Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[denuseri]

Oh I am well versed in differentiating between reputable sources and their counterparts...even had formal trainning on making such distinctions in college, you dont get far there without making good use of that skill set.

Supporting the American tradition of seperation between Church and State however doesnt require that one be demeaning, belicose, sophistic, or disrespectful of one's opponents and their beliefs or go on a campaign to abolish their first amendment rights.

Such an attitude and approach doesnt support a secular state and only fans the flames against it, breeding intolerance.

And a non-secular state, a state with only one belief system (which need not be religious in nature) appears to be exactly what the athiests are actually "preaching" for...your own rehtoric in many cases in several threads including this one clearly shows that.

And regardless of your wishes to the contrary, atheism when used in such fashion is in every way defined as system of belief. It may not be religious in nature, one may call it a philosophy, but it is a belief system all the same since it takes on all the qualities there of.

And based upon how the athiests comport themselves in expression of thought, word, and deed its an anti-any religion system of non-belief centered around the abolishment of any and all things even remotly religious, that obviously includes not allowing parents to have their children even raised the way they wish in their own faith or anyone anywhere to be able to publically speak about or display iconography in support there of until all religions everywhere are abolished and replaced by what the athiests want in its stead.

Which I can only imagine will resemble something like what happened in all other states who adopted such a poliecy...religious persecution, fear, and terrorism of the poulace...mass punnishment...all for what one believes as opposed to what they do.

Which is imho quite ironically hypocritical of the atheists all things considered.

I base my position soley on what I have witnessed not only here from you but via direct observation in many other venues including books written by pomiment atheists and other academics about the subject.

When one says they want seculaism our of one side of their mouth while they then do everything intheir power to oppose it, one in effect becomes imho just as bad as any religious zealot since it appears then that what one wants in actually practice is something based upon their own system as opposed to secularism to become dominat.


Which is why I personally take a dislike to such zealotry becuase it makes them in every way the same as the worst of those they take their views against, it makes those athiests who take such a stance just like those who cuased so many of the colonists who first came here to flee the religious persecution in Europe as evidenced by all the people who fled religious persecutions in the countries where similar systems were adopted in modern times as well.


And thats why every single time you slam religion or anyones belief system or philosophy in such manner, especially when they dont really hurt anyone by having it...I will respond accordingly to defend their right to have it and freely express it, and to tech it to their children or anyone else who is by the laws we hold dear considered to be under their dominion.

[Thorne]

Supporting the American tradition of seperation between Church and State however doesnt require that one be demeaning, belicose, sophistic, or disrespectful of one's opponents and their beliefs or go on a campaign to abolish their first amendment rights.

You are absolutely right. But it also doesn't require me to respect everyone's beliefs just because they have them. I can respect a person for himself, can respect another person's rights, without having to respect a belief which I find ridiculous.

And a non-secular state, a state with only one belief system (which need not be religious in nature) appears to be exactly what the athiests are actually "preaching" for...your own rehtoric in many cases in several threads including this one clearly shows that.

Don't paint me with that brush! I have never proposed a state with only one belief system. Like the founders of the US seem to have intended, I have always proposed where everyone's beliefs, or non-belief, are given fair and equal treatment within the law. Personally, I wouldn't be dismayed by the eventual decline and disappearance of religious thought, but it's not something I would want to force upon anyone.

its an anti-any religion system of non-belief centered around the abolishment of any and all things even remotly religious,

No, that's not what I've said. Just keep it in its place, where it belongs. Religion belongs in church, or in the homes of believers, or in the hearts of believers, NOT in the science class, or the government.

that obviously includes not allowing parents to have their children even raised the way they wish in their own faith

Again, that's not what I've claimed. All I've said is that parents do NOT have the right to force OTHER children to be taught what they believe by forcing those beliefs into the school system. Again, while I think parents may be harming their children by NOT teaching them to be critical thinkers about everything, including religion, I don't say they shouldn't be permitted to raise their children religiously.

or anyone anywhere to be able to publically speak about or display iconography

They are free to display any iconography they wish, as long as it is not on property owned by the City/State/Country. Those properties belong to EVERYONE, not just one religion. And even there, I would pull back from some of the more radical elements and say that I don't see any problem with, for example, a Church putting up a Christmas display, provided they get the necessary permits, pay for all of the labor and materials, and properly remove the display when the season ends. And that would also include the rights of a Temple to mount a Hanukkah display, and the rights of the local Mosque to put up a Ramadan display. EVERYONE has the same rights, or none can. THAT is where most communities run into trouble. They want their manger scene, but don't want an equivalent Muslim, or Hindu, or non-christian themed display.

I have to run now. I'll try to get to the rest of the post later. In short, though, I don't think we're that far apart. You just don't like my tone.

[Thorne]

it makes those athiests who take such a stance just like those who cuased so many of the colonists who first came here to flee the religious persecution in Europe as evidenced by all the people who fled religious persecutions in the countries where similar systems were adopted in modern times as well.

You are aware, I'm sure, that those colonists who were fleeing religious persecution were being persecuted by other religions? Even other Christians? And I'm sure you'll agree that the vast majority of those who fled Communism did so for political and economic reasons, not for religious reasons, or at least not ONLY for religious reasons.

And thats why every single time you slam religion or anyones belief system or philosophy in such manner,

You have to admit that I'm fair, though! I treat all religious beliefs which are based on faith instead of evidence the same way. I don't discriminate.

especially when they dont really hurt anyone by having it.

I'm sure I've posted this link before. It shows some of the harmful effects of different kinds of actions, or inaction. There's a whole section on religions. I'm not saying that ALL beliefs are harmful, only that some are, so claiming they won't hurt anyone is wrong.

..I will respond accordingly to defend their right to have it and freely express it, and to tech it to their children or anyone else who is by the laws we hold dear considered to be under their dominion.

I will also defend people's rights to have a belief, and to express it within the constraints of the law (you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, unless there really IS a fire!) And, because I don't see any humane way to prevent it, I would even defend the rights of parents to teach their faith to their children, at home or in church or in parochial schools. But there have to be lines drawn, if for no other reason than to protect children from being harmed in the name of religion. Read some of the stories from that link to understand what I'm talking about.