Jan 27, 2012
Print This Post
Atheists are using a music video that celebrates the burning of churches and synagogues to promote an upcoming atheist-themed festival at Fort Bragg.
“Rock Beyond Belief” is scheduled to be held on the parade field at Fort Bragg in March. The event was created in part as a response to a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association event that was held last year.
Justin Griffith, who organized “Rock Beyond Belief,” said he was personally offended that a Christian evangelical event like “Rock the Fort” was held on the base.
“We felt it was entirely inappropriate for anyone to say your current religion is wrong,” Griffith told Fox News& Commentary. “We view all soldiers as already spiritually complete. Whatever their current religious preference is has no bearing on how fit they are as a soldier or anything related to military business.”
Griffith confirmed the lineup includes atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a “kiddy pool” where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water.
There will also be a number of bands performing – the most famous of which is Aiden. They are featured in a video on the “Rocky Beyond Belief” website that includes images of burning churches and bloody crosses.
The website Christianfighterpilot.com was the first to raise questions about the music.
The website labels the song as the “atheist anthem.”
Among the lyrics: “Love how the burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books.”
The group is no stranger to strong lyrics. Another of their songs says, “F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.”
Griffith said that particular song would not be performed at the festival, but defended the video of burning churches.
“You can buy their albums in Wal-Mart, a Christian-friendly store,” Griffith said. “If you have issues with bands that sometimes have swear words, or naughty words, or shocking imagery, that’s a part of the First Amendment.”
Benjamin Abel, a spokesman for Fort Bragg told Fox News & Commentary that they were launching a review of the bands scheduled to perform along with their content.
“This is a family-friendly event and we expect the entertainment will meet the standards of decency that would be typical on a top-40 music station,” Abel said. “We owe it to our soldiers and families on post to make sure it is.”
As for the graphic, anti-Christian lyrics – Abel said “I would have to think we would have to take a very close look at that kind of lyric.”
“I don’t know how family-friendly that is,” he said.
Griffith said there is absolutely no controversy about Aiden’s upcoming performance.
“It’s a little shocking to hear some of this stuff,” he said. “I’m sure you understand that these types of shocking things are not going to be front and center for a rock concert that is on a military base. This is not controversy. This is not a real story.”
But if that’s the case, why is there a video of the band performing in front of burning churches on the “Rock Beyond Belief” website?
The military could not answer that question.
“I can’t speak to somebody’s website,” Abel said. “We are reviewing the material and will ensure that event organizers understand that we will have to hold them to a certain level of decency.”
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
If you're allowed to practice religion, they're allowed to practice anti-religion. What you practice is JUST as offensive to us atheists as we may be to you. Get over it.
christians are just antinatural they just want to control life, is not about love when you kill and exterminate in name of god.
After reading the comments, there are a lot of Christians that make comments just bad as the band's lyrics. Attack, attack, attack, from all sides attack. Such hate filled Christians.
This news article massively misrepresents the interview. Justin has posted a full transcript of the interview on his blog. Aiden voluntarily agreed to play a 'radio-friendly' gig when they joined the line-up.
Go get the facts before you believe this…
Todd is lying to you people. Read what actually took place during the interview.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/29/foxnews-investigates-the-atheist-festival-gets-it-twisted/
Have any of you actually read the lyrics to the song in question? It is about religions attacking each other, and has nothing to do with atheists. This is an event for our service men and women, and their families who happen to be atheists (and anyone else who would like to go). I think all of our service people deserve a little down time, and I really don't care if they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or anything in between. This (dare I say) "news article" is not news at all, but a skewed and doctored interview designed only to continue to feed the Fox drones what they are addicted to: BS. Don't take my word for, read about it yourself. Check out articles that actually report facts instead of this mush. I think you all are ready for solid food by now.
Have any of you actually read the lyrics to the song in question? It is about religions attacking each other, and has nothing to do with atheists. This is an event for our service men and women, and their families who happen to be atheists (and anyone else who would like to go). I think all of our service people deserve a little down time, and I really don't care if they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or anything in between. This (dare I say) "news article" is not news at all, but a skewed and doctored interview designed only to continue to feed the Fox drones what they are addicted to: BS. Don't take my word for, read about it yourself. Check out articles that actually report facts instead of this mush. I think you all are ready for solid food by now.
too bad all of you poor saps believe fox news about this. this video includes film clips of churches burning, yes, but the band did not produce these clips or intend to make you think they wanted to burn churches or whatever you might think. the film depicts religions burning each others churches and such. these clips of church burnings are historical clips of faith on faith violence. all of you christians need to get the religious stick out of your asses and grow up. your not children. stop spreading rumors about someone because they don't share your beliefs. want the other end of this story, the other end? here you go: http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/29/foxnews-investigates-the-atheist-festival-gets-it-twisted/ go form your own opinion now instead of listening to these fools.
Great job, Todd. Nice framing of the story that is completely inacccurate and false to justify hatred for another group of people you disagree with. You clearly chose just the parts you wanted to stir Christians into a frenzy. Shame. God tells us to "love thy neighbor". Also lying is a sin. Why didn't you see fit to post the whole sentence in this quote: “If you have issues with bands that sometimes have swear words, or naughty words, or shocking imagery, that’s a part of the First Amendment…that I fight very hard to protect." Yeah, you forgot some words there. Also you obviously didn't listen to ALL the lyrics of the songs you quoted (or maybe you DID but you just didn't want to tell your readers what the songs are really about).
You obviously didn't do your homework, or you did and purposefully wrote your article to omit the truth but either way I hope God punishes you for your sins.
I wonder if any of the thousands of faux outraged people posting comments here have actually listened to the lyrics of the song in question. To David Hartman, yes "these bastards" did includ Muslims in their song: "Now faith is a question you can choose, Faith whether Christian, Muslim, Jew" To Mike Jennens, first of all, the line reads "Love how they burn your synagogues" and there is not even one single solitary reference to churches or crossses. Not one. As for any "hostility toward Christianity, burning churches and crosses", they are OBJECTING to what religions do to each other, not supporting it. The band goes on to sing: "This is just the world we live in, Can you justify the pain?" And no Stephanie Stephenson, Christianity is not "singled out" – it is barely mentioned. To Shirley Koockogey, Nancy Colvenback and many others – not all soldiers are Christians or believe in your God. Don't they have a right to a concert they can enjoy just like the Christians had last year? I can't even begin to address all of the misstatements and nonsense in all of the comments, but I hope that what I have written will prompt at least one of you to investigate beyond what Todd Starnes and Fox News is printing, particularly as Todd Starnes has cherry-picked his quotes to the point of unethical unrecognizability.
Excellent selective editing to twist your interviewee's words there, Todd. You've succeeded in creating the proverbial mountain where there wasn't even a mole hill.
If any of you are interested in reading the actual transcript of this interview, instead off the selectively edited version Todd is using to whip you all into a religious frenzy, it's at this link at the bottom of the post.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/29/foxnews-investigates-the-atheist-festival-gets-it-twisted/
I really don't think this song is offensive…
The great thing? In response to an article about rabid, froth-at-the-mouth hatred of Christianity, all the atheists are coming out of the woodwork to hurl epithets, slander, and bile.
For all their denouncements of faith, these guys make snake-handlers look like slackers.
Where are all the epithets, slander, and bile? I'm looking for them. The Christians are the ones having a hate party over the content of the article. Atheists are just coming around to point out that Starnes is lying about the event, the band, and the interview he conducted for the story.
Jay Jackson
Try reading the article–or a lot of your fellow atheists' comments….
Including yours, which–granted–do not include epithets and bile… only slander.
Kenneth James Abbott The article is the very height of slander. As I have continually pointed out, this story completely misrepresents the event, the interview, and the music video. Nobody is celebrating the burning of churches. Quotations from both the song and the interview are removed from their original context in order to create a new narrative. All I see in the article is a hatchet job aimed squarely at the Atheist event. This Starnes fellow just told you all what you wanted to hear so you could foam at the mouth and rage against the evil Atheists. If any Atheists have resorted to epithets and bile, it is because not everyone knows how to respond maturely when insulted publicly. Your lot, however, are using epithets and bile to silence beliefs they see as threatening. When was the last time in America a mob of Atheists tried to shut down a church or a Christian event of some kind? Do you recall? Because I don't.
Jay Jackson
–The article is the very height of slander.–
So you can tell me what part is untrue….?
–Nobody is celebrating the burning of churches.–
Yeah, a bunch of atheists are playing church-burning videos because they like the pretty flames.
–Quotations from both the song and the interview are removed from their original context in order to create a new narrative.–
And here, I'm going to have to call bullshit.
–If any Atheists have resorted to epithets and bile, it is because not everyone knows how to respond maturely when insulted publicly. –
Resorted? You act as if y'all have some other method. And considering the entire ~purpose~ of atheism is hatred of Christianity, "you started it" is a pretty flimsy excuse.
–When was the last time in America a mob of Atheists tried to shut down a church or a Christian event of some kind? –
Google the words "Nativity Scene."
Jay Jackson
–Kenneth James Abbott The article is the very height of slander.–
Except that it's true, which means it's not slander.
–As I have continually pointed out, this story completely misrepresents the event, the interview, and the music video.–
The problem is that it doesn't. I understand that fact poses a problem for you, but too bad.
–Nobody is celebrating the burning of churches. –
Yeah, they just picked that video at random.
–Quotations from both the song and the interview are removed from their original context in order to create a new narrative–
“F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.” was taken out of context? Do you know what context ~is~, or do you consider it some word that you justuse to try to explain away the facts?
–This Starnes fellow just told you all what you wanted to hear so you could foam at the mouth and rage against the evil Atheists.–
Which is why we're singing songs like "f**k atheists, f** your lack of fai…." No, wait, we ain't. Oooops.
–If any Atheists have resorted to epithets and bile, it is because not everyone knows how to respond maturely when insulted publicly.–
Ahh, so it's our fault that a group founded entirely on its hatred of Christianity hates Christianity.
–Your lot, however, are using epithets and bile to silence beliefs they see as threatening.–
How dare we speak out against something!
–When was the last time in America a mob of Atheists tried to shut down a church or a Christian event of some kind? Do you recall? Because I don't.–
Google "Nativity scene." Or even check the links directly below the article.
Jay Jackson
–Kenneth James Abbott The article is the very height of slander.–
Except that it's true, which means it's not slander.
–As I have continually pointed out, this story completely misrepresents the event, the interview, and the music video.–
The problem is that it doesn't. I understand that fact poses a problem for you, but too bad.
–Nobody is celebrating the burning of churches. –
Yeah, they just picked that video at random.
–Quotations from both the song and the interview are removed from their original context in order to create a new narrative–
“F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.” was taken out of context? Do you know what context ~is~, or do you consider it some word that you justuse to try to explain away the facts?
–This Starnes fellow just told you all what you wanted to hear so you could foam at the mouth and rage against the evil Atheists.–
Which is why we're singing songs like "f**k atheists, f** your lack of fai…." No, wait, we ain't. Oooops.
–If any Atheists have resorted to epithets and bile, it is because not everyone knows how to respond maturely when insulted publicly.–
Ahh, so it's our fault that a group founded entirely on its hatred of Christianity hates Christianity.
–Your lot, however, are using epithets and bile to silence beliefs they see as threatening.–
How dare we speak out against something!
–When was the last time in America a mob of Atheists tried to shut down a church or a Christian event of some kind? Do you recall? Because I don't.–
Google "Nativity scene." Or even check the links directly below the article.
Kenneth James Abbott – The video does not celebrate the burning of churches. There is a difference between showing footage of it and celebrating it. The song is about how religious hysteria has led to violence through history. Those church fires were set by religious people angry over sectarian differences. So yes, the story misrepresents the video and no, nobody is celebrating the burning of churches because that is not what the video does.
The full text of the interview is easily available, the interviewee posted it on his own blog. His quotes are obviously distorted and misrepresented in this story. Lines from the song "love how they burn your…" are given meaning in the story which does not exist in the song. As far as "F*** your God," you should be aware that this is a hard rock band we're talking about.
You aren't singing songs like "F*** Atheists," perhaps, but twitter is full of religious people saying just that sort of thing. I don't hold you responsible for what those people say, so why are you holding all Atheists everywhere responsible for this one line from an Aiden song most of us had never heard before?
Atheism is "founded entirely on its hatred of Christianity?" A little big for your britches there, buddy. There's no call for that sort of ego. You're not the only folks in town who have an imaginary friend.
"How dare we speak out against something!" — So it's cool for you to speak out against things but it's not cool for other people to speak out against your things?
Public nativity scenes are kind of quibbling. Those kind of conflicts involve public land usage or neighborhood association rules. If your neighborhood allows lawn displays, you're perfectly welcome to have a nativity scene on your front lawn. There were two on my street every year. If your church owns any land, you are perfectly welcome to have a nativity scene on your church property. Several churches in the town where I grew up had annual nativity displays. Basically what you're asking for is special treatment to put your nativity scene in a place where other people aren't allowed to put their stuff either.
Jay Jackson
–The video does not celebrate the burning of churches. There is a difference between showing footage of it and celebrating it.–
And I'm sure they're showing video of burning churches at an anti-Christian rally for some completely different reason.
–Lines from the song "love how they burn your…" are given meaning in the story which does not exist in the song. –
Meaning they exist in the story… Of course, they exist in the song too, but since most Christians don't listen to this band, we don't have to hear about this part.
–You aren't singing songs like "F*** Atheists," perhaps, but twitter is full of religious people saying just that sort of thing.–
And people saying things on Twitter is EXACTLY the same as a full concert on a military post, right?
–I don't hold you responsible for what those people say–
Except when you say things like "If any Atheists have resorted to epithets and bile, it is because not everyone knows how to respond maturely when insulted publicly. Your lot, however, are using epithets and bile to silence beliefs they see as threatening." Not that any atheists say things like that, of course.
–so why are you holding all Atheists everywhere responsible for this one line from an Aiden song most of us had never heard before?–
Because the line is a pretty accurate representation of atheism.
–Atheism is "founded entirely on its hatred of Christianity?" A little big for your britches there, buddy. There's no call for that sort of ego.–
Which is why y'all are up in Dearborn stopping the muslims, or out in New England trying to ban wiccans, or even in my hometown of Birmingham trying to stop taxpayer funding of a statue of a Greek god, right? … right?
–"How dare we speak out against something!" — So it's cool for you to speak out against things but it's not cool for other people to speak out against your things?–
It's perfectly fine, and despite the desperate claims of atheists nobody's trying to silence them. But we retain the option to note that your hate-addled ravings make snake-handlers look like slackers.
–Basically what you're asking for is special treatment to put your nativity scene in a place where other people aren't allowed to put their stuff either.–
Except in the majority of cities where other people ~are~ allowed to put their stuff.
Kenneth James Abbott This song was never scheduled to be performed at the event and this video was never scheduled to be shown at the event. An Atheist rally is not an "anti-Christian" rally any more than a Christian rally is an "anti-Atheist" rally. In that same sense, BOTH rallies are "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Muslim." You're being disingenuous.
Why aren't we up in Dearborn "stopping the muslims?" Or out in New England trying to "ban wiccans?" Well, partly because Muslims and Wiccans don't really have any power in the United States, which makes them mostly harmless. Atheists in Pakistan, however, are much less likely to concern themselves with Christianity. I don't want to "ban" anybody… but we do have a big interest in making sure that the majority religion in our area (Christianity in the US) doesn't enforce itself upon other members of the community. For example, I don't want public schools in my area to have teachers or administrators leading students in group prayer or ordering students to pray–to any god–but students praying on their own is just fine because that is their right. If my local community had a public school leading students in Muslim prayers, I would be completely against it. Odds are, however, that if such a problem came up in my community, it would be Christian prayer, because we are a majority Christian population. If a school in Dearborn were to lead students in Muslim prayers, I would support anyone living in Dearborn who tried to take on that fight.
Regarding the statue of a Greek god in Birmingham–if you find me someone, ANYONE, who genuinely believes in the Greek pantheon of gods, I promise to care. The thing is, Zeus is universally recognized as a fictional character. It's not the same kind of issue at all. It's more like a statue of Harry Potter or Han Solo than a statue of Jesus.
