Are Evolution and Atheism Incompatible?

[dblack]

The only ass being displayed here is in your ignorant, and admittedly bigoted, claims about something you clearly don't comprehend.

I comprehend you well, you are a statist who views the government as so sacred that it can never be sullied by free speech.

I'll let that statement speak for itself regarding your level of 'comprehension'.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'll let that statement speak for itself regarding your level of 'comprehension'.

What would you do if you found out a group of teens intended to hold a prayer vigil at the local public library? How would you respond to such an outrage?

 

[dblack]

I'll let that statement speak for itself regarding your level of 'comprehension'.

What would you do if you found out a group of teens intended to hold a prayer vigil at the local public library? How would you respond to such an outrage?

It wouldn't concern me in the slightest. Again, you have some radically wrong misconceptions on what it means to be an atheist. It just means we don't believe in gods.

 

[hoosier88]

I'll let that statement speak for itself regarding your level of 'comprehension'.

What would you do if you found out a group of teens intended to hold a prayer vigil at the local public library? How would you respond to such an outrage?

(My bold)

Sure, we can play hypotheticals. A group of teens, presumably of their own free will, decides to hold a prayer vigil @ a public library. What is the prayer vigil for? What petition(s) are the teens going to pray for? & why @ the library?

Prayer groups typically meet @ their place of worship - simply because those institutions are bound to be welcoming & supportive of the prayer ends. The other likely choice is someone's home. A public, tax-supported venue is less likely.

Offhand, as a public library, there are rules for who can rent or borrow a community activities room. For civic organizations, non-profits, etc. the library tends to waive any fee, as part of encouraging the common good. Otherwise, there's some nominal fee & possibly some paperwork to fill out - sponsoring org, name & phone of a contact, purpose of the meeting, etc.

Access to public library rooms varies from state to state & city by city. If the rules are set up so that any church can borrow or rent a room under substantially the same conditions, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (& assuming, of course, that the purpose isn't to have a book burning or disrupt the normal operations of the library, etc.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

(My bold)

Sure, we can play hypotheticals. A group of teens, presumably of their own free will, decides to hold a prayer vigil @ a public library. What is the prayer vigil for? What petition(s) are the teens going to pray for? & why @ the library?

Prayer groups typically meet @ their place of worship - simply because those institutions are bound to be welcoming & supportive of the prayer ends. The other likely choice is someone's home. A public, tax-supported venue is less likely.

Offhand, as a public library, there are rules for who can rent or borrow a community activities room. For civic organizations, non-profits, etc. the library tends to waive any fee, as part of encouraging the common good. Otherwise, there's some nominal fee & possibly some paperwork to fill out - sponsoring org, name & phone of a contact, purpose of the meeting, etc.

Access to public library rooms varies from state to state & city by city. If the rules are set up so that any church can borrow or rent a room under substantially the same conditions, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (& assuming, of course, that the purpose isn't to have a book burning or disrupt the normal operations of the library, etc.)

Regardless of reason, if a group were to pray to something that they considered greater than the state, would not the Atheists crawl out of the woodwork with lawsuits and demands that this cease?

 

[dblack]

(My bold)

Sure, we can play hypotheticals. A group of teens, presumably of their own free will, decides to hold a prayer vigil @ a public library. What is the prayer vigil for? What petition(s) are the teens going to pray for? & why @ the library?

Prayer groups typically meet @ their place of worship - simply because those institutions are bound to be welcoming & supportive of the prayer ends. The other likely choice is someone's home. A public, tax-supported venue is less likely.

Offhand, as a public library, there are rules for who can rent or borrow a community activities room. For civic organizations, non-profits, etc. the library tends to waive any fee, as part of encouraging the common good. Otherwise, there's some nominal fee & possibly some paperwork to fill out - sponsoring org, name & phone of a contact, purpose of the meeting, etc.

Access to public library rooms varies from state to state & city by city. If the rules are set up so that any church can borrow or rent a room under substantially the same conditions, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (& assuming, of course, that the purpose isn't to have a book burning or disrupt the normal operations of the library, etc.)

