Public school controversy over singing Muslim worship song.

[Seth]

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.

Fair cop. It was inadvertent and I apologize for making it.

[Seth]

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.

And what's so amusing about that? According to those who claim that "atheist" means absolutely nothing more than "lack of belief in god(s)" there can be no moral code whatsoever associated with that putative lack of belief in god(s), now can there? Is this not the classic atheist rebuttal to the claim that atheists are religious? So which is it? Are you an atheist whose atheism means nothing more or less than a "lack of belief in god(s)" which means that you cannot, ipso facto have any moral code drawn from your atheism, or are you an Atheist who has positive beliefs about theism and the non-existence of god, along with other beliefs and practices that make you a person of religion, including things like a secular moral code that insists that religion has no place in the public sphere or government?

Now, atheists may draw their moral code from somewhere else, but they do not draw it from their simple lack of belief. On the other hand, Atheists almost universally draw a goodly portion of their moral code directly from their religiously-based Atheist beliefs and practices.

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?

Here's the current revision. Feel free to split it off into its own discussion thread if you like. I'd be happy to participate.

Tenets of Tolerism™

We hold that a right is a personal freedom of action that requires nothing of others beyond benign tolerance.

We hold that the rights of human beings are natural and necessary, and are not granted by any human authority or power, but are inherent characteristics of our humanity, accruing equally to each person by virtue of their existence.

We hold that human rights are unalienable, and that defense of individual rights is the highest duty of every person.

We hold that each person is entitled to the peaceable exercise of unalienable rights, and that they are fully responsible for all of the consequences of their actions.

We hold that society has a right to demand that the exercise of one person’s rights will not harm, disparage or infringe upon the exercise of the rights of others, and that all members of a society have a duty to respect the equal rights of others.

We hold that society has the authority to adjudicate conflicts that may arise during the exercise of rights in the interests of peaceable co-existence.

We hold that each person is equal in dignity and social position to every other, as a member of the human species, and that none are inferior, none superior, and that all are entitled to respect, dignity and peaceable relations, so long as they act peaceably and respect others as well.

We hold that all just and legitimate political power and authority originates in and flows from the unalienable natural rights of individuals, and that such power and authority may be expressed or granted by the People to provide only so much government as is reasonably and minimally necessary to serve and protect the rights of every individual.

We recognize the need for governance, and that without structure, society cannot function, but we reject and oppose all forms of totalitarianism and tyranny, and all political ideologies that subjugate the rights of the individual to the needs of the State or of the collective.

We choose to be tolerant of the peaceable expressions of religious faith or secular philosophy that are in turn tolerant of the beliefs of others.

We support that which seeks to advance what is good about humanity and our common interests as human beings.

We do not presume to judge others and their need for the comfort and solace of faith, so long as they do not seek to impose their faith upon others by force or coercion.

We believe that it is immoral to deny people the succor and peace of their faith, or to seek to disparage, harm, or destroy those peaceable beliefs or practices that gives them hope and allows them to face adversity, evil, and death in peace and with dignity.

We tolerate diverse hypotheses regarding the existence of God, realizing that our current understanding of the universe is incomplete.

We hold that when our knowledge of the universe is perfect, then we will know with certainty whether or not God exists. Until then, we believe that knowledge is always to be honestly sought until perfection of knowledge is attained, and that no source of knowledge should be suppressed because of its source or its claims, and we reject government censorship in all its forms.

We hold that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that wisdom and knowledge may be found in unlikely places. Therefore we strive to keep our minds open to new information.

We hold that peaceable civilized conduct requires opinions that allow for nuance and leave room for compromise and mutual respect where compromise is sought and respect offered.

We hold that it is our duty to seek a clear understanding of the true intent and purpose of others in all things, and to accept and return with good will and mutual respect that which is peaceably given with good will and mutual respect.

We hold that reason, logic, and clarity of thought are necessary to avoid misunderstandings and disharmony and to achieve greater knowledge and understanding of all things, even that with which we do not agree.

We hold that dissimulation and dishonesty are morally wrong, and we strive to express ourselves honestly and respectfully, with forethought, precision, and careful consideration of the consequences.

We strive to speak the truth as we know it, and remain open to diversity of opinion and correction and advancement of our own understanding.

We do not shrink from vigorous debate, and we offer our intellectual and philosophical opponents equal respect and dignity where it is likewise offered to us.

We are willing to discuss and learn about the beliefs, practices, desires, and needs of others with an attitude of mutual respect and interest when it is offered in return, because knowledge is power, and peace is obtained through knowledge and understanding, not through intolerance, ignorance, or bigotry.

We hold that when faced with uncertainty about another's motives, meanings or intentions, we strive when possible to seek more information and use reason, logic and compassion to determine the truth, as best as we are able.

We are not required to be paralyzed by doubt or indecision, and we hold that it is acceptable to act upon the information presented or known to us, so long as it is reasoned and rational action taken with due regard for the rights and dignity of others.

We strive to respect and give careful consideration to the opinions and beliefs of others before we act, even if we disagree. However, we are not required to accept, facilitate, cooperate with or defer to others if our conscience and reason tell us not to. Nor are we compelled to avoid acting if it is in our or another’s rational best interests.

We are bound only to tolerate that which is peaceable. We are free to intervene, object and defend against that which is not peaceable. There are no constraints other than conscience and reason when physical action is required to protect ourselves or others against predation or attack. When faced with intractable unreason, anger, hatred or bigotry, we may choose to rise to defend the innocent and defenseless, using whatever force is reasonably required.

When faced with physical conflict or aggression, we seek to first defuse and resolve conflict where it is rationally possible, but we recognize and accept that force can be justifiable and rational, and that force may be required from time to time in defense of the rights of ourselves or others.

[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.

And what's so amusing about that? According to those who claim that "atheist" means absolutely nothing more than "lack of belief in god(s)" there can be no moral code whatsoever associated with that putative lack of belief in god(s), now can there?

The amusing part is that you've alleged both that it atheism does necessitate adherence to a particular moral/ethical code, and at the same time you've alleged that it doesn't.

Is this not the classic atheist rebuttal to the claim that atheists are religious?

That's a different question. You said atheism was a "religion." That is WAY different than whether atheists are "religious." SOME atheists are VERY religious. Some Buddhists and Jains and other religions are atheistic, and in that sense an atheist may be quite "religious."

Atheism -- ATHEISM -- however, is not a religion, and does not necessitate a particular moral or ethical code, and has no dogmas.

So which is it?

No atheist has yet alleged anything contradictory from which we need to choose. You are the one who alleged two mutually contradictory things and attributed both to atheism.

Are you an atheist whose atheism means nothing more or less than a "lack of belief in god(s)" which means that you cannot, ipso facto have any moral code drawn from your atheism,

Every atheist is a "lack of belief in gods" atheist. That's what atheism is. Lack of belief in gods, or belief in no gods.

or are you an Atheist who has positive beliefs about theism and the non-existence of god, along with other beliefs and practices that make you a person of religion, including things like a secular moral code that insists that religion has no place in the public sphere or government?

If one has a secular moral code, that doesn't mean one has to be an atheist. And atheism does not involve a moral code, secular or otherwise.

Now, atheists may draw their moral code from somewhere else, but they do not draw it from their simple lack of belief. On the other hand, Atheists almost universally draw a goodly portion of their moral code directly from their religiously-based Atheist beliefs and practices.

