Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[denuseri]

No, I'm not. I've specifically said that I don't believe all theists are evil. Or even that all religions are evil. I just think there are evil things done in the name of religion which are far less likely to occur under other circumstances.

And history has shown that you are wrong...that evil is done regardless of if a religion is being practiced or not, that when one relpaces religion with something else...such as atheism, evil still gets done, in fact... by some perspectives it seems to get done even easier than before.


LOL! There's an atheist dogma? Why haven't I been told about this? I guess you have to attend the atheist church before they let you in on the secret.

Every single "ism" out there works within the concepts of its own dogma, atheist or otherwise.

I've never denied that religious organizations can do good.

No you just pointedly overlook it or blandize it as being becuase of something other than the having to do with the poeples faith involved with it as a sophistic tatctic to agrandize the position of the atheists over that of all others. As evidenced by your statement imediately following this one above where you procceed to do that very thing:

Mostly because they are made up of people who want to do good things for their communities. And yes, religious groups generally are more tolerant of outsiders (with a few notable exceptions) than in the past. This has more to do with adjusting to the mores of their constituents, mores which come from outside the Church, than from any inner workings of the religious establishment. I point out the bad things to do with religion because all too often those things are hushed up by religious organizations, like the RCC's protection of pedophile priests, or of priests raping nuns in some 3rd world countries. And these things happen in other religious organizations, too. We seldom hear about them because the parents of those children who were harmed are so besotted with their religion that they either refuse to believe a priest could do such a thing, or because they are forced by the Church to sign confidentiality agreements or risk excommunication.

But none of that stuff is exclusive to religion, I agree. It happens everywhere. The difference is that religious organizations and leaders attempt to take the moral high ground, claiming to speak for God, to do God's work, while performing unspeakable evils, or covering up those evils.

Atheists try to take the same exact high ground only basing their suposition on that of man himself and his ability to reason or by replacing it with "science" or belief in a philosophical dogma of some kind. All while commiting equally unspeakable evil acts or covering them up!

I'm sure you know more about these things than I do.

Which is why I correct you when you try to seperate the atheists from the communists in such manner as you do bellow. such a distinction is not something the communists themselves do:

But the Soviet model was not so much atheist as Stalinist, replacing God with the supreme Soviet. Just like Chinese Communism replaced God with Mao, and Cuban communism replacing God with Castro. While these states were not religious, and even anti-religious, they were far from any kind of atheist ideal.

Really? They fit the ideal of the atheists in those regions just fine. There are you are aware of different kinds of atheist sects just like their are differnt political, scientific, philosophical and religious factions. The communists were plain and simple atheists...they never advocated the "whoreship" of any of the things you just described they made no religion around them, they started no churches, etc etc. They are a prime example of what a communist state that embraces atheism ends up looking like.

I agree with all of that! But in the US right now there is a movement to make this country a theocracy!

Its not a right now thing anymore than it was back when we founded the country. The current evangelical movement lost most of the wind in its sails amongst the GOP back when Bush Jr left office...he basically ruined that approach for a long time to come for anyone who would follow...a much more non-religious affiliated canidate was chosen to run in the next primary who did not recieve the evangelicals advocacy so much as the more moderate portion of the parties support...much to the chagrin of the evangelicals I might add since we came out in droves against them... which evidenced this lack of influence in even the far right of the party which has traditionally been orientated twoards being fiscally conservative as well as politically conservative...which means not changeing a good thing like freedom of religion. Being republican in other words does not = being a theist or an evangelical, unlike the communists who only embraced one non-secular replacement for all religions (ie atheism) the republicans in general believe in freedom of religion in the manner in which the founding fathers intended it. You will also note that during Bush's administration no one took over the government and made the usa into a anything even remotely rsembling a theocracy...we still have our freedom of religion intact in full. And not becuase some valient athiest stood on the steps of the capital with a gun and a flag in each hand eaither...but becuase the republicans themselves would never support any such measure.

