Atheism and the USA, followup

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by lukster
If only that were true. Then the Atheists wouldn't be on a firey crusade to eliminate every trace of religion from public life.

The crusade is not what people think about our choice, but what those people try to force upon us that we do not believe in. Big difference.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Once again, just shouting out to anyone who might listen (though I have no real expectations based on what's happened so far).

I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, I'm saying that I lack a belief that god exists.  To believe something is a positive event, you have to actively believe it does or does not exist.  I simply lack the belief.  

1. I lack a belief that god exists.

2. I actively believe that the easter bunny does NOT exist.

Can you understand the difference?

Can you?

To "lack a belief" that God exists is to believe that God doesn't exist. Without specific proof to back a claim any assertion is a belief. Then again, it's apparently more important to you to assert the differences than it is to me to understand your need to prove that it's ok for Atheism to assert itself as the only acceptable belief practice that the government of the U.S. can establish.

It's no more acceptable for the U.S. government to establish Atheism than it is any belief (or preferred declaration of lack of). And I still don't see the overt threat that the generic word God on money (or even the claim of trust in such) presents to practicing Atheists. Nor do I any depiction of anything regarding any belief on public grounds. But then, perhaps it was the subliminal text on greenbacks to forced me to believe that.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Flatbar
A true athiest doesn't give a scat what others think about their choice. But we are amused at how non athiests tend to pigeonhole the lot of us.

It seems that making up stories and myopic observations then putting them to text, true or not, is an accepted MO.

So be it.

Accepted or not, Atheists are evidently not immune.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Vulcan
They do it all the time, they want me to recognise the existance of their god in our national anthem, they want me to swear by their god in court, and they regularly accuse me of being a bad person with the only validation of this being that I do not believe in their god.

Not in this thread. If you're seeing that I'm suspecting it's not nearly as "oppressive" or "prevalent" in your daily lifa as you're portraying, either. The NA seldom goes past the fist stanza at the ball games, courts routinely use a non religious oath to swear in witnesses now and I do believe both prayer and the pledge have been banned from public elementary, jr high and high schools so you're safe there too. And I haven't accused you of being bad once .... just hyper and assumptive.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Flatbar
A true athiest doesn't give a scat what others think about their choice. But we are amused at how non athiests tend to pigeonhole the lot of us.

It seems that making up stories and myopic observations then putting them to text, true or not, is an accepted MO.

So be it.

Actually some Atheists, like some members of any other group has that tendency to pigeonhole those of being different. It's all about shades of gray, not black and white. Most of us are guilty of that in some way or another.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by wrag
From what I've read of your post  SaburoS I honestly don't think laz is refering to YOU!

Since he hadn't addressed it specifically to anyone AND that he was commenting on the green men(people) from Mars, and the Lochness monster (my comments, not anyone else), I took it he was addressing me. Re-read the posts.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lazs2
this just gets sillier and sillier...

Now we find that allmost every defenition save one.... says that an athiest is someone who denies that the existence of god is possible.... these are from the sources the so called athiests are pointing us to.  

Now... the tap dancers have pointed us to another form of athiesm.... a kinder, gentler form called (LOL) "agnostic athiesm"   If that is true then you athiests here need to call yourself "agnostic athiests" right?  Not really worthy of being real  honest to god athiests huh?

And there is the rub... so long as it is cool and hip you can be an "athiest" but when someone points out that it is not only not very hip but kind of a dumb faith based cult.... you revert to a watered down version of athiesm that is distinguishable from agnostism only by the watered down athiests themselves.... everyone else has long since left the room (save the really cruel ones).

subaru... It was chair or some other that said something about my supposed religion and "leader".  I was not speaking to you... the posts just came in pretty fast so.... no... my face is not red.

Sooo... are you big brave hip cult athiests or just some watered down "agnostic athiest" tap dancing around your agenda?

Why not be proud of athiesm if it is truly your belief (note that all defenitions of athiesm use the words "believe, belief or faith" in them) ?

Embrace your cult.... If you are shaky and have no faith.... don't say you are an athiest... it is insulting to the true believers of athiesm.... say that you are an agnostic or.... if the shock value is not good enough for you go to the less honest but more accurate "agnostic athiest".

Course... how cool does that sound?  how rebelious and hip is "agnostic athiest"??  Sounds whimpy don't it?   Certainly wouldn't want that.

lazs

Quit being dense.
In a nutshell:
I never made the leap of faith to:
1) Believe that God exists.
2) Believe that there is a God.
3) Believe the possibility of God's existance.

Therefore it is not a religion.

Once one believes the possibility of the existance of God, it starts to become religious.

You bring in terms like "agenda" and "cult", you care to actually explain it or are you going to continue to tap dance, waving your arms and pointing fingers?
You're coming across as rather sensitive and threatened about some Atheists. For what? Why do you fear?

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Arlo

 And I still don't see the overt threat that the generic word God on money (or even the claim of trust in such) presents to practicing Atheists. Nor do I any depiction of anything regarding any belief on public grounds. But then, perhaps it was the subliminal text on greenbacks to forced me to believe that.

