Just Wondering

[Guest A. V. Blom]

WHAT IF?OR WHY NOT! DID YOU EVER SEE GODS FACE? DID YOU EVER FEEL HIM?DID YOU HEAR HIS VOICE? WELL YOU DID!"

Uhm...no.

AND SO DID I" BUT YOU REJECT HIM NOT "I" ! NOT I!!  DID YOU EVER READ THE BIBLE?

I did. There was little joy to be derived from it.

DO YOU THINK AFTER 2000 YEARS FOLK CAN STILL BE FOOLED?

Yes, and quite easily too, as is apparent from your very existence. It gets only more easy as evidence -or the lack thereof- fades. And Christianity has no evidence...none at all. It is taken on faith, expounded upon by pseudo-intellectual hacks like Lewis and Strobel, the uncrowned kings of the Appeal to Ignorance.

ARE YOU THE ONLY SMART PERSON IN THE WORLD?PLEASE DO NOT FOOL YOUR SELF! MANY FAR SMARTER THAN YOU "KNOW HIM" THE HOLY SPRIT IS REAL!

And it takes no genius to figure out that any arguments, in favor or against, must be weighed on their own merit...not by whom believes in them. Apparently, it DOES take someone smarter than you.

For that matter, there are many people of whom I could state the opposite...many far smarter than you who did NOT believe in your precious messiah.

OUR ICONS OF TIME AND POWER KNEW IT AND "HIM"! YOU WILL NOT REWRITE HISTORY NOR COULD ANY WHO TRIED! READ LEARN AND LIVE!      BUT MOCK THIS POST IF YOU WILL AND SEE HOW LITTEL THINGS CHANGE!  BUT PRAY AND SEE WHAT WILL!!!  THE REASON FOR THE SEASON    +JESUS CHRIST+    MARRY CHRIST MASS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there, you went off into rambling incoherencies...is your last name Paskiewicz, by any chance?

[Guest A. V. Blom]

Is there actually an official nationl motto?  If so I believe it's "E Pluribus Unum".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That used to be it. The advent of McCarthyism changed all that...now it's "In God we trust".

[Guest Guest]

As a non-Christian, and not an Atheist either, I THANK YOU for the most intelligent post I've read about this in a LONG time.

Yes, there are many intelligent, humble, creative people who "for all the right reasons" have decided to accept the Christian story as the true one.

This is good.  It shows me that they have the ability to weigh evidence and make a choice.

Just like Mr. Ellison in Minnesota weighed the evidence as an adult and chose to follow Islam as his personal moral compass.

I have no trouble with people who choose to follow Christianity as their moral compass.  What irks me is when those people, mostly Christians since I live in the USA, start telling me how superior their faith is to my own, how I and others who do not subscribe to their faith are doomed, etc.

Yes, living in a Christian dominated culture is quite annoying at times, especially when self-annointed leaders such as Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Mark Foley, James Dobson, et al, spew such righteousness out of one side of their mouths, and such hatred out of the other side.  When children are taught to bow down and worship a carboard cutout of President Bush at Jesus Camp, I begin to worry about child abuse and brainwashing.

Where are the other Christians like yourself, who know the meaning behind the scriptures rather than trying to interpret them literally?  Why aren't more Christians like yourself standing up and taking back your faith from the radicals?

Why are the radicals on the fringes of the spiritual divide (Christian and Muslim and Atheist) causing so much grief all over the world?

The "I'm right so you must be wrong" mentality is the cause for all this grief.  Why can't I be right and you be right also?

Again, thanks for the most intelligent post on believing in Christianity I've seen in a long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for your kind comments. I guess in most matters (politics, religion, etc.), the extremists dominate the headlines. And I suppose that we are all - Muslin, Christian, et al - guilty of allowing that to happen. I just had a discussion on this topic with a Muslim friend. We agreed that the extremists and fundamentalists in our religions are not of the same faith as we are, per se. If we're going to generalize into neat little "Muslim", "Christian" or "Atheist" boxes (which, as Paul pointed out, I can easily be guilty of as well). But I think there are vast differences within those boxes.

It's funny that you bring up Ellison because we were also discussing that issue. The man is a Muslim. Why in the heck would someone want him to swear an oath on the Bible when, in fact, he doesn't believe the book is sacred! (And yes, Virginia, I do know why - I was speaking rhetorically).

I guess that at the end of the day, a big idea stuck in a small mind is a very dangerous thing.

[Guest Guest]

Without in any way categorizing my own religious beliefs, you're being entirely categorical in your treatment of a group of people. Just as Christians are not all  the same, neither are atheists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correctamundo (I'm dating myself). Thank you for the dose of reality and a much needed correction.

I guess that I'm trying to respond, en masse, to many (though not all) of those who have taken up the cause on your behalf. Many seem to be missing the point of this issue (which, from your posts, I do not see that you have fallen to a similar fate).

