On May 27 2011 13:42 419 wrote: ... Among other parts of this article, that's misrepresenting Christian views. The way I see it (as TL's resident fundamentalist!) is that atheists can act morally, but that an absolute moral code can't be rationalized within the bounds of atheism. ...
Can't believe you actually said that..
The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? These are all things that are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality; I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon - you could almost say - intelligent design. Can we not design our society? The sort of society we want to live in?
Actually he is kind of right that you cannot base your moral code on atheism. Because atheism does not give you anything to base it on. But that is actually error on his part that he thinks atheists base their moral code on their atheism. Unlike many religious people atheists are not solely defined by them being atheists. Atheists can be humanists, communists, ..... and derive their moral codes from elsewhere, not from their atheism. And they can have absolute moral codes just as easily.
Most Atheists are not true Atheists. They use that as an umbrella term to say that they do not believe in god. Personally I am a Humanist and I believe that people don't need a god to tell them to do right or they are damned for all eternity. Instead that they do right and good deeds because its the RIGHT thing to do as a human and as a part of a society for the good of the greater whole. People are foolish to think that you need a greater power to set a standard and instill fear for you to treat your fellow humans the way you want to be treated.
Also, this just in: Christians do not derive their morality from the bible or from god or any other "defined" source. They use their brains to choose a subset / modification of those rules. Who in the modern world things getting a tattoo should be punished by death? That's right in Leviticus. Not honoring they mother and they father? We'd have a lot of dead adolescents if people followed that part of the bible. Very few people, basically almost none use any religious book cover to cover as an actual moral code. The only "advantage" religion has over non-religion is that it has a list of potential moral codes to choose from, but I would argue that this is in fact a pretty large disadvantage since it can be distracting from trying to find good positive moral codes outside the list.
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in.
Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect.
Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. .
What about atheism have to be proved.
I actually really don't get that :S
Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.
Theism is the "belief" that their is a god.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
Just because neither of 2 different ideas can be proven does not mean they are equally illogical..
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in.
Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect.
Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. .
What about atheism have to be proved.
I actually really don't get that :S
Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.
Theism is the "belief" that their is a god.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism.
But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist.
Unless you can show me proof for either.
Guess that makes me agnostic.
Agnosticism is NOT the logical choice. If you approach the "god" concept from the point of view of describing the world, then you should apply the principle of parsimony and therefore position that there is no god is default position that does not require proof. The same way as position that dwarfs and elfs exist and that I have unicorns in my bed. Burden of proof lies on the side proposing existence of something. Agnosticism is high-horse position that some people hypocritically use for some theoretical questions like god, yet never actually do so in real life. In real life they all base their decisions on the fact that orcs are not real, wizards do not exists, etc.
I feel like this whole situation spun out of control and maybe there were some motives by others that weren't quite portrayed in the correct light by the article. I just graduated high school and I know what kids are like, but some of that stuff just seems unreal. I don't know what to think. The article makes it sound like its the 1960s all over again (which I'm sure they were trying to do).
A huge fuss made about something he could've just refused to take part of. IMO, more kids get bullied, threatened, harassed, etc. for trying to exercise their religious freedom in schools, e.g. Muslims wearing traditional clothing or child asking team for prayer requests, than from refraining from things that might seem religious, e.g. saying God in the pledge of Allegiance ... or reading the word God on US currency... or saying "Oh my God" even though you don't believe in God...
IMO, a lot of people pray even though they aren't Christian or can't identify with institionalized religion. All this nonsense about "OMG OK HERE'S THE RIGHT CHOICE... BE (Insert religion name here, or being "agnostic", or being "atheist")" is not productive to the TL community. Everyone who partakes in faith, particularly those who identify as Christians (I do, so see this like that), should realize that you never convert someone. That's silly - We're not 18th Century Spanish Catholic Missionaries (I'm protestant XD) killing Native Americans. You just show them what you can and let them make the choice themselves. Bashing them with logic (Even though you might be losing that fight) is really fruitless and makes TL more polarized, leaving the only sane people the trolls.
