An Unscientific Theory On Religion Forums

[Subduction Zone]

there have been a few IN HERE that have.

Those that, for instance, have proposed that it be against the law to allow PRIVATE SCHOOLS to teach religion to children under a certain age, for instance, or those who insist that....

OK, two examples:

One city has a 'message hall' in which all non-profit organizations may advertise fund raising activities, like dances or plays or 'yard sales' or car washes, or to have sign up sheets for volunteers to work in homeless shelters, pediatric wards, etc., All non-profit organizations are allowed to do this...except religions. That is, it doesn't matter that the church is advertising a fundraiser for the community homeless shelter, or the hospital summer camp for children with cancer. It doesn't matter if the fund-raiser has nothing at all to do with religious doctrine, if the group is a 'church' group, it may not advertise in the hall. It may not participate in the community fair. It may not put a float in the local Christmas parade...the one that churches began and supported until a local atheist group sued.

Second example: a neighbor of mine, who was having a very hard time financially and couldn't afford to buy Christmas presents for her kids, still took all the yard decorations she had and, with her kids, put them all up in her yard, as always. She couldn't light up her place the way she used to, but she COULD, and did, put lights on the cross that stood just behind the Nativity Set her husband had carved. That cross reached the window of her second story bedroom. An atheist group sent her a letter telling her that because that cross could be seen from the freeway, that she was violating the law and that they would sue her if she didn't take it down immediately.

She took it down, even though that cross was on private property, and quite legal (it actually could NOT be seen from the freeway) because if she couldn't afford Christmas presents, she SURE couldn't afford a lawyer to defend her right to keep it up.

I'm sorry, but examples like this are 'making religion illegal."

Hard to believe when no sources are supplied.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Scandinavian Sceptic (or why atheism is a belief system)

Read this please. If atheism does not assert itself as a belief system, it is doomed to irrelevancy because of Hitchens's Razor ("That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence").

Your link confuses the act of believing in the nonexistence of something with not believing in the existence of something. You do not have to make a positive assertion of nonexistence in order to not accept the existence of a thing. For example, I do not believe there are any purple swans, but that doesn't mean that I believe that there are no purple swans - it's possible that there are purple swans and I just haven't seen them - it simply means I have no good reason to believe such swans exist. In this sense, Hitchen's Razor doesn't affect atheism because it isn't necessarily an assertion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

there have been a few IN HERE that have.

Can you show us some links?

Those that, for instance, have proposed that it be against the law to allow PRIVATE SCHOOLS to teach religion to children under a certain age, for instance, or those who insist that....

OK, two examples:

One city has a 'message hall' in which all non-profit organizations may advertise fund raising activities, like dances or plays or 'yard sales' or car washes, or to have sign up sheets for volunteers to work in homeless shelters, pediatric wards, etc., All non-profit organizations are allowed to do this...except religions. That is, it doesn't matter that the church is advertising a fundraiser for the community homeless shelter, or the hospital summer camp for children with cancer. It doesn't matter if the fund-raiser has nothing at all to do with religious doctrine, if the group is a 'church' group, it may not advertise in the hall. It may not participate in the community fair. It may not put a float in the local Christmas parade...the one that churches began and supported until a local atheist group sued.

Again, gonna need some actual links to explain and corroborate this.

Second example: a neighbor of mine, who was having a very hard time financially and couldn't afford to buy Christmas presents for her kids, still took all the yard decorations she had and, with her kids, put them all up in her yard, as always. She couldn't light up her place the way she used to, but she COULD, and did, put lights on the cross that stood just behind the Nativity Set her husband had carved. That cross reached the window of her second story bedroom. An atheist group sent her a letter telling her that because that cross could be seen from the freeway, that she was violating the law and that they would sue her if she didn't take it down immediately.

She took it down, even though that cross was on private property, and quite legal (it actually could NOT be seen from the freeway) because if she couldn't afford Christmas presents, she SURE couldn't afford a lawyer to defend her right to keep it up.

