Spreading Atheism

[crimson5pheonix]

go to any place advertising a religion using that definition of a trolling statement. then come back to me and honestly tell me none of those statements fit that definition and I'll concede the point. otherwise either change your definition or drop the double standards bullshit.

It's all about property. A church can say whatever it wants on it's own land because it's private property. This school owns the property that the cannon is on and they probably don't appreciate trolling.

Like I said from the beginning, we don't have enough information. If the Christians are writing "Repent now!" on the cannon, there's a double standard, otherwise the atheists are trolling and the college is in the right.

 

[SonicKoala]

Why would you spread a lack of belief in something? That doesn't make any sense. Atheism is not something that is practiced, nor is it a belief system that requires you do anything whatsoever - it is simply a definition.

Atheism isn't a lack of belief anymore than being bald is a lack of a hairstyle--it's a definition of people who hold a certain belief on a question of religious subject matter.

Now, atheist is "not something that is practiced, nor is it a belief system that requires you do anything whatsoever" but that doesn't mean atheists don't have a belief in common. That belief is not a religion anymore than a bald man has a hair color, but nevertheless, atheism *is* a belief, not just a lack of belief.

Okay, first of all, if you are bald, you do lack a hairstyle. It's not your fault, but you do.

Many people shave their heads bald as a hairstyle.

And yes, you do have a belief, but that belief happens to be in absoloutely nothing. So, yeah, actually, it IS a lack of belief - you lack a belief in some sort of divine entity.

No, atheists have an active believe that there is no god--otherwise babies, trees, rocks, and the Horse Head Nebula would be atheists.

A belief in nothing is not something worth preaching about - it's just as easy to believe in nothing as it is to believe in a divine being. The only people that you could possibly spread this message of nothingness to would be theists, who wouldn't listen anyway.

I disagree about theists not listening.

Actually it makes perfect sense, if someone can be allowed to try and convert people to believing in a higher power which is intimately interested in our day-to-day lives and problems then why can't someone try and convert people to believing that we are not here on this earth because some guy in the clouds wanted us here??? After all, Athieism isn't so much a non-belief system, as it is a belief system pertaining to the non-existance of something (in this case a God of some sort).

EDIT: BTW OP, awesome BuckyBall avatar.

No, it doesn't make sense. Christians are trying to convert people who already DON'T have a belief system.

Not true: Christians often try to convert people of different faiths.

Shaving your head bald and actually being bald are two different things - one is a choice, the other isn't. And okay, your idea of there being no god is "active", but you realise that this belief doesn't result in you "acting" in anyway at all - sure, you're an atheist, but atheists don't DO anything about this belief, since it doesn't require you to, because you aren't believing in anything. "I believe that there is no God" and "I don't have a belief in God" are the exact same thing.

As for theists, if they have a genuine faith in God, then no, they aren't going to listen, because the atheistic argument boils down to a belief in God is illogical, and a person who is genuinely religious doesn't want to hear that. Your last point is more or less irrelevant and in contradiction to your argument, as having atheists on college campuses spreading their "message" would be for the sake of convincing others that their beliefs are wrong. That's exactly what the Christians are doing, granted, but atheists are suppose to be against this notion of forcing their ideas onto other people. If atheists started walking around college handing out pamphlets, they would be no better than those "crazy" religious folk.

 

[SonicKoala]

Shaving your head bald and actually being bald are two different things - one is a choice, the other isn't.

Bald people can wear toupees. In other words, you're taking the analogy too far now ;-D

And okay, your idea of there being no god is "active", but you realise that this belief doesn't result in you "acting" in anyway at all - sure, you're an atheist, but atheists don't DO anything about this belief, since it doesn't require you to, because you aren't believing in anything. "I believe that there is no God" and "I don't have a belief in God" are the exact same thing.

Not in a culture where some people do believe in god--the first group is going to have a much different experience dealing with theists than the second group.

As for theists, if they have a genuine faith in God, then no, they aren't going to listen, because the atheistic argument boils down to a belief in God is illogical, and a person who is genuinely religious doesn't want to hear that.

So then there you go--the people they "could possibly spread this message of nothingness to would be" both genuine theists and non-genuine theists. Even assuming you're right that the first group won't listen, the second group might listen, right?

Your last point is more or less irrelevant and in contradiction to your argument, as having atheists on college campuses spreading their "message" would be for the sake of convincing others that their beliefs are wrong. That's exactly what the Christians are doing, granted, but atheists are suppose to be against this notion of forcing their ideas onto other people.

They are not supposed to be against that notion. Not if you're going to define "forcing their ideas" as merely "convincing others that their beliefs are wrong." Atheists are supposed to be against the idea of *coercing* others that their beliefs are wrong, or appealing to emotion and not reason in trying to convince them, etc. There's nothing contradictory about an atheist trying to convince other people in a respectful manner using reason that their belief in God is wrong.