As far as I can tell, you're not denying the teacher's right to have his beliefs. Yeah, you don't agree with them, but you're not denying him those beliefs. Instead, it appears that you're just condemning his preaching of those beliefs in a public school classroom. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Alternatively, many others seem to be hanging their condemnations solely on his beliefs, and feel that he is somehow "unfit" to teach because of those beliefs. It seems that some posters believe that even if Mr. P kept those beliefs out of the classroom - simply holding those beliefs is enough to terminate him. Do you agree that there has been a fair share of that - or am I being overly sensitive?

[Guest Guest]

YOU can believe whatever you like; all we ask is that the government remain neutral on the matter, as required by the Constitution. And which, apparently, a lot of zealots have a problem with when it comes to public schools and public buildings. Then they resort to the whine that "Anything less than full federal endorsement of my faith is discrimination, and it violates My Rights."

That's both stupid and hypocritical; unsurprisingly, a lot of us find that annoying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think that part of the issue is that - in the minds of many - God and Country have become inextricably intertwined. But lest ye lose faith in the lot of us, there are those out there in the Christian community who believe that this Country is great because you can worship God as you choose (including choosing not to worship). We also happen to believe that God is great because he has given us all the gift of free will, and a mind with which to think. Too many among the fundamentalists - in all religions - seek to usurp that power from their constituency ... and I doubt it is done for God's glory.

[Guest Guest]

While it is true that atheists, including me, have been insensitive several times, please do not think it without reason. The U.S. has an exceedingly negative attitude towards atheists and atheism. To give you an example:

"I do not believe atheists should be considered patriots or even citizens. This is one nation under God."

A person can say that...and get elected into the presidency. That was George H.W. Bush. And, while it is the fundamentalists who are its perpetrators, it is often the regular, run-of-the-mill Christians who act as their enablers. Often, it is exactly these moderates that decide 'ah, what harm can organized prayer do?', or 'why not teach the controversy?'. In every conflict, regular Christians invariably side with the fundamentalist mob.

Another thing to consider. Atheists might often sound like an intolerant lot, but ask yourself: what do you believe in? Christians, by and large, seem to believe that nonchristians are apparently not just wrong in their beliefs (or lack thereof), but wrong enough to suffer forever. Does it really get more intolerant than that? We may criticise a belief...but we do not take it so far to believe one should be tortured forever.

Yes, we can if you agree to keep your Bible and Commandments where they belong...in your church and, if you want, in your heart. But not in the public's court or the public's schools. It is the fundamentalists who will never be able to do the same or accept that.

The principles you picked are good ones, and if Jesus exists/once existed...who knows? He might be/have been proud 

As is your right. I may not agree with you, but I acknowledge your right to believe whatever you want to.

Yes, I can believe that you can come to an alternate conclusion. I simply happen to believe you are wrong, but as long as you don't bother others with it, there's little harm in it.

Many a Christian has lead a life of excellence, both moral and intellectual...nothing is stopping you from doing the same (though ironically, the greater the person, the less stringent their faith). In the meanwhile, keep your heart open for any evidence.

I hope this satisfies it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the reply. I think you've made some good points, and two generalizations. You assume that all Christians side with the fundamentalists in times of controversy. Not true. While fundamentalists are great at making most issues a "them vs. Christianity" issue, to say that all of us "run of the mill" Christians blindly follow is a disservice to those of us who fight the good fight.

I also think that you have mischaracterized Christianity - the way that I practice it anyway. Believing in Jesus does not necessarily mean that non-believers will suffer. I know that many preach that (with an eye towards filling the pews and, therefore, the collection baskets). But that is not what all Christians believe in. I personally believe that Jesus is my saviour because I choose to live by the examples that he set forth. However, someone that has never heard of Jesus, or who simply chooses not to believe that he is the saviour, can still be moral and tolerant and kind (and probably even MORE moral and tolerant and kind than me - boy, do I hope God grades on a curve). So, while acknowledging that the beliefs that you condemn do exist, it is unfair to say that all Christians believe in that manner.

Other than that, I have no problem with others such as yourself feeling that I am wrong (I don't know why your lack of belief is such an offense to those who believe). I also have no problems keeping religion out of schools and courtrooms. I am curious though ... how do you feel about something similar to a voucher program that would let those who so desire "opt out" of public schools in favor of private schools, while also being let out of the obligation to fund the public schools with their tax dollars. Accordingly, those who wish to use the phrase "under God" in the pledge, and pray before football games, can do so without offending others BUT who are not also penalized in having to fund the public schools with tax dollars AND pay private school tuition? I know I probably should have opened this as a new topic, but what the heck - have at it. And before you assume my position, I have not yet come to a conclustion on this topic, and I would very much enjoy the benefit of an atheist's perspective.