If you're still upset over religion, go read the frontpage story on Andy. That will cheer you up.
This seems to be a fine example of the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what the bill of right was designed to protect people from. It doesn't really matter if the prayer was traditional or if almost everyone wanted it. It is unacceptable in the United States. The way his community reacted is shameful
A school blatantly violating the law is an important issue too. I mean it is just a tradition of prayer at graduation but it is representative of the state endorsing religious views and because of that, it is not ok.
On May 27 2011 23:52 Shiragaku wrote: I am an Atheist here and it always makes me sad when I see religious people spit on me, treat me like shit, or even spread rumors about me because I am an evil prick with no morals.
But then, at a graduation, a girl wanted to have a prayer and some father sued the school for not having toleration. What has always disgusted me about TL is that so many people believe that believe religion is the devil and the world would be better without it.
Even if religion is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread and praying would give everyone unicorns and puppies, having a public school endorse and support a prayer during graduation is ILLEGAL. Having the school just have a christian prayer is even worse, its offensive and insulting and also ILLEGAL.
Dude...this kind of spirituality is not just with God. We have had the Communist Manifesto, Ayn Rand, Kim Jong-il, and several leaders.
However, Atheists should set a better example and go along with the prayer. She meant no harm, she was not taunting anyone, and if anything, she meant the best for everyone.
On May 27 2011 13:42 419 wrote: ... Among other parts of this article, that's misrepresenting Christian views. The way I see it (as TL's resident fundamentalist!) is that atheists can act morally, but that an absolute moral code can't be rationalized within the bounds of atheism. ...
Can't believe you actually said that..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? These are all things that are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality; I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon - you could almost say - intelligent design. Can we not design our society? The sort of society we want to live in?
Actually he is kind of right that you cannot base your moral code on atheism. Because atheism does not give you anything to base it on. But that is actually error on his part that he thinks atheists base their moral code on their atheism. Unlike many religious people atheists are not solely defined by them being atheists. Atheists can be humanists, communists, ..... and derive their moral codes from elsewhere, not from their atheism. And they can have absolute moral codes just as easily.
Most Atheists are not true Atheists. They use that as an umbrella term to say that they do not believe in god. Personally I am a Humanist and I believe that people don't need a god to tell them to do right or they are damned for all eternity. Instead that they do right and good deeds because its the RIGHT thing to do as a human and as a part of a society for the good of the greater whole. People are foolish to think that you need a greater power to set a standard and instill fear for you to treat your fellow humans the way you want to be treated.
But there is nothing more to atheism than not believing in god.
On May 27 2011 13:43 travis wrote: This is an example of a spot where a kid used poor decisionmaking due to a lack of wisdom. It's not always the best move to stand up and fight. Sometimes it's better to stand apart as an observer.
It's too bad he's in this situation, It would be nice if he could sue the school for having his information leaked and for this situation occuring.
P.S: It sucks that it had to become an atheist/religious issue. Durrr, atheism good, religion bad! Atheists helped him! Why can't it just be that good compassionate people helped him?
I would agree with you if he were a guest at a dinner table and his hosts wanted to say grace and he objected. Prayer in school is something entirely different. Keeping religion to yourself is fine, but when it comes to indoctrinating children with it then people need to stand up and say something. This is definitely one of the battles that needs to be fought..
Wow, that's really messed up. I think most people agree that in hindsight he should have kept his mouth shut. I don't know why people are discussing that portion. Obviously this did not turn out well for the kid, even with the atheist community trying to help him.
On May 27 2011 23:33 TheGiz wrote: Why are Atheists so intolerant of religion? Just shut up and look the other way and you won't cause any problems for anyone else. This kid is just being a rebellious smartass; he could have shut his mouth and said 'these people are idiots' like every Atheist does, to himself, and it would have been over and done with.
Gracken you are absolutely right.
Atheists so intolerant of religion!!?? Did you read the article?! His parents DISOWNED him, and you're saying that atheists are intolerant of religion?! Holy crap, man.
