the death of it. -- modified at 21:24 Friday 12th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
you have the synoptic problem, a lack of archaeological evidence and in some cases archaeological evidence that directly conflicts with the supposedly "divine" nature of scripture.
You presume to assume in arrogance. You don't know me well enough to diagnose me. There was historical evidence recently of the parting of the Red Sea by Moses. Funny though, they found natural causes to reflect and support it. There is a lot of material under that sea that produces the Red, and a potential quake that could have retracted the sea, which incidentally they think is a mistranslation of the Reed Sea. So, not divine, but historical. Your assertions are not entirely correct. And I don't consider the bible divine. I consider it a book of parables written by Man. Sometimes divinely inspired, sometimes human inspired. That's how I view it. But then I am an Agnostic Christian. Meaning that the language of Jesus, not the people afterward, but the words directly attributed to him are meaningful enough to me to listen and take them to heart. But I don't follow any organized social construct that pretends to be religion. In my view true religion is very personal and can only be on a one to one basis. Me and my concept of God. Which is only a concept til proven through experience. I've had enough experiences to lead me to accept it on faith. But I also recognize that I could be wrong. So I don't push it on to others. I also don't ridicule those who don't agree with me by calling their world views "fairy tales or fables". So, really you should speak about what you know, which doesn't include my personal views and beliefs. Or you disregard this advice and continue to insult people who don't think like you. But then you'd just be an a s s h o l e.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
73Zeppelin wrote: you have the synoptic problem, a lack of archaeological evidence and in some cases archaeological evidence that directly conflicts with the supposedly "divine" nature of scripture. You presume to assume in arrogance.
Hey Chris, I hope you didn't take that particular part of Zeppelin's statement personally - the synoptic problem is a question of the relation between the gospels of the Bible, and the inconsistencies between them. "You have the synoptic problem" wasn't referring to you specifically, but to the global 'you' meaning, the problem exists. As for the rest.. that's between you and him. I just thought I'd clarify that point.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Al Beback wrote:
But I'm curious, what religion do dog owners fall under? How about car enthusiasts? Or baseball fans? They all seem to be pretty organized. They have websites. Their organizations hold meetings periodically to discuss their interests. And they even have special radio and TV shows! God, they're so damn religious!
None of them have been able to illigitimately claim that the government belongs to them because it is 'secular' as the atheists have. A better analogy would be if the government had been founded upon the concept of 'separation of pet preference and state' and that had come to be interpreted by people who have no pets to mean that those who do should not be allowed to have a say in government concerning animals pet preferences, when actually it was only meant to prevent the government from forcing people who love dogs to own cats. -- modified at 18:40 Friday 12th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
None of them have been able to illigitimately claim that the government belongs to them because it is 'secular' as the atheists have.
Secularists don't claim ownership of government. They just want religious motivation to be left out of -- separated from -- the legal process. Secularists welcome religious people in government. In fact, many secularists are religious. It's one thing to pass a law that, for example, prohibits smoking in public places for health and safety reasons; and another to say that it's prohibited because the Book of Mormon says it's wrong. What if the holy book says that it's your duty to attend church every Sunday; would you then favor a law mandating that everyone does so? What if the Jews in town say that they would prefer a law that prohibited people from driving on Saturdays? And another one that banned pork and shellfish from restaurants and supermarkets? Then the Christians would line up to propose that Good Friday be made a public holiday, and that 10% of your salary would be automatically sent to the local church. And the Catholics would dictate that all newspapers must print the name of the Saint being celebrated on that day, and that everyone must listen to the Pope's daily radio address. Is this the kind of non-secular society you're after? Or just the one where the majority gets to impose their religious laws upon the rest of the population?