[Strife767]

many others seem to be hanging their condemnations solely on his beliefs, and feel that he is somehow "unfit" to teach because of those beliefs.

No, no...he is not unfit to teach because of his beliefs. He is unfit to teach because he can't control himself and keep his beliefs out of the classroom.

He has already demonstrated his inability to check his sermons at the door (and quite a few kids commented that this has been going on for years! As if the entire first week of a semester wasn't bad enough). Therefore, he should be removed from his position, for everyone's sake. Simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[racoach]

Of course, "Just Wondering", you have not wondered (concerning your questions). You well know such things do not happen. What does happen to an atheist, however, is something like a feeling of nausea brought about by the recognition that there are yet people in this society who do not seem to know or care what the valid questions are to ask when considering questions of superstition versus decisions of reality based on scientific methodology.

The superstition would be that what you posed could or does happen. The reality even you will observe is that they do not. According to evidence based on scientific methodology, the events could not happen. That, my "surely you jest", friend is an example which those beholden to superstition, otherwise known as religion, would do themselves and society a service to expand into understanding what a human is and how it functions. And defining reality based on objective rather than subjective evidence is, I submit, the core of why atheists exist in as large a number as we do.

U.S. atheists are no more all alike than are the superstitious, but one common thread will be their firm commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

Of course one need not be atheist to feel the commitment nor superstitious to want a government for, of, and by the people - as opposed to the type government which existed during the Dark Ages, the church. Our government was founded on a principle that its duty is to protect the civil rights of minority citizens, not to further the personal cause(s) of the majority.

Young Matthew has the civil right to his position, as do the superstitious, but not the civil right to enforce that position through government imposition, as is reflected in the status of his teacher as a representative of the government (School Board and State).

Whether Matthew or his teacher is non-religious is of no import in this question at all. The only question is whether the government may or will endorse an attempt by one of its representatives to force superstition or personal cause onto the citizenry. If this society changes to the point that the bodies of governance will or do so endorse, we are no longer a democracy and have lost our claim to civil rights as defined by our Constitution. - Richard[/font]

[Guest Patriot]

Yes indeed. Allah is great!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Allah ?? A bogus "god" followed by camel jockeys and other third-world savages.

[Guest Guest]

I admire your tolerance and I think you are close to making a breakthrough. The logical progression of the acceptance of other religions is the realization that all religious thought are simply metaphors for sense of awe and mystery that we all share. Metaphors are not vessels of truth. By their very definition they can't be truths. They are man-made constructions that give form to things that have none. The same as art or even symbols of love and commitment.

To argue that you are one metaphor believer or another is silly. It's like saying "music is the the only art. Poetry is false" It's like saying "a diamond means I love you but a an old cigar band means nothing"

Throw off the mantle of seeing the world through a single, confining metaphor and the sense of wonder and awe grows exponentially.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure that I'm saying I'm one metaphor believe or another - as you have formed your argument. I feel more like there are many paths to God. Christianity is my path. So I am not saying that music is the only art and poetry is false. Instead, I am saying that music is the art through which I choose to express myself. Poetry may work for others. And sculpture for others still. But the thing that moves my soul, and the vehicles which take me to the summit where I may stand in wonder and awe, is music.

[Guest Guest]

As an atheist, I feel compelled to defend this. Listen, it's nothing personal, but if you are going to believe in a "god," then you had better be prepared to hear that belief called a superstition, because that is what it is. To call it a superstition is not a personal attack--I know it might seem that way because of your emotional attachment to your beliefs, but it isn't--look at it objectively. Believing that one will go to "hell" or "heaven" when they die depending on certain actions taken in life, is exactly as (no more, no less) superstitious as believing that walking under a ladder will bring bad luck. Neither of those has any real proof behind them, and both are believed by people on a 'faith basis'--that is, treating it as fact in the absence of that evidence. 

Of course--the vast majority of atheists, myself included, have no problem at all with that. The thing is, it really tends to get on an atheist's nerves when a Christian/Muslim/whatever starts to take it beyond that--to start telling others that their way is the way, etc. At that point, that person deserves to be reminded just exactly what they've put all their faith in--call it putting a zealot in his/her place. 

Sure, perfectly fine and commendable. While I disagree that following the teachings of an old book is the only road to those same virtues, I'm glad you aspire to them in any case. That's what ultimately matters when it comes to people interacting with each other.

Good. Pascal's Wager is a load of baloney, as you probably realize. *chuckles*

That's fine.

While I cannot understand how one can reach a conclusion with no real evidence, it is your life. You may live it as you wish. The only time I will be 'intolerant' of a religion is when a member of one starts proselytizing and/or mistreating fellow human beings because of it. I think I'm fully justified in that sort of a response to bigotry--disagree if you like.