What are some examples of "religiously-based atheist beliefs and practices?"

[apophenia]

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.

And what's so amusing about that? According to those who claim that "atheist" means absolutely nothing more than "lack of belief in god(s)" there can be no moral code whatsoever associated with that putative lack of belief in god(s), now can there? Is this not the classic atheist rebuttal to the claim that atheists are religious? So which is it? Are you an atheist whose atheism means nothing more or less than a "lack of belief in god(s)" which means that you cannot, ipso facto have any moral code drawn from your atheism, or are you an Atheist who has positive beliefs about theism and the non-existence of god, along with other beliefs and practices that make you a person of religion, including things like a secular moral code that insists that religion has no place in the public sphere or government?

Now, atheists may draw their moral code from somewhere else, but they do not draw it from their simple lack of belief. On the other hand, Atheists almost universally draw a goodly portion of their moral code directly from their religiously-based Atheist beliefs and practices.

You're addressing your complaint to the wrong person. I was simply drawing Coito's attention to the meaning of that phrase in your post. Though while I'm here, allow me to make an observation and suggestion. What you refer to as Atheist with a capital 'A' sounds suspiciously close to what many people term an anti-theist. The term anti-theist seems to encapsulate many of the same notions, but is both widely understood and reasonably well accepted by both sides. I believe Richard Dawkins even refers to himself as an anti-theist. Your arguments might profit from substituting this term.

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?

Here's the current revision. Feel free to split it off into its own discussion thread if you like. I'd be happy to participate.

Tenets of Tolerism™

We hold that a right is a personal freedom of action that requires nothing of others beyond benign tolerance....

Thank you for providing the requested information. It might indeed be better to devote a separate thread to it, especially given the volume of material. A few quick observations. First, it being rather longish, and me feeling somewhat lazy at the moment, I am deferring reading it to another time. Second, I'd like some notion of numbers; how many people, roughly, consider themselves ToleristsTM, officially. And lastly, I will share with you the fact that I don't believe in the concept of "rights" — natural or otherwise — so you're unlikely to find a sympathetic audience for such a framework in me, though as noted elsewhere, I'm rather politically ignorant and naive. I would ask you, however, presuming it isn't done so in the information you posted, to describe what a "right" is, ontologically and metaphysically. Is it a thing that we can look at, a smell, is it a concept, or perhaps a type of process? I asked the spokespeople of the local Church of Scientology what a right was, according to them; the answers I got were underwhelming. Given your considerable expertise in matters political, I'm hoping you can provide a more fitting understanding of the ontological status of a right.

ETA: I guess I need more coffee. You seem to attempt a definition in line one. However, since "a personal freedom of action" is not a thing, I think I need more than this. What is a freedom? Are some personal freedom of actions rights and others not? It would superficially appear so. And how do "personal freedoms of action" arise in the world? Or do they exist immemorially, from before there were humans until long after we are gone? Anyway. You're likely seeing my skepticism of the concept of rights in the phrasing of my questions. I don't mean, intentionally, to stack the deck, but these seem like very pointed and telling questions.

[Seth]

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.

And what's so amusing about that? According to those who claim that "atheist" means absolutely nothing more than "lack of belief in god(s)" there can be no moral code whatsoever associated with that putative lack of belief in god(s), now can there?

The amusing part is that you've alleged both that it atheism does necessitate adherence to a particular moral/ethical code, and at the same time you've alleged that it doesn't.

Your amusement is based in your failure to distinguish between atheism and Atheism. One (atheism) cannot necessitate an adherence to anything at all; the other (Atheism) is a religious order that has a set of moral beliefs all its own that is adhered to by Atheists.

Is this not the classic atheist rebuttal to the claim that atheists are religious?

That's a different question. You said atheism was a "religion."

No, I said that Atheism is a religion, and it is.

That is WAY different than whether atheists are "religious."

All Atheists are religious in their beliefs about Atheism, therefore they are religious.

SOME atheists are VERY religious. Some Buddhists and Jains and other religions are atheistic, and in that sense an atheist may be quite "religious."

Indeed, including Atheists, who are very religious.

Atheism -- ATHEISM -- however, is not a religion, and does not necessitate a particular moral or ethical code, and has no dogmas.

No, that's "atheism" you're referring to, and it applies almost exclusively to young children and mental defectives, who are about the only people on earth who have either never been exposed to theistic concepts or are mentally incapable of understanding theistic concepts and are therefore incapable of making the kinds of rational decisions about the truth-value of theistic claims upon which the religion of Atheism is founded. No person self-identifying as an atheist, particularly here in this forum, is an implicit atheist, they are all quite obviously religious Atheists who have formulated a sometimes complex, sometimes simplistic set of beliefs and practices surrounding their alleged lack of belief in god(s). The real religious Atheist zealots can usually be identified by the fact that their displayed knowledge of Christian scripture, and their obsessive need to comment upon it, often exceeds the knowledge of the ordinary Christian theist. There are other signs as well, such as genuflection and worship of their particular prophets, like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

So which is it?

No atheist has yet alleged anything contradictory from which we need to choose. You are the one who alleged two mutually contradictory things and attributed both to atheism.

Not at all. I've properly attributed in both cases, once to implicit atheists and once to explicit Atheists. Nothing contradictory about it at all.

Are you an atheist whose atheism means nothing more or less than a "lack of belief in god(s)" which means that you cannot, ipso facto have any moral code drawn from your atheism,

Every atheist is a "lack of belief in gods" atheist. That's what atheism is. Lack of belief in gods, or belief in no gods.

Yes, but Atheism is so very much more than "lack of belief in gods, or belief in no gods." So very, very much more.

or are you an Atheist who has positive beliefs about theism and the non-existence of god, along with other beliefs and practices that make you a person of religion, including things like a secular moral code that insists that religion has no place in the public sphere or government?

If one has a secular moral code, that doesn't mean one has to be an atheist. And atheism does not involve a moral code, secular or otherwise.

However Atheism does.

Now, atheists may draw their moral code from somewhere else, but they do not draw it from their simple lack of belief. On the other hand, Atheists almost universally draw a goodly portion of their moral code directly from their religiously-based Atheist beliefs and practices.

What are some examples of "religiously-based atheist beliefs and practices?"

We can start with the ubiquitous faith in the proposition that God does not exist.

We can add to that faith in the proposition that government and society are better off without the influence of religion (which is usually improperly conflated with theism).

Then there's faith in the proposition that children are harmed by religious (again improperly conflated with theistic) education and that therefore religion (other than the highly-religious doctrine of Atheism) must be kept out of schools.

Then there's faith in the proposition that evolution is the one and only answer to how we came to be as we are.

That's just a few of the doctrines of faith of the Atheist religion, all of which are beliefs, things taken on faith, that have not been proven to be true (not that it matters) that demonstrate just how religious Atheists can be.

[Seth]

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.

And what's so amusing about that? According to those who claim that "atheist" means absolutely nothing more than "lack of belief in god(s)" there can be no moral code whatsoever associated with that putative lack of belief in god(s), now can there? Is this not the classic atheist rebuttal to the claim that atheists are religious? So which is it? Are you an atheist whose atheism means nothing more or less than a "lack of belief in god(s)" which means that you cannot, ipso facto have any moral code drawn from your atheism, or are you an Atheist who has positive beliefs about theism and the non-existence of god, along with other beliefs and practices that make you a person of religion, including things like a secular moral code that insists that religion has no place in the public sphere or government?

