'Pledge' Mom: My Daughter Is No Atheist

My dictionary defines "religion" as "belief in God as an object of worship." We have no "belief". I cannot make it any more clear than that. The religious depend on science everyday, too, and they too believe in nature. The difference is that, in addition, they believe that there is a supernatural deity, too.

You can call "atheism" a religion just like Newdow does, but that doesn't make it so. Even Bill O'Reilly on Fox "The Pulse" in interviewing Newdow kept correcting him by saying that atheism means "without religion".

"There is as much "faith" in atheism as there is in any other religion (ex, the Big Bang, evolution, the development of the human intellect, etc)."

How is "the Big Bang" faith? Do you disagree with the proposition that there was a Big Bang?

How is "evolution" faith? How is "evolution" faith? Do you disagree with the proposition that human beings have not always looked like they do now (i.e., "black," "white," "yellow," "red," "brown," etc.)?

"Atheism is not simply the belief in no God."

Not according to *my* dictionary. (Dictionary.com). In fact, every dictionary I know of defines atheism as the belief that there is no God (or Gods).

"In our public schools, children are taught that the big bang happened all by itself."

And you know this, how? In what childrens' textbook does it say, "The Big Bang happened all by itself" (or words to that effect). No scientist knows why the Big Bang happened.

"They are taught the we evolved from slime by simply giving chance circumstances enough time."

Again, where is the textbook that says that?

"They are taught that Racheal Carson is the greatest human to have graced our presence."

Getting juusssst a bit hyperbolic, aren't we? :-)

"Don't tell me that atheism isn't our state-sponsored religion."

Atheism is not our state-sponsored religion. That's a fact. (Atheism IS the state-sponsored religion of the "People's Republic" of China.)

I just had this discussion with an "agnostic" in another forum... There seems to be very little difference between agnostics and atheists. "Agnostic" means "without knowledge" and "atheism" means "without belief". I used to call myself an "agnostic" until a few years ago. Now I call myself an "atheist", but my views haven't changed much. Theists have a belief that something exists; but they cannot define it, and, when they do try to describe it, it's something that cannot possibly exist. So, atheists don't have a "belief"; we're simply without the belief that theists have.

How is "the Big Bang" faith? Do you disagree with the proposition that there was a Big Bang?

I do not disagree with the theory. It takes a lot of science to go back in time to the big bang. It takes a lot of faith to go back in time to a point before the big bang.

How is "evolution" faith?

Science describes the overall progression reasonably well, although there are some large holes in the theory. However the rate of change, particularily in the case of complicated functions (such as blood clotting), is mostly unexplainable by the current theory. Gould tried to explain this as evolution in spurts, but did not have an explanation for the method or the reason.

"Don't tell me that atheism isn't our state-sponsored religion."

Atheism is not our state-sponsored religion. That's a fact. (Atheism IS the state-sponsored religion of the "People's Republic" of China.)

This sort of goes back to the reason that the words "under God" were inserted into the Pledge in the first place.

You have a belief. Its just that you are so certain of it that you call it scientific "fact". To you it is a fantasy that a Supreme Being exists. To others it is fantasy to think that the complexity of the universe and the human mind evolved without a Supreme Being.

Newdow is an idiot. O'Reilly is simply using Latin to break the word "Atheism" into smaller parts without considering its implications. The only people who are truly "without religion" would be (making up my own word here) Apathetics - people who don't care where they came from, don't care if there are absolute morals that need to be followed, don't care if they owe anyone some sort of gratitude for their existance and don't bother to think about what's going to happen when they die. (there is a big difference between an atheist and an apathetic). I guess even Unitarians are concerned with what moral code is important.

Well, we can go back and forth about the definition of "atheism" forever, I suppose. I didn't take my definition from O'Reilly, but I did refer to him as a way of saying, "Look, even he agrees."

