RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 9:44:51 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

I'll bet it will be the best pizza and beer we ever ate...heavenly

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to pogo4pres)

Post #: 81

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 9:47:32 AM

PatrickG38

Posts: 338
Joined: 10/8/2010
Status: offline

I would think the word mandatory is clear to someone reasonably educated. What word is clearer?

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 82

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 9:49:03 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

I say let god buy, he's the one with the American Express "Centurion" card ya know.

You guys always make things so difficult. It will be God who's buying, God who's serving, God who's drinking, God who's eating...

And afterward, God who pisses and shits.

Kirata the Mystic

(in reply to pogo4pres)

Post #: 83

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 9:52:09 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

Well I think this is hokum as usual. I do not need to and one cannot prove...a negative. The facts are that there are no facts or extrapolation of fact...that ANY God exists...period. God is therefore consigned to the same place as the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter rabbit and all manor of other imaginary characters people invent. For some Pacific Islanders...an American airplane...is their God.

How about the God of kink...prove he doesn't exist. How about the God of pleasure...prove he doesn't exist.

(in reply to Louve00)

Post #: 84

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 9:52:40 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

I would think the word mandatory is clear to someone reasonably educated. What word is clearer?

Careful of whose eductaion you decide to smear. The appropriate way to handle that would have been to mention the change to the mandatory prayer, making it no longer mandatory instead of claiming the mandatory prayer was banned.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to PatrickG38)

Post #: 85

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 9:58:34 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

Okay, what is the danger you see posed by atheist political action?

I'm a European (and an atheist), so I guess my experience may differ from the experience of the US, but I get concerned about stories like these...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4427912/Prayer-nurse-should-keep-job-says-patient.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398

I think atheist political action is a little like the Israel lobby. On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable idea, but in practice it hides all sorts of threats to other people's freedom.

Any examples ?

(in reply to hertz)

Post #: 86

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 10:01:35 AM

PatrickG38

Posts: 338
Joined: 10/8/2010
Status: offline

I am sorry if you took it as a smear, but you do not seem equipped for a high level discussion. Initially, it should be noted we are not talking about a prayer, but about the Pledge of Allegiance. Second, my original post said it was mandatory recitation that was banned and cited the case, West Virginia St Bd of Ed v. Barnett, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624. The point was to demonstrate that the challenge to the pledge was not from atheists, but religious people. I was in no way wrong and cannot be held responsible for poor reading skills. Mandatory recitation was banned and it was banned at the initiative of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I do not know why you waste time with silliness that even if you were correct is tangential to the argument.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 87

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 10:10:31 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

God is therefore consigned to the same place as the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter rabbit and all manor of other imaginary characters people invent.

Well not quite, there is at the very least a phenomenological difference. Whatever it may be that people subsume under the word "God," nobody (as far as I know) has ever claimed to have experienced or felt the presence of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Easter Rabbit.

K.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 88

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 10:13:12 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Initially, it should be noted we are not talking about a prayer, but about the Pledge of Allegiance. Second, my original post said it was mandatory recitation that was banned and cited the case

Your first OP states nothing of that ruling... Do you often mislead your students this way as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

As an atheist deeply sympathetic to serious Christianity (not fundamentalist nonsense), I would like to respond to the arguments offered by the OP and examine whether the equivalence between the religious fundamentalist and the atheist truly exist. It is asserted with little support that neither position is provable and this is no doubt true in the mathematic sense, but that does not mean that one side does not have a superior argument (it is not ‘provable’ O.J. Simpson killed his wife, but it is by far the better argument if debating whether he did or did not). So that neither can be absolutely proved should not prevent judging of the strength of the claims. The atheist does not usually say (when speaking carefully) that there is no god, but rather that there is no evidence there is a god and there is no need to posit there is a god and that therefore the belief in a god is an incorrect belief without sufficient (or any) serious empirical support. There is no god in the sense there are no unicorns; should a unicorn be found, a different opinion would be wisely held (I am excluding very powerful augments against the existence of an omnipotent omnibeneficent God).
Some atheist absolutely go too far in arguing, but in policy they pose no significant danger as the striking of words from money (which I could not care less about) will hardly alter society. Fundamentalist Christians, however, are an organized political force that poses an immense danger to individual freedom.
So while strictly true that there is no mathematic formula proving or disproving god, the two sides hardly have equal arguments and the danger posed by one is substantial while the danger posed by the other is non-existent.

Please, do show me in the above post exactly where you said what you claim? Hint, its not there, try the second, or the fourth or fifth.

Yet im not equipped for your brand of high level discussion???

All i can say is.. thank God!

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to PatrickG38)

Post #: 89

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 10:38:01 AM

PatrickG38

Posts: 338
Joined: 10/8/2010
Status: offline

First post,

I think you greatly overestimate the change brought about by the elimination of mandatory pledge reciting; it is zero or close to it. Mumbling something in class never did much to alter student’s attitude and besides, the pledge was not made voluntary by atheists opposed to it, but by very religious Jehovah's Witnesses who thought swearing allegiance to cloth (or anything but god) was blasphemous. See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

Second

As I stated in a previous post, the mandatory Pledge was banned by the US supreme court in 1943. The case against it was brought not by atheists but by Jehovah's Witnesses whose religion objects to pledging to cloth. Many school districts ignore this law.

