Public school controversy over singing Muslim worship song.

[Coito ergo sum]

I deny your premise that atheists emulate those behaviors.

Of course you do, but that doesn't change the obvious facts.

The obvious fact that you're wrong. Nobody here -- particularly charlou - acted in the abysmal way you and religious people act.

Atheism isn't an ethical standard,

It's precisely that for many religious Atheists.

What's the ethical standard you're saying is that?

nor is a high or low ethical standard required or a part of atheism.

That's not what Atheists keep demonstrating in their behavior and rhetoric.

How so?

That's the bullshit you keep trying to sell, but it's not flying.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. My arguments are soaring, and every time you deny that Atheism is a religion, they soar that much higher because anyone with half a brain, including some prominent Atheists, recognize the congruence between atheistic belief and practice and religion.

Wrong. Atheism is not a religion. Your "Tolerism" (more aptly described as inTolerism) is more like a religion, though.

Atheism is not morality or ethics,

Sure it is. Moreover, it's most often self-righteous, snooty, arrogant, dismissive, disrespectful and downright hostile in its proclamations of the supposed moral and ethical superiority of Atheists.

It's not an assertion of anything other than the nonexistence of gods.

If you think it is an assertion of ethics or morals -- please -- by all means, delineate the supposed ethical or moral system you're claiming is alleged.

nor is any particular code of morality or ethics required to be an atheist.

That much is absolutely true, which is why Atheists are rightfully mistrusted and kept from political power. Most Atheists have very situational ethics and morals, and the fact that there is no steady moral structure to Atheism is one of its great dangers, as we can see from the hundred million people murdered by Atheists in the last century.

Any thoughtful analysis of morals and ethics is situational. Only a very simplistic and simpleminded person would attempt to suggest that morals and ethics were absolute, or not dependent on the situation.

Atheism, like the non-belief in magic or evil spirits, is not meant to be a moral structure. People need to adopt another set of beliefs to have a moral structure. So, like, utilitarianism, pragmatism, objectivism, existentialism, etc. -- these may be foundational philsophical and moral structures. But, that's where that comes in. An atheist may or may not have a good moral structure. Some do, some don't.

Some atheists are good and some are bad, and sometimes it depends on who you ask whether they are considered good or bad.

True enough, though the latter seem to outweigh the former in my personal experience, at a rather alarming rate.

I see that of religious people, and every Tolerist I've ever encountered. Very poor behavior.

Other than agreement on the basic idea that there aren't any gods, or at least that insufficient evidence exists from which to conclude that there are any gods, there isn't a "we" that atheists belong to.

Sure there is. Atheists are by and large collectively drawn to and identified by their intense hatred of religion and their rabid, frothing attacks on people of faith and religion in general.

No, it's generally the other way around, which is why the religious try at every turn to get atheists excluded. Used to be atheists couldn't testify in court, and even in some states run for elected office, all because religious people were frothing. And, even today, the religious express scorn and disdain for atheists, as if we're not even real citizens. When confronted with that, atheists, of course, being very much outnumbered, can get a bit defensive. But, the miserable behavior is generally at the hands of the religious, who claim to be better people because of their religions, but behave awfully toward their fellow human being, very often, if that fellow human being merely denies the existence of gods.

It's as obvious as the nose on your face when viewed objectively, which is why people of faith are rightfully suspicious of Atheists from the get-go. There are exceptions to the rule of course, but they are certainly few and far between in these sort of fora.

You are representative of anti-atheist bigotry and hatred. You're miserable toward atheists.

They differ in philosophy up and down the spectrum -- some are far right, some are far left, some are objectivists, some are nihilists, some are existentialists, some are marxists, some are capitalists, some are every different moral, ethical, philosophical and political view that one can imagine with the exception of those views that require beliefs in a god or gods.

And whatever their political or other philosophical beliefs, every single self-identified Atheist I've ever met, or corresponded with is bound inexorably together with every other religiously zealous Atheist by their rabid intolerance and visceral hatred of other organized religions and their mean-spirited, hateful, bigoted and spiteful attacks on people who believe in God for no better reason than mindless antipathy towards the object of their devotion.

You can deny the truth all you like, but the truth remains observable by those with open (as opposed to closed) minds, and it's an ugly truth indeed when it comes to Atheist religious zealotry.

Hardly atheists attack people who believe in gods merely for belief or exercising their own rights peacefully. Where the atheists have to fight in the legal arena, they have to do so because of god-botherer overreaching and imposition. The god believers demand preferences, and positions of power, and financial largesse from the government -- they try to make atheists not be permitted to hold elected office, and they make false claims as if we have a Christian government, they impose religious rituals in government functions, and try to put compelled prayer and proselytizing in public schools in increasingly more insidious ways.

They peddle lies and distortions, and indoctrinate children to be satisfied with mythology over knowledge, and to adopt cultish rituals. They lie to children and scare them into thinking they will be punished after death, impose miserable mutilations on children, and all sorts of horrible things. If that's what you want to defend, that's up to you.

[Seth]

I deny your premise that atheists emulate those behaviors.

Of course you do, but that doesn't change the obvious facts.

The obvious fact that you're wrong. Nobody here -- particularly charlou - acted in the abysmal way you and religious people act.

That's a matter of opinion.

Atheism isn't an ethical standard,

It's precisely that for many religious Atheists.

What's the ethical standard you're saying is that?

Hate on religion no matter what.

nor is a high or low ethical standard required or a part of atheism.

That's not what Atheists keep demonstrating in their behavior and rhetoric.

How so?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

That's the bullshit you keep trying to sell, but it's not flying.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. My arguments are soaring, and every time you deny that Atheism is a religion, they soar that much higher because anyone with half a brain, including some prominent Atheists, recognize the congruence between atheistic belief and practice and religion.

Wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Wrong, Atheism is most certainly a religion.

Your "Tolerism" (more aptly described as inTolerism) is more like a religion, though.

Tolerists are only required to tolerate peaceable acts. Anti-religious bigotry is not a peaceable act, so I'm not required to tolerate it, and it's expressly and exactly a religion. Then again, so is Atheism.

Atheism is not morality or ethics,

Sure it is. Moreover, it's most often self-righteous, snooty, arrogant, dismissive, disrespectful and downright hostile in its proclamations of the supposed moral and ethical superiority of Atheists.

It's not an assertion of anything other than the nonexistence of gods.

If you think it is an assertion of ethics or morals -- please -- by all means, delineate the supposed ethical or moral system you're claiming is alleged.

Sure it is, it's a consistent, bigoted, intolerant, zealous attack on other religions and people of faith. You'd like to try to deny the truth, but the truth shines through even so.

nor is any particular code of morality or ethics required to be an atheist.

That much is absolutely true, which is why Atheists are rightfully mistrusted and kept from political power. Most Atheists have very situational ethics and morals, and the fact that there is no steady moral structure to Atheism is one of its great dangers, as we can see from the hundred million people murdered by Atheists in the last century.

Any thoughtful analysis of morals and ethics is situational. Only a very simplistic and simpleminded person would attempt to suggest that morals and ethics were absolute, or not dependent on the situation.

And this justifies the atheistic murder of a hundred million people how, exactly?

Atheism, like the non-belief in magic or evil spirits, is not meant to be a moral structure.

And yet it has become precisely that.

People need to adopt another set of beliefs to have a moral structure. So, like, utilitarianism, pragmatism, objectivism, existentialism, etc. -- these may be foundational philsophical and moral structures. But, that's where that comes in. An atheist may or may not have a good moral structure. Some do, some don't.

The same is true of all members of society, including members of religious groups. That doesn't mean they aren't members of a religious group.

Some atheists are good and some are bad, and sometimes it depends on who you ask whether they are considered good or bad.

True enough, though the latter seem to outweigh the former in my personal experience, at a rather alarming rate.

I see that of religious people, and every Tolerist I've ever encountered. Very poor behavior.

You must not know many religious people, because every one I've met are kind, loving, tolerant, respectful, polite, caring, charitable and are otherwise really nice people.

Other than agreement on the basic idea that there aren't any gods, or at least that insufficient evidence exists from which to conclude that there are any gods, there isn't a "we" that atheists belong to.

Sure there is. Atheists are by and large collectively drawn to and identified by their intense hatred of religion and their rabid, frothing attacks on people of faith and religion in general.

No, it's generally the other way around, which is why the religious try at every turn to get atheists excluded.

Not any more.

Used to be atheists couldn't testify in court, and even in some states run for elected office, all because religious people were frothing

And justifiably so, because Atheists are not to be trusted with power, and are not to be believed because they hold nothing sacred above their own egos, and therefore they have no reason not to lie through their teeth to achieve their desired ends.

And, even today, the religious express scorn and disdain for atheists, as if we're not even real citizens.

Yup, and justifiably so, since Atheists tend to attack the majority at every turn and try to destroy the public practices and institutions that the majority wish to observe, for no reason other than their own disdain and hatred of religion.

When confronted with that, atheists, of course, being very much outnumbered, can get a bit defensive.

Maybe Atheists ought to be more tolerant, then they'd be better accepted.

But, the miserable behavior is generally at the hands of the religious, who claim to be better people because of their religions, but behave awfully toward their fellow human being, very often, if that fellow human being merely denies the existence of gods.

Cuts both ways, and most religious people I've met are better people than any Atheist I've ever met.

It's as obvious as the nose on your face when viewed objectively, which is why people of faith are rightfully suspicious of Atheists from the get-go. There are exceptions to the rule of course, but they are certainly few and far between in these sort of fora.

You are representative of anti-atheist bigotry and hatred. You're miserable toward atheists.

Only because they are miserable towards me and people of religion. It's quid pro quo in action. How does it feel to be on the "suck it up and take" it side of the equation? I see that it bothers you quite a bit that someone would have the temerity to attack Atheists and atheism here in this bastion of atheistic anti-religious hatred, bigotry and unreason. Welcome to the real world.

They differ in philosophy up and down the spectrum -- some are far right, some are far left, some are objectivists, some are nihilists, some are existentialists, some are marxists, some are capitalists, some are every different moral, ethical, philosophical and political view that one can imagine with the exception of those views that require beliefs in a god or gods.

