Originally Posted By DAR <<DAR were you exposed to Christianity as a child growing up?>> Born and raised Catholic, unfortunately I've become one of this CEMDFDWBF Catholics. That's Christmas Easter Mother's Day Father's Day Weddings Baptisms Funerals But I still read the Bible from time to time and say a few prayers every night before bed. And I don't make it for frivolous things like winning the lottery or hoping they have my favorite flavor of ice cream. I pray for the health and well being of my friends and family.
Originally Posted By DAR <<And I can't comment on Dar's posts about keeping evolution out of school or including creationism in them>> Except I'm in favor of both being taught. I was taught both in school and like I said earlier, both make perfect sense to me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Be non-believers, just do it in a way that believers don't find offensive or bothersome.<< Then what's the best way to have a discussion between believers and non-believers?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I was actually thinking about this the other day and realized that it would probably be impossible for an atheist to be elected POTUS.<< Right now, yes. Years from now, who knows. I know that I would much prefer an honest atheist over someone who wears their religion on their sleeve, makes sure to have their photo snapped going to church every week but then goes around starting wars and screwing over the less fortunate in favor of the corporate donors every chance they get.
Originally Posted By Labuda "But I still read the Bible from time to time and say a few prayers every night before bed." Wow, this freaks me out. Honestly. reason being this: I grew up in a VERY Catholic family, and while we had a family Bible, I don't remember ever being encouraged to just read the Bible by anyone while I was growing up. And, I honestly don't think of Catholics as people who read the Bible because of that. Even Granddad Labuda who went to church EVERY DAY never sat around reading the Bible as far as I can recall. Is my family just a weird version of Catholicism?
Originally Posted By DAR I said from time to time I read it. Just like I'd read a Stephen King novel or Sports Illustrated or a graphic novel. And there's no encouragement from anyone to read it. I choose to read it on my own.
Originally Posted By Labuda Thanks for the quick response, DAR. That's one way (aside from Communion) that I always figured how to tell the Catholics from the Non-Catholics; the Non-Catholics read the Bible. (As evidenced by me; I read the Bible rather frequently now, but have not considered myself Catholic for about 20 years now.)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<when religious people embrace falsehoods like intelligent design or creationism>> But see to a great many people including yours truly and others on these boards we don't believe that ID or creationism is a falsehood.*** It doesn't matter if you *believe* it or not from an educational standpoint, because it's demonstrably false scientifically. The Theory of Evolution has mountains of evidence to back it up. ***It makes up a core belief of ours that there is a God*** That's fine for a theology class, but a "core belief" backed by zero evidence simply has no place in a science class.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<That's fine for a theology class, but a "core belief" backed by zero evidence simply has no place in a science class.>> Agree completely - religious theories should not be taught in a science class as if they were subject to the same scientific process as other scientific theories. Theories in science are based on experimentation and evidence that is carefully peer reviewed by scientists all over the world. There is absolutely no way that creationism or ID could ever undergo that type of rigorous evaluation, so should never be treated as theories of equal value as evolution. They just aren't on the same level at all. Teach that stuff all you want in a theology class, or at Sunday school, but keep it out of scientific courses!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I know that I would much prefer an honest atheist over someone who wears their religion on their sleeve, makes sure to have their photo snapped going to church every week but then goes around starting wars and screwing over the less fortunate in favor of the corporate donors every chance they get." Yes, but you're a sensible, reasonable person.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Then what's the best way to have a discussion between believers and non-believers?<< The issue is who's determining what's bothersome. In our culture, it's the religious who are determining what's an acceptable level of atheist expression. For example: <a href="http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Atheist-Billboard-In-Tulsa/VOJfrx6naUO6u1DAhkd1Aw" target="_blank">http://www.fox23.com/news/loca...DAhkd1Aw</a>. There are totally harmless, inoffensive billboards promoting atheist organizations going up in the Bible belt. They say nothing about how God is horrible, your belief is stupid, etc. Yet they're still drawing all kinds of complaints and controversy. But there's church and Christian billboards promoting specific churches all over the place and nary a peep is heard. It's about who controls the discourse. Again, I get that you and a lot of people around here aren't like that. But do not labor under the belief that you're the majority. Most people are uncomfortable with just about any expression of atheism. I live it all the time. Is it a huge deal? Not really, but I still think it's a conversation worth having.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Yet they're still drawing all kinds of complaints and controversy. But there's church and Christian billboards promoting specific churches all over the place and nary a peep is heard.>> I've never really understood how people can have such a problem with atheist billboards, and yet have no problem with Christian boards. Actually, I don't really get why anyone has a problem with either - it's not like either side is trying to promote some hateful agenda with these things. It's one thing if a billboard said "There is no God, now go kill Christians", but that's not what is going on here. These things are really no different from any of the other Church advertisements I see all over the highways. Interestingly, I actually saw a billboard the other day here in Baltimore on I-95 promoting Islam - I wonder how many complaints they've gotten about that one?!
