Misconceptions About Atheism

[MegaTherion]

Most atheists i have met have a deep belief that matter and the laws that govern matter is the fundamental basis of reality.

But I would contrast that with religious beliefs and claims of faith. The belief that matter and its laws are the fundamental basis of reality is a belief that is justified by evidence. The world around us and its laws clearly exist.

If you claim anything beyond this, you would have to justify such a belief. It is the contention of atheists that no otherworldly beliefs have been justified by evidence.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for the comment, Trishie. It’s quite sweet that you would think to call your cousin to say goodbye in such a situation.

Sambos671, you wrote:

Well, sure. But I don’t find that definition particularly helpful in discussing things. By that definition, literally anything could be called a “religion.” You could call a birdwatching club a religion.

Besides, if we don’t typically call Theism itself a religion, it doesn’t make sense to call Atheism a religion.

A Theist can belong to a religion, as can an Atheist, but neither Theism nor Atheism are religions. They are positions on one specific question.

You are quite right. The frustrating thing from a theist point of view, however, is that atheists are very prone to belonging to religions–or at least religious-like positions and groups, and then when they are told that they look, behave and live exactly like a religious theist, they get huffy; atheism isn’t a religion.

…and in its purest form, you are quite right. It is not. But as soon as you add on to it, it becomes one, or at least close enough to ring the bells;

For instance, there is a sort of atheist I run across all the time; some call them ‘strong’ atheists–others ‘anti-theists…’ but a more religious group I’ve yet to see. They don’t merely ‘not believe,’ they go that extra step to claiming that there isn’t a deity; that there can’t be–and they spend a great deal of time letting people know this. They meet together. They picket. They take actions. They come to debate forums and make life miserable for theists.

THESE guys behave like every fanatical fundamentalist theist I have ever met. In fact, I have a private term for them; fundamentalist atheists.

I figure that if it looks like a horse, clomps like one, neighs like one and poops like one, it’s probably a horse even if the rider insists that it is actually invisible.

 

[MegaTherion]

They meet together. They picket. They take actions. They come to debate forums and make life miserable for theists.

You’ve attempted to show that atheists act like religious fundamentalists, but in fact you’ve simply listed behaviors that virtually any movement or organized group can engage in (whether a religious group or not). Someone who feels passionately about animal rights does those same things, but no one in their right mind calls PETA a religion.

I think the analogy between organized atheists and organized religions fails on a number of points, and it merely feeds the misconception that atheism is “just another belief” that is somehow equivalent to religious faith.

[just as a note, I haven’t gotten into the difference between strong and weak atheism because I think in many ways the distinction is unhelpful and in many other ways the distinction is minimal…I could expand on this in future posts if you’d like]

 

[bpbasilphx]

Atheism is in and of itself a misconception.

 

[Eucharisted]

A- not, without.

-Theism belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

Atheism: To not believe in a god or gods, to be without belief in God.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I certainly didn’t mean to simplify moral questions in the OP – I was just trying to be concise. I acknowledge that there is room to weigh various criteria for what constitutes a “positive” outcome.

Personally, I try to make choices that I decide are in accord with my nature and the nature of those around me while simultaneously not unnecessarily restricting the free will of others or causing unnecessary harm to others (physical/mental/emotional).

In general, I personally am more interested in developing a virtuous character that can evaluate and react to situations, rather than following a set of rules. This is because every situation is different, and I think moral imperatives are dictated by the situation. However, it is possible to extrapolate certain general rules of behavior. For example: not killing, not stealing, not enslaving, etc. These are all good rules that meet my criteria, respect the individual, and produce the kind of society that we all want to live in.

Your other point about various atheist activists is rather vast and could be the subject of its own thread, so I’ll just say this: most atheists do not want to remove religion forcibly from the public sphere.

Some instances of atheist activism I support (we should remove religious references on currency and in the pledge), and some I don’t (I think a lawsuit over the presidential oath of office is silly). Every situation needs to be judged on its own merits.

An interesting topic for another thread.

 

[JMJ_coder]

a club centers on a common interest, not ability. are these clubs prayer clubs? or christian clubs? if not, then they should not include church services or group prayer.

