|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 06 2014 12:29 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On September 06 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote:On September 06 2014 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2014 06:23 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, was prohibited from reenlisting in the U.S. military last month for omitting the words “so help me God” from a service oath he was required to recite and refusing to sign the oath on his enlistment form, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA).
In a letter of complaint sent to the Air Force’s inspector general on Tuesday, Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the AHA’s legal wing, said the soldier – who is an atheist – “was told that his options were to say ‘so help me God’ or to leave the Air Force.’”
The AHA, which describes itself as “advocating values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers,” characterized the ultimatum as a civil-rights violation and demanded the Air Force correct the matter.
“Requiring [redacted] to take an oath containing this religious affirmation violates his clearly established constitutional rights under the First Amendment. This letter demands that you immediately allow [redacted] to reenlist using a secular affirmation,” the letter stated.
"The Air Force cannot compel anyone to swear to God as a condition of enlistment," AHA attorney Monica Miller told Al Jazeera. "Doing so violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
“Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts,” Miller added. Source yea whatsup with the airforce and its love of Christianity, wasnt there a scandal a couple years back about how evangelical christians have penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly too? If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity. Do gays turn the army gay? Do atheists try to teach people atheism and impose their values on other people? Um, yes, they are imposing their values on other people by demanding accommodations and refusing to comply with existing rules. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but this has an effect on existing rules and traditions and those groups want to have that effect. Some atheists do challenge religious people in efforts to persuade them away from their beliefs. Yes, because most of the beliefs are discriminatory, nonsensical and have no basis in anything but, as you have already said, tradition. Moving away from old rules that make no sense is not "pushing your belief" onto something. People that want to get rid of religious customs that deny them equal treatment are arguably just exercising their constitutional rights. This is contradictory. Either they're exercising their constitutional rights or they're not pushing their beliefs. I don't think it's possible to do both at the same time. Like I said, it's not necessarily bad to overthrow tradition or existing bureaucratic norms. But to imply that it's better because it has no effect is nonsense. If people feel that traditions are religiously oppressive, then they should be able to object to it, but it does push their belief or opinion onto the tradition. It seems very odd that the Air Force does not have accommodations for people who want to omit "so help me God", which btw doesn't necessarily have to be an expression of atheism alone. It's possible that believers might also object and not want to say it. I don't like the false dichotomy of atheists vs evangelists, as though everyone has to be one or the other.
Apparently we're just arguing semantics as it seems like we basically agree that this stuff is bad and shouldn't happen. I do think though that it makes little sense to call exercising your constitutional rights "pushing your beliefs onto other people". There is little believing involved when it comes to basic rights.
|
On September 06 2014 13:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 12:29 coverpunch wrote:On September 06 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On September 06 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote:On September 06 2014 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:On September 06 2014 06:49 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2014 06:23 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2014 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:An airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, was prohibited from reenlisting in the U.S. military last month for omitting the words “so help me God” from a service oath he was required to recite and refusing to sign the oath on his enlistment form, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA).
In a letter of complaint sent to the Air Force’s inspector general on Tuesday, Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the AHA’s legal wing, said the soldier – who is an atheist – “was told that his options were to say ‘so help me God’ or to leave the Air Force.’”
The AHA, which describes itself as “advocating values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers,” characterized the ultimatum as a civil-rights violation and demanded the Air Force correct the matter.
“Requiring [redacted] to take an oath containing this religious affirmation violates his clearly established constitutional rights under the First Amendment. This letter demands that you immediately allow [redacted] to reenlist using a secular affirmation,” the letter stated.
