Holiday for Atheists

vanity | 12/16/2004 | Tasmanianred

[TASMANIANRED]

I have about had it with all the attacks on Christmas, Christmas Trees, Nativity Scenes, Christmas Carols on and on.

Do you think we could get them to shut up if we gave Atheists their own day to raise their self esteem. Maybe with their own day they won't be so offended that there are Christians that hold December 25th precious.

Give them February 11. It doesn't seem to belong to anyone else.

They can give each other bags of hot air.

They can have a meal of grouse, sour grapes and toast each other with pickle juice.

They can sit in the dark singing nothing and feel grim and smug while being alone in the universe.

[eleni121]

IN fact, it is Christians who have been and still are persecuted in the millions throughout their history.

Atheists have it good: they control the media, academia, and most governments.

Quit your griping and get real!

[Dimensio]

No I'm not. Bald is the absence of hair, therefore it isn't the empty set of the set of all hair colors. Clear would be the null set of hair colors. Barefoot is the null set of all shoe types, but are you saying humans cannot walk barefoot? I think not, that would make you look foolish. A disease is a set within the set of all healthy states, the null set would be the lack of disease, or healthy. So someone has apparently left their ability to reason behind.

Your problem is attempting to argue from set theory. Theism is just a generic descriptor for "deity belief". Atheism is thus the abscence of the property of "deity belief". To say that the abscence of a property is another 'type' of that property is to attempt to twist language to suit your ends. Theism is not a set, it's a property. Atheism is simply the abscence of that property.

By your 'logic', there is nothing stopping the police from arresting absolutely anyone, anywhere, for the 'empty set' crime of 'not breaking the law'. It sounds like you started from the position of wanting to define atheism as a religion (neglecting that theism is not the same thing as religion) and worked backwards from there, using whatever convoluted language tricks that you could find to facilitate the false equivocation.

Worship requires a faith in some sort of theory, you can't bow down and worship nothing.

Worship requires a subject for worship.

So what I was implying by worship is the idea that theists as well as atheists believe in and follow 'a' theory, though the practice of that worship wasn't addressed.

Okay. If this is true, then you should be able to address the 'theory' (or, as I call it, 'subject', because I prefer restricting use of the word 'theory' to scientific discussion) that atheists allegedly "worship". You should be able to demonstrate that it is universal for all atheists.

But thenyou bluster 'when theism can refer to any deity construct'. Say I believe in the null set construct being God or deity construct, by your definition I would have just created an atheistic diety construct, which you admitted waw a theism. Therefore anyoneone with an atheistic deity construct is a theist. Hmmm, your mind does twist.

My mind doesn't twist, your logic twists. What, exactly, is an "atheist deity construct"? You're again trying to apply set theory outside of its bounds.

Shall I call the police and report you for the empty set crime of lawfulness?

There you go, you are a bright bulb. Except I didn't say absence of religious endorsement, instead I implied the atheistic construct is itself a theism which can be imposed on other theisms under the guise of separation of church and state.

Which becomes irrelevant, because atheism isn't a religion, and you've not even argued that it is a religion -- you've just argued that it's a type of theism (which any rational person will point out is absurd).

So all this time you've been using convoluted logic to prove a contradiction and even if you could possibly be right you wouldn't be able to use it as the foundation for your next argument.

My premise wasn't faulty, see above. Apparently you are omniscient and God like to declare my arguments invalid without even having heard my counter :)

Hey, I've heard your counter now. Your argument is still faulty.

That borders on a lie. Take a beginning logic course. I never claimed !a=a. I claimed that the set {a, b, c, ...} also contains the null set !{a, b, c, ...}.

Yes, and you used that claim regarding sets to define the lack of theism, "!a", as theism, "a".

I gots to splain everything. It doesn't matter what is greater, or lesser to my argument, only that a fool would believe no greter or lesser creatures could exist after acknowledging their own self existence.

Ah, but if I define myself as the "greatest" possible being, and any deviation from that standard becomes "lesser" (regardless of whether it is more or less capable or more or less intelligent than I am), then I am the "greatest" intelligence in the universe. No, I personally don't use that scale, but if you're going to introduce the notions of "greater" or "lesser" intelligence, then you do need to quantify the terms.

I don't deny the possibility that a "greater" intelligence (where, in this case, "greater" is defined in terms of ability to comprehend events and consequences on any given time scale, and -- just to make it interesting -- the ability to alter the laws of physics through pure thought alone) exists somewhere. However, until I see evidence for such an intelligence, I've no reason to assume that it exists. As such, I'm open to the possibility, but right now, I'm not a believer.

