NationStates Jolt Archive

I stole this from a friend's website, thought it was a frightening story:


It’s a close call as to which is the scariest part of this article, the actual story or the breezy, religion-coddling tone:

"CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) -- A church's plan for an old-fashioned book-burning has been thwarted by city and county fire codes.

Preachers and congregations throughout American history have built bonfires and tossed in books and other materials they believed offended God.

The Rev. Scott Breedlove, pastor of The Jesus Church, wanted to rekindle that tradition in a July 28 ceremony where books, CDs, videos and clothing would have been thrown into the flames.

Not so fast, city officials said.

"We don't want a situation where people are burning rubbish as a recreational fire," said Brad Brenneman, the fire department's district chief.

Linn County won't go for a fire outside city limits, either.

Officials said the county's air quality division prohibits the transporting of materials from the city to the county for burning.

Breedlove said a city fire inspector suggested shredding the offending material, but Breedlove said that wouldn't seem biblical.

"I joked with the guy that St. Paul never had to worry about fire codes," Breedlove said.

The new plan calls for members of the church to throw materials into garbage cans and then light candles to symbolically "burn" the material."


An “old-fashioned book-burning?” What do they do, cook apple pie over it? I’m glad the this reporter was wasn’t covering the old-fashioned, country-style James Byrd and Matthew Shepard lynchings. I don’t dispute that book-burning has been a part of “American history,” but the first Google search result for the phrase reveals that more recently it’s been more of a German tradition.

And had the reporter bothered to check out the Jesus Church’s website, he might have added that Pastor Breedlove also believes that “[t]here is no sickness or disease too hard for God” --- and that at his “Spirit-Filled” services, “the miraculous touch of God to heal bodies and change lives is a regular occurrence.” But that might actually have involved a little bit of reading, and as we know, Reading Isn’t Fundamentalist.

*wonders who will fight the religious extremists that already live on US-ground...*

I think they should start with eliminating the religious extremists in the White House and Congress... :p

*wonders who will fight the religious extremists that already live on US-ground...*

I think they should start with eliminating the religious extremists in the White House and Congress... :p

something tells me that such a crusade is about three steps below "support education" on this administration's agenda.

Yeah!! And about six steps below "let's start making decisions that denote "intelligence" on the part of the one who is doing the decision making".

Or, nine steps below "let us not lie anymore to the public".

Or, twelve steps below "fighting to protect the freedom of the US citizen".

Ok, yeah, book burning is a little over the top, but he has every right to do it, with city regulations, of course. If he bought the books, and if he's within code, he has the right to burn them. I burned Fahrenheit 451 just for the hell of it in my fireplace. I hated the book, and the irony of burning it touched me. And it is a church tradition, even if it was oppressive. But now, it's not oppressive, since they're not burning any and all copies, they're only burning the copies they have. It's a symbolic gesture now, saying that they won't bow to sin and to Satan. They are showing that they feel strong about this.

Ok, yeah, book burning is a little over the top, but he has every right to do it, with city regulations, of course. If he bought the books, and if he's within code, he has the right to burn them. I burned Fahrenheit 451 just for the hell of it in my fireplace. I hated the book, and the irony of burning it touched me. And it is a church tradition, even if it was oppressive. But now, it's not oppressive, since they're not burning any and all copies, they're only burning the copies they have. It's a symbolic gesture now, saying that they won't bow to sin and to Satan. They are showing that they feel strong about this.

i assume you support flag burning, or the right to burn religious texts, right?

*wonders who will fight the religious extremists that already live on US-ground...*

I think they should start with eliminating the religious extremists in the White House and Congress... :p

Eh, they have every right to be there as anyone else, even if we don't like them. And if people elected them into office, it's the people's fault anyway, so they either want him their, or they should deal with them anyway, since they elected them.

i assume you support flag burning, or the right to burn religious texts, right?

I don't support the act of doing it, but i do support the right to do so. He paid for them, he's within regulations, go ahead. I won't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it.

If someone burned bibles, people would crap a cow.

Burning other books are ok for some reason though.

Well, as far as I know, theres no law against burning bibles...

They are showing that they feel strong about this.

Yep, that's something all extremists have in common...

And this suicide bomber who blew up enough people to fill a graveyard? Just someone showing how strongly he feels about whatever the hell he has a hard on for...

Big difference between book burning and suicide bombing? So true, but maybe not that big a step to take under certain conditions.

What should worry you is that the book burner apparently sees the book burning as a legit way to fight for whatever it is they believe so strongly about. Instead of deploying intelligence, entering sober debate, they opt for meaningless destruction. And the one who today sees the meaningless destruction of books as a cool way to show off what they believe in might one day in the future see the destruction of let's say the clubhouse of their perceived enemy as a cool way to show off that same belief.

Eh, they have every right to be there as anyone else, even if we don't like them. And if people elected them into office, it's the people's fault anyway, so they either want him their, or they should deal with them anyway, since they elected them.

Bush was NOT elected by the people...

more recently it’s been more of a German tradition.

But generally, Germany is more secular than America. :-/

And why does it say that I am invisible? :-(

Yep, that's something all extremists have in common...

And this suicide bomber who blew up enough people to fill a graveyard? Just someone showing how strongly he feels about whatever the hell he has a hard on for...

Big difference between book burning and suicide bombing? So true, but maybe not that big a step to take under certain conditions.

What should worry you is that the book burner apparently sees the book burning as a legit way to fight for whatever it is they believe so strongly about. Instead of deploying intelligence, entering sober debate, they opt for meaningless destruction. And the one who today sees the meaningless destruction of books as a cool way to show off what they believe in might one day in the future see the destruction of let's say the clubhouse of their perceived enemy as a cool way to show off that same belief.

All very true, however, it's their right. It's also my right, to burn a Bible or any other book or the flag or anything else that I own, if I own it, as long as I abide by the fire laws. And it may well be a right that I will never use or even want to use, but it is a right and I will not relinquish it quietly.

I don't support the act of doing it, but i do support the right to do so. He paid for them, he's within regulations, go ahead. I won't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it.

fair enough, just as long as you are consistent. personally i support the right to burn any inanimate object, so long as it is done in a way that is cleared by fire codes, i just think it's a crappy way to make a point. i'm actually thrilled to see fundies taking that track, since it just shows more people how stupid and helpless the fundies are...you've got to be a particularly weak and pathetic person to need to burn books you don't agree with, and even weaker to need to do so publicly.

now, i myself burned a book at one point, my 11th grade history textbook, as a sort of celebratory retirement for the book that had owned my life for a year. it was a battered and out-dated edition that was going to be recycled anyway, so i don't feel guilty about robbing another student of the chance to use it, and i had (frankly) seen enough of it for several lifetimes. that sort of mayhem i can understand and endorse, but i highly doubt such feelings were behind these fundies making a bonfire of the sinful written words that so challenge their dearly-held opinions. burning a book because you are angry at it is just a tantrum, and i like laughing at people who throw such fits :).

All very true, however, it's their right. It's also my right, to burn a Bible or any other book or the flag or anything else that I own, if I own it, as long as I abide by the fire laws. And it may well be a right that I will never use or even want to use, but it is a right and I will not relinquish it quietly.

I'm not arguing for the government to take away that right. What I'm saying is that instead of focussing in on, being obsessed about, Muslim extremism it wouldn't harm the US Government if they would open their eyes to the Christian extremists that are active on US ground.

Christian extremists who already have far more say in how America is being run then most are willing to admit. In fact it appears that they have even taken over the White House.

And seeing how according to the constitution State and Religion are supposed to be two separate affairs this is not a matter that should be ignored the way it is right now, but one that should call for investigation.

Book burning, it's a terrible thing. Still, I can't believe someone burned Farenheit 451. That is just too ironic.

Book burning, it's a terrible thing. Still, I can't believe someone burned Farenheit 451. That is just too ironic.

Hey, I even know someone who has burned the US Constitution! I'll give you a hint: his last name, consisting of four letters, starts with a "B".

Yep, that's something all extremists have in common...

And this suicide bomber who blew up enough people to fill a graveyard? Just someone showing how strongly he feels about whatever the hell he has a hard on for...

Big difference between book burning and suicide bombing? So true, but maybe not that big a step to take under certain conditions.

Yes, both are extreme, but book burning doesn't hurt anyone. Again, I don't think it's the smartest thing to do, but it doesn't do any harm, and if you really wanna go down the slippery slope thing, I can just as easily say that not allowing people to burn the books can lead to the abolishment of freedom of religion.



What should worry you is that the book burner apparently sees the book burning as a legit way to fight for whatever it is they believe so strongly about. Instead of deploying intelligence, entering sober debate, they opt for meaningless destruction. And the one who today sees the meaningless destruction of books as a cool way to show off what they believe in might one day in the future see the destruction of let's say the clubhouse of their perceived enemy as a cool way to show off that same belief.

It's not meaningless, though, since he (and i assume others) feel like it is symbolic. And it is. Like I said, they're not burning all the copies, they're only burning what they have. There are still a million and two copies out there, so burning them isn't a way to get rid of the books, but to send the message that the books aren't wanted in this community. It's also something for people to rally around. You see the fire, you ask what's goin' on, you join the cause. or you hear about it, same thing. People use demostrations like this as a way to bring the people together. It also convinces some people that they are going to fight for what they want. They're not doing anything violent (yet...I admit, it can turn ugly. But then, any mob, "religious" or not, can get ugly), but still, they show that this is not something that they're simply going to complain about and move on.

fair enough, just as long as you are consistent. personally i support the right to burn any inanimate object, so long as it is done in a way that is cleared by fire codes, i just think it's a crappy way to make a point. i'm actually thrilled to see fundies taking that track, since it just shows more people how stupid and helpless the fundies are...you've got to be a particularly weak and pathetic person to need to burn books you don't agree with, and even weaker to need to do so publicly.

now, i myself burned a book at one point, my 11th grade history textbook, as a sort of celebratory retirement for the book that had owned my life for a year. it was a battered and out-dated edition that was going to be recycled anyway, so i don't feel guilty about robbing another student of the chance to use it, and i had (frankly) seen enough of it for several lifetimes. that sort of mayhem i can understand and endorse, but i highly doubt such feelings were behind these fundies making a bonfire of the sinful written words that so challenge their dearly-held opinions. burning a book because you are angry at it is just a tantrum, and i like laughing at people who throw such fits :).