Is that genuine enough for you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Certainly genuine enough ... and much appreciated. However, I find fault in your argument that if I am going to believe in God, that I better be prepared to have that belief called a superstition. While I am comfortable with my beliefs and, quite frankly, do not care how others perceive them, I find your line of logic flawed. IF you are saying that if I try to impress my beliefs on you, then I better be prepared to have that belief called a superstition, well, then that's one thing. But that is not what you said. And, respectfully, your line of logic is the seed of intolerance. While your argument is not as egregious as the following examples, it still follows the same format. If a black person moves into a white neighborhood, they better be prepared to accept racism. If an attractive woman takes a job at an all-male office, she better be prepared to accept harrassment. My beliefs alone should not automatically subject me to insensitive comments and broad generalizations.

As to your "faith" issue, is your belief in the absence of God without hard evidence disproving His existence less "superstitious" than the Christian's, Jew's, Muslim's etc. belief in God without hard evidence proving His existence. Are you not treating as "fact" what you cannot prove (or, in this case, disprove)? And therefore, isn't your belief an act of "faith" in the non-existence of God?

With respect to "putting a zealot in their place" comment, I have seen statements similar to this a number of times from Atheists on this board. While most have simply referred to the conduct that you describe as annoying - you have taken the further step of suggesting that the parties need to be "put in their place". This comment smacks of a lack of civility. Atheists are not alone in receiving unsolicited advice on the one and only true path to God. I have a number of individuals knocking on my door representing multiple faiths and suggesting that my path is the wrong path. If I have confidence in my beliefs, why do I care what they are saying (unless, of course, the conduct is violating the Constitution or otherwise endangering me, my family or society)? Have we all become so hypersensitive that we need to diametrically oppose alternative viewpoints in a threatening manner?

I have a general sense that a few (not all) of the Atheists who have responded to my post generally have done so in a condescending (albeit polite) manner - not unlike how you would speak to a child. It's kind of like, "oh, that's so cute, you believe in God ... well, you feel free to keep on believing sweetie, if that's what makes you happy". And while this is miles ahead of how Christians on this board have tended to reply to Atheists' posts, I was kind of inviting someone to take off the gloves, and hit me between the eyes with some of the hard information that opposes my beliefs. Instead, I keep getting - "you have no hard proof of God's existence, therefore, it's a superstition". Please, Strife or someone else, step up and hit me over the head with some hard proof that disproves His existence. I welcome the discourse.

[Guest Aggie Nostic]

  I am curious though ... how do you feel about something similar to a voucher program that would let those who so desire "opt out" of public schools in favor of private schools, while also being let out of the obligation to fund the public schools with their tax dollars.  Accordingly, those who wish to use the phrase "under God" in the pledge, and pray before football games, can do so without offending others BUT who are not also penalized in having to fund the public schools with tax dollars AND pay private school tuition?  I know I probably should have opened this as a new topic, but what the heck - have at it.  And before you assume my position, I have not yet come to a conclustion on this topic, and I would very much enjoy the benefit of an atheist's perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Vouchers are a code word for decimating the public school system in favor of parochial schools. This would become a method for state sponsorship of religious schools. The same way the "faith-based initiative" has funnelled billions of tax dollars to churches.

Since the phrase "under God" is accepted as the current wording of the Pledge, I have no trouble reciting it. It's when the Christians assume that it means "under Jesus" that I have a problem.

Those who wish to pray before football games, etc. are free to do so, but not as a school sanctioned event. Let them pray silently or in their small groups. But keep it off the loudspeaker. It's not a school sanctioned prayer - it's a personal matter, keep it such.

Are the fundamentalists so shallow as to think that Jesus can't read their hearts and need to shout their prayers?

Thanks for asking.

[Guest Guest]

I was kind of inviting someone to take off the gloves, and hit me between the eyes with some of the hard information that opposes my beliefs.  Instead, I keep getting - "you have no hard proof of God's existence, therefore, it's a superstition".  Please, Strife or someone else, step up and hit me over the head with some hard proof that disproves His existence.  I welcome the discourse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This completely misses the point. One need not provide proof that there are no monkeys flying out our noses. There is no evidence for them, and no reason to believe that "they" exist. There is no reason to believe in a "they" to disprove. The same is true of a supreme being, which people in our culture usually call God.

Theism is superstition. That's just a description. It's not properly compared to racism. The racism analogy would apply if theists (believers in "God") were treated as though they were inferior. Pointing out that theism lacks merit is not the same thing. That observation is just stating the facts.

Our culture is so deeply enmeshed in the idea that belief in a god is a good thing that many people cannot imagine life any other way. I assure you there is another way, and for me and many others it is a better way.

