atheist to pass out materials at Florida high schools

[OohPooPahDoo]

Atheists win right to pass out materials at Florida high schools - Washington Times



If the Christians get to do it, then so should we. That was the winning argument of atheists who fought for access to several Florida high schools to distribute group documents — same as evangelicals did with Bibles in January.

“We want to close the door to religion in schools, not open it to Freethought,” said David Williamson, an organizer with the Central Florida Freethought Community, the Orlando Sentinel reported. “[But] if they’re going to have a religious discussion on campus, we need to be a part of it.”


Read more: Atheists win right to pass out materials at Florida high schools - Washington Times
Follow us: @Washtimes on Twitter



fair is fair dont you think?

How can an atheist be a part of a religious discussion?

Well if it isn't then their certainly isn't a Constitutional prohibition against it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sex? Like talked about in "Hotel Transylvania". Zing!

Zing![

 

[logical4u]

I'm not an atheist, but I at least have the fundamental understanding that atheism is not the belief in nothing. That's nihilism.

So what do atheists believe? What is worth fighting for in their lives?

Perhaps you should ask an atheist if you want an atheist answer. However, it really shouldn't need explaining that there are many things that one can believe in or fight for. Would you like a list?

Yes!

If there is no "authority" then all men are free to declare themselves the ultimate authority (anarchists). What do they base their "beliefs" on, if not the morals handed down from the religions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

From secular ethics, for instance. Confucianism or the T'ao are not "religions" in the sense one needs to worry about what deity thinks or demands or threatens.

 

[oldfart]

If there is no "authority" then all men are free to declare themselves the ultimate authority (anarchists). What do they base their "beliefs" on, if not the morals handed down from the religions?

Boy, you sure drank he koolaid!

Let me just check to see if I've got it right. You believe that morals are exclusively derived from religion? And by "morals" do you include systems of ethics, or is ethics possible without religion? What do you include in "religion" in addition to your own religious beliefs?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The very essence of atheism is tyranny.

It is? How?

If you have to ask . . . you're in bad shape. Oldguy, don't listen to the winds and the whispers of this world: they're all lies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, M. D. is wrong.

 

[pinqy]

If there is no "authority" then all men are free to declare themselves the ultimate authority (anarchists).

Only if you hold that all governments must be theocracies.

What do they base their "beliefs" on, if not the morals handed down from the religions?

Ok, let's do a thought experiment. Set people down to form a society with absolutely no laws, rules, or morals. How long will that society last unless they develop some? If you want private property, you have to forbid theft. You have to set up some kind of rules or order...official or unoffical...in order to exist. Pirates, street gangs, etc, despite the illegal nature of their organizations, despite breaking government laws, still developed their own rules and laws to regulate their groups.

Any group/society that does not develop rules/laws/morals will cease to exist.

 

[FA_Q2]

So what do atheists believe? What is worth fighting for in their lives?

Perhaps you should ask an atheist if you want an atheist answer. However, it really shouldn't need explaining that there are many things that one can believe in or fight for. Would you like a list?

Yes!

If there is no "authority" then all men are free to declare themselves the ultimate authority (anarchists). What do they base their "beliefs" on, if not the morals handed down from the religions?

Wow. How superior you must hold yourself to demand that anyone not having your religion has no possible moral compass.

Atheists do moral and great works all the time. There is no difference other than they don’t need a ‘higher power’ to declare morality for them. I am a moral individual without a religion; I have a strong doubt that you even understand what the means…

 

[Oldguy]

The very essence of atheism is tyranny.

It is? How?

If you have to ask . . . you're in bad shape. Oldguy, don't listen to the winds and the whispers of this world: they're all lies.

Well...I guess I've been listening to the wind because I really don't see the connection between tyranny and atheism.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

 

[Oldguy]

Perhaps you should ask an atheist if you want an atheist answer. However, it really shouldn't need explaining that there are many things that one can believe in or fight for. Would you like a list?

Yes!

If there is no "authority" then all men are free to declare themselves the ultimate authority (anarchists). What do they base their "beliefs" on, if not the morals handed down from the religions?

Wow. How superior you must hold yourself to demand that anyone not having your religion has no possible moral compass.

Atheists do moral and great works all the time. There is no difference other than they don’t need a ‘higher power’ to declare morality for them. I am a moral individual without a religion; I have a strong doubt that you even understand what the means…

How do you know if you're a "moral person" if you have no list of what's moral and what isn't? Do you just create your own list?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is? How?

