Why I love atheists.

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

He's "an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church"?? Uuuuh...pardon my ignorance but...how does that work?

Universalists believe in respecting ALL belief systems, even when two conflict. If you pray to a grand deity, a group of deities, the earth or nothing at all they are willing to accept you.

And that's a good thing, acceptance. It just seems like being an atheist would conflict with being a member of a religious organization. Though I suppose atheist doesn't mean without religion (antitheist) rather without god...so maybe it makes sense. :thinkingoutloud:

 

[McGinn77]

Maybe I have it all wrong, how do you define Atheist?

An Atheist does not believe in God, or any dogma, while Stalin did initially attack the Russian Orthodox Church as soon as the Nazi's attacked Russia he re-installed it. Stalin used the Russian Orthodox church as a tool to spread the cause of communism around the world after the war.

I'm askin'.[/QUOTE]

Writings in their journals where they talk about sending people to hell for what they've done. Neither ever claimed to be an atheist and most of the perception seems to come from media coverage where one of them (don't remember which) asked a girl if she believed in god, when she said yes he replied "God is a ###". So angry with god, sure, Atheist...I just don't see the evidence of that.

 

[McGinn77]

Nice to know there is an after though, and its much better than this one!

If it's nice for you feel free to believe it, I'm never trying to turn people against their religion unless, as I said earlier, it becomes destructive to others.

 

[PsyOps]

Wirelessly posted



I looked up Michael Newdows (never having heard tje name before) and found his Wikipedia article (can't link URL; I'm on my iPhone, sorry ). He's "an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church"?? Uuuuh...pardon my ignorance but...how does that work?

He started his own religion "First Atheist Church of True Science". That's how.

 

[McGinn77]

And the only time I care about atheists is when the Michael Newdows come along and try to infringe on my right to freely exercise my faith.

Epitaph on an atheists tomb:

I did all this for nothing.

Which particular parts of Newdows work are you questioning, With the Pledge I'm actually inclined to agree with you (When I say it I leave out the Under God part). So long as there is no requirement, and that goes beyond god, I want you to Pledge to America because you want to not because you were forced to. I guess my only question is why change the Pledge, or the national motto to begin with?

The teaching of biblical history, without archaeological evidence I'm going to side with him. Most Christians will freely admit that some parts of the bible are allegorical, without archaeological evidence we have to assume that any part that tells a story of something that happened in the past is. Otherwise we'd still be teaching that Jews were slaves in Egypt even though all the evidence that they lived there as free people and were regarded as skilled workers and solders.


Epitaph on an atheists tomb:
I did this for future generations selflessly and with no expectation of reward.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I looked up Michael Newdows (never having heard tje name before) and found his Wikipedia article (can't link URL; I'm on my iPhone, sorry ). He's "an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church"?? Uuuuh...pardon my ignorance but...how does that work?

He started his own religion "First Atheist Church of True Science". That's how.

I saw that, not much on the FACTS website though. I guess I'm taking 'religion' to imply a belief in a higher power which atheists do not.

noun 1. belief in and worship of a God or other superhuman agency 2. particular system of these beliefs

So it seems a little contradictory to me. I know atheist doesn't imply antithiest but you can be without god/religion without being against it.

 

[PsyOps]

Universalists believe in respecting ALL belief systems, even when two conflict. If you pray to a grand deity, a group of deities, the earth or nothing at all they are willing to accept you.

Reading their website, it seems the only thing they are really interested in creating an environment where anyone can become ordained under the guise of being able to perform certain tasks like weddings, etc... It appears to me this is an effort to marginalize the importance of holding an actual faith in god as being justification to be an ordained minister. Apparently you can conjure up your own religion, give it name and ordain yourself online; as Newdow did with creating his own 'religion'.

Newdow has one interest... ridding our society of Christianity. He has made it his cause to sue anyone that publically displays God, Jesus, Christmas, or any other mention of our faith. He created his own fictitious religion as a means to say “See, anyone can conjure up a religion” and justify his position that Christianity is a made-up religion. He represents a sect of atheist that is intolerant to anything contrary to his own belief; or lack thereof.

 

[McGinn77]

He started his own religion "First Atheist Church of True Science". That's how.

That is a parody, not deity, no supernatural at all, no dogma, no teaching, no framework for life.

I have to note, while these may not be generally accepted terms I would define Newdow as Antitheist (someone against religion) as opposed to an Atheist (someone who does not believe in god). I would be the latter in that, for most people I don't see any real harm in Religion or spirituality I just don't believe in it.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

He created his own fictitious religion as a means to say "See, anyone can conjure up a religion" and justify his position that Christianity is a made-up religion.

If this is the case then disregard my previous comments I'll have to read up a bit more.

To the interwebs!

