Just Wondering

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to apologize for calling you an A**HOLE in the past, I was wrong.

You are a STUPID, IGNORANT A**HOLE!

[Guest Guest]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just get back from a Klan meeting and feel a compulsion to share what you learned?

[Bryan]

There is no getting around the fact that there is no objective proof backing up religious belief.

What's the objective proof supporting that belief of yours?

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.

What do you mean by "accurate"? True? Or just reasonably applied by skeptics in conversation? If the former, you're guilty of a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam, if you want to look it up).

This is the reality of it, as objectively as I think it can be stated.

Okay; looks like the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, then.

Excellent job of describing reality via a fallacy, Strife.

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.

That's baloney. Are you familiar with the "faith" chapter in 1 Corinthians? There's a list of folks mentioned in the Bible who are icons of faith. In absolutely every case, the person exercising faith had reason to expect a given outcome, based on trust in the god they has seen acting in their lives. The Bible conception of faith is, quite simply, trust. The notion of faith as "belief without evidence" only recently popular, given a substantial push by skeptics who enjoy using that description of faith as part of their effort to illicitly discredit the opposition.

Think about it for a minute. If "faith" means "belief without evidence" then isn't "blind faith" a redundancy?

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).

That's would be a decent analogy if we include the fact that you're using "bastard" of a child whose parentage you simply do not know.

Do you do that often?

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.

Why should we (including you) trust that it is matter of fact when your reasoning is fallacious? Wouldn't you be wise to move to agnosticism?

*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.

He just nailed you on the fact that you were committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy (of the form "I know of no proof that God exists, therefore God does not exist"). He committed no fallacy, so don't even pretend otherwise.

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.

Why isn't "God doesn't exist" (for example) an X, other than via special pleading (another fallacy)?

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.

If you realize that it's a fallacy to take the lack of disproof for something as an indication of its existence, then what's stopping you from realizing that lack of proof of something is no barrier to its existence?

You're committing exactly the same fallacy (by name) as the person you ridiculed. Maybe I should contact somebody to take you to task over it as harshly as you did to somebody else?

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/).

Who seriously advocates the existence of any of the above? Do you take the differences in the character of the claims into account at all?

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.

Now you're just working the party line. You're not serious.

When you know people who actually believe in any of the things you mentioned, it gives you a reason to believe, depending on your trust in the veracity and judgment of the believer. When a trusted friend tells you sincerely that he believes in a flying spaghetti monster, and you lack belief in the flying spaghetti monster, it is not merely an absence of belief but an active skepticism touching the veracity of your friend. You believe that the spaghetti monster does not exist; you believe that your friend is mistaken. If he is your friend and you trust him, you cannot take that as the default position in response to his claim.

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

Why couldn't he have an absence of belief in the inferiority of your lack of faith?

Likewise, why couldn't he have an absence of belief in the comparable quality of other beliefs?

How can you be so arrogant as to assume otherwise, given your own declared position on the existence of god?

The Constitution itself is what allows me to tell a religious zealot just what I think of his/her actions.

Including your children? Or are they off-limits from your attempts to mold their beliefs on penalty of jail time for Strifey?

Answer that one, please. We want to see if you're a hypocrite or not.

You are once again asking for the logically fallacious "proof of a negative."

It is not logically fallacious to prove a negative, nor to ask for proof of a negative.

http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philosop...eanegative.html

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the flaw in the claim that asking for proof of a negative is fallacious is to point out that the claim itself is a negative claim (there is no proof of a negative, therefore a negative cannot be proved). Where is the proof that there is no proof of a negative? The claim is self-stultifying.

Asking for "hard proof that disproves" the existence of something supernatural is a truly ridiculous request, I must say.

Some able philosophers like Ted Drange try to offer the hard proof by demonstrating contradictions in specific conceptions of god.

You find that ridiculous, too?

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

The claim that the claim that God exists is extraordinary seems like an extraordinary claim. Do you have any?

[Strife767]

{Twelve quote tags and they stopped rendering again...maybe the change to 25 didn't work or something? I did check for unclosed tags. o.o}

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.

That was a metaphor, you know. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this isn't as 'bitter' sounding as it seems.

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.

At least you admit it--I thought it better to address it than to ignore it.