Atheists are not even a "group"; we're independent individuals who agree on nothing (except that we do not believe in a god or gods), and there is little cohesion among us. We are not bound to each other by a set of principles, and we're all over the political spectrum from extreme Left to extreme Right. The religious are threatened by us, but politically we're probably the weakest of everyone.

If the U.S. government wanted to consider "atheism" as a religion, our organizations would enjoy the special status awarded to religious organizations, including tax-exemption, and the little privileges awarded to religious employees who sue their employers for time-off for their "religious holidays". Politically, we'd be stronger as a group. I suspect that's Newdow's plan, but I don't want any parts of it.

Why am I consistently drawn to this computer the last few days? (That was a rhetorical question). I really need to log-off now. Rubbing my eyes and pushing myself away from the keyboard... time to go live life. Am I the only one here becoming addicted to this forum? This is not good.

"'Agnostic' means 'without knowledge' and 'atheism' means 'without belief.'"

"...when they do try to describe it, it's something that cannot possibly exist."

Ay, carrumba! Stick with being an agnostic, then! ;-)

If I told you that there were already intelligent extraterrestrials on earth...that there were one trillion of them...but that they were the size of bacteria, and deliberately avoided human contact...how in the world could you tell me, "That cannot possibly exist?"

Reading your definition of an agnostic makes me all the more happy to be an "agnostic." Even though, as I pointed out in another post, I am also totally without beliefs:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707135/posts?page=99#99

If there is an entity or entities that created the entire universe--and possibly many more, I might add--how in the world could someone be arrogant enough to think they could detect such entities, if such entities desired not to be detected? That seems tremendously arrogant!

I hope this post doesn't cause offense. I think we're of very like mind on the subject. But I don't think anyone should presume to say that something that is omnipotent "can't possibly exist."

Mark ("without knowledge")

P.S. To swerve a bit (a lot, really ;-)) from the topic at hand...I wonder more and more whether Star Trek's idea of a "prime directive" might not really be the case. It seems to me that the universe (if not even our own galaxy) must have many, many intelligent entities that are advanced thousands or millions (or billions) of years beyond our level of advancement. If so, I don't see how they could have failed to detect us a long, long time ago. It seems to me that our failure to detect THEM already may be deliberate on their part.

P.P.S. Diverging still further...I recommend Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines." He thinks by 2100, humans will already no longer need bodies. Even if he's too optimistic by 100 years...imagine where we'll be 500 years from now...or 1000.

Judge Fernandez, the disenter in the case, made a good point. the object of the separation of church and state is to prevent a state establishment of religion. The prhase "under God" cannot do that. He uses the de minimis doctrine:

De minimis non curat lex.

The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles. Provision is made under certain criminal statutes for dismissing offenses which are "de minimis." See, e.g., Model Penal Code § 2.12.

And he proves its application by simply stating the phrase was put in over 40 years ago and has not cause a state establishment of religion to date.

Therefore no injury, including you. He did send a personal message to you however:

"Some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases recited in their presence, but then others might not feel good if they are omitted."

PLease go somewhere else to declare your hatred of the very Spirit that give you life and consciousness.

If I told you that there were already intelligent extraterrestrials on earth...that there were one trillion of them...but that they were the size of bacteria, and deliberately avoided human contact...how in the world could you tell me, "That cannot possibly exist?"

I couldn't tell you whether those extraterrestrials existed or not. But, now, if you also claimed that these extraterrestrials created the universe and the human race and that they expected us to behave in a certain manner, and then you produced a book outlining their moral code, and you asked everyone to follow this code and believe in these beings or else risk eternal damnation after death... well, then I might think you're alittle crazy. ;-)

"I couldn't tell you whether those extraterrestrials existed or not. But, now, if you also claimed that these extraterrestrials created the universe and the human race and that they expected us to behave in a certain manner, and then you produced a book outlining their moral code, and you asked everyone to follow this code and believe in these beings or else risk eternal damnation after death... well, then I might think you're alittle crazy. ;-)"

A little crazy? Why? How do you have any idea what entities that (may have) created the universe are like? How do you know what their moral code would or would not be?