And whatever their political or other philosophical beliefs, every single self-identified Atheist I've ever met, or corresponded with is bound inexorably together with every other religiously zealous Atheist by their rabid intolerance and visceral hatred of other organized religions and their mean-spirited, hateful, bigoted and spiteful attacks on people who believe in God for no better reason than mindless antipathy towards the object of their devotion.

You can deny the truth all you like, but the truth remains observable by those with open (as opposed to closed) minds, and it's an ugly truth indeed when it comes to Atheist religious zealotry.

Hardly atheists attack people who believe in gods merely for belief or exercising their own rights peacefully.

Happens all the time. And I mean ALL the time, particularly here.

Where the atheists have to fight in the legal arena, they have to do so because of god-botherer overreaching and imposition.

Sometimes. Most of the time not.

The god believers demand preferences, and positions of power, and financial largesse from the government

It's their government, they are in the majority, and they are permitted to petition their government in any way that it pleases them to do so, and it's perfectly democratically appropriate for them to deny Atheists positions of power, since Atheists are their implacable enemies and seek to destroy their faith and their government. Welcome to democracy.

-- they try to make atheists not be permitted to hold elected office,

This is a falsehood, as you well know, since every such law has been overturned by the Supreme Court and it is perfectly legal for an Atheist to run for office. Now, he may not be elected because he's an Atheist, but that's just democracy in action. If Atheists weren't seen as such a grave threat to the majority interests, they wouldn't be so marginalized. Atheists are, as I've said before, their own very worst enemies when it comes to political power.

and they make false claims as if we have a Christian government, they impose religious rituals in government functions, and try to put compelled prayer and proselytizing in public schools in increasingly more insidious ways.

The schools belong to the community, and if the democratic will of the community is that religion be taught in the schools, the Constitution does not expressly forbid this. All the laws regarding the teaching of religion in schools are court rulings, not amendments to the Constitution. While they are binding, as court rulings they do not necessarily reflect the will of the people nearly as accurately as a local school board does.

They peddle lies and distortions,

So you say. Prove it.

and indoctrinate children to be satisfied with mythology over knowledge,

That's their right, and now you have to prove that what they teach is in fact "mythology" and not fact. Good luck proving that God does not exist.

and to adopt cultish rituals.

Ritual helps bind society together and give its members common purpose, beliefs, morality and interests. Nothing particularly wrong with people deciding to believe in one common set of practices, principles, morals and ethics. It's called "civilization" and religion is mostly responsible for the emergence and continued existence of civilization, unlike atheism, which is responsible only for death and destruction on a widespread scale.

They lie to children and scare them into thinking they will be punished after death,

Prove they're lying and that we will all NOT face punishment after death.

impose miserable mutilations on children, and all sorts of horrible things.

Some do, most don't. It's typical for Atheists to lump all religions, and all people of religion into the same calumnies and lies, as you have just done, proving my point about bigotry, intolerance and hatred quite nicely. Thanks.

If that's what you want to defend, that's up to you.

I defend the rights of individuals and groups to believe and worship as they choose, so long as they do so peaceably. Which is why I attack Atheists for their miserable treatment of good people of religion by lumping them in with those who are not good or peaceable.

[Coito ergo sum]

Atheism isn't an ethical standard,

It's precisely that for many religious Atheists.

What's the ethical standard you're saying is that?

Hate on religion no matter what.[/quote]

That isn't an "ethical standard." And, lots of atheists don't "hate on" religion no matter what.

It's also not function or requirement of atheism to hate religion, although many atheists do hate religion. I love religion, and I'm an atheist. Love it. I find it fascinating, and often disturbing. I don't believe a word of them, and I think that overall religion is a bad thing, but I love it. I love it like I love folks that are into crystals and other woo. They fascinate me. I don't hate them.

I do distrust Catholic priests, generally speaking. They start with a couple of strikes against them, let's put it that way. I don't trust them like I don't trust traveling salesmen.

nor is a high or low ethical standard required or a part of atheism.

That's not what Atheists keep demonstrating in their behavior and rhetoric.

How so?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.[/quote]

Garbage.

That's the bullshit you keep trying to sell, but it's not flying.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. My arguments are soaring, and every time you deny that Atheism is a religion, they soar that much higher because anyone with half a brain, including some prominent Atheists, recognize the congruence between atheistic belief and practice and religion.

Wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Wrong, Atheism is most certainly a religion.[/quote]

Isn't. You keep trying to sell that bullshit, but it isn't going to work. It's not a religion, because it is not a set of beliefs. A religion has to include a set of beliefs. Atheism is only one belief in there not being a god, or a lack of belief gods. There is no "set." Just as deism is not a "religion" - because all that deism entails is the belief in a god or ultimate cause of some sort, and has no set of beliefs or dogmas, so to atheism is not a religion.

Your "Tolerism" (more aptly described as inTolerism) is more like a religion, though.

Tolerists are only required to tolerate peaceable acts. Anti-religious bigotry is not a peaceable act, so I'm not required to tolerate it, and it's expressly and exactly a religion. Then again, so is Atheism.

Anti-atheism bigotry must, therefore, be a non-peaceable act, and by your own logic, I am not required to tolerate it and neither are atheists, so we are justified in being intolerant of the nonpeaceable acts of religionists.

Atheism is not morality or ethics,

Sure it is. Moreover, it's most often self-righteous, snooty, arrogant, dismissive, disrespectful and downright hostile in its proclamations of the supposed moral and ethical superiority of Atheists.

It's not an assertion of anything other than the nonexistence of gods.

If you think it is an assertion of ethics or morals -- please -- by all means, delineate the supposed ethical or moral system you're claiming is alleged.

Sure it is, it's a consistent, bigoted, intolerant, zealous attack on other religions and people of faith. You'd like to try to deny the truth, but the truth shines through even so. [/quote]

Atheism isn't.

Are there bigoted atheists, sure. But, there are bigoted Christians, too, but one would not suggest that a precept or basic premise of Christianity is bigotry.

You aren't tolerant. You're a bigot, because you lump all atheists together with those who you claim have been bigoted to religious people. You claim that right due to the nonpeaceable nature of atheists, you claim. Well, sauce, goose, gander, my friend. Atheists are just responding to the nonpeaceableness of the religious.

nor is any particular code of morality or ethics required to be an atheist.

That much is absolutely true, which is why Atheists are rightfully mistrusted and kept from political power. Most Atheists have very situational ethics and morals, and the fact that there is no steady moral structure to Atheism is one of its great dangers, as we can see from the hundred million people murdered by Atheists in the last century.

Any thoughtful analysis of morals and ethics is situational. Only a very simplistic and simpleminded person would attempt to suggest that morals and ethics were absolute, or not dependent on the situation.

And this justifies the atheistic murder of a hundred million people how, exactly?[/quote]

You tell me. It's not an assertion I made.

I just find it humorous that a grown human can claim that ethics and morals aren't situational. Lists of do's and don'ts are for children. Absolutes are for simpletons.

Atheism, like the non-belief in magic or evil spirits, is not meant to be a moral structure.

And yet it has become precisely that.

Hasn't. And, you've utterly failed in demonstrating what that moral structure is. You claim it exists, but you never describe the structure. The most that you've done is say "hate on religious people as much as possible." That's not a moral structure. That's just you saying that atheists you run across hate religion.

Bottom line - there is no moral structure within atheism. Atheists have to find or pick a philosophy or code from another source for that. Atheism doesn't provide it, and no atheist claims it does.

People need to adopt another set of beliefs to have a moral structure. So, like, utilitarianism, pragmatism, objectivism, existentialism, etc. -- these may be foundational philsophical and moral structures. But, that's where that comes in. An atheist may or may not have a good moral structure. Some do, some don't.

The same is true of all members of society, including members of religious groups. That doesn't mean they aren't members of a religious group.

What makes them members of a religious group is adherence to principles, dogmas and professions of faith of a particular religion. Atheism has no such principles, dogmas or professions of faith. Atheists do, but not from atheism -- from other sources, as I've already explained to you.

Some atheists are good and some are bad, and sometimes it depends on who you ask whether they are considered good or bad.

True enough, though the latter seem to outweigh the former in my personal experience, at a rather alarming rate.

I see that of religious people, and every Tolerist I've ever encountered. Very poor behavior.

You must not know many religious people, because every one I've met are kind, loving, tolerant, respectful, polite, caring, charitable and are otherwise really nice people.[/quote]

Most everyone I know claims to have a religion.

You must not have met many atheists, because the ones I know are kind, loving, tolerant, respectful, polite, caring, charitable and otherwise really nice people. Most religious people are too. But, there are far more bigoted, judgmental, douchebags among the religious population that I've encountered than among the atheists I've encountered.

Other than agreement on the basic idea that there aren't any gods, or at least that insufficient evidence exists from which to conclude that there are any gods, there isn't a "we" that atheists belong to.

Sure there is. Atheists are by and large collectively drawn to and identified by their intense hatred of religion and their rabid, frothing attacks on people of faith and religion in general.

No, it's generally the other way around, which is why the religious try at every turn to get atheists excluded.

Not any more. [/quote]

Yes. You see it in Rick Santorum and his ilk.

They've been somewhat defanged, but it's not for lack of desire on their part... give 'em half a chance, and they'll slap the chains back on.

Used to be atheists couldn't testify in court, and even in some states run for elected office, all because religious people were frothing

And justifiably so, because Atheists are not to be trusted with power, and are not to be believed because they hold nothing sacred above their own egos, and therefore they have no reason not to lie through their teeth to achieve their desired ends.

And you have the nerve to talk about bigotry?

"Atheists are not to be trusted with power."

What do you hold sacred above your own ego, Seth?

And, even today, the religious express scorn and disdain for atheists, as if we're not even real citizens.

Yup, and justifiably so, since Atheists tend to attack the majority at every turn and try to destroy the public practices and institutions that the majority wish to observe, for no reason other than their own disdain and hatred of religion.

The only practices and institutions that atheists seek to change are those that violate the Constitution.

The religious place their faith above the Bill of Rights, which is why they don't respect the First Amendment when it comes to atheists.

When confronted with that, atheists, of course, being very much outnumbered, can get a bit defensive.

Maybe Atheists ought to be more tolerant, then they'd be better accepted.

