The Freedom From Religion Foundation is one organization that is perfectly clear in how it would change the US Constitution if given the chance. And they are taking their message on the road through a campaign to “place freethought billboards around the country, wherever an irreverent billboard is needed — which is practically everywhere!” Like this one, standing just off the west Beltline in Madison, Wisconsin.
If I did not know what they meant by that, I might tend to agree. Religion and dogma are not the same thing. And freethought and dogma are not necessarily opposites. A smaller billboard to go up in a place where it will be passed by nearly everyone leaving the airport in Madison will read, “Imagine No Religion.”
Imagine a world with no religion. Dawkins has. And he is bringing his campaign to the United States in order to realize it.
I would free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community. The Guardian
To what lengths are we willing to go to free society of this “virus of the mind?” Billboards and foundations do not bother me, but the absolute intolerance for the beliefs of others does. I suspect that in the near future, we may long for the days when moral relativism was the dominant philosophy. But we are moving into a “new age” where there is an “absolute truth” and that absolute truth has no room for the religious.
Imagine a world without religion. The Khmer Rouge did. North Korea has. Yes, there has been violence in the name of religion, but there has been extreme violence and widespread genocide in the name of eradicating it, as well. Am I saying that Dawkins would be a willing part in such a thing? Or even that this is an imminent threat? Certainly not. But I am reminded of the words of Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl writes in The Doctor and the Soul,
I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.
Ideas have consequences.
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
I am not so sure if a world without religion is the same thing as eradicating it from existence. Something that runs its course is far different than something that has been destroyed completely. And the FFRF seems more concerned with keeping religion a personal part of who we are as a people rather than a political part of who we are than with eradicating religion from society…and that I can appreciate as it a major part of why we ever set sail for the Americas to begin with. Their signs however, do seem to cross from the political to the more personal aspects, or rather they are not real clear on where the message does stand.
I do think we need a moral compass and I do not necessarily trust man to be good all on his own…some men yes, all humanity I am not as confident about. Is religion the only means of morality? I don’t know, but I doubt it.
Personally I think religion adds beauty to our world, our experience…all religions, not just my own…and I would hate to see it it completely faded from into the past.
I agree with your first statement…if religion were to simply fade away, that is a far different thing than actively trying to suppress it. But the language many of these groups use toward religion indicate a desire to do more than just talk to people about these beliefs. One man who spoke to Amnesty International several years ago equated sharing your religious beliefs with your children with child abuse, and something society had to act against. Dawkins wants to free children from the oppression of religious “indoctrination” from their parents…and to inoculate us against the “cultural virus” of religion.
Freethinking, which is what the FFRF supports goes well beyond trying to maintain a secular government or making sure the church has no influence over politics. From their website:
“Freethinkers are convinced that religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason. Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition.
Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful. It has been used to justify war, slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance, and oppression of minorities. The totalitarianism of religious absolutes chokes progress.”
It isn’t just about being free to believe whatever without government interference. It is about suppressing what they see as dangerous.
Sobering post. We can see it everywhere this drive to remove religion from everything. Once they have removed it from schools, the whitehouse, the military and colleges they will go directly after our homes.
Daniel http://www.apostolicmessenger.wordpress.com
How can a group of people label themselves “Freethought” people when their main goal is slavery? Slavery of all religious thinkers - to be forced to give up one’s religious thoughts and practices - how is this “free”?? How else does one interpret “imagine no religion”??
The end result of no religion is the same no matter how you get there - by naturally fizzling out or by forced eradication. There is no good thing apart from God, and society would eventually end up in tyranny.
I disagree with Shawna above - it’s quite clear to me that the ultimate goal of FFRF is to eradicate religion from society. And it’s also clear to me that by the term “religion,” the FFRF is not only including “the belief in God,” but expressly targeting belief in God.
I agree, Daniel.
And Jennifer, it is “freethought” not because it is free and independent, but because it is free from the supernatural. It really does not have to do with free thinking, because if you come to a different conclusion about the existence of God, you cannot be a freethinker anymore. : )
“Atheistic Evolution”
- Dawkin and his buddies are Atheistic Evolutionists. That’s their religion. The outworking thereof has been critiqued and we know the results thereof.
- Atheistic Evolution is the religion of the public schools and henceforth the succeeding generations will submit to this religion and it’s outworking thereof.
- Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
- Fret if you must: Get to work if you love.
- Atheistic Evolution is the religion of the public schools and henceforth the succeeding generations will submit to this religion and it’s outworking thereof.
This is such crap…sorry. But most school teachers and administrators are religious people to some degree…some are athiest. This is my experience form being a public schooled student and from having taught within the public schools and from having children within the public schools.
My 4th grade teacher was our organist at our Methodist church; my 7th grade Social Studies teacher was a leader at our Methodist church; my 8th grade Language Arts teacher was a religious woman who married into a Quaker family; one of our yard duty aides was a member of our Catholic church; my children’s school nurse is long standing member of our Methodist church; their elementary yard duty supervisor is an active member of their Catholic church and catechism program…and this is only to name the few that we know of within our own two churches within our own District.
Because of the evolution/creation issue with schools does not mean that evolution is the religion of the schools. It is a theory that is presented as is the theory of creation–having been a student myself and having had six children in public school…both perspectives, briefly. Most teachers leave it at that.
Evolution is then taught as something that does take place in biology, but not necessarily as the means of our being…most teachers stay away from that with a 10 foot pole!
And Jennifer, if you read my thoughts again you might see that I was tending to lean toward what you are saying…their message and “messages” seem to be two different things.
Such crap?
- Banishment of school prayer
- The published school textbooks
- Abortion without parental consent
- The increase in violence and criminal behavior
- By the way have you seen the adds for the Methodist church recently?
The frog is in the frying pan and it doesn’t even notice…
LOL “our” as in our community. Yes, I think it is crap…and I do apologize for the harsh tone, but I find your statement a bit self-righteous.
I do not think school is the place for prayer, although many do. I personally feel that is a private thing between my children and God and I wouldn’t want a teacher nor school administrator leading my child in prayer to be quite honest…and whose prayer: the Christian’s prayer, the Muslim’s prayer, the Buddist’s prayer, the Hindu’s prayer, the Pagan’s prayer? Or all of them? Or is it a moment of silence?
Textbooks, yes…flawed, for many reasons beyond a debate of our origins, beyond any questions regarding evolution or moral behavior.
Parental consent for abortion–I won’t address that here, but will say that the schools really play no part in the abortion issue: it’s a legal issue between the courts and doctors and parents and is decided state by state.
Increased violence and criminal behavior has definitely increased and I am sure for a variety of reasons to include a decline in religious feeling amongst our younger generations, maybe even our babyboomers…but due to atheist teachings in the school???
Correction: Not Atheistic Evolution but Humanistic Evolution.
* and whose prayer: the Christian’s prayer, the Muslim’s prayer, the Buddist’s prayer, the Hindu’s prayer, the Pagan’s prayer? Or all of them?
- Who’s prayer is obvious if the schools taught American History/Civics correctly. Upon the God of the Bible Old and New Testaments was this country founded.
? “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law (Crowley)”
* Textbooks, yes…flawed,
- Steering children away from God to humanistic beliefs. If you come from apes you are justified to live as apes, make your own rules.
? “Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party.(Stalin).”
* Parental consent for abortion.
- It is already occurring where teachers can take students to abortion clinics without parental consent. As being a legal issue, raise a generation void of a conscience these brutal realities creep in ever so slowly.
? “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.(Stalin).”
* Increased violence and criminal behavior has definitely increased and I am sure for a variety of reasons to include a decline in religious feeling amongst our younger generations, maybe even our babyboomers…
- Everybody looks upon the sixties with fond memories and dreamy eyed wishes to return to a better time, as often is in the free wheeling of sin.
In reality the sixties were the most destructive period in American history. Raising a generation of perversion that has continued into later generations influencing all sections of the nation.
So how do you bring around the New Age, the destruction of America, start with education.
? “Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas? (Stalin)
Shawna, you are way more patient with anonymous commenters than I am. I have chosen to allow them for the moment, but I rarely get into conversation with them.
(Anonymous, you should at least get a pseudonym. It makes it easier to track the conversation.)
Thought this was relevant…
October’s Touchstone magazine has an article on Washington Post journalist Sally Quinn and her religious blog. The article ends with a quote from her 25 year old son, who recently told her, “You started out as an atheist. Now you’re a free thinker. I think you’re on your way to believing in God.”
Ha! That is funny. And a bit of truth to it, I think.
Beware of Dogma
I wonder, do they dogmatically believe that?
