Slashdot Mirror

So if you're an atheist in modern society and you're being quized on why you're an atheist then you probably did something to bring it on yourself. So don't boo hoo about it because, frankly, it's gotten old. Atheism is easier to "hide" from society than vegetarianism is and I've had no problems leading a fulfilling life while not shoving my dietary preference in anyone's face.

So, are any folks saying that vegetarians can't be elected to political office because they are immoral? There are quite a few states that require a religious test to run for office.

http://americanhumanist.org/hn...

Just keep our mouths shut and know our place, eh?

A fairly typical statement by former president George Bush Sr:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

So your solution is for atheists to lie when asked? Or just shut up, perjure themselves and be allowed to partake in civic matters? Or better yet, leave the governance to the proper folks.

So spare me your equivalence between vegetarians and atheists. Anyone question your patriotism based on what you eat? Anyone want to strip you of your citizenship because of what you eat?

Holy Heck, as a Non-American I thought your claim that there are states that ban atheists from being elected was probably an exaggeration or simply an interpretation of how it is hard in many places to be elected if one is a self-declared atheist. Hit a google search and figured i'd put this in there in case others were thinking like I was but don't bother to follow up.

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

from here and the wiki page they probably got it from.

If i had more time i'd look to see if there are cases of anyone actually being denied in the recent past or unseated after the fact but the fact that these provisions even exist to begin with is pretty awful.

I find I get much more intellectual stimulation from my membership in the American Humanist Association of free-thinkers and rationalists.

In my experience, people who style themselves "free-thinkers" or "rationalists" almost always are neither. Just sayin'.

If they were that smart they would know that the IQ test is neither a valid no reliable test for comparisons between groups, only within groups.

In all fairness, Mensa accepts scores on a variety of tests to become a member, including SAT, ACT, and Military tests. Mensa has even created their own test to eliminate the verbal-bias inherent in so many other IQ tests.

That being said, I joined Mensa because I liked being part of the same club as Isaac Asimov and Buckminster Fuller, but, like my heroes, I also found that just because somebody has a high-IQ, doesn't mean they aren't an idiot. I am shocked in many Mensa publications to find many members believe in alien abductions, are anti-vaccers, and are suckers for many other pseudoscience scams and conspiracy theories. Like Asimov and other Mensa-members, I find I get much more intellectual stimulation from my membership in the American Humanist Association of free-thinkers and rationalists.

Most scientists told him not to debate the creationists as it only brings more attention to them.

Debating them directly is probably pointless. Your debating someone about something that is fundamentally irrational. You're almost certainly not going to convince them of anything and anyone listening probably has already made up their mind on the topic. It's unclear what the point of such a debate might be. Maybe if there was something directly at stake like in the Scopes monkey trial it might be worthwhile.

No, the way to "debate" them needs to be through education, media and legislation. Strong separation of church and state. Strong scientific education. Television and media that makes the absurdity of blind faith clear and uncool. The more educated people are the less likely they are to believe in fairy tales. You aren't going to convert the faithful but you might be able to keep their children from being brainwashed.

Never forget however that in many places (including the US) the religious crazies outnumber the sane people. There are numerous states where atheists cannot legally hold public office. How this has passed constitutional muster eludes me.

Well it really happened and now the people he debated received enough money and even MUNICIPAL BONDS to build a life sized Ark.

Glad to see they put the money to productive use. I would consider that something of a dodged bullet.

Liberals and conservatives have their fantasies, on both sides of the pond.

The point you try to make is mooted by the fact that atheists are barred from holding public office in some states.

Separation between church and state is treated as one of those embarrassing issues that is open to interpretation. In practice, its virtually impossible to remove religious holiday displays from most jurisdictions in the US, and the holidays are just the thin edge of the wedge for "a thousand points" of religious observance strategies that now include publicly funding parochial schools.

It just happens to be a fact that human beings are incurably religious. Every culture has some sort of religion. Atheism is a religion that doesn't purport to believe in a God outside of humanity, but atheists are gods unto themselves. Most of them believe in the religion of humanism which holds that man is god.

Thank you for that wonderful strawman definition of atheism/humanism which is so easy for you to (mis)characterize. Too bad that isn't what most atheism/humanism actually is.

Humanism is simply the idea that there is no "God" out there that will show up and make life better here on Earth. If we want life to be better, we've got to do it ourselves. None of this "man is god" BS, unless you believe that only God has the ability to improve life on Earth.

I suggest you look at documents written by actual Humanists (like the Humanist Manifesto) to learn what humanism truly is. You'll find that in the link I gave you, the word "god" is never used.

There is no human on this planet that doesn't have some sort of belief or life philosophy or life view that governs all of their behavior. These things can be lumped under the term: "religion".

They can be lumped under "religion" if you are incredibly narrow-minded. Typical religion (at least as practiced by American Fundamentalists) implies a world-view that stresses faith over fact. It stresses supernatural events/rewards/prophecies over history. And it stresses an unquestioning adherence to a doctrine given from on high ("God/Jesus" but they are monotheists) and faithfully interpreted by the preachers, who would of course never let their own personal prejudices influence their interpretation of God's word.

Bush, on the other hand, can run his campaign secure in the knowledge that he has a superb record on science. Christian Science, that is.

Keep this in mind the when you see the talking heads on CNN or NBC fellate Bush at the debates. The national media is not only biased, it's feeding America's ignorance.

Looks a lot like the American Humanists logo to me, though...

• imprisoning American citizen terrorists indefinitely without trial or even without access to lawyers,
• and for sending that Canadian Muslim (All Muslims are terrorists!) to be tortured by Syria.

• Tommy Chong's in the federal pen for selling glass pipes over the internet,
• and now that you've made it difficult for the terminally ill to get pot despite it being legal under California state law,
• and are making sure those terminally ill people can't die with dignity in Oregon

humanism is a set of values, not a religion

But Humanism is a religion by its own descriptions. From here:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious

humanism is a set of values, not a religion

But Humanism is a religion by its own descriptions. From here:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the US has had a "state religion" for some time now. It is called secular humanism. It is a religion according to the Supreme Court. It is taught exclusively in government schools. A priesthood of humanists has been created and is funded from public monies. And, guess what, the religion of secular humanism supports stem-cell research. Imagine that! Seriously, if the humanists would do what they say they do and question the existing moral authority, they would have to stop believing their own hype.