"Despite the desperate claims of Atheists nobody's trying to silence them." – What do you call every mention of atheism on the Fox News network ever? What do you call the efforts to get this rally cancelled? People try to silence atheists all the time. And Christians are always saying stuff like "you can't silence me blah blah blah," but it doesn't take a lot of guts to make a bold stand in a country where 76% of people self-identify as Christians. No religion at all is up to 15%, but most of those people do not identify as Atheist.
I can't speak for every community where there is some kind of conflict over a nativity scene. What I can tell you is this: If you put a nativity scene on public land, people of other faiths (or no faith) are within their right to demand that the city or state in question allow equal space for other displays. Failing that, the city must take down the display because it constitutes discriminatory preference over other faiths. Private land, you ought to be able to do whatever you like with it, provided that it does not violate zoning laws or constitute obscenity. If there's a specific incident or case you'd like to discuss, I'd be happy to read up on it so that we can have an informed conversation.
Jay Jackson
–Kenneth James Abbott This song was never scheduled to be performed at the event and this video was never scheduled to be shown at the event.–
Which may be why the article said directly:
"Griffith said that particular song would not be performed at the festival, but defended the video of burning churches."
–An Atheist rally is not an "anti-Christian" rally any more than a Christian rally is an "anti-Atheist" rally. In that same sense, BOTH rallies are "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Muslim." You're being disingenuous.–
If atheism was anything more than thinly-disguised anti-Christianity, your claim might have some credence.
–Why aren't we up in Dearborn "stopping the muslims?" Or out in New England trying to "ban wiccans?" Well, partly because Muslims and Wiccans don't really have any power in the United States, which makes them mostly harmless.–
So you base your decisions by measuring power levels?
–I don't want to "ban" anybody.–
And nevermind all the lawsuits and demands.
–but students praying on their own is just fine because that is their right–
You need to have a talk with your fellow atheists, then. Start with the ones in Dothan, AL.
–If my local community had a public school leading students in Muslim prayers, I would be completely against it.–
And the ones in California too, for that matter.
–Regarding the statue of a Greek god in Birmingham–if you find me someone, ANYONE, who genuinely believes in the Greek pantheon of gods, I promise to care.–
Why does it matter who believes it? It's still a religion, isn't it? It's still a religious figure being claimed as culture, isn't it? Of course, it IS cultural, but somehow knowing that doesn't stop y'all when it comes to Christianity.
–It's not the same kind of issue at all. It's more like a statue of Harry Potter or Han Solo than a statue of Jesus.–
And there's the kicker. To atheists (in theory), they're exactly the same–fictional characters that some people are way too serious about. In reality, if God didn't exist y'all wouldn't hate Him so much.
–What I can tell you is this: If you put a nativity scene on public land, people of other faiths (or no faith) are within their right to demand that the city or state in question allow equal space for other displays–
What they don't have the right to do is demand the nativity scene comes down while they put up crescents and kwanzaa displays–but judges allow it anyway.
— What do you call every mention of atheism on the Fox News network ever?–
References to atheism? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but 'opposition' and 'censorship' are not the same thing.
–What do you call the efforts to get this rally cancelled?–
An attempt to stop our military posts from being used for your hatreds. Feel free to hate Christians on your own time, but refusing to pay for it is not silencing it.
–People try to silence atheists all the time–
Yeah, but here in the real world….
–And Christians are always saying stuff like "you can't silence me blah blah blah," but it doesn't take a lot of guts to make a bold stand in a country where 76% of people self-identify as Christians.–
Because it's not like schools are throwing childrens' bibles in the trashcan, or banning valedictorian's speeches because they're Christian, or telling Christian students "Ask God what your grade is," or anything like that, right? As long as we're still the majority, we have to pretend that anti-Christian attacks don't really mean anything, right?
Kenneth James Abbott Wow, that's quite a lot to respond to. I'm going to reorganize the order of topics a little if you don't mind, starting with prayer in schools.
Unfortunately, you can't just name-drop Dothan and let that be your argument. The google machine doesn't appear to have anything about school prayer in Dothan. Could you give a little more information about the case? What exactly happened, according to your sources?
Which judges put up kwanzaa displays while taking down nativity scenes? If this sort of thing happens so much, why can't you name specifics? In the "Ask God what your grade is" case, the judge ruled on behalf of the student, and rightly so. The teacher was clearly in the wrong, the assignment was open-ended, and the student had complied with the requirements of the assignment. Looks to me like an open-and-shut free speech case. Where is this evidence that judges are upholding the demands of Atheists over the legitimate rights of Christians?
"power levels" – Not sure what you mean by your question. What I mean to say is there aren't really very many Muslims around to oppose, and they aren't really doing anything that upsetting. Now, as far as Dearborn and California… these kinds of things are local issues. If someone in Dearborn or California is fighting for secular schools against the encroachment of Muslims demanding preferential treatment, then good for them. But I'm not in Dearborn or California. What am I supposed to do, move somewhere else just so that I can promote secularism in a Muslim community instead of a Christian one? Why? There's no difference to me, and if it's the same thing either way there's no reason for me not to stay put. I don't base my decisions on power levels, I fight the fights which present themselves. Nobody has ever tried to pressure me into Islam or force me to behave myself according to Islamic law. Christians, on the other hand, have shut down the entire women's health care program in their fervent attempts to destroy Planned Parenthood. "Personhood" laws threaten to outlaw hormonal birth control. Rick Santorum wants to ban pornography. Christians want "intelligent design" and "abstinence only" in our schools. The "sanctity" of marriage. Etc. I oppose Christians because Christians are the people always trying to shackle me with Christian laws. Start passing Muslim laws in Texas and you can bet I'll have a thing or two to say about that.
Jay Jackson
–Unfortunately, you can't just name-drop Dothan and let that be your argument. The google machine doesn't appear to have anything about school prayer in Dothan. Could you give a little more information about the case? What exactly happened, according to your sources?–
Dothan Alabama was where Judge DeMent appointed monitors to ensure that students aren't praying in schools.
–Which judges put up kwanzaa displays while taking down nativity scenes? If this sort of thing happens so much, why can't you name specifics?–
Are you trying to accuse me of making it up?
Well, obvious so. Which is why it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present the results of 30 seconds of Google search….
"School rules allow the Jewish menorah and the Muslim star and crescent in multireligious holiday displays but not nativity scenes depicting the birth of Jesus."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0222/p04s01-ussc.html
Even museum displays aren't safe (remember the Vulcan statue!):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/nyregion/atheists-sue-to-ban-display-of-cross-shaped-beam-in-911-museum.html
–In the "Ask God what your grade is" case, the judge ruled on behalf of the student, and rightly so. The teacher was clearly in the wrong, the assignment was open-ended, and the student had complied with the requirements of the assignment. Looks to me like an open-and-shut free speech case.–
Actually, the final decision was against the student. It was actually the right call, because the school eventually repaired the damage they had done, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
–"power levels" – Not sure what you mean by your question.–
Exactly that–do you measure power and decide a religion's veracity by that? Or do you follow the standard that every atheist I've ever seen has displayed?
–Now, as far as Dearborn and California… these kinds of things are local issues. If someone in Dearborn or California is fighting for secular schools against the encroachment of Muslims demanding preferential treatment, then good for them. But I'm not in Dearborn or California. What am I supposed to do, move somewhere else just so that I can promote secularism in a Muslim community instead of a Christian one?–
Are you in Ft. Bragg? If not, why are you concerned about the anti-Christian festival there?
–Christians, on the other hand, have shut down the entire women's health care program in their fervent attempts to destroy Planned Parenthood. –
Here in the real world, on the other hand, we've (in a few places) stopped the government from using our money to pay for abortions. Hate to break it to you, but "don't kill your own children" isn't some obscure tenet of the Old Testament, it's a pretty universally understood concept. Even atheists understand the concept (some of them): http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
–"Personhood" laws threaten to outlaw hormonal birth control.–
No. Personhood laws threaten to outlaw abortion pills, not birth control.
–Rick Santorum wants to ban pornography–
No. Santorum wants to enforce the obscenity laws, which pornography distributors and producers already take care not to violate.
–Christians want "intelligent design"–
And atheists stand against students being taught to view all the evidence with an open mind. Who's "anti-science," again?
–and "abstinence only" in our schools.–
Yeah, Christians have a problem with teachers telling them to screw everything in sight, go fig. At least we managed to shut down the "safe fisting" class before it reached its intended 4th-grade audience–another example of Christian theocratic oppression to lay at our feet!
–The "sanctity" of marriage–
How dare we not want to be required to pretend homosexuals living together are a marriage? Watch out, there'll be fires next! The flat truth is that homosexuals already have the right to marry–what they don't have is a legal right to force other people to acknowledge their lifestyle choices as legitimate (at least not in most states).
–Etc. I oppose Christians because Christians are the people always trying to shackle me with Christian laws.–
Except that "shackling" generally turns out to mean we don't roll over when somebody pulls some blatantly wrong stunt, and because Christians were involved your hatred overcomes your ability to reason. Because atheists, for all their "all religions are equal–equally false, that is" rhetoric, are basically anti-Christian,
Kenneth James Abbott
So Dothan Alabama happened in 1997… and was concluded appropriately in 1999. That's really the case you came up with? Your big injustice is that fifteen years ago a judge went overboard and it took a couple years to straighten things out? And you told me to talk to my fellow Atheists, starting with the ones in Dothan… Well, the case was called "Chandler V. James." Michael Chandler was the assistant principal of the school, who recorded video as evidence that the school was pressuring students with religion. He grew up Southern Baptist and married a Methodist. He professed to be Christian through the entire case, and maintained that he was only trying to protect the religious freedom of students who were not Christian. The case you've cited is a terrible example of Atheism run amok… there are no Atheists in it!
The nativity scene case is dicey. I would tend to agree with you; the nativity scene should be allowed, it is no more religious than a menorah or what-have-you. Technically, the wording of their rules makes the nativity scene different–but there are lots of options which would be fine: a cross, a star above the town of Bethlehem, etc. So in that case, I suppose I'm on your side, but it doesn't seem that bad, and it's hardly like a marauding band of Atheists made it happen… it's just how New York's public school rules were written.
Not going to defend the WTC cross thing. I think it's kind of a stupid fight, I wish they'd let it go. What can you do, though? Atheists don't exactly have a hive mind, and there's no rule against dumb people becoming Atheists. OK, you got me, there are Atheists who take the whole thing too far. But that doesn't mean you get to say "All Atheists take the whole thing way too far. Atheism is just an anti-Christian hate group." That doesn't follow. That doesn't make any sense at all. My father and mother are Christians and they believe very devoutly and I love them both dearly.
"do you measure power and decide a religion's veracity by that? Or do you follow the standard that every atheist I've ever seen has displayed?" – Sorry, still don't understand. I don't "measure power," and "veracity" means accuracy, so of course not. I judge the veracity of religion on the basis of empirical evidence… which I suppose is the other standard you refer to. But I'm confused, because I don't think that's what you're trying to say. Let me be clear what I meant about the power thing: I find myself opposing Christianity most often because Christianity is the religion which dominates the culture of my homeland and therefore the religion which steps on my toes the most. If I lived in a region where Islam had more political and social influence, I expect that I would be more concerned with Islam and less concerned with Christianity.
Am I in Ft. Bragg? — Clearly this is a national issue and all I'm doing is having a conversation about it. I'm not doing grassroots boots-on-the-ground elbow-grease politics, holding up signs and petitioning my congressman. This is the internet, we're just having a conversation at a coffee shop, not making a real difference.
Planned Parenthood itemizes its budget and no federal funding was going to abortions. Federal funds were specifically allocated for other treatments and supplies and could not be used for abortion services. Not really interested in getting into the pro-life/pro-choice argument, it's a whirlpool and it will suck away all our time and energy and we'll get nowhere talking about it. I'm sorry for bringing it up on accident.
Personhood laws outlaw hormonal birth control because it prevents fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. You need to learn about how birth control works
Obscenity laws are vague and obscenity is difficult to quantify. Going to Wikipedia to save time, if you object feel free to let me know and we'll try something else:
"In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent that all but guarantees that something that is legally obscene in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. [...] Even at the federal level, there does not exist a specific listing of which exact acts are to be classified as obscene outside of the legally determined court cases."
So Rick Santorum may not want to "ban" pornography, but he wants to crack down on it using highly elastic laws that basically defy interpretation.
There's no evidence for intelligent design. None. And it's also not science.
Abstinence only does not work. Perhaps if we could all agree that it's OK to tell students how sex works and how condoms and birth control work, we could also agree not to tell them about fisting until they read about it for themselves on wikipedia?
As far as marriage goes, I think it's laughable to suggest that there's any "sanctity" to it, but I tend toward this view: The state should have nothing to do with marriage. All couples should get civil unions and marriage should cease to exist as a legal institution. Marriage could then resume its rightful place as an act of the church and each church could decide for itself what sort of marriages it will grant and recognize.
Jay Jackson
–So Dothan Alabama happened in 1997… and was concluded appropriately in 1999.–
If by "appropriately" you mean with free speech shattered and the Constitution ignored.
–That's really the case you came up with? Your big injustice is that fifteen years ago a judge went overboard and it took a couple years to straighten things out?–
That was one example. Maybe you could address the issue instead of trying to pretend that because it was 15 years ago it doesn't mean anything.
–And you told me to talk to my fellow Atheists, starting with the ones in Dothan… Well, the case was called "Chandler V. James." Michael Chandler was the assistant principal of the school, who recorded video as evidence that the school was pressuring students with religion–
And the ACLU who brought the case forward for him and provided the lawyers was made up of fanatical Baptists?
–I'm on your side, but it doesn't seem that bad, and it's hardly like a marauding band of Atheists made it happen… it's just how New York's public school rules were written.–
And we all know there aren't any atheists in our public school teacher's unions.
–Atheists don't exactly have a hive mind, and there's no rule against dumb people becoming Atheists. OK, you got me, there are Atheists who take the whole thing too far. But that doesn't mean you get to say "All Atheists take the whole thing way too far. Atheism is just an anti-Christian hate group." That doesn't follow.–
So just how many constant examples does it need? How many times does a hilarious-misnamed "Reason Rally" have to turn out to be several hours of anti-Christian bile before we can say "You know, I think those guys don't like us…."
–Sorry, still don't understand. I don't "measure power," and "veracity" means accuracy, so of course not. –
I've seen this trick before, here in Korea. I call it "No speekee English"–but I have to admit, I've completely lost my ability to communicate when I didn't like the way a conversation was going too–it's not that difficult, when there's a language barrier.
–Let me be clear what I meant about the power thing: I find myself opposing Christianity most often because Christianity is the religion which dominates the culture of my homeland and therefore the religion which steps on my toes the most.–
If that was actually the case you'd be on this side of the fence, opposing atheism. When we're holding massive rallies explaining to each other that we've got to try to humiliate you and sue you out of existence because we're not aggressive enough, you may have a point.
–Am I in Ft. Bragg? — Clearly this is a national issue–
So a concert in Ft. Bragg is a national issue, while a school district in California isn't?
–This is the internet, we're just having a conversation at a coffee shop, not making a real difference.–
Well, great–so which coffeehouse are you in talking about the the California school districts?
–Planned Parenthood itemizes its budget and no federal funding was going to abortions. –
a) they were just used to free more money up for abortions and for political propaganda.
b) according to them–and Planned Parenthood has been caught lying on many, many occasions. They'll provide abortions on the sly for underaged hookers, but draw the line at fudging the numbers on their budget sheets? Not bloody likely.
–Personhood laws outlaw hormonal birth control because it prevents fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. You need to learn about how birth control works–
Personhood laws do not ban 'the pill'. They ban hormonal abortions that kill an already implanted child, but if that's birth control than laws about late-term D&C .
–Even at the federal level, there does not exist a specific listing of which exact acts are to be classified as obscene OUTSIDE OF THE LEGALLY DETERMINED COURT CASES"–
Of which there are several, setting fairly clear standards.
–There's no evidence for intelligent design. None. And it's also not science.–
Sticking your fingers in your ears won't stop the facts–and neither will outlawing them.
–Abstinence only does not work.–
It works for me. No pregnancies, no diseases–not one. Am I some kind of paragon, meeting a standard nobody else could hope to match? Funny how our pregnancy rate was so much lower before schools decided endorsing child sex would result in less of it.
