10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked

Probably because you failed to read the whole post and understand what a self-contradicting argument is.

 

It is fair to say that those who oppose religion engage in unfair hiring practices.

quote: George Yancey, Professor of Sociology at the University of North Texas, has put us all in his debt by offering a methodologically rigorous study of political and religious bias in American colleges and universities in his book, Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education (Baylor Press, 2011). His conclusions are anything but flattering. About his own discipline of sociology he concludes:

The only thing I have demonstrated with this quantitative work is that membership in certain social groups negatively affects the chances one has of obtaining an academic position if that membership becomes known to the scholars in a search committee… This documentation of the hiring bias, beyond unmasking an uncomfortable reality, can help us to understand the boundaries of acceptable scientific research and thus the limits of science itself. (81-82)

LINK

Most colleges and universities receive government support - the total sum must be enormous.

The U.S. academic establishment, the U.S. establishment in general, does not usually smile on religious belief. Is the corporate media (Hollywood) pro-Christian? Is the legal system?

Judge Denies Mother’s Rights

Are you familiar with May 22nd - Harvey Milk Day? Taxpayers will be compelled to pay for and children of tender years to participate in celebrating the life of Harvey Milk, a man who had sex with a child and was closely allied to Jim Jones.

There are very good secular reasons to oppose the celebration of the homosexual lifestyle.

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men

Some atheists and libertarians also oppose abortion. Abortion is a human rights issue. Just as many Christians (and others) have opposed slavery and mistreatment of Native Americans and racial discrimination and exploitation of workers so today there are those who favor rights for the unborn.

Thousands of late-term abortions have been performed on healthy mothers with healthy unborn babies. I hope most of us can agree that this has been a grave human rights crisis.

The Facts of Partial-Birth Abortion

 

Im very liberal, very Atheist but I am kinda opposed to Abortions as well. Not to the extent that I want to make them illegal, but unless someone was raped, or there are medical risks I dont really see them as necessary and I think that sometimes they are a cop out.

Its when religious people start trying to get condoms banned and birth control banned and things like that, when I take offense.

When my daughter is a teenager, I dont want her having sex obviously. But if she is going to do it I wanna know so I can get her on birth control. I would rather be horrified with the knowledge that she is sexually active, than horrified that she is pregnant.

 

You've pretended on this forum, too.

 

Many so called political scientists who promote their favourite poitical idea of the day,often have no scientific background. I don't understand how a person with a degree in humanities eg Social Science, can proclaim themselves to be scientists. It's just self promotion and nothing else.

There seems to be so many people calling themselves scientists nowadays, it must be very easy to acquire such a degreee.

 

It was a rhetorical question, genius.

 

I'm glad to hear you still have reasonable people in your country. Proselytization has no place in academia. Not even in theological academia.

 

I would disagree although I can see where a person revealing information about themself that should be strictly private in nature could affect a hiring decision.

There is a common rule in business and that is don't discuss either religion or politics. A job, whether in the private or public sector, will generally abide by this prohibition of topics which can often be highly contentious in the work place. A person bringing up either subject when interviewing for a job is highly unlikely to get the job. A person's private religious or political beliefs really have no place in a work environment and the individual should keep this information to themself.

 

The only "human Rights crisis" that I can see is if the Rights of the woman to make medical decisions related to her own body are restricted by others. Such restrictions violate the Right of Sovereignty of the individual.

Of note I find the statement that "Thousands of late-term abortions have been performed on healthy mothers with healthy unborn babies" to be highly inaccurate. A woman cannot electively choose to have a late term abortion as it can only be authorized by a doctor when the woman's health or life is threatened by the pregnancy. It would be illegal for a doctor to authorize a late term abortion if this were not the case (ref: Roe v Wade).

 

This is a highly-debated topic. The fetus could alternatively be seen as its own or as a part of the property of the mother's body, and the right of the woman to control her own body could therefore be viewed as being in opposition to what may be considered as "the fetus' right to live".

 

Only from a religious standpoint as a fetus is not a sovereign individual. It still remains dependent upon the mother and does not establish individual sovereignty until birth. It even fails the "legal" test as a fetus does not have independent status which would result in the fetus being a dependent child under the tax laws.

Once again the religious belief that a child exists at conception or at anytime prior to birth is not really the issue. The issue is that laws based solely upon religious beliefs are discriminatory against those that don't hold those beliefs and would constitute the "establishment of religion" by the government which is prohibited by the 1st Amendment. If a person believes that a zygote, embryo or fetus is a child then no one requires them to get an abortion which would violate their religious beliefs. If a person doesn't believe this then no one has the right to prevent them from having an abortion based upon a religious belief not held by the woman wanting the abortion.

A religious person has the Constitutional right to exercise and live by their religious beliefs but does not have the Constitutional right to impose their religious beliefs on others under the law. This is the primary reason I oppose "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" being adopted into law. I don't believe in either and yet our government is forcing me to adhere to someone's religious beliefs by these laws. We're not a nation under god. We're a nation under the Constitution and I certainly don't trust or believe in mythical entities.

