Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok believers. None of you have yet to actually answer some of the questions raised. Come on. Let's see what you've got. Surely if you kneel and pray on it strongly enough, the holy spirit will move through you to type out such a profound point that you will assuredly convert at least one atheist on here. Or, at the very minimum, at least make a logical argument why your fellow believers get to impose those beliefs on others through law, policy, court decisions, etc.

It really depends on which policy you want to fight about. My answer is different. You seem to be hyper focused on abortion, which we can certainly discuss but there entire threads on that already. So what are 3 current laws/policies aside from abortion and I will respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.

Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.

Thanks for calling us Bible quoters. That's a huge compliment. Seriously.

Yet you still answer not a single previous inquiry.

Which bible are you quoting? If an entity is capable of creating everything in the universe, couldn't it have created some material with text everyone could understand to convey its teachings to us lowly, ignorant creations instead of us having to divine meaning through smoke signals with burning bushes? It could have used the language from prior to the tower of babel. Also, why would this entity be afraid of these lowly creations?

Bible quotes, answer the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

Easy general rule of thumb. Decisions that affect only yourself should be left only to oneself to make once someone reaches an age where their mind has developed cognitively enough. My body, my choice - not yours, or anyone else who wants to impose their beliefs on me.

Everyone agrees to this. The question is if a fetus is a self deserving of protection of personhood; and the contradictions it involves. Many people seem to think a fetus is a person when a woman who is 7 months pregnant is murdered and the fetus dies too; but not when a poor woman aborts her 7 month old fetus because she is poor.

Abortions in the 3rd trimester are extremely rare, expensive, and difficult to obtain. They are performed in very dire situations - child rape, fetal abnormalities, etc.

Abortion should be protected for all women up through viability. There is no doubt that women have personhood, except maybe to forced birthers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

They won’t respond because they know they are full of crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

They won’t respond because they know they are full of crap.

and/or they might not like taking orders from strangers on the Internet -- I wouldn't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

Easy general rule of thumb. Decisions that affect only yourself should be left only to oneself to make once someone reaches an age where their mind has developed cognitively enough. My body, my choice - not yours, or anyone else who wants to impose their beliefs on me.

Everyone agrees to this. The question is if a fetus is a self deserving of protection of personhood; and the contradictions it involves. Many people seem to think a fetus is a person when a woman who is 7 months pregnant is murdered and the fetus dies too; but not when a poor woman aborts her 7 month old fetus because she is poor.

Abortions in the 3rd trimester are extremely rare, expensive, and difficult to obtain. They are performed in very dire situations - child rape, fetal abnormalities, etc.

Abortion should be protected for all women up through viability. There is no doubt that women have personhood, except maybe to forced birthers.

Also, if there is a parent taking a child off life support who had no probability of living, the decision is between the parent and the doctor.

When a woman has a child inside their uterus with no brain, or lungs, or an organ that is required for life… and they decide to take that child off life support. They call it an abortion.

No, it’s not an abortion. It’s taking a child off of life support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

They won’t respond because they know they are full of crap.

and/or they might not like taking orders from strangers on the Internet -- I wouldn't

They make BS claims they can’t backup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

Easy general rule of thumb. Decisions that affect only yourself should be left only to oneself to make once someone reaches an age where their mind has developed cognitively enough. My body, my choice - not yours, or anyone else who wants to impose their beliefs on me.

Everyone agrees to this. The question is if a fetus is a self deserving of protection of personhood; and the contradictions it involves. Many people seem to think a fetus is a person when a woman who is 7 months pregnant is murdered and the fetus dies too; but not when a poor woman aborts her 7 month old fetus because she is poor.

Abortions in the 3rd trimester are extremely rare, expensive, and difficult to obtain. They are performed in very dire situations - child rape, fetal abnormalities, etc.

Abortion should be protected for all women up through viability. There is no doubt that women have personhood, except maybe to forced birthers.

Also, if there is a parent taking a child off life support who had no probability of living, the decision is between the parent and the doctor.

When a woman has a child inside their uterus with no brain, or lungs, or an organ that is required for life… and they decide to take that child off life support. They call it an abortion.

No, it’s not an abortion. It’s taking a child off of life support.

If the child is still inside the womb, it's an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

They won’t respond because they know they are full of crap.

and/or they might not like taking orders from strangers on the Internet -- I wouldn't

They make BS claims they can’t backup.