If you have to ask . . . you're in bad shape. Oldguy, don't listen to the winds and the whispers of this world: they're all lies.

Well...I guess I've been listening to the wind because I really don't see the connection between tyranny and atheism.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

The entire history of post-Enlightenment statism is ultimately driven by atheism. I don't have the time or the inclination to teach that history here. You can go to my blog though (Prufrock's Lair).

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes!

If there is no "authority" then all men are free to declare themselves the ultimate authority (anarchists). What do they base their "beliefs" on, if not the morals handed down from the religions?

Wow. How superior you must hold yourself to demand that anyone not having your religion has no possible moral compass.

Atheists do moral and great works all the time. There is no difference other than they don’t need a ‘higher power’ to declare morality for them. I am a moral individual without a religion; I have a strong doubt that you even understand what the means…

How do you know if you're a "moral person" if you have no list of what's moral and what isn't? Do you just create your own list?

Essentially, that is true. You have to remember though, your list of ‘morals’ does not stand on its own. It exists in context with those around you as well. I find my morality in simply not doing things that harm other creatures without necessity (I do have to eat and all ). There is more but irrelevant to the discussion atm. It is a rather simple concept though slightly harder to carry out. However, that morality is subject to the people around me as well to some extent.

I have always said that what matters at the end of my day though is not what my boss thinks of me, my friends think of me or my neighbor thinks of me but whether or not I can lay my head down on my pillow at the end of the night with a clear conscience.

This may seem somewhat nihilistic as I am essentially defining my own morality BUT the fact remains that this is true for anyone whether they find their morals in religion or not. Remember that the Westburrow Baptist Church is a group of people that are quite religious and believe themselves moral people but I doubt that anyone here would even remotely agree. Just because you claim that your morality comes from a higher power does not mean that you are a moral person at all.

What I found insulting on the original asinine statement was the assertion that morality cannot exist without belief in a higher power. That is wrong and an expression of people that believe they are better than others somehow. It is pathetic.

 

[turzovka]

What I found insulting on the original asinine statement was the assertion that morality cannot exist without belief in a higher power. That is wrong and an expression of people that believe they are better than others somehow. It is pathetic.

After having heard from you, I was curious to read some of your other posts here today. I appreciate your clear and fair thinking even though I might disagree on a number of occasions. For instance, this overall post of yours was well argued, but except for the last paragraph (IMO) which I reproduced here.

Yes, I agree, morality can and certainly does exist without a belief in a higher power, but it is also more easily done away with under various circumstances because there is no fear of future accountability. In addition, that morality is only present (in the atheist, for instance) because a certain higher power placed it there.

Your next sentence that “some (religious) people believe they are somehow better than others” ---- now even though that is true in many cases, in most cases it simply is not. Jesus never ever preached such a thing. But here we are having to defend ourselves against said attack. We can no better make a moral or reasonable argument that we Christians are better than pagans, than we can defend clergy deviates. Yet, because of those deviates the unbelievers and the media think they have discredited and falsified Catholic teaching. That is a very sad and improper development. (IMO)

 

[FA_Q2]

What I found insulting on the original asinine statement was the assertion that morality cannot exist without belief in a higher power. That is wrong and an expression of people that believe they are better than others somehow. It is pathetic.

After having heard from you, I was curious to read some of your other posts here today. I appreciate your clear and fair thinking even though I might disagree on a number of occasions. For instance, this overall post of yours was well argued, but except for the last paragraph (IMO) which I reproduced here.

Yes, I agree, morality can and certainly does exist without a belief in a higher power, but it is also more easily done away with under various circumstances because there is no fear of future accountability.

I don’t think I entirely agree with this tbh. You are treating morality as though it is a simple decision that was made and I don’t actually view it like that. Your personal morality is ingrained in you, a part of you. With continued ‘training’ you can alter that, that’s true but it is no more or less true for a believer than a non-believer. You find this phenomenon with police, EMT or emergency room personnel. Those that are over exposed to such things as death, murder and pain have to be very careful because it can and does shift their personal beliefs and actions. Many of these people are devout believers. That gives SOME a rock to more against, I will admit, in the same manner that religious belief helps many with coping with drug abuse or depression but this is in no way intrinsic. Religious fall as often as non-religious people do. It is a product of being a human more than a product of religious belief IMHO.

In addition, that morality is only present (in the atheist, for instance) because a certain higher power placed it there.

