Why The Atheists Fight

[familydog]

So you too run an organization with well over 50,000 high school and college students?

Or are you trying to be offensive?

No, but I hardly see that as the only way to make an accurate assesment of the demographic in question.

 

[Kade]

This is exactly why I am here, fighting this fight alongside you. I can't get through to "church people" so I don't even really try anymore.
Sometimes I think I know how to do it, but then I remember I am me and they don't want me and my outside-of-the-box thinking. I'm not going to dress my kids in pastel shirts all tucked in, nor will I ever don a jumper. I will listen to the Beastie Boys and Fugazi as loud as I want to. I don't fit in anywhere, not even here. Nobody really listens to me unless I write a letter or call a talk show because then they can't see me.

But what I do see happening, in this fascist shift, is the twisting of religion and Christianity, through its' flaccid teachers, manipulating and pushing a social agenda which has no merit in a Constitutional Republic. These Christians that push this stuff are making their own beds and we will all suffer for it.

Now, I do not believe that public schools should be teaching atheism or any other religion. I don't really believe in public schools, actually. They are social engineering training programs and not institutions of learning. The divisiveness that religion (whatever it is) brings to debate in science is healthy and necessary, but perhaps we need to rethink tolerance. It seems that it is always the atheistic side that demands tolerance while shunning and ridiculing believers of any persuasion because they do not agree. If a school is pushing it's religion (atheism included) onto children and parents do not agree then the parents must be responsible for educating their children in a more suitable environment. People need to remember they have rights and that doesn't mean do what the state tells you you should do.

It is not the role of government to step in and decide whose world-view takes precedence. Unfortunately, we have come so far from the original intent of the Constitution. The interpretation of it has led to some really whacked out ideas-- such as their being a "separation of church and state." There is no separation of church and state (in the Constitution, period) but also in the sense that the whole concept is being interpreted today. Today it is looked at as, "The state shall not allow any reference to religion ever." Where I believe the factual interpretation should read more like, "The state shall not mandate any specific form of worship or lack thereof."

People like power and they have forever manipulated their world-view to attain it. Fighting amongst ourselves will not serve any purpose whatsoever but derail the truth.T he truth is that we individually have a right to live however we want so long as we don't hurt anyone else. I'm not going to convince anyone what they should believe and vice versa. We have our own individual ways of arriving. Personally I'm really tired of the fighting over religion here. We're falling into the trap. I do appreciate a good debate, but we do need to remember that we're all in this together.

I agree with you, and I agree with your belief of the interpretation of the Constitution. Few people take time to read the court briefings, (I do, it's a hobby) and realize that most of these church/state issues fall along the lines of MANDATE, not religious expression. But, good post.

 

[Kade]

No, but I hardly see that as the only way to make an accurate assesment of the demographic in question.

Then you are being offensive by claiming we arn;t really thinking about it..... sort of a reverse True Scotsman Fallacy.

Unlike most the Christians I know who claim "most people aren't TRUE Christians" any non-believer who speaks up is not one of the impotent apathetics.

 

[LEK]

Don't equate the Truth with what you read in that article.

A Christian is a follower of Christ - we don't label ourselves that, we are labelled that by those who observe us. That's how the term was first used in the first century.

Now, the problem is that those observing Christianity in this country (in particular) are being mislead - for the most part it is not the Truth of the Scripture you are witnessing. It is man-made dogma and it is wrong.

You can not legislate morality. You can not cram the Bible down people's throats. You can not forcibly convert anyone to your way of thinking. A heart change is what's needed and that is a supernatural thing.

A willing heart is a teachable heart - one ready to receive the Truth. That's when the very Spirit of God can transform a heart of stone.

My job is to draw you to the Truth by my actions (I am to be salt and light). The biggest motivator of my actions should be love. But, I have to ask, "Where's the love, man?"

And that is the crux of the problem.

 

[Kade]

Don't equate the Truth with what you read in that article.

A Christian is a follower of Christ - we don't label ourselves that, we are labelled that by those who observe us. That's how the term was first used in the first century.

Now, the problem is that those observing Christianity in this country (in particular) are being mislead - for the most part it is not the Truth of the Scripture you are witnessing. It is man-made dogma and it is wrong.