I’ve never thought of faith as an ability. But still, acting is a skill, so are sports.

Even still, whether they be clubs or not (I guess it depends on how “organized” they want to be), why should they be prohibited from praying together as a group?

how can you not equate equal service to funding by the government? maybe it wasnt the best analogy, but it was apt.

For one, I reject the notion that any hospital should provide such evil “services”. That fact that certain abhorrences are allowed by “law” doesn’t justify them. If a legal system sullies itself by writing such “laws” it has perverted it’s very core. And, the citizenry is obligated to not obey and in some case actively disobey such “laws”.

As for equal services, not all hospitals do. For example, at a local county hospital, if I went in for a heart attack and they had to subsequently perform major open heart surgery, they would transport me to the hospital in the neighboring large metropolitan area. The county hospital doesn’t provide that service. The same with brain surgery, not every hospital handles that. Not every hospital will provide plastic surgery, etc. But, they all (assumably) receive monies from the federal government.

then maybe you should read it again, because it literally spells it out for you.

It still isn’t “literally spelled out” for me, especially reading other articles on the story.

 

[kalt]

Well, first of all, I was using “come from nothing” to refer to an ex nihilo. Atheists don’t believe that the universe sprang from nothing.

There is not enough evidence for us to say what happened before the Big Bang. I know it might be difficult to grasp, but our position actually is one of not knowing – because that’s the boat that all humans are in.

It is possible that the universe always existed in some form (in somewhat the same way that Christians claim that their god always existed). Personally, I think that that is more likely than the universe being “created” or springing into being. But we can’t say for sure.

If you think you can say for sure, I’d be interested in hearing the evidence for it.

First you say that matter doesn’t come from nothing, and then you say that it might have always existed.

And then you repeat the whole nonsensical mess.

This debate is closed.

 

[kalt]

Hi, JMJ_coder. I’m going to address your points out of order:

Yes. But then again, I think it’s equally as possible that the world was created by the Hindu gods or by Cthulhu.

Virtually anything is possible, but what we have to do is deal with questions of likelihood. I said earlier that, to me at least, the idea that the universe always existed in some form makes more sense than the idea that it was created – the reason I say this is because we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed. That’s not strong proof that the universe always existed, and I don’t hold that position as an absolute truth, but I do think it more likely than the existence of any god.

I certainly didn’t mean to simplify moral questions in the OP – I was just trying to be concise. I acknowledge that there is room to weigh various criteria for what constitutes a “positive” outcome.

Personally, I try to make choices that I decide are in accord with my nature and the nature of those around me while simultaneously not unnecessarily restricting the free will of others or causing unnecessary harm to others (physical/mental/emotional).

In general, I personally am more interested in developing a virtuous character that can evaluate and react to situations, rather than following a set of rules. This is because every situation is different, and I think moral imperatives are dictated by the situation. However, it is possible to extrapolate certain general rules of behavior. For example: not killing, not stealing, not enslaving, etc. These are all good rules that meet my criteria, respect the individual, and produce the kind of society that we all want to live in.

Your other point about various atheist activists is rather vast and could be the subject of its own thread, so I’ll just say this: most atheists do not want to remove religion forcibly from the public sphere.

Some instances of atheist activism I support (we should remove religious references on currency and in the pledge), and some I don’t (I think a lawsuit over the presidential oath of office is silly). Every situation needs to be judged on its own merits.

I’m glad that you offered to answer questions, because, though the assertions about atheists sounded absolute, it’s clear that you are like the atheists I know IRL.

Atheists are pretty sure there is no god, but they just don’t know for sure.

When you talk to atheists, it’s clear that it’s not that they don’t believe in a god, it’s that they’re not absolutely sure there is a god, and if their is one, if one of the established religions has described him (or her, it, or them) correctly.

 

[sambos671]

First you say that matter doesn’t come from nothing, and then you say that it might have always existed.

And then you repeat the whole nonsensical mess.

This debate is closed.