You might be surprised but I have no objection to this at all. It is a valid belief that I would think any religious person would hold. It only makes sense if you are a believer. I have a deep objection though that I cannot be moral or a ‘good’ person simply because I do not bow to one person’s deity or another. Aside from being a very narrow minded approach to things, it is a way to demonize and make anyone that simply does not agree with you a ‘bad guy.’ It is wrong.

Your next sentence that “some (religious) people believe they are somehow better than others” ---- now even though that is true in many cases, in most cases it simply is not. Jesus never ever preached such a thing. But here we are having to defend ourselves against said attack. We can no better make a moral or reasonable argument that we Christians are better than pagans, than we can defend clergy deviates. Yet, because of those deviates the unbelievers and the media think they have discredited and falsified Catholic teaching. That is a very sad and improper development. (IMO)

I did not mean to imply that it was common. The statement was directly aimed at the poster that essentially made statements making non-religious people immoral. I have no qualms with Christians and like many of them. Hell, I would be quite alone with people that agree with much of my political philosophy if I did BUT there are those that make us all look bad with continual statements along that line. It gets aggravating to say the least. Causes me to slip as well.

Lastly, if you continue to read through my posts, I will forewarn you – I have no problem being called out when I am shooting my mouth off with some of the other posters here but I am human and do not profess to make every post well thought out. This board tends to devolve much of the time and if I was totally civil all the time it would be rare to even be able to post I try and keep it level though with those that can. If I ever get snippy with you, just call me out

 

[amrchaos]

I have a problem as well.

Turzovka said

"Yes, I agree, morality can and certainly does exist without a belief in a higher power, but it is also more easily done away with under various circumstances because there is no fear of future accountability."

Now the problem I have here is in the form of 2 questions--who holds who accountable? Also, who have the right to hold someone accountable to their morality or lack thereof?

If God is the only one who can hold men accountable, why do we have a system of laws and punishment? Is it not true that man does not have the right to hold man according to what is deemed moral or ethical? Then our judicial system, which is run by men, is actually an injustice and its existance is blaspheme.

Think about it--why is there a system of punishment for the immoral in the afterlife ifg it is ok to have it on Earth? Is there fear that god will not punish the guilty appropriately, or is there something wrong with our take on what is just.


On the other hand, I tend to think that men do have the right to hold an immoral/unethical person accountable to his actions. If we did not, the immoral person could very well injure us all and face no punishment for his deed. That is chaos, regardless if you are a believer or not.

 

[turzovka]

Yes, I agree, morality can and certainly does exist without a belief in a higher power, but it is also more easily done away with under various circumstances because there is no fear of future accountability.

I don’t think I entirely agree with this tbh. You are treating morality as though it is a simple decision that was made and I don’t actually view it like that. Your personal morality is ingrained in you, a part of you. With continued ‘training’ you can alter that, that’s true but it is no more or less true for a believer than a non-believer.

No argument here, but my point is that future punishment or retribution for an act is a definite deterrent, irrespective if that deterrent is in the natural (jail time) or in the transcendent (purgatory or hell) for the believer. For instance, adultery is very tempting for many men, but I definitely of the opinion that a devout Christian will refrain from entertaining the idea far more than an atheist because of the added concern of God’s weighing in on this at a later date. Consequently, and generally speaking, devout Christians are better behaved than the secular thinker, all things else being equal.

…I will admit, in the same manner that religious belief helps many with coping with drug abuse or depression but this is in no way intrinsic.

Some moral understandings are intrinsic, many others are learned, agreed. And here we are again, a Christian’s faith assisting him in tangible ways with the physical and emotional issues.

Religious fall as often as non-religious people do. It is a product of being a human more than a product of religious belief IMHO.

What is? Falling? Yes, of course it is a human trait that affects religious and non-religious in a daily and recurring means. But does that imply that the Christian’s prayers afforded him or those dear to him no benefit? Does that imply that God is not judging our accomplishments and not just our failures? As one saint said: God is less interested in how many times you have failed or sinned than in how many times you asked forgiveness and tried again. I might also add this: the devil is far, far more focused on bringing down one man of the cloth than in causing a thousand hedonists to sin further. He already has the hedonists (and many unbelievers I might venture) where he wants them, whereas causing scandal with a priest not only discredits his whole church, it turns a number of ambivalent souls away from their faith.



In addition, that morality is only present (in the atheist, for instance) because a certain higher power placed it there.

You might be surprised but I have no objection to this at all. It is a valid belief that I would think any religious person would hold. It only makes sense if you are a believer.

No, not surprised coming from you, and I appreciate your making note of it that way.