I think there is some information
here:
http://kevinrobling.blogspot.com
http://markkruzan.blogspot.com
http://lisaabbott.blogspot.com
or google “margie schrader” AND
bloomington
or google “mark kruzan” AND
“residential entry”
or google “kevin robling” AND
anti-semitism
It is not God that is the issue, it is the way that Christians believe in it that is the issue.
To be religious about something is to fear it. When will we realise that the ONLY God we will have to answer to is the one we create for ourselves?
It has not been said that Christianity is the only cause of a million atrocities that have occured over the last couple of thousand years, but it is the pre-dominant cause.
And all because “..we worship the hand that points to the sun, rather than the sun.” (Bob Vennosa, Mana et Manna)
When will Christians finally realise that God is about LOVE?
That that is the purity you are all so hungry for?
That God IS the Alpha and the Omega?
That God is everything that it is and everything that it isnt?
That there is no taint of Satan?
That Satan does not exist except in your own minds?
For, if you believe that God is omnipotent and ALL-powerful and omnipresent (for there is a piece of that purity in all of us), that it is the CREATOR of us all then how can you possibly believe that it screwed up with Satan?
Or that everything that is occuring is not happening how it is meant to be?
When will you realise that the thing you are answerable to is yourself?
I believe that Christianity has an awful lot to answer for. And I most certainly believe that the further indoctrination of fear into the hearts and minds of our children has got to be stopped.
Lara, this is not true:
To be religious about something is to fear it.
And the rest is about your beliefs. Shall we stop you from indoctrinating people from this “fiction?”
Christianity has not murdered anyone, but people have definitely used religion to try to gain power and further their own agendas, including putting people to death. As they have used Darwin and atheism to do the same.
What is evil is humans seeking power to the point of sacrificing others’ lives and liberties to maintain or attain that power. If Christianity weren’t available, it would have simply been another world view inserted.
Take a look at some of the links presented in the entry. The Khmer Rouge, Red China, N. Korea, the Soviet Union. None of these atrocities have a thing to do with any religion…religion is persecuted, and people are murdered. For the atheist state.
I think we get on better realizing there is evil in the world and not trying to place the blame on religions, but letting it rest soundly on the megalomaniacs who abuse belief systems to try to induce fear into people to obey them.
Lets give religionists the benefit of doubt here and for a brief moment pre-suppose religionists particularly Xtians are freethinkers who allow others to free think too. Given that, I’ve been wondering why Bruno was burnt at the stake. Am I allowed to believe in witches? Is it OK if I free think in Satanism - another religion? Am I given the liberty to not PRAY if I wish to? As for Polpot, did he ever say he was atheist when he was alive?
So much for the folie-a-deux.
Peter, you make little sense. Are religions accountable for all the men who have misused it for their own purposes? Any worldview can be misused. It is people who are evil, who corrupt teaching, who murder others.
Maybe Pol Pot was the devoutest of the devout. But that doesn’t explain why he would outlaw all religion, and begin a campaign to eradicate them through force. Your stance is rather untenable.
All the religions were to be dismantled to the ground, because they would work against the Democratic Kampuchea, as the constitution, chapter fifteen, article twenty; “reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden” (Jennar, 1995, p. 88). In Pol Pot regime, religion would lead to conflicts between people and people and the state and the people. So Khmer Rouge decided to abolish all the pagodas and all the religious worships and they even converted pagodas to be the storehouses or other administrative offices.
http://www.talesofasia.com/rs-81-polpot.htm
Is this what Marxism teaches?
All foreigners were thus expelled, embassies closed, and any foreign economic or medical assistance was refused. The use of foreign languages was banned. Newspapers and television stations were shut down, radios and bicycles confiscated, and mail and telephone usage curtailed. Money was forbidden. All businesses were shuttered, religion banned, education halted, health care eliminated, and parental authority revoked. Thus Cambodia was sealed off from the outside world.
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/pol_pot.htm
Three to five thousand people died in the Inquisition, but it was about power, not religion. The Catholic Church at the time was not tolerant of opposing ideas, as can be evidenced through the whole of the Reformation, and the Christians (Protestants) who were also persecuted. But other worldviews can also be intolerant.
And if you wish to wipe out all religion for the sake of “peace” or “unity” or whatever, you are advocating the same approach Pol Pot took. Who killed millions.
