|
On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious
You are correct. Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. The most dangerous thing our society faces today, besides extreme Islam, is atheism. Atheism will result in the downfall of society - and atheists are no different from fundamentalist Christians. Atheism is a religion. Atheists are just as religious as those who claim they are suicide bombing for God. Atheists who follow Richard Dawkins are no different from Christians who follow God. I can't stress enough that atheism is as much of a religion as is Christianity. If I say it enough times it becomes a statement of fact!
User was banned for this post.
|
On May 27 2011 16:36 eluv wrote:
It's obviously (I hope) clear that what he did was strictly legal. And it's kind of cool that he confronted an illegal practice, regardless of his motivations or what those around him thought.
The moral question though is a whole bucket of worms that I don't foresee bringing a whole lot of productive discussion. In the US it's certainly illegal to lead a prayer as a state sponsored employee at a state sponsored event, but whether or not it's moral to do so when the crowd is overwhelmingly of the same faith is and interesting question. I think this would be a very different situation if say, half the school was Jewish.
Regardless, it's pretty gross to say the kid had it coming. When we live in a world where demanding your legal rights causes your parents to disown you and your community to physically threaten and bully you, we've thrown those rights out the window, no matter how "insignificant" any particular exercise of those rights seems.
It is morally wrong if a single student wasn't a christian. Clearly this is the case, hence it was clearly morally wrong.
|
On May 27 2011 16:35 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:32 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:27 javy925 wrote:On May 27 2011 16:24 Barrin wrote:
(and btw atheism is indeed believing in something; agnosticism is what's not believing in anything) no, this is completely wrong yet continues to be perpetrated as correct. Atheism, in the most general sense, is a lack of belief. It is NOT a positive statement about the non-existence of a supreme deity. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is concerned with knowledge. Hence, you can very well be an agnostic atheist (someone who does not believe in any god and does not claim he has knowledge about god). javy Actually, you're in the wrong. Atheism: Belief in the lack of God Agnostic: Lack of belief in God Er.. no. Like I said, theism deals with belief, gnosticism with knowledge. It is true, however, there are atheist who will state that god does not exist, called gnostic atheist. The most general definition of atheism is a simple lack of belief, which is the default state. edit: the reason why I'm stressing that it is a lack of belief is because this position does not require any evidence to support it, as it is not a positive affirmation of anything, whereas a belief in god does require some sort of evidence.
You know, if we approach the words from their roots, I can completely see what you're saying. Alas the worth of words is in their popular layman use. Thus it is a pointless exercise in semantics to focus on what it "should be" rather than how "it is".
|
On May 27 2011 16:38 atheistaphobe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious Actually the world is becoming more religious because the irreligious dont have any kids. Hispanics in America are the big population increasers and they are largely religious. Muslims in Europe are the only ones that are increasing their population and they are religious. The big problem will be the fight between the militant atheist elites and the religious working class.
well, more people might end up "religious", but I think the number of fundamentalists should decrease with cultural and technological advances
and militant atheists only hate religion because of the fundies, so I'd say that when the fundies population decreases militant atheist growth should stump as well
|
On May 27 2011 16:38 Pastor Rob wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious You are correct. Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. The most dangerous thing our society faces today, besides extreme Islam, is atheism. Atheism will result in the downfall of society - and atheists are no different from fundamentalist Christians. Atheism is a religion. Atheists are just as religious as those who claim they are suicide bombing for God. Atheists who follow Richard Dawkins are no different from Christians who follow God. I can't stress enough that atheism is as much of a religion as is Christianity. If I say it enough times it becomes a statement of fact!
Nice Poe
|
On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization
unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious
Contrary to popular belief science and true religion do not contradict but complement each other. Genuin christians accept that existence can be measured and analyzed just as any other other reasonable person does. We just add a cause, a reason and a goal with others might not.
|
Something like this was bound to happen, people take religion very seriously. It's a shame really.
|
Religion should be banned.
|
What surprises me the most is the fact that even his own parents abandoned him. Instead of sheltering him from the insults and threats, they turn their back on their own son. Absolutely sickening if you ask me. Thank god (...okay maybe bad phrase to use) he has a brother who cares.
