Posted 14 days ago in 
12 votes. Average 3.33/5
Loading ...
Christianity is a foundational element of Our wonderful US of A.
I think that the Church Of England provided a great service to Our founding by providing object lessons regarding the reasons ’seperation-of-Church-and-State’ is so important. At the same time it provided thousands of intelligent, able, resourceful. folks with reason to brave the Great Unknowns to come to that teaming wilderness called America.
In the cities of the Original Thirteen States I’ve visited, I’ve noticed big, old, cut-stone, churches. All seem to be about the age of the one in Pittsburg where my daughter was married, some three hundred years old and ALL I’ve seen were some denomination of the Christian Faith. To me that means that they, and possibly thousands of other long lost to rot, log/frame structures of the same purpose were in place well before the birth of Our Country. The source, the basis of fundamental concepts of ‘right and wrong’ - - ‘decency’ - - ‘man’s-humanity-to-man’ of ours AND no doubt, Our Founding Fathers, are traceable back to those churches and their teaching.
I feel that Our Constitution, incorporating the concepts mentioned above, is very unique and important in history because it is the first ‘guidelines’ I know of, for the ‘organization and operation’ of a major country that was produce from the best thinking of the best people available. Also very important is that the AUTHORITY for producing and implementing such an instrument came from those to be governed, rather than the authority that had, historically, attended the establishing of oneself as the most proficient killer or manager of killers, to be found or the scion of such killers and/or managers.
Atheists, I’ve noticed, have organized themselves under several identifiers, all with a similar purpose, to rid Our Government of acknowledgement of its Christian heritage.
How different from the qualifications to be a ‘church’ are those to be an ‘anti-church’?
RAY LASHLEY
Grand Junction
53 Responses to “Atheists have organized to rid govenrment of Christian heritage”
Posted November 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“How different from the qualifications to be a ‘church’ are those to be an ‘anti-church’?”
Find some “anti-theists” and ask them. Since that isn’t what “atheist” means, this whole letter is pointed in the wrong direction.
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 9:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What makes our country great is the civilized behavior we pass on to our children by modeling tolerance. Tolerance for race, religion, handicapping conditions, economic differences (which I am working on), and the many other factors that make us look different from the outside, but continue to unite us as members of the human race. We are members of the world with the carrying card of being human. Civilized behavior is what will perpetuate our existence; not one creed, one race, one sex, one religion. The writer plants seeds of suffering by his intolerance of religious differences and those who are not religious.
Posted November 7th, 2009 at 8:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
it’s a well known fact that christians have a monopoly on morality. one of the greatest mysteries of all time is how humans manged to survive before jesus, and how the majority of humans on the planet continue to do so. yes sir, a real head scratcher…
Posted November 8th, 2009 at 5:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Kind of an e.e. cummings comentary there.
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If we are not a Christian nation and founded on those principals, why do the state constitutions say differently?
Alabama 1901, Preamble
We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
Alaska 1956, Preamble
We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
Arkansas 1874, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…
California 1879, Preamble
We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…
Colorado 1876, Preamble
We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…
Connecticut 1818, Preamble.
The People of Connecticut , acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble
Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences…
Florida 1885, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…
Georgia 1777, Preamble
We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…
Hawaii 1959, Preamble
We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance … Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..
Illinois 1870, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble
We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble
We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble
We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble..
We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
Louisiana 1921, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble
We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble
We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble
We…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble..
We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution..
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble
We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution…
Montana 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of Montana ,grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..
Nebraska 1875, Preamble
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble
We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution…
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art I. Sec. V
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble
We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble
We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble
We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…
North Dakota 1889, Preamble
We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…
Ohio 1852, Preamble
We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble
We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance….
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing…
South Carolina , 1778, Preamble
We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble
We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties …
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…
Texas 1845, Preamble
We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble
Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI
Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble
We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ..
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility..
Wyoming 1890, Preamble
We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution…
Posted November 10th, 2009 at 9:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let’s see. Only one of them mentions Christian, and it is not referring to the deity. So how sure are you that the “god” they are referrig to isn’t Allah or Thor?
A generic “god” is fine. None of them specify Jesus Christ or any specific version of god. If this was a Christian-specific nation, why don’t any of them mention Jesus?
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Keep religion OUT of government. It’s the American way, and the best way.
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 12:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci says, “The writer plants seeds of suffering by his intolerance of religious differences and those who are not religious.”
I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion. And tolerance is a two way street.
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 2:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion. And tolerance is a two way street.”
Can you give me examples? I think these are imaginary “victims” of intolerance, because fanatics usually mirror back their own reflections of intolerance. They are usually so fearful of “the other” that they consider themselves in some kind of danger. It seems to me that there are plenty of Christians who live by faith and are not threatened by atheistic thoughts.
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion. And tolerance is a two way street.”
davinci asked for examples….
Keep in mind, I was talking about values and mores, not “Christianity v. Atheism”.
The abortion debate:
To consider unborn children as having the right to live and be born is a value held by many people regardless of religion. There are even a few pro-life atheists. Since the advent of ultra sound and increased knowledge about fetal development, more folks now consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. Many religious pro-life people do refuse to budge on the issue of abortion from the moment of conception. But many pro-lifers are willing to “tolerate” early abortion based on average biological parameters when a fetus has developed to the point of being a complete human being, albeit immature (roughly 1st trimester). And people who advocate for education about all the options, (abortion, pregnancy, adoption), and for parental notification for minors - don’t necessarily do so based on religious belief.
On the other hand, it is a secular/materialistic value that places the “choice” of the mother over the life of her unborn child under all circumstances. Secular ideologues refuse to budge even on the question of late term abortions up to the moment of birth, parental notification for minors wanting abortions, or any education for woman wanting abortions regarding biological development from embryo to fetus. Some have no regard for the “conscience clause” which allows doctors and medical personnel to opt out of perform abortion services for any reason, and also demand using taxpayer money to fund abortion.
