The state schools DO NOT teach any religion. However, the bigotry, hatred and ignorance of parents is forced on children that are home-schooled. Home-schooling should be outlawed, plain and simple. It perpetrates Bigotry, hatred, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, misogyny, ignorance and hundreds of other bigoted ideas. Children MUST be allowed a place where REAL knowledge can seep in between the bricks of ignorance put in place by parents.
Yep, lol, I believe in capital punishment for many reasons, one is not often agreed with, REVENGE. I honestly believe that revenge, is a great reason for capital punishment.
Then your disagreement is with something Cassandra said. (And, you demonstrate the very thing Cassandra says people of faith do, but from an atheist POV--I think that shows that it's not about faith or no faith, it's about people with class and people without.)
Ok. I just want to add that this wasn't my point. With "get away with" I didn't mean in any legal sense. The point was merely to say that a pointlesness of debating religious faith is not a refuge for religious doctrine; it does not protect religious ideas from being disputed.
I do think lumping all believers with the bible literalists is something that should be avoided. it limits the opportunity for respectful dialogue.
to make a definitive statement that people get their moral beliefs from God is arrogant. to argue that it is likely, or possible that this may be the case is not. then you did not read my post. where have I presented an argument, or implied, that you are missing something because you have not followed the same path as me?
First, What I said was: "Whether they accept it or not, all that is good in them comes from God." Then to explain to BFOJ how "morality" fits in that, I said, "and so their morality and their moral beliefs are also of God" because all that is Good is of God in my world view. Second, To claim giving credit of good to a deity is not "arrogant"--it's not like I'm saying you get it from me, or that I am somehow better because of God's grace. In fact, it makes all of us equal rather than any sort of hierarchy of supposed "goodness." You take issue with me having conviction of my beliefs. Sorry if that's a turn off to you. It rather appears to me like it's your excuse to dismiss the claims of faith outright. I did read your post--I must have missed the meaning you intended. Can you make it plain to me? What did I say you were "missing?" You're accusing me of saying something I didn't say because you take offense that my worldview conflicts with yours. That's silly. You are free to believe or not believe whatever you like! AND, you are free to think you are right about your beliefs without me accusing you of being "arrogant." Because, after all, it is your perspective and I'm not threatened by differing perspectives and so do not have to label them.
It takes a couple forms.... The most direct form is the forced conversions of people into another religion. Many conservative icons, such as Anne Coulter have openly said this should be done. Then there is the more indirect route, such as politicians passing laws based on their religious believes. An example of this would be the conservative push to outlaw gay marriage because they find it morally offensive as Christians.
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." Bill Clinton I look at things without prejudice. I read the Bible as I read any other book. In the Bible God created the universe, created Man "in his Image" and then told Man to behold his creation and steward over it. Let's just start there. God is the force of creation. Reality is his creation. To respect his creation he simply says to behold it. Observe it empirically. I think this is good advice. Do not look at the world as you would see it, but as it is. That seems to mean be scientific. Access reality. Not decide what you think reality is and try to fit it into that. That is not respecting God's creation, that is trying to put your Image over God's creation. Trying to argue with someone else to convince them that your Image of God is the true image isn't respecting God's creation, it is purely you trying to prove yourself better than God. The Truth ("Christ" means the Truth) is self evident if you just behold the creation. All truth will be obvious, without debate, if you simply look at reality and access it empirically. Reality is the image of God, not what you imagine it to be. So, just look at it. At the world around you. At people. At reality. At God's Creation. Let it tell you the truth. "You will know when you are calm, at peace. Passive." - Yoda Then our responsibility, is to care for the creation. Care for the land, the animals, and each other. Not care for our own Image, for we are created in God's image, and that is more than good enough. If you are unhappy with the truth that God created, then that is you own problem with God himself. [G]rant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; Taking [this] world as it is, not as I would have it. Reinhold Niebuh If God is real, and is the force of creation. Then an "Atheist" simply imagines "God" differently than you. Why would you attempt to argue your own image of God over another's? If you win, are you showing them "God" or your god? And if you have a God imagined, then do you know the true God? Is not the true God reality. Is not the true God with you when you are at peace with reality? If you feel the need to argue over God, are you at peace with God? Are you at peace with yourself? For, is that not God? Are you not God's creation, created in his image? Is not all Man? If so, do you respect his creation? Are you at peace with God?