I'm sorry, but examples like this are 'making religion illegal."

Will also need more information on this. Which atheist group was it?

 

[Audie]

An atheist group sent her a letter telling her that because that cross could be seen from the freeway, that she was violating the law and that they would sue her if she didn't take it down immediately.

She took it down, even though that cross was on private property, and quite legal (it actually could NOT be seen from the freeway) because if she couldn't afford Christmas presents, she SURE couldn't afford a lawyer to defend her right to keep it up.

I'm sorry, but examples like this are 'making religion illegal."

Far from it. An idle threat, if there even was one
by people with no standing tobring legal action
for a non-offense are not what you pretend it is.

I heard from a Christian that he was waiting form
word from god that it is time to start killing the
atheists.

Examples like this are making atheism a capital offense.

True of false? Why?

 

[dianaiad]

Far from it. An idle threat, if there even was one
by people with no standing tobring legal action
for a non-offense are not what you pretend it is.

In California there is a practice that drives people, especially businesses, bonkers. I haven't heard much about it lately, but a few years ago there was quite an uprising among businesses about this. People would sue for bogus reasons. The plaintiffs knew that the lawsuit was bogus. The defendants knew it was bogus, but both also knew that it was cheaper to simply pay the extortio...er, settlement than to defend against the suit.

This neighbor knew that she had the right to display her cross. The atheist group knew she did...but both also knew that even though she would WIN that case in court, she could not afford to defend it. She had neither the money, nor could she take the time off of her work. It was blatant extortion. She knew it. The group threatening her knew it, and it worked. She had no choice.

As to whether it was an atheist group, I did see the letter. The letterhead was from something called "The Freedom From Religion Coalition."

I heard from a Christian that he was waiting form
word from god that it is time to start killing the
atheists.

Examples like this are making atheism a capital offense.

True of false? Why?

You can't have this both ways. Either there is a God you can blame for everything, or there isn't, and it's only people who are behaving badly and with bias.

If it's just people, well....no matter what they believe about deity, people are still people, and they will do what they will do.

My point is, as it has always been; certain atheists seem to believe that getting rid of religion (and making, btw, believing in a religion a capital offense) will solve all the world's problems.

It didn't with Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao, or any of the other leaders who tried it. It won't now. The solution is two fold: let the religious be religious, and the non-religious be non-religious, as long as they don't harm each other. Then, if you think you are right about your own beliefs firmly enough to want to convince other people, go ahead and try to convince other people.

Just don't go advocating passing laws.

 

[Audie]

In California there is a practice that drives people, especially businesses, bonkers. I haven't heard much about it lately, but a few years ago there was quite an uprising among businesses about this. People would sue for bogus reasons. The plaintiffs knew that the lawsuit was bogus. The defendants knew it was bogus, but both also knew that it was cheaper to simply pay the extortio...er, settlement than to defend against the suit.

This neighbor knew that she had the right to display her cross. The atheist group knew she did...but both also knew that even though she would WIN that case in court, she could not afford to defend it. She had neither the money, nor could she take the time off of her work. It was blatant extortion. She knew it. The group threatening her knew it, and it worked. She had no choice.

As to whether it was an atheist group, I did see the letter. The letterhead was from something called "The Freedom From Religion Coalition."





You can't have this both ways. Either there is a God you can blame for everything, or there isn't, and it's only people who are behaving badly and with bias.

If it's just people, well....no matter what they believe about deity, people are still people, and they will do what they will do.

My point is, as it has always been; certain atheists seem to believe that getting rid of religion (and making, btw, believing in a religion a capital offense) will solve all the world's problems.

It didn't with Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao, or any of the other leaders who tried it. It won't now. The solution is two fold: let the religious be religious, and the non-religious be non-religious, as long as they don't harm each other. Then, if you think you are right about your own beliefs firmly enough to want to convince other people, go ahead and try to convince other people.