They probably felt the same way you did: that these books were taking control of their lives with sin. Sin does control your life, and burning them is a way to symbolically cut yourself off from that kind of sin.

I burned F451 simply because I didn't like it. I dispise the author, I disagree with his morals and the theme of the book (that all censorship is inherently evil), and I think the book was written badly. I burned it instead of throwing it away or such 1) for fun, 2) for the irony (i love irony), and 3) to prove to my english class just how much I disagree with the book.

When religious people burn the books, they are showing just how much they hate the books, just how devoted they are to aposing what they see as sin.

I burned F451 simply because I didn't like it. I dispise the author, I disagree with his morals and the theme of the book (that all censorship is inherently evil), and I think the book was written badly. I burned it instead of throwing it away or such 1) for fun, 2) for the irony (i love irony), and 3) to prove to my english class just how much I disagree with the book.

You don't like censorship is evil? How can you not? Even I wouldn't advocate banning Gor novels or something.

Yes, both are extreme, but book burning doesn't hurt anyone. Again, I don't think it's the smartest thing to do, but it doesn't do any harm, and if you really wanna go down the slippery slope thing, I can just as easily say that not allowing people to burn the books can lead to the abolishment of freedom of religion.

I never argued for the abolishment of freedom of religion. Neither did I say that book burning harms people. If you want to burn a book because you think it sucks, hey.. be my guest! :)

So, it's not the book burning in itself that I have an issue with. What I do have an issue with is when the book burning happens as a way to make a political or religious statement. This because that is, as you well know, plain stupid. And it is this stupidity in conjunction with power that can easily give rise to the kind of terrorism that kills people.

In other words:

Reasonable people don't burn books to make a statement. They come up with what are hopefully well thought out arguments. Unreasonable people resort to the burning of books in a very immature attempt to make their case. This immaturity is the problem that lies at the foundation of religious terrorists. (It's obvious that I am not referring to terrorists who can best be called "freedom fighters" -- as is often the case now in Iraq.)

It's not meaningless, though, since he (and i assume others) feel like it is symbolic. And it is. Like I said, they're not burning all the copies, they're only burning what they have. There are still a million and two copies out there, so burning them isn't a way to get rid of the books, but to send the message that the books aren't wanted in this community. It's also something for people to rally around. You see the fire, you ask what's goin' on, you join the cause. or you hear about it, same thing. People use demostrations like this as a way to bring the people together. It also convinces some people that they are going to fight for what they want. They're not doing anything violent (yet...I admit, it can turn ugly. But then, any mob, "religious" or not, can get ugly), but still, they show that this is not something that they're simply going to complain about and move on.

I doubt that people who use book burning to make a political or religious statement as opossed to a well thought out argument are open for debate.

And obviously the fact that they are burning just a few copies is irrelevant.

Again, it's not the book burning itself that is the issue. It's their rationale.

"Well, as far as I know, theres no law against burning bibles... "


To my understanding the APPROPRIATE way to dispose of a damaged bible is to burn it, rather than to discard it. I don't know what the history behind that is, but it's probably similar to the reasons you dipsose of a damaged flag by burning it... not throwing it out.

when you start by burning books you will finish by burning people!

I'm not arguing for the government to take away that right. What I'm saying is that instead of focussing in on, being obsessed about, Muslim extremism it wouldn't harm the US Government if they would open their eyes to the Christian extremists that are active on US ground.

Christian extremists who already have far more say in how America is being run then most are willing to admit. In fact it appears that they have even taken over the White House.

And seeing how according to the constitution State and Religion are supposed to be two separate affairs this is not a matter that should be ignored the way it is right now, but one that should call for investigation.

No offense, but you strike me as the type that thinks Bush is involved in a rightwing conspiracy...Kennedy's assinination being a conspiracy, landing on the moon being a gov't hoax, Bush being in league with the bin Ladens, stuff like that.

In fact, religion does influence the gov't. Despite what people want to believe, separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution, nor was it implied, nor should it be in there, nor is it possible at all. So Bush is a Christian, big deal. How many nonChristian presidents have there been? I would like to remind all that Atheism is in fact a religion (I've argued this many many times and I'll do it again, if need be). The fact is that unless the president is completely agnostic, completely neutral, completely and utterly devoid of any bias what so ever, he will be influenced by his ideologies, whether religious, moral, ethic, whatever. And there will never be a president so completely neutral because for the most part people aren't that neutral, and they will always seek out someone with the same principles and beliefs to lead. The left wants a leftist president, and the right wants a rightist president, that's how it is.
That Christians have taken over the whitehouse...maybe, but that is within the rights defined by the constitution, as long as they did it all legally, by getting elected in, etc. Someday, atheists, muslims, pink-elephantists, whatever, may take over the whitehouse, but as long as it's by legal means, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, except use the same legal means to try to get rid of them.

"Well, as far as I know, theres no law against burning bibles... "


To my understanding the APPROPRIATE way to dispose of a damaged bible is to burn it, rather than to discard it. I don't know what the history behind that is, but it's probably similar to the reasons you dipsose of a damaged flag by burning it... not throwing it out.

Heh, I never knew that. Learn something every day. So I can hold a protest, and burn a bunch of religious texts, and when the police show up to fine me, "It's OK officers, they're damaged, and this is the correct way to dispose of them" "Carry on then" "Suckers..."

If you have to burn books, burn Gor novels or Mein Kampf. Those are some bad books that advocate slavery, misogynism, or genocide.

"I burned F451 simply because I didn't like it. I dispise the author, I disagree with his morals and the theme of the book (that all censorship is inherently evil), and I think the book was written badly. I burned it instead of throwing it away or such 1) for fun, 2) for the irony (i love irony), and 3) to prove to my english class just how much I disagree with the book."

A far more persuasive thing would have been to convince an opponent to change their views to your cause (dEspising Ray Bradbury and the book) to convince THEM do the "ironic" act of burning F451.

You DESPISE Ray Bradbury? Puh-Leeeze! What for? Do you actually know him? How do you know if what he writes about represents "his morals"?

The only point you make is that you disagreeing with "all censorship is bad" - but you don't offer any sort of rebuttal where Censorship is a Good Thing.

Your "book burning" smacks more of adolescent theatrics when told to do your homework, and delight in playing with fire.

I'm not even saying you're wrong to do so... I might have pulled the same "protest" when I was a pimply-faced teen full of myself.

You don't like censorship is evil? How can you not? Even I wouldn't advocate banning Gor novels or something.

Think of it this way:
You have to be 18 in order to (legally) have access to pornography. That is, technically speaking, censorship.
Some books are very very graphic in nature, be it in violence, sexuality, language, etc., and children just shouldn't be exposed to things like that at a young age. Besides all that, I don't want my kids being exposed to it, so I don't want to make it easy for them to get it.

Think also of this:
You have to be 21 to drink (in most states that I know of). This is because, for the most part, people younger than that don't have the judgement to say enough is enough, or to stop themselves from driving, etc. Some people far older than 21 still don't have the judgement.
In the same way, some ideas are like alcohol, they affect you, they affect your judgement. Some people don't have the judgement to know when they're being affected. Like the "Anarchist's Cookbook." Would you want an angry, self-rightous, revengeful teenager to know how to make his own bombs? Eh, maybe he knows how to deal with his anger. Now take the same teenager, get him high, get him drunk, let him read books about anger, about killing your parents, about how much life sucks, and then let him know how to make a bomb...It's like giving a five-year-old a loaded gun with no safety.

They say knowledge is power, yes? Knowledge is also a weapon, and giving to certain people is dangerous. Hating and killing is a part of being human, but why make it that much more obvious to those who haven't learned it yet?

Lastly, 1248B was talking about how extremists were taking over the gov't. To stop extremism, you have to impose a certain level of censorship, a ban on extremist ideas. You wouldn't be opposed to that, would you?

Bush was NOT elected by the people...

No President of the U.S.A. is directly elected by the people. So I do
not understand your statement.

All extremist, are just that... EXTREMIST. As long as they stay in their
little hole, ignore them. When the come out of their hole - that is when
you smack them.

"I burned F451 simply because I didn't like it. I dispise the author, I disagree with his morals and the theme of the book (that all censorship is inherently evil), and I think the book was written badly. I burned it instead of throwing it away or such 1) for fun, 2) for the irony (i love irony), and 3) to prove to my english class just how much I disagree with the book."

A far more persuasive thing would have been to convince an opponent to change their views to your cause (dEspising Ray Bradbury and the book) to convince THEM do the "ironic" act of burning F451.

You DESPISE Ray Bradbury? Puh-Leeeze! What for? Do you actually know him? How do you know if what he writes about represents "his morals"?

The only point you make is that you disagreeing with "all censorship is bad" - but you don't offer any sort of rebuttal where Censorship is a Good Thing.

Your "book burning" smacks more of adolescent theatrics when told to do your homework, and delight in playing with fire.

I'm not even saying you're wrong to do so... I might have pulled the same "protest" when I was a pimply-faced teen full of myself.

First off, i didn't explain because I wasn't asked to, yet, and then I was in the process of explaining why censorship isn't always evil.
Why I hate bradbury?
There was a comment in an interview about people commiting suicide. His comment was basically "let them, they're worthless anyway" (not exact wording, of course). I don't like people who think like that.
I am also a very good judge of character. With that comment, the theme of F451, and the theme of one of his short stories I had to read for my final, I can pretty much piece together what kind of person he is. Biased, premature, and probably a little arogant of me, but it is my right to do so.

I can also burn whatever the hell I want to, as long as their's no regulation against it. If you had been in the class, you'd probably understand better. I had made a joke that someone ought to burn F451, just for irony's sake. Since I disagreed with the book more than anyone else, someone said I should do it, and for fun, i swore I would, and I did. Don't think I'm some insane child who burns anything I disagree with. I've read a lot of books I didnt like, and I've never burned them.

Oh, and I know that his books reflect his morals because 1) only an idiot writes a book glorifying something they hate. Would you write a book about how much good censorship can do? 2) by the nature of literature, you write about yourself. You just do. As Card put it, (not exact words), you write according to experience, to make the book seem more realistic. Since you know your own experiences best, you write about yourself more than anyone/thing else.