Einstien showed by his theory of relativity that you you provide enough energy matter can emerge. Matter breaks down naturally into energy it never just disapears it becomes energy. Energy in like manner can be transfered back into matter if you have enough of it. I think that what most scientist believe about the universe. There are several theories. I like string the best but thats because it plays with my imagination. However some say the the universe is constantly expanding and contracting so there wouldn’t be one big bang but many and we are currently living in an expansion age before collapse happens. Anyway I think this is what the person is referring to.

 

[dianaiad]

You’ve attempted to show that atheists act like religious fundamentalists, but in fact you’ve simply listed behaviors that virtually any movement or organized group can engage in (whether a religious group or not). Someone who feels passionately about animal rights does those same things, but no one in their right mind calls PETA a religion.

Well, there is that other part that I thought didn’t need mentioning: the part where the whole point was about Deity; one’s opinion regarding it.

…though I’m not certain I wouldn’t call PETA a religion. Or at least a cult.

I think the analogy between organized atheists and organized religions fails on a number of points, and it merely feeds the misconception that atheism is “just another belief” that is somehow equivalent to religious faith.

[just as a note, I haven’t gotten into the difference between strong and weak atheism because I think in many ways the distinction is unhelpful and in many other ways the distinction is minimal…I could expand on this in future posts if you’d like]

I dunno…seems to me that if the group’s focus is an opinion regarding deity, it’s actions revolve around getting other people to a: change their minds about deity and come to the same conclusion they have (evangelism) b; attempt to sway the public laws to enforce their idea about deity c: openly advertise their opinion of deity, and d: live their lives according to their ideas of deity and the philosophical system that their idea of deity encompasses…well…

Isn’t that exactly what a theist does about religion? Isn’t that a religion?

As to ‘strong’ vs. ‘weak’ atheism, I figure that it is a spectrum of belief in deity—uncertainty–non-belief–disbelief–belief in absence.

Pure atheists fall in the middle of that–non-belief. The further someone goes toward the ‘belief in absence’ end, the ‘stronger’ an atheist he becomes, and…the more he looks like the faith driven theist at the other end. They both do the same sorts of things.

From where I sit, it looks like they both operate on faith.

 

[MegaTherion]

First you say that matter doesn’t come from nothing, and then you say that it might have always existed.

And then you repeat the whole nonsensical mess.

This debate is closed.

Ok, as I explained above, I am using “sprang from nothing” and “always existed” to mean two different, opposite things. Atheists do not have a belief in either of those options – we have no definite beliefs about what happened before the Big Bang.

There are several possibilities of what could have happened. One of those possibilities is that matter always existed. If that is true, it is further possible that there had been a number of Big Bangs and Big Crunches prior to the one that happened 14 billion years ago. I don’t know any of this for a fact – it’s all highly speculative. Given the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed, I am inclined to think that this option is more likely to be true, but I don’t believe in it for certain or claim to know it for a fact.

Nothing about what I’ve said above is self-contradictory. I really don’t know how else to say it – are others having a problem grasping this position as well? You have to understand that it’s not the same as religion…there’s no creation story or claims to understand the universe perfectly.

dianaiad made the following point that I want to take up briefly:

From where I sit, it looks like they both [atheists and theists] operate on faith.

This is incorrect, and I want to spend a little time clearing it up. “Faith,” as I (and most atheists) use it, is belief without evidence. Believing in a god (or believing in one god over another) requires faith. However, it does not require faith to reject claims that have no evidence.

Just to be clear, a person making an assertion has a burden of proof. Those who claim that a god exists must support that claim with evidence. And, as Carl Sagan put it, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Weak atheists are those who simply reject god-claims. No faith requird there. Strong atheists are those who actually make the claim that there are in fact no gods. The latter is a claim that has a burden of proof, and, as such, might require faith.

However, in practice, I’ve found that strong atheists are usually operating under a different definition of knowledge and belief. Rather than asserting that they are sure that they have absolute knowledge that there is no god, most strong atheists are talking about day-to-day quotidian knowledge.