Sure there are some Atheists that are the equivalent of, like, Unitarian Universalists, but that doesn't mean every Atheist that who is not is for this notion of forcing their ideas onto other people: it's a false dichotomy to separate people into either "Live and Let Live" or "Let God sort them out"

If atheists started walking around college handing out pamphlets, they would be no better than those "crazy" religious folk.

Well, that would depend on whether the contents of the pamphlets and the manner in which they were handed out are similar to those "crazy" religious folk.

I will concede that trying to spread atheism to non-genuine theists is acceptable, but the biggest problem I have with this notion is that there is nothing to atheism - all these individuals would be doing is providing evidence as to why God doesn't exist. Once that has been established, all that could possibly take place is the person would conclude "okay, there is no God" and then just move on with their life as normal. This hearkens back to the notion that people who do believe in God are somehow flawed, and these beliefs that they have are somehow impeding them from being effective members of society.

The people that are religious and are at the same time problematic to society (religious fanatics) are the very same people that will NEVER give up their beliefs. Second of all, the overwhelming majority of theists are good people who's faith enriches their life. Why would you possibly want to take that away from them? Because you think they're wrong? Considering you wouldn't be able to provide any sort of concrete, conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist, walking around colleges "respectfully" telling people how they are wrong (I'm sure that will go over great) is pointless. Secondly, like I said before, there is nothing to atheism. Everyone knows how to believe in nothing, just as everybody knows how to not care about something. That's why you don't see groups of people telling others to not care about the environment, or something similar. It is a concept that doesn't require any sort of "preaching". To start doing that would be to turn atheism into a sort of anti-religion.

Christianity, on the other hand, is a subject that requires some sort of explanation and guidance. Yes, everybody knows of Christianity in the sense that it is a religion, but relatively few people actually understand the tenants of the religion, or the message that is conveyed in the Bible.

 

[Biosophilogical]

No, it doesn't make sense. Christians are trying to convert people who already DON'T have a belief system. The only people that these Atheistic preachers would be talking to would be either theists (who wouldn't listen) or agnostics, so that's why I say having a bunch of Atheists handing out pamphlets is similar to a group preaching apathy for something. And you do realise that your last sentence was redundant, right? Having a non-belief system = believing in nothing. Sure, you have a BELIEF, but it just happens to be in nothing, so there's really no point in going around and talking about how proud you are that you believe in nothing.

-snip of anything else you may have said-

Well for starters, if God truly doesn't exist, then technically all Christians belive in 'a' nothing, the emphasis on the 'a' being there to say *they don't believe in nothing, just in something which happens to be nothing*. As for Atheists, the ability to exist without the confines of some book written BY PEOPLE!!! about some being in the clouds means they can actually think for themselves about issues of right and wrong. (I hate to bring extremists/fanatics into this but the most extreme people tend to be people with the same attributes, just much more obvious to outside viewers) Religious fanatics, for example, tend to have beliefs which are bigoted and are not truly 'their own' but just copied from a book which they have never questioned in their lives (or at least not to with any real intention of denying it). This close-minded belief-system has been the basis of millions of deaths, from the Crusades, to the anti-non-muslim approach by Muslim-extremists (terorist attacks anyone), to simple racism. It has also caused (and yes there is a point to all this) bad publicity for the gay community.

Ok, the point to all this, if religion has caused these things, then why is it better to have a religion than to be Atheist. And seeing as Atheism is not worse than religion, than why can people not be proud to say 'I am Atheist!!!'??? Why can people not try and convert others ot their way of thinking, especially as it tends to be much more tolerant on many topics than most religions??? Why is believing in nothing so much worse than believing in 'a' nothing???

 

[SonicKoala]

No, it doesn't make sense. Christians are trying to convert people who already DON'T have a belief system. The only people that these Atheistic preachers would be talking to would be either theists (who wouldn't listen) or agnostics, so that's why I say having a bunch of Atheists handing out pamphlets is similar to a group preaching apathy for something. And you do realise that your last sentence was redundant, right? Having a non-belief system = believing in nothing. Sure, you have a BELIEF, but it just happens to be in nothing, so there's really no point in going around and talking about how proud you are that you believe in nothing.