Maybe religious people ought to be more tolerant. They are the ones who exclude atheists, as I've said. And, you admit it -- you even said it was justified. So you're suggesting atheists ought to be tolerant of those who would render them non-citizens, refuse to allow them to run for office, and not let them testify in court, and you want atheists to be tolerant of the entrenchment of religion in the machinery of the State?

Bullshit.

But, the miserable behavior is generally at the hands of the religious, who claim to be better people because of their religions, but behave awfully toward their fellow human being, very often, if that fellow human being merely denies the existence of gods.

Cuts both ways, and most religious people I've met are better people than any Atheist I've ever met.[/quote]

You have a lot of bigotry and deep seated resentment about atheists. It's probably that streak in human nature that is so common among the religious, that if others don't also believe as they do, they must be attacked and berated and excluded and hated. That's what you do.

It's as obvious as the nose on your face when viewed objectively, which is why people of faith are rightfully suspicious of Atheists from the get-go. There are exceptions to the rule of course, but they are certainly few and far between in these sort of fora.

You are representative of anti-atheist bigotry and hatred. You're miserable toward atheists.

Only because they are miserable towards me [/quote]

Only because you're miserable towards them...

and people of religion.

Like you. You're a person of religion.

It's quid pro quo in action. How does it feel to be on the "suck it up and take" it side of the equation?

Atheists have never been on any other side of the equation. It's the religious who are finally learning what it feels like to have others demand to be treated as equals, and they are only now having to deal with not being "preferred" citizens because of their religion.

I see that it bothers you quite a bit that someone would have the temerity to attack Atheists and atheism here in this bastion of atheistic anti-religious hatred, bigotry and unreason. Welcome to the real world.

You think that's new? People like you - and many religious people - aren't just now gathering up the courage to attack atheists. It's only now becoming more difficult for you folks to spew your rotten hatred at us. It used to be legally entrenched and permissible to abuse atheists with wild abandon. You're only upset now because atheists are actually resisting the ill-treatment now.

We're used to being abused. It's normal. It's what we expect of people like you.

They differ in philosophy up and down the spectrum -- some are far right, some are far left, some are objectivists, some are nihilists, some are existentialists, some are marxists, some are capitalists, some are every different moral, ethical, philosophical and political view that one can imagine with the exception of those views that require beliefs in a god or gods.

And whatever their political or other philosophical beliefs, every single self-identified Atheist I've ever met, or corresponded with is bound inexorably together with every other religiously zealous Atheist by their rabid intolerance and visceral hatred of other organized religions and their mean-spirited, hateful, bigoted and spiteful attacks on people who believe in God for no better reason than mindless antipathy towards the object of their devotion.

People like you, and religious folks in general, seem to equate the statement that there is no god with "visceral hatred" etc. It's just the way you folks are. If people don't adopt your belief, or agree with you, or remain silent around you, then you think they are attacking you. It's like the nonsense "war on Christmas," where nobody is infringing on your right to do anything, but if a private store tries to be inclusive and say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" religious douchebags have a conniption fit as if someone is taking something away from them.

You can deny the truth all you like, but the truth remains observable by those with open (as opposed to closed) minds, and it's an ugly truth indeed when it comes to Atheist religious zealotry.

Hardly atheists attack people who believe in gods merely for belief or exercising their own rights peacefully.

Happens all the time. And I mean ALL the time, particularly here.[/quote]

Only because you show up and hurl insults at everyone. What do you expect? People to be "tolerant" of you bigotry and nastiness?

Where the atheists have to fight in the legal arena, they have to do so because of god-botherer overreaching and imposition.

Sometimes. Most of the time not.

Most of the time, yes.

The god believers demand preferences, and positions of power, and financial largesse from the government

It's their government, they are in the majority, and they are permitted to petition their government in any way that it pleases them to do so, and it's perfectly democratically appropriate for them to deny Atheists positions of power, since Atheists are their implacable enemies and seek to destroy their faith and their government. Welcome to democracy.

No, it's not appropriate to deny atheists, as a group, positions of power, because that would be a denial of equal protection. We live in a constitutionally limited republic, not a pure democracy.

It's not "their" government. It's OUR government.

And, you keep arguing with me like I'm some proponent of pure democracy. I'm not. I can see you used slick language here -- "perfectly DEMOCRATICALLY appropriate." If we lived in a pure democracy where no individual rights were protected, then that would be a true statement. But, in OUR democracy, it is not appropriate, because you can't deny me, an atheist, with equal protection under the law, and the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office.

There you go again - you and your kind... always trying to rob us of our individual liberties....

-- they try to make atheists not be permitted to hold elected office,

This is a falsehood, as you well know, since every such law has been overturned by the Supreme Court and it is perfectly legal for an Atheist to run for office. Now, he may not be elected because he's an Atheist, but that's just democracy in action. If Atheists weren't seen as such a grave threat to the majority interests, they wouldn't be so marginalized. Atheists are, as I've said before, their own very worst enemies when it comes to political power.

Hasn't stopped your ilk from trying....

It's not "democracy in action." Not OUR kind of democracy, which is constitutionally limited. But, it's not surprising an intolerant person like you would advocate stripping individuals of their fundamental rights.

and they make false claims as if we have a Christian government, they impose religious rituals in government functions, and try to put compelled prayer and proselytizing in public schools in increasingly more insidious ways.

The schools belong to the community, and if the democratic will of the community is that religion be taught in the schools, the Constitution does not expressly forbid this. All the laws regarding the teaching of religion in schools are court rulings, not amendments to the Constitution. While they are binding, as court rulings they do not necessarily reflect the will of the people nearly as accurately as a local school board does.

It is not permissible in our republic to deprive individuals of their fundamental rights.

You've acknowledged before that the Supreme Court's constitutional function is to interpret and apply the Constitution, and to rule laws constitutional and unconstitutional. Do you deny that function now?

They peddle lies and distortions,

So you say. Prove it.

Already done. They're snake oil salesmen.

and indoctrinate children to be satisfied with mythology over knowledge,

That's their right, and now you have to prove that what they teach is in fact "mythology" and not fact. Good luck proving that God does not exist.

Of course it's their right. They have the "right" say whatever they want.

I don't have to prove gods don't exist to prove that they peddle "mythology." Gods are only one mythological thing - hosts of other stories and fables peddled as true are mere mythology.

and to adopt cultish rituals.

Ritual helps bind society together and give its members common purpose, beliefs, morality and interests. Nothing particularly wrong with people deciding to believe in one common set of practices, principles, morals and ethics. It's called "civilization" and religion is mostly responsible for the emergence and continued existence of civilization, unlike atheism, which is responsible only for death and destruction on a widespread scale.

Nothing wrong with them getting rid of them either, and nothing wrong with me being a proponent of a change in that regard.

It's not just the religious who have rights, despite what you would have everyone believe.

They lie to children and scare them into thinking they will be punished after death,

Prove they're lying and that we will all NOT face punishment after death.

I don't have to prove that they won't face punishment. I only need to show that the religious humans have no way of knowing what happens after death - most of them admit it themselves - yet, they still peddle the notion of eternal punishment to others. They know they don't know -- yet they represent to others that they do know.

impose miserable mutilations on children, and all sorts of horrible things.

Some do, most don't. It's typical for Atheists to lump all religions, and all people of religion into the same calumnies and lies, as you have just done, proving my point about bigotry, intolerance and hatred quite nicely. Thanks.

You care about lumping people together? That's 100% of what you do relative to atheists. You're supposed to be better than atheists, aren't you? You believe in something "higher" than your ego, don't you?

If that's what you want to defend, that's up to you.

I defend the rights of individuals and groups to believe and worship as they choose, so long as they do so peaceably. Which is why I attack Atheists for their miserable treatment of good people of religion by lumping them in with those who are not good or peaceable.

No you don't. You don't defend the rights of atheists at all, and you don't defend the rights of atheists to believe what they want to believe. You advocate and support the right of religious people to impose, by democratic processes, their views on atheists. You've said it yourself.

You only defend the "rights" of SOME people, and you hand those people - the religious - a preferred position. And, you do so under the puerile whine of injustice - you on the one hand claim to be "the majority" and therefore justified in imposing all sorts of injustices upon other individuals who do not believe - and then you in the next breath claim to be trodden upon and harmed by that small minority you originally claim is so inconsequential.

There is something seriously unappealing about an overwhelminng majority whining about being oppressed. It's sickeningly childish, and it is the hue and cry of the bully who finally doesn't get EVERYTHING his own way.

[Seth]

Atheism isn't an ethical standard,

It's precisely that for many religious Atheists.

What's the ethical standard you're saying is that?

Hate on religion no matter what.

That isn't an "ethical standard."

Of course it is.

And, lots of atheists don't "hate on" religion no matter what.

Not my fault they can't uphold their own ethical standard.

It's also not function or requirement of atheism to hate religion, although many atheists do hate religion. I love religion, and I'm an atheist. Love it. I find it fascinating, and often disturbing. I don't believe a word of them, and I think that overall religion is a bad thing, but I love it. I love it like I love folks that are into crystals and other woo. They fascinate me. I don't hate them.

Your ethical lapses don't change the standard.

I do distrust Catholic priests, generally speaking. They start with a couple of strikes against them, let's put it that way. I don't trust them like I don't trust traveling salesmen.

Sounds like mindless bigotry to me. What have they ever done to you?

nor is a high or low ethical standard required or a part of atheism.

That's not what Atheists keep demonstrating in their behavior and rhetoric.

How so?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.[/quote]

Garbage.

That pretty accurately describes Atheist dogma.

That's the bullshit you keep trying to sell, but it's not flying.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. My arguments are soaring, and every time you deny that Atheism is a religion, they soar that much higher because anyone with half a brain, including some prominent Atheists, recognize the congruence between atheistic belief and practice and religion.

Wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Wrong, Atheism is most certainly a religion.[/quote]

Isn't.

Is.

You keep trying to sell that bullshit, but it isn't going to work.

Works just fine for everybody I know other than Atheists in denial. I say it, I explain what I mean by it, and literally everyone I explain it to says, "Why yes, you're exactly right." I'll take their judgment over yours.

It's not a religion, because it is not a set of beliefs. A religion has to include a set of beliefs.