I could go off on a very long tangent on this, but I don’t think it would be helpful. The point is that atheism is not a position of faith. It doesn’t take faith to disbelieve in the Hindu gods, or in Cthulhu, or in the Muslim god. There’s no evidence that any of those things exist.

Edit: Let me just add that I think that there is a fundamental difference between a group that wants to convince you to take a position strictly on faith and a group that wants to encourage you to use reason and evidence to analyze claims.

It might be possible to draw connections between some fundamentalists and some atheists in terms of their zeal alone (like it would be possible to draw a connection between the zeal of both individuals and the zeal of a PETA activist). But I don’t see how it’s helpful to suggest a correlation between the positions of atheism and theism – and in fact, I think it might come dangerously close to asserting incorrectly that atheism is a position of faith.

 

[iamme]

I’ve never thought of faith as an ability. But still, acting is a skill, so are sports.

Even still, whether they be clubs or not (I guess it depends on how “organized” they want to be), why should they be prohibited from praying together as a group?

youre being intentionally obtuse here. you went on about how bad singers shouldnt be in a glee club, or bad actors shouldnt be in drama, and thats a reference to their ability. regardless of ones ability, they join a club (or sport, for that matter) not based on skill, but common interest, and if you dont understand that a drama club, or a latin club, wasnt made to talk about god, then i dont know what i can do for you. and if you dont understand that some kids who dont believe in god, or who worship a different god, would be ostracized by a group prayer within the club, then im going to assume that you dont mind excluding people based on religion, or, that youre just incapable of getting it.

For one, I reject the notion that any hospital should provide such evil “services”. That fact that certain abhorrences are allowed by “law” doesn’t justify them. If a legal system sullies itself by writing such “laws” it has perverted it’s very core. And, the citizenry is obligated to not obey and in some case actively disobey such “laws”.

As for equal services, not all hospitals do. For example, at a local county hospital, if I went in for a heart attack and they had to subsequently perform major open heart surgery, they would transport me to the hospital in the neighboring large metropolitan area. The county hospital doesn’t provide that service. The same with brain surgery, not every hospital handles that. Not every hospital will provide plastic surgery, etc. But, they all (assumably) receive monies from the federal government.

you can reject the notion all you want. what you personally believe doesnt matter, im sorry to inform you. this is the way things are, you play ball, or you dont get to play with the grown ups. your reference to equal services is a flawed one, because in your scenario, they make sure you get the treatment you want/need if they cannot (and by cannot, i mean they do not have the requisite machinery or abilities to perform the procedures themselves) do it for you. if a rape victim is taken to a hospital, and asks for ru486 (i think thats what its called?) they will simply say no, and as has happened in some instances, try to keep her from obtaining it. now, do you see a difference?

It still isn’t “literally spelled out” for me, especially reading other articles on the story.

well, youve read OTHER articles for the story, i read the one you posted, where the guy says he knows its wrong for him to try and convert students while he should be teaching.

and at this point, i am ending my discussion because youre incapable of understanding the basic concepts of the things youre so adamant about, and its pointless…

 

[MegaTherion]

JMJ_Coder wrote:

If it isn’t the majority, then it is definitely a very vocal minority. For example, there is a strong push to disallow even private prayer in schools. In some schools, the Declaration of Independence has been banned from the history curriculum because it mentions God. Politicians are pressured to feel that they must disavow any religious convictions to be elected. Catholic hospitals are bullied into provided care that goes against Church teaching. I could go on.

I’m finally going to get around to addressing this.

I don’t think private prayer has ever been disallowed in schools. You are free to pray on your own any time you want – but group prayer during class time is off limits. As for groups that meet after school, I think having group prayer in a group that has nothing to do with religion (like the drama club) would be highly inappropriate.

I personally don’t have a problem with Christian or Bible study groups meeting after school (as long as there is a school humanist organization or skeptics club). I also don’t have a problem with teaching the Bible as literature or as part of a World Religions class.

The story with the Declaration of Independence seems to involve a number of factors that make it unique – just glancing at the story, it appears that this teacher was using the class to promote his beliefs. I don’t think that banning the Declaration of Independence is standard practice, and I think that using this one story to imply that this is some kind of trend in public schools is disingenuous to say the least.