Just don't go advocating passing laws.

Frivolous lawsuits are a thing.

As for "both ways" what am I trying to have both ways?
I dont do that.

Either there is a God you can blame for everything, or there isn't, and it's only people who are behaving badly and with bias.

Uh, no. There is also, "maybe there is a god but I wouldnt blame him for anything." Life is not always so either / or as some would have it.
Regardless, we still have people behaving badly, so what
point is there to this? That them awful godless people will predictably commit
atrocities coz they think they can get away with it?

My point is, as it has always been; certain atheists seem to believe that getting rid of religion (and making, btw, believing in a religion a capital offense) will solve all the world's problems.

Perhaps there are. But if so, so what? There are lunatic fringes everywhere. It is a stupid and impossible goal, doomed to failure even if put into effect.
I dont see any global menace in this.

We have those-in vastly larger and better organized numbers-
who want to impose their religion on pain of death.

You attn is better directed to them. Atheists are not one
of the worlds problems. Religious fanatics definitely are.

Blaming atheism for the excess of divers dictators is like
blaming Darwin for Hitler's excesses, that latter being
another popular pass time for those who like such nonsense.

Just don't go advocating passing laws.

I am fine with the US constitution as it is.
The Christians had their way, despite the constitution,
for more than long enough. If at times the push-back
goes too far, that is to be expected if not approved.

As with the "gun debate", following the constitution, and
enforcing existing laws would be a great way to proceed.

Who is passing anti religion laws? ( I can sure think of some anti -atheist laws)

 

[dianaiad]

Frivolous lawsuits are a thing.

As for "both ways" what am I trying to have both ways?
I dont do that.

Either there is a God you can blame for everything, or there isn't, and it's only people who are behaving badly and with bias.

Uh, no. There is also, "maybe there is a god but I wouldnt blame him for anything." Life is not always so either / or as some would have it.
Regardless, we still have people behaving badly, so what
point is there to this? That them awful godless people will predictably commit
atrocities coz they think they can get away with it?

My point is, as it has always been; certain atheists seem to believe that getting rid of religion (and making, btw, believing in a religion a capital offense) will solve all the world's problems.

Perhaps there are. But if so, so what? There are lunatic fringes everywhere. It is a stupid and impossible goal, doomed to failure even if put into effect.
I dont see any global menace in this.

We have those-in vastly larger and better organized numbers-
who want to impose their religion on pain of death.

You attn is better directed to them. Atheists are not one
of the worlds problems. Religious fanatics definitely are.

Blaming atheism for the excess of divers dictators is like
blaming Darwin for Hitler's excesses, that latter being
another popular pass time for those who like such nonsense.

Just don't go advocating passing laws.

I am fine with the US constitution as it is.
The Christians had their way, despite the constitution,
for more than long enough. If at times the push-back
goes too far, that is to be expected if not approved.

As with the "gun debate", following the constitution, and
enforcing existing laws would be a great way to proceed.

Who is passing anti religion laws? ( I can sure think of some anti -atheist laws)

So your idea of solving the problem is to 'push back' against the religious?

That says pretty much everything.

Oh, and what part of EVERY SINGLE TIME, and I do mean EVERY single time, a government shows up that is anti-theist (that's a form of atheism, in case you need reminding) and makes religion illegal, that government has been murderous to a degree unmatched by any theocracy that ever existed? In fact, in the 20th century, such governments were more murderous, collectively, that pretty much all the theocracies that have ever existed in the written history of mankind.

That's NOT me being over-the-top. That's what the data shows. That's what the body counts show.

Atheism does not stop the murders. Therefore getting rid of religion isn't going to automatically make the world better, or more fair...it just ensures that the murderers have to use different reasons to kill than the theists do.

And the data shows that those atheistic leaders and governments don't have any problem at all finding those reasons.

