OOOOh god! I messed that up. It was the Agnostic DYSLEXIC that believed in Dog... nevermind.

 

All right then tell us, what is your evidence that live does not change through random mutation and natural selection and has for millions of years? You say it is in doubt yet every new discovery has reinforced the theory of evolution. There is no magical missing link, there is no evidence we appeared out of nowhere and there is proof of human ancestry (such as Homo Heidelberginsis) along with all of the failed genetic off shoots one would expect (such as Neandertal Man)

I am not saying I couldn't be wrong, I am saying it has yet to be proven wrong and there is quite a bit of evidence that I am right.

 

A scientific theory is actually used to explain a series of facts. You can think of it as an umbrella under which all those little facts nestle and co-habitate. Evolution is a fact. The processes by which evolution occurs, via natural selection and the slow modification of genes over time, are facts. Exactly how and when each gene changed is unknown, but that they did is not in question.

I never said there was no god. There's no reason to assume it. Atheism is the default position of every child born. One has to be told to believe in a god. If you were never told then nothing you could point to would say 'god'. If you took away all the holy books that have been forced on mankind over the years, all the mystical mumbo jumbo, what thing could you point that would indicate god beyond a shadow of a doubt? If no one was telling you from the time you first drew breath that goddidit, what could you say for sure that god did?

Evolution can be seen as well. Speciation is occurring all the time. Once a species can no longer interbreed, you get the beginnings of a new species. That is evolution. And speciation has been observed in labs and in nature.

And evolution does not negate god but it does negate every earth-bound theology in existence. So as long as your god isn't the Judeo-Christian one, you're fine.

-S-

 

Let me start my 2 cents worth off by saying that I have to be one of the most religiously tolerant people around me, considering that I if I lived much further south in the south that I'd be floating around in a boat right about now. I don't care if people around me want to read from a bible (so long as they don't start trying to shove the scriptures down my throat), or read from the Karan (so long as they don't try to shove it down my throat), or if they want to praise the beauties of a pine tree (so long as they don't try to shove said beauty of the pine tree down my throat), or if they want to pray (so long as they respect my wishes to NOT pray), or if they want to not pray and hum a show tune instead (so long as they don't expect me to hum the show tune with them).

With this said, I will tell you my personal opinion on why I think so many people consider atheism to be a religion. First off, someone said something about those who have an absolutely faith/belief think everyone else does, even the atheist, so therefore atheism must be a religion in the religious eyes. I think this is true, to an extent. The rest of my theory is that people consider it a religion because so many people, including proclaimed atheists, TREAT it like it were a religion. Allow me to explain this a bit.

I look at it like this: if a person does not believe in a god or The God, if they have no belief system and no religion and no faith in any type of 'higher power' or however you want to describe 'religious' beliefs and rituals, then why would you care -what- others who have such beliefs do or say around you? But then you have some self-proclaimed atheists using the whole "freedom of religion" right to have "religious" type rituals taken out of public events etc. If it is not a religion then you cannot claim the right to freedom of religion. I think this is the reason why so many people consider it a religion, because you have some atheists claiming that it is a religion and want the same "religious rights" that come with religion, like the freedom to practice your religion without the fear of prosecution or pissing someone else off. But by having atheists use atheism as a religion to gain 'religious freedom' to have all religious rituals removed from them because said rituals offend them is, to me at least, doing the same thing as all the religious morons running around cramming scripture down everyone's throats.

Now, the real question is, did my ramblings confuse you enough to make you think, "What the hell is this woman smoking?!"

 

What they think has no bearing on reality. Thinking it does not make it so.

Oh yes, please do.

I don't care what they do in their own homes and places of worship, as long as no one is getting hurt. Beyond that, your use of the phrase 'around you' is a bit too vague. What do you consider 'around you' to be, exactly?

This is interesting, here, your use of the term 'self-proclaimed atheist.' It comes across as derogatory, as in they aren't real atheists but they call themselves one. But if that's true, it doesn't make any sense. Is one only a legitimate atheist if someone else proclaims them to be? Aren't all Christians self-proclaimed christians. So please explain. Unless there is no reason behind it and you're just trying to sound more intelligent than you might actually be by using words for no good reason in situations where they don't apply.