Now, atheists may draw their moral code from somewhere else, but they do not draw it from their simple lack of belief. On the other hand, Atheists almost universally draw a goodly portion of their moral code directly from their religiously-based Atheist beliefs and practices.

You're addressing your complaint to the wrong person.

It's not really a complaint, it's an observation of truth.

I was simply drawing Coito's attention to the meaning of that phrase in your post. Though while I'm here, allow me to make an observation and suggestion. What you refer to as Atheist with a capital 'A' sounds suspiciously close to what many people term an anti-theist. The term anti-theist seems to encapsulate many of the same notions, but is both widely understood and reasonably well accepted by both sides. I believe Richard Dawkins even refers to himself as an anti-theist. Your arguments might profit from substituting this term.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I prefer to use the term "Atheist" because that's how the group self-identifies. I capitalize it to give it the status it deserves as a proper noun because like Catholicism or Buddhism or Judaism, Atheism as practiced today is a religion and therefore deserving of the proper noun status.

Besides, it annoys the crap out of Atheists, which makes it all the more satisfying. After all, Atheists tend to be intolerant louts when it comes to other religions, so it's appropriate to hoist them on their own petard by making the point that they themselves are religious, and in many cases religious zealots every bit as much as the theists they constantly deride. It's a good way to take them down a peg or two and highlight their arrogance and hypocrisy.

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?

Here's the current revision. Feel free to split it off into its own discussion thread if you like. I'd be happy to participate.

Tenets of Tolerism™

We hold that a right is a personal freedom of action that requires nothing of others beyond benign tolerance....

Thank you for providing the requested information.

You're welcome.

It might indeed be better to devote a separate thread to it, especially given the volume of material. A few quick observations. First, it being rather longish, and me feeling somewhat lazy at the moment, I am deferring reading it to another time. Second, I'd like some notion of numbers; how many people, roughly, consider themselves ToleristsTM, officially.

Well, it's shorter than the Bible, which is something, and the official number of which I'm aware is two so far, although there may be many others out there who either haven't formally accepted the tenets and notified me, or are merely implicit Tolerists™ who haven't yet been introduced to the Tenets but who hold similar beliefs and practices.

And lastly, I will share with you the fact that I don't believe in the concept of "rights" — natural or otherwise — so you're unlikely to find a sympathetic audience for such a framework in me, though as noted elsewhere, I'm rather politically ignorant and naive. I would ask you, however, presuming it isn't done so in the information you posted, to describe what a "right" is, ontologically and metaphysically. Is it a thing that we can look at, a smell, is it a concept, or perhaps a type of process? I asked the spokespeople of the local Church of Scientology what a right was, according to them; the answers I got were underwhelming. Given your considerable expertise in matters political, I'm hoping you can provide a more fitting understanding of the ontological status of a right.

ETA: I guess I need more coffee. You seem to attempt a definition in line one. However, since "a personal freedom of action" is not a thing, I think I need more than this. What is a freedom? Are some personal freedom of actions rights and others not? It would superficially appear so. And how do "personal freedoms of action" arise in the world? Or do they exist immemorially, from before there were humans until long after we are gone? Anyway. You're likely seeing my skepticism of the concept of rights in the phrasing of my questions. I don't mean, intentionally, to stack the deck, but these seem like very pointed and telling questions.

A freedom of action is exactly what it says; a present ability to engage in some act.

This concept of natural rights is derived (by me) from organic behavior of all living organisms and I call them the Organic Rights. The following is an excerpt from a work in progress:

The Organic Basis of Rights
By Seth Richardson
© 2011

In considering the origin and derivation of our rights as human beings, the genius of the Founders is in their deep philosophical and political thinking and debate about the fundamental principles of government and society, and their discovery of principles of liberty and constrained government that resulted in the creation of the most successful political and social model in the history of the world. We don't see that kind of careful political thinking on original principles much today, and that's why, at least for me, the Founding Fathers are revered not as supremely intelligent, but as unusually skilled in deep political, moral and ethical thinking, far beyond most of what we see today. They were not more intelligent, they were simply more wise and careful thinkers.

For those who do not believe in deity, who are non-theistic in their beliefs, I posit that there is an objective, scientific and philosophical basis for what the Founders attributed to a "Creator." For non-theists, the practical effect of referring to a Creator, and the assertion that our rights are granted by a Creator, not man, is to ensure that the rights that we enjoy are not derived from the ever-changing political philosophies of man, but rather they are intended to provide stability and justice in society by recognizing that our fundamental individual rights an inherent part of our nature as living beings and thinking humans. It is the inherent nature of our rights that makes them unalienable, and to be philosophically consistent, non-theists must have an objective intellectual basis for finding those rights to be inherent if we are to avoid having our rights characterized as state-granted and subject to the whims and caprices of the public will, a practice that has never been successful in securing human happiness and liberty.

Governments exist for the sole purpose of providing stability and order and secure the rights of all persons against tyranny and oppression. Any rational and just form of government must achieve those goals if human happiness and liberty are to be preserved. I hold it to be a self-evident truth that the highest goal of any civilization is to provide for the happiness of its citizens to the maximum extent possible consistent with ordered liberty.

The Founders took as a principle that a Creator exists, and they wisely decided that subjective rights, those that are subject to the whims and caprices of the ruling class, were not effective in protecting individuals against the tyranny of despots and their fellow men. So by referring to a non-specific "creator" they moved our fundamental rights beyond the power of either man or government to grant or deny, into the philosophical realm of "natural rights" precisely in order to prevent what they rightly saw as the dangers of despotism and majoritarian tyranny that inevitably occurs when one man, or one group of men, are permitted to determine what rights another man, or group of men, may enjoy.

The Founders resorted to a "creator" because theistic beliefs were ubiquitous in their time and they did not see any need for any other rational basis for such rights. They did however recognize that people construe a "creator" differently, which is why, in their companion attempts to secure religious liberty, they used the more abstract reference to a "creator" rather than referring to one or another specific version of a deity.

But it is true today that there are many Americans who are not theistic by nature, and it is likewise true that they ought to enjoy the same rights as any other person, and that therefore we should seek an objective, rational basis for our unalienable rights that neither denies anyone their rights, but that also keeps the origin of rights out of the hands of man, for man has proven time and time again to be an ineffective steward of human liberty when it is the society within which the individual exists that gets to define what the individual's rights are.

In the context of Creator versus Nature, whether a Creator exists or not is not terribly relevant to the philosophical construct of natural rights. One may simply substitute "nature" for "creator" and be on the mark.

Rights, in that non-theistic sense, accrue simply by virtue of our existence and nature as living human beings and the necessities of nature for social constructs to regulate behavior in communities, and the term "Creator" becomes little more than a place-holder for natural behaviors. Rights, as we generally know them, are clearly a product of our intellect, but this does not mean that their origin cannot be derived from observations of our natural world and natural behavior. Natural rights are founded in natural principles, which is what gives them their philosophical strength when applied to human behavior outside the theistic realm.

