A better understanding of Atheism...

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by shiiboi

Which founding fathers do you mean? They all signed the constitution which contains the first amendment.

Thomas Jefferson explained the intent of the 1st amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god... that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the US Senate in 1797 and signed by President (and founding father) John Adams states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion... it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

They are not lobbying to put "God" BACK into the public schools. There was never a right to have such prayers and oaths.

The compulsory public school system was established in 1918. In 1925, the Catholic parochial school system was created BECAUSE the public school system prohibited prayer. It took a win in the Supreme Court "Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925" to permit catholic school attendance to substitute for the secular public school compulsory attendance requirement.

In 1951, the NY Board of Regents composed an optional non-denominational prayer which could used in districts that desired to pray. In 1958, one school district passed a resolution to read the prayer at the start of the school day. Parents were insensed, and with the help of the ACLU challenged the prayer's constitutionality in court, ending up in the Supreme Court (Engel v. Vitale, 1962). The Supreme Court declared prayer in schools a violation of the 1st amendment.

A year later, a challenge was made to the supreme court ruling (Abington Township School District v. Schempp , 1963). The Supreme Court upheld it's ban on school prayer, revising it only to permit that individual students could not be prohibited from praying privately, but the school could not promote or endorse prayer.

These are, and have always been the laws or our land. YOU, sir, are the one attempting to rewrite history.

Ah but John Adams also wrote "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There is a decided difference between believing in an organized religion, which many of the Fathers were against, and belief in a suipreme God. Most all the founding fathers were God-fearing believers, even if they were wary of a particular religion giving supreme power to one man, be he Pope or King, and rightly so given their history and situation.

To say they intended that government be completely devoid of "God", whichever God that happened to be, is revisionist history at best. They rejected the notion of a U.S. homegrown Anglican style church, not God itself. The whole "separation of church and state" is a modern invention, and it's continued enforcement is a violation of First Amendment rights for a majority of Americans which are supposed to specifically protect the free exercise of religion.

Let us not forget the Declaration of Independence itself, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Men CREATED equal? Endowed by their CREATOR? God is surely present there, as they intended.

[shiiboi]

Originally Posted by Krasch

Or the Capital Building which as I recall has several references to God in the Rotunda area, and does not the Supreme Court Building not display the 10 Commandments on its walls?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

[shiiboi]

Originally Posted by Krasch

Ah but John Adams also wrote "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There is a decided difference between believing in an organized religion, which many of the Fathers were against, and belief in a suipreme God. Most all the founding fathers were God-fearing believers, even if they were wary of a particular religion giving supreme power to one man, be he Pope or King, and rightly so given their history and situation.

To say they intended that government be completely devoid of "God", whichever God that happened to be, is revisionist history at best. They rejected the notion of a U.S. homegrown Anglican style church, not God itself. The whole "separation of church and state" is a modern invention, and it's continued enforcement is a violation of First Amendment rights for a majority of Americans which are supposed to specifically protect the free exercise of religion.

Let us not forget the Declaration of Independence itself, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Men CREATED equal? Endowed by their CREATOR? God is surely present there, as they intended.

I'm struggling to understand the point of your post.

Nothing you said contradicts the fact that the founders of our nation intended for our government to be secular and wrote it into the constitution, the supreme laws of our country. The constitution was ratified by all the states and adopted as the law of the land.

The declaration of independence is not a legislative document of the United States of America. The claim that humans are born with natural rights is not an endorsement of religion in government.

[BackdoorJesus]

I think his point is pretty clear - if you say you can't understand it then it seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to perpetuate this argument.

[Juan.Camaney]

I'll pretty much sum it up in this:

Understanding atheism is like understanding religion. It's a choice you have to come to terms with on your own in order to actually have a valuable opinion. If you follow either blindly based on the digestion of man, you are doomed to never understand it fully and ultimately sound like a dumb ass when trying to explain either. Religion, as well as science, has been based on theories and human experience. Neither can explain the wonders of the world and we have to have faith if we are to believe in either.

Awesome thread, guys.

[CD]

Originally Posted by Juan.©amaney

There we go, see, you proved my point tradition, not law. so when we elect shiiboi in 2012, you can swear on Darwins Theory or whatever.

Yeah, but until he put that, Krasch would continue to feed the uninformed the opposite.

My argument would be that if someone wanted to add some Buddhist sayings to a courthouse that dealt with "morals", the Christians would be the most outraged group, even though they are asking for the same "traditions" to be started for their side.