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.

And yet, not expressing that connotation, as I clearly stated. As George Carlin said, "the words are completely neutral--it's the context that makes them good or bad." I have no problem with personal religions--I merely have a problem with people who just can't seem to control themselves enough to keep their religions to themselves, and start preaching their Truth® to me or anyone else. Other than responding to those types of people, only those who ask explicitly would even _know_ that I am atheist.

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.

Even though in general, practically everyone I know would consider me to be pretty mild-mannered and soft-spoken, I don't think I have any duty/obligation, moral or otherwise, to sugarcoat what faith is. Is it really so "uncivil" to hear it described in a plain, upfront, and straightforward way? Is it that hard to stomach a description of your beliefs that isn't buttered up? Considering the incredible bias against atheism in this country (polls have shown that people generally think of atheists as the "least American" citizens of this country), I don't think I owe any out-of-the-way 'civility' or tact to any religious person. I don't want people to baby talk me either--I don't like that sort of walking on eggshells bullshit. I dare say I have the _guts_ to describe faith accurately and objectively. If that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe instead of getting upset with me over it--maybe you ought to look inside yourself and think about _why_ it makes you uncomfortable. After all, I'm not exaggerating. I'm not stereotyping. I am simply describing.

And shouldn't everyone aspire to 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.

To be completely frank and honest, the idea of getting in trouble for that kind of thing disgusts me. I don't know where people get off thinking they have a right to not be offended--there is no such right out there. In FACT, the freedoms our Constitution grants us GUARANTEE that people will get offended--freedom of speech cannot exist without guaranteeing that people will get offended sooner or later.

Like I have mentioned before, I'm no lawyer nor anything resembling a fan of combing through legislation, but I will say this, as a total aside--if there is in US laws a law that will get someone in trouble for offending someone with a TRUE statement, or even a false one...any statement that in and of itself does no direct harm to anyone, their job, or whatever...it needs to be repealed. For the good of this country and the freedoms it gives us, it needs to go. Seriously. It flies directly in the face of freedom.

Lastly, as to my "shifting the burden" I am doing no such thing.

Yes you are--you have insisted that if I do not "disprove" the existence of your god, than atheism is somehow just as superstitious as religion.

Because I do not care what you believe, I have no obligation to prove the existence of God to you.

I did not tell you that you had any such obligation. It was you who tried to make atheism sound like a faith because of a lack of 'disproof' of your god.

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 I explained to you exactly why they aren't beliefs.

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).

Here is another common misconception about atheism. Because atheism is not a faith, atheists feel little to no conviction/attachment to their so-called "beliefs." I don't believe a sentient creator/god exists because there is no evidence to even suggest it--there are thousands of empty claims, but no proof. Despite being open-minded, because it is scientifically impossible to prove the existence of god, I think I can safely assume I will die as atheist as I am today. But hypothetically speaking, if proof popped up, atheists by and large would have no problem accepting it. They would likely (as they should be, whether in matters of God or anything else) be skeptical at first, but if evidence appeared and solidified, they (and I) would have no problem adjusting. That's the beauty of it, if you ask me--the ability to adapt that no religion I've ever seen has. Religions are static, and frankly, have a reputation of being quite stubborn and resistant to change.

Very, VERY few atheists will say, "God must not exist" or "God definitely does not exist." The most common statement you will hear when you ask an atheist to sum up what atheism means to him/her is something along the lines of, "I have/there is no reason to believe that a god exists." And there isn't, beyond speculation. Sure, there might be a god out there guiding everything here on earth. In the same way, our universe may be an alien's toy. But if one is going to spend time thinking about all of the things that "might be out there," one would die long before s/he would stop wondering. There is a point when one needs to return to reality as we understand it. I simply choose to accept the world as best as I and my fellow humans see it. I feel no NEED to believe in a supernatural god--personally, everything going on down here that we _are_ sure of is complicated enough without adding intangible things no one knows anything certain about and that very well may not even be there to begin with. It just doesn't seem worth it--I've decided that I'm going to live as good a life as I can. If I do that, I will die without regrets--and if a truly benevolent god is waiting to have a little chat with me after I'm dead, then I am sure it would understand where I was coming from, and reward me for my good deeds and intentions. And that would be swell. But if someone asks me if I expect that to happen...no, I don't. I expect to die and rot and continue the circle of life. And maybe, just maybe, it's a little unfair to expect more.

