That's because Catholics are not Fundamentalists. I attended a Catholic high school, possibly before your parents were born, and it was true even then: Catholics in general fall under what more hardcore believers describe as 'Liberal Christians'. Catholic scholars like to study all branches of faith, and publicly recognize that there is a chance they might not be right.

This of course is a generalism if not a generalization, and doesn't apply to all individuals. The fact remains that, informally at least, the Catholic Church is nowhere near as hardcore as it once was.

Very true but I was talking about Atheist organizations, not Atheists themselves..

#
I say your freedom ends where your freedom claims to grow at the cost of the freedom of others. And that is the problem. Unlimited freedom is not possiblewhere oyu live not all alone and independent, but in social community with others from whom you take and whom you give and they trake from you and give to you. Social life to some degree is unfree life. Total freedom can only be had at the cost of total absence of social life. And that is a form of anarchy then, and law of the jungle.

In case of the US, the first amendment also makes sure that the state is not allowed to make laws and administrates not on behalf of interests of religious groups and organisations. This is to make sure the state and it'S bodies, services and offices, stays secular and neutral. Freedom of religion includes the right of freedom from religion - else religion turns into a dictatorship, a theocracy. And history shows us how badly all three theistic world religions behave and what incredible cruelty and fanatism they give birth to when being allowed to run states and govern societies according to the dogma of their priests' organisations and own interests. Terrible cruelty, intolerance, fanatism. The worst crimes and disasters and wars in the West were committed in the name of religion. No terror that was too terrible as if not to excuse it by religion. Inhumane barbarity. Discrimination of the non-conformist as moral duty. Intolerance and hate as a viurtue.

No, we should not wan to go back to that. We have Saudi Arabia and Iran to have living reminders of these reasons in modern time.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston

Compare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us....html?hp&_r=2&

Why bible quotes in public schools tax payers pay for? What has religious club ideology to do with school sport competitions? Public school shcould be secular, and clean from such propaganda. Their curriculae shall stay free from religious ideologic content as well.

Earlier this year there was a story about school students being mobbed for their atheism, even threatened with murder. And atheist families in certain parts of the US need to hide their atheist thinking and need to act "as if" because in their social neighbourhood they else would need fear for being avoided, mobbed, discriminated, and stripped of jobs and opportunities at school. Certain laws in several states of the Us until today discriminate agaiunst athgeists. And high politicians are allowed to say in public that in their opinion atheists are not even real Americans without these politics suffering a ****storm that would teach them to be more humble. and since a long time there is stiff lobbying done to turn the Us into a non-secular country. Coins and notes were supplemented with God-relating texts. The pledge of allegiance was supplemented accordingly. Creationism tries to win equal reputation beside sciences.

Freedom of expression yes- for religion. All others have to care for themselves. That is exactly the same attitude as expressed in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Which is a document of tyranny and subjugation, and has nothing to do with human rights and freedom. Christian fundamentalists have more in common with Muhammeddan totalitarianism than they can want to realise. In the end, the three monotheistic desert dogmas all are one and the same breed.

Sorry, but there has to be drawn a line, and laws protecting it. Else you end up in a theocratic regime sooner or later. And the freedoms and rights of religious people shall have no higher value and respect than that if believers of others sects, or atheists or whomever. The basic rules of living in a state and a society need to safeguard the secular basic nature, else you get into trouble. Religion has to accept this. But religious people, if they are fundamentalist enough, don't agree to that. Since they see the benefit for their faith if society gets changed in its favour, they want right that. The violation of rights of non-believers and different-believers and atheists they care the less for the more fundamentalist they are themselves. And so the double -standards begin to get accepted.