Regardless of reason, if a group were to pray to something that they considered greater than the state, would not the Atheists crawl out of the woodwork with lawsuits and demands that this cease?

Only some of them.

 

[hoosier88]

(My bold)

Sure, we can play hypotheticals. A group of teens, presumably of their own free will, decides to hold a prayer vigil @ a public library. What is the prayer vigil for? What petition(s) are the teens going to pray for? & why @ the library?

Prayer groups typically meet @ their place of worship - simply because those institutions are bound to be welcoming & supportive of the prayer ends. The other likely choice is someone's home. A public, tax-supported venue is less likely.

Offhand, as a public library, there are rules for who can rent or borrow a community activities room. For civic organizations, non-profits, etc. the library tends to waive any fee, as part of encouraging the common good. Otherwise, there's some nominal fee & possibly some paperwork to fill out - sponsoring org, name & phone of a contact, purpose of the meeting, etc.

Access to public library rooms varies from state to state & city by city. If the rules are set up so that any church can borrow or rent a room under substantially the same conditions, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (& assuming, of course, that the purpose isn't to have a book burning or disrupt the normal operations of the library, etc.)

Regardless of reason, if a group were to pray to something that they considered greater than the state, would not the Atheists crawl out of the woodwork with lawsuits and demands that this cease?

(My bold)

Some atheists might object. Depending on what the specific rules are @ the given library, & the reason/purpose for the prayer vigil, I might be OK with it, as noted above.

 

[Montrovant]

The only ass being displayed here is in your ignorant, and admittedly bigoted, claims about something you clearly don't comprehend.

I comprehend you well, you are a statist who views the government as so sacred that it can never be sullied by free speech.

I've got to say that dblack has certainly never struck me as particularly statist. He's actually one of our posters with a decidedly libertarian bent.

Once again, definition problems. You seem to consider atheism to mean people who try to force the government to outlaw public belief in god. Using your own personal definition is going to make for some very silly arguments, as evidenced here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've got to say that dblack has certainly never struck me as particularly statist. He's actually one of our posters with a decidedly libertarian bent.

Once again, definition problems. You seem to consider atheism to mean people who try to force the government to outlaw public belief in god. Using your own personal definition is going to make for some very silly arguments, as evidenced here.

Hmmm.... Think it might be possible that my point is the dichotomy that exists between Atheism, which is inherently statist, and Libertarianism?

 

[dblack]

I've got to say that dblack has certainly never struck me as particularly statist. He's actually one of our posters with a decidedly libertarian bent.

Once again, definition problems. You seem to consider atheism to mean people who try to force the government to outlaw public belief in god. Using your own personal definition is going to make for some very silly arguments, as evidenced here.

Hmmm.... Think it might be possible that my point is the dichotomy that exists between Atheism, which is inherently statist, and Libertarianism?

An assertion you've yet to explain, much less prove. What is it about atheism that makes it inherently statist? Your entire argument so far rests on guilt-by-association. It essentially boils down to: "Some atheist groups are assholes, so clearly, atheism is about being an asshole."

All you're doing is citing the most obnoxious of agitators (Dawkins, etc..) and claiming that their agendas represent the beliefs and values of all atheists. Most atheists don't give shit about them or their campaigns. Most atheists rarely discuss their lack of belief publicly (in part, because of jerks like you), and when they do, it's not to proselytize. Most atheists, like most other people, aren't politically active. And those who are have vastly differing opinions. Some are the 'statists' you dread, but most aren't. Many are *gasp* conservatives and libertarians.

You're suggesting that atheism somehow implies statism. Yet you haven't offered any plausible explanation how this is the case. How do you get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I want government to run everyone's lives"?

Atheism is neither a religion, nor a political philosophy. It's simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. Anything else you choose to attach to it is your own decoration.

 

[jwoodie]

What makes your head hurt is all the dodging and weaving you do to avoid answering simple questions. Atheists are strident in their condemnation of other religions, but get all squishy and word mincing when it comes to their own beliefs, preferring to masquerade as Agnostics. In reality, they are profoundly ignorant individuals who are terrified of the unknown and want to prevent anyone else from talking about it in their presence.