-snip of anything else you may have said-

Well for starters, if God truly doesn't exist, then technically all Christians belive in 'a' nothing, the emphasis on the 'a' being there to say *they don't believe in nothing, just in something which happens to be nothing*. As for Atheists, the ability to exist without the confines of some book written BY PEOPLE!!! about some being in the clouds means they can actually think for themselves about issues of right and wrong. (I hate to bring extremists/fanatics into this but the most extreme people tend to be people with the same attributes, just much more obvious to outside viewers) Religious fanatics, for example, tend to have beliefs which are bigoted and are not truly 'their own' but just copied from a book which they have never questioned in their lives (or at least not to with any real intention of denying it). This close-minded belief-system has been the basis of millions of deaths, from the Crusades, to the anti-non-muslim approach by Muslim-extremists (terorist attacks anyone), to simple racism. It has also caused (and yes there is a point to all this) bad publicity for the gay community.

Ok, the point to all this, if religion has caused these things, then why is it better to have a religion than to be Atheist. And seeing as Atheism is not worse than religion, than why can people not be proud to say 'I am Atheist!!!'??? Why can people not try and convert others ot their way of thinking, especially as it tends to be much more tolerant on many topics than most religions??? Why is believing in nothing so much worse than believing in 'a' nothing???

Okay, if God didn't exist, then Christians would be believing in nothing, but that's a stupid point to make because you can't disprove God anymore than you can prove him. Second of all, being a Christian does not mean "living within the confines" of some book, and the Bible never says God lives in the clouds, so please don't bring that childish and ignorant idea into the discussion. The Bible simply outlines a moral way to live your life, and it doesn't prevent you from thinking for yourself. And don't compare religious fanatics to the majority of religious people, because that's bullshit. All religious people are not like that. As for this hatred religion has of the gay community, I am right with you in thinking its ridiculous, and I am of the opinion that this hatred is based upon an inaccurate interpretation of Biblical scripture.

As for the very common argument of "religion has caused a lot of death, therefore we need to get rid of it", I direct your attention to the phenomenon that is the 20th century. In this span of 100 years, more people died than ever before in human history. World War 1 and 2, Collectivisation under Stalin, The Great Leap Forward in China, The rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia - all of these events led to the deaths of tens of millions of people (if you combine the totals from all of those, you get something in the region of about 150 million deaths) and not ONE of these was fuelled by religion, so don't go on about how religion is the cause of all the suffering in the world. PEOPLE are the cause of this suffering.

If you want to be an Atheist, that's fine, you're totally entitled to have your own beliefs (or lack thereof). However, I think it's unnecessary to go around telling people this, while at the same time trying to convert them to your way of thinking - just as I believe that CHRISTIANS shouldn't be able to do that, either. The question of tolerance, on the other hand, is a whole different subject. In my opinion, even if religion didn't exist, I have a good feeling there would still be a lot of prejudice towards gay people - I say that because racism still exists despite the fact that one of the central messages of Christianity is that "all people are equal in the eyes of God". You can change religions and provide alternatives, but you can never change people.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Okay, if God didn't exist, then Christians would be believing in nothing, but that's a stupid point to make because you can't disprove God anymore than you can prove him.

Do something for me right now. Disprove the existence of an alternate reality (or if you cannot), try to prove the existence of an alternate reality. The same principle applies to the theory of God, just because you cannot disprove him doesn't mean he exists

Second of all, being a Christian does not mean "living within the confines" of some book

Ooh, a bit precarious there, by that logic, you are not Christian because you do not conform to all Christian beliefs, and secondly, by YUOR vague definition, I am Christian, because the sections of the bible I choose to believe in just so happen to not include mention of God.

and the Bible never says God lives in the clouds, so please don't bring that childish and ignorant idea into the discussion.

It was a statement for simplicity's sake, as anyone involved or following this argument would clearly know he wasn't in the clouds.

The Bible simply outlines a moral way to live your life, and it doesn't prevent you from thinking for yourself.

Actually ... try again ... that is exactly what it does, it says Do *insert list of things*, anything said by your God is rarely, take your opinion of this matter and just go with that, don't worry what I think.

And don't compare religious fanatics to the majority of religious people, because that's bullshit.

Actually, fanatics tend to be the most faithful of the lot, and therefore embody the most fundamental laws of the religion.

All religious people are not like that.

The they aren't very religious are they, hmmm????

As for this hatred religion has of the gay community, I am right with you in thinking its ridiculous, and I am of the opinion that this hatred is based upon an inaccurate interpretation of Biblical scripture.

Which is God's book and therefore not your place to question.

As for the very common argument of "religion has caused a lot of death, therefore we need to get rid of it", I direct your attention to the phenomenon that is the 20th century. In this span of 100 years, more people died than ever before in human history. World War 1 and 2, Collectivisation under Stalin, The Great Leap Forward in China, The rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia - all of these events led to the deaths of tens of millions of people (if you combine the totals from all of those, you get something in the region of about 150 million deaths) and not ONE of these was fuelled by religion, so don't go on about how religion is the cause of all the suffering in the world. PEOPLE are the cause of this suffering.