For that reason I have for some time been trying to construct a logical and rational argument that derives at least some of our inherent rights as a function of natural processes, which I see as a companion to theistic belief, not in opposition to it. I call these derivations the Organic Rights, which are derived from organic laws of nature and natural behavior. In this context, the term "rights" means "a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others." The man alone, in the absence of any other creature, has no need of rights because there is nothing that conflicts with his sovereign and unlimited ability to do absolutely anything that he is capable of doing. But when man, or indeed any creature comes into conflict with another over the resources needed for survival, an adjudication of the freedoms of action of one that conflict with the freedoms of action of another becomes inherent. In it's most simplistic form, this adjudication is the Law of the Jungle, the survival of the fittest, and the winner is the creature that has the ability to prevail over a challenger for the resources of life. All else, right down to modern-day jurisprudence, is merely a more complex form of this most primitive adjudication in the struggle for the basics of life.

If a "right" is a freedom of action that may be defended against infringement by others, then the conflict of rights is what occurs when two organisms vie for the same resource, and the adjudication of which organism will win the use of the resource is the natural basis for all social systems that follow, from the very simple Law of the Jungle to the most complex of human or animal societies. Social organization requires rules of behavior and conduct to exist, and such rules may be simple or exceedingly complex, and they may be instinctive and genetically programmed or philosophical constructs, but they all derive from the same fundamental organic need for organization in order to advance and enhance the survival of the species. This is as true of human beings as it is of ants or wolves. And so within each social organization there exists an inherent structure of rights that are a function of the individual that come into conflict with other individuals in the society.

Civilization, to one degree or another, is the balancing and adjudicating of these conflicting rights in ways that advance the survival of the species, in the most primitive form, and which provide for the survival, happiness and autonomy of the individual consistent with the needs of society in the more complex forms.

And so to derive the Organic Rights from nature and apply them to human culture and society, we must begin at the beginning.

Every organism needs life, autonomy, the resources to survive, and the ability to reproduce in order to exist both as an individual and as a species. The Organic Rights are expressions of these fundamental organic needs as applied to human society, and it is my claim that human society cannot survive unless it respects those fundamental organic needs of all human beings any more than a species itself cannot survive if it does not fulfill the underlying organic needs. Thus, I express those fundamental organic needs as the Organic Rights, because without societal recognition and protection of those rights, individuals cannot survive and society cannot exist.

Every organism on earth seeks to preserve it's own life. This instinct is seen everywhere in the natural world as a function of evolution. Every individual organism seeks autonomous life in that it will defend itself and its life when attacked by another organism. Therefore, the First Organic Law is that all living creatures pursue autonomous survival and will engage in self-defense to prolong life. From the First Organic Law I derive the following Organic Rights:

The First Organic Right is the right to life, for without the right to life, there is no purpose for any philosophical construct, and death is the result.
The Second Organic Right, the right to individual liberty, emerges because all living creatures strive for organic autonomy and individual liberty to some degree.
The Third Organic Right is the right to self-defense, because all living creatures naturally defend their lives when attacked, to one degree or another. This is, as Richard Dawkins puts it, an expression of "selfish genes" attempting to replicate.

Next, we observe in nature that all living creatures will seek to find and obtain that which is necessary for their survival. Fundamentally this is energy, which comes in many forms. In addition, higher creatures will seek out shelter against the elements as well, as a part of the necessities of survival. From this natural behavior I derive the Second Organic Law; All creatures seek to obtain and secure to their own exclusive use the resources necessary for survival.

From this Second Organic Law I derive the Fourth Organic Right; the right to seek out, obtain and reserve to one's exclusive use the resources necessary for survival, which is more simply stated as the right to the exclusive ownership and use of private property.

The Third Organic Law is that all creatures seek to reproduce and pass on their genetic material as a function of evolution.

From this I derive the Fifth Organic Right, which is the right to reproduce, more complexly stated as the right to form a relationship with a mate, engage in reproductive behavior, create a family and raise one's children to adulthood.

Thus, I derive these natural rights directly from natural behavior, without resort to deity or a Creator, but rather simply by reference to our nature as living beings. Those rights are inherent, and superior, and unalienable, and not derived from any social construct of mankind because they are necessary components of our very existence and being, without which no man, and no living creature, can survive and flourish.

This places at least these five Organic Rights above any inferior human social construct, and therefore places them beyond the power of others to disparage or deny as a matter of general social policy. Society may not morally deprive an individual of his Organic Rights absent some behavior on the part of the individual that makes it necessary to do so because of a legitimate threat to others, or the society.

This construct does not disparage the concept of a Creator, or of God, but rather it simply describes the basis of superior unalienable rights from a non-theistic direction, for the benefit of those who choose to exercise their religious freedom non-theistically. It also serves to resolve the objections of non-theists to idea that our rights are divinely inspired, but without disparaging the beliefs of those who adhere to the firmly religious historical context of the Founders.

[JimC]

Singing John Lennon's "Imagine" should be compulsory in all schools...

[Coito ergo sum]

The amusing part is that you've alleged both that it atheism does necessitate adherence to a particular moral/ethical code, and at the same time you've alleged that it doesn't.

Your amusement is based in your failure to distinguish between atheism and Atheism. One (atheism) cannot necessitate an adherence to anything at all; the other (Atheism) is a religious order that has a set of moral beliefs all its own that is adhered to by Atheists.[/quote]

You allege that this "Atheism" exists, but you have never established that it does, in fact, exist.

Yours is a straw man, plain and simple.

It's like saying "some atheists are X" --- so what? Some atheists are Buddhists. Some are Jains. Some are New Age Woo Masters. Some are Humanists. Some are Nihilists. Big deal?

What you do is invent something that you call "Atheism" and then use that to paint all atheists.

The reality is that atheism is only one thing -- the lack of belief in gods or the belief that there are no gods. That's it. Just because some atheists hold other beliefs too doesn't create anything called a capital-A "Atheism."

Out of curiosity, what are the tenets of this religion called "Atheism?"

Is this not the classic atheist rebuttal to the claim that atheists are religious?

That's a different question. You said atheism was a "religion."

No, I said that Atheism is a religion, and it is.

There is no such thing.

That is WAY different than whether atheists are "religious."

All Atheists are religious in their beliefs about Atheism, therefore they are religious.

What percentage of atheists do you think are Atheists?

Your argument is borderline retarded, Seth. It's like saying some atheists are Humanists. Sure, some are. Big fucking deal? That doesn't make Humanism part of "atheism."

Saying that some atheists hold beliefs you find repugnant, and then label those people capital-A "Atheists" is the creation of a straw man.

SOME atheists are VERY religious. Some Buddhists and Jains and other religions are atheistic, and in that sense an atheist may be quite "religious."

Indeed, including Atheists, who are very religious.

You'll need to define your term "Atheist." I can define "Christianity" for you quite well, if need be. What is capital-A "Atheism?"

Atheism -- ATHEISM -- however, is not a religion, and does not necessitate a particular moral or ethical code, and has no dogmas.

No, that's "atheism" you're referring to, and it applies almost exclusively to young children and mental defectives, who are about the only people on earth who have either never been exposed to theistic concepts or are mentally incapable of understanding theistic concepts and are therefore incapable of making the kinds of rational decisions about the truth-value of theistic claims upon which the religion of Atheism is founded.