 

[PsyOps]

Which particular parts of Newdows work are you questioning, With the Pledge I'm actually inclined to agree with you (When I say it I leave out the Under God part). So long as there is no requirement, and that goes beyond god, I want you to Pledge to America because you want to not because you were forced to. I guess my only question is why change the Pledge, or the national motto to begin with?

The teaching of biblical history, without archaeological evidence I'm going to side with him. Most Christians will freely admit that some parts of the bible are allegorical, without archaeological evidence we have to assume that any part that tells a story of something that happened in the past is. Otherwise we'd still be teaching that Jews were slaves in Egypt even though all the evidence that they lived there as free people and were regarded as skilled workers and solders.


Epitaph on an atheists tomb:
I did this for future generations selflessly and with no expectation of reward.

Newdow is an activist zealot. He uses (dare I say) legal terrorism to try to put fear in people for even mentioning God in public. Newdow is so concerned about Christians influencing society through public display of their faith, while ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he is doing by trying to push his beliefs on us through law suits and legal threats.

Epitaph on an atheists tomb:

The end!

 

[PsyOps]

That is a parody, not deity, no supernatural at all, no dogma, no teaching, no framework for life.

I have to note, while these may not be generally accepted terms I would define Newdow as Antitheist (someone against religion) as opposed to an Atheist (someone who does not believe in god). I would be the latter in that, for most people I don't see any real harm in Religion or spirituality I just don't believe in it.

Yes, parody with a cause. I stated this (in certain terms) in my latter posts.

Newdow is someone that is against religion because he does not believe in any god; except maybe himself. He is a pompous and arrogant dolt that feels his beliefs should stand above all others. He doesn't even realize he is exactly what he claims to disagree with.

 

[McGinn77]

Newdow is an activist zealot. He uses (dare I say) legal terrorism to try to put fear in people for even mentioning God in public. Newdow is so concerned about Christians influencing society through public display of their faith, while ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he is doing by trying to push his beliefs on us through law suits and legal threats.

Epitaph on an atheists tomb:

The end!

Didn't say any of that was untrue (see earlier post) I agree that his is actively trying to do away with Christianity at least on a personal level. And I'll be honest, I believe we should have a secular government, the US was not formed as a Christian nation it was made one in the early to mid 1900's. That said I see no reason to eliminate Christianity all together. When I was a church goer I did get a good sense of community from church and most churches, the vast majority of churches, do positive things for their members and communities. If you want to stand on the Street Corner, or in a park and preach your god I will fight for your right to do so. But we can't allow religion to be taught in schools as historic fact. The pledge is a ritual so fine, let it go, but putting biblical history into text books is as wrong as schools in the middle east still teaching the Sun goes around the Earth because the koran says so.

 

[hvp05]

Newdow is an activist zealot. He uses (dare I say) legal terrorism to try to put fear in people for even mentioning God in public. Newdow is so concerned about Christians influencing society through public display of their faith, while ignoring the fact that this is exactly what he is doing by trying to push his beliefs on us through law suits and legal threats.

Exactly. The only thing he is teaching is people of all persuasions can be excessive a-holes. He is the monster he claims to fight.

 

[Radiant1]

An Atheist does not believe in God, or any dogma, while Stalin did initially attack the Russian Orthodox Church as soon as the Nazi's attacked Russia he re-installed it. Stalin used the Russian Orthodox church as a tool to spread the cause of communism around the world after the war.

I don't know about "spreading the cause of Communism" but rather patriotism. It's been my understanding that the ROC was re-instated to instill a sense of Russian patriotism in the people in defense against Nazi Germany. That doesn't make Stalin a believer. He continued sporadic persecution against the ROC, as did Khrushchev and Brezhnev later. I think it safe to say that Stalin was an Atheist, and Communism is an atheistic system.

I'm askin'.[/QUOTE]

Writings in their journals where they talk about sending people to hell for what they've done. Neither ever claimed to be an atheist and most of the perception seems to come from media coverage where one of them (don't remember which) asked a girl if she believed in god, when she said yes he replied "God is a ###". So angry with god, sure, Atheist...I just don't see the evidence of that.

Ok, I see what you're saying, and thank you for the explanation.

 

[McGinn77]

I don't know about "spreading the cause of Communism" but rather patriotism. It's been my understanding that the ROC was re-instated to instill a sense of Russian patriotism in the people in defense against Nazi Germany. That doesn't make Stalin a believer. He continued sporadic persecution against the ROC, as did Khrushchev and Brezhnev later. I think it safe to say that Stalin was an Atheist, and Communism is an atheistic system.

I see what you're saying, and in true communism you might be right, but historically we see communist regimes use religion to their advantage or replace it with the state. Now that may not be a true religion but it's also not true atheism. Since we really have never seen true communism it's hard to say how it would work if we did.