Completely true, but just because something else is wrong aswell doesn't men yu can say yours is right. They are both wrong and therefore neither should exist (well at least the stupid majority of humanity).

As for a little bit extra, I wish to ask you a question. If you had been raised Buddhist do you think you would be a Buddhist right now??? (The correct answer is yes) Therefore why do you believe so whole-heartedly that there is this 'God' when you have just admitted that had circumstances been different you would not believe in him? (and do not use the whole (God made it so I would be Christian cause you may drive me into a flame-spiral and nobody would want that)

If you want to be an Atheist, that's fine, you're totally entitled to have your own beliefs (or lack thereof). However, I think it's unnecessary to go around telling people this, while at the same time trying to convert them to your way of thinking - just as I believe that CHRISTIANS shouldn't be able to do that, either. The question of tolerance, on the other hand, is a whole different subject. In my opinion, even if religion didn't exist, I have a good feeling there would still be a lot of prejudice towards gay people - I say that because racism still exists despite the fact that one of the central messages of Christianity is that "all people are equal in the eyes of God". You can change religions and provide alternatives, but you can never change people.[/quote]

 

[SonicKoala]

Okay, if God didn't exist, then Christians would be believing in nothing, but that's a stupid point to make because you can't disprove God anymore than you can prove him.

Do something for me right now. Disprove the existence of an alternate reality (or if you cannot), try to prove the existence of an alternate reality. The same principle applies to the theory of God, just because you cannot disprove him doesn't mean he exists

Second of all, being a Christian does not mean "living within the confines" of some book

Ooh, a bit precarious there, by that logic, you are not Christian because you do not conform to all Christian beliefs, and secondly, by YUOR vague definition, I am Christian, because the sections of the bible I choose to believe in just so happen to not include mention of God.

and the Bible never says God lives in the clouds, so please don't bring that childish and ignorant idea into the discussion.

It was a statement for simplicity's sake, as anyone involved or following this argument would clearly know he wasn't in the clouds.

The Bible simply outlines a moral way to live your life, and it doesn't prevent you from thinking for yourself.

Actually ... try again ... that is exactly what it does, it says Do *insert list of things*, anything said by your God is rarely, take your opinion of this matter and just go with that, don't worry what I think.

And don't compare religious fanatics to the majority of religious people, because that's bullshit.

Actually, fanatics tend to be the most faithful of the lot, and therefore embody the most fundamental laws of the religion.

All religious people are not like that.

The they aren't very religious are they, hmmm????

As for this hatred religion has of the gay community, I am right with you in thinking its ridiculous, and I am of the opinion that this hatred is based upon an inaccurate interpretation of Biblical scripture.

Which is God's book and therefore not your place to question.

As for the very common argument of "religion has caused a lot of death, therefore we need to get rid of it", I direct your attention to the phenomenon that is the 20th century. In this span of 100 years, more people died than ever before in human history. World War 1 and 2, Collectivisation under Stalin, The Great Leap Forward in China, The rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia - all of these events led to the deaths of tens of millions of people (if you combine the totals from all of those, you get something in the region of about 150 million deaths) and not ONE of these was fuelled by religion, so don't go on about how religion is the cause of all the suffering in the world. PEOPLE are the cause of this suffering.

Completely true, but just because something else is wrong aswell doesn't men yu can say yours is right. They are both wrong and therefore neither should exist (well at least the stupid majority of humanity).

As for a little bit extra, I wish to ask you a question. If you had been raised Buddhist do you think you would be a Buddhist right now??? (The correct answer is yes) Therefore why do you believe so whole-heartedly that there is this 'God' when you have just admitted that had circumstances been different you would not believe in him? (and do not use the whole (God made it so I would be Christian cause you may drive me into a flame-spiral and nobody would want that)

If you want to be an Atheist, that's fine, you're totally entitled to have your own beliefs (or lack thereof). However, I think it's unnecessary to go around telling people this, while at the same time trying to convert them to your way of thinking - just as I believe that CHRISTIANS shouldn't be able to do that, either. The question of tolerance, on the other hand, is a whole different subject. In my opinion, even if religion didn't exist, I have a good feeling there would still be a lot of prejudice towards gay people - I say that because racism still exists despite the fact that one of the central messages of Christianity is that "all people are equal in the eyes of God". You can change religions and provide alternatives, but you can never change people.

[/quote]

Yes, I'm fully aware not being able to disprove him doesn't mean he exists, but the same can be said the other way. Just because we can't prove he exists doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Second of all, you seem to be trying to define what it means to be a Christian - being religious does not mean you have to be a crazy fundamentalist who lives there life by every little world found in the Bible, that's complete bullshit and you're an idiot for suggesting that. Religion can be practiced in moderation, there does exist a middle ground in life. Secondly, my point in bringing up the devastation of the 20th century was that any idea can lead to severe consequences, so therefore unless you are proposing getting rid of all ideas in existence, then you have no justification in getting rid of religion, either.