–As far as marriage goes, I think it's laughable to suggest that there's any "sanctity" to it, but I tend toward this view: The state should have nothing to do with marriage. All couples should get civil unions and marriage should cease to exist as a legal institution. Marriage could then resume its rightful place as an act of the church and each church could decide for itself what sort of marriages it will grant and recognize.–
Unfortunately, it's just a dodge around the tactic. "Civil unions" is simply "marriage" with a different name, and nobody's fooled.
Amusingly enough, it's the marriage part I'm not opposed to. If homosexuals go to a church that wants to ignore their religion's teachings on homosexuality, good for them. If they want to stand at an alter while a priest goes through a wedding ceremony, good for them. That IS a sin, but I understand that God will handle the matter and I don't need to go around stopping sin (or else I'd be pretty friggin' busy), so they can pretend they're married all they want–with rings, dresses, 'grioom' suits, or whatever else. Where I draw the line is when some government agent tells me that ~I~ have to pretend they're married. They're not, and I won't–and this is the purpose behind the gay marriage movement; a bludgeon to use against those of us who share this view.
Kenneth James Abbott I'm out. Free speech won out in the Dothan case, so I don't know what you're complaining about. The judge's ruling was struck down in 1999. Your assertions about birth control are wrong–I'm beginning to believe intentionally so. Your "underage hooker" bit is from that schmuck who did the heavily edited hidden-camera bits, and the planned parenthood called the police on him when he was shooting that piece. I absolutely think you should be pressured by government and culture to accept gay marriage–just like you are pressured by government and culture not to go around using the n-word. Your views are primitive and unethical and I sincerely hope that they go the way of racism and the geocentric model of the solar system. Have a nice life.
Jay Jackson
–Free speech won out in the Dothan case, so I don't know what you're complaining about–
Because banning prayer is how we allow free speech.
–Your assertions about birth control are wrong–I'm beginning to believe intentionally so.–
So you atheists DO have beliefs! Blatantly false ones, but beliefs nonetheless. The claim that personhood laws mean women can't go 'on the pill' is dishonest propaganda, and I'm not tolerant enough to pretend to fall for it for you.
–Your "underage hooker" bit is from that schmuck who did the heavily edited hidden-camera bits–
False. Planned Parenthood claimed this, but the "heavy editing" didn't do a thing to change what happened.
–and the planned parenthood called the police on him when he was shooting that piece.–
False. Planned Parenthood didn't call anybody until more than a week later when it was obvious that they'd been caught.
–I absolutely think you should be pressured by government and culture to accept gay marriage–just like you are pressured by government and culture not to go around using the n-word.–
Ahh, I knew the race-card would see use sometime. I'm just surprised you didn't bust it out earlier, seeing that it was evident from the start that you didn't have any real arguments or facts to go on.
–Your views are primitive and unethical–
Primitive? Perhaps. Unethical? Exactly the opposite–which is why you're so upset about them.
Kenneth James Abbott Ugh, I said I wouldn't come back but you're just so frustrating.
Dothan – Let me be clear, in 1999 the ruling you are complaining about was overturned. Kids in Dothan can pray in school. But, just like everywhere else in America, it can't be an official prayer which is sanctioned, organized, or led by teachers or school officials. For two years in the late 90s, you have a legitimate complaint, but otherwise I don't see what your problem is.
Birth Control – The hormones in the birth control pill are meant to prevent ovulation, and generally, they do. They also thicken the coating of the cervix, preventing sperm from reaching the egg, if the patient should happen to ovulate. If both of these measures fail and an egg DOES become fertilized, the hormones in the pill have also thinned the lining of the uterine wall, potentially preventing the egg from attaching and beginning to develop. Ultimately, the same results as the "abortion pill." Not every woman who takes birth control pills will have this occur… but all of them will be at risk for it. This is why personhood laws are failing even in places like Mississippi.
Planned Parenthood – This is obviously one of those he-said she-said cases where you don't believe a word Planned Parenthood says and I don't believe a word James O'Keefe says. Don't think we're going to get anywhere with it.
Race Card – I just used race as an example. We can pick something else. I think you should be pressured by government and culture to accept gay marriage, just as you are pressured by government and culture to accept women in the workplace. The point is that opposing gay marriage is uncool and with any luck, people in the future will give you funny looks and try to avoid you if you say you oppose gay marriage, just the same way they would if you said women belong in the kitchen or blacks don't belong in college. It's rude and it's hateful and our culture needs to start rejecting and ostracizing people who refuse to let it go, the same way we did with race.
Why would I be opposed to ethics?
Jay Jackson
–Ugh, I said I wouldn't come back but you're just so frustrating.–
I suppose that happens when people aren't deliberately gullible for you.
–Dothan – Let me be clear, in 1999 the ruling you are complaining about was overturned. Kids in Dothan can pray in school. But, just like everywhere else in America, it can't be an official prayer which is sanctioned, organized, or led by teachers or school officials.–
Wow, what a relief. Now only teachers have their rights violated.
–For two years in the late 90s, you have a legitimate complaint, but otherwise I don't see what your problem is.–
Because the fact that it only happened for two years doesn't mean that it happened, or that the judge who did it was left on the bench, right?
–The hormones in the birth control pill are meant to prevent ovulation, and generally, they do. They also thicken the coating of the cervix, preventing sperm from reaching the egg, if the patient should happen to ovulate. If both of these measures fail and an egg DOES become fertilized, the hormones in the pill have also thinned the lining of the uterine wall, potentially preventing the egg from attaching and beginning to develop. Ultimately, the same results as the "abortion pill." Not every woman who takes birth control pills will have this occur… but all of them will be at risk for it. This is why personhood laws are failing even in places like Mississippi.–
Except no personhood law–suggested or passed–has ever banned the birth control pill. It's a scare tactic, meant to make people jump without getting the facts.
–Planned Parenthood – This is obviously one of those he-said she-said cases where you don't believe a word Planned Parenthood says and I don't believe a word James O'Keefe says. Don't think we're going to get anywhere with it.–
Fortunately, James O'Keefe has the film. So do several members of Live-Action–James O'Keefe's expose is not by far the only one.
–Race Card – I just used race as an example. We can pick something else.–
I'm sure it was a complete accident.
–I think you should be pressured by government and culture to accept gay marriage, just as you are pressured by government and culture to accept women in the workplace. –
Except this is a false analogy for two reasons.
One is that going to work doesn't violate anyone's rights in the manner that forcing people to endorse the legitimacy of a homosexual relationship is.
The second is that women are born women. Yes, I know, I'm very uncool for saying that, but the thousands of ex-gays prove the possibility.
–The point is that opposing gay marriage is uncool–
Well, we can't have that! I better forget about my First Amendment rights, so I can be one of the cool people.
–The point is that opposing gay marriage is uncool and with any luck, people in the future will give you funny looks and try to avoid you if you say you oppose gay marriage, just the same way they would if you said women belong in the kitchen or blacks don't belong in college. It's rude and it's hateful and our culture needs to start rejecting and ostracizing people who refuse to let it go, the same way we did with race.–
So you just happened to use race as an accident–yet you keep trying to play the race-card.
–Why would I be opposed to ethics?–
That's a good question–but your opposition to anything ethical doesn't include reasons, and I wouldn't presume.
Kenneth James Abbott
Dothan — I began by saying that my position as an Atheist was that prayer led or sanctioned by teachers and/or administrators of a school is religious favoritism, and that students should be allowed to pray on their own because they have the right to do so. You brought up Dothan as an example of a case where they were not being allowed that right. The fact is they ARE allowed that right, and they lost it for only a couple of years over a decade ago. The fact that it was only two years doesn't mean that "it didn't happen," but it DOES mean that you aren't making a very good case for the idea that Christianity is persecuted or embattled here in the United States. Christianity DOMINATES the culture of this country. One or two overzealous rulings does not make a whole campaign of persecution. I'm glad the judge is still on the bench. You don't take away a man's whole career over one bad ruling. He was overruled, that's how the court system works, get over it.
Race and women's rights — I was not specifically analogizing gay marriage with those other issues. I was only saying we should use the same techniques to handle them: society should shame you for being such a jerk. You're a jerk if you use racial slurs, you're a jerk if you think women belong in the kitchen, and you're a jerk if you don't support lgbt rights. There's no laws against being a jerk, but we can mock you and ostracize you for your bigotry and backwardness, and that's what we should be doing.
What ethical things am I opposed to?
Jay Jackson
–I began by saying that my position as an Atheist was that prayer led or sanctioned by teachers and/or administrators of a school is religious favoritism, and that students should be allowed to pray on their own because they have the right to do so. You brought up Dothan as an example of a case where they were not being allowed that right. –
And for two years, they weren't. It's wonderful that the atheists finally lost (although it would have been better if they hadn't won a partial victory), but it doesn't change the fact that there was indeed an attack.
–The fact that it was only two years doesn't mean that "it didn't happen," but it DOES mean that you aren't making a very good case for the idea that Christianity is persecuted or embattled here in the United States.–
Because two years isn't persecution.
–Christianity DOMINATES the culture of this country.–
Wow. A country full of Christians, founded on Christian principles, has a Christian culture. That's not domination, that's common sense. Buddhist culture doesn't "dominate" here where I'm at in Korea even though it's been Buddhist for at least a thousand years (and maybe two, but I'm not up on the history enough to know when it got here.). But for all we're supposedly intolerant, I get along as a Born-again Christian in a Buddhist country far better than you do in a Christian country, without popping a hemorhroid every time I see a swastika.
–I'm glad the judge is still on the bench.–
How come I ain't surprised?
–You don't take away a man's whole career over one bad ruling.–
Yeah, an astounding, belligerent error that proves you have no clue what you're doing shouldn't have any effect on your employment, right?
–Race and women's rights — I was not specifically analogizing gay marriage with those other issues.–
Except where you deliberately conflated the two.
–I was only saying we should use the same techniques to handle them: society should shame you for being such a jerk.–
If I'm a "jerk" for refusing to pretend that homosexual relationships are legitimate–or even considering that I'm not (although, granted, I may well be for reasonable… well, reasons)–then I'm fine with society "shaming" me… or more specifically, whether or not I enjoy it I don't have the right to force society to stop "shaming" me. I can bend to the pressure, or I can prove my case right and hope that when they're proven wrong they'll quit (a false hope, as you've demonstrated), or I can simply ignore them and get on with my life because I know I'm in the right. My problem is when government tries to force me to think as you figure we should think. I always thought atheists were against that? That's what I keep hearing from them, anyway.
–You're a jerk if you use racial slurs, you're a jerk if you think women belong in the kitchen, and you're a jerk if you don't support lgbt rights. –
Tell me again how you're not trying to play the race-card here?
Kenneth James Abbott
I haven't called you a racist. I've called you a bigot. A racist is a kind of bigot, to be sure… but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that your bigotry extends to race.
I don't think the judge's error is as big as you seem to. But then, you think teachers have the right to lead a class in prayer… how do you square that with the fact that public school attendance is mandatory? You can't force children to pray Christian prayers, which is what the teacher does if (s)he leads a class in prayer.
Two years in one town fifteen years ago is not a strong case for the idea that Christians in general are persecuted in the United States in general. If you had a serious argument that Christians are under attack in America, you could name more recent cases, and/or ones which were not resolved appropriately. That case wasn't about the Atheists or the Christians winning or losing… the judge went too far in trying to protect the right of students to be free from mandatory religious instruction or participation, a higher court overruled him and tempered his ruling, and ultimately the constitution was upheld. The constitution won. America won.
Jay Jackson
–I haven't called you a racist. I've called you a bigot. A racist is a kind of bigot, to be sure… but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that your bigotry extends to race.–
Naw, you've been trying to conflate my views with racism, but you're not calling me a racist.
–I don't think the judge's error is as big as you seem to–
I know you don't, but that's because our goals are different.
–You can't force children to pray Christian prayers, which is what the teacher does if (s)he leads a class in prayer.–
Except that's not what the teacher does. Not even close.
–Two years in one town fifteen years ago is not a strong case for the idea that Christians in general are persecuted in the United States in general.–
Because it's not like I mentioned it's an example, rather than the entire caseload, or even gave other examples at the same time. Except… I did both those things. Ooops.
–That case wasn't about the Atheists or the Christians winning or losing… the judge went too far–
By completely ignoring the Constitution he's being paid to uphold.
in trying to protect the right of students to be free from mandatory religious instruction or participation,–
a non-existant threat
–a higher court overruled him and tempered his ruling–
meaning that the ridiculous mockery of justice endured for two years and nobody was punished for it.
–and ultimately the constitution was upheld. The constitution won. America won.–
Except for teachers who had the funny idea that the constitution applied to them too.
Kenneth James Abbott
So you're saying it should be acceptable for a teacher to lead students in Muslim or Hindu prayer as well? Wiccan teachers should be able to lead whatever sort of prayer Wiccans have? Or you're saying that only Christian teachers have the constitutional right to lead a captive audience of other people's children in praying to a God they may or may not want to pray to?
Jay Jackson
–So you're saying it should be acceptable for a teacher to lead students in Muslim or Hindu prayer as well? Wiccan teachers should be able to lead whatever sort of prayer Wiccans have?–
As long as students have the choice whether or not to pray with them, yes–just like I don't pop a hemorrhoid when I see signs of buddhism. And in Dothan they already had that right.
Kenneth James Abbott You'll have to agree that most of your fellow Christians don't hold the same position as you on that issue, I think.
Jay Jackson
Why would I agree to an accusation that has no connection to reality?
Especially one that places me as some kind of paragon, far above everyone else–I thought that was part of why y'all don't like Christians; because we're supposedly always doing that?
Kenneth James Abbott
What about the people opposing the construction of mosques? That's a rather large political constituency… Republican politics have gotten a lot of mileage out of the Muslim scare over the last decade. I'm not saying you're "far above everyone else," but I'm saying that you're remarkably consistent in your views about religion in school… you're willing to admit that if teachers express your faith in public schools, they have to be free to express other faiths as well. That's admirable, but it's not like I'm about to pin a medal on you for it. And where do you get off saying that Atheism is nothing more than anti-Christian hate? Sure, my politics and your politics are inimical… we have very different views on what it means to be free and what it means to uphold the constitution, at least with respect to science, abortion, and faith in public schools. But it's not reasonable to write all that off on hatred. To be sure, some Atheists hate Christians just as some Christians hate Atheists. You and I can't be responsible for all the Christians and all the Atheists in the world.
Between you and me, and anybody bored enough to be reading along without saying anything, I think you know I don't hate Christians. I mean, there's Christians I don't like… and hate is a pretty strong word, but if I had to name a few people I can't stand there'd probably be one or two people like the late Reverend Falwell. But those are individual things. That doesn't translate to blanket hatred of Christianity. I'll have you know I maintain friendly oppositional banter with a plural number of seminary students who would happily vouch for me as "harmless, maybe a little arrogant," polite acquaintanceship with several devout evangelicals, and a great rapport with both of my parents, who have devoted their lives to Christian ministry. Fact is, I'm here arguing with you because I care about Christians. I care what you think about Atheists and I care about creating a real dialog between Christians and Atheists instead of just angry epithets. I like to imagine I might alter some of your preconceived notions about what "all Atheists" are like.
I'll be straight with you: I prefer Christians who acknowledge that young people should learn about safe sex, that women should have the right to an abortion at least in the first trimester, that if God is behind creation then he was the one who initiated the big bang and started evolution because the fact that they occurred is indisputable. But I'm honestly just happy to live and let live as long as we can have a neutral secular state with neutral secular public schools. Let Atheists be Atheists and Christians be Christians but in school and in Congress we can all just be Americans, and make laws not based on our religious believes but on neutral, secular standards which give everyone the freedom to live in the way which pleases them. I know you don't agree with me. I know I just said that I think people should exclude and judge you for your views on homosexuals. But I don't think that anyone should harm you or violate your rights or try and force you to believe something you don't want to. I'm not a member of a hate group.
Jay Jackson
–What about the people opposing the construction of mosques?–
And which of them have tried to prevent it (much less been allowed to by our government)? Even the blatant victory mosque in NYC is still completely allowed.
–Republican politics have gotten a lot of mileage out of the Muslim scare over the last decade–
It's not like they're trying to kill us or anything.