You can not legislate morality. You can not cram the Bible down people's throats. You can not forcibly convert anyone to your way of thinking. A heart change is what's needed and that is a supernatural thing.

A willing heart is a teachable heart. One ready to receive the Truth. That's when the very Spirit of God can transform a heart of stone.

My job is to draw you to the Truth by my actions (I am to be salt and light). The biggest motivator of my actions should be love. But, I have to ask, "Where's the love, man?"

And that is the crux of the problem.

Would you vote for an Atheist if he generally was the most qualified to run for office by your standards, or do your standards require the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior?

 

[familydog]

Then you are being offensive by claiming we arn;t really thinking about it..... sort of a reverse True Scotsman Fallacy.

Unlike most the Christians I know who claim "most people aren't TRUE Christians" any non-believer who speaks up is not one of the impotent apathetics.

Oh I see. Where did you get your statistic from? A random polling? Did all those respondents actually spend time explaining why they feel like they do? Or did they just say they are non-believers and it's on to the next call? My judgement comes from my experience in being in that demographic, and working with various universities over the years in which I could talk to and associate with students.

 

[MS0453]

I believe more than half of those people are atheists because they have thought about it, not apathy.

As we speak my girlfriend is running a two year study on this very thing, and well over 75% of the respondents have declared that they were once Christian, and have considered the merits of atheism on philosophical terms. None of the respondents have mentioned that they were truly atheist from philosophical position, and then converted. The apathetic usually are easily converted over to whatever religious meme is offered, try converting a freethinker.

Just to clarify my point a point a bit, I was just trying to critic the "respect us, because we make up x% argument." It's like the people who go "America is x% Christian, we're gonna have ten commandments. End of discussion." Just skip the appeals to democracy.

Atheism should be tolerated, not because of the amount of people who adhere to it, but because humans have freedom of conscience. End of story.


Also, while I'd guess that atheist are probably more prepared to argue their positions than theists, I have a hard time believing any statistics, especially if it's the "anonymous, fill out this sheet" sort. Besides, what sort of idiot is going to admit that they can't justify their beliefs.

 

[Kade]

Oh I see. Where did you get your statistic from? A random polling? Did all those respondents actually spend time explaining why they feel like they do? Or did they just say they are non-believers and it's on to the next call? My judgement comes from my experience in being in that demographic, and working with various universities over the years in which I could talk to and associate with students.

Actually, yes, it was not a survey, but a detailed questionnaire about beliefs, family, and timelines...

I too work with Universities, besides recently graduating... (even a school like Notre Dame has a higher than expected number of non-believers)

The survey and case study are accurately matched to many other polls by various organizations, including the Journal of Sociology and the Barna Group.

What appears most interesting is that many of the non-believers parents were former Christians, and it was there change that also helped facilitate the conversions....

It does appear there is a growing number of shifting ideologies.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Would you vote for an Atheist if he generally was the most qualified to run for office by your standards, or do your standards require the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior?

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. If the atheist in question was a man like Ron Paul, I would. If he or she was truly representative of the core values of a freedom movement, having no intention of putting his or her own personal lack of faith in to the forefront of his or her campaign and administration, then yes I would vote for him or her. I absolutely would.

 

[Kade]

Just to clarify my point a point a bit, I was just trying to critic the "respect us, because we make up x% argument." It's like the people who go "America is x% Christian, we're gonna have ten commandments. End of discussion." Just skip the appeals to democracy.

Atheism should be tolerated, not because of the amount of people who adhere to it, but because humans have freedom of conscience. End of story.


Also, while I'd guess that atheist are probably more prepared to argue their positions than theists, I have a hard time believing any statistics, especially if it's the "anonymous, fill out this sheet" sort. Besides, what sort of idiot is going to admit that they can't justify their beliefs.

That's a good point, although I didn't mean for it to put weight towards anything specific other than the "I'm not alone" appeal... I'm asking for the respect in general, for various reasons, one of them being simply that we deserve it as a right.

 

[familydog]

Actually, yes, it was not a survey, but a detailed questionnaire about beliefs, family, and timelines...