"The Air Force cannot compel anyone to swear to God as a condition of enlistment," AHA attorney Monica Miller told Al Jazeera. "Doing so violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
“Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts,” Miller added. Source yea whatsup with the airforce and its love of Christianity, wasnt there a scandal a couple years back about how evangelical christians have penetrated the air force academy pretty thoroughly too? If its worrisome that members of a certain faith have "penetrated" some aspect of the armed forces, would that make you a bigot too? I don't talk about how gays have penetrated the army or atheists have penetrated the educational lobby. It's the advocacy, not the identity. Do gays turn the army gay? Do atheists try to teach people atheism and impose their values on other people? Um, yes, they are imposing their values on other people by demanding accommodations and refusing to comply with existing rules. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but this has an effect on existing rules and traditions and those groups want to have that effect. Some atheists do challenge religious people in efforts to persuade them away from their beliefs. Yes, because most of the beliefs are discriminatory, nonsensical and have no basis in anything but, as you have already said, tradition. Moving away from old rules that make no sense is not "pushing your belief" onto something. People that want to get rid of religious customs that deny them equal treatment are arguably just exercising their constitutional rights. This is contradictory. Either they're exercising their constitutional rights or they're not pushing their beliefs. I don't think it's possible to do both at the same time. Like I said, it's not necessarily bad to overthrow tradition or existing bureaucratic norms. But to imply that it's better because it has no effect is nonsense. If people feel that traditions are religiously oppressive, then they should be able to object to it, but it does push their belief or opinion onto the tradition. It seems very odd that the Air Force does not have accommodations for people who want to omit "so help me God", which btw doesn't necessarily have to be an expression of atheism alone. It's possible that believers might also object and not want to say it. I don't like the false dichotomy of atheists vs evangelists, as though everyone has to be one or the other. Apparently we're just arguing semantics as it seems like we basically agree that this stuff is bad and shouldn't happen. I do think though that it makes little sense to call exercising your constitutional rights "pushing your beliefs onto other people". There is little believing involved when it comes to basic rights.
We are arguing semantics because I have the opposite opinion of yours about exercising rights. I think it is exercising rights is entirely about pushing your beliefs into the public forum for the purposes of expression. This isn't a person demanding the right to be an atheist in the privacy of his home, which is not the question. He's demanding a public, governmental accommodation for his beliefs and a precedent so that others may also express their beliefs similarly.
Does this push necessarily damage the rights of religious people to express their beliefs? Probably not, and maybe that's what you're trying to say. I thought it was a false dichotomy to imply that only atheists might want this accommodation for precisely this reason. A person can believe in God but also think it is wrong to invoke his deity in an oath to uphold and defend the secular Constitution. That's also an expression of his beliefs and pushing it on to others, but it similarly doesn't damage the rights of other people who may disagree with him.
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way.
|
United States44205 Posts
On September 05 2014 10:51 Introvert wrote:
If this has to be explained to you yet again then there is no point. Let's just say that a broken system isn't an excuse to break the law. If they want to have the "American life" then come in the front.
Tried it, it's a mess.
|
On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way.
Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it.
I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike.
|
That wasn't a strawman. It was a digression about what he considered an interesting hypothetical. You just did the same thing thing that all the conservatives in this thread did a few pages back in response to my post about curfew laws. You read a trigger phrase out of context and got all worked up about it.
|
On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike.
I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism.
I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be).
I suppose I'm one that would like to see a world with less religious people (particularly christian and muslim. Hindu's and buddists seem reasonable enough). But I respect their right to practice it as adults, I just think it is twisted to manipulate children into believing in that stuff long before they develop their own thinking skills. Or try to demand that people swear to their space daddy in order to take a government job.
|
On September 07 2014 04:01 IgnE wrote:
That wasn't a strawman. It was a digression about what he considered an interesting hypothetical. You just did the same thing thing that all the conservatives in this thread did a few pages back in response to my post about curfew laws. You read a trigger phrase out of context and got all worked up about it.
Implying that atheists want to scrub it entirely from the oath is a bit disingenuous, which is how cover introduced his hypothetical ("if the atheists really got their way..."). It generalizes the opinions of individuals on a topic which is more complex than just "is it in the oath, or is it not in the oath". I'm an atheist and I have no problem with it being in the oath, as long as I don't have to say it. Same with the pledge of allegiance, I have no problem with the wording since I can choose what I want to say. Any person who advocated for an outright ban on certain language has some pretty extreme ideology, atheist or not.
|
On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). I suppose I'm one that would like to see a world with less religious people (particularly christian and muslim. Hindu's and buddists seem reasonable enough). But I respect their right to practice it as adults, I just think it is twisted to manipulate children into believing in that stuff long before they develop their own thinking skills. Or try to demand that people swear to their space daddy in order to take a government job.
this seems strange
why would you think that?
e: oh, and calling theism and atheism not honest is pretty arogant tbh
|
On September 07 2014 04:01 IgnE wrote:
That wasn't a strawman. It was a digression about what he considered an interesting hypothetical. You just did the same thing thing that all the conservatives in this thread did a few pages back in response to my post about curfew laws. You read a trigger phrase out of context and got all worked up about it.