 

[PsyOps]

Didn't say any of that was untrue (see earlier post) I agree that his is actively trying to do away with Christianity at least on a personal level. And I'll be honest, I believe we should have a secular government, the US was not formed as a Christian nation it was made one in the early to mid 1900's. That said I see no reason to eliminate Christianity all together. When I was a church goer I did get a good sense of community from church and most churches, the vast majority of churches, do positive things for their members and communities. If you want to stand on the Street Corner, or in a park and preach your god I will fight for your right to do so. But we can't allow religion to be taught in schools as historic fact. The pledge is a ritual so fine, let it go, but putting biblical history into text books is as wrong as schools in the middle east still teaching the Sun goes around the Earth because the koran says so.

We do have a secular government. There is no central religion that dictates their decisions. They don’t open the bible when they deliberate passing a law to see if it complies with it. They are supposed to use the constitution, and even there they rarely use that anymore. If it feels good as a law, they pass it.

There are a lot of things that shouldn’t be TAUGHT in our schools from an endorsement standpoint. But religion IS an historical fact in our world and it should be taught from that perspective. It exists, and has existed for thousands of years, therefore IS an historical fact. This is what really irks me about what you believe; how can you have an honest view of this world while denying religion is an historical fact? When it comes to the pledge, I think it’s important that teachers teach our kids about the OPTION of citing “under god” and the historical facts behind how it got there and why, then let the kids (with the influence of the parents) decide whether to cite it or not. But legally forcing it out through has the same alleged effect of brainwashing kids as trying to push religion on kids through a belief/philosophical level of teaching. The same is true with prayer… If a student wants to pray – as long as it’s not disruptive to the classroom – they should have that option to do so. If they don’t want to pray, they don’t.

Removing ‘biblical history’ from our text is essentially rewriting history. How do you teach about the Hebrews without biblical reference? How do you teach about Muslims without referring to their religion? You are curiously close to the same frame-of-mind Newdow exists in. I find it oddly ironic you feel it's perfectly legitimate to question the teachings of religious faiths as fact while trying to convince us that what you believe is the truth.

 

[McGinn77]

We do have a secular government. There is no central religion that dictates their decisions. They don’t open the bible when they deliberate passing a law to see if it complies with it. They are supposed to use the constitution, and even there they rarely use that anymore. If it feels good as a law, they pass it.

There are a lot of things that shouldn’t be TAUGHT in our schools from an endorsement standpoint. But religion IS an historical fact in our world and it should be taught from that perspective. It exists, and has existed for thousands of years, therefore IS an historical fact. This is what really irks me about what you believe; how can you have an honest view of this world while denying religion is an historical fact? When it comes to the pledge, I think it’s important that teachers teach our kids about the OPTION of citing “under god” and the historical facts behind how it got there and why, then let the kids (with the influence of the parents) decide whether to cite it or not. But legally forcing it out through has the same alleged effect of brainwashing kids as trying to push religion on kids through a belief/philosophical level of teaching. The same is true with prayer… If a student wants to pray – as long as it’s not disruptive to the classroom – they should have that option to do so. If they don’t want to pray, they don’t.

Removing ‘biblical history’ from our text is essentially rewriting history. How do you teach about the Hebrews without biblical reference? How do you teach about Muslims without referring to their religion? You are curiously close to the same frame-of-mind Newdow exists in. I find it oddly ironic you feel it's perfectly legitimate to question the teachings of religious faiths as fact while trying to convince us that what you believe is the truth.

I think you misunderstand. Yes religion has been a part of history and it's shaped history in good ways and bad and should be acknowledged as part of culture. What I'm saying is you can't teach that the Exodus actually happened when there is no evidence of it. You can say people believe it happened, but you can't say it did happen. I actually support teaching a class that shows how religions have shaped history both the good and the bad.

There is a HUGE difference between teaching the history of religion and teaching history according to religion.

 

[Zguy28]

Epitaph on an atheists tomb:

The end!

Or so they thought.

 

[McGinn77]

Or so they thought.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~Stephen Roberts

 

[PsyOps]

Or so they thought.

You can teach about Exodus just as much as you can teach about the big bang. There is no strict evidence that either happened. There is historical evidence of Exodus; and this being teachings that have been passed down through the millennia. We have at least that. But for some reason it’s perfectly legitimate to teach THEORY (such as the big bang) as fact in our schools; even though there is absolutely no historical evidence of it.

There is a lot our kids are taught in the context of what we believe is the truth. Perhaps if we had more responsible teachers and education system as a whole, things would be put in their proper context as to keep it neutral (i.e. “This is what the Jewish faith teaches about Exodus” or “This is what a large part of the scientific community believes about the origins of our universe”, “but we have no actual conclusive evidence to prove it’s true”). How hard would that be. Instead, we have teachers that have agendas to push their beliefs on our kids rather than just educate them on the possibilities.