Well, since Dags asked...

I just think religion should be held to the same standards of any other belief--reasonable, credible evidence indicating a probability that it exists. In a court of law a religion trying to prove its existence would have the case thrown out without getting to a jury. Any scientific inquiry would have to come back with the finding that there is almost no proof that any religion actually exists.

In one sense I understand that religion provides a great solace in a difficult life. The idea that we as intelligent beings are here for such a short time and that's it is very hard to accept. I kind of feel like I am telling a kid there is no tooth fairy or Santa Claus when I argue against religion. If it gives someone solace, why not let them have that solace.

I understand that religious people will say something to the effect that they see signs of God everywhere, that I am blind to it. That's fine. I just don't see that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. And that is the great mechanism that we have developed to distinguish between true and false beliefs.

Will Durant, a great historian, said that Christianity had helped to civilize people but had lost its utility. Apparently not. It still provides solace and community and we will always need that. The downside of religion is that it separates people into different groups based on different beliefs and that causes conflict. It also cultivates a bias against science, both because science threatens religion (evolution, textual analysis, anthropology, etc) and that since belief in religion need not be proven other unscientific beliefs are allowable as well (the barrier against unscientific belief is broken).

Atheism is not a belief system; it basically requires religion to hold up to the same scientific scrutiny as any other human belief. Atheists assert that no religion meets that test and therefore no religion has any basis in reality.

Don't mean to offend anyone but since Dags asked there is my position. I used to say I was agnostic but that was chicken. So, atheist it is.

Very well spoken, Freeman. You are strong in your belief (or lack thereof )

Tell me why it is such an imposition to have a cross or even the name of a church on a water tower. I know your beliefs are strong enough to take that, as are mine. I would not be offended if I see a Star of David, Mosque or Baha'i temple on government property.

What makes atheists weaker that way?

You already set up a thread to ask that.

But remember, your country has a "Constitution", and so does each State. Within those documents, there are references to a concept of Church and State being separate. So if a State-controlled resource has a religious message, that is a violation. And if churches start to run state apparatus that would also be a violation.

It does not offend me as an atheist. But it should offend you as a strong upright defender of the Constitution of your Republic.

Freeman,

Are you ok if I substitute "faith" or "truth claims" for your use of "religion" here? It will help me to understand your position.

dh

I read what you wrote Dags a few times and I am not sure what you're asking. I think my position is fairly clear. If you can specify an ambiguity I'll attempt to clear it up.

Religion is always an exciting, if contentious and unsolvable, debating topic, because you will rarely convince anybody to alter their position, it being based either on the faith of one's religion or the faith of one's powers of reasoning.

When the Constitution put in that 1st Amendment phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." it was to assure States that the Gov't would not intrude into the rights of existing colonies regarding their religious practices. By the way, there is no specific phrase "separation of Church and State" in this document, though it was a phrase that shows up in the writings of various Framers.

As many of us know, several colonies were formed to support specific forms of worship (Calvinism, COE, Protestants, etc), and some colonies had official religions and banned others. Not every colony had an official religion, and there was opposition to any official religious recognition (e.g. PA, VA, RI). So, contrary to what some think, there were official State religions and they were, by default, deliberately ignored by the Constitution for political purpose as much as philosophical reasons.

Anyway, all of the "state" religions were eventually overturned by the individual States in the course of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But that was the original context (in general) of the amendment, as I understand it.

It doesn't take the Pope to recognize that (usually small-scale) communities around the country (if not the world) share strong cohesion in various areas of life, such as religion. That's a natural behavior of people to want to live and interact among other people with similar attitudes and beliefs. When religious emblemata show up on park lawns, water towers, or schools, I'm not sure that the citizens see this as any kind of official "government" recognition so much as a shared communal/religious belief. I don't think it specifically acts as an exclusionary tool against other religions, either. These props show up in parks and schools (for example), because they are seen as "public" areas by the community, not as legally titled government properties. Well, maybe some do, of course. But prayer in school IS an official sanction and should not belong. On the other hand, Trick Or Treat is not a religious holiday, except for the 15-20 Wiccans down the street, so schools should not be afraid to let kids dress up. If some parent objects on religious grounds, they can keep their kid home and go to Church that day.