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Outside of government institutions
What does it mean to be outside of a government institution? What is a government institution? Government keeps growing. Why is a local public school a government institution? When did that happen? Only a few generations ago it was simply a place parents sent their kids to learn about their civilization, includeing their Christian traditions. It was not a 'government institution' just becasue it was funded with local tax revenue, but just a little building with kids in it. Governments are already telling people they can't smoke in private businesses and trying to do the same in places considered private abodes. Are those government institutions? When health care is nationalized will hospitals and clinics thereby be government institutions? If I'm living off welfare is my home a government institution? Who will get to make those definitions? Why, secularists, of course. Who else could be trusted with such power? Christians? As secular government grows so does secularism along with the power of secularists. The inevitable conclusion is not difficult to predict. Secular-humanism is a set of political and moral principles specifically engineered to take advantage of a secular government at the expense of other competing principles and philosophies. It does not represent the promise of secular government, it represents the death of it. -- modified at 21:24 Friday 12th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is a government institution?
An institution financed by tax dollars. That is, an institution maintained with money from individuals with all sorts of religious beliefs, if any.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Only a few generations ago it was simply a place parents sent their kids to learn about their civilization, includeing their Christian traditions.
Such as? I don't remember any mention of the Bible in my Biology class. The only "Christian tradition" was the two-week break that included Christmas and New Years.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Governments are already telling people they can't smoke in private businesses and trying to do the same in places considered private abodes. Are those government institutions?
No, the smoking law is equivalent to the law that states that it's illegal to kill anyone inside a private business. ;P
Stan Shannon wrote:
When health care is nationalized will hospitals and clinics thereby be government institutions?
No. The government would simply be paying for patient care, like an insurance company would.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I'm living off welfare is my home a government institution?
No, now you're really stretching your big-evil-government paranoia.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Secular-humanism is a set of political and moral principles specifically engineered to take advantage of a secular government at the expense of other competing principles and philosophies.
The only competing principle is theocracy. Which ancient religious book do you want modern society to be ruled by?
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
you have the synoptic problem, a lack of archaeological evidence and in some cases archaeological evidence that directly conflicts with the supposedly "divine" nature of scripture.
You presume to assume in arrogance. You don't know me well enough to diagnose me. There was historical evidence recently of the parting of the Red Sea by Moses. Funny though, they found natural causes to reflect and support it. There is a lot of material under that sea that produces the Red, and a potential quake that could have retracted the sea, which incidentally they think is a mistranslation of the Reed Sea. So, not divine, but historical. Your assertions are not entirely correct. And I don't consider the bible divine. I consider it a book of parables written by Man. Sometimes divinely inspired, sometimes human inspired. That's how I view it. But then I am an Agnostic Christian. Meaning that the language of Jesus, not the people afterward, but the words directly attributed to him are meaningful enough to me to listen and take them to heart. But I don't follow any organized social construct that pretends to be religion. In my view true religion is very personal and can only be on a one to one basis. Me and my concept of God. Which is only a concept til proven through experience. I've had enough experiences to lead me to accept it on faith. But I also recognize that I could be wrong. So I don't push it on to others. I also don't ridicule those who don't agree with me by calling their world views "fairy tales or fables". So, really you should speak about what you know, which doesn't include my personal views and beliefs. Or you disregard this advice and continue to insult people who don't think like you. But then you'd just be an a s s h o l e.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You don't know me well enough to diagnose me. T
Shows how much you know about Biblical research. Try googling for "synoptic problem". As for the rest of your little tirade - if you are completely unaware of the synoptic problem, well then, you've got a long way to go. Anyway you've called me an asshole with no justification other than your own ignorance. You can't even keep an academic discussion civil or take the 2 seconds required to complete a google search in order to avoid making stupid comments and unjustified insults. I think I've wasted enough time with you.
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
There are? I'm sure this is news to everyone.. please share.
There very existence of the universe, consciousness, historical accounts. More than there is evidence that there is no God, anyway.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Isn't this a contradiction? If there are facts and evidence for the existence of God, wouldn't that lend itself to some sort of proof, even if not one with absolute certainty?
Evidence isn't "proof". That's why in a trial, a prosecutor submits "evidence" which the jury reviews.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Absolutely. Which is why many atheists don't actually assert that there is no God - they simply don't believe in one (distinct from not believing that any exists).