|
Whether he is legally correct or not, the response of this supposedly Christian community is pathetic. The threat of violence and casting your own child out into the streets without any money? These are the kind of people who were born into religion and follow it because of the happy little feeling they get in their chest when they say they believe in Jesus, but when it comes down to living the way a good Christian should they instead choose to act like little shits. To me this isn't even an atheism versus religion, church versus state, or anything argument, the real shock of this entire thing centers around the ridiculous ostracization that the student has received for his beliefs from hypocritical fundamentalists---in essence, how pathetic that entire community is.
|
On May 27 2011 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:34 Zzoram wrote:On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious absence of religion is not religion that's true but there are many things that can replace a belief in god and evoke the same sort of mindless loyalty and blind faith without faltering mob-mindset
According to a recent study, that thing would be Apple Inc, or whatever else fanboys worship.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-a-religion-neuroscientists-find-it-triggers-the-same-reaction-in-your-brain-2011-5
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On May 27 2011 16:22 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:13 Murderotica wrote:
The decision to remove religion from schools was made in a courtroom, not by some majority of voters. This is in fact quite depressing.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - Constitution.
Yep, issues of human rights are rarely left to majority vote because the minority who's rights are likely being trampled is unlikely to get a majority vote. In many states, the majority voted that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. This is despite the fact that gay people marrying has no effect on their own heterosexual marriages. A significant part of why an independent judiciary exists is so that they can make the unpopular decision to protect the rights of the minority.
Please refer to my previous post on why this is not such a huge deal. I doubt that a law will be passed from this, but even if it is, it's going to ban prayer at public schools. Oh no! That would just make all the public schools go private in those regions where the utmost devoted are supposedly the majority because all of the local voters would vote for it to be that way. In regions that don't care enough, they lose a few minutes of prayer a day. It's not some monumental thing. It's more about a battle of status - the courts have to decide whether to give an extra .01% of control of their power away in fear of creating a slight disturbance or radical voters in the South, or take it and basically tell Christians that they messed up and did stuff that wasn't legal and then do what? Fine their own public schools? Give me a break lol. If this were to be passed it would not be the 2012 Republican nominee's #1 agenda to get prayer back in school. Probably wouldn't be mentioned. Except in those long online position lists where every candidate was listed as having a certain opinion in a certain case (mostly yes or no) that most people don't even care enough to read. This stuff is not serious.
|
On May 27 2011 16:34 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:10 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:06 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken. see that's where I'm losing you guys in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions The link is that the school is promoting it. The school accepts [a lot] funding from the federal level. If the school wishes to continue to accept funding from federal gov't and stay public, they shall abide by federal laws and regulation. If this was a private school, go crazy with prayer if you want. But if you want taxpayer money to fund your gig, do what the taxpayers have directly and/or indirectly decided on before hand. This would be akin to a kid going out and buying a Harley with his parent's money earmarked for college education. I'm not debating that it isn't against the law I think your analogy is a bit inaccurate though, I'd compare it to buying one candy bar with the parent's money earmarked for college education. Not sure what type of candy bar, probably either a snickers, twix, or kit-kat. those are my three favorite Yes, your analogy is better. But again, it's wrong however you look at it. Notice, we did not talk about punishment here. We only talked about morality. Now we let the punishment fit the crime. well personally I didn't concede it was wrong I wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt for spending a buck on the candy bar, and I don't think my parents would necessarily want to punish me either so I would dispute that it is wrong at all (or at least argue that if it is wrong, the degree to which it is wrong is so negligible it may be ignored in calculations the way you would ignore the gravitational force alpha centari imposed on the net gravitational force on the earth) Alright, here's my thought process. Butt in where you diverge. Wrong is a state. It either is or is not. Degree of wrong is intensity. You add a few "very"'s or a few "barely"'s in there. You can't make something go from right to very wrong by altering intensity. If by altering intensity, you approach very wrong, then the original state was more "barely wrong" than "right". wrong is a state in reference to knowledge/epistemology "4 + 4 = 9" that is a wrong statement in relation to ethics though, things aren't "right or wrong" as a simple one-dimensional state, you have to weigh things against each other and it IS based on intensity That's where we disagree then. It's a very fundamental disagreement that leads to unproductive rhethoric. Assuming your arbitary rules and your logical framework, the rest of your statements make more sense.
how else would you ever weigh something so complicated as a presidential decision to bomb a city killing 100,000,000 people in order to stop a terrorist organization who is "for certain" going to launch bombs that will kill upwards of seven times as many people
I guess if you're a utilitarian or strict kantian ethicist things can be a simple right or wrong, but I think you've really gotta way all the variables in a given situation against each other, especially when you consider you have to weigh against that choice several other alternative choices against each other
which is the "best" choice given that there is no "right" choice that will do nothing but bring good
|
On May 27 2011 16:38 Pastor Rob wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious You are correct. Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. I advise you study science and try to understand what it is.
