Atheist clubs are springing up in American high schools

What, is Carl Jung some kind of religious authority? did he come back to carve that based upon experience?

Somehow I doubt that.

Right on! Believers always shrug off that 'burden of proof' argument, except when it comes to everything else!

i totally agree. when i was in high school and now college, i never looked for an 'atheist' group to join...i just continued to study science, history, metaphysics,
philosophy, debate club, sports, and other liberal arts. then, economics, finance, foreign policy; and that combination has served me well. the more i read history, and science--the more i knew i was right about the dangers of 'organized religion.'

nothing to do with it! they have the right just as non believers to have a club! i dont believe but i will not allow there rights nor mine to be steeped on!

I started questioning the existence of God shortly after I realized Santa was fake at the age of 9. It doesn't take that much brains to realize that gods are just another tale.

High school is too young to debate the existence of a deity? If most kids weren't spoon fed religion from a very early age they wouldn't even have to wait until high school.

I don't know if it is fair to call them/us militant. I certainly wouldn't die for athieism if somebody told me to choose.

It isn't the kind of "militant" used to describe fundamentalist muslims, for instance. It simply means something like how we speak of militant eco-activists, or something similar.

In-your-face, yes. Activist, yes. Willing to offend, insult, and question, yes.

Hopefully, not violent.

Atheists are, at heart, rationalists. We use our minds to reason, question, and examine the world around us. At times, we may even find it expedient or necessary to become politically active(ist) in protecting our rights as we see them.

At this point in history, violence is not necessary, and hopefully, if we can put a stop to this alarming slide into right wing fundamentalist christianity in this country, it will not be required in the future.

However, if we cannot, future atheists may find themselves confronted violently by a christian government.

I am an American. I have served honorably in both the military and civilian government for over thirty-five years.

In both services, I took an oath to "protect, preserve and defend" the Constitution of the United States.

In neither case did I append the words "except if I could die".

Religion is questioned all the time, what do you think is happening here?

Anyways, to say religion, no matter how much you disagree with it, is evil and ill-willed is ridiculous and absurd.

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more.

Plenty of religious figures have easily fulfilled the epithet "evil" - hundreds of catholic priests have horribly abused sometimes dozens or hundreds of children in their careers, and the institution of the Church has done little besides defend them and push it under the rug, until forced to act by publicity and high dollar court judgements against them.

Remember Jim Jones? The guy that gave us the phrase "drinking the Kool-aid"? HE used religion to enslave hundreds of people, force women into his bed, flee to a third world country to avoid prosecution in the US, and in the end, kill themselves AND for some, their children!

I could go on and on with examples of the evils religion has visited on this world.

In India, Hindus attacked a muslim mosque that had stood for hundreds of years - over the site of an ancient Hindu Temple. They killed dozens of Muslims who attempted to defend it, and tore it down - stone by stone. They then erected another Hindu Temple on the spot, and it has been the site of sectarian violence ever since.

And these are MODERN examples of religious violence and evil. Do we really need to go back into history and chronicle the evils perpetrated in humanity in the name of religion?

By men who, by the rights of the ideologies they preached, should have been teaching morality and peace?

I think not.

So when Chinese radical leftists in the cultural revolution tore down Buddhist temples and Catholic Churches, murdering monks and nuns, leftist politics are evil, right?

You have a problem with scope, because the vast majority of religious people, today and throughout history, are peaceful and tolerant. There is, and has always been a vocal minority of radicals who commit crimes and non-religious people who exploit religion for their political aims or power play.

Anti-religious bigotry is like any other form of bigotry.

Non-religious people murder, rape, kill, and discriminate just like anyone else.

My defense of religion is that it is like any other ideology and is defined by the people who practice it, you can't throw forsake it as all bad or glorify it as all good; it's multifaceted, not so black and white.

I'll just append my reply to your similar defense on the first page:

"I don't know why you defend it. Saying that non-religious reasons are used as a basis for oppression is no excuse for letting religion off the hook. That's like when I was a teenager and defended my actions by saying that "everybody's doing it", and my dad solemnly pulled off his belt saying "everybody's not my son", and whipped my butt anyway."