There is dogmatism and “intolerance” at both extremes. We just don’t have a neat label for those who ascribe to an ideological secular/materialistic value system, although one can reasonably say that most atheists do. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 9:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You’re wrong.
The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god. (That’s all a-theism means.) Other than that, they are all over the spectrum. To assume that most atheists do anything the same is probably a mistake.
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 9:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, “The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god. (That’s all a-theism means.) Other than that, they are all over the spectrum.”
Exactly. But would you say that “the spectrum” consists mainly of secular/materialistic values?
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 10:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, I wouldn’t.
Posted November 14th, 2009 at 11:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Then what would describe this “spectrum” of values? What does “all over the spectrum” mean in terms of values?
Posted November 15th, 2009 at 12:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Exactly what it sounds like it means.
Imagine asking what kind of ice cream people who don’t collect stamps like best. That is the same kind of question as what you are asking.
I know this isn’t the answer you’re looking for, but the fact that you seem to think there is an answer to your question indicates a basic misunderstanding about atheism.
Posted November 15th, 2009 at 12:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ice cream flavors and stamps are not VALUES. Do you know what a value system is?
Posted November 15th, 2009 at 1:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “But would you say that “the spectrum” consists mainly of secular/materialistic values?”
Religious people are also “materialistic” if it is their desire to “control” others by imposing their so-called religion upon others. Desire for “control” or domination of others is a totally materialistic value, one having absolutely nothing to do with personal religious beliefs.
Posted November 15th, 2009 at 7:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: It is an analogy. That’s when you compare things to illustrate a point. In this case, I used ice cream flavors to draw a comparison between the many things that atheists do believe versus the many types of value systems, and stamp collecting to show the futility of trying to pigeon-hole a group of people based on something they don’t do. The point, as seems usual, apparently went right over your head.
To put it as plainly as possible, it is useless to ask what kind of value systems atheists have because every individual will have a different answer. And no, I don’t agree that “most” of them will be what you call “secular/materialistic” because those terms are extremely vague and could apply to almost anything and because there are lots of spiritual atheists. But first you have to understand what atheism actually is, and you don’t seem to want to do that.
Posted November 15th, 2009 at 9:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said, “…to show the futility of trying to pigeon-hole a group of people based on something they don’t do. And no, I don’t agree that “most” of them will be what you call “secular/materialistic” because those terms are extremely vague and could apply to almost anything”
Both “secular” and “materialistic” are very specific words that refer to the material, non-religious, non-spiritual, physical world. Remember, I said, “I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.” Your ice cream and stamp analogy can be found on almost any atheist blog or forum. Makes me wonder - if atheists have nothing in common except a non-belief, why would y’all want to have organized groups? To use your own analogy - do people who don’t collect stamps feel the need to get together and talk about why they don’t collect stamps or why everyone doesn’t like the same flavors of ice cream? Seems like that analogy doesn’t really fit.
Posted November 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Both “secular” and “materialistic” are very specific words that refer to the material, non-religious, non-spiritual, physical world. Remember, I said, “I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.””
Okay, so you are still wrong, because no single “secular/materialist” worldview is espoused by most atheists. Instead, many “secular/materialistic” worldviews are espoused by atheists, along with many non-secular/non-materialistic worldviews. Remember, I said that defining a group by a characteristic they DON’T have makes it difficult to say what they DO have. (Capitals for emphasis, not shouting.)
“Your ice cream and stamp analogy can be found on almost any atheist blog or forum.”
Really? I came up with it on my own. And I really doubt you’ve spent much time on atheist blogs and forums. If you had, you wouldn’t be making these mistakes.
“Makes me wonder - if atheists have nothing in common except a non-belief, why would y’all want to have organized groups? To use your own analogy - do people who don’t collect stamps feel the need to get together and talk about why they don’t collect stamps or why everyone doesn’t like the same flavors of ice cream? Seems like that analogy doesn’t really fit.”
If people were chastised and persecuted for their refusal to collect stamps, I’ll bet they would organize. Since the analogy isn’t supposed to explain why they feel the need to organize, but rather to demonstrate the futility in trying to pigeon-hole them into a set viewpoint, I’d say the analogy does just fine.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 2:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “Your ice cream and stamp analogy can be found on almost any atheist blog or forum.”
Scott said, “Really? I came up with it on my own.”
LOL. Wow, you must really be a big-shot A-theist ideologue right up there with Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. Just look at the first page of results all referring to “your” analogy:
http://www.google.com/search?q=origin+non-stamp+collector+atheist&hl=en&sa=2
Get over yourself, Scott. The stamp analogy was being used on Usenet and Newsgroups back in the ’90s.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 7:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, the stamp collector analogy is a common one because it illustrates the point so well. I added the ice cream bit to show how uninformed about atheism your question is and why it cannot be answered. That may have been used before too. So what?
Does this have anything at all to do with your attempt to shoe-horn all (or “most”) atheists into the same belief, or are you just trying to find anything you can to prove me wrong on something, no matter how insignificant? You do realize that even if the analogy has been used before, it still illustrates that your question betrays a misunderstanding about atheism on your part.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 9:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “I added the ice cream bit to show how uninformed about atheism your question is and why it cannot be answered. That may have been used before too. So what?”
So you lied when you said you came up with it yourself. Obviously, honest discussion isn’t on your “spectrum of values” - especially since I just made a statement and you are the one trying to prove it wrong….. projecting your OWN style when you say, “..trying to find anything you can to prove me wrong on something..”
I said, “…the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.”
Suffice it to say, that unless you can give an example of a VALUE SYSTEM that MOST atheists hold that is NOT secular/materialistic, you’re merely playing your usual word games and haven’t proven a thing except that you like to argue for the sake of arguing.
