Public school controversy over singing Muslim worship song.

[Pappa]

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.

Would you be willing to list the tenets of Atheism so I can discover if I subscribe to them?

[Twoflower]

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.

Would you be willing to list the tenets of Atheism so I can discover if I subscribe to them?

I'm curious about this as well.

[Seth]

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.

I do defend your right to think or say what you like, even if you're wrong, just as I defend the rights of people of theistic faith to do the same, and practice their religion in public. You may be a better person than some theists, but that doesn't mean that all theists are lesser persons than yourself.

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.

Well, if all you're concerned about is state-sponsored religion, I'm with you on that. The problem is that the term "complete separation of church and state" is a rather more than a little vague and ambiguous statement. To some people it means only that religion should have no overt place in the seat of power and that government should not show preference for any particular religion in its official acts. To others it means that all public manifestations of religious belief must be stamped out and suppressed, even as a matter of moral belief that informs the decisions of lawmakers in the performance of their duties.

And I don't have a problem with government funding certain types of religious displays so long as it funds any religious group that seeks funding equally. Government, after all, is a servant of the people, not it's master, and if a local government is asked to serve the religious desires of different groups for things like temporary religious holiday displays on neutral public property, then while I agree that the government should not pay for the display, it should expend necessary funds for the ministerial administrative duties that are required to properly manage the public property involved when it's being used by citizens enjoying their civil right, just like it's expected to pay for parks maintenance and trash pickups. The key is that the government may only respond to requests by organizations or individuals for limited use of public property for either political or religious activities equally and without either favoring or disfavoring any particular group based on the content of the message to be conveyed. This is accomplished by setting standards and regulations for the use of appropriate areas of public land that may be used for such activities that are content-neutral and deal only with the legitimate need of the government to control and mitigate negative impacts to the resource. Thus, it matters not whether the applicant is the Freedom From Religion Foundation or the Catholic League, applications for the use of a particular space are processed in the order received, or by lottery if there are too many applicants for the space, and the rules of use are the same for everyone, without regard to what the message being conveyed is.

After all, the property doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the people of the community, and they have a right to its peaceable use on an equal basis with everyone else. Religion may not be either favored or disfavored, advanced or inhibited by government. But this also means that religious expression on public property cannot be banned on the false premise that ministerial activities of the government in approving and monitoring the use of public property constitutes an "establishment" of 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,

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?

I agree in part. The crux is that it must be taught in the light most favorable to each religion and not used as a tool of Atheist disparagement and denigration to propagandize children towards Atheism as an alternative. Present the claims of each religion as the religion puts them forward, making no value judgment or analysis of the truth or falsity of the claims, and allow the students to draw their own conclusions about the truth value of the claims on their own. This is what the Catholics say they believe. This is what the Jews say they believe. This is what the Atheists say they believe, etc..

If science and reason is as strong as you seem to think it is, and evolution and atheism are as true as you think they are, then they should be capable of standing on their own merits as the logical, rational truth of the matter, and there is no need to, as you do, disparage other beliefs in order to advance your own. Let the claims speak for themselves. Present ALL the information dispassionately, neutrally and objectively and let the students find their own truth based on the strength of the competing claims. That's all I've ever suggested.

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.

Which doesn't really explain the worship of the God of Global Warming Extremism by so many credulous boobs who are willing to swallow the propaganda of the IPCC hook, line and sinker without any critical inquiry or skepticism at all.

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.

Which is your right, and I defend that right just as much as I defend the right of theists to believe differently.

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.

Indeed. And who are you, or I, or anyone else to gainsay them without proof that the experience did not happen as claimed?

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.

Fair enough, but then again most theists don't demand that you find it to be compelling, they just expect you to respect their experience and their right to find it compelling.

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

Well, no, you're still a religious Atheist, but I wouldn't call you a radical fundamentalist Atheist religious zealot, the Atheist equivalent of the Taliban either. You might be better categorized as your run-of-the-mill middle-of-the-road Atheist, sort of like a Cafeteria Catholic. Generally believing in the core doctrines of the Atheist faith, but being a little squishy around the edges about the more controversial beliefs and doctrines.

[Seth]

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.

Would you be willing to list the tenets of Atheism so I can discover if I subscribe to them?

I'm curious about this as well.

You will find many of them in the post to CES earlier. You may refer to and extract them for rebuttal as you choose.

[Twoflower]

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.

Would you be willing to list the tenets of Atheism so I can discover if I subscribe to them?

I'm curious about this as well.

You will find many of them in the post to CES earlier. You may refer to and extract them for rebuttal as you choose.

Eh, I don't consider myself an atheist, was just curious about what you consider tenets of atheism. Also I don't make it a habit to debate or argue on forums.

[JimC]

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

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

Bonus!

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Would you be willing to list the tenets of Atheism so I can discover if I subscribe to them?

I'm curious about this as well.