I agree, all the examples you make of non-religious oppression are valid. But they do NOT excuse religion. My assertions about religion do NOT indict individuals, either current or past as just folks that are propagandized into belief or just going along, or even true believers.

My point is that THE INSTITUTIONS of religion, and the framework of religious theology that surround them, are designed, intended and used as instruments of oppression, slavery and evil by men that run those institutions.

That does not indict ALL clerics. I am sure that the vast majority mean well, and are as hoodwinked into the system as anybody else. But the religious systems, as practiced in the Western world in particular, were designed as methods of oppression, and were used a such until secular rulers wrested political control away from the church. The history is undeniable.

But the history isn't undeniable, religions start with people who are moved by something and want to get the message out, men may take this message and distort it, but that doesn't indict the entire system. Catholic charities, an extension of oppression? Feeding the poor, providing aid to pregnant woman, helping the sick: all hegemony, huh?

"My defense of religion is that it is like any other ideology and is defined by the people who practice it, you can't throw forsake it as all bad or glorify it as all good; it's multifaceted, not so black and white."

So admit the evil. It isn't that hard, because it exists, and is historical in nature. As I said, I do not indict the common man that is trapped in the system of his religion.

I indict the framework of the religion that causes him to act against the common decency that even his own system teaches.

"But the history isn't undeniable, religions start with people who are moved by something and want to get the message out, men may take this message and distort it, but that doesn't indict the entire system. "

Crap. You are ignoring centuries of what came later.

I'm going to agree with rwahrens here (surprise), but go a little farther and indict the scriptures that these faiths follow. I have read the Bible several times, and it amazes me what believers tend to overlook. Sure you can find all kind of moral messages (as you can with far more beauty and relevance in Shakespeare's canon), but you can also find some very dark and devious themes (also true with Shakespeare, but far better written).

Blaming a religion for the actions that the people who claim to be followers would be ignorant. It would be like blaming Virginia Tech for the massacre that happened there. Just because some people misinterpret the teaching of their "god" does not mean that their "god" is to blame. We should look at each idiot for what they are worth, and divert from judging the group. Because there are some people that do base assumptions by groups, they are called racist and we all know that kind of thinking is no good for the prosperity of all.

Oak, the teachings of their 'god' is what is supposed to be the basis of their actions. As I said in my post, I point to the scriptures as the root of the problem.

I'm not sure I follow your analogy of the VT massacre. How would I blame the school for his actions? The school didn't have a set of 'scriptures' laying down moral edicts.

The argument against religions almost requires that you address the group, or groups, following the doctrines of that faith. As I've said before, I don't have a problem with individual believers, it's only when they gather in groups that things get dicey.

Oak, look at it this way.

I could agree if the people we were talking about were powerless to affect events. As with VT, you are right, they WERE powerless to affect events, so no blame attaches.

For most common, everyday theists, the same is true. They are just normal people that have been trained since childhood to believe whatever the framework of the religion they were born to say they should.

But for a few, they become the guiding hands behind the actions and words of that religion. THEY are at fault, because they fail to see through the falsehoods, the illogical contradictions and the outright lies of published histories, either because they don't want to, or because they cannot bear to reveal the truth.

Whatever the inside story is, the guys at the top ARE responsible for the things that their religion says, does and carries into the future. They have the power to change things, but they never do, they are too invested in the thing to give it up.

lol

Haha...Funny

So then you're cool with gay marriage and abortion?

If something is better than nothing, then getting educated as to how the Human race has educated itself, built its own moral compasses, and lifted itself out of the ignorance of the Dark Ages should trump a self-serving, hypocritical organization of people worshiping nothing!

But religion, especially monotheism, does require animosity towards other beliefs. If you seriously entertain the idea that your faith is correct then it is essential to 'school' others to that fact.

No, hpseaton, that is a false assumption based on your misunderstanding of monotheism.