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).

You've noticed that too, huh? But don't worry--I'm not new to it. I have been "tempered in raw shit" (thanks again, Carlin ) when it comes to this.

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".

No one could honestly ever tell anyone that something like that is impossible. I mean, what the hell do we know, right? But ironically, that is exactly why I am atheist--I would not presume to have knowledge of things like that. Nor do I think it would be a good idea to take my guess and ride it out for the rest of my life. I'm going to take care of the life I have (at least, this life I'm sure I'll get--there's no being sure about an afterlife or second life or reincarnation or anything once I'm dead), in the reality I live in, and let those other things, however few or many (or none) they may be sort themselves out.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Calybos]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong again, O bigoted fool. Mohammed is the name of a human prophet of the Supreme Being, Allah. If you can't even get your racist slurs right, how can you hope to spread the goodness and love of Jesus?

[Calybos]

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.

So you're saying that government should be explicitly endorsing and supporting Christianity over other faiths, in explicit defiance of the Constitution?

Check. It's good to know who here respects America and who wants a "Christian nation" or similar theocratic nightmare. By the way, plenty of REAL Christians want nothing to do with government involvement because they recognize and value freedom; you might want to look them up and learn a few things, Mr. "Christian."

[oldfart56]

Liar. It's more like 75%.

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.

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you are right! you DO NOT NEED HIS PRAYERS!"BUT"YOU DO NEED "ALL"THE GOOD CHRISTIAN PRAYERS! YOU ARE VERY VERY LOST! FACE IT GOD/JESUS LOVES "YOU" YES YOU! WHY???now thats 1 i can't say!!!

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So much for "judge not, lest ye be judged." Why is hypocrisy so rampant among Paszkiewicz's defenders?

[Guest A. V. Blom]

Your comments make me thin that you also have half a brain...very childshi,

Yes...very 'childshi' indeed. But guess what, I actually made valid comments. You don't get further than insults...how pathetic.

also, what was the original phrase?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Une nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," for the Pledge, and "E Pluribus, Unum" (out of many, one), for the national motto.

Oh, and next time, try not to precede a request for information by an insult.

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you don't want your religion to be called superstitious and mythical, then consider not thinking in superstitions and myths. For decades, it has been considered impolite to criticize the religious beliefs of others --- the political correctness of theism. Finally, some people are rejecting the taboo and being honest. So I appreciate your call to civility, but when a religion promotes harmful modes of thought, I ask you to consider whether their speaking honestly about your religion is appropriate. Keeping in mind the importance of civility, I think it is. Being careful to be as respectful of people's religious beliefs as integrity will allow, I think it's long past time that our culture became more honest about the harm done by theism --- and that theists acknowledged the validity of the point.

[Guest Guest]

Liar. It's more like 75%.

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.

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

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}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife, be careful. Just because people say things that are wrong doesn't mean they're lying. Lying is deliberately not telling the truth. Many of the people you're arguing with actually believe the nonsense they're posting. Be careful not to make yourself seem to be what they are.

[Guest Guest]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. Is this idiot for real? I mean how stupid can a person be? I know christofundies have unusually low IQs, but still.

Hey fundie, do a google search on Allah and see how stupid you are. You do know how to do a search, don't you?

[Guest Guest]

Wrong again, O bigoted fool. Mohammed is the name of a human prophet of the Supreme Being, Allah. If you can't even get your racist slurs right, how can you hope to spread the goodness and love of Jesus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only thing the WANKER PatRat attempts to spread is the lies and misinformation he gets from FOX News.

To expect any TRUTH from him is an exercise in frustration.

He's also very predictable, his ASININE Kool-Aid remarks are due shortly.

[Guest Guest]

you are right! you DO NOT NEED HIS PRAYERS!"BUT"YOU DO NEED "ALL"THE GOOD CHRISTIAN PRAYERS!      YOU ARE VERY VERY LOST! FACE IT GOD/JESUS LOVES "YOU" YES YOU! WHY???now thats 1 i can't say!!!  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should try to learn how to spell your town before attempting anything more difficult like religious proclamations.