Originally Posted by Krasch

Ah but John Adams also wrote "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I've had a discussion with a Christian before that centered on the assumption that without the Christian Religion, there are no morals. It's completely false, and frankly pretty funny. To say that only Christians have a firm grip on what is and isn't moral is a joke. With that said, I believe myself to be a morally good person. I also believe in God, but it's not the Christian God.

Originally Posted by Krasch

There is a decided difference between believing in an organized religion, which many of the Fathers were against, and belief in a suipreme God. Most all the founding fathers were God-fearing believers, even if they were wary of a particular religion giving supreme power to one man, be he Pope or King, and rightly so given their history and situation.

To say they intended that government be completely devoid of "God", whichever God that happened to be, is revisionist history at best. They rejected the notion of a U.S. homegrown Anglican style church, not God itself. The whole "separation of church and state" is a modern invention, and it's continued enforcement is a violation of First Amendment rights for a majority of Americans which are supposed to specifically protect the free exercise of religion.

Let us not forget the Declaration of Independence itself, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Men CREATED equal? Endowed by their CREATOR? God is surely present there, as they intended.

So a Buddhist's creator is the same as a Christian's creator? According to me they are, but if you don't agree, you can't use that argument for only the Christians side and not any other religion.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by CD

My argument would be that if someone wanted to add some Buddhist sayings to a courthouse that dealt with "morals", the Christians would be the most outraged group, even though they are asking for the same "traditions" to be started for their side.

You ever taken a look at your money and other federal courthouses and buildings and seen shit like balance scales, pyramids with eyes on it, ying yangs, gargoyles, etc. Live and let live. A statue of confuscius stands tall at my alma mater and my and many others' religions say not to idolize anything or anyone else...I'm just content with believing what I do and letting everyone else do the same.

See, in school, they are trying to teach kids the joy of gay sex (saw it on fark today), the same gender marriage lifestyle, theory of evolution, muslim activities, on and on and on. We (people who think like me under many different denominations) are okay with that to a certain extent. Seems like a minority is pushing their beliefs in retaliation to the pluralities that push theirs on them; see The Goldan Compass (I guess two wrongs make a right) . Difference is, we (again people who thinnk like me) are there to answer questions that these little people come up with. "Tio, in school they taught us about how we come from monkeys..." Ever try to explain to a 6 year old what a theory is? People are too focused on what their poor snowflakes learn in school and forget that learning actually takes place at home. People everywhere push the idea that religion is supposed to be on a restraining order from the government and its buildings and anything that is funded by tax money, yet they fail to remember that the tax money came from people with views different than theirs'. Seems a lot of the times, atheists have no problem pushing their views publicly at schools and other government institutions yet scream bloody murder when someone with different views tries to do the same things.

[Juan.Camaney]

News Flash: Obama started his first full paid day with prayer service.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,3404494.story

Do athiests really think they will ever get rid of religion?

another open ended question. Just trying to understand ya'll better.

[shiiboi]

Originally Posted by Juan.©amaney

Do athiests really think they will ever get rid of religion?

[Juan.Camaney]

No offense, shiiboi, but I'd rather read a digested version of what your thoughts are, rather than some dude or guy compiled and threw onto youtube. Youtube videos in a discussion forum to me is like singing to deaf people.

[shiiboi]

Originally Posted by Juan.©amaney

No offense, shiiboi, but I'd rather read a digested version of what your thoughts are, rather than some dude or guy compiled and threw onto youtube. Youtube videos in a discussion forum to me is like singing to deaf people.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Juan.©amaney

Do athiests really think they will ever get rid of religion?

1. I don't believe that the judeo-christian religions as they have been interpreted and practiced in the western world for the past few hundred years are relevant any more. The statistics show that they are on the wane everywhere, although in the US there was a temporary surge during the cold war that put us on a slower path to their decline than in Europe.

2. I doubt that religion per se will ever go away completely. Mythologies play a valuable role in passing on emotional and (for lack of a better word) spiritual ideas from generation to generation in a way that the cold hard facts of science and literal history cannot. While christianity is in decline in the west, there is a rise in 'godless' spirituality, i.e., the 'new age' religions, neo-wiccan and other animist religions, buddhism and other eastern religions. When the Dalai Lama gave a talk at central park, ny a few years ago he drew as large a crowd as U2 when they gave a free concert there.

[Juan.Camaney]

Originally Posted by shiiboi

Let me respond by borrowing from the FAQs section from http://www.atheist-community.org/

Thanks for the link...kinda weird how you don't speak for all athiests but do let websites explain things for you...just saying.