Everybody playing his radio at a volume setting that all others can listen tom theirs without being disturbed. That way, all conflict is avoided. Just one foul apple pumping up the volume can ruin it for all others.

the conflict comes from when people try to nudge into other people's business. Just because you believe something doesnt mean you get to ram it down everyone's throat.

just because you believe gays are immoral and sinners doesnt mean you get to deny them a right to marry

Just because you think abortion is immoral doesnt mean you get to limit people's right to have one (to a reasonable extent)

Just because you believe in a god doesnt mean you should involve him in governing.

Thats why they are incompatible. because the separation of things like church and state dont ring home with some people. You have every right to believe absolutely anything, just keep it to yourself. Having an impartial government is essential to democracy for those who dont believe in your religion.

I believe its a very simple concept. your right to do what you want exclude anything that interfere with mine. John Stuart mill put it pretty well, "The liberty to move your arm ends where my nose begins".

This raises a good point.

It's comparatively easy in this country to dismiss just about anything if you cast it as a religious issue.

There are non religious people who oppose abortion and gay marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. It doesn't have to be about those two hot button issues, religion is used against people just because they oppose a political candidate. Anyone remember Obamas "clinging to guns or religion" comment?

Chosen from a list is not the same as a vote. Good day sir.

And there you prove the point, Skybird.

You say atheists don't attack - yet you end your statement with what is clearly an over-generalizing attack on those of faith.

Pascals wager has to be the lamest excuse for religious belief, ever. I doubt Forest Gump would be fooled by lip service, let alone a god. My atheism is a bit like it in reverse mind. I am going to be so ticked off if I am wrong, there will be war in the after life, I guarantee it. I will need some pretty hefty answers about why all these suspiciously self contradictory books, why the allowing of evil, why the lack of communication, why oh why Justin Bieber/Lady Gaga etc. to put me off. Otherwise it'll be BOOM beddie bye bye god. :stare:

Joking of course, I'll be locked in a room full of my friends (the ugly ones) with 'The Final Countdown' playing on a loop, 20' chopsticks and a giant plate full of couscous and a white hot poker up my behind for all eternity no doubt. :/\\!!
Oh and flies, there will be lots of flies, I hate flies. The only creatures to ever tempt me away from non violence.

I think we are talking about two different things. What I was referring to is personal freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with the state. What I as an individual citizen am allowed to say regarding religion or for that matter anything. I should not be hinder from expressing myself. Nothing I can say as an individual citizen should infringe on "the cost of the freedom of others." Of course if I'm slandering them or suggesting that they should be harmed, that is a different matter. But to suggest that God exists? To talk openly about Him?

Surely you're not saying people should keep silent about that?

If so what about...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/bJomQ2i9D...Vqwso1_500.jpg

Now that's freedom of expression.

I think you are looking at an extreme scenario here. It's just not going to happen. Not in a democratic state with freedom of expression and a diverse mix of viewpoints. Especially in the USA. To many people with guns.:haha: Nor in my country, Canada. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that if a country that already has separation of Church and State were to allow this to happen, religion playing a role in government, then something is very wrong in that country.

Proof that there IS a God
 

Now, I'm a Christian and I believe in the Big Bang and evoloution, but the Big Bang just doesn't work without some sort of God.

How? Here's how:

OK, so the current theory is that before the Big Bang, the Universe was tiny, perhaps the size of an ant. The Big Bang and subsequent expansion was caused by the only two items of matter, two atoms, collided and exploded.

Problem: Where did those Atoms come from?

Non-Religous explanation: Maybe they where left over from a previous universe, which had collapsed on itself, leaving only 2 atoms left.

But how did that universe form?

Religous Explanation: A God made those 2 atoms, and made them collide.

Also, the Vatican has said that the Earth being made in 7 days is probably just a Myth.

Would any Atheists care to argue with me?

I'm not an atheist per se, but the common-sense argument is why does the creation of the universe have to presuppose intentional, intelligent design? Why couldn't it have happened by accident?