[Guest Guest]

It's not about 'not minding something' but about the gross corruption of the originally secular nation that was the United States. People deal with it, but that doesn't mean they have to like it.

In other words 'you can't stop me, nyah, nyah!"

As is obvious to anyone with half a brain (yes, that specifically excludes you), there can be done something about it. After all, it was put there in the first place, right? Logically, it can be changed back to its original phrase.

Newdow came within a hair's breadth on the Pledge already, and the only reason he was not succesfull was that the Supreme Court chickened out on it.

If there is, indeed, a God, the nature of his supporters does him little credit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your comments make me thin that you also have half a brain...very childshi, also, what was the original phrase?

[Strife767]

Allah ??  A bogus "god"  followed by camel jockeys and other third-world savages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scratch a fundie and you always get a racist, among other things.

Hey moron, "Allah" is just their word for "God." It's just a name, you imbecile.

[Calybos]

Are the fundamentalists so shallow as to think that Jesus can't read their hearts and need to shout their prayers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Answer: Yes. The repeated need to "be seen" practicing their faith indicates a basic insecurity.

[Strife767]

Certainly genuine enough ... and much appreciated.  However, I find fault in your argument that if I am going to believe in God, that I better be prepared to have that belief called a superstition.  While I am comfortable with my beliefs and, quite frankly, do not care how others perceive them, I find your line of logic flawed.  IF you are saying that if I try to impress my beliefs on you, then I better be prepared to have that belief called a superstition, well, then that's one thing.  But that is not what you said.

There is no getting around the fact that there is no objective proof backing up religious belief. Until/unless such appears, words like "myth," "superstition," etc. will continue to be accurate regarding not only Christianity, but any sort of a belief in a sentient creator/god. This is the reality of it, as objectively as I think it can be stated. I do not think it is insensitive or intolerant to point this out--all it does it make it all the clearer what exactly faith is and why Christianity etc. is called a faith.

I have a feeling you take offense to hearing your faith called a "superstition" or "myth" in the same way a child of unmarried parents can take offense to being called a "bastard." While in both cases the terms are accurate, there is a negative connotation attached to the specific terms that makes it unpleasant to have them directed at your beliefs (which many people equate with themselves). However, negative connotations in and of themselves do not define my intentions. When I say "Christianity is a myth," for example, I am making a matter-of-fact statement. That's all. Honestly.

And, respectfully, your line of logic is the seed of intolerance.

I must disagree, but I want to see how you came to this conclusion.

While your argument is not as egregious as the following examples, it still follows the same format.  If a black person moves into a white neighborhood, they better be prepared to accept racism.  If an attractive woman takes a job at an all-male office, she better be prepared to accept harrassment.  My beliefs alone should not automatically subject me to insensitive comments and broad generalizations.

Whoa, I think you've really missed the mark here. Once again you have likened a comment about religion to a comment about a person--they are not the same thing. Also, the false analogy of, for example, "organized religion is necessarily superstitious" being compared to racism and sexual harassment is far off the mark, I must say.

I've already talked about the issue of "insensitivity" above--as far as "broad generalizations," there is nothing to generalize. To put it in perspective, I offer an analogy of my own:

If I say "the idea that the Earth is flat is completely mythical and scientifically unfounded," I am not generalizing anything about the Flat Earth Society or anyone else who believes the Earth is flat. If I say the above, I have in fact made a true statement about the idea itself. It is impossible to be "insensitive" to an idea with such a statement, and because it is one idea all by itself and not a group of people, there is also no way to call it a "broad generalization." Do you understand that my statement about religion is not a personal attack?

As to your "faith" issue, is your belief in the absence of God without hard evidence disproving His existenceless "superstitious" than the Christian's, Jew's, Muslim's etc. belief in God without hard evidence proving His existence.  Are you not treating as "fact" what you cannot prove (or, in this case, disprove)?  And therefore, isn't your belief an act of "faith" in the non-existence of God?

*sighs* Frankly, I thought someone who came off so intelligently would not stick his nose into two (they're actually kinda parts of the same fallacy, in this case at least) of the biggest logical fallacies anti-atheists find themselves dealing with.

Firstly, shifting the burden of proof: the one who claims/believes "X is" is the one who has the burden of proving him/herself correct, and a lack of an ability to disprove something does not make it true. In the past I have made light of this fallacy by asking the person who haughtily demanded I prove him wrong (he was quite a nasty fellow, just as fair warning for those who might read the following and think it to be over the top as a response--believe me, it wasn't) on the same subject or admit that he's right about the existence of his god, thusly: I claimed that he secretly molests children on a daily basis, and that by his own logic, he is a proven child molestor unless he can disprove my claim. Even though the ridiculousness of the fallacy was exposed (and just about everyone but him had a good laugh), he was still too dumb/stubborn to realize it, and wouldn't budge. From then on, I regularly attached ", child molestor" to the end of any instance where I addressed or referred to him.