My own view is that religion is your own affair, no matter what your dogma says. It's yours, not mine, so keep it to yourself. Believe or don't believe. Practice or don't practice. And keep your religion out of politics. You can't have it both ways, unless you agree that your religion should pay taxes, that is!

George, you are partlyncorrect on the history. The First Amendment was about not having an "established" church for the USA, and while other states did often have an official religion (or a de facto one) as a particular sect of Christianity, that did indeed erode over time so as to replicate the First Amendment.

However, while "a wall of separation of Church and State" is not explicitly written into founding documents, it was an expression used by Jefferson to explain the reason for the religion clauses in the First Amendment. It was not established via a Supreme Court ruling until the 1878 Reynolds case, but they went back to Jefferson (and also Madison) to determine the original intent behind the First Amendment wording.

A Supreme Court ruling on a 1947 case (Everson) also established that the Fourteenth Amendment had in effect applied the First Amendment to all states.

So we now come to the point that through the 1st Amendment and interpretation of intent we have "separation" at federal level, and through the 14th Amendment and interpretation of the Establishment clause that also applies at a State level.

Now, the wall is not infinitely high, and it appears to have holes in it. Still, advertising a particular church on government property would appear to be a breach.

danivon wrote:You already set up a thread to ask that.

But remember, your country has a "Constitution", and so does each State. Within those documents, there are references to a concept of Church and State being separate. So if a State-controlled resource has a religious message, that is a violation. And if churches start to run state apparatus that would also be a violation.

It does not offend me as an atheist. But it should offend you as a strong upright defender of the Constitution of your Republic.

Why then is it the Atheistic side of the argument is wanting the two sticks nailed together on a hill, or six sticks nailed together, or even (dare I say it!) a cross or star of David at Arlington removed.

If the proclamation of a Diety is not allowed, then how is the words "In God we trust", allowed on money?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

The ceremonial aspect of this statement is, and should be, fine. Just as cross on Arlington. Or a cross on a hill ceremonially honoring veterans. I see complaints about the harm of a cross, mosque, star of David, or any other religious practice to be nit picky and exhibiting the lack of strength of their position. I, as a Christian, am offended by the Halloween activities. That does not mean that I want to have them removed from the school system. I consider the teaching of sex outside marriage as against my religion, but I do not call for the removal of it's lessons and syllabus from the schools. Why the difference toward religion?

Why are atheists (Not those I know here, unless you have put forth a lawsuit I haven't heard of) so afraid of an alternative view to theirs?

freeman3 wrote:Well, since Dags asked...

I just think religion should be held to the same standards of any other belief--reasonable, credible evidence indicating a probability that it exists. In a court of law a religion trying to prove its existence would have the case thrown out without getting to a jury. Any scientific inquiry would have to come back with the finding that there is almost no proof that any religion actually exists.

In one sense I understand that religion provides a great solace in a difficult life. The idea that we as intelligent beings are here for such a short time and that's it is very hard to accept. I kind of feel like I am telling a kid there is no tooth fairy or Santa Claus when I argue against religion. If it gives someone solace, why not let them have that solace.

I understand that religious people will say something to the effect that they see signs of God everywhere, that I am blind to it. That's fine. I just don't see that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. And that is the great mechanism that we have developed to distinguish between true and false beliefs.

Will Durant, a great historian, said that Christianity had helped to civilize people but had lost its utility. Apparently not. It still provides solace and community and we will always need that. The downside of religion is that it separates people into different groups based on different beliefs and that causes conflict. It also cultivates a bias against science, both because science threatens religion (evolution, textual analysis, anthropology, etc) and that since belief in religion need not be proven other unscientific beliefs are allowable as well (the barrier against unscientific belief is broken).