The typical creationist/deist explanations usually point to the complexity and balance of the universe, but the further both philosophy and theoretical physics go, the more reason there is to see nothing inherently "intelligent" or "meaningful" about the fact of the universe's existence and shape.There is no probabilistic reason that something as complex as the current universe or human life couldn't exist by pure coincidence. What's more, there is evidence that the universe is far from "perfect", "balanced" and "beautiful", but is in fact full of bizarreness, disbalance and chaos that can't be reduced to some kind of governing principle - instead, there is a view that the universe is a place of difference, where no two things, forces, moments, or even atoms are truly alike. Certainly a lot of post-modern thinking would tend in this direction.

So, the most advanced atheist argument simply has a different basis entirely. Whereas the deist argument seeks to explain a God as the reason for the "Big Bang", the post-modern atheist might ask why you need to look for a reductive reason at all.

What a joke. Tak is one of the most unobtrusive religious people around here, and you deign to call him essentially a zealot and accuse him of pushing his beliefs on people.

For shame indeed.

All the more ironic considering who has a reputation for zeal around here...

There's a lot to be said for militant atheism!

Good point.

The problem with your summation is that it presupposes some sort of knowledge. Your 'Non-Religious explanation' isn't an explanation at all, just a "maybe". Your 'Religious' explanation is an explanation, but it's based on a supposition, a pre-existing belief. This makes both of them nothing more than guesses. The only real possible answer to the question of where the atoms come from is "I don't know".

Scientific theories are based on observed phenomena. Science is incapable of explaing why things exist, only how. Unless there is some evidence for any supposition, it ceases to be theory and becomes a guess.


"Conversation would be vastly improved by the constant use of four simple words: I do not know."
-Andre Maurois

That's because there is no scientific explanation. Which proves my point: the universe was formed by some higher being.

How do you know that? Not "Why do you believe it, but how do you know?" Is there the slightest bit of evidence that leads you to that conclusion? Until you realize that where there are no facts there is no knowledge, you'll continue to live in a fantasy world.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there isn't a higher being. I'm not saying the Christians are wrong. I'm not even saying the Muslims are wrong. What I'm saying is that I don't know, and neither do you. Unless you have a fact you can point to that shows that the universe was formed by some higher being, then you're only guessing, and your "point" is not proven, and in fact is no point at all.

^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe I should have rephrased that.

What I mean is that the God theory is the most likely.

You can't honestly expect me to write perfectly structured arguments, I mean, I'm only 13 years old, at school, a CATHOLIC school, with a teacher walking around, and I'm saying that the existence of God isn't fact, but it's the most likely explanation.

Things could get ugly.

No, that doesn't prove anything, actually. Nor should it, because last I checked, religion is about beliefs, not proofs.

Therein lies the crux of the issue, I think. The thing is that religion/spirituality vs. science is a false opposition. In their proper form, they do not even ask the same questions, and while they both look at problems of existence, they start literally on the opposite ends. They don't negate each other.

The problems start when people mistake one for the other, i.e. believing that spiritual revelations are more valid than observation at explaining "how", or believing that observation definitively explains "why". And then the arguing starts.

I think both sides are equally guilty of trying to negate the other through inappropriate use of two modes of knowledge, which in the case of religious fundamentalism turns into replacement of observation with dogma, and in the case of militant atheism assigns observation the divine property of being positive proof that nothing but what is observed is possible.

To me, if you discard all the nonsense, scientific method and spiritual revelation are simply two different modes of thinking that move towards the same existential problems from opposite sides. It's silly to confuse one with the other, or pretend that one has precedence over the other. Unfortunately, the nature of social institutions that stand behind religion and science in our world is such that they have to promote this division in order to thrive. This has nothing to do with the essence of things, and everything to do with the politics of being human.

Absolutely. Religion is always about belief. I cannot explain nor convince you of my view. It is something you either feel or it is not. To say that the fact that the formation of the universe can not conclusively explained proves the correctness of my faith is ridiculous.

And thank you for the kind words, both CCIP and mookie.