You also assume too much. I wasn't raised Christian, I'm a Christian by choice. And I don't see where I admitted that "if circumstances had been different, I wouldn't believe in God". And I'd just like to say that your comment of how "fanatics embody the most fundamental laws of the religion" just goes to show how alarmingly ignorant you are of religion.

 

[SonicKoala]

I will concede that trying to spread atheism to non-genuine theists is acceptable, but the biggest problem I have with this notion is that there is nothing to atheism - all these individuals would be doing is providing evidence as to why God doesn't exist. Once that has been established, all that could possibly take place is the person would conclude "okay, there is no God" and then just move on with their life as normal.

Well, that's sort of giving it short shrift, calling the transition from religious to atheist "all that could possibly take place."

And of course there's more to it than that--how does someone move on with their life "as normal" when a core belief has changed? In other words, just like Christians are arguing for both theism and Christianity, many atheists are arguing for both atheism and something else, like secular humanism.

This hearkens back to the notion that people who do believe in God are somehow flawed, and these beliefs that they have are somehow impeding them from being effective members of society.

Not necessarily, anymore than people who do NOT believe in God are somehow flawed, and these beliefs that they have are somehow impeding them from being effective members of society.

The people that are religious and are at the same time problematic to society (religious fanatics) are the very same people that will NEVER give up their beliefs.

Maybe, but, I fail to see the relevance here.

Second of all, the overwhelming majority of theists are good people who's faith enriches their life. Why would you possibly want to take that away from them?

The overwhelming majority of atheists are good people who's philosophy of life enriches their life. Why would religions that seek converts possibly want to take that away from them?

Because you think they're wrong?

Well, considering I am one of those people who believes in God, *I* certainly don't believe they are wrong ;-D

Considering you wouldn't be able to provide any sort of concrete, conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist, walking around colleges "respectfully" telling people how they are wrong (I'm sure that will go over great) is pointless.

Maybe, but, no more pointless than a theist doing the same thing.

Secondly, like I said before, there is nothing to atheism. Everyone knows how to believe in nothing, just as everybody knows how to not care about something. That's why you don't see groups of people telling others to not care about the environment, or something similar. It is a concept that doesn't require any sort of "preaching". To start doing that would be to turn atheism into a sort of anti-religion.

No more than preaching a monotheistic faith is an anti-polytheism.

Christianity, on the other hand, is a subject that requires some sort of explanation and guidance. Yes, everybody knows of Christianity in the sense that it is a religion, but relatively few people actually understand the tenants of the religion, or the message that is conveyed in the Bible.

Sure, but once you start talking about a specific type of religion, it would make more sense to compare religion to a specific type of atheism, like secular humanism.

I didn't add this in my original post, but I am no more for theists going around preaching their ideas than I am for atheists doing the same thing. I brought up the point of fanatics because, just as Christians are trying to make the world a "better" place by making everyone Christians, atheists would be trying to accomplish something similar - however, the religious people who do cause trouble in society are those very same people who will never convert, so it would be a fruitless effort.

"No more than preaching a monotheistic faith is an anti-polytheism" - I think you misunderstood me. What I meant is that by preaching atheism, one is turning it into the very same thing that they are against - atheists strongly dislike seeing Christians or any other religious group trying to spread their ideas in public areas, but to respond to this by doing the exact same thing is alarmingly hypocritical.

 

[SonicKoala]

I didn't add this in my original post, but I am no more for theists going around preaching their ideas than I am for atheists doing the same thing.

Well, that changes things--that's a discussion about people going around preaching things, not about atheism.

however, the religious people who do cause trouble in society are those very same people who will never convert, so it would be a fruitless effort.

They can also cause far less trouble if they have less followers: compare the Rev. Phelps' ability to cause trouble to that of *insert large religious group you think causes trouble*

In other words, maybe you won't convert the army's general, but if you convert all his privates, he doesn't have much of an army left to lead, does he ;-D

"No more than preaching a monotheistic faith is an anti-polytheism" - I think you misunderstood me. What I meant is that by preaching atheism, one is turning it into the very same thing that they are against - atheists strongly dislike seeing Christians or any other religious group trying to spread their ideas in public areas, but to respond to this by doing the exact same thing is alarmingly hypocritical.

Hypocrisy would be criticizing Christians for having a strong dislike seeing Atheists group trying to spread their ideas in public areas. There's a difference between disliking the message someone is preaching, and disliking the fact that they are allowed to preach it. There's a difference between criticism and censorship that you're kinda not keeping clear here.