–I'm not saying you're "far above everyone else," but I'm saying that you're remarkably consistent in your views about religion in school… you're willing to admit that if teachers express your faith in public schools, they have to be free to express other faiths as well.–
Except that this "remarkable consistency" is–judging by your statements–something you feel only I among Christians bear. It's real sweet of you to imply that, but I'm not unique.
–And where do you get off saying that Atheism is nothing more than anti-Christian hate?–
Because that's what events display.
–But it's not reasonable to write all that off on hatred. –
The constant attacks, on the other hand…. It's a bit hard to say your group isn't dedicated to opposing Christianity when its every action and statement demonstrate that it is.
–I'll be straight with you: I prefer Christians who acknowledge that young people should learn about safe sex, that women should have the right to an abortion at least in the first trimester, that if God is behind creation then he was the one who initiated the big bang and started evolution because the fact that they occurred is indisputable.–
In short, you prefer Christians who don't take their Christianity seriously (BTW, the idea that "if God is behind creation then he was the one who initiated the big bang and started evolution" is the very Intelligent Design that you spoke against earlier. I disagree with it because it's a "we'll meet you 9/10th's of the way and negotiate over the rest" compromise, but ID is valuable because it displays the goals of the evolution crowd. They say "OK, OK, it happened exactly the way you describe it, every step of the way–just that God was like, behind the scenes or something," and evolutionists respond "not good enough–agreeing with us on the science isn't enough. Deny God, or we sue.").
–But I'm honestly just happy to live and let live as long as we can have a neutral secular state with neutral secular public schools.–
If that's the case maybe you can have a good long talk with the ACLU.
Kenneth James Abbott
I called it "rare," and "remarkable," but not "unique." I never said that you were the only person who demonstrated such consistency. I just said that it's not shared by the majority of people who self-identify as Christians in America.
"Because that's what events display." – Why are we talking if you're either unable or unwilling to explain yourself? Make a reasoned argument as to how these events MEAN that Atheism is just an anti-Christian hate group. All you've done so far is list a few incidents and declare that this is what they mean. Surely you are capable of explaining your thought process further. Give me an answer that doesn't just boil down to "because it is" or "because I said so."
"Constant attacks" / "your group" — Atheism isn't an organized entity like a church. There is no "group." How does "every action and statement" of this imaginary "group" demonstrate that Atheism is dedicated to hatred? Opposition and hatred are not the same thing. More importantly, the fact that Atheists and Christians happen to be opposed does not mean that they exist solely in order to oppose each other. Atheism is a way of thinking. It did not come to exist simply as an opposition to Christianity. There were Atheists before the birth of Jesus. Atheist aggression against Christianity in the United States is a reaction against the amount of control that Christians try to exert over our society. We can argue until the cows come home about planned parenthood, sex education, etc… but there's no question that you want things we don't want. How come we're a hate group just because we want opposite things? That's hardly fair.
Intelligent design is not science. You're welcome to believe it but it's not science and it doesn't belong in a science class. But it's better than literal interpretation of Genesis. It's reasonable philosophy, and I have little argument against it except that I disagree and that I do not discern a designer's intent when I look at the world around me. But it's not science. Keep it in a philosophy class. There's no such thing as empirical evidence for it.
I like the ACLU. I think they have gone overboard in a small number of cases, but I think that much more often they are demonized for upholding the constitution in situations where people don't want it upheld.
Jay Jackson
–I called it "rare," and "remarkable," but not "unique." I never said that you were the only person who demonstrated such consistency.–
While you did not say unique, that's avoiding the point. I'm not part of some elite group that's better than everyone else–which is funny, because that's what I keep ~hearing~ that I think I am from atheists.
–Why are we talking if you're either unable or unwilling to explain yourself?–
Because it's not like I've detailed several of those events for you or anything. Why are we talking if you're going to be deliberately unable to get the point?
–Make a reasoned argument as to how these events MEAN that Atheism is just an anti-Christian hate group–
You need a reasoned argument to explain why consistent Christian-bashing is the hallmark of an anti-Christian group? Or are you claiming that I'm wrong when I claim that atheists engage in consistent Christian-bashing and feel I need to back that up if I'm going to claim it?
Hell, imagine that even the 'worst' of Christian leaders, Jerry Falwel, was a fraction as hateful, as petty, as spiteful–or as influential and celebrated by his followers–as Bill Maher, or Christopher Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins. And wasn't Bill Maher the keynote speaker at the hilariously misnamed "Reason Rally"?
–Atheism isn't an organized entity like a church. There is no "group."–
Unlike Christianity, which has several organized groups, almost all with only superficial differences in belief or else differences in level of belief, atheism has…..several organized groups, almost all with only superficial differences in belief or else differences in level of belief. From an atheist point of view (i.e., with no regard towards the spiritual), atheism is ~exactly~ like a religion–except far, far more zealous.
–It did not come to exist simply as an opposition to Christianity. There were Atheists before the birth of Jesus.–
First, I doubt there were many. Second, before the birth of Jesus they didn't organize themselves completely around their opposition to Him (perhaps part of the reason there weren't so many).
–Atheist aggression against Christianity in the United States is a reaction against the amount of control that Christians try to exert over our society.–
Said control consisting almost entirely of either non-existant threats or the knowledge that there are Christians openly being Christian somewhere.
–How come we're a hate group just because we want opposite things? That's hardly fair.–
OJ and Nicole wanted opposite things too–at least for that last few minutes.
–There's no such thing as empirical evidence for it.–
Except not only is there a great deal of empirical evidence for it, but atheists know this, which is why "review all the evidence with an open mind" is met with vicious smear campaigns and lawsuits. Evolution's CRU moment is coming.
–I think they have gone overboard in a small number of cases, but I think that much more often they are demonized for upholding the constitution in situations where people don't want it upheld.–
I'd agree, if the Constitution had any clauses about banning Christianity. Fortunately, it doesn't. The socialists who founded the ACLU did so for a reason, and it wasn't to uphold a nation built on Christian principle–in fact, according to its founder, exactly the opposite.
Kenneth James Abbott
Banning Christianity… come on. Nobody but nobody wants to ban Christianity. It's not "Banning Christianity" to have rules making public schools secular institutions. You're completely free to have private Christian schools where you teach whatever you want. But public schools are PUBLIC. They belong to everyone. You can't make everyone else's kids receive Christian education.
I absolutely don't want to uphold a "nation built on Christian principle." Absolutely not. Nothing in the constitution about that. Nothing in the bill of rights about that. Upholding the constitution means this is a nation built on Constitutional principle. Christian principle? No way.
Empirical evidence for ID. Go.
Jay Jackson
–Banning Christianity… come on. Nobody but nobody wants to ban Christianity–
You haven't been listening to your own people. One of your most prominent leaders wants parents charged with child abuse for bringing up their kids to know about God.
–It's not "Banning Christianity" to have rules making public schools secular institutions.–
It is, however, when you outlaw prayer.
–You can't make everyone else's kids receive Christian education.–
Fortunately, we're not trying.
–I absolutely don't want to uphold a "nation built on Christian principle." Absolutely not. –
Too bad, because that's where your freedoms come from. Without those principles neither the Revolution nor the Magna Carta would have happened.
–Empirical evidence for ID. Go.–
Fortunately, that's been looked into before:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica001819.html
And one of my favorite:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
Kenneth James Abbott
Dawkins didn't advocate charging parents with child abuse for bringing up their children religiously, he entertained the notion that some people consider their religious upbringings to have been mentally abusive. Talking about it in the abstract is one thing, trying to charge people with crime is another. You have inflated the issue into something it's not.
It does not "outlaw prayer" to require that teachers, employees of government, not force their students, a captive audience required by law to be in school, to sit through religious demonstrations such as prayer, much less pressure them to participate through innocuous behavior they might characterize as "encouragement." If I have children, I certainly won't want a teacher "encouraging" them to pray. When you lead a class in prayer you force them to demonstrate to each other who prays and who doesn't, or you force the non-praying kids to feign prayer in order to fit in. You create a hostile environment for students who don't want to pray. Kids are free to pray on their own or in groups if they like, and teachers are free to pray on their own. It is not a teacher's job to share his or her faith with the students. A teacher leading a classroom in Christian prayer or demonstrating Christian prayer in front of a classroom is forcing that on other peoples' children.
"Without those [Christian] principles neither the Revolution nor the Magna Carta would have happened." — Without war we'd have never put a man on the moon, doesn't mean I have to like war, or want a nation founded on it.
Irreducible complexity is a falsehood: it presumes that evolution is linear and moves in a "forward" direction. Irreducible complexity is irreducible because it has already been reduced from something more complex but fully reducible. Because the reduction does not always take the same path down as it came up, you end up with irreducible complexity.
The only other argument in that first link, which by the way is a link to a privately-owned Intelligent Design propaganda site, is a list of extremely difficult-to-find things that would knock holes in the Intelligent Design argument of two guys who wrote a book. Yes, it's very noble to admit that your ID argument would be in hot water if someone discovered an intelligent species on a planet without a moon, or silicon-based life forms, or "intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center." They know quite well that if such things exist it will likely be lifetimes before any of them are found. That article is a joke.
As far as the second article, let's get something straight here–Science is a tool for understanding the material world. You can't use it to try and understand non-material things, it doesn't work that way. There's no piece of research you can conduct which will demonstrate non-material causes for things. And while many of the claims of scientists are speculative and may be proven false in the future, I have a strong feeling that "patent absurdity of some of its constructs" means something different to you than what it means to Lewontin.
You appear to be using information as a drunk uses a lamppost–for support rather than illumination.
Jay Jackson
–Dawkins didn't advocate charging parents with child abuse for bringing up their children religiously, he entertained the notion that some people consider their religious upbringings to have been mentally abusive.–
Some people?
"So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.""
"The God Delusion," pp. 325-326
"The priest who urged a 14-year-old altar boy to give him oral sex, "blessing it as a way to receive Holy Communion " wasn't only abusing the trust normally enjoyed by any teacher, youth leader or scoutmaster. He was cashing in on the years of religious brainwashing that the child had endured as a cradle Catholic. Holy Communion: nice one! But again, only an extreme example of what churches ? and also mosques and synagogues ? do to child minds in their care, in the normal course of events."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118-religion-39-s-real-child-abuse
"So isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?… At a dinner party, say, if ever you hear a person speak of a school for Islamic children, or Catholic children (you can read such phrases daily in newspapers), pounce: "How dare you? You would never speak of a Tory child or a New Labour child, so how could you describe a child as Catholic (Islamic, Protestant etc)?" "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/jun/21/society.richarddawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2703-new-british-petition-stop-the-nightmares
Yeah, he doesn't want it banned, I just misunderstood him.
–Talking about it in the abstract is one thing, trying to charge people with crime is another. You have inflated the issue into something it's not.–
Because I said he's trying to charge people with a crime, rather than "One of your most prominent leaders wants parents charged with child abuse for bringing up their kids to know about God." You were saying something about inflating the issue? Try not inflating my comments first.
Amusingly enough, your exaggeration of my comment turned out to reflect his actions anyway–at one point he actually supported a petition to make raising children to know about God illegal. This is the guy y'all look to and defend while telling me how intolerant I am.
–It does not "outlaw prayer" to require that teachers, employees of government, not force their students, a captive audience required by law to be in school, to sit through religious demonstrations such as prayer, much less pressure them to participate through innocuous behavior they might characterize as "encouragement.–
Too bad that's not what the court case is requiring.
–When you lead a class in prayer you force them to demonstrate to each other who prays and who doesn't, or you force the non-praying kids to feign prayer in order to fit in. –
Or who wants or doesn't want to pray in a class setting.
–It is not a teacher's job to share his or her faith with the students.–
It is not a judge's job to stop US citizens from speaking about their faith–no, not even when that faith is Christianity.
–Without war we'd have never put a man on the moon, doesn't mean I have to like war, or want a nation founded on it.–
The major principles of warfare are not what got the rockets off the ground. Nice try.
–Irreducible complexity is a falsehood: it presumes that evolution is linear and moves in a "forward" direction. Irreducible complexity is irreducible because it has already been reduced from something more complex but fully reducible–
Except that this has never been shown to happen or even be possible. If the current complexity is irreducible, assuming that ~further~ complexity would be reducible is a perfect example of faith overriding reason.
–The only other argument in that first link, which by the way is a link to a privately-owned Intelligent Design propaganda site,–
Which lists some of the evidence you demanded.
–is a list of extremely difficult-to-find things that would knock holes in the Intelligent Design argument of two guys who wrote a book.–
It's called making a theory falsifiable. It's one of the things that actually identifies a scientific theory. Einstein notably did the same thing when he proposed his theory of relativity. If light didn't appear to bend during an eclipse, for example, or if his calculations didn't accurately predict the route of Mercury, then his theory would fall apart. This isn't "nobility," it's proving that he has a theory rather than a viewpoint that must be held at all costs because otherwise those fundies might be right.
–As far as the second article, let's get something straight here–Science is a tool for understanding the material world.–
And has been long before (and likely will be long after) evolution.
–And while many of the claims of scientists are speculative and may be proven false in the future, I have a strong feeling that "patent absurdity of some of its constructs" means something different to you than what it means to Lewontin.–
Really? Because I think "patent absurdity of some of its constructs" means "patent absurdity of some of its constructs."
–You appear to be using information as a drunk uses a lamppost–for support rather than illumination.–
It appears that way to you because you keep covering your eyes from the light. Once you quit, the illumination may do you some good.
Kenneth James Abbott
The petition was posted on the public discussion portion of his website and the poster was the website which ran the petition and that website no longer exists. Do you have any evidence that DAWKINS did anything to support that petition?
"Charged with child abuse" = charged with a crime. Charged was your word choice, and child abuse is a crime, so forgive me for misunderstanding that when you said "charged with child abuse" you didn't mean charged with a crime. You know, like "charged with murder" or "charged with breaking and entering." Charged with child abuse. Your words.
Rockets were financed because they were required for warfare. The principles of rocketry were developed for the purpose of firing rockets at enemies. Just because war industry happened to develop the technology which produced space flight doesn't mean we have to love the war industry if we love space travel. Similarly, just because Christians happened to be the group of people to come up with a decently democratic non-sectarian Constitution based on earlier documents by earlier Christians, doesn't mean we have to love Christianity if we love the Constitution.
Irreducible complexity – I'm sorry that you can't grasp the concept. Some people have trouble with science, but I have a feeling it's especially hard when you don't want to understand.
Einstein's examples were actual testable examples. The reason he presented them was because they supported him–he had done those things and those things lined up with his calculations. These examples of the "falsifiability" of intelligent design are absurdly beyond the capacity of anyone to test. Theoretically, one day, a hundred and fifty years from now, if we haven't all blown ourselves up by then, maybe somebody might disprove my theory by finding an intelligent alien species with no moon. That's not falsifiability. That's weak sauce.
I've got news for you, there's not going to be an "after" evolution. Our understanding of evolution will grow and change over time, but evolution is pretty much established. We know how DNA works now. People who think evolution is in doubt are kidding themselves.
Jay Jackson
–The petition was posted on the public discussion portion of his website and the poster was the website which ran the petition and that website no longer exists. Do you have any evidence that DAWKINS did anything to support that petition?–
I'm sure it's a complete accident that it shows up on his site.
–Charged with child abuse" = charged with a crime. Charged was your word choice, and child abuse is a crime, so forgive me for misunderstanding that when you said "charged with child abuse" you didn't mean charged with a crime.–
"wants parents charged" = "wants parents charged". "WANTS" was also my word choice, so if you want to get snarky about the specific words I used, try using the entire sentence.
–Rockets were financed because they were required for warfare. The principles of rocketry were developed for the purpose of firing rockets at enemies.–
The principles of rocketry were in use a few thousand years before we started working on missiles.
–Similarly, just because Christians happened to be the group of people to come up with a decently democratic non-sectarian Constitution based on earlier documents by earlier Christians–
They didn't "happen to be the group of people"–one factor lead to the other.
–doesn't mean we have to love Christianity if we love the Constitution.–
Nor did I say you have to love Christianity to love the Constitution. But trying to drive out the Christian principles that gave us the Constitution is the height of foolishness–and it does a good deal to explain why the country is falling apart.
–Irreducible complexity – I'm sorry that you can't grasp the concept. Some people have trouble with science, but I have a feeling it's especially hard when you don't want to understand.–
I grasp the concept just fine, but thanks for the patronizing bullshit all the same.