What is the religion of Atheism? Other than your own mind, what dictionary will we find an objective or prevailing definition for it? What encyclopedia can I refer to?

No person self-identifying as an atheist, particularly here in this forum, is an implicit atheist, they are all quite obviously religious Atheists who have formulated a sometimes complex, sometimes simplistic set of beliefs and practices surrounding their alleged lack of belief in god(s). The real religious Atheist zealots can usually be identified by the fact that their displayed knowledge of Christian scripture, and their obsessive need to comment upon it, often exceeds the knowledge of the ordinary Christian theist. There are other signs as well, such as genuflection and worship of their particular prophets, like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

None of that makes a bit of sense. Atheists have heroes and that makes them religious? Atheists like to talk about religion and know more about it than the theists themselves? That doesn't make atheists religious -- that makes them human, and more educated about religion than the ordinary theist.

So which is it?

No atheist has yet alleged anything contradictory from which we need to choose. You are the one who alleged two mutually contradictory things and attributed both to atheism.

Not at all. I've properly attributed in both cases, once to implicit atheists and once to explicit Atheists. Nothing contradictory about it at all.[/quote]

Yes, but I challenge your basic premise -- that there is anything existing that can be called "Atheism." You can't establish that. If you think you can, then cite your support. If it's limited to "Seth's brain" then we'll have to conclude that it is a peculiar usage used only by Seth, and not in common English usage.

Are you an atheist whose atheism means nothing more or less than a "lack of belief in god(s)" which means that you cannot, ipso facto have any moral code drawn from your atheism,

Every atheist is a "lack of belief in gods" atheist. That's what atheism is. Lack of belief in gods, or belief in no gods.

Yes, but Atheism is so very much more than "lack of belief in gods, or belief in no gods." So very, very much more.[/quote]

You keep SAYING that. But, you never list those things that are "so very much more." The only thing you've mentioned is that you think some atheists are bigots and also harbor a hatred of religion. That's just defining capital-A Atheist to mean "bigoted and hateful atheists."

When you write your screeds, however, it's plain that you are attacking atheists, and not some subset of atheists that you are peculiarly defining as "Atheism" with a capital A. You're playing a stupid game to make false equivalencies based on your own silly creation of a term with a capital-A that really isn't part of the English language.

or are you an Atheist who has positive beliefs about theism and the non-existence of god, along with other beliefs and practices that make you a person of religion, including things like a secular moral code that insists that religion has no place in the public sphere or government?

If one has a secular moral code, that doesn't mean one has to be an atheist. And atheism does not involve a moral code, secular or otherwise.

However Atheism does.[/quote]

You keep SAYING that, but you've never demonstrated it, or backed it up in any way. What is the moral code applicable to Atheism? Define "Atheism."

Now, atheists may draw their moral code from somewhere else, but they do not draw it from their simple lack of belief. On the other hand, Atheists almost universally draw a goodly portion of their moral code directly from their religiously-based Atheist beliefs and practices.

What are some examples of "religiously-based atheist beliefs and practices?"

We can start with the ubiquitous faith in the proposition that God does not exist.[/quote]

That's atheism. Gods do not exist.

What you're doing, though, is just arbitrarily choosing the belief that there are no gods and declaring that it is faith-based. You might as well say that I religiously believe the sky is blue or that water is wet.

We can add to that faith in the proposition that government and society are better off without the influence of religion (which is usually improperly conflated with theism).

That's not a faith. That is what people think by virtue of looking at the influence of religion on government and society.

Theism is the belief in one god which intervenes in the world. The nature of that intervention is what creates different theistic religions. Christians say their god is like X, Y and Z and does A, B and C, and the Muslims say something different, and the Jews something different as well. They are all theistic, though. Polytheistic is the same, except that there are multiple gods.

Religions can be theistic, atheistic, or polytheistic.

Where is the "conflation?"

Then there's faith in the proposition that children are harmed by religious (again improperly conflated with theistic) education and that therefore religion (other than the highly-religious doctrine of Atheism) must be kept out of schools.

Then there's faith in the proposition that evolution is the one and only answer to how we came to be as we are.

That's just a few of the doctrines of faith of the Atheist religion, all of which are beliefs, things taken on faith, that have not been proven to be true (not that it matters) that demonstrate just how religious Atheists can be.

What schools teach theistic education as opposed to religious education?

There is no faith in the proposition that evolution is the one and only answer. The idea is that science is evidence based, and that things that aren't evidence based aren't to be taught in science class.

I really don't know anyone who harbors the "faiths" you ascribe to "Atheism." But, in the end, it is just a peculiar creation of yours, Seth. There is no such definition in common English usage, no dictionary definition in accord with your allegation, no encyclopedia, and no other reference book of any kind that is in accord with your view on it. It's just something you, or some tool like Lee Strobel or equivalent, made up to create a straw man to knock down.

There are no groups of atheists preaching what you've suggested. If any individuals do harbor their atheism on "faith" (meaning belief without reason), then they are certainly not the norm or even a relevant minority of atheists. There are atheists that have "faith" but those are generally atheists that also have a religion, like Buddhism.

[Seth]

The amusing part is that you've alleged both that it atheism does necessitate adherence to a particular moral/ethical code, and at the same time you've alleged that it doesn't.

Your amusement is based in your failure to distinguish between atheism and Atheism. One (atheism) cannot necessitate an adherence to anything at all; the other (Atheism) is a religious order that has a set of moral beliefs all its own that is adhered to by Atheists.

You allege that this "Atheism" exists, but you have never established that it does, in fact, exist.

Yours is a straw man, plain and simple.

It's like saying "some atheists are X" --- so what? Some atheists are Buddhists. Some are Jains. Some are New Age Woo Masters. Some are Humanists. Some are Nihilists. Big deal?

What you do is invent something that you call "Atheism" and then use that to paint all atheists.

No, not "all atheists," just all Atheists, you know, the ones who are religious about their atheism, the ones who wear it like Joseph's coat of many colors, the ones who proselytize and preach that Atheism is the Way and the Light and will bring Rational Salvation to those who believe, the ones who attack and denigrate any other competing religion, the ones who manifest hatred and intolerance of those of other faiths and would deny them their rights, the ones who want Atheism to be the State Religion and wish to suppress every other public expression of competing religion, the ones who want children indoctrinated into their Atheistic beliefs in public schools while prohibiting any mention, no matter how benign, of any competing religion, the ones who worship the god of Science and Reason without question, the ones who deny that any other god exists, or can exist...despite having exactly zero scientific evidence of the truth of this proposition.

Just those Atheists.

The reality is that atheism is only one thing -- the lack of belief in gods or the belief that there are no gods. That's it. Just because some atheists hold other beliefs too doesn't create anything called a capital-A "Atheism."

Yes, it does.

Out of curiosity, what are the tenets of this religion called "Atheism?"

See above. It's not a very well thought-out or rational religion, and it's not very carefully organized or stable, but it's still a religion in every pertinent and necessary respect.

Is this not the classic atheist rebuttal to the claim that atheists are religious?

That's a different question. You said atheism was a "religion."

No, I said that Atheism is a religion, and it is.

There is no such thing.

I think we can also establish that denial of Atheism as a religion is one of the tenets of the religion. It's rather odd and quite irrational, but then again what religion isn't?

That is WAY different than whether atheists are "religious."

