Why send your children to private school?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Really? How many holy wars have atheists started? Burnings at the stake?

Careful there. While with religious wars we mean wars that religions intentionally started on behalf of religions and their dogma, "atheists" hardly launch wars on behalf of atheism, but many non-religious names in history who waged wars for different ideas, for example Hitler, will not be seen different by pro-religion-people here. I just wait for somebody listing Hitler and claiming German fascism to have been a war with the goal to spread atheism as a military objective. Which of course is pretty much nonsense. Spreading atheism like religion tries to spread its dogma was no explicit goal of the German war against Poland, France, Britain, Russia, etc.

One should differ between the goal of spreading atheism itself, and trying to acchieve something else (for example establishing one's own rulership over a territory) while just happening to be atheist. But the religious crowd usually does not make this difference - it allows them to attack more easily and linking all evil to atheism, ignoring the evil linked to religion anyway.

[Aramike]

Really? How many holy wars have atheists started? Burnings at the stake?

Read my statement again, because your response makes no sense on its face.

Besides, August responded perfectly.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But I have a personal question. Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right. There is now no separation of Church and State. What does that mean to you? What changes will you make?

I'm curious.

My guess would be a theocracy, kinda like Iran, only christian.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Funny, I've met far more tolerant Christians than atheists, and I'm one of the latter.

Apparently you haven't had people try and force their beliefs upon you. I have seen just that, through manipulation of the community, the legal system, and physically. Everything has to be THEIR way and no one elses. Tolerance for others? I have yet to see it.

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.

Who wrote Mein Kampf then?
I suppose it must have be some other Hitler August is on about as that nazi fella went on about the lord the creator and fulfilling gods will, not to mention the core of christianity as the moral guide to the nation and indispensible as the soul of the german people.
Yep definately a different Hitler as that would be damn strange language for an atheist to be spouting eh.

[Aramike]

Apparently you haven't had people try and force their beliefs upon you. I have seen just that, through manipulation of the community, the legal system, and physically. Everything has to be THEIR way and no one elses. Tolerance for others? I have yet to see it.

Tolerence isn't about someone attempting to influence your belief system to reflect theirs. Tolerence is allowing someone to exist peacefully despite a difference in beliefs. And, certainly, while their are intolerent Christians, most just live and let live - sure, they may not *LIKE*, say, gays, but they certainly aren't attempting to infringe their existance.

Atheists are quite the opposite, in general - many want to remove any and all vestiges of religion from any place they may see it, even though the simple sight of most Christian symbology does nothing to infringe upon an atheist.

In my personal experience, most Christians are fairly pleasant people to be around - most self-proclaimed atheists (although the people I'm referring to are more appropriately termed "anti-theist"), on the other hand, come off as condescending dolts who's rationale for their own perspective is, quite sadly and humorously, fatally flawed logically.

PS: Oh, and I've had plenty of people try to "force" their beliefs on me, and I've said no and moved on. Simple. I've even had someone try to sell me a candy bar while I was entering the grocery store. Oh no!!!

If you mean "force" as something stronger than what I'm implying, than you should reserve your hate for those particular people - not generalize an entire group because of those idiots. In the end, doing so makes you the smaller person, as that's akin to saying that because a black guy mugged you, all blacks should be afforded no tolerance.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

My guess would be a theocracy, kinda like Iran, only christian.



Apparently you haven't had people try and force their beliefs upon you. I have seen just that, through manipulation of the community, the legal system, and physically. Everything has to be THEIR way and no one elses. Tolerance for others? I have yet to see it.

Funny, I have never had anyone knock on my door and try to convince me to become an atheist.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Funny, I have never had anyone knock on my door and try to convince me to become an atheist.

I'll never understand why those filled with religious zeal cannot live and let live. If i was interested in what they had to say, i would go to them and ask. Shoving my face into it only results in repulse and disgust.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Read my statement again, because your response makes no sense on its face.

Besides, August responded perfectly.

Many leaders claiming to come from one faith or another, or even no faith, have started wars for various reasons. Only believers go to war in the name of one god or another. Hitler's and Stalin's objectives were political, as were a good many others, not matter what their claimed faith was. Only the faithful kill people for being unholy, or of the wrong faith.

That said, intolerance is always based in a strong belief in something, be it religious, political or racial. It's not exclusive to any one group, but I see it as being much stronger in those with strong beliefs.

Funny, I have never had anyone knock on my door and try to convince me to become an atheist.

You should go out less often, you must just be missing them when they call on the rounds of the neighbourhood to convert people to their errrr.......non-religion.

[Aramike]

Many leaders claiming to come from one faith or another, or even no faith, have started wars for various reasons. Only believers go to war in the name of one god or another. Hitler's and Stalin's objectives were political, as were a good many others, not matter what their claimed faith was. Only the faithful kill people for being unholy, or of the wrong faith.

What's your point?

Humans have used contruct after construct (religious/social/politcal) in attempts to subjugate one another since the dawn of our species.