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in.
Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect.
Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. .
What about atheism have to be proved.
I actually really don't get that :S
Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.
Theism is the "belief" that their is a god.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism.
But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist.
Unless you can show me proof for either.
Guess that makes me agnostic.
Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. To understand this, you must understand the derivative of the word.
Atheism has been shown again and again that it is the lack of belief, but people will only show you the dictionary meaning to project their agenda of its meaning. Agnosticism is technically atheism if you DO NOT BELIEVE in a god or gods. Atheism is also not a belief system. There is nothing surrounding atheism or involved with atheism except a lack of beliefs that would exist if you were to be a religious follower and took beliefs upon you of that belief system.
If someone wants to argue with this point, fine, but please know that you can not tell me that "an atheist is a person who says God does not exist." That would be absolutely idiotic because I would be denouncing something that has never been proven to exist and would circumvent any logic in my mind against committing an act like that. Just think what would happen if the defense had to prove their client did not commit a crime in the court of law. That would circumvent logic and it is a reason that the only side of the religious argument that has to prove anything is those making a claim, the religious followers.
To me, agnosticism is but a fairy tale. It is not a position that actually exists because it purports that their is a middle ground to having belief and not having belief. If you logically take the stance that atheism is not a belief, then there is zero ground for agnosticism being a ground to stand upon when in reality, we are all agnostics. We have no actual knowledge of God, or gods, or a god and we sure as hell don't have certainty of their existence unless we choose to blindly follow by faith, but is that really certainty?
Whoever leaked the boy's name should be fired and the entire community needs to understand what they did is completely wrong and immoral. America was supposed to be a nation where even the minority gets protection, but the majority always feels the need to voice their opinion by means of social repercussions. It's tragic that even the parents practically disowned the boy for you would think that THEY would be the ones to understand, but I guess we have too much hope for people these days. More faith in humanity was lost today.
On May 28 2011 00:07 DoubleReed wrote: Wow, that's really messed up. I think most people agree that in hindsight he should have kept his mouth shut. I don't know why people are discussing that portion.
On May 27 2011 23:33 TheGiz wrote: Why are Atheists so intolerant of religion? Just shut up and look the other way and you won't cause any problems for anyone else. This kid is just being a rebellious smartass; he could have shut his mouth and said 'these people are idiots' like every Atheist does, to himself, and it would have been over and done with.
Gracken you are absolutely right.
Atheists so intolerant of religion!!?? Did you read the article?! His parents DISOWNED him, and you're saying that atheists are intolerant of religion?! Holy crap, man.
Yo...have you seen the other side of the story? Atheism vs Religion is not the same as good vs evil. This is a social issue, not religious.
On May 28 2011 00:07 DoubleReed wrote: Wow, that's really messed up. I think most people agree that in hindsight he should have kept his mouth shut. I don't know why people are discussing that portion.
On May 27 2011 23:33 TheGiz wrote: Why are Atheists so intolerant of religion? Just shut up and look the other way and you won't cause any problems for anyone else. This kid is just being a rebellious smartass; he could have shut his mouth and said 'these people are idiots' like every Atheist does, to himself, and it would have been over and done with.
Gracken you are absolutely right.
Atheists so intolerant of religion!!?? Did you read the article?! His parents DISOWNED him, and you're saying that atheists are intolerant of religion?! Holy crap, man.
Yo...have you seen the other side of the story? Atheism vs Religion is not the same as good vs evil. This is a social issue, not religious.
No, I understand. But when you read this article and say "Atheists are so intolerant of religion" then I think you've got your wires crossed.
On May 28 2011 00:04 TheFrankOne wrote: This seems to be a fine example of the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what the bill of right was designed to protect people from. It doesn't really matter if the prayer was traditional or if almost everyone wanted it. It is unacceptable in the United States. The way his community reacted is shameful
A school blatantly violating the law is an important issue too. I mean it is just a tradition of prayer at graduation but it is representative of the state endorsing religious views and because of that, it is not ok.