Asserting that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable is agnosticism and it's quite funny how quickly an "atheist" retreats into agnosticism when his supposedly sound and logical reasons for his beliefs are tested. In reality, the breed of atheism pushed these days is a contradiction in this regard.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I think this is the fundamental place where we disagree. The only way atheists can be taken seriously is to establish a social structure that demonstrates that atheists are not "ZOMG THEM DEMONS." This essentially means organizing. As I note above, merely organizing can't be equated to religion, as it renders the word meaningless.
Organization, when it pertains to theology, is the very definition of religion.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Hm. CP didn't email me of this reply. Ok.
Red Stateler wrote:
Asserting that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable is agnosticism and it's quite funny how quickly an "atheist" retreats into agnosticism when his supposedly sound and logical reasons for his beliefs are tested. In reality, the breed of atheism pushed these days is a contradiction in this regard.
No. You're confuting the assertions of agnosticism with the practical appearance of atheism, and you're still operating under the faulty dichotomy of ONLY agnosticism OR atheism. As I posted above, there are 4 distinct categories, none of which are open agnosticism (agnosticism is epistemological; atheism is, in a sense, a more practical implementation). Personally, while the statement that "the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable" is true, it has nothing to do with why I am atheist. It has everything to do with why I don't try to convince anyone I'm right, but it has nothing to do with my motivations. I think it did at the beginning, but it's a fairly primitive view and one I quickly grew out of. I was once devout Christian. As I grew older, and more curious about the world, I found religious explanations of the world unsatisfying and frankly, far too limiting. So I shed them. I shed belief in God less because of some argument about whether a god or gods exist, but more because I asserted that meaningful moral and ethical rules could be derived without it (as a consequence of finding religious arguments unsatisfying). Consequently, I simply lack a belief in God. I make no claim as to a god's existence. I am frankly uninterested in whether a god or god(s) exist. I've examined that question as far as I can without running into the same arguments again, and it's why I don't debate the point with anyone. It's boring, because nobody ever has anything new to say. I'm more interested in how humans build societies based on those beliefs or lack thereof.
Red Stateler wrote:
Organization, when it pertains to theology, is the very definition of religion.
Sure. But then you'd have to argue that atheism is a theology, which it isn't. A theology is marked by an affirmative belief in God (and I checked 2 major dictionaries AND several seminary writings before making that claim - none leave room to describe atheism as a theology. The prefix 'theo' itself means God - the study of God).
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What is a government institution?
An institution financed by tax dollars. That is, an institution maintained with money from individuals with all sorts of religious beliefs, if any.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Only a few generations ago it was simply a place parents sent their kids to learn about their civilization, includeing their Christian traditions.
Such as? I don't remember any mention of the Bible in my Biology class. The only "Christian tradition" was the two-week break that included Christmas and New Years.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Governments are already telling people they can't smoke in private businesses and trying to do the same in places considered private abodes. Are those government institutions?
No, the smoking law is equivalent to the law that states that it's illegal to kill anyone inside a private business. ;P
Stan Shannon wrote:
When health care is nationalized will hospitals and clinics thereby be government institutions?
No. The government would simply be paying for patient care, like an insurance company would.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I'm living off welfare is my home a government institution?
No, now you're really stretching your big-evil-government paranoia.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Secular-humanism is a set of political and moral principles specifically engineered to take advantage of a secular government at the expense of other competing principles and philosophies.
The only competing principle is theocracy. Which ancient religious book do you want modern society to be ruled by?