As to my statement that the secular/materialistic value system that is espoused by most atheists has become ORGANIZED, DOGMATIC and INTOLERANT, this is from the American Atheist website on the event of it’s own atheist-proclaimed “Blasphemy Day” (Sept. 30) –>
“Blasphemy…. is a public service. It is patriotic. It helps your country and your fellow human to be blasphemous, hear blasphemy, and know that ALL RELIGIONS ARE WORTHY OF RIDICULE.”
“I now, once again, admit to committing blasphemy against all gods. Religion is mythology. Gods are lies. Preachers are liars (yes, all of them), and anyone who believes in magic men in the sky are fools.”
“Please take a moment to commit blasphemy today. Change your status message on Facebook or MySpace to something blasphemous. Wear an atheist pin. Come out of the closet a little more.”
“Make it known… and make it loud.”
http://atheists.org
and
“Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.”
“Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life;”
http://atheists.org
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “So you lied when you said you came up with it yourself.”
No, I didn’t. It is possible for the same concept to be concieved of independantly. I do not recall ever reading or hearing the two parts of the analogy together in the manner in which I wrote them. You don’t have to believe me, and I’m sure you won’t, but that is the truth.
“Obviously, honest discussion isn’t on your “spectrum of values” - especially since I just made a statement and you are the one trying to prove it wrong….. projecting your OWN style when you say, “..trying to find anything you can to prove me wrong on something..””
Well, that is exactly what it looks like you are doing. Rather than continuing the discussion about atheism, you have jumped on what you perceive as a contradiction in what I have said and are leaping to the conclusion that I have lied. You present the appearance to me of someone who is desperate to score some points no matter how trivial. And this is certainly trivial.
“Suffice it to say, that unless you can give an example of a VALUE SYSTEM that MOST atheists hold that is NOT secular/materialistic, you’re merely playing your usual word games and haven’t proven a thing except that you like to argue for the sake of arguing.”
Since a value system that “most” atheists hold is precisely what I said COULD NOT BE PROVIDED (capitals for emphasis, not shouting), this is a ridiculous demand. Once again, you are pushing me into a position I do not hold. I am not saying that “most” atheists hold any one value system, secular or otherwise, so demanding me to provide such is the complete opposite of the position I actually hold.
“As to my statement that the secular/materialistic value system that is espoused by most atheists has become ORGANIZED, DOGMATIC and INTOLERANT, this is from the American Atheist website on the event of it’s own atheist-proclaimed “Blasphemy Day” (Sept. 30) –>
“Blasphemy…. is a public service. It is patriotic. It helps your country and your fellow human to be blasphemous, hear blasphemy, and know that ALL RELIGIONS ARE WORTHY OF RIDICULE.”
“I now, once again, admit to committing blasphemy against all gods. Religion is mythology. Gods are lies. Preachers are liars (yes, all of them), and anyone who believes in magic men in the sky are fools.”
“Please take a moment to commit blasphemy today. Change your status message on Facebook or MySpace to something blasphemous. Wear an atheist pin. Come out of the closet a little more.”
“Make it known… and make it loud.”
http://atheists.org
and
“Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.”
“Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life;”
http://atheists.org”
Great. Now show that “most” atheists care about what the American Atheists say. That organization does not represent all or even most atheists. You are still trying to shoe-horn atheists into that neat little box. It doesn’t work that way.
You still don’t get it, do you.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - what I said was, “…the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.”
Unfortunately for your repertoire of shallow talking points and cliches, I’m not saying that atheists subscribe to “any single secularist/materialistic” value system or that A-theism IS a Religion. “Secularist/materialistic” is simply a descriptor.
If you want to argue that the value system held by most atheists is NOT secular and NOT materialistic, or that “The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god” (your words), I’d suggest you take it up with the non-profit, tax-exempt, American Atheists who have ORGANIZED their “non-beliefs” into a CRUSADE to promote their DOGMATIC and INTOLERANT IDEOLOGY.
(caps added for emphasis)
“Now in its fourth decade, American Atheists is dedicated to working for the civil rights of Atheists, promoting separation of state and church, and providing information about Atheism.”
“Over the last thirty years, American Atheists has:
- Fought fervently to defend the Separation of Religion from Government (NOT JUST “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”)
- Appeared in all formes of media to DEFEND OUR POSITIONS AND CRITICISMS of religion and mythology
- Held Atheist CONVENTIONS and gatherings throughout the United States, including “Atheist Pride” MARCHES in state capitals.
- DEMONSTRATED AND PICKETED throughout the country on behalf of Atheist rights and state church separation.
- The organization has marched to defend the rights of intellectuals such as writer Salman Rushdie, PROTESTED the use of government funds to support public religious displays, and conducted the first PICKET of a Roman Catholic pope in history.
- PUBLISHED over 120 books about Atheism, criticism of religion, and state/church separation.
- Published newsletters, magazines and member-alerts.
- Built a BROAD OUTREACH in cyberspace with mailing lists, an ftp and web site, FaxNet and other PROJECTS to keep members and the general public informed.
- Fostered a growing NETWORK OF REPRESENTATIVES throughout the nation who monitor important First Amendment issues, and work on behalf of the organization in their areas.
- Grown a NETWORK of volunteers who perform a variety of important tasks in their community, from placing American Atheist books in libraries to writing letters and publicizing THE ATHEIST PERSPECTIVE.
- Preserved Atheist literature and history in the nation’s largest archive of its kind.
- The library’s holdings span over THREE HUNDRED YEARS OF ATHEIST THOUGHT.
- Provided speakers for colleges, universities, clubs and the news media.
- Granted college scholarships to young Atheist ACTIVISTS”
http://atheists.org
You say, “That organization does not represent all or even most atheists.”
Better hop on over and tell THEM that.
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 12:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Scott - what I said was, “…the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.””
And I pointed out that you were wrong because there is no single value system espoused by most atheists. Ask 1,000 atheists what they believe, and you’ll get 1,000 different answers and justifications for those answers.