Of course it's a set of beliefs. Quite a complex set of beliefs in fact.

Atheism is only one belief in there not being a god, or a lack of belief gods. There is no "set."

That's what Atheists would like everyone to believe. That's the lie that they keep on telling in a vain attempt to evade the fact that they are practicing a religion every bit as much as Catholics or Secular Humanists are.

Just as deism is not a "religion" - because all that deism entails is the belief in a god or ultimate cause of some sort, and has no set of beliefs or dogmas, so to atheism is not a religion.

The religion of Atheism is a sub-set of the group "atheists."

Your "Tolerism" (more aptly described as inTolerism) is more like a religion, though.

Tolerists are only required to tolerate peaceable acts. Anti-religious bigotry is not a peaceable act, so I'm not required to tolerate it, and it's expressly and exactly a religion. Then again, so is Atheism.

Anti-atheism bigotry must, therefore, be a non-peaceable act, and by your own logic, I am not required to tolerate it and neither are atheists, so we are justified in being intolerant of the nonpeaceable acts of religionists.

But it's not anti-atheism bigotry, it's simply examination and critique of Atheism, the religion associated with atheistic beliefs and practices. And since you're not a Tolerist, you can't use the tenets of my religion as justification for your own bigotry and hatred.

Atheism is not morality or ethics,

Sure it is. Moreover, it's most often self-righteous, snooty, arrogant, dismissive, disrespectful and downright hostile in its proclamations of the supposed moral and ethical superiority of Atheists.

It's not an assertion of anything other than the nonexistence of gods.

If you think it is an assertion of ethics or morals -- please -- by all means, delineate the supposed ethical or moral system you're claiming is alleged.

Sure it is, it's a consistent, bigoted, intolerant, zealous attack on other religions and people of faith. You'd like to try to deny the truth, but the truth shines through even so. [/quote]

Atheism isn't.

Sure it is. It's a fundamental tenet of Atheism.

Are there bigoted atheists, sure. But, there are bigoted Christians, too, but one would not suggest that a precept or basic premise of Christianity is bigotry.

And bigoted atheists are Atheists practicing the religion of intolerance and bigotry that is Atheism.

You aren't tolerant. You're a bigot, because you lump all atheists together with those who you claim have been bigoted to religious people. You claim that right due to the nonpeaceable nature of atheists, you claim. Well, sauce, goose, gander, my friend. Atheists are just responding to the nonpeaceableness of the religious.

No, I don't lump all atheists together, I lump all Atheists together, perforce, because like Catholics, they belong to a common religion and practice common religious beliefs, which makes it perfectly rational and reasonable to lump them together.

nor is any particular code of morality or ethics required to be an atheist.

That much is absolutely true, which is why Atheists are rightfully mistrusted and kept from political power. Most Atheists have very situational ethics and morals, and the fact that there is no steady moral structure to Atheism is one of its great dangers, as we can see from the hundred million people murdered by Atheists in the last century.

Any thoughtful analysis of morals and ethics is situational. Only a very simplistic and simpleminded person would attempt to suggest that morals and ethics were absolute, or not dependent on the situation.

And this justifies the atheistic murder of a hundred million people how, exactly?[/quote]

You tell me. It's not an assertion I made.

It's a fact of history demonstrating how evil situational ethics are, particularly when practiced by Atheists.

I just find it humorous that a grown human can claim that ethics and morals aren't situational. Lists of do's and don'ts are for children. Absolutes are for simpletons.

And stable morals and ethics aren't for Atheists.

Atheism, like the non-belief in magic or evil spirits, is not meant to be a moral structure.

And yet it has become precisely that.

Hasn't.

Has too!

And, you've utterly failed in demonstrating what that moral structure is. You claim it exists, but you never describe the structure. The most that you've done is say "hate on religious people as much as possible." That's not a moral structure. That's just you saying that atheists you run across hate religion.

It appears to be the only moral structure that Atheists have. It's not my problem if they don't have a sophisticated or well-though-out moral structure. I just examine the evidence and state the truth.

Bottom line - there is no moral structure within atheism.

Heh. That's what religionists have been saying for a long time now...but I'm not claiming there's a moral structure within atheism, I'm saying that there's a moral structure (such as it is) within Atheism.

Atheists have to find or pick a philosophy or code from another source for that. Atheism doesn't provide it, and no atheist claims it does.

And they do, which is what makes them Atheists.

People need to adopt another set of beliefs to have a moral structure. So, like, utilitarianism, pragmatism, objectivism, existentialism, etc. -- these may be foundational philsophical and moral structures. But, that's where that comes in. An atheist may or may not have a good moral structure. Some do, some don't.

The same is true of all members of society, including members of religious groups. That doesn't mean they aren't members of a religious group.

What makes them members of a religious group is adherence to principles, dogmas and professions of faith of a particular religion. Atheism has no such principles, dogmas or professions of faith. Atheists do, but not from atheism -- from other sources, as I've already explained to you.

But Atheism does, and Atheists adhere quite closely to those dogmas and professions of faith. Remarkably consistently in fact, across the board.

Some atheists are good and some are bad, and sometimes it depends on who you ask whether they are considered good or bad.

True enough, though the latter seem to outweigh the former in my personal experience, at a rather alarming rate.

I see that of religious people, and every Tolerist I've ever encountered. Very poor behavior.

You must not know many religious people, because every one I've met are kind, loving, tolerant, respectful, polite, caring, charitable and are otherwise really nice people.[/quote]

Most everyone I know claims to have a religion.

Maybe you need to hang out with a better class of people.

You must not have met many atheists, because the ones I know are kind, loving, tolerant, respectful, polite, caring, charitable and otherwise really nice people. Most religious people are too. But, there are far more bigoted, judgmental, douchebags among the religious population that I've encountered than among the atheists I've encountered.

Our experiences evidently differ.

Other than agreement on the basic idea that there aren't any gods, or at least that insufficient evidence exists from which to conclude that there are any gods, there isn't a "we" that atheists belong to.

Sure there is. Atheists are by and large collectively drawn to and identified by their intense hatred of religion and their rabid, frothing attacks on people of faith and religion in general.

No, it's generally the other way around, which is why the religious try at every turn to get atheists excluded.

Not any more. [/quote]

Yes. You see it in Rick Santorum and his ilk.

They've been somewhat defanged, but it's not for lack of desire on their part... give 'em half a chance, and they'll slap the chains back on.

Understandable, given the vicious attack-dog nature of most Atheists. They are dangerous and may need to be muzzled for the protection of the public.

Used to be atheists couldn't testify in court, and even in some states run for elected office, all because religious people were frothing

And justifiably so, because Atheists are not to be trusted with power, and are not to be believed because they hold nothing sacred above their own egos, and therefore they have no reason not to lie through their teeth to achieve their desired ends.

And you have the nerve to talk about bigotry?

"Atheists are not to be trusted with power."

What do you hold sacred above your own ego, Seth?

What else is there? I simply state facts. It's not my concern if the facts distress you.

And, even today, the religious express scorn and disdain for atheists, as if we're not even real citizens.

Yup, and justifiably so, since Atheists tend to attack the majority at every turn and try to destroy the public practices and institutions that the majority wish to observe, for no reason other than their own disdain and hatred of religion.

The only practices and institutions that atheists seek to change are those that violate the Constitution.

How is playing religious music in a supermarket something that violates the Constitution?

The religious place their faith above the Bill of Rights, which is why they don't respect the First Amendment when it comes to atheists.

They don't place it above the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights (specifically the Free Exercise Clause) exists entirely to protect their rights against, for example, Atheists who would misuse the Constitution to suppress their free religious expression in public. And the Establishment Clause is not a bar on private expression of religious faith in public, it's a wall built around government to wall it in, like a prison, to keep government from interfering with the right of the people to freely express their faith in public, and it's a bar on the actions of public employees, not on private citizens.

When confronted with that, atheists, of course, being very much outnumbered, can get a bit defensive.

Maybe Atheists ought to be more tolerant, then they'd be better accepted.

Maybe religious people ought to be more tolerant.

Indeed.

They are the ones who exclude atheists, as I've said.

They exclude Atheists for the same reason they exclude pedophiles, because they are dangerous to the body politic and cannot be trusted.

And, you admit it -- you even said it was justified. So you're suggesting atheists ought to be tolerant of those who would render them non-citizens, refuse to allow them to run for office, and not let them testify in court, and you want atheists to be tolerant of the entrenchment of religion in the machinery of the State?

Nah, the First Amendment prevents that, so it's a vacuous and silly argument for Atheists to make, which never stops them from tossing that particular canard around like it's revealed truth. Talk about your religious beliefs...that's the second-most important Atheist religious belief.

But, the miserable behavior is generally at the hands of the religious, who claim to be better people because of their religions, but behave awfully toward their fellow human being, very often, if that fellow human being merely denies the existence of gods.

Cuts both ways, and most religious people I've met are better people than any Atheist I've ever met.[/quote]

You have a lot of bigotry and deep seated resentment about atheists.

Not really. It just amuses me to tweak their noses as they tweak the noses of theists. It's merely light entertainment. Something to while away a few minutes with between important things like eating cheese and bacon and wanking.

It's probably that streak in human nature that is so common among the religious, that if others don't also believe as they do, they must be attacked and berated and excluded and hated. That's what you do.

What I do is merely a reflection of what Atheists do with great regularity. I'm just saucing the gander.

I see that it bothers you quite a bit that someone would have the temerity to attack Atheists and atheism here in this bastion of atheistic anti-religious hatred, bigotry and unreason. Welcome to the real world.

You think that's new?

Not even a little. Twitting Atheists has a long and honorable tradition among the intellectual elite such as myself.

People like you - and many religious people - aren't just now gathering up the courage to attack atheists.

Er, which explains the laws against Atheists holding office or swearing oaths that are centuries old how, exactly? I thought it was the long-term persecution of Atheists that you were complaining about to begin with. Now you're conveeeniently changing your tune. Why is that? Are you losing the argument again?

It's only now becoming more difficult for you folks to spew your rotten hatred at us.

It's not difficult. The First Amendment explicitly protects my right to do so. So once again you're wrong.

It used to be legally entrenched and permissible to abuse atheists with wild abandon.

It still is.

