Atheism and the USA, followup

[lukster]

I think it probably takes about as much faith to believe there is no self aware creator of the space/time continuum as it does to believe that there is. Faith and religion go hand in hand so I don't think it was much of a stretch for the court to declare Atheism a religion. Seems to me we have some pretty fervent adherents  to their faith on this board.

[Chairboy]

Lukster:  Is good health a 'disease'?  It is the absence of illness, but by your logic, it is therefor classified as a disease.  Atheism is a lack of religious belief.

[lukster]

Chairboy, you have the space/time continuum in front of you. Your confidence that is was not created by an intelligent being can only be called faith.

[Chairboy]

Can you answer my question please?

[Hap]

Originally posted by Chairboy
 Atheism is a lack of religious belief.

yes it is.

hap

[Booz]

Originally posted by lukster
Chairboy, you have the space/time continuum in front of you. Your confidence that is was not created by an intelligent being can only be called faith.

 We, as a species of animal on this planet,  have searched high and low for well over 2000 years for evidence of a creating, intelligent, being..   three strikes so far.

[detch01]

Originally posted by lukster
I think it probably takes about as much faith to believe there is no self aware creator of the space/time continuum as it does to believe that there is. Faith and religion go hand in hand so I don't think it was much of a stretch for the court to declare Atheism a religion. Seems to me we have some pretty fervent adherents  to their faith on this board.

What's to believe? Atheists, at least those I know, don't "believe" there is no god, they (like myself) don't see any proof that god exists and therefore are not willing to take "on faith" that he does. None, not one, of the athiests I know have any problems with theists chosing to believe what they like. The same cannot be said of fundamentalist theists of any brand in regard to atheists.
It seems to me that an awful lot of theists think that the refusal to believe in god, as defined by man in the currently extant religions, is exactly the equal of believing that god does not and can not exist. While this labelling does fit neatly in the simplified black & white world view of the fundamentalist theist, it has precious little to do with who and what atheists truly are. The refusal to believe, or have "faith" that, something is true is not the same thing as believing that it is not true.
As an atheist I don't preclude the existance of god because that would require me to accept an hypothesis as hard fact, i.e I take it on faith that god does not exist. I believe in things I can prove or see, or know to have been proven. I take nothing on "faith", especially when someone else tells me it is "the right thing to do".



asw
ATHEIST.

gratuitous Christ bashing to follow if you need an excuse to get upset at me. Actually, this is a song I used to know that I thought was pretty funny and have forgotten the words to. I really would like to be able to sing it again.

Anyone know the lyrics to "Christ the Magic Hebrew"? I used to know them but I forgot. It's sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon and it goes something like this:
"Christ the magic Hebrew,
Lived by the sea,
and taught us social protest
in a land called Galilea.
Ooooh Christ the magic Hebrew...."

I forgot the rest except the ending. To whit:

"...
so they nailed him to a tree.
(final chorus)
Oh Christ the mag..." etc.



Any help would be appreciated...



really.


thx

Cheers,
asw
(PM me with the lyrics if you have em and don't want to feel the wrath of ... nevermind. Just PM me).

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Arlo
Take it up with the law, Subo. It classifies it as such and as such protects your right to such a choice of belief. If that bothers you then crusade against that law first. As for the rest ... you make much ado bout nuthin' .... pretty much like every obsessive compulsive thread started by Chairboy to prove Atheists rule and Christians drool.

...and yet here you are continually posting in a thread that pretty much is "much ado bout nuthin'."
Seems it means more to you than you are letting on.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Arlo
I didn't say you were. I said atheists who are currently in arms and afraid the word "God" is a state sponsored religion are acting silly. It's not a threat to you. At least not yet. Chances are slim it'll happen unless our current system is completely destructured. If that happens, the word "God" is really the least of your problems. Like I said, get back to me when the threat actually materializes for everyone to see.

So I take it then you wouldn't mind if the term "Under God" was removed from the Pledge?
How about removing the term "In God We Trust" on our currency?

It's not a threat to anyone's religion after all.
How about you get back to me when the threat actually materializes for everyone to see.  (borrowing your line)

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
You're on to something there sir.  Let's not forget about Stalin.

Oh I purposely left out Stalin and Hitler as well as the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch hunts, The Great Crusades, Phalange Christian massacres of Palestinian camps. History is full of examples of massacres where religion was used as a rally cry/"motive" as well as nonreligious ones.