“Unfortunately for your repertoire of shallow talking points and cliches, I’m not saying that atheists subscribe to “any single secularist/materialistic” value system or that A-theism IS a Religion. “Secularist/materialistic” is simply a descriptor.”
Yet you say ““…THE secularist/materialistic value SYSTEM espoused by most atheists HAS become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.” (Capitals added by me for emphasis)
Single tense, indicating one item, and yet now you say you didn’t mean ONE system. Words have meanings. If you don’t use words correctly, you have only yourself to blame if people misunderstand you.
“If you want to argue that the value system held by most atheists is NOT secular and NOT materialistic, or that “The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god” (your words), I’d suggest you take it up with the non-profit, tax-exempt, American Atheists who have ORGANIZED their “non-beliefs” into a CRUSADE to promote their DOGMATIC and INTOLERANT IDEOLOGY.”
Why? If you are a Protestant, do you take up your differences in beliefs with the Catholic Church? You seem to be under the impression that atheism is a monolithic organization like a religion. It isn’t. American Atheists are one group of atheists. They do not speak for all atheists anymore than the Catholic Church speaks for all Christians. When you understand that point, you will understand why your question is meaningless.
“Better hop on over and tell THEM that.”
Again, why? I don’t see them claiming to speak for all atheists everywhere, so why should I care what they do?
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 9:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lordy, Lordy, Scott. You’re grasping at straws falling over the edge of reason.
You say, “Single tense, indicating one item, and yet now you say you didn’t mean ONE system.”
I’ve already explained exactly what I MEANT, but if you want to play a word game - OK. Singular/plural is not a “tense”. Tense refers to verbs, i.e. past, present, future, etc. But, in any case (not as in capital v. lower case), words without an “s” can refer to a “set of some things”, i.e, SYSTEM - grammatically singular but made up of multiple elements. Adjectives describe nouns and can be used to describe a “set of something” according to some quality (i.e. the adjective “secular/materialistic”) that all the elements have in common. A-theist A’s secular/materialistic value system (singular) may not contain exactly the same elements (plural) as A-theist B’s secular/materialistic value system, but both are a subset of THE secular/materialistic “secular/materialistic” value SYSTEM that IS (present tense) espoused by most A-theists and HAS (present perfect tense) become as dogmatic and organized as any religion. (THE analogy which is THE TOPIC here IF one is able to engage in abstract critical thinking, and knows how to “read for meaning”)
In other words, my statement refers to an overall set of all “secular/materialistic” values, i.e the secular/materialistic value system, but says nothing about the exact makeup of any subset of any particular A-theist’s secular/materialistic” value system.
You said, “You seem to be under the impression that atheism is a monolithic organization like a religion.”
Wrong. All evidence to the contrary, I already didn’t say that. My OPINION is that the secularist/materialistic value systems (better?) espoused by most atheists have become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.
Kind of like a Non-Stamp Collector non-club that takes up an ideological and intolerant crusade against stamp collectors, pickets stamp collector conventions, declares the USPS as unconstitutional, develops talking points to degrade stamp collecting and collectors, establishes a Non-Stamp Collector Day of Non-Collecting, dismisses the history of stamp collecting as inaccurate or irrelevant, ridicules collecting stamps, ascribes evil intent to most stamp collectors, has meetings to pick apart stamp collecting and figure out new ways to attack non-stamp collectors, creates ugly and derogatory art depicting stamps in feces and urine, and whenever possible brings up any wrong-doing committed by any right-wing stamp collector and minimizes all wrong-doing by any other Non-Stamp Collectors.
Oh…I almost forgot. There’s a Non-Stamp Collector Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector and a Non-Stamp Collector Online Store http://www.zazzle.com/nonstampcollector that sells Non-Stamp Collector trinkets that all Non-Stamp Collectors will ADORE. Get yours now! Just in time for CHRISTmas!
Posted November 17th, 2009 at 10:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Lordy, Lordy, Scott. You’re grasping at straws falling over the edge of reason.”
At least I’m not the accusing me of lying because other people have used PART of the analogy I used before.
“You say, “Single tense, indicating one item, and yet now you say you didn’t mean ONE system.”
I’ve already explained exactly what I MEANT,”
After the fact. What you wrote still indicated to any rational observer that you were under the mistaken impression that there was only one “secular/materialistic” worldview. Now that you realize your error, you are frantically trying to backpedal and distract attention from that mistake.
“…but if you want to play a word game - OK. Singular/plural is not a “tense”. Tense refers to verbs, i.e. past, present, future, etc.”
You are correct about that. That doesn’t change the fact that you referred to one system, but you are correct that singular/plural is not a tense.
“But, in any case (not as in capital v. lower case), words without an “s” can refer to a “set of some things”, i.e, SYSTEM - grammatically singular but made up of multiple elements.”
But since it was the system itself you were referring to, this is irrelevant. You were not talking about elements within the system, but the system that you thought most atheists subscribed to. Sorry.
“Adjectives describe nouns and can be used to describe a “set of something” according to some quality (i.e. the adjective “secular/materialistic”) that all the elements have in common. A-theist A’s secular/materialistic value system (singular) may not contain exactly the same elements (plural) as A-theist B’s secular/materialistic value system, but both are a subset of THE secular/materialistic “secular/materialistic” value SYSTEM that IS (present tense) espoused by most A-theists and HAS (present perfect tense) become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.”
Ah. So now you’re claiming that what you really meant was all the myriad elements that “most” atheists espouse, all subsumed within the vast “secular/materialistic” system. And you probably don’t think that is at all vague or undefined, like I said in the first place. Would you consider to helpful to discuss the “religious” worldview that all believers subscribe to? That is the same as what you’re talking about. You ignore all the various elements and just stuff them all into the same box. You are doing exactly what I have been saying all along - shoehorning all (or “most”) atheists into one convenient box.