My question is: Aren't Christians also Americans who can exert their preference concerning the shape of the society in which they live just as any atheist can? (and not to drag this into the "gay marriage" debate, but there is no push to outlaw something that isn't in most states, rather it is to not reshape the definition of what marriage is in our country)
That's like asking, "How is having a knife in your hands murderous?". It's not about having a knife in your hands, it's about what it's in your hands for.
I don't dismiss that your faith has menaing to you - but I do dismiss the claims of faith one particular faith being used to describe a world that people of many different beliefs live in. as I said previously - it is about finding meaning in our life. the way one person finds meaning doesn't negate the way another finds meaning - until you try to impose that meaning on others. then it becomes a vehicle for division, derision, and worse. if you could provide a proof that your faith is the correct version, that it describes how we become moral beings, that your God is the one true god etc ... then you would be in a position to teach others - but at the moment, you don't have that proof (and you never will - at least not in this life). and without that proof, making statements that indicate you have the one true answer comes across as arrogant, unless you present it as unproven. you can say - "it seems to me that morality comes from God", or "it is highly likely, in my opinion, that morality comes from God" and I will have no problem, I might argue that based on research it appears that these qualities are related to .... whatever my beliefe about the development of morality is ... that way, a civil discussion can ensue. But when you present an opinion as fact - especially one that can never be proven - you open the door for a discussion that can never be respectful. you might read jaktober's post. it is worth considering what he says.
and on this - I think gay people should be allowed to marry the person they love just as much as hetero people - and no belief system should - in a society that values social equality - should deny them. I would also suggest that people who are worried about the sanctity of marriage should be considering banning divorce instead.
That's silly. That's like me saying you can't describe the world the way you perceive it. You want me not to express my vision of the world while you are entitled to tell me that you see no God. How is your expressing your point of view different from my expressing my point of view? How does an opinion impose ANYTHING on you? Are you anti-intellectual discussion? You can't prove ANYTHING in the objective sense--but you can use reason and reasoning to discuss perspectives on reality. Again--you just want me not to be sure of my conviction. Sorry--the existence of God HAS been proven to me in a personal sense. That's how God works. Who are you to dictate to me what I can and can't "say"? Who's the one being arrogant now? I suppose the problem is that you don't have the same experience that I have had in having the proof of my conviction for me personally. I can understand that--I feel very fortunate having received that grace--but you DID ask what "I" thought--you didn't ask for a carefully parsed statement aimed to mitigate any possibility for offense. I really think you are being hyper-sensitive.
Marriage after divorce SHOULD be outlawed unless one is the innocent party in a marriage where there was abuse or fraud. There is a thread on this issue already.
If I used your approach, I would be suggesting that only atheists have a true understanding - and that others, such as yourself - had hope to redeem yourselves while you were still living .... I don't think I have ever suggested that - and for the simple reason that I appreciate that people do get something out of religion. You make it clear that believing is a better position to have. I do not suggest that non belief in god is a better position. if you do not understand the difference in approach, it is you who is anti intellectual discussion ... also - you say if you interpret what I say in that way it would suggest the uncertainty of your conviction lies within. If your faith is as strong as you suggest, it won't be shaken by my asking you to be respectful. My objections to you interpreting every person through your religious prism is not with the intent of you becoming unsure. your proof of God means something to you, but it can not be proven to anyone else, and so only has personal meaning. Personally, I feel privileged to have had the life I have had, and to have been able to develop the understanding that I have - you can feel fortunate for having received that grace - but I feel fortunate that I do not see the world in the same way I did when I was younger, when I believed devoutly. I feel that non belief has - for me - opened up a much deeper understanding of life and the world around me. It is not necessarily the same for everyone. oh ..... if you genuinely thought I was being "hypersensitive" the christian thing to do would be to let it go
I never said it was. I said it is not murderous to have a knife in your hands. But ok, we can skip the metafore if it's too difficult: It is not arrogant to have an opinion, it is arrogant to have an opinion that makes one arrogant. In this case it is arrogant to think of other people as amoral because they happen not to share one's faith in a supernatural entity.