True, but Still, they might not like taking orders from strangers on the Internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

They won’t respond because they know they are full of crap.

and/or they might not like taking orders from strangers on the Internet -- I wouldn't

They make BS claims they can’t backup.

True, but Still, they might not like taking orders from strangers on the Internet.

Naw, they have no problem engaging. They only go quiet when you ask them to actually back up a claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

1. I don’t think bibles should be treated differently than any other book in the library. They should simply be available in libraries for students of all ages if they desire to read it.

2. I would have to view the curriculum to provide my perspective and it’s paywalled.

I know all types of Christians from catholic to evangelical and almost none of them support making religion a core part of primary school lessons.

What are the other religious policies and laws that you feel are oppressing your atheist lifestyle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

1. I don’t think bibles should be treated differently than any other book in the library. They should simply be available in libraries for students of all ages if they desire to read it.

2. I would have to view the curriculum to provide my perspective and it’s paywalled.

I know all types of Christians from catholic to evangelical and almost none of them support making religion a core part of primary school lessons.

What are the other religious policies and laws that you feel are oppressing your atheist lifestyle?

You're missing the point. It's great that you may not support it or know of those who don't, but it is clearly being forced onto children in these states. Under what authority are they justified in indoctrinating kids?

Separately, do you support having the koran, torah, dhammapada, satanic bible or any other religious books be equally available?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. If we are to extrapolate from fifteen pages of comments from posters claiming to be atheists, their reasons for posting on DCUM (to address the actual question) would seem to be that most derive a sense of moral and intellectual superiority about their place in the world, and perhaps secondarily that it seems to assuage their sense of anxiety and insecurity that a Christian nationalist-fueled political movement has given them.

What they are unwilling or unable to accept or, perhaps, comprehend, is that only some people of faith have an interest in proselytizing. Only some people of faith have an interest in translating a set of practices that are nominally rooted in that faith on others. And that private revelation, which can form much of the experiential basis of belief for many people of faith, is not something that most wish to share.

The people of faith on this thread do not seem to be offended by atheism, for the most part.

Ironically, it is the atheists who seem to be the most ardent proselytizers. And that is why this subset of them posts on DCUM.

This is wrong. See the following recent news headlines why it matters. Its the theists trying to indoctrinate:

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2024/11/14/ryan-walters-says-more-than-500-bibles-were-purchased-for-oklahoma-schools/76310395007/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/texas-bible-school-curriculum.html

Respond to these two examples

1. I don’t think bibles should be treated differently than any other book in the library. They should simply be available in libraries for students of all ages if they desire to read it.

2. I would have to view the curriculum to provide my perspective and it’s paywalled.

I know all types of Christians from catholic to evangelical and almost none of them support making religion a core part of primary school lessons.

What are the other religious policies and laws that you feel are oppressing your atheist lifestyle?

You're missing the point. It's great that you may not support it or know of those who don't, but it is clearly being forced onto children in these states. Under what authority are they justified in indoctrinating kids?

Separately, do you support having the koran, torah, dhammapada, satanic bible or any other religious books be equally available?

Isn't he just making a show of supplying these bibles. The bible is available for free online in a searchable form. If a kid wants to look something up, they'll just Google it, not go to a bookshelf and leaf through hundreds of pages

For some public domain books for English and foreign languages, teachers told my kids to just download them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

Easy general rule of thumb. Decisions that affect only yourself should be left only to oneself to make once someone reaches an age where their mind has developed cognitively enough. My body, my choice - not yours, or anyone else who wants to impose their beliefs on me.

Everyone agrees to this. The question is if a fetus is a self deserving of protection of personhood; and the contradictions it involves. Many people seem to think a fetus is a person when a woman who is 7 months pregnant is murdered and the fetus dies too; but not when a poor woman aborts her 7 month old fetus because she is poor.

Abortions in the 3rd trimester are extremely rare, expensive, and difficult to obtain. They are performed in very dire situations - child rape, fetal abnormalities, etc.

Abortion should be protected for all women up through viability. There is no doubt that women have personhood, except maybe to forced birthers.

Also, if there is a parent taking a child off life support who had no probability of living, the decision is between the parent and the doctor.

When a woman has a child inside their uterus with no brain, or lungs, or an organ that is required for life… and they decide to take that child off life support. They call it an abortion.

No, it’s not an abortion. It’s taking a child off of life support.

If the child is still inside the womb, it's an abortion.

Call it what you will. It’s still a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor..

It’s no different than taking a child off life support.