“(THE analogy which is THE TOPIC here IF one is able to engage in abstract critical thinking, and knows how to “read for meaning”)”
You mean MY analogy which works just fine for what it is intended for. Of course, when you try to apply it to other elements it doesn’t work, but that isn’t a problem with the analogy itself, only that of the person trying to misunderstand.
“In other words, my statement refers to an overall set of all “secular/materialistic” values, i.e the secular/materialistic value system, but says nothing about the exact makeup of any subset of any particular A-theist’s secular/materialistic” value system.”
So you are talking about whatever all atheists happen to believe, regardless of what those beliefs might be. Very helpful. Secular humanists and Buddhists are the same to you. You don’t care what they actually believe or why, as long as you can lump them all together.
Okay, so you’ve combined every atheistic belief into one big glop. Now what?
“Wrong. All evidence to the contrary, I already didn’t say that. My OPINION is that the secularist/materialistic value systems (better?) espoused by most atheists have become as dogmatic and organized as any religion.”
Great. And why should anyone care what your opinion is? Especially when you aren’t interested in the many differences between the myriad beliefs of non-theists?
“Kind of like a Non-Stamp Collector non-club that takes up an ideological and intolerant crusade against stamp collectors, pickets stamp collector conventions, declares the USPS as unconstitutional, develops talking points to degrade stamp collecting and collectors, establishes a Non-Stamp Collector Day of Non-Collecting, dismisses the history of stamp collecting as inaccurate or irrelevant, ridicules collecting stamps, ascribes evil intent to most stamp collectors, has meetings to pick apart stamp collecting and figure out new ways to attack non-stamp collectors, creates ugly and derogatory art depicting stamps in feces and urine, and whenever possible brings up any wrong-doing committed by any right-wing stamp collector and minimizes all wrong-doing by any other Non-Stamp Collectors.”
Only because the stamp collectors are pushing their philatelic beliefs on everyone, praying to their stamp-collecting god during government meetings, suggesting that non-stamp collectors move to Iran or North Korea, claiming that the US was founded as a stamp collecting nation, getting tax exemptions for their stamp shops, using their stamp collecting meetings to push political agendas, trying to get their Special Theory of Stamp Collecting taught in schools, going door-to-door trying to get people to start collecting stamps, and complaining about being persecuted when people point out that the Constitution protects everyone’s right to collect stamps or not, as they see fit. The stamp collectors are hardly innocent bystanders.
Posted November 18th, 2009 at 11:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott -
Reading comprehension involves identifying the main idea. When you argue each sentence outside the main idea, you have MISSED the main idea and hae ended up SUPPORTING the main idea.
You decry the observation that the beliefs of Atheists can be described as “secular/materialistic” but have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. And when I provide evidence that Atheists, as a group of like-minded people, hold a secular/materialistic view and have become as organized and dogmatic as any religion, you CONFIRM that idea by JUSTIFYING it. Your whole last paragraph asserts the similarity. “Only because….” aptly COMPARES and JUSTIFIES the DOGMATISM and INTOLERANCE of “non-stamp collectors”, aka Atheism, as an ORGANIZED movement.
Remember, you’re also on record justifying and summing up your personal GOAL as:
***********************
Scott: “I do think that the world would be a better place without the dividing lines that religion draws between different people. I believe that is a goal worth battling for.”
and
“How to battle for that goal? Education. Demonstrating that religion is not necessary for happiness or morality.
http://community.gjsentinel.com/2009/10/21/atheists-want-god-out-of-your-life/
**********************
That’s SAME goal of all ORGANIZED groups of Atheists as EVIDENCED by their ORGANIZED ACTIONS that attempt to “educate” aka IMPOSE their secular/materialistic world view on everyone else. I’m NOT saying that they/you don’t have a Constitutional right to do so. Only that you/they DO. You say so yourself.
Posted November 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Reading comprehension involves identifying the main idea.”
Coming from you, this is extrodinarily ironic.
“When you argue each sentence outside the main idea, you have MISSED the main idea and hae ended up SUPPORTING the main idea.”
Unless the entire main idea is wrong, as in the case of your attempt to box up all (or “most”) atheists’ worldviews into one catagory.
“You decry the observation that the beliefs of Atheists can be described as “secular/materialistic” but have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.”
As you said, reading comprehension involves identifying the main idea. You have failed to identify the main idea in what I said, so you have once again missed the point. I did not say that the beliefs of atheists can not be described that way. I said that not ALL atheists’ beliefs can be described that way, and further that those terms are generic and vague enough so as to make the catagorization useless. The beliefs of many atheists can be described that way, but those range from secular humanists to Jedi to Buddhists. Lumping them all together does not make sense, especially when you are trying to make a claim about them all - that they are intolerant and dogmatic.
“And when I provide evidence that Atheists, as a group of like-minded people, hold a secular/materialistic view and have become as organized and dogmatic as any religion, you CONFIRM that idea by JUSTIFYING it.”
Your assertions do not constitute evidence. That one atheist organization says something does not mean that all atheists abide by what they say. Most atheists are not members of AA, so you have only confirmed that you know very little about atheism.
“Your whole last paragraph asserts the similarity. “Only because….” aptly COMPARES and JUSTIFIES the DOGMATISM and INTOLERANCE of “non-stamp collectors”, aka Atheism, as an ORGANIZED movement.”
Way to completely miss the point. You must practice.
“Remember, you’re also on record justifying and summing up your personal GOAL as:
***********************
Scott: “I do think that the world would be a better place without the dividing lines that religion draws between different people. I believe that is a goal worth battling for.”
and
“How to battle for that goal? Education. Demonstrating that religion is not necessary for happiness or morality.
http://community.gjsentinel.com/2009/10/21/atheists-want-god-out-of-your-life/
**********************”
That’s SAME goal of all ORGANIZED groups of Atheists as EVIDENCED by their ORGANIZED ACTIONS that attempt to “educate” aka IMPOSE their secular/materialistic world view on everyone else. I’m NOT saying that they/you don’t have a Constitutional right to do so. Only that you/they DO. You say so yourself.”