This movement has captured the right wing of the Republican party, and is threatening to take control of the government.

No it hasnt the right wing of the party has way more non-evangelicals in its ranks than you wish to give us credit for.

THAT is what I am fighting against.

Then fight against that instead of attacking all religions in general.

I do not, and most atheists I know do not, advocate abolishing religion. We only want to keep religions, ALL religions, where they belong!

Which I can only assume from the actual dogma of said atheists isnt ussually what they want one to think it is, since most of the rehtoric I see them use is anything other than secular.


This is fine as long as you have a unified community. All Christian, or all Muslim, or all atheist. Muslim citizens pay taxes to support schools and governments, too. Why should they and their children be forced to endure Christian ideology? Atheists pay taxes, and don't want their children inundated with ANY theology.

And in those areas where people dont want it they have changed the laws to accomadate them despite their minority status in said areas. God forbid a child have a bible sitting on her desk to read during reccess or at lunch in any public school or even pray if she wants before she eats etc...lest some atheist take exception and file a lawsuit.Where as in a truely secular society...that litle girl's behavior should be perfectly acceptable and garenteed as a human right.

Except that Creationism is NOT a theory.

I have a theory that your just trying to use sophistry again.

It is an ideology.

I am testing it each and every time you try to twist the meanings of words and how they are used or avoid actual logic becuase your so affriad of anything religious of any kind being given equal status with atheism (which btw is just a theory like any other too and one thats soley based on untestable assumptioms and ideology). Which is not at all supporting anything secular as you "claim" it to be when you do this.

It makes no testable claims, has no evidence for the claims it does make, and presupposes a God without any evidence for such a being.


Intelligent Design is just Creationism dressed up in science-like terms. I listened to a debate about teaching ID in schools and the ID proponent admitted that ID has no real theory to base their "science" on! As the science proponent said (paraphrasing), What are you going to teach? Some people believe a god or gods created the universe 6000 years ago. Then what? You have no evidence to review, no experiments to run, no discoveries to make. Sure, a teacher could take 5 minutes at the beginning of the term to spout out all the different creation beliefs, saying for each one, "This is not science." Butwhat's the point?

The point is: A theory doesnt need to be a scientific hypotheises to be a theory hon and you should really know better than to use such sophistry in a debate with me if you expect me to take you seriously or recognize what your saying as having any veracity to it.

Objective and tolerant, yes.

And respectful...without all three what you end up with isnt any kind of secularism that will work...I should know was born in a country where we neglected to have all three essential components and look what happened there.

And teach them to think critically, to question everything and everyone, regardless of position. And teach them to respect other people in general, of course. (and the validity of their beliefs...otherwise your just going to be promoting intolerance anyways.)

Treat others as you would like to be treated.

In other words loving thy nieghbor as thyself....hummm that sounds rather familiar I wonder who came up with that one. Oh yeah it was those pesky religious folks way back in the day. How ironic.

But I don't extend that respect to beliefs which I consider to be silly: like the 'thetans' of Scientology, or the inscribed golden plates which only Joseph Smith could read, or the global flood of the Judeo/Christian mythology. If you are going to base your life on silly stories, how are you any different from the ridiculous 'trekkies' who live in their own fantasy world.
(And again with the insults...keep them coming...I should have a lot of statistics gathered to test my theory as if it were a scientifc hypothisies soon.)

Which explains a lot imho as to why you want to sound tollerant...but you preach intolerance all the same...since you are lacking in respect for the beliefs of others.


PS: in so far as Mr Robisnson and other little "quotes" you want too pull up are concerned, based in conjunction with the results of my testing of my soon to be hypotheisies of weather or not your actually promoting secularism or just being a adherent to non-secular atheists dogma ..its becoming rather obvious your yet again trying to focus on the bad apples over the vast majority of religious adhereants who do good and are by no means really working in favor of secularism.

Please do keep them coming...I will soon have enough data collected for a peer reviewed paper.