In any case, this has nothing to do with my point, which was that, in my experience, atheists are more intolerent than Christians.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Funny, I have never had anyone knock on my door and try to convince me to become an atheist.

So what? What about the insurance salesman? What about kids selling candy for school fundraisers?

If someone is not welcome, just say no and shut the door.

Offering religion, candy, insurance, etc., is NOT intolerent. That term, however, specifically describes the people that want to shut the former down.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Haplo, I challenge you, or anyone, to find any mention of church, God or Christ in the constitution.

Please note how the Constitution was signed (underlined portion my emphasis):

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

Source: http://constitutionus.com/

Its in there - specifically as a reference to the religiously held birth year of Jesus no less - just not where you expected it. Yes - I am fully aware of the fact that was the normal language of the day - but that language IS religious, IS in the constitution - and IS in specific reference to God - and in fact IS in reference to the Xtian God at that.....

Now - to the question of what I would change. Simple - the 1st amendment would be used as it is listed. IF a person is elected as required by law to an office, he is not required to check his morals (which are bounded as much in his religion - or lack of it - as anything else) at the door. This means that its not the job of government to be involved in anything religious - but there is no prohibition on religion acting in accordance with its moral code and promoting that code within society PROVIDED that such action does not impinge on the rights of others. There shall be no establishment of religion, and no prohibitions on its free excercise - meaning that if I want to put up a billboard that says "God loves you" - the billboard isn't making everyone read it, its not violating anyone elses rights, and as such should not have the government ruling it must be taken down because it "offends" someone. That someone can just not look at it. Just like if I did that - an athiest that wanted to could put up a billboard down the road that says "Dog is love" or some other athiestic mantra (I live in a "very" progressive area - filled with such) and I don't have to look at it either.

Basically - the only thing that would change is that you couldn't use "Its religious" as an excuse to fight something just because you don't agree with it.

Yes - I am sure someone is going to come up with "what about education - you want GOD in that don't you!" - well - I simply have to point at the constitution and respond with "Its not the job of the US Government to be educating the kids of this nation - that falls to the States, and local governments, and the Department of "re"Education has no basis to exist and is an infringement on the rights of the States, and should be abolished. Let the states, locals and parents in the areas where their kids are make the determinations of what they want their kids taught. Its not the Federal government's job to be every kid's nanny." Thus - if parents want their kids taught "creation", or "intelligent design", or "evolution", its their tax dollars - they should have the say. If they want all three - then let em have it. Who made the people in Washington so smart that they know what works in Hoboken, NY or Boise, Idaho, or Los Angeles, when they are not there every day dealing with those areas and their respective challenges. The people on the ground can make those decisions better than some politician in Washington, and that means that they can decide what they want taught. Sure, you may get some hickville in West Virginia (and that is an example - not slamming WVA) that decides the only thing they are going to teach is from the bible. OK - well - if they want to not know how to add, or to teach their kids to do it, thats unfortunate. Or a school in Seattle that wants to teach some new theory of evolution that says that the moon really is made of green cheese and that no one else agrees with - that is their choice. Again unfortunate - but in every case where it "could" go wrong - don't you think that its much more likely that the idiocy will be seen by the public at large and be stopped? After all - opening up decisions to the people that are paying for stuff usually tends to make sure that money is spent wisely.....

[antikristuseke]

Are you seriously suggesting making education a popularity contest ie. teaching that which is popular with parents rather than that which is the most factually accurate and supported by evidence?
Because last I remember you were completely demolished in your own creation vs evolution thread which had almost nothing to do with evolution.

[CaptainHaplo]

Antikrist - As for the Creationism vs Evolution thread - as I stated in the beginning of it - it was a debate - and when you debate something, sometimes you have to take a position you personally do not agree with. Perhaps you are not familiar with debate training - but that is actually a requirement in most places to pass such courses. My skills in it are out of date and rusty, plus I can't find the thread LOL - but it served its purpose. If you think that a thread in which I started an honest discussion that brought forth good scientific arguements was somehow a "demolishing" of my own views, your are not only sadly mistaken, but also prove you know nothing of my own personal views on the matter - or the real purpose of a debate.

Regarding education - no - what I am suggesting is giving local control - AND state control - to the education system. (You did notice I mentioned the state up there, didn't you???) No state in the union would go along with not teaching kids to read, or teaching them only stuff found in religous texts. Sorry - but if you think your going to get an entire state to go along with such idiocy - well - you have no clue how things work then. Sure, a little hickville could have some negative influence - but standards would still be in place at the STATE level - which is how it was supposed to be to start with. State government - being alot more dependant on the local people - is much more responsive when those same locals raise a fuss - while Washington can get 100,000 people marching and its an "inconvienence" but nothing more. They write it off - States don't.... Bringing power closer to the people it affects isn't a negative.....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

In any case, this has nothing to do with my point, which was that, in my experience, atheists are more intolerent than Christians.

So I guess I'll have to ask for some examples. I hear Christians (or people calling themselves Christians) talking fire and brimstone against pretty much anybody who doesn't meet their standards. I see them on TV all the time. I never see any atheists doing that. Not that I'm either.