In other words, it doesn't MATTER what theists have done or might do. The lesson to be learned here is that getting rid of religion, or regulating it, or fighting against it in the hope that if you can just make it go away, everything will be sweetness, light and 'Imagine,"...well...that ain't gonna work.

Sorry, it just won't, because God or no God, it is PEOPLE who do the killing.

...and people will find an excuse/justification for doing so. Getting rid of one only means that they have to find another, and they do.

Religions...most of 'em, anyway, DO have rules that say 'don't do that sort of thing." Those rules must be gotten around, twisted, manipulated...but the leaders have to work around it in order to get the killing done.

Atheist don't have to take that particular step. That MIGHT be one reason for the difference in body counts. It might not.

The important thing is, there is nothing about atheism that makes anything better. Nothing about it that imbues logic, rationality, ethics or morals in anybody. Not one darned thing. Atheists have to get their ethical systems from a subset of atheism; perhaps humanism. Perhaps something else. Perhaps one of those subsets might put brakes on murderous leaders, but so far?

Not so much.

And your solution is to 'push back' against Christianity because you don't like it and want to restrict it?

I don't think you are getting the point, at all.

 

[Audie]

And your solution is to 'push back' against Christianity because you don't like it and want to restrict it?

I don't think you are getting the point, at all.

Oh I get the point just fine. You've a hateful screed
to blast out, and you see nothing through your red mist
other than another chance to belch it out again.

As for this idiotic claim-

So your idea of solving the problem is to 'push back' against the religious?

I didnt say that, or remotely imply it. There is
something badly wrong with you.

 

[ecco]

What atheist that you know has ever proposed making religion illegal?

there have been a few IN HERE that have.

If you are referring to me, I'd sure like to see a quote of my proposing making religion illegal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In other words, it doesn't MATTER what theists have done or might do. The lesson to be learned here is that getting rid of religion, or regulating it, or fighting against it in the hope that if you can just make it go away, everything will be sweetness, light and 'Imagine,"...well...that ain't gonna work.

Sorry, it just won't, because God or no God, it is PEOPLE who do the killing.

So you're saying religion plays no role in determining whether or not people kill? Nobody has ever killed explicitly because a religious doctrine or practice justified or encouraged it?

Religions...most of 'em, anyway, DO have rules that say 'don't do that sort of thing." Those rules must be gotten around, twisted, manipulated...but the leaders have to work around it in order to get the killing done.

Problem is that most of the religions already have built-in "work arounds". "Don't do that sort of thing... except against this specific group of people... or if God says otherwise... or if they have committed this certain act". This is the particular issue with religious justification for murder - it sets the precedent that absolute moral authority belongs only to a single, unquestionable source, and once you've established such a basis for morality, you can literally justify any conceivable action. All other forms of morality are beholden, on some level, to reality. That's not to say religion is the SOLE cause of atrocities - far from it - but it is uniquely situated as an unquestionable, self-justifying system that explicitly forbids or denounces skepticism or appeal. If someone believes God sanctions killing, that's all they need to believe in order to justify it. Secular morality does not have that issue.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We are a repressed minority.

How are you "repressed"?

Most repressed groups stay silent and 'under the radar', so to speak, so as to avoid further repression.

Atheists are not "repressed"; many are way too vocal and persist in vicious scoffing , to consider themselves a repressed group!

 

[Audie]

How are you "repressed"?

Most repressed groups stay silent and 'under the radar', so to speak, so as to avoid further repression.

Atheists are not "repressed"; many are way too vocal and persist in vicious scoffing , to consider themselves a repressed group!

That would be like those colored folks who
get too vocal for anyone to think there ever
was let alone is now any prejudice.
Or any repression, murders, exclusion
or any a that ****.

 

[ecco]

How are you "repressed"?

Most repressed groups stay silent and 'under the radar', so to speak, so as to avoid further repression.

Atheists are not "repressed"; many are way too vocal and persist in vicious scoffing , to consider themselves a repressed group!

Seriously? You are digging up a post from June 13th and commenting in a thread that has been dead for four months.