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
You still fail to grasp the crucial point. It is one thing to have secular government, it is another entirely to have secular government and a political movement which identifies itself as 'secular' rather than religious and therefore has a more legitimate claim upon the mechanisms of government than groups who are not identifiably secular. In other words, secular government was created in order to disallow factions and groups to control government in order to establish their moral agenda. So what do those do who want to control the moral agenda? The simply call themselves 'secualr progressives' or something similar and claim exclusive right to control the secular government. You continue to imply that I am argueing for society being controlled by non-secular forces. I don't. THe point is that merely because the government itself is secular secularists should not get to control it. Everyone gets to, secularist or not. Secular government does not exist to protect anyone from the free expression of religious faith, anywhere, any place, any time. If such expression becomes sufficienty offensive, than there should be ample authority at the local level of government for those offended to do something about it. That is secular government, not a government controled by secularists.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
You still fail to grasp the crucial point. It is one thing to have secular government, it is another entirely to have secular government and a political movement which identifies itself as 'secular' rather than religious and therefore has a more legitimate claim upon the mechanisms of government than groups who are not identifiably secular. In other words, secular government was created in order to disallow factions and groups to control government in order to establish their moral agenda. So what do those do who want to control the moral agenda? The simply call themselves 'secualr progressives' or something similar and claim exclusive right to control the secular government. You continue to imply that I am argueing for society being controlled by non-secular forces. I don't. THe point is that merely because the government itself is secular secularists should not get to control it. Everyone gets to, secularist or not. Secular government does not exist to protect anyone from the free expression of religious faith, anywhere, any place, any time. If such expression becomes sufficienty offensive, than there should be ample authority at the local level of government for those offended to do something about it. That is secular government, not a government controled by secularists.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You still fail to grasp the crucial point. It is one thing to have secular government, it is another entirely to have secular government and a political movement which identifies itself as 'secular' rather than religious and therefore has a more legitimate claim upon the mechanisms of government than groups who are not identifiably secular. In other words, secular government was created in order to disallow factions and groups to control government in order to establish their moral agenda. So what do those do who want to control the moral agenda? The simply call themselves 'secualr progressives' or something similar and claim exclusive right to control the secular government.
Fine. Now show me some proof of these "secular progressives" who are claiming exclusive ownership of government. It may help to consult one of the taking heads from Fox News, who are the only ones I've heard babbling about the so-called secular progressives who want to destroy America. Don't you get it Stan, the real problem here are extremists who spend their time inventing enemies to hate and be at war with. There's always a war, and it's either us or them. "Beware America's enemy, the secular progressives!" :rolleyes: It's time to put the paranoia to bed. There are no secular progressives. There are people who believe that government should remain secular. Some of those people are atheists, some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Jewish, some are conservatives, some are liberals. But they all believe that government should be based on laws that are detached from religious scripture.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You continue to imply that I am argueing for society being controlled by non-secular forces. I don't.
I'm happy to hear that you support secular government. What label can I now tag you with, a secular conservative? "Oh no, beware the secular conservatives! They're out to destroy us secular progressives!" :rolleyes:
Stan Shannon wrote:
THe point is that merely because the government itself is secular secularists should not get to control it. Everyone gets to, secularist or not. Secular government does not exist to protect anyone from the free expression of religious faith, anywhere, any place, any time. If such expression becomes sufficienty offensive, than there should be ample authority at the local level of governm
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
73Zeppelin wrote: you have the synoptic problem, a lack of archaeological evidence and in some cases archaeological evidence that directly conflicts with the supposedly "divine" nature of scripture. You presume to assume in arrogance.
Hey Chris, I hope you didn't take that particular part of Zeppelin's statement personally - the synoptic problem is a question of the relation between the gospels of the Bible, and the inconsistencies between them. "You have the synoptic problem" wasn't referring to you specifically, but to the global 'you' meaning, the problem exists. As for the rest.. that's between you and him. I just thought I'd clarify that point.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
In response to my post he assigned it to me. So it became personal.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You don't know me well enough to diagnose me. T
Shows how much you know about Biblical research. Try googling for "synoptic problem". As for the rest of your little tirade - if you are completely unaware of the synoptic problem, well then, you've got a long way to go. Anyway you've called me an asshole with no justification other than your own ignorance. You can't even keep an academic discussion civil or take the 2 seconds required to complete a google search in order to avoid making stupid comments and unjustified insults. I think I've wasted enough time with you.
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
Now your reading comprehension skills are suffering. I didn't call you an asshole. I said if you insist on ridiculing people of faith for their beliefs then you are an asshole. There is a logical difference there. You presumed that I hold the bible in high regard. I don't. You assumed that I suffer from this problem. I don't. So, make some more assumptions. Try to convince me you know me. Whatever.
This statement was never false.