Appealing to the "we cannot be 100% sure" argument is completely childish. Because guess what, there is NOTHING that we know 100%. Scientists know this very well and always take this into account in every theory. So the theory that gets most accepted as "true" by the scientific community is always the one that have the most evidence for it. Not the one that is 100% irrefutable. Most scientists agree atheism is true and god is false simply because there is *way* too much more evidence for one than for another.
|
Seems like he went out of his way to stir up some controversy much like those lesbians who wanted to wear tuxedos to the prom. If an overwhelming majority of people around you want to do their stuff in peace and you're not forced to personally do something repulsive just move along and don't be a dick.
|
On May 27 2011 16:38 atheistaphobe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious Actually the world is becoming more religious because the irreligious dont have any kids. Hispanics in America are the big population increasers and they are largely religious. Muslims in Europe are the only ones that are increasing their population and they are religious. The big problem will be the fight between the militant atheist elites and the religious working class.
I would also argue that America is becoming more religious as a result of a supercritical trend reversal in knowledge acquisition.
If we can suppose that my theory on the founding of religion as a medium to answer unknowns as correct, then there was a decay in religious fervor as more and more questions started having popular rational answers.
We are, however, at a tipping point in knowledge where even the basics take too long to learn. When faced with such overwhelming complexity, depth, and breadth of knowledge, we humans are ill-equipped to handle it and prefer the simpler, religious answer that a deity[ies] made it all so and thus it was so.
We are seeing a very marked increase in religious attendance among a historically demographically unreligious group, the preparent college age 18-25. I still believe it's lazy college kids not wanting to bother to figure out all 9001 reams of the current thinking on all that sciency stuff.
|
On May 27 2011 16:39 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:36 eluv wrote:
It's obviously (I hope) clear that what he did was strictly legal. And it's kind of cool that he confronted an illegal practice, regardless of his motivations or what those around him thought.
The moral question though is a whole bucket of worms that I don't foresee bringing a whole lot of productive discussion. In the US it's certainly illegal to lead a prayer as a state sponsored employee at a state sponsored event, but whether or not it's moral to do so when the crowd is overwhelmingly of the same faith is and interesting question. I think this would be a very different situation if say, half the school was Jewish.
Regardless, it's pretty gross to say the kid had it coming. When we live in a world where demanding your legal rights causes your parents to disown you and your community to physically threaten and bully you, we've thrown those rights out the window, no matter how "insignificant" any particular exercise of those rights seems. It is morally wrong if a single student wasn't a christian. Clearly this is the case, hence it was clearly morally wrong.
You're right. Discussion over. If only morality was always this simple!
|
On May 27 2011 16:41 Fiend13 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization
unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious Contrary to popular belief science and true religion do not contradict but complement each other. Genuin christians accept that existence can be measured and analyzed just as any other other reasonable person does. We just add a cause, a reason and a goal with others might not.
well science and "fundamentalist religion" contradict each other
|
On May 27 2011 16:41 Arnstein wrote:
Religion should be banned.
Idiots like you will start world war 3.
|
On May 27 2011 16:42 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:34 Zzoram wrote:On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious absence of religion is not religion that's true but there are many things that can replace a belief in god and evoke the same sort of mindless loyalty and blind faith without faltering mob-mindset According to a recent study, that thing would be Apple Inc, or whatever else fanboys worship. http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-a-religion-neuroscientists-find-it-triggers-the-same-reaction-in-your-brain-2011-5
haha it's funny you link that because I was debating on linking that, a friend showed me a few days ago
funny shit, especially since a south park episode this month just made fun of apple
ahhh, sometimes I wonder if my religion is gaming lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