Who knows, maybe God is a dog (just spelled backwards, ya ever wonder about that?). Once again another missinterpretation by you.

And this doesn't seem to have any real point at all. It's like something that I would write, only more whimsical.

What about the potential projected infinite progeny of dogs (which don't exist, and aren't obtainable to infinity for observation). Virtual dogs.

What about them?

Do you believe they could have self awareness? If you do, then you have a greater ability to believe in the existence of future dogs than in other current entities, not very objective in my humble opinion and quite myopic.

If talking about what is possible, rather than what is, then your point is meaningless because I've never stated that I don't believe that a self-aware dog could not exist in the future. In fact, the only reason that I followed up on your 'dog' example was to point out an example of an entity that I've seen versues an asserted entity that I've never seen.

Then you aren't an atheist, but an agnostic.

A = without.

Theist = belief in a god or gods.

I am without a belief in a god or gods. I am, therefore, an atheist.

I SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THUS FAR I'VE SEEN NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR EXISTENCE AS A THINKING ENTITY.

Then you didn't read my post, as my postings are 'evidence' that I exist as a thinking entity. Not just because of their presence, but because of the mechanisms required to make them appear on the Freerepublic server. Mind you, if you know of a means to make posts like mine appear on the FR server without any intelligence behind the process, I'll be willing to consider the evidence. Until then, because other posts on the FR server can be shown to have had intelligence in their placement on the server (your own postings can be used as an example for yourself, unless you want to be a solophist), it's probably a safe bet that -- unless you know of another means -- my postings are evidence of a thinking entity somewhere creating them.

The last line wasn't meant to be provacative, only to point out that I can similarily deny your existence as a cognitive entity. Deny I've seen any proof of your thinking existence and voila, you vanish.

But...I'm still here.

[Dimensio]

I could come up with a reply, but an old USENET posting (message ID: ) really says all that needs to be said:

"Those poor Christians - they just can't win. They make up 85% of America's population; they have tax-free mega-churches on every block, televangelists and faith healers raising millions of dollars, powerful and influential political organizations, private schools now funded by tax dollars, staunch believers in office at every level of the government, official pledges of allegiance and official mottos that support their sectarian beliefs - and we atheists are *still* trouncing them? You guys really need to get organized!"

Adam Marczyk, like most regulars of alt.atheism, is something of a liberal, but I do think that he has a point here.

[bert]

Christmas is the day. It is the celebration of the Winter Solstice coopted by the early Church to proseletyze the nonbelievers.

[Dimensio]

December 25 will mark exactly one year since I last consumed alcohol.

I'm wondering if it's time to break the streak.

[eleni121]

To funny guys I can only respond with a saying:

If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
- G. K. Chesterton

You better keep praying there is a God. Life would be pretty boring for an atheist if there weren't.

[Dimensio]

If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

We are all godless, because there are no gods.
- Ellen Johnson

(I don't care for her politics, but as long as we're trading quotes...)

[eleni121]

I can deal with silliness but not silly people: You

[beckysueb]

If the news reports the lawsuits from the ACLU then I would think it would be true. And as far as wearing religous clothing, try it in school or at a gov job or at any job for that matter. We live in a very small town and some athiest from another town came here and saw our ten commandments in the courthouse and of course threatened a lawsuit. Our county exec told him to look away if he didn't like it. Well of course this guy came back and it was still there so he went to the ACLU. Of course it had to come down. But I don't understand how this was affecting some guy from a hundred miles away who will probably never pass this way again but it does affect the citizens of this town now that they are no longer there and just the feeling of helplessness that we can't even control what we as citizens can do.

[Dimensio]

If the news reports the lawsuits from the ACLU then I would think it would be true

Yes, but you've already admitted not paying attention to the content, so you can't claim to know what the lawsuits are about.

And as far as wearing religous clothing, try it in school or at a gov job or at any job for that matter.

If the ACLU has ever stepped into such matters, they have only done it in cases of government employees wearing religious iconography at work. I don't say that I agree with them on that matter, but I challenge you to find any case where they challenged the right of a sudent to wear such clothing or the right of a private worker in a private company to do so.

r. We live in a very small town and some athiest from another town came here and saw our ten commandments in the courthouse and of course threatened a lawsuit. Our county exec told him to look away if he didn't like it. Well of course this guy came back and it was still there so he went to the ACLU. Of course it had to come down. But I don't understand how this was affecting some guy from a hundred miles away who will probably never pass this way again but it does affect the citizens of this town now that they are no longer there and just the feeling of helplessness that we can't even control what we as citizens can do.