Secondly, proving the negative: I "believe in the absence" of God for the same reason I "believe in the absence" of leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, or flying spaghetti monsters (http://www.venganza.org/). This is not a belief system; this is not faith. It takes no faith to 'not believe,' nor does it take any faith to believe in an absence of something in the face of zero evidence showing a presence of the same thing.

With respect to "putting a zealot in their place" comment, I have seen statements similar to this a number of times from Atheists on this board.  While most have simply referred to the conduct that you describe as annoying - you have taken the further step of suggesting that the parties need to be "put in their place".  This comment smacks of a lack of civility.

And that is why I'd only advocate doing it when met with an equal/greater lack of civility. If some guy tells me I'm going to hell for not believing in his god or something like that, damned right I'm going to put him in his place. He deserves it for being disrespectful of me, and for being arrogant enough to declare his faith to be both:

1. Somehow superior to an absence of faith

2. Superior to any other faith

That kind of self-righteousness very richly deserves the kind of response I mentioned. Bad things happen when people are 100% complacent to that kind of behavior.

Atheists are not alone in receiving unsolicited advice on the one and only true path to God.  I have a number of individuals knocking on my door representing multiple faiths and suggesting that my path is the wrong path.

And I say you are equally justified in getting indignant and letting them know very clearly that their faith is no better than yours.

If I have confidence in my beliefs, why do I care what they are saying (unless, of course, the conduct is violating the Constitution or otherwise endangering me, my family or society)?  Have we all become so hypersensitive that we need to diametrically oppose alternative viewpoints in a threatening manner?

The Constitution itself is what allows me to tell a religious zealot just what I think of his/her actions. If you think that's insensitive, fine--but remember, I don't go out and bash religious people or their religions just for the hell of it (despite the fact that you still seem to take personal offense at the very fair statement that organized religions are superstitious/mythical)--I am talking about reacting people who 'start' with me with that self-righteous, self-important garbage. I think zealots deserve and _need_ to be taken down a notch or two sometimes (don't take this as meaning anything other than what I've already mentioned--not talking about beating anyone up or anything). Their self-righteousness and arrogance do no one any good. On the contrary--that attitude is the sort of thing that grows into an Inquisition or a Crusade if ignored/avoided and not reacted to.

I have a general sense that a few (not all) of the Atheists who have responded to my post generally have done so in a condescending (albeit polite) manner - not unlike how you would speak to a child.  It's kind of like, "oh, that's so cute, you believe in God ... well, you feel free to keep on believing sweetie, if that's what makes you happy".  And while this is miles ahead of how Christians on this board have tended to reply to Atheists' posts, I was kind of inviting someone to take off the gloves, and hit me between the eyes with some of the hard information that opposes my beliefs.  Instead, I keep getting - "you have no hard proof of God's existence, therefore, it's a superstition".  Please, Strife or someone else, step up and hit me over the head with some hard proof that disproves His existence.  I welcome the discourse.

You are once again asking for the logically fallacious "proof of a negative." Asking for "hard proof that disproves" the existence of something supernatural is a truly ridiculous request, I must say.

The claim that God exists is truly extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Are the fundamentalists so shallow as to think that Jesus can't read their hearts and need to shout their prayers?

Thanks for asking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, many of them are.

Many are good intentioned people but all too many while claiming to be devout Christians are hateful, intolerant, and the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.

[Guest Patriot]

Scratch a fundie and you always get a racist, among other things.

Hey moron, "Allah" is just their word for "God." It's just a name, you imbecile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh misinformed one, you're once again wrong. Allah, as used in third world muslim countries refers to Mohammad , the bogus god of camel jockeys and hemp smokers.

[Guest Christian]

Vouchers are a code word for decimating the public school system in favor of parochial schools.  This would become a method for state sponsorship of religious schools.  The same way the "faith-based initiative" has funnelled billions of tax dollars to churches.

Since the phrase "under God" is accepted as the current wording of the Pledge, I have no trouble reciting it.  It's when the Christians assume that it means "under Jesus" that I have a problem.

Those who wish to pray before football games, etc. are free to do so, but not as a school sanctioned event.  Let them pray silently or in their small groups.  But keep it off the loudspeaker.  It's not a school sanctioned prayer - it's a personal matter, keep it such.

Are the fundamentalists so shallow as to think that Jesus can't read their hearts and need to shout their prayers?

Thanks for asking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course "under God" means Jesus. "Let them pray in their small groups" ?? You are very misinformed. Christians account for over 90% of the population, a pretty LARGE group, I'd say. If you don't like to hear prayers over loudspeakers, don't go to sporting events. Stay home and play with your Satin worship toys. I'll pray for you, you need it.