DRudeboy I'm sorry, but I understand monotheism very, very well. We could delve into missionaries if you'd like. We could touch on the New Testament also, bringing to light multiple passages that point out the relevance of proclaiming the faith far and wide, and also what happens to people who refuse to believe.

I understand agnostics, being unsure, but not completely forsaking the idea of God.

DRudeBoy you do it all the time...I'm sure you don't believe in Zeus, Apollo, or my personal favorite, Thor. You are an atheist in response to thousands upon thousands of gods. I'm guessing you are a Christian, correct?

I am a Christian, but I don't think all other religions are crap; most faiths seem to me to be the manifestations of different people's interactions with the divine.

Anyways, I find a lot of truth about life reading Scripture.

DRudeBoy I appreciate what you are saying. I was just trying to make the point that most Christians, or Muslims, would say that there is not a chance that Zeus or Thor exists, or ever existed. Taking into account the thousands, possibly millions, of deities that humans have worshiped, or currently worship, that makes us all atheists in one way or another.

Not arguing, just elaborating on my point.

Great post!

Here's a definition for ya.

Atheism - disbelief in the existence of deity(s) (Gods)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Atheism

Can you explain any of the other religions? Please explain because I can't them figure out.

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was derogatively applied to anyone thought to not believe in the accepted gods, or to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist.[4] Between 64% and 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers,[5][6] and up to 48% in Russia.[5] The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges between 6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden).[5]

Acontradiction you obviously have an internet connection so why are you asking us the definition of a word? Or was that a segue?

Yeah i agree. I really only talk about religion with my closest friends, family and the various folks here on current. Otherwise im very likely to be discriminated against.

Kind of like trying to herd cats...

Really? Because I find the 'true believers' to be more apt to insult and degrade in their efforts to put non-theists in their place. No names, but maybe you should take another look at the posts.

Dude, what do you expect? Of course they are giving up on God at THAT age. Clearly it's because anytime before that, they had absolutely no choice. When I was a little kid, my Roman Catholic parents forced Catholic school on me. I had no choice. Though the minute that I did, I told them I don't want to continue. Thus, I turned into an atheist. It was MY choice, for the first time, at the age of 17.

They also don't commit mass genocide in the name of their god, our believe in texts that command them to wipe out the infidels.

Exactly. Religious people try to argue that atheists don’t embrace religion because they don’t give it a chance.

You don’t need to give something a chance if there is no factual basis for doing so. It is not closed minded to dismiss anything and everything that cannot be proven.

Why do the more preachy atheists bring up terrible things committed in the name of religion when atrocities have been committed in the name of secular ideologies also, especially communism.

And nobody is saying that those atrocities were right, are they?

The communists killed people because, like all dictators, they could not abide competing ideologies or centers of power. Their belief or lack thereof in religion had nothing to do with it. Plenty of religious dictators have done exactly the same, for exactly the same reasons.

The difference is that the communists were honest - they claimed that their killings were justified in the name of preserving themselves in power in the name of their ideology.

Religious authorities rarely are that honest, and make claims about heresy or some such, intimating that "god" told them to do it, thereby absolving themselves of culpability.

And before you say it, Hitler was NOT an atheist, but a practicing christian. Look up translations of his speeches, and there are plenty of references to the bible, preserving christianity and so forth. Every belt buckle worn by Nazi soldiers carried the inscription, "Gott mit Uns", or "God is with us". His "Final Solution", he justified by references to Martin Luther's writings, who was a rabid anti-semite.

Sorry, but that excuse has been debunked so many times, there are dozens of web sites devoted to it.

I know you don't endorse those atrocities, but that makes religion just like any other ideology, and just because Hitler invoked Christianity in a Christian nation to mobilize support, it doesn't mean that he was a practicing Christian; and I didn't even bring Hitler up, and I didn't plan to, because Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot are much more apt examples.

Politicians and rulers use religion to manipulate people, but the underlying causes of our problems are politics. Politics kill, not religion.

