Print

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

[Neruz]

America has religious freedom too. And don't you think china does?

When i said 'European' i mean as in Race, as in Western, as in White.

China's internet suffers from massive Government censorship, you won't find much freedom of speech there, which is the other vital half of the Atheism equation (Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion).

I would think that England being part of Europe would cause a good spread of english to surroningareas.

You would think wrong. While many mainland Europeans do know some English, it's not even remotely as much as you'd think. So long as you stick to the touristy bits you're fine, but if you stray off the beaten track you will find large numbers of Europeans who don't know a word of English.

[Ampersand]

Hell, there are plenty of places in the UK itself where English isn't the first language people learn, if they learn it at all. Welsh in Wales, Gaelic in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and Scots in Scotland.

[Osmosis Jones]

China doesn't have as much religious freedom as you might think. For example, Falun Gong.

[Sergius]

both views have their way, science dictates how we should view the physical world, religion offers the same thing for the spiritual world, and so far, there is not a thing in existance that can truly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true, unless you yourself can see it, feel it, or experience it. I've questioned my existance repeatedly and chronically, I cannot attest to the existance of the world, before, during, or after my life.
however I dislike both atheists and moderate religious peoples as they refuse(at least for the 'western' religions) to accept that the other exists when either side cannot justify the other.

I am an atheist.

I accept that religious people exist.

Take that!

[Sergius]

I know, and normally I wouldn't bring it up again, but there's another thread on the front page that he can go argue in. This one really has no reason to be active.

Still, you just said that being lazy and repeating the same arguments over and over without looking them up make you wrong, then, you would be wrong in stating that repeating the same arguments over and over would make you wrong, since other people in this thread have already pointed out that repeating the same arguments over and over...

[Jackrabbit]

Hammering the point home is different from completely restarting an argument that didn't need to be restarted. I wasn't trying to create a 5 page long discussion, I was trying to get the thread shut down.

It doesn't really matter anymore, I don't think. I was trying rather desperately to prevent this thread from restarting, but I didn't have a chance to begin with, so I guess I'll stop trying. I'd appreciate if you didn't bring this up again, because it's obvious I haven't a chance at changing anything.

[Andir]

Hammering the point home is different from completely restarting an argument that didn't need to be restarted. I wasn't trying to create a 5 page long discussion, I was trying to get the thread shut down.

It doesn't really matter anymore, I don't think. I was trying rather desperately to prevent this thread from restarting, but I didn't have a chance to begin with, so I guess I'll stop trying. I'd appreciate if you didn't bring this up again, because it's obvious I haven't a chance at changing anything.

Thread Necromancy is a religion... there is no way you can stop it besides genocide (or having the OP or an admin lock it.)

[Micro102]

Are their any branches of atheism? Like how the orthodox church branched of from the catholic church?

[Cheeetar]

Are their any branches of atheism? Like how the orthodox church branched of from the catholic church?

No.

[MrWiggles]

Are their any branches of atheism? Like how the orthodox church branched of from the catholic church?

No.

Well...

Sorta.

There are the;

Brights

American Atheist Alliance

American Atheist Association

Council for Secular Humanism

American Humanist Association.

There a few others. The difference are as minuet as sects of christianity. Though from my understanding most atheist do not belong to formal groups, much to our disadvantage.

[redacted123]

Are their any branches of atheism? Like how the orthodox church branched of from the catholic church?

No.

Though from my understanding most atheist do not belong to formal groups, much to our disadvantage.

I don't see why, atheists shouldn't really feel the need to spread atheism or promote it. Neither should religions. As long as atheists aren't having their freedom infringed upon, I don't see any reason why they should need to tell me what they think of religion and seeing as that's pretty much the only thing they would do as part of an organisation, they don't really need an organisation.

[MrWiggles]

Are their any branches of atheism? Like how the orthodox church branched of from the catholic church?

No.

Though from my understanding most atheist do not belong to formal groups, much to our disadvantage.