 

Great so anti-Christian propaganda is out.

 

The article does not mention anybody revealing private information about themselves.

More about Professor Yancey's book: Conservative and liberal commentators alike have long argued that social bias exists in American higher education. Yet those arguments have largely lacked much supporting evidence. In this first systematic attempt to substantiate social bias in higher education, George Yancey embarks on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the social biases and attitudes of faculties in American universities surveying professors in disciplines from political science to experimental biology and then examining the blogs of 42 sociology professors. In so doing, Yancey finds that politically and, even more so, religiously conservative academics are at a distinct disadvantage in our institutions of learning, threatening the free exchange of ideas to which our institutions aspire and leaving many scientific inquiries unexplored.

LINK

More articles: No Christianity Please, We're Academics

Anti-Christian Bias in Education

Since the educational system receives billions in taxpayer dollars the biases of the educational establishment are inappropriate.

You really think even near-infants have no rights at all? That's an extreme position!

Even the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers acknowledged these facts!

According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), and other sources, it appears that partial-birth abortions are performed 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. (Even those numbers may be low.) Based on published interviews with numerous abortionists, and interviews with Fitzsimmons in 1997, the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers.

LINK

 

HERE find a recent study that indicates a strong bias against Christians by university faculties.

 

Absurd! I posted a link to an atheist pro-life organization.

How can you possibly say that no secular individual may disagree with you and think that at least some unborn babies should be given rights? A secular individual might study the developing unborn baby - the developing nervous system, heart, etc. - and conclude that he/she is deserving of rights.

Here's a libertarian using secular arguments to oppose abortion.

quote: One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

quote: A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

quote: No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

LINK

 

The above links are opinion pieces that highly distort what their sources are stating. For example Michael J. Chapman provides a link to an NCSS standards that doesn't even reflect the statements he attributes to it and then goes off on a tangent making wild assumption that aren't even supported by what he quotes as coming from the NCSS. It is highly inaccurate and pure BS from what I've read.

A zygote, embryo and fetus cannot have inalienable Rights as they have not yet achieved individual sovereignty. It would violate logic to grant Rights to any entity that is not independent as all inalienable Rights require the independent sovereignty of the individual and a Right cannot infringe upon the Rights of another person. The US Supreme Court addressed this very issue in it's decision in Roe v Wade where it refers to the "unborn" as potential life but then went further recognizing that at "viability" a fetus could be reasonably expected to be able to live outside of the womb at that inalienable Rights would then be established. The Supreme Court, is addressing this, wisely (IMO) determined that it would offer protections to the fetus because of this unique consideration.

The point was made that "healthy mothers with healthy unborn babies" is false as the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade requires that a doctor certify that the woman's health is in danger prior to an abortion once viability of the fetus has been reached while at the sametime maintaining the Right of the woman to an abortion prior to viability. Of note "partial birth abortion" refers to the medical procedure of "dialation and extraction" which only represents a percentage of late term abortions and the statistics provided are for all abortions after the 21st week. If a woman's life or health is in serious danger then how the pregnancy is terminated is really irrelevant so long as the woman survives.

Whether doctors are following the criteria established by Roe v Wade or not is generally subjective Ron Fitzsimmon's opinion not withstanding. They should be following the criteria established in Roe v Wade. I would support that but here's the real question.

How many anti- abortionists are really concerned with the Rights of the Woman as well as the potential Rights of the Fetus as was addressed in Roe v Wade. If the conditions of Roe v Wade were strictly adhered to would their protests be silenced? If not then they aren't concerned with Rights but instead are concerned with imposing their beliefs on other that actually violate the Rights of the Woman. I don't see any of the "anti-abortionists" calling for strict compliance with the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision.

 

It depends on what is considered anti-Christian propaganda, doesn't it. I'm sure some will say that keeping proselytization out of academia is, in fact, anti-Christian propaganda.

 

Well, political science is quite a bit different from determining the origin of the cosmos. I wasn't referring to political scientists.

 

That was obvious, however, less obvious than a self-contradicting argument.

 

There is a chasm of a difference!

 

No lying to further a bigoted anti-Christian agenda (or anti-Muslim agenda or anti-working people agenda or anti-family agenda) can be considered proselytization.

 

I don't recall them trying to do that. From public property? Certainly. But not from "public view."

 

I provided you with two studies that confirm the anti-Christian bias of the academic establishment.

Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education

Profiles of the American University

What?! Any human that has not "achieved individual sovereignty" should now be declared an unperson? Should all handicapped and ill individuals unable to meet your criteria for individual sovereignty to be discarded at will?

You should admit that this earlier statement is wrong. Why do you reject Fitzsimmons statement? You know 1,500 partial birth abortions were performed a year in one N.J. clinic alone - most on healthy mothers with healthy babies.

The reality of the abortion industry: Abortion Doctor Killed Healthy Full-Term Babies With Scissors

 

Care to debunk the myth that you are a troll? Oh, wait! That's no myth.

 

Non sequitur. The rights exist regardless of a deity.