[Guest Christian]

Strife, be careful. Just because people say things that are wrong doesn't mean they're lying. Lying is deliberately not telling the truth. Many of the people you're arguing with actually believe the nonsense they're posting. Be careful not to make yourself seem to be what they are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now there's some words of wisdom. We wouldn't want anyone to think you're an intelligent, thoughtful Christian.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

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 suppose that is true...and it may have been a hasty generalization. It is, however, accurate for most Christians (and thus, the 'mainstream'. To take the Newdow case as an example:

When Newdow went to the Supreme Court, almost the entirety of Congress immediately assembled with a loud 'Under God'. Most Congressmen are not fundamentalists. And yet, when their phrase was threatened, they immediately sided with the fundamentalists. The same thing seems true for Creationism in schools. While the amount of fundamentalists is not that large compared to the 'mainstream' of Christianity, it is again that mainstream that has supported their asinine 'teach the controversy' dogma. This may not be true for some Christians, but it is for the majority.

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.

Not necessarily, and I believe that at least some of the early Church fathers believed in universal salvation (going to heaven regardless of faith).

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

True...but will they have a place in heaven. Some passages of the Bible state people will be judged by their words (Revelations, for example). Others, like Paul, claim that it is by Grace and NOT works that we are saved. It seems to me that it is the latter, and not the former, most often believed in.

One thing that bears mentioning, however, is that while, if you press them, that is what the majority of people believe, they do often implicity assume 'good' people go to heaven, and 'bad' people go to hell. For example, most people think a man like Hitler goes to hell (despite his Christianity as a faith), and that someone like Gandhi currently sits in heaven.

(In this case, I have defined a Christian as 'someone who believes Jesus was the Messiah'. I realize other terms exist, but

I suppose that, in that regard, the question is to what we should pay more heed: the explicit or implicit beliefs of the Christian mainstream.

(and probably even MORE moral and tolerant and kind than me - boy, do I hope God grades on a curve).

If I were you, I'd hope so, too. Can you imagine hearing "well...you almost passed, but I'm sorry. Gotta give you a 'fail'."

So, while acknowledging that the beliefs that you condemn do exist, it is unfair to say that all Christians believe in that manner.

I never did state all Christians believed that...just a majority, which certainly seems accurate.

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 think it has to do with three things:

1) Atheism's disconnection of morality and 'existential philosophy'. The latter term is quoted because I do not know the proper term...forgive me, I was not brought up with English. What I mean is that most faiths, like Christianity, have their ideas on the state of reality and morals taught by the same source: the Bible. Atheism does not have this connection. Its views (no God or Gods) are completely seperate from any morals.

This does not mean atheists have no morality. They do, it is just not derived from the same source as their lack of religious beliefs. However, it may be profoundly disturbing to those that do not think this matter through, because then the conclusion might be that atheists do NOT follow any morality, and must thus be completely immoral.

2) The perceived power of atheism over the courts and government. This existence is, of course, a myth. Yet, it is mostly atheism that completely agrees with all statements of evolution, as stands the most firmly opposed to 'teach the controversy', and they frequently win court cases on this and school prayer, etc.

The lack of 'Under God' is not an endorsement of atheism...it is simple religious neutrality. The problem is that such often IS considered an endorsement of atheism.

("One nation, under no God', on the contrary, WOULD be an endorsement of atheism. One I would as firmly oppose as I do 'under God'.)

3) The Cold War. For decades, the U.S. has opposed Communism, who were ALSO opposed to religion. As Senator McCarthy put it:

"I stand against Communistic atheism."

I think that, in the minds of many Americans, this has established a form of 'link' between 'Communism=Enemy' and "Communism=evil', therefore leading to the conclusion of 'Atheism=Evil'.

While the logic is faulty, most people are NOT very logical, and as such unlikely to see through it. Especially when unpricipled men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could so easily use that to line their pockets.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The main problem with the idea of 'vouchers' as it were, is that it would lead to several unintended consequences. First of all, not all those who send their children to public schooling actually possess the money to pay for said schooling. Taking away the obligation to pay those taxes would therefore likely lead to loss of the public school's quality. All the more so since those a bit wealthier than average could simply leave and go to a private school that is somewhat more expensive.