Bush being involved in a Right Wing Conspiracy is sadly true. Any time 2 or more people discuss their plans, they have conspired by definition. you should specify WHICH alleged consipracy Bush "wasn't involved in".

Kennedy's assasination - IMHO the "magic bullet" makes it obvious - physics don't lie. A bullet has a fininte mass. Only a second shooter explains the extra fragments found INSIDE Connelly. Again conspiracy by definition.

Bush in league with BinLadens? Fact. Argue all you want, but it's true. Osama himself, perhaps not. You can make the case that Bush wasn't complicit/negligent/incompetent in regards to 9/11. But Bush (et el) met with BinLadens several times.

The phrase "separation of church and state" may not appear in the Constitution, but that separation IS one of the cornerstones of our nation.
It serves both to keep zealots from exerting undue control OVER The State as it is to protect Religions FROM The State. To undermine this separation when politically advantageous is IMHO sinful and a dangerously short-sighted move.

Bush being involved in a Right Wing Conspiracy is sadly true. Any time 2 or more people discuss their plans, they have conspired by definition. you should specify WHICH alleged consipracy Bush "wasn't involved in".

Kennedy's assasination - IMHO the "magic bullet" makes it obvious - physics don't lie. A bullet has a fininte mass. Only a second shooter explains the extra fragments found INSIDE Connelly. Again conspiracy by definition.

Bush in league with BinLadens? Fact. Argue all you want, but it's true. Osama himself, perhaps not. You can make the case that Bush wasn't complicit/negligent/incompetent in regards to 9/11. But Bush (et el) met with BinLadens several times.

The phrase "separation of church and state" may not appear in the Constitution, but that separation IS one of the cornerstones of our nation.
It serves both to keep zealots from exerting undue control OVER The State as it is to protect Religions FROM The State. To undermine this separation when politically advantageous is IMHO sinful and a dangerously short-sighted move.

Ok, you know what I meant. Stop rubbing technicalities in my face when you know perfectly well what I was talking about.

Actually, you can't separate church and state. A church is made of the people in the religion, yes? These people have beliefs, principles, etc., that make them part of the religion. These principles influence decisions they make in their lives.
The state is made of people. The state are those elected/selected/whatever officials who advise/run/etc. the country.
When you elect/select/whatever someone for office, they become part of the state. If that person is part of a religion (and they invariably will be), then you have put religion into the state. Their beliefs, principles, etc. that define them in the religion also define them as a person, and influence and affect the decisions they make. Their religion is thus affecting the state.
To separate the church from the state so that religion does not affect the state, every state official, everyone working in the gov't would have to be agnostic: completely without any religion (I remind you that atheism is a religion). But, you can't force them to be agnostic, since that "prohibits the free exorcise thereof" of religion. So, unless they're agnostic by their own consent, you can't make them separate their religion from the other parts of their lives, and if the other parts inlude working in the gov't, then religion is influencing the state, and it isn't separated.
So, technically, you can separate the church from the state if everyone working for the government was agnostic by their own free will.
Of course, since the design of democracy makes the people rule over the gov't, that makes every citizen of the United States a part of "the state." And since there will always be someone who isn't agnostic, then there will always be religion influencing the state, however minutely they do.

Ok, you know what I meant. Stop rubbing technicalities in my face when you know perfectly well what I was talking about.
Yeah, I mean honestly SugarBear, logically deconstructing his arguement like that, who the hell do you think you are? I bet you're one of those people who think that just because you're "right" (as-you-so-call-it) and just because you can "prove" it (as-you-so-call-it), that you're allowed to go shouting your mouth off. I mean honestly!

:D

You guys are forgetting something.

To burn a book, you have to buy it first. So, even if you're buying them just to protest and destroy them, you're still supporting the book xD

...It's like giving a five-year-old a loaded gun with no safety.
SOP for the NRA, surely?


I'm reading John Stuart Mill at the moment, his essay on liberty (cleverly entitled "On Liberty"). He'd disagree about age limits being censorship. For instance, you might let an adult do something stupid that could hurt them like go tightrope walking when you might not let a small child do the same. Its about understanding of the risks, and people's liberty to do what they like so long as it doesn't hurt others. Small children, the mentally ill or chemically impaired (people who are high), being unable to understand things like consequences, should be protected from things that can seriously hurt them.

In short, I disagree about age limits being censorship. I think that possibly they should be lower, but thats a different question

(I remind you that atheism is a religion).

[Dare I ask this but] How is atheism a religion?

Are there many people who go to a building regularly to the specific intention of not going to worship anything?

Well, people don't go into buildings to not worship anything. They have forums for that.

What atheism is is a faith. The belief that there is no invisible old man or pantheistic androgynous force or what-have-you is just as groundless as the belief that there is. It's certainly not scientific, before anyone pulls that out - agnosticism is. If you can devise, replicate, and publish an objective experiment showing the lack of a diety, then I will concede that point. Until then, atheists are just as faithful as anyone else.

Of course, since the design of democracy makes the people rule over the gov't, that makes every citizen of the United States a part of "the state."

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the USA isn't a democracy, but instead a consitution-based federal republic.

But surely there are people who are atheist because they don't have faith that God exists rather then faith that God doesn't exist?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the USA isn't a democracy, but instead a consitution-based federal republic.

Republic is a form of democracy.

But surely there are people who are atheist because they don't have faith that God exists rather then faith that God doesn't exist?


That description applies better to agnostics rather than atheists.

However, the assertion that atheism is a religion is a ludicrous one. It only makes sense if we are also to allow that other worldviews or outlooks such as communism, scientism or conservatism are religions.

So, Rhyno D, any examples of exactly what characteristics does atheism share with a religion?

Republic is a form of democracy.

Ergo, the People's Republic of China is a democracy (or is not a republic).

Correct me if I am wrong, but the term 'Republic' is used to denote any state which does not have a monarch, no?

Bah, maybe I'm not up to date on my definitions but I always felt that agnosticism was the belief for those reluctant to commit to either believing there was a god or not.

Bah, maybe I'm not up to date on my definitions but I always felt that agnosticism was the belief for those reluctant to commit to either believing there was a god or not.


You seem somewhat uncharitable to the position: providing evidence that a god does not exist is as difficult as providing evidence that they do. If anything agnosticism is a more logical position than atheism, unless one is prepared to base the decision on gut feeling (which is possibly a valid choice)...

If someone burned bibles, people would crap a cow.

Burning other books are ok for some reason though.
No real argument to add, just the phrase 'crap a cow' cracked me up...

And it's true, even if there aren't laws against it, people would 'crap a cow'.....man, I can't even type that without chuckling......

OK Twice I've replied and twice it didn't "stick" One last try.
I wasn't nit-picking - I do try to choose words precisely because language is all you have in a text-based format such as this.

Rhyno-whatever-his name-is (I'm composing offline) now is 100% correct that he has the right to his opinion no matter how ill-formed it is. I would never suggest otherwise. Just Kidding. As I said, I'd probably have performed the same "protest" when I was younger... if I hadn't seen that Bradbury is brilliant. ; )

The exact phrase "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution itself, but has always been one of our core principles for very good reasons. Now who's diddling in semantics?


The argument has alwas been about the State making "no law impeding the free expression" of religion either by Hampering one or Endorsing another.

It's NOT about keeping the faithful from getting elected, and it's NOT about elected officials not letting faith guide their decision-making. Never has been.

To frame it as being about "only agnostics could be elected" is a total Staw Man argument. It reduces credibility and prevents real discussion of a gravely serious topic.

The current administration makes no secret of it's ACTIVE promotion of an Evangelical Christian ("EC" to save typing) agenda. In fact it makes a big show of it. But not everyone is an Evangelical Christian. This is a problem as we have already seen:
* The disporportionate distribution of funds for "fatih-based" groups favoring EC programs over all others.
* The use of strongly-religious (some say blasphemous) language when dealing with foriegn affairs, including the dangously-charged Middle-East.
* The reliance on vague religous-sounding rhetoric when asked serious questions about his governance.
* Blatant disonnects between the oft-stated "principles" and the real-life ethics (One example: all life is sacred/anti-abortion vs. increasing the use of depleted uranium in ammo causing severe birth defects).

Just as or more importantly, the separation is there to protect the Churches and the faithful from State intrusion.
What happens to the EC faithful when/if their once-pliable officials ask them to do something that they disapprove of? (use of Church mailing lists for fund-raising, lowering pollution standards, not helping the poor and unfotunate, helping coporations violate the law, supporting an immoral candidate or even someday accepting a mandatory National ID chip under the skin)

If someone burned bibles, people would crap a cow.

Burning other books are ok for some reason though.
No real argument to add, just the phrase 'crap a cow' cracked me up...

And it's true, even if there aren't laws against it, people would 'crap a cow'.....man, I can't even type that without chuckling......

You guys are forgetting something.

To burn a book, you have to buy it first. So, even if you're buying them just to protest and destroy them, you're still supporting the book xD


The problem is that they don't always go to the local stores and buy them. Many cases of going to the schools and libraries and taking them in the past....

Bush being involved in a Right Wing Conspiracy is sadly true. Any time 2 or more people discuss their plans, they have conspired by definition.
2 people? I thought it was 5.....guess that's just an unregistered party (with or without conspiracy)

Bush in league with BinLadens? Fact. Argue all you want, but it's true. Osama himself, perhaps not. You can make the case that Bush wasn't complicit/negligent/incompetent in regards to 9/11. But Bush (et el) met with BinLadens several times.
And don't forget (I think this is key) that on 9/12 only what...a dozen people were given special presidential permission to fly- included in this prestigious group: Osama's family
(ok, maybe it was like 9/13...but I think it was 9/12 and I'm sure it was slightly more than a dozen...I'll go look up some facts...) later...

Ergo, the People's Republic of China is a democracy (or is not a republic).

Correct me if I am wrong, but the term 'Republic' is used to denote any state which does not have a monarch, no?
Now you're getting confused between the type of government and what the government calls itself. Even if a dictator calls his country a democracy, its still a dictatorship. Think about NS for examples of this.

Now you're getting confused between the type of government and what the government calls itself.

Nope. I'm not. I stand by my statement - a republic is the label which covers any state which does not possess a monarch. Whether it is a democracy or not has nothing to do with it.

Even if a dictator calls his country a democracy, its still a dictatorship.