It isn’t the beliefs, but the fact that people will do about anything to maintain power, and there are almost always others who will let them either because they get sucked into it or because they fear for themselves.
@ Dana
most of your questions have been addressed here:-
http://www.ffrf.org/timely/dawkins.php
and about POlpot and his ilk and of whether these people were atheists,is debatable. Atheism from my understanding reject not just the Abrahamic God among others,but also reject the elevation of any human being to deity status, because that belief is also based on unfounded irrational claims. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pott, may have disbelieved in the God of old time religion, but they supplanted that belief with another belief that they themselves were infallible, and they made sure that all the people they ruled over also believed likewise. In other words they exchanged one form of religion for another; one deity for another deity. So they were not against the worship of the divine per se, but they considered themselves to have a preordained destiny or right to power that is evocative of divinity. This is not atheism based on a rational system of thinking. This is just one religion traded in for another.
Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately “unreal” and “no longer needed” by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:
Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation…[10] [Emphasis added]
It is important to pause for a moment and consider this statement carefully. If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.
(http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html)
And if Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” how can Christianity be blamed for the atrocities committed in Christ’s name?
You are proving my point. It is people who have mutated the teachings for their own purposes that are dangerous, not religion or atheism or even socialism itself that are deadly. Only those willing to murder to maintain power.
That is the source of the violence, not the religion (or lack thereof).
Darwin had his followers as well. Who were willing to “harvest” aboriginals for their museums. Much of it was grave plundering, but many were murdered as well specifically to be taken for display in museums. Darwin doesn’t teach that and he’d likely be horrified. But some overzealous colonialists found his theory appealing. In the absence of “manifest destiny” which the Americans clung to, the Brits and Aussies looked to Darwin for the excuse to drive out native people.
People are the problem. And they will take whatever view is available or invent a new one to justify whatever it is they want to do anyway.
Blaming religion is convenient, but not helpful.
To eradicate it, you are going to have to engage in the same tactics. People don’t give up their sincerely held beliefs so easily. Just look at all who went to the stake clinging to their beliefs. And all who continue to hold on to their beliefs despite persecution and the threat of murder.
@ Dana.
The Jesus quote is debatable, considering that there were more than five different Jesus’ living in those days. Add to this the fact that the original Textus Receptus was later eclipsed by the Alexandra scrolls and a plethora of other Matthews,Peters and Johns who compiled the “Bible” based on every self righteous whim they can imagine.
The justifications rendered for the eradication of religion are much the same as those for keeping underaged kids from alcohol. Its more like saving them from themselves and others. Agreed we’re all aware of the weaknesses of mankind but correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought it is foresight and prudent legislation that prevents social disasters from happening in the first place. Eradication of religion is a step towards PREVENTION, but of course I stand corrected.
@ Dana
I’m also taking it that you did not bother to read the link I mentioned so here is the extract:-
“In The Guardian of 15th September, I named belief in an afterlife as the key weapon that made the New York atrocity possible. Of prior significance is religion’s deep responsibility for the underlying hatreds that motivated people to use that weapon in the first place. To breathe such a suggestion, even with the most gentlemanly restraint, is to invite an onslaught of patronizing abuse, as Douglas Adams noted. But the insane cruelty of the suicide attacks, and the equally vicious though numerically less catastrophic ‘revenge’ attacks on hapless Muslims living in America and Britain, push me beyond ordinary caution.
How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself “Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!” Of course I don’t think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.
My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a “they” as opposed to a “we” can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There’s also skin color, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don’t apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well.”
Again, your response makes no sense. The bible is the teachings of Christianity. Bringing up other Jesus’ past and present has nothing to do with anything.
A step toward prevention? Sure. Why not. But when Dawkins starts talking about religion as a “cultural virus” and needs for inoculation and all the other rhetoric out there, it sounds exactly the same as “do not tolerate the infidel.”
Same story, different characters, different ideologies.
Religion is not the problem. Man’s intolerance of man is. They will cling to anything. But if you want to excuse all of the atrocities of marxists/atheists/darwinists who used/abused those philosophies to bring about the deaths of millions, but refuse to allow for the recognition that the abuses made in the name of religion are largely the result of abuses of the core teachings of those religions, than there is no point to the discussion.
Like I have stated before, religion may be a “label” as purported in your quote…not all that far from what I said. But take that away, and the economics, oppressed, etc. are still there. And they will reach for another label.