So I agree with the goals of the AA. So what? I am not all atheists. AA does not represent all (or even most) atheists. So your extrapolation from anything I have said I believe and whatever AA says they believe to all atheists is not justified. Therefore, your original premise fails.
And if you had read for comprehension what I actually said rather than what you wanted to see at the start, you would have realized that a long time ago. Not that I think you realize it now either, of course.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 1:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott -
All I said was….. the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion… and that we just don’t have a neat little label for those who ascribe to an ideological secularist/materialistic value system.
You disagree.
No problem.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
You are still wrong, for the reasons I have explained at length but if you still want to believe that, knock yourself out.
It seems to me that it is difficult to call anything dogmatic if you can’t even say exactly what it is but hey, you are entitled to your opinion.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 7:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I notice you are now adding “and that we just don’t have a neat little label…” which is precisely the point I have been making through this whole discussion and you are trying to make it look like that has been your argument all along.
And you wonder why I accuse you of making stuff up and being dishonest? This is just one more example.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 7:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, many of them call themselves secular humanists and they’re very open and decent people, no more or less materialistic than any Christian, and certainly no more and no less moral.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 8:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To use pro-choice values as an example of the harm that a secular citizen would employ is a good example of the labeling of good/bad that goes on within the political, materialistic Christian movement. A belief in a super-natural father reflects the power structure of mankind (not people kind). A God is usually a good mirror of the worshiper, and Christian Pro-Life politics do not honor a woman’s choice, will make a choice for her because she just can’t be trusted to make a good choice and then turn away from the responsibilities that the choice entails. Where is the pro-life value in this? What happens when this child is mentally ill, has no parents, is gay or Muslim? There are plenty of abandoned children who need love, food, shelter and parenting, that should be the focus of Pro-life.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “I notice you are now adding “and that we just don’t have a neat little label…” which is precisely the point I have been making through this whole discussion and you are trying to make it look like that has been your argument all along.
And you wonder why I accuse you of making stuff up and being dishonest? This is just one more example.”
Scott, Scott, Scott… You STARTED your talking-point-cliche-driven argument IN RESPONSE to what you now say is ME making stuff up? Go waaay back to #10 in which I SAID:
(JMH): “We just don’t have a neat label for those who ascribe to an ideological secular/materialistic value system, although one can reasonably say that most atheists do.”
And by #30 YOU morphed from “most” to “all” saying,
(Scott): “I said that not ALL atheists’ beliefs can be described that way [secular/materialistic], and further that those terms are generic and vague enough so as to make the catagorization useless. The beliefs of many atheists can be described that way…”
I didn’t say “ALL” either. You’re arguing with the people who say that Atheism IS a religion. I’m NOT, and I don’t know how to make myself any clearer. Slogging through your assumptions and diversions, here’s a summary of exactly what I HAVE said (the MAIN IDEAS):
JMH —>
“I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion. And tolerance is a two way street.”
JMH cont. “Keep in mind, I was talking about values and mores, not “Christianity v. Atheism”.”
JMH cont. “There is dogmatism and “intolerance” at both extremes. We just don’t have a neat label for those who ascribe to an ideological secular/materialistic value system, although one can reasonably say that most atheists do.”
JMH cont. “Both “secular” and “materialistic” are very specific words that refer to the material, non-religious, non-spiritual, physical world.”
JMH cont. “Unfortunately for your repertoire of shallow talking points and cliches, I’m not saying that atheists subscribe to “any single secularist/materialistic” value system or that A-theism IS a Religion.”
Give it a rest, Scott.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 10:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Scott, Scott, Scott… You STARTED your talking-point-cliche-driven argument IN RESPONSE to what you now say is ME making stuff up? Go waaay back to #10 in which I SAID:
(JMH): “We just don’t have a neat label for those who ascribe to an ideological secular/materialistic value system, although one can reasonably say that most atheists do.”
Which you never justified.
And by #30 YOU morphed from “most” to “all” saying,
(Scott): “I said that not ALL atheists’ beliefs can be described that way [secular/materialistic], and further that those terms are generic and vague enough so as to make the catagorization useless. The beliefs of many atheists can be described that way…””
You are absolutely right! I said not ALL atheists. I never claimed you said that. Reading for comprehension, huh?
“I didn’t say “ALL” either.”
I have tried to be careful to include “most” when describing what you have said. I may not have caught every instance, but I did attempt to qualify that. I recognize you did not say all, but you are still wrong about even lumping most atheists together.
“You’re arguing with the people who say that Atheism IS a religion. I’m NOT, and I don’t know how to make myself any clearer.”
Since I have never accused you of such, you are, once again, reading more into what I write than is actually there.
“Slogging through your assumptions and diversions, here’s a summary of exactly what I HAVE said (the MAIN IDEAS):
JMH —>
“I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion. And tolerance is a two way street.”
Scott: And I called you on being wrong about most atheists being dogmatic. You used examples of a select few to justify your generalization, but atheists are not so easily defined. You refuse to accept that.
JMH cont. “Keep in mind, I was talking about values and mores, not “Christianity v. Atheism”.”
Scott: And you were wrong to say that most atheists get those values and mores from “secular/materialistic” worldviews.
JMH cont. “There is dogmatism and “intolerance” at both extremes. We just don’t have a neat label for those who ascribe to an ideological secular/materialistic value system, although one can reasonably say that most atheists do.”
Scott: But you completely failed to justify or support your claim that it si reasonable to say so. Just because that’s what you want to believe doesn’t make it true.
JMH cont. “Both “secular” and “materialistic” are very specific words that refer to the material, non-religious, non-spiritual, physical world.”
Scott: But they encompass a huge number of belief systems that are not necessarily compatible with each other. Lumping them together is like referring to “religion” without considering all the variations between different beliefs. As I said, it’s your opinion and if you want to think that way go right ahead, but you will be ignoring the truth of the matter.
