Activism by atheists

[tayla]

I have, of course, no clue whether Soviet teachers actually DID this, but I can see Dawson liking the idea as 'comparative religion' classes.

I think you misjudge Dawkins. His is honorable and a man of truth.

 

[tayla]

I like the way Utah does it. In high school the students get one period per day to do ...whatever...with. If they take religion classes (the CoJCoLDS calls it 'seminary') they can go off campus, take the class and return to school. If they don't want to take religious classes, they stay on campus and take an extra academic, sports, music or art class.

The school district has nothing to do with WHAT is offered, religiously, and the kids do have to go off campus. Freedom OF religion is assured for those who want to participate, and those who don't want to?

Don't have to and are not exposed to it.

Works quite well for everybody.

Doesn't seem like much opportunity to learn about any religion except the one favored religion.

 

[Audie]

I think you misjudge Dawkins. His is honorable and a man of truth.

Godists get as hysterical over dawkins as trump does
about the aoc.

I would never have even heard of dawkins if I didnt
hear so much about how I get my marching orders
from him.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't wish people to tell me what I can and can't think, and to lock me up if I believe in God. At least where I live, I'm not concerned with this for the time being.

Boy... are you truly afraid of that?

I would feel more threatened by the odds of being bitten by a rabid bear in the big city, personally.

 

[Skwim]

Can you provide an example please?

.
​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have to understand that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are the Anne Coulter, Tomi Lahren and Laura Ingraham of atheism. They are just talking hyperbole and a bunch of bollocks to appeal to their base and sell books and to get people mad and sell books. All their twaddle is just marketing.

You realize Dawkins is an accomplished biologist of prestige? Harris is an intellectual heavyweight with a solid background and information of the subjects he talks about. To compare them to the likes of Coulter and Ingraham, who are literally professional trolls, is inaccurate. Even the language they use to convey their messages are often worlds apart.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You realize Dawkins is an accomplished biologist of prestige?

No, because he hasn't really done any real science for a long long time. Say former biologist.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Harris is an intellectual heavyweight

Prove it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, because he hasn't really done any real science for a long long time. Say former biologist.

He holds emeritus fellow at Oxford. He didn't get that by doing things we can simply brush off and demand he be called "former biologist." He is a biologist.

Prove it.

Read some of his books, or watch some interviews with him, or listen to a podcast. If you need it demonstrated, you most likely haven't done any of those things.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

He holds emeritus fellow at Oxford. He didn't get that by doing things we can simply brush off and demand he be called "former biologist." He is a biologist.

Read some of his books, or watch some interviews with him, or listen to a podcast. If you need it demonstrated, you most likely haven't done any of those things.

What science has he done recently? Show me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What science has he done recently? Show me.

It's irrelevant. He is an evolutionary biologist.

 

[dianaiad]

Doesn't seem like much opportunity to learn about any religion except the one favored religion.

And you think this, why, precisely?

When ALL religions have the opportunity, if they wish, to provide religious education during that 'free period' assigned by the state?

dmap, perhaps you should know that when Brigham Young began designing Salt Lake City, the FIRST land assignment he made was, of course, to where the Temple would be.

Then he assigned prime locations for the specific use of other religions. It's why the Catholics have such a nice place for the cathedral they have there. Then he assigned locations for LDS meeting houses and government buildings, and then residential areas, with farm lands outside the city proper. It's why SLC is mapped out as it is.

If there is (and this is true, there pretty much is) a majority of LDS 'seminaries' around Utah schools, it is for two really important reasons: first, about half of the people in Utah are LDS, and second, even though other religions are not only welcome, but ENCOURAGED, to step up and offer religious education, very few actually do.

That's not the fault of the state of Utah.

Shoot, I know personally that the church has offered the use of seminary buildings to other beliefs so that they can teach their classes.

Oh...I went to high school in California and I had to do the 'seminary' thing at 6AM. I'm still in California. I wish California had the same idea.

 

[night912]

One does not have to claim to be an atheist in order to BE one; one only has to behave like one; that is, behave as if he does not believe in a deity or deities. In other words, 'not religious.'

No, you're wrong about the "not religious" part. Atheism has nothing to do with religion, therefore someone who is not religious isn't necessarily an atheist. There are atheists who are religious and theists who are not religious. This is the biggest problem/misconception that I see in many of these "anti religion" debates. This misrepresents both atheists and theists alike. Just like, not all Christians are protestants. Or not all Muslims are sunni.

This is definitely one of those 'if it walks like a duck...' things.

.....doesn't mean that it's a duck.

I mean, really....if one does not live one's life as if there is a God in it, then can one be called a 'theist?"

Yes, if they believe that there is a god. Theists comes in many different types, shapes and sizes, not just your kind.

A couple of people in my town have been sued because they put a Nativity display and a cross (respectively) on their front lawns. The problem? Both displays could be seen from a 'main road' and thus was offensive to atheists who might have to look at it.

I think that those atheists were in the wrong for doing so. It's on private property and they have every right to display whaever religious symbols as they like, a in accordance with city code of course.

Both lawsuits were thrown out, but not before the folks being sued had to pay to defend themselves.