–These examples of the "falsifiability" of intelligent design are absurdly beyond the capacity of anyone to test. Theoretically, one day, a hundred and fifty years from now, if we haven't all blown ourselves up by then, maybe somebody might disprove my theory by finding an intelligent alien species with no moon. That's not falsifiability. That's weak sauce.–
That's also not what they said.
–I've got news for you, there's not going to be an "after" evolution.–
Ain't that what the Lamerckists said?
–People who think evolution is in doubt are kidding themselves.–
Which is why we're frantically throwing lawsuits around to try to halt actual scientific debate on the topic; because we know there's reall….. Oh, wait. It's the atheists who are frantically throwing lawsuits around to try to halt actual scientific debate on the topic and keep any facts that don't support their theory out of schools. Ooooooops.
Jay Jackson
–Huh. I had a post, and apparently it ate the thing.
–The petition was posted on the public discussion portion of his website and the poster was the website which ran the petition and that website no longer exists. Do you have any evidence that DAWKINS did anything to support that petition?–
Besides voice his support of it, and only take it back because it might impact "comparitive religion' classes?
–"Charged with child abuse" = charged with a crime. Charged was your word choice, and child abuse is a crime, so forgive me for misunderstanding that when you said "charged with child abuse" you didn't mean charged with a crime. You know, like "charged with murder" or "charged with breaking and entering." Charged with child abuse. Your words.–
My words–as I pointed out to you, includes "wants," rather than that he's trying to make it happen. As I already noted;
"Because I said he's trying to charge people with a crime, rather than "One of your most prominent leaders wants parents charged with child abuse for bringing up their kids to know about God." You were saying something about inflating the issue? Try not inflating my comments first."
–Rockets were financed because they were required for warfare. The principles of rocketry were developed for the purpose of firing rockets at enemies. –
And again, the Chinese had rockets long before we started trying to develop for warfare. Now, if you were trying to appreciate the space program while giving a big middle finger to the laws of physics and aerodynamics, we'd be talking about a valid analogy.
–Similarly, just because Christians happened to be the group of people to come up with a decently democratic non-sectarian Constitution based on earlier documents by earlier Christians, doesn't mean we have to love Christianity if we love the Constitution.–
Because it's no more than a coincidence that Christians, using Christian principles and Christian philosophy based directly and indirectly on Christian theology….
–Irreducible complexity – I'm sorry that you can't grasp the concept. Some people have trouble with science, but I have a feeling it's especially hard when you don't want to understand.–
I grasp the concept just fine–which, I suspect is why you have a problem with it. But thanks for the patronizing BS, all the same.
–These examples of the "falsifiability" of intelligent design are absurdly beyond the capacity of anyone to test. Theoretically, one day, a hundred and fifty years from now, if we haven't all blown ourselves up by then, maybe somebody might disprove my theory by finding an intelligent alien species with no moon. That's not falsifiability. That's weak sauce.–
That's also not the argument they're making.
–I've got news for you, there's not going to be an "after" evolution.–
Tell that to the Lamerckians.
The flat truth was that if evolution's proponents really believed that, they wouldn't be suing to keep any facts out of the schools–or, for that matter, any attempt to look over the evidence with an open mind. Like God, the evidence against evolution is engendering a whole lot of hatred for something that supposedly doesn't exist.
–Our understanding of evolution will grow and change over time–
No–real sciences grow and change over time. Evolution will still be supported mostly by frauds and lawsuits until atheists can find some other, more plausible explanation for how we got here that doesn't involve God.
–People who think evolution is in doubt are kidding themselves.–
People like Mr. Lewontin, who stated the issue very clearly?
Kenneth James Abbott
The Petition — So where's your proof that Dawkins did what you say?
Child Abuse — No, you're the one who is inflating. Dawkins called it abuse, he didn't say parents should be charged with abuse. Here, I'll give you an example: Parents who make their 10 year old obese have abused their child. They have not committed a crime, and I don't advocate legislation to criminalize what they have done. But it's definitely child abuse. One day that fat kid will have to try and forgive mom and dad for it. I've forgiven my parents for a lot of things they did in the name of their faith that I consider to have been harmful. None of the things they did was criminal, and none of them malicious, but harm was done and harm is abuse. You're just making the statement more than it is by saying he wants parents to be charged, and you're avoiding the point when you argue you didn't say he was trying to actually make it happen. You know good and well that he can think an act is wrong without thinking it is criminal, and he didn't call it a criminal act, so you're putting words in his mouth.
That said, I shouldn't have to apologize for Dawkins. We didn't elect him. He's not our lord and savior. He's just a biologist and a public figure, he's not a politician or a philosopher or anything. He's not one of the pioneers of Atheist thought, he's just an advocate for it.
Rockets — The Chinese accidentally discovered black powder in the 9th century, and immediately began experimenting with it to produce bombs, cannons, incendiary arrows and rocket-propelled arrows. What, did you think they started with fireworks for Chinese New Year?
Lamerckians — Lamerckians bear no comparison at all. They are a great example of how we might come across astonishing new information that radically changes our perception of evolutionary development–say, if we discovered information suggesting that humans had a common ancestor with whales and dolphins. But it's not at all a good comparison for evolution itself. Lamerckianism wasn't a unified theory. Evolution lines up with geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry. Microbiologists watch evolution happen all the time. If you don't know why this Lamerckian thing is a terrible analogy, I'm 100% certain you're lying when you claim that you understand my objections to the so-called "problem" of so-called "irreducible complexity." You are willfully refusing to understand how an extremely complex, "reducible" system could develop and then regress, leaving vestigial characteristics behind which later adapt to other functions and seem to be "irreducible." Evolution does not follow a straight line, and "scientists" who claim "irreducible complexity" are insisting upon one.
Do you think scientists would sue to keep astrology and voodoo out of the classroom? Do you think they'd sue to keep flat-earth-ism and the geocentric universe out of the classroom? THAT'S why they're suing to keep intelligent design and creationism out of the classroom. Because they aren't science. Because they corrupt and destroy any scientific pursuit. They free you from the burden of evidence and experimentation. Creationism is pure religious philosophy. Intelligent design is religious philosophy in a science costume. The whole bunch of them can't find two pieces of evidence to rub together. Hell, they can't find one to just beat on like a drum. It's all just "I'm a skeptic" and "the cell is so complex" and "that doesn't make sense" and "you want me to believe it on faith," which are all code for "I can't/won't understand the evidence."
Look, all of astronomy points toward the idea that matter in the universe exploded outward and formed large clouds of dust which were pulled together by gravity. It is corroborated by the direction and speed at which every measurable body in space is travelling. It is corroborated by other bodies in space at different stages in their development or decline than our Sun and neighboring planets. It explains the formation of all galaxies, including the Milky Way. It explains the formation of our solar system, and is corroborated by the distribution of elements throughout the different planets–heaver elements closer to the sun, lighter ones further away. It is also corroborated by geography on Earth–the composition of the Earth's crust, mantle and core, as well as plate tectonics. The fossil record, both in terms of its distribution across the planet and in terms of its distribution in terms of depth in a given area, corroborates the age of the Earth as well as the movement of the tectonic plates over that time. The mapping of the genome corroborates much of what we understand about evolutionary genetics and adaptation. The production of genetically modified crops and livestock, and the development of new anti-viral techniques, are practical uses for scientific knowledge which are only possible because of the insight provided by evolutionary theory.
It isn't science's job to disprove God or even think about God. Lewontin is wrong because he thinks it is a problem with science that science presupposes materialism. As I tried to explain before, science is a tool for understanding the material world. It is not capable of understanding, and should not attempt to understand, things which are not part of the material world, if in fact such things were to exist. He makes a valid point that many scientists take the materialism of the scientific method and adopt it as their philosophy… but when an actual scientist holds a religious philosophy, he doesn't try to adopt THAT as the new scientific method. Science must always be materialistic even when it is conducted by a Christian. A Christian can only be a scientist if he is willing to leave the Bible out of the laboratory. He can go home and believe whatever he wants, but in the lab he believes what the evidence shows him. Good scientists who are Christians might say they favor intelligent design, but they don't favor teaching it in the science class. People who want ID in the classroom are bad scientists or not scientists at all.
I'd like to add that I have no problem with teaching students about Intelligent Design in Social Studies. Well, Social Studies for little kids, and then History for high school students. Lots of high school English classes have critical thinking or debate components, and I'd also be fine with teaching about the controversy in there. But Science is Science, and ID is Philosophy.
Jay Jackson Jay Jackson
–The Petition — So where's your proof that Dawkins did what you say?–
*sigh.* Here he is claming that he just didn't understand it–back when he supported it:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/divided-by-a-co.html
–Child Abuse — No, you're the one who is inflating. Dawkins called it abuse, he didn't say parents should be charged with abuse.–
""So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.""
"The God Delusion," pp. 325-326"
So just how do you "not allow" abuse on a level with knocking kids teeth out and locking in dungeons without charging with abuse?
–No, you're the one who is inflating.–
Which is why when I said he wants parents charged and you turned that into advocation–because I'm "the one who is inflating."
–You know good and well that he can think an act is wrong without thinking it is criminal, and he didn't call it a criminal act, so you're putting words in his mouth.–
Except he said it was equal to knocking your kids teeth out, which IS criminal, so you're simply making false accusations.
–That said, I shouldn't have to apologize for Dawkins.–
Then just why are you shilling for him?
–We didn't elect him. He's not our lord and savior. He's just a biologist and a public figure, he's not a politician or a philosopher or anything. He's not one of the pioneers of Atheist thought, he's just an advocate for it.–
And atheists haven't made him world-famous and filthy rich, or consistently invited him to speak at events like the hilariously misnamed "reason rally", right? Oh, wait, they did? So when did he get backed down to 'just a biologist and a public figure'? Dawkins is one of the major voices of the atheist movement for a reason–it's not despite his shrill, zealous, thought-destroying hatred; it's ~because~ of it.
It's a plain fact that any Christian who was anywhere nearly as hate-addled about atheists–or anybody else–as Dawkins, Hitchens, or Maher would be exactly where the one known one is: stuck in Kansas somewhere, with nothing but their own family members giving them anything but derision and every organization in the group he claims disavowing him. It's not that atheists are telling how Dawkins doesn't speak for them and I refuse to believe them–it's that atheists have made Dawkins filthy rich as their spokesman and continually invite him to speak for him.
–Rockets — The Chinese accidentally discovered black powder in the 9th century, and immediately began experimenting with it to produce bombs, cannons, incendiary arrows and rocket-propelled arrows. What, did you think they started with fireworks for Chinese New Year?–
True, and I concede that easily enough. But rocketry is still not based upon warfare–it's based upon aerodynamics and the laws of physics, and you'd look pretty foolish admiring space flight while ignoring the principles that brought it about–just like you look pretty foolish enjoying America's freedom and prosperity while denigrating the principles and lines of thought which caused it.
–Lamerckians — Lamerckians bear no comparison at all. They are a great example of how we might come across astonishing new information that radically changes our perception of evolutionary development–say, if we discovered information suggesting that humans had a common ancestor with whales and dolphins.–
Except in Russia, where the government supported it–which is exactly the situation we're looking at now.
–But it's not at all a good comparison for evolution itself. Lamerckianism wasn't a unified theory.–
Nor is evolution–check, just for a start, the punctuated equilibrium debate–usually, we're told that this is proof the theory is strong, because it's NOT unified, but a double standard among evolutionists is nothing new.
–Evolution lines up with geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry–
Except the blatant contradictions.
–If you don't know why this Lamerckian thing is a terrible analogy, I'm 100% certain you're lying when you claim that you understand my objections to the so-called "problem" of so-called "irreducible complexity."–
Fortunately, I know why it works quite fine, and I also understand that neither making false accusations about me nor being "100% certain" will allow you to change the facts.
–You are willfully refusing to understand how an extremely complex, "reducible" system could develop and then regress, leaving vestigial characteristics behind which later adapt to other functions and seem to be "irreducible." Evolution does not follow a straight line, and "scientists" who claim "irreducible complexity" are insisting upon one.–
Yes, how stubborn of me to refuse to understand how an irreducibly complex system was actually MORE complex, which is why it's not too complex now, despite the fact that there's no evidence that this happened in any example. It must be because I've got my eyes squeezed shut.
–Do you think scientists would sue to keep astrology and voodoo out of the classroom? Do you think they'd sue to keep flat-earth-ism and the geocentric universe out of the classroom?–
Actually, no. Any reasonable debate of the facts around astrology, voodoo, flat-eartherism, and Ptolemaic Astronomy would bring one immediately to reject them. In short, nobody is ~frightened~ of these things, for the simple reason that they ~are~ untrue.
–Because they corrupt and destroy any scientific pursuit. They free you from the burden of evidence and experimentation.–
Unlike using lawsuits, civil intimidation, and illegal harassment to shut up those who might bring up uncomfortable facts….
–Intelligent design is religious philosophy in a science costume. The whole bunch of them can't find two pieces of evidence to rub together. Hell, they can't find one to just beat on like a drum.–
If you actually had something to go on against these folks, you wouldn't have to slander them.
–It's all just "I'm a skeptic" and "the cell is so complex" and "that doesn't make sense" and "you want me to believe it on faith," which are all code for "I can't/won't understand the evidence."–
Ahh, "code words." Thank you for telling us what we're really thinking for us. Care to stop trying to psychoanalyze the other side and actual deal in facts?
–Look, all of astronomy points toward the idea that matter in the universe exploded outward and formed large clouds of dust which were pulled together by gravity.–
Ahh, yes, the "first there was nothing, which exploded" theory.
–It is corroborated by other bodies in space at different stages in their development or decline than our Sun and neighboring planets.–
Except that if all these bodies had birthed from the same event, they'd be at relatively the same stage of development or decline.
Jay Jackson Jay Jackson
–The Petition — So where's your proof that Dawkins did what you say?–
*sigh.* Here he is claming that he just didn't understand it–back when he supported it:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/divided-by-a-co.html
–Child Abuse — No, you're the one who is inflating. Dawkins called it abuse, he didn't say parents should be charged with abuse.–
""So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.""
"The God Delusion," pp. 325-326"
So just how do you "not allow" abuse on a level with knocking kids teeth out and locking in dungeons without charging with abuse?
–No, you're the one who is inflating.–
Which is why when I said he wants parents charged and you turned that into advocation–because I'm "the one who is inflating."
–You know good and well that he can think an act is wrong without thinking it is criminal, and he didn't call it a criminal act, so you're putting words in his mouth.–
Except he said it was equal to knocking your kids teeth out, which IS criminal, so you're simply making false accusations.
–That said, I shouldn't have to apologize for Dawkins.–
Then just why are you shilling for him?
–We didn't elect him. He's not our lord and savior. He's just a biologist and a public figure, he's not a politician or a philosopher or anything. He's not one of the pioneers of Atheist thought, he's just an advocate for it.–
And atheists haven't made him world-famous and filthy rich, or consistently invited him to speak at events like the hilariously misnamed "reason rally", right? Oh, wait, they did? So when did he get backed down to 'just a biologist and a public figure'? Dawkins is one of the major voices of the atheist movement for a reason–it's not despite his shrill, zealous, thought-destroying hatred; it's ~because~ of it.
It's a plain fact that any Christian who was anywhere nearly as hate-addled about atheists–or anybody else–as Dawkins, Hitchens, or Maher would be exactly where the one known one is: stuck in Kansas somewhere, with nothing but their own family members giving them anything but derision and every organization in the group he claims disavowing him. It's not that atheists are telling how Dawkins doesn't speak for them and I refuse to believe them–it's that atheists have made Dawkins filthy rich as their spokesman and continually invite him to speak for him.
–Rockets — The Chinese accidentally discovered black powder in the 9th century, and immediately began experimenting with it to produce bombs, cannons, incendiary arrows and rocket-propelled arrows. What, did you think they started with fireworks for Chinese New Year?–
True, and I concede that easily enough. But rocketry is still not based upon warfare–it's based upon aerodynamics and the laws of physics, and you'd look pretty foolish admiring space flight while ignoring the principles that brought it about–just like you look pretty foolish enjoying America's freedom and prosperity while denigrating the principles and lines of thought which caused it.
