Irrational Atheists
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
indeed funded by government.
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. Fucking amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. f***ing amazing.
I think the point would be that the public cares about what the government does with its tax revenue, and doesn't want the government using it for religious purposes. Of course, that may not be true. Maybe the courts are indeed out of step with the public. But there are certainly a lot of people who don't want government revenues used for religious purposes. Nothing wrong with that.
John Carson
-
You made good points, but the matter goes even deeper and exposes (once again) the *irrationality* and illogic of the 'atheist' (generic) ... and also exposes the fact that he (generic) doesn't merely "lack belief that there is a God," that he is not indifferent to the issue; that, in fact, he (generic) is every bit the "theist" that you and I are, but that he hates God, whereas you and I are trying to love God. Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children [ignoring the small matters: 1) that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness, 2) it's *impossible* to force anyone to be a Christian]. For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter. From their *own* claimed point of view we see that it is an act of irrationality to oppose *any* religion (per se). Apparently, they don't believe what they believe.
Ilíon wrote:
Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children... For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter.
This is a non sequitur and the fact that you make it after having spent some time on these issues is proof that you have little interest in the truth. You are apparently claiming that only things that last forever matter. I don't think you are sincere. If I were to shove a hot poker up your arse, then I am prepared to bet that you would think that mattered, notwithstanding its temporary nature. Your God apparently disagrees with you as well, since short-lived acts committed here on earth apparently matter so much that they determine our eternal destiny (the existence of an eternal destiny doesn't automatically mean that short-lived acts here on earth have consequences for it --- but God has apparently decided that they do). But, even if I were to concede the sincerity of your own position, it does not follow that others cannot have a logically defensible different position. For my own part, I care about the effect of religions for much the same reason I would care about having a hot poker shoved up my arse. These things have emotional consequences (direct and indirect), so I care about them. Indeed, for me, feelings are the ultimate measure of things. The fate of a rock is unimportant, even if it were to exist forever.
John Carson
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
indeed funded by government.
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. Fucking amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. f***ing amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
No, Stan, they don't use our wealth to control the "education" of our children. A portion of our tax dollars is used to provide our children with an education. Do you see the difference?
-
DemonPossessed wrote:
So since atheists do not believe in God, they should not care that children are forcibly indoctrinated to believe in God? Excellent argument!
If you don't believe in peanuts, who cares if your kids spend 5 minutes a year thinking about imaginary peanuts? Yeah, absolutely you shouldn't care, which is why it's so puzzling that you do.
I would care if my kids didn't have any food, but they thought they were OK, because the peanuts were coming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. f***ing amazing.
I think the point would be that the public cares about what the government does with its tax revenue, and doesn't want the government using it for religious purposes. Of course, that may not be true. Maybe the courts are indeed out of step with the public. But there are certainly a lot of people who don't want government revenues used for religious purposes. Nothing wrong with that.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think the point would be that the public cares about what the government does with its tax revenue, and doesn't want the government using it for religious purposes.
If that were true we would hardly need the federal government involved in the process. The mere fact that the federal government has so forceably inserted itself into the system of local schools is unequivocal proof that they are purposefully managing education in order to exert a centrally controlled belief system regardless of what the majority public sentiments might be.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. f***ing amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
No, Stan, they don't use our wealth to control the "education" of our children. A portion of our tax dollars is used to provide our children with an education. Do you see the difference?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A portion of our tax dollars is used to provide our children with an education.
As long as the public schools teach exactly what they are told to teach by those providing the funding. Sorry, I don't see any difference at all.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ilíon wrote:
Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children... For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter.
This is a non sequitur and the fact that you make it after having spent some time on these issues is proof that you have little interest in the truth. You are apparently claiming that only things that last forever matter. I don't think you are sincere. If I were to shove a hot poker up your arse, then I am prepared to bet that you would think that mattered, notwithstanding its temporary nature. Your God apparently disagrees with you as well, since short-lived acts committed here on earth apparently matter so much that they determine our eternal destiny (the existence of an eternal destiny doesn't automatically mean that short-lived acts here on earth have consequences for it --- but God has apparently decided that they do). But, even if I were to concede the sincerity of your own position, it does not follow that others cannot have a logically defensible different position. For my own part, I care about the effect of religions for much the same reason I would care about having a hot poker shoved up my arse. These things have emotional consequences (direct and indirect), so I care about them. Indeed, for me, feelings are the ultimate measure of things. The fate of a rock is unimportant, even if it were to exist forever.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
This is a non sequitur and the fact that you make it after having spent some time on these issues is proof that you have little interest in the truth.
Mr Carson, We *both* know that you are intellectually dishonest (I trust that even you can translate that into Anglo-Saxon). We both know that you *hate* truth and logical reasoning. Just look at the sort of bullshit you are willing to say in public [see quote above].
-
John Carson wrote:
This is a non sequitur and the fact that you make it after having spent some time on these issues is proof that you have little interest in the truth.
Mr Carson, We *both* know that you are intellectually dishonest (I trust that even you can translate that into Anglo-Saxon). We both know that you *hate* truth and logical reasoning. Just look at the sort of bullshit you are willing to say in public [see quote above].
A typical failure to address the issues by a pretentious empty vessel.
John Carson
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
If you don't believe in peanuts, who cares if your kids spend 5 minutes a year thinking about imaginary peanuts? Yeah, absolutely you shouldn't care, which is why it's so puzzling that you do.
That is only puzzling to you and Ilion because you have trouble understanding even the most basic concepts related to religion and atheism, yet try to argue about it and only succeed in making fools out of yourselves. There is a bit more to Christianity than believing in an imaginary God. There is the fear of going to hell if you don't follow the commandments from the Bible. There is the teaching that a morally perfect God sacrificed his own son to himself. So it stands to reason that atheists do not want children indoctrinated with that. The fact that you say that atheists shouldn't care is ludicrous and even most Christians would be intelligent enough not to try to argue that.
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
DemonPossessed wrote:
yet try to argue about it and only succeed in making fools out of yourselves.
Looks to me like I'm the only one arguing. You're doing some explaining of my own religion to me, and then concluding by crossing your arms and restating your position.
DemonPossessed wrote:
So it stands to reason that atheists do not want children indoctrinated with that.
If it stood to reason, I wouldn't be questioning it, now would I? I already analogized Christian theology for you to Protestant theology for me. Are you such a terrible parent that you can't explain away yet another attempted indoctrination by the education system?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
If you don't believe in peanuts, who cares if your kids spend 5 minutes a year thinking about imaginary peanuts? Yeah, absolutely you shouldn't care, which is why it's so puzzling that you do.
What an irrelevant and useless analogy.
Wow you sure told me! Don't bother attacking the analogy, though. Anyone who can't bother putting together a rebuttal can just use your post as a template.