All Atheists are religious in their beliefs about Atheism, therefore they are religious.

What percentage of atheists do you think are Atheists?

Here in this forum, and every other atheist forum I've ever see, it's very close to 100 percent. In the real world, who knows. It's like the famous quote on porn, I know them when I see them.

Your argument is borderline retarded, Seth.

No it's not, it's just too true for your comfort, so you have to attack me because you're out of rational arguments.

It's like saying some atheists are Humanists. Sure, some are. Big fucking deal? That doesn't make Humanism part of "atheism."

No, it's not like that at all, it's like saying that religiously zealous people who don't believe in god(s) are members of a religion called Atheism. It's perfectly obvious and easy to see from the outside, and many of the theists I associate with fully agree that atheistic zeal has turned many an atheist into an Atheist who has taken up the crusade for Atheism ever bit as zealously as any Christian riding off to defend the Holy Land. That you refuse to accept that this is true doesn't mean it's not an observable fact.

Saying that some atheists hold beliefs you find repugnant, and then label those people capital-A "Atheists" is the creation of a straw man.

No, it's the identification of a set of beliefs and practices by people who follow them devotedly as matters of faith and conscience, which is the very definition of "religion."

SOME atheists are VERY religious. Some Buddhists and Jains and other religions are atheistic, and in that sense an atheist may be quite "religious."

Indeed, including Atheists, who are very religious.

You'll need to define your term "Atheist." I can define "Christianity" for you quite well, if need be. What is capital-A "Atheism?"

See above.

Atheism -- ATHEISM -- however, is not a religion, and does not necessitate a particular moral or ethical code, and has no dogmas.

No, that's "atheism" you're referring to, and it applies almost exclusively to young children and mental defectives, who are about the only people on earth who have either never been exposed to theistic concepts or are mentally incapable of understanding theistic concepts and are therefore incapable of making the kinds of rational decisions about the truth-value of theistic claims upon which the religion of Atheism is founded.

What is the religion of Atheism? Other than your own mind, what dictionary will we find an objective or prevailing definition for it? What encyclopedia can I refer to?

Here's an interesting definition from American Atheists:

What is Atheism?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools:

“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.

An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

This is far more (though still incomplete) than "lack of belief in god(s)" and it comes from a sect of Atheism. And it was good enough for the Supreme Court to declare that Atheism is a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment.

Game, set, match. You lose.

No person self-identifying as an atheist, particularly here in this forum, is an implicit atheist, they are all quite obviously religious Atheists who have formulated a sometimes complex, sometimes simplistic set of beliefs and practices surrounding their alleged lack of belief in god(s). The real religious Atheist zealots can usually be identified by the fact that their displayed knowledge of Christian scripture, and their obsessive need to comment upon it, often exceeds the knowledge of the ordinary Christian theist. There are other signs as well, such as genuflection and worship of their particular prophets, like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

None of that makes a bit of sense. Atheists have heroes and that makes them religious? Atheists like to talk about religion and know more about it than the theists themselves? That doesn't make atheists religious -- that makes them human, and more educated about religion than the ordinary theist.

It's just one aspect of Atheist religious practice, much like Muslims and Jews spend time discussing and debating their faith. It's a practice that belies the evasive argument that atheism is "simply a lack of belief in god(s)." It demonstrates clearly that they have a very firm and easily identifiable belief about god(s) which is a central tenet of their faith: Gods do not exist. This is not an objective fact, it's a matter of Atheistic faith that's believed implicitly and followed with great devotion and ardor by most Atheists, which makes it another substantial brick in the edifice of faith and devotion that is religious Atheism.

So which is it?

No atheist has yet alleged anything contradictory from which we need to choose. You are the one who alleged two mutually contradictory things and attributed both to atheism.

Not at all. I've properly attributed in both cases, once to implicit atheists and once to explicit Atheists. Nothing contradictory about it at all.[/quote]

Yes, but I challenge your basic premise -- that there is anything existing that can be called "Atheism." You can't establish that. If you think you can, then cite your support. If it's limited to "Seth's brain" then we'll have to conclude that it is a peculiar usage used only by Seth, and not in common English usage.

But I have established it, many, many times, by simple observation and comparative analysis of the behavior of religiously zealous Atheists and reference to common definitions of the word "religion" that are in common usage, and you know it. But I'll post the relevant definition once again, for your edification:

re·li·gion
 
 [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1. 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.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I've bolded the relevant entries and the most applicable and determinative entry is in red.

Are you an atheist whose atheism means nothing more or less than a "lack of belief in god(s)" which means that you cannot, ipso facto have any moral code drawn from your atheism,

Every atheist is a "lack of belief in gods" atheist. That's what atheism is. Lack of belief in gods, or belief in no gods.

Yes, but Atheism is so very much more than "lack of belief in gods, or belief in no gods." So very, very much more.[/quote]

You keep SAYING that.

Yes, because it's true.

But, you never list those things that are "so very much more."

See above.

The only thing you've mentioned is that you think some atheists are bigots and also harbor a hatred of religion.

That in and of itself can make Atheism a religion according to the relevant definition six above, but that's just one aspect of Atheism. See above.

That's just defining capital-A Atheist to mean "bigoted and hateful atheists."

Who practice their bigotry and hatred as a religion.

When you write your screeds, however, it's plain that you are attacking atheists, and not some subset of atheists that you are peculiarly defining as "Atheism" with a capital A.

So you say. But Atheists are as Atheists do. If the shoe fits, wear it.

You're playing a stupid game to make false equivalencies based on your own silly creation of a term with a capital-A that really isn't part of the English language.

And what is this "false equivalency" I'm making? That religiously zealous Atheists can be every bit as irrational and ill-mannered as religiously zealous theists? Why yes, I am making that equivalency, but it's not a false one, it's perfectly true. Ask any theist whose been the target of Atheist religious bigotry, intolerance and hatred, they'll tell you the same thing.

or are you an Atheist who has positive beliefs about theism and the non-existence of god, along with other beliefs and practices that make you a person of religion, including things like a secular moral code that insists that religion has no place in the public sphere or government?

If one has a secular moral code, that doesn't mean one has to be an atheist. And atheism does not involve a moral code, secular or otherwise.

However Atheism does.[/quote]

You keep SAYING that, but you've never demonstrated it, or backed it up in any way. What is the moral code applicable to Atheism? Define "Atheism."

See above.

Now, atheists may draw their moral code from somewhere else, but they do not draw it from their simple lack of belief. On the other hand, Atheists almost universally draw a goodly portion of their moral code directly from their religiously-based Atheist beliefs and practices.

What are some examples of "religiously-based atheist beliefs and practices?"

We can start with the ubiquitous faith in the proposition that God does not exist.[/quote]

That's atheism. Gods do not exist.

No, that's Atheism, which is an expression of faith in the belief that gods do not exist.

Faith is defined as: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust"; "belief that is not based on proof"; "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

Belief is defined as: "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"; "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence".

You have faith in the belief that gods do not exist, but you have no proof that gods do not exist. Therefore, your belief and faith are religious in nature, especially when combined with other beliefs and practices revolving about that specific belief that you engage in. This is true of all Atheists, and it's what makes it a religion.

What you're doing, though, is just arbitrarily choosing the belief that there are no gods and declaring that it is faith-based. You might as well say that I religiously believe the sky is blue or that water is wet.