The word 'mandatory' is quite clear in both. I cannot keep this up with someone unable or unwilling to read. Life is too short.

Moreover, even if I did exclude a word, what difference does it make to the argument.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 90

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 11:33:44 AM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The banning of the pledge of allegiance in schools, for example, has had farreaching effects on how the US is viewed by different generations. The Courts have been used to enforce a tyranny of the atheist minority.

What court has banned the Pledge in schools?

The 9th circuit banned the PoA totally and the SCOTUS banned mandatory recitation.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 91

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 11:40:19 AM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

Did you miss the word mandatory as well?

And while the 9th circuit ruling was overturned, the PoA has not been reinstated in most school districts that dropped it after the initial ruling.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to PatrickG38)

Post #: 92

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 12:50:59 PM

PatrickG38

Posts: 338
Joined: 10/8/2010
Status: offline

What on earth are you talking about, by first post had nothng to do with the Pledge. I only mentioned it in response to post by willbeurdaddy (or somehting like that)...................... aghgh

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 93

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 12:52:24 PM

PatrickG38

Posts: 338
Joined: 10/8/2010
Status: offline

I am not the OP on this thread

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 94

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 1:15:59 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The banning of the pledge of allegiance in schools, for example, has had farreaching effects on how the US is viewed by different generations. The Courts have been used to enforce a tyranny of the atheist minority.

What court has banned the Pledge in schools?

The 9th circuit banned the PoA totally and the SCOTUS banned mandatory recitation.

Care to cite that 9th circuit ruling?

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 95

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 1:21:04 PM

hertz

Posts: 1315
Joined: 8/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

...I do not need to and one cannot prove...a negative. The facts are that there are no facts or extrapolation of fact...that ANY God exists...period...

Tell you what. You prove to me that you exist, and I'll help you out with your question.

It shouldn't be too difficult for you, I'm not asking you to prove a negative.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 96

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 1:47:50 PM

hertz

Posts: 1315
Joined: 8/7/2010
Status: offline

I don't know if BBC content is blocked to the US or not, but there was an interesting discussion about Scientism on BBC Radio 4 this afternoon. Try Here or Here. The discussion starts at the 17.14 minute mark and continues for 10 minutes.

It's a discussion with Ian Angell about his book...

Science’s First Mistake : Delusions in Pursuit of Theory

which, it appears, is available as a free download under Creative Commons. If you're wondering whether it is worth a read, the very last Chapter 'Science's First Mistake' summarises where the book goes. I think it probably is worth a look, and I have every intention of giving it a go - it looks like heavy going, though...

(in reply to hertz)

Post #: 97

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 1:55:57 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

I am not the OP on this thread

quote:

original post

quote:

Initially, it should be noted we are not talking about a prayer, but about the Pledge of Allegiance. Second, my original post said it was mandatory recitation that was banned and cited the case

op has more than one meaning. please do keep up. i utilized your words.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to PatrickG38)

Post #: 98

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 1:57:27 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

What on earth are you talking about, by first post had nothng to do with the Pledge. I only mentioned it in response to post by willbeurdaddy (or somehting like that)...................... aghgh

I am sorry if you took it as a smear, but you do not seem equipped for a high level discussion. Initially, it should be noted we are not talking about a prayer, but about the Pledge of Allegiance. Second, my original post said it was mandatory recitation that was banned and cited the case, West Virginia St Bd of Ed v. Barnett, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624. The point was to demonstrate that the challenge to the pledge was not from atheists, but religious people. I was in no way wrong and cannot be held responsible for poor reading skills. Mandatory recitation was banned and it was banned at the initiative of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I do not know why you waste time with silliness that even if you were correct is tangential to the argument.

Check the bolded part. Are you now denying you posted this?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to PatrickG38)

Post #: 99

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism - 10/27/2010 2:10:07 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The banning of the pledge of allegiance in schools, for example, has had farreaching effects on how the US is viewed by different generations. The Courts have been used to enforce a tyranny of the atheist minority.

What court has banned the Pledge in schools?

The 9th circuit banned the PoA totally and the SCOTUS banned mandatory recitation.

Care to cite that 9th circuit ruling?

On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow vs Rio Linda Union School District.[27][28] In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

[27] We hold that California Education Code § 52720 and
the School District’s Policy of having teachers lead students
in the daily recitation of the Pledge, and allowing those who
do not wish to participate to refuse to do so with impunity, do
not violate the Establishment Clause. Therefore, we reverse
the decision of the district court holding the School District’s
Policy unconstitutional and vacate the permanent injunction
prohibiting the recitation of the Pledge by willing students.

REVERSED.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf

pg 61/193

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 100

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094