Hm, my use of "hypocritical" was incorrect, so I'll give you that. However, as I've mentioned before, trying to spread Atheism would be pointless - people who are already religious are not going to listen, and if they do, they aren't genuinely religious (just like those people who are already atheists don't listen to the religious people spreading their message). Keep in mind that this is a freaking college we're talking about here - people, by this age, have already researched ideas of religion and theism, and odds are they've made a decision for themselves (I, personally, have never met an individual who hasn't developed some sort of belief system by the time they're 18). If you do encounter someone over the age of 18 on a college or university campus who is genuinely intrigued by someone saying to them "Hey there, have you ever considered believing in nothing at all?", they should not be at university because they are obviously fucking retarded.

"well, that changes things--that's a discussion about people going around preaching things, not about atheism" - that's exactly what this topic is about, and it is basically the whole reason why I've posted all the comments I have.

 

[SonicKoala]

Hm, my use of "hypocritical" was incorrect, so I'll give you that. However, as I've mentioned before, trying to spread Atheism would be pointless - people who are already religious are not going to listen, and if they do, they aren't genuinely religious (just like those people who are already atheists don't listen to the religious people spreading their message).

So? Why is it pointless to convert the not-so-genuinely religious?

Keep in mind that this is a freaking college we're talking about here - people, by this age, have already researched ideas of religion and theism, and odds are they've made a decision for themselves (I, personally, have never met an individual who hasn't developed some sort of belief system by the time they're 18). If you do encounter someone over the age of 18 on a college or university campus who is genuinely intrigued by someone saying to them "Hey there, have you ever considered believing in nothing at all?", they should not be at university because they are obviously fucking retarded.

1) just because someone has considered something in the past and rejected it, that does not mean they will continue to reject it forever.

2) even if that were true, same would apply to religions faiths seeking converts on campus.

"well, that changes things--that's a discussion about people going around preaching things, not about atheism" - that's exactly what this topic is about, and it is basically the whole reason why I've posted all the comments I have.

No, the question was to compare atheism and religion in the context of preaching to others on campus--if you think your criticisms apply equally to religion as to atheism, then you're in agreement with the OP on the issue of whether they should be treated the same. Like the OP stated:

What I do not understand is that we have an organization on campus called "Campus for Christ" and they are allowed to advertise with posters, give out free bibles and brochures and even conduct Christianity-based surveys during lectures but the Atheist society is not allowed to broadcast their message for one day?

I think that this is a double-standard...

and your position is: "I am no more for theists going around preaching their ideas than I am for atheists doing the same thing" means you're not addressing the issue of whether it is a double standard, but rather, whether the standard for everyone should be 'no'.

In short, you're answering a question that was not asked.

Yes, because I'm thinking OUTSIDE the box - I have answered the questions that were asked: Is Atheism a religion - absoloutely not. Should Atheists be allowed to spread their message in anyway they want - no, because then we'd just have another annoying Christian-esque group of people walking around telling people what they should believe.

"even if that were true, same would apply to religions faiths seeking converts on campus"

Yes, it would apply to religious faiths seeking converts, but I'm not defending them, am I? It is a double-standard, but the solution is not to have another group start doing the same thing.

However, I will make a concession. Since the OP probably is from some small American town, odds of kicking the Christian groups off of campus is probably slim to nil, which is unfortunate. Personally, I think that having atheist groups side by side with Christian groups spreading completely contradictory messages (and probably throwing insults at each other every once in a while) will only lead to trouble - more often than not, the people who care enough to actually go out and spread this message are the militant ones, but allowing them to spread their message would be the really only "fair" thing to do. As far as I'm concerned, I think it's stupid that the school painted over the cannon, but this is America were talking about. This is just an issue of "what's fair" versus "reality".

 

[Biosophilogical]

Yes, I'm fully aware not being able to disprove him doesn't mean he exists, but the same can be said the other way. Just because we can't prove he exists doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

No, but it makes it highly unlikely, and there are millions of things that you cannot disprove, why don't you go worship/believe in them if that is all the proof you have for God??? <-- BTW, that is a serious question and not meant in a sarcastic or rhetorical way.

Second of all, you seem to be trying to define what it means to be a Christian - being religious does not mean you have to be a crazy fundamentalist who lives there life by every little world found in the Bible, that's complete bullshit and you're an idiot for suggesting that.

Firstly, *tsk tsk*, Jesus preached tolerance so where is yours??? Secondly, If you do not believe in every word of the bible then you are not a complete Christian .. by that flawed idea, I am Christian, because I believe in some of the ideals in the Bible (and that bit WAS meant to be sarcastic ... not the bit about the complte Christian though, that was serious).

Religion can be practiced in moderation, there does exist a middle ground in life.