No, I'm objectively proving that the belief that there are no gods is factually a faith-based religious belief. If I'm wrong, provide one scintilla of objective, critically robust scientific evidence that gods do not exist. And please don't try the typical Atheist shifting of the burden of proof by claiming that there is no evidence that gods do exist so you don't have to believe in them until theists present their proofs. That's not the claim you made. You made a positive claim that gods do not exist, and therefore the burden of proof is upon you to support this claim with objective scientifically falsifiable evidence. Until you do, you are expressing a religious belief that you cling to faithfully, adhere to with devotion, as a matter of conscience and ethics. That's a simple, objective, undeniable fact, and that is the very definition of religious belief and that you are practicing a religion, whether you like it or not.

We can add to that faith in the proposition that government and society are better off without the influence of religion (which is usually improperly conflated with theism).

That's not a faith. That is what people think by virtue of looking at the influence of religion on government and society.

That's faith in a belief. Other religious people look at the influence of religion on government and see exactly the opposite, that it is the lack of theistic influence on government, which is to say the influence of Atheistic religious belief that is harmful to society. For every argument you make that theism is harmful to society I can make an argument that Atheism is harmful to society. So, there is no objective proof that religion, per se, is harmful to society or government. Now it is objectively true that some religious beliefs and actions are indeed harmful to both government and society, which is why the Founders chose secularism in government as their preferred mode of governance. But at the same time that theistic religious beliefs have been shown to be, in many cases, harmful to government and society, it is also true that Atheistic religious beliefs have been equally, and perhaps far more harmful to government and society, as witnessed by the Atheistic religious regimes of Stalin and Mao, which murdered a hundred million people in the name of their religious beliefs.

There is no objective evidence that it is axiomatically and always better for government and society to be free of the "influence of religion," that is merely a belief on your part that's based in your Atheism, nothing more. That makes it a matter of faith for you, not a matter of objective, scientifically provable fact. And that makes that belief a tenet of the religion of Atheism; Society and government are always better off without the influence of (theistic) religion."

Theism is the belief in one god which intervenes in the world.

Well, not quite. It could be many gods. Norse religions are polytheistic, as was ancient Greek and modern Hindu religion, but your point is taken.

The nature of that intervention is what creates different theistic religions. Christians say their god is like X, Y and Z and does A, B and C, and the Muslims say something different, and the Jews something different as well. They are all theistic, though. Polytheistic is the same, except that there are multiple gods.

Yes, we all know this. So what?

Religions can be theistic, atheistic, or polytheistic.

Absolutely true. But what you leave out is the fact that deity (gods) are not a prerequisite or defining feature of religion. One can be practicing religion without any belief in god(s), and that's precisley my point. Theism and Atheism are what you believe. Religion, on the other hand, is how you go about practicing what you believe. And the simple fact is that it is not necessary to belief in gods, any gods, to be practicing religion, and that's exactly what religious Atheists are doing, practicing a set of beliefs about the truth value of the claim that gods exist as a religion which holds as its central tenet and faithful belief the proposition that there are no gods.

Where is the "conflation?"

It's in confusing "theism" with "religion" and wrongly presupposing that one must be a theist in order to be practicing religion. This is not the case. One can, and many do, practice religion without a belief in the existence of god(s). And that's precisely what the religion of Atheism is founded upon; the positive claim that "gods do not exist" as a matter of doctrine and faith.

Then there's faith in the proposition that children are harmed by religious (again improperly conflated with theistic) education and that therefore religion (other than the highly-religious doctrine of Atheism) must be kept out of schools.

Then there's faith in the proposition that evolution is the one and only answer to how we came to be as we are.

That's just a few of the doctrines of faith of the Atheist religion, all of which are beliefs, things taken on faith, that have not been proven to be true (not that it matters) that demonstrate just how religious Atheists can be.

What schools teach theistic education as opposed to religious education?

Religion and theism are not the same thing. Theism is a part of religion, but religion is larger than theism and embraces other beliefs and practices that do not include positive theistic beliefs...like Atheism, which has as it's central belief the negative proposition of theism; that gods do not exist.

There is no faith in the proposition that evolution is the one and only answer. The idea is that science is evidence based, and that things that aren't evidence based aren't to be taught in science class.

That's a belief, and faith in a belief. And there is faith in the proposition that evolution is the answer, I see it displayed every day by Atheists. But evolution is merely a theory, not an objective proof. Despite all the elegance and scientific beauty of evolutionary theory, it is still possible, no matter how unlikely you may believe it is, that intelligent design (by something one might refer to more or less accurately as "God" is the actual answer as to how creatures, or just humans, came to be as they are. We have objective scientific proof that it is possible to manipulate DNA to create new organisms with intelligently designed characteristics. Humans have accomplished this in the lab. It is objective scientific fact, not speculation. This opens up the possibility that somewhere, at some time in the evolution of life on earth, or in the universe, some intelligence manipulated DNA to intelligently guide the course of "natural" evolution down specific pathways.

Therefore, because this possibility exists, and you have not yet proven that such a thing is impossible and did not occur at any time in the existence of the universe, your belief in evolution as the sole answer to the question of how life began and why it is at it is today, is in fact "firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust"; "belief that is not based on proof"; "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" and "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"; "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence".

In other words, it's a religious belief. It may be a TRUE religious belief, but since you cannot prove that truth, it's a matter of faith, nothing more, nothing less.

I really don't know anyone who harbors the "faiths" you ascribe to "Atheism."

That's probably because you willfully deny the premise of the argument because you find it too disturbing to your belief in your own moral and intellectual superiority over other religious believers.

But, in the end, it is just a peculiar creation of yours, Seth.

Thanks for acknowledging that I am the original author of this analysis. Perhaps history will remember me for this critical examination and revelation about the new religion of Atheism, and will properly credit me in the Wikipedia entry. Then again, I may have to do it myself....hmm.

There is no such definition in common English usage, no dictionary definition in accord with your allegation, no encyclopedia, and no other reference book of any kind that is in accord with your view on it. It's just something you, or some tool like Lee Strobel or equivalent, made up to create a straw man to knock down.

Wrong. Please refer to the definition of the American Atheists cited above. Seems I'm not alone at all.

There are no groups of atheists preaching what you've suggested.

WTF do you think Ratz and RatSkep and RDF are. These forums are the primary places of Atheist religious worship and congregation. Every Ratz get-together is a congregation of the faithful with ritualistic consumption of alcohol, cheese and bacon, not to mention Yeshiva-like study of the tenets and beliefs of Atheism, and social intercourse (and other types of intercourse I'm sure) as well.

If any individuals do harbor their atheism on "faith" (meaning belief without reason), then they are certainly not the norm or even a relevant minority of atheists. There are atheists that have "faith" but those are generally atheists that also have a religion, like Buddhism.

We disagree. I see religious Atheists everywhere, more and more often. I see them organizing in formal groups that are even incorporated, like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and the American Atheists, and the Secular Humanists.

You're just wrong, and denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

My puzzlement is why you're so adamantly opposed to Atheism being a religion? Being a recognized religion has a number of benefits, not the least of which is tax-deductibility of donations and, for the "clergy," many other tax benefits. And then there's the whole First Amendment Free Exercise clause thing, which is precisely why the American Atheists characterized themselves as a religion before the Supreme Court.