–Lamerckians — Lamerckians bear no comparison at all. They are a great example of how we might come across astonishing new information that radically changes our perception of evolutionary development–say, if we discovered information suggesting that humans had a common ancestor with whales and dolphins.–
Except in Russia, where the government supported it–which is exactly the situation we're looking at now.
–But it's not at all a good comparison for evolution itself. Lamerckianism wasn't a unified theory.–
Nor is evolution–check, just for a start, the punctuated equilibrium debate–usually, we're told that this is proof the theory is strong, because it's NOT unified, but a double standard among evolutionists is nothing new.
–Evolution lines up with geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry–
Except the blatant contradictions.
–If you don't know why this Lamerckian thing is a terrible analogy, I'm 100% certain you're lying when you claim that you understand my objections to the so-called "problem" of so-called "irreducible complexity."–
Fortunately, I know why it works quite fine, and I also understand that neither making false accusations about me nor being "100% certain" will allow you to change the facts.
–You are willfully refusing to understand how an extremely complex, "reducible" system could develop and then regress, leaving vestigial characteristics behind which later adapt to other functions and seem to be "irreducible." Evolution does not follow a straight line, and "scientists" who claim "irreducible complexity" are insisting upon one.–
Yes, how stubborn of me to refuse to understand how an irreducibly complex system was actually MORE complex, which is why it's not too complex now, despite the fact that there's no evidence that this happened in any example. It must be because I've got my eyes squeezed shut.
–Do you think scientists would sue to keep astrology and voodoo out of the classroom? Do you think they'd sue to keep flat-earth-ism and the geocentric universe out of the classroom?–
Actually, no. Any reasonable debate of the facts around astrology, voodoo, flat-eartherism, and Ptolemaic Astronomy would bring one immediately to reject them. In short, nobody is ~frightened~ of these things, for the simple reason that they ~are~ untrue.
–Because they corrupt and destroy any scientific pursuit. They free you from the burden of evidence and experimentation.–
Unlike using lawsuits, civil intimidation, and illegal harassment to shut up those who might bring up uncomfortable facts….
–Intelligent design is religious philosophy in a science costume. The whole bunch of them can't find two pieces of evidence to rub together. Hell, they can't find one to just beat on like a drum.–
If you actually had something to go on against these folks, you wouldn't have to slander them.
–It's all just "I'm a skeptic" and "the cell is so complex" and "that doesn't make sense" and "you want me to believe it on faith," which are all code for "I can't/won't understand the evidence."–
Ahh, "code words." Thank you for telling us what we're really thinking for us. Care to stop trying to psychoanalyze the other side and actual deal in facts?
–Look, all of astronomy points toward the idea that matter in the universe exploded outward and formed large clouds of dust which were pulled together by gravity.–
Ahh, yes, the "first there was nothing, which exploded" theory.
–It is corroborated by other bodies in space at different stages in their development or decline than our Sun and neighboring planets.–
Except that if all these bodies had birthed from the same event, they'd be at relatively the same stage of development or decline.
–It explains the formation of our solar system, and is corroborated by the distribution of elements throughout the different planets–heaver elements closer to the sun, lighter ones further away.–
Actually, the "dwarf planet" Pluto is rock and ice rather than gas like the closer bodies. Likewise, Uranus is made of rock, while the two closer planets, Jupiter and Saturn, are almost completely hydrogen and helium. So is Neptune–and that's not even counting all the moons of varying densities.
–The fossil record, both in terms of its distribution across the planet and in terms of its distribution in terms of depth in a given area, corroborates the age of the Earth as well as the movement of the tectonic plates over that time.–
Except that the fossil record is a long string of gaps and contradictions.
–The mapping of the genome corroborates much of what we understand about evolutionary genetics and adaptation.–
Which is why the people who did the mapping describe a "magical, metaphysical element…." and explained "What really astounds me is the architecture of life," he said. "The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed."
http://www.arn.org/docs/news/genome021901.htm
–The production of genetically modified crops and livestock, and the development of new anti-viral techniques, are practical uses for scientific knowledge which are only possible because of the insight provided by evolutionary theory.–
Nonsense. We understood the concept of breeding long before evolution, and in fact the beginnings of our knowledge of heredity come not just from the Church but from the Bible.
–Lewontin is wrong because he thinks it is a problem with science that science presupposes materialism. As I tried to explain before, science is a tool for understanding the material world. It is not capable of understanding, and should not attempt to understand, things which are not part of the material world, if in fact such things were to exist.–
Because science has nothing to do with understanding things that can't currently be understood, right?
Moreover, Lewontin admits clearly that many in the scientific community put up with blatant problems because dealing with the facts may lead to a spiritual matter. He's not the only one.
–A Christian can only be a scientist if he is willing to leave the Bible out of the laboratory.–
As opposed to atheists who hold evolution's truth as an absolute necessity to their worldview?
–People who want ID in the classroom are bad scientists or not scientists at all.–
Because REAL scientists rabidly combat any honest debate of the facts and file lawsuits against anyone who encourages others to consider all the evidence with an open mind.
–It explains the formation of our solar system, and is corroborated by the distribution of elements throughout the different planets–heaver elements closer to the sun, lighter ones further away.–
Actually, the "dwarf planet" Pluto is rock and ice rather than gas like the closer bodies. Likewise, Uranus is made of rock, while the two closer planets, Jupiter and Saturn, are almost completely hydrogen and helium. So is Neptune–and that's not even counting all the moons of varying densities.
–The fossil record, both in terms of its distribution across the planet and in terms of its distribution in terms of depth in a given area, corroborates the age of the Earth as well as the movement of the tectonic plates over that time.–
Except that the fossil record is a long string of gaps and contradictions.
–The mapping of the genome corroborates much of what we understand about evolutionary genetics and adaptation.–
Which is why the people who did the mapping describe a "magical, metaphysical element…." and explained "What really astounds me is the architecture of life," he said. "The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed."
http://www.arn.org/docs/news/genome021901.htm
–The production of genetically modified crops and livestock, and the development of new anti-viral techniques, are practical uses for scientific knowledge which are only possible because of the insight provided by evolutionary theory.–
Nonsense. We understood the concept of breeding long before evolution, and in fact the beginnings of our knowledge of heredity come not just from the Church but from the Bible.
–Lewontin is wrong because he thinks it is a problem with science that science presupposes materialism. As I tried to explain before, science is a tool for understanding the material world. It is not capable of understanding, and should not attempt to understand, things which are not part of the material world, if in fact such things were to exist.–
Because science has nothing to do with understanding things that can't currently be understood, right?
Moreover, Lewontin admits clearly that many in the scientific community put up with blatant problems because dealing with the facts may lead to a spiritual matter. He's not the only one.
–A Christian can only be a scientist if he is willing to leave the Bible out of the laboratory.–
As opposed to atheists who hold evolution's truth as an absolute necessity to their worldview?
–People who want ID in the classroom are bad scientists or not scientists at all.–
Because REAL scientists rabidly combat any honest debate of the facts and file lawsuits against anyone who encourages others to consider all the evidence with an open mind.
–I've forgiven my parents for a lot of things they did in the name of their faith that I consider to have been harmful. None of the things they did was criminal, and none of them malicious, but harm was done and harm is abuse.–
Yes, I'm sure you were permanently traumatized by learning about God and sin.
–I've forgiven my parents for a lot of things they did in the name of their faith that I consider to have been harmful. None of the things they did was criminal, and none of them malicious, but harm was done and harm is abuse.–
Yes, I'm sure you were permanently traumatized by learning about God and sin.
Kenneth James Abbott
"Except that if all these bodies had birthed from the same event, they'd be at relatively the same stage of development or decline." — This does not follow in any way at all, and it is a great example of why I can't have a serious scientific conversation with you. Your position is completely thoughtless. Why would a chaotic chain reaction spanning the entire universe have completely uniform results across the whole spectrum? It wouldn't. It wasn't. It isn't.
There is no reason to believe that Pluto formed along with the rest of our solar system. Like many of the moons our planets have collected, it is likely that Pluto was an asteroid formed elsewhere which was caught up in a gravitational field on its way past us. Size isn't the only reason they decided Pluto wasn't a planet. Uranus is mostly ice, not rock, and because it is not water ice, it does not have the same mass or density as water ice. Which means you don't really know anything about your topic. Currently developing theories suggest that Uranus probably formed closer to the sun than its current location, and computer simulations of gravity and momentum seem to back this up.
Fossil Record — "Gaps" is a foolish accusation, signifying nothing. Fossils are discrete points, and there will always be space in between discrete points. If your God lies in the gaps between discrete points of human knowledge, your God is just going to get smaller and smaller forever. "Contradictions" is a falsehood–if you try to name a few, I am confident you will just parrot off some distortions you read on an ID website that would cause any half-competent scientist to snicker.
I'm not reading any more of your stupid ID website crap. Access Research Network is a dinky fly-by-night creationist propaganda organization based in Colorado. They haven't published their journal since 2001. Whatever they've written is not science but an op-ed piece designed to attack science, and I won't waste my time on it. Link to an ACTUAL source next time, please. Just going by what you've said about it, though: "It's so complex it's like someone designed it" is neither an assertion that somebody actually did nor evidence for that suggestion.
"Because science has nothing to do with understanding things that can't currently be understood, right?" — I can't tell if you're foolish or if you're being willfully ignorant. I'll put my philosopher hat on for a second. Non-material things, should those things exist at all, can only be understood through gnosis. If they could be understood with science, they would be material things! Don't you understand that? It's a simple concept and pretty much universally recognized. There's no such thing as material evidence of non-material things, because they're non-material, and science is a tool designed for using material evidence to understand material things. It is foolishness to try and use science to understand something supernatural. That would be like asking someone to sing a color or dance a fraction.
"Because REAL scientists rabidly combat any honest debate of the facts and file lawsuits against anyone who encourages others to consider all the evidence with an open mind." — There are no intelligent design facts and there is no intelligent design evidence. You have nothing.
Back to Rocketry and the Constitution for a second… there's plenty of reason to argue that the American Constitution is based on principles dating all the way back to the Greeks and Romans. Most of the founding fathers were Deists who believe in a God but rejected a wide array of important Christian doctrines. The thoroughly secular ideas of political economists like Adam Smith played a significant part in the constitution as well.
Imagine I turned this argument around at you. Are you enjoying using a computer designed by atheists, running an operating system designed by an atheist, to post using a discussion plug-in (facebook) designed by an atheist, about how much you can't stand atheism?
Jay Jackson
Huh….
Which means you don't really know anything about your topic.
"Gaps" is a foolish accusation, signifying nothing.
I'm not reading any more of your stupid ID website crap. (note that it was quoting an article in the San Francisco Chronicle)
Whatever they've written is not science but an op-ed piece designed to attack science, and I won't waste my time on it
I can't tell if you're foolish or if you're being willfully ignorant
There are no intelligent design facts and there is no intelligent design evidence. You have nothing.
Tell you what–when you're ready to deal in facts, rather than recite "uh-uh, you're dumb!" then come on back and give it a try.
Kenneth James Abbott
Polite delivery doesn't make your "facts" any more factual, and my irritation at your ignorance doesn't make my statements any less true.
Incidentally, though, with the Chronicle article — The writer has misinterpreted the comments of the scientist with whom he spoke, and the article closes with a false dichotomy. There's not a choice between "faith in a maker or faith in our ingenuity to puzzle out the mystery of from whence we came." We WILL puzzle out the "mystery" described in the article. That's not a question of faith, it's a matter of time. If we don't become extinct before we make the discovery, we will eventually have a full explanation of the origins of life on Earth along with a replicable process for synthesizing RNA from non-living compounds which matches it. And through it all, you'll be free to say it was God behind it all if that's what you want to say. But it still won't be science. And you still won't have any evidence for it. More importantly, you won't be able to keep getting away with rejecting the science outright, not forever. Sure, you'll try to find some other gap in human understanding, some other problem we haven't solved, but you're just hopping from one piece of ice to another in a melting pond. Eventually "evolution skeptics" will be standing on the tiniest little piece with nowhere to go… people will look at you like you're Amish if you keep trying to deny it. Eventually.
More importantly, it's disingenuous to say there's an "absence of proof at the root of evolution" just because there's an absence of proof regarding how RNA formed. So we can't explain how RNA formed… we can explain everything that happened after that. That really counts for a lot unless you're just hell-bent on refusing to look at the facts.
Jay Jackson
–Polite delivery doesn't make your "facts" any more factual, and my irritation at your ignorance doesn't make my statements any less true–
Your insistence on dealing in dopey slander rather than facts, on the other hand, makes a fairly strong statement.
Like I said, give me a ping when you're ready to deal with facts, rather than expecting me to entertain your hatred of Christianity.
Kenneth James Abbott "Skepticism" about evolution isn't Christianity. I've met plenty of Christians smart enough to know the difference between science and philosophy. People who aren't threatened by scientific fact and therefore don't have to waste a bunch of their time trying to destroy science.
Jay Jackson
Someday, perhaps you'll be willing to quit dealing in false accusations, and start dealing in facts.
That day will be the beginning of the end for your atheism.
Kenneth James Abbott That's funny because critical thinking was the beginning of the end for my Christianity.
You know people take 'jabs' at Christianity? Because you stupid idiots do shit like this. If you don't like the band, don't go. You don't see people at your Christian concerts making protests about them. I despise all of you who think you're godly because you're a christian. You are all taking the rights of others away by making a protest about something that is not harming anyone. As others have already said- This band included the footage of burning churches in their video to show how religions fight each other to the death. There is nothing 'hostile towards Christians'. A building is burning. Get the fuck over it people. You all make me sick. And you all wonder why people hate Christianity so much…you all are a disgrace to God. Christianity doesn't mean you need to protest everyone else's rights and beliefs. You are supposed to accept EVERYONE no matter what race, gender, or religion.
no atheist would start shit over a christian music video picturing christians building a church, but when a video depicts atheists (tho technically aiden, the atheists your mad at, didnt take it down) taking one down, you have to go all crazy and start your foolish christian babbling that makes u sound even dumber. is the "you cant see the wind" argument supposed to be a serious argument or are you pulling my leg?
Just wanted to chime in and inform you all that this story is almost a complete fabrication.
If ever there were incontrovertible proof that sensationalized, fabricated controversies were an effective way to get people to believe something to be true with absolutely zero substantiation, this comments section would be it.
Way to go, Christians and atheists alike, falling prey to a contrived scandal. Not paying much service to the old Jesus fairy tale when you're as much as proving that mass hysteria, mob mentality, and group-think are the perfect opposition to critical thought and inquiry, skepticism, and discerning truth from fiction.
You all make me sad.
Check the following link out for the full transcript of the interview and the /real/ story…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/29/foxnews-investigates-the-atheist-festival-gets-it-twisted/
This is abhorrent. That's right; it looks like I'm agreeing with most of you so keep on reading. This is absolutely abhorrent because this article is unashamedly biased and edited to create a controversy were there is none. Feel free to read the other side of the story here:http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/29/foxnews-investigates-the-atheist-festival-gets-it-twisted/.
Oh wait, I forgot – you are all too busy validating each other's ridiculous convictions about our president's "war on Christians" and how Christianity, the dominant religion in this country with numbers far surpassing that of any other demographic, is so "persecuted" with trite nonsense that you swallow from FOX and your pastors without batting an eyelash. Oh poor you! It must be so terrible being part of the majority, so unbearable being in the incrowd. Isn't it just so terrible when the people you've been oppressing get fed up and fight back?
Man, the context of the video went right over your heads. That's expected since members of the majority religion takes every opportunity to pretend they're persecuted. I see the Fatwa Envy is alive and well here too. The lyrics don't even mention burning churches (that's FauxNews for ya), it's "Love how they burn your synagogues" and it's about how the Abrahamic siblings haven't ever played nice with each other, or others.
There are a few factual errors I would like to clear up from the article. This song does not "celebrate the burning of churches and synagogues." No atheist that I have spoken to, myself included, want to burn down any house of worship. Aiden was merely pointing put that while preaching love religious people have also burned the places of worship that people of different beliefs attend. They are pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in speaking about love while hating people who have done you no harm. And while I agree not all the lyrics are family friendly they will be cleaned up for the event There is no way I would want my child to hear obscenities either, we want this to be family event. As to the 'atheist anthem' remark, this song makes for a poor anthem, I'm sure most of us would rather have Imagine by John Lennon. But we are a pretty diverse bunch, so we really don't have an anthem, except the National Anthem of course!