Finally, it’s certainly not the case that politicians must disavow any religious convictions to get elected. Almost all politicians are religious (or claim to be), and polls indicate that only a minority of voters would consider voting for an atheist. In this past election, there was even a “forum on faith” that both major candidates attended. There is indeed a religious test for office.

As far as the issue with hospitals goes, I’ll just point out that this is unrelated to atheists’ supposed attempts to “remove God from the public sphere.” There are pro-life atheists, you know. If you want to talk about abortion, please do it on another thread.

Anyway, the point of all of the above is that atheists do not want to remove religion forcibly from the public sphere. There should be a reasonable separation of church and state to secure the freedom of both.

 

[kalt]

" I am using “sprang from nothing” and “always existed” to mean two different, opposite things"

Understood. You already said that atheists don’t believe that the universe “sprang from nothing”. You also said that matter doesn’t come from nothing, apparently implying, with both comments, that matter cannot self-generate.

So how does matter, which can’t self-generate, exist in the first place? Nothing created it, and it can’t create itself, now, then, or in eternity.

Oh, of course, The rules must’ve been different “then”. But ^then^ certainly indicates time, and eternal matter that exists outside of time wouldn’t be subjected to changing physical rules, would it. If it could have “always existed” only under certain physical conditions and rules…well, you get the idea.

 

[sambos671]

" I am using “sprang from nothing” and “always existed” to mean two different, opposite things"

Understood. You already said that atheists don’t believe that the universe “sprang from nothing”. You also said that matter doesn’t come from nothing, apparently implying, with both comments, that matter cannot self-generate.

So how does matter, which can’t self-generate, exist in the first place? Nothing created it, and it can’t create itself, now, then, or in eternity.

Oh, of course, The rules must’ve been different “then”. But ^then^ certainly indicates time, and eternal matter that exists outside of time wouldn’t be subjected to changing physical rules, would it. If it could have “always existed” only under certain physical conditions and rules…well, you get the idea.

I’ll repost my previous statement because I think this is what is meant from the rules mentioned.

Einstien showed by his theory of relativity that you you provide enough energy matter can emerge. Matter breaks down naturally into energy it never just disapears it becomes energy. Energy in like manner can be transfered back into matter if you have enough of it. I think that what most scientist believe about the universe. There are several theories. I like string the best but thats because it plays with my imagination. However some say the the universe is constantly expanding and contracting so there wouldn’t be one big bang but many and we are currently living in an expansion age before collapse happens. Anyway I think this is what the person is referring to.

 

[MegaTherion]

So how does matter, which can’t self-generate, exist in the first place?

Well, that’s a good question – and it’s one that nobody has an answer to.

You seem to think it’s the place of atheism or science to have all of the answers. We don’t have all of the answers. And we’re comfortable with admitting it. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make.

Now, Christians claim that their god always existed. If you believe that a god always existed – and doesn’t require an explanation – I don’t see how you can regard it as outlandish that matter might have always existed.

Notice that I said “might.” This is not something asserted dogmatically. Sambos671, in the post above, notes that there are many hypotheses and possible explanations. Perhaps there have been numerous Big Bangs, Big Crunches, and other versions of the universe before this one; perhaps the cause of the Big Bang is some natural law that we don’t know about.

 

[abucs]

Yes but we are back to belief in something.

Logically we have to say that there is something that is (or at least was) uncreated. That is what our minds say from our perspective. It may be that we are totally wrong but we have to go with how things look (or could possibly be) from our perspective. Our minds reel at the notion but that is where our logic takes us.

Theists say that the uncreated thing is a conscious intelligent being that created our time and space and have said it for thousands of years. Atheists say that uncreated thing is a non intelligent thing.

Both have faith in their beliefs. The idea of the big bang of course comes from a catholic priest and most of our basic science comes from a Christian worldview - it is simply history. Today that science says that the variables of the Big Bang mean there will not be a continual bang followed by a crunch so our universe looks to have started from a definite beginning that will not reverse itself and go in cycles. So science says we should look for that uncreated thing outside our time and space universe and that our universe is simply a projection from that eternal thing.