I agree, but i'll play the devil's advcate role for a short moment.
Obama was elected by the majority of us people. People who don't like him are forced to follow some kind of "tyranny of the majority". It's it wrong?
The majority always win. It's how human groups work. This group is shorter but it's the same way of thinking (edit: way of think...way of thought...sh*it...i should hear more my english teachers...).
Poor kid is there any more info about him? I wonder if he had a LD or something he make a very emotional choice though.. i wonder that about quite a few people in this story. But I wonder if his brother had the seem treatment since he no longer lives in the same state as well.
I also grew up in this kind of christian community so it's pretty hard to speak out most of us just leave
Whether the kid was being a dick or not is completely beside the point. Prayer in school is unconstitutional. Enough said. If they really wanted to pray they could have done it before the official ceremony. Just because the majority of people practice lunacy, doesn't mean everyone should be subjected to it.
Seriously if you think what he did was "wrong". "He shouldn't have done anything". Than you are a coward. It's like walking by a guy that's getting bullied and walking away. That's not the right thing to do. It's what a coward would do. I'm not trying to be high and mighty here I myself have walked away from situations where I should have stepped in and done something but that doesn't make me right, and I'm not proud of it. I commend this kid for doing what he believes in, it took real guts. Sure it might have been easier to sit through it but he opposed it because it was WRONG.
On May 28 2011 00:04 TheFrankOne wrote: This seems to be a fine example of the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what the bill of right was designed to protect people from. It doesn't really matter if the prayer was traditional or if almost everyone wanted it. It is unacceptable in the United States. The way his community reacted is shameful
A school blatantly violating the law is an important issue too. I mean it is just a tradition of prayer at graduation but it is representative of the state endorsing religious views and because of that, it is not ok.
I agree, but i'll play the devil's advcate role for a short moment.
Obama was elected by the majority of us people. People who don't like him are forced to follow some kind of "tyranny of the majority". It's it wrong?
The majority always win. It's how human groups work. This group is shorter but it's the same way of thinking (edit: way of think...way of thought...sh*it...i should hear more my english teachers...).
Yes, but people don't have the right to have what president like, regardless of the majority, they do however have the right to have public school stay secular, regardless of the majorities religious beliefs.
And I'm really suprised from the comments I read at the amount of people saying he's a smartass, or that it wouldn't have been so hard for im to just sit through it.
I'm not a US citizen, but from what I've heard, if it is illegal what right do the school have to hold the prayer on any grounds?
And If he feels as if it is wrong, why shouldn't he speak against it?
If they were planning on holding a public lynching of a randomly selected school child, it would be spoken against. Yes an overdramatic comparison but the point still stands, it's against the law. He should speak up if he see's fit.
On May 28 2011 00:04 TheFrankOne wrote: This seems to be a fine example of the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what the bill of right was designed to protect people from. It doesn't really matter if the prayer was traditional or if almost everyone wanted it. It is unacceptable in the United States. The way his community reacted is shameful
A school blatantly violating the law is an important issue too. I mean it is just a tradition of prayer at graduation but it is representative of the state endorsing religious views and because of that, it is not ok.
I agree, but i'll play the devil's advcate role for a short moment.
Obama was elected by the majority of us people. People who don't like him are forced to follow some kind of "tyranny of the majority". It's it wrong?
The majority always win. It's how human groups work. This group is shorter but it's the same way of thinking.
No, the term is "Majority Rules vs Minority Rights." Obama is not allowed to do whatever the hell he wants just because the majority elected him. He is also bound by the rules.
If the majority of people say "Kill all the Jews" that doesn't mean we're allowed to do so.