Atheism is not a belief system; it basically requires religion to hold up to the same scientific scrutiny as any other human belief. Atheists assert that no religion meets that test and therefore no religion has any basis in reality.

Don't mean to offend anyone but since Dags asked there is my position. I used to say I was agnostic but that was chicken. So, atheist it is.

All well said; so, when no one is watching, and you have the opportunity to do something wrong, such as shoplifting, or hurting a child, and knowing that there would be no repercussions whatsoever, why do you do the right thing? Why do you care about the wellbeing of others (cause you obviously do)? But what makes you care? Why do you act ethically?

Clearly there is something "there" since you are not a psychopath, and most of us aren't. What do you call that something that binds us all together? Is it just some sort of evolutionary survival capability. If you know that's what it is (merely an evolved morality), why do you obey it? What causes you to "rationally" choose to be a secular humanist and not a nihilist?

bbauska wrote:
Why then is it the Atheistic side of the argument is wanting the two sticks nailed together on a hill, or six sticks nailed together, or even (dare I say it!) a cross or star of David at Arlington removed.

I wasn't aware that this was an issue at Arlington. I had heard of Mt Soledad in San Diego, where it was not only atheists, but also Jews who object to the massive cross on public land.

On August 21, 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union representing the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America filed a separate lawsuit against the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, charging that the continued display of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross on federally owned land unlawfully entangles government with religion and asks the Court to rule the 29-foot (9 m) tall display be removed from Mt. Soledad Natural Park.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sol ... ontroversy

If the proclamation of a Diety is not allowed, then how is the words "In God we trust", allowed on money?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

Frankly, because Red Scare anticommunists put it there in the 1950s, at the same time as it replacing "E pluribus unum" as the national motto and clumsily shoehorning it into the Pledge of Allegiance.

As it is the national motto, the Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that it was OK. I think that they are mistaken, but there we are.

The ceremonial aspect of this statement is, and should be, fine. Just as cross on Arlington. Or a cross on a hill ceremonially honoring veterans. I see complaints about the harm of a cross, mosque, star of David, or any other religious practice to be nit picky and exhibiting the lack of strength of their position.

Mt Soledad again? I suspect that what was originally an "Easter Cross" was trans-substantiated into a hill "honouring veterans" for convenience after people started to complain.

From the same article on the cross:

The present cross, 29 feet (9 m) tall on top of a 14-foot (4 m)-tall stepped platform, was installed in 1954. It was initially called the "Mount Soledad Easter Cross"; the word "Easter" was dropped in the 1980s.

The cross dominating La Jolla's highest point identified La Jolla as a Christian neighborhood. For many years, Jews were denied opportunity to purchase a home in La Jolla. This was enforced by "The La Jolla Covenant" among all local realtors.[6] However, the arrival of the University of California's campus in the early 1960s helped to gradually put an end to this residential prejudice.

Now, do you understand why it's controversial - and not just for atheists?

I, as a Christian, am offended by the Halloween activities. That does not mean that I want to have them removed from the school system. I consider the teaching of sex outside marriage as against my religion, but I do not call for the removal of it's lessons and syllabus from the schools. Why the difference toward religion?

Well, because if they did accede to such calls, they would be allowing religion to ban things from school, which would breach the First Amendment.

Why are atheists (Not those I know here, unless you have put forth a lawsuit I haven't heard of) so afraid of an alternative view to theirs?

Or Jewish veterans?

Ray Jay wrote:All well said; so, when no one is watching, and you have the opportunity to do something wrong, such as shoplifting, or hurting a child, and knowing that there would be no repercussions whatsoever, why do you do the right thing? Why do you care about the wellbeing of others (cause you obviously do)? But what makes you care? Why do you act ethically?