You will find many of them in the post to CES earlier. You may refer to and extract them for rebuttal as you choose.

Eh, I don't consider myself an atheist, was just curious about what you consider tenets of atheism. Also I don't make it a habit to debate or argue on forums.

What do you consider yourself?

[Twoflower]

apatheist

[Ronja]

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.

.

[Seth]

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.

I don't. I say "they are all manifestations of religious belief and practice." Some such manifestations are bad, others are not.

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.

Yup, because they are the present subject of the discussion. Don't take that to mean that I'm any more accepting of the non-peaceable actions of theists. The problem with religiously zealous Atheists is that like you do above, they lump all theists into the same broad-brush generalizations and then demean and disparage them. My objective here is to pour a bit of sauce on the gander in that respect. Welcome to the broiler pan, Ms. Goose.

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..."

Which happens to be absolutely true in many cases, which is the point.

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

[/quote]

And in many cases, much, much worse.

Being an atheist is no guarantee of moral or ethical sainthood, and being an Atheist is a firm guarantee of having feet of clay.

[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.

I don't. I say "they are all manifestations of religious belief and practice." Some such manifestations are bad, others are not.

You did.

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.

Yup, because they are the present subject of the discussion. Don't take that to mean that I'm any more accepting of the non-peaceable actions of theists. The problem with religiously zealous Atheists is that like you do above, they lump all theists into the same broad-brush generalizations and then demean and disparage them. My objective here is to pour a bit of sauce on the gander in that respect. Welcome to the broiler pan, Ms. Goose.

You say that as if being generalized, stereotyped and vilified is "new" for atheists. Dude - the religious have been doing that to atheists for as long as the word atheist has existed. It's not that "we" are being welcomed to the broiler pan -- it's that when someone speaks negatively the religious THEY are finally being welcomed to the broiler pan. THEY are finally having to take some shit, instead of hanging, beheading, burning or ostracizing, or imposing legal disabilities on, those that irritate them.

It's the religious folks that are finally getting a small, miniscule, inconsequential taste of what they've been dishing out since time immemorial.

[tattuchu]

apatheist

[Seth]

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.

I don't. I say "they are all manifestations of religious belief and practice." Some such manifestations are bad, others are not.

You did.

Please substantiate with quotes where I said the things you attribute to me.

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.

Yup, because they are the present subject of the discussion. Don't take that to mean that I'm any more accepting of the non-peaceable actions of theists. The problem with religiously zealous Atheists is that like you do above, they lump all theists into the same broad-brush generalizations and then demean and disparage them. My objective here is to pour a bit of sauce on the gander in that respect. Welcome to the broiler pan, Ms. Goose.

You say that as if being generalized, stereotyped and vilified is "new" for atheists.

No, I don't say it that way, you interpret it that way. There's a difference.

Dude - the religious have been doing that to atheists for as long as the word atheist has existed.

So? Atheists have been doing it to theists for just as long. Pot, kettle, black.

It's not that "we" are being welcomed to the broiler pan -- it's that when someone speaks negatively the religious THEY are finally being welcomed to the broiler pan. THEY are finally having to take some shit, instead of hanging, beheading, burning or ostracizing, or imposing legal disabilities on, those that irritate them. It's the religious folks that are finally getting a small, miniscule, inconsequential taste of what they've been dishing out since time immemorial.

Oh come now, Atheists have been vilifying (and murdering) theists for a long, long time, and yes, Atheists have themselves been the victims of oppression in the past. So what? Big deal. Who cares?

Wayback Machine fallacies are, well, fallacies. I'm pointing out what's happening TODAY, and how the most recent Atheist militancy and radicalism expects to get a pass on its bigotry and hatred, as if what happened in the past is justification for bad behavior today. You wouldn't accept that argument from a theist, and I'm not accepting that argument from you. Get over it, move on, and deal with reality as it exists. For example, the Catholic church of a thousand years ago is not at all the same in it's practices as it is today. But this never stops an Atheist from dredging up a Wayback Machine fallacy referring to the Crusades or the Inquisition to use as justification for vilifying and denigrating Catholics today.

Get over yourself. Nobody's tied YOU to a stake or broken you on the rack have they? Then what's your beef? What's past is past, and the evils of the day are sufficient to the day. Getting all het-up about what some Spanish asshole did to some other Spanish asshole 1500 years ago seems to me to be a witless zero-sum game that profits no one, because for every Spanish asshole, or British asshole, there's another asshole on the other side of the debate who did something nasty as well.

Ancestral hatred only prolongs the agony and I'm not buying into it, ever, in any context. The past is gone, let's concentrate on the present and future using reason and compassion and altruism and charity towards all...unless there is a very good and present reason not to.

[Tero]

Tenets of atheism: it should fit on a bumper sticker. We are economical.

Why do them theists put Prolife stickers on the cars? You can't kill alone but you and two buddies can carry out a stoning.