Todd Starnes has completely misrepresented the interview he conducted for this story.
The event is not an attack on Christians, in spite of the fact that Christians are constantly attacking Atheists–like in the comments on this article.
The burning churches in the video, as well as the lyrics "love how they burn your synagogues / love how they torch your holy books" are intended to represent the violence of the never-ending conflict between Judiaism, Christianity and Islam. It is about what religious people do to each other, and nobody is supposed to LIKE to see churches burning.
Take a little time to realize that this event is being put on by soldiers who fight for your freedom just as much as the Christian ones do. Calling them bastards and the like, and you say they're the angry ones…
Wow, this is really good music. I really expected it to be much worse. What's so wrong about reminding people of the effects of violence and hate in society?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/29/foxnews-investigates-the-atheist-festival-gets-it-twisted/
You guys don't do your homework, do you? Any impression can be given, when quotes are taken out of context and edited.
John 3:16-17 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
This is not really relevant to the issues presented.
But, since you brought it up, how can you defend human sacrifice, in any society or even pertaining to any god(s), as being moral? Becuase the bible says so- seriously? You highlight two fundamental problems I have with Christianity-
1) an immoral premise- human sacrifice- and
2) appeal to a primitive book (the bible) as if it were some authoritative book when it is clearly scientifically incorrect, barbaric, superstitious, misogynistic, racist, etc.
This is not really relevant to the issues presented.
But, since you brought it up, how can you defend human sacrifice, in any society or even pertaining to any god(s), as being moral? Becuase the bible says so- seriously? You highlight two fundamental problems I have with Christianity-
1) an immoral premise- human sacrifice- and
2) appeal to a primitive book (the bible) as if it were some authoritative book when it is clearly scientifically incorrect, barbaric, superstitious, misogynistic, racist, etc.
Psalm 14:1 1 To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
Again, not really relevant to the issues presented
Again, not really relevant to the issues presented
"Among the lyrics: “Love how the burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books.”".
What the hell is this movement? The Return of the Third Reich?
Tim, the lyrics of this song refer to the suffering brought about by conflict between Jews, Christians, and Muslims over the centuries. The message is that religious devotion produces sectarian violence. The lyrics are better written,
Love? How they burn your synagogues…
Love? How they torch your holy books…
Yes, the return of the Third Reich- the people who wore "God With Us" on their belt buckles
Yes, the return of the Third Reich- the people who wore "God With Us" on their belt buckles
Not much longer before Christianity is outlawed completely; and then because we wont stop after that, they will begin to kill us. All this is predicted in the Scriptures. More Christians have died in history than that of any "religion" in the world. Christians/Messianics are hunted yet, the one individual said below "Christians boycott but generally refrain from blowing stuff up." Those pretend who blow stuff up or commit crimes to make a point aren't Christians/Messianics – they're pretenders. This does not alarm me.
I don't think Christianity should be, or ever WILL be outlawed in America. At least not so long as America remains a republic. If Christianity is outlawed there can never be church service re-enactments for future generations to enjoy in the theater. Someday Christianity, and other religions will end, but it probably won't be in our lifetimes.
At one time, most people thought the world was flat. In a great awakening people woke up to the fact that it was round. There were people who knew the world was round centuries before it was generally accepted. Being an atheist today is similar to being one of those people who knew the world was round before it's generally accepted.
One other thing. I am a big proponent of free speech rights. I think the government has been trampling over them for a long time now and they have been trying very hard to drown out the voices of some people while promoting those of others. This is predominantly in the field of politics where the media withholds information about some candidates and skew things about others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wro-1G5gb_Y.
But Christianity shouldn't be outlawed anymore than should Native American Rain Dance ceremonies. If anyone tries to BAN Christianity I will be speaking loudly against that. I promise.
Timothy – If you take the position that people who commit crimes or blow stuff up aren't Christians, but pretenders… would you agree, quid pro quo, that people who fly airplanes into buildings or strap bombs to themselves aren't Muslims? Or are Christians the only ones who are defined using the "no true Scotsman" method? (Google it)
Jay Jackson – There is but One Elohim and that is Yahweh; and there is but One way to Yahweh and into His Kingdom and that is through His son Yahoshua (aka Jesus) Messiah and the sacrifice that He made for you and everyone else (because He does truly love you) upon the Cross at calvary so that you may live – if you would only acknowledge and love Him. But it didn't stop at the cross for He IS risen and He IS alive and how do I know this? Because He and I enjoy an intimate relationship with one another. It is very difficult for you to understand this as it is for all those who reject Yahweh and His amazing Spirit and gospel. Why? Because you have never had a true intimate relationship with Him as I currently enjoy. It is hard for pretenders (aka hypocrites) and all unbelievers for to them this "Way" is just a religion, a social status, club, or just something else good in the world. But for people like me who KNOW the Creator and Father of all the universe and eternity, it is easy.
Timothy J Dingman You didn't really answer my question.
I actually had what you people call a relationship with God, at one time, but here again you'll use the "no true Scotsman" approach and tell me that there's no such thing as an ex-Christian, and those of us who have left the faith were never Christians at all.
Jay Jackson – No I would not every say that you "were never a Christian at all." I will say that you were more a what the Scriptures call a "backslidder," because things happen to people that just cannot be understood and those Christian/Messianic leader who are not sensitive to issues like you've experiened and instead of just being their for and with you through it, they preached at/down to you craming lots of Scripture down your throat; of which it is written "A brother offended is harder to win than a strong city, And contentions are like the bars of a castle." As long as there is breath there is hope.
Jay – It isn't my place to judge/condemn another, it's my place to love and "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion" (Romans 12:14-16).
Timothy J Dingman I appreciate that you don't jump straight to saying that ex-Christians were never really Christians at all. However, I can promise you that I am not apostate because of some tragedy which occurred in my life or a spiritual leader who was not sensitive to me. I actually had a life-changing process of conversion from Christianity to atheism which I hold quite dear. Next to my relationship with my wife, the most positive experience of my adult life was the process through which I was freed from the bondage of belief. Those individuals who helped me along the way as I struggled to discard my faith are counted among my dearest friends.
You should understand that I would never advocate violence against the faithful, and in my view the video and song in the story above do not condone or celebrate such violence. The message of the video is that the faithful of different beliefs have committed violence against each other through the centuries and they continue to do so. The burning churches are examples of tragedies which could be avoided if believers didn't burn each others' churches. The lines which have been repeatedly abused are not "[I/we] love how they torch your [synagogues/holy books]" but "love, how they torch your…" The lyrics question whether religious violence could ever be the product of love, which all major religions claim to uphold.
Ok people – calm down and go read the whole interview. This is a case of creative editing to get a rise out of people.
The band Aiden does have a video with burning churches and synagogs – and they are using these images to criticize religious violence. They aren't targeting any one religion.
This isn't a "horrible group" or a bunch of evil, machiavellian monsters out to take away morality. They are people who don't believe in God or gods (freedom of religion includes not having one) and are in favor of peace and reason.
I am a christian and I'm proud of it because I love Jesus Christ and I'm a follower of my Lord. These Athesist radicals will see God's punishment on their heads. They all will have to answer to him in the end. Let us fight the good fight of faith in Jesus Christ.
…let's look at your post in a slightly different light. I'm going to change some words, OK? Tell me how you feel when you read your post this way:
"I am a Muslim and I'm proud of it because I love Allah and I'm a follower of my God. These Christian radicals will see Allah's punishment on their heads. They all will have to answer to Him in the end. Let us fight the good fight of faith in Allah."
See, when you read your words as the words of another faith, directed against you, they seem kind of threatening, yes? That's how your words make me feel when I read them. Like I am a Christian and you are a Muslim and you are warning that I will be punished for being an infidel.
Freedom is supposed to mean that Atheists are free too, just like Christians. How come Christian soldiers get events all the time but Atheist soldiers can't have one? Don't Atheist soldiers fight for your freedom just the same as Christians? Don't they bleed just as red?
Jay Jackson Big difference here is that the punishment real Christians talk about will be exacted by our God – not other believers. We aren't going to go around blowing up buildings and/or people.
Jay Jackson Real Christians wouldn't be going around burning down buildings or blowing up structures or people. Romans 12:19 (Whole Chapter)
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Joann Heslin Frucchione So it's not Christian to go to war against a nation which attacks us? I mean, I agree, but I'm an Atheist. It's a bold position for you to take, I'll give you that.
Any ideology, in my opinion (theistic or non-theistic) which views others as worthy of death (in this life or some imagined, mythological afterlife) is a primitive, barbaric ideology which has led to, and will continue to lead to, crimes against mankind. Your commentary is no better than any other ideology which has led to human atrocities- yet I imagine you claim to be a "Christian" promoting "Christian love." I think it's time you (and many other so-called Christians) re-evalute your views.
Born again evangelical atheists…who would of thought?
Lies, manipulation, selective editing…everything we've come to expect from FauxNews.
Wow, gutless coward deleted all the comments he didn't like.
Wow, gutless Todd Starnes deleted all the comments that disagreed with him on his facebook people page. Guess he couldn't deal with facts.
Wow, gutless Todd Starnes deleted all the comments that disagreed with him on his facebook people page. Guess he couldn't deal with facts.
unbelievable, but this is not the end yet.
Actually the video is of Christians burning down other Christian churches, for being the "wrong" sort of Christian. And the video is of actual events, not made up or what people might fantasize about (except of course for the violent people who actually carried it out). So, if some Christians are upset, they need to look at themselves, they are the ones doing the burning and killing described.
The author of this article knew this and was told it. I don't know why he didn't tell the truth.
I know why he didn't tell the truth. He's not interested in the truth.
reeks of neo-nazism and the Fuhrer.
I hope you mean that Todd Starnes reeks of neo-nazism and the Fuhrer because he's using propaganda to demonize a minority group (atheists) for political gain. That's exactly the kind of thing Hitler and Goebbels loved to do.
however probably you mean that this Atheist event reeks of neo-nazism and the Fuhrer because you don't know anything about the history of Nazi Germany and you also don't know anything about Rock Beyond Belief that you didn't read in this yellow hatchet job that passes for journalism at Fox News.
what's wrong with freedom of expression? not everyone believes in Christianity, just because the majority of Americans are supposedly Christians doesn't justify taking such a public fit over other views. I'm sure there are many atheists who are outraged at crap the media is saying about them. This is just another hypocritical and embellished story. I'm sure you have the capacity to analyze the song more thoroughly than just taking a line out of context and changing a word to cloud the meaning. Aiden doesn't say "we burn" anything. You seem to have "accidentally" wrote "the burn" instead of "they burn"… "They burn" shows that Aiden is not saying anything about personally burning things but is discussing someone else doing the burning… which could potentially be an allusion to early Christians' use of the old testament to justify burning synagogues in 388 CE.
Wow, how brave….
To stroll around on the sacred ground, that is, the resting place of many heroes who have protected our right to speak….and piss on their beliefs.
Pale is your soul, Aiden, and vapid is your message.
you're assuming all of those soldiers are religious.
and there's no such thing as sacred ground.
and they're not resting. they're dead. they don't care.
Tell that to their survivors
No problem. Just bring them to the computer and let them read this: Dead people don't have thoughts or feelings so they don't care if a rock band shoots a video in the cemetery, even if it's a video that would have offended them when they were alive.
done and done.
"They have a video that shows video of churches burning, but the song is actually about adherents of the various religions burning down each other’s churches, mosques and synagogues. "
You know, Muslims destroying Hindu Temples, etc. Iconoclasts tearing down Catholic churches. Bolsheviks raising Orthodox monasteries. That's what religions do.
which is why atheists are always suing to eliminate religious mentions in the public spaces.
all religions attack the others, and atheists are no different.
1) Atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel.
2) Religious liberty is impossible without a secular state.
I disagree that it's what "religions" do… It's what "religious fanatics do" is more the term I use. It's always the PEOPLE to do the good and the bad in the name of the religion. And people in positions of power in religions that encourage such actions.
@Dan: Technically true but not particularly helpful. A religion, being just a collection of ideas, obviously cannot do harm by itself. The important question is whether people are more likely to do evil under the influence of those ideas and I think the answer is yes. You don't see many atheist suicide bombers.
Old quote (1999) from Nobel Physicist Steven Weinberg. "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. "
Stevie Smith – Our Bog is Dood.
Our Bog is dood, our Bog is dood,
They lisped in accents mild,
But when I asked them to explain,
They grew a little wild.
How do you know your Bog is dood,
My darling little child?
We know because we wish it so,
That is enough, they cried,
And straight within each infant eye,
Stood up the flame of pride.
And if you do not think it so,
You shall be crucified.
Then tell me, darling little ones,
What's dood, suppose Bog is?
Just what we think, the answer came,
Just what we think it is.
They bowed their heads. Our Bog is ours,
And we are wholly his.
But when they raised them up again,
They had forgotten me.
Each one upon each other glared,
In pride and misery.
For what was dood, and what their Bog,
They never could agree.
Oh sweet it was to leave them then,
And sweeter not to see,
And sweetest of all to walk alone,
Beside the encroaching sea,
The sea that soon should drown them all,
That never yet drowned me.
Stevie Smith – Our Bog is Dood.
Our Bog is dood, our Bog is dood,
They lisped in accents mild,
But when I asked them to explain,
They grew a little wild.
How do you know your Bog is dood,
My darling little child?
We know because we wish it so,
That is enough, they cried,
And straight within each infant eye,
Stood up the flame of pride.
And if you do not think it so,
You shall be crucified.
Then tell me, darling little ones,
What's dood, suppose Bog is?
Just what we think, the answer came,
Just what we think it is.
They bowed their heads. Our Bog is ours,
And we are wholly his.
But when they raised them up again,
They had forgotten me.
Each one upon each other glared,
In pride and misery.
For what was dood, and what their Bog,
They never could agree.
Oh sweet it was to leave them then,
And sweeter not to see,
And sweetest of all to walk alone,
Beside the encroaching sea,
The sea that soon should drown them all,
That never yet drowned me.
Atheists killed more people in the 20th century than all the religions have in all of history. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot are just the start. Billions. Don't believe the atheists and their anti-religion lies. The absence of God in a man's heart allows the man to do unimaginable evil without conscience. Many evil acts perpetrated in the name of religion were committed by people who were not truly religious. Many 'religious' wars were actually political or ethnic wars and the factions religious differences were used as pretence and to stir up the masses.
Christianity has been and will forever be a far greater good than harm to the world.
No true Scotsman would commit an act of violence!
I like how you say the violent faithful aren't truly faithful, even though they commit their violence in the name of faith, but you categorize all atheists as sociopaths on the basis of a few, who did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism. Besides, these people were heads of state with despotic powers. The Christian kings and queens of Europe committed plenty of similar atrocities in their time, and the greater numbers killed in the 20th century have more to do with technological advances and population increases than with atheism. Of course, I suppose you're going to tell me that none of the Catholics and Protestants who fought bloody battles and carried out genocides against each other in European history were really religious at all? That those who used violence to force Native Americans to Christianize were not actually Christians? Sorry, but that doesn't add up. How come I can't say that Stalin wasn't really an Atheist as he claimed to be (not that I'd want to say that), but you can say that King Richard I wasn't a Christian because he led a crusade?
I have studied Nazi Germany pretty thoroughly and written a couple of research papers on it, one in particular with primary sources that had been pretty untouched since the 1940s until last summer. In all my studying I have seen no evidence to suggest that Hitler was an atheist. What is your evidence for this claim?
Jay Jackson A person with an absence of faith is an Atheist. Many of the so-called religious crimes were in fact committed by atheist, not religious people. To be religious requires faith in a higher power and acting and behaving in a way to honor that power. To be an Atheist requires nothing but a lack of faith in a higher power. There are no moral or behavioral requirements. There is no act required to be an Atheist, just a lack of belief.
Despite Nobama’s denials America has been and always will be a Christian nation. Despite our mistakes we have tried to the right things for the right reasons. America resisted every one of the despotic States mentioned. Those despotic States were ruled by Atheists (Men without faith) and they persecuted the religious and the religions.