On May 27 2011 22:16 SolidZeal wrote: The application of separation of church and state here is a bit complicated, especially when the school actually complied and canceled the prayer. The prayer happened anyway, but because a senior brought it up of her own volition kind puts her under free speech in that situation. The point when things started going very wrong is when the community found out that he was trying to get the prayer canceled. It's not necessarily the school that is at fault there, depending on how the information traveled. It's possible it spread from Damon/Damon's friends into the school environment and became a hot topic. The school was in a bad position as they could not avoid what the student asked for as it is a law. They could not avoid telling the community the prayer was getting canceled and if the rumor started from the students peers they couldn't really protect him from the community being able to point at him. There was a shitstorm button in that school's office and the kid walked up and pressed it. You can't undo something like that once you start it. The whole community was suddenly turned on him. I doubt really that his parents ostracizing him had to do with his religious choice. More that he managed press such a really sore issue and turn his whole community against him. They had a choice to support him and be alienated in the community or join in on the shitstorm. Sadly I feel they made the wrong choice. Thank god that he has a brother worth a damn.
I can't help but ponder if he was to sue, who would he target? The obvious answer is the school, but what if it can be proved that it wasn't the schools fault the rumor spread? Really it was the community that wronged him.
It's a very cynical thing to say (funny because i think most atheist are fond of cynicism) but i can't help but feel that the atheist community jumped to help him to make the illusion that this is a Atheists are good, Christian's are oppressors type of situation. This whole clusterfuck just showcases a fundamental issue in America arising specifically with atheism. When the atheist kid tries to cancel the prayer, he is in a way forcing his religious point of view on the majority. That kind of thing is obviously explosive. He succeeded in that the prayer was officially canceled, but the community being what it was, someone said a prayer anyway...and what was the school supposed to do then? Try to shut the girl up? imo, the school was pulled into a snare trap just like the student. I'm sorry for him, I hope he can forgive people who did evil to him and recognize why things why things happened the way they did. The fault was in part on everyone involved, but the greater evil is obviously the way the community handled it.
Actually, there is no complication or confusion, according to the article. It clearly states that "His public school was planning to have a prayer as part of the graduation ceremony". This is unconstitutional, regardless of how much of a *tradition* it is (how long have they been breaking the law?). The law is supposed to protect the rights of the few from the power of the majority. There cannot be planned prayer in school, such as part of a graduation ceremony. Schools must remain secularist. If you want to sit in your seat and pray on your own during the ceremony, no one will stop you. But it can't be orchestrated by school officials.
It's also completely irrelevant to the atheist's religious beliefs. Heck, he doesn't have any. He's an atheist. Not wanting prayer in school isn't his "religious point of view". It's him wanting the Constitution to be enforced.
You are right of course, I didn't mean to say that the prayer wasn't legally inappropriate. I'm just pointing out that the school tried conforming to the law when a student asked them about it. That horribly backfired on him unfortunately. I misstated a bit when I said he was trying force his opinion on others. In a way he was very directly forcing people to not pray at an event they would otherwise pray at (Yes they could pray to themselves, but it is a very different situation than having a speaker say a prayer), but he was justified by law. It was the law, or rather an interpretation of that constitutional rule that played into the negative consequences. The people in that community are obviously against the idea of someone (especially government) stopping the prayer at the graduation. Can you blame them? It was a traditional prayer.
It got interesting on another level when the senior girl threw in her own prayer. It would seem that the school received it well and the graduation probably proceeded not much different that it would have. So in that moment it is no longer the school having a prayer, rather it is a student performing an old tradition and the school not stopping her. Is that wrong? Should she get in trouble for saying that prayer? Should the school? If they are punished, isn't that an more obvious case of religious freedom being repressed? I'm not even convinced an atheist is really having his religious beliefs suppressed by having to hear a prayer. He doesn't have to believe the prayers and graduation is a ceremonial event anyway. It would be an apt solution to just time the prayer such that the atheist can experience the graduation, then leave if he doesn't want to hear the prayer.
The cultural issue here is that in many cases Americans obviously want prayer in schools. The real point of separation of church and state is that the state should not force a particular religion on a people. In this case, its the culture of the people in and around the school that's "forcing" the religious preference of Christianity. Can we stop that? is it moral to try? I don't think so.
EPT
If you're still upset over religion, go read the frontpage story on Andy. That will cheer you up. 