No, Hitler WAS a practicing christian, there are plenty of references to him attending church, writing letters to christian leaders espousing the defense of christianity against such evils as homosexuality, Jews, etc.

And yes, "politics" is the means whereby people are oppressed, and all too often, religion is the base cause.

I don't know why you defend it. Saying that non-religious reasons are used as a basis for oppression is no excuse for letting religion off the hook. That's like when I was a teenager and defended my actions by saying that "everybody's doing it", and my dad solemnly pulled off his belt saying "everybody's not my son", and whipped my butt anyway.

Too much, religion is unquestionable. If someone says their religion says so, we have to let it go without questioning it, even if it is patently false, outlandish or even alarming. Your defense of religion, trying to divert attention away from its evils by pointing at something else equally evil, is no true defense, only an attempt at diversion.

rwahrens that was a great response.

It confuses me because I don't understand what's "trendy" about it.

"Forsaking superstition" and feeling more intelligent and enlightened than the majority.

Is that specific to atheism?

forsaking superstition should be a common thing. Why believe in bad luck, karma, ghosts. or souls? It just goes against everything I have ever known to be real. Those things have never shown themselves to be real. I WANT there to be a god that shows himself just like I really want something to happen in 2012...but I know nothing will happen.

Delia, no, but it seems pretty prevalent, on these site at least; most of the atheists I know are pretty cool about it.

ii386, faith is a subjective experience; if you want to see God's manifestations look at the good in the world.

It's trendy in that it's becoming more rebellious to fight back against the largely religious baby-boomer generation. Social structures are changing, and kids aren't being motivated to learn what faith in God is all about. It certainly doesn't help things when priests across the world are molesting children, but the point is that kids growing up now are seeing more bloodthirsty atheists actively trying to disprove and insult religion.

While of course not all atheists hold this mentality, the ones that do are the ones that get the coverage, so that's what kids are seeing. It's like shitty pop music, but with a political/religious twist.

Right I mean if that's the case, it's just tapping in to the timeless cool of rebelling against authority in general.

Well there you go. Does that mean it's right? Not necessarily.

I just have to weigh in on this, because I wonder if it really is trendy? I wasn't in school that long ago, and it certainly wasn't trendy then. (Then again, it was also in the south.)

I think with things like this it's important to make a distinction between trendy and trending. Judging by polls, atheism certainly is trending in that age group.

But to call it trendy often seems to diminish any actual real conviction and suggest that people are just following the crowd. (Not saying that was your intention here, just that it can come across that way.) I don't like the idea of diminishing the convictions of people simply because of their age. And even if some of these people do change their beliefs over time, it doesn't mean they were any less genuine at the time, or that the experiences they had and what they learned didn't help share their life in some way.

But that's just my two cents.

So what exactly is fashionable about being atheist? Is it the lack of representation in our "secular" nation?

Also, atheism is hardly just for rebellious youngsters. Is it a coincidence that as IQ increases a belief in a higher power decreases? Hmmm funny that...

... 'kids aren't being motivated to learn what faith in God is all about. It certainly doesn't help things when priests across the world are molesting children, but the point is that kids growing up now are seeing more bloodthirsty atheists actively trying to disprove and insult religion.'

Nah, I think kids are learning exactly what God is all about. 'Bloodthirsty'? Damn you are boring as hell if that's the best adjective you could think up. Wish I could stay but I'm off to disprove and insult religion.

"Is it a coincidence that as IQ increases a belief in a higher power decreases?"

Please provide statistics to back that up.

lol...statistics? Next thing you'll become an atheist with all your fancy facts and figures.

So you couldn't find any then? That attitude is what gives atheists a bad name.

lol...I suppose you missed the joke there Ares.

But since you insist I suppose you could point to the fact that 98% of scientists are atheists. (Plus Bones, on tv, is an atheist and damn that girl is super smart and sexy, too!)

Funny that a lively dispute would lead to violence in your scenario.

Perhaps "Ares" was an appropriate moniker for you.

Why because they might start thinking for them selves. Them what would happen?