OK hot shot. You seem to believe you know everything about my faith. An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of "god". So the term only has meaning when applied to a specific concept of God. Do you believe in Thor? If not then you are an atheist with respect to the existence of Thor.

I stated that I did not believe in personified deities and explained what I meant by "personified deities". This makes me an atheist with respect to any faith based on personified deities such as Christianity, Islam, and other Abrahamic faiths. Am I going too fast for you here?

I assure you I do not get "squishy" in discussions of faith; I do however have little tolerance for whiney brats who feel persecuted because other people do not drink their brand of koolaid. Religious people in general and Christians in particular, are not persecuted or disadvantaged in the United States. Period. To claim otherwise is simply to look silly.

Now what exactly what are the "simple questions" you want answered that I have not addressed, sport? And do you feel persecuted just because I call you whiney?

Well, more than four days have passed and jwoodie has been active on other threads, but not this one. I must have hurt his delicate feelings. If you run into him, tell him "squishy" says "Hey!"

It's nice to know that I have been missed! My basic question is about what Atheists believe, rather than what they don't believe. Touting distinctions between a "personified god" and a "Clockmaker God" seems more like sophistry than intellectual clarity.

Leaving room for "deities that do not interact with humans" also seems like "squishy" logic. What if currently unidentified deities start interacting with humans in the future? Would they then lose their deity status? The fact is that humans have no way of comprehending an intelligence greater than their own. If it does exist, it would (by definition) be "supernatural" as far as we are concerned.

The bottom line is that all of us have some way of dealing with the unknown. Some are comfortable with the idea of not knowing (e.g., Agnostics), while others rely on a belief system (i.e., religion) to supply them with answers. My problem with Atheism is that many of its adherents refuse to acknowledge their own belief system while at the same time attacking the belief systems of others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

An assertion you've yet to explain, much less prove. What is it about atheism that makes it inherently statist? Your entire argument so far rests on guilt-by-association. It essentially boils down to: "Some atheist groups are assholes, so clearly, atheism is about being an asshole."

I've explained all of this repeatedly. Atheism is known by what Atheism does. I know that someone tossed out the 34 members of the Westboro Baptist church, but they are counter-balanced by 2.4 billion other Christians who show very different views.

There is no counter-balance to Dawkins, Newhall, Maher, et al. No Atheist orphans and widows fund, no Atheist drive to relieve famine in Somalia - nothing like that.

The public face of Atheism is one thing, the demand that the state be used to deny freedom of religious expression to those of a differing faith. I tell the Muslims that if they don't want to be viewed as animals who use their children as munitions, stop strapping bombs to their kids and exploding them in crowded malls. Same goes for Atheists; if you want to not be viewed as statist thugs, stop using the state as a means of silencing competing views.

All you're doing is citing the most obnoxious of agitators (Dawkins, etc..) and claiming that their agendas represent the beliefs and values of all atheists. Most atheists don't give shit about them or their campaigns. Most atheists rarely discuss their lack of belief publicly (in part, because of jerks like you), and when they do, it's not to proselytize. Most atheists, like most other people, aren't politically active. And those who are have vastly differing opinions. Some are the 'statists' you dread, but most aren't. Many are *gasp* conservatives and libertarians.

You're suggesting that atheism somehow implies statism. Yet you haven't offered any plausible explanation how this is the case. How do you get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I want government to run everyone's lives"?

Atheism is neither a religion, nor a political philosophy. It's simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. Anything else you choose to attach to it is your own decoration.

Again, there is no counter balance; the ONLY public act of Atheists is to use the state to deny civil rights to others. Period.

 

[hoosier88]

An assertion you've yet to explain, much less prove. What is it about atheism that makes it inherently statist? Your entire argument so far rests on guilt-by-association. It essentially boils down to: "Some atheist groups are assholes, so clearly, atheism is about being an asshole."

