Lawsuit seeks to take 'God' out of inaugural

Post Reply New Topic

The conclusion of Descartes' error is that thinking is something that happens purely in a physical body and is solely the result of a series of chemical reactions within that body - deterministic and if you knew all the variables 100% predictable given the input. Ergo no free will and at least no god who's put us here to "test us" via free will... but since there's no god to test us via free will, therefore there's no god. It's fallacious, but that's never stopped anyone I've known.



Parody of the aforementioned atheist.



My experience of atheists has been that when they're confronted with people who aren't easily swayed by their dogma, they resort to bs head-games like James Randi's million-dollar reward for proof of the paranormal... which is merely a hackneyed replay of the same head-game played by P.T. Barnum... a man who claimed to hate con-men while being one himself, as in "this way to the Egress". The moral here is "if you disagree with us, we'll make fun of you and may even exploit you for our own entertainment".

Doesn't strike me as being fundamentally different than fire and brimstone - it provides the atheist with a means of inflating their ego at the expense of the other person, with maybe some vague hope that this person they've disrespected will decide to come around to their way of thinking in response.

Fortunately not all atheists are like that, but many of the ones I've encountered have been.

Hence the reason why what you described previously as "weasel words" were actually not... because I was not describing "all atheists", just as I choose not to describe "all Christians" or "all Muslims". I was describing merely a variety of well-indoctrinated mainstream atheism (as compared to a more casual atheist)... but my experiences has been that a large number of atheists aren't so casual, because they've had polarizing experiences that are similar to those of gay people (as a mere example). Puberty is often really challenging for gay kids (suicide rates are high like they are for AS) and when they get past puberty that experience polarizes them and they often become rather entrenched in stereotypical gay culture and they give up some of their own personal identity in favor of the group dynamic. Hence the reason why gay people in the Castro in LA are very abusive to others (bi's or tg's) because they had those polarizing experiences and are hanging out in an area where theirs is the dominant culture. And to some extent even the same thing happens here on WP, because we've had polarizing experiences ourselves.

But the fact that some atheists are casual about the belief doesn't change the fact that there is a mainstream atheist culture that is quite polarized and quite vehement in its anti-religion dogma. It doesn't change that fact any more so than the fact that there are casual Christians changes the fact that there are or have been many Christian missionaries throughout history or that many of those missionaries have been similarly cruel.

Last edited by ike on 02 Jan 2009, 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks for that, ike. Very thought-provoking.

I was a little peeved when it seemed like you were overgeneralizing, but now that you've clarified a few things I can see what you mean. I admit, I too have observed from time to time that atheists can be just as proud, stubborn, and condescending as anyone else who gets into the habit of thinking they've got it figured out.

Any system of beliefs, religious or secular, can take on the characteristics of a religion over time. I've even seen some definite AS-dogmatism taking form on this very website.

Thanks for keeping it civil even when my own patience teetered.

Thanks for the complement. I'm never quite sure how to accept complements without seeming pompous.



Mine did too... teetering patience I mean... and I probably came across as being more caustic than I had actually intended. It's often difficult for me to find a way of explaining my views that doesn't seem overly negative in one way or another - egotistical, argumentative, or just plain mean. But I still try. Is that how a lot of aspies feel about communication? Does that describe fairly common aspie social anxiety?

Incidentally I also consider "what if you're wrong?" to be a head-game by some religious folks in a similar vein as the million-dollar bet (and it was handed down by Pascal -- known as "Pascal's Wager"). But neither group of people I think really consider those head-games. At least -- they don't consider their own a head-game, although they may consider the others' a head-game. I'm not sure they're really aware of how these things appear from the other side.

At the end of the day Obama should be allowed to be sworn in any way he pleases. Or course certain things could trigger his immediate impeachment (such as swearing to abolish the constitution and institute a military junta in America). There's nothing wrong with expressing his own faith, and I personally would find nothing wrong with an atheist president expressing his beliefs in a nonaggressive manner.

Dawkins has talked about that being a problem actually that the majority of people won't vote for an atheist merely because he's an atheist. And that this is a strange and not very sensible criteria for barring someone from public office, even though they're not actually "barred" in a legal sense but only by way of popularity. I tend to agree that a person's belief in atheism or agnosticism or any particular religion isn't a good criteria for deciding their ability to serve public office.

i know mant athiests that scream "for god's sake!" when their emotions get the better of them but they don't mean anything religious by it, to me it's just a phrase that religious and athiests can both use without a problem but then again where religion is concerned there will always be a problem for some people.

as for religion and government i believe they should be kept as seperate as possible as it should be us making our decisions and not the belief in someone or something else, a muslim in court swore on the quar'an which means all religions could be acounted for meaning a muslim president might swear on Allah which might cause christians to take the stand of the athiests now.

an athiest with the same morals as a christian would in my opinion make a better leader, everyone who follows a religion is a group whereas athiests are free to mingle and not judge from a god's point of view.

Atheism is not a system of belief. It has no dogma, doctrine or tenants and cannot lead one to any action. It is a response to a claim (God exists) and nothing more. The people that say "atheism is just like a religion" are just ignorant. Do some research.

Atheism, the (non)belief itself, is not a religion. I think what ike was saying was that the culture that has sprung up among atheists is comparable in at least a couple ways to a religion.

Umm... I have... this is a pretty dogmatic opinion you have here though, since it automatically demonizes anyone who holds a view that's different from yours. And... oh wait... I think I mentioned this before... yup... offers you an opportunity to stroke your own ego while berating the other person... with some strange maybe hope that by insulting them, they'll ultimately be converted... yup, yup... very much like what I just suggested.

Bingo. I tend to think that subcultures are sort of religious by the mere nature of human conformity and tendencies toward specific types of behavior. Whether or not they choose to give themselves a formal identity, or call that formal organizational identity a "religion" or not is kind of secondary imo to the fact that they behave that way. Bickering over the name is just a semantic game designed in the case of atheism to separate themselves from what they don't like about religion -- even though they exhibit the same habits that they vilify religion for having. Just like many other religions do to each other. Very similar in nature to the way that fundamentalist Christians treat Wiccans for example by saying "they're not a religion - they're a cult". It's exactly the same semantic game being played here by (some) fundamentalist atheists - you choose the name you like or don't like and then you segregate people with your preferred beliefs into the name you like and those with other beliefs into the name you don't like and proceed to ideologically attack the other name. The name itself is immaterial -- it's only a tool to create an opportunity for ideological assault on the basis of a largely inaccurate distinction. I believe the short name for it is "propaganda".

But as I said, not all atheists feel the need to be fundamentalist missionaries and insist that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant.

Obama has a church in Chicago with the outspoken and always-memorable Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Remember him?

Very insightful!

You did not do the proper research or you would know the definition of atheism. You are the one that demonized people that disagree with you with your prior rant about atheists. I did not berate you are stroke my own ego in any way nor did I attempt to convert you. Care to point out where I did those things, if I am mistaken? I simply declared your statements ignorant, meaning that you lacked knowledge of the subject matter, atheism. I then provided you with the correct information. Labeling one's self atheist does not automatically apply the extra ideas and behaviors that you seem to think it does. This is a ignorant and bigotted opinion, in my opinion.
I hope you enjoyed your cheer squad stroking your ego for that post.

Drowbot, you can dish it out but you can't take it. Ike has given you a spoonful of your own medicine, it seems.

No, he completely failed to offer a counterpoint and just spewed more BS. And I'd say that responding to him and pointing out the failings of his post would be "taking it."