I agree with you.
I've already stated my reasons on the money issue as well regards to faith. Hey, as long as the money is good, then I'm okay with it. It is generic after all.
I've never felt threatened for my safety. Just hate for it to slip a bit where I'll have to start worrying. Slippery slope and all that.
I think the issue is religious objects on tax funded property. Crosses into the not so separate church/state issue.
Now does it bother you or does it not if religious icons are removed from tax supported properties?
We're not talking about private properties or religious sponsored properties.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lukster
If only that were true. Then the Atheists wouldn't be on a firey crusade to eliminate every trace of religion from public life.

I think to be accurate, it would have to be a fraction of the Atheists that wished that. Seems most groups have their fractional, radical element where the ends justify the means.
I can't peg timetables (too tired here) but I think the "radical" Atheist movement  was more a response to the religious right's "radical" movement to force Creationism into the public school system.

[Simaril]

It may be time for nuance again.

I'm strongly, 100% against government sponsored religion, and that was pretty clearly the constitutional intent -- remember, the founders remembered  mandatory taxes supporting the Church of England.

Today, there are 2 imperatives.

1. On one hand, the I wouldn't want the State to endorse or support any particular faith.

2. On the other hand, people of faith deserve the same access and rights of expression as any other citizen.

Many people of faith feel the balance has shifted so far towards "separation" that their own rights of expression have been compromised.

And they're not being paranoid. For example, a few years ago the Supremes heard a case form Virginia, in which the only group refused rental of meeting space at a school was a religious one. Lots of other groups could rent, but the school was afraid of the pro-separation forces....and the result was unfair discrimination against people of faith. They were singled out and denied access simply BECAUSE they were religious. (Supreme court found in their favor, BTW)

So the pendulum has swung strongly towards separation in the last few decades, and only now is a more balanced position coming.

But because of the decades before, dont be surprised that religious folks are a bit salamanderly about the issues.

[lazs2]

lol subaru... why would I "fear" your watrered down version of "athiest"?

you are not an athiest.... you are more of an agnostic.   same for chair.  you just think it sounds hip to call yourselves athiest.

you both say you lack the faith to believe in a god...  you both admit that god is possible.

You are an agnostic.   this thread has made you examine your beliefs and  now you don't know how to back down sooooo..

you decide that their are all kinds of shades of athiests.  You are the mild "agnostic" version.... pure tap dancing drivel.   It isn't a shade of gray..

If you are an athiest then admit that you have made the leap of faith that it is not possible that a god exists.

People are telling you there is....  millions have claimed to see him over the years.   Many feel him in themselves and around them.   This is what you have to say is no possible or.... that you don't know.  

It is not just a matter of "not making the leap of faith to believe in god" it is a matter of saying that millions of people are wrong and that the reason they are is because...... because you have made a leap of faith that there is no god.

An agnostic is one who has not made the leap of faith that there is a god.... He has also not made the leap of faith that there is no god.... He belives that it is possible either way.

you can't be such a wimp and have the stones to call yourself an athiest.

lazs

[lazs2]

as for seperation of church and state....as simaril says...

Against the church of America.... no state sponsored church.... so far as the ten comandments statue in a courtroom paid for with taxes?   it is a public building.... there are naked people statues in public buildings...  if the majority of the taxpayers (who bought and fund the building) want something put there then I suppose it is allright.  You can't please everyone soooo... vote on it on things out in public spending public funds.

Prayer in school?   it's a stupid monopoly system paid for only by extorting taxes.... let each district (the taxpayers) vote on it.  Better.... just hand out vouchers and everyone can go where ever they want.   If a district wants prayer in their school... let those who would be offended abstain from it or just be quiet.

lazs

[Chairboy]

Lazs, why does your definition of Atheist trump ours?  That might be the crux of the problem, that you and your kin disagree with those of us who identify ourselves as atheist on the definition of the term.  I can understand that, but I don't follow why we're expected to accept your definition over the one we've learned through study.

Look at the word.  A-theism.  Lack of theism, theism = religious belief.  It's not complicated.

[lazs2]

that is your defenition not the real one... or at least... not a complete one...  even if we take your truncated defenition....

any thinking on religion is.... religion.      You are saying that you don't believe in god.  that is a leap of faith on a religious matter.   Every defenition that we have seen linked here to athiesm uses the word "believe" or "faith" in it to explain this "lack of belief" that you claim.

They all say that they believe that there is no god.

Let me just put it bluntly to ya...

Do you believe that it is possible that there is a god?

lazs

[Chairboy]

Not gonna be your monkey.  I've anwered your questions in good faith, and I haven't tried to pigeonhole your religious beliefs.  You can now sit on your perch and crow "Chairboy won't answer my question!" all you want, but the fact is, I'm not going to do tricks for you, because I don't think you're operating in good faith.

BTW, what's the name of your religion that believes in the non-existance of the Easter Bunny?  Because that's essentially what you're saying.  Also, you claimed in your earlier message that you felt the atheists should just lay back and enjoy it when it comes down to public funded religious observation (eg, 10 Commandments in the courthouse, state led prayer in Congress, etc).  Would you feel the same way if the monument was a statue of Mohammed with his teachings?  Same for, say, a satanist monument?  Witchcraft?  At what point do you say "Hold on a minute..."?