Originally Posted By mawnck Link no workee ... is this it? <a href="http://tinyurl.com/isthiswhatyoumeant" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/isthiswhatyoumeant</a> I gots no prob with that, other than it doesn't clarify who it means by Senator Gore. I guess the locals would know. And these rock! <a href="http://www.ffrf.org/get-involved/bus-billboard-campaign/new-ffrf-bus-sign-campaign-america-is-not-a-christian-nation/" target="_blank">http://www.ffrf.org/get-involv...-nation/</a> THIS one, on the other hand, has an undercurrent of condescension to it: <a href="http://www.ffrf.org/get-involved/bus-billboard-campaign/" target="_blank">http://www.ffrf.org/get-involv...ampaign/</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Yet they're still drawing all kinds of complaints and controversy.<< Well, yeah, that's going to happen. But other than posting on blogs about it, have the signs been torn down or defaced or anything? The billboards are there for a reason, and the reason is to spark discussion. Clearly, they worked. It's a first amendment issue. By the same token, atheist groups can complain about religious billboards. I find it hard to believe that these billboards convince anybody of anything. I think they preach to the choir. Pro-atheist billboards mostly make atheists feel that they are not alone, pro-God billboards make religious folks feel that way. They should put up some pro-Muslim ones. Then watch atheists and Christians lose their minds entirely. lol >>Most people are uncomfortable with just about any expression of atheism. << In some corners, probably. And living in the Bay Area, I am sure it's quite different from Utah. I think we're in agreement that it's a topic that shouldn't be off limits. I think having discussions simply require taking the other side's feelings into account at least somewhat and making attempts to have level-headed conversations. Another approach is shock and awe, just belittling and mocking someone's religion. I think the former is the way to go.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>THIS one, on the other hand, has an undercurrent of condescension to it:<< Exactly. The first example makes an excellent point about separation of church and state. The second one is a recruitment message meant to tweak the religious. One makes people think, the other just makes people mad. Atheists would do well not to go the PeTA route. Their tactics often undercut and obscure their message, and they seem oblivious to that fact. Which happens a lot with zealots and extremists of every kind.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>THIS one, on the other hand, has an undercurrent of condescension to it:<< No argument here. Actually, the name "Freedom From Religion Foundation" bugs me. I suppose my own frustration with atheism takes it's own random forms
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I suppose my own frustration with atheism takes it's own random forms<< LOL!
Originally Posted By DAR <<I suppose my own frustration with atheism takes it's own random forms >> That would make you a Cafeteria Atheist
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That would make you a Cafeteria Atheist<< That's someone who doesn't believe in knockwurst.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I gots no prob with that, other than it doesn't clarify who it means by Senator Gore. I guess the locals would know.> Um, Mawnck... it's in your own link: "Dusenberry is a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He is talking about U.S. Senator Thomas Gore who was an Oklahoma native who Dusenberry believes was the first openly Atheist US Senator. He was first elected in 1907 and says the sign is a tribute to him."