You're only upset now because atheists are actually resisting the ill-treatment now.

I'm not upset, I'm amused. Endlessly amused.

We're used to being abused. It's normal. It's what we expect of people like you.

Poor widdle Atheist, so put-upon, so abused. My heart bleeds for you. Not.

They differ in philosophy up and down the spectrum -- some are far right, some are far left, some are objectivists, some are nihilists, some are existentialists, some are marxists, some are capitalists, some are every different moral, ethical, philosophical and political view that one can imagine with the exception of those views that require beliefs in a god or gods.

And whatever their political or other philosophical beliefs, every single self-identified Atheist I've ever met, or corresponded with is bound inexorably together with every other religiously zealous Atheist by their rabid intolerance and visceral hatred of other organized religions and their mean-spirited, hateful, bigoted and spiteful attacks on people who believe in God for no better reason than mindless antipathy towards the object of their devotion.

People like you, and religious folks in general, seem to equate the statement that there is no god with "visceral hatred" etc.

Strawman. Atheist hatred and vilification goes far beyond a simple claim that there is no god, as you well know.

It's just the way you folks are. If people don't adopt your belief, or agree with you, or remain silent around you, then you think they are attacking you.

No, it's when they are attacking the religious rights of the majority that they rightfully believe they are being attacked.

It's like the nonsense "war on Christmas," where nobody is infringing on your right to do anything,

You mean except for democratically-decided placement of Nativity scenes on public property, of course...among other anti-theist Christmas indignities foisted off on the majority out of minority pique and intolerance.

but if a private store tries to be inclusive and say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" religious douchebags have a conniption fit as if someone is taking something away from them.

That's because the coercion levied by Atheists who promise boycotts if the word "Christ" is used in any context by a store to appeal to its religious customers is completely bigoted, inappropriate, disrespectful and intolerant of the majority's right to celebrate Christmas with the inclusion of the object of the celebration: Jesus Christ.

You can deny the truth all you like, but the truth remains observable by those with open (as opposed to closed) minds, and it's an ugly truth indeed when it comes to Atheist religious zealotry.

Hardly atheists attack people who believe in gods merely for belief or exercising their own rights peacefully.

Happens all the time. And I mean ALL the time, particularly here.[/quote]

Only because you show up and hurl insults at everyone. What do you expect? People to be "tolerant" of you bigotry and nastiness?

"Only because?" No, I think not. Most of the people here fled from RDF, where such anti-religious intolerance was a mainstay of conversation, and trashing people's religion was, and still is, a highly popular pastime among Atheists, to the extent that the successor to RDF, RatSkep, became an even more bigoted and intolerant forum. And it's seen here all the time without any input from me at all, as you well know.

Where the atheists have to fight in the legal arena, they have to do so because of god-botherer overreaching and imposition.

Sometimes. Most of the time not.

Most of the time, yes.

To an Atheist, any "god bothering' is an overreach and imposition, so that's not a useful metric I'm afraid. Too much bigotry inherent.

The god believers demand preferences, and positions of power, and financial largesse from the government

It's their government, they are in the majority, and they are permitted to petition their government in any way that it pleases them to do so, and it's perfectly democratically appropriate for them to deny Atheists positions of power, since Atheists are their implacable enemies and seek to destroy their faith and their government. Welcome to democracy.

No, it's not appropriate to deny atheists, as a group, positions of power, because that would be a denial of equal protection. We live in a constitutionally limited republic, not a pure democracy.

Of course it's appropriate, if that's what the majority wants to do. It's only a denial of equal protection if a ban on Atheists serving in government is placed in the law. It's not a denial of equal protection for the electorate to refuse to elect an Atheist, it's their absolute civil right not to do so.

It's not "their" government. It's OUR government.

In which the majority still chooses to limit the power of Atheists to hold office through the perfectly legal and appropriate use of the ballot box. You have a right to run for office. You have no right to win.

And, you keep arguing with me like I'm some proponent of pure democracy. I'm not. I can see you used slick language here -- "perfectly DEMOCRATICALLY appropriate." If we lived in a pure democracy where no individual rights were protected, then that would be a true statement. But, in OUR democracy, it is not appropriate, because you can't deny me, an atheist, with equal protection under the law, and the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office.

Right. But that doesn't mean that there can't be a religious preference selected by the voters. Nobody can demand to know your religious beliefs prior to your running for office, but they can damned sure ask your religious beliefs during the campaign and they can absolutely and with utter impunity and in their sovereign rights refuse to vote for you if you don't answer their questions to their satisfaction, which may include your being of some specific religious belief. That's democracy in action.

There you go again - you and your kind... always trying to rob us of our individual liberties....

Nobody's robbing you of anything. You have the right to run for office. You don't have the right to win that office if you don't persuade the voters you're fit to hold it. And if they make having theistic religious belief and practice a criteria upon which they judge a candidate, well, you're just shit out of luck and nothing has been "robbed" from you, you just failed to convince the voters that you could be trusted to hold office. That's your problem, not a constitutional violation of your non-existent right to hold office.

-- they try to make atheists not be permitted to hold elected office,

This is a falsehood, as you well know, since every such law has been overturned by the Supreme Court and it is perfectly legal for an Atheist to run for office. Now, he may not be elected because he's an Atheist, but that's just democracy in action. If Atheists weren't seen as such a grave threat to the majority interests, they wouldn't be so marginalized. Atheists are, as I've said before, their own very worst enemies when it comes to political power.

Hasn't stopped your ilk from trying....

That's democracy for you.

It's not "democracy in action." Not OUR kind of democracy, which is constitutionally limited. But, it's not surprising an intolerant person like you would advocate stripping individuals of their fundamental rights.

Hey, anybody can petition their representatives for relief of any grievance whatsoever. Doesn't mean they are going to be granted relief. So, your argument is just a strawman.

and they make false claims as if we have a Christian government, they impose religious rituals in government functions, and try to put compelled prayer and proselytizing in public schools in increasingly more insidious ways.

The schools belong to the community, and if the democratic will of the community is that religion be taught in the schools, the Constitution does not expressly forbid this. All the laws regarding the teaching of religion in schools are court rulings, not amendments to the Constitution. While they are binding, as court rulings they do not necessarily reflect the will of the people nearly as accurately as a local school board does.

It is not permissible in our republic to deprive individuals of their fundamental rights.

You don't have a right to be free FROM religion except that Congress "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." You just have a right to freely express your religion.

You've acknowledged before that the Supreme Court's constitutional function is to interpret and apply the Constitution, and to rule laws constitutional and unconstitutional. Do you deny that function now?

I believe I said that the Supreme Court claimed it's function is to "interpret" the Constitution and rule laws constitutional and unconstitutional (Marbury v. Madison). However, I deny that the Supreme Court has the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself. It's role insofar as the Constitution and the words and meanings inherent in that document is to apply the plain language of the Constitution it was intended by the authors and ratifiers of the document to the inferior laws made under it, and ONLY that. Any "interpretation" of the Constitution beyond discerning the original intent of the authors and ratifiers can only be done by the People, through the stipulated amendment process, or by the Congress, to a limited extent, through the passage of laws that are subject not only to Constitutional challenge and inspection by the Supreme Court, but which are also subject to the direct will of the people through both the representative process and the amendment process.

They peddle lies and distortions,

So you say. Prove it.

Already done. They're snake oil salesmen.

Prove their "snake oil" doesn't work.

and indoctrinate children to be satisfied with mythology over knowledge,

That's their right, and now you have to prove that what they teach is in fact "mythology" and not fact. Good luck proving that God does not exist.

Of course it's their right. They have the "right" say whatever they want.

I don't have to prove gods don't exist to prove that they peddle "mythology." Gods are only one mythological thing - hosts of other stories and fables peddled as true are mere mythology.

You do if you claim that gods don't exist. You are the one making the positive assertion, therefore the burden of proof is upon you to substantiate your claim with critically robust evidence. Otherwise you're nothing more than a hypocrite to your own ideology.

and to adopt cultish rituals.

Ritual helps bind society together and give its members common purpose, beliefs, morality and interests. Nothing particularly wrong with people deciding to believe in one common set of practices, principles, morals and ethics. It's called "civilization" and religion is mostly responsible for the emergence and continued existence of civilization, unlike atheism, which is responsible only for death and destruction on a widespread scale.

Nothing wrong with them getting rid of them either, and nothing wrong with me being a proponent of a change in that regard.

There are many demonstrable things wrong with eliminating rituals and religion, as seen in the murder of a hundred million people by Stalin, Mao and their ilk in a vain attempt to extirpate religion and ritual, only to replace it with a ritualistic religion of nihilistic death and Marxist destruction.

It's not just the religious who have rights, despite what you would have everyone believe.

Strawman. I never made such a claim.

They lie to children and scare them into thinking they will be punished after death,

Prove they're lying and that we will all NOT face punishment after death.

I don't have to prove that they won't face punishment.

You do if you want not to be branded a hypocrite to your own philosophy.

I only need to show that the religious humans have no way of knowing what happens after death - most of them admit it themselves - yet, they still peddle the notion of eternal punishment to others. They know they don't know -- yet they represent to others that they do know.

Go right ahead and show (through critically robust scientific evidence) the claim that "humans have no way of knowing what happens after death." I'll be very interested in your proofs.

impose miserable mutilations on children, and all sorts of horrible things.

Some do, most don't. It's typical for Atheists to lump all religions, and all people of religion into the same calumnies and lies, as you have just done, proving my point about bigotry, intolerance and hatred quite nicely. Thanks.

You care about lumping people together? That's 100% of what you do relative to atheists.

No, not atheists, Atheists.

You're supposed to be better than atheists, aren't you? You believe in something "higher" than your ego, don't you?

Am I? Do I?

If that's what you want to defend, that's up to you.

I defend the rights of individuals and groups to believe and worship as they choose, so long as they do so peaceably. Which is why I attack Atheists for their miserable treatment of good people of religion by lumping them in with those who are not good or peaceable.

No you don't.

Sure I do. You just don't like that I'm so effective at it.

You don't defend the rights of atheists at all, and you don't defend the rights of atheists to believe what they want to believe. You advocate and support the right of religious people to impose, by democratic processes, their views on atheists. You've said it yourself.