I have a deep objection though that I cannot be moral or a ‘good’ person simply because I do not bow to one person’s deity or another. Aside from being a very narrow minded approach to things, it is a way to demonize and make anyone that simply does not agree with you a ‘bad guy.’ It is wrong.

First of all I would like to know which Church is teaching what you are declaring here? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Go read the appropriate comments from Vatican II on this matter. It is clear and it has been declared in papal writings in the past as well that (paraphrase) that heaven is open to all people, not just Catholics or Christians. That if a man leads a good and honest life and through no fault of his own has no exposure to the gospel or Jesus Christ, that man can surely still be welcome into the kingdom of heaven.

So I object if you are making your charge too universal. Surely there are some preachers, and some theologies that claim what you lament, but I dare say it is few, and I also agree it is wrong.




Your next sentence that “some (religious) people believe they are somehow better than others” ---- now even though that is true in many cases, in most cases it simply is not. Jesus never ever preached such a thing. But here we are having to defend ourselves against said attack. We can no better make a moral or reasonable argument that we Christians are better than pagans, than we can defend clergy deviates. Yet, because of those deviates the unbelievers and the media think they have discredited and falsified Catholic teaching. That is a very sad and improper development. (IMO)

I did not mean to imply that it was common. The statement was directly aimed at the poster that essentially made statements making non-religious people immoral.

No, I admit you did not imply that. And if the top poster over-generalized and over-judged non-religious people, then I am with you on this point.

Lastly, if you continue to read through my posts, I will forewarn you – I have no problem being called out when I am shooting my mouth off with some of the other posters here but I am human and do not profess to make every post well thought out. This board tends to devolve much of the time and if I was totally civil all the time it would be rare to even be able to post I try and keep it level though with those that can. If I ever get snippy with you, just call me out.

Well you certainly sound sincere to me, so let me be brief. I appreciate your open way of looking at things, I appreciate that you are forgiving of others words or actions as you appear to look at it from their point of view causing such actions. You do not shoot your mouth of from what I have seen, but it is welcome if you do. On my part, I cannot be offended so do not hold back. Thanks.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If you have to ask . . . you're in bad shape. Oldguy, don't listen to the winds and the whispers of this world: they're all lies.

Well...I guess I've been listening to the wind because I really don't see the connection between tyranny and atheism.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

The entire history of post-Enlightenment statism is ultimately driven by atheism. I don't have the time or the inclination to teach that history here. You can go to my blog though (Prufrock's Lair).

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, I agree, morality can and certainly does exist without a belief in a higher power, but it is also more easily done away with under various circumstances because there is no fear of future accountability.
[cut my quotes for brevity]
No argument here, but my point is that future punishment or retribution for an act is a definite deterrent, irrespective if that deterrent is in the natural (jail time) or in the transcendent (purgatory or hell) for the believer. For instance, adultery is very tempting for many men, but I definitely of the opinion that a devout Christian will refrain from entertaining the idea far more than an atheist because of the added concern of God’s weighing in on this at a later date. Consequently, and generally speaking, devout Christians are better behaved than the secular thinker, all things else being equal.
[cut my quotes for brevity]
Some moral understandings are intrinsic, many others are learned, agreed. And here we are again, a Christian’s faith assisting him in tangible ways with the physical and emotional issues.

I can’t argue that the tangible punishment/outcome is definitely a driver in the ability to be a moral person and, without the possible ‘punishment,’ an individual is far more likely to break their morality. I think that you miss something basic here though.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that virtually all Christian moralistic values except for the first four commandments (Sabbath, idolatry, God’s name and no other Gods before him) have real world impacts and they are generally not the good kind. Let’s take your example for instance. With adultery, you would be hard pressed to show me that non-believers are more open to this than believers. I have known too many of both that committed this act.

You can put forth that the loss of heaven is a good motivator but I would say that distant and invisible punishment is not the real detractor here but rather the loss of your family that is the real motivator. You might look at that instance and see that God does not want you to cheat so you don’t; I look at that instance and think my wife would have my ass so I don’t. There are different reasons but they are still there and I think they are equally sufficient to provide you with a motivation to follow your morals. The added ‘loss’ of heaven (though you don’t really lose heaven like that) I don’t think provides any more than the loss of the family. If you are willing to take that large of a risk, then you are clearly willing to risk pretty much anything.