JMH cont. “Unfortunately for your repertoire of shallow talking points and cliches, I’m not saying that atheists subscribe to “any single secularist/materialistic” value system or that A-theism IS a Religion.”
Scott: You did refer to one secular/materialistic system, and then went back and tried to say you meant something else, but I acknowledge you never claimed atheism is a religion, nor have I ever said you did.
“Give it a rest, Scott.”
So you can spout your uninformed tripe unrebutted? Sorry, but if you make a claim that is factually incorrect, I am going to call you on it.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 11:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci says, “To use pro-choice values as an example of the harm that a secular citizen would employ is a good example of the labeling of good/bad that goes on within the political, materialistic Christian movement.”
Unfortunately for YOUR repertoire of shallow talking points and cliches, I said NOTHING about “good/bad” or harm. You are also arguing against a some OTHER premise that “secularist/materialism” is a-moral or immoral or that a-theists have no morality - and I have NOT said anything of the kind.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 11:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci says, “What happens when this child is mentally ill, has no parents, is gay or Muslim?”
If you’re using that as an argument in favor aborting ill-fated children under the pretense of “pro-choice “, it is one of the most transparently “pro-choice eugenics” arguments that still exist - echoing the despicable ideology of Margaret Sanger, founder Planned Parenthood and the “Negro Project”. Here’s something you might want to be aware of before using that argument again.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html
(Johnny M. Hunter, the ‘Say So’ march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.)
” ‘Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project.”
“Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA). “The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,”
“Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:
‘All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.’
“Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.”
“Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.”
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jmh has turned from a term that most would accept, secular/humanist, to another secular/materialist. The careful reader will note that change. It also brings up the point of religious/materialist. And their we find such as Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, the late Jerry Falwell, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic church as well. Most have, time and time again, used their positions and offices in attempts to control others. That “control” is itself materialistic. Therefore, whatever modifier one chooses to use, secular or religious, the objective being the control others being what they have in common, the operative term is only one. That is materialism and it does not matter what it is we want to discuss under the term.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said, “I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by most atheists has become as dogmatic and organized as any religion. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion. And tolerance is a two way street.”
Scott still argues that, “But they encompass a huge number of belief systems that are not necessarily compatible with each other.”
That’s WHY I said, “Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion.”
and WHY
I reminded davinci I was “…talking about [secularist/materialist] values and mores, not “Christianity v. Atheism”.”
Scott says, “Lumping them together is like referring to “religion” without considering all the variations between different beliefs.”
Absolutely, and that’s what YOU do:
****************************************
Scott: “I do think that the world would be a better place without the dividing lines that religion draws between different people. I believe that is a goal worth battling for.”
and
“How to battle for that goal? Education. Demonstrating that RELIGION is not necessary for happiness or morality.
http://community.gjsentinel.com/2009/10/21/atheists-want-god-out-of-your-life/
***************************************
And since you AGREE that “The beliefs of many atheists can be described that way…[secularist/materialistic]”
”the “truth of the matter” is just what I said:
“There is dogmatism and “intolerance” at both extremes. We just don’t have a neat label for those who ascribe to an ideological secular/materialistic value system, although one can reasonably say that MOST atheists do.”
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said “I do think that the world would be a better place without the dividing lines that religion draws between different people. I believe that is a goal worth battling for.”
RL says, “That “control” is itself materialistic. Therefore, whatever modifier one chooses to use, secular or religious, the objective being the control others being what they have in common, the operative term is only one. That is materialism and it does not matter what it is we want to discuss under the term.”
Right ON, RL!
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Scott still argues that, “But they encompass a huge number of belief systems that are not necessarily compatible with each other.”
That’s WHY I said, “Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion.”
and WHY
I reminded davinci I was “…talking about [secularist/materialist] values and mores, not “Christianity v. Atheism”.”
And where did I claim you were wrong about that? Please try arguing against what I actually say rather than what you wish I had said.
“Absolutely, and that’s what YOU do:
(snip quote)”
The difference being of course, that what I was talking about was religion in general (as opposed to specific beliefs) and not trying to shoe-horn all religious beliefs into one convenient package. You, on the other hand, were making a broad statement about what you think the beliefs of atheists are without regard for the differences that make your position incorrect. It’s details like that that matter.
“And since you AGREE that “The beliefs of many atheists can be described that way…[secularist/materialistic]”
”the “truth of the matter” is just what I said:
“There is dogmatism and “intolerance” at both extremes. We just don’t have a neat label for those who ascribe to an ideological secular/materialistic value system, although one can reasonably say that MOST atheists do.”
Many does not equal most. You have STILL failed to support your claim that this is a reasonable thing to say. I am not most atheists. The AA is not most atheists. You have offered no other evidence to support the “reasonableness” of your statement. Again, just because you think it is so, does not make it so.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Scott said “I do think that the world would be a better place without the dividing lines that religion draws between different people. I believe that is a goal worth battling for.”
“RL says, “That “control” is itself materialistic. Therefore, whatever modifier one chooses to use, secular or religious, the objective being the control others being what they have in common, the operative term is only one. That is materialism and it does not matter what it is we want to discuss under the term.”
“Right ON, RL!”
Where did I mention controlling anyone or anything? Yet another example of reading things that aren’t there.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Right ON, RL!”
We do agree on this, and we should. However, let us not attempt to, either consciously or unconsciously dismiss it when it is to our advantage (politically or otherwise) to ignore it.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL says, “We do agree on this, and we should. However, let us not attempt to, either consciously or unconsciously dismiss it when it is to our advantage (politically or otherwise) to ignore it.”