The wars in the Middle East have been going on for centuries. Now we see it cloaked in Islam and jihad and all of that. But what we very often overlook is the fact that the same conflicts existed prior to Mohammed. The same groups were at war with each other before Islam. Then they had their pagan religions to be sure, but it wasn’t about the religion. It is about their tribal identities and a long history of not tolerating each other.
Now you want to advocate the same intolerance of anyone bearing the name of religion. And the only logical consequence is the same. Intolerance, oppression and violence.
@Dana
If a law is enacted(and in some nations they have) that says “No abortion” or “No condoms”, wouldn’t that imply an intolerance as well? Not to mention the unimaginable and disastrous consequence that it has in Africa which you may have already known. If as you say “that sounds like” being intolerant, well that’s what democracies are all about - the tyranny of the majority. Until you can think of a better way by which the multitude’s unbridled emotionalism could be restrained, without edging towards fundmentalism, I’ll still favour a rational thinking populace to steer a democracy than a bunch of claptrappers and psychophants. And if that majority is educated enough in some homogenous way, to discern right from wrong whatever that may be, rather than passing judgement emanating from emotional appeals what would you prefer, a bunch of whimsical/ delusional dolts or fellow citizens who can THINK intelligently within a logical train of thought? As someone said earlier - a believer is not a thinker and a thinker is not a believer.
Another thing. You mentioned intolerance all the time like it is so bad. FYI laws, treaties and other covenants exhibit a large degree of intolerance. For instance, laws that prohibit cannibalism, exhibit an intolerance for just that. LIkewise, laws that prohibit drunken driving are intolerant to those who prefer to binge drive. Since preservation of human life and laws to protect the greater good, whenever possible is what a civil society is all about, IMHO “PROHIBITING PEOPLE FROM EXERCISING RELIGION” that has QED been proven to cause(See “The God delusion”) a domino effect from self inflicted hysteria to its members and at the extreme end- genocide to others, may be construed as another civil and rational step to lessen human kind from endangering itself and other lifeforms.
You still aren’t saying anything new.
You need to hold people accountable for what they do, not for what others with a related belief system has done.
Prohibiting people from exercising religion is exactly the same as a religious fanatic prohibiting you from not exercising their religion. I see no difference. It is forced ideological conversion. And the same hate and violence against those with beliefs would inevitably result.
And I’m sorry. Your “proofs” of belief in God as creating a delusion, hysteria, genocide are unconvincing.
Your quote you provided says quite the same as I have maintained all along.
How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself “Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!” Of course I don’t think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.
But it is ok if it is a “rational” attack against the religious. In its “reason” it suddenly isn’t fanatical. Makes no sense.
OK befroe I go further, I need to ask you a simple question. What’s your take on gun laws, abortion and homosexuality?
I was drawing “analogies” NOT proofs.
“And the same hate and violence against those with beliefs would inevitably result.”
_____________________________________________
When you portend that something tragic as that would result, I hope you’ve sought help from the empirical. So far I see none. Where are your examples and sources which you use to draw your inferences, let alone about such inferences being valid?
“Prohibiting people from exercising religion is exactly the same as a religious fanatic prohibiting you from not exercising their religion.”
_________________________________________________
Unless I’m deluded too, I see this as akin to preventing a lunatic from wanting to fall off a high rise building endangering himself and others.
What difference does it make? You have already implied that intolerance is fine, so long as the intolerance is against those things you disagree with.
There are nontheists who are opposed to abortion.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Yes, I’m pro-life, but I was back when I was an agnostic as well.
The religious certainly have no monopoly on the second amendment. It is prominent in the Libertarian platform, and they religion certainly isn’t a part of their core philosophy.
http://www.lp.org/platform
And yes, I tend to favor rights to gun ownership. And again, that is something I’ve held since long before my conversion.
Homosexuality? I hold that it is a sin, but that doesn’t exactly mean much. I don’t believe it is something that the state should be regulating. I don’t think homosexuals should be discriminated against. In fact, I wish that Christian organizations behaved more toward homosexuality as Christ did toward the adulterer, ie., protect them from the “stoning” and ask them to sin no more. Should he or she choose to, that is between him or her and God. Not me.
It really isn’t for the state (or me) to control behaviors which don’t hurt anyone.