[Coito ergo sum]

The amusing part is that you've alleged both that it atheism does necessitate adherence to a particular moral/ethical code, and at the same time you've alleged that it doesn't.

Your amusement is based in your failure to distinguish between atheism and Atheism. One (atheism) cannot necessitate an adherence to anything at all; the other (Atheism) is a religious order that has a set of moral beliefs all its own that is adhered to by Atheists.

You allege that this "Atheism" exists, but you have never established that it does, in fact, exist.

Yours is a straw man, plain and simple.

It's like saying "some atheists are X" --- so what? Some atheists are Buddhists. Some are Jains. Some are New Age Woo Masters. Some are Humanists. Some are Nihilists. Big deal?

What you do is invent something that you call "Atheism" and then use that to paint all atheists.

No, not "all atheists," just all Atheists, you know, the ones who are religious about their atheism,

Gotcha. Now we just need to establish what percentage of atheists are in fact this peculiar "Atheist" that you think exist. Nobody I know follows ascribes to the spurious nonsense you ascribe to these so-called "Atheists."

[Svartalf]

Singing John Lennon's "Imagine" should be compulsory in all schools...

You know that this is likely to make them stodgy and uninterested, right?

[Coito ergo sum]

the ones who wear it like Joseph's coat of many colors, the ones who proselytize and preach that Atheism is the Way and the Light and will bring Rational Salvation to those who believe, the ones who attack and denigrate any other competing religion, the ones who manifest hatred and intolerance of those of other faiths and would deny them their rights, the ones who want Atheism to be the State Religion and wish to suppress every other public expression of competing religion, the ones who want children indoctrinated into their Atheistic beliefs in public schools while prohibiting any mention, no matter how benign, of any competing religion, the ones who worship the god of Science and Reason without question, the ones who deny that any other god exists, or can exist...despite having exactly zero scientific evidence of the truth of this proposition.

So, let's get this straight --

Wearing an emblem of one's beliefs --- bad.
Proselytizing and preaching that something is the way and the light -- bad.
Denigrating a religion -- bad.
Manifesting intolerance of other faiths - bad.
Desiring a state religion - bad.
Worshiping a god without question - bad.
Denying that OTHER gods exist -- bad.

LOL -- well - if you say so.

Religious folks who do all those things -- "...they have every right..." and "freedom of religion..." - that's what all religions do.

When you claim some atheists, called "Atheists" do that, and you hate and vilify them.

This is, of course, the hilarious thing about the argument you're making here. I've heard it a lot. "Oh, atheists have more faith than I could ever have..." and "atheism is just another religion..."

Translation: You atheists are just as bad as we are.

[PsychoSerenity]

Singing John Lennon's "Imagine" should be compulsory in all schools...

You know that this is likely to make them stodgy and uninterested, right?

Yes, a better idea to get kids to listen to it would be to ban it from being played.

[laklak]

Most of it was TL,DR, but I'll address the definition of "Atheist", since you seem to think most people here fall into that category. I don't.

the ones who are religious about their atheism

I'm not religious about anything, except maybe beer and wings. But only on a Sunday if I'm wearing my special underwear.

the ones who wear it like Joseph's coat of many colors

I used to have a sport coat in Stuart Hunting Plaid, but it made me look like a 70 year old golfer at the country club. My mom made me wear is with white shoes and a white belt (well, it was the 70s)

the ones who proselytize and preach that Atheism is the Way and the Light and will bring Rational Salvation to those who believe,

I neither preach nor proselytize, only the religious do that. I do sometimes discuss, but I've given up on argument. I find most theists too fucking thick to argue with. As for salvation, ain't no such animal.

the ones who attack and denigrate any other competing religion, the ones who manifest hatred and intolerance of those of other faiths and would deny them their rights,

Well, it's a free country, if I want to say they're deluded twats I can do so. Don't care about competition, I just think they're deluded twats. As a Libertarian you should be defending my right to do so. I don't hate them, nor am I intolerant. I just don't want them to try to deny MY rights. S'all I've ever asked, you think that would be pretty simple. As a tie in, I would never, ever deny anyone rights based on their supernatural beliefs. Guess I'm a better person then they are, eh? After all, there are a LOT of theists who don't think I should even be considered a citizen.

the ones who want Atheism to be the State Religion and wish to suppress every other public expression of competing religion

I'm for total separation of church and state, so I don't want a state sponsored religion of any type. I absolutely would suppress publicly FUNDED religious displays of ALL sorts. However - a privately funded display on private land visible to the public? Go for it. Just stop spending MY tax money on your special superstition.

, the ones who want children indoctrinated into their Atheistic beliefs in public schools while prohibiting any mention, no matter how benign, of any competing religion,

I think comparative religion should be required. It should go into deep, deep detail. I knew it was a load of shite by the time I was 6, because I actually READ Genesis. Just don't teach it in Science class, that's for things like, you know - chemistry and physics. If it offends enough ignoramuses in the school district we can call it the "Theory of Evolution", and explain that some people find this theory just too hard to understand and believe that a magic man didit. Just make sure to tell them these are the same people who believe you can change the color of a sheep's coat my making it fuck in front of colored strings and that anyone wearing a cotton/polyester blend should be stoned. Keep it fair, ya know?

the ones who worship the god of Science and Reason without question,

I wouldn't call it "worship", nor a "god". More like "respect a field of inquiry based on the scientific method". That's closer to how I feel.

the ones who deny that any other god exists, or can exist...despite having exactly zero scientific evidence of the truth of this proposition

Don't care if they exist or not, nor do I deny their existence. What I do say is there is no compelling evidence, either scientific or personal, to implly their existence, therefore I will conduct my life as if they do not exist. Now, by personal evidence I mean personal to me alone. I realize many theists claim to have seen Jesus or God or whatever, or had other personal experiences that lead them to believe in the supernatural. But there are a lot of people (formerly in mental institutions, now wandering around downtown) who claim to be Napoleon, or Jesus Hisself, of to have been abducted by aliens. I don't find that compelling evidence either.

So I guess I'm an "atheist' rather than an "Atheist", eh?

[Seth]

The amusing part is that you've alleged both that it atheism does necessitate adherence to a particular moral/ethical code, and at the same time you've alleged that it doesn't.

Your amusement is based in your failure to distinguish between atheism and Atheism. One (atheism) cannot necessitate an adherence to anything at all; the other (Atheism) is a religious order that has a set of moral beliefs all its own that is adhered to by Atheists.

You allege that this "Atheism" exists, but you have never established that it does, in fact, exist.

Yours is a straw man, plain and simple.

It's like saying "some atheists are X" --- so what? Some atheists are Buddhists. Some are Jains. Some are New Age Woo Masters. Some are Humanists. Some are Nihilists. Big deal?

What you do is invent something that you call "Atheism" and then use that to paint all atheists.

No, not "all atheists," just all Atheists, you know, the ones who are religious about their atheism,

Gotcha. Now we just need to establish what percentage of atheists are in fact this peculiar "Atheist" that you think exist. Nobody I know follows ascribes to the spurious nonsense you ascribe to these so-called "Atheists."

Every single self-professed "atheist" I've ever met or know of has followed most, if not all of the tenets of Atheism with great regularity. So in my experience, it's 100 percent.