We don't ask them to be removed because of our religion, we ask them to be removed because they usually violate the law. The government is not supposed to show a preference towards any religion or no religion. The government's role in matters of religion and worship is to be silent. Expressing no preference or deference one way or another. More to the point, government is to represent all the people, not only the religious. Having state sponsored religious events not only excludes everyone who is not of that faith and makes them feel disenfranchised by the very government they look to for their safety and security, but it also forces them to pay via their taxes for a religion that might very well persecute them for their differing (or lack of) faith.

What religion is the atheist practicing? Are their rituals involved? What does the atheist worship?

When you have state sponsored religious events, it is, in essence, scripture and faith being crammed down everyone's throat. Not only that, but since the state is paying for it with your tax dollars, you're getting charged for the pleasure.

You can not have freedom of religion unless you also have freedom from religion. The 1st Amendment protects them just as much as it protects me.

-S-

 

As in public events such as football games, parades, festivals, carnivals, baseball games, etc.

Yep, that was the reason why I said "self-proclaimed." I don't need someone else telling me what I am and am not. I figured that an athiest did not need some formal group telling them rather or not they are an athiest.

Absolutely. The government is NOT suppose to show partiality, but here's the way it breaks down:

1. you leave all the religious stuff in and it's offending those who do not have any type of religious practicies, beliefs, rituals, etc or it's offending those who do not have that specific set of beliefs, practicies, rituals, etc.

2. but by leaving all that OUT, you are doing exactly what the atheists are doing...NOTHING. Which in turns is offensive to all the religious people who have the right to do all those rituals and practices and stuff. Athiests don't want someone telling them that they HAVE to pray/etc and the religious folks don't want someone telling them that they CAN'T pray/etc.

It's a no-win situation. You leave it in, you offend someone, you take it out, you offend someone.

It would be nice, wouldn't it?

On the one hand, they have the right to do their ritual, I have the right to NOT do any type of ritual. But when I tell them that they have to do like me and NOT do any ritual, I am infringing upon their right to free religious practices.

On the other hand, I have the right to NOT have freakin' religious crap shoved down my throat. I understand why people are trying to have restrictions put on how and where religious practices are performed. I think it is sad that it has come down to having to get the courts involved. It is my own personal opinion that the religious types have brought it upon themselves for constantly trying to shove religion in everyone's face. I love chocolate cake, but if I had it shoved up under my nose every where I go with people pestering me to take a bite and telling me how wonderful it is and how I am in the wrong if I don't partake of the cake...well I'd be busting down the doors of the courthouse too.

And by the way, I am not a Christian or any other type of religion. Like I said, I am extremely tolerant when it comes to religion. I find all the different religions rather facinating, if a bit foolish. I find it absolutely comical that all these religions are so damn sure that THEY are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

What you seem to fail to understand is that no one is saying that religious people should stop. It is just that they can't use government resources to do it. It is not like we are trying to ban all nativity scenes, we are trying to make sure that the government is not putting them up because that is promoting a state sponsored religion. There is supposed to be a wall of separation between church and state.

 

This is such an important point - and one that I think gets overlooked often here in the US. Here is the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I've read this thing hundreds of times myself - and I think the original authors were brilliant in their clarity and brevity. Let's break out the religion part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

As far as I can see this simply means that the government is staying out of religion altogether. There will be no state religion and anybody can exercise whatever religion floats their boat - it will be none of the Federal Govt's business one way or the other. The sentence doesn't seem to grant anybody any specific rights at all.

Read it closely - does these words mean anything else to anybody?

Yet, the myriad extrapolations people come to using this very simple sentence are astounding. Just goes to show how the prejudiced mind works, I think.

 

Like much, if not most of the U.S. Constitution, especially the amendments, this lends itself to various interpretation. "An establishment of religion" can mean the creation of an established church, like the Church of England in England. "The free exercise thereof" can include prayer and Bible reading in public schools, manger scenes on the county courthouse, and so on, if that is what the majority of voters in a region want.

Until the Engel v. Vitale decision of 1962 that was the legal interpretation, and it had had broad, popular support since the Constitution had been signed.