Conversion to Christianity is not supposed to be by force. I know it has been in the past, but you are advocating forcing me to give up my beliefs today and you don’t even need a God to attempt to rationalize it.
When you portend that something tragic as that would result, I hope you’ve sought help from the empirical. So far I see none. Where are your examples and sources which you use to draw your inferences, let alone about such inferences being valid?
And yet you do no such thing in your attack against religion? Why the double standard? You are yet to make a case for your conclusion for religion being the cause of the violence you so fear, other than a quote you pull from piece which also states that religion is not the cause.
“Prohibiting people from exercising religion is exactly the same as a religious fanatic prohibiting you from not exercising their religion.”
_________________________________________________
Unless I’m deluded too, I see this as akin to preventing a lunatic from wanting to fall off a high rise building endangering himself and others.
Except that I haven’t hurt anybody. You cannot hold me personally accountable for the Inquisition because I read the same bible that the Iquisitors ignored.
And what evidence exactly will you accept? You redefine every idiot that claims atheism that committed an atrocity as somehow religious because whatever their beliefs were don’t conform to your ideals of what atheism should be. How convenient. And yet you won’t allow for the obvious twisting of core religious doctrines as the root of the violence you place against religion? Also convenient.
“What difference does it make? You have already implied that intolerance is fine, so long as the intolerance is against those things you disagree with”
____________________________________________________________
Correction. Intolerance is fine, so long it is thought so by a democratic majority not on the whims of a sky daddy. In case you haven’t noticed there is profound moral relativism doing the rounds everywhere, absolutism simply walks us into a uniform civil code for all. I’d rather depend on the sensibilities of an educated hoi polloi and a democratic outcome rather than the whims of Santa.
“And yet you do no such thing in your attack against religion?”
________________________________________________________
The historical truth is already out there. Considering your open-mindedness (LOL) I thought you could wiki or google it up and its done. To spare you from all the frustration look up “The God Delusion”, thats where all the evidence is. And mind you, this is not evidence that is as esoteric as your beliefs. It is evidence that any open minded person could assimilate -PROVIDED THAT ONE DOES NOT INTEND TO HIDE BEHIND THE WALL OF FAITH, while reading it.
“And yes, I tend to favor rights to gun ownership.”
___________________________________________________________
There we are at last. Is this not an intolerance to those who oppose gun ownership?
“Homosexuality? I hold that it is a sin, but that doesn’t exactly mean much.”
________________________________________________________
It does mean a lot. It means you are intolerant to those who favour homosexuality. Please Correct me if I’m wrong or if I misunderstood you with this.
“but you are advocating forcing me to give up my beliefs today ”
______________________________________________________
Whoah! Coaxing and NOT coercing is more like it.
“You redefine every idiot that claims atheism that committed an atrocity as somehow religious because whatever their beliefs were don’t conform to your ideals of what atheism should be.”
______________________________________________________________
This appears to be a case of subjectivism by the multitude. Before I can proceed further, I’d like to know what your ideas of atheism are. So Dana, what is atheism according to you and what is an ATHEIST?
“don’t conform to your ideals of what atheism should be”
______________________________________________
OK lets say I give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Lets suppose for now that I am wrong and that my ideals of what atheism should and should not be are egoistic and self-centric. Go on and catch hold of a random sample of 10 open-minded atheists and ask them what they think of Polpot.
…………..
Well now you know.
“Except that I haven’t hurt anybody”
______________________________________
Correction. Except that you have not hurt anybody YET.
“And what evidence exactly will you accept?”
____________________________________________
Evidence of the universally palpable kind.
“And yet you won’t allow for the obvious twisting of core religious doctrines as the root of the violence you place against religion?”
_____________________________________________
If dogmatic religious doctrines weren’t there, then there wouldn’t be anything to twist in the first place.
“You cannot hold me personally accountable for the Inquisition because I read the same bible that the Iquisitors ignored”.
______________________________________________________________
Well not exactly per se, but rather “guilty by association”.
Intolerance is fine, so long it is thought so by a democratic majority not on the whims of a sky daddy.
Oh, so the whims of the majority based on nothing other than their own whims is ok, then. Glad to get that straight. You still haven’t proven in any way satisfactory that “the whims of a sky daddy” have anything to do with anything.