"if the atheists really got their way..."
This suggests he believes this is what the atheists want. He wasn't making a strawman argument, more of a strawman hypothetical. My point still stands.
|
On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be).
In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral.
Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me.
|
On September 07 2014 04:16 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 04:01 IgnE wrote:
That wasn't a strawman. It was a digression about what he considered an interesting hypothetical. You just did the same thing thing that all the conservatives in this thread did a few pages back in response to my post about curfew laws. You read a trigger phrase out of context and got all worked up about it. "if the atheists really got their way..." This suggests he believes this is what the atheists want. He wasn't making a strawman argument, more of a strawman hypothetical. My point still stands.
I think you are being disingenuous by implying that all things being equal you would rather leave the god stuff in the standard recital than taking it out. If you were responsible for drafting a new oath would you put god in or leave him out?
|
No one knows so claiming one does seems more arrogant than admitting you don't to me. In the US Atheism is more commonly used to denote people who believe there is not a god rather than a lack of certainty, that is what agnostic is used to describe.
My beliefs don't fit in a religious box so I don't bother to try to name them (but I do have them).
@Paj Well two of those have been instigating a lot more senseless war and are also more active in what I deem brainwashing.
|
On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me.
That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see.....See here.
I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition.
This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things.
Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. The new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Which is sad, because it's an important one.
|
On September 07 2014 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
No one knows so claiming one does seems more arrogant than admitting you don't to me. In the US Atheism is more commonly used to denote people who believe there is not a god rather than a lack of certainty, that is what agnostic is used to describe.
My beliefs don't fit in a religious box so I don't bother to try to name them (but I do have them).
@Paj Well two of those have been instigating a lot more senseless war and are also more active in what I deem brainwashing.
When someone tells you they are an atheist they do not mean that they know there is no god. This is true everywhere, including the US. The common opposition between the two terms is people using the terms incorrectly, with a large fundamentalist christian population that is not surprising.
|
On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct.
Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof.
Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine.
|
On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine.
I was trying to find other sources, because from what I know I'm fairly certain that the narrow position of atheism is based on the assertion that God does not exist. Maybe some of the philosophy students would like to chime in.
And there is this.
I find the argument for a narrow definition convincing, anyway. It makes sense with the word, as well. "a" "theism." The new definition it not the opposite of the definition of "theism." This is again historical, since we don't define words this way.
But it is a matter of historical fact that the definition of atheism at least used to be the narrower one.
But I always get warned for posting on this stuff, so I'll stop.
|
On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine.
Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
Source
Just saying... Not sure where your understanding comes from?
|
On September 07 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine. Show nested quote +Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not SourceJust saying... Not sure where your understanding comes from?
My understanding comes from the common usage of the word by people who call themselves atheists. This group includes many people who do not have any beliefs about the existence or inexistence of a deity. Some disbelief a personal god but not a deistic/pantheist/whatever god. Some don't make such a distinction. The atheist community on the internet is fairly large, and the general consensus is that active disblief is not required for the label. Since you find atheists so obnoxiously dishonest, i thought it would be of interest to you what they acctually belief the term to mean.
|
Practically the air-force guy wanted nothing else but not swear the religious version of the oath. As someone posted before a page ago,
On September 06 2014 10:50 Cordell wrote:
from United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
so hard to grasp!!
The constitution apparently literally says that he does not need to do that. So to come back to the article, so on what ground are people defending this?
|
On September 07 2014 05:42 Nyxisto wrote:Practically the air-force guy wanted nothing else but not swear the religious version of the oath. As someone posted before a page ago, Show nested quote +On September 06 2014 10:50 Cordell wrote:
from United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
so hard to grasp!! The constitution apparently literally says that he does not need to do that. So to come back to the article, so on what ground are people defending this?
It doesn't literally say that. I imagine many opponents of a change would argue that it isn't a religious test. You can say the words even if you are openly an atheist.
Dutch military swears allegiance to the monarch, even though some are republican. Everyone seems to agree that republicans should be allowed in, but they should just say the words because tradition or something. I geuss it is the same for most other monarchies and arguably not too different from the US situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