I've explained all of this repeatedly. Atheism is known by what Atheism does. I know that someone tossed out the 34 members of the Westboro Baptist church, but they are counter-balanced by 2.4 billion other Christians who show very different views.

There is no counter-balance to Dawkins, Newhall, Maher, et al. No Atheist orphans and widows fund, no Atheist drive to relieve famine in Somalia - nothing like that.

The public face of Atheism is one thing, the demand that the state be used to deny freedom of religious expression to those of a differing faith. I tell the Muslims that if they don't want to be viewed as animals who use their children as munitions, stop strapping bombs to their kids and exploding them in crowded malls. Same goes for Atheists; if you want to not be viewed as statist thugs, stop using the state as a means of silencing competing views.

All you're doing is citing the most obnoxious of agitators (Dawkins, etc..) and claiming that their agendas represent the beliefs and values of all atheists. Most atheists don't give shit about them or their campaigns. Most atheists rarely discuss their lack of belief publicly (in part, because of jerks like you), and when they do, it's not to proselytize. Most atheists, like most other people, aren't politically active. And those who are have vastly differing opinions. Some are the 'statists' you dread, but most aren't. Many are *gasp* conservatives and libertarians.

You're suggesting that atheism somehow implies statism. Yet you haven't offered any plausible explanation how this is the case. How do you get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I want government to run everyone's lives"?

Atheism is neither a religion, nor a political philosophy. It's simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. Anything else you choose to attach to it is your own decoration.

Again, there is no counter balance; the ONLY public act of Atheists is to use the state to deny civil rights to others. Period.

(My bold)

Sure there's counterbalance. These are the famous ones (I didn't check if they're agnostic or atheist. I'm kinda agnostic on the question) - from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...87 &em&en=5d7424fbecae9fc2&ex=1166590800&_r=0

"Interestingly, neither Gates nor Buffett seems motivated by the possibility of being rewarded in heaven for his good deeds on earth. Gates told a Time interviewer, “There’s a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning” than going to church. Put them together with Andrew Carnegie, famous for his freethinking, and three of the four greatest American philanthropists have been atheists or agnostics. (The exception is John D. Rockefeller.) In a country in which 96 percent of the population say they believe in a supreme being, that’s a striking fact. It means that in one sense, Gates and Buffett are probably less self-interested in their charity than someone like Mother Teresa, who as a pious Roman Catholic believed in reward and punishment in the afterlife."

(My bold in quote)

 

[Uncensored2008]

(My bold)

Sure there's counterbalance. These are the famous ones (I didn't check if they're agnostic or atheist. I'm kinda agnostic on the question) - from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...87 &em&en=5d7424fbecae9fc2&ex=1166590800&_r=0

"Interestingly, neither Gates nor Buffett seems motivated by the possibility of being rewarded in heaven for his good deeds on earth. Gates told a Time interviewer, “There’s a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning” than going to church. Put them together with Andrew Carnegie, famous for his freethinking, and three of the four greatest American philanthropists have been atheists or agnostics. (The exception is John D. Rockefeller.) In a country in which 96 percent of the population say they believe in a supreme being, that’s a striking fact. It means that in one sense, Gates and Buffett are probably less self-interested in their charity than someone like Mother Teresa, who as a pious Roman Catholic believed in reward and punishment in the afterlife."

(My bold in quote)

Doesn't support your claim.

No organization of Atheists works or moves to do good.

Bill Gates is an Agnostic, and famously so - not even close to an Atheist.

 

[dblack]

I've explained all of this repeatedly. Atheism is ...

You're suggesting that atheism somehow implies statism. Yet you haven't offered any plausible explanation how this is the case. How do you get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I want government to run everyone's lives"?

Atheism is neither a religion, nor a political philosophy. It's simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. Anything else you choose to attach to it is your own decoration.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're suggesting that atheism somehow implies statism. Yet you haven't offered any plausible explanation how this is the case. How do you get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I want government to run everyone's lives"?

Yeah, how could I get the idea that Atheist use the implied violence of the state to silence opposing views?