This is especially true since many parts of public school possess a tremendous scale advantage. By reducing the amount of kids at a public school, you would reduce said scale advantage. Since the taxes paid are not under a scale advantage, losing too many kids would actually make school more expensive (and presumably reduce quality for ALL involved).

(To summarize: schools have an economy of scale where their costs are concerned, but not where their incomes are concerned).

Another problem has a more social nature. Even if such a system would actually function, it would create a pillarized society, where different faiths and beliefs are completely segregated. In my opinion, such has severe disadvantages in the long term.

(I grew up in a country whose society was once pillarized like that, in a manner much the same as by vouchers).

[Guest Guest]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. Is this idiot for real? I mean how stupid can a person be? I know christofundies have unusually low IQs, but still.

Hey fundie, do a google search on Allah and see how stupid you are. You do know how to do a search, don't you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He will soon tell us that George Wanker Bush will be remembered as the greatest president of all.

[Guest Paul]

When Newdow went to the Supreme Court, almost the entirety of Congress immediately assembled with a loud 'Under God'. Most Congressmen are not fundamentalists. And yet, when their phrase was threatened, they immediately sided with the fundamentalists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a very important point. Our democratic system will be destroyed if we do not stand up to the spoiled brat in the family, the family tyrant who kicks and screams until he gets his way, and whose condition for peace is not merely that we give him the freedom to worship as he sees fit, but that we worship along with him in his way. Democracy will not survive that, and it's long past time we put a stop to it.

[Guest Religious Non-Christian]

This is a very important point. Our democratic system will be destroyed if we do not stand up to the spoiled brat in the family, the family tyrant who kicks and screams until he gets his way, and whose condition for peace is not merely that we give him the freedom to worship as he sees fit, but that we worship along with him in his way. Democracy will not survive that, and it's long past time we put a stop to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boy oh boy, after reading these posts, it makes me wonder. Does standing up to the spoiled brat or the family tyrant necessarily mean that we have to be demeaning to an entire group of people? Most of the posts that I've seen in respect of the one christian who wanted an athiest to step up and offer proof have been just that. Comments like "putting zealots in their place" and combining christian with the term "bastard" and referring to religion as "superstition" and "myth" makes me wonder who exactly IS the spoiled brat in the family. And this is coming from a Muslim!

Paul, you seem to be respectful of others. However, others have made offensive comments about peoples' belief systems in one breath, and then went into tirades about how people need to be respectful of their rights in the next. If you want a respectful ear for your concerns, you must first be respectful of others. That being said, I do not see many athiests admonishing other athiests to be respectful of others when posting. I guess as long as someone is posting something that you agree with, then it shouldn't matter if they are offending someone, should it?

[Guest Paul]

Boy oh boy, after reading these posts, it makes me wonder.  Does standing up to the spoiled brat or the family tyrant necessarily mean that we have to be demeaning to an entire group of people?  Most of the posts that I've seen in respect of the one christian who wanted an athiest to step up and offer proof have been just that.  Comments like "putting zealots in their place" and combining christian with the term "bastard" and referring to religion as "superstition" and "myth" makes me wonder who exactly IS the spoiled brat in the family.  And this is coming from a Muslim!

Paul, you seem to be respectful of others.  However, others have made offensive comments about peoples' belief systems in one breath, and then went into tirades about how people need to be respectful of their rights in the next.  If you want a respectful ear for your concerns, you must first be respectful of others.  That being said, I do not see many athiests admonishing other athiests to be respectful of others when posting.  I guess as long as someone is posting something that you agree with, then it shouldn't matter if they are offending someone, should it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course it does. I think the standard should be the same for everyone. In fact, I cringe when I read comments in our support that are offensive in form or content --- not only are they wrong to that extent, but they detract from our point.

My comments about the spoiled brat in the national family refer to the assumption that it's never OK to criticize the content of someone else's religious beliefs. I think if people are going to try to put beliefs those into the public square, or even just to the extent that they influence our national or cultural life, they are fair game.