Well, since atheists have no beliefs (you've said so yourself) then they have no right to have their non-belief defended, do they? However, Atheists do have beliefs, but the problem is that they are not peaceable beliefs, so I'm not obliged to defend them any more than I'm obliged to defend the beliefs of radical, murderous Islamists.

You only defend the "rights" of SOME people, and you hand those people - the religious - a preferred position.

Yup. Just the peaceable people. The rest can go fuck themselves, and that includes Atheists, even though they are themselves religious zealots.

And, you do so under the puerile whine of injustice - you on the one hand claim to be "the majority" and therefore justified in imposing all sorts of injustices upon other individuals who do not believe - and then you in the next breath claim to be trodden upon and harmed by that small minority you originally claim is so inconsequential.

You haven't cited any injustices done to "other individuals" yet. Freely expressing religion in public is not an "injustice" against Atheists because they have no right whatsoever to be free of religious expression in public. It is true, however, that Atheists do in fact tread upon the rights of the majority to freely express themselves in public all the time.

There is something seriously unappealing about an overwhelminng majority whining about being oppressed. It's sickeningly childish, and it is the hue and cry of the bully who finally doesn't get EVERYTHING his own way.

You seem to think that just because someone is in the minority that they are axiomatically "unjustly" discriminated against or oppressed merely by virtue of being in the minority. I would like to point out that pedophiles are in the minority, and like Atheists, they are justifiably discriminated against and oppressed because they engage in activities that are harmful to society. That NAMBLA whines about being oppressed, or whines about the majority reviling their attempts to legalize "sex before eight or it's too late" is of absolutely the same level of interest as Atheists whining about being oppressed by the religious majority: Zero interest.

Society doesn't owe Atheists anything other than the tolerance that is owed to any peaceable expression of religion. When Atheism departs from being peaceable by attacking the equal rights of the religious majority to free religious expression, its adherents lose all moral and legal authority and suasion and they can and should be discriminated against for their non-peaceable acts.

If you don't like being treated that way, amend your behavior.

[apophenia]

I think you both have reached the tl;dr limit, and, if you don't wish to lose your readers' interest, I humbly suggest that you concentrate on synthesis and summary, rather than point by point rebuttal. I recognize this thread blossomed in the context of U.S. law, but I would suggest and ask that you also look to an international viewpoint — both to benefit the discussion, and, because there are prominent atheists who are looking for a greater degree of change in this world beyond equal protection under the law. (Sam Harris comes to mind.)

Regarding Seth's argument that atheists engage in hatred of the religious for its own sake, I confess to feeling that there is a grain of truth to this claim, if none other than the frequent Schadenfreude in watching the religious stumble. On this very forum, a poster (or two) are arguing that there must be a constant pushback against religion and belief in the supernatural, beyond that of merely expecting lawful and ethical behavior from such people (I'm trying not to put words in people's mouths here, and certainly, there is an element in which they fear religion because it often serves as a catalyst for lawless behavior — both the honor killings of four women in the news, and the existence of an organization devoted to encouraging 501(c)3 churches to violate their prohibition against politicking from the pulpit being but two examples among many). However, Seth is here raising the No True Scotsman fallacy beyond that of a high art — it seems a core logical principle in whatever passes for his logic. If they're not frothing at the mouth anti-theist bigots, then they're not True AtheistsTM. This "class" expands and shrinks as necessary so that his position is essentially unfalsifiable; and therefore meaningless. But not content to engage in fallacious arguments on one hand, he occupies the other with those well-behaved religious he knows personally as the exemplar class; if one proves ill-fitting, well, he doesn't know them, or they are exceptions.

To sum up my thoughts on your contention that atheism, with or without a capital 'A', is a religion, I suggest you are wasting your time. And telling falsehoods — I am publicly one of the most overtly religious people here and I don't agree with you — so it's not just atheists/Atheists who think you're full of shit. I can see both sides. Given the atheist mindset, their philosophies support their views on the matter. At the same time, as I said recently, for the religious, "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." I don't fully agree with the atheist position, nor do I yours. Atheists, as a group, seem to share some of the same social behaviors which are somewhat diagnostic of a religion; but they're also missing important elements. And the harder you try to turn the sow's ear of atheist behaviors into the silk purse of a bona fide religion, the more you will fail; and like not solely from atheistic objection. (My middle ground sits in some abstruse philosophy of mind, ethics and general philosophy, which I'm not going to go into.) (I accidentally edited out something. If you wish to pursue the atheism = religion angle, Statler Waldorf at atheistforums.org presented an interesting argument based on the work of renowned religious scholar Ninian Smart. I suggest you look it up.)

And, while my hunch tells me that the quantification of extra-legal obnoxious behavior likely doesn't smile favorably upon the religious in general, and theists in particular, I'm not going to assess that question other than to note that dirty tricks like stacking school boards with pro-creationist candidates is only starting to be emulated by the non-religious; if you want to learn about dirty tricks, you'll be spending most of your time studying the religious (and relativizing for greater numbers is invalid here, as your argument makes no mention of per capita adjustments, and indeed claims that without them, atheists are still the bear). I will note just in passing that many atheists (see above) embrace the same basic logic that led to the millions killed under atheistic regimes — painting religion itself as a danger and a threat to society and to people's well being. They may be correct, but it's important, I think, to be self-conscious of when we are demonizing religion because they are or have acted demonically, and demonizing it/them because we are either distrustful and afraid, or simply bigoted.

I had something else to say to Seth, but I can't find it in all the tl;dr. Damn! What a bummer!

[HomerJay]

On this very forum, a poster (or two) are arguing that there must be a constant pushback against religion and belief in the supernatural, beyond that of merely expecting lawful and ethical behavior from such people...

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

We might criticize ideas and their foundations for any number of reasons. It seems unlikely you'd say that people pushback against neocons beyond simply expecting lawful and ethical behaviour, why is religion different?

[Animavore]

If we're going to talk anecdotal evidence - just about every single person I've met from this site and about every atheist/non-religious person I've met (which in Ireland these days, or at least where I live, is just about every one under 30) in real life including family and friends, are absolutely lovely people, completely trustworthy, warm, open-minded and intelligent. And though I haven't met her, I'm sure I'd feel the sane about charlou if I met her too.
But that said, I live in a country where I can openly be an atheist without recourse. No one gives a shit. I'm actually reluctant to go to America, and I don't think I'd ever visit the South, because there are scary fanatics in that country who would hate me and wish me harm simply because I don't believe all their brash, 'Praise Jesus' nonsense. Religion is done so in-your-face over there I'm hardly surprised atheists are so in-your-face back. It's actually mildly amusing to me on the outside looking in.
Religion is just something people do for an hour on Sunday here. And most religious people I know are also lovely people. Including some really sound and funny priests and nuns. But then Irish people are very laid back in general.
But, sticking to anecdotes, the most spiteful, hateful, vindictive person I know is a religious fanatic. A creationist, which are almost non-existent in this country. He talks about atheists with such venom and I'm like, 'Eh... Me' and he'd say, 'Oh! Well, obviously I don't mean you.'



The only other creationist I know is a really cool guy so it can't be the religion that's the problem, can it?

[Coito ergo sum]

Atheism isn't an ethical standard,

It's precisely that for many religious Atheists.

What's the ethical standard you're saying is that?

Hate on religion no matter what.

That isn't an "ethical standard."

Of course it is.

Err... no -- "you hate on religion no matter what" is not an ethical standard....well, if it is to a "tolerist" or a religionist, then that would demonstrate the vapid and vacuous, utterly insipid and hollow, moral and ethical level upon which such persons operate...

And, lots of atheists don't "hate on" religion no matter what.

Not my fault they can't uphold their own ethical standard.

It's also not function or requirement of atheism to hate religion, although many atheists do hate religion. I love religion, and I'm an atheist. Love it. I find it fascinating, and often disturbing. I don't believe a word of them, and I think that overall religion is a bad thing, but I love it. I love it like I love folks that are into crystals and other woo. They fascinate me. I don't hate them.

Your ethical lapses don't change the standard.

It's not a standard. It's your own scurrilous accusation. Your scurrilous accusations do not become standards by the mere fact of your inane repetition of the accusation.

I do distrust Catholic priests, generally speaking. They start with a couple of strikes against them, let's put it that way. I don't trust them like I don't trust traveling salesmen.

Sounds like mindless bigotry to me. What have they ever done to you?

No, it's not mindless bigotry. Like I said, it's like my distrust of traveling salesmen. Once you've encountered enough snake oil salesmen in a given profession, one can be justified in distrusting the profession.

nor is a high or low ethical standard required or a part of atheism.

That's not what Atheists keep demonstrating in their behavior and rhetoric.

How so?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.[/quote]

Garbage.

That pretty accurately describes Atheist dogma.[/quote]

It pretty much describes your nonsensical diatribes, and your constant spewing of vitriolic verbal vomit.

That's the bullshit you keep trying to sell, but it's not flying.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. My arguments are soaring, and every time you deny that Atheism is a religion, they soar that much higher because anyone with half a brain, including some prominent Atheists, recognize the congruence between atheistic belief and practice and religion.

Wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Wrong, Atheism is most certainly a religion.[/quote]

Isn't.

Is.[/quote]

You obviously don't know what a "religion," is. Your own ignorance is not an argument, Seth. I know you wish it was, because you like to "declare" things and call it a reasoned argument, but unfortunately for you, it isn't.

Atheism is not a religion because religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism is not "a set of beliefs," and therefore it cannot be a religion.
Atheism does not concern the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, and therefore it cannot be a religion.
Atheism does not relate to the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies
Atheism never involves devotional or ritual observances
Atheism does not contain a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

There: You lose Seth. You're wrong. Admit it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You keep trying to sell that bullshit, but it isn't going to work.

Works just fine for everybody I know other than Atheists in denial. I say it, I explain what I mean by it, and literally everyone I explain it to says, "Why yes, you're exactly right." I'll take their judgment over yours.

The religious aren't known for any fairness in their approach to atheism, or for having any desire to correctly understand anything. Neither are you. Your goal here is not to understand, but to win. To defeat the atheists. You don't care if you have to spread falsehoods and scurrilous nonsense to do it.

It's not a religion, because it is not a set of beliefs. A religion has to include a set of beliefs.