Clearly there is something "there" since you are not a psychopath, and most of us aren't. What do you call that something that binds us all together? Is it just some sort of evolutionary survival capability. If you know that's what it is (merely an evolved morality), why do you obey it? What causes you to "rationally" choose to be a secular humanist and not a nihilist?

Well, reciprocity is a large part. And at a species level, it aids the success of humanity (or a clade of it) if the members help each other - even if it does not aid specific individual and their chances to produce successful heirs. And if it is a survival trait, then it may not be "rationally chosen" - we are also very fond of assuming that we "choose" everything when in reality a lot of our behaviour is instinctual.

Of course, not all atheists are humanists (and not all humanists are atheists).

To be honest, I worry about people with religion who assume that their good morals come from that religion. Because that implies that if they lost their faith, they'd be sociopaths.

And of course, history is littered with the piously religious who do a lot of bad things.

So nothing in the last 50 years from Jewish Veterans?

So what if the memorial started out as an Easter Cross. It is a veteran's memorial now. You failed to answer why an Atheists (Or Jewish Veteran!) viewpoint is not strong enough to stand against an alternative view?

Cross posted -
Evil in inherent in the hearts of men. Religious or otherwise.

bbauska wrote:So nothing in the last 50 years from Jewish Veterans?

2006 is ten years ago, Brad.

So what if the memorial started out as an Easter Cross. It is a veteran's memorial now. You failed to answer why an Atheists (Or Jewish Veteran!) viewpoint is not strong enough to stand against an alternative view?

Not only did you not notice the actual date of the JWVotUSA suit, you also appear to have not noticed this section of the item I quoted:

The cross dominating La Jolla's highest point identified La Jolla as a Christian neighborhood. For many years, Jews were denied opportunity to purchase a home in La Jolla. This was enforced by "The La Jolla Covenant" among all local realtors.[6] However, the arrival of the University of California's campus in the early 1960s helped to gradually put an end to this residential prejudice.

Until 1989 it was the "Easter Cross", and then when people started to complain it was suddenly decided to make it a war memorial. The fact that it until then was a symbol of a religious segregation which lasted into the 1960s at least (and only gradually went away) would appear to me to be a potential reason why local non-Christians and Jews in particular might not swallow the line that it's OK now because it is a war memorial.

And the latest legal position is that it is Unconstitutional as it is on Federal land (San Diego tried to get rid of the problem by getting it transferred from city ownership), but removal is stayed until appeals are heard.

I thought you respected the law, Brad.

Cross posted -
Evil in inherent in the hearts of men. Religious or otherwise.

That is your religious belief. It is not my belief. I don't believe in "Evil" or "Good" as inherent traits of anything.

Well, RJ, I don't think our capacity for good necessarily rests on a deity. I think it did evolve. Basically, if mechanism develop that cause parents to care about their children they have a better chance at survival and people with those mechanisms survive, then if family ( kin) develop mechanisms that cause an affinity for kin genes causing that expression will live on due to the fact that those family members have a better chance at survival. Then we have reciprocal altruism where those who have characteristics promoting social cooperation with non-kin gave a better chance at survival. We're good because goodness ultimately is more powerful than evil. Psychopaths do not cooperate very well; people who like each other do. And when it comes down to a fight those who can work together beat those who work less with each other. WW II is probably the clearest example but I think it can be seen in most recent wars.

That being said, there is no doubt that civilization is a big part of the goodness of people. If people have a reliable source of food, shelter, and laws enforced to protect against harming others they tend to act a lot better. We're considerably better than people in the Middle Ages were. But if civilization ended tomorrow and people had to fight for survival how "good" would people be? Watch an episode of "Walking Dead" and you see one view--a bunch of cold-blooded killers. When survival is at stake and social cooperation is not possible, then older instincts come into play, though I think the "Walking Dead" has a particular dim view of things. But even there they are acting to ensure the survival of their group.