Good guys and girls sometimes win

[Albereth]

It's very simple. (A)gnosticism is about knowledge, and (a)theism is about our attitude towards the existence of god/s.

Agnostic theism - Cannot know for sure god exists, believes in god.

Gnostic theism - Know for sure that god exists, believes in god. (irrational)

Agnostic atheism - Cannot know for sure god exists (or not), lacks belief in god.

Gnostic atheism - Knows for sure god does not exist, lacks belief in god. (irrational)

***

I'm sure this can be put more neatly and coherently, but you wanted it in our own words...

Thanks for the response - you must be a consultant of some sort and you most certainly left wriggle room there.

But it no different from what I had already said. Take the common bits about agnostics from your definition and you get 'cannot know for sure God exists ' and the common bits about atheists and you have ' lacks belief in God'. How does this differ from 'is not sure if God exists' and 'there is no God' respectively? I, of course, assume that 'lacks' actually could be 'no' in your statements.

Now, as much fun as this has been - I must withdraw from the debate as it has now got to the point of being boring and consuming too much time on a single subject. Not to say that I won't return to stir, but it does mean that I am not going to look for where I left off with Qwiksilver (and sorry, didn't get to see your animation - big storm (act of God lol) and social engagement), and neither will I look for some abysmal riposte from the knuckle dragger to respond to.

[copacetic]

Thanks for the response - you must be a consultant of some sort and you most certainly left wriggle room there.

But it no different from what I had already said. Take the common bits about agnostics from your definition and you get 'cannot know for sure God exists ' and the common bits about atheists and you have ' lacks belief in God'. How does this differ from 'is not sure if God exists' and 'there is no God' respectively? I, of course, assume that 'lacks' actually could be 'no' in your statements.

Now, as much fun as this has been - I must withdraw from the debate as it has now got to the point of being boring and consuming too much time on a single subject. Not to say that I won't return to stir, but it does mean that I am not going to look for where I left off with Qwiksilver (and sorry, didn't get to see your animation - big storm (act of God lol) and social engagement), and neither will I look for some abysmal riposte from the knuckle dragger to respond to.

Interacting with you has been more than trying.

I'll not bother trying to correct your misunderstanding, I've wasted enough time and effort on posts to you that were ignored already.

[porchrat]

LOL Albereth thinks lacking belief in something is the same as believing in the negative. The lack of thought behind that stance always make me laugh.

[cyghost]

the knuckle dragger (sic) to respond to.

oh, teh (sic) irony

[DJ...]

If you have a school that only has Muslims attending it - why would it matter if there are Muslim banners (if such a thing exists) up on the walls? Not one single person at the school sees it as an issue. Sure, the law is lurking in the background but the law doesn't actually do anything unless these is a complaint.

One day a Christian joins the school. Let's assume he is a stirrer. Now, he could approach the school and the choices that come out of his stirring are that the school could deny his request for either a Christian banner or removal of the Muslim banner, or they could take the lot down.

Assume that they deny and argue that the banner has been there since the school opened and were a gift from a visiting imam.

So the Christian stirrer stirs, lays a complaint and the law kicks in. The School is informed that it will remove the banner.

Life carries on - parity in the religions has been achieved.

So what is the big deal here?

Well, the point is that out of a student body of 1000, 1 is complaining. Does that mean the majority should get their way? Well, no. Constitutions are there to protect minority interests from absolute power. I have already written about laws that adopt a 'well nobody gets it' approach. And you end up with a lose-lose situation, neither the Muslims nor the Christians are happy. Parity yes, happiness no.

Take this story over to the events raised in the OP. You supposedly have someone who regards religion as mumbo-jumbo, superstition, or brain-washing taking a stand. Summing it up, their personal view about religion is that it should not exist. Oh, it does exist - atheists don't deny that. But their view is that it shouldn't.

By having an atheist involved in the stirring, going through the same process as I mentioned above and the courts still hand down the 'nobody gets it' ruling. And somehow we get a lose-win situation. The Christians aren't happy but the atheists are. No parity.



Then - why does an atheist actually care what I, or anyone else believes in? It makes no sense that they should. What are they trying to do, save my soul from eternal life? I understand Christians (and the rest) trying to convert others and I agree fully that that gets to be annoying - but I understand it. (And I could be cynical and say that they are trying to get more converts because converts donate money, or drink Koolaid, or whatever).

So why would atheists leap on a bandwagon? The only conclusion that I can draw is that they are whackjobs. It isn't about civil liberties - because they don't care about religion other than it should not exist. Oh, they may say that people are free to believe if they want but it is silly. Or that it is just a relic from the past when primitive man was unable to explain natural phenomena. The moment that an atheist sees some point in religion - well, they are no longer an atheist. (I now expect a whole list of links as to why I can't say that)

Evidently we have very different interpretations of this incident. I read it as a girl who was ostracized because her school adopted a Christian stance (in other words, a decision the school made that is contrary to the constitution, for good reason as has already been posted). Her atheist viewpoint would place her in a precarious situation, being surrounded by christians (as per the subsequent fundumbmentalist attitudes of her school peers). Her decision to take a stance against the banner was just one step in having christianity removed as the defacto religion of the school.