Of course it's a set of beliefs. Quite a complex set of beliefs in fact.

O.k., I'll bite. Other than "no gods," what are the complex set of beliefs that are necessarily part of atheism?

Atheism is only one belief in there not being a god, or a lack of belief gods. There is no "set."

That's what Atheists would like everyone to believe.

No, that's what is true. You can't change reality, Seth.

That's the lie that they keep on telling in a vain attempt to evade the fact that they are practicing a religion every bit as much as Catholics or Secular Humanists are.

Nope. Still waiting for that list of beliefs that atheism entails.

Please --

Atheism includes the following list of beliefs: (a) ...... (b) ..... (c)...... etc.

Let's go, Seth. Get on with it.

Just as deism is not a "religion" - because all that deism entails is the belief in a god or ultimate cause of some sort, and has no set of beliefs or dogmas, so to atheism is not a religion.

The religion of Atheism is a sub-set of the group "atheists."

LOL -- so, you were lying, then? You do know that "atheism" is not a religion. You're really just alleging that SOME atheists are atheists in a "religious" way, and you then try to attribute what some atheists do to "atheism" in general.

Nice attempt at the bait and switch, but your own fallacious reason doesn't change reality. Atheism is not a religion.

I do so love how when people like you attack atheism because it is -- "religious" or a "religion" -- you are branding atheism in a negative light -- as if, to you, if it's a religion/religious, then that's a bad thing. I agree with you on that. Religious things and religions are bad things, and if atheism were a religion, like other religions, I would strenuously oppose it.

Am I right, Seth? Is being religious a bad thing?

Your "Tolerism" (more aptly described as inTolerism) is more like a religion, though.

Tolerists are only required to tolerate peaceable acts. Anti-religious bigotry is not a peaceable act, so I'm not required to tolerate it, and it's expressly and exactly a religion. Then again, so is Atheism.

Anti-atheism bigotry must, therefore, be a non-peaceable act, and by your own logic, I am not required to tolerate it and neither are atheists, so we are justified in being intolerant of the nonpeaceable acts of religionists.

But it's not anti-atheism bigotry, it's simply examination and critique of Atheism, the religion associated with atheistic beliefs and practices. And since you're not a Tolerist, you can't use the tenets of my religion as justification for your own bigotry and hatred.[/quote]

You see, that's what I've concluded about religion. I've simply examined and critiqued religion, and found them wanting.

You'll need to define "Tolerist." It's just your own made up word, at this point.

Atheism is not morality or ethics,

Sure it is. Moreover, it's most often self-righteous, snooty, arrogant, dismissive, disrespectful and downright hostile in its proclamations of the supposed moral and ethical superiority of Atheists.

It's not an assertion of anything other than the nonexistence of gods.

If you think it is an assertion of ethics or morals -- please -- by all means, delineate the supposed ethical or moral system you're claiming is alleged.

Sure it is, it's a consistent, bigoted, intolerant, zealous attack on other religions and people of faith. You'd like to try to deny the truth, but the truth shines through even so. [/quote]

Atheism isn't.

Sure it is. It's a fundamental tenet of Atheism.[/quote]

Look - you're really off base here. Even if atheism was "a consistent, bigoted, intolerant, zealous attack" on religions and people who believe in stuff without evidence -- that would not make it morality and ethics. That would just make it bigoted, intolerant and zealous. Do you ever use words according to what they mean?

Are there bigoted atheists, sure. But, there are bigoted Christians, too, but one would not suggest that a precept or basic premise of Christianity is bigotry.

And bigoted atheists are Atheists practicing the religion of intolerance and bigotry that is Atheism.

And bigoted Christians are Christians practicing the religion of intolerance and bigotry that is Christianity.

But, no, the reality is that they are just bigots. Bigotry is not part of atheism. There are some atheists that are bigots, of course. You need to puzzle out the logic there. I know it doesn't mean your logical fallacy standard, and you are unable to distinguish that A is A and not A is not A.

Let's look it this way:

All A's believe X.
Some A's are bigots.

what you're alleging is that as a result, a central precept of X is bigotry.

That's what's so wrong about your argument, Seth. It makes no logical sense, at all. It's the screaming rave. It's a tantrum.

You aren't tolerant. You're a bigot, because you lump all atheists together with those who you claim have been bigoted to religious people. You claim that right due to the nonpeaceable nature of atheists, you claim. Well, sauce, goose, gander, my friend. Atheists are just responding to the nonpeaceableness of the religious.

No, I don't lump all atheists together, I lump all Atheists together, perforce, because like Catholics, they belong to a common religion and practice common religious beliefs, which makes it perfectly rational and reasonable to lump them together.

The only common principle of atheism is "there are no gods." There are many common precepts in Catholicism -- "We believe in god the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. We believe in god the son... we believe in the holy spirit..." etc. There are others. That's the difference that you refuse to acknowledge.

You try wrench and force a square peg into a round hole when you make the false equivalence that atheism is like Catholicism in its religiosity. Atheism is not. By definition, it is not.

Try all you want to invent the farce you're peddling, but it's plain as day. You are way off base.

nor is any particular code of morality or ethics required to be an atheist.

That much is absolutely true, which is why Atheists are rightfully mistrusted and kept from political power. Most Atheists have very situational ethics and morals, and the fact that there is no steady moral structure to Atheism is one of its great dangers, as we can see from the hundred million people murdered by Atheists in the last century.

Any thoughtful analysis of morals and ethics is situational. Only a very simplistic and simpleminded person would attempt to suggest that morals and ethics were absolute, or not dependent on the situation.

And this justifies the atheistic murder of a hundred million people how, exactly?[/quote]

You tell me. It's not an assertion I made.

It's a fact of history demonstrating how evil situational ethics are, particularly when practiced by Atheists.[/quote]

You've both alleged that atheism entails a moral and ethical system of some kind, and you have also alleged that atheism does not entail a moral and ethical system -- see above. You have admitted, though, that it is "Absolutely true" that atheism does not require a particular moral or ethical code. Therefore, on that point, you have finally admitted that I am right.

Where you go wrong, though, is when you allege that atheists, therefore, do not have moral or ethical codes. Many of them do. They derive them, however, from sources other than atheism. They derive them from philosophy, culture, law, and other sources.

Of course there were horrible atheists in the world. Nobody says atheism is cure for human nastiness. That would be foolish to think that. Religious people think their religions are cures for human nastiness, and that their expressed adherence to religions make them more trustworthy. That's what YOU just said, as a matter of fact - atheists can't be trusted because atheism doesn't entail a moral/ethical code -- yet, we see that religion is a lie in that regard -- religion PURPORTS to provide moral and ethical bases for people to follow, and yet religious people commit more crimes and more bad acts than atheists do, despite the threats of hell and despite the prepackaged, non-situation, juvenile/peurile moral "dictates" that religions offer...

I just find it humorous that a grown human can claim that ethics and morals aren't situational. Lists of do's and don'ts are for children. Absolutes are for simpletons.

And stable morals and ethics aren't for Atheists.

There is no such thing as "stable" morals and ethics. Again, only a simpleton would think so. It's someone who wishes for a state of affairs that just doesn't exist -- that is the heart of religion, though. Wish thinking. You want there to be a real, single set of "stable" morals and ethics that are inarguably "true" in the world. So, you arbitrarily pick one and say "that's the objective truth" and it's true no matter what and it is unchanging. Again, Seth, declaring something to be true does not make it true.

There ARE no stable morals and ethics. Not for atheists and not for religious people. Religious people adopt a set of principles from their religion and declare by fiat that they are thestable morals and ethics. That declaration - that firm conviction - does not make them real. They aren't real.

Morality is --- for everyone - situational. Morality is a process, and an analysis of each situation to determine what is right and what is wrong, and what is the best course of action or reaction to phenomena or states of affairs.

Is killing right or wrong? Always? Does it depend on the situation? Of course. It's situational.
Is theft right or wrong? Always? Does it depend on the situation? Of course. It's situational.
Is lying right or wrong? Always? Does it depend on the situation? Of course. It's situational.

Moral absolutes are for children.

Atheism, like the non-belief in magic or evil spirits, is not meant to be a moral structure.

And yet it has become precisely that.

Hasn't.

Has too! [/quote]

You made an assertion. Declaring it is not a proof. Prove it. Otherwise, my dismissal of it is justified.

And, you've utterly failed in demonstrating what that moral structure is. You claim it exists, but you never describe the structure. The most that you've done is say "hate on religious people as much as possible." That's not a moral structure. That's just you saying that atheists you run across hate religion.

It appears to be the only moral structure that Atheists have.

No, atheists have many varied moral structures. This is where you lose it, Seth. I know you're not this stupid.

Look - ATHEISM does not have moral precepts or ethics.

However, ATHEISTS do. They derive them,however, from sources other than "atheism." They derive them from philosophy, culture, upbringing, law, etc. Some atheists are objectivists, some nihilists, some marxists, some utilitarians, some pragmatists, some positivists...you name it.

They do have morals and ethics. ATHEISM does not entail morals and ethics, and nobody except the religious and you have said otherwise.

Can you get that distinction, Seth?

It's not my problem if they don't have a sophisticated or well-though-out moral structure. I just examine the evidence and state the truth.

It's not my problem if you are unable to discern that an atheist can have more than one belief or idea.

Just because you're unable to fathom that a person can be both an atheist and a moral/ethical utilitarian or objectivist, well, that's nobody's problem but yours.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bottom line - there is no moral structure within atheism.

Heh. That's what religionists have been saying for a long time now...but I'm not claiming there's a moral structure within atheism, I'm saying that there's a moral structure (such as it is) within Atheism.

Now you've descended into complete and utter cognitive dissonance.

I am laughing my ass off at you.

You just wrote this.... "I'm not claiming there's a moral structure within atheism, I'm saying that there's a moral structure (such as it is) within Atheism."

You're not claiming there is a moral structure within atheism - rather - you are saying that there is a moral structure within atheism.

Wow....

....just.... wow.....

Only in the mind of the religious can a phenomenon be both "A" and "not A" at the same time.

Excuse me while I back away slowly....

[

[Coito ergo sum]

Atheists have to find or pick a philosophy or code from another source for that. Atheism doesn't provide it, and no atheist claims it does.