[Guest Guest]

If you don't want your religion to be called superstitious and mythical, then consider not thinking in superstitions and myths. For decades, it has been considered impolite to criticize the religious beliefs of others --- the political correctness of theism. Finally, some people are rejecting the taboo and being honest. So I appreciate your call to civility, but when a religion promotes harmful modes of thought, I ask you to consider whether their speaking honestly about your religion is appropriate. Keeping in mind the importance of civility, I think it is. Being careful to be as respectful of people's religious beliefs as integrity will allow, I think it's long past time that our culture became more honest about the harm done by theism --- and that theists acknowledged the validity of the point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't know the first thing about my religion.

And if you're so sure that it is time to be so "honest" about religion, please, lead us into the breach. I invite you to go to work and share your views with your bosses, colleagues, co-workers, clients, customers, friends, family, neighbors. I know, I know, it's all of us bad Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. who will say or do bad things to you for saying them. All those darn civil rights laws protecting people from your discrimination. And that pesky First Amendment protecting our silly little rights to worship as we see fit. Ugh, how will you ever carry on?

[Guest Religious Non-Christian]

Of course it does. I think the standard should be the same for everyone. In fact, I cringe when I read comments in our support that are offensive in form or content --- not only are they wrong to that extent, but they detract from our point.

My comments about the spoiled brat in the national family refer to the assumption that it's never OK to criticize the content of someone else's religious beliefs. I think if people are going to try to put beliefs those into the public square, or even just to the extent that they influence our national or cultural life, they are fair game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would agree with your first point. Many of the posters, particularly Strife, have been unnecessarily crass. I think that it has put a number of Christians on the defensive ... and I think it fails to acknowledge that I have seen many posts from Christians in support of Matthew. I know that if I was a Christian, I would be reluctant to post in support of Matthew (which I am) for fear of associating myself with those individuals. They certainly do you no favors.

I also would agree with your second point. To the extent that people go about their business, they should be left alone. To the extent that they share their beliefs - in an unsolicited manner OR in a situation/context (such as a classroom or courtroom) where there are protections against such conduct - then yes, they are fair game.

The funny part is that I really don't mind what Mr. P said. His opinions have no bearing on me, and he's free to believe whatever he would like to believe. However, I DO have a problem with him saying what he said in a classroom. After reading many of your posts, I get the sense that you feel the same way. It's not what he said as much as it is that he said anything at all (the content just making it that much more egregious, but certainly not being the root cause).

I don't know how this degenerated into a atheist vs. theist war on this board (other than there are those who would use the opportunity to hijack your concerns to further their issues). Many of your son's "supporters" act as if they are the vanguard of your son's interests, when they are - in reality - trying to exploit your son's sufferings to their own agenda. Shame on them and shame on those who would automatically condemn your son's behavior solely because it was corrective of someone who was preaching about God.

I weep for humanity.

[Strife767]

Boy oh boy, after reading these posts, it makes me wonder.  Does standing up to the spoiled brat or the family tyrant necessarily mean that we have to be demeaning to an entire group of people?  Most of the posts that I've seen in respect of the one christian who wanted an athiest to step up and offer proof have been just that.  Comments like "putting zealots in their place" and combining christian with the term "bastard" and referring to religion as "superstition" and "myth" makes me wonder who exactly IS the spoiled brat in the family.  And this is coming from a Muslim!

Give me a break here. First of all, every one of those comments was made in a more general context than the exact situation. Secondly, what the hell has happened to people that no one can understand an analogy without thinking there is a direct comparison being made anymore? "Combining christian with the term 'bastard'"? You know damned well that is not the point I was making (if you actually read the post), and that I never drew a parallel between the two the way you're making it sound. That's very intellectually dishonest of you. The statment _was_ that referring to religion as a "myth" (for example) and to a child of unmarried parents as a "bastard" are both factually accurate statements that can offend because of their connotations. And frankly, I'm sick and tired of everyone assuming the worst possible meaning in everything everyone says. For crying out loud, if you call someone who's overweight "fat" you're labeled as this insensitive, horrible person! I think that kind of thing is just plain bullshit, and that's all I was saying. If you get offended by a factual statement, that is not my problem--there is sensitivity, and then there is being a doormat. Friggin' semantics...tremendous waste of time for people to care about nonsense like this, seriously.