For the same thing can be said of good deeds in human history. Some include religion, some don't.

Bottom line, it's not what religion does as it can't do anything on its own. It's what mankind does, good and evil, with or without religion that matters.

Religion is a tool. Can be used for good, or bad.

[Vulcan]

How about In the Easter Bunny We Trust?

Another point for this thread... a common christian point of view I hear a lot:
If a christian man does a good deed, then he is a good christian.
If an atheist man does a good deed, then he is a good man.
If a christian man commits a bad deed, then he is not a true christian.
If an atheist man commits a bad deed, then he is an evil atheist.


Yet...
if a buddhist man commits a good deed, he is a good man.
if a buddhist man commits a bad deed, he is a bad man.

Why is it christianity feels the need to claim all goodness not even necessarily done it its name and take no responsibility/credit for the evils done in its name?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by detch01
What's to believe? Atheists, at least those I know, don't "believe" there is no god, they (like myself) don't see any proof that god exists and therefore are not willing to take "on faith" that he does. None, not one, of the athiests I know have any problems with theists chosing to believe what they like. The same cannot be said of fundamentalist theists of any brand in regard to atheists.
It seems to me that an awful lot of theists think that the refusal to believe in god, as defined by man in the currently extant religions, is exactly the equal of believing that god does not and can not exist. While this labelling does fit neatly in the simplified black & white world view of the fundamentalist theist, it has precious little to do with who and what atheists truly are. The refusal to believe, or have "faith" that, something is true is not the same thing as believing that it is not true.
As an atheist I don't preclude the existance of god because that would require me to accept an hypothesis as hard fact, i.e I take it on faith that god does not exist. I believe in things I can prove or see, or know to have been proven. I take nothing on "faith", especially when someone else tells me it is "the right thing to do".

Refusal to believe... as if belief were a choice. For me, it's not a matter of "do or do not". It's a matter of "can or cannot". I can't just turn it on or off by free will.

I did not choose to be atheist.

From what I've read, there are some people that can indeed direct belief by force of will. I'm not one of them.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Can you answer my question please?

Is good health a disease? No, by definition disease is in conflict with "good health" or normal functioning. Of course we can debate what normal functioning is can we not?

That has little to do with what I am saying though. Faith is the belief in something without proof. You cannot prove that the Universe wasn't created by a god. That you believe this without proof makes it faith. If you really want to be religion free you will be agnostic rather than athiest.

[lazs2]

their are degrees of athiesm... their is the angry "shout it from the rooftops in your face" type who use it as a club against the religious...  

Then their is the "it sounds so rebel and hip" type.

Then their is the "I have a belief that there is no god because he didn't save my puppy" type.

Then their is the "I never give it much thought but if I do I would say that I have to believe that there is no god" type

I have problems with the first three types in a big way... they are pretty pathetic.

The last is simply ignorant of what faith means or... more accurately.. don't care.

let's just use ghosts or aliens instead of god.... why is their no word for those who do not believe?   Why are those who do not believe in ghosts or aliens not all defensive and/or in your face about it?

What is the difference?  that is the quyestion an athiest needs to ask himself... why so combative on one and not the others?

lazs

[Dago]

Treaty with Tripoli (1797)

It was on this date, June 10, 1797, that President John Adams signed into law, promising thereby "faithfully to observe and fulfill ... every clause and article" the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. The Treaty with Tripoli, as it is now known, a regency in what is now Libya, has become a key document in the debate over whether or not the United States is, or ever was, or was intended to be, a Christian nation, or even founded on Christian principles.

First, what are we talking about? Did George Washington say, "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"? No, he didn't. He did delegate to Joel Barlow (a Deist) the negotiation of a treaty with that Barbary leader to halt their plundering of US cargo ships.

Second, the entire treaty has 12 articles, 860 words, and the questionable clause is from Article 11. In its entirety, Article 11 reads,

    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion — as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] — and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, 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.

Article 11
Article 11 of the
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the
United States of America and the
Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary
Third, how can this be unclear? Detractors cite numerous politicians of the time proclaiming their Christian principles. One says that the article must be read "as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," and that "such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation." The logic of this is seriously flawed. The Declaration of Independence refers only to a creator, not to a Christian God, and has no force of law, anyway. And the Constitution is conspicuously godless — Jefferson wrote that an attempt was made to insert a reference to Jesus Christ, and that it was voted down

Treaty with Tripoli