What is? Falling? Yes, of course it is a human trait that affects religious and non-religious in a daily and recurring means. But does that imply that the Christian’s prayers afforded him or those dear to him no benefit? Does that imply that God is not judging our accomplishments and not just our failures? As one saint said: God is less interested in how many times you have failed or sinned than in how many times you asked forgiveness and tried again. I might also add this: the devil is far, far more focused on bringing down one man of the cloth than in causing a thousand hedonists to sin further. He already has the hedonists (and many unbelievers I might venture) where he wants them, whereas causing scandal with a priest not only discredits his whole church, it turns a number of ambivalent souls away from their faith.

Okay but how does that relate to the idea that morality is more ‘stable’ in a believer? The point I was making was that a moral unbeliever and devout Christian are no different and one is no stronger or better than the other. Nor is one more likely than the other. It is essentially the person and not the belief that determines this.

In addition, that morality is only present (in the atheist, for instance) because a certain higher power placed it there.
No, not surprised coming from you, and I appreciate your making note of it that way.

Thank you and your welcome. I don’t pretend that my belief trumps any others and if I could not see things through others eyes I would be truly closed minded.

I have a deep objection though that I cannot be moral or a ‘good’ person simply because I do not bow to one person’s deity or another. Aside from being a very narrow minded approach to things, it is a way to demonize and make anyone that simply does not agree with you a ‘bad guy.’ It is wrong.

First of all I would like to know which Church is teaching what you are declaring here? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Go read the appropriate comments from Vatican II on this matter. It is clear and it has been declared in papal writings in the past as well that (paraphrase) that heaven is open to all people, not just Catholics or Christians. That if a man leads a good and honest life and through no fault of his own has no exposure to the gospel or Jesus Christ, that man can surely still be welcome into the kingdom of heaven.

So I object if you are making your charge too universal. Surely there are some preachers, and some theologies that claim what you lament, but I dare say it is few, and I also agree it is wrong.

Your next sentence that “some (religious) people believe they are somehow better than others” ---- now even though that is true in many cases, in most cases it simply is not. Jesus never ever preached such a thing. But here we are having to defend ourselves against said attack. We can no better make a moral or reasonable argument that we Christians are better than pagans, than we can defend clergy deviates. Yet, because of those deviates the unbelievers and the media think they have discredited and falsified Catholic teaching. That is a very sad and improper development. (IMO)

I did not mean to imply that it was common. The statement was directly aimed at the poster that essentially made statements making non-religious people immoral.

No, I admit you did not imply that. And if the top poster over-generalized and over-judged non-religious people, then I am with you on this point.

Not a church. Again, this was directed at specific posters that have made claims that morality was not possible with those that do not believe in God. The original poster that I quoted was going along those lines. Few here believe that but they are here and have leveled that claim before. I don’t mean to generalize statements like this. Also:

‘Yet, because of those deviates the unbelievers and the media think they have discredited and falsified Catholic teaching. That is a very sad and improper development.’

Is a good point because I agree that it is a sad development. I just would like to add that those doing so achieve the same problem that they are attacking: the moral superiority that accomplishes nothing but harm as well as the generalization of an entire group with the select few. Those arguments tend to devolve into well Hitler this but Pol Pot that but the Crusades this but Stalin that. All together useless with no context.

Lastly, if you continue to read through my posts, I will forewarn you – I have no problem being called out when I am shooting my mouth off with some of the other posters here but I am human and do not profess to make every post well thought out. This board tends to devolve much of the time and if I was totally civil all the time it would be rare to even be able to post I try and keep it level though with those that can. If I ever get snippy with you, just call me out.

Well you certainly sound sincere to me, so let me be brief. I appreciate your open way of looking at things, I appreciate that you are forgiving of others words or actions as you appear to look at it from their point of view causing such actions. You do not shoot your mouth of from what I have seen, but it is welcome if you do. On my part, I cannot be offended so do not hold back. Thanks.

Thank you. Same here
Well put.

 

[turzovka]

Once again, time constraints. So I will just say, I very much appreciate your thoughtful approach and sometimes unique perspectives. I think we both know where we primarily stand on this topic and on the gay marriage thread, so Ok for now.

I leave you with a question or comment of mine.

Somewhere in your posts I read (paraphrase) that you have not given the reality of God or which God a serious undertaking (correct me if I am wrong?). Is that true? If so, how could that possibly be?

You also noted: (quote) “I have always said that what matters at the end of my day though is not what my boss thinks of me, my friends think of me or my neighbor thinks of me but whether or not I can lay my head down on my pillow at the end of the night with a clear conscience.”

Question: And what if you or I lay down night after night without a clear conscience because our various lusts or desires or apathy has prevented that? Would that concern you, and to what degree?

Thanks.