And they do, which is what makes them Atheists.

What makes them atheists is not believing in gods.

What makes them an objectivist is accepting the premises of objectivism, etc.

People need to adopt another set of beliefs to have a moral structure. So, like, utilitarianism, pragmatism, objectivism, existentialism, etc. -- these may be foundational philsophical and moral structures. But, that's where that comes in. An atheist may or may not have a good moral structure. Some do, some don't.

The same is true of all members of society, including members of religious groups. That doesn't mean they aren't members of a religious group.

What makes them members of a religious group is adherence to principles, dogmas and professions of faith of a particular religion. Atheism has no such principles, dogmas or professions of faith. Atheists do, but not from atheism -- from other sources, as I've already explained to you.

But Atheism does, [/quote]

You keep SAYING it does, but you've never listed those principles, dogmas and professions of faith. You simply declare it.

and Atheists adhere quite closely to those dogmas and professions of faith. Remarkably consistently in fact, across the board.

WHAT DOGMAS????

WHAT PROFESSIONS OF FAITH???

For fuck's sake, Seth....

Some atheists are good and some are bad, and sometimes it depends on who you ask whether they are considered good or bad.

True enough, though the latter seem to outweigh the former in my personal experience, at a rather alarming rate.

I see that of religious people, and every Tolerist I've ever encountered. Very poor behavior.

You must not know many religious people, because every one I've met are kind, loving, tolerant, respectful, polite, caring, charitable and are otherwise really nice people.[/quote]

Most everyone I know claims to have a religion.

Maybe you need to hang out with a better class of people.[/quote]

Hard to find among Tolerists. They're douches, for the most part.

You must not have met many atheists, because the ones I know are kind, loving, tolerant, respectful, polite, caring, charitable and otherwise really nice people. Most religious people are too. But, there are far more bigoted, judgmental, douchebags among the religious population that I've encountered than among the atheists I've encountered.

Our experiences evidently differ.

Thankfully.

Other than agreement on the basic idea that there aren't any gods, or at least that insufficient evidence exists from which to conclude that there are any gods, there isn't a "we" that atheists belong to.

Sure there is. Atheists are by and large collectively drawn to and identified by their intense hatred of religion and their rabid, frothing attacks on people of faith and religion in general.

No, it's generally the other way around, which is why the religious try at every turn to get atheists excluded.

Not any more. [/quote]

Yes. You see it in Rick Santorum and his ilk.

They've been somewhat defanged, but it's not for lack of desire on their part... give 'em half a chance, and they'll slap the chains back on.

Understandable, given the vicious attack-dog nature of most Atheists. They are dangerous and may need to be muzzled for the protection of the public.[/quote]

While it's common for your ilk to want to "muzzle" others -- it's what you do, and what the rest of us have to fight against avidly -- you will have little chance of shutting anyone up. Too many folks know the danger that your kind presents to us and the country at large.

Used to be atheists couldn't testify in court, and even in some states run for elected office, all because religious people were frothing

And justifiably so, because Atheists are not to be trusted with power, and are not to be believed because they hold nothing sacred above their own egos, and therefore they have no reason not to lie through their teeth to achieve their desired ends.

And you have the nerve to talk about bigotry?

"Atheists are not to be trusted with power."

What do you hold sacred above your own ego, Seth?

What else is there? I simply state facts. It's not my concern if the facts distress you. [/quote]

What do you think there is? What do you hold sacred above your own ego?

And, even today, the religious express scorn and disdain for atheists, as if we're not even real citizens.

Yup, and justifiably so, since Atheists tend to attack the majority at every turn and try to destroy the public practices and institutions that the majority wish to observe, for no reason other than their own disdain and hatred of religion.

The only practices and institutions that atheists seek to change are those that violate the Constitution.

How is playing religious music in a supermarket something that violates the Constitution?[/quote]

Nobody sought to change anything by law, Seth. Voicing one's opinion is not an attack -- well, we all know that the religious THINK of other people voicing differing opinions as an "attack" but, one day you folks will have to grow up and learn that other people have differing views and that they will voice them. It doesn't take anything away from YOU if charlou asks her manager to change the music.

And, I see religious people all the time voicing their opinions similarly - like the choir kid in the OP -- should he have just shut up and sung the song? Or, does he not have a right to voice his opinion that the Zikr song is inappropriate?

The religious place their faith above the Bill of Rights, which is why they don't respect the First Amendment when it comes to atheists.

They don't place it above the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights (specifically the Free Exercise Clause) exists entirely to protect their rights against, for example, Atheists who would misuse the Constitution to suppress their free religious expression in public.

In GOVERNMENT and in STATE SPONSORED contexts. That's not the same as "in public." Religious people have 100% freedom to express their religions "in public."

And the Establishment Clause is not a bar on private expression of religious faith in public,

Nobody ever alleged it was.

it's a wall built around government to wall it in, like a prison, to keep government from interfering with the right of the people to freely express their faith in public, and it's a bar on the actions of public employees, not on private citizens.

Exactly. And, what the religious do is try to insinuate their religions into the machinery of government -- the non-private arena of the State. That's why what they do, and what you support, is wrong.

When confronted with that, atheists, of course, being very much outnumbered, can get a bit defensive.

Maybe Atheists ought to be more tolerant, then they'd be better accepted.

Maybe religious people ought to be more tolerant.

Indeed.

[/quote]

Good, we agree on that last bit.

[apophenia]

Oh, that was a point I missed. It isn't so much that atheists lack morals because they don't have the moral foundations which the religious have. Both groups have morals that are ultimately derived from personal conviction. The religious believe that it's ethical to believe what someone else tells them to believe about morality — whether it be God, Buddha or Mohammed — and slavishly follow it even if it contradicts their own common sense. The secular tend to find this abandonment of the responsibility for evaluating and choosing your beliefs, especially ones relating to ethics, personally abhorrent.

The religious don't have a better moral foundation; just a less justifiable one.

[apophenia]

It's a fact of history demonstrating how evil situational ethics are, particularly when practiced by Atheists.

You've both alleged that atheism entails a moral and ethical system of some kind, and you have also alleged that atheism does not entail a moral and ethical system -- see above. You have admitted, though, that it is "Absolutely true" that atheism does not require a particular moral or ethical code. Therefore, on that point, you have finally admitted that I am right.

Where you go wrong, though, is when you allege that atheists, therefore, do not have moral or ethical codes. Many of them do. They derive them, however, from sources other than atheism. They derive them from philosophy, culture, law, and other sources.

Of course there were horrible atheists in the world. Nobody says atheism is cure for human nastiness. That would be foolish to think that. Religious people think their religions are cures for human nastiness, and that their expressed adherence to religions make them more trustworthy. That's what YOU just said, as a matter of fact - atheists can't be trusted because atheism doesn't entail a moral/ethical code -- yet, we see that religion is a lie in that regard -- religion PURPORTS to provide moral and ethical bases for people to follow, and yet religious people commit more crimes and more bad acts than atheists do, despite the threats of hell and despite the prepackaged, non-situation, juvenile/peurile moral "dictates" that religions offer...

The part you got such a kick out of in Seth's post was Seth trying to be subtle. He was saying atheists with a small 'a' lack a moral whatever, but atheists with a capital 'A' do not.


I too would like a definition of just what a "Tolerist" is and what they believe. As near as I can figure, it means someone who tolerates what they tolerate, and doesn't tolerate what they don't tolerate. Obviously, such a person is not suggesting we tolerate the intolerable. So it becomes an open question what they consider intolerable and why? And for me, why they try to wrap themselves in a word which has come to mean goodness and fairness in American society, like a slaveholder wrapping themselves in the flag, when tolerance for tolerance's own sake is obviously not their (his?) point?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a fact of history demonstrating how evil situational ethics are, particularly when practiced by Atheists.

You've both alleged that atheism entails a moral and ethical system of some kind, and you have also alleged that atheism does not entail a moral and ethical system -- see above. You have admitted, though, that it is "Absolutely true" that atheism does not require a particular moral or ethical code. Therefore, on that point, you have finally admitted that I am right.

Where you go wrong, though, is when you allege that atheists, therefore, do not have moral or ethical codes. Many of them do. They derive them, however, from sources other than atheism. They derive them from philosophy, culture, law, and other sources.

Of course there were horrible atheists in the world. Nobody says atheism is cure for human nastiness. That would be foolish to think that. Religious people think their religions are cures for human nastiness, and that their expressed adherence to religions make them more trustworthy. That's what YOU just said, as a matter of fact - atheists can't be trusted because atheism doesn't entail a moral/ethical code -- yet, we see that religion is a lie in that regard -- religion PURPORTS to provide moral and ethical bases for people to follow, and yet religious people commit more crimes and more bad acts than atheists do, despite the threats of hell and despite the prepackaged, non-situation, juvenile/peurile moral "dictates" that religions offer...

The part you got such a kick out of in Seth's post was Seth trying to be subtle. He was saying atheists with a small 'a' lack a moral whatever, but atheists with a capital 'A' do not.

Oh, I didn't see the capital "A" there. Well, there is no such thing as a capital A "Atheism." That's Seth's straw man. He gives it a capital A, and then attributes to this made up "religion" whatever he wants to, and then uses it to slam atheists in general.

I too would like a definition of just what a "Tolerist" is and what they believe.

Tolerism -- A religion invented by Seth in which he is intolerant of anyone he disagrees with, because he labels them harmful to society in general, and then declares whatever he thinks feels right by fiat and claims it is therefore "objective truth"....

As near as I can figure, it means someone who tolerates what they tolerate, and doesn't tolerate what they don't tolerate. Obviously, such a person is not suggesting we tolerate the intolerable. So it becomes an open question what they consider intolerable and why? And for me, why they try to wrap themselves in a word which has come to mean goodness and fairness in American society, like a slaveholder wrapping themselves in the flag, when tolerance for tolerance's own sake is obviously not their (his?) point?

Seth arguments:

If I disagree with you, you have committed a logical fallacy.

What ever I declare by fiat is objective truth.

[Ian]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1126187

Seth, the above post contains a clear personal attack upon another member. As you have recently received a 24hr suspension for similar behavior, it has been decided that your account will now be suspended for 48hrs.