Agreed, but in this case irrelevant, unless you are asserting that the People's Republic of China has a monarch, which I doubt.

Edit: I'll reiterate and explain: I'm asserting that there is a set of all states, and within that there is a subset which do not possess monarchs, these are republics, within the set of republics there exists a subset which are democracies.

Democracy is a subset of Republic, not vice-versa as Rhyno D claimed.

The USA falls into the set of Republics, but not into the subset of democracies.

Yes, this is BWO you're talking to here. He knows his stuff.

[Dare I ask this but] How is atheism a religion?

Are there many people who go to a building regularly to the specific intention of not going to worship anything?

I'm too lazy to look all this up (again), so this isn't exact definitions. I'll get those later.

Atheism is a set of doctrine that there is no God

doctrine is principles held with ardor and faith.

religion is a set of principles held with faith.
__________

People say that atheism isn't organized like religion is:
To be a christian, all you have to do is believe that Christ is God's son, and that he died and rose again. You don't have to go to church to be a Christian; you probably won't be the strongest Christian, but you're still a Christian. So either Christianity isn't a religion, or atheism is.

People say that atheism is based on science:
There is no more proof to atheism than to "religion". There's probably more against it.

People say that there is no proof of God:
First off, yeah there is, though most of it lies in personal experience. I have personally felt God, which is my proof, but that doesn't work very well for other people. Secondly, (Gregory Benford) "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Even if there's little proof that God does exist, there's less proof that he doesn't exist.

People say that it doesn't take faith to have Atheism:
Yes it does, since it cannot be proven 100%. Even if it could, it would still require faith, since you would have to believe that whatever is proving it isn't lying, isn't faulty, etc.

People say that Atheism isn't a set of principles:
Christianity can be defined by only five fundamental ideas.
God exists.
Christ is his son.
Christ is perfect.
Christ died to relieve the world's sin.
Christ rose from the dead.
That's not much principle. It takes more principle to do an addition problem in math class.

Secondly, (Gregory Benford) "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

I think you might want to reattribute that to William Cowper, but hey, Gregory Benford said it only 200 years later than him.

People say that atheism is based on science:

-Buzzer sound-

Sorry; Science has never proved nor disproved God. Science does not seek to prove or disprove God.

I will leave the Athiesm is a Religion arguments to somebody else.

Nope. I'm not. I stand by my statement - a republic is the label which covers any state which does not possess a monarch. Whether it is a democracy or not has nothing to do with it.



Agreed, but in this case irrelevant, unless you are asserting that the People's Republic of China has a monarch, which I doubt.

Edit: I'll reiterate and explain: I'm asserting that there is a set of all states, and within that there is a subset which do not possess monarchs, these are republics, within the set of republics there exists a subset which are democracies.

Democracy is a subset of Republic, not vice-versa as Rhyno D claimed.

The USA falls into the set of Republics, but not into the subset of democracies.

Republic is a very loosely used word, as in Republic of China. And technically speaking, communism...rather, Marxism is democratic.
But that's one of the first things I ever learned in my US history class..Granted, the teacher was uber-rightwing...But I've heard it in various other history classes.
Democracy is the people being in control of the gov't, not vice versa. Direct democracy is where the people directly cast ballots, vote, etc. Republics are indirect democracies, in which there is an electoral college, elected by the people, who then elect the president. (i think...i'm really fuzzy on this)

I think you might want to reattribute that to William Cowper, but hey, Gregory Benford said it only 200 years later than him.

Whatever. I just know Greg said it. Does it matter? It's still true.

-Buzzer sound-

Sorry; Science has never proved nor disproved God. Science does not seek to prove or disprove God.

I will leave the Athiesm is a Religion arguments to somebody else.

I never said I said that...just that peole have tried to argue it.

But the nature of science is to prove using natural laws, correct?
God is supernatural. Scientists may not be trying to disprove God, but that's what they're doing, mostly. There are many cases where science and God don't intersect, but in the broad sense, that's what's going on.

OK Twice I've replied and twice it didn't "stick" One last try.
I wasn't nit-picking - I do try to choose words precisely because language is all you have in a text-based format such as this.

Rhyno-whatever-his name-is (I'm composing offline) now is 100% correct that he has the right to his opinion no matter how ill-formed it is. I would never suggest otherwise. Just Kidding. As I said, I'd probably have performed the same "protest" when I was younger... if I hadn't seen that Bradbury is brilliant. ; )

The exact phrase "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution itself, but has always been one of our core principles for very good reasons. Now who's diddling in semantics?


The argument has alwas been about the State making "no law impeding the free expression" of religion either by Hampering one or Endorsing another.

It's NOT about keeping the faithful from getting elected, and it's NOT about elected officials not letting faith guide their decision-making. Never has been.

To frame it as being about "only agnostics could be elected" is a total Staw Man argument. It reduces credibility and prevents real discussion of a gravely serious topic.

The current administration makes no secret of it's ACTIVE promotion of an Evangelical Christian ("EC" to save typing) agenda. In fact it makes a big show of it. But not everyone is an Evangelical Christian. This is a problem as we have already seen:
* The disporportionate distribution of funds for "fatih-based" groups favoring EC programs over all others.
* The use of strongly-religious (some say blasphemous) language when dealing with foriegn affairs, including the dangously-charged Middle-East.
* The reliance on vague religous-sounding rhetoric when asked serious questions about his governance.
* Blatant disonnects between the oft-stated "principles" and the real-life ethics (One example: all life is sacred/anti-abortion vs. increasing the use of depleted uranium in ammo causing severe birth defects).

Just as or more importantly, the separation is there to protect the Churches and the faithful from State intrusion.
What happens to the EC faithful when/if their once-pliable officials ask them to do something that they disapprove of? (use of Church mailing lists for fund-raising, lowering pollution standards, not helping the poor and unfotunate, helping coporations violate the law, supporting an immoral candidate or even someday accepting a mandatory National ID chip under the skin)

I should rephrase, complete separation is impossible. Partial separation is needed, but only partial.

2 people? I thought it was 5.....guess that's just an unregistered party (with or without conspiracy)


And don't forget (I think this is key) that on 9/12 only what...a dozen people were given special presidential permission to fly- included in this prestigious group: Osama's family
(ok, maybe it was like 9/13...but I think it was 9/12 and I'm sure it was slightly more than a dozen...I'll go look up some facts...) later...

Has anyone considered that maybe Osama is the bad kid in his family, and that the rest of them are nice? Not trying to be sarcastic, and I wouldn't know all that stuff, but seriously, have any of you even considered the thought?

I'm am a christian and side on the christian side of almost every issue but on book-burning I just find it stupid. If you don't like a book cause it defames Jesus or a cd bcecause the singer hates Jesus tell people not to buy it but dont burn it(because usually someone has to buy it so the money goes to the author or artist) Book-burning isnt always bad though every year i burn all my books from school.

I never said I said that...just that peole have tried to argue it.

But the nature of science is to prove using natural laws, correct?
God is supernatural. Scientists may not be trying to disprove God, but that's what they're doing, mostly. There are many cases where science and God don't intersect, but in the broad sense, that's what's going on.

Not at all. Science only seeks to answer questions to why something does what it does.

Tangent: Most discoveries are not announced with Eureka! But with "That's funny!" ;)

Relgious people think scientists are trying to disprove God. They aren't. There was a time when Relgious people had the power to stop it. We called it the Dark Ages.

Knowledge ends when people simply wave their hands and mutter "it's Gods work"

Republic is a very loosely used word, as in Republic of China.

No, not in this case, unless China has a monarch which they have been hiding away from the rest of the world for the past couple of decades.

And technically speaking, communism...rather, Marxism is democratic.

Well, technically speaking, China isn't a Marxist state. Secondly, Marxism prior to the eventual projected whithering away of the state is anything but democratic. The dictatorship of the proletariat are there to rule over the people and to lead them, regardless of whether the people want to be ruled over or not.


Republics are indirect democracies, in which there is an electoral college, elected by the people, who then elect the president. (i think...i'm really fuzzy on this)


You are describing just one particular form of constitution based Republic (the model in use in the USA) and attempting to universalize it. A fascist dictatorship, or an anarchist collectivist state, or a democracy without a single president are all examples of government systems which fall under the category of republic.

Once again - a republic is any state where a monarch is not head of state.

Not at all. Science only seeks to answer questions to why something does what it does.

Nonsense. Science is utterly silent on the question of 'why', for that you have to look to philosophy, spirituality or religion.

Science is concerned with questions of "what", "where", "when" and "how", but is incapable of dealing with questions of "why".

Science is incapable of telling us why there is a universe, but is pretty good at telling us what it is made out of, where it is situated, and how it operates. When it comes to questions like "why is there something instead of nothing?" it is useless.



Edit: changed "spiritualism" to "spirituality" and realised I had left "when" out of the list.

Nonsense. Science is utterly silent on the question of 'why', for that you have to look to philosophy, spirituality or religion.

Science is concerned with questions of "what", "where", "when" and "how", but is incapable of dealing with questions of "why".

Science is incapable of telling us why there is a universe, but is pretty good at telling us what it is made out of, where it is situated, and how it operates. When it comes to questions like "why is there something instead of nothing?" it is useless.

Edit: changed "spiritualism" to "spirituality" and realised I had left "when" out of the list.

Granted a bad choice to use but hey I am a primatogist so "why" does get asked as "Now why did he attack him for?" ;)

But you explained it better. Thanks! :)

Nonsense. Science is utterly silent on the question of 'why', for that you have to look to philosophy, spirituality or religion.

Science is concerned with questions of "what", "where", "when" and "how", but is incapable of dealing with questions of "why".

Science is incapable of telling us why there is a universe, but is pretty good at telling us what it is made out of, where it is situated, and how it operates. When it comes to questions like "why is there something instead of nothing?" it is useless.



Edit: changed "spiritualism" to "spirituality" and realised I had left "when" out of the list.

That's a good point. I can concede that science doesn't try to disprove God, but in explaining things (especially those unexplainable), they do tend to resist God as an explanation. A blatanly obvious (and rather cheap, i admit) example would be origins of life.

Just to remind you, I'm not the one who said that atheim isn't a religion because it's based on science...I'm the one disproving it.