That's why it seems to me much more appropriate to remain "without knowledge." It's pretty arrogant to claim that you know, for a fact, that there isn't a Creator or Creators, who have rules.

It's one thing to emphatically state that overwhelming scientific evidence argues against certain aspects of various religions (i.e., the Flood, with Noah and his Ark). But to argue that some entity didn't "light off" the Big Bang, and isn't still around watching, seems pretty reckless. Where's the evidence? (And without the evidence, assertions of "truth" are really just religion.)

"The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles."

If the matter is "very small or trifling"...given the fact that "under God" was INSERTED into the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress--more than 60 years after the Pledge was first conceived--no one should mind that the court has ruled its insertion by Congress was invalid.

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to consider the matter to be "very small or trifling." (They spend time and effort on 2 words in a meaningless Pledge, while ignoring that the Constitution is in tatters.)

Well, I agree with you; the constitution is in tatters and neither conservatives nor liberals seem to care or be interested in doing anything about it. And it strikes me that the de minimis doctrine has indeed contributed to its demise by that doctrine being ignored.

Yeah, but my original point was to the (lady, I presume) who said the phrase "under God" causes injury. I realize now that I was too wordy. One word would have done: bullshit.

"Does the phrase done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America apply?"

Not really. I like it when that phrase is brought up by the weak-minded as proof that the Founding Fathers approved of religion in government. That was just a socially accepted formal way of stating the year then. Anno Domini (sp?) used to be popular as did A.D. Most now just put the year since A.D. is always assumed.

The Founding Fathers wanted religon out of our government

"No. They wanted government to avoid establishing a religion."

You are incorrect by saying "no". That they wanted to avoid establishing a state religion is a given.

"They also wanted government to avoid restricting its free practice. These ideas have been voted on, approved of and placed in the Constitution. The "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It is an opinion. It has never been voted on. It has never been approved of. It is, at best, a goal. For the most part, it is good practice."

For all parts, separation of church and state is a good practice. That the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution does not mean that was not their intent. Their writings and actions point to such separation.

"In the case of the Pledge, there isn't any "church" to separate from the state. There is no establishment of a religion."

BS, there is an explicit incoporation of a belief in a god, which you can't have without a religion, into our national pledge.

"I would argue that it doesn't even establish monotheism; it establishes that our rights come from a higher source than government and that the role of government is to make sure that those rights are not infringed upon. The only type of person who would find offense in "under God" is someone who has an agenda to make the word "God" illegal - a clear restriction of religious practice."

More BS. Rights do come from a higher source than the government - the people. Nobody is trying to make the word "god" illegal and removal of it from the Pledge inhibits nobody's ability to practice their religious beliefs.

OK, Mark, so go ahead and even try to define "God" for me. What is your interpretation? Recently, I had the same discussion with another agnostic, and he pointed out that, within the rules of logic, "lack of evidence" does not prove that something doesn't exist. But he could never provide me with a definition of "God". So, the agnostic's entire argument seems to be: There may be something that exists, but we cannot prove whether it does or not. And, yes, I agree with that statement (who wouldn't agree?). But, once someone defines that something, sound reason may indicate that it cannot possibly exist.

If the word "God" were used as a metaphor for something else, then the atheist probably would have little to no argument. For example, "God" could be interpreted simply as a concept, and one might argue that concepts exist.

But, instead, "God" is defined by various religions in the following terms: A supernatural being who created the world, who cares about mankind here on Earth, and who possesses many of the same qualities as mere humans, such as emotions and a moral code.

If something were "supernatural" (i.e. outside everything that exists in the universe(s)), it couldn't possibly share the same qualities with humans. It would need to be human in order to share those qualities.

What I'm saying is not arrogant - it's just reasonable. Arrogance is a human believing the human race is so important in all the universe that there must've been a supernatural being just like us who created everything just for us.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.