You are making numerous assumptions about the number of people affected by this decision. If you're going to use the argument that "it doesn't hurt anyone" then the opposing view is just as valid - how does removing the banner hurt anyone?

Moreover if you're going to ask why an atheist cares, it is to prevent ostracision of beliefs and non-beliefs - that's very simple logic. I'm not sure what more needs to be discussed on that topic. If that isn't plain to you to see, then I'm afraid you're not looking at things objectively. All religions would not be afforded the opportunity to exist and flourish were it not for the maintained separation of church and state.

The bottom line here is that this girl (and possibly other pupils too afraid to speak out, considering the threats) was directly affected by an unconstitutional decision taken by her school. That cannot be argued against - that is a fact. Now you might want to argue that the law needs to be changed, but then pray tell what happens when the law begins to exclude certain faith denominations, possibly yours? Is it all okay until your faith flavour is banned?

See you can't have your cake and eat it in this situation. Either you are against other religions being practiced, or you accept their differences and realise that what this girl did, was in fact pretty heroic considering that she was actually protecting the rights of all religions to practice freely.

If you think about this pragmatically she did every christian, buddhist, muslim, hindu and appendage worshipers a favour. She has done nothing to prevent the PEOPLE from practicing their religion. All that she did was ensure that her church school did not adopt one flavour of religion above others, as is her right as an American citizen.

And your argument about muslim schools is tolly. Private schools are free to do as they wish. Government schools on the other hand are not afforded such rights, considering they are intended for a multicultural America...

[_kabal_]

I might even be of the opinion that a school with 100% "Christians" (air quoted, as these are just children who didnt actually choose to be Christians), should not have Christian banners on the walls, Jesus petting lambs inserted into workbooks, etc precisely because 99.9% of the 100% Christian student body didnt choose Christianity, but was instead told to be the truth.

If you then surround people with these things, you are continueing to say "This is the truth", even if it is done passively. Tell someone they are a piece of crap enough times and they will eventually believe it.

*Substitute Christian with any other religion

[Ancalagon]

I'm also of the opinion that a lot of these people who say the school should have been allowed to keep the banner up because the majority of students were Christian, would not feel the same way if it was a Christian student in a Muslim/Pagan/Hindu school. I would bet money on it, too bad its not likely to ever happen.

My point is, the school was probably somewhere around 70 to 90% Christian. There would be your usual collection of goths, agnostics, atheists, maybe Mormons, or even Hindus and Muslims, in such a school. Guaranteed she was not the only atheist there.

So, if there was a school that was predominantly but not totally populated by Muslims, but not a Muslim religious school, and it had a Muslim banner up on it, I guarantee that all those who complained would stand behind a Christian student who wanted it taken down. I guarantee it, every single one. The more hardcore Christian they are, the more it rises to a certainty, since all other religions are false and evil, and taking such a banner down would be a victory for Christianity.

In this case though, it was a victory for the constitution, not a victory for atheism.

[porchrat]

I might even be of the opinion that a school with 100% "Christians" (air quoted, as these are just children who didnt actually choose to be Christians), should not have Christian banners on the walls, Jesus petting lambs inserted into workbooks, etc precisely because 99.9% of the 100% Christian student body didnt choose Christianity, but was instead told to be the truth.

To me it is more because ultimately the money being spent in that public school is tax money. Tax money from a country that isn't 100% <religion X>. Don't spend money on promoting <religion X> when not everyone contributing that money agrees with <religion X>.

Worse than that is that it is a slippery slope. You allow the government to acknowledge one religion above others and next thing you know you have laws biased towards one religion over others. Now you have religious rules being forced upon non-believers by law. I don't want to live in that world. I want a world where all people are free to practice their religions in their personal capacity but the government doesn't acknowledge any religion (or the lack thereof).

[code]

Here's another instance of the good guys sometimes winning... Stem cells halt Parkinson's in Monkeys

The Japanese government currently has no guidelines on the use of human stem cells in clinical research.

If it wasn't for Bush, the states could've been at this point a decade ago.

Another reason why this girl's resolve is quite necessary.

[copacetic]

[code]

She's quite awesome, for an evil little girl.

[Jab]

Do anyone else notice the little horns hidden in her hair?

[joelus]

https://twitter.com/#!/jessicaahlqui...06320392749056

ghoti will be celebrating tonight

[DJ...]

https://twitter.com/#!/jessicaahlqui...06320392749056

ghoti will be celebrating tonight

I love how the first person to congratulate her is named Katie McVicar. The irony is not lost on me...