I'm am a christian and side on the christian side of almost every issue but on book-burning I just find it stupid. If you don't like a book cause it defames Jesus or a cd bcecause the singer hates Jesus tell people not to buy it but dont burn it(because usually someone has to buy it so the money goes to the author or artist) Book-burning isnt always bad though every year i burn all my books from school.

Yeah, I'd have to agree that it's not the smartest way to do things, but we also don't know all the reasoning. They may be thinking along the same lines as you burning your textbooks.

but in explaining things (especially those unexplainable), they do tend to resist God as an explanation. A blatanly obvious (and rather cheap, i admit) example would be origins of life.

Just to remind you, I'm not the one who said that atheim isn't a religion because it's based on science...I'm the one disproving it.

Do you really want to start an evolution debate? Might want to start a new thread! ;)

But to your statement. God can't be a factor as there is no way to test for it. Faith can't be involved with Science.....

I can concede that science doesn't try to disprove God, but in explaining things (especially those unexplainable), they do tend to resist God as an explanation.

Well, yeah, obviously, but this is because as you asserted the only evidence an individual can possess of God is an internal experience, which by its very definition is beyond the ambit and methodology of science.

Science rejects explanations which are not falsifiable, and God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, thus any explanation that science puts forward is going to automatically rule out God.


This next paragraph isn't the clearest, my apologies -

Of course, having said this, there comes a point where science must recognise its own limitations: at that point it is up to the individuals involved to make their own decisions as to how they want to answer questions such as "why is there something instead of nothing", and some of those individuals will answer "because of God", but this in no way neccessarilly affects their quality as scientists.

You are describing just one particular form of constitution based Republic (the model in use in the USA) and attempting to universalize it. A fascist dictatorship, or an anarchist collectivist state, or a democracy without a single president are all examples of government systems which fall under the category of republic.

I thought there wasn't a state in anarcho-collectivism or any other form of anarchism.

That's a good point. I can concede that science doesn't try to disprove God, but in explaining things (especially those unexplainable), they do tend to resist God as an explanation. A blatanly obvious (and rather cheap, i admit) example would be origins of life.

Just to remind you, I'm not the one who said that atheim isn't a religion because it's based on science...I'm the one disproving it.

The reason why the "God explanation" is resisted in science is because as far as science is concerned it is not an explanation. In order to be useful scientists must assume natural, scientifically describable causes for everything we see in the universe. If we assume that "God", a supernatural entity not bound by natural law causes everything we observe that we cannot presently understand then we really have no idea about the validty of all of our other scientific predictions and thus the whole scientific program breaks down. Thus rather than invoking "God" we try to explain what we do not understand by invesitgating natural causes and thus preserving the validity of science. I could say that some "God" created everything two seconds ago and no-one can prove me wrong but the argument is not at all a useful one.

As for atheism being a religion, as I have said before, this is purely a matter of opinion and based on what you consider to be the default choice on the existence of "God". Personally, I think that no "God" is the default choice and is not even a question that arises unless someone comes up with the concept of "God". To me the idea of a "God" is pure assumption (and to my mind an unsubstatiated one). Thus as an atheist I do not assume there is no "God", I simply see no reason to assume that there is one and the rest follows. Thus from my view, atheism is not a religion.

As for the term republic, I have always be lead to believe that it reffers specifically to a type of government in which the people choose individuals to represent them in some sort of governing body, but do not sit in it directly themselves. Thus Athens, in which all citizens sat in the assembly was a democracy proper. Anceint Rome, Canada, The USA, and indeed almost all other modern governments where there are representatives elected to a house of some sort are republics. A federation is different, it means a set of independant or semi-independant states that come together under some overall government that can be of any type. Thus both the USA with its states and Canada with its provinces are federal republics.

As for book burning, I suppose if that is what you want to do symbolically, then that is ok. Books regardless of their content, however, represent knowledge and allowing them to exist represents our tolerance of differing viewpoints. Thus burning a book, no matter what it is, is a symbolic act of desroying knowledge and promoting intolerance of others. Thus the burner of any book is implicitly stating that they advocate ignorance over knowledge and that they are intolerant of views other than their own.

I'm not a 'beliver' and i do have a tendancy to sit on the fence but why is it that just because you can explain the how of science, the why can't be because 'God said so'?

as for the burning books, i have never been able to burn a book myself (and trust me sylvia plath very nearly drove me to it) because i know to much of history. when books are censored and knowledge is restricted then people cannot advance because the people doing the censoring have an idea of how the nation SHOULD be, this is not always in the interests of everyone else, even when that individual is trying to do for the best.

as for this particular case, i have to say i disagree with what they were trying to do, not that they wanted to burn books, or even because they belived the books were 'sinful', but becuse of their motives. they made a political/religious statement about something that should have been a personal desision.

as for the burning of flags and bibles- why would you want to? if you burn them because you find them offensive then, go for it. if you burn them because you need fuel, go for it. but if you want to burn them purely because it would cause offence to others, because you want the power of being able to hurt another human being, because it makes you feel big and strong, then you should really consider more your reasons for needing to do such a thing.

actions arn't important, it's the motive behing them that tells

Have any of you seen the letter Jesus' General (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_patriotboy_archive.html#108969343543823105) wrote about this subject? Funny stuff, reposted below for your benefit:
Dear Rev. Breedlove,

I was sorry to hear that the wicked unbelievers at the Cedar Rapid Fire Department wouldn't allow you to participate in the centuries old Christian tradition of book burning. They just don't understand how this metaphor for the banishment of foreign ideas unifies a community or how it simplifies the good work you do in bringing conformity to your flock.

There's a certain violence, a sacred violence, that is inherent in the act of setting a pile of books on fire. It's symbolic of the old days when heresy was punished by burning the offenders in the public square. Your suggested alternative of throwing the books into a garbage can while lighting a candle doesn't have the same effect.

You need to put the violence back into the act. Perhaps you could have ask the members of The Jesus Church to stab each book before you throw it into the trash. Better yet, they could shoot each heretical volume, thus exercising their Second Amendment rights in the service of the Lord.

Please let me know how everything turns out.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

The Jesus Church on the web.

The reason why the "God explanation" is resisted in science is because as far as science is concerned it is not an explanation. In order to be useful scientists must assume natural, scientifically describable causes for everything we see in the universe. If we assume that "God", a supernatural entity not bound by natural law causes everything we observe that we cannot presently understand then we really have no idea about the validity of all of our other scientific predictions and thus the whole scientific program breaks down. Thus rather than invoking "God" we try to explain what we do not understand by investigating natural causes and thus preserving the validity of science. I could say that some "God" created everything two seconds ago and no-one can prove me wrong but the argument is not at all a useful one. .

Well said, Naughtland. I suppose you happen to be either a scientist, or a student of science(like myself.) If you'll humor me for a moment, I'll attempt to expand further on these statements, and perhaps teach a few things about basic science.

What is science?
Science is the study of measurable, repeatable events and objects in order to predict their behavior. For example, the manner in which a pencil falls a distance of one meter can be studied scientifically. Why? Because I can measure it. I can use a fine balance to find the mass of the pencil. I can time the period it takes to fall. And I can do this over, and over and over again the same way, or a different way, to understand the relationships between my measurements. Eventually, with enough study, I could tell you exactly how long it takes to fall in an atmosphere of pure argon.

The Christian god, however, is infinite in every way. He is supposedly timeless, all-powerful and completely immeasurable. He is therefore outside the realm of science completely.

Remember-measurement is the keystone of science. If you can't describe it quantitatively, march that issue over to the Philosophy department. They will welcome you.



As for atheism being a religion, as I have said before, this is purely a matter of opinion and based on what you consider to be the default choice on the existence of "God". Personally, I think that no "God" is the default choice and is not even a question that arises unless someone comes up with the concept of "God". To me the idea of a "God" is pure assumption (and to my mind an unsubstatiated one). Thus as an atheist I do not assume there is no "God", I simply see no reason to assume that there is one and the rest follows. Thus from my view, atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is not a religion, and could never be. This is because, atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief. The prefix 'a' means without, and theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. See the point? There is much confusion though, and Naughtland did not discuss this. I will try to do so.

It has been my observation that a majority of Western churches are extremely competitive. This trend crops up firstly in official church doctrines which outline the horrible sufferings perpetrated upon unbelievers by their divine patron. Secondly in the behavior of the congregations themselves, who denounce those outside their sect as evil, and try to convert them through a manner of high pressure tactics including threats (both divine and mundane) and exploitation.

Though I am not a sociologist, who would be a much better choice for explaining this trend, I am a biologist, and animal behavior does factor into my field. Take my theory with a grain of salt, however, and consult a local professional if you need something cleared up.

Humans have been forming groups and tribes since we first evolved the rudimentary social skills necessary to communicate amongst ourselves. This first began with small family units, then larger groups of several families. In these cases a type of insider/outsider mentality develops. Those 'in the fold' as the same to each other, and thus safe. An outsider is a stranger, who is unpredictable. The modern religions, and their desire to assimilate and control, may very well be a carry-over. This 'us-versus-them' groupthink forces the members to toss everyone into two categories, and atheism is a victim of this.

This is even furthered by the fact that atheism is a logical series of thoughts that are common to the types of minds geared towards scientific minds and people. A large segment of fundamentalists often feel that science threatens their religion, as modern science contradicts many claims in their holy texts. Let us take, for example, the age of the Earth and universe. Many texts, including the Bible, state the age of the world to be in the thousands of years. Various scientific evidence runs contrary.
1) Light. Astronomers can study light from distant stars to uncover a deluge of information. Star composition, size, distance and how long said light has been traveling. (Via the Doppler Effect) Light from stars has been traveling for billions of years.
2) Radioactive dating. By using the half-lives of various compounds, geologists, among others, can date objects back millions of years.

Of course, this is often countered with arguments by the faithful. One of the most popular is- 'Why, the great [insert favored deity here] created the universe like that just to test our belief!' This is of course, unrefutable. Useless, as well, which is a point Naughtland made and I repeat. Its worth it.

Or, if the person feels intellectual , they may say something along the lines of, 'Oh, really, carbon-14 dating? You have no way to prove that carbon decays at a constant rate over a thousand years. So maybe it was excellerated in the past.' Which is even worse, as such a statement happens to invalidate Science Fundamentals #2. Allow me to explain.