Although that was unfortunate, it's not uncommon regardless of being religious or not. This is how our (USA) laws work. If you'e being sued, fork up the money to hire a lawyer or you'e on you're own.

NO atheists have been sued.

You've just spent a lot of money on a lawyer and wasted a lot of time with the court. Would you do really want to pay for another lawyer with money you don't have and do that all over again without having any guarantee that you would win? I know I wouldn't.

Do not tell me that atheists are targeted and persecuted, sir. Just don't. Not in the USA.

These are the kind people that I can't tolerate. They're ignorant people who won't accept responsibility and just blame others. They think they are special, that the world revolves around them. When sh!t happens and things don't go their way, they have a tantrum like a bratty child. These people are hurting themselves just as much or even more than those who they are pointing their fingers at. The worse ones are those who refuse to acknowledge the wrongs that are being done if it's not being done to them, even if they themselves had experienced it. You cannot expect the world to be better place if you turn your head the other way whenever you see others being mistreated other than yourself.

Not to ME. Unless, of course, you think 'persecution' means 'I might actually see or hear that someone, somewhere, is religious."

Or..."those missionaries have knocked on my door again,"
Or..."the Baptists have put a fancy invitation to church in my screen door"
Or...I SAW A STREET PREACHER ON THE CORNER! OH< HORRORS!

Get over it. When someone throws rocks at you because you are an atheist, THEN complain. When someone sics their dog on you, or threatens (quite seriously) to haul you down to the bayou and feed you to the aligators, or..(even more seriously) tells you that if you show up to his/her church, s/he will have you taken away in handcuffs, THEN complain.

All the above has happened to me. (well, because they didn't like MY religion, anyway) Has it happened to any of you?

Until then, just....don't come to me about being persecuted, OK?

Yes, things like that have happened to me before. And although it wasn't a church to me, it was a store, I did not go around complaining about it while still doing nothing to fix it and/or preventing it from happening again to me or others in the future. Don't think that you're special and should be treated as such. There are many others who think that they are special as well. Should they have the special treatment and not you? We live in a society where there are people who don't share their beliefs, lifestyle, gender, racial, and sexual background etc. This is why we must compromise for the better good of everyone in order to have a better society for everyone. So don't think that you're the only one that have been mistreated. I guarantee you that others have been mistreated far worse than you have.

I am noting that sometimes, the attitude of 'our country is going to hell because of the atheists" isn't so much about lack of belief, but about lack of freedom TO believe...or not believe.

Blaming a certain group of people won't make the country better. In fact, it will make it worse.

When non-believers can impose their standards/attitudes/opinions upon believers to the point that BY LAW believers cannot live or express their religious beliefs, that's a problem.

Again, you believe that you are special and that laws should be bend to only suit you. The truth is that you are also a non-believer in accordance with other religion. Why should you be treated any different? By playing victim, you are only hurting yourself. And that's the problem here. Stop lying to yourself that rights are being taken away from you by others. The truth is that, it is you, who is taking your own rights away from yourself.

We've been struggling too hard to keep this nation from being a 'one religion' state. We don't want to see it become a 'no religion allowed' state. That's going too far; doing precisely what the nation's founders were determined not to see happen.

And the way to prevent that is to have separation of church and state. It's the best way for religious and nonreligious. Why? Because there is no bias government. There's no conflict between different religions or lack of. The government cannot dictate what you can and cannot do in regards to private religious establishment. There are so many different religions, and a lot of their beliefs are in conflict with one another. In order for one individual to not be able to use its "religious beliefs" against another, whether it's because of bigotry or not, the government must be secular.

This was how the forefathers of this country intended it to be. That's why the country was made with having its governmental laws above all religious laws, so that no one religious law is superior to different religious law of a separate religion.

 

[Polymath257]

What science has he done recently? Show me.

Would you deny Einstein to be a physicist in 1950 simply because he hadn't done any new physics in decades at that point?

I wouldn't.

For the same reason, I would say that Dawkins is a biologist.

The most recent professional article I see by him was in 2004.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What science has he done recently? Show me.

Lately he has concentrated on education. Guess what science he tries to educate others about?

He is still a biologist.

 

[Darkforbid]

You realize Dawkins is an accomplished biologist of prestige? Harris is an intellectual heavyweight with a solid background and information of the subjects he talks about. To compare them to the likes of Coulter and Ingraham, who are literally professional trolls, is inaccurate. Even the language they use to convey their messages are often worlds apart.

No he's not he just has a biology degree

 

[Polymath257]

No he's not he just has a biology degree

Not just. he actually did groundbreaking research in biology.

 

[Darkforbid]

Not just. he actually did groundbreaking research in biology.

Not that I'm aware of, most of his papers I've read show a completely pedantic over explanation of basic concepts none of which were based on scientific research

 

[Polymath257]

Not that I'm aware of, most of his papers I've read show a completely pedantic over explanation of basic concepts none of which were based on scientific research

Richard Dawkins bibliography - Wikipedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No he's not he just has a biology degree

You know who Richard Dawkins is, don't you? Emeritus fellow of Oxford? Accomplished biologist of significance? Widely published and read author? Saying "he just has a biology degree," he didn't just graduate with his bachelor's, and clearly you're trying to downplay and dismiss him on a baseless claim.