Paul, you seem to be respectful of others.  However, others have made offensive comments about peoples' belief systems in one breath, and then went into tirades about how people need to be respectful of their rights in the next.

See, these are the kinds of statements that annoy me. Let me tell you something, man...it is quite possible to be respectful of someone's beliefs without talking about them in nothing less than glowing praise whenever they're mentioned. People do not have the right to not be offended, okay? There isn't even any comparison. An AP (!) history teacher starts preaching in class, and he gets all kinds of support (that still boggles my mind!), while I make one straightforward comment about what religion is by freaking definition and I'M offensive? I'M insensitive? Now THAT is offensive--to see that incredible double standard. That is ABSURDLY offensive to me.

If you want a respectful ear for your concerns, you must first be respectful of others.

Bullshit. Anyone who tramples on our Constitution without regard or remorse is getting none of my respect, and sure doesn't deserve it, either. Mostly because he just doesn't seem to care! No apology, no admission of guilt, not even a "I didn't mean to cause any problems" or anything like that. He doesn't give a shit. And that, to me, is even worse than the preaching stuff.

That being said, I do not see many athiests admonishing other athiests to be respectful of others when posting.

Maybe because atheists tend not to be as concerned with being perfectly PC than most. That does _not_ mean atheists are less respectful.

I guess as long as someone is posting something that you agree with, then it shouldn't matter if they are offending someone, should it?

Are you not above comments like this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Paul]

I would agree with your first point.  Many of the posters, particularly Strife, have been unnecessarily crass.  I think that it has put a number of Christians on the defensive ... and I think it fails to acknowledge that I have seen many posts from Christians in support of Matthew.  I know that if I was a Christian, I would be reluctant to post in support of Matthew (which I am) for fear of associating myself with those individuals.  They certainly do you no favors.

I also would agree with your second point.  To the extent that people go about their business, they should be left alone.  To the extent that they share their beliefs - in an unsolicited manner OR in a situation/context (such as a classroom or courtroom) where there are protections against such conduct - then yes, they are fair game.

The funny part is that I really don't mind what Mr. P said.  His opinions have no bearing on me, and he's free to believe whatever he would like to believe.  However, I DO have a problem with him saying what he said in a classroom.  After reading many of your posts, I get the sense that you feel the same way.  It's not what he said as much as it is that he said anything at all (the content just making it that much more egregious, but certainly not being the root cause).

I don't know how this degenerated into a atheist vs. theist war on this board (other than there are those who would use the opportunity to hijack your concerns to further their issues).  Many of your son's "supporters" act as if they are the vanguard of your son's interests, when they are - in reality - trying to exploit your son's sufferings to their own agenda.  Shame on them and shame on those who would automatically condemn your son's behavior solely because it was corrective of someone who was preaching about God.

I weep for humanity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I pretty much agree with everything you've said here, though I do confess that I skim the very long posts because they generally turn into little but ego contests.

I do mind the content of Paszkiewicz's remarks, but that's because I think the concept of hell is a destructive one, especially when (as I think most fair-minded people would acknowledge) it's always those other people who are going to spend eternity there. I just think it's a very divisive concept, and a dangerous one to the social fabric, very similar to racism. It is entirely beyond me how anyone can reach middle adulthood (and especially parents) and still believe that a loving and omnipotent god could have eternal torment waiting for anyone. Sometimes I ask: Which of your children would you be willing to let that happen to? However, I agree with you that people who believe in that have every right to say so in appropriate settings. That is the essence of religious freedom. Surely this would not be news, and we would not be raising a public fuss, if Paszkiewicz had said these things in his church. So again, you're right, in my view.

The discussions at KOTW degenerated because people brought their agendas here with them. I think you hit the nail squarely on the head, except that I don't think their bringing their agendas here necessarily means they aren't sincerely behind Matthew, or Paszkiewicz in the case of his supporters.

[Guest Guest]

I would agree with your first point.  Many of the posters, particularly Strife, have been unnecessarily crass.  I think that it has put a number of Christians on the defensive ...

Huh? You are blaming Strife for putting the Christians on the defensive?? So you think Strife is responsible for the righteous Christian "Patriot" spewing the following gems:

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

"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."

You are just so impartial.