When you say that it is not faith that matter and its laws are the fundamental reality but it is evidence based i have to strongly disagree. It is a faith.

The guy (Isaac Newton) who went looking for these laws and found them and their relationship with matter was a theist and he stated in his work that he hoped this would convince man of a deity. It was his world view that there should be universal, mathematic logical laws that creation followed because it would have to be this way if there was a Creator.

Today atheists take that idea whole-heartedly but drop the God view and take matter and laws as the fundamental reality. That is a faith, or to put it more accurately - a half faith.

I don’t think it is consistant when we actually look at matter to think of it as fundamental. We have a ‘common sense’ view of matter which is shown scientifically to be incorrect. If we put away our prejudice of what we think matter is and actually investigate it at the tiniest level it looks very much like an abstraction rather than a driving force of reality.

For example it blinks in and out of existance continually, it moves from being a particle to a wave very easily depending on an intelligent observer and it jumps across space (and therefore time) and it shows characteristics of being connected to every other (what we would call) particle matter (via a quantum wave) which is not a local reality.

The idea of electrons revolving around atoms might work in a science class, but like the creation story in Genesis it is not literally true. It is designed to give students a conceptual idea of how (what we call) matter interacts.

All our science is based on matter and the question is ‘what is matter ?’.

If you think of it as little chunks of stuff not only are you going against the modern science but you are using that model in your brain to create a reality that you say - is evidence based.

I submit that when we look closely at the evidence it does not support the idea that matter and laws are the basis of reality but quite the opposite. The (usual) atheisitic belief structure is an adaption of Isaac Newton’s work when he went looking for his God.

It is a (false) interpretation of science, not science IMHO.

Hence (the usual) atheists at their core have a belief. And i think that belief is scientifically untenable - at least the ‘matter and laws’ belief which is the one that most athiests adhere to. Of course when anyone holds a belief very strongly, it is difficult for them to think of it as a belief - but rather they view their thoughts as the obvious reality.

I think that is why most atheists can’t see their own belief structures.

 

[JMJ_coder]

youre being intentionally obtuse here. you went on about how bad singers shouldnt be in a glee club, or bad actors shouldnt be in drama, and thats a reference to their ability. regardless of ones ability, they join a club (or sport, for that matter) not based on skill, but common interest, and if you dont understand that a drama club, or a latin club, wasnt made to talk about god, then i dont know what i can do for you. and if you dont understand that some kids who dont believe in god, or who worship a different god, would be ostracized by a group prayer within the club, then im going to assume that you dont mind excluding people based on religion, or, that youre just incapable of getting it.

I don’t think private prayer has ever been disallowed in schools. You are free to pray on your own any time you want – but group prayer during class time is off limits. As for groups that meet after school, I think having group prayer in a group that has nothing to do with religion (like the drama club) would be highly inappropriate.

I personally don’t have a problem with Christian or Bible study groups meeting after school (as long as there is a school humanist organization or skeptics club). I also don’t have a problem with teaching the Bible as literature or as part of a World Religions class.

I never said “shouldn’t”. The point I was making is that those who lack the ability probably lack the interest as well. Someone who never took a lesson in Latin probably doesn’t have any interest in joining the Latin club. Certainly, a school isn’t going to prevent someone from joining a club based on a lack of ability (well, colleges will, as my dashed golf legend dreams attest ), but, for example, if someone is a bad actor and joins the drama club, he probably won’t get a lead role, he might be a stage hand or a very small role with few lines. Likewise, a tone deaf person who really wants to join the glee club probably won’t get to be a soloist. I don’t think that a school prayer group (assuming it is a school organization like the others mentioned) is going to prevent an atheist from joining them, but the atheist will probably not have an interest in joining them.

And I am speaking of a group specifically for praying or Bible study, not that prayer is at the beginning of another group, like the drama club (though we could have another thread were I would argue that every school day and every club should begin with prayer).