A: This assumption is rooted in the elementary logical fallacy that two opposite things--belief and disbelief--are actually the same thing. A basic tenet of logic is that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. For example, in a court of law the lawyers for the prosecution bear the burden of proof, because they are making the positive claim that the defendant has committed a crime.

Negatory. We (again with the people that think like me) aren't saying that belief and disbelief are the same thing, I'm saying some of you try to disprove our beliefs with more beliefs! Its like the huge debate between evolution and adaptation.

To take a skeptical position regarding an extraordinary claim for which one has not been provided with compelling evidence is not an act of faith; it is simple common sense.

Common sense, eh. You believe in air, but can't see it. what about gravity? We see miracles, some of which science just cannot explain.

Here is an analogous situation: supposedly, as a Christian, you do not believe in the Roman or Aztec gods. Is it just as much an "act of faith" on your part not to believe in those gods as it was for the Romans and Aztecs to believe in them? If a man walks up to you and says he has an invisible magic elf sitting on his head, do you automatically believe his claim? If not, is it an "act of faith" on your part not to? Or are you simply responding to the claim with common sense and skepticism because the man has failed to provide you with adequate evidence for his elf? Choosing not to believe in something when you have no reason to believe in that thing is not an act of faith, it is just the smart thing to do.

Thats great for those who are strictly Christian and as stubborn and hard headed and intolerant as those who disprove things. Some catholics in mexico (where the "aztecs" better known as mexica come from) actually allowed indigenous converts to keep their own idols. Its against the "rules" but its peoples' beliefs. Do I believe Neptune chills in the ocean and stirs shit up with his mighty pitch fork like Disney portrayed...no. do I believe there is a force that rules the oceans with as much might as the Romans and Greeks (Poseidon) think? Yeah...some atheist call her mother nature and I don't take mythology literally, I believe things are just personafied differently. The elf thing here is just a stretch...unless the dude was on some bomb shrooms, meh. Finally, I absofuckingloutley HATE how athiest just think their way is the "smart thing to do." It's not. The smart thing to do is read read read and do your own goddamned research.

Finally, one can turn to the Bible's definition of faith--the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"--to see that this is a definition that excludes disbelief. So if you still don't agree with us that atheism is not a faith, then check your Bibles.

First, bibles are not dictionaries. One of faith does not simply read the bible, the bible reveals itself to the reader. Athiests are often synonimous with people who believe in theories. If you don't think so, look back and read how many "what ifs" are in this thread alone.

[shiiboi]

Originally Posted by Juan.©amaney

Athiests are often synonimous with people who believe in theories. If you don't think so, look back and read how many "what ifs" are in this thread alone.

In the 'global warming' threads, you've described yourself as a scientist.

So I'm disappointed that you are so loose with your terminology: A THEORY has a very specific meaning in science. You've been using the word 'theory' in thread when you really meant 'hypothesis.'

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm

Furthermore atheists don't try to 'disprove' religion. Because

1. We don't have to, we aren't the ones making a claim for the existence of something,

2. Something which doesn't exist leaves no evidence, therefore it's a logical fallacy to try to 'disprove' something which doesn't exist (i.e., can you 'disprove' my claim that there's a leprechaun sitting on your shoulder right now?),

3. when atheists quote cosmological or biological theories as evidence for the origin of the universe, or the existence of humans, this evidence is not trying to 'disprove' the bible, but merely providing an explanation for which there is well-documented evidence.

[Juan.Camaney]

We are arguing semantics now? I bow out. lol I meant what I said, athiests believe in the THEORY of evolution. Don't tell me what I mean, I know what I mean.

Originally Posted by shiiboi

1. We don't have to, we aren't the ones making a claim for the existence of something,

2. Something which doesn't exist leaves no evidence, therefore it's a logical fallacy to try to 'disprove' something which doesn't exist,

3. when atheists quote cosmological or biological theories as evidence for the origin of the universe, or the existence of humans, this evidence is not trying to 'disprove' the bible, but merely providing an explanation for which there is well-documented evidence.

1. Could have fooled me with all the books being written about the myth of god

2. Again, miracles have left evidence.

3. Providing explanations with evidence...hehe didn't the global warming people try to do the same things? Well documented evidence....so taking samples millions of years old and using science hundreds of seconds old to prove THEORIES is evidence. Ok.

[BackdoorJesus]

theory, hypothesis, whatever - just names for assumptions heretofore unproven, just like the word "faith".

I'm disappointed that you continue to be deliberately obtuse merely for the sake of perpetuating an argument neither side can nor will win.

I think this thread's about played out...juan what do you think?