I too work with Universities, besides recently graduating... (even a school like Notre Dame has a higher than expected number of non-believers)

The survey and case study are accurately matched to many other polls by various organizations, including the Journal of Sociology and the Barna Group.

What appears most interesting is that many of the non-believers parents were former Christians, and it was there change that also helped facilitate the conversions....

It does appear there is a growing number of shifting ideologies.

Can you provide me with that study please?

 

[Kade]

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. If the atheist in question was a man like Ron Paul, I would. If he or she was truly representative of the core values of a freedom movement, having no intention of putting his or her own personal lack of faith in to the forefront of his or her campaign and administration, then yes I would vote for him or her. I absolutely would.

I'll hold you to that. I will be running for office one day, of that, you can be most certain.

Of course, it remains one of the reason why I keep my real name off the boards, that I some of you genuinely scare the crap out of me.

 

[Kade]

Can you provide me with that study please?

The survey is still on going, I thought I mentioned that.

 

[Kade]

I believe more than half of those people are atheists because they have thought about it, not apathy.

As we speak my girlfriend is running a two year study on this very thing, and well over 75% of the respondents have declared that they were once Christian, and have considered the merits of atheism on philosophical terms. None of the respondents have mentioned that they were truly atheist from philosophical position, and then converted. The apathetic usually are easily converted over to whatever religious meme is offered, try converting a freethinker.

I did.

It has been accepted for an APA conference in Boston this summer, as soon as that is over, I can post a link to the paper.

 

[familydog]

The survey is still on going, I thought I mentioned that.

So you're going to use data from an unfinished study, and not provide me with the conclusions you did come up with? Shame.

 

[Kade]

So you're going to use data from an unfinished study, and not provide me with the conclusions you did come up with? Shame.

I suppose that is a fair point, but I have to point out that you made an unbacked claim as well, about non-believers being apathetic. ... I was defending them. I don't require that you believe me though, merely, that saying that isn't exactly non-offensive.

I wish I had the nerve to just point you to more proof, but that would give my name up...

 

[familydog]

I suppose that is a fair point, but I have to point out that you made an unbacked claim as well, about non-believers being apathetic. ... I was defending them. I don't require that you believe me though, merely, that saying that isn't exactly non-offensive.

I wish I had the nerve to just point you to more proof, but that would give my name up...

I never claimed my "proof" to be a scientific. I said my observations are a generalization, but backed up by my experience.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

So you seem to be trying to pigeonhole all theists based off what you read from some ass bag website. More "us" versus "them" bull shit. Not all theists want to live in a theocracy that would take away your right to be an atheist.

Is this what you desire? This is what "Conservatives" are pushing. A bigotry and an offensive revision of history that undermines other people's freedoms. Is it that you agree that you refuse to fight this as well? or is it because you don't consider that a freedom or a natural right?

Haha, fuck no. Maybe your real enemy is bigotry and not religion. *gasp*

I believe more than half of those people are atheists because they have thought about it, not apathy.

As we speak my girlfriend is running a two year study on this very thing, and well over 75% of the respondents have declared that they were once Christian, and have considered the merits of atheism on philosophical terms. None of the respondents have mentioned that they were truly atheist from philosophical position, and then converted. The apathetic usually are easily converted over to whatever religious meme is offered, try converting a freethinker.

Guess I'm an anomaly then. You see I've put much thought into these sort of issues as well, and came up with a different conclusion. Well I'm not apart of any religion, and I don't believe in a "God" in the traditional sense, but you might be able to call me a theist. Its very possible for a free thinker to go on a "spiritual path".

 

[Aratus]

long ago we opted not to have an official state religion to
the exclusion of all else. religious toleration... is a toleration!

 

[Kade]

So you seem to be trying to pigeonhole all theists based off what you read from some ass bag website. More "us" versus "them" bull shit. Not all theists want to live in a theocracy that would take away your right to be an atheist.



Haha, fuck no. Maybe your real enemy is bigotry and not religion. *gasp*



Guess I'm an anomaly then. You see I've put much thought into these sort of issues as well, and came up with a different conclusion. Well I'm not apart of any religion, and I don't believe in a "God" in the traditional sense, but you might be able to call me a theist. Its very possible for a free thinker to go on a "spiritual path".

Some on this forum do.