This adamance against prayer in schools goes beyond formal groups, but even to individuals. In Maryland:

Amber Mangum was a frequent reader during lunch breaks at her Prince George’s County middle school, silently soaking up the adventures of Harry Potter and other tales in the spare minutes before afternoon classes. The habit was never viewed as a problem – not, a lawsuit alleges, until the book she was reading was the Bible.

A vice principal at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Laurel last month ordered Amber, then 12, to stop reading the Bible or face punishment, according to a lawsuit filed Friday by Amber’s mother. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, alleges that the vice principal’s actions violated the girl’s civil rights.

Note that she was not reading aloud for all to hear, but silently reading to herself.

you can reject the notion all you want. what you personally believe doesnt matter, im sorry to inform you. this is the way things are, you play ball, or you dont get to play with the grown ups. your reference to equal services is a flawed one, because in your scenario, they make sure you get the treatment you want/need if they cannot (and by cannot, i mean they do not have the requisite machinery or abilities to perform the procedures themselves) do it for you. if a rape victim is taken to a hospital, and asks for ru486 (i think thats what its called?) they will simply say no, and as has happened in some instances, try to keep her from obtaining it. now, do you see a difference?

Hospitals will make sure that you receive urgent necessary care, but abortion is not necessary, urgent, etc.

Also, you noted that those hospitals lacked the equipment. Catholic hospitals lack the equipment to murder babies, yet the pro-death crowd demand that they obtain that equipment.

Ru-486 is abortifacient. It induces an early abortion. That is why it is immoral. It kills an innocent baby (who, by the way is not guilty of rape, why should the newborn life be made to suffer the punishment of death!).

Play ball – I already said we need more Bishops who will take a stand against immoral and unjust laws and refuse to obey. They (as are we all) obliged to ignore and disobey such evil laws (which are not laws at all).

As far as the issue with hospitals goes, I’ll just point out that this is unrelated to atheists’ supposed attempts to “remove God from the public sphere.” There are pro-life atheists, you know. If you want to talk about abortion, please do it on another thread.

I can see your point here. It isn’t limited to atheists (though many who claim to be Christian are in fact practical atheists – that is they live as if there were no God). And it isn’t directly related, but I still see a link in that it is an attempt to subvert God’s sovereign authority over society.

 

[JMJ_coder]

well, youve read OTHER articles for the story, i read the one you posted, where the guy says he knows its wrong for him to try and convert students while he should be teaching.

Do you know how to Google?

The story with the Declaration of Independence seems to involve a number of factors that make it unique – just glancing at the story, it appears that this teacher was using the class to promote his beliefs. I don’t think that banning the Declaration of Independence is standard practice, and I think that using this one story to imply that this is some kind of trend in public schools is disingenuous to say the least.

Again I don’t read that. At most, and probably most likely, he was showing how our forefathers believed in God and had a reverence to Him – which is true and is necessary to understand to see why the American revolution was so unique from almost every other revolution in the history of the world.

Finally, it’s certainly not the case that politicians must disavow any religious convictions to get elected. Almost all politicians are religious (or claim to be), and polls indicate that only a minority of voters would consider voting for an atheist. In this past election, there was even a “forum on faith” that both major candidates attended. There is indeed a religious test for office.

This is indeed the case. Ever since Kennedy, every Catholic who wishes to be elected has to more-or-less deny the Faith. One of the more recent examples was the 2004 elections with Kerry. “Oh, I won’t impose my (Catholic) morals on you Americans”. This was usually directed as answers to questions about abortion, homosexual ‘marriage’, etc. I would ask, whose morality will he impose on us (as morals are the basis of law)? Why did he feel he had to deny what he should have been taught is right?

I remember watching the proceedings for confirming now Chief Justice Roberts. The committee members came very close to crossing the line and asking about his religion (which is illegal – no litmus test and all), but he didn’t bat an eye and just talked about various ways to interpret the constitution.

Anyway, the point of all of the above is that atheists do not want to remove religion forcibly from the public sphere. There should be a reasonable separation of church and state to secure the freedom of both.

No not all. But you must admit that either a good many or a very vocal minority are striving to remove God from public view (and ultimately every view) and will use force if necessary.