And I hate to disappoint you, but America is not founded on the principle of majority rule. We are not ruled by the majority nor by a king. We are governed by a Constitution which limits governmental power and recognizes the inherent rights of the individual. This is the best possible form of government because then we are not left to the whims of anybody.
And you are advocating “coercion?” Hardly. You specifically adovated: “PROHIBITING PEOPLE FROM EXERCISING RELIGION.” That is not coercion. It is force. And hey, it isn’t even a majority opinion! So I guess it has to be wrong!
What you are doing throughout your entire “argument”, and I am having trouble believing that you do not see, is furthering a very fundamental logical fallacy. Let’s see if you are capable of recognizing it if it is taken out of the context of your anti-religious delusion. Ironically, you even mention it. It is called “guilt by association.”
1. It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2. Therefore P is false.
For example: You believe that 1 + 1 = 2. But so did Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin. Therefore, you must be like Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin.
Or as you are arguing: I believe in God. But so did the Inquisitors and those behind the Salem witch trials. So I must be like the Inquisitors and the Salem witch trials.
It is illogical.
For your own pleasure. For some reason, I thought this discussion was occurring on another thread where this had already come up.
Please note that I do not question all of science because it places Darwin so highly and Darwin’s teachings have been used to justify murder. Unlike you who question all of religion because it looks to a God and some have misused His teachings to justify murder. (Still can’t help but think you cannot be so ignorant as to be able to see this simple logic).
The half-century or so after 1860 also witnessed a remarkable surge of interest in procuring Aboriginal remains for science. Darwinian sciences’ construed Aboriginal people as distinct “primitive types” or “races” in the time-scale of human evolution. They offered, among other things, what seemed a powerful explanation of the history of Aboriginal mortality since 1788 in terms of the sad, but inevitable, extinction of a biologically inferior race. By the same logic, the procurement of remains was an urgent necessity. If science was to understand the anatomical and morphological peculiarities of Aboriginal people before they disappeared through death and miscegenation, it had to obtain “racially pure” bodies in sufficient numbers to meet contemporary standards of scientific proof. The dilemma facing the “comparative anthropologist” was light-heartedly touched on by Professor George Busk, a surgeon and naturalist keenly interested in human racial difference, when reviewing several new works of craniometry in 1862:
A Gorilla or a Chimpanzee can be caught and sent alive to the Zoological Gardens, or killed and forwarded in a cask of rum to the British Museum, but loud would be the outcry were similar attempts made to promote the study of Anthropology (Busk, 1862, p. 348).
And some quotes from a local magistrate involved in the murders:
To what strange uses are our noble primeval inhabitants to be devoted! At your prices I could have procured about œ2000 worth in the last six years. I shall start on the warpath again! Hope to succeed in slaughtering some stray skeleton (Mitchell Library MSS 1589/2/193)
The shooting season is over in Queensland and the ‘Black Game’ is protected now by more humane laws than formerly. So it is impossible to obtain reliable skulls & skeletons (Turnbull, 1991, p. 115).
From Ancestors, not Specimens: Reflections on the Controversy Over the Remains of Aboriginal People in European Scientific Collections
@Dana
“Oh, so the whims of the majority based on nothing other than their own whims is ok, then.”
_________________________________________________________
Well its OK only when they say its OK. That’s the sad part about democracy. It allows the rabble to choose a bad ruler from a bunch of bad rulers and we all have to keep shut. American democracy is no different. Given all the anti-Bush American celebrity hullabaloo the electronic media aired worldwide in the last Prez elections, who would have dreamt Bush a comeback? And yes it also does imply curtailing first amendment rights, although I do not see that happening anytime soon….. until Allah calls for the next 9/11.
“And I hate to disappoint you, but America is not founded on the principle of majority rule”
_____________________________________________________________
LOL No offence but correction again. Muckraks do appear now and then. Lest you forget, what about the Statute Law Initiative in 21 states, the Constitutional Amendment Initiative in 18 states and the Statute Law referendum that you have in 24 states in the USA? Who gets to choose who gets into Congress?
Yes, but “majority rule” is tempered, slowed and checked. It isn’t the absolute rule by majority.
We have multiple checks in our system, from the time it takes to pass laws (much less amendments) to the electoral college. All designed to check the passions of the majority.
You should read some of what our founding fathers had to say about democracy. And the majority. Here is a nice statement of the basic principle I am trying to get at, from Federalist #10:
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
And, no, you don’t have to “keep shut” if you believe a bad leader is chosen. Else you wouldn’t have the freedom to speak here, to start a blog and the newspapers wouldn’t be full of criticisms of the President.