While it is true that population numbers has something to do with the totals, much of the killing perpetrated by Atheists in the 20th century were by brutal, barbaric and primitive methods. Both Stalin and Mao actually killed more people than Hitler.
I never said there was NO religious violence, but I will say that it was never as wide spread and the numbers were never as great as the Atheists would like to have everyone believe. And despite Christianity’s at times violent past, it has been a far greater good, benefit and comfort to mankind. Atheism has no benefit and only promises the despotic violence and murder we saw in the 20th century.
So what you're saying is that when people commit atrocities, those people are atheists, even if they believe in God? Even if they practice religion?
"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years." — Adolph Hitler in Stuttgart on February 15, 1933.
Stalin and Mao did not kill in the name of Atheism, much less in the name of Humanism. It is possible for an Atheist to be a bad person but it is equally possible for a religious person to be a bad person.
The benefits of Atheism are physics and biology, women's liberation, freedom, and equality.
Jay Jackson So what your saying Jay, is you are going to twist my words and repeat them the way you want to see them not how they are written.
Practicing religion? What does that mean? Sometimes churches are used as a political forum to spread bias and hate, like the Rev. Wright’s church Obama attended. Attending a Church or even preaching in it, doesn’t make you a Christian. It takes more than that. You have to believe in God and try to live your life in Jesus’ example and teachings.
What does it take to be an Atheist? A simple denial of God. You can attend church for appearances. You can call yourself a Christian. You can start an ethnic war and call it a religious war to inflame the conflict. You can lie, cheat, steal, rob and murder without any fear of God’s retribution.
You take a despot’s words to back up your side of an argument. A despot that was constantly changing his rhetoric and would say anything to further whatever goals he wants to achieve that day. Typical.
I never said Stalin and Mao killed for Atheism, I said they killed millions of people BECAUSE they were Atheists and had no conscience or God to worry about and give them sleepless nights. And I will say it is NOT equally possible for a truly Christian person to commit atrocities, because they have a conscience and God to worry about and give them sleepless nights.
There is nothing in the teachings of Christianity that prevents the pursuits of physics and biology, women's liberation, freedom, and equality. And how does Atheism get to lay claim to these “benefits”? But then, how would you know that? You have been indoctrinated and just spew the talking points.
Jay Jackson And by the way Jay, I am a Christian and do not defend other religions.
You accuse me of twisting your words and then you repeat yourself: You argue a second time that violent and hateful people who identify as Christians are (or at least could be) secret Atheists.
There is nothing in the teachings of Christianity that prevents the pursuits of physics and biology, women's liberation, freedom, and equality?
What about creationism for physics and biology, Paul's instructions regarding women in church and marriage for women's liberation, public pressure from Christians to get a Christian government for freedom and equality? How can you walk around saying that Atheism is for amoral murderers, and that amoral murdering Christians are secretly Atheists, and then say NOTHING about your beliefs is an attack on equality?
Atheism lays claim to science because only atheists are willing to let the facts speak for themselves, instead of bending the truth to match some kind of scriptural interpretation. Atheism lays claim to women's liberation, although not exclusive claim, because all three of the Abrahamic faiths oppress women, along with a smattering of the other religions which are less popular on a global scale. Atheism lays claim to freedom and equality because you can't have religious freedom and religious equality without a neutral secular state which doesn't take sides. But I get the feeling you don't really believe in religious freedom… you believe in the freedom to be Christian. That's not the same thing. Religious freedom is freedom to practice any faith, or none at all. And it's ESPECIALLY freedom FROM being forced to practice or pay lip-service to a faith you don't agree with.
You are correct that I do not fear God's retribution for my actions. I do right because it is right and I reject wrong because it is wrong. If you only obey because you fear punishment, you are not moral at all. What you seem to be saying is that if you believed there was no God, you wouldn't have any reasons left not to be a murderer like Stalin.
Stalin was a mass murderer who happened to be an Atheist. There are plenty of mass murderers who happened to be Christian. But because of your "no true Scotsman" strategy, you get to say that mass murderers MUST be atheists, or at least must not be Christians, because by your definition anyone who commits mass murder must not be a Christian.
I am especially appalled that your reasoning for this is that "[Christians] have a conscience." The implication of your statement is that non-Christians have NO conscience. What a hateful thing to believe.
Jay Jackson Name one; self proclaimed Christian that has committed murder on the scale of Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot? If you can, I will say they are not a very good Christian following their proclaimed God in a way their God wants him to behave. However, those four monsters were perfectly good Atheists. None of the violence or murders they perpetrated calls into question their disbelief in God.
Are you trying to tell us the theory of evolution is FACT? Theories are not fact, which is why they are called theories. The big bang theory? Women’s lib is not an Atheist/Christian thing. The suffragettes and libbers received more support from Christians and the Churches, than they did any Atheist organization. Christians wrote the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom, liberty and equality. Not one self-described Atheist was a Founder. A Deist believes in a single God and is certainly not an Atheist.
America is a Christian nation and our Founders did not want a State Religion. A perfect compromise between a Theocracy and an immoral secularist government. The Constitution doesn’t protect you from religion; it only discusses a State Religion. I really don’t care if you are offended. You can either not attend, not participate or just be silent. No one is going to force you to do anything, except allow others to participate. This is called tolerance, something that has become very rare from liberals and atheists.
I don’t do anything to fear my God. I use my conscience developed from his teachings to live my life. He has taught us what is right and what is wrong. The Atheist has no guide, no moral figure to follow. Atheists decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. I have named four monsters, which have shown us how well that works. If that offends you? That is your problem. I know you don’t really care that your lies and exaggerations of the ills of Christianity offend me. After all this discussion is on an article of a band who sings a songs while churches are burned. Do you realize how much that offends Christians and what it means to them? Obviously you feel it is OK for an Atheist to offend Christians, but it is not OK for a Christian to offend an Atheist. More of that tolerance you Atheists claim to have so much of?
I’m ending this conversation. Good bye and good luck.
The band sings a song about how bad it is when religious people burn each others' churches while footage plays of churches that were burned by Christians.
It's okay for us to offend each other. I never said anything about it not being okay to give or take offense. It's not okay for the military to allow large Christian rallies without allowing people of other faiths, and people who reject faith, to hold their own rallies. That's picking which religious beliefs are and aren't allowed by the state. Which is remarkably like law respecting an establishment of religion, which is the exact thing the first amendment prohibits.
I'm offended by your beliefs. You don't have to care. I certainly don't care that you are offended by mine. I do kind of care that you take offense particularly at the burning churches in the video, because that means you're too dumb to understand what you're looking at.
oh, and Christians wrote the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom, liberty, and equality.
…for white males who owned land.
Thomas Jefferson owned (and raped) slaves and cut out the parts of the Bible he didn't like. Are you sure he wasn't a secret atheist? lolololol
There's a time and a place for everything. Atheists have the right to their beliefs, but of course Fox News is too blind to see that.
I'm a Christian who doesn't go to church because the church is corrupt. Keep the beliefs in the confines of the church, and leave good bands like Aiden alone. At least they have the integrity to actually make music with such "immoral" intentions.
Wow, being offended at the content of a Billy Graham event where the meeting was not mandatory and you had the choice to attend or not to attend (as it should be), and then going as far to making a public statement that, "We felt it was entirely inappropriate for anyone to say your current religion is wrong." This in itself is incredulous in its intolerance towards people's constitutional right to believe their religion is right, and that other religions and beliefs (including atheism) are wrong. Having a difference in opinion is not immoral or unethical! It is sad this must even be stated, but the lack of immaturity demands such a simple rebuttal. But then this person continues into the epitome of the very exclusivism that he claims to despise by hosting a group that not only claims that your religion is wrong, but "F_ck your god!" And celebrates the burning of churches! Really, Really! Thank you Griffith for exposing the Trojan horse behind your objections to the harmless, private and constitutional Church meeting! I support people to exercise their rights to believe and meet together under their banner of faith, including the "faith" it takes to become an atheist, but let's not pretend you are in blatant, if not absolutely ridiculous, albeit, pitiable, contradiction in your objections to the Billy Graham event. Not to mention, the gross lack of class and tact displayed towards your fellow U.S. citizens in actually defending the content this group preaches to the masses behind the pulpit of music. The "Wal-Mart" argument would have been laughable if it wasn't so sad. This group supports "hate" speech in its purest form. If a military institution invited Neo-Nazis to speak, and then defended the event by saying, "We will make sure it is decent and proper because our service members deserve the best, oh, and by the way, I Tunes carries their podcast, so it must be fine. Besides, it is just another political opinion and we all have our right to our opinions." it would have been barred from the base. It is fine to be an atheist and meet together and discuss whatever it is that atheist desire to discuss, but this is much more than that, and any objective mind sees through the facade.
I have to much time waiting for my helo ride!
I ignore much of what I read both on Facebook and news agencies, and just bite my lip and restrain my fingers on the keyboard; however, sometimes, it's just too much and I just have to say something. Plus, I have way too much time waiting for my helo ride, which is being delayed because of a sand storm.
The band does not celebrate the burning of churches. The song is about violence that religious people commit against each other in the name of faith. If anything, the band is decrying the burning of churches, blaming it on sectarian and interfaith conflict, which is the product of organized religion.
Furthermore, this story blatantly edits and misrepresents the answers Griffith gave when Starnes was interviewing him. You'll notice in the comments that dozens and dozens of people have posted a link to Griffith's page where he posts the full text of the interview without any editing. It's quite a different conversation.
Jay Jackson I am not surprised that the story is edited. I don't agree with you that the band's message is somehow honorable. The lyrics and the profanity towards God is enough to skew that point. Little is open to interpretation when someone says" F__K your god." Why not just say, "Ok, it's understandable that this would be offensive?" It's not just what you want to say but how you say it. At it's best, this is strawman stereotyping in its most rudimentary and obstinate form. At it's worst, hate speech. It's easy to build a strawman of your own making and then knock it down. Global problems are not "religious problems" but "human" problems. It is interesting to note that secularized governments killed more innocent people in the 20th century alone than the entire history of Christendom. This is hardly due to "organized religion." I'm not defending Christendom because I do not associate historical Christendom with Christianity. I am only drawing a point that "organized religion" is not the source of conflict in the earth, it's human depravity. This depravity often manifests in religious or secular garbs. What I see in this band, does not draw me to any virtue or admirable intellect found in the beliefs of atheism. It is offensive and in bad taste. As I mentioned before, this is not an atheist or a religious problem, it's humans being humans, whether they are religious or not. I assure you, I wince at many things Christians say as well. It's important that we stand up and distant ourselves from events and people who do not represent our beliefs, yet, say they do. I would think one would distance themselves from this band. I would certainly distance myself from a Christian band that said, "F–K the atheist." I could not imagine defending them under any circumstance. I do appreciate your simple and tactful post.
"a music video that celebrates the burning of churches" – whatever you think about the rally, atheism, liberals, political correctness, or anything else, this line is patently false and it is the very first line in the story.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/29/foxnews-investigates-the-atheist-festival-gets-it-twisted/
http://youtu.be/F4C-cvG826o
Christians are stupid.
love aiden. hate them? just die, jesus is fake, he just another fairy tale n shit.
I have received several death threats, and had one person talking about removing Christians from America even unto death. I have never threatened anyone over their beliefs, but this violent atitude by these so-called 'Peaceful' Atheists is simply astounding in its basic simplistic of I will get you for being a christian.
Death threats come from desperate people who can't make their points with non-violent words. I am committed to spreading the word of atheism logically and understandably and without threats. It's been religious people, traditionally who have used violent means to force people to bow to their deities. Have you considered that any atheist that threatened you might just have been a christian posing as an atheist to try and sully their good names? It DOES happen you know. It's nearly ALWAYS religious people who resort to threats.
Paul Swit Unfortunately there are some Atheists who take their Atheism as a crusade to destroy Christians and some are actually agents of Muslims groups with nice little piles of money to push their propaganda. I believe that anyone can believe what they want but when they start doing harm to others in the name of that belief, then I have a problem. There are those who Violently believe that you half to accept their view or else. Those are dangerous people, especialy when they band together to force those beliefs on others. Now Christians are blamed for many evils, but I believe those evils are justn part of being human.
Of course, they would never show a mosque being burned. Our nation is gone.
showing a church being burned and advocating the burning of churches are two different things. the burning of the church in the video is supposed to be SAD. It's SAD how religious people burn each others' churches over sectarian differences. they don't show a mosque being burned because you assholes would be happy about it.
My stomach is turning – the sickness, the moral decay, it's criminal.
Everyone just care about your own selves and let others worry about themselves. I'm a Christian but I still like Aiden. I don't always believe in the things they say but they still have an awesome sound and have a right to play what they want. They never talk bad about religion, they just usually say how it's not for them. There are worst artist out there to worry about.
I haven't commented on here in a while because the death threats were becoming a little too aggressive from the 'Peaceful' Atheists/Muslim/Pagan Worshippers' on here. The Violent outbursts convince me that while Christianity is imperfect, living without would lead us into a world where anything would be excusable such as genocide, euthenasia, murder of infants, pedophilia. Oh, wait a minute I forgot those inhumane things do exist in our world today and fully endorsed by those non-Christians!
I think you have it backwards Lee. It's religious people who rape their children and mutilate their genitals, supposedly to appease ghosts that nobody has ever seen or heard from. Check out my blog at http://www.paulsmind.com and get a clue.
Paul Swit Those were not Southern Baptist. As far as what people do and use the religion as an excuse, there have been and always will be people who commit crimes and make excuses for it. But of course speaking to someone like you, is like talking to a brick wall.As for your Excuse for the death threats I recieved from Atheists and the Pagan Worshippers, you sound like one of those Media Matters people that tries to cover the BS with chocolate and honey.Your kind preaches Atheism and says ' do anything you want now!'
Lee Stern there are 7 billion people in the world. you can find a violent unhinged person from pretty much every walk of life. ONE ATHEIST THREATENED ME SO ATHEISTS ARE THE KIND OF PEOPLE WHO THREATEN OTHER PEOPLE great logic.
Jay Jackson What's the matter? Oh I forgot you are on of those Houston diehard Liberals who slant what is said to fit your own logic. I said 'I received death threats' plural, meaning more than one and I included that some of those threats came from Pagan worshippers as well. Come on dude, come up with some great facts about Christianity and Atheism to debate me. Or don't you have any?!
Jay Jackson What's the matter? Oh I forgot you are on of those Houston diehard Liberals who slant what is said to fit your own logic. I said 'I received death threats' plural, meaning more than one and I included that some of those threats came from Pagan worshippers as well. Come on dude, come up with some great facts about Christianity and Atheism to debate me. Or don't you have any?!
Lee Stern Yeah, one of those "Houston diehard Liberals." That's a stereotype that exists.
You are clearly a troll. Whether or not you genuinely espouse conservative beliefs, you are definitely not interested in debating anybody. There are no points to refute, you don't even pretend to have any logic. You just… say stuff. You call people things. "You're a diehard liberal. You're one of those media matters people. You're an idiot." Those aren't arguments, they're epithets. What exactly am I supposed to argue with you about if you haven't said anything?
You've said (in so many words) that Atheists preach immorality and nihilism. I have said no, this is not the case. Present-day Atheist thinkers or organizations who preach genocide: there are none. You can name a handful of people who died decades ago who did bad things and arguably were Atheists, but they were all government officials or heads of state in autocratic regimes. We already know that religious autocratic regimes are just as violent as secular ones, so the point is moot. Where are the philosophers justifying or recommending genocide in the name of atheism? You make assertions about pedophilia, too. But there are serious problems with pedophilia in the Catholic church, and no Atheist organizations defending pedophilia or harboring known pedophiles.
I don't honestly believe that you will respond with an argument. You are playing games and if you respond at all you will avoid answering any of my points directly and continue calling names and making unsupported general statements. Fortunately I am more concerned with the opinions of people reading along, who will have no trouble recognizing that I make compelling points and you summarily ignore them. Anyone who is honestly struggling with issues of faith and reason will see the calm and reasonable arguments I am making and tend to side with me because your arguments are disingenuous and lack substance.
Jay Jackson Just like you liberals to try the I'm rubber you are glue tactic because you are too afraid to debate , unlike my actual Atheist friends on my FB. You sir , are a coward and troll yourself!
You're just making yourself look bad, man. I'll be happy to debate with you just as soon as you pose your first argument.