All of science is founded on three basic assumptions. Without them, the entire structure of science at its simplest would collapse. These are:
1. Causality. If something happens, there is a reason. Cause->Effect.
2. Universality. The laws of nature remain constant no matter the time or place. Gravity on Pluto is still based on mass and distance, just like here on Earth.
3. Observation. Humans, at the most basic, observe things in similar ways. Eyes see, hands feel, ears hear.

So, if Universality were untrue, as our imaginary theist proposes, science would collapse. No measurement could be trusted, even something as simple as temperature or kinetics. Medicine could not exist without the constant of universality. No technology. No society. No life, really. And since time itself would not be constant, as well as entropy and matter, the universe would be a stewpot of temporal chaos. Rather unpleasant, isn't it?

The end result is that atheists often receive the combined furor, as they are seen not just as a competitor for members and power, but as a direct threat to the very existence of the religion. I am afraid I may have unduly digressed, but at least you may have learned something.


As for book burning, I suppose if that is what you want to do symbolically, then that is ok. Books regardless of their content, however, represent knowledge and allowing them to exist represents our tolerance of differing viewpoints. Thus burning a book, no matter what it is, is a symbolic act of destroying knowledge and promoting intolerance of others. Thus the burner of any book is implicitly stating that they advocate ignorance over knowledge and that they are intolerant of views other than their own.


I agree wholeheartedly, Naughtland. I would advise, that instead of burning books that symbolizes everything you hate, that shows the essence of the most vile and putrid thing you despise, keep it close. Read it often, and use it a reminder and a warning. A benchmark, if you will, to avoid becoming that which you seek to extinguish. You cannot fight that which you do not know.

What is science?
Science is the study of measurable, repeatable events and objects in order to predict their behavior.

Problem: events in the real world are not repeatable.

Problem: events in the real world are not repeatable.

They aren't? I must admit this is technically true. In the 'real world' there are sadly far to many factors that affect the outcome minutely to re-create every speck of dust in the lab. However, the major factors can be incorporated in the lab to determine the underlying process driving the actions.

So, for example, if a car crashes into a wall, I would be unable to repeat this exactly. However, I could set up a wall, as close to the original as I can. Then take several cars, of the same type, model and in as close condition to the original car and crash them into the wall at the same speed as the original.

In each test, there will be small factors that affect the results. A speck of gravel. A crosswind. Tiny defects or differences in the cars. However, in the long run, after this experiment has been repeated enough times, there will be a definite trend where the results average out. These results are then useful.


For example.
Forensics. This is a favorite, as it allows us to piece together events from crimes.
Lets say someone was beaten to death in a cubic room. It is a simple matter to obtain or build a room of the same dimensions and paint or paper it in the same fashion of the murder room. We have now re-created the setting. Now, lay a dead pig on the floor, and beat it with a stick. Since the makeup of pig blood is very similar to that of humans, and the stick you used is the same dimensions as the murder weapon (you measured the wounds on the corpse, right?) you then have the type of blood patterns slung about by said stick. If you repeat this enough times, you will find a predictable pattern that occurs when something is beaten to death on the floor of a room by a person so tall with a stick so large.

It would be nigh impossible to replicate the original blood-splatters, but, through experiment and observation, you could put together a profile about blood-splatters caused by downward delivered blows against a prone subject on a floor. Then you can compare your profile against the evidence at the scene and come to a well founded conclusion.

So, as you can see, while exact replication is impossible, repeated experimentation using simplified models still yields useful results. This is especially true in the cases where replication would be exceptionally impossible or unethical.

[QUOTE=Ocarinas]Atheism is not a religion, and could never be. This is because, atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief. The prefix 'a' means without, and theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. See the point? QUOTE]

so your sayind that for something to be a religion it has to worship a 'God' figure? then what about the ancient celts, or pagans, or wiccans, who all belive in a 'force' that controls and call it nature in the main. many aethiests are belivers that there is SOMETHING out there, they just don't belive it's a god.

the aregument i follow is,
aethism is the lack of belief in a God/gods, therefore it is a state of belief (the Belief in the lack of existance of said deity). following a belief can be classed as a religion. therefore aethiesm is a religious viewpoint.

Ok, yeah, book burning is a little over the top, but he has every right to do it, with city regulations, of course. If he bought the books, and if he's within code, he has the right to burn them. I burned Fahrenheit 451 just for the hell of it in my fireplace. I hated the book, and the irony of burning it touched me. And it is a church tradition, even if it was oppressive. But now, it's not oppressive, since they're not burning any and all copies, they're only burning the copies they have. It's a symbolic gesture now, saying that they won't bow to sin and to Satan. They are showing that they feel strong about this.


What did you have against Fahrenheit 451? Sure it was about books being illegal, but it is possible. As far as book burning now, I don't care either way, so long as it doesn't break any laws and otherwise. If they want to burn the stuff they bought, waste the money, it's really their choice, not ours.

In other news, some of you people really need to get lives, all this stuff about Atheism and such is nothing I would ever be able to think of...

Well, yeah, obviously, but this is because as you asserted the only evidence an individual can possess of God is an internal experience, which by its very definition is beyond the ambit and methodology of science.

Science rejects explanations which are not falsifiable, and God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, thus any explanation that science puts forward is going to automatically rule out God.


This next paragraph isn't the clearest, my apologies -

Of course, having said this, there comes a point where science must recognise its own limitations: at that point it is up to the individuals involved to make their own decisions as to how they want to answer questions such as "why is there something instead of nothing", and some of those individuals will answer "because of God", but this in no way neccessarilly affects their quality as scientists.
Yeah, that's all true. One of the problems is that science rarely accepts its limitations.
And I know that science doesn't use God to explain because that's not really an explanation...But with some things, like the creation of the universe, science just can't explain it very well, and when you get down to it, "God said so" is just as valid as all the technobabble they come up with.

The reason why the "God explanation" is resisted in science is because as far as science is concerned it is not an explanation. In order to be useful scientists must assume natural, scientifically describable causes for everything we see in the universe. If we assume that "God", a supernatural entity not bound by natural law causes everything we observe that we cannot presently understand then we really have no idea about the validty of all of our other scientific predictions and thus the whole scientific program breaks down. Thus rather than invoking "God" we try to explain what we do not understand by invesitgating natural causes and thus preserving the validity of science. I could say that some "God" created everything two seconds ago and no-one can prove me wrong but the argument is not at all a useful one.
What gets me here is not that they resist "God said so", but that they don't acknowledge it at all. No, it doesn't really esplain things, but it's still just as viable as Big Bang and whatever else they have.

As for atheism being a religion, as I have said before, this is purely a matter of opinion and based on what you consider to be the default choice on the existence of "God". Personally, I think that no "God" is the default choice and is not even a question that arises unless someone comes up with the concept of "God". To me the idea of a "God" is pure assumption (and to my mind an unsubstatiated one). Thus as an atheist I do not assume there is no "God", I simply see no reason to assume that there is one and the rest follows. Thus from my view, atheism is not a religion.
Actually, theism would be the default...It came first. And as I said, the lack of God is an assumption as well, since there's no more proof for lack of than there is for his being. The only statement which doesn't not require faith is "I don't know," which is not atheistic, but agnostic.

As for the term republic, I have always be lead to believe that it reffers specifically to a type of government in which the people choose individuals to represent them in some sort of governing body, but do not sit in it directly themselves. Thus Athens, in which all citizens sat in the assembly was a democracy proper. Anceint Rome, Canada, The USA, and indeed almost all other modern governments where there are representatives elected to a house of some sort are republics. A federation is different, it means a set of independant or semi-independant states that come together under some overall government that can be of any type. Thus both the USA with its states and Canada with its provinces are federal republics.

As for book burning, I suppose if that is what you want to do symbolically, then that is ok. Books regardless of their content, however, represent knowledge and allowing them to exist represents our tolerance of differing viewpoints. Thus burning a book, no matter what it is, is a symbolic act of desroying knowledge and promoting intolerance of others. Thus the burner of any book is implicitly stating that they advocate ignorance over knowledge and that they are intolerant of views other than their own.
There are actually two words you can use here, tolerance and acceptance. By burning the books, they're saying they will tolerate you, (other wise they'd try to burn you), but they won't accept you. And in all fairness, as long as they don't hurt anyone, they can hate all they want. Not smart, but it's their right.

Atheism is not a religion, and could never be. This is because, atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief. The prefix 'a' means without, and theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. See the point? There is much confusion though, and Naughtland did not discuss this. I will try to do so.
Lack of belief is agnostic. They don't believe either way, God or no-God. There is no belief.
Atheists believe that there is no God.

Just to prove the point, I can easily say that I lack the belief that there is no God.
Or I lack belief in Big Bang, I lack belief in evolution, etc.

Thing is, that alone does not make me a Christian, does it? There are other theories besides God and Big Bang. So, to make me theistic, i have to believe that there is a God along with not believing in everything else.

QUOTE=Rhyno D]Just to prove the point, I can easily say that I lack the belief that there is no God.
Or I lack belief in Big Bang, I lack belief in evolution, etc.

Thing is, that alone does not make me a Christian, does it? There are other theories besides God and Big Bang. So, to make me theistic, i have to believe that there is a God along with not believing in everything else.[/QUOTE]

Not always, you could believe in the big bang and evolution because science can explain HOW these things happen, but not why they happen. My undergraduate philosophy lecturer follows the personal belief that God "created science to do his great works.” he is at heart a scientist, but is also a devout Christian. The two are not incompatible.

What gets me here is not that they resist "God said so", but that they don't acknowledge it at all. No, it doesn't really esplain things, but it's still just as viable as Big Bang and whatever else they have.


That is because God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Science cannot operate with unfalsifiable hypotheses.

The big bang, however is falsifiable.

We can look at a proposed model of how the universe came into being such as the big bang, and see if there is a way of falsifying it. Thus, the current model of the big bang would have been falsified if background microwave radiation levels were found to be incompatible with its predictions. Thus background microwave radiation levels were examined, and found to be inaccordance with its predictions. If they had been found to have been at radically different strengths to those predicted, then that model of the big bang would have been falsified. It was not, therefore it remains as working scientific hypothesis, until it is falsified by other data.

If we look at another scientific hypothesis concerning the origins of the cosmos - the steady state theory - we find that the working model of it was falsified by these very readings of microwave background radiation.