Also, your words reflect that you are trying to take my comments out of context.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Seriously? You are digging up a post from June 13th and commenting in a thread that has been dead for four months.

Also, your words reflect that you are trying to take my comments out of context.

I'm sorry, I apparently missed this thread...maybe I did misunderstand you. I haven't read further on.

 

[gnostic]

No, that's the Bush / Chaney administration and Israel. Fake Christians and Jews.

That’s funny.

Since the Middle Ages, it was always the some groups of Christians who persecuted Jews, burning down their homes, murdering them in the name of Jesus, force converting Jewish children, forceing them where different clothes that marked them being Jews and so on.

And if Jews were successful in businesses, no one would stop any jealous Christians from robbing them. They are the always to get blamed, when there were pestilence, drought or famine.

And here you are, you are still blaming Jews, but you also now blame atheists for new problems.

Sorry, but when Jesus taught his disciples not to judge or persecute others, it seemed that you cannot help yourself, and you make excuses that’s alright to percsecute non-Christians, whether it be Jews or atheists.

 

[Earthling]

That’s funny.

Since the Middle Ages, it was always the some groups of Christians who persecuted Jews, burning down their homes, murdering them in the name of Jesus, force converting Jewish children, forceing them where different clothes that marked them being Jews and so on.

And if Jews were successful in businesses, no one would stop any jealous Christians from robbing them. They are the always to get blamed, when there were pestilence, drought or famine.

And here you are, you are still blaming Jews, but you also now blame atheists for new problems.

Sorry, but when Jesus taught his disciples not to judge or persecute others, it seemed that you cannot help yourself, and you make excuses that’s alright to percsecute non-Christians, whether it be Jews or atheists.

Really? What did I say? Fake Christians and fake Jews. They are neither Christian or Jew. 911 was performed by the Bush / Cheney administration and Israel. You want to debate that?

 

[gnostic]

My explanation won't fit in the margin, just think of it as my opinion that some religions were better before they became organized religions.

For Christianity, that would mean at the end of the 1st century CE, a couple of generations after Jesus!

For Islam, that would mean when Muhammad fled Mecca to Medina!!!

 

[gnostic]

Really? What did I say? Fake Christians and fake Jews. They are neither Christian or Jew. 911 was performed by the Bush / Cheney administration and Israel. You want to debate that?

I despise both Bush and Cheney, and think they are both as#####s, and I thought pursing war in Iraq, politically, socially and morally wrong, but it weren’t them that flew planes into the twin towers.

All you are doing, is just spinning conspiracy theories and baseless rumors.

I don’t speak out much about Bush junior in this forum, but I did in two earlier forums, that YmirGF could testify.

 

[Jumi]

For Christianity, that would mean at the end of the 1st century CE, a couple of generations after Jesus!

For Islam, that would mean when Muhammad fled Mecca to Medina!!!

Note that I said some. I don't know very much about Muhammad or what Islam was like back then. For Christianity there were gnostic sects.

 

[Milton Platt]

Over the last 22 years or so I've been for the most part pretty active on forums like this, religious forums, and I've noticed something over the last decade. I see it here as well. The predominate participant in religious discussion are irreligious. Outspoken or militant skeptics of the Bible and spirituality. Now I understand that my message tends to alienate everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, and truth be told I prefer discussions with atheist because they are more practical than the average believer, who is idealistic IMO, so I'm not complaining, but I am of the opinion that the reason for this is that the believer is quite comfortable in America, but the atheist (in one form or another, I use the term skeptic) is a somewhat repressed minority, politically and socially.

Do you think there is any truth to that?

Historically, yes. But it is getting much better. It is no secret that, say, running for office and being an outspoken stheist is an almost surefire way to lose an election. But at least in the U.S. at least they don’t imprison or kill people for a lack of belief as still happens in some countries.

When speaking of the U.S. I wouldn’t say I feel repressed so much as occasionally slighted.