Are you trying to say this is all about Bush? We have to curtail first amendment rights so Bush or those like him won’t get elected? Certainly that is just a tangent, else you are a little scarier than the fundamentalists I know. At least they don’t think your first amendment rights should be curtailed. They just don’t think you should be allowed to any sort of power.
The “guilt by association” bit was a tad of sarcasm, considering that atheists have apparently been wrongly implicated with Polpot and his ilk, as your ad hominem writeup seems to suggest. Sorry if I didn’t make that conspicuous earlier and am sorry too if you didn’t get the drift. If you knew it as a “fundamental logical fallacy” as you say, then why did you use it when you said “The Khmer Rouge did. North Korea has” for crying out loud? That had an appalling stench of the fallacy in practice however subtle, which seems to exhibit an emotional/fundamentalist outburst contrary to the muse that you portray yourself to be. As always, I stand corrected and please do spare yourself the ignoramuse label .
In a lighter vein, do look up a reason for your theism here :-
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
To make a long story short your inferences sound no different from these, but of course you get the drift :-
ARGUMENT FROM MASS MURDER
(1) Stalin was an Atheist.
(2) He murdered millions of people.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM NAZI DECEPTION
(1) Hitler and his Nazis were Atheists.
(2) Yes, they fooled a lot of people into thinking they were Christians. That was propaganda. They were Atheists.
(3) This proves that Atheists are the masters of deception.
(4) Revelation says that the antichrist will deceive people.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM NAZI EVIL
(1) Hitler and his Nazis were Atheists.
(2) I don’t care what the historical evidence says about their being Christians. Christians cannot be evil, and only Atheists would be capable of the Holocaust.
(3) So Nazis, like all truly evil people, are Atheists.
(4) Therefore, all Atheists are truly evil. They must be servants of Satan.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM COMMUNISM
(1) All communists are Atheists.
(2) All communists are bad; haven’t you watched the 6 o’clock news?
(3) Therefore they are wrong.
(4) Since the moral majority is theist and non-communist they are good.
(5) Therefore they are right.
(6) Therefore, God exists.
1. “Yes, but “majority rule” is tempered, slowed and checked. It isn’t the absolute rule by majority.
__________________________________________________________________
Agreed the US constitution has a system of checks and balances on the whims of the majority. So do parliamentary forms worldwide. Yet gaping loopholes do appear. Take for instance the famous Baltimore newspaper uproar of 1812, slavery, racial discrimination and more recently America’s role in the United Nations. All this despite the fact that the founding fathers of the US constitution were aware of the dangers of the Tyranny of the Majority(TOTM). Tyranny of the majority is inherent in Congress with the exception of the Citizen’s Initiative Assembly. Excessive largesse to congressional campaigns results in excessive influence on legislation. Why else would US foreign policy be guided by Wall Street? I am not saying that every legislation in America emerges out of the TOTM, but like all other democracies in the world there is no sure fire way to prevent it and for the most part every law or policy in a democracy is built around the principle that it will displease those who oppose it- an inevitable fact.
correction…. the infamous Baltimore …….
I find it profoundly amusing that you could not see your foot (aka red herring) slowly crawling into your mouth.
Time to check out news on the Hadron Collider in the Swiss Alps.
“You need to hold people accountable for what they do, not for what others with a related belief system has done”.
_____________________________________________________________
People cannot be held responsible for something beyond their control. Both altruism and selfishness are evolutionary traits that reside in our genes. Our DNA more precisely.In fact they are desirable phenotypes. This is not esoteric belief. If only you’d spend more time in biology classes and use more of that time looking for scientific evidence you would have found that out yourself. Every human is equally fallible as every other human. It is through legislation that we control freewill and we have done that successfully. Hopefully by 2 million AD “homo futurus” would evolve more empathic, sensitive and less selfish given all the social conditioning that we are rendered with today.
And since altering genes would be difficult the next best thing is to remove the stimuli that induces the vice in the first place … which is RELIGION and DOGMA.
And when the Hadron Collider proves the BIG BANG, the first thing that will get banged is RELIGION. LOL!
If they prove this by December … we’ll all be watching religions run for cover. Catholics might sodomise the Pope. Born agains will rape Billy Graham good.