If I'm ever in a courtroom, I will feel very uncomfortable if there is an appearance that my case will be considered with more than just the secular laws of this country applied. Why were the Ten Commandments up in the courthouse in the first place?

[microgood]

How about, "I don't want to do such things". But, hey, if the only reason that you don't lie, cheat, kill or steal is because you fear some omnipotent entity who will torment you for doing such things, then please, don't ever lose your religion. Just understand that we're not all sociopaths like you are.

You may think you are unique and superior because you are a good person without the crutch of a religion, but no whole society could ever work that way. The human race has many ailments and one thing is very clear, religious based programs to help people are far superior to secular ones.

For example, alcohol and drug treatment programs have over a 50% (some in the 70s) success rate among religious programs, with less than 10% for the secular ones(and that is being generous). That is why it is sad to see the government not be able anymore to fund the programs that work and only throw money at the worthless ones.

Churches and religions are the ones that have been caring for the human condition for thousands of years, whereas governments have been the destroyers of humans and religions for thousands of years.

You may believe from a theoretical viewpoint that this republic could survive as a completely atheist country. It is more likely, however, that no democracy can survive without a consistent set of moral beliefs and a fundamental belief in a deity. If each one of 300 million people each have a different set of moral beliefs as it would be in an atheist society and only one set applies to all of them based on whose in power(the rule of man), forget it.

I have no problem with atheists generally, but I see the trend of going from the rule of law toward the rule of lawyers we are seeing now in this country as being linked to the secular atheist movement and this is not good for the future of America.

You may say a country could exist where people are all altruistic atheists and do things because they are the right thing to do, but that would be to ignore the current state of humanity. Sounds good theoritically, but then so did communism on paper.

So I guess what I am saying is that atheists are OK, as long as they do not change society in any appreciable way and are few and far between. We are the most religious country in the world and the best, and those two things are intricately linked. Look to Europe if you want to see where pure secularism leads.

[Dimensio]

You may think you are unique and superior because you are a good person without the crutch of a religion

Actually, I say what I do because I want the other person to admit that they're not the raving sociopath that they assert atheists are. At least, I hope that they're not. Some theists have made me wonder.

but no whole society could ever work that way. The human race has many ailments and one thing is very clear, religious based programs to help people are far superior to secular ones.

Which then turns the argument into "religion is superior because it makes humans behave themselves, even if it is a total lie". I'm too intellectually honest to lie to myself, even if it might be for the "good of humanity". I can't force myself to believe something that I don't know to be true, simply because a few crackpots assert that it will make me morally superior to those who don't believe it.

[TASMANIANRED]

If you set the first of the 3 commandments aside, do you have a problem with 7-10?

They are the foundation for all law that isn't merely regulatory but moral.

I don't know any other culture that managed to come up with a code as succinct and developed as early as the 10 commandments.

[microgood]

I can't force myself to believe something that I don't know to be true, simply because a few crackpots assert that it will make me morally superior to those who don't believe it.

Nor do I expect you to. Nor do I think I am morally superior to you. I believe God is. I am just telling you that if the whole world believed as you do it would be the end of the human race. Getting our values from a supreme being versus man is how the race has survived.

In the 1600s there was a philosophical movement called rationalism which believed morality could be defined rationally using logic(empiricism,rationalism). The reason this was abandoned is because humans are 10% rational and 90% irrational. If you think you can live your life on these terms than more power to you. But most humans need something to deal with the other 90% of themselves.

I applaud you for being intellectually honest with yourself. After studying four years of philosopy, I believed as you do.

But after a while I realized being a happy human being had nothing to do with intellectual honesty or rational thought. How you choose to satisfy that part of you is up to you. Most people use religion to make sense of the part of them can cannot be dealt with logically or rationally. I remember reading Freud and he truly believed that if a patient knew the origin or cause of a psychological problem, that telling the patient what the problem was would cure it. He totally misunderstood the human condition (rationalism on steroids).

My father and my brother are both atheists. As my father gets older I can see the fear in his eyes. I do not want to experience that myself nor is it necessary. Life is such a beautiful and precious gift we should get the most out of it and be as happy as possible. If you cannot be happy any other way than how you are, then good luck and more power to you.

[TASMANIANRED]

I don't know if you are a big ACLU defender or not but you seem to be making a lot of exculpatory remarks for them.