Thus, hypotheses which are subject to possible falsification through empirical investigation, such as the Big Bang or the Steady State Theory, are the stuff of science, whereas those which are not subject to possible falsification through empirical investigation, such as God, are not.

Atheism is not a religion, and could never be. This is because, atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief. The prefix 'a' means without, and theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. See the point?

so your sayind that for something to be a religion it has to worship a 'God' figure? then what about the ancient celts, or pagans, or wiccans, who all belive in a 'force' that controls and call it nature in the main. many aethiests are belivers that there is SOMETHING out there, they just don't belive it's a god.


No, Ariarnia, I am not saying that. However, I am using current definitions of atheism and theism from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. This is a reputable dictionary that provided a very clear definition that my explanation fits to.

As for the structure of your arguement, lets take a look at those ancient Celts, pagans and/or Wiccans. The ancient Celts, and modern day Wiccans both do worship nature, through her avatars. These come in the form of the Godess, who is referred to by the name of whatever strikes the believer's fancy. Gaia, Diana, what-have you. There is then the Horned God, who is her consort. I have been rather simplistic with this definition, so, if you have questions, do some research, or ask your local Wiccian coven. They are usually quite friendly and throw great parties.

As for pagans, the variety of definitions for them-
pa·gan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.

Prevents us from discussing them clearly. The groups include the Hindu, the atheists and the Wiccans, two of which worship a god/godess just make an example.

Moving briskly along.


the aregument i follow is,
aethism is the lack of belief in a God/gods, therefore it is a state of belief (the Belief in the lack of existance of said deity). following a belief can be classed as a religion. therefore aethiesm is a religious viewpoint.

There seems to be a bit of confusion over the meaning of a religion, so once more, lets pull out our handy dictionary.
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1. A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As we can see from the primary definition here, the belief and reverence for a supernatural power excludes atheists right there. Atheists do not believe in supernatural powers, nor such an endowed entity creating the universe, nor do they engage in worship of this mysterious all-powerful entity.

All other religions, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and yes, even Wicca, follow this pattern. Atheism does not for a very simple reason. It is not a religion.

But let us continue. Number Two, 'The life or condition' has little bearing, as it references back to a 'religious order' and the definition of such is what we would like to clear up.

Alright, number three is a bit tricky. 'A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.' What is a spiritual leader? Looking down at the definition of spritual...

spir·i·tu·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-ch-l)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

...we find little relation to atheists. All but one of the meanings of spiritual reerence to a leader of religion or supernatural. Atheists, as unbelievers of the supernatural, would be highly unlikely to deal with or follow such an illogical person.

The fourth, and final definition, ' A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. ' This has no references to supernatural, all-powerful beings, and many atheists do have causes, usually relating to human welfare. However, this definition also has little to do with your arguement about belief.

Atheism is many things, but a religion is not one of them. Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV.

belief

n 1: any cognitive content held as true [ant: unbelief]

2: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: dogma, tenet]

(WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)

*Grins madly* are we having fun yet? *Clears throat*

Ok... I concede you have the advantage when it comes to using the precise dictionary definition of words, but with something so personal and intangible as religious beliefs can we rely solely on a dictionary definition to explain our thought processes. In general use we tend to class religion as a belief system or way of life an individual follows that has a spiritual basis. Words have so many different meanings to different people that metaphors may be of more use.

Here’s one I prepared earlier... :)

Consider the existence of a soul in religious terms. That soul is generally accepted to exist in three states. Awaiting existence, existing and after existence

If we take these as having values of potential to be,

1) Awaiting existence (-1)
2) Existing (0)
3) After existence (+1)

Then we can say that the soul can exist in three states. Can we use this to illustrate the state of an individuals beliefs?

1) A BELIEF in the lack of existence of a god (atheist) (-1)
2) A lack of belief in the state of god (agnostic) (0)
3) A BELIEF in the existence of a god (theist) (+1)

The atheist may have a negative value of belief, but still has a value therefore it is a valid religious viewpoint.

belief

n 1: any cognitive content held as true [ant: unbelief]

2: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: dogma, tenet]

(WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)

*Grins madly* are we having fun yet? *Clears throat*

Ok... I concede you have the advantage when it comes to using the precise dictionary definition of words, but with something so personal and intangible as religious beliefs can we rely solely on a dictionary definition to explain our thought processes. In general use we tend to class religion as a belief system or way of life an individual follows that has a spiritual basis. Words have so many different meanings to different people that metaphors may be of more use.

Here’s one I prepared earlier... :)

Consider the existence of a soul in religious terms. That soul is generally accepted to exist in three states. Awaiting existence, existing and after existence

If we take these as having values of potential to be,

1) Awaiting existence (-1)
2) Existing (0)
3) After existence (+1)

Then we can say that the soul can exist in three states. Can we use this to illustrate the state of an individuals beliefs?

1) A BELIEF in the lack of existence of a god (atheist) (-1)
2) A lack of belief in the state of god (agnostic) (0)
3) A BELIEF in the existence of a god (theist) (+1)

The atheist may have a negative value of belief, but still has a value therefore it is a valid religious viewpoint.

Nicely put. I tried to explain it like that once, but it was long, made little sense, and no one knew what the hell I was saying...
As for exact definitions:
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

yay!! finaly someone who sees the light cast by the lack of presence of the lord ;)

belief

n 1: any cognitive content held as true [ant: unbelief]

2: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: dogma, tenet]

(WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)

*Grins madly* are we having fun yet? *Clears throat*

Why yes, I am. You have just supported my statements from earlier.


Ok... I concede you have the advantage when it comes to using the precise dictionary definition of words, but with something so personal and intangible as religious beliefs can we rely solely on a dictionary definition to explain our thought processes. In general use we tend to class religion as a belief system or way of life an individual follows that has a spiritual basis. Words have so many different meanings to different people that metaphors may be of more use.


Metaphors are useful when dealing with an individual's set of specific beliefs. However, in this case we are dealing with a basic property of atheism. Is it, or is it not a type of religion? You wish to offer up the definition of 'belief' as evidence that atheism is a religious doctrine, but have proved the inverse.

As you can see, 'belief' has two definitions listed. When a word has multiple definitions it is because the word is used in different contexts. In this case, one context is;
1: any cognitive content held as true
Which fits with atheism well, and much better than the next one. After all, atheism is set of logical thoughts and a mindset derived from reason. So it would be safe to say that atheism is a belief.

However, the second definition is;
A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: dogma, tenet]
I have already discussed why atheism is not related is not related to reason, so I shall focus on the second half of the definition. 'Proclaimed as true without proof' runs completely counter to the foundation of the atheist's world, logic.

Nicely put. I tried to explain it like that once, but it was long, made little sense, and no one knew what the hell I was saying...
As for exact definitions:
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

There are two things I'd like to point out, Rhyno. Firstly, though I appreciate the notation of where you obtained these definitions, I cannot help but note that you do not list all the definitions supplied for each word. This selective use trouble me.

Secondly, I find your logic set doubtful. It all begins with your use of definition 1b, which implies others that may not support your logic. This selective choice does not assist in your credibility. This occurs again with your definition of 'faith' and 'doctrine' as well.

Of course, your entire arguement would fail if you used definition number two below:
Atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

For the simple reason that atheism is a lack of something more than it is anything.

why add all the definitions? multiple definitions are different ways of understanding the same term. words are not specific, they have different meanings to different people and were simply used here to illustrate a point, a point that i note you have studiously avoided. have you simply critisized the previous post in an attempt to hide the fact that you are unable of countering it's arguments?

surely not...

back to the argument behind THIS post,

i've been thinking this through, and hope that the summery i place below will help us to cover eveything. it's basically a piecing together the content of various posts on this thread. flame me if i miss anything ;) plus i decided not to quote every one cause some people said the same thing so don't get mad, i'm not trying to steal from you ;)

here goes:

To begin with, a religion is defined as, (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, pg. 969)

religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith

a faith is defined in the same source as, (pg. 408)

faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

Atheism itself as (pg. 70)

atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no deity

And doctrine as (pg. 333)

doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith, AND a religion...

And so this works when it comes to using the precise dictionary definition of words, but with something so personal and intangible as religious beliefs can we rely solely on a dictionary definition to explain our thought processes. In general use we tend to class religion as a belief system or way of life an individual follows that has a spiritual basis. Words have so many different meanings to different people that metaphors may be of more use.

Here’s one I prepared earlier...

Consider the existence of a soul in religious terms. That soul is generally accepted to exist in three states. Awaiting existence, existing and after existence

If we take these as having values of potential to be,

1) Awaiting existence (-1)
2) Existing (0)
3) After existence (+1)

Therefore it can be argued that the soul can exist in three states. Can we use this to illustrate the state of an individuals beliefs?

1) A BELIEF in the lack of existence of a god (atheist) (-1)
2) A lack of belief in the state of god (agnostic) (0)
3) A BELIEF in the existence of a god (theist) (+1)

The atheist may have a negative value of belief, but still has a value therefore it is a valid religious viewpoint.

Then there are some arguments against that haven't really been covered yet so i stole this from somewhere else: (sorry for not ref better)

1) Some people argue that atheism is based on science and therefore is not a religion:

a) There is no more proof to atheism than to "religion". There's probably more against it.

2) Some people argue that it doesn't take faith to have Atheism:

b) Yes it does, since it cannot be proven 100%. Even if it could, it would still require faith, since you would have to believe that whatever is proving it isn't lying, isn't faulty, etc.

3) Some people argue that Atheism hasn't a set of principles and therefore is not a religion:

c) Christianity can be defined by only five fundamental ideas.
God exists.
Christ is his son.
Christ is perfect.
Christ died to relieve the world's sin.
Christ rose from the dead.
That's not much principle. It takes more principle to do an addition problem in math class.

4) Some people argue that atheism isn't organized like religion is:

b)To be a christian, all you have to do is believe that Christ is God's son, and that he died and rose again. You don't have to go to church to be a Christian; you probably won't be the strongest Christian, but you're still a Christian.

So either Christianity isn't a religion, or atheism is.

i miss anything?

Consider the existence of a soul in religious terms. That soul is generally accepted to exist in three states. Awaiting existence, existing and after existence

If we take these as having values of potential to be,

1) Awaiting existence (-1)
2) Existing (0)
3) After existence (+1)

Therefore it can be argued that the soul can exist in three states.