We also agree on that. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion - or lack thereof, i.e. secularist/materialism.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Referring to Scott’s “battle” I said,
“That’s SAME goal of all ORGANIZED groups of Atheists as EVIDENCED by their ORGANIZED ACTIONS that attempt to “educate” aka IMPOSE their secular/materialistic world view on everyone else. I’m NOT saying that they/you don’t have a Constitutional right to do so. Only that you/they DO. You say so yourself.”
Scott said, “So I agree with the goals of the AA. So what? I am not all atheists. AA does not represent all (or even most) atheists. So your extrapolation from anything I have said I believe and whatever AA says they believe to all atheists is not justified. Therefore, your original premise fails.
Scott again says, “I am not most atheists. The AA is not most atheists.”
OK, Fine. Allow me to rephrase:
“I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by Scott and the American Atheists (http://atheists.org), and other organizations such as Atheist Empire (http://atheistempire.com/), Atheist Alliance International (http://www.atheistalliance.org/Secular-Nation.html) have become as DOGMATIC as any religion.”
Better?
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Or perhaps more to the point:
“I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic, anti-religiosity value system espoused by Scott and the American Atheists (http://atheists.org), and other organizations such as Atheist Empire (http://atheistempire.com/), Atheist Alliance International (http://www.atheistalliance.org/Secular-Nation.html) have become as DOGMATIC as any religion.”
Even better.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Referring to Scott’s “battle” I said,
“That’s SAME goal of all ORGANIZED groups of Atheists as EVIDENCED by their ORGANIZED ACTIONS that attempt to “educate” aka IMPOSE their secular/materialistic world view on everyone else. I’m NOT saying that they/you don’t have a Constitutional right to do so. Only that you/they DO. You say so yourself.”
And what percentage of all atheists do you suppose those organized groups represent? Are you really under the impression that most atheists belong to one of those groups?
“OK, Fine. Allow me to rephrase:
“I think the writer’s point was that the secularist/materialistic value system espoused by Scott and the American Atheists (http://atheists.org), and other organizations such as Atheist Empire (http://atheistempire.com/), Atheist Alliance International (http://www.atheistalliance.org/Secular-Nation.html) have become as DOGMATIC as any religion.”
Better?”
More accurate in terms of who you are referring to, yes. Of course, I only see myself as dogmatic with regard for my search for answers, so we disagree there, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Of course, the goals of a group are not the same as their value system, so you still seem to be off base. I certainly wouldn’t say that my goal of educating people about religion and atheism is my value system. You started off talking about values and mores and now where talking about goals. It appears that you have changed topics somewhere along the line.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 7:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci says, “What happens when this child is mentally ill, has no parents, is gay or Muslim?”
JMH: “If you’re using that as an argument in favor aborting ill-fated children under the pretense of “pro-choice “, it is one of the most transparently “pro-choice eugenics” arguments that still exist - echoing the despicable ideology of Margaret Sanger, founder Planned Parenthood and the “Negro Project”. Here’s something you might want to be aware of before using that argument again.”
My point is that you have a eugenics problem if you reach into a woman’s body and make a choice for her without contributing the the rest of that child’s life.
Children are aborted through the pro-life perspective that only birth matters - that it is not the pro-lifers problem when children die of malnutrition, are neglected by a society that turns away from their healthcare needs or upholds their diversity (rejects them if they are Muslim). The churches are leading the anti-gay politics, not secular citizens.
Posted November 19th, 2009 at 8:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “We also agree on that. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion - or lack thereof, i.e. secularist/materialism.”
So who is being intolerant? Or can some not see that? As the record clearly shows, the so-called “religious” groups and individuals are the ones being intolerant (my way or the highway mentality).
As far as the atheist goes, most do not care one way or another what another thinks or believes, just as long as nobody attempts to impose one, or any part of one, upon them. I am quite sure that they would like to have done with the discussion but they can’t. For then they would be ceding the field to the theocrats.
Not all, but I know many who will choose a particular sect of a religion primarily based upon whether it interferes with, or serves, their materialstic objectives. If they are not one, most have had occasion to meet such people.
In history (for those who know history), the classic case was the Emperor Constantine. He used Christianity as a political unifier but he did not want to become a Christian himself until the end because he “had things to do.” So, was he a Christian or was he not?
Posted November 20th, 2009 at 8:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
davinci says, “My point is that you have a eugenics problem if you reach into a woman’s body and make a choice for her without contributing the the rest of that child’s life.”
Sorry, but you can’t just change the definition of Eugenics to suit your purpose. Eugenics, by definition, refers to ridding the population of “undesirables” by manipulating the gene pool according to the presupposition that poverty etc. is governed by genetics, i.e. the race or intellect of the mother. Believe it or not, much of the political support for Roe v. Wade was by people who believed (and some still believe) that differential “population control” through government funded abortion is not only acceptable, but desirable.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2009: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and PARTICULARLY GROWTH IN POPULATIONS THAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE TOO MANY OF. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=print
davinci says, “Children are aborted through the pro-life perspective that only birth matters - that it is not the pro-lifers problem when children die of malnutrition, are neglected by a society that turns away from their healthcare needs or upholds their diversity (rejects them if they are Muslim).”
That is patently false. There are no shortages of adoption agencies and couples wanting to adopt, not to mention that charitable services of all manner have historically been provided by diverse religious and civic organizations.
My only point was that there are many intelligent and compassionate arguments on both sides of the abortion debate, but to say that the pro-life position doesn’t care about children after they are born is not one of them.
Posted November 20th, 2009 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “We also agree on that. Intolerance of values and moral standards can occur independent from self-identification with any religion - or lack thereof, i.e. secularist/materialism.”
RL says, “So who is being intolerant? Or can some not see that? As the record clearly shows, the so-called “religious” groups and individuals are the ones being intolerant (my way or the highway mentality).”
Intolerance is intolerance, and absolute numbers don’t prove a thing. When the vast majority of the population is religious, there will naturally be more religious than non-religious ideologues. If the population were to shift, the absolute numbers would also shift. There are plenty of non-religious political ideologues and extremists to fill the void.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.