 

A woman I know works in a high school in my town. One day she bowed her head before lunch to say a silent prayer. She did not ask anyone to join her, she did not tell anyone what she was doing, she did not say anything aloud. The principal immediately came up to her and told her that she could not pray in school and if she did it again she would be fired. But had she been told she would be fired if she did not join in prayer, there would have been a lawsuit against the school before the hour was up. THIS is the type of thing I am referring to. It's okay to tell them that they cannot pray but it's not okay to tell them that they must pray. If you tell them they can't pray, the religious people are saying that the government is taking the athiest side. If you tell them that they can pray, then the athiests say the government is taking the religious side.

The government is screwed no matter how they decide. Which goes back to me saying that the reason why I think some people consider atheism a religion is because some athiests use it as a religion. You have some that keep going to court saying their right to freedom of religion has been violated by having the people around them say a prayer. It's kind of hard to claim religious freedom if you don't have a religion. If you don't practice a religion, don't worship anything, don't have any type of rituals, then exactly how is your freedom of religion being violated?

Yes, I understand WHY people want these things done. I certainly agree that there is suppose to be a separation of state and religion. But telling people where and how they can, or cannot, practice their religious beliefs is doing the same thing to the religious people that atheists are accusing the religous people of doing. There are athiests who are just as fanatical about shoving their opinions down people's throats as the bible thumpers are.

Separation of state and religion? YES. Spending tax dollars on things that would promote, or even give the appearance of promoting, a state sponsored religion wrong? YES. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You can't have it all religious or all non-religious. Somebody is going to be offended/pissed off/unhappy/etc at some point. And again I state that I think that if the religous types had not been trying to force feed Americans their religious opinions then there wouldn't have been any need to take action in court. It's like my chocolate cake analogy. I wouldn't care about chocolate cake and what chocolate cake was doing until someone tried to shove chocolate cake down my throat. Now that you are all up in my face with chocolate cake, I wanna know what's up with the damn chocolate cake, why are trying to get me to eat chocolate cake, and why the fuck can't you just get the freakin chocolate cake outta my face already!

My point to all this is that someone is going to be unhappy with the decisions, whatever they are. In case people didn't realize this, I was actually AGREEING with the athiest point of view. But one thing I have come to notice is that for some people, even when you agree with them, will still want to argue with you and pick apart everything you say.

 

. . . well, thanks for not answering my question (a common malady you seem to afflicted with), perhaps I should start a new thread to discuss what role government should play in our lives and see if I can peel a personal opinion out of you that way.

 

I did too answer your question.

 

Wow - I believe you believe you did, but consider the following . . . This was my original supposition & question:

this was your response:

a civics lesson & discussion about "broad popular support" containing not one iota (as far as I can tell) about your personal opinion - if you believe your personal take on this segment of the first amendment exists in this answer, I'd submit you're even more guarded than I make you out to be usually.

 

OK, now I understand your question. I do not believe that the Constitution has obvious meanings, or that it is the absolute truth. The interpretation I would prefer for the First Amendment is that it prevents the creation of an established church out of one of the many denominations in the United States, that it prohibits religious persecution, and that it protects the expression of various political beliefs.

I reject the concept of "symbolic speech." I think issues like flag burning, public obscenity, and even pornography should be left up to the Congress and state legislatures. I do not think the First Amendment should permit unlimited campaign financing.

I am aware that others can interpret the First Amendment differently. When someone says, "That is unconstitutional," the only thing the person is really saying is, "I don't like it." I personally do not use the Constitution in order to justify or condemn anything.

The one thing I am really in favor of is unlimited political debate. I think democracy works best when the voters are exposed to many different points of view. In the past conservatives were offenders against unlimited debate. From the Russian Revolution to the Tet Offensive it was dangerous to condemn capitalism, advocate socialism, or defend the Soviet Union. Now it is dangerous to draw connections between genes, IQ, success in life, crime, and race.

 

To bounce back, if GOD is all knowing and the creator, ...then GOD created Evolution.:awesome:

 

However, we have no idea if God exists, and if he does, if he has those attributes, so what's the point of saying that.

 

evolution is a purely natural phenomenon so why do we need a god in it. Your god is now redundant.

 

That Post, to you Shake, might appear to be a bulwark in the wall defending against Deism or Dayo ism as they do it in the West Indies.

But you are wrong!

It is the perfect, well as good as I'm likely to get, opportunity to post a youtube link for Monty Pythons renowned ditty "Decomposing Composers."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkRXTT-15WM&feature=related

 

Old Tool,,good fucking luck with that.