The ACLU over the years has undertaken a number of lawsuits aimed at stripping Christianity out of Schools, government, the boyscouts, et al.

ACLU pretends that all their activities take place either pro bono or from private donations when it is not true. What is true is anytime they are able to claim that their lawsuit activity is civil rights related they get to petition the courts for reimbursement of their fees.

The taxpayers get stuck with the cost of prosecution and defense.

The threat of being saddled with the expense of lawsuit is intimidation and will cause many communities just to cave.

The most recent example of this was Los Angeles where they were threatened over the cross on the city shield. The symbol was combined with other symbols and was a recognition of the heritage of LA being founded by Spanish Missionaries.

A very similar case was litigated against the city of San Antonio and the ACLU lost. The judgment was the symbol acknowledged history and did not endorse a religion.

Intimidation by threat is a form of coercion. Schools do over react and initiate harsh actions out of fear. They have sound precedence for doing so. Seemingly innocent actions have gotten them sued in the past.

The ACLU cannot get a free pass because they are the ultimate authors of the behavior.

[BMCDA]

I'm too intellectually honest to lie to myself, even if it might be for the "good of humanity". I can't force myself to believe something that I don't know to be true, simply because a few crackpots assert that it will make me morally superior to those who don't believe it.

Not that that would work anyway. I doubt that anyone believes in a deity only because it makes him behave better. If that were true one could as well start believing in Santa Claus again.
So whoever uses this argument doesn't tell you why he believes in a god but why others should, as Jacob Sullum so succinctly put it in his collumn "Thy neighbor's faith".

[beckysueb]

Because the citizens of this town wanted them there. You just proved my point. What business is of anybodys what we put in our courthouse and who is it hurting. Good grief, people are scared to death of God.

[Dimensio]

I don't know if you are a big ACLU defender or not but you seem to be making a lot of exculpatory remarks for them.

I'm not trying to defend them per se. I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of situations where they're blamed even though they have no involvement, and there are a lot of people who think that the ACLU has done things that they have not done.

The ACLU over the years has undertaken a number of lawsuits aimed at stripping Christianity out of Schools, government, the boyscouts, et al.

Many of the complaints against the ACLU are valid. Many, however, are based upon a faulty understanding of the issues in whatever lawsuit has been filed, and quite a few incidents aren't the fault of the ACLU at all. The discussion over the grumpy atheists bitching about a charity tree has quite a few ACLU-bashing comments, but the ACLU isn't involved there at all (at least not that I've seen, feel free to correct me).

The most recent example of this was Los Angeles where they were threatened over the cross on the city shield. The symbol was combined with other symbols and was a recognition of the heritage of LA being founded by Spanish Missionaries.

And that would be a case where the ACLU needs to be told to put a sock in it.

Intimidation by threat is a form of coercion. Schools do over react and initiate harsh actions out of fear. They have sound precedence for doing so. Seemingly innocent actions have gotten them sued in the past.

And could you explain what these "seemingly harmless" actions are? Please be specific, perhaps you can convince me that the ACLU is even worse than I've come to realise.

[BMCDA]

Schools do over react and initiate harsh actions out of fear.

Unfortunately that's true but still, there's no excuse to be uninformed. I mean it's not that hard to find information on this topic. Heck, I even found a page at the website of the ACLU which clearly states that you can take your bible to school, wear clothes with religious motives (yes, even Christian ones) or pray if you do so in a non-disruptive manner.
But still, whenever this topic comes up I always get told that you'll get sued if you do any of the above.

[TASMANIANRED]

There is a case here in Kentucky (our backyard) right now. A gay student organization was banned as being a legitimate organization. The school was sued and lost. As a result they had to provide "Diversity" training.

The School made the "Diversity training" voluntary. A majority of the students opted out. As a result they are being taken back to court.

Innocent action: They made the training voluntary.


ACLU is an 800 pound gorilla, they have unlimited funds. Lest you scoff at unlimited funds, if the defendant is paying for both sides their funds are unlimited.

If something is legitimate this week, maybe it won't be legitimate next week. The schools are scared to death of mention of God in any form.

A teacher in Modesto CA was prevented from giving copied of the Declaration of Independents , other documents and correspondences of the founding fathers to students because of the word "God" in them..

When you get to the point where you have to expunge history things have gone way to far. You can't unmake the past. You can't unmake the documents. You can only conceal them.

Teaching history is not an endorsement of religion.

ACLU was indirectly responsible for the actions of the principal by precedent because they have acted in other situations.

It is a guillotine hanging over schools all the time.