Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[darkrider2]

Our government doesn't really represent us anymore so I can't accept any arguments on that point.

[Mr. Palau]

Also Michael Newdow tried the same "This is unconstitutional" argument against the motto, he even toke it to court, and the 9th ciruit dismissed him on the grounds that it is a secular phrase and Aronow is constrolling precedent.

I would definitely like to see a citation that a phrase invoking "God" was secular in nature.


EDIT: Yeah, turns out you were completely wrong.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf, nor did he meet the Court's prudential standing requirements to bring the suit on behalf of himself.

The Ninth Circuit court ruled in his favor, and it was overturned on a procedural technicality.



WHOOPS: Okay, that was referring to another case, regarding "under God" in the Pledge. You seem to be right about the other case, but that never reached the SCOTUS.

Yeah that was Newdow v. Elk Grove, this guy is busy.
The 9th circuit didn't use the word seculear but they deny the phrase any theological significance, synomous with secular, see page ten.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/06-16344.pdf

[G-Flex]

I've always liked Encyclopedia Dramatica's Agnosticism article. Not linking it since it's NSFW, but as an agnostic, I find it hilarious with plenty truth underneath the mocking.

Ain't nothing wrong with fence sitting when both sides are brambly thorn patches~ Except when the fence is one of those ones with spikes on the top; those fences hurt to sit on.

Not every atheist represents "strong"/positive atheism, or even explicit atheism. That's all I'm going to say about that.

[PTTG??]

And let's not forget that aggressive atheism consists of "arguing with people who come over trying to convert you". Militant atheism is "buying billboards for atheist messages".

Militant religion consists of "firebombing people you don't like".

But yeah, sure, they're just the same.

[Willfor]

And let's not forget that aggressive atheism consists of "arguing with people who come over trying to convert you". Militant atheism is "buying billboards for atheist messages".

Militant religion consists of "firebombing people you don't like".

But yeah, sure, they're just the same.

Every time I've made the argument that atheism can be considered a group, I have been shot down so hard that it made my head literally spin. To this end, I seriously object to your ability to consider atheism a group for the purposes of comparing two collectives in regards to what they've done. There is no Big Atheism. There are only atheistic individuals. Please stop attempting to make comparisons that imply atheism is a religion, or please specifically state that you are not saying that it is.

[G-Flex]

Er, I didn't get that implication from his post at all. Perhaps you're reading things into it that are not there. I just took it as an acknowledgment of a double-standard that some religious people have regarding what is and isn't "militant" or "persecution".

[Willfor]

Er, I didn't get that implication from his post at all. Perhaps you're reading things into it that are not there. I just took it as an acknowledgment of a double-standard that some religious people have regarding what is and isn't "militant" or "persecution".

I am reading things into his post that have been stated on this board in every single religious debate I've seen on them. Atheism by the definition that atheists have painted cannot collectively be militant because they have no overarching structure, and no collective dogma. Therefore, only individuals who are atheistic can be militant, because there is no group as a whole to be called "militant atheists". Therefore, attempting to draw comparisons between Big Atheism and Big Christianity creates a double standard, because no instances of times when the collective of atheism has attacked the collective of Christianity can be pointed out because none can exist by definition. There can only be individual attacks on Christianity by unaligned atheists.

I just want this to be an acknowledged thing.


Maybe I should illustrate my point:

I cannot say "The Atheist Pope has declared that every Saturday is now free beer day! The masses celebrate!" No Atheist Pope exists. Neither can I say "A mob of angry Atheists charged a picket line today," because there are no mobs of angry Atheists, there are only mobs of angry people who happen to atheist beliefs. The opinions of one single atheist cannot in any way make the collective of atheism look bad, but the beliefs of one Christian can make the collective of Christianity look bad. This is where the difference lies. It sets up an invincible target, because there is no way to reply to it logically.


If I've said something wrong here, please correct me. This is what I think from having heard in countless threads that Atheism is not a religion. I'm simply telling you what you all have told ME from so many of these threads.

[PTTG??]

Dude, I didn't say anything like that. I didn't imply that there's a group of Militant Atheists any more than I implied that there's a group of Militant Religiouses.

I will add however that if you go around trying to say that everything, which more than one atheist was involved in, involved several separate unaligned atheists, you're going to be spending a lot of time arguing semantics. Yes, atheism is a voluntary self-selected group. But a group composed entirely of atheists is an atheist group, in the same way that a group composed of people wearing red, who are going to a convention for people wearing red, can be succinctly described as a group of people wearing red without taking the time to explain that no two of them have the exact same distribution of red clothing, that some are simply wearing red scarves amongst other clothes, that some are wearing only red speedos, and that some are heavily burdened with multiple layers of redness.

To get back to the point, which is still miles away from the point of this thread, you and I agree that atheists as a group are very different from religious groups, including in ways that virtually universal amongst religious groups.

The statement I made in the original comment you are commenting on loses no meaning when we use your interpretation- a single person who espouses atheism in a way generally referred to as "militant" might, in the greatest widespread extreme, actively seeks to convert others. This is different from any single person who might be described as a "militant" of virtually any creed- be it Christianity, Islam, or Jedi, who will carry out acts of violence against the persons or property of those who they feel are bad medicine.

Are you happy now, or do I have to call in a lawyer to review further posts lest they inadvertently contain an exclusive pronoun where a general one would be less divisive?

[Glowcat]

If I've said something wrong here, please correct me. This is what I think from having heard in countless threads that Atheism is not a religion. I'm simply telling you what you all have told ME from so many of these threads.

I think you're confusing the difficulty of labeling a single Atheist group due to no central authority and the accusation of "Militant Atheism". PTTG argued that a type of atheism (in this case, referring to those who assert an atheistic stance in arguments) marked as militant was actually rather benign, not that there was an overarching structure for people of atheistic belief. It's dealing with a particular behavior and not a group.

[Nadaka]

One christian saying or doing some incorrect, morally wrong or outright evil stuff doesn't make Christianity look bad. One christian saying or doing some incorrect, morally wrong or outright evil stuff and then saying "because god says so", "because I am a christian it is ok" or "because you are not a christian it is ok" makes Christianity look bad. More so because there are actually are organizations representing Christianity, many of them endorsing and teaching morally wrong and a some endorsing and teaching outright evil stuff.

[Willfor]

Are you happy now, or do I have to call in a lawyer to review further posts lest they inadvertently contain an exclusive pronoun where a general one would be less divisive?

No need, you've cleared it up.