You claim that the soul can "exist in three states", but only in one of these states can it actually exist, by your own admission.

To strip the religious aspect from the subject for the sake of clarity, what you are saying is "X can exist in three states, but only in one of these states can it exist".

Was the inherent contradiction intentional?

Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith, AND a religion...


By this reasoning if you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, then that too is classified as a religion.

Why?
We have no concrete proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet we believe that it will. This believe is therefore a matter of faith, and if you are to maintain consistency in your argument, you must also label it as a religion.

i miss anything?

Cliff has answered your question, Ari. He appears to have saintly paitence.


From: "Mike F."
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: August 21, 2003 9:46 PM

atheism is a faith or a belief system, based on irrational logics and unfounded reasoning.



From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Mike F."
Date: August 21, 2003 11:32 PM

atheism is a faith or a belief system, based on irrational logics and unfounded reasoning.

We are sorry that you lack the respect toward your own viewpoint to bother presenting it using correct English.


atheism is a faith or a belief system

Atheism is the absence of religious faith. It is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (although a handful of atheists do hold this opinion on top of their atheism).

As such, atheism is a very minor element in the overall outlook of any atheist. In fact, most of us rarely if ever think about atheism at all. At all. Please explain how the very absence of faith can be "a faith."


atheism is ... based on irrational logics

Again, atheism is the absence of a specific viewpoint, the view that a god or gods exist. One need not have ever even heard a god-claim to be an atheist, because atheism is the simple absence, not necessarily a willful rejection and not necessarily arrived at through the processes of logic. This is not unlike saying, "The absence of an opinion on the political standpoint of the Whig party of post-Revolutionary America is based on irrational logic(s)." Please explain how the absence of a viewpoint (the belief that gods exist) can be based upon any logic (much less, as you call it, "irrational logics").


atheism is ... based on ... unfounded reasoning

See above: atheism is the absence of a specific viewpoint, that view that a god or gods exist. One need not have ever even heard a god-claim to be an atheist, because atheism is the simple absence, not necessarily a willful rejection arrived at through the processes of human reason. This is not unlike saying, "For a person to not hold an opinion regarding the advantages or disadvantages of using antidepressant medication during interferon treatment of Hepatitis C is based on unfounded reasoning." Please explain how the absence of a viewpoint (the belief that gods exist) can be based upon unfounded reasoning.



Until you can explain these things to us, we must consider your statement to have been prompted by the institutionalized bigotry that has been foisted upon Christians (and others) by the Christian leadership for the purpose of slandering a class of people who, as a class, has done nobody a lick of harm. Christian leadership needed an easy way to make it seem to their students and parishioners that atheism is a stupid viewpoint. To do this, they were forced to lie about what we do and do not believe. To tell the truth about our positions (and lack thereof) would have shown their audience that atheism is entirely reasonable when it is a deliberate decision. Their parishioners and students would also have seen that atheism is most understandable when it is simply the default position of a person who has never cared to think upon the subject of organized religion, god-claims, and allegations of the supernatural.

Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Eight years of service to people
with no reason to believe

By this reasoning if you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, then that too is classified as a religion.

Why?
We have no concrete proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet we believe that it will. This believe is therefore a matter of faith, and if you are to maintain consistency in your argument, you must also label it as a religion.

it was in egypt for thousands of years...

if it makes you feel any better then i belive, as an athiest that god does not exist, i call this belief 'fred' therefore i belive in fred. can i now call athiesm a religion because i have named my absence of belief? doesn't that seem a little silly to you?

oh, and bwo - perhaps i should have said has the potential to hold three values. my point was that zero isn't a number, both minus one and one have a value though one is a negative value. it is still counted as existing in as valid a state as a positive number.

Sorry for the double but i needed some time to work on this one.

"atheism is a faith or a belief system, based on irrational logics and unfounded reasoning."

And Christianity isn't?

"Atheism is the absence of religious faith. It is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (although a handful of atheists do hold this opinion on top of their atheism)."

The absence of religious faith is agnosticism; I guess I must be one of the handful...

Just because your quote puts me in the minority, it doesn't make the belief or arguments any less valid. Whose to say there can't be sects in the religion of atheism just as much as in theism. Can I remind you of a Christian group of thinkers known as "Socinians" in the middle ages held, that the existence of evil was not incompatible with God's existence, but that it was incompatible with the existence of a God who is all-knowing. Thus, Socinians held that God must not be all-knowing, lacking at least knowledge of the future, (who's god, according to their standard religious beliefs, is all powerful, all knowing and benevolent). Religions such as Gnosticism and Manichaeism, and even some Christian groups, dispense with the issue by embracing various forms of dualism, in which God is opposed by an evil counterpart, and is therefore not omnipotent.
Does that mean they aren’t Christians? That what they believe isn't a Christian religion because they don't follow the majority dogma?

oh, and bwo - perhaps i should have said has the potential to hold three values. my point was that zero isn't a number, both minus one and one have a value though one is a negative value. it is still counted as existing in as valid a state as a positive number.


Hate to break it to you, but zero is a number and has a value which exists in as valid a state as either a postive or a negative number.

And here was me thinking I'd read a thread about book-burning . . .
I have a feeling the "Is atheism a religion?" question is not going to get conclusively answered anytime soon (although the return of Jesus Christ will solve a lot of these sort of debates fairly conclusively!), so I don't think I'll contribute to it.
Stealing books to burn them is definitely wrong, buying books for the purpose of burning them seems kinda confused. Burning a book, or any other object, as a symbolic statement that you reject its influence and deny its value has, I believe, legitimate merits, but it's not for everyone, and fire safety and clean air are also important.

Stealing books to burn them is definitely wrong, buying books for the purpose of burning them seems kinda confused. Burning a book, or any other object, as a symbolic statement that you reject its influence and deny its value has, I believe, legitimate merits, but it's not for everyone, and fire safety and clean air are also important.

yeah, my main beef was that the would-be book burners screamed "religious oppression!!!" when they were told they had to conform to fire codes. newsflash: just because your imaginary friend tells you to kill doesn't mean you get to do so, and just because he tells you to burn books doesn't mean the fire department has to take a coffee break while you do.

Hate to break it to you, but zero is a number and has a value which exists in as valid a state as either a postive or a negative number.

zero isn't a number it's the absence of value, the same as black isn't a colour it's the absence of colour

but yes, i agree, it's definatly time to burn something.

*mmm...BBQ*

zero isn't a number it's the absence of value,

Wrong. Totally and utterly incorrect. Back to basic mathematics class for you.

Zero is a number, and it is not the absence of value, it is a definite value, and that value is null.

Take for example the set of all American Presidents that have been christened with the name "Fidel Castro". The number of members of this set is a definite value. That value is zero/null/cipher/0/nothing. There is no absence of value involved.

A simple web search will find ample reliable affirmation of the fact that zero is a number, and any negation of it is in error. For example, from the Mathworld Encyclopedia of Maths -

"Zero is the integer denoted 0 that, when used as a counting number, means that no objects are present. It is the only integer (and, in fact, the only real number) that is neither negative nor positive. "

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zero.html

Edit: if you had any familiarity with Frege's 'Foundations of Arithmetic' you would realise just how ludicrous you claim that zero is not a number actually is, not only is it a real number, but it is the only number that can be used to generate all other numbers. It is the very basis of all number systems.

You want to start another thread about this? i don't think it's too fair to keep this up in the book burning list.

Added to which i'm using the word 'number' mean 'value' the same as i ment 'absence of reflected light on a particular wavelength' instead of colour.

But I will quite happily debate the existance of the 'value' zero with you if you want to post it. Perhaps you can explain to me why you can't square 1,3,5 and 7 even as a decimal place.

You want to start another thread about this? i don't think it's too fair to keep this up in the book burning list.

Done.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6561535#post6561535

I stole this from a friend's website, thought it was a frightening story:


It’s a close call as to which is the scariest part of this article, the actual story or the breezy, religion-coddling tone:

"CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) -- A church's plan for an old-fashioned book-burning has been thwarted by city and county fire codes.

Preachers and congregations throughout American history have built bonfires and tossed in books and other materials they believed offended God.

The Rev. Scott Breedlove, pastor of The Jesus Church, wanted to rekindle that tradition in a July 28 ceremony where books, CDs, videos and clothing would have been thrown into the flames.

Not so fast, city officials said.

"We don't want a situation where people are burning rubbish as a recreational fire," said Brad Brenneman, the fire department's district chief.

Linn County won't go for a fire outside city limits, either.

Officials said the county's air quality division prohibits the transporting of materials from the city to the county for burning.

Breedlove said a city fire inspector suggested shredding the offending material, but Breedlove said that wouldn't seem biblical.

"I joked with the guy that St. Paul never had to worry about fire codes," Breedlove said.

The new plan calls for members of the church to throw materials into garbage cans and then light candles to symbolically "burn" the material."


An “old-fashioned book-burning?” What do they do, cook apple pie over it? I’m glad the this reporter was wasn’t covering the old-fashioned, country-style James Byrd and Matthew Shepard lynchings. I don’t dispute that book-burning has been a part of “American history,” but the first Google search result for the phrase reveals that more recently it’s been more of a German tradition.

And had the reporter bothered to check out the Jesus Church’s website, he might have added that Pastor Breedlove also believes that “[t]here is no sickness or disease too hard for God” --- and that at his “Spirit-Filled” services, “the miraculous touch of God to heal bodies and change lives is a regular occurrence.” But that might actually have involved a little bit of reading, and as we know, Reading Isn’t Fundamentalist.
There's a difference between book burning by a private group and book banning by a public one. Besides, that's why the media is so protected by the constitution, partly because our Founding Framers wanted a way to subvert any type of censorship.

i'm not to sure how people can justify this. they must have thought the books. cds ect were ok because they baught them in the first place. if they baught/stole them just to burn then thats just political grandstanding...

whats the point

As long as they are not pulling books out of Public Libraries to burn, and they do it safely - let em buy and burn all the books they want. What a great boon to the book industry.

Now if we could get them to read them before they burn them - who knows what kind of good would come out of this book burning thing.

If they burn CDs, they might even die from the toxic fumes. They would get to meet God even sooner and learn that they have been bad humans.

God bless America and all the her citizens.