[Guest Guest]

There is no getting around the fact that there is no objective proof backing up religious belief. Until/unless such appears, words like "myth," "superstition," etc. will continue to be accurate regarding not only Christianity, but any sort of a belief in a sentient creator/god. This is the reality of it, as objectively as I think it can be stated. I do not think it is insensitive or intolerant to point this out--all it does it make it all the clearer what exactly faith is and why Christianity etc. is called a faith.

I have a feeling you take offense to hearing your faith called a "superstition" or "myth" in the same way a child of unmarried parents can take offense to being called a "bastard." While in both cases the terms are accurate, there is a negative connotation attached to the specific terms that makes it unpleasant to have them directed at your beliefs (which many people equate with themselves). However, negative connotations in and of themselves do not define my intentions. When I say "Christianity is a myth," for example, I am making a matter-of-fact statement. That's all. Honestly.

I must disagree, but I want to see how you came to this conclusion.

Whoa, I think you've really missed the mark here. Once again you have likened a comment about religion to a comment about a person--they are not the same thing. Also, the false analogy of, for example, "organized religion is necessarily superstitious" being compared to racism and sexual harassment is far off the mark, I must say.

I've already talked about the issue of "insensitivity" above--as far as "broad generalizations," there is nothing to generalize. To put it in perspective, I offer an analogy of my own:

If I say "the idea that the Earth is flat is completely mythical and scientifically unfounded," I am not generalizing anything about the Flat Earth Society or anyone else who believes the Earth is flat. If I say the above, I have in fact made a true statement about the idea itself. It is impossible to be "insensitive" to an idea with such a statement, and because it is one idea all by itself and not a group of people, there is also no way to call it a "broad generalization." Do you understand that my statement about religion is not a personal attack?

*sighs* Frankly, I thought someone who came off so intelligently would not stick his nose into two (they're actually kinda parts of the same fallacy, in this case at least) of the biggest logical fallacies anti-atheists find themselves dealing with.

Firstly, shifting the burden of proof: the one who claims/believes "X is" is the one who has the burden of proving him/herself correct, and a lack of an ability to disprove something does not make it true. In the past I have made light of this fallacy by asking the person who haughtily demanded I prove him wrong (he was quite a nasty fellow, just as fair warning for those who might read the following and think it to be over the top as a response--believe me, it wasn't) on the same subject or admit that he's right about the existence of his god, thusly: I claimed that he secretly molests children on a daily basis, and that by his own logic, he is a proven child molestor unless he can disprove my claim. Even though the ridiculousness of the fallacy was exposed (and just about everyone but him had a good laugh), he was still too dumb/stubborn to realize it, and wouldn't budge. From then on, I regularly attached ", child molestor" to the end of any instance where I addressed or referred to him.

Secondly, proving the negative: I "believe in the absence" of God for the same reason I "believe in the absence" of leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, or flying spaghetti monsters (http://www.venganza.org/). This is not a belief system; this is not faith. It takes no faith to 'not believe,' nor does it take any faith to believe in an absence of something in the face of zero evidence showing a presence of the same thing.

And that is why I'd only advocate doing it when met with an equal/greater lack of civility. If some guy tells me I'm going to hell for not believing in his god or something like that, damned right I'm going to put him in his place. He deserves it for being disrespectful of me, and for being arrogant enough to declare his faith to be both:

1. Somehow superior to an absence of faith

2. Superior to any other faith

That kind of self-righteousness very richly deserves the kind of response I mentioned. Bad things happen when people are 100% complacent to that kind of behavior.

And I say you are equally justified in getting indignant and letting them know very clearly that their faith is no better than yours.

The Constitution itself is what allows me to tell a religious zealot just what I think of his/her actions. If you think that's insensitive, fine--but remember, I don't go out and bash religious people or their religions just for the hell of it (despite the fact that you still seem to take personal offense at the very fair statement that organized religions are superstitious/mythical)--I am talking about reacting people who 'start' with me with that self-righteous, self-important garbage. I think zealots deserve and _need_ to be taken down a notch or two sometimes (don't take this as meaning anything other than what I've already mentioned--not talking about beating anyone up or anything). Their self-righteousness and arrogance do no one any good. On the contrary--that attitude is the sort of thing that grows into an Inquisition or a Crusade if ignored/avoided and not reacted to.

You are once again asking for the logically fallacious "proof of a negative." Asking for "hard proof that disproves" the existence of something supernatural is a truly ridiculous request, I must say.

The claim that God exists is truly extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL - well, Strife, you must be alot of fun at parties. Hey, the next time you call a stranger a bastard and they don't take offense ... please, let me know.