True, And seeing as less bible seems to be better by that logic, why don't you just do away with the whole of it and have an AWESOME life??? (sarcastic and completely rhetorical)

Secondly, my point in bringing up the devastation of the 20th century was that any idea can lead to severe consequences, so therefore unless you are proposing getting rid of all ideas in existence, then you have no justification in getting rid of religion, either.

No, I merely propose that we get rid of any unlikely or illogical beliefs and that we raise all Earth's children in a way which promotes tolerance and understanding, so that even if people believe different things (all of which should be logical) then at least they can be accepting of the differences because the reasons behind them are plain for all to see.

You also assume too much. I wasn't raised Christian, I'm a Christian by choice.

Ah, you assume to much, you assume we have 'choice', and therfore you assume that if circumstances had been different you would still be Christian, when, in fac, that is entirely false.

And I don't see where I admitted that "if circumstances had been different, I wouldn't believe in God".

But you did my religious adversary, a non-religious interpretation of a religious ideal "God's will be done", meaning that there is no 'choice' and therefore anything that shall be will be, and therefore if I went back in time and changed your past, your future would have no choice but to change, for the events which would influence your choice would change and therefore so would your 'choice'.

And I'd just like to say that your comment of how "fanatics embody the most fundamental laws of the religion" just goes to show how alarmingly ignorant you are of religion.

Ok, first off. Fundamentalists embody the FUNDAMENTAL laws of the religion, hence why they are called FUNDAMENTALISTS!!!

And a new question, have you actually read the bible from cover to cover?

 

[SonicKoala]

]"well, that changes things--that's a discussion about people going around preaching things, not about atheism" - that's exactly what this topic is about, and it is basically the whole reason why I've posted all the comments I have.

No, the question was to compare atheism and religion in the context of preaching to others on campus--if you think your criticisms apply equally to religion as to atheism, then you're in agreement with the OP on the issue of whether they should be treated the same. Like the OP stated:

What I do not understand is that we have an organization on campus called "Campus for Christ" and they are allowed to advertise with posters, give out free bibles and brochures and even conduct Christianity-based surveys during lectures but the Atheist society is not allowed to broadcast their message for one day?

I think that this is a double-standard...

and your position is: "I am no more for theists going around preaching their ideas than I am for atheists doing the same thing" means you're not addressing the issue of whether it is a double standard, but rather, whether the standard for everyone should be 'no'.

In short, you're answering a question that was not asked.

Yes, because I'm thinking OUTSIDE the box - I have answered the questions that were asked: Is Atheism a religion - absoloutely not. Should Atheists be allowed to spread their message in anyway they want - no, because then we'd just have another annoying Christian-esque group of people walking around telling people what they should believe.

Actually, you wrote:

That being said, I do agree that there is a double-standard in allowing religious groups to spread their message,

Which...sounds like you were also answering the 'in the box' question of whether this is a double standard.

Yes, it would apply to religious faiths seeking converts, but I'm not defending them, am I?

well, actually:

but as long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't see the problem in letting them hand out their bibles or put up their posters.

Well, if you look at the many things I wrote AFTER that post, I go on to elaborate of how I believe that NEITHER group should be allowed to spread their message on college campuses. In other words, I'm proposing a solution rather than ONLY answering the question (thinking "outside" the box). You are blatantly ignoring everything I said after that post, so the fact that you would write that is idiotic. Yes, that one specific sentence was "in the box", but a lot of what I said after were ideas which were outside the constraints of the original topic.

Secondly, stating that these groups spreading their message doesn't hurt anybody isn't defending them - it's stating a FACT. I would say the exact same thing about atheists spreading their messages around campus - it doesn't hurt anyone, they are simply exercising their right to free expression. The reason it doesn't hurt anyone is because we as people have this amazing ability to ignore things we aren't interested in. Also, it just seems that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, bringing up these irrelevant points (such as the two you just brought up, both of which are wrong) and adding absoloutely nothing to the discussion yourself.

 

[SonicKoala]

Yes, I'm fully aware not being able to disprove him doesn't mean he exists, but the same can be said the other way. Just because we can't prove he exists doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

No, but it makes it highly unlikely, and there are millions of things that you cannot disprove, why don't you go worship/believe in them if that is all the proof you have for God??? <-- BTW, that is a serious question and not meant in a sarcastic or rhetorical way.

Second of all, you seem to be trying to define what it means to be a Christian - being religious does not mean you have to be a crazy fundamentalist who lives there life by every little world found in the Bible, that's complete bullshit and you're an idiot for suggesting that.

Firstly, *tsk tsk*, Jesus preached tolerance so where is yours??? Secondly, If you do not believe in every word of the bible then you are not a complete Christian .. by that flawed idea, I am Christian, because I believe in some of the ideals in the Bible (and that bit WAS meant to be sarcastic ... not the bit about the complte Christian though, that was serious).