{Atheist group tries to block Alabama high school from 'inappropriate' praying at football games}

Atheist group tries to block Alabama high school from 'inappropriate' praying at football games - NY Daily News

{The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring Perry's official involvement. A Perry spokesman said he won't back away from the event.

"Gov. Perry believes the prayer event will serve as an opportunity for Americans to pray together for our nation," said spokesman Mark Miner. "This lawsuit does not affect plans for the event, and it will proceed as scheduled."}

Atheist group sues to block Perry from prayer rally - Houston Chronicle

{A group of atheists is up in arms over the display of a cross at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. The World Trade Center memorial, which is intended to serve as a reminder of the tragic terror attack that occurred nearly 10 years ago, is scheduled to open on the event’s 10th anniversary.}

Atheists Sue to Stop Display of Cross at World Trade Center Memorial | TheBlaze.com

And on and on.

Atheists using the state to crush expression from others - it is as common as cockroaches in a New York dumpster.

(Hard to NOT see Atheists as scumbags, ya know?)

Atheism is neither a religion, nor a political philosophy. It's simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. Anything else you choose to attach to it is your own decoration.

If that were true, then this wouldn't return any results;

Let me google that for you

 

[Montrovant]

So the definitional problems continue.

Some people view atheism as denial of the possibility of any god existing. Others see it as simply not believing in any god. Which definition is being used is extremely important to any argument.

Uncensored, you claim the 'public face' of atheism is statist, and use that to determine that atheists are statist by nature. Are you claiming that all atheists are part of, or agree with, the groups you are talking about? Are you claiming that the 'public face' of any beliefs is indicative of the entirety of people who have those beliefs? In other words, are all environmentally-conscious people the same? Does Jenny McCarthy represent all people who think vaccines cause autism? You get the idea.

Wouldn't it be more honest to say you consider atheist activists to be statist?

 

[dblack]

Atheists using the state to crush expression from others - it is as common as cockroaches in a New York dumpster.

Yeah. We've been over this. You're going with guilt-by-association. And if all you're trying to prove is that some atheists do things you don't like, then all you need to do is cite examples. I'd even agree with you.

But you're trying to make the broader, stereotypical, claim that atheists are statists. And to make that stick, you have to do more work. You have to show how being an atheist makes one a statist. You keep dodging that question, presumably because you don't have an answer.

Hard to NOT see Atheists as scumbags, ya know?

No, I don't know that. It's obviously hard for you, but as you've acknowledged, you're trapped in the irrational hatred of the bigot. Your views are no more substantiated by facts, than the racists who dig up every news story they can find about inner-city gang violence and use it as 'proof' that blacks are scum.

 

[numan]

{A group of atheists is up in arms over the display of a cross at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. The World Trade Center memorial, which is intended to serve as a reminder of the tragic terror attack that occurred nearly 10 years ago, is scheduled to open on the event’s 10th anniversary.}

It wouldn't bother little ol' atheistical me for the Christians to have their cross at a 9/11 museum, provided any and all other religions -- including Satanists -- could display their bric-a-brak.

Satanic pentacles and other devices seem quite appropriate to 9/11 and the United States' response to it.

Come to think of it, Satanic pentacles are already plastered all over everything connected to the U.S. military !!

Surprise, surprise.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the definitional problems continue.

You don't have a definition problem, you have an image problem. Of course the image of Atheists as statist thugs attacking liberty is well deserved.

Some people view atheism as denial of the possibility of any god existing. Others see it as simply not believing in any god. Which definition is being used is extremely important to any argument.

Uncensored, you claim the 'public face' of atheism is statist, and use that to determine that atheists are statist by nature. Are you claiming that all atheists are part of, or agree with, the groups you are talking about? Are you claiming that the 'public face' of any beliefs is indicative of the entirety of people who have those beliefs? In other words, are all environmentally-conscious people the same? Does Jenny McCarthy represent all people who think vaccines cause autism? You get the idea.

Wouldn't it be more honest to say you consider atheist activists to be statist?

All or none is logical fallacy you use to try and alter reality.

Atheism makes a great deal of news - 100% of which is driven by the war Atheism wages on civil liberty.