Book Burning

[denuseri]

Exactly.


Wrong! "I do not believe that gods exist" = A LACK of belief in gods! NOT a belief in the lack of gods.

If you do not believe that gods exist then you must believe that they do, or you believe yourself to be unsure on the matter...which is it?

So you're claiming that atheism is a belief in the lack of belief of gods?

No, I am saying that aethesim is a belief that gods do not exist.

That makes no sense. Is the lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system?

Just use some basic logic and I am sure you will figure it out hon.



What about the lack of belief in unicorns? Is that a belief system, too?

Yep it's perfectly acceptable to blieve that unicorns and or santa do not exist if you want too, though recently we have found evidence of how goats were made to look like them.

No, all of these are LACKS of belief. Or to be more precise, an understanding of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of those things.

In other words believeing that they do not exist. lol

And how can I have faith in atheism, since there is nothing there to have faith in?

You have faith that the things the aetheist scientists and sections of the media are telling you about it dont you? I am pretty sure you dont run out to the local mad aetheist scientiest lab and grab up a bunch of stuff to prove every scientific experiemnt ever made for yourself ...now do you? No of course not, that would be silly...instead...you have faith that what they are postulating is in fact what they are telling you. You believe them to be right.

Certainly! But in a comparative religion class, not a science class. Would you want Evolution taught during religion courses? Perhaps we can teach History during Phys Ed! How about Sex Ed during Driver's Ed? Each topic has it's place. There is no place for religion in science classes, unless you can provide scientific evidence for your religion.

No where would it be more appropriate to discuss such concepts in a classroom imho, especially since the one rose forth directly from the other via the philosophers, they should get it in history, science, math, social studies, etc etc. And not tuaght what to think, so much as how to think for themselves.

Depends on the meeting. A private club? No problem. A religious group? Be my guest. A county board of education? That's a problem. If you only permit one type of prayer you are promoting a specific religion. But how many fundamentalist Baptists, for example, would allow a Muslim prayer to open their school board meeting? Or a Pagan prayer (or whatever they use)? Why haven't we seen any voodoo priestesses giving the convocation for Congress? But if you cannot accommodate ALL faiths (or lack thereof), it is illegal to accommodate ANY!

Actually...it kinda says we must accomadate ALL!

And if the people want to have a betty davis apothieosis high priestess say her prayer instead of the one the Chatholic Priest was gomnna give, or make some sort of an arrangment for a voodoo priestess to get in on it too, thats fine...and should especially be fine for the aetheist becuase the aethiest believes that no such things as a god exist to begin with...so whats wrong with someone praying regardless of where or when?

Recently there was an election in Delaware, I believe (I can't find a link to the story, sorry) in which an atheist WAS elected. Local Christian groups dragged up an old state law which prohibited atheists from holding public office. Yes, the law was overturned by Federal courts, but there should never have been a question to begin with. And of course, the taxpayers had to pay for the costs of getting things straightened out. But since the churches do not pay taxes, they didn't have to worry about that!

See democracy and tolerance can work together!

Why not? I can ridicule those who believe in leprechauns, can't I? How about those who believe in faeries? I can even ridicule those who believe in homeopathy? Why can't I ridicule those who's superstitions include gods?

You do ridicule people all the time sugar...thats not in dispute here.

I was just saying that resorting to such sophistry when you also claim to have science and its Socratic principles on your side isnt helping your argument.

If anything it makes you look just like the people your making a claim against, even worse when they dont resort to mud slinging of the same kind to make their own points.

What I want is an American population that understands the difference between evidence and wishful thinking. I don't claim that we cannot have any religions (though the loss of them wouldn't upset me in the least.) Just keep your religion where it belongs, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

So you wish to get rid of freedom of speach then?

Or just restrict it further than the founding fathers intended?

Will aetheist beliefs also be rendered equally proscripted and made illegal to be exoused in all of the same places?