Religion can be practiced in moderation, there does exist a middle ground in life.

True, And seeing as less bible seems to be better by that logic, why don't you just do away with the whole of it and have an AWESOME life??? (sarcastic and completely rhetorical)

Secondly, my point in bringing up the devastation of the 20th century was that any idea can lead to severe consequences, so therefore unless you are proposing getting rid of all ideas in existence, then you have no justification in getting rid of religion, either.

No, I merely propose that we get rid of any unlikely or illogical beliefs and that we raise all Earth's children in a way which promotes tolerance and understanding, so that even if people believe different things (all of which should be logical) then at least they can be accepting of the differences because the reasons behind them are plain for all to see.

You also assume too much. I wasn't raised Christian, I'm a Christian by choice.

Ah, you assume to much, you assume we have 'choice', and therfore you assume that if circumstances had been different you would still be Christian, when, in fac, that is entirely false.

And I don't see where I admitted that "if circumstances had been different, I wouldn't believe in God".

But you did my religious adversary, a non-religious interpretation of a religious ideal "God's will be done", meaning that there is no 'choice' and therefore anything that shall be will be, and therefore if I went back in time and changed your past, your future would have no choice but to change, for the events which would influence your choice would change and therefore so would your 'choice'.

And I'd just like to say that your comment of how "fanatics embody the most fundamental laws of the religion" just goes to show how alarmingly ignorant you are of religion.

Ok, first off. Fundamentalists embody the FUNDAMENTAL laws of the religion, hence why they are called FUNDAMENTALISTS!!!

And a new question, have you actually read the bible from cover to cover?

To answer your first question, I choose to believe in God, and I'm not sure what these "millions of things you can't disprove" are, so I'm not going to respond to that. Secondly, you are getting into the very complex region of "what defines a Christian", and you seem convinced that being a Christian means accepting every single world of the Bible, which I disagree with. Going by your definition, no, I am not a Christian in the traditional sense. That is fine with me, though, as I'm quite comfortable with my spiritual beliefs and I find that they enrich my life.

As for the "less Bible, better logic", I personally believe that some of the messages contained in the Bible are very positive and they make sense to me, which is why I choose to believe them. I'm already a very logical person (apart from my belief in God, mind you), and doing away with all the parts of the Bible that I believe and accept would not improve that in any way.

You could do away with all the unlikely and illogical beliefs in the world, but I have a good feeling that someone, somewhere, would manage to fuck up some of these "good" beliefs because that's what people do. After all, people managed to fuck up the Bible's message of tolerance and equality and turn that into violence and prejudice.

"Ah, you assume to much, you assume we have 'choice', and therfore you assume that if circumstances had been different you would still be Christian, when, in fac, that is entirely false." --------- I'll give; I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You'll have to explain what you mean by "if circumstances had been different"

"But you did my religious adversary, a non-religious interpretation of a religious ideal "God's will be done", meaning that there is no 'choice' and therefore anything that shall be will be, and therefore if I went back in time and changed your past, your future would have no choice but to change, for the events which would influence your choice would change and therefore so would your 'choice'" ----- Once again, what? "God's will be done" - what the fuck is that suppose to mean? Do you mean "God's will WILL be done"?

Finally, yes, by DEFINITION "Fundamentalists" embody the "fundamentals" of religion, but only be definition. However, a lot of these "fundamentalists" are painfully prejudice and intolerant. This goes against one of the FUNDAMENTAL tenants of Christianity, so therefore, no, these people do NOT embody the "fundamentals" of the religion.

 

[SonicKoala]

Yes, that one specific sentence was "in the box", but a lot of what I said after were ideas which were outside the constraints of the original topic.

"well, that changes things--that's a discussion about people going around preaching things, not about atheism" - that's exactly what this topic is about, and it is basically the whole reason why I've posted all the comments I have.

The whole reason you've posted all the comments you have is because they are what this topic is about, *and* they are also outside the constraints of the original topic?

How exactly does that work?

Secondly, stating that these groups spreading their message doesn't hurt anybody isn't defending them - it's stating a FACT.

It's stating a fact in defense of them. False dichotomy.

Wow. My purpose in posting my comments was in response to the original topic - however, as I have been posting these comments, I have been expanding on my original ideas to include concepts which are "outside the box". The main reason as to why I started posting was in response to the original topic. Please note that I also said it is "basically" the whole reason I've posted what I have - that does not mean there aren't other motives. It's a tricky concept, but I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out if you just sit and think about it for a few minutes.

I stated a fact, and it just so happened to be in their favour. My intention was not to defend anybody. Would you like to post any more inane and inaccurate observations that you have which continue to contribute absoloutely nothing to the actual discussion?