I think you are misreading how sensitive I am to your use of "superstition" when it comes to religion. It's probably my fault for bringing it up once too often. I am simply trying to highlight a point - which you helped me to illuminate with your "bastard" comment. You use terms like "superstition" and "myth" when referring to religion, KNOWING that they have a negative connotation. I don't know ... to me it seems like there should be a more civil way to get from point A to point B, especially since most atheists I've encountered seem to aspire to living on a higher plane of morality.

I have to disagree with you on the racism/harrassment point. I know that it may difficult for you to see because you are making your statement with a pure heart. However, making a comment about a religion can be as offensive to an individual as making a comment about race, ethnicity, gender, etc., which is why it is protected under Title VII. And for it to constitute racism or harrassment, it is not a prerequisite that the party making the statement intends to offend the party. Simply making a statement that a reasonable person in a Title VII class could find offensive is enough to cause a violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you disagree with me, then when you get to work tomorrow (assuming you work in a decent sized office), email EVERYONE stating that their religious beliefs are superstitions and myths. You'll be called to the Human Resources offices within the count of 10.

Lastly, as to my "shifting the burden" I am doing no such thing. Because I do not care what you believe, I have no obligation to prove the existence of God to you. I am simply giving any atheist, including yourself, the opportunity ... or better yet, the challenge ... to prove to me that your beliefs are correct. And when I stated "hard" proof, I wasn't speaking about polaroids of Jesus faking his wounds or anything like that. I know how difficult it is to prove a negative, child molestor. I am looking for something other than the blanket statement that because I cannot prove God's existence, He must not exist (I did, however, personally witness a flying spaghetti monster after an evening of good scotch and bad marinara sauce).

My heels are not dug into the sand, and I am always open to intellectual discourse. I am also not saying that I am absolutely right (as other "zealots" seem to flock to you in droves to do). I am just saying that when I put my puzzle pieces together, it shows a picture of God (or maybe it's just George Burns). Yours may show something different or nothing at all (or as Spinal Tap would say, none more black). But until someone convinces me that my beliefs really have no possibility of truth, I shall agree with Willy Wonka, who said, "no one should ever doubt what no one is certain about".

And I just won a $20 bet with a friend who said that I couldn't fit George Burns, Spinal Tap and Willy Wonka into one paragraph. Scotch and spaghetti is on me.

[Guest Guest]

Vouchers are a code word for decimating the public school system in favor of parochial schools.  This would become a method for state sponsorship of religious schools.  The same way the "faith-based initiative" has funnelled billions of tax dollars to churches.

Since the phrase "under God" is accepted as the current wording of the Pledge, I have no trouble reciting it.  It's when the Christians assume that it means "under Jesus" that I have a problem.

Those who wish to pray before football games, etc. are free to do so, but not as a school sanctioned event.  Let them pray silently or in their small groups.  But keep it off the loudspeaker.  It's not a school sanctioned prayer - it's a personal matter, keep it such.

Are the fundamentalists so shallow as to think that Jesus can't read their hearts and need to shout their prayers?

Thanks for asking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't necessarily say voucher system, but what about "rebating" the portion of municipal taxes that would otherwise go to the township for education.

While I am reasonably sure that any type of system would have a detrimental effect on the public school system (but to what extent is the quality of our education Constitutionally guaranteed?), I don't see how this necessarily qualifies as a state sanctioning of a religion. People would be able to choose whichever private school they desire - religious or secular.

I would tend to suggest that many posting on this board do have a problem with "under God" in the pledge and praying before a football game. That being said, if these must be kept out of public schools, who cares how the private schools choose to operate - no one is required to attend.

Anyone else care to weigh in?

[Guest Guest]

Allah ??  A bogus "god"  followed by camel jockeys and other third-world savages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An intolerant A**HOLE like you is every bit as bad as the hijackers of 9/11.

If you really want to see bogus look in a mirror at the A**HOLE who claims to be a patriot. It's the attitude of A**HOLES like you that will destroy this country.

[Guest Guest]

Allah ??  A bogus "god"  followed by camel jockeys and other third-world savages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Plase post your address, I'd like to contribute to the fund being established to help you have your head removed from your butt. It's apparently so impacted that surgery will be required.

[Strife767]

Of course "under God" means Jesus.  "Let them pray in their small groups" ?? You are very misinformed. Christians account for over 90% of the population, a pretty LARGE group, I'd say.

Liar. It's more like 75%.

If you don't like to hear prayers over loudspeakers, don't go to sporting events.

Is that what Jesus would say? If the Jesus described in your Bible was alive today, I don't think he'd be too happy with your attitude.

Stay home and play with your Satin worship toys.

Satin feels nice, but not that nice. I wouldn't worship it.

I'll pray for you, you need it.

I don't need anyone's prayers, and I'm sure any benevolent Christian out there would have no need for prayers from someone as bigoted and intolerant as you either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>