I don't see why, atheists shouldn't really feel the need to spread atheism or promote it. Neither should religions. As long as atheists aren't having their freedom infringed upon, I don't see any reason why they should need to tell me what they think of religion and seeing as that's pretty much the only thing they would do as part of an organisation, they don't really need an organisation.

Emphasis is mine. This is why it is to our disadvantage about being a group of individuals instead of a group with a purpose. There are more atheist in the US then several major minority groups. Our voice (as scatter as it may be), is underrepresented on all civil levels.

This means that we get government supported religious actions. Like funding religions for humanitarian works with no oversight, special treatment for private religious clubs like the Boy Scouts of America and again special funding. State level governments using public funds to refurbish private own religious centers. City councils  have sectarian pray sessions, open atheist city council member being wrangled out of their appertained seats.

Or having the blasted ten commandants at the front of court houses, when a majority of those laws (with there many flavors), are illegal.

Our (US) national motto changed to 'In God We Trust', and having it appear on the money in civil buildings.

Let alone the countless laws stating that atheist can't vote, can't hold private office, can't own land, can't serve as a police offer, fire fighters so on. Thankfully these laws are powerless, though it is a standing reminder of atheist mistrust.

I don't think spreading atheistism, is a terribly good thing as stated before. Unfortunately, atheist need to be popularized simply due to the, for the lack of a better word, because religious recruitment for members.

[Andir]

I don't see why, atheists shouldn't really feel the need to spread atheism or promote it. Neither should religions. As long as atheists aren't having their freedom infringed upon, I don't see any reason why they should need to tell me what they think of religion and seeing as that's pretty much the only thing they would do as part of an organisation, they don't really need an organisation.

That's where it gets complicated though... think of things like marriage.  There are places in the US where it's illegal to get married to whomever you want.  No, I'm not inclined to participate in this (just to clear the air.)  And yes, I understand it's not beneficial to the human race to link yourself to another person of the same sex but it's a right denied mainly because of religion.  I can't think of anything else right now besides the "blue laws" where I'm "technically" not permitted to serve a public office in my state because I don't believe, but I really don't want to get into that discussion again.... it's a few pages back.

The more and more I see this country push that idea of "Pure Democracy" over the fact that we are a Republic (eg: some people want majority vote on the President instead of the electoral college, etc.) the more and more I am worried that I won't have a representative.

[MrWiggles]

I don't see why, atheists shouldn't really feel the need to spread atheism or promote it. Neither should religions. As long as atheists aren't having their freedom infringed upon, I don't see any reason why they should need to tell me what they think of religion and seeing as that's pretty much the only thing they would do as part of an organisation, they don't really need an organisation.

That's where it gets complicated though... think of things like marriage.  There are places in the US where it's illegal to get married to whomever you want.  No, I'm not inclined to participate in this (just to clear the air.)  And yes, I understand it's not beneficial to the human race to link yourself to another person of the same sex but it's a right denied mainly because of religion.  I can't think of anything else right now besides the "blue laws" where I'm "technically" not permitted to serve a public office in my state because I don't believe, but I really don't want to get into that discussion again.... it's a few pages back.

The more and more I see this country push that idea of "Pure Democracy" over the fact that we are a Republic (eg: some people want majority vote on the President instead of the electoral college, etc.) the more and more I am worried that I won't have a representative.

Exactly, to run for public office, then stating a none belief is a death sentence as far as public relation is concern. I generally wear the whole 'Most Mistrusted Minority' with pride, and play up the comedy on 'EVIL ATHEIST', but it is their and has real consequence.

[G-Flex]

And yes, I understand it's not beneficial to the human race to link yourself to another person of the same sex

This is one of the more misguided and dangerous notions related to anti-gay beliefs. What you're saying is only true if it's absolutely necessary that every person in the community bears children, which it certainly isn't. Also, when talking about a social species, what's good for the species isn't necessarily what's good for the reproduction of a particular individual anyway; diversity is more helpful.